The Titanic, swapped?

[Jubee]

A friend mentioned this to me last week and it just blew my mind. Don't know what to think of it but it seems entirely plausible.
A very interesting read, wouldn't be surprising, since as one saying goes "the Federal Reserve is no more Federal than Federal Express".

https://theunredacted.com/titanic-conspiracy-the-ship-that-never-sank/

Did The Sinking of The Titanic Help Create The Federal Reserve?
http://yournewswire.com/did-the-sinking-of-the-titanic-help-create-the-federal-reserve/

The 3 men below, were all against a global banking system, ironic that they all died on the same boat?
http://www.businessinsider.com/cons...l-reserve-proponents-sank-the-titanic-2015-10

 

[MissCroft]

 

[Aardvark154]

One problem with this theory is that Colonel and Mrs. Astor had on short notice booked passage on the Titanic.

 

[huckfinn]

One problem with this theory is that Colonel and Mrs. Astor had on short notice booked passage on the Titanic.

One of many problems with this theory.

 

[Aardvark154]

One of many problems with this theory.

Absolutely!

 

[james t kirk]

Titanic was not swapped with Olympic. End of story.

Titanic and Olympic were Sister ships (along with Britannic) but were not identical. The wreck on the bottom of the ocean is clearly Titanic.

1. When Titanic was discovered by Dr Robert Ballard in 1985, he photographed the ship extensively. Several photos, including one of her prop showed the number "401" clearly visible. 401 was Titanic 's assigned yard number. (Olympic was 400). Each number is unique to each ship and all major components would have the number 401 visible (as we see in the case of the prop).

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for Harland and Wolff to have taken Olympic's props off and put them on Titanic and vice versa. You need a drydock and in Belfast there was only one that could accommodate one ship at one time. You would need to move Olympic into the dry dock, strip her of all her components labelled "400" and then move her out (how do you do that?), then move Titanic in, strip her of all components labelled 401, swap in 400, then move out Titanic and move in Olympic and put everything from Titanic onto Olympic. You'd need to remove the engines, the boilers, the command controls, the valves, the pipes, virtually half the ship. It's absurd.

In addition the name Titanic was embossed on the stern and port and starboard bow and there are several photos of Titanic leaving on her maiden voyage and at the bottom of the ocean with the name Titanic clearly visible. To have changed out her plates that were embossed would have required a visit to the dry dock and busting thousands of rivets to swap or replace the plates on both ships. This would take weeks if not months and given that Harland and Wolfe had 15,000 employees at the time, somebody is going to notice and question it.

Titanic hit an iceberg in April 1912 and sunk on its maiden voyage because it was going to fast in iceberg infested waters and no one saw the berg until it was too late. Anything else is foolish.

 

[spaman]

I was under the impression it was an insurance job because the Oceanic was damaged beyond repair from some previous incidents. The idea was to rendezvous with the Carpathia but it was in wrong position and too far away to save anybody

 

[great bear]

It was all Obama's fault.

 

[james t kirk]

I was under the impression it was an insurance job because the Oceanic was damaged beyond repair from some previous incidents. The idea was to rendezvous with the Carpathia but it was in wrong position and too far away to save anybody

Olympic not Oceanic. Olympic was involved in a collision with the HMS Hawke and was slightly damaged. It was a million miles from a write off. Unless it's keel is broken, any ship can be repaired.

Olympic was the first of the 3 sisters in the Olympic class of ships. Olympic was Yard No. 400.

Titanic was the second Sister and was Yard No. 401

Brittanic was the third Sister and was Yard No. 402. Brittanic was converted to a hospital ship for world war 1 and was (depending who you listen to) either torpedoed by a German submarine or it hit a mine (most likely) in the Agean Sea. I.e Brittanic was sunk (and subsequently discovered by Jacques Cousteau.)

Truly an unlucky group of ships.

brittanic never saw service as a passenger liner.

 

[spaman]

Olympic not Oceanic. Olympic was involved in a collision with the USS Hawker and was slightly damaged. It was a million miles from a write off. Unless it's keel is broken, any ship can be repaired.

