If you enjoyed this, would you want to see more videos like this, perhaps about the MOON LANDINGS, AREA 51, or THE BERMUDA TRIANGLE for example? What other topics do you want us to make videos about?
Regarding the idea that Captain Smith was drunk, it is worth noting that he had a rule to never drink while at sea, and survivors from his dinner party testified that he didn’t drink.
Some pointers: The Titanic, and most ships of the era, still used tiller commands. They were the standard since so many experienced sailors still used only those, so they were kept. Turning the ship starboard would mean turning the helm to port. This did not happen. Turning the wheel to starboard would turn the ship to port as intended. The coal fire was small and was long gone by the time of the collision. The more likely reason for the ship going at high speed was the presumed calm weather. There was little to no ice in sight, at least not in Titanic's way that anyone could see, and everything was super calm. As far as the crew knew, Titanic was in perfect sailing conditions with absolutely no hazards. The Captain ordered Murdoch and Lightoller to alert him at once should the weather change. The lifeboats on board were inadequate in terms of quantity, yes, but people tend to forget that the ship sank before all of the boats could even be launched. Launching the boats was a very slow process. It was all manual. Titanic didn't have the automatic gantry davits Britannic had. The last two boats were floated off. One was upside down and the other was still stuck to the ship as the final plunge began. Having twenty more boats would probably not have mattered much. They would have just been extra debris as the ship broke apart and sank.
@@davenstorm7271 Sir? I wouldn't put too much faith in the inquiries. They concluded the ship sank intact and the crewmen tried blaming the lack of binoculars, too. In other words, the coal fire is a scapegoat. In reality, coal fires were super common back then. If it was really such a raging inferno, why didn't passengers mention it? It was right below the swimming pool. No one above even felt it at all.
@@SwedishAlicorn Sry I didn't look at the name was just making a comment it's why is said " Sir so Ma'am excuse me for that . As for me thats the Olympic that sank not the Titanic!!!
What’s funny is when I’m arguing with a titanic conspiracy theorist, they either ignore me, or tell me I’m wrong, they also refuse to tell me where they got there information from, since it’s “none of my business”
For anyone curious, the black and white clip around 11:00, that says “Titanic” 1953, the name of the movie isn’t Titanic, but “A Night to Remember”. No hate, but it is a fantastic and more fact driven depiction of the story than the 1997 version of you’re interested in watching!
This is incorrect. 'A Night to Remember' was released in 1958, and there was in fact, another (though less well-known) film released in 1953, titled simply 'Titanic'. Of course, the earlier film was largely forgotten about after 1997 blockbuster film was given the same title.
The second clip you show at 0:07 is actually of the sister ship ironically. This is a common mixup and that clip is the maiden voyage of the RMS Olympic, not the maiden voyage of Titanic. This was before the fire obviously and what led to the possibility of the fraud.
It wasn't even Olympic's maiden voyage, because a) it's departing from New York (which is why all the tug boats have mysterious negative scratches over where their home port should be written), and b) if you look carefully you can see the repairs made to the hull after the Hawke collision. Also Captain Smith is wearing the white summer uniform, not the black winter uniform.
Titanic never had time to be filmed or photograph, and the people always brought up the fire, and that mark on the outside of the hull is fresh paint reflecting thats having the shoreline reflecting off it I've been around many ships freshly painted and you see the same type of reflection and funny enough thats is actually where Titanics swimming pool was not the Cole bunker and who ever argues otherwise obviously dont know the layout of titanic and never look extensively into her blueprints
Agreed, the Titanic sinking involves a whole heap of different subjects. But the game changing event here is not the sinking but the collision between RMS Olympic and the Navy vessel in Sept 1911. If that hadn`t happened, there most probably wouldn`t be, barring any other unforeseen occurrences, anything to talk about.
@@doctormanganate5814 That`s possible but maybe that lot would have found a way eventually. When they planned the Federal Reserve on Jekyll Island in 1910, they were fully aware of the opposition and couldn`t rely on a Titanic sinking to get them a result, Titanic was still being built at that point, yet they were deadly serious in getting that thing off the ground. As it happened they got lucky, what would have happened otherwise with no Titanic sinking is anyone`s guess, history would be changed anyway. Aldrich and his gang would have fought on.
Well it was the Olympic what sank because when guy who die he was not allowed tell the truth but when he was going to die he told the truth it was the Olympic what sank sorry idc what ppls think because truth hurts
What also bugs me about the switch theory: The ships weren't identical. Sure, they looked pretty similar, but there were things that Titanic had that Olympic didn't. The À la carte Restaurant, the Café Parisien, and the first class suites on B-Deck, where the Olympic had a promenade. Kinda unlikely that they managed to switch those interiors and cut windows for a B-Deck promenade on Titanic without anyone noticing...
