NIST Statements On Titanic Hull

[jberryhill]

The iceberg may not have been the only factor that caused the legendary Titanic to sink, according to a materials scientist from the National Institute of Standards and Technology who spoke at UF on Tuesday afternoon.

"It doesn't matter how cold it gets, ice doesn't cut steel," said Timothy J. Foecke, a material scientist in the metallurgy division at NIST, during a graduate seminar.

FACT: The Titanic was built with watertight compartments below decks, and was designed to remain floating after a hull rupture. The designers said, "God Himself could not sink this ship."

FACT: Ice doesn't cut steel.

FACT: The Titanic hull was found in two separate pieces - cut vertically - miles apart from each other on the ocean floor. Running against an iceberg horizontally doesn't cut anything vertically.

FACT: Hours before the Titanic supposedly "sank", first class passengers were loaded into lifeboats. Some were told it was a "drill" while other crew members were saying the ship was going to sink. WHO told the crew the ship was going to sink, and why did they have this magic psychic foreknowledge before the event happened. There were no reports from any qualified shipbuilding engineers that the ship would sink.

FACT: Cunard Lines received a huge insurance settlement.

Some of you Kool-Aid drinkers should start looking at the true facts of the sinking of the Titanic. It was nearly 100 years ago, and the so-called "experts" STILL cannot come up with the definitive and final version of why it sank.

[JackRiddler]

1. Well done

This is instructive as a mental exercise in how evidence can be selected and framed so as to demonstrate conclusions that are known in advance to be untrue. As an abstraction relating to a ship and an iceberg and not a building and a plane, it's not going to settle anything about what brought down the Towers. This is shadow boxing and you know it.

[greyl]

2. What a bunch of wordy baloney.

It's not supposed to settle anything about what brought down the towers. To my eyes, it's a way to make a point about some the arguments regarding the NIST's ongoing investigations.

JackR: This is instructive as a mental exercise in how evidence can be selected and framed so as to demonstrate conclusions that are known in advance to be untrue.

Not sure where you got that.

[JackRiddler]

3. How smart and wise of you.

What are you, a graduate of the Bill O'Reilly School of Framing?

[greyl]

4. A sarcastic admission that I'm probably correct with an over-the-shoulder insult.

Are you an undergrad at the William F. Buckley school of obfuscation?

[JackRiddler]

7. Zung again!

Thank you sir may I please have another?

[jberryhill]

5. WHAT conclusions?

"to demonstrate conclusions that are known in advance to be untrue."

I didn't *state* any conclusions. There are several things going on here:

First, there are several theories about precise failure mechanism of the Titanic. Some people are happy with "it hit an iceberg". However, it has *LONG* been known that an iceberg won't rip open a steel hull.

In fact, in the entire recorded history of shipping, an iceberg has never ripped a long gash in a steel hull from the side sufficient to cause the sinking of a ship. NEVER.

Because of that, there has long been debate about rivets, steel imperfections or embrittlement, and so on. It is *still* a topic of study and inquiry among engineers - including engineers at NIST.

What "untrue" conclusion am I supporting by framing the facts?

It's been almost 100 years, you would think NIST would have come up with an answer by now.

Metallurgists HAVE been studying WTC 7 steel:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

You think these guys are stupid or paid off disinfo agents? You think these guys spent years developing the expertise they have so that they could sell out to some guy in a black suit?

There are LOTS of unanswered questions about the mechanism by which the Titanic sank. I'm not stating conclusions, I'm just asking questions.

[JackRiddler]

6. Clever if increasingly transparent.

Your use of reversal and irony is most entertaining. Keep it up.

EDIT: Oh I should have said insinuate conclusions rather than demonstrate.

[Grateful for Hope]

17. Excellent, JR.

"Shadow boxing". Exactly.

[petgoat]

8. Your metaphor is easily debunked

Re: watertight compartments ... Open at the top, they were simple bins, not true
compartments.

Re: Ice doesn't cut steel ... Ice bursts steel pipes every day and thus clearly has
the capacity to shear or otherwise disrupt the structural integrity of steel even if it
doesn't "cut" it.

