Skip to content

Case File № 001

Titanic Sinking as Federal Reserve Sabotage

Filed 2026-05-27 · Verdict: Contradicted · Confidence: High

TL;DR

The theory claims that the Titanic was sabotaged to kill three wealthy opponents of the Federal Reserve (Astor IV, Guggenheim, Straus) so the Federal Reserve Act could pass. Every load-bearing claim is contradicted by the historical record. Isidor Straus is documented in the New York Times publicly supporting the proto-Fed proposal in October 1911 [3, 4]; no contemporaneous evidence has surfaced in 45 years of research showing any of the three opposed it. There was no pre-Titanic "Fed vote" — the Aldrich Plan died in committee, never reaching a floor vote; the Federal Reserve Act wasn't introduced until June 1913, more than a year after the sinking. The Act ultimately passed 298–60 in the House and 43–25 in the Senate, almost entirely on party lines after Woodrow Wilson and a Democratic supermajority swept the 1912 election [11]. Forensic examination of the wreck shows damage consistent with an oblique iceberg strike, not explosives or any other sabotage [10].

The Steelman

In the early 1910s, powerful banking interests led by J.P. Morgan sought to consolidate American finance under a central bank they would effectively control. The Aldrich Plan was their first attempt and it failed politically. Standing in their way were three of America's wealthiest and most influential men — Colonel John Jacob Astor IV (the richest passenger on the Titanic, with a real-estate fortune rivaling Morgan's), Benjamin Guggenheim (heir to a mining empire), and Isidor Straus (co-owner of Macy's and a former U.S. Representative). All three boarded the RMS Titanic in April 1912. J.P. Morgan — who through the International Mercantile Marine Company owned the parent of the White Star Line that operated the ship, and who was the primary banking-establishment figure pushing central-banking reform — booked Suite B-52/54/56 for the same voyage. He canceled. The ship, on its maiden voyage, struck an iceberg in clear weather with insufficient lifeboats and sank. Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus all died. Within twenty months, on December 23, 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, signed by Wilson the same evening. Three of the wealthiest men in America who could have funded organized opposition to the Fed died on a ship owned by the financier who most wanted it passed. The convergence, advocates argue, is too dense to be coincidence.

Background & Origin

The theory in its current form is a modern internet-era construction. Snopes has traced a surge in its circulation to a QAnon post in November 2017, though variants circulated in online forums earlier [18]. It assembles real historical facts (Morgan's IMM ownership of White Star, his role in the 1907 panic response and Jekyll Island, the deaths of three wealthy passengers, the eventual passage of the Fed Act) into a causal narrative that contradicts the documented record on the actual mechanism: there was no pre-1912 Fed vote, the named victims were not Fed opponents (one was an active supporter), and the Act passed via Wilson's electoral mandate, not by removing individual opponents. The theory has been repeatedly fact-checked and rated false by Snopes (multiple articles) [18, 19], PolitiFact ("Pants on Fire," January 2023) [20], Lead Stories (2022, 2023) [21], and Reuters Fact Check (2021). The most-cited expert consulted across these fact-checks is George Behe, a Titanic historian with ~45 years of research on first-class passengers, who has stated he can find no evidence in contemporaneous sources of any of the three men opposing the Federal Reserve.

The Claims, Examined

Claim 1: There was a vote to establish the Federal Reserve before April 1912, and it failed.

  • Verdict: Contradicted
  • Confidence: High
  • Evidence for: A real central-banking proposal — the Aldrich Plan (formally, the National Reserve Association bill) — was unveiled in January 1911 and presented to Congress in early 1912. Democratic opposition to it was a plank of the 1912 party platform. The pre-Titanic political fight over central banking was real and substantive [12, 14].
  • Evidence against: The Aldrich Plan never received a floor vote in either chamber. It stalled in the Senate Banking Committee and was never reported out. The Democratic-majority House (elected 1910) never took it up at all. The Federal Reserve Act itself — the Glass-Owen bill — wasn't introduced until June 1913, over a year after the Titanic sank [3]. There was no "Federal Reserve vote" to lose pre-Titanic because no such legislation existed yet. The conspiracy theory's framing of a dramatic blocked vote is simply not what the record shows.
  • Inference check: The pre-Titanic central-banking fight was real, but the theory's load-bearing premise — a blocked Federal Reserve vote the sinking could rescue — never existed. This is a false premise, not merely weak evidence.
  • Sources: [12, 14, 18, 25]

Claim 2: Astor IV, Guggenheim, and Straus were public, identified opponents of central banking.

