Titanic key is sold for $200,000

[eek.]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=629 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=3>Titanic key is sold for £90,000

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=416><!-- S BO --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

The key to the crow's nest binoculars store on Titanic

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA --><!-- S SF -->A tiny key that might have helped prevent the Belfast-built Titanic sinking has fetched £90,000 at auction.
The key, with the tag "Crows Nest Telephone Titanic" opened the binoculars store, but was not on the ship when it sailed from Southampton.
It was in the pocket of an officer transferred off the vessel days before its maiden voyage. He forgot to hand it to his replacement as he left.
As a result lookouts had to rely on the naked eye. <!-- E SF -->
Titanic sank on her maiden voyage from Southampton to New York on 15 April 1912 with the loss of 1,522 lives.
Auctioneer Henry Aldridge said the key was sold to an anonymous telephone bidder who received applause as the hammer went down.
<!-- S IIMA --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=203 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>

The Titanic sank on her maiden voyage in April 1912

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA -->
He said bidding for the key at the sale in Devizes, Wiltshire, was fierce.
"We had several telephone bidders as well as people in the auction room and the gentleman who was successful was very happy.
"But I can tell you the man he outbid was not, he was very disappointed."
Other items in the sale included a rare launch ticket from Belfast which fetched £32,000 and a postcard sent home by a passenger on-board which sold for £17,000.
Second officer David Blair held the key during the short journey from Belfast, where Titanic was built, to the south coast.
One of the lookouts on the Titanic told an inquiry into the sinking that with the binoculars the Titanic might have been able to dodge the iceberg. On the difference the binoculars might have made, lookout Fred Fleet said: "Well, enough to get out of the way." Mr Blair was disappointed to be moved off the ship at Southampton, but the transfer saved his life. He kept the key as a memento.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7008300.stm

 

[Willie99]

Great eek, you just gave our resident "everything-bad-that-happened-in -the-history-of-mankind-is-a-conspiracy" truther :think2:some hard core evidence.

 

[TotalRecall]

Well - as long as eek has brought up the subject:

The Titanic was built as the biggest venus fly trap ever conceived. By luring its victims in with the lavish splendor of this magnificent flower, it captured and sunk the richest man in the world, and two other of the richest. Mission accomplished.

A 9/11 of the day, replete with the obligatory elite banking interests, the necessary suicidal jihadist (the captain), and a world changing event that happened right afterwards that America has been ruined because of and because of it...what was it. 10 points for the correct answer.

Of note: The Captain was telegraphed 8 times and warned to slow down. An 80 sq. mile area of icebergs were being reported that night while the doomed ship proceeded at full speed right into them....


The binoculars wouldnt have helped...


Dont you just love a good conspiracy theory eek? Cheers!

 

[eek.]

The key wouldn't have fitted anyway Wullie, it was the wrong ship.

-------------------------------------------------
One of the most controversial and complex theories regarding the sinking of the Titanic was put forward by Robert Gardiner in his book 'TITANIC: The Ship That Never Sank?' (published 1999).
In it, Gardiner draws on several events and coincidences that occurred in the months, days, and hours leading up to the sinking of the Titanic to form his theory. Put simply, his theory is that the ship that hit the iceberg on 14 April 1912 was in fact the Titanic's sister-ship RMS Olympic, disguised as the Titanic. All this was part of an insurance scam of huge proportions by the White Star Line.
The Olympic was the older sister to the Titanic, built alongside the more famous vessel but launched much earlier, in October 1910. She was to all purposes identical to the Titanic, save for small detailing such as the promenade deck windows. These were not glazed in the Olympic. In the Titanic the front half of the promenade deck was fitted with smaller glazed windows to protect passengers from spray.
On September 20, 1911, the Olympic was involved in a collision with the Royal Navy cruiser HMS Hawke near Southampton. The cruiser smashed its ram into the side of the Olympic, seriously damaging both ships. The inquiry (an internal Royal Navy one) found its ship free of all blame. This set in motion Gardiner's theory.

[edit] Gardiner's revised history

He proposes that:
With a verdict against them, the White Star Line was left without an insurance claim to cover the cost of fixing the serious damage caused to the Olympic in the collision (so serious that the central turbine's mountings were damaged). The ship would have to be returned to Belfast, dry-docked, and repaired. The Titanic was at the time being fitted out in the same dock. This would mean the White Star's flagship liner was out of action, and the Titanic's completion date would be delayed. All this amounted to a serious financial loss for the company (Estimated at £10 million in today's money). The worst fears were realised when it was found that some keel damage had occurred during the collision.
Gardiner proposes that, to get at least one vessel out and earning money, it was decided to turn the 95% complete Titanic into the Olympic. Very few parts of either ship bore the name. Most that did (lifeboats, bell, compass binnacle, and, of course, name badges) were all easily moved over to the Titanic.
The conversion was done in two months and the Titanic (now the Olympic) returned to Southampton and spent the next 25 years in the line's service.
Work would have continued on the hull of the original Olympic. The decision to dispose of the vessel would have been taken early on. The repair bill was huge and the ship's immense build costs were barely paid off. Repairs were done as quickly as possible, with added bracing being used to strengthen the damaged keel plating. The windows and detailing was converted to 'Titanic' using the panelling taken from the original when it was converted into its elder sister.
At this time, the ship now working under the name 'Olympic' returned to the yard yet again, this time under the pretence of having a damaged propeller blade replaced. Gardiner says that this was in fact so that the conversion could be completed with more structural components.
Gardiner uses as evidence the Titanic's sea trials. When the Olympic was trialled in 1910, these took two days, including several high speed runs. When the Titanic went out for trials, they were over in one day, with no working over half-speed. Gardiner says this was because the patched-up hull could not take any long periods of high speed.
The plan to dispose of the ship and collect the insurance money was hatched as follows. The Titanic (ex-Olympic) would steam out into the Atlantic, where the sea cocks would be opened and the ship slowly flooded. Numerous ships would be stationed nearby to take off the passengers. The shortage of lifeboats would not matter as the ship would sink so slowly that the boats could make several trips between the sinking Titanic and the rescuers.
This could be achieved easily as the White Star Line was part of the vast International Mercantile Marine Co. (IMM) group, owned by J.P. Morgan. This group included the Leyland Line, owners of the SS 'Californian' that features so prominently in the events of 14th/15 April. The Captain of the Californian had proved in service in the Boer War that he could manage such an operation, disembarking large numbers of troops from troop ships to shore in small boats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_alternative_theories

 

[eek.]

uh-oh...we might be onto something here...

1. April 2, 1912 (Tuesday): Titanic Sea Trials
   a. Engines were started
   b. Crew practiced port and starboard turns, stopping, turning a full circle, and running at different speeds
   c. Captain E. J. Smith and his officers participated
   d. Trials took less than a day!
2. April 2, 1912 (Tuesday) at 8:00pm: Headed for Southampton
   a. Where: southwest of London, along the River Test which flows into the English Channel
   b. Why: Easy for passengers to get there from London
3. April 4, 1912 (Thursday) shortly after midnight: Arrival in Southampton
   a. Where: Berth 44 at the White Star Dock
   b. How far from Belfast: 570 miles (917km)

Now Wullie.

Tues 8pm to Thurs midnight =52 hours
Distance = 570 miles

Soooooo Average speed = 10.96 knots

So this brand new ship travelled at half speed to Southampton ??

http://www.titanic-nautical.com/titanic-chronology.html

 

[eek.]

The finest transatlantic passenger ship ever built was actually American, but like our own Concorde is now nothing more than a curiosity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Sex1qjiVX8&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAnvHXrbiWk&mode=related&search=

 

[Ibetonsports]

Great eek, you just gave our resident "everything-bad-that-happened-in -the-history-of-mankind-is-a-conspiracy" truther :think2:some hard core evidence.

Not talking about any one specific incident. Do you aknowledge that some things are bigger then what we are told? It seems like no matter what the subject, you denounce any thought of there being more to the story.

 

[TotalRecall]

Titanic's speed at time of impact with iceberg- 22 knots

 

[TotalRecall]

Until recently, why Titanic sank was a mystery. During a number of expeditions to the wreck in the 1990s, a team of scientists fired sound waves at the remains of the hull, buried in the soft seabed sediment. The sonar images revealed, for the first time, the damage caused by the iceberg.
What the images revealed was a great surprise – there was no trace of the supposed 100-metre gash. Instead, they showed a series of small breaches, the total area of which was tiny, less than one square metre, compared to the size of the ship. As unbelievable at it may appear, this seemingly minor damage led to the demise of the great ship.
Titanic was divided into 16 compartments along the length of her hull, each separated by a bulkhead that rendered them watertight. The flooding of one compartment alone would not have been enough to sink the ship, since the volume of each compartment equated to a displacement of approximately 3600 tonnes of water and the Titanic would need to take onboard 17,780 tonnes of water before she would lose her buoyancy and sink.
But as fate would have it, when the ship scraped against the iceberg, a number of relatively small holes punctured six of the compartments – each would have filled with water. Six multiplied by 3600 tonnes meant that 21,600 tonnes of water had gushed into her hull, well over the 17,780-tonne critical limit.
So it was not the size of the breaches that spelt doom for Titanic, it was their number and position. Had only two or three compartments flooded, the ship would probably have remained afloat.



Thats why no survivors felt her hit the berg.

 

[eek.]

The guy in charge on the bridge should have stood on when they got too close, instead of trying to dodge the iceberg.

Ramming the iceberg head on would have probably saved the ship even if he completely totalled the front end.

This wouldn't have done much for his career prospects...but ramming has always been an unwritten option for a watchkeeper.

Takes guts to do that tho.

 

[Willie99]

Not talking about any one specific incident. Do you aknowledge that some things are bigger then what we are told? It seems like no matter what the subject, you denounce any thought of there being more to the story.

No matter the subject :think2:

such as?

9/11 conspiracies - check

Jews sunk the Titanic - check

Jews are responsible for all the evil in the world? - check

anything else?

PS: I'm not Jewish, although a few people have thought I was.

 

[Ibetonsports]

No matter the subject :think2:

such as?

9/11 conspiracies - check

Jews sunk the Titanic - check

Jews are responsible for all the evil in the world? - check

anything else?

PS: I'm not Jewish, although a few people have thought I was.

Can you answer the question now? You can stop with the "avoiding the question dance" you people do so well. I'm not talking about any one, so called conspiracy. All I'm asking is, do you aknowledge that some stories have more to them then what we are told? Or, do you think that all information is given to us to the best of the medias/governments knowledge? I mean cover ups have been recognized, so by saying that you don't think there were any conspiracies would make you look like an ass. On the other hand, if you say you do believe some things could be a conspiracy it would lead to my next question. How can you say with certainty that all of these things are being reported on truthfully when there is historical proof that conspiracies and cover ups do exist? You, nor your little friends on here will ever answer this question seriously. You are too afraid.

 

[Willie99]

Can you answer the question now? You can stop with the "avoiding the question dance" you people do so well. I'm not talking about any one, so called conspiracy. All I'm asking is, do you aknowledge that some stories have more to them then what we are told? Or, do you think that all information is given to us to the best of the medias/governments knowledge? I mean cover ups have been recognized, so by saying that you don't think there were any conspiracies would make you look like an ass. On the other hand, if you say you do believe some things could be a conspiracy it would lead to my next question. How can you say with certainty that all of these things are being reported on truthfully when there is historical proof that conspiracies and cover ups do exist? You, nor your little friends on here will ever answer this question seriously. You are too afraid.

Wow, you throw our bull shit like that and want a real response from me?

I'm supposed to figure out what you're talking about now?

Rather then going on some wild ass fishing expedition, try to make some point, any point. There is nothing for me to answer to, and your indignation is somewhat amusing.

You have a conspiracy theory, bring it to the table.

:lolBIG:

 

[cussin'it]

Hey willie, it's "bullshit." (no spaces bro)

 

[Ibetonsports]

Wow, you throw our bull shit like that and want a real response from me?

I'm supposed to figure out what you're talking about now?

Rather then going on some wild ass fishing expedition, try to make some point, any point. There is nothing for me to answer to, and your indignation is somewhat amusing.

You have a conspiracy theory, bring it to the table.

:lolBIG:

I can tell by your posts that you're an idiot but your not dumb enough to not understand what I'm asking. I guess you are too afraid to answer the question. Typical. I don't want to hear any more shit from you denouncing so called conspiracy theories since you can't even answer a question about them.

 

[TotalRecall]

<TABLE class=tborder style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px" cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 4510889" vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 align=middle width=125>Willie99</TD><TD class=alt2>Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Ibetonsports
Can you answer the question now? You can stop with the "avoiding the question dance" you people do so well. I'm not talking about any one, so called conspiracy. All I'm asking is, do you aknowledge that some stories have more to them then what we are told? Or, do you think that all information is given to us to the best of the medias/governments knowledge? I mean cover ups have been recognized, so by saying that you don't think there were any conspiracies would make you look like an ass. On the other hand, if you say you do believe some things could be a conspiracy it would lead to my next question. How can you say with certainty that all of these things are being reported on truthfully when there is historical proof that conspiracies and cover ups do exist? You, nor your little friends on here will ever answer this question seriously. You are too afraid.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Wow, you throw our bull shit like that and want a real response from me?

I'm supposed to figure out what you're talking about now?

Rather then going on some wild ass fishing expedition, try to make some point, any point. There is nothing for me to answer to, and your indignation is somewhat amusing.

You have a conspiracy theory, bring it to the table.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Willie, what IBOS is saying is you must understand that there are 2 fundamental ways human beings view history.
We call one the catastrophic or accidental view of history, the other we call the conspiratorial view of history.

In the catastrophic or accidental view of history a Willie believes that historical events, such as wars and revolutions were the direct result of some sudden or surprising event. While this catastrophic view might be amazingly accurate for weather, volcanoes and earthquakes, its accuracy cannot hold up quite as well when you are dealing with events influenced by man.


As young, impressionable children we American and other Western minds are taught the Accidental view of history in the government school systems.

I was lucky. While in only the 7th grade, I had a history teacher who told us that history is basically a story told by the powers that be that put them in the best light, and that the things we call historical events are more often planned than not, right up to the how the historical records should be taught to us. That was my first introduction to how conspirational, or planned history occurs. Ive never been disappointed since. Find a major event in the history books and you will usually find not accident but human artifice and secret planning to make it look and occur that way.

For example most of us schoolchildren were taught U.S. Grant was a smarter general than Robert E. Lee because he succeeded where Lee failed.


The fact was that Grant was a drunkard whose willingness to allow a hugely unfavorable ratio of Union soldiers vs Confederate to be killed continuously during the course of the Civil War just to win a given battle says about as as much about smarts as the whiskey he was drinking. Lee was a brilliant tactition that would have beat Grant 10 for 10 if the sides were equal, as in the beginning. Later in the war it was hardly ever a fair fight. The Army spinmeisters (yes even then) needed a word to describe this "clever strategy" of Grants so they came up with one "War Of Attrition."

They made a drunk look like a genius. See how easy it is?


This Accidental view of history is reinforced throughout our lives by the controlled MSM. As a result, when the Conspiratorial View of History is revealed to you by someone like IBOS as the more correct one in a given historical event, you act irrationally hostile to that person because your immediate reaction has been programmed into you and causes shock, disbelief and a refusal to accept it as anything but a fanciful delusion.

Willie-try to understand that you may be wrong about alot of things in life. We all are. It doesnt make you stronger to be in constant denial that you could be wrong about anything. On the contrary, its life affirming to admit you dont know everything and are open to the truth in whatever way it comes.


Neat and clean, or messy and dirty, the truth is the truth- and thats that.

 

[TotalRecall]

IBOS TO WILLIE
"I can tell by your posts that you're an idiot but your not dumb enough to not understand what I'm asking. I guess you are too afraid to answer the question. Typical. I don't want to hear any more shit from you denouncing so called conspiracy theories since you can't even answer a question about them"





Willie Never Runs From A Debate. He Just (moveon)...

All Talk And No Walk...

 

[Ibetonsports]

IBOS TO WILLIE
"I can tell by your posts that you're an idiot but your not dumb enough to not understand what I'm asking. I guess you are too afraid to answer the question. Typical. I don't want to hear any more shit from you denouncing so called conspiracy theories since you can't even answer a question about them"





Willie Never Runs From A Debate. He Just (moveon)...

All Talk And No Walk...

What could he do? He either has to admit that he has holes in his beliefs or flat out lie to himself and all of us. It is a lose lose situation for him.

 

[Brooklynbomber]

thats a fantastic post TR

like I've posted several times, if one were to "fade" the MSM and history books on ANY subject or event, they would be right much much more than wrong

 

[Ibetonsports]

We should start keeping track of all the arguments these people run from.