People bring up the 2 additional portholes appearing but it’s very easy to just assume they where added on later, this happened with Olympic too where it was launched with 14 but 2 more where added, yet I guess to many theorist nuts they assume 2 portholes is enough for entire ships to be switched
@@brandonwilliams567 bruv, seriously, give me one serious argument that rms olympic and titanic were swapped. Okay, before you go, rms Olympic was itself a new ship when Titanic was being fitted. She did not go for new fit outs before the disaster. now after her crash with hms hawke, she stayed alongside the titanic, but if you see clearly, titanic's b deck was already changed, her windows were narrow and unevenly shaped unlike olympic, you can also see work begining on the A deck enclosure of titanic. What you all have to understand is Titanic was "LAUNCHED" identical to olympic, but was heavily changed during her fit outs, that is why her tonnage increased , claiming her the title of largest ship. Also adding parlour suites, a la carte restaurant, cafe parisian and changing her hull number within the time olympic stayed in belfast, was impossible. also can you seriously shut out so many workers. Also now it has been revealed that titanic had a central propeller as three blades while olympic had 4. With new 3D outlook of the wreck you can see hull number 401 written on the blades of titanic. Please stop this theory. Titanic and Olympic were never swapped, they were similar but never identical. Also company never was going bankrupt that it had to swap. And please tell me which company will insure one ship but not the other, possibly Olympic should be insured before than Titanic as it was the first of the class. But i do believe its difficult to make you all understand , i think soon you all will say, it is not Britannic on the ocean floor.
@@shashwatsrixig2937 JP Morgan owned both ships. One damaged needed repairs 5 million worth. No insurance so he would have to pay out of pocket. Never said anything about going bankrupt. I work for the rail road so I look into the history of it being curious. What I find out JP Morgan was a sneaky evil person. None of us lived in that time to 100% know for sure but from my research I’m just a railroad seeing how corrupt JP Morgan was I can just imagine what he done with them ships all 3 of them! $5 million in the early 1900s was a lot of money! Too many conspiracies too many stories start to come together and add up. 14 years before what ever ship it was that sank. The book the titan was published. Told just how the ship sunk 14 years before it even hit the water.
Heres another difference between Olympic and Titanic... Olympic has no extended A deck promenade, while Titanic did. Also, the B deck promenade on Olympic ended just past the 4th funnel, while titanics ended before the 4th funnel. And! Titanic had a different watertight compartment design, for more space
A mix up of names on the registry is all you need. The hardest part is having both boats dry docked together at a wharf. Where everyone is controlled by industry and religion. Who knows how much further we would of advanced if the richest man and a few bankers lived in 1912.
I’ve heard most of these, as well as the evidence that much of them were just stories printed by newspapers at the time. The idea about Titanic being swapped with Olympic while in dry dock as part of an insurance scam doesn’t really hold water (pun intended). At best, there may have been cost-cutting measures taken to finish Titanic (cheaper quality steel, poorer rivets, etc.) because of the financial loss incurred by Olympic’s damage. This could explain why Titanic suffered such catastrophic damage when it was scraped by the iceberg. Had she been built to her specs, it might’ve withstood the damage at least until it made it to port.
@@TimeMasterOG She still would have sank. And she would have been in far worse condition. All power, heat, light, and radio would go out and everyone would have suffered major injuries. Plus the hull would buckle into the boiler rooms hitting room 5 harder possibly sinking her quicker.
@@crazyguy_1233 alot of the Titanic expert's and ship building expert's and simulations say she would have survived head on but would have killed up to 200 crewman sleeping in there bunks but I don't know I'm not an expert but have studied the Titanic for almost 39 yrs and watched and read hundreds of documentaries and looked at alot of Titanic's actual records.
@@TimeMasterOG Its possible but then the ship would have bein stuck in the Iceberg. Yes it may wouldnt have sunk but it would still be in no condition to continue its journey. Also it's hard to tell what would have happend. Fore all we know it could have caused the ship to lose and just sink far quicker.
Furthermore, only 18 of the 20 boats were truly launched. The very last two lifeboats to leave the ship were washed off around the same time, one upside down and the other with its canvas sides only partially raised, causing its occupants to spend the night ankle-deep in freezing water after the problem was partially fixed. (These were Collapsibles B and A, respectively). Both did contribute to saving passengers and crew as a number of men survived the night clinging to the upturned B and most of those in A were rescued, but others died on each of those boats, not to mention a few more lifeboats besides. Just as many people don't know how many lifeboats Titanic carried and that it was all perfectly legal due to outdated regulations, a lot don't know that they were not even able to properly launch the full complement of not-nearly-enough boats. At the time, lifeboats were only expected to carry passengers to another nearby ship. (Indeed, there may have been a ship available to save more people had the Captain been alerted to the problem, but that's for another time). There were few-- zero?-- lifeboat drills for the ship once it left Southamptom and the first lifeboat did not row away until 12:45AM. Collapsibles A and B washed off around 2:12AM, giving less than 90 minutes to load the theoretical capacity of 1,178 passengers, of which of course they fell far short.
