Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 29-01-2019, 02:41 PM   #21
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

The 300 foot gash in the right hand side of the ship, claimed by eyewitnesses does not exist in the wreck.



+++ Rivets are missing from the hull - ? Now why would that be?

Last edited by grimstock; 29-01-2019 at 02:47 PM.
Likes: (1)
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2019, 05:52 PM   #22
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
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?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
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.
Give them a while until they can find the right cut-and-paste response from Skeptoid before they can reply.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2019, 06:17 PM   #23
thermion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 922 (603 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
Give them a while until they can find the right cut-and-paste response from Skeptoid before they can reply.
Erm...

Posted already (but you knew that) in post #4.

You see, rather than dismiss it with a wave of the hand, go through the counter argument and ambush each point with your evidence. That's how we get to the truth.
thermion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2019, 07:25 PM   #24
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
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.
Interesting you mention that, I assume you mean the famous photo with the old chap with the hat on sat looking onward beside the dockside as Titanic appears to be
pulling away?. I've seen a very clear, as uncropped as you can get (this photo is often very cropped on books etc) version of this photo showing the full width of the image. There does appear to quite a number of people on board who can be seen standing on the prom, as well as crew pulling the lines away. I know there are others where it's moving out to see, but that's the one I usually think of.

What somewhat intrigued me about this particular photo is that on a Titanic forum I visited a while back I was surprised some of the posters, some whom btw were quite knowledgeable about ships and how they operated, were puzzled as to the odd way she was being moved away ready for her to move out of the harbour. One person seemed sure she was being pulled in rather than out, which wouldn't make sense. Another even said that there doesn't appear to be any wellwishers in sight near to the quayside, only crew visible, but I suppose they couldve been on the other side of the crane that can be seen in the background. Makes me wonder if the photo is a fake, as to how it could've been faked I don't know.

Another curious photo is the launch photo which shows Titanic, taken from across the river, entering the water from the construction gantry for the first time (a well publicised photo showing her stern entering the water). However, only a few years ago there appeared a set of newly discovered photos (from original negatives) showing Titanic from inside the giant gantry being moved slowly in the water with crowds of people standing in the foreground watching her. However, from what I can tell, none of those people can be seen in the other photo that wouldve been taken at the exact same time. But they maybe stood further away out of shot.

Last edited by techman; 29-01-2019 at 07:44 PM.
Likes: (1)
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-01-2019, 07:25 PM   #25
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermion View Post
Erm...

Posted already (but you knew that) in post #4.

You see, rather than dismiss it with a wave of the hand, go through the counter argument and ambush each point with your evidence. That's how we get to the truth.
Didn't dismiss it. I checked it out and noted that none of his references deal with the alleged facts he includes.

I'm not going to waste time counter-arguing with an article, let alone one so devoid of substance.

Moreover, I don't have a view one way or another to begin with.
Likes: (1)
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-01-2019, 06:21 PM   #26
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

I think we need to be open minded, and I think we have a right to question the official story no matter how far fetched it may seem, especially if the the theory has some substance that's relevant to today, for instance the federal reserve. I remember Icke briefly mention Titanic when he was in Canada one year as if he was skeptical or thought there may've been another side of the sinking that we've not been told; can't remember exactly what he said but he I did recall he mentioned it.

One thing I've become to notice after having delved deeper (no pun intended) into the "alleged" sinking, is the often recounted statements from people who never saw an iceberg and those that did, as well as those who never heard anything and those who heard a loud crash or collision. Is it just me but does this remind us of more recent events where eyewitness statements conflict with each other as a way of maybe spreading disinfo or puttling out a false wild conspiracy which will make people just think it's too far fetched, whilst at the same time concealing the real conspiracy?. We seem to see this alot today with crisis actors recounting what they saw, which maybe done as misdirection and confusion.

Last edited by techman; 30-01-2019 at 06:29 PM.
Likes: (2)
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2019, 09:38 AM   #27
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
Interesting you mention that, I assume you mean the famous photo with the old chap with the hat on sat looking onward beside the dockside as Titanic appears to be
pulling away?. I've seen a very clear, as uncropped as you can get (this photo is often very cropped on books etc) version of this photo showing the full width of the image. There does appear to quite a number of people on board who can be seen standing on the prom, as well as crew pulling the lines away. I know there are others where it's moving out to see, but that's the one I usually think of.

