Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Was The Titanic Destroyed By A German Submarine?

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
I actually read that in one of my history books in 4th grade(?). Anyways the best we can do is just speculate, if I remember my history book, the evidence points to the German sub because of the damage in the hull or something like that and the location the Titanic was in.

Anyways I'm just going on fuzzy memories and not even googling it to make myself seem smarter. Of course the Iceberg is always going to be the accepted fact because of film and literature. Culture does more damage to the accepted facts of history than the victory does.




posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by blocula
 


As I recall from the video of a few years ago of the ship, that mere "gash" was over a hundred feet long. No torpedo or interior explosion will leave that type of evidence. Unless you want to invent a conspiracy of coverup for this event, you gotta go with the evidence.
"Though the damage in the hull was 220 to 245 feet long, the most recent evidence shows that there was only a 12 square foot opening,the size of a refrigerator,in the hull allowing water inside the ship"...Hmmmmm...I knew it !
edit on 24-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
more eye witness accounts of that fateful night from 1912.

Snippets:

Frederick Fleet sights an Iceberg
Sunday 14 April 1912
The ship is steaming at 22 1/2 knots. Lookout Frederick Fleet sights an iceberg. He rings the bridge. "What did you see", is the response. He replies "Iceberg right ahead"! It is estimated that 37 seconds pass between the sighting and the collision.

source: www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...


Iceberg Dead Ahead
Lee and Fleet were the two expert lookouts on duty in the crows nest that night. Shortly after 11:30pm, Lee and Fleet became aware of a misty haze on the horizon. A few minutes later, at 11:40pm, Fleet peered out once more into the darkness and saw all his worst nightmares in one menacing black shape. Fleet instantly rang the 6-inch brass bell in the crow’s nest three times and lifted the telephone to the bridge.

Sixth Officer James Moody answered. Fleet’s message was chillingly brief: "Iceberg right ahead."

"Thank you," replied Moody.

Out of the darkness, Fleet could see the iceberg moving nearer by the second. Witnesses described it as being of a similar shape to the Rock of Gibraltar. In the bridge, William Murdoch responded to message from the crow’s nest by giving the order, "Hard a-starboard." This meant that the ship’s bow would swing to port. At the same time, he gave an order to the engine room, "Stop. Full speed astern." Acting swiftly, he also pushed a bell-button for 10 seconds to warn those below that he intended to close all the watertight doors. He then pulled the switch that automatically closed them. It was too late, evidence suggested that Fleet had spotted the iceberg at a distance of less than 500 yards, and unfortunately, the Titanic took over 850 yards to stop at that speed.

Murdoch’s actions caused the Titanic to avoid a head-on collision, and nearly the entire iceberg; however, there was only enough time to turn the ship two points, which resulted in a devastating blow, which as it transpired, was the worst possible scenario. As it moved along the side of the ship, it scraped along the first 300 feet of the hull. As the iceberg passed amidships, Murdoch ordered the helm hard to port in order to clear the stern. The berg passed beyond the stern and drifted silently away into the distance.

source: library.thinkquest.org...
edit on 24-11-2011 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
"As I recall from the video of a few years ago of the ship, that mere "gash" was over a hundred feet long. No torpedo or interior explosion will leave that type of evidence. Unless you want to invent a conspiracy of coverup for this event, you gotta go with the evidence"...Aliensun
______________________________________________________

"Though the damage in the hull was 220 to 245 feet long, the most recent evidence shows that there was only a 12 square foot opening,the size of a refrigerator,in the hull allowing water inside the ship"...

Hmmmmm...I knew it! www.eszlinger.com... < look under collision/damage...

A 12 foot hole equals torpedo damage imo,not from scraping against a gigantic ice berg...

I fixed the link...
edit on 24-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


The person replying to my original post said I was being insulting in saying what I said not in anyway was I insulting the memory of the people who died.
If you read my first post you will understandcwhatbi meant by it.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Modern surveys and engineering data:

snippets:

During RMS Titanic, Inc.'s fourth expedition to the wreck, they brought with them Paul Matthias, who had built a specialized low-frequency sonar device with him. This deice would allow him to probe through the mud around the Titanic 's bow and "see" the actual damage done to the liner that night so long before. His efforts were successful, and the truth can finally be revealed. As Wilding had concluded back in 1912, the iceberg damage that stretched across 249 feet of the hull was intermittent, not continuous; in fact, only six small deformations caused by popped rivets and burst seams had sealed the ship's fate. When the iceberg was first spotted and the evasive action was taken, the ship bore down on the berg without turning for what seemed an eternity. Then, slowly, the helm answered and the bow began to turn to port. Unfortunately, it didn't turn enough - probably by as little as 5-15 feet - and the very bow smashed into the berg. The impact caused a rupture described as a "trace" in length, which penetrated the Forepeak. The ship continued on for some time before the berg ruptured the hull again. Then came two quick blows in rapid succession; the second and third deformations, five feet and four feet long, respectively, penetrated Cargo Hold No. 1. As the hull of the ship began to widen, and she continued to turn at the same rate, however, the side of the ship was exposed more dangerously. The fourth rupture, at fifteen feet long, damaged Cargo Hold No. 2. Next, the berg created a 32-foot long rupture - more than twice the length of the previous one - that started in Cargo Hold No. 2 and continued past the transverse bulkhead into Cargo Hold No. 3. One last time, the hull was forced into contact with the berg. This sixth rupture was the coup de gras which sealed the Titanic 's fate and the fates of 1,500 people aboard her. This fatal blow tore open the forward coal bunker of Boiler Room No. 6, past the retaining wall and into the Boiler Room itself, all across the entire length of the compartment, through No. 6's aft coal bunker, past the watertight bulkhead, and ended between 2 and 5 feet inside Boiler Room No. 5's forward coal bunker. This wound was by far the longest of all six, being some 45 feet in length. None of these ruptures by themselves posed any threat to the Titanic 's safety. Even the first four or even five of them wouldn't have sunk the ship. But all six were enough. . . The ship, designed to float with her forward two, three, or even four compartments flooded, had the first five compartments begin to flood uncontrollably, with a sixth compartment compromised. With the seams between the hull plates knocked apart twenty feet below the surface, the outside water pressure forced the torrent into the hull at the astonishing rate of seven tons per second. By midnight, over 8,000 tons of water had collected in her forward compartments, beginning to pull the bow lower in the sea.

source: www.atlanticliners.com...


Undergraduate Engineering Review:

Causes and Effects of the Rapid Sinking of the Titanic

source: www.writing.eng.vt.edu...

edit on 24-11-2011 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


There was no possibility at all that it was hit by a submarine, then if as you say it was, why Germany? Why not America, Japan, Russia or any other country?



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
It is a theory like any other...and I would say...why not?

There are witness testimony. But let's not forget that witnesses were under shock. Heavy duty shock. The "Unsinkable was sinking"...an impossibility.

There are eye witnesses that saw the iceberg. Some saw it go by. So what they saw wasn't necessarily an iceberg gashing the ship. They saw an iceberg go by.

There have always been rumors of cover up. Rumors that some people wanted that ship to sink. No need to mention that it was speeding (at night) in iceberg infested waters while other ships in the area were either stopped or had slowed down. The Titanic wasn't a racing ship "ordered" to break a speed record as some claim. It was speeding for other reasons but the Captain went down with the ship. Case closed.

Yes but they did find the Titanic. But what did it reveal? A long gash along its side as claimed?

No.

Interesting article that states:


Confusion about the condition of the ship itself remained until the wreck was discovered. Most experts thought that a large gash had been torn in the side. Some eyewitnesses reported that the ship broke apart as it sank, but most shipbuilders dismissed that as impossible. The wreckage revealed that the ship did break apart, and there does not seem to be a gash after all, only small holes.


only small holes

Food for thought.


Source




posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SonoftheSun
 



"As I recall from the video of a few years ago of the ship, that mere "gash" was over a hundred feet long. No torpedo or interior explosion will leave that type of evidence. Unless you want to invent a conspiracy of coverup for this event, you gotta go with the evidence"...Aliensun
______________________________________________________

"Though the damage in the hull was 220 to 245 feet long, the most recent evidence shows that there was only a 12 square foot opening,the size of a refrigerator,in the hull allowing water inside the ship"...

Hmmmmm...I knew it! www.eszlinger.com... < look under collision/damage...

A 12 foot hole equals torpedo damage imo,not from scraping against a gigantic ice berg and that 200 ft long damage,if there even is any and i think someone above explained how there was'nt,was caused after impact,as the ship broke up and or was torn...

I fixed the link...

edit on 24-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicWaterGate
reply to post by blocula
 
... I Can RV-SEE... that there was a low amount of 'tryptophane'...
In Ur 'Heritage' turkey... U-B AWOKEN ONE

U-are-deffinitly-on-target-But-humans-never-learn-to-invent-the-
PING)))))-PING)))))-PING)))))-> )sonar(... before the >radar



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SonoftheSun
 
They didnt need sonar or radar to sink the Titanic they could see it with their eyes or binoculars or through the periscope and everyone knew when it was sailing and where it was going...

And radar was first proven and tested in use in...guess where?...Germany!...in 1904...

edit on 24-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
You guys are probably correct. All survivors under massive shock and can't recall personal events, toss it out the _ Modern surveys support shocked crew's reports, toss it out the _ engineering papers are after all just theories, toss it out the _ Only conclusion is below.