The first ship i sailed on had the ''tiller '' method , put the wheel over one way to go the desired direction . That was back in 1971 , now they all have it so you put the wheel in the direction you want to go , just like steering a car , funny thing is that most modern ships do not have a wheel , they have a thing that looks like a tiller , just a short arm that you put to the left or right
Truth to be told, the pair of binoculars would not help to spot the iceberg, not even in the slightest. It would actually limit the field of view of the crew in the crows nest. Binoculars were not commonly used in dark nights even when they were available, as they would provide no advantage. The iceberg wasnt a shiny mountain of ice crystals. It was a black dark chunk without any light reflection, same as the sky behind it and the water around it. The night was totally dark, moonless, with no big waves that would bounce off the iceberg. In other words, it was not possible to spot the iceberg sooner with the 1912 technology.
Listening to old videos of people telling about their experiences decades after it happened. Many passengers, at first, did not take the emergency seriously. The first boats had the least amount of people. As the ship sank, more people would be pushed on each both. About an hour after the escape, nearby lifeboats would even out the people by removing packed boats onto those with less people. Even splitting up Mother and Daughter, who would need see each other again until hours or days after reaching land.
Also remember, even though Titanic was constructed from the same plans, the twin beauties were different interior wise, Titanic, being the newer ship, was constructed to be a better version of Olympic, remember, Andrews was on Olympic to see the flaws so he can change them in Titanic, Olympic had A B Deck Promenade, Titanic Had extended staterooms on B deck, the Café Parisian, and private promenade stretching to 50 ft for the staterooms in B deck
I wonder how much it would’ve cost, to open up the B deck promenade on Titanic, without having the decks above collapse, and add all the modifications to the Olympic, and I wonder if they would finish it on time
@@jeffarc To my knowledge the improvements on Titanic were ripped out and the ship completed to Olympic specs. This wasn`t a great problem as they had about 4 months to do it. Olympic was a different matter as they only had one month and they had to concentrate on priorities and stuff that was advertised.
Bit disappointed that you didn’t go into more detail about debunking the “it wasn’t titanic which sunk” conspiracy. The Titanic and The Olympic were quite different to each other in many ways. The enclosed front half of A-Deck on Titanic for one, being the most obvious plus the different floor plan in various areas of the ships including first class, highlighted by the different window spacing towards the front of B Deck, to make the staterooms larger. Then there’s the addition of the Cafe Parisien and A la Carte Restaurant on Titanic which Olympic didn’t have at the time. To swap the ships over to commit the fraud, would have taken months of graft on both ships to physically alter the steelwork and structure! Not merely swap over name tags!!
It would've possibly been more of a pain to "swap name tags" than people realize. The names weren't painted onto the hull, they were cut out of the steel plates.
This conspiracy theory gets all the conspiracy juices flowing, ticks all the conspiracy boxes. In terms of debunking, surely it would be easier to prove that the Olympic was the Olympic, especially considering it was in service until 1935. The Titanic conspiracy is greed motivated, this could possibly be debunked by demonstrating that the repairs on the Olympic were cheaper then sinking her. What was the extent of her damage? Regardless of the ship 'White Star Line' Captains were consistent in running into solid objects.
Hundreds of pages of research and evidence, eyewitness reports, a letter from Morgan to the British Government preserved on record and the fact that all survivors were made to sign the secrets act before being allowed to talk to the press... Let me guess, you didn't know that right? Hmmmm that's what happens when you look up 'fact checkers' for your information instead of actually researching information to decide for yourself. Still not to worry when ur microchipped and living in a cashless society where only 3% of people own a car or a house you can think back on all the 'conspiracy theories' you rejected before plugging back into the news at 6. I guess you'll be first in line for a vaccine too? 😂
@@daveeastcott9323 I can't find any evidence to prove that wreck is the actual Titanic. The footage that is shared doesn't go to the obvious places to distinguish the difference. Ballard in a National geographic video made a statement that when he returned from discovering through ship he wouldn't talk about the Titanic at all with anyone for 4 months. That isn't normal, it really isn't.
The reason why the Titanic was going at full speed was because fog was a large problem near the shores of America which means the ship needs to slow down by quite alot and it could cause delays. But if you go at full speed at the early part of the voyage this gives you something in hand incase there is fog. It was done by literally every captain on the Atlantic. The Titanic actually dealt with the fire by transferring the coal from the burning coal bunker on the starboard side to the port side and also they prioritized the use of coal from that bunker. It would not have made the ship go faster.
2 corrections, 1. Lightholler went against Smith's orders as he only let women and children on, and 2. While he couldn't access the binoculars, they could not see it anyway due to a cold mirage which hid the iceberg
Here's why the Titanic's story will never die: (1) she was the world's biggest movable man-made object of her day, (2) she excelled in luxury, (3) she was on her maiden voyage (of all voyages), (4) there were many celebrities of the day on board, (5) there was already a lot of talk about all her features before she was ever launched (including the whole "unsinkability" talk), (6) she was the newest ocean liner of her time and (7) the Titanic is the first ship in living memory to be sunk by an iceberg. The Titanic shall always be in our minds despite herself; unlike the ship itself, the story remains unsinkable
5:14 The soundtrack composer of that film, William Alwyn, was alive only for a few more days after Robert Ballard's expedition found the wreck. He died ten days later, on September 11 1985 .
