Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank?
Updated: Aug 26, 2020
History is filled with events and discoveries that greatly shaped the world. The Olympic, Titanic, and Britannic are one of history's greatest inventions and the largest luxury liners of their time, rivaling the Cunard's Lusitania and Mauritania.
But there is always a dark side to every story. Rumors and debates about the Titanic circulate since the "sinking" of the Royal Mail Ship. Conspiracies abound surrounding the nature of the alleged disaster. Some say that she was switched with her older sister ship, the Olympic, as part of an insurance scam that went wrong, taking the lives of 1,500 people. Others say that she was intentionally sunk to kill off powerful "opposition" to J.P. Morgan and the Aldrich Plan, which later became the Federal Reserve Bank.
But as with most mainstream historical events such as the JFK assassination, the con-spiracists only question certain elements of the stories, leaving behind other clues and revelations that forces one to consider the possibility that the stories told weren't real at all. Such is the case with the Titanic event, in which we find many anomalies in the said tale that should force the observer to reconsider everything and entertain the possibility of a hoax. In this case, researchers like Miles Mathis, Ludlow Eye, The Mad Revisionist, and the Cluesforum community may have the answers.
One such anomaly are the dead bodies collected from the wreckage and the confusion regarding the number of lives lost and saved from the Titanic "disaster."
... we see the New York Times also had a story ready to go on the morning of April 15, stating 1,200 onboard and 655 saved. The New York Tribune tells us 1,340 perished, with 886 rescued, putting 2,226 onboard. The Detroit News tells us 1,241 missing and 868 saved, putting 2,109 onboard. Where are all these different numbers coming from? I can see some confusion on number missing, but since all ships are required to have a full passenger and crew list, the total onboard should be a firm number. It should not vary from 1,200 to 2,226. And if we read closely, we find the New York Times admitting its information came from the Olympic by wireless (telegraph). That means these numbers were coming straight from White Star Lines, which should have known a total onboard. At any rate, it would not be telling some newspapers one number and other newspapers another number. Unless it wanted to create confusion. It looks to me like someone decided to inflate the number from about 1,200 to about 2,200 in the first week.
We are told the Carpathia rescued 705 people from the Titanic, so at this point in the investigation we may guess that would be that was all that were ever onboard. Minus 212 crew, that would be 493 passengers, which sounds about right. Since this was a managed event, either the passenger lists were faked, the crew list was faked, or both. The Carpathia list was probably also faked, since that ship was part of the hoax. It may have picked up more than 705 [or none]. The Titanic lists could be padded in several ways, which we have seen in more recent hoaxes. They could include people that had recently died from other causes, so we should look for a preponderance of elderly onboard. They could include the names of agents throughout the world who needed to disappear as part of their cover that year. And they could include names simply made up from scratch. These made-up names often include some sort of inside joke.
Further down the page, we have a huge anomaly. Canadian ships were allegedly the first to arrive on the scene after the Carpathia took the survivors away. These Canadian ships were supposed to collect bodies, but there were too many to collect. So Captain Larnder of the Mackay-Bennett decided to preserve the bodies only of first-class passengers, dumping second and third-class passengers and crew back into the sea. Of course this makes no sense on any level. What it indicates is that these second and third-class passengers never existed. In fact, there is no proof of their existence, or at least of their deaths. All evidence was conveniently “buried at sea” as usual. Plus, how exactly did Captain Larnder and his men figure out who was from what class? Did they all still have ticket stubs in their pockets after floating for several days in the ocean? Or did he just pull in those wearing tuxedos or top hats? Despite the Canadians only collecting the wealthy-looking, one-third of the bodies were never identified or claimed. Really? One-third of the first-class passengers had no relatives and no one was looking for them? Almost half the bodies gathered (150) were never collected or claimed, and were buried in-masse in Halifax. Again, really? That is what we are expected to believe? Despite picking out only first-class passengers from the floaters, 150 were never claimed and were dumped into a mass grave in Nova Scotia? That alone proves this was fake.
The Prinz-Adalbert iceberg, allegedly taken hours after the Titanic "sank" on the morning of April 15th, 1912. Couldn't it be a more obvious fake?
