The "Titanic Conspiracy" – A Complete Analysis

The Titanic Conspiracy – A Complete Analysis

The Titanic controversy has recently come up again, and it has become a widely accepted notion that it might well be real. But is it based on fact or myth?

I wanted to organize a detailed analysis of this conspiracy, and finally get to the bottom of it. I've posted about it here and there in various threads and offered a number of things about it that are fishy to say the least. I have now brought all the different elements of the case together in the writing of this article. I present my findings below.

When I first looked into the Titanic conspiracy many years ago now, I ploughed through many books on the disaster; some are linked at the end. I approached it dispassionately, with no agenda, and I still have none, although it appears I am strongly in the 'debunking' camp. That's only because that is where the evidence has led me.

I have spent plenty of time doing the opposite of debunking conspiracies. There are many mysteries and controversial theories discussed here on Avalon we can comprehensively confirm as very real. But we must always go where the evidence leads. I think it unwise to approach it any other way. Investing in a belief system solely on the grounds of how 'sensational' it is or how popular, is foolhardy in the extreme – look at the Flat Earthers. We must therefore dig deep, and peel back all the layers FIRST. Proceed first with the actual evidence, and go wherever that evidence takes us.

*This is rather a long article, as there's a lot of material to cover, but it's well worth looking at if you're interested in the Titanic story...

**

The Titanic conspiracy comes in three parts, which I'll examine individually. In summary, we have the Titanic being 'switched' with the Olympic as part of a huge insurance scam, secondly, we have the Titanic being deliberately sunk as part of said insurance scam, and thirdly, we have JP Morgan arranging for three of his biggest financial rivals, John Jacob Astor, Benjamin Guggenheim, and Isidor Straus, to all be on the Titanic. The sinking was a convenient device to kill them off, as the trio were moving to block the installation of central banking system the Federal Reserve – something JP Morgan and his cronies could not and would not allow.

PART 1
Insurance Scam?

Background: Morgan's Atlantic shipping company IMM (International Mercantile Marine Co.), of which White Star Line was a subsidiary, was the chief financier for the Olympic-class luxury ocean liners, all built at the Harland and Wolff shipyards in Belfast. The Olympic, the flagship, was completed and entered service in 1911. The Titanic entered service in 1912. The third in the class, the Britannic, (originally the Gigantic), entered service in 1915.

The first ship, the Olympic (under the command of Captain Smith by the way), was damaged in 1911 in a collision with Royal Navy warship HMS Hawke in Southampton Water.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...MNhjhyDuDOMl8Q

The Theory: The damage to Olympic was extensive, and because the Royal Navy refused to accept any responsibility for the accident, blame was shouldered by White Star alone. But White Star's insurers, Lloyd's of London, allegedly refused to pay out on the claim, which put White Star in a precarious financial position. Therefore a cunning scheme was hypothetically concocted to switch the damaged Olympic with the almost completed (and almost identical) Titanic. It would be the Olympic that would therefore sail Titanic's maiden voyage, which would see it deliberately sunk mid-Atlantic. The insurance claim would cover all White Star's losses and keep the company afloat.

The flaw with the insurance scam theory is pretty straight forward. Titanic was heavily under-insured in the first place. The net worth of the ship, as reported by Bruce Ismay, Managing Director of the White Star Line, during the New York Hearings on the disaster, was 'initially' $7.5m. However Titanic was only insured for $5m – two thirds the estimate. Accordingly, the result was that White Star ended up taking a huge loss – another huge loss on top of the already costly Olympic.

Additional verification of the figures can be found in The New York Times for April 28, 1912, under the heading of "Titanic Insurance Claims Quickly Met". It states that: the "aggregate property loss is placed by The Spectator at $9,420,000, and that insurance authority divides this total into $8,000,000 for the vessel, $420,00 for the cargo and $1,000,000 for personal effects. Marine insurance totaling $6,000,000 on the property is divided into $5,000,000 on the vessel, $400,000 on the cargo, and $600,000 on personal effects." So essentially, the ship was valued at "$8,000,000" while only insured for "$5,000,000".

Ultimately, both accidents would lead to White Star's decline and eventual bankruptcy, not to mention the tremendous damage to their public image. It was a financial disaster for Morgan as well. He died in 1913, the year after the Titanic disaster, and before the Federal Reserve was founded. In 1915, his International Mercantile Marine Co. went into receivership, and was only barely saved.

Nothing points to any insurance scam being in play. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary.

PART 2
Titanic switched with Olympic?

The Theory: The crux of it rests largely on photographic evidence of two objects that are ostensibly identical: the Olympic and the Titanic. Both ships were the same class, and were virtually the same inside and out – except that, with the Titanic, alterations were made late in the fitting-out to make her stand out as the crème de le crème, the most lavish liner ever built, exceeding her sister-ship. It is claimed however that everything on the two ships were standard White Star issue, and were thus interchangeable, as they bore no name (except for the lifeboats, the ship's bell, name plates etc).

Many people point out differences between photographs of the Titanic in 1912, and pictures of the sunken wreck. Apparently they do not match. But they say the wreck images do match the Olympic. Here is an example:

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/...psowsmnwws.jpg

It would appear, based on this evidence, that the slowly decomposing wreck at the bottom of the Atlantic is the same as the Olympic.

After further investigation, I concluded the above pictures are ALL of Titanic, and they have been misrepresented. What they show is one image of the Titanic under construction in Belfast, and another image of Titanic fully completed and docked in Southampton. Here is another in Southampton:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Titanic_3.jpg

The window patterns match images of the hull taken by the many dive expeditions.

But how do we explain the discrepancy of Titanic having two different window styles on B Deck? One set is a narrow, irregularly-spaced slit like configuration, the other is large, wide, and evenly-spaced.

This image below shows the same ship, the Titanic, the top one when under construction in Belfast, the second beneath it much later on her maiden voyage, and the third, in the same configuration as the second, and possibly one of the last pictures ever taken of her, off shore at Cobh, near Cork, Ireland, April 11th 1912.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/atta...6&d=1510780527

In the top version, note the differences in A Deck, they can be clearly seen here. It was an open deck at first, but later on during fitting-out this 'open plan' promenade was closed off. "...This was installed as a last minute change at the personal request of Bruce Ismay, and was intended to provide additional shelter to first class passengers. These changes made Titanic slightly heavier than her sister, and thus she could claim to be the largest ship afloat. The work took longer than expected due to design changes requested by Ismay and a temporary pause in work occasioned by the need to repair Olympic, which had been in a collision in September 1911..."