  • Verdict: Contradicted
  • Confidence: High
  • Evidence for: All three were wealthy and prominent and therefore could have opposed it. They were peers of the Wall Street establishment with the resources to fund opposition.
  • Evidence against — and this is the load-bearing claim:
  • Isidor Straus was a documented supporter. As early as 1906, he served on a New York Chamber of Commerce committee — alongside Frank Vanderlip of National City Bank and Morgan-affiliated banker Dumont Clarke — that drafted a report calling "forcefully for the creation of a central bank similar to the Bank of Germany." In October 1911, the New York Times ran a piece headlined "ISIDOR STRAUS URGES NEW BANKING PLAN; Replies to J.J. Hill's Attack on the National Reserve Association Scheme" [3]. Nine days later, the same paper printed his letter "THE QUESTION OF RESERVES — Mr. Isidor Straus Argues for the Recognition of the Central Association's Notes as Reserve Money" [4]. Straus was a Gold Democrat, a director of Hanover National Bank, and a close associate of Jacob Schiff — fully enmeshed in the pro-reform coalition.
  • John Jacob Astor IV is reported in a 1911 New York Times piece (cited by multiple independent fact-checkers and Behe) as being "very much in favor" of central banking reform. No public statement by Astor opposing the Fed has been found in any contemporaneous source [18, 19].
  • Benjamin Guggenheim left no public statement on the subject at all. Behe's 45 years of research, the Washington Post's digital newspaper archive searches, and Reuters Fact Check all returned zero. The Guggenheim family had a cooperative business relationship with Morgan and Schiff (Daniel Guggenheim convinced Morgan and Schiff to co-finance Kennecott copper). A man supposedly assassinated for views on central banking left not a single word about it.
  • Inference check: The inference "wealthy passengers who died → Fed opponents who were assassinated" collapses at the premise: Straus was a documented supporter, Astor reportedly favorable, Guggenheim silent. This is pattern-matching (wealth + death read as motive), not evidence of opposition.
  • Sources: [3, 4, 9, 18, 19, 20, 21]

Claim 3: All three died on the Titanic; J.P. Morgan canceled his ticket suspiciously.

  • Verdict: Partially true
  • Confidence: High on the deaths and on Morgan's ownership/booking; Moderate on the "suspicious cancellation" framing
  • Evidence for: All three deaths are confirmed [15, 16]. Astor IV helped his pregnant wife into Lifeboat 4 and went down with the ship; his body was recovered April 22, 1912. Guggenheim reportedly changed into evening dress and said "we are prepared to go down like gentlemen"; his body was never recovered. Isidor and Ida Straus famously died together; Ida refused a lifeboat seat and told a friend, "as we have lived, so we will die, together." J.P. Morgan did own International Mercantile Marine, which owned the White Star Line; he did hold a booking on the Titanic (Suite B-52/54/56); and he was the most prominent banker pushing central-banking reform [13].
  • Evidence against (the suspicious framing): The famous suite passed through multiple hands well before sailing. Steel magnate Henry Clay Frick booked it first, canceled in February 1912 after his wife sprained her ankle. Morgan took it over, then canceled when "business interests lengthened his stay abroad." The suite then passed to Mr. and Mrs. J. Horace Harding (who switched to an earlier sailing on the Mauretania) and was ultimately occupied by J. Bruce Ismay — the White Star Line managing director who survived in a lifeboat [17]. The NYT reported on April 18, 1912 — three days after the sinking — that their correspondent found Morgan in excellent health at Aix-les-Bains on his 75th birthday, undercutting any "feigned illness" narrative [5]. Behe told Reuters in 2021 that he has never found an authoritative 1912 source explaining the exact reason for Morgan's cancellation — but dozens of passengers canceled for mundane reasons (George Washington Vanderbilt II, Milton Hershey, Guglielmo Marconi, etc.) and none are accused of foreknowledge. No primary source identifies the cancellation as last-minute. Meanwhile, many other "establishment" wealthy passengers — George Widener (Philadelphia banker), John B. Thayer (Pennsylvania Railroad VP) — boarded and died, with no theory targeting them [19].
  • Inference check: The deaths, Morgan's IMM ownership, and his canceled booking are all real — but none support foreknowledge. Treating an undated, mundane cancellation as sinister is anomaly-hunting; the suite passed through several hands, dozens canceled for ordinary reasons, and other "establishment" financiers (Widener, Thayer) boarded and died.
  • Sources: [5, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23]

Claim 4: The Federal Reserve Act passed after the sinking because the opposition had been eliminated.

