Was The Titanic Destroyed By A German Submarine?

reply to post by blocula


Yes, but the U-boats capable of getting out into the middle of the Atlantic and launching them were still being built. So your point is a moot one.

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by foxhoundone
A rare picture of the alleged iceberg that shattered the Titanic's rivets (from Scottish ore mines).
Not that big to pose a worry..

Has anyone seriously looked at the size of the iceberg in the above photo? an obviously small iceberg,that supposedly,but "cannot be proven to have" been able to rip through thick steel in the shape and size of a 12ft square hole,through which the water began pouring into the ship and then been able to "supposedly" and "rumored to have" sank the titanic?...Hmmmm?...No Way...

A 12ft hole was the initial damage sustained by the Titanic and no "side" scraped and "side" swiped iceberg is going to be able to punch itself inwards and then pull itself outwards really fast against "a moving ship",which is exactly what the iceberg would have had to have done,in order for it to have created a 12ft hole...

Collision/damage link > www.eszlinger.com... > "Though the damage in the hull was 220 to 245 feet long, the most recent evidence shows that there was only a 12 square foot opening (the size of a refrigerator) in the hull allowing water inside the ship"

That 12ft hole is why the titanic sank,that hole was relatively small,which is why it took nearly 3hrs for the ship to sink and as it took on more and more water,through that 12ft hole,the ship started to rise up out of the water and thats when it started to buckle,rip and split,creating the around 200ft long gash that everyone talks about and that initial 12ft hole was caused by a German Submarine launched Torpedo...IMO...

edit on 14-12-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

It's very hard to get a real idea of the size of that iceberg, because it's far away. So once again your point is a moot one. All of the survivors who were on deck at the time of the collision saw an iceberg. The bridge crew closed all watertight doors as it approached, threw the engines into hard astern and put the ship on a course of hard-a-starboard to port around the iceberg. Try all you like but you cannot subtract the iceberg from the situation. It's always going to be there - because it sank the Titanic.
As for your comment about the size of the hole - 12 square feet is not enough to have come from a torpedo. It's too small. However, it's just the right size for a 300-yard non-continuous gash down the side of the ship that led to water pouring into 6 compartments and thus dooming the ship.
We're still laughing at you by the way.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg
"omg",no its not a mute one,the german submarine U-17 had a range of around 7,000 miles and that submarine was "publicly" launched,meaning lots of people were told about it,4 days after the titanic went down and just as every country keeps the activities and the inventions of their military secret,so to the germans covert mission to sink the titanic,a terrorist attack against a civilian target,with their brand new state of the art U-17 submarine,was kept a sceret,top secret....

"when we attack and sink the titanic way out here,no one will think we did it"

reply to post by AngryCymraeg
Whats so hard about it? All you have to do is look at it,the iceberg in the photo below is not that far away at all from the ship where the photo was taken and its not very big either...

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by foxhoundone
A rare picture of the alleged iceberg that shattered the Titanic's rivets (from Scottish ore mines).
Not that big to pose a worry..

Has anyone seriously looked at the size of the iceberg in the above photo? an obviously small iceberg,that supposedly,but "cannot be proven to have" been able to rip through thick steel in the shape and size of a 12ft square hole,through which the water began pouring into the ship and then been able to "supposedly" and "rumored to have" sank the titanic?...Hmmmm?...No Way...

A 12ft hole was the initial damage sustained by the Titanic and no "side" scraped and "side" swiped iceberg is going to be able to punch itself inwards and then pull itself outwards really fast against "a moving ship",which is exactly what the iceberg would have had to have done,in order for it to have created a 12ft hole...

Collision/damage link > www.eszlinger.com... > "Though the damage in the hull was 220 to 245 feet long, the most recent evidence shows that there was only a 12 square foot opening (the size of a refrigerator) in the hull allowing water inside the ship"

That 12ft hole is why the titanic sank,that hole was relatively small,which is why it took nearly 3hrs for the ship to sink and as it took on more and more water,through that 12ft hole,the ship started to rise up out of the water and thats when it started to buckle,rip and split,creating the around 200ft long gash that everyone talks about and that initial 12ft hole was caused by a German Submarine launched Torpedo...IMO...

edit on 14-12-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Whats so hard about it? the iceberg in the photo,allowing for the curvature of the earth and looking accordingly to where the sea meets the sky,is obviously only about a mile or two away from the ship where the photo was taken and would have hardly been able to even dent the steel hulled titanic,never mind punch inwards a 12ft square hole,which is where through which the titanic started taking in water and is what sealed her fate and an iceberg cannot make a 12ft square hole through the steel of a parallel and sideways "moving" ship...

