It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Was The Titanic Destroyed By A German Submarine?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:38 PM
reply to post by dcmb1409

For like 75 years or so after 1912,survivors who were there and saw it and experts studying the Titanics disaster afterwards,could'nt even agree or decide if the stern of the ship rose high up into the air or not...

Never mind what the ship hit or what sank it...

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by blocula

From what I have read over the years (and its quite a few years now) this is simply not the case. The enquiry afterwards was very detailed, but you have to accept that some peoples versions of events will have slight differences due to the chaos going on.

The only surprising thing that was uncovered when the wreck was found was that it split into two, but this stands to reason when the physics invo0lved are properly examined.

Youi keep repeating the above as if it is true, but you're going to have to do better than that.

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:44 PM
The very design of the Titanic takes away any possibility of this being a torpedo strike. The way the compartments were layed out would have meant that a torpedo strike, had it penetrated even 2-3 of the compartments, it would have stayed afloat.

No conspiracy here people, move along home now.

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:46 PM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
The Japanese Navy had no problem sinking Russian Battleships in 1905 using submarine launched torpedos...

And the Germans had no problem sinking the 787 ft long Lusitania in 1915...

And a giant iceberg is going to be able to "punch a 12ft square hole" through the metal of a moving ship?...No way...

"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"...

thats what caused it to start sinking...^^^

Hmmmmm...I knew it! < 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...

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

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:48 PM
reply to post by blocula

It's also confirmed by the many other ships in the area at the time that there was significant ice around, such as the SS Mount Temple which steamed to the rescue immediately upon hearing the SOS but when they were just a few miles from the Titanic, they were met with " an impenetrable wall of ice".

I think you're just making things up now.

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:53 PM

Originally posted by SonoftheSun
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" 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?


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.


Before too many people go sailing off into uncharted waters...This ^^^ needs to be revisited,reread and properly understood in conjunction with the "12ft hole" "smoking gun" evidence that i unearthed and posted 2 replies above...
edit on 24-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:57 PM

Originally posted by blocula
The Japanese Navy had no problem sinking Russian Battleships in 1905 using submarine launched torpedos...

Hmm, maybe because those Battleships were obsolete, dating back to the 1880's in some cases were in poor repair and had undergone such significant changes and "upgrades" as to be floating piles of cack, whereas the Japanese Navy had help from the British, who at the time had the largest, most advanced Navy on the planet.

Originally posted by blocula
And the Germans had no problem sinking the 787 ft long Lusitania in 1915...

Which, to quote the Captain of the U-boat which sunk her, had a surprising larger than expected explosion when hit by a torpedo, either from detonating a boiler or perhaps coal. In other words, a lucky shot.

Originally posted by blocula
And a giant iceberg is going to be able to"punch a 12ft hole" through the metal of a moving ship?...No way...

Er, yes way... You really do need to check your facts mate, ice can quite easily punch through the 1 inch steel plate that Titanic had. As stated before, a torpedo strike would likely have resulted in just 1 or two compartments flooding, leaving the ship afloat. The only reason Tiranic sank is because 5 were flooded in the forward section, dragging the ship down and allowing the water to spill over more bulkheads and send her under.

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 10:59 PM
reply to post by blocula

There was a huge gash, not a 12ft hole, it spanned 5 compartments, and a design flaw meant as she went front heavy, water managed to get into the 6th compartment, then 7th and so on....................

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 11:02 PM
And why is it your only supporting links are from dodgy looking sites such as "infinite-energy"..

Why don't you post from a verifiable, proper source, not some unknown who is probably as deluded as you are.

There has been extensive study into the wreck by bonafide Naval engineers and it is pretty bloody obvious there wasn't a torpedo from some blood thirsty German U-Boat that had far exceeded it's range and was fighting a war that wasn't due to start for over 2 years...

Just listen to yourself. There are dozens of counter arguments to your theory but you simply ignore them and keep repeating this nonsense.

posted on Nov, 24 2011 @ 11:15 PM

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

And the Germans had no problem sinking the 787 ft long Lusitania in 1915...

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

The RMS Lusitania was sunk 11 miles off of the coast of Ireland.

The RMS Titanic was sunk two thousand miles to the west, 400 miles off of the coast of Newfoundland.

Have you found a U-boat design that was in service in 1912 that had anywhere near the range requires?