Re: cut vertically ... The mechanism for the breaking of the hull is quite plausible.
Is there any evidence that it was "cut"?

Re: insurance settlement ... Is there any evidence that the payment exceeded Cunard's
investment?

Try debunking the 9/11 questions instead of pretending, through metaphor, that you have.

[jberryhill]

9. So the iceberg was *onboard* the ship?

"Ice bursts steel pipes every day"

*YES* it does. It does so because water expands when it makes the phase transition to ice, and continues to expand down to 4 deg C.

I think you are on to something here PetGoat. Someone may have filled several watertight compartments with water *in advance*. Then, when the ship entered the North Atlantic, the water froze into ice thus bursting the watertight compartments.

When was the last time *salt water* ruptured a pipe? Someone had to put *fresh water* into the compartments to burst them in the manner you propose.

Very literally - an "inside" job.

"watertight compartments ... Open at the top, they were simple bins, not true compartments."

The ship was designed to still float after rupture of multiple compartments, and the designers stated that the ship was unsinkable.

"The mechanism for the breaking of the hull is quite plausible."

Except for the fact that it conflicts with numerous eyewitness accounts.

*MOST* of the Titanic survivors reported hearing explosions from below decks.

Do icebergs cause "explosions"?

Do tell me more about these exploding icebergs.

[jberryhill]

10. Eyewitness Reports of Explosions Aboard Titanic

How do Titanic OT'ers explain the magical exploding iceberg?


http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/biography/44/
Mrs Emma Eliza Bucknell

Her husband was the founder of Bucknell College, and she reported:


"I was asleep in my cabin when the crash came," said Mrs. Bucknell, beginning her account of the disaster. "I cannot explain just what the noise was like, except that it was horrible and sounded like a mixture of thunder and explosions."

Not a "bump". Not a "grind". She said "explosions".

What sort of Roosevelt-science accounts for spontaneously exploding icebergs?

And I remind you that this is well prior to electrical systems such as those used in modern office buildings which utilize oil-filled transformers that *can* and *do* explode.

[SidDithers]

24. Titanic OT'ers...

:rofl:

Stop it, my sides are hurting. :)

Sid

[Retrograde]

30. But everybody knows

the initial impact with the iceberg caused just a little bit of damage, nothing the ship couldn't survive. It was all those time-travelers popping in to see the so-called last moments that put all the extra weight on the bow and cause it to sink by the head. Hmmm, that could explain all those "explosions" passengers claimed they heard.

Incidentally, one of the passengers (who survived) was a close confident of former president Roosevelt. An inside job? Starting to look suspicious to me...

(I would gladly give credit for the time-traveler idea if I could remember where I read it)

(do I have to add :)

[Jim Sagle]

72. Speaking of Roosevelt...did you know his real name was (gasp!!!!!!) Rosenfeld?

What are we gonna doooooooo?

:scared::scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[petgoat]

11. Your post is so full of misconstructions it hardly merits response.

You mischaracterize my argument about steel pipes. I did not propose that there
was ice inside the Titanic. I simply pointed out that ice does have the physical
capacity to exert rupturing or other forces on steel such that your claim that ice
does not "cut" steel is immaterial.

designed to still float after rupture of multiple compartments

But only if the pumps could stay ahead of the water inflows, and only if
the ship remained in upright trim.

it conflicts with numerous eyewitness accounts.

That does not change the fact that the official breakup mechanism is plausible.

MOST* of the Titanic survivors reported hearing explosions from below decks.

Water flooding into engine rooms can literally explode boilers. Air bursting up from
below will hammer through metal corridors, making loud explosive sounds.

tell me more about these exploding icebergs.

Oh but the invisible jewish elvises are so much cuddlier.

[jberryhill]

13. Immaterial?

It's immaterial what ice can or cannot do to steel?

Then why, 100 years later, is a NIST scientist stating "ice does not cut steel" as if it were material?

Why were the ships in the area, including the Carpathia, told to "stand down"?

They could have been dispatched to rescue the passengers. They received a distress signal. They saw the flares. But someone told them to "stand down".

Don't tell me, the kids were having a reading lesson onboard - is that it?

