12.8 C
London
Thursday, May 23, 2024

Titanic was replaced to extort insurance? It’s a conspiracy theory

Must read

- Advertisement -


The Titanic did not sink, it was replaced with a twin ship in order to extort insurance – argues an anonymous Twitter user in a popular thread. Meanwhile, there is no credible evidence for this thesis.

More than 110 years ago, on the night of April 14/15, 1912, the Titanic ship sailing on the route Southampton – Cherbourg – Queenstown – New York sank off the coast of Newfoundland after colliding with an iceberg. About 1,500 people died then. passengers and crew members. At the end of June this year, a theory began to gain popularity on Polish Twitter that the Titanic did not sink – it was replaced with a twin ship, which was then deliberately sunk to extort insurance.

“Titanic Everyone knows its ‘official history’, but does it also know other secrets? Titanic had its twin but much older ship called Olympia. Both were owned by the well-known billionaire JP Morgan, who insured only one of them from sinking, yes it is In order to extort compensation, both ships were simply repainted, their names were changed in the documentation, and because they were deceptively similar to each other, no one noticed the difference at the time, probably someone was also bribed. ” – we read in the thread published by an anonymous twitter user on June 27, 2023 (original spelling of all entries).

He further argued that “the theory is especially supported by the characteristic arrangement of the windows on Olympia.” The replaced ship was supposed to be a “worn-out ship, whose repair was more expensive than scrapping. In order to avoid any costs and extort a huge amount of compensation, the heartless rich man went to murder, which would not be anything new in history. In addition, he eliminated many of his then commercial competitors as well as staunch opponents of the Central Bank in the US who blocked the process. Shortly after the crash, JP Morgan received massive compensation, and less than a year later the Central Bank was established.”

The first in a series of tweets posted on June 27, 2023 about the Titanic and its replacement with a twin shipTwitter

- Advertisement -

The first tweet from the thread was viewed almost 70,000 times. times, more than 300 Twitter users liked it.

“We live in the matrix. The whole story is one big lie”; “Are you serious? And the earth must be flat!”

“Interesting”; “We live in the matrix. The whole story is one big lie”; “I read about it once, apart from that it was also about a few people and things to do”; “The most important thing is that all the bankers who were against the private federal reserve sailed on this wonderful cruise. What a bad luck … “, some Internet users wrote in response.

Some of the commentators pointed to the wrong name of the second ship: “Not ‘Olimpia’, but ‘Olympic’. And not the only one, because there was also ‘Britannic'”; “Not Olimpia, but Olimpic. Not a ship, but a ship. Not much older, but they were being built at the same time. Give it up if you don’t get it.”

Many Internet users did not believe in the truth of the theory described in the popular thread: “Are you serious? And the earth is probably flat!”; “Nonsense, and the photos you show as proof are replaced (and also cropped so that the names of the ships are not visible)”; “The Titanic actually had a half-built promenade, not the Olympic. The English description with the arrow is for the cabin windows below the promenade. I know it’s an interesting theory, but if you look into the subject, the conclusion is that there was no mention of these ships”.

And rightly so, because it turns out that there is credible evidence of the story presented by the Internet user.

There is no evidence to support the ship swapping thesis

Theories about the “substitution” of the ships had already circulated in the English-language media. In January this year, it was analyzed by the editors Associated Press (AP), and in March an Indian fact-checking portal factly.com. They both thought it was fake.

The proponent of the theory was the British author Robin Gardiner, who in his books suggested that the Titanic did not actually sink, Factly.com notes. Gardinera believes the Titanic was replaced by its damaged sister ship Olympic. Its sinking was allegedly planned to extort insurance, Factly.com notes.

These claims have been addressed by other authors and experts. In 2004, a book entitled “Olympic & Titanic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy”, whose authors Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge refute the theory of substitution of both ships. Titanic and Olympic, they argued, were sister ships, but at the same time had many design differences that would have prevented the two ships from being interchanged. Thus, Titanic had a different number of watertight compartments than Olympic, and had more powerful engines or a different configuration of propeller shafts. Olympic (not Olimpia) wasn’t “much older” than Titanic either, as claimed by the twitter user in the thread. The launch dates of both ships are more than half a year apart.

“There is a lot of evidence contradicting the ship swapping theory,” J. Kent Layton, author of the Titanic books, told the AP. Thus, both ships had a different construction identification number, also known as the shipyard number – this is placed on many structural parts of the ship. “It is well documented that Olympic’s shipyard number was 400 and Titanic’s was 401. Many items numbered 401 were recovered from the Titanic, and items auctioned after Olympic’s decommissioning in 1935 were numbered 400,” the AP explains.

“Every piece of paneling that took months to install on both ships would have to be taken off both ships and replaced in just a few days, which makes no sense,” Layton told the AP.

The owner of the Titanic got rid of opponents of his idea of ​​​​centralizing US banking? There is also no evidence

A popular thread also claimed that Titanic’s owner John Pierpont Morgan, by allegedly intentionally sinking the ship, “additionally eliminated many of his commercial competitors at the time, as well as staunch opponents of the US Central Bank who were blocking the process.”

In March 2021, this theory was also verified by the editors Reuters. Opponents of the appointment were supposed to be: businessman Benjamin Guggenheim, Isidor Straus, owner of the Macy’s department store and John Jacob Astor, a real estate tycoon. As Reuters checked, there is no evidence that the three were opposed to JP Morgan’s idea to introduce centralized banking in the United States.

Titanic history expert George Behe ​​told Reuters that in 45 years of researching the history of the Titanic, he has been unable to find any documents that prove that the three men opposed the founding of the Federal Reserve (Fed), the central bank of the United States.

Washington Post journalists in 2018 published your analysis of this theory. Their query of digitized period American newspapers showed that Isidor Straus had publicly advocated for the Federal Reserve proposal. This is due to two articles October 1911, which appeared in The New York Times. Journalists have been unable to find evidence that Astor or the Guggenheim have taken public positions on the same issue.

Author:Gabriela Sieczkowska

Main photo source: Universal History Archive/Getty Images



Source link

More articles

- Advertisement -

Latest article