What somewhat intrigued me about this particular photo is that on a Titanic forum I visited a while back I was surprised some of the posters, some whom btw were quite knowledgeable about ships and how they operated, were puzzled as to the odd way she was being moved away ready for her to move out of the harbour. One person seemed sure she was being pulled in rather than out, which wouldn't make sense. Another even said that there doesn't appear to be any wellwishers in sight near to the quayside, only crew visible, but I suppose they couldve been on the other side of the crane that can be seen in the background. Makes me wonder if the photo is a fake, as to how it could've been faked I don't know.

Another curious photo is the launch photo which shows Titanic, taken from across the river, entering the water from the construction gantry for the first time (a well publicised photo showing her stern entering the water). However, only a few years ago there appeared a set of newly discovered photos (from original negatives) showing Titanic from inside the giant gantry being moved slowly in the water with crowds of people standing in the foreground watching her. However, from what I can tell, none of those people can be seen in the other photo that wouldve been taken at the exact same time. But they maybe stood further away out of shot.

No - I meant the photo taken on one of the decks that shows only one man walking around, the photo taken by a passenger who left the ship at the first stopping point and survived.

Traditionally, dockworkers are allowed to go on board and wander around, and also see the ship off if they have built it. Harland and Wolff at the time employed thousands of men at that dock

Dockers leaving work at Harland and Wolff.
https://rmstitanichotel.co.uk/wp-con...-and-wolff.jpg

Last edited by grimstock; 31-01-2019 at 09:45 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2019, 10:10 AM   #28
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimstock View Post
No - I meant the photo taken on one of the decks that shows only one man walking around, the photo taken by a passenger who left the ship at the first stopping point and survived.

Traditionally, dockworkers are allowed to go on board and wander around, and also see the ship off if they have built it. Harland and Wolff at the time employed thousands of men at that dock

Dockers leaving work at Harland and Wolff.
https://rmstitanichotel.co.uk/wp-con...-and-wolff.jpg
Ah yes I know the photo's you're referring to. I think one of them shows Father Browne. Another photo I recall is of a second class couple, and one taken from down one of the proms showing what maybe Capt Smith walking in the distance. When you mention it, it does seem rather odd that no one else is seen on the deck, or maybe they are all just out of shot, on the otherside of the ship or are all inside. But with that many people said to have travelled on Titanic (some 2 thousand plus?), you'd expect the deck be crawling with people. I've never been on a cruise ship, and of course they are far bigger than what the Olympic ships of that time were, so I don't know what I would expect to see whilst on board. But I would presume people would be all over the place. So what do you make of those photos then? Do you think they are fakes (pasteups?), or are they genuine photos from a ship but not from Titanic, or from Titanic but with passengers far less than what we were told were on board?. Did they all get off at those stopping points and the ship travelled on with no passengers?.

Last edited by techman; 31-01-2019 at 10:16 AM.
Likes: (1)
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2019, 10:47 AM   #29
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

I should also have mentioned that traditionally prior to a ship entering service, the dockers and their families are given an open day to wander the ship and the dock involved.

I think an open mind is required and the ability to see through any bullshit that is claimed. The video alone disproves the iceberg story for starters, and the missing rivets would explain - after the ship had been idled mid-atlantic, - that a period of around 2 and a half hours to sink the ship ties in exactly, yet the video does not follow up that information, and goes on instead to investigating how long the wreck would take to disappear instead.

Why would the captain have stopped the ship to lay idle for hours without reason given in mid-atlantic?

For some obscure reason? or to allow rivets to be removed successfully before further water pressure is put on them?
The fact the iceberg story is a pack of lies may be pointing us in the right direction. The rivets would have to be punched out from the inside of the hull - increasing water pressure from the motion of the ship from the outside would have hindered that operation to some degree, and also increased the ingress of water taken onboard during the removal.
There had been no collision. Dismantling had occurred mid-atlantic as a scuttle operation. - but where were all the claimed passengers? Would the passengers not have made a fuss if the ship had just stopped for hours with a reported iceberg fast approaching?
The only damage caused to the ship had been resulting from the sinking. If the ship had been scuttled mid-atlantic (to hide the evidence) then a service ship would have been either with her, or called to the vicinity before rivets were removed.

So - we have ascertained that the sinking was in fact a scuttle operation, ( by a dismantle procedure mid-atlantic) and claimed as an accident with an iceberg to enable insurance payout to be made.

So the following question is:
Were there hundreds/thousands of rich family members aboard the ship?

The answer would have to be emphatically, NEVER.
Why? Because, even the richest ship operators could possibly be put out of business altogether if even one family sued them if ever anyone found out about the scuttling. No company in their right mind would ever take that risk with the rich.
With poor people, YES, no problem - they would not even give it a second thought. But not with rich passengers.
So the story about all those passengers losing their lives cannot be true either. Not with a scuttle operation.
In fact, those that took part in the removal of rivets had at the same time put their own lives at risk, because they had done so. I would not be at all surprised if they had been locked in the hull after the removal - (less witnesses to cause later problems).