[petgoat]

15. Immaterial

Is anyone claiming the ice "cut" the steel?

It seems to me it sheared or ruptured the steel.

[jberryhill]

18. So ice can "shear" or "rupture" steel?

I have a martini shaker that says otherwise.

Here, check out your lyin' eyes:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6200565569456547648

[MervinFerd]

22. Ice shear steel? No way! It's obvious to -me- that it cannot.

And WTF is ruptured steel? Never even heard of that.

This Official Iceberg Theory (OIT) is just such obvious nonsense. Anybody who would believe it must be a naive fool.

[jberryhill]

27. PetGoat Says IT CAN!

And there was probably ICE in the galleys of those airplanes.

That's IT!

The ice onboard the flights brought down the towers. Hat's off to PetGoat!

We now know of two substances that can rupture steel - thermite and ice.

[MervinFerd]

32. Petgoat rocks! The Thermite Ice Theory.

Somebody call Alex Jones.

[jberryhill]

12. I'll make you a wager...

I'm going to build a scale model of the Titanic out of chicken wire, and cover it with plastic wrap so it will float.

Then, I'll tip the front end below the waterline.

You think it will snap in half?

Go ahead and put five dollars on your theory of a massive ship hull breaking just because it is tilted in the water.

[jberryhill]

14. Hey PetGoat - How Now?

So, you think the Titanic hull just snapped, eh?

How do you suppose this thing stays up without the magic Titanic-snapping:

[BuyingThyme]

16. For those of you confused by this thread, allow me to explain...

Over the last few days, a group of people commonly known as debunkers, or bunkies, has been caught fabricating would-be authoritarian evidence in regards to the collapse of WTC7.

Despite endless demands for any links, references (etc.) to back up their assertions, as of yet, NOTHING has been provided. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has failed to back of ANY of their claims with ANY authoritative evidence, studies, etc. NONE. ZERO.

So, why the Titanic thread? Because they don't want you to think about what they've been doing over the last few days. They need to make a case that the people who caught them are the ones to be ridiculed.

Just ask 'em.

[jberryhill]

19. Nothing to see here... move along....

Titanic Truth Project - Video #1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6200565569456547648

In our next experiment, we will see whether a steel hull "snaps" into two parts when it sinks.

[Sweet Pea]

29. No

They just want to make it so bloody obvious that the conspiratoids are really off their rocker with their continual denial of what went on on Sept 11. Doing this by turning their own arguments around on the Titanic is a beautiful way of illustrating their foolishness.

[Laurier]

70. That sounds about right.

Makes a lot more sense than what buying thyme said.

[MervinFerd]

20. Brilliant, Mr. Berryhill.

Has anyone looked into connections between the Cunard Lines and Israel?

[LARED]

34. Cou;d the Titanic have been CD'ed due to Kosher standards?

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=13596

Even earlier in the 19th century, the Cunard Lines’ first steamship, the S.S. Britannica, made its maiden voyage, on July 4, 1840, from Liverpool to Halifax. There is no record at that time of Jewish passengers, although there certainly have been thousand of Jewish immigrants among the passengers aboard Cunard ships in the decades since.

I've heard no mention of Jews on the Titanic. Someone must have tipped them off.

[MervinFerd]

35. Good point. They must have had Advance Information.

The only possible explanation.

[jberryhill]

40. Icebergs

Think about it.

[Laurier]

43. It's so obvious now.

Steinbergs, Goldbergs, Eisenbergs, Icebergs.

Why didn't I see that before? I was so blind!

[Jim Sagle]

71. Maybe they weren't invited?

:shrug:

[MervinFerd]

21. Is there -even one- other case in which an iceberg sank an ocean liner?

No! There is not. It is not possible.

[MervinFerd]

31. Still waiting for a response!

[MervinFerd]

36. Still no response. nt

[Marie26]

80. Clearly a missile attack.

No other ship was sunk by an iceberg - but another ocean liner, the Lusitania, was sunk by a missile from a "German" submarine in 1915. This ocean liner sank only two years after the Titanic. And consider this: the Lusitania was ALSO owned by Cunard Lines!! (this is actually true) COINCIDENCE? I think not. The alleged "iceberg" is clearly just a cover-up for a missile attack by the government & Cunard Lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

[dsa]

83. Iceberg collisions were rare in the age of instant communications

But before radio, several ships disappeared in regions of icebergs with no survivors to tell us what caused the sinking.