There are also problems with the claim that the Titanic struck an iceberg. Firstly, the Titanic "wreck" is too far south from Iceberg Alley. Secondly, how could the Titanic not have sustained horrible damages after hitting a heavy solid mass in the ocean? Especially when she was allegedly traveling at full speed to New York? The only damages she sustained from the collision were tiny slits the size of dinner tables that encompassed six of her sixteen watertight compartments. The damage was so minimal that it could've been easily patched-up with plywood and things would've gone on like nothing happened. The Olympic allegedly suffered numerous accidents throughout her career yet she never sank. I suppose the Olympic's six compartments were never breached like the Titanic's allegedly were.
And the eyewitness accounts contain so many discrepancies as to make the whole story unbelievable. Some say the ship sank intact, others say she broke before she went down. There are even accounts of the Titanic's power still being on after she broke near the electrical circuit system located inside the stern. Again, do any of this make any sense to you? Do any of the above scenarios remotely resemble reality in any way?
What is interesting is what one of the very first news reports of the Titanic event have to say after the ship "sank" a few hours earlier:
What's even more revealing is the insurance backstory of the Titanic hoax.
For instance, we are told that Lloyd's of London insured the Titanic, and had to pay out around 10 million dollars just for the lost ship. That is according to the Denver Post, 1912. But that same article states Lloyd's only had $15 million on deposit, so they just lost 2/3rd of their value. They should have been devastated, but apparently weren't, so something doesn't add up here. We are told they paid in full within 30 days. That doesn't sound right, either, since none of us have had that experience with insurance companies. They normally drag their feet for the smallest claim. But we are supposed to believe they were able to fully investigate this Titanic fiasco in under thirty days, although it happened out in the middle of the North Atlantic? Also note the date of that article at the Denver Post: April 16, the day after. So we are supposed to believe they wrote this promotion of Lloyd's overnight? They didn't have anything better to report in the first 24 hours than this glowing promotion of the insurance company? C'mon! That by itself is a huge clue.
... the Titanic fraud looks like a con run by the insurance companies themselves. Best guess at this juncture is that Robin Gardiner was linked somehow to Lloyd's of London, and they hired him to throw White Star Lines under the bus. Since White Star no longer exists, it can be the fall guy. So Gardiner makes them the bad guys, while continuing to whitewash or misdirect away from Lloyd's, Astor, and many other parties.
With that in mind, we should look more closely at Lloyd's. Lloyd's is a towering red flag from the first word, since it isn't really an insurance company per se. It is a group of companies and individuals, or a syndicate, that has joined as underwriters of risk. It was created by Act of Parliament in 1871 (though it had existed since 1686), and is one of the spookiest companies in the world. In 2017 alone, it wrote about £37 billion in premiums, and—like a casino—we may assume it paid out a small fraction of that.
Curiously, we find that there was a Lloyd's Act passed by Parliament in 1911, just a few months before the Titanic hoax. A clue is even found in the date of the Act: August 18, 1911. Or, 18/8/11. Aces and eights, as usual. This was an act to “extend the objects of and confer further powers on Lloyd's”. One of the objects was to extend Lloyd's underwriting from marine to all sorts of insurance, including life insurance and all guarantee business [clause 3]. Another important extension was to make one of the main objects of the Society “the collection, publication, and diffusion of intelligence and information”. In other words, Lloyd's was being made part of the worldwide Intelligence community by act of Parliament. All this happened just a few months before the Titanic hoax. ... Also note the “and diffusion” part of that quote. Lloyd's wasn't just approved to collect intelligence, it was approved to diffuse it. What is “diffusing Intelligence?” Wouldn't that be. . . propaganda?
John Jacob Astor IV as a bachelor (left) and as a colonel (right). Notice that the head is in the exact same position but it was slightly tilted towards his right shoulder and brightened in the second picture. There is not one slight budge of movement on his face in either photograph. This indicates that the head from the second photo was copied and pasted from the first one. Which begs the question: was Astor ever a colonel at all? Apparently, there is little on his life as a colonel in the military. Pretty suspicious, n'est-ce pas?
So, did Astor have a life insurance policy with Lloyd's? Although Lloyd's is usually thought to be British, they do half their business in North America and only 29% in Europe. My assumption is Astor's policy was underwritten by Lloyd's. Ditto for other life insurance policies of the bigwigs, like Guggenheim, etc.
