Was The Titanic Destroyed By A German Submarine?

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
TY ATS - one of the best storys ever, never heard of it =)

but question is - why? was there something hidden on the titanic? maybe ancient aliens...*joke*




posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Titanic (probably the worlds most greatest studied maritime disaster), was hit by an Iceberg. I agree with Stusmason and Drunkenparrot when they highlighted that submarines of those days did not have the range to venture out to sea that far. I won't bother with quotes. Submarines of the 1900's were still largely experimental coastal boats, restricted by their small size they could only carry sufficient fuel and provisions for short journeys.

Dr Robert Ballard has done extensive research on both the Titanic and Lusitania wrecks, his works 'Titanic an illustrated history' and 'exploring the Lusitania', are a fascinating read on both these disasters i recommend them both.

Lusitania was very unfortunate. Even Kapt Leutnant Walther Shwieger of the U-20 was very suprised at how quickly the ship started to list after the unusually large detonation he reported later in his log after firing the single torpedo. Robert Ballards expidition to the Lusitania wreck site revealed coal dust as the most likely cause, anyway that's another story.


The only real conspiracy about the Titanic Disaster comes from second officer Charles Lightoller, and his false testimony was only to preserve the shipbuilders reputation (Harland and Wolff) by stating at the inquest that the Titanic did not break apart when she sank.

I read something recently in a local paper here about the Titanic, it also appears on the net and i found a link to it i hope it makes interesting reading for some of you on this thread.

Family's Titanic secret revealed



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


I'm not too much in to the Titanic thing, maybe it's just me, but there seem to be a bit of a surge in Titanic talk. And through the grape vine...I wasn't really paying attention. I heard the Titanic was deliberately sunk by bankers to kill a bunch of senators to establish the federal reserve or something like that.
Personaly I think some idiot went against the better jugement and sailed in iceberg infested waters and sunk the ship.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I, for one, am surprised that in 2011 Germany is *STILL* getting the blame for WWI. I don't have a hard on for Germany or anything (WWII, clearly bad stuff
), but WWI was a failure of entangling alliances and governments rushing into war because of some Archduck (yup, spelled that right) getting offed in the Balkans. Even if their submarines had the range, and they didn't, the Germans wouldn't be patrolling the western Atlantic to "LULZ torpedo the Titanic cuz we feelz like it!" It's ridiculous. The lack of knowledge on the political situation during that time period is profound, but not surprising considering WWII is much more studied in today's day and age.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


A torpedo would do alot more damage than a big rip, it would be a gigantic hole if it didn't completely break the ship in half. It took like 3 hours for the titantic to sink if a submarine would of sank it, would of taken 15 minutes.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
What about a mine?This is also a possibility,what if the order was to sunk the Titanic!



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by diamondsmith
 


funny you should mension a mine, as i recall one of Titanic's sister ships the Britannic sank when it ran into a German laid mine in the Kea straits during WW1. She took around an hour to sink. Interesting link about it here from the guardian

wreck of the Britannic

As if the Titanic disaster wasn;t bad enough financially,I think it was this disaster that finally made the White Star line go bust.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I am pretty big in conspiracies and Titanic so I know a bit about this stuff. The fact is the ships were not switched, that's a fact. But when Titanic sank a ship called the Californian who was owned byJ.P. Morgan did ignore their distress calls. Captain Smith did ignore ice warnings and that is fishy. But there are many, many, many things that happened at that time that sunk and killed those people. Everything that could have went wrong went wrong.
People say it's too elaborate but if you wanna kill someone and not get caught, no plan is too elaborate. Those men opposed the federal reserve and a few months later at Jeckyl Island it's born. That is strange.
But Titanic hit an ice berg, probably even ran aground one. There was also a fire on Titanic the entire time that may have even weakened the structure. There were many boiler explosions and mentions of an ice berg, a giant ice berg. I doubt it was hit by a torpedo, I really do. But the people that would know that would have been dead in 3rd class and they were locked up anyway. And who would have ever thought about a torpedo? No one would have mentioned what they had no idea about. Would we even challenge the official 9/11 story without all the video we have today? I seriously doubt it.
They did scrape an ice berg and found Titanics paint on one in the vacinity. She was moving at high speed and there were bergs all over the area. Killing those keys figures on a cruise liner wasn't a guaranteed victory but who knows. A few wealthy and brave men and women did for some reason decide to not board the life boats probably because they thought she would keep a float but maybe they were kept from boarding. I seriously doubt they were forced to stay and die as there were witnesses everywhere. This also would have been a very bad business decision also for the owners of the ocean liner.

If you want to know more, visit titanic-titanic.com and ask those guys.
They live the Titanic and know everything about it down to every last detail. I'm sure they've dealt with this conspiracy theory many times before. I think the titanic sank because of many bad mistakes and circumstances. Times were changing and safety was nowhere near as important as it should have been. The truth of the matter is Captain Smith died that day and why would anyone sacrifice themself like that. He was also sleeping when the Titanic hit the ice berg which if he was there to sink it then why didn't he sink it. I guess now you would have to add mind control to the torpedo theory also.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


When I first watched Vatican Assassins I felt the blast of truth as I listened to the evidence being presented. The Titanic was made of metal and the layers of metal and the thickness that were presented means it was not a possibility for an iceberg to poke a hole in the ship - unless of course the ship was heading directly towards the iceberg at full speed....