Olympic was the first of the 3 sisters in the Olympic class of ships. Olympic was Yard No. 400.

Titanic was the second Sister and was Yard No. 401

Brittanic was the third Sister and was Yard No. 402. Brittanic was converted to a hospital ship for world war 1 and was (depending who you listen to) either torpedoed by a German submarine or it hit a mine (most likely) in the Agean Sea.

Truly an unlucky group of ships.

brittanic never saw service as a passenger liner.

I have been corrected thank you. I was also under the impression that in fact the keel was damaged and the boat had a slight permanent list

 

[huckfinn]

I was under the impression it was an insurance job because the Oceanic was damaged beyond repair from some previous incidents. The idea was to rendezvous with the Carpathia but it was in wrong position and too far away to save anybody

I would think there would still be an insurance payout, and there is also the value of salvaging all the items on the ship, including the metal itself.

Sinking a ship full of people would be a ridiculously risky way to get insurance money. Why not sink it when it was empty?

They could have also sunk it because before it departed for the US, it went from Southampton to Cherbourg, then on to Cobh (now Queenstown) in Ireland.

There was less than 300 on board for those 2 legs of the journey, and they were a lot closer to help.

 

[spaman]

I would think there would still be an insurance payout, and there is also the value of salvaging all the items on the ship, including the metal itself.

Sinking a ship full of people would be a ridiculously risky way to get insurance money. Why not sink it when it was empty?

They could have also sunk it because before it departed for the US, it went from Southampton to Cherbourg, then on to Cobh (now Queenstown) in Ireland.

There was less than 300 on board for those 2 legs of the journey, and they were a lot closer to help.

^ all of what you are saying is true, but what would sink the ship? The ruse was to use the iceberg as the reason for the sinking. And no one could recover any such wreck at the bottom of the north Atlantic.

 

[huckfinn]

^ all of what you are saying is true, but what would sink the ship? The ruse was to use the iceberg as the reason for the sinking. And no one could recover any such wreck at the bottom of the north Atlantic.

True, but they couldn't even see far enough ahead of the ship to find icebergs to hit. How do you aim for something you can't see?

At the time of the Titanic's sinking, they didn't have the technology to retrieve the ship from any deep water I would surmise.

 

[james t kirk]

Here's a picture of the RMS Olympic after it was struck by HMS Hawke.

The damage is minimal and given that Olympic was 93' wide, and almost 900 feet long, the bow of the Hawke came nowhere near the keel of Olympic.

 

[anon1]

Aliens

 

[GPIDEAL]

Titanic was not swapped with Olympic. End of story.

Titanic and Olympic were Sister ships (along with Britannic) but were not identical. The wreck on the bottom of the ocean is clearly Titanic.

1. When Titanic was discovered by Dr Robert Ballard in 1985, he photographed the ship extensively. Several photos, including one of her prop showed the number "401" clearly visible. 401 was Titanic 's assigned yard number. (Olympic was 400). Each number is unique to each ship and all major components would have the number 401 visible (as we see in the case of the prop).

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for Harland and Wolff to have taken Olympic's props off and put them on Titanic and vice versa. You need a drydock and in Belfast there was only one that could accommodate one ship at one time. You would need to move Olympic into the dry dock, strip her of all her components labelled "400" and then move her out (how do you do that?), then move Titanic in, strip her of all components labelled 401, swap in 400, then move out Titanic and move in Olympic and put everything from Titanic onto Olympic. You'd need to remove the engines, the boilers, the command controls, the valves, the pipes, virtually half the ship. It's absurd.

In addition the name Titanic was embossed on the stern and port and starboard bow and there are several photos of Titanic leaving on her maiden voyage and at the bottom of the ocean with the name Titanic clearly visible. To have changed out her plates that were embossed would have required a visit to the dry dock and busting thousands of rivets to swap or replace the plates on both ships. This would take weeks if not months and given that Harland and Wolfe had 15,000 employees at the time, somebody is going to notice and question it.

