FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Post which got Nazi apologist Nick Kollerstrom banned
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kbo234 wrote:
You try to paint 'Dib as some kind of friend of the establishment even while he is on his way to jail.


Dib has for some time run websites packed with all kinds of totally crazy stuff, asked for money for some kind of flimsy scam that he apparently can't implement for himself when he's arrested, claims he's the Messiah, makes a 7/7 film full of whopping great assumptions he presents as fact, making up his version of events as he goes along and stupidly tries to influence a jury with said film. If you wanted to create a stereotypical kook for some film or whatever, you have your template right there.
What it is about this guy that is supposed to be remotely credible?

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
That makes no sense whatsoever.


You complained about his exposure of “right wing” activities.

prole added:
Quote:
Dogsmilk wrote:
Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
Seems kbo is trying to fit as many far right motifs into his posts as he can.

Then since you complain about it your pro far right if it suits your purpose.


That makes no sense whatsoever.

Has anything Andrew ever said made sense?


Which shows us all clearly how duplicitous the both of you are Right wing or Left wing.


Well and truly outed, the both of you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kbo234 wrote:
Prole wrote:

" Why is there only one photograph of the bombers together on 7/7".


I was forced to comment that reams of CCTV had been released nearly two years ago - but that didn't lead you to correcting this statement which was no doubt disseminated far and wide amongst the drivel readers. Were you content with this statement of misinformation?


At that time I had only seen the Luton station photoshop job and not the wobbly-numbered King's Cross Thameslink photo frame.

Unlike yourself, I do not have the time to scan every bit of information or dot every 'i'.

The point does not change because of this oversight. It still holds, "Why are there only two photographs of the bombers together on 7/7 as they walked around the most CCTV-rich environment on earth?" (to include the bit you left out).

All images can be illusion, I watched this sequence at the Inquests with no pixelation of the other people in the images or the timestamps:

http://vimeo.com/13184562 (about 15.30 in)

Hallet then said:
Transcripts 13/11/10 wrote:
21 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: As you have your discussions about
22 the state of that footage to go on the public website,
23 can I ask you to consider this: that, looking at it this
24 morning, it became apparent that a number of what
25 Mr Keith has called the "conspiracy theories", the

101

1 concerns of those who have those theories may be allayed
2 if they could see the footage, see the times, see
3 everything, but including other members of the public.
4 MR HILL: Yes.
5 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: It actually -- because of certain
6 members of the public, you can tell that the footage is
7 sequential and, therefore, I would ask you to consider
8 that when you discuss with everyone else the state of
9 the footage as it will go on the public website.
10 MR HILL: May I say for the record that we have not raised
11 any objection to the CCTV footage being loaded on to the
12 public website. The only concern we've raised -- and
13 Mr Smith and his team have dealt with it -- is to do
14 with pixelation to avoid identification of members of
15 the public, and our understanding for the last two or
16 three days has been that, through a system of
17 undertakings between media organisations and your team,
18 my Lady, either I think ITN, in one instance, and
19 Sky Television in another, have undertaken to receive
20 the footage as we've seen it in court, to pixelate
21 themselves, and to the satisfaction of your team, to
22 protect the identity of members of the public and, on
23 that basis, the purpose behind your question, if
24 I interpret it correctly, can be comprehensively dealt
25 with. [Including pixelation of the counter-terrorism officer said by Hayman to be trailing the three/four suspects?]

102

1 The footage can be shown. There will simply be
2 a pixelation, as I understand it, limited to the areas
3 of CCTV footage which ITN are proposing to screen to
4 protect the members of the public against being
5 identified on those shots.
6 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: But that won't, as I understand it,
7 allay your concerns which involve pixelating all members
8 of the public on all the footage which is going on the
9 website. ITN and Sky News, not surprisingly, are going
10 to use their resources and I'm grateful to them for
11 agreeing to do so, but they're only going to use their
12 resources in relation to the footage that they show.
13 MR HILL: Yes.
14 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: We still have the problem about the
15 public website and we also have the additional question,
16 which I'd ask you to consider, which is, given that
17 members of the public are, as it were, significant
18 landmarks and their movements help us with the movements
19 of the four, then I think we need to look at how this
20 footage should or shouldn't be displayed on the public
21 website. But I'll leave it there. It will be for
22 others to consider. I just thought I'd mention it
23 because it was something that occurred to me this
24 morning.

_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK


Last edited by Prole on Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
That makes no sense whatsoever.


You complained about his exposure of “right wing” activities.

prole added:
Quote:
Dogsmilk wrote:
Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
Seems kbo is trying to fit as many far right motifs into his posts as he can.

Then since you complain about it your pro far right if it suits your purpose.


That makes no sense whatsoever.

Has anything Andrew ever said made sense?


Which shows us all clearly how duplicitous the both of you are Right wing or Left wing.


Well and truly outed, the both of you.


Andrew - you do indeed make no sense whatsoever.
Where do you buy whatever it is you're smoking?

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
when he's arrested, claims he's the Messiah,


He claimed that On 13/June/1988, in fulfillment of prophecy.

If people were searching for the truth, they would be checking all these claims and dates, there are many.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
bullet-proof defence


Enough, people either return to the Law or they don't, simple.

There is a place, like minded people will go to for saftey should it be the case that enough people don't.

"bullet proof" Also, a bullet cannot kill a Soul. Not even nuclear weapons can kill a Soul.


So are you saying The Messiah charges £100 for a load of waffle that in no way works in a real live court?

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So are you saying The Messiah charges £100 for a load of waffle that in no way works in a real live court?


No.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
when he's arrested, claims he's the Messiah,


He claimed that On 13/June/1988, in fulfillment of prophecy.

If people were searching for the truth, they would be checking all these claims and dates, there are many.


The structure of the sentence and placement of the commas indicated I was listing facets of his kookiness in no particular order, not chronologically associating his arrest with assertions of Messiahdom.

1988 huh? Maybe The Messiah might wish to consider that Jesus supposedly wowed and awed people with miracles and stuff in a way shorter time. Running a couple of websites and making a youtube film as the sum total of your Grand Messianic Achievements over a 22 year period is probably not going to cut it as a manifestation of divinity with rational people.
Just trying to be helpful.

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
as the sum total


It's not His "sum" total.

Quote:
with miracles and stuff i


You sound like a flat earther of yur.


Last edited by Andrew. on Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
It appears to me that Muaddy serves an important role for the establishment. The timing of 7/7 cRipple Effect (and yes Andrew listen to the JF radio show and hear your leader pronounce that this is 99.999999999999999% of what actually happened that morning) coincided very nicely with the State broadcasting company's hatchet job on 7/7 Truth. NK proved very useful in this respect as well.


That it was an inside job, can you quote "know what happened" or not prole?

Does Mauddy say that 'he is convinced that his film shows what actually happened' about 1.16.00 in to this sycophantic interview with JF:
Quote:
(1) "7/7 Ripple Effect": Exposing the "false flag" London attack (24 June - 2 hours;

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/77-ripple-effect-exposing-fals e-flag.html

edit: Does he then claim that the government arrested the 3 men solely in an attempt to prove his film wasn't the truth? That's omnipotence for you.

_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK


Last edited by Prole on Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
as the sum total


It's not His "sum" total.


What else has he done? Anything Messianic? Walked on water? Raised the dead? Turned water into wine? Healed the sick? Fed the multitude?

No offence Andrew, but you're following someone who is quite blatantly nobody special. He's just some bloke. Don't waste your life letting some con artist lead you up the garden path.

That's all I've got to say as the thread is being derailed by this stuff. Apologies for that.

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Does Mauddy say that 'he is convinced that his film shows what actually happened' about 1.16.00 in to this sycophantic interview with JF:


Yes that it was an inside job (many people are convinced) can you show us prole or not where it says "know" what happened?


Last edited by Andrew. on Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What else has he done? Anything Messianic? Walked on water? Raised the dead? Turned water into wine? Healed the sick? Fed the multitude?


How do you interpret "Walked on water" "Raised the dead" "Turned water into wine" "Healed the sick" "Fed the multitude"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
Does Mauddy say that 'he is convinced that his film shows what actually happened' about 1.16.00 in to this sycophantic interview with JF:


Yes that it was an inside job (many people are) can you show us prole or not where it says "know" what happened?

Mauddy say that 'he is convinced that his film shows what actually happened' and it is 99.99999999999999999% the actual truth. Well he should know, surely God told him.

edit: From your own maudyy trial site:
Quote:
Muad’Dib: Yes. Well, the government are obviously very frightened of my film, and they are frightened of the effect of it, proving to most people’s satisfaction… anybody with an open mind who watches my film, will believe that it is what actually happened, as I am convinced that that is what actually happened; and, the Ripple Effect of it… more and more people are making copies of it and are handing it out to people that they know, so the ripples are rippling and spreading and spreading, and the government is frightened of the effect of that, because they want to keep it quiet. They want everybody to believe that it is as they have put it out, through their propaganda-machine, the mainstream-media. And, I’m undermining their credibility with my film, so, they have to try to convince the British public, or keep the British public convinced, that the story they’ve given them is correct, and that the bombings were carried out by these four young Muslims. And so, as they can’t prosecute these four young Muslims, because they’re dead, they have then attacked three of their friends, and accused them of assisting the four alleged suicide-bombers by doing hostile-reconnaissance, and going and looking at targets and things, in advance, for them to decide what they were going to do and what they were going to blow up. And, so they arrested these other three young men who were friends of theirs, and have charged them with doing hostile-reconnaissance and assisting the original four that they allege carried out the bombings, and put them on trial. And, they’re desperate to convict those three young men, of assisting the other four, so that, by extension, they would prove, if they could get a guilty verdict on these three, they would, by extension, prove to the British public that the four alleged ones actually did do it, and that my film is wrong.

_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK


Last edited by Prole on Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:19 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
God told him.