  • Verdict: Contradicted
  • Confidence: High
  • Evidence for: The Federal Reserve Act did pass after the Titanic sank, on December 23, 1913 [11, 12].
  • Evidence against: The Act passed because of Wilson's electoral mandate, not because of three passengers' deaths. In November 1912, Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) defeated incumbent Taft and former president Roosevelt in a three-way race; Democrats also won large majorities in both the House and Senate, ending Republican congressional control. The Federal Reserve Act was an explicit Wilson "New Freedom" priority, championed by Democratic legislators Carter Glass (House) and Robert Owen (Senate). The vote totals were not close: the House passed the conference report 298–60 (an 83% majority), and the Senate passed it 43–25, with every Democrat present voting yes and only 4 Republicans crossing over [11, 24]. Three additional "nay" votes would not have changed either outcome. Crucially, the Federal Reserve Act and the Aldrich Plan are substantively different: the Aldrich Plan was a privately-controlled banker-dominated reserve association with minimal government oversight; the Federal Reserve Act gave the Federal Reserve Board to presidential appointees. Aldrich-Plan opposition was largely "we want public oversight, not banker control" — exactly what the Federal Reserve Act delivered. Many of the same Wall Street figures who backed the Aldrich Plan opposed the more government-supervised Fed Act. The "opposition" the theory imagines was a mythological monolith [14, 24].
  • Inference check: The Act did pass after the sinking, but "after" is not "because" — classic post hoc reasoning. The 298–60 / 43–25 party-line margins trace to Wilson's 1912 electoral sweep; three fewer "nay" votes would have changed nothing. The Federal Reserve Act also differed substantively from the Aldrich Plan the imagined "opponents" resisted.
  • Sources: [6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 24]

Claim 5: The Titanic was sabotaged, not lost to an iceberg accident.

  • Verdict: Contradicted
  • Confidence: High
  • Evidence for: None compelling. The conspiracy framing relies on motive imputation, not on any forensic or documentary evidence of sabotage.
  • Evidence against:
  • Both 1912 inquiries (U.S. Senate, chaired by Sen. William Alden Smith; British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry under Lord Mersey) concluded iceberg collision, with no witness across more than 100 testifying parties alleging sabotage [1, 2]. They cited excessive speed (~21 knots through a known ice field), failure to relay multiple wireless ice warnings to the bridge, and insufficient lifeboats as the operative causes.
  • Modern forensic analysis confirms the iceberg conclusion. Robert Ballard's 1985 wreck discovery and 1996 sub-bottom sonar imaging revealed that the bow damage was not a 300-foot gash but six relatively thin, discrete hull-plate separations spanning ~12 sq ft total across six starboard-bow compartments — precisely matching naval architect Edward Wilding's flooding-rate calculations at the 1912 inquiry [1].
  • NIST metallurgist Timothy Foecke's 1998 analysis (NIST-IR 6118) showed the bow's wrought-iron rivets had three times modern allowable slag content (making them brittle), and that the hull steel had a high ductile-to-brittle transition temperature. The damage pattern — rivet heads popping and seams separating rather than plates tearing — is exactly what metallurgical models predict for an oblique iceberg strike in ice-water conditions. No explosive residue, blast-pattern deformation, or any structural damage inconsistent with a collision has been found [10].
  • The iceberg's presence is independently confirmed. Titanic received seven wireless ice warnings on April 14 alone (from Caronia, Baltic, Amerika, Californian, Mesaba, etc.). The Californian was stopped in an ice field nearby. The cable ship Minia, one of the first to reach the scene, found bodies and debris near a specific iceberg. A photograph by passenger Stephan Rehorek likely depicts the striking berg [25].
  • The coal-bunker fire theory (a smolder in bunker No. 6 documented by stoker Frederick Barrett at the 1912 inquiry [1] and revived by journalist Senan Molony's 2017 documentary [22]) is a legitimate hypothesis that the fire may have contributed to vulnerability — but it does not support deliberate sabotage. It points to negligence and schedule pressure, not assassination.
  • The Olympic-switch theory (Gardiner, 1998 — a separate conspiracy claiming the damaged sister ship Olympic was disguised and sunk for insurance) is a different theory, widely considered debunked: Titanic was insured for $5M against a $7.5M build cost (no profit motive); physical differences between the ships (porthole patterns, promenade-deck modifications, recovered nameplate fragments) rule out a substitution; and the wreck site bears Titanic's identifying features [23].
  • Inference check: No forensic or documentary evidence of sabotage exists; the claim runs on motive imputation alone. The genuine alternatives to "deliberate sabotage" (coal-bunker fire; the Olympic-switch insurance theory) are weighed in Competing Hypotheses below — neither requires nor supports assassination.
  • Sources: [1, 2, 10, 22, 23, 25]

