Was The Titanic Destroyed By A German Submarine?

reply to post by blocula


Thats the way it is with you, isn't it? You get rebutted, then come back with more fantasies..

"But what if...?"

"Maybe if they....."

"Perhaps if they did this and then they did that?"

Using your logical reasoning, I should be on safe ground to claim that the Titanic sank because it's hull was made out of sugar and it simply dissolved. I mean, it's possible, isn't it? It has as much supporting evidence as your lame u-boat theory...

Try picking one that was launched BEFORE the Titanic was sank next time you lamely grasp at straws.

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by SonoftheSun

 

All of the wealthy and powerful men that the jesuits wanted to get rid of were invited ans coaxed onboard the Titanic..Hmmmm?..


Look here, this was the maiden voyage of the most largest and luxurious passenger liner the world had ever seen. You really think that high class important wealthy people wouldn't jump at the chance of boarding this magnificent vessel, that they had to be coaxed on board? LOL

reply to post by stumason
This is not fantasy...The U-17 was launched in April -1912 and had a range of 6,700 nautical miles and carried 6-torpedos...

The Titanic sank in April-1912...

From England to NY,City is around 3,321 miles and the Titanic sank about 2 thirds of the way to its destination, NY City.So the Titanic sank about 2,214 miles out to sea from its point of departure and about 2,500 miles from north western Germany...

Easily within the reach and range of the U-17,a round trip from Germany to the Titanic and back would have been around 5,000 miles...

The U-17 was state of the art at the time and better than any other Submarine in the world.The German Military,just like any other countries Military,is not in the habit of advertising its secret technology.Do you think the Germans latest and best Submarine was advertised on the front page of every newspaper? not at all.But the Titanic was advertised and openly talked about.The U-17's range for that time period was incredibly advanced and more than enough to have beel laying in wait for the Titanic,whos date of departure route and destination were all openly discussed and were common knowledge...

"When we attack and try to sink the Titanic "way out here" no one will think we did it"...

And just to keep the fact alive...The 787ft passenger liner Lusitania was attacked by a German Submarine in 1915 and sank with a single torpedo,with the loss of 1,198 lives...

So Why would Germany have "done the same thing" to the Titanic 3yrs earlier?...For the same reason they sank the Lusitana...They felt like it...The same reason they attacked France in 1914...They felt like it...The same reason they attacked Poland in 1939...They felt like it...The same reason they attacked Russia in 1941...They felt like it...

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by stumason

 

This is not fantasy...The U-17 was launched in April -1912 and had a range of 6,700 nautical miles and carried 6-torpedos...

The Titanic sank in April-1912...

As said before, but you're dodging this fact, the U-17 was launched some 4 days AFTER the Titanic was sunk and that was also some 5 months before she was commissioned into the fleet. What you're suggesting flies in the face of every other ship and boat launched, which is that the boat was ready for service some 4 days prior to even being launched, much less undergoing any form of sea trials.

Unless you can come up with cast iron evidence the U-17 was fit for service on the 12th April 1912 you're talking crap.

Originally posted by blocula
And just to keep the fact alive...The 787ft passenger liner Lusitania was attacked by a German Submarine in 1915 and sank with a single torpedo,with the loss of 1,198 lives...

Yeah, so? What is it you're hoping this unrelated and uncomparable event to the Titanic?
Here is a link to a site detailing conditions for sailing, even in modern ships, when in the presence of ice. It clearly states that ice can sink steel ships.

These days, ships that go to the polar regions are of course no longer made of wood, but of steel. They still need to be specially strengthened to work in ice conditions. An ordinary ship with no strengthening will not risk touching ice at all, no matter how gently. A modern ship weighing thousands of tonnes meeting an iceberg weighing perhaps as much again or up to thousands of times more can easily sustain enough damage to require major repairs or to sink her. Ice will easily hole a non-strengthened ship.

Originally posted by blocula
So Why would Germany have "done the same thing" to the Titanic 3yrs earlier?...For the same reason they sank the Lusitana...They felt like it...The same reason they attacked France in 1914...They felt like it...The same reason they attacked Poland in 1939...They felt like it...The same reason they attacked Russia in 1941...They felt like it...

Jeebus, you're a few sandwhiches and certainly several guests short of a picnic. They didn't just "feel like it" with the Lusitania, it was a valid war target (as they saw it), during a war, in an area of operations of the enemy state. It's not as if the Captain of the boat that sunk the Lusitania woke up one day and thought "You know what, I'm going to sink me a cruise liner today"...