All I know is that the mere mention of Astor and his wealth and how the cabal/illuminati/whatever are so hell bent on maintaining their hold on the finances of the globe, it starts to make sense. It is interesting to note that there was a catholic priest who boarded the Titanic and was assigned to photograph people on board - he departed at the final port call before the ship sailed into open waters. Hmmm.

An iceberg on its own could not sink a ship with several layers of thick metal to penetrate. An iceberg scraping up alongside the ship as the Captain tried to veer away from the icebergs - could not possible penetrate several layers of metal. Scrap off the outer layer - do some damage but sink the ship - I don't think so. A ship that was travelling full steam ahead - straight into the iceberg - possibilities for damage start to emerge.

The cabal/illuminati/whatever and their connections make the sinking of the Titanic look a lot like one of their projects. They have no conscience when it comes to killing innocent people and no conscience when it comes to lying and deception. They have the money and the means to buy people or to make them disappear.

An iceberg - on its own - the more I ponder the thought the less likely it seems. Had the Titanic sailed too close to an avalanche of ice as a glacier performed a spectacular breakaway - well the weight alone directly on top of the Titanic would have caused her to sink.

Keep sifting through the evidence as what we have been taught in school is mostly contrived. The truth is there we just have to uncover it and let it see the light of day.

Much Peace...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by blocula
 

- unless of course the ship was heading directly towards the iceberg at full speed....


Which it was.

Some of you folks who are well versed in conspiratorial lore but lacking in solid history are doing yourselves no favors.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amanda5
The Titanic was made of metal and the layers of metal and the thickness that were presented means it was not a possibility for an iceberg to poke a hole in the ship - unless of course the ship was heading directly towards the iceberg at full speed....


Which it was!


Originally posted by Amanda5
An iceberg on its own could not sink a ship with several layers of thick metal to penetrate. An iceberg scraping up alongside the ship as the Captain tried to veer away from the icebergs - could not possible penetrate several layers of metal. Scrap off the outer layer - do some damage but sink the ship - I don't think so. A ship that was travelling full steam ahead - straight into the iceberg - possibilities for damage start to emerge.


The hull of the Titanic was made of highly brittle plate steel which was 1 1/2" thick, hayrdly the "layers and layers of thick metal" you describe, made even more brittle by the cold, briny water and impuritites such as sulphur in higher than normal concentrations.

The scraping up the side ws actually far more damaging than a head on collision would have been, because it caused the hull plating to buckle and warp, opening up several compartments to flooding, whereas a head-on collision would most likely only result in the 2 forward compartments flooding, which would have been survivable.


Originally posted by Amanda5
An iceberg - on its own - the more I ponder the thought the less likely it seems. Had the Titanic sailed too close to an avalanche of ice as a glacier performed a spectacular breakaway - well the weight alone directly on top of the Titanic would have caused her to sink.


Er, probably, but this wasn't a glacier. I might as well say that if a massive Moon monster ate the Titanic, she would have sunk, such is the relevance of what you posted.
edit on 25/11/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:20 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, 25 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
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
I beg to differ with you but your mistaken...In 1912 Germany launched its advanced 30 series Submarines U-31 and U-41.These diesel powered Submarines had a range of 7,800 miles,a speed of 8 knots,carried 6 torpedos and were fitted with an 88mm deck gun and weighed 685 tons...

Submarines are also refueled at sea...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


No, they didn't launch them in 1912. Go check your facts. Their keels were laid down in 1912 and they weren't launched until 1914.

Also, refuelling at Sea was an art than began in WW2. I do not recall any Submarines in WW1 being refuelled at Sea.
edit on 25/11/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 
The computer im using right now at work wont allow me to cut and paste a link but if you look up "history/time line of the german U boat its very clearly stated that the U 31 AND U 41 were built in 1912...Anyways the earlier versions from 1910 and 1911 had the range capabilities and even if they did'nt they were often refueled at sea...



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


uboat.net...

en.wikipedia.org...(Germany)

Both sources clearly show that construction only began in 1912 and the first in class was launched in 1914.

And no, they weren't refuelled at Sea and what "earlier" versions are you on about? The first underway replenishment of any vessel was done in the 1920's by the US Navy, the Germans didn't try it with their Subs until WW2 and even then, they halted the practice as it made both boats (they used a replenishment sub called a "milk-cow") vunerable to attack for long periods.
edit on 25/11/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
was it in german waters ?

was 1912 a time of war ?

it just doesn't make sense as germany would have had too much to risk and nothing to gain.

there are many simpler ways to knock someone off



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I still cant post a link from this work computer,of course,but nonetheless..."World Submarine History Time Line 1870-1914",go to that site and it is shown and explained clear and obvious that submarines in 1908 ,09 ,10 ,11 and early 1912 were fully capable of sinking the Titanic...
edit on 25-11-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


actually mate - i believe the japanes navy used the first submarine tenders prior to 1912



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


oh dear :

torpedo boats were capable of sinking the titanic , mines were capable of sinking the titanic , ram equiped warships were capable of sinking the titanic - all existed in 1912

icebergs were capable of sinking the titanic - they existed in 1912

all credible evidence indicates iceberg - why are you so desperate to embrace some revisionist fantasy ?





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join