Didn’t the Titanic have an identical sister ship? I read somewhere that the sister ship was significantly damaged in a an unrelated incident but replaced the real Titanic on the maiden voyage with the damaged not repaired.

Some think it was taken out as a passenger was the lone person stopping the fed reserve. Hmmmm.....

Just an add on, Hardened steel can also be very brittle unless it undergoes a normalization process. "Hardening" doesn't always yield a stronger material. Now there has been discussions in regards to a fire in a coal storage bunker that went unchecked that could have weakened the structure by effecting the steels composition, done nefariously for the future sinking of the ship? Yes, maybe

Kite Plane Must Hit Steel... so interesting how this cult works. Their intent is to get you to believe something that you cannot see. We, you and I, can’t go there in person. But if we regurgitate the story often enough normies will never consider an alternate truth.

The Titanic, 9/11 - don’t question the narrative, just fall in line like good little sheep and simply believe what “we” tell you.

Excerpts from https://lupocattivoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Titanic-Attentat.pdf

Wisnewski alleges that there was at least one fire in one of the coal bunkers presumably erupted during or after speed tests. Not only many of the rich passengers decided not to board, but at least two stokers.

",,,Apart from the (almost completely missing) ship's command the stokers were the most important witnesses to the sinking of the of the Titanic. First, they were in the lower part of the ship of the ship, where the Titanic allegedly collided with the iceberg, so they could say something about the water inrush, for example. Second, they also had to know about the second deadly danger to the Titanic - namely, the bunker fire or the bunker fire(s) that had been burning in the belly of the ship since its of the ship since its departure. ... Barrett thus stated that Bunker No.5 had burned and that he had and therefore, soon after leaving Southampton, he received the to empty the bunker. Since the Titanic had left Southampton on April 10, 1912, it must have taken four days to do this, because on Saturday, April 14, 1912 - the day of the alleged collision with the the day of the alleged collision with the iceberg. Why the bunker had not already been unloaded before departure was not was not asked and consequently not explained. After all, the Titanic lay in Southampton for seven days. ... If one believes Dilley, then

• the ship's command knew about the fire(s).
• The fire was kept secret from the passengers.
• At least bunker No. 6 was not emptied to properly extinguish the fire.
• the coal was merely kept wet so that the flames did not penetrate to the top.
• no progress was made in extinguishing the fire.
• the fire was not extinguished. ... What sounds completely absurd to the layman is actually true: If coal, for example, is stored outdoors without protection against moisture and humidity, "the risk of fire is increased enormously," says a fire protection brochure published by the company "Minimax," which manufactures fire extinguishers. This is because damp coal can quickly self-ignite, especially if there are hundreds of tons of it are lying in a pile and creating enormous pressure. The solution is pure hydrogen, which can be generated when moist coal is stored. can be generated. Some types of coal can tend to react with water, react with water, producing "flammable and toxic gases such as hydrogen. gases such as hydrogen can be produced. ... In other words: If the coal in the bunkers of the Titanic's bunkers was actually moistened, it did not solve the problem not remedied, but - because hydrogen may have been produced in the process - aggravated. And even worse, what happens when hydrogen is formed is inadequately described by the word "fire." When hydrogen mixes with the oxygen in the oxygen in the atmosphere, the result is an extremely explosive mixture called oxyhydrogen. Accordingly, one must add one more item to the above list: The coal was not or not only kept wet, so that the flame did not penetrate to the top. But while the water in the upper part of the bunker may have done this of the bunker, it led further down to the generation of hydrogen and thus also oxyhydrogen. Presumably, this process could be very well regulated by the amount of water added. Either the the Titanic really rammed something, whereby additional water was entered the burning coal bunkers and caused them to explode. Or, at a certain point, water was simply let into the ship, causing it to explode. ... So did the Titanic explode? This must be a joke! Not at all. While the evidence and information for the collision with an iceberg is thin and contradictory, there is no doubt about massive explosions on board the Titanic. While the actual collision with the iceberg was hardly perceived by most people, many report unanimously of heavy detonations Detonations inside the hull. In the forward boiler room (No. 6), there was "a sound as if someone was firing a huge cannon. A single roar of thunder. With the hair-raising sound, ice-cold masses of water burst into the foremost boiler room." Interesting. After all, the first water burst had previously taken place quietly and unspectacularly. While the hull only vibrated, the forecastle slowly filled up. Only when it reached reached bunker No. 6, the violent water inrush seemed to occur. ..." Wisnewski also alleges that the photos of the Titanic were altered to cover the breach in the hull near the bow.