frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Titanic conspiracy

ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
JP Morgan hated AC current. He and Edison fought a vicious fight against Tesla, who first went to work for Edison when he came to the Americas in 1884. Tesla showed Edison the marvels of AC current and Edison, being a complete dunce, failed to recognize Tesla's genius. Edison had promised Tesla $50,000 if Tesla could fix a particularly perplexing problem with a DC dynamo. After months of hard work, Tesla fixed the problem and Edison backed out of the deal. Tesla quit the job in disgust.

http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_america.html

Tesla went to work digging the streets of New York until he was convinced by his foreman to start his own electrical company. Westinghouse and Tesla made the perfect match, showing off AC current electricity to the world. 

JP Morgan set out against this AC current, or set his cat's paw against it, and Edison invented his sole "gift" to the world, the electric chair. The term "electrocution" was invented, and AC current was branded "and electrical killer". Edison scared thousands of people by electrocuting elephants, while trying to shut Tesla and Westinghouse down. (GRAPHIC)



This deadly gambit by Morgan and Edison failed to turn people away from AC power and eventually AC current dominated over D.C. and became the standard electrical system.

This is where the Titanic comes in. JP Morgan owned the White Star Line which owned the "unsinkable" Titanic. By this time, Tesla was getting into wireless electricity and had gained the financial assistance of John Jacob Astor  to build the Tesla tower. Morgan was expected to be on the Titanic, and millionaires  (like Astor) were excited to have Morgan's undivided attention for days at a time.

http://www.titanic-whitestarships.com/Owners2.htm

But Morgan backed out at the last minute, due to illness. Was he just a lucky chap? Or a master "baiter"?
passedbillislander507comey_testify
  1. The sinking of the Titanic was a conpiracy to keep free energy out of the hands of the people?8 votes
    1. Yes
      12.50%
    2. No
      87.50%

http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


Hubble is a plane.

https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

Comments

  • You haven't even explained what conspiracy is meant to exist. Who sank the Titanic? How? Why?

    Even judged by the standards of a conspiracy theory, this isn't great.
    passedbill
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    You haven't even explained what conspiracy is meant to exist. Who sank the Titanic? How? Why?

    Even judged by the standards of a conspiracy theory, this isn't great.
    You don't have to be Tesla to put this one together. 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect
    I take it you didn't do puzzles or detective stories.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • In a debate you present your argument. If you have to rely on your opponents to make your arguments and find your evidence for you, that's a good indication you don't have a case.

    If this entire thread is going to end up you going "Nuh uh, I don't have to present evidence or even lay out what my points are, you do it for me", then this isn't going to get very far.
    passedbill
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    edited June 27 Premium Member
    In a debate you present your argument. If you have to rely on your opponents to make your arguments and find your evidence for you, that's a good indication you don't have a case.

    If this entire thread is going to end up you going "Nuh uh, I don't have to present evidence or even lay out what my points are, you do it for me", then this isn't going to get very far.

    FACT: JP Morgan funded/built the Titanic

    FACT: JP Morgan was booked on the voyage but canceled at the last second.

    FACT: Friend of JP Morgan, Milton Hersey, also canceled at the last moment and survived to build the Hersey food empire.

    FACT: There were no red flares on board to signal to any boats for rescue. Only white flares that signal a party and that everything is okay.

    FACT: It was the first ship of its kind with the ability to seal decks electromagnetically which could also seal people below deck.

    FACT: The Captain Edward Smith was one of the most decorated Captains of his time and would have been totally out of character by avoiding precautions.

    FACT: The Federal Reserve was formed the very next year.

    FACT: The Astor Family was one of the richest families in the world and John Astor III opposed the Federal Reserve.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    In a debate you present your argument. If you have to rely on your opponents to make your arguments and find your evidence for you, that's a good indication you don't have a case.

    If this entire thread is going to end up you going "Nuh uh, I don't have to present evidence or even lay out what my points are, you do it for me", then this isn't going to get very far.
     You don't honestly expect me to speculate exactly how a millionaire sank his own ship, do you. I've presented my case, which gave a few motives, a murder weapon, and a suspect. Sounds like the balls in the defense's court, and you so far, have a "nuh-uh"

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 160 Pts
    edited June 28
    Erfisflat said:
    In a debate you present your argument. If you have to rely on your opponents to make your arguments and find your evidence for you, that's a good indication you don't have a case.

