PDA

View Full Version : Was Sinking the Titanic an Insurance Scam?



Serpo
24th July 2011, 03:04 AM
Was Sinking the Titanic an Insurance Scam?

July 23, 2011


The Olympic, damaged in a collision and destined for the scrapyard, may have been disguised as its sister ship, the Titanic.






by John Hamer
(henrymakow.com)

In 1908, financier J.P. Morgan planned a brand new class of luxury liners that would enable the wealthy to cross the Atlantic in previously undreamed-of opulence. The construction of the giant vessels, the 'Olympic', the 'Titanic' and the 'Britannic,' began in 1909 at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Ireland.

Unfortunately for Morgan and his personal bank balance, this money-making venture went a little awry. The Olympic, the first one of the three sister-ships to be completed was involved in a serious collision with the British Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Hawke in September 1911 in Southampton a few weeks after its maiden voyage and had to be 'patched-up' before returning to Belfast to undergo proper repair work.

In hindsight, it does seem strange that although the Olympic, the first of the 'sisters' to enter service, was never given the publicity her younger sister, the Titanic, enjoyed the following year Why would that be?

In the meantime a Royal Navy inquiry into the accident found the Olympic at fault for the collision and this meant that the owner, White Star Line's insurance was null and void. The White Star Line was out of pocket to the tune of at least £800,000 (around $90m today) for repairs and lost revenues.

However, for Morgan and the White Star Line, there was even worse news.
It is believed that the keel of the ship was actually twisted and therefore damaged beyond economic repair, which would have effectively meant the scrapyard. The White Star Line would have been bankrupted, given its precarious financial situation..

According to Robin Gardner's book, 'Titanic, the Ship that Never Sank?'
the seeds were sown for an audacious insurance scam - the surreptitious switching of the identities of the two ships, Olympic and Titanic.

In his well-documented work, Gardner presents a long series of credible testimonies, indisputable facts and evidence, both written and photographic, that suggest that the two ships were indeed switched with a view to staging an iceberg collision or other unknown fatal event.

According to Gardner, "Almost two months after the Hawke/Olympic collision, the reconverted Titanic, now superficially identical to her sister except for the C deck portholes, quietly left Belfast for Southampton to begin a very successful 25-year career as the Olympic. Back in the builders' yard, work progressed steadily on transforming the battered hulk of the Olympic into the Titanic. The decision to dispose of the damaged vessel would already have been taken. ... Instead of replacing the damaged section of keel, longitudinal bulkheads were installed to brace it".

How significant then in the light of this statement, that when the wreck of the Titanic was first investigated by Robert Ballard and his crew after its discovery in 1987, the first explorations of the wreckage reportedly showed (completely undocumented in the ships original blueprints) iron support structures in place which appeared to be supporting and bracing the keel.

This was never satisfactorily explained either at the time or subsequently but would certainly be significant if correct and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it is not correct, as it was reported by the puzzled Ballard himself who of course at that time knew nothing (and probably still does not even now) about the alleged switching of the two ships' identities.

---

http://www.henrymakow.com/was_sinking_the_titanic.html

Shami-Amourae
24th July 2011, 03:55 AM
One of the banksters (John Jacob Astor IV) involved in the discussions to create the Federal Reserve went White Hat, and opposed the idea. His family was pretty much wiped out with the Titanic. That's what happens when you cross the Rothschild family.

gunDriller
24th July 2011, 06:21 AM
normally i wouldn't use Icke or ATS as a source but ...

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=112615

"There were a number of powerful men who were NOT in favor of the Federal Reserve System. Benjamin Guggenheim, Isa Strauss and John Jacob Astor opposed the formation of a F.R.S. These men were arguably the richest men in the world and stood in the way of the Jesuits' plan. 'These three men were coaxed and encouraged to board the floating palace.' Not only were these enemies of the Jesuits against a Federal Reserve Bank, but they would have used their wealth and influence to oppose World War I."


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread717696/pg1

"Standing in the way of and opposing the Federal Reserve Bank were the following individuals:

Benjamin Guggenheim
Isador Strauss
John Jacob Astor (the richest man alive back then)

All three were persuaded to take a ride on the Titanic.All three sank with the Titanic. J.P. Morgan himself was supposed to join the ride but cancelled. The captain of the Titanic himself, Edward Smith, also worked for J.P. Morgan.

The Federal Reserve was established in 1913, one year after Titanic and one year before World War I. I´ll leave it up to you to speculate the hows and whys."

mrnhtbr2232
24th July 2011, 07:36 AM
Offered for consideration:
http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/Conspiracy_Dissertation.pdf

This work, by Mark Chirnside in 2006, closely examines the claims made by Robin Gardner. One thing I found interesting is he frequently cites Gardner's "almost true" assertions, and spends time peeling the onion back to reveal the subtle evidence that the story is ultimately false based on expert testimony and surveys of both vessels. Just a little due dilligence for your consideration.