"why would they seek to prove their new found Naval ascendancy by attacking a cruise liner and not a Dreadnought or Cruiser? "
Because if they sunk a military ship, it would be seen as an act of war. If they sunk the Titanic in a sea with icebergs, they might get away with it. No one would suspect them.
A few years ago a Russian sub was sunk. I think a US ship accidentally hit it, causing it to sink. A lot of coverup went on.
It appears only the Germans, British and French had the technology to sink the Titanic with a torpedo. So IF the hole was caused by a torpedo, then we have to look at those three governments. Can't see the British doing it. Leaves the French and Germans, most probably the Germans.

blucula check the FACTS again regarding the launching and commissioning of U-17

U 17

According to Rossler’s "The U-Boat", (quote) the final installation of equipment is done after the U-Boat is launched and then it is pressure tested before the boat can be accepted as a completed product. I believe its then commissioned after the crew is assigned.

Commissioned usually means its ready of service, but all boats go through a working up process. For capital ships this could take months and months of gunnery and maneuver training etc. It helped to keep the crew quality at its best through out the war. (unquote)

Dr Robert Ballard of the National Oceanographic Institute and his team, are renound for their experience in surveying shipwrecks and bring to us expert evidence of what caused them to sink. His team have fully explored the Titanic and Lusitania and have written excellent books about the full history and sinking of both these liners.

You keep mensioning Lusitania, this ship was rounding the southern tip of Ireland on it's last leg of it's voyage to Liverpool. It was a sunny Sunday afternoon, perfect visibility for an attack by a U-boat, It was May 7th 1915 and unrestricted U boat warfare had already been announced by Germany because of the allied naval blockade trying to starve Germany into submission. Kapt Leutnant Walther Shweiger had caught sight of her by sheer chance. They checked their copy of Janes and she was listed as an armoured cruiser because she had been equipped with forward gun emplacement rings, but the guns themselves had never been fitted, the German's knew about this and it had long been suspected she was also carrying munitions for the allied war effort. However there was still confusion as to her identification. He thought she could have been the Mauritania, read his account from the U20's log i'ts all recorded.

He got within 700 meters of her and fired a single torpedo which exploded just below the starboard bridge. Moments later there was a second larger explosion due to the fact that by now her coal bunkers were virtually empty and the torpedo detonation jarred loose all the coal dust in the forward bunkers causing a second explosion due to a lethal and explosive mixture of coal dust and air;blasting the bottom of the hull open and causing her to plunge to the bottom in just 18 minutes!

It is indeed astonishing that a single torpedo could have sunk such a large liner as this so quickly, and Robert Ballard has spent a great deal of time searching the Lusitania wreck site for live munitions, none have ever been found except shell casings destined for the munitions factory at Woolwich. What Ballard did find was the tell tail trail of coal littering the sea bed to her final resting place, evidence that the hull had been blown out.

If your going to suggest Titanic had a similar fate your dreaming, if it was going to happen it would have been done in broad daylight and well before she got too far out to sea. The most likely spot for your shambles of a conspiracy theory was when she was anchored at Cherbourg to take on more passengers before she left the following morning for New York, and it wouldn't have been the half completed U17 that attacked her lol.

reply to post by Matt1951


a 'hole' in the Titanic?.. it was a series of buckled plates with popped rivets that extended nearly 300 feet along her starboard side that caused her to sink.

www.atlanticliners.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Iceberg damage PDF

www.atlanticliners.com...

reply to post by Matt1951


1 you ignore the fact that russia [ akula ] and japan also had combat capable submarines

2 - sinking a british registered merchant-man / liner is still an act of war

reply to post by stumason
As i said the date the Titanic sank and the date the U-17 was launched and operational was only a few days apart,the date of the U-17's launch was the date that they told everyone about it,about their latest Military invention,before they told everyone about it,it was "secret technology" and theres no doubt in my mind that Germany could have launched it a week earlier,or earlier than that "without advertising the event" for a secret mission to try and sink the Titanic...

The USA was flying around the B-1 Bomber long before the military told everyone about it...

Imagine the secrecy involved while designing,building and then flying a B-1 bomber...

It was no different in 1911 and 1912 for the Germans who were designing,building and launching their latest, worlds most advanced Submarine the U-17,it was top secret then...

reply to post by stumason
France was a valid war target in 1914?

Poland was a valid war target in 1939? and so the 21.5 % of Polands population that was killed during the war must have been valid war targets as well.