They couldn't very well say to the insurers, "Oh we were travelling across the Atlantic with no passengers, and this iceberg sank the ship!", could they now?

Were any passenger compensation payments made through the company insurers?

Last edited by grimstock; 31-01-2019 at 12:07 PM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2019, 06:08 PM   #30
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Hmmm, interesting slant on this conspiracy, whether there's any validity of this scuttle operation I'm not sure. I've never heard this theory from any Titanic conspiracy researcher, though I know John Hamer, whom has researched the Titanic/Olympic switch, seems confident that the two ships where switched and that Olympic was sunk not Titanic (though we know there's just far too many problems with this theory), according to him by an icebreaker. I take it you don't buy that theory?.

So it was an operation, sailing out into the mid Atlantic, very few people on board? (no rich people like Astor, Strauss or Guggenheim?), the crew in the hull dismantled the rivets from the plating of the hull in order to let water in and Titanic sank in the deep Atlantic in order to prevent any salvage?. So what happened to those passengers?.

I'm no ship expert but you said: "Why would the captain have stopped the ship to lay idle for hours without reason given in mid-atlantic?". I'm assuming you mean why would Titanic have laid idle for hours after "allegedly" hitting the iceberg?. If you're meaning why didn't Titanic carry on sailing ahead then would that be because she would've been taking in more water from the rivets that had been popped, or can a ship still continue ahead even with such damage?.

On a side note, this set of photos has interested me (the ones showing Titanic leaving Harland and Wolff to enter the water). Notice the amount of onlookers cheering as she enters the water. Quite a lot. However, when I look at photos that were taken outside - taken from across the river and showing the bow entering the water, I cannot see any of the crowds inside the gantry where they would've been stood.

http://titanicphotographs.com/Kempst...xkempster.html

Last edited by techman; 31-01-2019 at 08:06 PM.
Likes: (2)
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2019, 07:57 PM   #31
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
Hmmm, interesting slant on this conspiracy, whether there's any validity of this scuttle operation I'm not sure. I've never heard this theory from any Titanic conspiracy researcher, though I know John Hamer, whom has researched the Titanic/Olympic switch, seems confident that the two ships where switched and that Olympic was sunk not Titanic (though we know there's just far too many problems with this theory), according to him by an icebreaker. I take it you don't buy that theory?.

So it was an operation, sailing out into the mid Atlantic, very few people on board? (no rich people like Astor, Strauss or Guggenheim?), the crew in the hull dismantled the rivets from the plating of the hull in order to let water in and Titanic sank in the deep Atlantic in order to prevent any salvage?. So what happened to those passengers?.

I'm no ship expert but you said: "Why would the captain have stopped the ship to lay idle for hours without reason given in mid-atlantic?". I'm assuming you mean why would Titanic have laid idle for hours after "allegedly" hitting the iceberg?. If you're meaning why didn't Titanic carry on sailing ahead then would that be because she would've been taking in more water from the rivets that had been popped, or can a ship still continue ahead even with such damage?.
No - The report says the ship stopped for several hours before proceeding to the incident. I shall try and find the link.
#
The reconstruction clearly shows no damage whatsoever to the ship prior to sinking, apart from missing rivets. They combed the hull inch by inch - there was no damage apart from that occurring due to the crash on the ocean floor. I forget what the calculation had been - but it was something like number rivets x so many litres ingress/minute = 2 and a half hours to overload the ship causing the bow to sink below the water , eventually lifting the stern out of the water then snapping with the torque, then the two halves going their own way. They then state that from the time the taking in water was notified it was 2 and a half hours before she sank. Watch the video for the exact figures. The ship could also have stopped to let a service vessel come closer before the rivets were removed, as once they are taken out there is no going back - they cannot be replaced. they knew exactly how many minutes it would take.
I am not stating the ships were switched or not - I am unable to identify which is which.
As I stated , if it was a scuttle operation - which it seems to be, then were would certainly never have been passengers on that part of the voyage. Too risky. I believe the replacement engine for the sister ship had been stated to be too cost- prohibitive to undertake, so if that is the case, then it probably was a swap and scuttle, with the refit changing the identity to Titanic. That would then provide a motive for the scuttling/insurance job. Had there been any evidence of a side impact, then an icebreaker to cause the damage was what I thought at first if it was a scuttle job. Quite simple - and the damage would be similar to asn iceberg impact. However, there was no damage to the hull, although the damage to the stern is explained by the spinning motion it took to reach the seabed. But then if the stern had been damaged then that would have sunk first, with the total wrecking of the rest of the hull - the flooded part would have survived intact due to the pressure on both inside and outside being equal - so it follows that the bow had flooded, not the stern, and there had been no impact on the bow or the central sections (apart from impact damage on the lower left of the bow ( claimed to be from ocean floor).