    If this entire thread is going to end up you going "Nuh uh, I don't have to present evidence or even lay out what my points are, you do it for me", then this isn't going to get very far.
     You don't honestly expect me to speculate exactly how a millionaire sank his own ship, do you. I've presented my case, which gave a few motives, a murder weapon, and a suspect. Sounds like the balls in the defense's court, and you so far, have a "nuh-uh"
    Yes, having an actual rationale for how something could happen is considered a prerequisite along with evidence that it approximates reality rather than being a daydream.

    Despite yours claims to providing " a few motives, a murder weapon, and a suspect", this isn't the case. Right in this very post you refuse to make any kind of claim as to Moprgan supposedly sank the titanic, your murder weapon is missing.

    You also haven't presented a motive. You have provided supposed facts which insinuate at what you believe the motive could be - something to do with Tesla? Or the Federal Reserve? But as to actually saying "This is the reason he did it" you haven't even done that.

  • I believe that the Sinking of the Titanic was and count be a conspiracy.

    the ship was one of a kind showing off so much like being unsinkable reportedly, ther can't be a vid reason why so much money, lives, materials, pride etc. was thrown away.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    I believe that the Sinking of the Titanic was and count be a conspiracy.

    the ship was one of a kind showing off so much like being unsinkable reportedly, ther can't be a vid reason why so much money, lives, materials, pride etc. was thrown away.
    Your spell check prevents me from knowing how you stand on this.
    Evidence

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • Erfisflat said:
    I believe that the Sinking of the Titanic was and count be a conspiracy.

    the ship was one of a kind showing off so much like being unsinkable reportedly, ther can't be a vid reason why so much money, lives, materials, pride etc. was thrown away.
    Your spell check prevents me from knowing how you stand on this.
    Think he's on your side. Two birds of a feather.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Erfisflat said:
    I believe that the Sinking of the Titanic was and count be a conspiracy.

    the ship was one of a kind showing off so much like being unsinkable reportedly, ther can't be a vid reason why so much money, lives, materials, pride etc. was thrown away.
    Your spell check prevents me from knowing how you stand on this.
    Think he's on your side. Two birds of a feather.
    and they say common sense is a rare trait nowadays

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    edited June 27 Premium Member
    Didn't really think I'd need to spell this one out any better than I did. What shape is the earth again?
    @AlwaysCorrect

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat

    I just don't care about your flat-eartherism.

    I'll point out how your arguments are wrong on topics which either interest me or where I feel there is a risk reasonable people could read it and be swayed by illogical and incorrect views and so there needs to be a rational counter, but neither of those hold true for flat-eartherism.

    I'd also point out that the argument you're trying to make is fallacious. Even if you were correct with your belief that all known physical laws of the universe are wrong and we have a flat earth, being right about one topic doesn't then mean you are then automatically right about every topic. If you think you are right about some secret conspiracy to destroy the titanic, you should be able to present your theory and provide evidence to support it. Currently you won't even say what it is you believe. this conspiracy is.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    For those of us that need clarification, it can be argued that JP Morgan, facing rivalry for millions of dollars, and control of the American monetary system, which is arguably theft (another debate altogether), lured the financiers and opposition onto a boat he designed and owned, and had it purposely sunk. 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Plain, 3rd grade English. Evidence and sources already stated.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    As far as "all known physical laws" which do you mean? That standing water is always found to fill it's container, and find, then maintain a flat, level surface in any practical experiment? 


    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • Erfisflat said:
    For those of us that need clarification, it can be argued that JP Morgan, facing rivalry for millions of dollars, and control of the American monetary system, which is arguably theft (another debate altogether), lured the financiers and opposition onto a boat he designed and owned, and had it purposely sunk. 
    Okay, so you claim it it can be argued. I'm sure it can, but you're not doing so so please feel free to start sometime soon.

    Currently I don't even know from your arguments how this is meant to have happened, let alone had the chance to look at any evidence for it being credible.
  • Was Titanic the movie with Leonardo DiCaprio part of the consipracy as well? Lol.  I dont think its reasonable to assume that there is sufficient evidence for this conspiracy without more grounded arguments.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect

    You new a signed confession? 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Erfisflat said:
    @AlwaysCorrect

    You new a signed confession? 
    What would he be confessing to? You haven't even explained what is meant to have happened.