Below is a side-by-side comparison of Titanic during her initial launch in Belfast (left), and in Southampton months later (right), prior to her maiden voyage. It clearly illustrates the critical changes to B Deck that we're mostly interested in. Note how evenly spaced the large windows of B Deck are when this deck was first assembled.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/atta...9&d=1455035470

Titanic had these evenly spaced large windows along the forward half of B Deck when this part of the hull was FIRST fabricated (it was drawn from the same plans as the Olympic remember, and was the same plan for Britannic later on) but with the Titanic it was later refined and customized to distinguish her, as per Bruce Ismay's instructions. The reason for the change was, instead of being the same as the stock promenade on Olympic's B Deck, two private (and highly luxurious) verandas and suites were added to Titanic, hence necessitating a change in the B Deck window configurations.

So all the pictures of the Titanic purportedly being the Olympic were misinterpreted. Discrepancies in photographs of the Titanic are merely due to them being taken at different times, at different stages of construction. The window configuration of the final Titanic at her launch are a 100% match to the window configuration seen in photographs of the wreck.

However, let us look in more detail at the rest of the 'switch' evidence.

The RMS Olympic was registered as ship 400, its parts ordered, fabricated (with that number), and installed, ahead of Titanic (ship 401) by several months. So had a switch occurred, then there should be instances of '400' stamped in many, many places on Titanic (and vice versa), and I mean properly engraved/stamped permanently into the metal, and not riveted on. 401 – Titanic's unique serial number – can be found (has been seen, photographed, filmed, and documented) on the Titanic wreck in numerous places, on the outside of the hull, and under the water line, and even into the deep internal workings of the ship, such as on gear shaft, which is not something that could easily be switched out – and it would be a completely pointless switch anyway. Why would they need to go that far? Although crockery can be swapped and bed linen can be swapped, this sort of heavy infrastructure and machinery cannot simply be 'swapped'. In fact, such work would be virtually impossible to do, and cost a virtually impossible sum of money. Of course it's not totally impossible, just infinitely impractical. And what end would it achieve anyway? One of the key arguments of the switch conspiracy was that it was done to save money.

There's a mountain of evidence to plainly illustrate that such a switch did not and could not have occurred. A simple example might be Titanic’s wheelhouse, which was flat, and significantly different to Olympic's round wheelhouse (pictured). That would not be an easy 'switch'.

http://www.titanic.com/uploads/newbb...87ecc2b63d.jpg

Here's a list of just a few differences between the Olympic and her sister ship, mostly internal, and cosmetic, which would all have to be addressed, changed, and swapped out. It would involve major refitting, with many suites, parlours and internal spaces being extensively altered and re-designed, re-painted, and re-carpeted, all taking a very long time to do, and at a huge cost, whilst holding to complete silence (forever) the Harland and Wolff workers (many hundreds of painters, plasterers, carpenters, joiners, plumbers, upholsterers etc,) consigned to do this work.

• 1. Forward half of the 1st class A Deck promenade on Titanic was enclosed with retractable glass screens; the Olympic's promenade was open all the way along.
  
• 2. The front of the wheelhouse in Olympic's bridge was curved, but on Titanic its flat.
  
• 3. The bridge wings (forward) and the aft docking bridge (stern) on Titanic extended over the ship's side by a couple of feet. On the Olympic, they were flush with the ship's side (prior to 1912/13 refit).
  
• 4. The 2nd class promenade area on the Olympic ran for the last quarter of B Deck, but on the Titanic it was truncated to extend the 1st class restaurant out to the port side, and on the starboard side, the cafe parisien was included.
  
• 5. B Deck was also drastically different on both ships - Olympic had a first class promenade whereas Titanic had two private verandas and suites that were plush with the sides of the superstructure.
  
• 6. The reworked accommodations on B and C Decks, dramatically altered the number and arrangement of the windows and portholes on both decks.
  
• 7. Titanic had an extended enclosure aft on C Deck.
  
• 8. Titanic had a different arrangement of ventilators, fans, piping and machinery on the Boat Deck.
  
• 9. Titanic had carpeting and floor tiles that were different in colour.
  
• 10. Titanic had Turkish Bath area on the starboard side of F deck that was different in layout.
  
• 11. Titanic’s officers quarters were different, with the officers Deck House pushed out more on Titanic than Olympic.
  
• 12. On Olympic, the wireless cabin had an outside window, but this was changed on Titanic to allow more seaward facing cabins to be included.
  
• 13. On Olympic, the wireless room was on the port side of the officers deck house While on Titanic it was situated amidships.
  
• 14. The porthole on the D Deck gangway doors was round on the Olympic; on the Titanic it consisted of two vertical rectangular windows.
  
• 15. The propellers on the two ships had different pitches and were therefore not interchangeable.
  
• 16. The reception room on the D Deck Saloon was larger on Titanic than Olympic; Titanic had more columns than Olympic.
  
• 17. Titanic was 4 inches longer than Olympic.
  
• 18. Olympic's bridge roof was painted white while Titanic’s was bare planking (or possibly painted gray).
  
• 19. The top of Olympic's breakwater was painted brown while Titanic’s was white.
  
• 20. Olympic's outdoor forward stairs had covers while Titanic’s did not
  
• 21. The porthole arrangements on Shelter C Deck between the two ships were different.
  
• 22. The lounge furniture on both ships had their ships own names on them.
  
• 23. Modifications would result in Titanic having 1,004 gross tons (or 100,400 cubic feet) more enclosed space than the Olympic.
  
• 24. The paintings in Titanic’s smoke room was "Approach to Plymouth Harbour" while on Olympic Was "Approach to the New World."
  
• 25. Titanic had additional cabins on the Promenade A Deck around the aft staircase.
  
• 26. Olympic had open third class berths, Titanic did not
  
• 27. Another reception room was added to Titanic’s Bridge B Deck next to the "A la Carte" restaurant.
  
• 28. Different air vent arrangement around the funnels
  
• 29. The steel plating arrangement on the two ships was noticeably different,
• especially around the bow plating around the anchor; two plate-edges were welded together on Titanic, but left unwelded on the Olympic.
  
• 30. The iron gates of the three elevators were different on Titanic wreck than photos which show them on Olympic.

Conclusion:
The Titanic could not have been switched with Olympic in any event. Regardless of the herculean effort (and cost) it would require to make the Olympic look like the Titanic, people often forget that the same herculean effort and cost would also be required to make the Titanic look like the Olympic.

If all this was not substantial enough, the actual lettering TITANIC is clearly visible on the wreck. White Star did not paint names onto the hull or even rivet them in place; they engraved them into the steel and were thus permanent. The name Titanic can be seen here (faintly visible above the red lettering) and was first photographed in 1987.

http://www.williammurdoch.net/images/wreck_name.jpg


The SS Californian - The Supposed Rescue Ship
The conspiracy theory claims that the Jesuits, the New World Order Illuminati or whoever, were out to kill off John Jacob Astor, Benjamin Guggenheim, and Isidor Straus because they were against the Federal Reserve. Yet this had to be done with a method that would see everyone else saved. Enter the 'Rescue Ship'.