It blows my mind how conspiracy theorists think everything tragic is always a hoax. By that logic, it would mean nothing bad ever happens to anyone. I dare them to say that to anyone who has survived or lost someone in these horrible events.
Yah, tell that to all the families that lost loved ones in 911. No hoax there for sure. 2 biggest groups of idiots who roam the planet, conspiracy theorists and flat earthers. I've got no use for either, they all need to go crawl back under a rock!!
😂😂😂😂 how about you look into some facts yourself. Stop believing everything a youtube video tells you to believe. Literally nobody thinks everything tragic is planned out. However there are far to many discrepancies to overlook, especially when considering the motivations. It blows my mind how fast sheep like you are to believe anything and everything you are told to believe no matter the evidence or not!! Straight up pitiful
There's shady things behind the scenes, but it would be insane and irrational to believe that everything is a hoax and a conspiracy. Not to mention a grave insult to the victims as well.
I doubt very much whether Lightoller's daughter was passing on anything truthfully. Standard orders given for " hard a' starboard" would result in you turning the ships wheel to the LEFT even on a " modern" cruise ship in 1912. The thing that Murdoch got wrong was to order " reverse" of the engines. This takes time to achieve, and it is time that Titanic just didn't have. It results in the flow of water around the hull becoming less, and therefore the effectiveness of the rudder in turning the ship will take longer . The slower a ship moves the slower will be the time factor for the rudder to actually make the ship travel in a different direction. Murdoch should have understood that. Obviously he either did not or it slipped his mind. Murdoch's best move was to keep Titanic at the same speed it was travelling and still order " hard a' starboard". Its likely that had this series of orders been followed, that the ship would have turned in time to miss the berg altogether. Lightoller's daughter is or was obviously trying to sell books. Charles Lightoller did not mention anything about this in two enquiries on both sides of the Atlantic. So, one must question whether his daughter simply embellished the story.
Murdoch never ordered all the engines to REVERSE. He ordered them to STOP. It has been proved and they got it incorrect in many movies based on Titanic.
No reverse? A "stop" order? That's even worse. The speed must be maintained or increased to get a faster response in a turn. No wonder the damned thing hit the iceberg.
@@ChrisJensen-se9rjBy the time they spotted the iceberg, the situation was out of hand anyways. It was just mere seconds away from a collision. Many people believe that Titanic could've survived if they went for a head-on collision. The speed at which she was traveling tho (Close to 22 knots). It is highly debatable if Titanic had any chances of surviving in all the above scenarios.
What do you mean the ship would have to keep cruising at high speed? Like anything that runs on steam the Titanic was equiped with safety valves. If more steam was generated than was needed it could safely be vented through the safety valves. There would be no need to make the Titanic go faster in order to get rid of extra steam. Thanks to the safety valves, even if the engines were stopped entirely the boiler pressure would not reach dangerous levels.
I like most of this, but a couple of things are wrong. The Binoculars at night would have made no difference. It was nighttime with no moon. The ocean was dead calm, which, combined with no moonlight, meant that there wouldn't be waves crashing on the iceberg that would have made it easier to see. The quartermaster who turrned the boat did not turn it the wrong way. It turned left as ordered. Oh, and Titanic was not going full speed.
Yet people still believe the stupid switch theory. Here's also why its impossible: time. Yes, time. The Olympic/Hawk collision damage took 44 days to be repaired. During this time, Titanic was docked and being outfitted for its interiors and machinery for the first time, which took something like 7 months 11 days. As mentioned, Titanic had a yard number, 401, Olympics was 400. That number was on everything inside Titanic. Not to mention that Titanic differs from her sister ship by the changes to A and B decks, not to mention all the other subtle changes. So believers of the switch theory...you're telling me that they swapped all the stuff from Titanics hull, undid all the A and B deck changes, took out everything else marked 401, did the same for Olympic (gutted the ship of all things marked 400), and all that stuff in 44 days? Remember that it took Harland and Wolff 7 months 11 days to outfit Titanic from an empty hull. Also they would have to silence a lot of workers that were supposedly doing this. In the broad daylight. In Belfast Ireland. Yeah its really stupid. Titanic sank to the bottom of the Atlantic on April 15, 1912 at 0220. Olympic had a long service life but was scrapped in the 30s. A lot of Olympic's things were converted to use in restaurants, hotels, held in private collections, etc. They all have the number 400 on them. End of story
3:14 What I guess doomed the Titanic from early on was her very name. Titanic is the adjective for Titan, and the Titans in Greek mythology were a race who waged war against Zeus, the so-called "god of gods." This is the part of the story that seems familiar to quite a few. The part that seems unknown to most, shipowners at the time included, is that - guess what - the Titans lost. So, the Titanic was eventually defeated by her very name, as it were - and during her maiden voyage, at that .
