What was the real story behind the sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912?

In 1910, seven men met on Jekyll Island just off the coast of Georgia, USA to plan

the formation of a new central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank, in order to usurp the

control of money creation from the US Government and place it into private hands.

Nelson Aldrich and Frank Vanderlip represented the Rockefeller financial empire,

Henry Davidson, Charles Norton and Benjamin Strong represented J.P. Morgan and

Paul Warburg represented the Rothschilds banking dynasty of Europe. These men all

took great pains to conceal their identities and their dastardly mission, all of them

travelling incognito.












platform. Off, the party set. New York's ubiquitous reporters had been foiled...






present system together. He, more than any one man has made the system possible as

a working reality.” Bertie Charles Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 1928

The Morgans, the Warburgs, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers are more often

than not, fierce competitors for short-term profits, yet are prepared to commit to

joint ventures whenever necessary to further the greater ‘cause’. They established the

US national banking cartel that is the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. According to G.

Edward Griffin in 'The Creature from Jekyll Island’ “…it tells a story of how bankers


They are all part of and therefore controlled by the Elite hierarchy. These most

powerful of families constantly strive to do whatever is necessary to destroy

constitutional liberty in America (and worldwide). John Pierpoint (JP) Morgan was in

control of the White Star shipping line as well as a significant portion of all American

financial and manufacturing industry at the turn of the twentieth century. In 1908, he

made the decision to build a brand new class of luxury liners to enable the wealthy to

cross the Atlantic seaways in previously undreamed-of opulence. This class of ships

was named the ‘Olympic’ class and construction of the giant vessels the ‘Olympic’, the

‘Titanic’ and the ‘Britannic’ began in 1909 at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in

Belfast, Ireland.



completed (followed by Titanic and then Britannic), was involved in a rather

unfortunate accident caused by a heavy collision with the British Royal Navy cruiser,

HMS Hawke in September 1911 in Southampton Water off the south coast of

England, a few weeks after its maiden voyage and had to be extensively ‘patched-up’

before embarking on the return journey to Harland and Wolff ’s shipyard in Belfast in

order to undergo full damage assessment and proper repair work.

Incidentally, does it not seem rather strange in hindsight that although the

Olympic was the first of the (virtually) identical triplet ‘sisters’ to be completed and

enter service, she was never given the publicity, nor enjoyed the huge public acclaim

that her younger sister enjoyed, the following year? Why would that be? Surely the

big fanfare and carnival-like atmosphere surrounding the maiden voyage of these

‘floating wonders of the age’ should have been reserved for the first one to enter

service, Olympic not the second one, Titanic? Indeed, in comparison, the occasion of

Olympic’s maiden voyage in 1911 passed relatively quietly. Could the huge accolades

and publicity accorded to Titanic’s maiden voyage possibly have been part of a

conspiracy to lure the rich and famous to her in great numbers for reasons that will

become apparent shortly? Anyway, I digress somewhat….

In the meantime a Royal Navy enquiry into the accident, not unexpectedly, found

the crew of the Olympic and thus the White Star Line culpable for the collision and

this in effect meant that the White Star Line’s insurance was null and void and the

company would therefore be liable to pay all the costs of the repairs to both ships

themselves. To cut quite a long story short, this meant that the White Star Line was

out of pocket to the tune of at least £800,000 (around £60m today) for repairs and

lost revenues whilst the ship was unable to ply its trade back and forth across the

Atlantic. With the massive financial investment of the White Star company needing to

be repaid sooner rather than later, this put severe pressure on the organisation and

impacted upon the final completion of the Titanic, further contributing to the

financial black hole in which White Star now found itself increasingly being consumed.

However, for JP Morgan and the White Star Line, even worse news was to come.

The damage to the Olympic was far more severe than anyone had expected. It did

not help matters at all when the Olympic was involved in a further collision, this time

it was believed, with a partially submerged wreck. Although the damage inflicted in

the Hawke incident had been shored-up as well as it could have been, there were

rumours circulating amongst the Harland and Wolfe workforce and the White Star

crews that all was not well with Olympic and this seemed to be confirmed when it lost

a propeller blade in the above, second incident, causing further severe vibrational

damage to the already damaged ship. It is believed that the keel of the ship was

actually twisted and therefore damaged beyond economic repair, which would have

effectively meant the scrapyard for her. If this had been the case, it is virtually certain

that the White Star Line would have been bankrupted, given its now precarious

financial situation.

‘...it took a fortnight [two weeks] of emergency patching to Olympic’s hull before

she was in any fit state to attempt the journey from Southampton to Belfast for more

complete repairs. Able to use only one main engine, the crippled liner made the

voyage at an average speed of 10 knots, wasting the exhaust steam from the one

usable engine. This steam would normally have driven the central turbine engine,

which shows that this engine, its mountings or shafting had been damaged in the

collision. As this engine sat on the centreline of the vessel, immediately above the

keel, which the propeller shaft ran through, we can reasonably assume that the keel

was damaged’. Robin Gardiner, ‘Titanic, the Ship that Never Sank?’

If Gardiner’s hypothesis is correct, then the seeds had been sown for a truly

remarkable event – the surreptitious switching of the identities of the two ships,

Olympic and Titanic.

In his well-researched work, Gardiner presents a long series of credible

testimonies, indisputable facts and evidence, both written and photographic, that

would seem to point to the fact that the two ships were indeed switched with a view

to staging an iceberg collision or other unknown fatal event, with the Titanic

(originally the Olympic) and many of its passengers and crew being sacrificed in an

audacious insurance scam which would save the White Star Line from financial ruin.

According to Gardner, “Almost two months after the Hawke/Olympic collision,

the reconverted Titanic, now superficially identical to her sister except for the C deck

portholes, quietly left Belfast for Southampton to begin a very successful 25 year

career as the Olympic. Back in the builders’ yard, work progressed steadily on the

battered hulk of Olympic. The decision to dispose of the damaged vessel would

already have been taken. It must have been obvious from quite early on that the

vessel was beyond economic repair, so these repairs need not have been quite as

thorough as they otherwise might have been. Instead of replacing the damaged

section of keel, longitudinal bulkheads were installed to brace it”. [my emphasis – JH]

How significant then in the light of this statement, that when the wreck of the

Titanic was first investigated by Robert Ballard and his crew after its discovery in 1986

that the first explorations of the wreckage revealed (completely undocumented in the

ships original blueprints) iron support structures in place which appeared to be

supporting and bracing the keel. This was never satisfactorily explained either at the

time or subsequently but would certainly be significant if correct and there is

absolutely no reason to believe that it is not correct, as it was reported by the puzzled

Ballard himself who of course at that time knew nothing (and probably still does not

even now) about the alleged switching of the two ships’ identities.

Meanwhile, in the USA there were a number of powerful men who were not in

favour of the proposed Federal Reserve Banking System. Benjamin Guggenheim,

Isador Strauss and John Jacob Astor were most prominent among those who

opposed the formation of this abomination. These men were some of the richest

men in the world, but their money was accrued through industrial, retail and leisure

interests, rather than through the financial sector and they stood firmly in the way of

the banksters’ plan. It is my view that either Morgan and the other co-conspirators

hit upon a really neat ‘kill two birds with one stone’ solution, then not only would

White Star have successfully solved the Olympic problem and thus its own financial

worries, but J.P. Morgan would also have fulfilled his wishes to implement his plan to

establish the Federal Reserve with little or no powerful opposition to thwart him.


All three (along with many other prominent people of the day) were subtly enticed

to board the by-now hyped-up to be, highly prestigious maiden voyage of the Titanic

with a view to ending their opposition to the Federal Reserve plans and thus an

additional reason for the ship's destruction was a stand-off between the mega-rich

whereby Guggenheim, Strauss and Astor could be eliminated. They had to be

destroyed by a means so outrageous and fantastic that no one would suspect they

were murdered and also using a method that would completely obscure the real

reason for their demise. Simply arranging for all three men to undergo separate

‘accidents’ would have appeared far too suspicious, so they had to be lured to the

same place at the same time and Titanic’s pre-determined, ill-fated maiden voyage was

the solution to the problem. Could this have been the real reason for all the

hullabaloo and hype surrounding Titanic’s maiden voyage despite the fact that the

Olympic was accorded a much less publicised or flamboyant ‘send-off ’ on the 14th

June 1911, even though she was after-all, the first one off the production line?