The Californian first encountered ice at 22:20 ship's time. Captain Stanley Lord ordered a full stop for the night. This was communicated to the Titanic by Californian's wireless operator Cyril Evans. The Titanic's reply was a stiff rebuke, they were busy with personal messages at the time. Soon after, at 23:35 Evans switched off his equipment and turned in for the night. Titanic struck the iceberg only ten minutes later. Twenty-five minutes after that, she transmitted her first distress call (which Evans didn't hear).

Many survivors saw the lights of another ship after Titanic had hit the iceberg. To Titanic's Fourth Officer Boxhall, the other ship appeared to be off Titanic's bow, only five miles (8 km) away and heading in her direction. He tried to signal the ship with a Morse lamp, but received no response.

Likewise, his counterpart on the Californian, Second Officer Herbert Stone, observed the distant lights of a ship, and signal rockets at approximately 00.55, and judged the ship to be approximately five miles away. He tried signalling her with the Morse lamp, also without success.

On notifying Captain Lord of this development, the captain asked whether the rockets had been a company signal, but Stone did not know. (It implies that Lord was aware of rockets being fired at 00.55, at least in one version of his testimony, yet in another it was not until 02.00 he was first made aware. The confusion arises from different shipping lines using different coloured signal flares and deployed for different purposes). Lord and Stone both testified that Stone reported they were not distress signals. Lord ordered Stone to inform him if anything about the ship changed, and to keep signalling it by Morse lamp.

It wasn't until 02.00 that it registered with Lord that the flares were indeed distress flares. Californian Officer James Gibson testified at the inquiry that Second Officer Stone expressed unease to him after viewing the rockets: "A ship is not going to fire rockets at sea for nothing," Stone said. "She looks very queer out of the water — her lights look queer." Gibson observed, "She looks rather to have a big side out of the water", and he agreed that "everything was not all right with her;" that it was "a case of some kind of distress." Stone however, under questioning, repeatedly testified that he did not think the rockets could have been distress signals, and that the possibility did not occur to him until he learned the Titanic had sunk.

*

The Californian as a rescue ship doesn't add up. It was the conditions that placed her in the same vicinity as Titanic – it was trapped by pack ice, having entered the same unavoidable ice-field as Titanic, who, as we all know, decided to power on through it for reasons that shall be discussed. Captain Lord was following standard protocol for a smaller ship, by sitting up for the night lest she collide with an iceberg. Another fact the conspiracy overlooks is that the Californian was tiny. She was a mere 6,200 tons, and had a capacity of less than 100 people (passengers and crew combined). It was a most unsuitable choice of ship to rescue upward of 2,000 people.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...alifornian.jpg

The SS Californian was a cotton transporter. There is no evidence to suggest she was ever carrying anything else, such as stacks and stacks of blankets and dry clothes for hundreds of freezing, wet people, or extra beds and medical supplies – or extra food. There is no evidence for any of it, no documentation, no logs, no eye-witnesses. And none of this was ever brought up during the inquests, because the theory never existed at the time. It is entirely a latter day invention.

However there is still a great deal of controversy surrounding what part the Californian did and didn't play during the disaster. Captain Lord bore the brunt of the criticism for much of his life, and that is to be understood owing to the evasive, conflicting nature of his testimony.

The book “Titanic and the Californian” concludes: "Bearing [the] distance in mind, and recalling that a mere fifty-five minutes had elapsed from the time Captain Lord was first informed about the rockets to the moment the Titanic slipped beneath the waves, it would have been nothing short of a miracle for Lord to bring his ship to the Titanic and effect a rescue in such a short space of time."

At the end of the day, mistakes were made, and opportunities missed. However, as a saving grace to Lord, recent new evidence has come to light that may in part exonerate him and his much maligned ship.

Titanic Historian Tim Maltin put forward the theory of a cold water mirage, or Superior mirage, and that this may have been responsible for the Californian's confusion and inaction that night.

https://lintvwood.files.wordpress.co...gana.jpg?w=640

The cold water mirage arises from differences in air temperature over the warmer waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the colder waters of the Labrador Current. Maltin's suggested that this may cause a 'superior refraction', superimposing and stretching and distorting the edge of the sea and lifting images of objects, distorting their appearance. This would explain why the Titanic's Morse lamp was believed to be a flickering oil lamp on the mast of a much smaller ship, and why Captain Lord thought the Titanic was a different vessel. If correct, Maltin's theory may further explain why the Titanic's lookouts did not spot the iceberg earlier.

There is no doubt that the SS Californian could have played a role in launching some sort of relief effort had she read the cues – in other words, operating under the orders of JP Morgan. But clearly she wasn't. She sat up, and played no role in a rescue at all. Captain Lord went to bed that night instead (which he regretted for the rest of his life). Additionally, Jack Phillips, one of the Titanic wireless operators, told the Californian operator, after issuing Titanic with an ice-warning, to “Shut up! I am busy, I am working Cape Race!". Had the Californian been part of the conspiracy, Phillips would also have to be 'in on it' – he would've been under orders to coordinate with this supposed rescue ship, which he didn't. On the contrary, he ignored them and told them to go away. Ultimately the disaster claimed his life as well. There is no doubt in my mind that the Californian and Captain Lord had nothing to do with it.

SS Mount Temple
Far better equipped to launch a rescue that night, and arguably more culpable that she didn't was the SS Mount Temple. There is some evidence that the Mount Temple was closer to Titanic than admitted during the inquest. In fact, the Mount Temple is often linked to the 'mystery ship' (which also may or may not have been the Californian) at the same time Titanic was sinking, but not at any point did she come to her aid. It is speculated that her wireless operator had gone to bed for the night and did not receive the incoming CQD call. Secondly, the Titanic distress rockets, whilst probably seen by Mount Temple, were mistaken as proximity flares and nothing more (which is what the Californian thought). Contrary to popular belief, white flares were not mistakenly sent up by Titanic. White flares simply signified 'White Star Line'. They were identification flares, standard at the time, and did not necessarily mean 'distress'. This would later be changed in the legacy and aftermath of Titanic, along with SOS replacing CQD as the emergency call, lifeboats for all on board, and a wide range of other safety reforms in general.

If this is how it went down, and the Mount Temple really was the 'mystery ship', then it was gross negligence on the part of her captain and entire crew. Nothing on the official record alludes to such, but it is speculated that to save face (and their careers) they told a completely different tale at the inquiry. But this is only conjecture...

A Massive Cover-up?
If the sinking was deliberately, all part of a scam, it was a massive, epic fail. As explained, Captain Smith would have to be in on it. But why would he go along with a plan that he knew would ultimately kill him?