I'm a ship enthusiast and technically a historian as well and man, you got (most of) the facts right. Great job! Though, one of the reasons Titanic's crew couldn't see the 'berg is because of a cold water mirage. another reason is that it was a moonless night, another is that there was no wind
The idea for the lifeboats was not to have them take everyone from the ship and bob about in the water waiting for help. The plan would be to summon another nearby ship for help and use them to ferry passengers from one to the other. This would take time, but the designers thought that the sinking ship would have that time judging by recent sinkings. WW2 proved that ships could take a ridiculous amount of time to sink despite heavy damage; sometimes they had to be torpedoed so that everyone else could go home.
How is it possible, that 16 life boats have a capacity of 50% of the people on board, while 20 boats have a capacity of 52%? Shouldn't it be more like 62,5%?
Nicely spotted! Another flaw in the video is that in the animations all smoke stacks are shown as operational - they were not; only three were actually for the coal burners.
yes smaller boats, 14 clinker built boats each carrying 65, 2 carried 40 people each and were emergency lifeboats for man overboard and alike, 4 collapsible boats with 47 people each, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboats_of_the_RMS_Titanic
I’ve heard that the reason Captain smith was speeding through the iceberg field was simple: The standard practice was to do that. The reasoning behind this was: in a minefield, you run through it to avoid getting exploded. Why not the same with ice fields?
No, you dont run through a minefield, running dont prevent you from stepping on a mine and getting exploded. 1912 it was common to pass potential icefield quickly until the ice comes in sight. Under normal circumstances a iceberg or icefield would been spotted long befor its becomes a danger, the night of the sinking wasnt normal circumstances, no moon, no waves and a super refraction with a fake horizont made it impossible to see the iceberg soon enough to avoid a collision.
The clincher that disproves the swap theory is the fact that Titanic and Olympic had different window arrangements on the B Deck Promenade. Regarding the myth that the binoculars were locked in a cabinet, I don't know why the Captain would hesitate at the idea of breaking the cabinet open and having some of the crew re-build it later. Then again, somebody would have had to think of that.
Titanic didn't have B deck promenade. There were first class staterooms. That's why the windows were having irregular spacing. And the binoculars wouldn't have made much difference. The lookouts use binoculars to identify an object after spotting them with naked eyes. That night was moonless might with only stars illuminating the night. Stars doesn't illuminate as much as the moon. The iceberg that night would look like a dark silhouette with starry background. Just the black shape.
The idea that if the men in the crows nest had binoculars, they would have seen the berg sooner is false. There was no moon that night, and the water was so calm it was almost still. When there's no moon and still water icebergs are basically invisible because there's no break water around them and no light to reflect off them, so the only way to see icebergs is to look at the horizon for voids in the stars. Using binoculars would be useless because in that scenario, all you would see through binoculars is pitch black darkness. In 1912, the best chance those men in the crow nest had to spot icebergs was with their naked eyes.
6:25 Because of a coal strike in Britain and because April was still off-season the Titanic was only two-thirds full; that's the only reason she had enough lifeboats for as much as 52% of those on board. Had she been fully booked then her lifeboats would've been enough for a measly 27%
Also, "coal fire" is rather overstating it. The conditions in the bunker would have resulted in a relatively cool-burning smouldering fire, not the kind of inferno you'd get in the boiler furnaces. It certainly wouldn't have gotten anywhere near hot enough to cause significant damage to a brand new heavy steel bulkhead, and in fact coal fires were pretty common on ships of the era. The probable reason why Smith was steaming at near full-speed through ice is because that was standard practice at the time. The thinking was any berg big enough to damage a ship would be big enough to spot, and that the best way to minimise risk of hitting ice was to spend as little time in ice as possible, hence go through as fast as you can.
And the problem with this was that the fact that this ship had sailed from hot water into cold water making their view a reverse Summer mirage. In this case everything around them was surrounded by a two foot tall false shadow in pitch dark blacknes. If they had spotlights they would have avoided it. This is on a NOVA special I watched a wile back. And also the thing with the rudder being tto small is explained by Bill Paxton's character in th movie.
Good video, underlining why we shouldn't believe newspapers. The 1912 book “Sinking of the Titanic” was based on stories from newspapers. It sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Through these books and newspapers, Anglophobe W.R. Hearst’s version of events became “fact”. "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Excellent video full of myth debunking, especially around the insurance scam, I would like to see more on the moon landings, UFO sightings, area 51, the Bermuda triangle and the Beast of Gévauden
People want to make order out of chaos. It’s hard for a lot of people to accept that the universe is random chance upon random chance. With just about any conspiracy theory when you apply Occam’s Razor it falls to pieces pretty quickly.
