Evidence The Titanic Was Sunk on Purpose (1 Viewer)

[zyzygy]

It's plausible that they did but the mainstream would never report something like that. People who know too much usually don't speak out as they know they or their loved ones may have "Accidents", or die in "Robberies", or "Commit suicide" if they do.

It would have been one of the discoveries of the century. Stop clutching at minuscule straws. Who would have done the murdering and why? The bleedin' ship sank in 1912! This is getting very silly.

 

[gamolon]

There good reason to doubt.

You have provided not one factual piece of evidence that proves there should be doubt of any kind. All you have is wild speculation and assumptions thrown together to form a fantasy.

There's no credible proof that the Titanic was the ship that underwent the modification.

There's plenty of proof. You just choose to ignore or discount it because YOU believe people involved in the conspiracy have removed photos and descriptions and replaced them with fake ones. This belief of "gatekeepers" in regards to the Titanic and Olympic is based on... Nothing whatsoever.

The Olympic may have undergone the modification during its seven-week repair.

Nope. You have yet to provide ANY evidence whatsoever of this claim. There is plenty of evidence against this claim. Again, you brush it aside due to your "gatekeeper" beliefs and that's all there is to it.

After that, it would have been presented as the Titanic and all the photos of it since then would have had the name Titanic on them.

Baloney. Now your changing the theory that you believe in. It clearly states in the video that only the names were to be changed as the Titanic and the Olympic were exactly the same. Isn't that correct Scott? Or are you saying that he theory presented in the video is now bogus?

That would have been the official story since the end of the repairs so it's plusible that there wouldn't be any pictures of the modified ship with the name Olympic on them.

You have refused to answer anything about the photo below. This photo is the basis of you claiming that the wreckage photo is of the Olympic. Now some questions please.
1. Is the photo below a photo of the Olympic after it was altered during repairs and then renamed the Titanic?
2. Is it a photo of the Olympic BEFORE it was modified?
3. What is this photo supposed to be evidence of in your opinion?

An objective truth-seeker has neither a naive willingness to believe, nor an a priori incredulity. You people have a naive willingness to believe when you look at the official info and an a priori incredulity when you look at alternative info.

A truth seeker takes all the evidence at hand and makes a decision. A truth seeker does not make a decision on unfounded pieces of information. That's where you and i differ greatly. You want to dismiss information out there based on your unproven/unsupported belief in the real information being removed by some rogue entity. Ridiculous.

You simply dismiss what is said about the science teacher noticing the list on the "Titanic" on it's maiden voyage. It may turn out to be false but you dismiss it outright with no evidence that it's false. You people are blatantly biased. You have a foregone conclusion.

:lamo:lamo:lamo

And please Scott, tell us all why you dismissed the all the photos of the Titanic with uneven windows and two rows of windows above the portholes? Why do you dismiss all the photos showing the Olympic with one row of even windows above the portholes? Why do you dismiss all the links that say the Titanic's deck was enclosed because of the complaints of first class passengers from the Olympic's voyages? What was your reason Scott? "Gatekeepers" removed all the real information? No proof whatsoever of that, yet we're the ones who are biased and have a foregone conclusion.

I won't be disappointed if it turns out that it was the Titanic that sunk. I just want to find out what really happened.

YOU never will because you refuse to use the mojority of the evidence and want to believe that there is a rogue group removing the truth. You'll be forever questing for this "truth" you "believe" to exist.

 

[zyzygy]

YOU never will because you refuse to use the mojority of the evidence and want to believe that there is a rogue group removing the truth. You'll be forever questing for this "truth" you "believe" to exist.

It will be a very long search.

 

[gamolon]

Here's something I forgot to put in my last post. It's a summary of events for people who don't have time to watch the video.

From your own document:

With completion of the Titanic running late because of repairs to the Olympic, Ismay suddenly decides on major alterations to Titanic’s superstructure;

• Addition of screens to the forward part of A deck promenade.
• Carpets to cover state of the art linoleum flooring.