Russia was a valid war target in 1941? and so the 18 million Russian civilians Germany murdered must have been valid war targets as well...

Germany sinking the Titanic would have been a walk in the park for them in comparison,like taking candy from a sleeping baby...

reply to post by blocula


are you utterly incapable of assimiliating information ?

the launch date only gives you a bare hull c/w hvy eng - the commissioning date gives you an operational vessel

at least three replies so far have attempted to educate you

but you are so fully immersed in your delusion that you simply ignore all facts that dont fit , and fabricate any required " facts" to prop up your fantasy

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Of course sinking a merchant ship would be an act of war, the point I was making was they (whoever they were) would be more likely to get away with sinking a merchant ship as opposed to a military ship. With Russia and Japan, how capable were their submarines (I believe far less than the German ones). The US used submarines in the US Civil War of the 1860s, but these would not have been capable of sinking the Titanic.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Development of advanced weaponry is usually kept secret for as long as possible. One reason the English became the leading naval power, was the invention of the process of manufacturing cast iron cannons. Their boats were loaded with inexpensive, high quality cannons, where the French and Spanish used the much more expensive bronze cannons. It took a long time for the French and Spanish to figure out how to make cast iron cannons. As one example.
Whatever the commissioning date of one particular submarine was, does not mean the Germans lacked the capability. The dates are close enough one can assume the Germans had the capability. Having the capability is not proof they sank the Titanic.
On a conspiracy theory website, there is nothing wrong with examining potential conspiracies.

Originally posted by Matt1951
Development of advanced weaponry is usually kept secret for as long as possible. One reason the English became the leading naval power, was the invention of the process of manufacturing cast iron cannons. Their boats were loaded with inexpensive, high quality cannons, where the French and Spanish used the much more expensive bronze cannons. It took a long time for the French and Spanish to figure out how to make cast iron cannons. As one example.

Back in WW1, they had only just started to latch on the concept of secret weapons and state secrets. Back in the period you describe (Iron vs Bronze cannons) there was no "big secret", it's just the French and Spanish artisans didn't take up the new technology. Had anyone taken a trip over to Blighty during that period and gone to any foundry, they could have observed the process of making cast iron cannons for themselves, it was no secret.

That said, the French have a lot to say in the development of cannon and it's useage. Again, none of it was particulary secret.

Originally posted by Matt1951
Whatever the commissioning date of one particular submarine was, does not mean the Germans lacked the capability. The dates are close enough one can assume the Germans had the capability. Having the capability is not proof they sank the Titanic.
On a conspiracy theory website, there is nothing wrong with examining potential conspiracies.

Having the capability is proof of nothing and this theory has been shredded through and through.

I have the capability to disable the entire of the UK's National Grid. I won't though, I lack a motive for starters, same as this theory. Not to mention the repurcussions of such an action would be estreme, same as this theory.

Not to mention there is no physical evidence and Germany didn't have a capable sub which could do the task.
The only one which, at the edge of it's operational range, could have done so would have been this U-17, which was launched AFTER the sinking.

blocula seeing as we're discussing ridiculus conspiracy theories here, is it not possible that after the commissioning of the U-17, the germans found a wormhole and sent it back in time to April 1912, then using secret alien technology transformed it into an Iceberg and sent it drifting into the approaching Titanic?.. it's possible right?

reply to post by FLaKK


Ooh, I think you're on to something!

Maybe they used the Time Travel device during WW1, so the crew thought they were at War with the UK, but it got sent back too far to the last Ice Age, only becoming released when the ice sheet broke up? The crew obviously survived such a trip by using the aforementioned alien tech to construct stasis pods, naturally....

reply to post by Matt1951
The USA military always seems to have an endless supply of enemies lurking around every corner,who are then used as cannon fodder to test new weapons upon and Germany back in 1912 would have been no different in their wanting to test their latest weapon of war on someone.We do it and other countries do it all the time,always have and unfortunately probably always will...

reply to post by blocula


Flawed logic, based upon an erroneous assumption rather than fact.. Not solid ground.

Times were also very different back then. You also dispaly a fantastically amazing lack of knowledge about anything of that time period, such as the geo-political situation, military behaviour etc and keep trying to shoehorn in your perception of modern behaviour to fit something from 100 years ago.

By your logic, because I like to have sex with my Fiancee, then I must also like to have sex with any and every woman I possibly can, just because.

Correlation, such as it might be, does not equal causation.