    Here's your argument:

    Step 1: Morgan supposedly decides to sink the Titanic
    Step 2: ?????
    Step 3: Magic
    Step 4: I dunno
    Step 5: MYSTERY!
    Step 6: Well obviously your opponents should write your arguments for you
    Step 7: Maybe it fell off the side of the flat earth?!?!?!
    Step 8: ERROR 404: Page not Found
    Step 9: The Titanic sinks 

    If you can't see how your argument is not only utterly unconvincing but doesn't even count as an argument at all, you're obviously too busy thinking about all those rapes that you're suspected of based on your own logic (You do still approve of that logic right, no objections?).
    Just because you don't understand the argument doesn't mean it's not there, and comparing this to rape, then accusing me of it is a bit farfetched and overdramatic, not to mention completely unfounded. No magic need be involved, paying off a ship captain is not a "mystery". Disagree with the theory, chalk it all off as coincidence if you want, but the whole "rape" and "molestation" thing is just wrong. You don't know me.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 204 Pts
    edited June 28
    It's an interesting theory, but by the time the Titanic went down, AC had already become the standard source of power even from Edison's power company; and with J P Morgan's help.

    Even though the institutional War of Currents had ended in a financial merger the technical difference between direct and alternating current systems would follow a much longer technical merger.[114] Due to innovation in the US and Europe, alternating current's economy of scale with very large generating plants linked to loads via long distance transmission was slowly being combined with the ability to link it up with all of the existing systems that needed to be supplied. These included single phase AC systems, poly-phase AC systems, low voltage incandescent lighting, high voltage arc lighting, and existing DC motors in factories and street cars. In the engineered universal system these technological differences were temporarily being bridged via the development of rotary converters and motor–generators that would allow the large number of legacy systems to be connected to the AC grid.[114][115] These stopgaps would slowly be replaced as older systems were retired or upgraded.


    In May 1892 Westinghouse Electric managed to underbid General Electric on the contract to electrify the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago and, although they made no profit, their demonstration of a safe and effective highly flexible universal alternating current system powering all of the disparate electrical systems at the Exposition led to them winning the bid at the end of that year to build an AC power station at Niagara Falls. General Electric was awarded contracts to build AC transmission lines and transformers in that project and further bids at Niagara were split with GE who were quickly catching up in the AC field[5] due partly to Charles Proteus Steinmetz, a Prussian mathematician who was the first person to fully understand AC power from a solid mathematical standpoint. General Electric hired many talented new engineers to improve its design of transformers, generators, motors and other apparatus.[116]

    Patent lawsuits were still hampering both companies and bleeding off cash, so in 1896, J. P. Morgan engineered a patent sharing agreement between the two companies that remained in force for 11 years.[117]

    In 1897 Edison sold his remaining stock in Edison Electric Illuminating of New York to finance his iron ore refining prototype plant.[118] In 1908 Edison said to George Stanley, son of AC transformer inventor William Stanley, Jr., "Tell your father I was wrong", probably admitting he had underestimated the developmental potential of alternating current.[119]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents



  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Didn't really think I'd need to spell this one out any better than I did. What shape is the earth again?
    @AlwaysCorrect
    Umm, .. a tesseract?? Or no, .. wait, that's where the trinity-gods live. (pun intended)
  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Was Titanic the movie with Leonardo DiCaprio part of the consipracy as well? Lol.  I dont think its reasonable to assume that there is sufficient evidence for this conspiracy without more grounded arguments.
    Good question, maybe the movie is part of the conspiracy, .. think about it? "Iceberg, .. iceberg, .. iceberg sank the Titanic!", .. it's like "The plane, the plane, the planes downed the twin towers on 9-11"


    Just look how many movies predicted 9-11?
    Since the invention of films they have been used to "program" us, .. starting with the hypnotic movie "Metropolis". Think about it, it's 1927, the subliminal messages within those amazing futuristic scenes must have had a huge impact on the public to help form the, what we now know, predicted future.


    Anyways, Erfisflat has pointed out some really crazy events that for the most part the general public never gave a second thought about that, yet we now see that it formed much of the events in our history. So "what If" there was no iceberg?
    Did the Captain "really go down with his ship"? Or was there a "fishing boat" (or whatever) there waiting to pick him up?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member

    “So your theory is that Edward Smith, the captain, was paid off?”


    That's one possibility, yes. Another would be that he was blackmailed. Another would be that he was drunk, as one survivor remembers.

    http://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20120309/281938834854215



    “Even though Edward Smith went down with the ship and so would have received no benefit from any payoff? “


    The history books say he went down with the ship, also that his body was never recovered. If he wasn't responsible, and was drunk in the bar, as reported by the eye-witness, that would leave the second in command, 12 year Morgan associate, William Murdoch responsible, who was seen committing suicide after the impact.


    “It's illogical that a man would do something for the benefit of getting rich if he wasn't going to ever receive the money.”


    Any number of factors and people and possibilities could've come into play, but I'm sure, for the sake of your Nuh-uh, you'll chock it all off to coincidence.



    “But if that's your claim and you want to stick to it, when did this payoff happen?”


    Seriously? You're asking me to pinpoint a secret meeting that happened over 100 years ago? You can't be serious. Try here.


    http://www.jekyllislandhistory.com/federalreserve.shtml


    “ What evidence do you have of it occuring? How was this organised - after all the supposed plan of constructing an accident relies on so many uncontrollable factors like How did Moran know Astor would die? “


    Simple, Morgan ordered no men aboard the lifeboats until all women and children were safely aboard.


    "No man beyond this line."


    http://www.titanicinquiry.org/USInq/AmInq11Gracie01.php


    Then he was sure to put only 20 lifeboats on the titanic to hold under half the total number of people on board. Astor did try to board with his wife, but was ordered to back off.



    “How did Morgan know that the SS Californian would happen to be in the area be so poor at responding to distress signals? “


    It wasn't that the Californian was poor at responding to distress signals, it was that the flare gun was removed prior to it's maiden launch, and all that was on the Titanic was white rockets, which is a company signal. Surrounding ships had no idea of the distress until it was too late.


    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/04/robert-farago/this-day-in-gun-history-titanic-fires-white-flares/


    “Once he was paid off - even though paying him off would not be of any benefit if he went down with his ship - How did Morgan effect this catastrophe seeing as the key actions at the time where a chain of events involving multiple peoplee.g. Fredrick Fleet spotting the iceberd, William Murdoch who gave the ordeer for how to try and avoid it?


    As for the rape and molestation thing, that is your "logic". Do you like sex? if yes, that gives you a motive to rape people and by your own logic, makes you a suspect in every case of rape and molestation in the entire world.”


    You’re an idiot if you think that's a valid analogy. JP Morgan OWNED THE TITANIC.


    “Things like knowing people and having actual evidence against people aren't necessary for someone to be a suspect according to you. I'd suggest you recant your argument, which would also mean recanting your argument for the Titanic conspiracy theory.”

    What you suggest should happen, and what will happen are two entirely different things. As I said, just because you don't understand the argument, doesn't mean there isn't one.


    “Personally I don't think that logic works and you are by no means a suspect in every rape or case of molestation in the world. I am making a form of argument known as reductio ad absurdium where I lead your argument to a logical but absurd conclusions.”


    Actually, what you've done is called a false analogy logical fallacy. Where I've shown where Morgan had the motive, the means, and the idea from a book written 14 years earlier called “Wreck of the Titan”, you have done nothing but a silly accusation of rape and molestation, attacking me instead of my argument.


    “ Doing so shows how the logic is faulty. To defend yourself against this you either need to recant your logic or point out a flaw in how I am making my argument,”


    Done.


    “ some difference in how I am applying your logic compared to how you think it should be used.”


    Done


    “ If you can't point out a basis for how I'm applying your reasoning incorrectly, this should be an indication to you that your logic is flawed and using it causes people to jump to wild accusations without proof.”

    @AlwaysCorrect

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    P.S.
    Remember who was in charge of the media at the time, .. in charge of the Newspapers!? If they said "Iceberg", the whole world would only know that and from what I've seen regarding all the evidence of our Flat Earth, only God could convince people otherwise.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect if you could refrain from disrespectfully attacking me and associating me with rape and molestation, that'd be great.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • Erfisflat said:
    @AlwaysCorrect if you could refrain from disrespectfully attacking me and associating me with rape and molestation, that'd be great.
    Who is attacking you? I have specifically said that I don't believe the logic which substantiates this is valid.

    Nevertheless it is a logical extension of your arguments that you cannot counter. I bring it up not to try and show that you are in any way connected to sexual assault, but to show what kind of ridiculous conclusions your logic draws you to and to try and get you to stop holding to such claims.

    The only attempt you made so far to rebutt this is:

    "You’re an idiot if you think that's a valid analogy. JP Morgan OWNED THE TITANIC."

    So not only do you make an ad hominem attack against me (my attacks are only against your logic) but you make an unclear and vague argument with no logic behind it. Presumably you believe that JP Morgan owning the Titanic, which could have been used in a nefarious way even though you can't and won't offer proof of this, is some kind of connection that validates him being a suspect.

    I assume you own a penis, which also could have been used in nefarious ways. Therefore by your logic, that's enough to consider you a suspect in all rapes involving penises (and hands, tongues, etc).

    It's very telling how you are willing to cast about these baseless accusations at anyone else, but as soon as the same argument is applied to you you cry out that it's unfair. I hope this helps you realise the hypocrisy of your reasoning and recant your position.
    PowerPikachu21
  • @Evidence

    "That's one possibility, yes. Another would be that he was blackmailed. Another would be that he was drunk, as one survivor remembers.

    http://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20120309/281938834854215"

    So you don't actually even know what you believe yourself. A moment ago you said he was paid off, now you say he wasn't. In your previous post you said "FACT: The Captain Edward Smith was one of the most decorated Captains of his time and would have been totally out of character by avoiding precautions" while now you present the possibility, that he completely was not cautious at all and was instead willing to leave himself drunk on duty.

    You have absolutely nothing and are unwilling to defend your positions for even a moment, instantly dropping them the moment they are challenged and then adopting some completely contradictory position to what you argued before.

    "The history books say he went down with the ship, also that his body was never recovered. If he wasn't responsible, and was drunk in the bar, as reported by the eye-witness, that would leave the second in command, 12 year Morgan associate, William Murdoch responsible, who was seen committing suicide after the impact."

    You have already explained that the reason is Captain Smith was bribed. Him not being bribed is mutually exclusive with this as it is the direct opposite. Sorry, but your arguments are internally inconsistent and it shows you have no real reasoning.

    "Any number of factors and people and possibilities could've come into play, but I'm sure, for the sake of your Nuh-uh, you'll chock it all off to coincidence."

    I asked you to give the rationale and being bribed was the explanation you gave. Don't blame me for your lack of foresight in thinking through your arguments.

    Also this sentence is pretty telling. Any number of factors and people and possibilities could have come into play. it is technically feasible that literally any crewmember or passenger besides infants could have been a secret anarchist who planned it all out. You can imagine motives for literally anyone. To actually point towards a conspiracy you would need proof of nefarious actions, while all you had is day-to-day activity.


    "Simple, Morgan ordered no men aboard the lifeboats until all women and children were safely aboard."

    That still left room for men and around a third of male first-class passengers survived and could have been more if not for disorganisation that was unplannable. Hell, there were lifeboats being lowered partially loaded with room for more people while Astor messed around not taking the threat of sinking seriously.

    You have presented a scenario where someone concocts the most fiendish conspiracy ever devised, offered no evidence that it is real and apparently it was all so they could have a 50/50 shot of killing someone under the likely conditions that would have been expected while also killing over a thousand other people for no particular reason. 


    "It wasn't that the Californian was poor at responding to distress signals, it was that the flare gun was removed prior to it's maiden launch, and all that was on the Titanic was white rockets, which is a company signal. Surrounding ships had no idea of the distress until it was too late.


    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/04/robert-farago/this-day-in-gun-history-titanic-fires-white-flares/"


    Wrong and shows your willingness to believe a random person on the internet who presents no evidence. No wonder you take the same approach yourself.


    Here are the relevant maritime laws applicable at the time of the accident: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=70910


    To quote from article 31: "When a vessel is in distress and requires assistance from other vessels or from the shore the following shall be the signals to be used or displayed by her, either together or separately, namely:

    ...

    "At night--

    ...

    "Third. Rockets or shells throwing stars of any color or description, fired one at a time at short intervals."


    The standardisation of distress rockets happened after the sinking of the titanic, as a direct response to that, when the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea was first passed in 1914.