Also important is section 6, which states that within six months [which would fall on February 18, 1912], the capital stock of the Society would be transferred by the Trustees to the Society itself, with the Trustees giving up their trust. According to section 7, the funds and property of the Society and any income therefrom was afterwards “for the benefit of the members of the Society jointly”. In other words, the previous Trust was dissolved, and the members now owned the company directly, with any money not paid out in claims or spent by the business going directly to them. That may look great for members on the surface, but it actually left them extremely vulnerable, since they were no longer shielded by the Trust.
The ludicrousness of the story becomes more apparent when one studies the storyline of the Titanic's most illustrious aristocratic passengers, the Duff-Gordons.
The Titanic bill for the insurance underwriters – life, accident and marine – was at the time put conservatively at £50 million – about £5 billion or US$8 billion in today’s money. All counted, it probably soared higher still, for the thankless Lloyds Names who were obliged to pay up.
Contemporary newspaper articles about the Titanic are most revealing. In particular, the incredible eyewitness account of Titanic survivor, “Lady Duff Gordon“. When read with a critical eye, her account, it would seem, blows the cover on the whole sordid scam.
Lady Lucy Duff-Gordon, as she appeared in 1919. Pretty sinister-looking, indeed.
“Lady Duff Gordon“ and her husband “Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon“, and the story of their rescue, became “the first eye-witness accounts” to disseminate around the world. Reaching Europe by “cablegram” just hours after the disaster.
Lady Duff Gordon‘s tale was delivered so soon and in such detail that it could only have been pre-written. Moreover, her first-hand testimony was to become the backbone to the whole story.
Notably, in those press reports, Lady Duff Gordon was portrayed as astonishingly cruel and callous.
A lady of title who bribed the oarsmen in her half-empty lifeboat to row swiftly from the scene. Lest it were “swamped” by the drowning masses! Leaving 1,500 souls to the mercies of the deep open sea.
One poor fellow, close to death, who tried earnestly to clamber aboard her boat was unceremoniously shot dead, in case he capsized her little craft!
Even aboard the lifeboat, Lady Duff Gordon was unmoved by the vast human tragedy around her. Lamenting instead – for the benefit of the world’s press (!) – the loss of her furs, her lace nightgown and of course her jewels. She tells a crazy, crass tale!
It was a clever secondary narrative written around Lady Duff Gordon. A tale of breath-taking abuse of her social status and privilege, and of merciless contempt for her fellow man.
At the time Lady Duff Gordon served as a vital distraction from the main story of the Sinking; allowing the bulk of the story to pass largely unchallenged. And for years to come, the name Duff Gordon would evoke huge public outrage at the injustice of it all!
Yet it’s doubtful that Lady Duff Gordon and husband Sir Cosmo ever existed at all. They feel very ‘simmy’ (simulated; fictitious). A pair of Aunt Sallys. After all, why forfeit the reputation of real aristocrats when “sims” will do just as well?
Indeed, and it serves to further cement the Titanic myth in the minds and hearts of the impressionable, credulous masses of the "unsinkable" ship of dreams that met a ghastly end in the frigid, icy North Atlantic and the terrible class prejudices that existed onboard. And it still does to this day. We see a similar pattern with J. Bruce Ismay, the Chairman of the White Star Line, who was constantly vilified for his role in the Titanic event by William Randolph Hearst's media publishing empire. As the face of the company, Ismay was the perfect scapegoat to deflect blame from the real story and the real players in the con.
The HAPAG-Lloyd Connection:
Upon further research, I also found connections the Titanic had to the Hamburg-Amerika Line, aka HAPAG-Lloyd, and subsequently to her competitor, the Imperator.
Here's some information on the ship that was the location where the bogus Prinz Adalbert photograph was taken a few hours after the Titanic "sank":
The Prinz Adalbert, sister ship to the Prinz Oskar and one of the seven ships of the Prinzen Class owned by the Hamburg-Amerika Linie, later to become Hapag-Lloyd, was a 6,030 gross registered ton, 10-year-old, 123 m long vessel built at the Bremer Vulcan yard, Vegesack. With a capacity of 121 crew and 1,418 passengers, the Prinz Adalbert's 3,350 hp two quadruple expansion steam engines propelling twin screws had a maximum speed of 12.5 knots,  but if this trip was anything to go by then she would be hard pushed to match that speed in 1912.
