I like the Morgan/Federal-Reserve conspiracy better.

The German cruise liner the Deutschland held the speed record...for the moment. It set the record in 1900.

At the time of the Titanic sinking the Mauretania held the record and would do so until the 1920s.

There was an order to cruise full speed, even though there were icebergs up ahead.

And considering the weather (perfectly clear) this was standard practice.

Also the Titanic had two hulls. This made it unsinkable. Yet it sunk?

Yes.

I can crush an ice cube with my teeth, but I cannot chew threw a steal hull of a ship. How could an ice berg 'break through' 2 hulls of a ship?

The pressure of your jaw and teeth against an ice cube is nothing compared to the force of a 50,000 ton ship crusing at 20 knots and a million ton piece of ice.

Come on dude. Be reasonable.

Nothing unreasonable about it at all.

On top of that the employees were paid off to not unlock the gates from the 3rd class compartments causing mass casualties.

Here's a tip, don't take your history lessons from Hollywood movies. This didn't happen.

. Not to mention sending out half full life boats.

Well yes, that's the whole lesson of the ordeal. Chaos, improper training, insufficient leadership, etc.

Germany wanted to remain top dog as long as possible. Someone from Britain realized this, and it is part of what made Europe so hostile at the time, and what caused WWI some 10 years later.

What??

One small semantic correction that actually determined whether or not Titanic would sink; she did not have a double hull. She had a double bottom which protected her against grounding, but only a single layer on the sides to protect her against the damage she sustained. This was one of the mandated improvements to her sisters after she sank.

EDIT: Didn't read the last bit. WWI started 2 years after Titanic sank.

Titanic's final voyage = April 1912

WWI = June 1914 - November 1918

nice one, good catch

Dude this is /r/conspiracy. Don't overthink things or else there is no reason for this sub to exist.

Wait, are you being earnest with this post or not?

Seriously though, did you mean that comment?

Yeah. I put maybe 3 minutes into this post. I was bored and did it as a joke. It's still more thought out than the conspiracies on here.

Sorry I wasn't referring to the OP, I was referring to that one specific comment. I can see now that it was meant sarcastically, but it was hard to tell initially.

The Titanic was supposed to be unsinkable right?

Words on paper may not reflect the wide variety of real world conditions.

How could an ice berg 'break through' 2 hulls of a ship?

It just has to make a gash.

How can hail dent a car if metal is harder than ice?

I can crush an ice cube with my teeth

How big of a cube are we talking? If you measure your bite strength, and apply that same force to a fist size piece of ice. Will it break it? I dunno, but I reckon it'd be harder to do than for a small piece of ice.

The sinking of the Titanic is a whole lot weirder than you currently think, but it has nothing to do with the Germans and everything to do with the American banker John Pierpoint Morgan. It wasn't an accident, an iceberg wasn't responsible for the sinking, and the ship that went down was not the RMS Titanic, but her near-identical but unseaworthy and uninsurable sister ship, the the RMS Olympic.

That's not true either. Olympic and Titanic were underinsured by a full third of their value. WSL and Morgan lost a lot of money when she sank.

There's also hundreds of differences between the two ships that are still evident today on the wreck and on Olympic's remaining fittings, proving that the Olympic of 1911 is the Olympic of 1935 and the Titanic of 1912 is the Titanic of today.

I've never heard these assertions. Do you have any links to this evidence?

I'll search google, but I was hoping you could give me a list of already collated information.

No need to down-vote.

EDIT: I just realized you replied to your own comment and you're the same guy.

He's talking about this documentary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD2-p_udKo4

It's on Youtube under various names. It's also jam-packed with lies and factual inaccuracies that you don't even need outside sources on. I've written extensively on it before, but the comments have since been lost.

Sure. Most of them are books, so unfortunately not immediately available. I do encourage you to check out this book which tackles Gardiner's work directly. It's also written by a few blokes who appeared in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdxJp2fVXJ8

http://www.amazon.ca/Titanic-Olympic-Which-Ship-Sank/dp/0752461583

As for internet resources, I'd give you these;

http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/pdfs/Conspiracy_Dissertation.pdf

http://www.paullee.com/titanic/switch.html (you'll have to scroll down a bit on this one)

And a few good places to go around and ask questions with people who have directly studied the artefacts. (Lee, Chirnside, Beveridge, Hall, etc)

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/forums/forum.php

http://www.titanic-titanic.com/forum/index.php

http://titanichistoricalsociety.net/forum/

The Olympic was a structurally unsound, floating white elephant after its collision with HMS Hawke, and the idea that it could have carried on operating for a further twenty years is fanciful.

The still incomplete Titanic and Olympic were face-lifted to resemble the other when the Olympic returned to Belfast (following the Hawke collision), and the two sister ships were side-by-side at Harland & Wolff dockyards from October 1911 to April 1912.

