Debunked: "Conspiracy of the Titanic - The first staged 9/11"

[TheCorruptOnes]

 

[George B]

Titanic: the first staged 9/11 ~ Full Length

I the facts in this video are accurate . . . it would seem to be very plausible that the Titanic was its sister ship the Olympic and its sinking was a deliberate act to recover $12.5 million in insurance money . . . the rescue was a botched operation . . . Very interesting . . .

 

[George B]

HideGardiner's Ship That Never Sank


One of the most controversial[7][8] and complex theories was put forward by Robin Gardiner in his book, Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?[9] In it, Gardiner draws on several events and coincidences that occurred in the months, days, and hours leading up to the sinking of the Titanic, and concludes that the ship that sank was in fact Titanic's sister ship Olympic, disguised as Titanic, as an insurance scam.


Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for small detailing such as the promenade deck windows.


On 20 September 1911, the Olympic was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy Warship HMS Hawke in the Brambles Channel near Southampton. The two ships were close enough to each other that Olympic's motion drew the Hawke into her after starboard side, causing extensive damage to the liner - both above and below its waterline (HMS Hawke was fitted with a re-inforced 'ram' below the waterline, purposely designed to cause maximum damage to enemy ships). An Admiralty inquiry assigned blame to the Olympic, despite numerous eye-witness accounts to the contrary.


Gardiner's theory plays out in this historical context. As Olympic was found to blame in the collision (which, according to Gardiner, had damaged the central turbine's mountings and the keel), White Star's insurers Lloyds of London allegedly refused to pay out on the claim. White Star's flagship would also be out of action during any repairs, and the Titanic's completion date would have to be delayed. All this would amount to a serious financial loss for the company. Gardiner proposes that, to make sure at least one vessel would be earning money, Olympic was then converted to become the Titanic. Gardiner states that few parts of either ship bore the name, other than the easily removed lifeboats, bell, compass binnacle, and name plates. The plan, Gardiner suggests, was to dispose of the Olympic in a way that would allow White Star to collect insurance money on the ship. He supposes that the seacocks were to be opened at sea to slowly flood the ship. If numerous ships were stationed nearby to take off the passengers, the shortage of lifeboats would not matter as the ship would sink slowly and the boats could make several trips to the rescuers.


Gardiner uses as evidence the length of Titanic's sea trials. Olympic's trials in 1910 took two days, including several high speed runs, but Titanic's trials reportedly only lasted for one day, with (Gardiner alleges) no working over half-speed. Gardiner says this was because the patched-up hull could not take any long periods of high speed.


Gardiner maintains that on 14 April, Officer Murdoch (who was not officially on duty yet) was on the bridge because he was one of the few high-ranking officers who knew of the plan and was keeping a watch out for the rescue ships. One of Gardiner's most controversial statements is that the Titanic did not strike an iceberg, but an IMM rescue ship that was drifting on station with its lights out. Gardiner based this hypothesis on the idea that the supposed iceberg was seen at such a short distance by the lookouts on the Titanic because it was actually a darkened ship, and he also does not believe an iceberg could inflict such sustained and serious damage to a steel double-hulled (sic) vessel such as the Titanic.


Gardiner further hypothesizes that the ship that was hit by the Titanic was the one seen by the Californian firing distress rockets, and that this explains the perceived inaction of the Californian (which traditionally is seen as failing to come to the rescue of the Titanic after sighting its distress rockets). Gardiner's hypothesis is that the Californian was not expecting rockets, but a rendezvous. The ice on the deck of the Titanic is explained by Gardiner as ice from the rigging of both the Titanic and the mystery ship she hit. As for the true Titanic, Gardiner alleges that she spent 25 years in service as the Olympic.


Researchers Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall took issue with many of Gardiner's claims in their book, Olympic and Titanic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy.[7] Author Mark Chirnside has also raised serious questions about the switch theory.[8]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic_alternative_theories#section_3

 

[Chew]

He supposes that the seacocks were to be opened at sea to slowly flood the ship.

And the hundreds of crewmembers see water pouring into the ship through the seacocks and just stand there and watch???

How can an otherwise intelligent person be so stupid to think that plan would work?

 

[TheCorruptOnes]

they were told the ship was unsinkable.

 

[George B]

He supposes that the seacocks were to be opened at sea to slowly flood the ship.

And the hundreds of crewmembers see water pouring into the ship through the seacocks and just stand there and watch???

How can an otherwise intelligent person be so stupid to think that plan would work?

That was in the book, I assume, but not in the video above . . .

 

[TheCorruptOnes]

I must of been preoccupied with my iPad at the time but I guess I missed the part where they explain how they got the boat to sink. If it wasn't from the iceberg then how did they get water in it?

 

[solrey]

The hypothesis of the film is that it was the Olympic, not the Titanic that sank. As far as I know hull number 401 matching the Titanic is the only hull number that's been found on the wrecks structure by explorers and salvage crews.

Finally, concrete evidence backs up the commonsense argument: The Titanic's hull number, 401 (Olympic's was 400), is the only one which has ever been found on Titanic's wreck.