Last edited by grimstock; 01-02-2019 at 07:29 PM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2019, 08:19 PM   #32
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Again, I'm not sure if you misunderstood my question, but I was meaning why would the ship (if you meant Titanic and not the California and any other vessel said to be in close proximity) continue on when the rivets had been popped allowing water to rush in?. They stopped the engines because they thought they had had a collision and had to find out what happened and what damage it had caused (as you see and hear about in countless documentaries and films about the disaster). When accidents happen to ships, whatever the cause, they don't just sail ahead as if nothing happened hoping to make it to land, or do they?.

The alleged evidence point to the wreck being Olympic not Titanic has been debunked by showing the no. 401 that can be seen in underwater footage, as well as the name Titanic which is, or was, still visible. And no they couldn't have hidden the name and added Olympic over the top as the name was welded into the steel. And the stuff about the changes to the ships has also been debunked. Theorists assume all they had to do is swap a few things round, change the prom, etc. Apparently there were many, many design differences between each ship, far too many to have been altered.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2019, 08:31 PM   #33
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
Again, I'm not sure if you misunderstood my question, but I was meaning why would the ship (if you meant Titanic and not the California and any other vessel said to be in close proximity) continue on when the rivets had been popped allowing water to rush in?. They stopped the engines because they thought they had had a collision and had to find out what happened and what damage it had caused (as you see and hear about in countless documentaries and films about the disaster). When accidents happen to ships, whatever the cause, they don't just sail ahead as if nothing happened hoping to make it to land, or do they?.

The alleged evidence point to the wreck being Olympic not Titanic has been debunked by showing the no. 401 that can be seen in underwater footage, as well as the name Titanic which is, or was, still visible. And no they couldn't have hidden the name and added Olympic over the top as the name was welded into the steel. And the stuff about the changes to the ships has also been debunked. Theorists assume all they had to do is swap a few things round, change the prom, etc. Apparently there were many, many design differences between each ship, far too many to have been altered.

I am not stating which vessel was used - I do not know, and most of the information available is false, as the incident is well covered-up with secret society fake reports, and numerous fake tales, and witness statements from people who obviously had not even been on the ship.

No I did not mean once the incident had occurred - the witness report said that the ship stopped mid-atlantic for several hours whilst an iceberg was approaching , and for no apparent reason on orders of the captain, before proceeding to the incident.
The ship had been freshly painted along with the name of the vessel during the refit.
I do not go for the stories about the two ships being instantly recognisable and identifiable, as I cannot tell the difference.

Which ship is parked on the ocean floor, and how can you tell?

Of course the numbers and name would have been changed if the ships had been swapped - that was then the purpose of the refit, was it not?

Last edited by grimstock; 31-01-2019 at 08:35 PM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-01-2019, 08:56 PM   #34
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

I have not heard of any story, either as a rumour or a proven account, that Titanic stopped mid Atlantic before the "alleged" collision with the iceberg. As far as I know Titanic sailed from Southampton, picked up and dropped off passengers in Queenstown, Cherbourg, sailed towards New York in the Atlantic, and the rest as we all know is history.

Yes Titanic and Olympic both looked identical from a distance, even closer up from an exterior perspective, but there were lots of small differences which would've been known about and obvious to the crew, details which could not have been changed in such a short space of time. Visit any Titanic forum and find information regarding debunking of the switch, and you'll see a whole list of things from each ship that would've had to have been undertaken for the switch to be pulled off.

The names of each ship were already "etched" into their sides before the refit took place, so swapping them around could not possibly have been done. They weren't name plates bolted onto the steel and could be taken off (or so I've read), they were welded into the steel or etched into it, and then painted in.

Last edited by techman; 31-01-2019 at 09:01 PM.
Likes: (1)
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 05:05 AM   #35
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by techman View Post
I have not heard of any story, either as a rumour or a proven account, that Titanic stopped mid Atlantic before the "alleged" collision with the iceberg. As far as I know Titanic sailed from Southampton, picked up and dropped off passengers in Queenstown, Cherbourg, sailed towards New York in the Atlantic, and the rest as we all know is history.