A 12ft hole was the initial damage sustained by the Titanic and no "side" scraped and "side" swiped iceberg is going to be able to punch itself inwards and then pull itself outwards really fast against "a moving ship",which is exactly what the iceberg would have had to have done,in order for it to have created a 12ft hole and the iceberg that 'supposedly" sank the titanic,was not even big enough to have done so,an iceberg,that was and is still only a theory...

I'll ride this one all the way to my grave,a german submarine launched torpedo sank the titanic in 1912...imo.

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

"omg",no its not a mute one,the german submarine U-17 had a range of around 7,000 miles and that submarine was "publicly" launched,meaning lots of people were told about it,4 days after the titanic went down and just as every country keeps the activities and the inventions of their military secret,so to the germans covert mission to sink the titanic,a terrorist attack against a civilian target,with their brand new state of the art U-17 submarine,was kept a sceret,top secret....

"when we attack and sink the titanic way out here,no one will think we did it"

U-17 was launched on April 16th, 1912 (uboat.net...), a day after Titanic sank. It was commissioned on November 3, 1912. Now, you can't simply launch a warship of any kind and then take it out for a spin. The engines have to be tested, equipment has to be installed, the crew has to become familiar with the craft and so on and so forth. That takes months. So that rules it out of your spurious little theory. I would also like to point out that no-one knew Titanic's exact course, so it would have horribly hard for a small craft like a U-boat to find a fast ship like the Titanic.
You have no evidence at all of an attack - no orders, no quotes from the crew, no evidence of the U-boat sailing, nothing.
You have no evidence of an attack on the ship - no comments about an explosion of any kind, in any way shape or form.
In short you have no evidence at all. No evidence means that it didn't happen.
On the other hand we have a lot of evidence about what actually happened - the ship scraped past an iceberg, which inflicted fatal damage on the dull, leading to the ship sinking. QED.

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by foxhoundone
A rare picture of the alleged iceberg that shattered the Titanic's rivets (from Scottish ore mines).
Not that big to pose a worry..

Has anyone seriously looked at the size of the iceberg in the above photo? an obviously small iceberg,that supposedly,but "cannot be proven to have" been able to rip through thick steel in the shape and size of a 12ft square hole,through which the water began pouring into the ship and then been able to "supposedly" and "rumored to have" sank the titanic?...Hmmmm?...No Way...

A 12ft hole was the initial damage sustained by the Titanic and no "side" scraped and "side" swiped iceberg is going to be able to punch itself inwards and then pull itself outwards really fast against "a moving ship",which is exactly what the iceberg would have had to have done,in order for it to have created a 12ft hole...

Collision/damage link > www.eszlinger.com... > "Though the damage in the hull was 220 to 245 feet long, the most recent evidence shows that there was only a 12 square foot opening (the size of a refrigerator) in the hull allowing water inside the ship"

That 12ft hole is why the titanic sank,that hole was relatively small,which is why it took nearly 3hrs for the ship to sink and as it took on more and more water,through that 12ft hole,the ship started to rise up out of the water and thats when it started to buckle,rip and split,creating the around 200ft long gash that everyone talks about and that initial 12ft hole was caused by a German Submarine launched Torpedo...IMO...

edit on 14-12-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

Whats so hard about it? the iceberg in the photo,allowing for the curvature of the earth and looking accordingly to where the sea meets the sky,is obviously only about a mile or two away from the ship where the photo was taken and would have hardly been able to even dent the steel hulled titanic,never mind punch inwards a 12ft square hole,which is where through which the titanic started taking in water and is what sealed her fate and an iceberg cannot make a 12ft square hole through the steel of a parallel and sideways "moving" ship...

A 12ft hole was the initial damage sustained by the Titanic and no "side" scraped and "side" swiped iceberg is going to be able to punch itself inwards and then pull itself outwards really fast against "a moving ship",which is exactly what the iceberg would have had to have done,in order for it to have created a 12ft hole and the iceberg that 'supposedly" sank the titanic,was not even big enough to have done so,an iceberg,that was and is still only a theory...

I'll ride this one all the way to my grave,a german submarine launched torpedo sank the titanic in 1912...imo.

edit on 14-12-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

No it didn't. You have 0% of evidence and you get a 0% for critical thinking for me. Please go away and read up, as you're still being laughed at.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg
Of course i'm being laughed at,because all truths pass through three phases,first they are ridiculed,then they are violently opposed and then they are accepted as being self evident...