101 Things You Thought You Knew About the Titanic . . . but Didn't!

 

[TheCorruptOnes]

The hypothesis of the film is that it was the Olympic, not the Titanic that sank. As far as I know hull number 401 matching the Titanic is the only hull number that's been found on the wrecks structure by explorers and salvage crews.



101 Things You Thought You Knew About the Titanic . . . but Didn't!

Did you watch the last part of the film where they show the ships bow? The forged "Titanic" letters have rusted off and reveal a "MP" - part of the word Olympic that was actually engraved or embossed into the original metal panel of the ship. No doubt in the my mind just from that proof alone these ships were switched.

 

[Mick West]

No doubt in the my mind just from that proof alone these ships were switched.

That seems perhaps a little hasty. No doubt at all? Really?

 

[Chew]

Did you watch the last part of the film where they show the ships bow? The forged "Titanic" letters have rusted off and reveal a "MP" - part of the word Olympic that was actually engraved or embossed into the original metal panel of the ship. No doubt in the my mind just from that proof alone these ships were switched.

It starts at 49:40.

Several things:

The welders must have been drunk when they welded "MP" because they don't line up with the original letters and the M is lowered than the P.

There are plenty of much higher resolution videos online. Aren't you suspicious why a "documentary" producer would use the worst quality footage?

 

[George B]

It starts at 49:40.

Several things:

The welders must have been drunk when they welded "MP" because they don't line up with the original letters and the M is lowered than the P.

There are plenty of much higher resolution videos online. Aren't you suspicious why a "documentary" producer would use the worst quality footage?

Could you give a link to the photo in question??

 

[Chew]

Could you give a link to the photo in question??

It's in the OP video.

Note the lack of riveting: http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/Aaron1927/nameplate11.jpg

 

[MikeC]

they were told the ship was unsinkable.

No they weren't.

the myth of unsinkability didn't being until AFTER the titinaic was sunk.

Olympic served until 1935 - was subject to a "mutiny" by firemen due to fitting of collapsable lifeboats (seen as unseaworthy) after the sinking of Titanic, was a troop transport in WW1, returned to being a luxury liner after WW1, was involved in a collision in New York Harbour in 1924 that necessitated major repairs, collided with a lightship in 1934.

she was also used as a full scale model for teh commission investigating the disaster - including examination of the water tight features and manouvreability trials.

You might think it strange that no-one noticed a substitution in all that time!!

That plus the fact that the Olympic was in teh yard at eh same time as titinic was being built - so you need to silence a thousand or more workers on the 2 ships?

the article also says:

Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for small detailing such as the promenade deck windows

the differences in these "small detailings" are patently obvious in pictures of the time -




Is that enough debunking??

 

[MikeC]

supposedly the "MP" are under the "AN" - but I just don't see them - can you highlight them somehow??

 

[Mick West]

From the YouTube video:

The images from Parks Stephenson, in the composite image above:

Original layout, note the anchor hole to the right.

 

[Mick West]

It's a bit fiddly to overlay them, due to perspective and the curveture of the hull, but here's an approximate fit:

Here's the original C and the wreck C (moved to the side slightly).

Note how the straight inner vertical of the C, combined with the rust and other damage obscuring most of the letter, make it look more like a D, or maybe a P.

Presumably the imaginary "M" is somewhere around where the "I" was?

 

[MikeC]

Yeah I can see "TITANIC" as per the composite photo previously posted - I don't see "MP" aywhere in it.

Here is an analysis of what would have to be done to switch the ships when they were both in dock - it is a little more than just replacing the name and covering in the "minor detailing" of having open promenades

 

[Clock]

Well, I guess that's what you call-

Debunked.

 

[JRBids]

they were told the ship was unsinkable.

Crewman 1: "Oh look, the seacock is open and water is pouring into the ship"

Crewman 2: "Don't worry, the ship is unsinkable. Let's go have a spot of tea. Yawn."

 

[John Fichera]

I don't even know if this thread is active anymore or if anyone will read it....but when I say I literally watch this video every night...it's part of my playlist I watch before bed..... I couldn't care less about the letter M-P....seriously NONE!

However... some facts can't be disputed... Olympic launched first...and had 2 if not 3 "incidents" with Capt. Smith at the helm. Before the Titanic even launched. Major damage! Major repairs including rivets on it's starboard side. Just before the Titanic launch BOTH ships have carpets installed over their tile floors (without the Titanic even "used yet")

The Titanic hits a iceberg ....on the starboard side...and we are told years later the chemical composition of the iron used in the rivets made the welds weaker combined with the cold water made the metal more fragile and added to the sinking. .... Really? Weak rivets on the starboard side, the same side as the patched Olympic.

The Titanic sinks after Capt. Smith has one accident with it...but the Olympic goes on to a long successful life even serving in WWI ....I guess it was the Olympic that was actually "unsinkable" ....I've built tougher canoes in my backyard that have gone over waterfalls than the "fragile" Titanic. It just doesn't add up. And why with all the controversy does no one go back and examine it with specific reason to prove otherwise? JP Morgan's business is not going to go bankrupt.

I just think common sense says there is more there than meets the eyes.

 

[MikeC]

What you have just posted is a classic argument from incredulity.

