• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Titanic Conspiracy

A

Anonymous

Guest
Did anyone read the item in the Daily Mail last week suggesting the white star line swapped the olympic for the titanic and sank the olympic on purpose for an insurance scam becuase the olympic had been damaged in an accident?

I can't remember all of the article but there was supporting evidence..
 
I, the theory that the RMS Titanic and her sister RMS Olympic had somehow been "switched" as an insurance scam. Even though this was admitted to have been disproved by the recovery of a number of items from the wreck site which bear the Yard Number 401 (Harland and Wolf's Build Number for the Titanic) the film makers had still got both their facts and their story wrong. The facts do, however, have a strange twist to the tail!
Click to expand...

if this is the same story, then it appears to be based on bad journalism and wishful thinking, the Titanic Unsinkable built by the Irish and Captained by a Stokie... it sank i blame the Stokie.
 
Where is that quote from and what was the twist in the tale?
 
I heard about this a while ago. Can't remember when or where though :(
 
There were just too many unfortunate coincidences with Titanic.

Icebergs weren't usually that far south that time of year. They forgot the binoculars. Not that they would have helped, because the sea was unnaturally calm, so they couldn't see the water breaking against the base of the berg. First Officer told them to switch the engines off, then tried to turn her. Big mistake. Then tried to reverse. Big mistake.

If she'd have hit head on, she'd have made it to New York. Dented, but unbowed. Imagine the press frenzy.

She lasted two and a half hours from impact before sinking. Any other ship would have sunk immediately.

She was carrying more lifeboats than the statutory requirement. Still not enough, of course. But more than necessary.

People didn't believe she was sinking and wouldn't get in the boats.

Arrogant prats like Cosmo Duff Gordon, one of the 12 people in a life boat built for 60-70. The boat refused to go back for survivors. There was him, his wife, the secretary, and the rest were crew members. Things like that make me angry.

And the captain of Carpathia. What an amazing guy! He knew Titanic was out there, unsinkable but sinking, with icebergs and growlers. He had a little Cunard liner, but he made it about 2 hours quicker than he said he could, through incredibly dangerous waters, at full speed. I remember reading that he found Titanic as the sun rose, and he looked out over the ocean and saw nothing but ice bergs and growlers. And he said that whoever had been guiding his ship, it wasn't him. Amazing.

And that twonk Cameron didn't put it in the sodding film. No - instead he made up some pathetic fictional piece of clap trap and ruined a beautiful looking film with fairytales, when there was more drama, tragedy and heartbreak in the true story than anything he could come up with.

Which is a very long winded way to say that I don't believe any conspiracy. Why would they? There was nothing to gain. They killed some of the cream of society. You don't do that deliberately. It was a complete disaster. There was no benefit to it at all.

Poor Bruce Ismay took all the flak, when all he was was a figurehead. His brother's horse won the National a few years later, and they stripped the win from him rather than announce the name Ismay over the tannoys. That's how high feelings ran.
 
My great grandfather was on one of the rescue ships. Cant remember which one, tho`
 
Originally posted by Ravenstone
Which is a very long winded way to say that I don't believe any conspiracy. Why would they? There was nothing to gain. They killed some of the cream of society. You don't do that deliberately. It was a complete disaster. There was no benefit to it at all.
Click to expand...


So some good came of it then :D (sorry)

That reminds me of another story about the Titanic - that a passenger on board had to be killed at all costs otherwise global war would be inevitable. Needless to say, he survived.

Jane.
 
Chris Baker said:
Did anyone read the item in the Daily Mail last week suggesting the white star line swapped the olympic for the titanic and sank the olympic on purpose for an insurance scam becuase the olympic had been damaged in an accident?

I can't remember all of the article but there was supporting evidence..
Click to expand...

Well then, the Daily Mail. Good Source! A Wee bit too hard for you too remember all the "facts"?
 
The story was in fact in the Daily Express and based soley on a Sky One discussion programme from a week previous.
The "switch theory" has been investigated exclusively for 30 years by author Robin Gardiner, who has so far published two books, Riddle of the Titanic and The Ship That Never sank. Another explaining the reasons why the switch was made is out next year.
The Express story would have been more accurate if they had bothered to refer to Robin instead of quoting him indiscriminately and inaccurately. That's newspapers for you.
I'd be interested to hear views on this from anyone who has read the books. The Titanic purists think, of course, that Robin is bonkers. He isn't. I know him well.
 
There is a family legend or uncorroborated story more like that one of my family a few generations back was working on the Titanic as an engineer, probably the hammer and rivet sort rather than the blueprint sort. Anyhow the story went that he was given a return ticket for working hard to get the project finished on time.
Allegedly because he was awarded the ticket and didn't purchace the ticket, his name was not on the passenger register.
So the story goes uncorroborated:(
Needless to say he didn't make it back to tell the story.
 
Yes it is very easily dismissed by people who set themselves up as experts but know little.
I was in fact thrown of this site for daring to differ with the "purist" line.
Robin proves every statement with evidence, they just make statements.
 
Actually, these experts on those websites, who have been following the ship since they were young, and are now advanced of age (!) have followed up their research with pages and pages of research. Have a look for a book called "Titanic - the truth behind the conspiracy".
 
Not too sure about the conspiracy aspects regarding the Titanic but my family also has an interesting story about it.

My great grandfather, before my grandfather was born, was a stoker on the Titanic. At least he would have been if he hadn't arrived at Southampton docks twenty odd minutes too late - the ship sailed without him. It was, allegedly, one of the few times he was ever late. If he hadn't have been I wouldn't exist.

