rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 297,928
- 220,025
- 3,615
- Thread starter
- #161
If ice is stronger than steel, why don't they build ships out of ice? It would be cheaper
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
there was no concrete in the hull of the titanic
![]()
yes there was because i have pictures of the steel as it was being built. i also have MS PAINT and can draw arrows. therefore is is a fact and can not be refuted.
there was no concrete in the hull of the titanic
![]()
yes there was because i have pictures of the steel as it was being built. i also have MS PAINT and can draw arrows. therefore is is a fact and can not be refuted.
Concrete would be proof that they intended the Titanic to sink. Since nobody has provided proof that there was no concrete in the bow, I will submit that as irrefutable fact that it was intended for the Titanic to sink.
Notice how the Titanic is going down by its bow. This is clear proof that there was concrete present, otherwise the ship would have settled evenly in the water.
![]()
yes there was because i have pictures of the steel as it was being built. i also have MS PAINT and can draw arrows. therefore is is a fact and can not be refuted.
Concrete would be proof that they intended the Titanic to sink. Since nobody has provided proof that there was no concrete in the bow, I will submit that as irrefutable fact that it was intended for the Titanic to sink.
Notice how the Titanic is going down by its bow. This is clear proof that there was concrete present, otherwise the ship would have settled evenly in the water.
![]()
Until someone can prove that the Illuminati was not involved in this, it will remain one of the greatest terrorist attacks in this history of the world.
Neigh, in the history of the galaxy.
I will await the OCTAs to show how this was all an "accident".
Concrete would be proof that they intended the Titanic to sink. Since nobody has provided proof that there was no concrete in the bow, I will submit that as irrefutable fact that it was intended for the Titanic to sink.
Notice how the Titanic is going down by its bow. This is clear proof that there was concrete present, otherwise the ship would have settled evenly in the water.
![]()
Until someone can prove that the Illuminati was not involved in this, it will remain one of the greatest terrorist attacks in this history of the world.
Neigh, in the history of the galaxy.
I will await the OCTAs to show how this was all an "accident".
There are no "accidents"
Was it an "accident" that someone placed an iceberg in the path of the Titanic to make it look like ice sank the ship?
Thats not the way it works on the Conspiracy board. You make an assertion based on assumptions and half-truths. Then when you are presented with contradictory facts you are allowed to ignore those facts and restate your original assertion.
Just thought I would help you with the rules
Conspiracy?
No doubt about it
Here is what we know about the Titanic sinking so far
1. There is no way ice can sink a metal ship
2. Ice is just frozen water
3. Survivors are either dead or claim they can't remember the sinking
4. Concrete in the bow would have caused the Titanic to sink bow first
5. A submarine could have towed an iceberg into Titanics path
6. Ships don't sink at freefall speeds
7. Nobody ever bothered to check the iceberg for damage....Coverup
Conspiracy?
No doubt about it
Here is what we know about the Titanic sinking so far
1. There is no way ice can sink a metal ship
2. Ice is just frozen water
3. Survivors are either dead or claim they can't remember the sinking
4. Concrete in the bow would have caused the Titanic to sink bow first
5. A submarine could have towed an iceberg into Titanics path
6. Ships don't sink at freefall speeds
7. Nobody ever bothered to check the iceberg for damage....Coverup
It is painfully obvious that a submarine towed an iceberg into the path of the Titanic under the cover of darkness. Nobody has ever denied this
lack of proof is "they" took it all so we cant prove itIt is painfully obvious that a submarine towed an iceberg into the path of the Titanic under the cover of darkness. Nobody has ever denied this
And we all know that a lack of denial equates to absolute proof.
lack of proof is "they" took it all so we cant prove itIt is painfully obvious that a submarine towed an iceberg into the path of the Titanic under the cover of darkness. Nobody has ever denied this
And we all know that a lack of denial equates to absolute proof.
Don't forget this was the White Star Line! Obviously a Klan Front.
If metal is harder than ice, then why do ships navigate around icebergs? Under that theory a ship just be able to plough right through an iceberg?
If you are going to look at this rationally, you have to look are more factors than just ice against metal. There were a lot of forces at play, the immovability and density of the iceberg, the torque of the ship, the angle of the strike, the brittleness of the metal. I think it is quite conceivable that an iceberg can sink a ship.
There are many things that appear impossible but scientific exploration has actually created the conditions which make them possible.
The youtube vids on this are completely funny -- a toy ship beating an ice cube....not the same. Not the same at all.