One famous example is the liner Pacific of the Collins Line that went missing in 1856 on a journey from Liverpool to New York. An iceberg collision has long been suspected but the ship wreck has never been located.

[dsa]

84. duplicate

[dsa]

85. duplicate

[The Lone Groover]

23. Question...

Q) What's the difference between a 42028 Tonne Ocean Liner and Two 110 Story Towers.

A) 41828.

[jberryhill]

25. Ummm... you didn't even do that math right

...let alone the relevance of the calculation (weight of ship) - (height of towers) = (proof of something)

Q) How is a motorcycle like a duck?

A) They both have handlebars, except for the duck.

[The Lone Groover]

26. I though I made as much sense as...

...the original analogy.

They're both bollocks.

[MervinFerd]

28. What analogy? Mr. Berryhill is just raising --interesting-- questions about..

this horrible tragedy.

--Very-- interesting questions.

Who -did- benefit from the sinking of the Titanic?

[MervinFerd]

33. Could there have been rocket pods on the Iceberg?

If only they'd had compressed video back then.

[MervinFerd]

37. Still waiting for that -other- Ocean Liner sunk by an iceberg.

[The Lone Groover]

38. You still think this "joke" is funny?

Sad.

[LARED]

39. I think Mervin is quite serious

Speaking for myself, I want the truth about the Titanic.

Don't you???

[vincent_vega_lives]

57. After all he's just ASKING QUESTIONS (n/t)

[MervinFerd]

44. I just have the courage to face the Truth. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

The paradigm shift is nigh.

[petgoat]

48. Merv, you think 9/11 is a joke. Did you know anyone who died?

Have you seen pictures of the jumpers who hit the pavement?
I was looking for pictures of WTC7 and found them in the same
uncatalogued archive.

Take your dumbass humor back to the pseudoscience forum, please.

[MervinFerd]

49. Nonsense theories about 911 are a joke. And an offence to decent society.

[petgoat]

50. Then improve the dialogue by refuting them instead of lampooning them. nt

[MervinFerd]

55. They've been refuted, Mr. Goat. And you know it. Ridicule and derision..

are the best argument against complete idiocy.

[petgoat]

61. To label something "complete idiocy" is not to refute it.

True refutations more commonly lie in a gray area where some people
may consider an idea refuted, and others may not.

[MervinFerd]

69. It's a parody, Mr. Goat. And its often the most effective argument.

Witness the number of political careers destroyed by comedy acts.

[vincent_vega_lives]

58. No goat, you got that wrong

Neither Merv, nor I or anyone else I respect here thinks 9-11 was a joke. On the contrary. We just think your arguments are.

[screembloodymurder]

41. Fact: I've seen a backhoe boom snap in cold weather.

Ice may not cut steel, but impact can crack cold steel like a piece of glass.

[Laurier]

42. I think there was thermite

strategically placed in the "iceberg" (which was really a hologram, not a real iceberg) and the thermite was set off by remote control and directed toward the hull of the Titanic as it approached. It could have been thermate, I suppose. I always mix those two up. But the point is that the whole Official Iceberg Story is a great big coverup. No doubt about it.

[Contrite]

45. The boilers exploded, per multiple eyewitness accounts

Just as they did with the SS Sultana, which killed even more people than did the sinking of the Titanic. Apparently boiler explosions were rather common on steamships in those days.

http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/titnchx5.htm

"The shock of the collision had barely jarred the ship. One man who was directing letters in his cabin kept on with his work until he felt a sudden shift in the position of the ship and rushed to the deck in time to leap into a lifeboat. Some of the passengers had returned to their berths.

Nothing occurred to indicate to the passengers aboard the Titanic or moving away from the ship in lifeboats that the vessel would not remain afloat until help should arrive, until the boilers exploded. Then the end was apparent to all."

[MervinFerd]

46. Did these people see the boilers explode? Or did they just hear "explosions"?

Are there any photographs of these exploding boilers?
How do we know there were not explosives planted in the boilers?

Doesn't this sound suspiciously like the Twin Tower Conspiracy? :
"Nothing occurred to indicate to the passengers ... that the vessel would not remain afloat until help should arrive, until the boilers exploded."
Just like the Towers--an initial event to provide an explanation for the gullible Sheeple, and then, explosives to do the actual destruction.

The same conspirators did the Titanic and 911!

[jberryhill]

47. Try reading Mrs. Bucknell's account again

She reported hearing explosions at the time of the collision, not later.

[Contrite]

51. The Titanic vs. the WTC

Similar in many ways, but not in others:

1. The boat, boasted as being "unsinkable", was designed to certain operating parameters and conditions. The ship was traveling too fast and when it hit the iceberg, the plates on the starboard side broke away, admitting water into the hold. The towers were designed to stand under the circumstances of a jet airplane hitting it with a full load of fuel; yet both fell, as did WTC7, which did not suffer an airplane crash.

2. Negligence precipitated the tragedy--someone in charge, Officer Murdock, didn't practice safety by not heeding the lookout man's warning. The government did not heed the warnings that the WTC was going to be attacked by airplanes.

Had the officer on the bridge, who was William T. Murdock, according to the account of the tragedy given by two of the Titanic's seamen, known how imperative was that call from the lookout man, whose name was given as Fleet, the man at the wheel of the world's newest and greatest transatlantic liner might have swerved the great ship sufficiently to avoid the berg altogether or at the worst would have probably struck the mass of ice with her stern and at much reduced speed.

For obvious reasons the identity of the sailor men who described the foundering of the Titanic cannot be divulged. As for the officer, who was alleged to have been a laggard in answering the lookout's telephone call, harsh criticism may be omitted.

Murdock, if the tale of the Titanic sailor be true, expiated his negligence, if negligence it was, by shooting himself within sight of all alleged victims huddled in lifeboats or struggling in the icy seas.

http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/titnchx4.htm

3. Explosions precipitated the sinking of the Titanic. It had taken on water and was tilting at its head and going down slowly because of the water having breached the containment wall. Once the water reached the boiler room, the ship exploded and broke into two and then rapidly sank. Survivors were already on board lifeboats at that time and saw the ship explode and sink. Numerous WTC eyewitnesses reported hearing and seeing multiple explosions at WTC1, 2 and 7 and there is at least one who reportedly heard that "they were getting ready to pull 6". The buildings stood tall and showed no danger of falling until they suddenly broke into two and fell at nearly freefall speeds.

By this time all the boats and life rafts had been taken from the ship. The boats were ringed about the ship from 150 feet to 1,000 yards distant. Their occupants could see the lights burning on the vessel which had settled low in the water. Suddenly as they looked great billows of live sparks rose up through the four funnels. These were followed by billowing clouds of smoke and steam. The rush of water had reached the boiler rooms and the boilers had exploded. After this the great vessel sank more rapidly and within less than twenty minutes had plunged to her grave, two miles beneath the surface.

http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/titnchx5.htm

One grinding crash and the Titanic had received its death blow. Man's proudest craft crumbled like an eggshell.

Ripped from stem to engine room by the great mass of ice she struck amidships, the Titanic's side was laid open as if by a gigantic can opener. She quickly listed to starboard and a shower of ice fell on to the forecastle deck.

Shortly before she sank she broke in two abaft the engine room, and as she disappeared beneath the water the expulsion of air or her boilers caused two explosions, which were plainly heard by the survivors adrift.

http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/titnchx1.htm

4. As Mowbray says, "Each tale is like another view of the same many-sided shield. Sometimes they seem to contradict each other, but that is because those who witness such scenes see them as individuals. There is not a survivor but has something new and startling and dramatic to tell.

Taken altogether their accounts are a composite picture of 700 separate experiences."

In other words, you need to look at what ALL the eyewitnesses said to get the composite picture of what really happened. Of course, if some of the eyewitnesses or survivors are gagged or not being introduced into the "official account", it's a bit hard to get that picture right, isn't it?