Olympic was fine. Her keel wasn't bent like that documentary (oh god, that friggin' "documentary") claims. The Hawke penetrated 8 feet into a ship 92 feet thick, aft of the rear well deck. Even after flooding two compartments, she managed to sail under her own power back to the drydock. The reason the insurance didn't pay out was because she wasn't damaged enough to meet the deductible of 150,000 pounds sterling. In other words, Olympic didn't suffer enough damage.

Even if you don't want to listen to the above, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Suevic#Salvage Another WSL liner that was blown clean in half and rebuilt.

They weren't made to resemble one another. Titanic got several large upgrades to ensure that she wouldn't be taken for just another Olympic, amongst them the enclosure of an additional 100,000 cubic feet.

They weren't made to resemble one another.

Their original designs were virtually identical. Following Olympic's collision with the Hawke, Harland and Wolff claimed they tweaked the design of the still unfinished Titanic.

When Olympic was launched in May 1911 it was reputedly over 1,000 tonnes lighter than the Titanic would be in April 1912. Yet after a refit in the Autumn of 1912, the "Olympic" had gained 1,000 tonnes and had virtually the same tonnage as the Titanic had. Nothing strange there.

Titanic got several large upgrades to ensure that she wouldn't be taken for just another Olympic

But we only have their word for that, don't we? Because both ships were back side-by-side in Belfast for the best part of 6 months from October 1911, so if they made those "improvements" to the Olympic rather than the Titanic, you wouldn't necessarily know.

If a switch was made, it would probably have been done on 4th March 1912, when the "Olympic" (really the brand new Titanic which had NOT had its scheduled design tweaks so it still looked identical to the Olympic) left Harland & Wolff. In fact the real Olympic remained in Belfast for another month being given the design tweaks that were officially meant to have been made to the Titanic, and was then launched as the Titanic for the bogus sea trials which are well documented.

Nobody can twist your arm to believe something you don't want to. You carry on believing the switch theory has been "debunked" if that makes you happy. But you're wrong!

Titanic and Olympic were only side by side for 6 weeks after the accident, during which they'd have to do everything up to and including getting rid of all those accommodations from one and placing it on the other in a dock that could only accommodate one vessel at a time. Each stage was inspected by the Board of Trade and by the entirety of Belfast since everyone worked on it and could see them from anywhere in town. All this to lose 1/3rd of the ship's value.

Olympic received the same upgrades, as you noted months after Titanic was gone, because Titanic's accommodations were seen as superior. That obviously translates to Olympic's being inferior. The passengers took note of these improvements as well, such as Violet Jessop. They also noted that Titanic smelled like paint while no such comments were made about Olympic at that time.

By the way, GRT isn't weight, it's enclosed space. It's a bit confusing because of the word "tons," but 1 GRT = 100 cubic feet. Titanic had 1,000 GRTs on Olympic, so she had 100,000 more enclosed cubic feet of space. They displaced around 52,000 tons of water.

Another few things. 1) Why go through all this instead of just repairing Olympic? It would have cost less and they would have had two vessels generating profits for them. 2) If they were going to destroy her, why not just burn her? These ships are illegal to build today because of how flammable they are. All they needed was a total constructive loss (once again, to lose money).

Briefly in answer to your questions.

From what I've read, the damage to the Olympic was severe and structural and she was technically a write off, but White Star couldn't afford to take the hit, so the switch was their only way of recouping their losses.

Disposing of your evidence under five miles of ocean is a much less risky insurance scam than staging a fire.

JP Morgan took the opportunity to "liquidate" some key opponents in the "Titanic". He never turned up for the maiden voyage, remember, despite promising Astor et al that he would, so it wasn't just about the insurance.

Morgan didn't embark on Olympic's voyage either. He didn't promise anyone that he would go. The claim that he did so apart from simply buying a ticket which he snubbed in favour of getting laid comes from thin air.

They were rhetorical questions. Just burning Olympic in the docks would have been far easier and much less costly than Titanic's demise. That's before going into all the effort into keeping everyone quiet and all that work that would have been necessary.

Going back to the Suevic, why on earth do you think that they would be willing to rebuild half a ship yet a small dent that didn't even meet the deductible was worth destroying the entire ship? The cargo they carried per voyage was worth over 3 times as much as the damage alone ($125,000 damage vs $750,000 average).

Back now.

Shocking, you believe some widely debunked conspiracy video over the official narrative in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise. So much for "critical thinking".

Don't be harsh. It's a lot easier to find videos on youtube than obscure links to discredit it. The vast majority of people who viewed that documentary have no idea who Robin Gardiner is.

Fair enough, but this person simply believes anything that contradicts the official narrative basically without exception, which is even easier than trying to actually learn something.

I dig the theory, and what we know about the RMS is what they told us, or shall I say wanted to tell us. All that aside, what information could be told is now lost to history.