Political Crossfire Forums

breeze · Joined: 04 Aug 2006 Posts: 6 Location: QLD, Australia

I have been researching the Titanic for severl years now, and it has turned into something of an obsession. I recently read a book "The Riddle of the Titanic", and It suggests that the titanic was not an accident, it was a set up. They had some pretty good evidence to back up that statement too, and I've got to say that some of it is quite convincing.

I was wondering what you guys thought on the subject...

ATrow · Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 114 Location: Colorado

It was in the very early 1900's. People's ability to sabotage was limited to large, bulky amounts of TNT and huge conspriacies (bribes) from affluent levels. Since most surviving passengers recall seeing the iceberg I would say the latter is more likely, but then, what you the affluents' motives be? And who did they conspire with? The captain and crew? Did they pay them money? If they did, that was silly of the captain and crew because most of them went down with the ship!

So, I think no.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

breeze wrote: I have been researching the Titanic for severl years now, and it has turned into something of an obsession. I recently read a book "The Riddle of the Titanic", and It suggests that the titanic was not an accident, it was a set up. They had some pretty good evidence to back up that statement too, and I've got to say that some of it is quite convincing.

I was wondering what you guys thought on the subject...

Is this the theory about the Titanic/Olympic switch? If so, it's got more holes than ever sank the Titanic!

But like you, the Titanic fascinates me.

thundertaker · Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject:

It would have been stupid for anyone on board to try and sabotage the Titanic, it was well known there weren't enough lifeboats for everyone, so there would be no guarantee they would have been able to get off the ship....

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

breeze wrote: I have been researching the Titanic for severl years now, and it has turned into something of an obsession. I recently read a book "The Riddle of the Titanic", and It suggests that the titanic was not an accident, it was a set up. They had some pretty good evidence to back up that statement too, and I've got to say that some of it is quite convincing.

I was wondering what you guys thought on the subject...

The Titanic was a result of hubris.

breeze · Joined: 04 Aug 2006 Posts: 6 Location: QLD, Australia

Well in the book it suggests - as stated above - that the Titanic and the Olympic might have been switched, then the "Olympic" intentionally driven into the iceberg. This may have been done to get rid of the Olympic, the dud ship, and to claim the insurance on the Titanic.

I still believe it was an incident, but they have some pretty hard evidence...

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

breeze wrote: Well in the book it suggests - as stated above - that the Titanic and the Olympic might have been switched, then the "Olympic" intentionally driven into the iceberg. This may have been done to get rid of the Olympic, the dud ship, and to claim the insurance on the Titanic.

I still believe it was an incident, but they have some pretty hard evidence...

It's a fun theory but has been debunked by several academic studies. The principle evidence surrounds supposed changes to the superstructure of the RMS Titanic; this simply is not borne out by papers held at Harland and Woolf in Belfast. The switch theory depends on the idea that the Titanic did not hit an iceberg but was in fact rammed by a phantom ship; in addition, that the Californian would be at a certain point at a certain time. With the navigation and communication aids available at the time, this is fantastical. Not only that, the switch theory was put to sleep when the Titanic's serial number was discovered on the propellor shaft of the wreck that currently lies at the bottom of the Atlantic.

But as I say, it's a really fun theory and well worth reading about!

micfranklin · Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:38 am Post subject:

I finished watching the Titanic movie about two days ago :-D

But anyway, one thing that always puzzled me was why enough lifeboats weren't built on the ship. Even if it was "unsinkable," surely you'd think they'd be prepared for anything.

Pebble · Joined: 12 Nov 2005 Posts: 1143

Interesting; i'd never before realised that the Titanic had sister ships.

Wyatt Earp · Joined: 03 Jul 2006 Posts: 358

micfranklin wrote: I finished watching the Titanic movie about two days ago :-D

But anyway, one thing that always puzzled me was why enough lifeboats weren't built on the ship. Even if it was "unsinkable," surely you'd think they'd be prepared for anything.

Having a 10 year old daughter I get stuck watching that movie as much as Dirty Dancing, As it said in the movie the reason why there was not enough life boats was not to clutter about the deck.

DSwain · Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552

micfranklin wrote: I finished watching the Titanic movie about two days ago :-D

But anyway, one thing that always puzzled me was why enough lifeboats weren't built on the ship. Even if it was "unsinkable," surely you'd think they'd be prepared for anything.

The Board of Trade regs did not require vessels to carry lifeboats accoring to passengers but only to tonnage.

AceKingQueenJack · Joined: 19 Jun 2006 Posts: 389 Location: North Carolina

Wasn't it the R.M.S. Titanic, not the S.S. Titanic? I may be wrong, i am just curious.

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 11303 Location: Kansas

Thats correct Royal Mail Ship

As for a fit up - no she sank by pure accident

There are a couple of unusual aspects regarding nearby ships, but they are now lost in the mists of time

micfranklin · Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject:

Exactly how much of the Titanic is still left at the bottom of the Atlantic?

thundertaker · Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject:

micfranklin wrote: Exactly how much of the Titanic is still left at the bottom of the Atlantic?

I would say most of it........

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 11303 Location: Kansas

Quote: Interesting; i'd never before realised that the Titanic had sister ships.

Yes she was one of three

Olympic - sold for scrap in 1935

Titanic - Sunk April 1912

Britannic - Sank Nov 1916 after hitting a mine or torpedoe. She never entered Liner service and was taken by the British government as a hospital ship for WW2

Quote: Exactly how much of the Titanic is still left at the bottom of the Atlantic?

Thats correct. The vessel is in two pieces amidst a very scattered debris field. It is believed that after the sinking a sea quake helped push the wreck further down the side the seamount it was resting on

Pzatchok · Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 7644

MG1962 wrote: Quote: Interesting; i'd never before realised that the Titanic had sister ships.

Yes she was one of three

Olympic - sold for scrap in 1935

Titanic - Sunk April 1912

Britannic - Sank Nov 1916 after hitting a mine or torpedoe. She never entered Liner service and was taken by the British government as a hospital ship for WW2

Quote: Exactly how much of the Titanic is still left at the bottom of the Atlantic?

Thats correct. The vessel is in two pieces amidst a very scattered debris field. It is believed that after the sinking a sea quake helped push the wreck further down the side the seamount it was resting on

I think your dates for WW2 are off a bit. Or the sinking date for the Britanic

Wizard From Oz · Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 11303 Location: Kansas

Quote: I think your dates for WW2 are off a bit. Or the sinking date for the Britanic

:lol: Sigh everyones a critic - Yes you are right - Should be WW1