5. In the end, the large loss of life was a failure to provide for the safe evacuation of everyone in the wreck, which is hauntingly familiar to what happened at WTC1 and WTC2.

In that midnight crisis the one thing needful was not provided where everything was supplied. The one inadequacy was--the lack of lifeboats.

In the supreme confidence of the tacit assumption that they never would be needed, the means of rescue--except in a pitably meagre insufficiency--as not at hand. There were apparently but 20 boats and rafts available, each capable of sustaining at most 60 persons.

Yet the ship was built to carry 2435 passengers and 860 in the crew--a total of 3295 persons.

Whatever the luxuriousness of the appointments, the magnificence of the carvings and the paintings that surfeited the eye, the amplitude of the space allotted for the promenade, it seems incredible no calculation was made for the rescue of at least 2000 of the possible floating population of the Titanic.

6. The tragedy caused for a call for new standards of safety in both cases.

The result of the tragedy must be that aroused public opinion will compel the formulation of new and drastic regulations, alike by the British Board of Trade and by the Federal authorities, providing not merely for the adequate equipment of every ship with salvatory apparatus but for rigorous periodical inspection of the appliances and a constant drill of the crew.

Let there be an end of boasting about the supremacy of man to the immitigable laws and forces of nature. Let the grief of mankind be assuaged not in idle lamentation but in amelioration of the conditions that brought about the saddest episode in the history of ships at sea.

The particular line that owned and sent forth the vessel that has perished has been no more to blame than others that similarly ignored elemental precautions in favor of superfluous comforts, in a false sense of security.

http://gaslight.mtroyal.ca/titnintr.htm

[MervinFerd]

52. And both were destroyed by Nefarious Conspiracy.

[Contrite]

53. Both towers?

What about WTC7?

[MervinFerd]

54. Ha, Ha. The Titanic and all the WTCs. --ALL-- of 'em.

"They're coming to take me away, ha, ha. They're comin' to take me away....."

[Contrite]

66. I quite agree.

They're coming to take you away, ha, ha, ho, ho, hee, hee, etc.

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. Why was the rescue so late in coming?

Was the Carpathia ordered to "STAND DOWN"? Just asking questions.

[dsa]

82. There is no evidence of boiler explosions

The boilers can be seen intact in the wreckage today. They probably heard the roar of the ship breaking in two and mistakenly thought it was an explosion.

[seemslikeadream]

56. as the fiddler plays

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Good suff JBH

But you dont have to go back that far to find actual arguments like these...

1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.

5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

[The Lone Groover]

62. I've got an idea for a new analogy!!!!!!!!

Why don't we compare 9/11 and Gladio?

[MervinFerd]

63. O' I think the Titanic analogy is just fine.

Can you name another steel-hulled ship sunk by collision with an iceberg?

Just one.

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. Sure lets

Gladio was US operations in a foreign country against external elements thought to pose a threat to US security interests in the region.

[MervinFerd]

65. The Titanic was -built- in a foreign country. It was bring foreign people...

to the USA. Who knows what might have been hidden in that hull.

Ever hear of the Chestnut Blight?

[The Lone Groover]

67. "the Chestnut Blight"

..they were a great punk band!

[leftofthedial]

68. thermite?

holographic icebergs?

[Marie26]

73. Kick for Titantic truth. nt

[Amused Musings]

74. Maddox is on the case!

Sorry this is kind of old but still funny


http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07">Unfastened Coins

[Marie26]

78. That's great!

I had no idea how extensive the Titanic Truth movement is. Probably because the corporate MSM is covering it up - thank God for the Internet.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

77. Yes

And, again, Yes.

{sigh}

[Marie26]

79. Possibly

But I think it's interesting as a critical exercise - about how almost anything can look suspicious if framed correctly.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

76. flawed metaphor; bordering on absurd..

[Kingshakabobo]

81. kick

:hi:

[dsa]

86. I think you've missed one important element in this discussion

How were Jewish agents of the Pre-Israel Mossad involved in the Titanic sinking? And who intimidated the media into covering it up?

Weighty questions. Weighty questions, indeed.