Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
Have you "proved" that i'm wrong?
Yes. In post after post. For a start I've also pointed out that you don't have any facts of your own.
Try and prove that a german submarine
lauched torpedo "didnt" sink the titanic in 1912 and you wont be able to...
Just like i cant prove that it did...But...
Less than three years later the germans did sink a very large passenger liner with a single torpedo launched from a submarine and the german U-17 had
an over 7,000 mile range and was launched only a few days after the titanic sank....
Did the usa tell everyone when they first started flying their B-2 bomber around?...No...
And so the U-17 was sent out on a top secret mission to sink the titanic and the germans didnt tell the public about it....
Then realize that what caused the titanic to start taking on water and sinking was a 12ft square sized hole and no iceberg is going to be able to
punch itself in and pull itself out really fast against a moving metal ship,which is exactly what the iceberg would have had to have done to make a
hole that size...But...
A pre-determined type and yield of explosive charge in a torpedo would have been able to make that kind of a hole quite easily...
The big tear in the ship happened after it was filling up with water as it rose up into the air a little and started to rip and tear along its side
from having a lot of extra weight from the water all on one side of the ships interior,water that entered through the 12ft square sized hole...
Then factor in the very wealthy individuals onboard the titanic who were opposing the federal reserve act and who had the power to stop it and how
that act was set into motion soon after they were killed during the ships sinking...
So the evidence is "definitely" leaning in my favor...
edit on 15-2-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)