Imo,Those Germans sure pulled off one helluva master deception plan and one hundred years later they still are not suspected by 99.9% of people as being the ones who were responsible for sinking the passenger liner Titanic,with a length of 882 feet,on April-14th 1912,with a loss of 1,503 lives.That Germany directed a terrorist attack against a civilian target on the eve of World War One is all but ignored and denied.Instead,a puny iceberg, pictured above,gets full blame...

August 1st 1914,Germany declares war on Russia,August 3rd 1914,Germany declares war on France and invades Belgium.August 4th 1914,Britain declares war on Germany...

The passenger liner Lusitania,which entered service in 1907 and had a length of 787 feet,was sunk by a single torpedo launched from a German U-boat on May 7th 1915 with a loss of 1,198 lives..

Originally posted by Submarines
I really hope this thread dies soon. Started out interesting, and went down from their.

This turned into nothing more than someone questioning a theory and telling everyone else that they were wrong.

Disappointment. Got in way too late for a real discussion about submarines and submarining.

Of course some like challenging ideas to die out. Because controlling minds is their # 1 gameplan. Even on free mind is a threat to them. That is something that really surprised me, because those who do question further, and see more of the truths, are so small a minority, why would they have long converstations on skype with so called friends, more those casing them perhaps, and not have their "friend" be satisfied with agreeing to disagree, but actually attempt to sway them.

Even one mind free in the system is superman. Do you know why? They hold such a frequency of awareness and intelligence that the controllers can't quite line earth up to the hellzone they wish, synchronize. And in addition, they raise the frequency around them, so one becomes far more, the seeds are planted. They blossom in due time.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Avoid The Mind Traps/Pens!!!! Dandelions Are Free!!!!

Germany didn't risk anything. It was under TPTB umbrella and was their golden boys at the time. They were doing the Rothchild's/Zeus's bidding.

Also, this relates to 9/11. Where so much real organization took place, on a strategic vedic astrology geometeric date linked ot a dramatic sun/saturn opposition, and opened saturn stargates, evident in the images of demons in some videos, which I have seen in the Fukushima, 3/11, clouds as well.

On that date you had real black op efforts with their spell casting black magic. So they had a HAARP hurricane, Erin off the coast appear out of nowhere and then on 9/11, was right at NYC, but no one spoke of it at all, and disappeared quickly and it was just like Katrina in size, huge. You had a ISRAELI SUB with missile activated, which probably made that msyterious hotly debated hole everyone talks about, and you had bought off al qaeda loosley connected who are just CIA after all.

Why would this be any different?

reply to post by Unity_99
You sure have relayed a lot of snuffed out information in that one reply.Your one of the few out there not wandering lost amongst the endless parades of blind leading the blinded,people who are trapped within the wilderness of their own ignorance and hate.You,like myself,are not afraid to shine lights of truth within the ever growing darkness of fear and denial...

reply to post by blocula


Well, my experiences in ufology were mixed, and while the negative is high on the abduction list, my family was given a very miraculous wake up call with things occuring that were unique. In other words, when I sought online for answers, discovered that my own case was similar to others in many ways, but unique in others, and that Family is watching over. And that they woke me up. When I asked one friend why, why why this way, he said, in answer to all my prayers.

Since that date, I am not nudged inside, I am pushed, given swift kicks in the pants. I will have a bath, thinking, well I've embarrassed myself enough and pledge to not post for a week, a month or ever again, and then informations floods in, more insights and I have to get up and add more, search more. Apparently not off the hook in the research.

I noticed your threads hit on all the key areas too.

Also we're supposed to wake up and learn, and we learn each other a lot. We're containing different missing pieces of the whole, so to speak, we contain different insights.

So people who are quick to disgard ideas, while they might be right or not on any one, still they're letting themselves down by not searching.

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Of course i'm being laughed at,because all truths pass through three phases,first they are ridiculed,then they are violently opposed and then they are accepted as being self evident...

Imo,Those Germans sure pulled off one helluva master deception plan and one hundred years later they still are not suspected by 99.9% of people as being the ones who were responsible for sinking the passenger liner Titanic,with a length of 882 feet,on April-14th 1912,with a loss of 1,503 lives.That Germany directed a terrorist attack against a civilian target on the eve of World War One is all but ignored and denied.Instead,a puny iceberg, pictured above,gets full blame...

August 1st 1914,Germany declares war on Russia,August 3rd 1914,Germany declares war on France and invades Belgium.August 4th 1914,Britain declares war on Germany...

