4 ms·

The sister ship, Olympic, was refitted after the accident and had a long career to 1935. It had its own set of illustrious fatal incidents. https://www.britanni

The sister ship, Olympic, was refitted after the accident and had a long career to 1935. It had its own set of illustrious fatal incidents. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Olympic https://www.britannica.com/topic/Olympic

akvadrako 4y ago
There is a new podcast Did Titanic Sink that suggests it was actually the Olympic that sunk instead of the Titanic and the ships were switched for insurance fraud reasons. https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/did-titanic-sink https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/did-titanic-sink
- hef19898 4y ago
  That cinsiracy theory is as old as the Titanic. Besides involving the intentional killing of hundreds if people, it never made sense for a ton of reasons. It was alos debunked hundrds if times by now...
  - akvadrako 4y ago
    I'm only a few episodes in but so far it seems reasonable. It doesn't involve intentially killing the people, since if the ship didn't hit an iceberg there would have been time to rescue them.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      Let's assume the complete BS theory for a second. It would mean to switch two huge ships without anyone noticing. Repainting, changing the interior and all that involves a shipyard. Once that is done successsfully wothout anyone wondering why they are painting Titanic over the letter Britannic or something else, nobody in the crew should realize it. It wouod also mean the naval architect of those ships is in on it as he was onboard. Then it means having some ships in port on stabd by for the rescue ops, again hard to ccordinated without anybody on those ships eondering why they are still in port. In port, well, that it self is stupid. Why not have them on route and near by the Titanic when you scuttle her? Because scuttling is what you have to do, on high seas, without the people opening the valves to turn on you later. And why? Because unless there is some other shipping towing an iceberg to the Titanic to convenently hit, how exactky do you sink a perfectly good ship? So it either all of that, or it is just an accident caused by bad technology, bad practices, incomoetence, corporate preasure ans greed and bad luck. Your pick on what you want to believe.
      - akvadrako 4y ago
        Many of your questions indeed have already been answered in the first few episodes. Just a few quick points: > Repainting, changing the interior and all that involves a shipyard. The ships were in shipyards together after the damage to the Olympic, and major parts were swapped between them. Sure, many people would notice. > Why not have them on route and near by the Titanic They were meant to have ships nearby. > how exactly do you sink a perfectly good ship? The iceberg wasn't meant to sink it. When the ship left port, there was a large fire on board, one that had been going for days or weeks.
        hef19898 4y ago
        Ah, I wondered when you would bring up the tremendously dangerous, and absolutely normal for the time, bunker fire. Guess which bunker was emptied first, ad was common practice on coal fired ships? I assume next in line will the pictures showing the extensive heat damage on the hull caused by that fire. Those damages you only see in one picture of a whole sequence when the Titanic left port and simple shadows.
        akvadrako 4y ago
        I don't know about damage to the hull but at the official investigation they did mention the fire was bad enough they needed to cut holes in a bulkhead for the smoke to escape. And those two sections, if flooded, would be enough to sink the ship. I'm not sure if that's the theory on how it was supposed to happen.
  - w14 4y ago
    > That conspiracy is as old as the Titanic. Indeed. My Uncle was involved with the installation of Samson and Goliath [0], the two yellow cranes at Harland and Wolff. Goliath was installed in 1969, and the story of the ships being swapped was told to him then. The story told to him was that Morgan had ships ready to sail to the rescue from New York, but they ended up fog bound and delayed. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_and_Goliath_(cranes) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_and_Goliath_(cranes)

akvadrako 4y ago

There is a new podcast Did Titanic Sink that suggests it was actually the Olympic that sunk instead of the Titanic and the ships were switched for insurance fraud reasons. https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/did-titanic-sink https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/did-titanic-sink

hef19898 4y ago
That cinsiracy theory is as old as the Titanic. Besides involving the intentional killing of hundreds if people, it never made sense for a ton of reasons. It was alos debunked hundrds if times by now...
- akvadrako 4y ago
  I'm only a few episodes in but so far it seems reasonable. It doesn't involve intentially killing the people, since if the ship didn't hit an iceberg there would have been time to rescue them.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Let's assume the complete BS theory for a second. It would mean to switch two huge ships without anyone noticing. Repainting, changing the interior and all that involves a shipyard. Once that is done successsfully wothout anyone wondering why they are painting Titanic over the letter Britannic or something else, nobody in the crew should realize it. It wouod also mean the naval architect of those ships is in on it as he was onboard. Then it means having some ships in port on stabd by for the rescue ops, again hard to ccordinated without anybody on those ships eondering why they are still in port. In port, well, that it self is stupid. Why not have them on route and near by the Titanic when you scuttle her? Because scuttling is what you have to do, on high seas, without the people opening the valves to turn on you later. And why? Because unless there is some other shipping towing an iceberg to the Titanic to convenently hit, how exactky do you sink a perfectly good ship? So it either all of that, or it is just an accident caused by bad technology, bad practices, incomoetence, corporate preasure ans greed and bad luck. Your pick on what you want to believe.
    - akvadrako 4y ago
      Many of your questions indeed have already been answered in the first few episodes. Just a few quick points: > Repainting, changing the interior and all that involves a shipyard. The ships were in shipyards together after the damage to the Olympic, and major parts were swapped between them. Sure, many people would notice. > Why not have them on route and near by the Titanic They were meant to have ships nearby. > how exactly do you sink a perfectly good ship? The iceberg wasn't meant to sink it. When the ship left port, there was a large fire on board, one that had been going for days or weeks.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        Ah, I wondered when you would bring up the tremendously dangerous, and absolutely normal for the time, bunker fire. Guess which bunker was emptied first, ad was common practice on coal fired ships? I assume next in line will the pictures showing the extensive heat damage on the hull caused by that fire. Those damages you only see in one picture of a whole sequence when the Titanic left port and simple shadows.
        akvadrako 4y ago
        I don't know about damage to the hull but at the official investigation they did mention the fire was bad enough they needed to cut holes in a bulkhead for the smoke to escape. And those two sections, if flooded, would be enough to sink the ship. I'm not sure if that's the theory on how it was supposed to happen.
- w14 4y ago
  > That conspiracy is as old as the Titanic. Indeed. My Uncle was involved with the installation of Samson and Goliath [0], the two yellow cranes at Harland and Wolff. Goliath was installed in 1969, and the story of the ships being swapped was told to him then. The story told to him was that Morgan had ships ready to sail to the rescue from New York, but they ended up fog bound and delayed. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_and_Goliath_(cranes) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_and_Goliath_(cranes)