Yes Titanic and Olympic both looked identical from a distance, even closer up from an exterior perspective, but there were lots of small differences which would've been known about and obvious to the crew, details which could not have been changed in such a short space of time. Visit any Titanic forum and find information regarding debunking of the switch, and you'll see a whole list of things from each ship that would've had to have been undertaken for the switch to be pulled off.

The names of each ship were already "etched" into their sides before the refit took place, so swapping them around could not possibly have been done. They weren't name plates bolted onto the steel and could be taken off (or so I've read), they were welded into the steel or etched into it, and then painted in.
Welding is no problem at all during a refit. Most stories are fake, so it is almost impossible to tell which ones are truthful. I shall try and find the link for the mid-atlantic stop. Naturally, the above video may be wrong in assuming the damage to the bottom left of the hull up to waterline may not simply be seabed damage, but also icebreaker damage too. The identity of the ship can only be made from the wreckage - if there are lots of differences on the outside, then that should perhaps be relatively easy from the new scans, as the inside may now be trashed.

The fact there is no iceberg damage on the wreck alone blows most stories out of the water.

Last edited by grimstock; 01-02-2019 at 06:33 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 06:20 AM   #36
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

Crew were detained overnight and until they had signed the Official Secrets Act to prevent them from exposing the truth about the sinking. (That is a disgusting way to treat faithful crew who had been through a lengthy ordeal.- I wonder who enforced this? The Royal police?/The Royal Customs and Excise?) + Other interesting facts I have not heard before. The operators - White Star line - had been in serious financial trouble at the time. J.P. Morgan received the insurance payout.
So the bankers benefited, not the operators. Presumably they owed the bank money.



Olympic's name on Titanic wreck






Official Secrets Act 1911
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1911

Last edited by grimstock; 01-02-2019 at 06:59 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 07:00 AM   #37
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

The Best Titanic Conspiracy Documentary 2012



Why does it always take 100 years to find the truth?

Last edited by grimstock; 01-02-2019 at 07:03 AM.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 07:13 AM   #38
grimstock
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 1,048 (637 Posts)
Default

What has definitely been "debunked" is the official story and the iceberg tale.
grimstock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 10:47 AM   #39
techman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,160
Likes: 1,228 (681 Posts)
Default

Well to some people in the alternative arena it has been debunked, but not to most people who aren't into this subject. Ask any Titanic fan, historian, ship expert, and they'll tell you Titanic hit an iceberg and there was evidence of it. I doubt any thought comes into their mind questioning anything else, even though, on the face of it, the iceberg cause seems to abit far fetched. And yes I know you'll have people claiming there were/are icebergs in the location where Titanic sank, but if it were within the relatively warm waters of the mid Atlantic, nowhere near where icebergs are known to be found, then it can't make sense. Has anyone who as been to the location actually seen icebergs?. If Titanic never struck one then where did they film the iceberg that was said to have hit the ship shortly after news broke about the disaster (that grainy piece, I think which taken from one of the rescue ships?) that's often shown in the newsreel film?.

Regarding those Olympic letters, again I'm playing devils advocate here, but how do we know those letters aren't fakes or CGI images?. I've heard they are. And also, if the Titanic letters had fallen off revealing the partial Olympic letters underneath, wouldn't you think the crew of the submersible missions looking at those images would've been abit surprised and shocked to see it was Olympic and not Titanic?. And why would they allow this footage to be shown in a documentary when they could've withheld and/or fabricated the evidence to suit the official narrative?. Or did it just slip unnoticed and it was too late to edit it out?. And how do you place letters of a ships name on top of an already existing name?. Wouldn't the crew or even passengers on Titanic have noticed this or thought it looked strange?.

I don't trust Robin Gardiner, it's likely he's part of the confusion IMO.

Last edited by techman; 01-02-2019 at 04:33 PM.
techman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 05:07 PM   #40
rhydra
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,828
Likes: 133 (70 Posts)
Default

The "sinking" set in place the motion for replacing the gold standard with the current financial system.

The ship was used to transport investments of gold and other asserts and the disaster was exemplified as a clear illustration why like for like gold and silver currency was a weak system and was used to create the "Federal Reserve Act" and act which was a reaction waiting for a problem.

In other words it was set up in order to create an excuse to impose the fiat money scheme on the world, the Titanic disaster if it sank or not, benefited the banking system, where there is banking, there is corruption.
__________________
Man is a tool created by the Universe to mark time.

Last edited by rhydra; 01-02-2019 at 05:08 PM.
Likes: (1)
rhydra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:22 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.