The passenger liner Lusitania,which entered service in 1907 and had a length of 787 feet,was sunk by a single torpedo launched from a German U-boat on May 7th 1915 with a loss of 1,198 lives..

edit on 18-12-2011 by blocula because: (no reason given)

And you still have 0% proof of ANY of this theory of yours. Not a single comment from a survivor, not a single hint from an official British or German document, not a single shred of physical evidence from the ship. There is, however, a tonne of evidence that the ship his an iceberg, was seriously damaged, flooded over the next two and a half-odd hours and then sank. Which is what happened.

I'd say plausible, to much time gone by not much for evidence etc. Could be that a sub was involved and caused Titanic to scrape into an iceberg at full speed thus ' sinking the ship '

Originally posted by le843
I'd say plausible, to much time gone by not much for evidence etc. Could be that a sub was involved and caused Titanic to scrape into an iceberg at full speed thus ' sinking the ship '

Or it could have been a powerful psychic employed by the Germans, who sent a sub-space thought signal to the captain, directing him to impact the iceberg. Or it could have been a rogue gravity wave from Alpha Centauri that pushed the ship towards the iceberg. Or, it could be a few passengers farting due to excessive consumption of beans and this producing enough thrust to direct the Titanic towards the iceberg.

What's the point to speculate about things for which there is no hint of an evidence whatsoever? Obama might be an extraterrestrial being. Wait, that was Nixon.

When will this silliness end?

Originally posted by le843
I'd say plausible, to much time gone by not much for evidence etc. Could be that a sub was involved and caused Titanic to scrape into an iceberg at full speed thus ' sinking the ship '

We have statements by a large number of survivors that the ship hit an iceberg. How could a sub cause the ship to hit an iceberg?????

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


I already explained why plausible - keep an open mind then, RMS Titanic made a few stops before the maiden voyage, the ship had a double hull, each hull 1 inch thick of plate add to that beams, trusses and girders, also 16 compartments, albeit they were only 10 ft high bulkheads ?, some where I read an eye witness account of Titanic taking on water before the maiden voyage due to an odd explosion. Can't find it now but I do remember from an article. Please keep looking if you feel inclined. Also the Titanic never ran flat out full speed. The order was not given until the day of the sinking -- just take time and read everything, thus this becomes plausible meaning reasonable, and probable. And you just cant go by hear say. The TPTB run the world with their cover ups and lies - always have, and always will. I dont even go with a U 17 sub, it could have been anyone. Other then that, may they rest in peace, the legend and myths alone will some day find the justice needed.

Originally posted by le843
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

I already explained why plausible - keep an open mind then, RMS Titanic made a few stops before the maiden voyage, the ship had a double hull, each hull 1 inch thick of plate add to that beams, trusses and girders, also 16 compartments, albeit they were only 10 ft high bulkheads ?, some where I read an eye witness account of Titanic taking on water before the maiden voyage due to an odd explosion. Can't find it now but I do remember from an article. Please keep looking if you feel inclined. Also the Titanic never ran flat out full speed. The order was not given until the day of the sinking -- just take time and read everything, thus this becomes plausible meaning reasonable, and probable. And you just cant go by hear say. The TPTB run the world with their cover ups and lies - always have, and always will. I dont even go with a U 17 sub, it could have been anyone. Other then that, may they rest in peace, the legend and myths alone will some day find the justice needed.

I do have an open mind and so far nothing else makes sense than the iceberg theory. Because every one of the survivors agreed that the iceberg hit the ship. There is no mention anywhere of a torpedo - which would not have inflicted the long, non-continuous gash on the side of the ship that sunk her - and the full speed dash was scheduled for the day after she was hit by the iceberg. No coverup, just reality here.

reply to post by le843


If you care to read the materials presented in this thread, it might finally become clear to you that the Germans did NOT possess a naval vehicle capable of that mission. Add to that the fact that Titanic changed its course in the last days of its voyage, and the rendezvous of a slow moving and fuel-strapped German sub with the Titanic becomes a virtual impossibility.

I've been gone over a week, i see not much has changed, .... this thread is all about the conspiracy theorists thinking that the Titanic was sunk by a U-boat but with no proof, no credible evidence whatsoever just speculation. Thats all it is,... people like blocula & co who just want to fantasise she was sunk by a German submarine. period!

Everyone are entitled to their own opinion. The real events of the sinking on the night of April 14 are fully documented, factual Iceberg events and not U- boat fantasy. It's a great pitty in a way that there could have been plausable evidence of the U-boat theory that would have made this an interesting thread instead of a joke.

I found the source of all the ludicrous claims on this thread..

img.abovetopsecret.com...

anyway merry christmas and a happy new year to you all