A roll-call of necessary co-conspirators, and those who died:
Captain Smith would have to be in on it: Dead. Chief Officer Wilde would have to be in on it: Dead. First Officer Murdoch would have to be in on it. Dead. The senior Marconi operator, Jack Phillips, would have to been in on it: Dead. Thomas Andrews, the designer of the ship, would have to be in on it: Dead. Bruce Ismay, Managing Director of the White Star Line, would certainly have to be in on it too: Survived, but spent the rest of his life as a recluse, regretting he had ever gotten in that lifeboat, and died a broken man. And who knows how many others there would have to be. In total, 1,500 other people lost their lives, let us never forget this.

The above list of people who would have to be 'in on it' for a deliberate sinking, would also have to be 'in on' the Olympic and Titanic having been secretly switched over as well. And beyond them, many more deck officers would have to be in on a switch, also a huge crew of nearly 900. They would have to know something or at least hear something about it, if not notice something about it. Then there's the Board of Trade who thoroughly inspected both ships inside and out during sea trials. But there is nothing. Thousands of workers in Belfast would also have to be silenced. Not even a rumour has ever surfaced. Not a single anecdote. And this is long before the days of 'compartmentalization' by which official secrets are nowadays kept in check. There is also the issue of the passengers, many of whom (in 1st class at least) were regular Atlantic travellers, and would have voyaged on both vessels (Olympic carried 17,000 passengers in her first year alone). Many, many women of high society were widowed in the disaster. They lost their husbands. Had some insidious conspiracy been linked to the cause of their bereavement, someone, somewhere, and at some time, would say something. Because women do like to talk :) But there is nothing.

A switch of this kind, on this scale, would not only be immensely difficult to pull off, but it would be a tremendous risk, unless everyone was in on the cover-up as well. Not possible. In addition to this, the Olympic continued to sail well into the late 1930s, carrying hundreds of thousands. There is not a hint of gossip, rumour, or tale told of a conspiracy at play during this period. There is no mention at all of the Olympic being possibly anything other than the Olympic. The switch theory is entirely a latter day theory (invention).

Part 3
Three Prominent Bankers, Enemies of JP Morgan, Were Purposefully Eliminated in the Sinking
The men in question: John Jacob Astor, Benjamin Guggenheim, and Isidor Straus.

Background: Allegedly, Morgan as well as Captain Smith were 'Jesuits', and it was the Jesuits that ultimately planned the sinking, in fear that Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus would oppose the Federal Reserve. The theory goes that Smith played along and deliberately sank his own ship on Jesuit orders.

Even if the Jesuit's were a branch of the NWO, and did for whatever reason want to sink the Titanic, there's no evidence at all that Morgan or Smith were Jesuits. Not a scrap. What's more, as proponents of the conspiracy themselves declare: "anyone could be a Jesuit and their identity not be known..." By this logic, if Morgan and Smith were Jesuits, you'd never know that they were, so how can anyone claim that Morgan and Smith were Jesuits? They couldn't know, is the answer. It is all speculation, with zero evidence.

The conspiracy says that Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus opposed the Federal Reserve. Therefore, they had to die so that the NWO agenda could be pushed through unhindered. Morgan therefore invited all three men onto the luxury liner, so that they would die on it.

Problem 1: If the SS Californian was supposedly the rescue ship as conspiracy proponents contend, how would Morgan guarantee that Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus would not climb on board the Californian along with everybody else and save themselves?

Problem 2: Morgan would need clairvoyance to pull this off. He would have to have known the individual plans and circumstances of all three men long in advance. He would have to then manipulate all three men to be in the right place, at the right time, in the UK, and be available for that maiden voyage. None of this could have happened, as we shall see.

Problem 3: To pull off this 'staged sinking', Morgan would need to 'forecast an iceberg' long in advance. His predictive powers would have to have been extraordinarily potent to predict that pack ice would stray so far south as it did that exact night, all the way to the Grand Banks, and intersect the shipping lanes. He could never predict that FOR APRIL. To drift so far south as they did was very, very rare for April. This was a documented 'freak occurrence' so late in the season.

Captain Smith was guilty of neither deliberate sabotage, nor indeed out-and-out negligence to steam into the icefield. It was a common shipping practise, in fact the correct procedure, to steam full ahead into an icefield in 1912 providing the weather was calm and clear. There was also, arguably, the added incentive to plough ahead to try and beat Olympic's cross-Atlantic record, or at least keep up with it (but that is moot). The fact is, field ice historically posed negligible danger to large ships, and collisions were very uncommon, and sinkings were unheard of. Small bergs, or 'growlers' could be run over at full speed, and any significantly larger berg would be spotted in time from the bridge, or from the lookouts, who were employed exactly for this purpose. Yet it was a 'flat calm' that night, a rare phenomenon, and the icebergs (an even rarer phenomenon this far south) were virtually invisible owing to the lack of wave-action breaking at their base (the tell-tale signature), which usually provided plenty of warning.

Even had the Titanic struck head on, it probably would not have been fatal, studies have shown. This exactly occurred with the SS Kronprinz Wilhelm, a German liner, a few years earlier. It suffered a head-on collision, limped away and completed her voyage damaged but intact. Captain Smith followed normal procedure by entering the ice field at 22 knots. The reason other steamers (like the nearby Californian) had come to a halt is because they were small ships, and thus vulnerable ships. Although speed was a factor in the disaster (Titanic had less manoeuvring time to avoid it), it was not, on Captain Smith's part, either negligence or a sign of pre-meditated resolve to commit mass murder. It was normal procedure. In hindsight, we can say it was 'mismanagement'. Smith, and all those who died that night, were victims of the cavalier arrogance of the time. It was emblematic of the so-called gilded age, and he cannot be held wholly responsible.

Astor: John Jacob Astor was not 'invited' (to die) on the maiden voyage of the Titanic by JP Morgan. Astor only booked passage on the Titanic after spending time in Europe, and ultimately for the benefit of his wife, Madeleine. She was pregnant and wanted to return to the US so the child would be born at home. When disaster struck, Astor actually had every opportunity to save himself by boarding Lifeboat 4 with his wife – he had the power to do so and the entitlement, being the richest man on the ship. But he refused, insisting that only women and children be saved. Morgan would have to have possessed a superior clairvoyance to foresee Astor's gallantry.

Guggenheim: Benjamin Guggenheim was not 'invited' (to die) on the maiden voyage of the Titanic by JP Morgan either. He only booked his passage on the Titanic after missing a similar booking on the Lusitania, which was undergoing repairs. Cunard put up a replacement, the Carmania, to carry all the passengers who had booked for the Lusitania back to New York. But instead of taking the inferior Carmania, Guggenheim of course chose the much more luxurious Titanic, now ready to sail, and it carried the added prestige of being a maiden voyage. It would have demanded yet greater powers of prognostication by Morgan to divine these circumstances. They would have to be most sublime indeed to further foresee the chivalry and conduct of Benjamin Guggenheim during the subsequent disaster. As the boats filled up, Guggenheim eschewed invitations to board a lifeboat – which many First Class passengers of similar status took advantage of, and busied himself instead with the welfare of other passengers, including his German maid, whom he dispatched in Lifeboat 9. Titanic survivor Rose Amelie Icard later wrote, "...Guggenheim, after having helped the rescue of women and children, got dressed, a rose at his buttonhole, to die." He had duly returned to his cabin with his valet, Victor Giglio, to garb themselves in full evening wear, and was heard to remark, "We've dressed up in our best and are prepared to go down like gentlemen." And they both did go down with the Titanic.