Edit: I will give you partial credit for referencing the 1905 Battle of Tsushima Strait. It was the first battle involving truly modern ships and was a huge influence on WWI naval strategy.

Unfortunately, it has faded into the dustbin of history and is now mostly known only to a few folks with an interest in military history.
edit on 24-11-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: additional text

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:19 AM
I always wonder why it is that when people talk about a "titanic conspiracy," they never bring up the fact that the events were perfectly outlined in an entertainment form, almost the same scenario as 9/11 and the tv show "The Lone Gunman"...

"The Wreck of the Titan was published in 1898, 14 years before RMS Titanic was even finished being [cheaply] built"

6 Insane Coincidences You Won't Believe Actually Happened

#5. Morgan Robertson Writes About the Titanic... 14 Years Early

A hundred years before James Cameron turned douchebaggery into an art form at the Oscars, American author Morgan Robertson wrote a book called Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan, about the sinking of an "unskinkable" ocean liner. When you see the cover, you figure you're pretty clearly looking at a fictionalized version of the Titanic story.

No surprise there; it's a story that's been told over and over (there were 13 Titanic movies before Cameron's, including one by the Nazis) but Robertson's book was first.

Where it Gets Weird:

He was so eager to be first, apparently, that he didn't bother to wait for the Titanic to actually sink before writing about it. The Wreck of the Titan was published in 1898, 14 years before RMS Titanic was even finished being [cheaply] built.

The similarities between Robertson's work and the Titanic disaster are so astounding that one has to imagine if White Star Line built Titanic to Robertson's specs as a dare. The Titan was described as "the largest craft afloat and the greatest of the works of men," "equal to that of a first class hotel," and, of course, "unsinkable".

Both ships were British-owned steel vessels, both around 800 feet long and sank after hitting an iceberg in the North Atlantic, in April, "around midnight." Sound like enough to keep you up at night? Maybe that's why Robertson republished the book in 1912 just in case enough people didn't know that he wrote it.

Where it Gets Even Weirder:

While the novel does bear some curious coincidences with the Titanic disaster, there are quite a few things that Robertson got flat wrong. For one, the Titanic did not crash into an iceberg "400 miles from Newfoundland" at 25 knots. It crashed into an iceberg 400 miles from Newfoundland at 22.5 knots.

Wait, what the #? That's one hell of a lucky guess!

What 41.1 million square miles looks like.

But maybe the weirdest thing about Titan were points that had nothing to do with the story, but check out after numerous inquires and expeditions to the Titanic wreck site.

For one, both the Titan and the Titanic had too few lifeboats to accommodate every passenger on board; the Titan carrying "as few as the law allowed." While Robertson decided to be generous and include four lifeboats more on his ship than Titanic, it's an odd point to bring up when you consider that lifeboats had nothing to do with the #ing story. When Titan hit the iceberg (starboard bow, naturally), the ship sank immediately, making the point made about lifeboats inconsequential. Why the # mention this?!

It'd be like HAL 9000 addressing the danger posed by O-rings at low temperature decades before the Challenger disaster...

Federal Reserve Charter expires 12/21/2012

"Sinking the Unsinkable" = Bringing down America? They're succeeding...
edit on 25-11-2011 by 1825114 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:06 AM
A rare picture of the alleged iceberg that shattered the Titanic's rivets (from Scottish ore mines).
Not that big to pose a worry..

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:21 AM
reply to post by blocula

No it hit an iceberg. Thats what the survivors said.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:47 AM
reply to post by blocula

oh dear - your entire premise boils down to cum-hoc " logic " , typical

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:11 AM

Originally posted by foxhoundone
A rare picture of the alleged iceberg that shattered the Titanic's rivets (from Scottish ore mines).
Not that big to pose a worry..

Interesting, isn't it?

In a conspiracy world it isn't easy to swim against mainstream waters. I do not know if Germans sank the Titanic. I do not know if an iceberg sank the Titanic either.

Is there really a conspiracy? Why would anyone want to sink the biggest ship of its time?

It is almost a hundred years ago and some things have never changed. Money. Power. Greed.

Allright, I supplied a shady source - in my last reply - some might say...but it still weighs in a factor of gash versus holes theory.

Here is a more serious link. It has been mentioned already in this thread that the Federal Reserve was in its creation when the ship sank.