The fact that the PA was owned by the same company that owned the Imperator is very telling, for it ties both ships to the Titanic hoax. You also see the connection to the Lloyd's of London. These points will be elaborated upon further reading.
There are more potential clues pointing towards massive coordination of fraud at sea. J.B. Ismay's letter to HAPAG discussing accommodations for the Olympic Class liners at Hamburg-Amerika "in the event of these vessels meeting with a serious accident while in American waters." This letter was written to HAPAG one month before the Titanic "disaster", on March 7th, 1912. Perhaps setting the stage for the subsequent disappearance and reappearance of the Titanic as the Imperator after her fake sinking?
Even more telling is the fact that Sir Rostron, the Captain of the Carpathia famous for his rescue of the Titanic survivors, commandeered the Imperator after the Titanic allegedly sank. To quote Wikipedia:
Sir Arthur Rostron of the RMS Titanic passenger rescue fame and former captain of Carpathia took command of Imperator in July 1920. The following year both Imperator and Aquitania were sent to Armstrong Whitworth shipyards to be converted from coal firing to oil.
In the same article, we are told that the Imperator received numerous refits throughout his entire career. One such refit was changing the length of the Imperator's funnels so as to improve his center of gravity, which was too high, early in her career. But you would think that they would've made her funnels longer and heavier so the ship would settle much lower in the water if his center of gravity was too high out of the water? Perhaps the most likely explanation for such a change was because the Imperator looked too much like the Titanic with his tall funnels. So they had to go.
In October 1913, Imperator returned to the Vulkan shipyard to facilitate drastic work to improve handling and stability, as it had been discovered that her centre of gravity was too high ... To correct the problem, the marble bathroom suites in first class were removed and heavy furniture was replaced with lightweight wicker cane. The ship's funnels were reduced in height by 9.8 ft (3 m). Finally, 2,000 tons of cement was poured into the ship's double bottom as ballast. This work cost £200,000, which had to be borne by the shipyard as part of their five-year warranty to the shipowners. At the same time, an advanced fire sprinkler system was fitted throughout the ship, as several fires had occurred on board since the vessel had entered service.
The Imperator, who later was bought by Cunard and changed into the Berengaria after the First World War, also had a problem with his ballast due to the fact that he was top-heavy. He was known to roll on her sides even in very calm seas. In fact, some considered the ship to be so unbalanced that they coined him the nickname "Limperator." The Titanic also had a similar problem with her ballast. Lawrence Beesley, a Titanic survivor and author, said that the Titanic had a slight list to port of about three degrees. I suppose they didn't manage to correct the Titanic's list while at Hamburg receiving massive refits.
Here are photographs of the Imperator and the Titanic for comparisons:
The Imperator (left) in May 1912 and the Titanic (right) in May 1911, one year apart, as they appeared on their launch days. To me, they look almost exactly the same. They just added a few more decks and stripped the ship known to us as the Titanic of her original window configurations. They even appear to be launched at the same place, but that is a "coincidence," right?
The mainstream establishment will dismiss this by claiming that the Imperator was 24 ft. longer than the Titanic herself. But that is only a 2% difference, barely visible to the naked eye. And since the ships were never measured together in real life, how can we be so sure that they really were that different in reality as well as on print?
Even the Titanic's initial design was similar to the Imperator's. For instance, the Olympic and the Titanic were originally envisioned to have three funnels by their designers at the Harland & Wolff shipyards in Belfast, Ireland. But that was later changed because Harland & Wolff and the White Star Line felt that the Olympic class liners would be more palatable to their customers if they had four-funnels instead of three and so as to compete successfully with their rival Cunard's Lusitania class liners.
The design evolution of the Olympic class liners, 1907-1911.
Thomas Andrew's original design of the Titanic was so efficient that it was originally conceived with only three funnels to service the massive boilers some 150 feet below. White Star thought it a necessity a ship of such grandeur must possess four funnels. As a result only three of the funnels were functional and the fourth was purely aesthetic. The Funnels were constructed off site and attached after the Titanic had left Dry-dock.