Straus: Isidor Straus was not 'invited' (to die) on the maiden voyage of the Titanic by JP Morgan either. He was travelling back to the US after one of his regular winter jaunts in Cape Martin in France. It would have to be a fortune-telling clean sweep for Morgan to have divined, so far in advance, the poignant self-sacrifice of Isidor Straus and his wife Ida. As Lifeboat 8 was being filled, Ida was duly assigned her berth as a first class lady. Alongside her, Isidor was likewise offered a seat. But Isidor refused – in front of many surviving witnesses – to get in. "I will not go before the other men," he was heard to say. Archibald Gracie who survived the disaster testified as such. Because Isidor refused to save himself, Ida then got out of the lifeboat. She could not bear to leave her husband. Ida gave her fur coat to their maid, Ellen Bird, saying she no longer needed it. The couple were last seen standing on deck arm in arm. Eyewitnesses described the scene as a "most remarkable exhibition of love and devotion."

It becomes demonstrably clear with all this gathered evidence that these men were not killed deliberately. Morgan played no role in arranging their passage, played no role in the positioning of the iceberg, or the ship's collision with it, and he certainly could not have played any role in Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus declining the opportunity to live – which was offered all of them. They had every chance to board a lifeboat, but instead chose to sacrifice themselves for the good of others.

The Federal Reserve Angle
Fact: In the very first instance, Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus could not have been opposed to the Federal Reserve. That is because it did not exist in April, 1912.

The Federal Reserve was only "introduced to the House", on August 29, 1913 – 16 months after the Titanic sank. It did not come into being until December 22nd 1913. It passed with 298 votes in favour, 60 against. The bill was signed by President Woodrow Wilson later that same day. It is very obvious that Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus CANNOT have been opposed to the FR, simply because it, even the proposal of it, did not materialize until after they were dead. If it had been around in 1912, such an ultra-complicated and ultra-expensive conspiracy would have been a waste of time, owing to the large majority it eventually secured. 3 more 'no' votes would have exerted little influence in what was a slam-dunk majority. And even if prior knowledge of the FR was available to the likes of Astor (for one) in the April of the previous year, there is no evidence to suggest he would even have had involvement or interest in it. Astor made his fortune form real-estate, he was neither a banker nor a politician.

Question: Yes, Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus were all hugely wealthy, influential men. But I ask: even if the Federal Reserve had existed in some embryonic form in April 1912 - why would they have actually opposed it? The Federal Reserve was designed FOR RICH PEOPLE TO GET EVEN RICHER! Why would they dissent against that?

Question: The fact that people claim Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus were opposed to the Federal Reserve, certainly implies that they were openly opposed – otherwise no one would know about the theory. But how can they have been openly opposed if they never publicly said anything about it? There is not a single wisp of evidence to insinuate they were ever anti-Federal Reserve. (That's probably because they died before it was even brought up in the House).

Fact: The most notable person to openly oppose the Federal Reserve was Charles Lindbergh (Snr.) in 1913, after the FR had come to light. But he did not die. No one killed him off. In fact he was free to bring articles of impeachment against the Federal Reserve board, charging them with "...a conspiracy to violate the Constitution and laws of the United States..." He went on living quite happily, until he died of cancer in 1924.

When you add this all up, you can clearly see that nothing adds up at all.

Question: Is it at all feasible for Morgan to plan a super-liner in 1909, spend millions of dollars to design it, then build it with the labour of 15,000 men, and then wait three years...just to kill 3 people he no proven animosity towards? He would have to bear on his conscience the deaths of possibly thousands of innocents. He certainly would lose his Commodore, Captain Smith, because as everyone knows, in finest British Maritime tradition, the Captain must always go down with the ship. Lifeboats for half the ship's compliment meant two thirds of those on board would die. And they did. Many of the crew would be lost among them – his crew, employed by his company, and out of his pocket.

Conceptually it is implausible, and tangibly no evidence supports any part of it. Not only would this be a monstrous, unconscionable crime, it would be an irrational one also. It would demand an almost inhuman undertaking to cover up and clean up, and almost inexhaustible funds to pay for. It would be fairly ludicrous, and it would all be for nought anyway.

And there's no evidence Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus were in any way, shape, or form, mortal enemies of Morgan in the first place. Had they been, they probably wouldn't have used his shipping line!

Fact: According to the conspiracy, Captain Smith played the most central role of all. On the orders of his Jesuit New World Order overlords it was down to him to deliberately sink the ship. One would imagine he would have to be on the bridge to do this however, and so ensure the disaster played out as instructed. But he wasn't on the bridge at all when the iceberg hit. He had retired to bed two hours earlier as on any normal night, leaving the bridge in the capable hands of First Officer Murdoch. Furthermore, Smith was seen to be entirely relaxed, amiable, and in high spirits throughout the voyage, giving no indication at all that he was about to commit suicide for the New World Order.

A Misconception: By popular account, JP Morgan 'cancelled' his booking for Titanic's maiden voyage at the last minute. This has leant considerable weight to the conspiracy theory, and given rise to suspicions that he had prior knowledge of the disaster. Firstly, if he had prior knowledge, it was deep knowledge formed well in advance. So why would he cancel at the last minute? In fact, there is no evidence, and no apparent origin, for this story. There's no evidence to suggest Morgan was actually scheduled to travel on the Titanic – but there is evidence to suggest he wasn't scheduled to travel on it. Perhaps the genesis of the legend lies with a selection of Titanic's special Millionaire Suites. These were set aside for the richest passengers. One such was apparently designated the 'JP Morgan Suite', in his name. In this case then, the 'JP Morgan Suite' may have been confused with 'a suite for JP Morgan'. The suite was merely reserved for Morgan should he ever desire to take a berth on the ship (it is speculated they were suites B-52/54/56, costing $100k in today's money). But he was never going to be on this trip, because he never made a booking.