Probably was a German torpedo.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Check this out of one of the men who,survived, no mention of a torpedo at all

Here
edit on 24-11-2011 by scotsdavy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


You seem to totally lack any understanding as to why WW1 happened. Germany was never out to seek War, but it was rather as a result of an interlocking series of alliances that brought her and then the UK into war with each other.

With this in mind, it toally defies any logic that Germany would seek to start a War with the UK by sinking a passenger liner for no reason and you are still ignoring the rather telling and plentiful eye witness accounts from not only Titanic survivors but other ships in the area.

Another thing you seem to be ignoring is that the first German submarines such as the U-1 and U-2 simply did not have the range to operate this far out in the Atlantic. BY 1912, the Germans did start to build the more advanced 30 series, but the first of these wasn't actually launched until 1914



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
And radar was first proven and tested in use in...guess where?...Germany!...in 1904...


That "Radar" was only able to say if something was there (ie, ship in fog) but was unable to give a bearing or distance, so wasn't really a proper radar as we know it. It wasn't until 1922 that it was possible to determine range and bearing using radar.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcmb1409
You guys are probably correct. All survivors under massive shock and can't recall personal events, toss it out the _ Modern surveys support shocked crew's reports, toss it out the _ engineering papers are after all just theories, toss it out the _ Only conclusion is below.

Probably was a German torpedo.

Someone earlier said that a survivor "heard" metal scraping ice...Well then how did this survivor already know what massive sheets of metal sliding against giant chunks of floating ice sounds like,how did she know that is what she "heard",having never heard massive sheets of metal sliding against giant chunks of ice before?



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SonoftheSun
 


If anyone took the time to actually look into the extensive research done aboutn the Titanic, one would see that it was a glancing blow that sunk the ship, not a head on collision which would have been surviveable.

The reason the glancing bow killed the ship was that it buckled hull plating across 6 water tight compartments, when the ship could only survive 5 being flooded. The reason the plating buckled was that it used iron that was very brittle in cold, salty water as it contained higher than normal concentrations of sulphur and other impurities.

Analysis of the hull on the sea bed, pictures taken of it and tests done on hull plating brought back up show that the ship was not the technological leap forward it was claimed to be, but rather done on the cheap, with substandard rivetting used as well.

Still, no-one can answer the glaringly obvious.. Why would Germany attack a British ship in 1912? Of all the countries in the world at the time, the last one Germany wanted War with was the UK.



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Before anyone can entertain such a daft theory (and it is..It has been pretty much proven this ship hit an iceberg..the conspiracy is actually whether this was the Titanic that sank) then you need to answer one question..

WHY WOULD A GERMAN U-BOAT ATTACK A BRITISH FLAGGED PASSENGER LINER IN 1912?

Think about it...
The same reason they sank the 787ft long Lusitania passenger liner in 1915...they felt like it...

The passenger liner Lusitania,which entered service in 1907 and had a length of 787 feet,was sunk by a single torpedo launched from a German U-boat on May 7th 1915 with a loss of 1,198 lives...
edit on 24-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by scotsdavy1
this place would have a conspiracy if someone went to the toilet and couldn`t pee!
for goodness sake, think before you open another one.
I presented enough information,facts and figures in my opening statement to give creedence to the very real possibility that the Titanic was sunk by a German Submarine launched torpedo.
edit on 24-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)


No you haven't presented evidence of anything other than submarine launched torpedo's had been designed and deployed prior to 1912.

The RMS Titanic hit an iceberg and sank.

First, check the range of the U-boats designs deployed in 1912 then check the position of the wreck.

The Titanic was travelling at 22 knots, twice the surfaced speed of any Unterseeboot in commission with the Kaiserliche Marine and 4 times the submerged maximum speed.

It would also be one in a million to have a U-boat staged from a hidden forward supply prepositioned that would chance upon the liner within the limited torpedo range at the time.

The final nail in the coffin is the wreck has been thoroughly surveyed and photographed by many different interests.

The gash in the hull is consistent with a collision, torpedo damage is entirely different and would have made for a big fuss by someone.

Honestly, enough with the poor attempts at historical revisionism. If you are going to rewrite history at least put in the time to learn the facts before you try and twist them...



posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Nice logic...No really, your criticial thinking skills are exemplary...

Titanic sunk in 1912, no war on, no reason to sink it, thousands of miles in the North Atlantic, with many other British ships around to choose from, in the middle of an ice field (which would have posed more risk to a sub without sonar than a surface ship) which was well beyond the range of any sub in service to Germany at the time.

Lusitania sunk in 1915, in British territorial waters, by a German submarine whom the UK was at war with and was probably a case of misidentification, although theories abound that she might have been carrying ordnance.

Two entirely different scenarios and you're trying to claim they're the same.





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join