Also I'd point out one other error you make - you say

The Titanic hits a iceberg ....on the starboard side...and we are told years later the chemical composition of the iron used in the rivets made the welds weaker combined with the cold water made the metal more fragile and added to the sinking. .... Really? Weak rivets on the starboard side, the same side as the patched Olympic.

Here you make an implied statement that the rivets on the starboard side were different from those everywhere else - but as far as anyone knows the "weak rivets" where the iceberg struck were the same as iron rivets used elsewhere in the stern and bow - the center 3/5th section had steel rivets.

 

[Hevach]

Going over a waterfall, or even hitting a rock, does not scale up to the sizes of the Titanic. Big reason is acceleration on both the ship and the iceberg after impact.

If you build a canoe with a hull shaped to a scale model of the Titanic, and run it into an iceberg in proportionate scale, the canoe will spring off the canoe and the iceberg will bob away, because you're talking about something weighing dozens of pounds hitting something that weighs a hundred or two. The forces involved are so many orders of magnitude higher that you might as well be trying to model it with bubbles in a bathtub.

Compared to the canoe scenario, both the Titanic and the iceberg would change direction very, very slowly. Even the titanic forces involved (pun intended) only apply small changes in speed and direction to each object, and even changes of several meters per second are effectively invisible on objects that big (you'll feel them if you're standing on one of them, but actually seeing the change is another matter). Twisting forces on the Titanic against the water would apply strain along the entire length (something you never have to worry about in a canoe, but is a concern in any large boat). This leaves both objects on paths that intersect, even after the moment of impact, which is a contradiction that physics only has one way to resolve: by tearing through one or the other.


All of this scale difference is why it's so hard to make good model effects in movies. They shoot them at very high framerates and slow them down so objects interact slower, fill them with lead shot to make them heavier so they don't clatter around like plastic, press colliding ships together with hydraulic rams so the models don't just bounce off.

 

[David Fraser]

So Gardiner claims the Titanic was only able to run at half speed yet somehow she manages to cover the approx. 1800nm from Queenstown in around 3 and a half days. Also as I understand the wreck had the Titanics props (401). If it really were the Olympic I am surprised the vibration didn't shake it apart.

 

[PCB]

