Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Great Secrets Of The 20th Century - Part One

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2003 @ 11:25 AM
link   
1) 1912 - The British ship TITANIC sunk moreso from an internal explosion in the coal bunker than from hitting an iceberg. Those who produced the most recent version of the movie "Titanic", viewed, in a special submarine, the remains of the ship on the bottom of the Atlantic, off of Newfoundland.

2) 1918 - History books declare that Russian Czar Nicholas 2nd and his family, following the Russian Revolution, were assassinated by the Bolsheviks, July, 1918,in a basement of a house in Ekaterinburg, Siberia.

3) the U.S. obtained Alaska from Russia BY A 99 YEAR LEASE, NOT AS HISTORY PROCLAIMS, an outright purchase. The lease was arranged by a secret, midnight deal following the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln who obtained aid during the American Civil War from the then-Czar of Russia.


More : Link




posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 08:16 PM
link   
ur Titanic info is incorrect i think this theory about "an internal explosion" is false the ships hull popped open cuz the iron on the hull was too brittle and the rivest popped out



posted on Feb, 13 2003 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Well I've not viewed the link, so I'm not sure where they are getting the titanic thing from.

But I think they mean the Lusitania...because that IS a secret part of history.

They don't teach that the Lusitania really was carrying tens of thousands of tons of weapons and munitions to the UK, which made her a viable target of war, and the Germans gave out a warning to EVERY american news paper that anyone riding on the lusitania, was subject to being sunk. However only ONE small local paper ever published the warning (wonder why?) and the rest is history.

The Lusitania's coal dust residues quickly ignited, and so the whole hull burst into flames you could say, which is what then set off the munitions stored else where in the ship...so what was targeted to just merely sink her slowly, blew her entire hull out. I'm sure the U-boat commander was as surprised as the Lusitanian passengers.

As for the Aid of the Czar of russia, this is a very well left out part of history


The Russians are the REAL reasons that Europe did not get involved in the war they more or less started (Civil War, part fight for constitutional//state rights, part urged by european financiers who wanted to regain dominence over a bustling and growing america)

The Russians parked their fleets in two areas, one on the west coast (near to SF, which is why they have the fort there, as back-up against European armies, since that area was now made a military target) and the east coast near to the Carribean.

These were major shipping lanes of the brittish//french and if either of them went to war against the UNION, Russia could have immediately cost them A LOT of money...and therefore make their service in the war, more than an aid to a confederacy, it would mean they'd have to fight a "real" war, all around the globe with 2 foriegn powers (USA and Russia).

This is why the Brittish held off so much on entering the war for the CSA which they clearly supported, because they knew that a large 4 year World War with Russia and the Union wouldn't be worth the money they'd make off of a constantly warring American continent, fractured by the civil war.

So if the South showed signs of winning, and britain then entered, they felt maybe that would throw the tides of battle quick enough, that the Union would have lost before Russia could really cause enough damage, without the Union, Russia would of course back down.

Russia's motives were that if Europeans (britain primarily) gained control economically of the Americas once more, they (britain//germany//france) would turn their sites on plundering or even conquering the Russian Empire.

This is what Chancellor Hindenburg wrote between the first and second World Wars, or maybe during the first World War, not sure which...but he had his sources too, worth looking up on a search engine.

Haven't read UP's link so not sure what they say about it
going to read now...

Sincerely,
no signature

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I'm a little confused. How is the assination of czar nicholas and his family in a basement a secret? As you say, its in all the history books, even a couple of films. I remember studing the russian revolution etc in school, and it was in all our schoolbooks. Have the american educational authorities left it out or something? I dont get it.



posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 11:12 AM
link   
kegs, there is 2 history. The first one, the official one. And the other one, the black history, the hidden history.

When I was a student, even my history teacher told me that I didn't have to believe all the things who were written in my history books.



posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 05:40 PM
link   
those poppy eye emoticons make me want to kill someone...

and tyler isnt around : (



posted on Feb, 24 2003 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I know that. But what you are saying about it is what i already knew from the 'normal' history. Perhaps our 'normal' histories are different? or maybe i've missed something here.



posted on Feb, 26 2003 @ 01:20 PM
link   
you have to read the link closely...

1) He did mean the TITANIC, not the Lusitania.

2) He's stating that the family was NOT murdered, but smuggled out and lived in exile in Poland.

3) Already clear enough...

However, this particular site seems to be more involved with proving corruption on the part of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds...



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Thanks, i didnt see the link at the bottom. Thought the points he stated was the point he was making, hence confusion!



posted on Mar, 7 2003 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by f16falcon ur Titanic info is incorrect i think this theory about "an internal explosion" is false the ships hull popped open cuz the iron on the hull was too brittle and the rivest popped out

Well, something like that...On Discovery Channel, they showed that the steel-manufacturing techniques of that time were part of the problem...In extreme cold, the steel had a tendency to get brittle, but this problem wasn't really known at that time either. As a result, what could have been merely a relatively small hole wound up splitting & cracking down a much larger area of the hull, the iceburg itself acting much like a knife as it scraped across the steel.

Nowadays, the tempering process is much more efficient & we're highly unlikely to get a repeat occurence of the Titanic.


bg

posted on Aug, 12 2003 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Sherm doesn't provide any documentation of his claims. Maybe I'm wrong, but i've not found anything to substantiate his stories. They are interesting nonetheless, but I'd like to see something solid to back what he says. This is how rumors get started.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join