Why would anyone who wanted to instigate a Federal Reserve want to sink the Unsinkable?

One of many Titanic conspiracies floating around, many believe that the sinking of the famous vessel was well planned, well executed, and orchestrated shape the world as we know it today. This is the Federal Reserve Titanic conspiracy.

Wait a minute now....where's the connection?

Here’s how the Federal Reserve and the Titanic are connected. In 1910, seven men met on Jekyll island just off the coast of Georgia to plan the Federal Reserve Bank. Nelson Aldrich and Frank Vanderclip represented the Rockefeller (Illuminati) financial empire. Henry Davidson, Charles Norton and Benjamin Strong represented J.P. Morgan (Illuminati). Paul Warburg (Illuminati) represented the Rothschilds (Illuminati) Banking dynasty of Europe. The Rothschilds were the banking agents for the Jesuits and hold `the key to the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church.’

Let's see...the Rockefellers...the Morgans...the Rothchilds...sounds like 2011, not 1910 now does it??

Was there anyone on that ship that the Elite wanted out? You bet.

Three of the richest and most important of these were Benjamin Guggenheim, Isador Strauss, the head of Macy’s Department Stores, and John Jacob Astor, probably the wealthiest man in the world.

Here starts a good conspiracy...

These three men were coaxed and encouraged to board the floating palace. They had to be destroyed because the Jesuits knew they would use their wealth and influence to oppose a Federal Reserve Bank as well as the various wars that were being planned. gets better...

It can also be mentioned that J.P. Morgan, the individual contracted to build the Titanic was scheduled to be on the maiden voyage, but canceled.

Coincidences right? Sure they are. Like coincidences pertaining to 9/11, coincidences pertaining to JFK's death, coincidences pertaining to most conspiracies that do swim waters against the mainstream flow...

One thing remains and is not a coincidence.

All three men, whom were opposed to the Federal Reserve, died during the sinking of the Titanic.

So there might be a conspiracy after all...perhaps...but what does Germany have to do with any of this?

The Federal Reserve is installed as part of the Federal Reserve act in December of 1913, roughly a year and eight months after the Titanic tragedy, and World War I less than a year later.

Now get this.

Theorists believe that the Federal Reserve and the Jesuits were responsible for funding the United States, Germany, and Russia in the war.

Emphasis is mine. How convenient.

Oh, the source isn't as "shady" as the other one I linked earlier.

Titanic Universe - The Titanic - RMS Titanic Ship Facts & Information

Do I claim that Germany sank the Titanic? No. Do I claim that the Elite sank the Titanic? No.

But I wouldn't be so fast to jump on the iceberg theory either...

ETA/Edit to add: Now if anyone pulled that off...what would the public need to be told? That the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank...or...a that a torpedo sank the Titanic? Food for thought...

Just info. Make of it what you wish. Or as some have said...Move along...nothing to see here...

I sometimes have to remember that ATS is a conspiracy website...

edit on 25-11-2011 by SonoftheSun because: grammar

edit on 25-11-2011 by SonoftheSun because: added ETA

edit on 25-11-2011 by SonoftheSun because: grammar part deux

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:17 AM
Could be a possibility I mean if you were to think outside of the box an experienced Captain of a ship like the Titanic would know about Icebergs in the Atlantic...Especially around April time frame where its a little warmer, I mean it could be a possibility, We did end up fighting the Germans years later....Its not like the ship was going through the Bermuda triangle where visibility was that bad to see an iceberg. So yeah its a mystery yet to be solved

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Mcupobob
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.
Yes film does that to a lot of historical issues and millions of women oohing and aahing over the "titanic" movies lead male,will over shadow and over power the fact that the titanic went down on the eve of WW1,Germany already had a couple dozen fully functioning submarines in operation and the Titanics hull had suffered original damage amounting to a 12 foot square hole that filled the ship with water.Not to mention the fact that it happened on a dark moonless night and a "mystery ship" was seen in the area while the Titanic was sinking...We'll ignore those things and focus on hollywoods version of what happened...
edit on 25-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:35 AM
A "mystery ship" was seen moving towards the Titanic to as close as 5 miles with red,green and white lights and did not respond to the Titanics crew as they fired rocket flares and signaled morse code lights and it has been proven that it was not the Californian ship,which had stopped and was not moving at the time and was not sailing towards the Titanic anyways and was too far away,as proven in the following link.The mystery ship turned around and sailed away...And the plot thickens...