Philiusfog
 
Old? As soon as I mentioned Robin Gardiner a young German lady who must have been all of 27 judging by her picture became most abusive.
I have referred to Robin's two books above, read those and see what you think. They are both available on Amazon. Riddle was published by Orion, the second by Ian Allen.
Interesting story about the stoker!
 
Oh I see Paul, you're one of the Titanica board too, playing one end off against the other. Typical.
 
Now, now - if you can't play nicely, you'll be sent to bed without tea.

While not a major interest of mine, the Titanic story and the legends, myths etc. associated I've found interesting. I've always thought that as soon as it was declared unsinkable then it was bound to gather many stories around it.
 
:D Rather unnerving when parts of messages I post here end up on Titanica within seconds.
 
storyman, you weren't the person who left the E-T board for being abusive and rude were you? A publisher came on a few month back defending Gardiner, and was there only to raise
the hackles of everyone on the board (including one who retorted
that Gardiner's work was "intellectual fraud").
 
I'm probably that very person. I wasn't there to raise any hackles at all, the mere mention of Robin's name seems to do that in those hallowed circles!
Now I came into this post to answer a question, I don't intend discussing the blinkered posters of Titanica in this forum.
Intellectual fraud eh? That's a new one, I thought he wrote books, and yes, you are allowed to profit from that.
Robin is a straightforward man who will answer anyone who deals with him with civility as will I. I am his agent.;)
 
Titanic Disaster: New Theory Fingers Coal Fire

Heres another interesting piece on the Titanic.

Source: Geological Society Of America
Date: 2004-11-11
URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108020906.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Titanic Disaster: New Theory Fingers Coal Fire
A smoldering coal fire – and the continuing attempt to control it through the voyage – may have led to the sinking of the Titanic 92 years ago, says engineer Robert Essenhigh of Ohio State University.

While everyone knows it was a collision with an iceberg that sank the White Star Liner on her maiden voyage, nobody knows why the Titanic was sailing full steam through a known iceberg field at night. Coal’s tendency to ignite and smolder while stored may provide the answer, says Essenhigh. There are records that there was such a fire in the Titanic’s forward bunker #6.

Essenhigh will be presenting his theory on Sunday at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver, in a session entitled Wild Coal Fires: Burning Questions with Global Consequences?

First of all, says Essenhigh, it’s important to rule out the reason for speed put forth in the movies: to set a speed record or impress other sailors. The crew of the Titanic couldn’t have been trying to break any records crossing the North Atlantic Ocean, says Essenhigh, because according to the published records the Titanic was built for comfort, not speed.

“There was a further problem that because of a miners strike, there wasn’t originally enough coal on the ship for sailing at full speed and the original plan was to sail at half-speed and take it easy,” Essenhigh said. “It wasn’t designed as the fastest ship.” Plus, according to the published records the crew was getting radio reports of icebergs from other ships, so a slow down would have made sense. There are reports that one ship in the area was so cautious that they stopped dead in the water to await daylight before proceeding, he said.

So if there was a reason for the speed, it had to be something important – like a fire in the coal bunker that needed to be kept under control and then put out as soon as the ship reached port.

The standard technique for controlling and eliminating such fires on steamships was to increase the rate at which the coal was being removed from the bunker and put into the steam engine boiler in order to increase the rate of draw-down of the coal pile, Essenhigh explains. When the firemen reached the smoldering fire they would just shovel it into the boiler and the problem was solved.

Of course, all that shoveling makes for a lot of steam, resulting in the need to increase the steaming rate and quicker cruising.

Historical records show that on leaving dock each of the six of Titanic’s coal bunkers were only about half-full with 800 tons of coal. Based on laboratory experiments on coal burning rates done at Sheffield University in the 1950s, Essenhigh estimates that at full throttle, the Titanic’s coal supply would have been dropping at about an inch per hour. If that is correct, a festering fire halfway down the coal pile would have been burning up at about the same rate as it was being drawn down and would not have been reached and removed by the time of the iceberg collision. There would still be a reason for the speed on that fateful night.

“It’s very speculative,” Essenhigh admits. But not far fetched. Smoldering fires in piles of coal even today is a common thing – and there are even records from fire control teams at the ports of Southampton and Cherbourg that such a fire was burning onboard the Titanic.

“This was a chronic problem,” says Essenhigh of coal fires on all coal-fired steam ships and even in coal fired power plants today. “If the fire is there you know it’s there and it’s very difficult to get it out.”

What Sank the Titanic? The Possible Contribution of the Bunker Fire Sunday, November 7, 9:15-9:30 a.m., CCC 102 Abstract may be viewed at: http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004AM/finalprogram/abstract_80510.htm

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here.
http://www.geosociety.org/news/pr/04-30.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Geological Society Of America.
 
If you read official statements you'll find everything right, but that is partly true. True is every project of that size ship must have been built to enable its sinking easily when it is in need like not to fall in enemies hands. I read that many ships were sunk after battles lost.
So Titanic could been sabotaged like any other ship. It is unbelievable that one iceberg made such damage to the ship.
It is a tragedy indeed, but that is the reason more to find the truth.
 
I would have thought that would only have applied to military ships. I know the bismark had such a facility and the germans opened water valves to sink it quickly when they knew they were sinking, but I wouldn't have thought the titanic had such a facility.

I'm sure an iceberg could have done so much damage when ships were not built to such high standards in 1910.
 
The fact there was a fire in the bunker is not a new story. Robin Gardiner knew of it in his first book "Riddle of the Titanic". I think you'll find there are more sinister things behind the Titanic than a bunker fire, which was probably already burning when the ship set sail!
 
Often spontaneously and then carry on because of their surroundings.
 
I was thinking maybe that as tons of coal are poured in, the friction of coal rubbing against coal under collosal pressure could cause enough heat to ignite it.

There must be a scientific reason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top