Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: vikingchick
Hmm... Might even be plausible, coming from a different source...
2 posted on 08/21/2002 10:17:30 PM PDT by Krafty123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: AriOxman
True enough. ;)
3 posted on 08/21/2002 10:18:47 PM PDT by vikingchick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: AriOxman
"Subprofiler images of the Titanic's hull have now proven that the damage she sustained wasn't as bad as we first thought. So something else must have been responsible for her loss that night.

Sorry, torpedoes blow big holes in ships, the lack of damage is indicative of sprung plates leaking, exactly the kind of damage that collisions do and explosives don't do. The evidence they cite disproves their own theory.

50 posted on 08/22/2002 12:52:52 AM PDT by American in Israel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: vikingchick
I heard something about this as well, except I read that the Titanic was actually hit by a 688 boat, which launched a Tomahawk from 450 miles out. I believe it was the USS Dallas that lauched the missile. The Dallas at the time was chasing a new type Russian sub. The light the captian of the Californian saw was a Coast Guard HH-60 dropping of rescue swimmers to help the survivors.

The Trilateral Commission and the Illuminati made sure the survivors never told the real story.

60 posted on 08/22/2002 7:31:57 AM PDT by Duke809
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson