Direct Link to Latest News


Titanic & Hindenburg: Two Psy-Ops, One Agenda?

June 24, 2010

titanic-hindenburg.jpgby "Watchdog"

The sinking of the world's largest ship on her maiden voyage in 1912; and the spectacular fireball and "explosion" of the giant German airship in 1937.  Could these two events be related?  Each tragedy serves as a distinct marker: the beginning and ending of an era in which transatlantic passenger transportation underwent a colossal transformation.

In August of 2005, two independent divers, using the Finnish-built deep water MIR submarines, found two new parts of the bottom of the hull of Titanic separate from the hull and stern at the bottom of the Atlantic.  That means that this great unsinkable ship, which hardly nudged an iceberg, somehow broke itself into four pieces before leaving the surface of the ocean.  Maybe it's time to consider the possibility of foul play?

Were both the Titanic and Hindenburg part of a plan to convert the world's means of passenger transportation from safe and luxurious ships to cramped, noisy and extremely dangerous aviation aircraft that use huge amounts of petroleum fuel?  During this era, a conversion of cheaper and alternate fuels, used formerly in steamships, to the high octane fuels, used by the emerging passenger aircraft industry was accomplished, resulting in profits beyond measure.  

The period from July 31, 1908 when Joseph Ismay signed the order to have the Titanic built until March 26, 1939 when transatlantic passenger travel via fixed wing aircraft was inaugurated, is the era of Titanburg.

During World War One, huge investments were made in the manufacture of aircraft engines which allowed the Illuminati bankers to stipulate that all aircraft engines use petroleum as the sole source of fuel.  The final coup de grace: Burn the Hindenburg to give the world a reason to forget all about airships (as they consume much less fuel).  And so petroleum, which had sold for pennies per barrel at the turn of the century was soon to be marketed at 100 times the cost. 

Today we still use petroleum (kerosene called jet fuel) in all of our aircraft even though it burns and explodes, yet we have been sold the idea that hydrogen is so dangerous that it can't be used. 


New steamships had to be broken in during their maiden voyage. They were not able to make good speed during their first two days out.  So the idea that Titanic tried to set a speed record on her maiden voyage doesn't make sense.  In fact, she was way behind a Cunard liner, which had more horsepower anyway.

Firsthand reports and testimonies in hearings held shortly after the disaster  indicated that if the ship struck the iceberg at all, it continued to slip on past the iceberg.  There certainly was no jolt.  Shortly thereafter a disastrous leak was found that indicated five watertight compartments had been breached.  Two hours and forty minutes later, the great ship pivoted until it pointed straight down toward the bow, and then slipped beneath the water.  This was the testimony of the first officer of Titanic in a US court of Inquiry which was held days after the tragedy. 

It never made sense to me that a seasoned captain such as Capt. Smith would have gone storming through an ice field.  Then, there was the lack of a real collision with the iceberg itself, yet the damage done was so extreme, or was it?  All the testimonies given in both the United States and later Great Britain board of Inquiries reveal that not one passenger was sure s/he felt a collision.

Today, we have the benefit of more information about this tragedy.  First, in 1982 the two Mir submersible submarines came into being, and by 1985 the Titanic wreck had been located and filmed. The wreck of the Titanic was in two pieces.  

In 2005, another expedition organized by two American divers, Chatterton and Kohler, found two never-before-seen large sections. They were nearly a mile away from the forward and rear pieces of the hull!  These large sections span the bottom of the ship from port to starboard, through both the inner and outer hulls. 

Each piece is over thirty feet in length and the width of the beam of the ship which is 92 feet.  That these new pieces came loose from the main hull of Titanic at the surface.  They could not possibly have come off from the force of the Titanic hitting the ocean floor.  They are too far from the hull and stern!

We now have to explain a ship that hardly touched an iceberg yet is in four pieces on the bottom of the ocean!

Keep in mind, these sections are from the very bottom of the Titanic and represent hundreds of tons of steel.  Each near-rectangular section is made out of 1" thick steel plate, top and bottom (two separate layers 1" thick) separated by the athwart-ship ribs that are five feet in height.  In other words, there was a space of five feet between the inner and outer hulls of the bottom of the Titanic, and both are 1" thick plate steel. 

Both of these are sheared through right along the edge of the ribs, all the way across the bottom from port to starboard!!  So we have two double hulled hollow sections, each about 30 feet by 92 feet, enough area lost in the hull to send it down in moments!  Is it not time for an honest re-evaluation of the facts?

Perhaps the Titanic did not strike an iceberg after all?  We know from the original eye witness testimonies that Titanic continued moving through the water as it went by the iceberg.  The story is that 300 feet of steel suffered a gash 3/4 " wide, and that this was caused by the tearing action of the iceberg.  No tool made of ice is strong enough to cut 300 feet of 1 inch steel.  This is the size of the wound that would have been necessary, calculated to 12 square feet of leak area in order for the ship to sink in only 2 hours and 20 minutes.  Now, spread this out along five watertight sections and you begin to see the near impossible job the ice cutting tool is asked to do in this scenario.

The only way it could have ripped the bottom out is if Titanic rode up on the ice, and that would have sent cups and saucers flying all over the place.   It is a steel ship and thus rigid from keel to deck.  But nobody felt it  because Titanic missed the iceberg and slipped by. 

If you watch or read earlier versions of the disaster there was no prior mention of the stern breaking off.  The doomed ship rising out of the water which sends the stern crashing down as it breaks at the deck is a recent development and likely a scramble to cover the fact that this vessel was sent to the bottom from a large underwater explosion. 

From my personal evaluation I would say that the only way to accomplish this amount of cutting would be by using charges pre-set in the bilge space along the top and bottom ribs.  This would require six lines of charges from port to starboard, each 92 feet long.  That's how many shear "cuts" had to be accomplished in the bottom of the Titanic, from one side of the ship to the other in order to produce completely separated blown-out sections of the hull.    
If this in fact happened, it would mean that somebody planned the murder of over a thousand people.



With both the Titanic and the Hindenburg, the agenda was to break the human spirit, much like the devastation in the Gulf of Mexico today.

In the case of the Titanic there was much drama about this ship's luxurious accommodations--beyond any ship that had formerly been built.  It was not only going to be the biggest but also virtually unsinkable.  The seas were to be fully tamed once and for all.  Steerage accommodations included cabins and community kitchens, entertainment and eating areas.

In the case of the Hindenburg the world was captivated with the vision of future travel by dirigibles, which had gone from war machines during WW1 to the safest form of travel by far.  One of them flew over the North Pole in 1926.  The Graf Zeppelin cirmcum-navigated the globe in 1929.  They were the answer to global travel after sea travel had been deemed dangerous by the tragedy of the Titanic.

In both cases the sudden turn of events from ecstasy to heartbreak was mercilessly plastered across every form of media.  

There were five ships in the area within hours of the Titanic distress call, one of them came to a stop and watched the entire event.  The name of this vessel was the Californian, the Captain's name was Lord.  His ship witnessed the entire event and did not respond even though the Titanic was firing white flares. Lord testified he didn't see the rockets but crewmen contradicted him. Lord claimed he was 20 miles away but his crewmen said they were half that distance.

Both of these heartbreaking tragedies set the stage for World Wars.  The message came down, "no, the world is not going to deliver your dreams."   This was the media-promoted reality: the failure of human technology to overcome large obstacles, and then the failure in governments and economies to overcome disasters and stop wars. Sound familiar?


"Titanic's Last Secrets," by Brad Matsen,  Titanic Publishing LLC,  C.  2005



Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Titanic & Hindenburg: Two Psy-Ops, One Agenda?"

Julian said (June 26, 2010):

After the Titanic, and the Hindenburg, the worlds first Jetliner, the De Haviland Comet may also have been a victim of the Illuminati. Do they own a large amount of shares in Boeing, or even sit on the Boeing Board? Then there was the Concorde and the story about it's disastrous fire, supposedly caused by junk on the runway. I'm skeptical about that. What could be the next target? The Airbus 380? No doubt Boeing hate it (obvious reasons) and it's incredible fuel efficiency perhaps make it a target of Big Oil also.

Joseph said (June 25, 2010):

Once again,we are able to enjoy a thought-provoking article on your wesite. Admittedly,the possibilities discussed are speculative and inconclusive.

There's nothing that would stand up in a court of law. But,it's clear that the NWO gang will stop at nothing to further their grand design.

I have just a few criticisms to offer. The author begins by referring to " ... the world's fastest ship ... " . This is not quite accurate. The Titanic was not intended to be the fastest vessel on the Trans-Atlantic run. Ismay,and the builder,Harland & Wolfe,were fully aware of this right from the get-go. They intended their new sister-ships,Olympic and Titanic,to be the most luxurious,if not quite the fastest.

Cunard had around 1905 - 1907 placed into service their two sister-ships,Lusitania and Mauretania. These Cunard vessels were 100 % powered by steam-turbines. Both these vessels could cruise at a steady 25 knots,or even slightly more. By contrast,the Titanic's main engines were the much more old-fashioned steam-piston engines,the latest versions of the original steam-ship engine,dating well back into the early years of the 19 th Century.

Harland & Wolfe were fully aware that their new vessels,Olympic and Titanic,would never be able to match the speed of the Cunarders. They never intended that. The Titanic had 3 propellers,with the 2 outer screws being driven by the piston-engine,while the centre screw was run by a small,low-pressure steam-turbine engine which the vessel also carried. The piston engine had been the only design used right up to about 1900,or so.

Piston engines were very much cheaper than turbines,but,then again,conservative-minded people might show a natural inclination to stick with those designs that were tried and true. Vessels with piston-engines could reach a cruising speed of about 21 or 22 knots,and,at that point,they ran into " The Design Wall " , if such an expression might be used. To work up to 23 or 24 or 25 knots,and more,ship horsepower would often have to be - doubled ! Later on his article,the author makes some reference to this point.

Your website is still one of the better websites for accessing - " forbidden writings ".

Abe said (June 25, 2010):

Excellent article Henry. I'd also like to remind your readers that Thomas Edison had already invented functioning electric and steam powered automobiles ready for market over a century ago. I think the history of the twentieth century, and the first decade of this one, adequately explains why they were never made available to consumers.

JAK said (June 25, 2010):

The "need for speed" doomed both these concepts, nothing more. It was more important crossing the oceans at the fastest rate than how it was done in the end that mattered. Time is money.

George said (June 25, 2010):

It is my understanding that the entire reason that the Titanic was built was to lure the main US opponents of the Federal Reserve System to travel on it during its maiden voyage and deliberately sink it with the major US opponents of the FRS on board so that the Illuminati Bankers could get the Federal Reserve System created in the US to take over creation of the nation's money supply without any major opposition. The Titanic sank several months before the Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress in late 1913, which fits the proper time line.

Also, Eric Jon Phelps, the author of "Vatican Assassins", says that the captain of the Titanic was a Jesuit and that his Jesuit handler briefly went aboard the Titanic right before it left for the US and ordered the captain to ram an iceberg and sink the Titanic. Since all Jesuits swear a blood oath to do whatever their superiors want done without questioning what is being asked of them, it is plausible that the captain would have done it if asked to do so by his handler/superior.

Maybe the architects of this plan did not want to take any chances of the ship not sinking in response to it hitting an iceberg and they planted explosive charges in the hull to make sure that the ship sank, much like the explosives that were pre-planted in the WTC buildings that were used on 911 to make sure that the buildings collapsed on cue with the media cameras rolling and the people watching for maximum traumatic effect on the population regardless of how much damage the planes crashing into the buildings actually caused.

David said (June 25, 2010):

These psy-ops are used by the conspirators to secure their goals. Now someone wants the Gulf Coast real estate badly. The hurricanes criss-crossing Florida a few years ago, and hurricane Katrina, failed to get the job done. The oil volcano will get that job done! The hurricane season will expedite the process! Who put thousands of UN vehicles in a Florida airport? Why are they there?


Rick replies:

You would not believe this but the local fish wrapper just had a full page article on this. Normally I would be quite suspicious but I have first hand knowledge on this. While taking my class for my motorcycle endorsement, I was actually at the Reynold Industrial Airpark (part of the WWII docking facility on the St. Johns River in Green Cove Springs). The pictures on Google were very accurate ... but the vehicles were definitely Kia's, not government cars of any kind. I chuckle about this because I know the truth (that is probably the only time you will hear me say that).

Charles said (June 25, 2010):

Mr. Makow I think "Watchdog" is correct that both of these are stage managed events. I do not think he is quite right about ending luxury ship travel.

I also agree that oil-used by England already for her Navy at that time-is a very interesting angle on that Titanic disaster. I also think that the fixed wing aircraft as an alternative to the airships was already happening-World War I had proved the efficacy in combat of aircraft, speed was already the highest objective of the modern mind, not leisurely travel. I also think other reasons for the Hindenburg can be advanced that are anti-Nazi. In fact, we can argue that for each there was more than one "Conspiracy" constituency. I should think these can be ranked by interest group. Junta of inside group, inside group, first rung outside group, next rung outside group-etc. Each segment has a need to know and each is part of the plan.

Dan said (June 24, 2010):

I agree that the Hindenburg and Titanic were symbolic disasters just as the BP dump is intended to end domestic oil access plus kill Gulf coast industries to bankrupt, devalue and buy out.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at