I'm a retired sailor. My department was Engineering.
I've worked on (my) ships while in shipyards and for a few years I was a shipyard QA Inspector.
.
The forward section of A deck was different between Titanic and Olympic.
It's easy to see in photos that the one at the bottom is in fact the original Titanic.
An intelligent rational person would need no more information.
.
But this is "metabunk" so here are my thoughts on some of this 'swap-ships' nonsense....
.
To avoid confusion: To most sailors (at least where I'm from) screws are for ships and propellers (or props) are for boats. When I say screw I mean the big things aft of the shafts with blades on them - not fasteners you use screwdrivers for.
While I'm at it a boat is a water vessel small enough to carry on a ship. (That doesn't imply boats are small. I have seen as many as three sea-going tugboats loaded onto one ship.) Of course things like barges or floating dry-docks don't count as ships or boats.
.
.
The 400 vs 401 dilemma. - For the screws and other things as well.
It's not the least bit unusual for parts originally ordered for one ship to end up in another ship.
If they urgently need a part for ship A and it's in the warehouse for ship B they will go to the B warehouse, nab the part(s), and reorder. It is VERY common. - All through a ship's life. - Even for big things like screws.
The numbers on a part ONLY tell you which ship the part was originally ORDERED for. - Not where it went.
.
.
One of the debunks I've seen is in itself bunk.
- The pitch of a screw has nothing to do with whether it will fit or not.
The three sister ship's screws would likely have been 100% interchangeable on the appropriate shafts.
That is normal and intentional because it cuts costs (or can) later on.
- A different pitch is not going to cause vibration.
Screws and shafts are each balanced unto themselves, not as a matched set.
- Changing the pitch just means they need a different main engine RPM to achieve whatever speed.
That is NOT a big deal.
- Clearly White Star was experimenting to find the best screw configuration for efficiency and speed.
They changed the screws on Olympic like 6? times. Titanic just wasn't around long enough to experiment.
- According to documentation, all three screws on Titanic only had 3 flukes and were never changed.
I have never seen a CONFIRMED LEGITIMATE photo of Titanic's center screw.
.
.
Real life example related to both blurbs above.
'Ship A' had a little mishap and broke a screw.
'Ship B' was in dry-dock and just beginning a 2 or 3 year overhaul.
They were similar but not the same line (series-class) of ships. Each ship had 4 screws. Between the ships the screw diameters and pitches were not identical.
- We stole two screws right off 'Ship B' in the dry-dock and put them on 'Ship A'.
This made ship A have two screws each of two pitch/diameter configurations. The two inboard matched - the two outboard matched - inboard pair did not match outboard pair. (Because of the differing design we referred to them as the "torque screws" and the "speed screws".) By adjusting the Engine-Order charts (As-in: Flank = x-many shaft RPM) specific to the screws installed the different pitches became irrelevant. The ship operated like that for 20+ years after the screw swap with zero problems related to the screw configuration.
- THEN we ordered two new screws on 'Ship A's bill but installed them on 'Ship B'.
In this case A and B happened to be aircraft carriers and, though you can read about some of it online, I'm not sure how much has 'officially' been declassified so I'm not giving up more detailed info.
- VERY common scenario in a ship yard.
Why: This shortened 'A's dry-dock (repair) period by about 3 months. Saved mo $$$.
.
.
The M P and letter-swap nonsense.
There is ZERO reason to engrave hull letters then rivet raised letters over the top.
They do one or the other, not both.
In fact doing both would cause corrosion problems that would screw up the pretty white lettering.
The purpose for both methods is the same. Makes the letters readable at a wider angle.
The engraved ones work because the bottom of the cut isn't parallel to the hull. (Is a shallow angle V-cut.)
The raised ones work simply because they are raised.
Although referred to as 'engraved', in that day the letters were most likely cut in with grinders.
"Engraving" with grinders makes the metal inside the cut more susceptible to rust than the surrounding metal.
- The M P you see in the videos is CLEARLY Photoshopped.
Is OBVIOUS when you realize the faked video shows clean metal and no rust at all in the cut.
- Further, the very suggestion they riveted letters over engraved letters is ludicrous.
How are you going to hide a deeply engraved "O" with a riveted "T". - You can't.
- And one more on the M P.
The letters were 4 ft high, if rivet type would have weighed several hundred pounds each, were high on a high ship (requiring cranes), and there would have been 6 sets to change. (2x ships with names on the back too.)
I can tell you from experience that such a job (using rivets) would probably take 3 or 4 days if you rushed.
Maybe two days if you had 6 cranes and 6 crews available and nothing went wrong.
At that height the swap would have been plainly visible for a mile or two from the yard in EVERY direction.
Paying just the shipyard workers wouldn't cover it.
You would also have to pay-off everyone in town and everyone in the harbor.
That would include MANY people that didn't work for White Star, News people, people that had been screwed by White Star, people that worked for competitors, competitor's execs, sailors and officers on other ships, politicians, judges, kids. Talking 1000's of people.
- Do you REALLY think that would have worked?
.
.
LOTS of mislabeled photos out there.
I have seen many many cases of Newspapers doing ship-swaps by changing the letters or just giving the wrong ship name for the photo.
(Remember that this was the 19-teens and the only way to send photos was by courier or snail-mail. Also remember that photos in Newspapers was still fairly new tech and many (if not most) pictures in papers were drawings - so most newspapers employed several artists full time.)
- If you were a News reporter in New York (or anywhere the Titanic had never been) you would not likely have a photo of Titanic on-file when it sank. As Olympic HAD been to New York and other places you would likely have photos of Olympic on file from older articles.
- So, you hear the Titanic sank and you need to have the story ready for print in a few hours to beat the other papers.
- What do you do? - You have your artist doctor the photo you have on file of it's sister ship to meet your deadline.
- In the 19-teens that sort of thing was common and wasn't then considered as "bad" or misbehavior.
.
.
I saw some bunk about a missing thrust bearing.
(This was actually about the Olympic and supposedly this was proof the one at the bottom is it.)
- Guess what:
On ANY ship, if the screw is installed then you CAN NOT get underway with a missing thrust bearing.
It is NOT an optional part.
The job of the thrust bearing (which in this case is actually many thrust bearings in an assembly about the size of a large bus called a 'thrust block') is to transfer forward or aft thrust on the shaft to the hull SO THAT the engine is not shoved or pulled off it's foundation.
Lacking a thrust block (bearings), even if you trail the shaft (idle, coast, let turn with no steam to the engine) or lock the shaft, the drag on the screw from just being pulled through the water would be enough aft-ward shaft thrust to pull the engine off it's foundation.
On the Titanic the thrust blocks were in the Turbine Room.
- Come to find out this rubbish was partially based on some document that said they replaced the shaft but not the thrust bearings.
'Not replacing' the thrust bearings does NOT mean they removed them.
All it means is they weren't broken so they didn't fix them.
- Also came to find that the missing screw cap (the cone thing over the screw's bolt heads) was their "evidence" of a missing thrust bearing.
ALL the screw cap does is help prevent cavitation aft of the screw. (Cavitation is noisy and bad for screws.)
That cap has NOTHING AT ALL to do with bearings. - ANY kind of bearing.
.
.
Rivets (couple of pet peeves here)
Yes, by TODAYS standards they would be considered substandard due to the degree of impurities.
FOR THEIR TIME - the rivets used were NOT substandard.
Metallurgy has come a LONG way since then. We know more now.
It is neither realistic nor fair to accuse the builders of using "cheap" rivets.
You can not fault them for not knowing things about metal - that had not been discovered yet.
-
Due to sourcing problems they used 3 different grades. (Listed from strongest to weakest.)
. Steel
. Iron "Best-Best"
. Iron "Best"
"Best" was compliant to the strength Standards at the time - but just barely. It was a legit choice but the last choice.
"Best-Best" was the preferred grade due to better strength than "Best" and much lower cost than Steel.
As it so happens many of the "Best" got used in the fore and aft sections of the outer hull (yup, right where the iceberg hit) because it was believed that those areas would be under the least stress during heavy seas.
.
Aside from "Best" being just barely strong enough there was a second metal problem that most likely affected all three grades of rivets as well as the hull plates themselves.
That would be called "Brittle Fracture". (For my job I had to study Brittle Fracture in depth.)
The impurities (slag inclusions and excessive sulfur) and the icy water made the rivets and plates both especially susceptible.
Brittle Fracture is basically a combination of things that can cause metals to shatter like glass.
( Biggies = Low Temp, susceptible metal, preexisting flaw, tensile stress. )
The cause of Brittle Fracture was not fully understood until decades after the Titanic sank.
It's easy to see if you know what to look for.
There is no (or very little) bending or stretching before it breaks. It just snaps. (Brittle)
There have probably been 100+ cases of ships snapping almost or completely in half due to Brittle Fracture in ships built all the way into the 1950's.
MANY cases in ships built in the in the 1940's and before.
(Some of them snapped while just sitting tied to a pier.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Schenectady
http://www.uscg.mil/history/gifs/Pendleton_Half_Ship_2.jpg
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/marine/1998/m98n0001/photo_3.jpg
- Studies of recovered pieces have determined that some parts of Titanic would have been susceptible to Brittle Fracture at temps just below room temperature.
- Most likely some rivets failed due to being weak (those stretched and broke or pulled out) and others due to Brittle Fracture (those just snapped in half). If a few go the stress on their neighbors increases causing them to snap or stretch. (Zipper)
- The outer part (skin) of the center "missing section" of the hull clearly Brittle Fractured across the top, down both sides and across the bottom. Look at the breaks. Nice clean breaks without much (or any) bending. (Some bending likely happened after the Brittle Fracture as things hit the bottom.) The inner "non-skin" structures would have been slightly warmer and less likely to just snap. Especially true at the top of the keel and inner-bottom 'ribs' as they were exposed to engine and boiler room temps on one side. (Probably around 100°F near the engines/turbines and higher in the boiler rooms.) That explains why the keel 'hung on' for a bit before it broke.
.
.
The Insurance Fraud story doesn't hold water any better than Titanic did.
Not going to rehash that one in detail.
White Star had MANY other ships in service. They weren't exactly 'hurting' for money overall.
The sister ships were both under insured and partially self-insured.
A wreck of any ship of the new design would certainly cause the insurance bill on the others to go up.
Basically the ship-swap-sink idea would result in more $$ loss than leaving things alone even if the fictitious fraud went exactly as fictitious plan was supposed to go.
Unlike the conspiracy people, they were good at math. (And they weren't stupid.)
.
.
Flares (at sea)
Multiple flare colors should not be raising questions. The Titanic would likely carry multiple colors.
IIRC Red and White would have been REQUIRED by the regulations of the time..
It was an emergency. Use what you got!
.
Red, Blue, Orange = Distress.
(Orange is for better visibility in daylight. IIRC their use much came after the Titanic's time.)
(Blue was technically obsolete by new regulations but still in some use. Blue flares were typically hand-held, thrown or for very low altitude. As a projectile they couldn't go very high due to the chemistry to get the blue color. That is why they became obsolete.)
.
White = A hazard marker or for general illumination.
= Hazards - "Don't hit me, I'm right here" -or- "There is some hazard here" (Like say an iceberg or lifeboats.)
= Illumination - Used to see people in the water (aka "man overboard") and so people in small boats in the dark can see what they are doing. (Is not like they had huge spot-lights to shine on the water. They used white flares for that. Many ships still do.)
.
.

 

[razvanro]

Was reading this thread and decided to make an account because there are some things I'd like to specify. Now, I'm not saying that the ships were 100% switched, I agree that it's far fetched and in reality it's very likely that they weren't, however everything isn't as clearcut obvious as some would conclude(even in some posts here).

I want to thank the previous poster for his expertise and his thorough explanation and specifications which I can't begin to argue with as he's clearly more qualified, however he starts his post with this:

The forward section of A deck was different between Titanic and Olympic.
It's easy to see in photos that the one at the bottom is in fact the original Titanic.
An intelligent rational person would need no more information.

And I feel the need to jump right in because having studied a lot of pictures and being quite familiar with this subject myself, I'd like to explain why this perception is false, and that it's actually a bit ignorant to state that because the A deck is different between the bottom picture and the top one, the bottom is definitely the original Titanic. This in fact, can actually go both ways, and I'll explain, with pictures.

We knew both ships were built side by side and that the Olympic was finished first. Let's take a look at how the Olympic looked when first launched:




Now let's take a look at the Titanic when first launched:



Notice both ships have the same pattern in the upper bow portholes (14 in number for both ships) and EXACT same design for the A Deck, B Deck and C Deck windows. So we can conclude that when launched, the Titanic looked exactly as the Olypmic did, it was at this point a carbon copy of her slightly older sister. Were it not for the different color, one would have serious trouble in trying to identify which is the Olympic and which is the Titanic by looking at these 2 official pictures anyone can find on the internet ("Titanic at launch" and "Olympic at launch").

So all the changes that were made on the ship we know as the Titanic happened after it was initially launched, thus if the theory of the switch were true, the changes to the A deck and B deck windows could have just as well been made on the Olympic.

Let's continue up on the timeline. In September 1911, while work on the Titanic was ongoing, the Olympic has its infamous incident with the Hawke. At this time, the Olympic already had the same livery as Titanic(it had it even for its maiden voyage), and they also added 2 extra portholes on each side of the upper bow:

Here's a picture of Olympic during her sea trials, right before her maiden voyage:


A deck B Deck C deck are the same, 2 extra portholes to the upper bow.

Here's the famous last picture of the two ships together, in March of 1912, when the Olympic is brought in for repairs after throwing a propeller(almost 6 months after the Hawke incident):


The ship on the right is supposed to be the Titanic and the ship on the left the Olympic. We can clearly see that the B Deck windows have been changed, while A deck and C deck at this point in time remain the same(on the ship on the right).

Also a picture of Titanic during final stages of building(after Hawke incident):


Notice the 16 portholes on the upper bow side are the same pattern as we've seen on the Olympic starting with her sea trials. They made 2 extra for both ships in the exact same spots. Also notice like in the previous picture, B Deck windows have been upgraded, A deck and C deck still the same.

Now for the last picture, here's Titanic leaving from Southampton on her maiden voyage:


16 upper deck portholes (same pattern as the Olympic), completely different A Deck windows and B Deck Windows while C Deck Windows remain the same.

Now obviously, this doesn't prove that the ships were switched. However it does prove that showing a picture such as this one ...

... doesn't really prove much on its own considering both ships at one point looked the same. So the changes they did to the Window design on the ship we know as the Titanic could have very well been made after the alleged switch(sometime between September 1911 and March 1912), thus stating that because the ship at the bottom of the Atlantic has the second style of window design clearly and undoubtedly makes it the original Titanic isn't really debunking anything on its own.

There are several other arguments being made like the whole town seeing them switch ships which I don't really agree with(they were working on the ships, why should people look at it with suspicious eyes when it was something that was happening there on a consistent basis, and it's not like people had the high end cameras of today to zoom in and keep an eye on everything they were doing there, it would have looked business as usual). Also considering insurance scams with interchanging ships had successfully happened and have happened since, I'm not sure why it would be instantly labeled as "stupid" to assume it as a possibility.

In closing, again, I'm not saying the ships were switched, they likely weren't but there are legitimate reasons to want to investigate further. I just felt the need to explain why some of the reasoning (showing some pictures with Titanic's updated window design as proof) isn't really that sound.

 

[Captain_ Broussard86]

No they weren't.

the myth of unsinkability didn't being until AFTER the titinaic was sunk.

Olympic served until 1935 - was subject to a "mutiny" by firemen due to fitting of collapsable lifeboats (seen as unseaworthy) after the sinking of Titanic, was a troop transport in WW1, returned to being a luxury liner after WW1, was involved in a collision in New York Harbour in 1924 that necessitated major repairs, collided with a lightship in 1934.

she was also used as a full scale model for teh commission investigating the disaster - including examination of the water tight features and manouvreability trials.

You might think it strange that no-one noticed a substitution in all that time!!

That plus the fact that the Olympic was in teh yard at eh same time as titinic was being built - so you need to silence a thousand or more workers on the 2 ships?

the article also says:

Olympic was the older sister of Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched in October 1910. Her exterior profile was nearly identical to Titanic, save for small detailing such as the promenade deck windows

the differences in these "small detailings" are patently obvious in pictures of the time -

View attachment 1193
View attachment 1194

Is that enough debunking??

Was reading this thread and decided to make an account because there are some things I'd like to specify. Now, I'm not saying that the ships were 100% switched, I agree that it's far fetched and in reality it's very likely that they weren't, however everything isn't as clearcut obvious as some would conclude(even in some posts here).

I want to thank the previous poster for his expertise and his thorough explanation and specifications which I can't begin to argue with as he's clearly more qualified, however he starts his post with this:

The forward section of A deck was different between Titanic and Olympic.
It's easy to see in photos that the one at the bottom is in fact the original Titanic.
An intelligent rational person would need no more information.

And I feel the need to jump right in because having studied a lot of pictures and being quite familiar with this subject myself, I'd like to explain why this perception is false, and that it's actually a bit ignorant to state that because the A deck is different between the bottom picture and the top one, the bottom is definitely the original Titanic. This in fact, can actually go both ways, and I'll explain, with pictures.

We knew both ships were built side by side and that the Olympic was finished first. Let's take a look at how the Olympic looked when first launched:


View attachment 18040

Now let's take a look at the Titanic when first launched:

View attachment 18041

Notice both ships have the same pattern in the upper bow portholes (14 in number for both ships) and EXACT same design for the A Deck, B Deck and C Deck windows. So we can conclude that when launched, the Titanic looked exactly as the Olypmic did, it was at this point a carbon copy of her slightly older sister. Were it not for the different color, one would have serious trouble in trying to identify which is the Olympic and which is the Titanic by looking at these 2 official pictures anyone can find on the internet ("Titanic at launch" and "Olympic at launch").

So all the changes that were made on the ship we know as the Titanic happened after it was initially launched, thus if the theory of the switch were true, the changes to the A deck and B deck windows could have just as well been made on the Olympic.

Let's continue up on the timeline. In September 1911, while work on the Titanic was ongoing, the Olympic has its infamous incident with the Hawke. At this time, the Olympic already had the same livery as Titanic(it had it even for its maiden voyage), and they also added 2 extra portholes on each side of the upper bow:

Here's a picture of Olympic during her sea trials, right before her maiden voyage:

View attachment 18042
A deck B Deck C deck are the same, 2 extra portholes to the upper bow.

Here's the famous last picture of the two ships together, in March of 1912, when the Olympic is brought in for repairs after throwing a propeller(almost 6 months after the Hawke incident):

View attachment 18043
The ship on the right is supposed to be the Titanic and the ship on the left the Olympic. We can clearly see that the B Deck windows have been changed, while A deck and C deck at this point in time remain the same(on the ship on the right).

Also a picture of Titanic during final stages of building(after Hawke incident):

View attachment 18044
Notice the 16 portholes on the upper bow side are the same pattern as we've seen on the Olympic starting with her sea trials. They made 2 extra for both ships in the exact same spots. Also notice like in the previous picture, B Deck windows have been upgraded, A deck and C deck still the same.

Now for the last picture, here's Titanic leaving from Southampton on her maiden voyage:

View attachment 18045
16 upper deck portholes (same pattern as the Olympic), completely different A Deck windows and B Deck Windows while C Deck Windows remain the same.

Now obviously, this doesn't prove that the ships were switched. However it does prove that showing a picture such as this one ...

... doesn't really prove much on its own considering both ships at one point looked the same. So the changes they did to the Window design on the ship we know as the Titanic could have very well been made after the alleged switch(sometime between September 1911 and March 1912), thus stating that because the ship at the bottom of the Atlantic has the second style of window design clearly and undoubtedly makes it the original Titanic isn't really debunking anything on its own.

There are several other arguments being made like the whole town seeing them switch ships which I don't really agree with(they were working on the ships, why should people look at it with suspicious eyes when it was something that was happening there on a consistent basis, and it's not like people had the high end cameras of today to zoom in and keep an eye on everything they were doing there, it would have looked business as usual). Also considering insurance scams with interchanging ships had successfully happened and have happened since, I'm not sure why it would be instantly labeled as "stupid" to assume it as a possibility.

In closing, again, I'm not saying the ships were switched, they likely weren't but there are legitimate reasons to want to investigate further. I just felt the need to explain why some of the reasoning (showing some pictures with Titanic's updated window design as proof) isn't really that sound.

Both ships never looked the same, the Olympic the first in the Titan class of 4 ships was first made, here you can see uneven Windows and a top promenade deck, the Titanic was redesigned with a open to deck and even sources Windows with a few other changes, the Britannic had the same exact, "EXACT" building as the Olympic, open to promenade deck, but even spaced Windows, the gigantic never made its life, now the Olympic had a collision out I should say another vessel got caught in her starboard propeller and hit her, not serious, nothing at all, but when the hawke deliberately crashed into her side, well now you have a bent keel and broken propeller and bent drive shaft, it was patched up, Titanic's propeller was fitted to it with drive shaft, now 400 Olympic had a 401 Titanic part, needless to say Olympic is done, so now we have the Titanic being built, new ship new design and please remember that when they were advertising these ships most the pictures you see of the Titanic in that era were really the Olympics insides, only the exterior is blatantly visible to those who can see the differences, the insides would virtually be identical however there still are changes, now Olympics list to port is the key subject, Titanic and Olympic spend time together in Belfast, Olympics a damaged ship and Titanic is a new ship, every thing is interchangeable but the names was a much more devised plot, but please bare in mind, Titanic's insurance policy has been increased right before departure, not enough life board were on board, the Titanic had a list to post as stated by passengers and survivors, Titanic did have a extra bulk head not in original plans, it makes perfect sense, batch the Olympic as the Titanic and have it sink, yeah it's more complex than check fraud or home insurance but it makes sense, you see in 1935 the Olympic was destroyed, soul purposely to conceal the true identity of the Titanic so no one would see the truth in design, the ship's were switched fur a large scale money fraud that was committed in 1912, the California which was also a vessel of JP Morgan set sail 5 days prior to Titanic's voyage with nothing more than its crew and a cargo of wool blankets and wool sweaters, the Titanic was suppose to meet up with them and rescue the passengers from the ill fated ship but and here's where it gets intriguing, the California goes to sleep, Olympic makes a fatal error in their location and well it sinks killing over 1500 people, foully murdered over rich tycoons greed over money, that is without a doubt the Olympic they sank, the Titanic did sail until 1935, look at them all, all these great liners sank in one piece ( ONE PIECE ) the Olympic or Titanic broke into two because of its bent keel and patched hull, rivets and metal were not to blame, faulty ship building is not the issue, the blatant truth is if the Olympic would have never been in so many altering accidents the Titanic and Olympic with Britannic and gigantic would prolly still be around, but as that as it may the Olympic suffered major collisions which rendered it useless so what do you do with a useless ship, sink it!!! This was a messed up idea by messed up greed, it's sad I have no proof but please be open minded, the windows and everything at the bottom of the ocean suggest Olympic, the videos I saw of the Olympic in the 1929's and free in the 1930's show and suggest that ship cashed Olympic is the Titanic, open to deck with even spaced Windows, no extra bulk head, no repairs or patches done, all I'm saying is my research has led me to believe that the Titanic never sank, but let's look at this now, Titanic was dismantled in 1935, supposedly sank 1912, Olympic sank 1912 but was supposedly dismantled in 1935, those two dates are very important, this is a hypothesis and thesis on my research and what I've read, studied, seen, heard and searched for, I strongly believe the Titanic was switched due to Olympics bad rep and health, the Titanic carried on while it's sister took the plunge, i hour y'all enjoyed my excerpt and find it useful in your own research of the sisters, I will say this fit positive, something happened back then that can't be explained because all those involved are dead now and any actual evidence would have been destroyed by now, its a mystery and one that will prolly never be solved but with mystery comes solution and someone will one day make the discovery we are all waiting for.

 

[Captain_ Broussard86]

The ships never had their windows or exteriors changed except name plate on Stern and riveting name templates in Port and starboard, never the less the Titanic was made with even spaced Windows with a open deck above, the Olympic was made first with a promenade deck above and uneven spaced Windows, this is a augment that will last a lifetime but proof in the original designs and blueprints will show and satisfy, Olympic had a promenade deck just like it's sister Britannic, Titanic was made with no promenade deck, and because of everything that transpired gigantic never seen harlom and wolf, people don't like learning the truth when it's as preposterous as this one, but cover ups and conspiracy is what this country is made up of and we all come from over there at one point out another, so it would be true to say that every thing you see read and heard is not always the truth or what really happened, ask we can do is take in account of the history, tragedy and seek the truth out ourselves, that's what out ancestors left for us, like oak island, Quebec, the ship wrecks, I mean is a sad story but now it's history and ask we can do is take history to tell the truth instead of fake pretense bull that they try to feed unto people, once again the ship's were never redesigned gut the switch, they were just simply switched and the one being all messed up (Olympic) was to be umm revenued fit insurance money fur being a status quote me unsinkable ship although it was a damaged very sinkable vessel, well like I stated before I hour this helps with whoever it concerns to and therein helps your efforts for the discovery of the truth.

 

[Jeremy]

I've seen the "Titanic sinking was an inside job" conspiracy mentioned in a satirical manner, but I can't believe there are people who believe that for real.

 

[Whitebeard]

The problem is to carry out such a switch at Harland and Wolff would involve thousands of people. Around 1911/12 the ship yard directly employed 15,000 people, with another 20,000+ involved in support services and employed by various sub contractors. Add in the employees of the White Star Line, the permanent and casual staff of the Belfast Dock and Harbour commission and you have a figure in excess of 60,000 people. About 1/5th of the cities entire population, and a third of Belfasts working population.

For such an act of sub-diffuse to be carried out a large number of people would have been in on the plan, that's a lot of people to swear to secrecy, a shed load of hush money to pay out, and in all the years since this alleged switch not ONE credible source has come forward with inside information? No death bed confessions, no local pub gossip and legends, no 'my grand father told me' stories? Very hard to believe. Especially when you consider the staunch Presbyterian culture that presides in Belfast to this day, where a deep protestant, 'be truthful or burn in hell' ethos runs (or at least ran) through the working class psyche. If this switch was true, especially in the light of the ensuing disaster, I can't help but feel that SOMEONE at least would have blown the whistle.

 

[Phillip Jermakian]

Wouldn't the name be on both sides of the ship, making disproof of the video impossible from showing one sides lettering? Also when I first heard this it all sounded like the M.O. of our rulers, except this switched ship part that sounds far fetched, disproving this does nothing to disprove the rest of it.

 

[TLO]

Y'all are really latching onto the exterior, and they were never the same, like Titanic bridge wings overhung the ship prior to March 1911, while Olympics didn't. Now interior differences, compare and contrast, and tell me which ship we see on the bottom. Also when Olympic was scrapped in Scotland in 1937, not one piece of fittings had Titanic's yard number, 401. They all read 400. So for the switch to take place that means you have to add all the changes to A and B Decks, then gut the Olympic, moving all of her fittings and refit them into the Titanic, then create entirely new fittings, (because Titanic's fittings still read 401 and aren't compatible with Olympic) on refit Olympic. The time needed to complete such an operation? 44 days. It took the workers, 15,000 strong at Harland and Wolff 7 months to fit out one ship. Now either you need to keep them all quiet, somehow which 15,000 is quite the task, and also lazy conspiracy theory 101, or the switch didn't happen. Also we have observed the name TITANIC on the two bow plates, and the stern with the words LIVERPOOL underneath the stern plate. None of these letters are brass, or some other metal that's been riveted, they've all engraved into the hull, just like Harland and Wolff did with every single ship they launched at the time.