Competing Hypotheses

Four mutually-exclusive explanations have been offered for the Titanic's loss:

  • H1 — Accidental iceberg strike compounded by negligence (excessive speed through a known ice field, ignored wireless warnings, too few lifeboats). The official account of both 1912 inquiries.
  • H2 — Deliberate sabotage to assassinate Fed opponents. The theory under examination.
  • H3 — Olympic-switch insurance fraud (the damaged sister ship Olympic disguised as Titanic and sunk for the insurance). A separate conspiracy theory.
  • H4 — A coal-bunker fire weakened the hull, contributing to the speed of the sinking. Negligence, not sabotage — a possible contributor to H1, not a rival to it.
Diagnostic evidence H1 iceberg+negligence H2 Fed-sabotage H3 Olympic-switch H4 coal-fire
Hull damage matches oblique iceberg strike (NIST, 1996 sonar); no blast pattern ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓
Straus documented pro-Fed; no named victim documented as an opponent ~ ✗✗ ~ ~
No pre-Titanic Federal Reserve vote existed to "lose" ~ ✗ ~ ~
Fed Act passed 298–60 / 43–25 on party lines after Wilson's 1912 sweep ~ ✗ ~ ~
Insurance ($5M) far below build cost ($7.5M); wreck bears Titanic's features ✓ ~ ✗ ✓

The weight of evidence overwhelmingly favors H1. H4 is a plausible contributor within H1 (it points to schedule pressure and negligence, not a plot). H2 is contradicted on every diagnostic axis — motive (the victims weren't opponents), mechanism (no sabotage forensics), and timeline (no vote to rescue). H3 is contradicted by the insurance shortfall, documented physical differences between the ships, and the wreck's own identifying features.

Overall Verdict

Contradicted, with high confidence. The theory's narrative scaffolding fails at every load-bearing point. There was no pre-Titanic Federal Reserve vote to lose — the Aldrich Plan died in committee and the Federal Reserve Act wasn't introduced until June 1913. The three named victims include one documented supporter of central banking (Straus), one reported supporter (Astor), and one passenger with no documented stance on either side (Guggenheim). The Federal Reserve Act passed because Wilson and a Democratic supermajority swept the 1912 election and made banking reform a signature priority — not because three passengers died on the Titanic. The vote totals (298–60, 43–25) were lopsided, party-line, and structurally unrelated to the named individuals. And the Titanic's sinking is one of the most thoroughly investigated maritime accidents in history: 1912 inquiries, the 1985 wreck discovery, 1996 sonar imaging, and 1998 NIST metallurgy all confirm iceberg collision and detail the precise damage mechanism (brittle rivets, oblique strike, plate-separation pattern). No sabotage evidence has ever surfaced.

The kernels of truth — Morgan's ownership of IMM, Morgan's role at Jekyll Island, the deaths of three named wealthy passengers, Morgan's canceled booking — get strung together into a narrative that contradicts the specific historical mechanism the theory requires. The conspiracy is a classic case of pattern-matching on real but loosely-coupled facts (anomaly-hunting and post hoc reasoning doing the work that evidence cannot).

What actually happened: On the night of 14 April 1912 the Titanic, steaming at ~21 knots through a known ice field and carrying too few lifeboats, struck an iceberg obliquely; brittle, high-slag rivets and the resulting plate-seam separations flooded six forward compartments and sank her. The Federal Reserve Act became law twenty months later because Woodrow Wilson and a Democratic supermajority swept the 1912 election and made banking reform a signature priority — passing it 298–60 in the House and 43–25 in the Senate on party lines. The two events are unconnected.

Where I Could Be Wrong

  • Why J.P. Morgan canceled his passage is a genuine gap. George Behe — the most respected researcher on this question — has said he has never found a 1912 record explaining the exact reason. Several ordinary explanations exist (business keeping him in France, restrictions on shipping his art collection, a spa trip), but no surviving document settles it. That uncertainty is why I rated the "suspicious cancellation" angle only moderately confident rather than high — but it does not rescue the theory, because every other load-bearing claim (1, 2, 4, and 5) is contradicted on its own.
  • The conclusion about Guggenheim rests on an absence of evidence. No record has been found of Guggenheim opposing the Federal Reserve — but proving that someone never held a view is harder than proving they did. Forty-five years of Titanic research and modern newspaper searches turning up nothing is good reason to doubt the claim, yet it's still possible he held private opinions he never made public.
  • I did not read the two 1911 New York Times articles firsthand (Oct 16 and Oct 25); they sit behind the paper's paid subscription archive. Several independent fact-checkers quote them consistently and Titanic expert George Behe vouches for their content, but reading the originals myself would make the report stronger.
  • One source is used at second hand. Some of the Reuters fact-checking was reached through another outlet's summary rather than read directly — one step further from the original than is ideal.
  • How much to trust Encyclopedia Titanica is a judgment call. I treated it as a reliable source (it's carefully curated and built on original records); some would treat it as a lesser, second-hand source. Either way, the death details it supports are independently confirmed elsewhere, so nothing here hinges on that call.
  • I have not manufactured a phony "both sides" balance. The historical record really is this one-sided against the theory — that's what the sources show, not a stylistic choice. A reader sympathetic to the theory might still suspect the fact-checking sites (Snopes, PolitiFact, Lead Stories) are biased. The best answer is that this report doesn't rest on their opinions; it rests on the original documents underneath them — Straus's own 1911 newspaper statements, the 1912 inquiry findings, the recorded congressional vote tallies, and the engineering study of the wreck.
  • A stronger, separate argument does exist — not for sabotage, but for the broader idea that Wall Street shaped the Federal Reserve Act to its own advantage. That is a serious historical debate (see Murray Rothbard's account, or the wider Progressive-era "Money Trust" critique). It needs no sabotage and no dead passengers; it stands or falls on the legislative history. This report did not weigh that broader argument — only the specific claim that the Titanic was sabotaged.
  • A few of the cited web pages couldn't be saved to a permanent public archive when this was written — two because the archiving service was briefly overloaded, and one (Encyclopedia Titanica) because that site blocks automatic archiving. If those particular links ever go offline they'd be harder to double-check later; the facts they support (the three men's deaths and the canceled bookings) are confirmed by other sources cited here.

Sources Cited

  1. Report on the Loss of the S.S. "Titanic" (Findings of the Court). British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry, Lord Mersey, July 30, 1912. Titanic Inquiry Project. https://www.titanicinquiry.org/BOTInq/BOTReport/botRepFindings.php. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a (Titanic Inquiry Project is a permanent maritime-history archive of primary inquiry texts). Tier: 1.

  2. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Investigation of the Loss of the S.S. "Titanic" (Final Report, May 28, 1912). U.S. Senate. https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/investigations/titanic.htm. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a (senate.gov institutional archive). Tier: 1.

  3. "ISIDOR STRAUS URGES NEW BANKING PLAN; Replies to J.J. Hill's Attack on the National Reserve Association Scheme." The New York Times, October 16, 1911. NYT TimesMachine archive (subscription). Accessed via fact-check citation: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a (NYT primary archive). Tier: 1.

  4. "THE QUESTION OF RESERVES — Mr. Isidor Straus Argues for the Recognition of the Central Association's Notes as Reserve Money." The New York Times, October 25, 1911, p. 12. NYT TimesMachine archive. Accessed via fact-check citation: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a. Tier: 1.

  5. "J.P. Morgan at Aix-les-Bains" (correspondent's report finding Morgan in good health on his 75th birthday). The New York Times, April 18, 1912. NYT TimesMachine archive. Wayback: n/a. Tier: 1.

  6. Congressional Record, Senate, December 23, 1913 (final passage of the Federal Reserve Act). GPO via govinfo.gov. https://www.congress.gov/63/crecb/1913/12/23/GPO-CRECB-1914-pt2-v51-6.pdf. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a (govinfo.gov permanent legislative archive). Tier: 1.

  7. Pujo Committee, Money Trust Investigation: Investigation of Financial and Monetary Conditions in the United States (1912–1913). FRASER, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/money-trust-investigation-80. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a (FRASER permanent archive). Tier: 1.

  8. Federal Reserve Act, Public Law 63-43 (63rd Congress, December 23, 1913). govinfo.gov. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-38/pdf/STATUTE-38-Pg251.pdf. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a. Tier: 1.

  9. "STRAUS, Isidor." U.S. House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives. https://history.house.gov/People/Listing/S/STRAUS,-Isidor-(S001000)/. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a (history.house.gov institutional archive). Tier: 1.

  10. Foecke, Timothy. Metallurgy of the RMS Titanic. NIST-IR 6118. National Institute of Standards and Technology, February 1998. https://www.nist.gov/publications/metallurgy-rms-titanic. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a (nist.gov permanent archive). Tier: 2.

  11. "The Senate Passes the Federal Reserve Act." U.S. Senate Historical Office. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Passes_the_Federal_Reserve_Act.htm. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a (senate.gov). Tier: 1.

  12. "Federal Reserve Act Signed into Law." Federal Reserve History (Federal Reserve Banks). https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/federal-reserve-act-signed. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260527112028/https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/federal-reserve-act-signed. Tier: 2.

  13. "The Meeting at Jekyll Island." Federal Reserve History. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll-island-conference. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260527112024/https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll-island-conference. Tier: 2.

  14. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. "The Aldrich Plan." FRBSF Economic Letter, January 6, 1984. FRASER. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/historical/frbsf/frbsf_let/frbsf_let_19840106.pdf. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a (FRASER). Tier: 2.

  15. "Colonel John Jacob Astor IV: Titanic First Class Passenger (Victim)." Encyclopedia Titanica. https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-victim/john-jacob-astor.html. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: a permanent archive copy could not be saved (this site blocks automatic archiving). Tier: 2.

  16. "Isidor Straus: Titanic Victim." Encyclopedia Titanica. https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-victim/isidor-straus.html. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: a permanent archive copy could not be saved at the time (archiving service temporarily busy). Tier: 2.

  17. "Cancelled Passages Aboard Titanic." Encyclopedia Titanica. https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/canceled-titanic-passages.html. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: a permanent archive copy could not be saved at the time (archiving service temporarily busy). Tier: 2.

  18. "Sinking of Titanic Was Orchestrated to Kill Businessmen Who Opposed Formation of Federal Reserve?" Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/titanic-sinking-inside-job/. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260527111854/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/titanic-sinking-inside-job/. Tier: 3.

  19. "Did JP Morgan Orchestrate the Sinking of the Titanic?" Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/titanic-jp-morgan/. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260527111851/https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/titanic-jp-morgan/. Tier: 3.

  20. "The Titanic sinking wasn't orchestrated by the Rothschilds and J.P. Morgan to kill businessmen who opposed the Federal Reserve" (rated Pants on Fire). PolitiFact, January 26, 2023. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/jan/26/instagram-posts/titanic-sinking-was-accident-caused-over-1500-deat/. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260527111847/https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/jan/26/instagram-posts/titanic-sinking-was-accident-caused-over-1500-deat/. Tier: 3.

  21. "Fact Check: NO Evidence Titanic Was Intentionally Sunk To Create Federal Reserve." Lead Stories, 2022. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/05/fact-check-no-evidence-titanic-was-intentionally-sunk-to-create-federal-reserve.html. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260527111924/https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/05/fact-check-no-evidence-titanic-was-intentionally-sunk-to-create-federal-reserve.html. Tier: 3.

  22. "A Coal Fire May Have Helped Sink the Titanic." Smithsonian Magazine, January 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/coal-fire-may-have-helped-sink-titanic-180961699/. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260527111925/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/coal-fire-may-have-helped-sink-titanic-180961699/. Tier: 3.

  23. "The Craziest Titanic Conspiracy Theories, Explained." HISTORY.com. https://www.history.com/articles/titanic-sinking-conspiracy-myths-jp-morgan-olympic. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260527112104/https://www.history.com/articles/titanic-sinking-conspiracy-myths-jp-morgan-olympic. Tier: 3.

  24. "Theodore Roosevelt, the Election of 1912, and the Founding of the Federal Reserve." Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, May 2025. https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2025/may/theodore-roosevelt-election-of-1912-founding-of-federal-reserve. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: n/a (St. Louis Fed permanent archive). Tier: 2.

  25. "Titanic conspiracy theories." Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_conspiracy_theories. Accessed: 2026-05-27. Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20260527112106/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_conspiracy_theories. Tier: 3.