Morgan himself was supposed to be travelling on the ship, but as was always

intended, he had a ‘last minute change of plan’ due to a ‘bout of ill health’ and

significantly failed to show at Southampton at the appointed time and so his personal

stateroom remained empty as the giant vessel pulled away from Southampton docks

on the afternoon of the 10th April 1912, to the delight of the cheering multitudes on

the quayside.

Is it possibly also significant that Morgan ordered that an expensive collection of

bronzes that he had purchased in Paris, should be unloaded from the ship at the last

minute, too?

The Captain of Titanic, Edward Smith had experience of the North Atlantic

waters in abundance, indeed he had been crossing the North Atlantic for more than a

quarter of a century. He was generally regarded as the 'world's most experienced

captain' in the North Atlantic seaways and it is my belief that Smith knew all along that

Titanic/Olympic was destined to become the grave of the enemies of J.P. Morgan, his

boss and its purpose, once the damage to Olympic was fully realised, was always that it

would undergo a contrived accident on its ‘first’ voyage. He also had full and

complete knowledge of exactly where the icebergs were. He guided Titanic full speed

at around 22 knots on a moonless night into a huge ice field 80 square miles in area.

Why would such an experienced captain undertake such a foolhardy course of action?

The fact is that he had received his orders directly from his ultimate boss (JP Morgan)

and therefore he was totally committed to leading his ship to disaster.

Captain Smith's actions immediately before the event and in its immediate

aftermath were totally out of character for this experienced master mariner. Could he

have been wrestling with his conscience perhaps? Should he become the heroic

Captain, saving the day or against all his instincts, obey his master, sink the ship and in

the process cold-bloodedly murder up to 3000 people? Significantly and conveniently

(for the perpetrators) Smith in the age-old tradition, as Captain, went down with the

ship we are told. Indeed, could Smith have even been ‘allowed’ to survive, knowing

as he probably did, the real truth about the incident? One suspects not.

As is well known, there were not enough lifeboats for the full complement of

passengers and crew and some of them left the ship as little as only one quarter full in

any case and this fact could well have been used to its full advantage in the execution

of the master plan. The Captain strangely ordered white flares to be launched,

knowing full well that the international standard colour of distress flares was red.

Titanic possessed a full complement of white, blue AND red flares. Other ships

passing within sight of these flares were intentionally confused and thought that

maybe those aboard Titanic were having a fireworks party. This of course was also all

part of the master plan.

Even if my hypothesis could be criticised by some as mere conjecture, the true

Titanic story is still very, very different to the official, ubiquitous one that we see

depicted in books and numerous films and documentaries that have been spawned by

this tragic incident. The book, published in the 1950s and the feature film of the

same name, ‘A Night to Remember’ (Longmans, Green & Co, 1956) by Walter Lord

is the source most responsible for the Titanic myths and legends still prevailing today.

Lord was a ‘former’ member of the US intelligence services (OSS and CIA) but given

the fact that it is well known that anyone who has been a member of these

organisations always in effect remains a member, can we really rely on his accounts or

are they just more subterfuge amongst a morass of contradictory stories surrounding

the event? What would motivate a former member of one of the world’s elite security

services to write a book about an accident involving an ocean liner? As always seems

to be the modus operandus in any suspected conspiracy, we are bombarded with

these so-called ‘facts’ by the controlled media, to such an extent that we believe that

they cannot possibly be untrue or deliberately misleading. However, many of the

major Titanic ‘facts’ have subsequently been proven to be false but somehow the same

version of the story still persists as the absolute de facto truth. Such is the power of

propaganda on the human mind and symptomatic of the methodology by which most

history is perverted.

Robin Gardiner further stated, “As I delved deeper into the story, more and more

inconsistencies became apparent. Inconsistencies that individually meant little but

collectively pointed to a grimmer reality than that usually depicted in the heroic


He continues, “Officers who were later acclaimed as heroes were exposed as

anything but. One in particular removed a little boy from a lifeboat at gunpoint,

before escaping in that same boat himself”.

“Descriptions of the collision and damage supposedly sustained by Titanic do not

agree. The ‘slight scrape’ with the ice that was hardly noticed by most aboard

contradicts solid evidence of structural damage at least 5½ feet (1.6 metres) within the

outer hull of the vessel”.