What ship was that? No ship came forward later with any explanation that they were the one?

And remember that a "German" Submarine on the eve of WW-1 was 315ft long! and had a 20ft tall conning tower and forward "sea" and upward "sky" facing periscopes that extended another 20ft above the top of the 20ft conning tower...

By the eve of World War I all of the major navies included Submarines in their fleets,but these craft were relatively small,were considered of questionable military value and generally were intended for coastal operations...except the Germans...

The most significant exception to the concept of coastal activity on the eve of WW-1 was the German Deutschland class of merchant U-Boats,each 315 feet long with two large cargo compartments.These Submarines could carry 700 tons of cargo at 12- to 13-knot speeds on the surface and at seven knots submerged.The Deutschland itself became the U-155 when fitted with torpedo tubes and deck guns and with seven similar Submarines,it served in a combat role during the war...

On the eve of WW-1,the Germans constructed several specialized Submarines with vertical mine tubes through their hulls; some U-Boats carried 48 mines in addition to their torpedoes....Hmmmm?

edit on 25-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 09:33 AM
It certainly is reasonable to consider all theories. However, the British by far had the best naval engineers in the world at that time. If the Titanic had been sunk by a torpedo, the British would have known it. The Germans may have wanted to start a war to expand eastward, but sinking a civilian liner seems an unlikely act to achieve this. This also would have been an unlikely way to murder a specific wealthy person on board, as there would have been far easier ways to do that. We may never know exactly how the Titanic sank, but at this time, I will rely on the engineering experts. They believe the Titanic would have survived if it hit the iceberg head on, but the scraping of the boat along the side of the iceberg opened it up like a can opener, which led to the sinking.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:29 AM
reply to post by blocula

Crews first hand reports at British and American inquires:


“I saw Colonel Astor, Major Butt and Captain Smith standing together about 11:30 o’clock. There was absolutely no excitement among them. Captain Smith said there was no danger.

“The starboard side of the Titanic struck the big berg and the ice was piled up on the deck. None of us had the slightest realization that the ship had received its death wound.

The Bulletin
San Francisco, April 19, 1912


snippets from inquiry Part 5 – Fourth Officer Joseph Boxhall

Q: What did he say that it was?
A: He said we had struck an iceberg.

Q: Was there any evidence of ice on any of the decks, to your knowledge, after that collision?
A: Just a little on the lower deck. On the open deck I saw just a little, not much.

Q: Was the blow felt immediately?
A: A slight impact.

Q: How slight?
A: It did not seem to me to be very serious. I did not take it seriously.

Q: Slight enough to stop you in your walk to the bridge?
A: Oh, no, no, no.

Q: So slight that you did not regard it as serious?
A: I did not think it was serious.


Part 6 – Quartermaster Alfred Olliver

American Inquiry:

Q: Just state what happened.
A: When I was doing this bit of duty I heard three bells rung up in the crow’s nest, which I knew that it was something ahead; so I looked, but I did not see anything. I happened to be looking at the lights in the standing compass at the time. That was my duty, to look at the lights in the standing compass, and I was trimming them so that they would burn properly. When I heard the report, I looked, but could not see anything, and I left that and came and was just entering on the bridge just as the shock came. I knew we had touched something.

Q: Just describe what that shock was.
A: I found out we had struck an iceberg.

Q: Did you see that iceberg?
A: Yes; I did, sir.

Q: Describe it.
A: The iceberg was about the height of the boat deck; if anything, just a little higher. It was almost alongside of the boat, sir. The top did not touch the side of the boat, but it was almost alongside of the boat.

Q: What kind of a sound was there?
A: The sound was like she touched something; a long, grinding sound, like.

Q: How long did that sound last?
A: It did not last many seconds, sir.

Q: How far aft did the grinding sound go?
A: The grinding sound was before I saw the iceberg. The grinding sound was not when I saw the iceberg.

Q: Where was the iceberg when you saw it, abeam or abaft?
A: Just abaft the bridge when I saw it.


I just hate those silent, low noise, toned down concussion type ice torpedo's that the German's had. and they leave ice on the deck. what debauchery.
edit on 25-11-2011 by dcmb1409 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in