Ismay claimed that these were essential because of passenger comments, but these so called essential changes were never incorporated into the sister ship in all of her remaining 25 years...

You document says that the changes were made to the Titanic promenade, but not to the Olympic in all her 25 years.

Now what Scott? Even your own document you linked to says the Titanic had the deck changes and not the Olympic? Starting to see the contradictions yet? Contradictions that have come about because of people trying to mold their facts to fit a fantasy conspiracy?

 

[zyzygy]

From your own document:



You document says that the changes were made to the Titanic promenade, but not to the Olympic in all her 25 years.

Now what Scott? Even your own document you linked to says the Titanic had the deck changes and not the Olympic? Starting to see the contradictions yet? Contradictions that have come about because of people trying to mold their facts to fit a fantasy conspiracy?

Careful. Your family may have an "accident".

 

[gamolon]

More from your linked document Scott:

With it’s name changed to Titanic, Olympic heads at full speed into a known ice field, with a dangerous fire burning in coal bunker number 10.

Do you see how this causes a problem for what you believe?

According to you it's possible that the Olympic has it's deck enclosed during repairs and THEN it's renamed the Titanic? Why the hell would you spend money on enclosing the deck of a ship you know you're going to sink anyways? Can you explain the logic in this?

 

[zyzygy]

More from your linked document Scott:


Do you see how this causes a problem for what you believe?

According to you it's possible that the Olympic has it's deck enclosed during repairs and THEN it's renamed the Titanic? Why the hell would you spend money on enclosing the deck of a ship you know you're going to sink anyways? Can you explain the logic in this?

Anything is possible in a conspiracy theory. One does not follow the rules of logic.

 

[Mark F]

It's plausible that they did but the mainstream would never report something like that. People who know too much usually don't speak out as they know they or their loved ones may have "Accidents", or die in "Robberies", or "Commit suicide" if they do.

Of course, because no reporter would want to publish the greatest story of the century, win the Pulitzer, write a best selling book and go on the high-paying lecture and talk show circuit because they would be far too busy trying to protect men and a company that have been dead for many decades.

Riiiiigggggghhhhhhhht :roll:

And let us not forget White Star Line President Bruce Ismay who, having decided to pull off this preposterous and unnecessarily complicated act guaranteed to be a money and reputation loser then decides he is going to sail on the ship he has ordered to be sunk! :naughty

Yeah, that's freakin' brilliant. :lamo

 

[zyzygy]

Of course, because no reporter would want to publish the greatest story of the century, win the Pulitzer, write a best selling book and go on the high-paying lecture and talk show circuit because they would be far too busy trying to protect men and a company that have been dead for many decades.

Riiiiigggggghhhhhhhht :roll:

And let us not forget White Star Line President Bruce Ismay who, having decided to pull off this preposterous and unnecessarily complicated act guaranteed to be a money and reputation loser then decides he is going to sail on the ship he has ordered to be sunk! :naughty

Yeah, that's freakin' brilliant. :lamo

Have ghosts been known to commit murder?

 

[zyzygy]

And let us not forget White Star Line President Bruce Ismay who, having decided to pull off this preposterous and unnecessarily complicated act guaranteed to be a money and reputation loser then decides he is going to sail on the ship he has ordered to be sunk!

As one does. If you take the time to watch the video that he keeps posting one of the bits of "evidence" is that five days before the Titanic sank a ship left England heading for the Atlantic loaded with sweaters.The geek presenting the video implies that they were for the Titanic passengers. I kid you not.

 

[Scott]

(from post #402)

You have refused to answer anything about the photo below. This photo is the basis of you claiming that the wreckage photo is of the Olympic. Now some questions please.
1. Is the photo below a photo of the Olympic after it was altered during repairs and then renamed the Titanic?
2. Is it a photo of the Olympic BEFORE it was modified?
3. What is this photo supposed to be evidence of in your opinion?

I dealt with that in post #384.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-titanic-sunk-purpose-39.html#post1064913546

Look where I said this, "(from post #373)".