Morgan spent most of his time in Europe, rarely returning to America. When he did, it was in the calm and warmth of summer, rather than the cooler seasons when the Atlantic was more prone to bad weather. Between 1904 and 1912 Morgan crossed the Atlantic only twice before July – once, in 1908, for a family wedding. It should be noted here that Morgan didn't even travel on the Olympic – which was the company flagship when she had her maiden voyage. Unless he had specific plans to return to New York (we know he did not) it is very unlikely he would book passage on Titanic. Although he was present for the initial launches in Belfast, he never undertook a voyage on either ship. Morgan's travel plans are documented for this time period. The NY Times published in March, 1912 that ...Morgan [was] to be in Venice on April 23 for the inauguration of the biennial International Art Exhibition, and thereafter various additional appointments, [etc.] He could never have made it back to Venice in time (just 8 days later) for his engagements had he travelled to NY on the Titanic, bearing in mind the length of at least 5 days is required for a transatlantic crossing. In fact, the story of him cancelling at the last minute due to illness is absolute urban myth. There is no indication he made any cancellations, because he never made a booking.

A Misconception: Captain Smith is often cited as one of the most decorated Captains of his time, and that there had to be some 'shenanigans' involved for Titanic to sink, because he would never have been so error prone, his record was above reproach etc. Captain Smith was anything but a cautious or careful captain. His career was actually littered with incidents and accidents (some very expensive). Just a year before, he crashed the new Olympic HMS Hawke, causing huge damage, as we have seen. He was also 'credited' with smashing into a pier in New York whilst docking, almost completely wrecking it.

A Misconception: In a final irony, it is claimed that Captain Smith was scheduled to retire as soon as the Titanic put in at pier 54 in New York, on April 17th, which possibly adds 'weight' to the fact that he didn't mind dying for Morgan when the ship sank, as his career was already finished. This is untrue. Captain Smith had already been assigned to take command of the third Olympic ship, RMS Gigantic (later renamed Britannic) as soon as it was finished. He was after all only 62, and still had more years ahead of him as Commodore of the White Star Line.

==========

In the above article I have laid out approximately 90 data-points of key information, evidence, witnesses reports, inquest testimonies, as well as physical proof, that indicate very strongly in my opinion that the conspiracy claims in support of the switching, and then deliberate sinking of the Titanic, are entirely false. There is room for error in any investigation of course, and it is quite possible that I may have erred on one point or another, or have misrepresented or incorrectly reported a statistic or detail. But even if there were 1, or 2, or 6 points in error, it is statistically insignificant when weighed against the overwhelming remainder.

I believe THE ENTIRE CONSPIRACY THEORY is pure fiction: a hoax. Perhaps not a hoax in the deliberate, premeditated sense, but a collection of theories propagated by an unfortunate misconstruction of the facts, accentuated with what seems like a 'suspicious coincidence' (that Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus died). But it isn't a suspicious coincidence, on even a normal coincidence. They were all on a MEGA-RICH ship designed for MEGA-RICH people. They're not going to travel on anything less if they could help it. The mega-rich are always going to be on board ships like the Titanic. And when ships for the mega-rich sink, mega-rich people die – particularly with grossly inadequate lifeboat provision. It's simply cause and effect. It's logic.

People see a picture on the internet claiming the Titanic wreck is actually the Olympic and they buy it without further review. That's where this Titanic conspiracy theory all comes from. That it continues to persist is possibly down to conspiracy fervour in a world rife with them. That's understandable. But this is nothing like 9/11, JFK, or the UFO cover-up. When you add up ALL the Titanic evidence together, layer by layer, piece by piece, you can see the conspiracy theory is just simply not correct at all. There is no smoking gun here; there is no gun and not even any smoke.

SM

=================
Much material derived from:
Riddle of the Titanic
Titanic on Trial (Inquest Testimonies)
A Night to Remember
Shadow of the Titanic
Titanic and the California

Additional sources:
williammurdoch.net
Wikipedia
titanicuniverse.com
Federal Reserve System
titanicstory.com

Excellent work sir, some very sober and convincing points raised.

There is one small thing I would dispute but it does not change the overall conclusions you point to.

Quote:

---

Below is a side-by-side comparison of Titanic during her initial launch in Belfast (left),

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/atta...9&d=1455035470

---

That is not a ship about to undertake first launch, it is clearly not finished. No smoke stacks, they have not finished welding/riveting the plates on the top deck. I don't know if back then they might lower a ship into water to check water soundness, and have mistakenly referred to that as first launch, but certainly that picture is dry dock.

The Navy had several ships commisioned and built on the Tyne, they would have sea trials when they were obout 95% ready. If they past those then final fit went ahead (fixtures and fittings I suspect) preparatory to official launch.

Good work, again, well put together.

Many thanks Ewan, the picture is actually deceiving. It was actually taken during the initial launch from Slipway 3, on May 31st 1911. It is not the 'launch' from when she first went out to sea. The ship was so vast they had to launch her half-finished from the slipway and into Belfast Lough - the large inlet. At this stage there were no engines installed, boilers, funnels or any of the internal appointments. Such was her vast scale, everything had to be fitted in the wharf.

Here's the actual pic from a wider angle.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...at_Belfast.jpg

Ha - certainly dry dock indeed. :ROFL:

Thanks. :)

(edit: When you see a pic like that you can't help but wonder how they don't topple over. What percentage of the ship do you estimate to be below the waterline?)

WOW! What a piece of work, Star Mariner! :highfive: Thank you for sharing it with us! Amazing!!

if one is interrested in the topic (as I always have been- the official narrative never made much sense to me) one simply must read (aside from the Robin Gardiner research- he was the 1st to address this topic) Scottisch researcher John Hamer's 2 books "RMS Olympic" and the sequal 1/2 novel "Titanic's Last Secret"- Hamer is the author of the monumental "The Falsification of History"-

according to researcher Mike Sparks, author of the revealing biography of Ian Fleming entiteld "James Bond is Real" (another must-read), Robert Ballard, who discovered the "Tilympic" wreck in '85, told Sparks that one of the places where the name of this ship should appear he saw the letters "mp"-

we can forget the port hole differences; the major difference between the 2 ships was the front wall of the wheel house: the Titanic's was straight and the Olympic's was convex; according to the photos of the wreck provided in 2012 by National Geographic the front wall of the wheel house is slightly convex-

common, folks, there most definitely was a conspiracy; why can't people (especially on THIS website!!!) believe that even the "Titanic" sinking was shrouded in corruption, insurance fraud and cold-blooded murder at the expense of many innocent people?

the info provided by Star Mariner is a white wash of the incident (aren't we used to white washes yet?); most white washes sound very convincing; as stated by the provided info (following is paraphrase) "there is no proof of this or that"; ohhh, yes there is- tons of it- do the research- the info is out there if one is really interrested in the truth and not in extremely detailed, convincing-sounding white washes-

folks, it was most definitely the no longer seaworthy "Olympic" that was scuttled and not the "Titanic"; besides, an iceberg was NOT in the picture; read the Gardiner/Hamer books- they will curl your hair-

Larry

as an addendum to my previous posting (forgot to add this):

the fabricated Olympic/re-named bait-and-switch 'Titanic' disaster was one of the most perfect crimes of the 20th century- yep, they got away with it- hence the intensive, detailed white wash to cover it all up-

Larry

it was probably a variety of reasons
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hHvllU2gscs


https://youtube.com/watch?v=nj6Hqwmf77A

Quote:

---

Posted by Cardillac

if one is interrested in the topic (as I always have been- the official narrative never made much sense to me) one simply must read (aside from the Robin Gardiner research- he was the 1st to address this topic) Scottisch researcher John Hamer's 2 books "RMS Olympic" and the sequal 1/2 novel "Titanic's Last Secret"- Hamer is the author of the monumental "The Falsification of History"-[/i]

---

Yes I've read the books. They are entertaining, certainly informative on some of the history, but completely error prone. And they were slammed in peer reviews. Historians, scholars, and researchers in all associated fields echoed widespread condemnation for the theory. Because it was founded on faulty, missing, non-existent evidence, and is all vastly contradicted by the actual evidence.