For all you morons who think Olmypic was switched with Titanic I have three reasons that prove it wasnt. 1 Everything on Olmypic and Titanic was marked with its hull number. I mean everything. The walls, pannels, boilers you get the point. Titanic's was 401. Olmypic's was 400 when you dive down to the wreck what do you see? 401 stamped on everything. 2 Olympic and Titanic had small exterior differneces the glaring one would be Olmypic B-deck promanarde along with not have a enclosed promenade on A-deck. (The reason Titanic did not have a B-deck promanarde was because it wassn't very popular and was removed and in its place the cafe parisien, more cabins and private promenade for B-deck parlor suites.) As you could imagine removing such features from Titanic and adding them to Olympic would be extreamly impractical and would cost a small fortune. 3 From a business point of view, this would be a stupid choice as they were marketed as "virtually unsinkable" so one of them sinking would be a huge economic blow and also massivly damage White Star Lines reputation.
@@Firemarioflower isn't it easy to kill them by gunshot or poisoning or things like that? Like how previous assassinations have happened. It's much easier to cover them. With a ship sinking, they can't even ensure their deaths. But first of all, what would be the evidences to prove the need of deaths of "certain prominent people"? It's obvious that Isidor Straus was an open supporter of the federal reserve, they wouldn't let such a prominent rich to board the ship if they planned it to sink. They could've easily stopped him from boarding.
at 0:07 you see Olympic with her patches after extensive repairs, more damage was done below the water line. this was the backbone of the switch theory, one if indeed carried out, of monumental proportions ...
What 'patches?' Olympic had been fully repaired and was back at sea after late November, 1911. The full extent of her damage was described in the Admiralty report of November, 1911, supported by the Board of Trade & White Star, as:- “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged." The switch theory, invented in the mid 1990s, added claims that her keel was damaged, and later that a propeller had been replaced. There was absolutely evidence to support this (and much to contradict it) but it helped to sell the book.
The swimming pool cost an additional fee, even with the most expensive First Class ticket. Turkish Baths, squash court, and the two a la carte dining venues also weren’t included with the ticket and cost extra per use.
Actually, the charge for all these first class amenities like the swimming pool or the Turkish bath is the ultimate in penny pinching from White Star. Think of it. As a first class stateroom occupant you've just forked out between 120 and 240 thousand dollars in modern adjusted money and now if you want to use the damn pool or the baths you have to fork out more money? In fact, you've just paid more money for a five day crossing than most people alive at the time would earn in a lifetime, enough to buy shares in the ship itself, and it still costs to use the pool? Outrageous.
@@ChrisJensen-se9rj These amenities were still rare in 1911/12, especially on British ships, so I could see why White Star Line would feel entitled to nickel and dime the first class passengers with the brand new bells and whistles.
Nice work! Can you expand on the fire in the coal room? I am seeing more sources recently that claim the fire(s) were out of control and compromised the structural integrity and may not have sunk even when the iceberg was hit, because the hull was torn upon impact and punctured near the location of the fire.
'I am seeing more sources recently that claim the fire(s) were out of control and compromised the structural integrity.' No, you are not seeing any 'sources,'' you are seeing unsubstantiated claims by people with no actual knowledge, and who probably haven't even bothered to read the statements given at the two Inquiries. There was a small fire in a coal bunker. Witnesses from the surviving engineering crew stated that it had been extinguished by the morning of 14 April. Such fires were generally dealt with by using up the coal from the affected bunker as quickly as possible. After all a liner like Titanic generally burned 600 - 800 tons of coal per day. Consider this scenario :- Joseph Bell, chief engineer of Titanic, rushes up to Captain Smith on Titanic's bridge, just before the ship sails, and tells him that a serious fire is raging below decks, compromising the hull of the vessel. Smith, a Master since 1887, and the captain who had taken out every new White Star liner on her maiden voyage since 1904, says 'Never mind, we'll sail anyway. After all, it's only the North Atlantic in April. What could possibly go wrong?' Do try to think for yourself. How stupid do you think these people were?
fun fact there is a woman who survived both the titanics sinking the brittanics sinking (if you dont know that was from an undersea mine) and the olympics disastrous collision with the hms hawk who then survived a few other significant occasions and lived until the age of 84.
Unfortunately people like the myths better than the truth. Just look at the “there is no virus” believers! If that’s tha case why did they just bury my friend who died within 2 weeks of becoming ill??
I think the whole going down with your ship thing is stupid, The owners of a ship are still human and want to survive. Of course they should make as much effort to save the passengers too though .
