It seems it was really the Olympic(sister ship to Titanic) that sank instead of Titanic according to some.
I thought it was total BS before reading and watching these videos. Now it seems possible....hmmmm....
First video is about 20 minutes long.
Second video has 6 parts that are 10 minutes each except the last one which is only 2 minutes.
I'll try to link the videos directly but don't know if I can.
Snipes With Artillery
22nd March 2005
That's... silly. There's absolutely no reason to sink a sister ship of the Titanic, and no reason to preserve the Titanic over the Olympic.
I don't like this theory because James Cameron would have to make another movie and call it Olympic.
Jeff is a mean boss
28th July 2002
Watch a 20 minute Internet Documentary, Become expert on Titanic Conspiracy.
In all seriousness, seems like complete BS to me
Crazy Wolf;5631821That's... silly. There's absolutely no reason to sink a sister ship of the Titanic, and no reason to preserve the Titanic over the Olympic.
I don't think the plan was to sink the sister ship. They wanted to stage an accident so the insurance would fix it... this is of course if it was true.
Snipes With Artillery
22nd March 2005
Insurance fraud sounds like small potatoes, compared to the wealth they'd have from a perfect safety record and undisturbed first-class passengers. I mean, surviving an iceberg would be good advertisement, but not hitting the iceberg in the first place would be even better.
Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander
26th April 2004
I thought the initial confusion between these two ships was because a lot of the press back then used pictures of the RMS Olympic instead of the Titanic because there was a lot more material of the sister ship back then.
Unlike the Hollywood hype might tell, Titanic's unique epicness was not really like that at all. The Olympic was launched a year before the Titanic and all of the people back then were more interested in that one.
Not everyone had a mobile phone with a camera back then, and those who had photographed the Olympic a lot more and those pictures were also used for portraying the Titanic after the ill-fated voyage, perhaps creating what became those conspiracy theories.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
Titanic and Olympic were both sea worthy at the time Titanic sank. (Edit: Well, obviously not in that sense - but you get the idea. Around the time....) It would make no sense to spend the money to make two sea-worthy ships and then to sink one. Since, in any cause, the insurance would only have paid out for the parts to one ship.
Former Network Admin and Former Forum Admin
26th July 2005
I remember watching something about this a few years ago. If my memory serves me well then what happened was that the Olympic was struck by some military vessel and the military refused to pay out for the damage. So they bought the ship into the same place they were building the titanic which only had 1 place to hold them while they were being worked. These ships were in and out all the time so could have been switched and all the usual BS. This program even said they had evidence from a workers relative that told them that the 2 had been swapped but at the time all the workers were threatened. Then they went on to show how the ship was supposed to sink about 100 miles from were it did because there was a ship waiting with blankets and food for the passenger. All this sucks you in until they hit with the unmistakable facts that the 2 ships were not the same. They were quite different in lots of ways that would have been stupidly expensive to alter and have been show to be the correct spec for the ship sitting at the bottom of the ocean.
I can see why people want this to be true because it gives a reason to why it happened and justifies what in reality is nothing more than one of the most horrific accidents of the last 100 years.
I've never heard of this particular 'theory' before. Reading through that snippet there (I'll have to watch the video when I got more time available), it still seems to be relying on the basis that there was an incentive to sink the ship for insurance fraud. I don't know, maybe I'm in a different mind of thinking but I can't see how that would be an effective means to get what they wanted. With the amount of first class passengers that booked a trip on there, it seems unlikely they would put them in harm's way (even if, as the conspiracy implies, the company was going to save them all and the iceberg thing was something they didn't anticipate) to make back money, especially if some of those rich are customers they depend on and in some cases had a stake in the company.
I also wonder if they did do the whole 'switch' in the docks, we should have a lot of accounts of the dock workers seeing something. This seems too big to pull off without someone outside the business cabal from not noticing.
I found a book on google search about the conspiracy- the preface is worth reading as a brief overview of the book's arguments and rebuttals to the conspiracy.