“Then came evidence to show that the ice the ship encountered was seen first not

500 yards (480 metres) ahead but more like 11 miles (17km). I began to wonder if

perhaps the sinking of the Titanic might not have been an accident after all”. [my

emphasis – JH]

Indeed, did Titanic actually strike an iceberg at all? We only have the eye-witness

testimony of four people believe it or not, with which to confirm or deny this fact.

First Officer Murdoch would have been the fifth witness but he did not live to tell his

story. Gardiner himself offers no opinion on this theory, but the copious amounts of

ice on the deck of Titanic reported by many survivors could easily have been the

result of any collision dislodging the icy build-up on masts, funnels etc. or it could

even have been easily shaken loose from the hundreds of yards of overhead rigging

and wiring by the thrusting of the ships engines abruptly into reverse. It was after all,

an extremely cold, still night with temperatures below freezing.

There have been many legends surrounding the incident but there is plenty of

concrete evidence that Titanic was not the only ship at that precise location that

night. For example, there is a photograph in existence of a drifting lifeboat that can

be discounted totally as being from Titanic herself due to being of different colours

and design to Titanic’s lifeboats.

Then there is the gouge in the side of the ship itself – 1.6 metres deep through the

outer steel plates and into the inner skin! Compacted ice is known to be very strong,

indeed stronger than steel under certain conditions, but there is no evidence that I am

aware of that it is capable of doing such catastrophic damage to steel. In addition the

relatively narrow, 15cm puncture line in the ship’s hull in conjunction with a

penetration of around 1.6m would indicate an almost impossibly-shaped ice outcrop

colliding with the ship at exactly the most critical point.

Whatever the real truth, the point here is surely that there exist so many different

possibilities that the official story is probably just an elaborate fabrication. Both the

American and British official inquiries were even thought at the time to be pretty

much a ‘whitewash’, with much evidence either ignored and eye-witness testimonies

being twisted or indeed fabricated to fit the ‘official’ story. It is staggering also to

report that of the 102 witnesses called to the British enquiry, only two were

passengers (the influential Gordons of the famous London gin company) and it is

even more surprising to learn that none of the witnesses (crew or passengers) were

allowed to offer their own first-hand evidence of any kind and were strictly restricted

to the simple answering of questions without elaboration. By any standards at all, this

sounds very much like a ‘whitewash’ to me. The passage of time has also served to

cloud the mystery still further.

We should also note that amongst all the myriad of (probably) deliberately

conflicting information unearthed by the two inquiries, the most puzzling of all is the

situation regarding the ‘yellow-funnelled steamer’ observed in the proximity of Titanic

by the officers and crew of Californian at around the time of the incident and which

has never been either identified or explained away at all. Significantly, this odd

occurrence does not even warrant a mention in any surviving Titanic legends – very

strange to say the least, despite its appearance in several contemporary newspapers.

The crew of this ship (who or whatever she was) must have been aware that they were

in the approximate area of the Titanic’s demise at the same time, so why did no-one

from the ship come forward to volunteer any evidence or information or simply to

state that they had seen nothing significant, instead of disappearing into the mists of

history forever? It also begs the question as to why no attempts were made to

discover the identity of this ship either by the inquiries or subsequently by

independent investigators. Even if attempts were made at the time, as far as I am able

to tell, they have been very successfully covered-up and no evidence remains today.

Could this mysterious yellow-funnelled vessel have been responsible for the

devastating damage to Titanic in any way? I personally believe it is a very strong

possibility and that the ‘iceberg collision’ is just a cover story concocted to protect the


“...I saw another steamer approaching, and asked [the wireless operator] what

vessels he had within reach; he replied: ‘The Titanic’, whereupon I replied, ‘That is not

the Titanic; she is too small and hasn’t enough lights.’ Shortly afterwards this steamer

stopped and was bearing S.S.E. about five or six miles from our position. ...the chief



should try to get down to have a look at her.” Captain Lord of Californian in an

interview with an American newspaper, 1914

Lord became the official scapegoat for the disaster for his so-called ‘negligence’ in

not rushing sooner to Titanic’s aid as the Californian was probably only about 11 miles

from her when she went down.

Furthermore, upon arriving back in England at Plymouth docks, from New York

aboard the steamer Lapland, two weeks after the disaster, 173 of the surviving crew

members both male and female were firstly, illegally denied their rights to speak with

their trade union representatives. Then in addition they were also illegally detained

overnight against their wishes (I believe the common terminology for this act is

unlawful imprisonment or even kidnapping) in a containing area within the dockyard

itself where they were forced to sign a document that they believed was the ‘Official

Secrets Act’, promising to keep secret forever, the actual events of the night of 14th /

15th April. Otherwise, they were told, they would be prosecuted and ‘never work

again’, not just for White Star but for any other employer. In those now long-gone

days, the inability to procure gainful employment could be almost a death sentence to

the crews and their families. So, make of that what you will, but I can personally think

of no reason why this should happen if the official story was the truth. It is also worth

noting that also in those now distant days it was far easier without mass and

instantaneous communication devices, to invent or twist facts and bury individuals’

own stories. Today of course, any of the survivors’ personal experiences would be

viral on the Internet within hours of the event.

The Red Star liner Lapland, which carried Titanic crew survivors home.

So did Captain Smith deliberately steer Titanic into a huge ice-field without

reducing speed in order to create the cover-story of the iceberg collision knowing that

he was setting-up Titanic to be rammed by the yellow-funnelled mystery ship, in

fulfilment of the Elite’s dastardly scheme? There were hardly any eye-witnesses to

what actually happened after all, so the proposition would seem very plausible to me

given all the circumstantial evidence. Along with the officer on duty on the Bridge at

that time, First Officer William Murdoch and Quartermaster Hitchens plus

Quartermaster George Rowe on the after-bridge, lookouts Frederick Fleet and

Reginald Lee were the only other ones known to have personally witnessed the

appalling events.

Of these five witnesses, only four survived, significantly all of them ‘lower-class’

people and placing undue pressure on four working-class people to keep quiet over a

century ago, would have been a relatively simple task. First Officer Murdoch is

perhaps significantly, said to have ‘committed suicide’ in the aftermath of the collision

whilst the ship was being abandoned, however there is no solid evidence available with

which to corroborate this fact. Why would he do this? He has also been accused of

shooting passengers before turning a gun on himself, something that his family and

descendants have disputed vehemently ever since and so could there be a more

sinister explanation for his demise along with that of Captain Smith? Down the years,

suicide has always been a very convenient cover-story for many a silencing murder

and in addition it is perhaps significant that none of the ‘three stooges’, Guggenheim,

Strauss and Astor survived to tell their stories either. How easy would it have been

under the circumstances and in the post-collision mayhem and confusion, for a paid

assassin to dispose of Messrs Smith, Murdoch, Guggenheim, Strauss and Astor to

make absolutely certain that none of them escaped their planned fates against all the


Thus, these wealthy men, who opposed the formation of the execrable Federal

Reserve System (granted, due to their own conflicting financial interests and not out

of any great concern for the plight of the masses) were disposed of, along with the

‘collateral damage’ of fifteen hundred other innocents. This effectively eliminated the

major opposition, who due to their own large, personal fortunes amounting to

hundreds of billions of dollars at today’s values, and great influence could not have

been ‘bought’ or unduly influenced in the same way that the politicians of Congress


“The Titanic was sunk deliberately to get rid of senior financiers who were

opposed to the taking over of the Federal Reserve Board.” Benjamin Fulford,

October 2011.

But would these people murder so many in cold-blood simply for financial gain?

Unfortunately this is just one small example among many, many others too numerous

to mention. As I state elsewhere in various chapters of this book, these multigenerational

mass-murderers routinely kill and even commit genocide to maintain

their own status, wealth and positions of power and promote their own agenda. Any

person or persons capable of sacrificing billions of people’s health, wealth and

prosperity for generations to come, in a scheme to gain financial control of the world

for themselves, would stop at nothing at all to achieve their own selfish ends.

Murdering a ship-full of innocent passengers including women and children simply for

financial gain in the form of a fraudulent insurance payout, would to my mind make

them more than capable of sinking the same ship of people just to dispose of three

powerful enemies who stand in the way of their nefarious ambitions. To them it is

nothing personal, just ‘business’. Where have we heard that before? The presence of

both motives indeed, I believe, makes the scenario doubly plausible.

In December 1913, the Federal Reserve System thus came into being without

serious opposition in the United States and very shortly afterwards, the Elite had

accrued sufficient funding through the despicable methods of the Federal Reserve

Bank to move to the next phase of their plan and start World War I