Conspiracy Theories Regarding the Titanic SUB Have Gone Viral
There's something not quite right about this story
It had all the makings of a suspenseful drama, but after reports that the Titan submersible, which had been descending to investigate the Titanic wreck when it vanished on Sunday, burst under pressure, killing five people, it is now being painted as a hoax by conspiracy theorists.
It has all the makings of a suspenseful drama, but in light of the news that the Titan submarine, which was descending to see the Titanic wreck when it vanished on Sunday, burst under pressure, killing five people, it is now being painted as a hoax by conspiracy theorists.
It has all the makings of a suspenseful drama, but in light of the news that the Titan submarine, which was descending to see the Titanic wreck when it vanished on Sunday, burst under pressure, killing five people, it is now being painted as a hoax by conspiracy theorists.
Some now contend that the Titanic was sunk in 1912 as part of a scheme by banking dynasties in favour of the creation of a Federal Reserve, who had staged a new catastrophe to prevent further examination into the wreck.
Rear Admiral John Mauger of the U.S. Coast Guard reported on Thursday that one of the deep-sea robots sent to search for the OceanGate-owned submersible discovered a debris field close to where communications had broken off that was "consistent with the catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber."
The worst-case scenario, that Titan had imploded under the intense pressure of the sea surrounding it, was confirmed. Billionaire Hamish Harding, OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, former French Navy diver Paul-Henry Nargeolet, British-Pakistani businessman Shahzada Dawood, and his son Suleman all perished in the disaster.
The submersible's building procedures and safety have come under scrutiny. A former employee of the business filed a lawsuit against it in 2018 citing safety concerns, and on Wednesday, explorer Chris Brown revealed to CNN that he had been set to travel to the Titanic disaster on the ship but had cancelled due to the perceived risks.
However, some believe the tragedy was planned as part of a cover-up.
What if all of this is a ruse to prevent visitors from touring the Titanic wreckage? Why, if that is the intention? Right-wing commentator Stew Peters posed the question on his own talk show. Perhaps because if people looked into the Titanic too deeply, they would learn that it wasn't an iceberg that brought the ship down.
Zach Vorhies, a former Google employee who wrote a "expose" on the firm in 2021 and on Thursday proposed a conspiracy theory explanation for the Titan tale on Twitter, was the subject of Peters' interview.
The Rothschild dynasty actually funded this submarine, which is a rather strange fact, Vorhies said to Peters. And what's also incredibly intriguing is that a new treaty is being put into effect that forbids citizens from travelling there without a permit. He argued that an iceberg would not be able to pierce the ship's one-inch steel hull on Twitter by citing conflicting stories regarding the existence of an iceberg around the time the Titanic sank.
One study reveals that the hull was three-quarters of an inch thick, while studies for the U.S. Department of Commerce discovered that the Titanic's metal was excessively fragile in cold temperatures.
In my opinion, if they get there, they'll discover that there wasn't an iceberg-related implosion in the hull of the ship, Vorhies stated. Because explosives were used to blow the Titanic out, the hull will likely be found to be buckled outward.
Researchers who were later joined by a documentary crew in 1997 found that the wreck had six small openings in the hull rather than just one large one, according to a story from the New York Times at the time. A ship's architect from the business that built the ship reportedly made this prediction at a 1912 sinking investigation .Vorhies continued by stating that the sinking of the ship was a "piece of sabotage" intended to "trojan horse" the establishment of the Federal Reserve and that four industrialists opposed to its founding were on board and perished in the disaster.
According to him, "the current stockholders of the Federal Reserve" were likely responsible for the scheme, and he asserted that the sinking of the Titanic "will be used as leverage to make the Titanic off limits by visitation."
Vorhies was one of many who noticed that OceanGate had declared in 2012 that adventurer and heir to the family's banking fortune David de Rothschild had joined the board of directors of the business.
One Twitter user questioned, "Does anyone else find it strange that one of the victims of the Titanic was Martin Rothschild and one of the board of directors of the missing Titanic sub OceanGate is David de Rothschild?" Although he was not a member of the British banking family, Martin Rothschild did drown aboard the Titanic.
Another, in the meantime, speculated that the Titanic sinking was "a rerun" of the Titanic implosion and that it was a precursor to the announcement of a new gold-backed currency.
David Rothschild's Voice for Nature project, Rothschild & Co., and OceanGate were all contacted by Newsweek for comments on Friday through email.
About the Creator
Phoenix Daily Conspiracies
"Whilst some people inspire, others conspire!"
Here to bring you all kinds of truths, although
don't believe what you read, do your research and keep your eyes wide open as the evidence is all around you.
Keep reading
More stories from Phoenix Daily Conspiracies and writers in Earth and other communities.
Judge Trump: Courtroom Battles and Public Questions Surrounding Donald Trump
Judge Trump: Courtroom Battles and Public Questions Surrounding Donald Trump Donald Trump’s name has been repeatedly linked with judges, courts, and major legal decisions over the past several years. As a former president and a high-profile political figure, Trump has faced intense legal scrutiny, making judges central figures in news coverage and public debate. The phrase “Judge Trump” has come to reflect public curiosity about the judges who oversee Trump-related cases, their rulings, and how these legal battles may affect his political future. Understanding this topic requires looking at the legal landscape, the role of the judiciary, and the most common questions people ask. Judge Trump: Courtroom Battles and Public Questions Surrounding Donald Trump
By America today 7 days ago in Earth
“Are You Dead?”: A New App Reflects the Loneliness of Young Chinese Living Alone
In China’s rapidly changing cities, living alone is no longer unusual—especially among young adults pursuing education, careers, and independence. But as solo living increases, so do concerns about isolation, safety, and what happens when no one is around to check in. Against this backdrop, a new app with a blunt, unsettling question—“Are you dead?”—has captured public attention and ignited debate. Despite its shocking name, the app is not designed to provoke fear. Instead, it aims to address a practical and emotional gap in modern urban life: how to ensure the well-being of people who live alone, and how technology is stepping in where traditional community networks have weakened. The Rise of Solo Living in China China has witnessed a dramatic shift in household structures over the past two decades. Urbanization, delayed marriage, rising housing costs, and changing cultural values have contributed to a growing number of single-person households, particularly among people in their 20s and 30s. For many young Chinese professionals, living alone represents freedom and self-reliance. It allows flexibility, privacy, and independence from family expectations. Yet this independence often comes with trade-offs: fewer daily social interactions, weaker neighborhood ties, and limited support in emergencies. In megacities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen, it is increasingly common for neighbors not to know each other at all. In this environment, concerns about what happens if someone becomes ill, injured, or simply disappears from daily routines have become more pronounced. What the App Actually Does Despite its provocative name, the app’s purpose is surprisingly simple. It functions as a digital check-in system. Users set regular times to confirm they are okay—by tapping a notification or completing a brief check-in. If the user fails to respond after a certain period, the app automatically alerts designated contacts, such as friends, family members, or emergency responders. The stark question, “Are you dead?”, is intentionally designed to grab attention and prompt action. Developers argue that softer language is often ignored, while blunt phrasing cuts through digital noise and encourages consistent use. In essence, the app acts as a safety net, especially for people who live alone and may not have daily contact with others. Why Young People Are Downloading It The app’s popularity reflects deeper anxieties among young adults navigating modern life. Many users say they downloaded it not because they fear the worst every day, but because it provides peace of mind—both for themselves and for loved ones. For parents living far from their children, the app offers reassurance without constant phone calls. For users, it creates a sense of being quietly watched over, without sacrificing independence. Some users have also described the app as a form of emotional comfort. Even a routine notification can feel like a reminder that someone, somewhere, would notice if they vanished from daily life. A Name That Sparked Debate The app’s name has been its most controversial feature. Critics argue that the phrase “Are you dead?” is unnecessarily harsh and reflects a growing desensitization in digital culture. Others worry that such language could amplify anxiety rather than reduce it. Supporters, however, see the name as a reflection of reality rather than a provocation. In densely populated cities where people can go unnoticed for days or weeks, the question is uncomfortable—but relevant. They argue that avoiding blunt language does not eliminate the underlying problem of isolation. The debate highlights a broader tension in tech design: Should apps prioritize emotional sensitivity, or practical effectiveness—even if it makes people uncomfortable? Technology Filling a Social Gap The rise of this app points to a larger issue: technology increasingly compensates for weakened social structures. In the past, extended families, close-knit neighborhoods, and workplace communities naturally checked in on individuals. Today, those informal safety nets are often absent. Apps like this one are not just tools; they are symptoms of a society where digital solutions are replacing human presence. While convenient, this raises questions about whether technology is addressing the root causes of loneliness—or simply managing its consequences. Still, for many users, the app is not a replacement for relationships, but a supplement to modern life realities. Living Alone Does Not Mean Wanting to Be Alone An important takeaway from the app’s success is that living alone is not the same as wanting isolation. Many young Chinese adults value independence but still crave connection, security, and acknowledgment. The app’s routine check-ins, though minimal, provide a structured moment of contact. In a fast-paced, high-pressure environment, even small gestures of recognition can matter. This trend also reflects changing attitudes toward mental well-being and personal safety. Younger generations are more open to discussing vulnerability and using tools that previous generations might have dismissed. What This Says About Modern Urban Life The popularity of an app that asks such a stark question speaks volumes about the realities of contemporary urban living—not just in China, but globally. As cities grow larger and lives become more individualized, people are searching for new ways to ensure they are seen, remembered, and protected. The app’s success suggests that people are willing to engage with uncomfortable ideas if they address real needs. It also underscores the importance of designing technology that is honest about modern challenges, rather than masking them with euphemisms. Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call, Not a Warning While the phrase “Are you dead?” may sound alarming, the app behind it is less about fear and more about care. It reflects a generation navigating independence in a world where traditional support systems no longer function as they once did. Rather than signaling a morbid obsession, the app serves as a quiet reminder of something deeply human: the need to be noticed. In that sense, its blunt question is not about death at all—but about presence, connection, and the reassurance that someone would check if you were gone. As solo living continues to rise, tools like this app may become less shocking and more commonplace—symbols of how society adapts to changing ways of life in the digital age.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in Earth
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.