    "What you suggest should happen, and what will happen are two entirely different things. As I said, just because you don't understand the argument, doesn't mean there isn't one."


    What argument? When requested you have literally refused to explain how your conspiracy supposedly occurred and instead asked people who disbelieve you to do detective work and imagine things on your behalf. At this point it's not even a conspiracy theory because a theory at lest explains (however erroneously) it reached it's conclusions. This is a conspiracy rambling.


    "Seriously? You're asking me to pinpoint a secret meeting that happened over 100 years ago? You can't be serious.."

    I only expect you to have reasoning and evidence to back up your claims. If you don't it's your fault for making false claims about things happening 100 years ago.

    With you having no knowledge to support your argument and it flying in the face of everything we do know, your theory can be considered false.

  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    @AlwaysCorrect I believe you meant to address the above post to @Erfisflat, right?
    comey_testify
  • The Titanic was sunk by the causes said for a while. Also, some new artifacts or something simialar and/or were found.
  • Fr3akFr3ak 24 Pts
    It does seem fishy, but I don't believe they would be willing to kill hundreds of people just to keep free energy out of our hands. That seems a bit far fetched.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Erfisflat said:
    @AlwaysCorrect if you could refrain from disrespectfully attacking me and associating me with rape and molestation, that'd be great.
    Who is attacking you? I have specifically said that I don't believe the logic which substantiates this is valid.

    Nevertheless it is a logical extension of your arguments that you cannot counter. I bring it up not to try and show that you are in any way connected to sexual assault, but to show what kind of ridiculous conclusions your logic draws you to and to try and get you to stop holding to such claims.

    The only attempt you made so far to rebutt this is:

    "You’re an idiot if you think that's a valid analogy. JP Morgan OWNED THE TITANIC."

    So not only do you make an ad hominem attack against me (my attacks are only against your logic) but you make an unclear and vague argument with no logic behind it. Presumably you believe that JP Morgan owning the Titanic, which could have been used in a nefarious way even though you can't and won't offer proof of this, is some kind of connection that validates him being a suspect.

    I assume you own a penis, which also could have been used in nefarious ways. Therefore by your logic, that's enough to consider you a suspect in all rapes involving penises (and hands, tongues, etc).

    It's very telling how you are willing to cast about these baseless accusations at anyone else, but as soon as the same argument is applied to you you cry out that it's unfair. I hope this helps you realise the hypocrisy of your reasoning and recant your position.
    Not a chance, all you've done is offer questions, which just a tad bit of research would've answered.

     Your analogy is in fact idiotic, as you have not placed me anywhere near or even remotely associated with "every rape and molestation case". Nevermind this being a physical impossibility. 

    "So you don't actually even know what you believe yourself."

    I stated what I believed in the OP. So far, JP Morgan still remains under suspicion for the sinking of the Titanic, this hasn't changed. Exactly how he did it is debatable.

    "You have absolutely nothing and are unwilling to defend your positions for even a moment.."

    I fail to see how all of this is "absolutely nothing."

    "You have already explained that the reason is Captain Smith was bribed."

    I stated this was one of many possibilities, way to dodge literally ALL of them. No matter what actually happened, there is reason to believe that JP Morgan had a hand in it.

    "That still left room for men and around a third of male first-class passengers survived and could have been more if not for disorganisation that was unplannable. Hell, there were lifeboats being lowered partially loaded with room for more people while Astor messed around not taking the threat of sinking seriously."

    Agreed, Astor didn't think the ship was sinkable, but then again, almost nobody did. It doesn't take away from the fact that not nearly enough life boats were available, and those were intended for women and children. 

    "You have presented a scenario where someone concocts the most fiendish conspiracy ever devised"

    JP Morgan was copying a book. Similarities with the ship and story include but aren't limited to:
    1.Both ships described as (nearly) unsinkable. 
    2. Both nearly the same size.
    3. Both hit icebergs on April nights in the North Atlantic 400 miles from Newfoundland while travelling too fast. (23 & 25 knots)
    4. Both had too few lifeboats and lost over half the passengers. 

    "I only expect you to have reasoning and evidence to back up your claims."

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 287 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Fr3ak said:
    It does seem fishy, but I don't believe they would be willing to kill hundreds of people just to keep free energy out of our hands. That seems a bit far fetched.
    That's a lot of money to let go of. They said the Sam thing about 9/11 too.


    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch