David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Titanic never sank (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=323736)

techman 25-01-2019 08:12 PM

Titanic never sank
 
I know this isn't a subject that's really much talked about on here or taken seriously, but it still interests me enough to mention it.

We mostly are aware of the theory of Titanic and her sister ship Olympic being allegedly switched, motivated possibly due to the federal reserve and insurance, however, according to an article posted on Miles Mathis' website (and by the way I'm not saying I agree with everything he says judt that he does put out some intriguing alternate theories), claims that Titanic nor Olympic ever sank, and instead it was one big staged disaster involving a few hundred people, incl John Jacob Astor. The supposed 1500 dead were allegedly made up and none of them existed. At the end of the article, which by the way is very lengthy, it makes a claim that Titanic became another similar ship which was sent to the far East.

It also claims that Titanic was nowhere near an icefield, because the path she was taking was within the warmer seas and nowhere near where icebergs would be present (apparently the field lies 400 miles further north around the Labrador current). I've always had the impression that that's where Titanic was headed and sank, but this article seems to suggest it was on a parralell course with New York in pretty much a straight line.

I wouldn't say it's impossible to pull off such a hoax, especially in light of today's events where official stories of events are being pulled apart as revealing they are staged, but how do you hide a ship that has supposedly just sank resulting in the deaths of 1500 people?. What happened when Titanic supposedly left Southampton on her Maiden voyage with all the well wishers seeing her off? did she just slip away from view somewhere else?. Wouldn't people have seen it?. And what about the wreck we are shown?. According to this article, at that depth (which is about 12,000 ft deep) it would be impossible for any light source to penetrate the dark water and see anything.

size_of_light 25-01-2019 10:22 PM

Good topic - this deserves to be looked at in more depth as the official story is no doubt just the tip of the iceberg (puns intended).

Book Told Of The Titanic’s Sinking — 14 Years Before It Happened
https://allthatsinteresting.com/wrec...nic-prediction

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the whole thing was some larger scale occult ritual - if they can get away with 911 in the digital age, then hoaxing a disaster like this in the era of obedient ladies in whalebone corsets and gormless gentlemen in stovepipe hats would be a piece of cake by comparison.

JumpRogue 26-01-2019 05:25 AM

Is there still icebergs along the route from England to America?

thermion 26-01-2019 07:54 AM

This is discussed here, point three.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4615

Skeptiod goes down here like a fart in a lift, but all anyone has to do is challenge Dunning with "alternative facts".

thermion

size_of_light 26-01-2019 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thermion (Post 1063057015)
This is discussed here, point three.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4615

Skeptiod goes down here like a fart in a lift, but all anyone has to do is challenge Dunning with "alternative facts".

thermion

Dubious article that somewhat tellingly ends with the usual propagandist appeal to 'think of the victims' (who have no living relatives who ever knew them, btw) in an attempt to emotionally shame and dissuade the casual reader from looking into it any further.

The author doesn't cite any references that cover the Olympic issue to back up his 'facts'.

I'm not claiming the ships were switched, or that neither sank - I don't know - but the uncannily prophetic 1898 novel 'Wreck of the Titan', makes me suspect more was going on here than meets the eye...of the person reflexively willing to take an extremely thin 'nothing to see here' piece from Skeptoid at face value.

thermion 26-01-2019 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by size_of_light (Post 1063057017)

The author doesn't cite any references that cover the Olympic issue to back up his 'facts'.

He did say: "Despite the conspiracy theory's claim that the ships were virtually identical, there were in fact a number of significant structural differences between them that are evident at a glance" a few of which he goes on to outline that have not been disputed as far as I know.

Maybe you missed the six "References and Further Reading" and the end of his piece.

size_of_light 26-01-2019 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thermion (Post 1063057023)
He did say: "Despite the conspiracy theory's claim that the ships were virtually identical, there were in fact a number of significant structural differences between them that are evident at a glance" a few of which he goes on to outline that have not been disputed as far as I know.

Yeah, I wanted to look into them, but...

Quote:

Originally Posted by thermion (Post 1063057023)
Maybe you missed the six "References and Further Reading" and the end of his piece.

...the online links he supplied don't address the issue.

The offline references he listed sound unrelated also.

thee_doctor 26-01-2019 03:48 PM

Sadly the switch has been debunked history pictures says otherwise that the ships were never switched, it's the Titanic on the bottom of the ocean floor I believed in the switch until I saw picture evidence of Olympic's construction.

grimstock 26-01-2019 04:19 PM

If it was an insurance job, then somewhere mid-atlantic a rendezvous would have been made with a ship ready to take all the passengers and crew on board prior to scuttling, or they had all been dropped off prior to the event and the ship was already in the hands of dismantlers/scuttle crew + service ship.
If the ship has been located and explored, where are all the skeletons of the passengers?
What exactly were the "significant differences" between the two sister ships ?- as I understand both had been refitted to some degree before the event. Were those "differences" before or after the refits?
If it was an insurance job, it was a brotherhood one, so false claims would have been made about any relevant potential evidence in the case. Severe damage could have been faked during a refit, and covered with metal sheeting intended for removal at the scuttling location. The refit could also have involved a manual system of scuttling through the removal of parts inside the ship that would then expose any fake damage and start taking in water, through a quick dismantle procedure.

thermion 26-01-2019 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimstock (Post 1063057055)
If the ship has been located and explored, where are all the skeletons of the passengers?

At the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. A bit of Googling will reveal the numbers and some evidence, but I dare say someone will say the evidence is fake.

grimstock 26-01-2019 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thermion (Post 1063057056)
At the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. A bit of Googling will reveal the numbers and some evidence, but I dare say someone will say the evidence is fake.

With/if an insurance job, it is bound to be fake since it was pre-determined. The ultra-rich would not have been sacrificed - that is what the poor are for. Valuables would not have been left on the ship.

On 9/11 a significant number of dead bodies had been brought into at least one of the towers on stretchers prior to demolition.

truegroup 27-01-2019 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thermion (Post 1063057056)
At the bottom of the Atlantic ocean. A bit of Googling will reveal the numbers and some evidence, but I dare say someone will say the evidence is fake.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ti...w=1524&bih=738

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Z7REEnwKOQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:lol:

techman 27-01-2019 09:56 PM

What about the claim that spotlights from the submersibles would be useless at seeing and photographic anything at that depth (12,500 ft) due to absolute darkness of the water. Anyone know if lights at that depth can see more than a few feet, enough to film the wreck?.

truegroup 27-01-2019 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by techman (Post 1063057152)
What about the claim that spotlights from the submersibles would be useless at seeing and photographic anything at that depth (12,500 ft) due to absolute darkness of the water. Anyone know if lights at that depth can see more than a few feet, enough to film the wreck?.

Yes - they can. The darkness is caused by no light from the Sun:lol:

mranderson 27-01-2019 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063057162)
Yes - they can. The darkness is caused by no light from the Sun:lol:

I really appreciate that you are around to pop in and help the lunatics out once in a while

seeing as we don't put people in Insane Asylums anymore and we have to deal with out in general public your services are often under appreciated in the digital asylum

goodness me I just dread to think how easy it is extort all sorts of money from some people on this planet

it's a small miracle they make it through a day without getting seriously injured

Dude111 28-01-2019 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by size_of_light
Good topic - this deserves to be looked at in more depth as the official story is no doubt just the tip of the iceberg (puns intended).

But how could it be found out TRUE now after all this time??


Hmmmmmmm

size_of_light 28-01-2019 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dude111 (Post 1063057177)
But how could it be found out TRUE now after all this time??


Hmmmmmmm

Maybe a VERY OLD whistleblower will come forward! :grandpa:

screamingeagle 28-01-2019 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by size_of_light (Post 1063057181)
Maybe a VERY OLD whistleblower will come forward! :grandpa:

:lol:

i'm sure TG would be delighted :lol:

techman 29-01-2019 08:54 AM

Why not just read the article I mentioned (on MilesWMathis.com, and click on "updates") and judge for yourself rather than shooting the messenger and thinking it's aload of tosh.

If Titanic sank in iceberg "alley" where the icefield is located; apparently in the mid Atlantic warm waters, or so it would appear looking at the site map, then why when there is an underwater expedition to look at the wreck there is no real concern for nearby icebergs?. As the article suggests, if there were (and still are) icebergs present in April, then they would be there all year round wouldn't they?, or do they just come and go?.

grimstock 29-01-2019 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by techman (Post 1063057152)
What about the claim that spotlights from the submersibles would be useless at seeing and photographic anything at that depth (12,500 ft) due to absolute darkness of the water. Anyone know if lights at that depth can see more than a few feet, enough to film the wreck?.

Professional salvage operations usually have deck arrays of spotlights to deal with that problem, Since TG's video shows that a single spotlight works, then a lot more would be visible with arrays of lamps, although such technology would have been impossible at the time of sinking/scuttling. Ideal spot, though, for disposing of the evidence. Apparently, the ship was ordered to stop and wait for some time, before proceeding to the incident.

From the Southampton Dock photos, there appears to be few (if any) passengers on board when leaving.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12 PM.