Your post is mainly just sophistry. This response of yours to this...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...idence-w-823-852-1124-a-2.html#post1063453818

...pretty much shows that you're a sophist.

(from post #375)

What does the above link have to do with him being an unbiased researcher?

As I said before, no objective thinking person would try to play down such lameness. That response of yours pretty much shows that you're unfit to analyze evidence.


Here's the post with the info in it to keep it from getting buried.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-titanic-sunk-purpose-39.html#post1064913675

Even your own document you linked to says the Titanic had the deck changes and not the Olympic?

It's plausible that the person who wrote it was wrong about that part since there's a lot of other unresolved stuff. If it turns out he's right about that part, it blows the switch theory out of the water as the wreck has unevenly spaced windows on B deck. Right now there's no proof for either scenario.


Right now I don't see how it can be settled either way. We have to confirm whether the Olympic really had the propeller from the Titanic installed on it after it damaged its own. We have to confirm whether this photo is fake or it's on the other side of the wreck.
http://i48.tinypic.com/28s67ev.jpg


There are things that would settle the issue either way if they could be proven. Your asserting that your version reflects reality with an authoritative patronizing attitude isn't proof. I could say the earth is flat with an authoritative patronizing attitude.

As I said before, you pro-official version posters have a naive willingness to believe when you look at the official version and an a priori incredulity when you look at alternative info. You're not using the scientific method.

 

[zyzygy]

As I said before, you pro-official version posters have a naive willingness to believe when you look at the official version and an a priori incredulity when you look at alternative info. You're not using the scientific method.

What you are doing is not using the scientific method.

 

[gamolon]

There are things that would settle the issue either way if they could be proven. Your asserting that your version reflects reality with an authoritative patronizing attitude isn't proof.

Tell you what Scott.

Tell me something. What piece of factual evidence do you have to support your indecisiveness as to whether the Titanic was the one with an enclosed deck after launch or if it was the Olympic?

Example. You have been shown dozens of photos that show a ship with the name Titanic on it with an enclosed deck and you have been shown dozens of photos that show a ship with the name Olympic on it? What is the key piece of evidence that makes you doubt these are factual?

 

[gamolon]

As I said before, you pro-official version posters have a naive willingness to believe when you look at the official version and an a priori incredulity when you look at alternative info. You're not using the scientific method.

Let's make this easy.

Here is one claim that you doubt, but us "pro-official" posters have a naive willingness to believe. You keep saying that you are in doubt as to which ship had the enclosed deck and the "pro-official" posters say it was the Titanic that had the enclosed deck.

You were presented with many links from the post here (http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-titanic-sunk-purpose-38.html#post1064911103) explaining WHY the Titanic had it's deck enclosed. This has been supported by a myriad of photos showing this to be true.

So tell us Scott. What facts or evidence do you have for us "pro official" posters that gives credence to the fact that you doubt the photos of the Titanic with an enclosed deck, photos that show the Olympic with a non-enclosed deck, and the corroborating evidence shown with links in the post linked above that corroborates WHY the Titanic had an enclosed deck?

Do you have any at all?

 

[gamolon]

There good reason to doubt. There's no credible proof that the Titanic was the ship that underwent the modification. The Olympic may have undergone the modification during its seven-week repair.

And here is the crux of your problem Scott.

What is credible proof? As I have stated in the above posts, you have been presented with photos showing both ships and their window configuration and have read corroborating evidence as to WHY the Titanic had it's deck enclosed.

Why is this not credible evidence?

You have not presented one piece of credible evidence as to why anyone should doubt the above?

 

[gamolon]

Here's something I forgot to put in my last post. It's a summary of events for people who don't have time to watch the video.

Scott,

Pick out one FACT from this document that shows that the Olympic and Titanic were switched.

 

[mike2810]

Scott:

Why are you dodging the question regarding James Cameron footage of the wreckage? The documentary states it is the Titanic. Artifacts from the wreckage are identified as being from the Titanic.

Is James Cameron part of the conspiracy and is misleading the public? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[zyzygy]

Scott:

Why are you dodging the question regarding James Cameron footage of the wreckage? The documentary states it is the Titanic. Artifacts from the wreckage are identified as being from the Titanic.

Is James Cameron part of the conspiracy and is misleading the public? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?

Conspiracy theorists always dodge awkward questions

 

[Scott]

I realized something I should have realized a long time ago.


Regarding the issue of the number 401 on the propeller of the wreck:

Evidence The Titanic Was Sunk on Purpose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_d_GEy8lr0
(8:41 time mark)


It's possible that they really put Titanic's propeller on the Olympic after its own had been damaged and the propeller had the number 401 stamped on it. When the Titanic was later ready they would have put a propeller with the number 401 on it too. Therefore, the number 401 on the wreck can't be used as evidence of a switch as both ships would have had the number 401 on their starboard propellers. This doesn't debunk the switch theory though as we still don't know whether the Titanic's propeller was really put on the Olympic. If it can be proven that it wasn't, it will debunk the switch theory. I don't know how it can be proven though. Records can be manipulated.

What piece of factual evidence do you have to support your indecisiveness as to whether the Titanic was the one with an enclosed deck after launch or if it was the Olympic?

The fact that it's plausible that the modifications were done on the Olympic during its seven-week repair - maybe the names weren't switched until after most of the work was done to reduce the number of workers who knew about it in the beginning at least. They would have told everybody they knew when they saw it later but the press wouldn't have reported it. They also wouldn't have thought it was a big deal at the time because they wouldn't have known about the plan to sink it. They would have realized it after the sinking of course but the press still wouldn't have reported it. This seems to be something that a lot of people have known for a long time but word couldn't be spread far and wide until the arrival of the internet.

You have been shown dozens of photos that show a ship with the name Titanic on it with an enclosed deck and you have been shown dozens of photos that show a ship with the name Olympic on it?

The photos of the new "Titanic" and the new "Olympic" could have been taken after the modification. That's easy.

You were presented with many links from the post here ( http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-titanic-sunk-purpose-38.html#post1064911103 ) explaining WHY the Titanic had it's deck enclosed. This has been supported by a myriad of photos showing this to be true.

This isn't proof that they modified the Titanic for one thing. It's a reason for their wanting to modify both ships but if they were planning to sink one of them, they'd want it to look credible. Who knows what they would do to confuse everybody.

What is credible proof? As I have stated in the above posts, you have been presented with photos showing both ships and their window configuration and have read corroborating evidence as to WHY the Titanic had it's deck enclosed.

Why is this not credible evidence?

It's not proof and there are scenarios that would explain it. You've come to a conclusion in a situation in which you should have only formed a hypothesis.

Pick out one FACT from this document that shows that the Olympic and Titanic were switched.

There's nothing that conclusively proves it.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-titanic-sunk-purpose-39.html#post1064913675

It's mostly circumstantial evidence such as the behavior of the captain of the Californian. There's the science teacher who noticed the list on the Titanic, etc.


There's still the issue of the letters M and P on the wreck (see the 49:10 time mark of the video). It's possible that the footage in the video is bogus - it says the letters are engraved but they seem to be protruding to me. I won't be too surprised if it turns out they were faked.

It's also possible that this footage...
The Olympic Switch Theory: Did the Titanic Really Sink? | William Murdoch

... was taken on the other side of the ship and the engraved letters are real. Why didn't they show both sides of the ship in that video if they really want us to take them seriously?


Right now it's up in the air. It can't be proven either way as far as I can see. You people haven't offered anything a thinking person would consider proof. I'd have to say that I'm sitting on the fence for now but if I had to stake my like on it, I'd go with the conspiracy scenario.


edit
--------------------

Why are you dodging the question regarding James Cameron footage of the wreckage?

I dealt with that in post #400.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-titanic-sunk-purpose-40.html#post1064914029

 

[Mark F]

I realized something I should have realized a long time ago.

Regarding the issue of the number 401 on the propeller of the wreck:

It's possible that they really put Titanic's propeller on the Olympic after its own had been damaged and the propeller had the number 401 stamped on it. When the Titanic was later ready they would have put a propeller with the number 401 on it too. Therefore, the number 401 on the wreck can't be used as evidence of a switch as both ships would have had the number 401 on their starboard propellers.

Since I brought up that very issue about 2 weeks ago all I can say is better late than never. Progress is progress, however slow.

This doesn't debunk the switch theory though as we still don't know whether the Titanic's propeller was really put on the Olympic. If it can be proven that it wasn't, it will debunk the switch theory. I don't know how it can be proven though. Records can be manipulated.

The shipyard still exists and they still have all of the contracts and records for all the work they did. People search those archives all the time. Rocket surgery it ain't.

Even with that, you are still working the problem backwards and starting with the unknown and the speculative rather than working from a basis of what is known. Real investigators work the problem front to back starting with what is known. No wonder it took you two weeks to figure out something that had already been posted.

 

[Scott]

Since I brought up that very issue about 2 weeks ago all I can say is better late than never. Progress is progress, however slow.

I missed that. Could you link to it?

The shipyard still exists and they still have all of the contracts and records for all the work they did. People search those archives all the time.

I guess I'd have to go there and check it out myself. I'm not in a position to be able to do that now though. It may turn out that it shows the propeller from the Titanic was never put on the Olympic and it may show that it was.

It's also possible that the record was falsified shortly after the scam. The ink could be tested and it's date could probably be determined within a few years but not enough to rule out falsification. I don't see how looking at those records would be one hundred percent conclusive.

 

[mike2810]

Conspiracy theorists always dodge awkward questions

I must be on ignore when it comes to Scott.

Interesting if one looks at how many people through time must be behind the CT to keep it going. All the photos being altered, ship records, museums, testimony of survivors, , and even modern science / archaeology got it all wrong according to some.

The evidence shows the ship at the bottom of the ocean, filmed by Cameron is in fact the Titanic.

 

[Scott]

Hey mike2810

Look at the question at the bottom of this post that I put to gamolon and zyzygy.

(post #366)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-titanic-sunk-purpose-37.html#post1064910895


That question is for you too. What do you say?

 

[gamolon]

The fact that it's plausible that the modifications were done on the Olympic during its seven-week repair

That "fact" that it's possible is what you're basing your belief on? are you kidding me? That's it? This has got to be a joke. No other facts ot evidence, just that it's possible. wow...

The photos of the new "Titanic" and the new "Olympic" could have been taken after the modification. That's easy.

"Could" have been? So no evidence to support your claim. Right...

This isn't proof that they modified the Titanic for one thing.

Sorry, but it is proof because photographs corroborate what they are saying. You have yet to provide any proof to the contrary.

It's not proof and there are scenarios that would explain it.

And those scenarios mean nothing without any proof. So far it's only "plausible" remember?

There's nothing that conclusively proves it.

And there you have it. You have NOTHING but a a possibility with nothing to support it. Thanks for finally admitting this.

Until you get some proof of your beliefs, the presiding story stands. No matter HOW much you cry that other scenarios are possible, without supporting evidence, you've got nothing.

 

[mike2810]

Hey mike2810

Look at the question at the bottom of this post that I put to gamolon and zyzygy.

(post #366)
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-titanic-sunk-purpose-37.html#post1064910895


That question is for you too. What do you say?

Nothing till you answer my questions to you. Find the ones I posted regarding James Cameron.

What do you say? Or you going to just keep dodging?

But to give you a preview I basically take what most people post with a grain of salt. It is what information they provide, the sources used to back up the statements that is important for me.

That said, Is James Cameron deceiving the public or not telling the truth in his documentary on his underwater filming of the wreck he called the Titanic?
Are the historians deceiving the public about the artifacts that were retrieved from the wreck and identified as from the Titanic?

Simple questions Scott: Please respond with a direct answer.