Firstly, Dan Van Der Vat, Gardiner's writing partner, now describes the switch theory as "bilge". Take note of that. And take note of this example of one such peer review.

Researcher Inger Sheil writes,

Quote:

---

"What matters is the quality of research, and it is here – in his methodological approach – that Gardiner and his theories demonstrate fatal weakness. His distortions of facts, selective use of eyewitness testimony and sloppy inattention to detail are indicative of poor historiographical method[...]Some of his claims might be based on an element of an eyewitness account, but his loose methodology and tendency to emphasize anomalous elements rather than reading them in the context of other evidence distorts whatever grain of truth there might be beyond all recognition."

---

In his excellent, thoroughly detailed dissertation, Mark Chirnside writes,

Quote:

---

'As an example of [Gardiner's] distorted and selective use of eyewitness testimony, Gardiner refers to the configuration of Titanic's B Deck and alleges: "B Deck remained effectively a promenade deck from which a person walking along could see the lifeboats, if they were swung out, just as Steward Alfred Crawford did on the night of the sinking..." [But] Olympic's B Deck had a promenade running along both sides, Titanic's promenade vanished [my emphasis] with the installation of larger luxury suites..."

---

I discussed the B Deck issue in the first post. For further clarification, here is an image comparing the plan of B Deck for both vessels.

Attachment 36483

Gardiner's quote of: "that B Deck remained effectively an [open] promenade" is clearly not correct. And the promenade is a major aspect of the 'switch theory'. His assertion here is false, misleading, and an alarming indication that he is an unreliable reporter of evidence.

Seeing as several thousand words of evidence in the first post was not enough, we'll have to write some more...

Let us consider once again that this whole conspiracy theory was instigated by a financial crises to White Star, due to a collision between HMS Hawke and RMS Olympic in Southampton Water on September 20th, 1911. Olympic was damaged but not severely. Following the accident Olympic remained parked up in Southampton for assessment and to receive a temporary 'patch up'. It wasn't until she returned to Belfast approximately two weeks later that permanent repairs could be made, (circa October 4th 1911).

Here's a telling image. It is not known for absolute certain, but it is thought to have been originally taken for The Scotsman newspaper some time between October 7th, and October 11th, 1911.

http://www.paullee.com/titanic/TwoShips.jpg

In the background, is the recently arrived Olympic in the graving dock undergoing her repairs. In the foreground is Titanic barely even half finished. While much of her critical fitting-out was complete, with her engines, boilers, electrical turbines and other machinery mostly in place, other internal work, and only as far C Deck, was underway but not finished. Framing, panelling, and ceiling work was still being done. The main staircase was in position but not complete, and work on the elevators and elevator shafts was in hand but not complete. None of her 'luxury' fixtures and furnishings had been installed yet. And she only had one funnel at this point, as clearly pictured.

It's important to note that Olympic'srepairs were all completed within 6 weeks, by the end of November, at which point she returned into full service. For a switch to take place IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE HAPPENED WITHIN this 6 week window. Yes?

But for a hole in her hull, Olympic was a complete ship, already in service, and fully equipped and furnished. To pull off this switch, and to make Olympic look like Titanic, (inside six weeks) they would first have to switch slipways, then the Olympic would need to be stripped out and torn down, in fact they would have to DECONSTRUCT HALF OF THE ENTIRE ship overnight, because it would have to be done without anyone 'seeing.' Consider that Harland and Wolff is not isolated. Houses are dotted all around, most belonging to shipyard workers. And because of the great spectacle of these ships, there were many onlookers and reporters and photographers around the site ALL THE TIME. It's why and how we have this documentary evidence.

Anyway, after all that, they'd have to punch a large hole in Titanic's hull to simulate the Olympic collision. Then they would have to perform all the other necessary switches and changes as listed in the first post, which were huge in number and monumental in complexity and cost. And after that, they would have to perform all the sea trials for Titanic - this was she was yet to undergo, and she couldn't take a single paying passenger without this basic legal requirement.

A switch of just Titanic for Olympic, inside those 6 weeks, was not even slightly possible owing to the primitive state of Titanic's construction as of October 1911 (pictured). The Titanic was not completed until 31st March 1912. That is how far away she was from finished. In order for a switch to be possible, the Belfast workers would have to do almost 6 months of fitting-out work in just six weeks (or, as I have pointed out, in one night in order to do it undetected).

I mean honestly, it is out of the question. The Flat Earth theory really is a more plausible theory than this.

Quote:

---

Posted by Cardillac

according to researcher Mike Sparks, author of the revealing biography of Ian Fleming entiteld "James Bond is Real" (another must-read), Robert Ballard, who discovered the "Tilympic" wreck in '85, told Sparks that one of the places where the name of this ship should appear he saw the letters "mp"-

---

The letters "MP" seen on the Titanic wreck. You did not know the whole "MP" thing was fake? The video has been roundly denounced as a hoax, and it obviously is. No researcher, no dive team, no documentary expedition by either Robert Ballard and his Keldysh crew, the Wood's Hole institute, or indeed James Cameron, have ever found, seen, photographed, or reported any such anomaly of "MP" on the hull. Because it does not exist. Do the research. Follow the evidence. Brief, murky youtube videos claiming such are no better than youtube videos claiming a second Sun exists.

It was a terrible fake:

Attachment 36486

The letters are faint, incomplete, misaligned, wrong size, wrong typeface, wrongly spaced and in the wrong place on the hull. Secondly, you can clearly see the pixelated seam or stitching across the middle of the image, all clear indications of fakery.

This is what the OLYMPIC stamp actually looked like.

Attachment 36485

It's nothing like the video. The letters in the fake are far too narrowly spaced; they are embossed or extruded from the hull and not engraved within in. As already discussed, there were no rivets and no paint in the ship names. White Star engraved or incised the names into the hull. They were indelible, and unalterable.