Titanic hit an iceberg in April 1912 and sunk on its maiden voyage because it was going to fast in iceberg infested waters and no one saw the berg until it was too late. Anything else is foolish.

Right. Didn't they also say or find, that the metal used was a cheaper quality, if not defective, which caused rivets and plates to rip apart easier? Also that the design worsened the sinking. That is, there were moveable, vertical bulkheads that did not seal at the top (no ceiling), so that as the water filled, it cascaded over into the next section.

 

[Aardvark154]

Right. Didn't they also say or find, that the metal used was a cheaper quality, if not defective, which caused rivets and plates to rip apart easier? Also that the design worsened the sinking. That is, there were moveable, vertical bulkheads that did not seal at the top (no ceiling), so that as the water filled, it cascaded over into the next section.

Remember that these four sister ships were at the cutting edge of technology at the time -- in terms both of size and metallurgy.

 

[james t kirk]

Remember that these four sister ships were at the cutting edge of technology at the time -- in terms both of size and metallurgy.

3 Sister ships, not 4

Olympic
Titanic
Brittanic

And they were not quite cutting edge. That honour would have probably gone to the Mauritania and Lusitania which were Cunard ships. Cunard used John Brown Shipyards on the Clyde to build their ships and John Brown had the reputation as being much more cutting edge than Harland and Wolff of Belfast. For example, Lusitania could have steamed circles around all the Olympic class ships despite the Olympic class ships being newer. Brown had pioneered turbines and readily employed them as opposed to Harland and Wolff which stuck with the old style reciprocating engines (Though the Olympics did feature a low pressure turbine centre screw, her outside screws were reciprocating engines (albeit the triple expansion type).)

The Lusitania by comparison featured four ultra modern high pressure turbines and Lusitania was capable of 28 knots. In comparison the Olympic class ships were capable of 21 or 22 knots. Mauritania's hull was also very different than the Olympics, which were built along the lines of yachts of the day.

John Brown on the Clyde was always known to be willing to adopt the newest Engineering as opposed to Harland and Wolff which was known to be more conservative and preferred "tried and true" technology.

Also, Cunard always prided itself on the speed of its ships and White Star (owners of Titanic) prided itself on having the most luxurious ships in the world.

 

[james t kirk]

Right. Didn't they also say or find, that the metal used was a cheaper quality, if not defective, which caused rivets and plates to rip apart easier? Also that the design worsened the sinking. That is, there were moveable, vertical bulkheads that did not seal at the top (no ceiling), so that as the water filled, it cascaded over into the next section.

The steel of the Titanic was the best available at the time. There has been more conspiracy theories about the steel and rivets in particular being substandard and it's all been prooven to be nonsense.

The steel used in its construction would not compare to modern steels. I'm going to guess it was probably 36 ksi steel back then compared to 50 ksi steel now. Also, modern steels can be made tough to resist cracking, but cracking and toughness is much more critical in cold temperatures, like - 20 C and below. Ships are in water and water is above 0 C.

Titanic was designed to stay afloat with her first 4 compartments flooded. The Collision with the iceberg resulted in her first 6 compartments being flooded and from there it was a mathematical certainty that she was doomed. The water simply poured over the tops of the water tight bulkheads as the ship dropped down at the bow under the weight of the water.

 

[Aardvark154]

And they were not quite cutting edge. That honour would have probably gone to the Mauritania and Lusitania which were Cunard ships. Cunard used John Brown Shipyards on the Clyde to build their ships and John Brown had the reputation as being much more cutting edge than Harland and Wolff of Belfast.

You are of course correct that there were only three ships not four in the class. Also that in terms of engineering the Cunard ships were superior being driven by high pressure steam turbines.

The White Star ships were, however, larger and in civilian services more luxurious. White Star deliberately opted for a hybrid system of reciprocating engines driving the outboard propellers and a low-pressure turbine driving the center propeller. This produced less vibration for the luxurious passenger experience upon which White Star prided itself.