Another YTer makes certain arguments regarding Titanic's lifeboats. First, they were envisioned to be used to transport people to another ship responding to distress calls rather than the place to wait until another ship came. They believed the safety measures in Titanic to delay sinking as well as the high volume of other ships would allow for this strategy to be used. Another point is that more lifeboats may not have made a difference because they wouldn't have had time to launch them. Even with not having enough lifeboats and not filling them up, the last two lifeboats (Collapsible A and B) just were barely cut free before Titanic's final death knell, almost going down with the ship. Furthermore, even ships that stay afloat longer than Titanic start to list, preventing a high number of lifeboats from being lowered. One last point he makes is that Titanic stayed afloat for 2.5 hours, which likely saved lives. Titanic's sister Britannic sank in 55 minutes and Lusitania sank in 18 minutes due to listing and capsizing. Because the Titanic crew moved the coal to the port side to fight the fire (resulting is a slight list to port during the journey), when they struck the iceberg on the starboard side, the ship started to right itself and flood evenly. Otherwise, Titanic would have listed to starboard and capsized, sinking much quicker and preventing lifeboat launching from the port side. And, towards the end, Titanic did start to list to port for other reasons, which caused sinking to accelerate.
Primarily the fact that there is no actual evidence to support it, and much material to prove it false. No really surprising, as the 'theory' emerged out of nowhere in the 1990s.
@@MrGoldenV The overwhelming weight of evidence on this occasion is provided by the wreck herself, which shows numerous features unique to Titanic. The sinking was a tragic accident, despite your 'I want to believe the conspiracy, so i'll ignore any evidence' approach.
@@dovetonsturdee7033What are the numerous unique features? Yard records show that Olympuc was repaired using Titanic propeller stamped “401”. Two letters have dropped off the wreck revealing an “M” and a “P”. Photos of the launch show The 16 forewarn portholes of the Olympic rather than the 14 of the Titanic. But what are the numerous Titanic features to which you refer?
Ummmm there is actually transcript from a crew member that witnessed two male passengers get pew pewed and he even stated that he heard another shot and the officer was on the ground. People stated that he pew pewed himself but no one saw.
The passengers name was Eugene Daly. The "man" that wore womens clothing was a 10 year old boy from what ive read. I read that the boy's mom and sister were put of lifeboats and he was denied since he was a boy so another passenger quickly thru girls clothing on him and put the boy in the boat with his mom and sister saving his life.
Daly's account isn't exactly reliable though. His own words, only five days after the sinking: "There was no shooting, as I learn, except that a steerage passenger told me he saw an officer trying to control the maddened rush by shooting two persons. The same officer shot himself a minute later." So Daly may not have actually seen any shooting at all.
Steam engines will only go as fast as the steam you provide to them will allow. Burning extra coal will not cause the ship to go faster. If too much steam is produced, it will be vented out through the safety valves. While (because Ocean liners recycle their steam, instead of exhausting it to atmosphere like a steam train) it may be possible that the crew wanted to conserve water, this would not "force" them to run the ship at excessive speed.
Conspiracy theorists are people who don't have a real life, who have more than enough time to fabricate fictional stories in their parents' basements. Keyboard warriors we call "tin foil hatters".
This didn’t even graze the real issues that have been brought up surrounding the switch claim. I invite others to look further because there is substantial discrepancies and the majority of what I’ve heard doesn’t involve a ship never sinking. This so called “debunking” spent tons of time on things that have nothing to do with why some people think the ships were switched. It also completely ignored key pieces of information like how although the boats were basically the same there were some key differences and comparing them honestly definitely suggest it’s possible. I didn’t just accept what I’ve heard I did my own research with the notion that it would “debunk” the claims but ended up just confirming many of them. There is nothing wrong with not just accepting what we are told, it’s nuts how anyone who questions the narrative is deemed bad. One thing this did do is reinforce the fact the press can be dishonest and misrepresent info.
@@richardvanzyl7066 Are you actually claiming that deep things never happen? We don’t know what we don’t know so if so perhaps you aren’t aware of many “deep” events that have occurred. If I didn’t think it was a complete waste of time I’d go over just a few times that the truth ended up being very deep because reality can be terrible and not everyone is a saint. Perhaps the reason some think it’s not plausible is only because that is what we are led to believe and anything else is hard to imagine especially something deep. Either way I think the ability to discuss ideas, thoughts, information etc is important, it doesn’t hurt anything, it’s not some horrible thing that should be shunned, and controlled. It’s becoming rarer and rarer to be able to have nice open dialogue which could actually be beneficial even in disagreement. I don’t think someone is bad for having theories or a different perspective or opinion and I think it’s crazy that such things are seemingly looked down upon. I only wish more were open to just chatting about different things with a desire to go deep without so much defensiveness or vilification.
The propeller was apparently damaged on the Olympic and swapped with Titanic that’s why it has 401 stamped on it. However the other propeller s cannot be seen in any footage. The Olympic propellers were 4 blades and titanic 3. Maybe this and the fact that recent images show no damage on the side of the hull are the reason they never raised her up!! They’re maybe a lot of secrets hidden beneath. One thing for sure anytime anyone tried to change the Federal reserve in America it didn’t turn out good!!
@@rufus7343 Olympic never had one of her sisters propeller blades, all White Star ships had their own spares and Olympic and Titanic had blades of different pitches, so not interchangeable.
The only thing I'd disagree with is something used to dispute a couple things. The same "extensive inquiries" also stated that she didn't break in half. Not at all that I believe what the "inquiries" example was used to refute, just pointing out the inquiries were also wrong on some things.
With the darkness and coldness off the night the quality of the binoculars at the time and the colour of the iceberg it would of been impossible to spot the iceberg using binoculars
And it doesn't stop there! Lookouts need to watch the whole horizon and use their peripheral vision. It would have limited their view to use binoculars. Also binoculars were used to identify objects. That's not the job of the lookouts. The lookouts say "we see something", but their job isn't to identify it or recommend action.
@@josephfuller6229for what? Just because he survived? Payouts were done from white star line to the survivors and he resigned from white star line and took over his father's insurance company to payout the survivors.
1:20 Shipbuilder Magazine said of WS's new superliners that they were "practically unsinkable" but somewhere in the retelling (early into it I'm sure) the adverb was dropped and everyone just went and said they were unsinkable
It still doesn't explain many mysteries like the ship nearby that never came to help but had loads of blankets ready for a rescue, the many important people who not only cancelled their trip at the last minute, but also made sure to have their precious cargo offloaded, the Jesuit who was invited for this inaugural voyage and travelled in the best suite but strangely got off the ship during its last European stop in Ireland before the Atlantic... etc. Many weird coincidences!
Okay but to be fair even without conspiracy. If I canceled a trip on a boat I too would make sure to ask for my things back instead of them being shipped accross the Atlantic
1). Californian was carrying a 'mixed, general' cargo, according to the Boston shipping papers.l The 'loads of blankets' claim is an outright invention. 2). Almost as many people cancelled for Titanic as had previously cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage.
@@dovetonsturdee7033I get the impression you write just to say something. Not one thing you have written has any merit. It's as if when you speak we see a form of diarrhea ejected from your brain via your mouth.
@@I_like_bacon_well_done 'I get the impression you write just to say something.' Actually, I write when I wish to correct errors made by others, in order to inform them. That, mon vieux, is what debate is about. However, you never seem able to challenge any comment I make, do you? You simply post a series of insults, instead. Do feel free to give me the benefits of your obvious erudition.
As ships grew bigger, the British board of trade failed to update the lifeboat law, which measured ships by the gross tonnage not the number of passengers aboard
Even the smaller ships didnt had a place for every passenger on bord in the lifeboats. The role of the lifeboats wasnt to take everyone from the ship and wait for help, their role was to ferry the people to another ship
First of all the white star line didnt use bottles, they used firework. Second of all "bottles kept at the sea is better conserved then on land" is false. They have recovered some of the bottles and they all taste like seawater. In 1912 lifeboats wasnt ment for the purpose lifeboats is today, therefore they didnt have enough lifeboats. Lifeboats was more of a "travel from one boat to another" incase of a problem.
@@andimiller-ps3zo No, there aren't. But there are a lot of people who invent conspiracy theories on the basis of flimsy, or even non-existent, evidence.
@@I_like_bacon_well_done Please show me evidence of my narrow-minded foolishness. Your posts to date are remarkable in their ability to be entirely free of actual facts, whilst being insulting instead.
@@I_like_bacon_well_done 'The author of the video clearly disagrees with you. Your narrow minded foolishness doesn't matter to anyone but yourself here.' Actually, the author of the video does agree with me. Which, of course, you would have known had you actually watched it.
Didn’t debunk anything basically jus told facts and news articles about the ship and I’ve heard the conspiracy way before this video and honestly I wouldn’t doubt it one bit if that wasn’t the real titanic bc they were jus as crooked then as they are now if not more
Do you have any arguments that could nullify these facts and news articles? Can you explain Titanic's yard number (401) being visible on her wreck instead of Olympic's (400)? Can you tell me how they managed to switch two ships with significant interior and exterior differences in a matter of weeks? How does the insurance cost of 5.000.000$ cover the build cost of 7,5.000.000$ (each per ship)? Probably not. Or have you FaceBook friends already made up some baseless cope for these points? See you at the flat Earth rally.
Just can't believe the answer Lightoller gave to question 14197 at the British inquiry Can you suggest at all how it can have come about that this iceberg should not have been seen at a greater distance? - It is very difficult indeed to come to any conclusion. Of course, we know now the extraordinary combination of circumstances that existed at that time which you would not meet again once in 100 years; that they should all have existed just on that particular night shows, of course, that everything was against us. That's not a ship's officer, that's a teen. The court wasn't impressed either and the message seemed to be, as Walter Lord put it so well, that the accident was of the one-in-a-million variety. Friend of mine said to me one time that the accident was of the "preventable variety."
@@I_like_bacon_well_done Indeed I am. If your carers will leave you on the lap top long enough, why don't you try to educate me by describing the 'facts' which support the J. P. Morgan nonsense? Surely, you are occasionally able to post comments other than abusive ones?
@@hxtem6405 Actually, where conspiracy theories are concerned, it is up to the theorist to present evidence in support if the theory, rather than a critic to prove the actual lack of evidence?