Here's the actual footage of 'TITANIC' engraved into the hull, as first photographed in 1987.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sDRUW_JNrYk

And here's a computer-enhanced version of same:

Attachment 36484

Also if 'OLYMPIC' was somehow visible on the hull on the bottom of the Atlantic, then it was visible in Southampton as well when she set off on her maiden voyage. It would be highly strange for Belfast to 'miss' this obvious detail, and even stranger that thousands of people milling around Southampton docks, press included, 'missed' it as well.

Quote:

---

Posted by Cardillac

we can forget the port hole differences; the major difference between the 2 ships was the front wall of the wheel house: the Titanic's was straight and the Olympic's was convex; according to the photos of the wreck provided in 2012 by National Geographic the front wall of the wheel house is slightly convex-

---

Incorrect, along with everything else.

Titanic's wheelhouse was indeed straight, and Olympic's was convex. And photos of the wreck show the exact opposite to what you stated – Titanic's squared off wheelhouse.

This is a photograph of Olympic during the fitting-out process in the wharf. You can clearly see the base/outline of this convex wheelhouse configuration.

http://www.williammurdoch.net/images...wheelhouse.jpg

And below is a photograph of Titanic on the seafloor (beside it a rough diagram of Olympic's design for comparison). We see in the photograph what's left of the Titanic's wheelhouse base. It is completely squared off as it should be.

http://www.williammurdoch.net/images...wheelhouse.jpg

Quote:

---

Posted by Cardillac

common, folks, there most definitely was a conspiracy; why can't people (especially on THIS website!!!) believe that even the "Titanic" sinking was shrouded in corruption, insurance fraud and cold-blooded murder at the expense of many innocent people?

---

Because absolutely every piece of evidence plainly states the exact opposite.

Quote:

---

Posted by Cardillac

the info provided by Star Mariner is a white wash of the incident (aren't we used to white washes yet?); most white washes sound very convincing; as stated by the provided info (following is paraphrase) "there is no proof of this or that"; ohhh, yes there is- tons of it- do the research-

---

A whitewash? That's unfair. I've done a lot of work on this. I have done the research. Have you? It's all laid out in the first post. Did you read it? Any of it? You say there is 'evidence of a conspiracy' - tons of it. Where? I have done in-depth research on this and found none.

Please listen. I do understand your position. It is much easier to rigidly stick to one's original stance than go off and spend time actually testing it. I'm interested in one thing: the Truth, and testing the Truth. And the truth of the Titanic is revealed by abundant proof and evidence. Forget 'popular narrative', 'memes', and forget 'belief', no matter how seductive it is. When something like this can be evidenced, proven this strongly and this far, you must take note and form new opinions accordingly. Or you really are in trouble.

Star Mariner - interesting research. Do you have any take on the coal fire theory which hit the papers some months ago and there was even a Channel 4 TV documentary about (which I missed)?

Quote:

---

Posted by kemo

Star Mariner - interesting research. Do you have any take on the coal fire theory which hit the papers some months ago and there was even a Channel 4 TV documentary about (which I missed)?

---

Thanks Kemo
Yes there was a smouldering fire in stokeholes 9 and 10, which initially began at least two if not three weeks before Titanic sailed. It was finally extinguished on the Saturday afternoon, two days before the collision with the iceberg. Coal fires were not rare events on ocean liners, in fact pretty common.

It's quite possible the fire did play a role in the disaster. Scientific analyses of how steel behaves in fires, particularly long duration fires, points to their having been a gradual failure, and potential fracturing, of the forward watertight bulkheads - next to where these coal bunkers were. The heat made the steel brittle. This is backed up by surviving Titanic firemen who, in their testimonies, were of the opinion that when seawater rushed these sections, they collapsed - when they may have otherwise resisted the pressure.

In any event, it is a widely held opinion among Titanic scholars and researchers and naval architects/engineers, that weakened steel and failing bulkheads only accelerated the flooding of the ship, and therefore the sinking. But the ship would've sunk anyway.

Belated thanks for the further info

Nice compilation. This is a deep one, and likely impossible to figure out, but--aside from whether or not the Titanic is a murder mystery--at that time, there was a fairly deep seated resentment from Old Money (e. g., Astor) towards New Money (e. g., Morgan). So it was no case of "all the rich for the rich"--more of a shark tank amongst them.

Also, it would be unnecessary to be specifically opposed to the Federal Reserve prior to its creation--the politics of opposing that type of central bank had been around since at least the 1770s.

Those things remain the case whether the Titanic itself was a murder, an insurance fraud, or an accident.

A couple more things come to mind. Firstly, a Jesuit "Co-adjutor", which is a non-priest commissioned by them as an agent, what Capt. Smith is considered to be--not "a Jesuit".

Also, for the murder angle to work, it is unnecessary to have a plot of luring three specific individuals for the sole purpose of the Federal Reserve. All that's really needed is for Astor to get on the ship, and the choice to respond could be made at pretty much the last minute. There definitely would have been motive, even if only being, Morgan did not like the guy and simply wanted the rivalry eliminated.

What I've learned from looking into this is not really any proof whether the Titanic sinking was intentional or not...but that the "Old 400" of New York were pure WASPS that did not like Catholics, Jews, or the "nouveaux riches". That's probably a much deeper factor in social engineering. As for the possibility of Jesuit involvement, I see it stated that Capt. Smith was not on the bridge at impact. Are there clear, primary sources that tell us exactly what happened on the bridge during the final few hours?

I came across this today and thought it was interesting. The Wreck of the Titan: Or, Futility by Morgan Robertson was published in 1898, fourteen years before the sinking of the Titanic. Maybe the book was designed as some kind of template for the populace which would imply at least that many years of foreknowledge.

allthatsinteresting

Quote:

---

In 1898, a man named Morgan Robertson penned a novel titled The Wreck of the The Wreck of the Titan: Or, Futility. The story was that of a man named John Rowland, an alcoholic and disgraced former Naval officer, who takes a job aboard the Titan, the worlds largest vessel. Robertson describes it as “unsinkable,” and “among the greatest works of men.” The Titan strikes an iceberg on its journey, sinking, and becoming one of the worlds greatest tragedies.

The tale could almost be an exact retelling of the Titanic tragedy, if not for its release date. In fact, that’s what makes it even more eerie.

The similarities between the Titan and the Titanic go far beyond a name and an iceberg. The length of the titan was 800 feet, the Titanic 882. The speed at which the Titan cruised into the iceberg was 25 knots. The Titanic’s was 22.5. The Titan held 2,500 passengers. The Titanic held 2,200, though both had a capacity of 3,000.

Both ships were British owned. Both ships were hit on their starboard bow, around midnight. Both sank in the North Atlantic exactly 400 nautical miles from Newfoundland. Both had a severe lack of lifeboats, the Titan holding 24, and Titanic carrying just 20. Both had a triple screw propeller.

---