I suppose in these end times when we see radio waves TV through the air, etc, produce the results they do. And that you can’t distinguish between In-tuition and spoken thoughts.

You believe we are all alone in the universe and life cannot exist elsewhere or if it exists else where, it's formed of the same energy that matter is made of, which is only made of energy of one form? I don’t believe the lie that Consciousness is made of matter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Angel - now passed away


Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 1451
Location: UEMS

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogsmilk wrote:

That's all I've got to say as the thread is being derailed by this stuff. Apologies for that.


and there was me thinking it was intentional, what with your sig line and all... ;-)

Perhaps a new Korean War will divert everyone's attention from the underlying and obviously still unresolved issues?

_________________
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl

"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
and there was me thinking it was intentional, what with your sig line and all... Wink


Well I suppose people could see that as more of an incentive to read the thread and see what’s so important for them to hide.

---

And prole, believe and know mean different things. Can you show us prole or not where it says "know" what happened?

(edit)
Quote:
edit: Does he then claim that the government arrested the 3 men solely in an attempt to prove his film wasn't the truth? That's omnipotence for you.


Just like you the government traitors do all they can to "attempt to prove his film wasn't the truth" when it could be the truth, but we don't know it is the truth, but convinced 99.999% that it was an inside job. And also not knowing who was responsible for it.


Last edited by Andrew. on Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew. wrote:
Quote:
and there was me thinking it was intentional, what with your sig line and all... Wink


Well I suppose people could see that as more of an incentive to read the thread and see what’s so important for them to hide.

---

And prole, believe and know mean different things. Can you show us prole or not where it says "know" what happened?

Ergo you believe that Muaddy is the messiah but you don't know he is?

edit: Just in case these semantics are an attempt to obfuscate Andrew:
Quote:
Muad’Dib: Yes. Well, the government are obviously very frightened of my film, and they are frightened of the effect of it, proving to most people’s satisfaction… anybody with an open mind who watches my film, will believe that it is what actually happened, as I am convinced that that is what actually happened;

_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Ergo you believe that Muaddy is the messiah but you don't know he is?


Quote:
as I am convinced that that is what actually happened


Some believe and some "know" and of their own free will, proved it to themselves, with a successful fast, which proves to themselves that life after human death, is real.

"I suppose in these end times when we see radio waves TV through the air, etc, produce the results they do. And that you can’t distinguish between In-tuition and spoken thoughts.

You believe we are all alone in the universe and life cannot exist elsewhere or if it exists else where, it's formed of the same energy that matter is made of, which is only made of energy of one form? I don’t believe the lie that Consciousness is made of matter."

I "don't" believe the lie. I "know" it is a Lie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's something to get the thread back on topic.

You can see (revealed by an honest young Jew, God bless him) the solid physical evidence that Nick Kollerstrom referred to......blue walls in the genuine gas chambers, no staining on the 'human' ones, doors opening inwards etc.

I do not want 'The Holocaust' as my national religion.

It is, at its very heart, an enslaving lie:


Link

_________________
--
http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prole wrote:

I watched this sequence at the Inquests with no pixelation of the other people in the images or the timestamps:



Why are the timestamps blurred for public consumption?

Are you saying that you saw the timestamps and they showed that the four were on the platform at 7:24?

_________________
--
http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kbo234 wrote:
Here's something to get the thread back on topic.

You can see (revealed by an honest young Jew, God bless him) the solid physical evidence that Nick Kollerstrom referred to......blue walls in the genuine gas chambers, no staining on the 'human' ones, doors opening inwards etc.

I do not want 'The Holocaust' as my national religion.

It is, at its very heart, an enslaving lie:


Link


Hey great! Let's learn about historical events from a chat show. Next up it's PHSE with Jeremy Kyle and sociology with the Klan throwing chairs at black people on Jerry Springer.
Is this how you teachers operate these days? I guess it appeals to the MTV generation.
I suppose when people hit university these days, they progress to Simon Schama on BBC2

If you're going on about blue staining tripe, I shall remind you to pass on my message to Kollerstrom regarding that particular long debunked gibberish. Otherwise it won't be fair if I ever have reason to post anywhere about the mighty researcher chickening out of any kind of debate...again.

If you like David Cole, let's play the David Cole quotes game.

I previously asked you about the swimming pool as mentioned in Kollerstrom's 'Auschwitz was Butlins' piece -

Quote:
Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water-polo matches; and shown the paintings from its art class, which still exist; and told about the camp library which had some forty-five thousand volumes for inmates to choose from, plus a range of periodicals; and the six camp orchestras at Auschwitz/Birkenau, its theatrical performances, including a children's opera, the weekly camp cinema, and even the special brothel established there. Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, some of which still exist, where the postman would collect the mail twice-weekly. Thus the past may not always be quite, as we were told.



Cole popularised the pool in his dreadful documentary that remains popular among the sort of people who blindly swallow whatever they see on youtube. The interesting thing is, people find the pool amazing but – as we saw with you – can't say why.

Kollerstrom adopted the 'Auschwitz as Butlins' ploy – this is a more deeply offensive level than most deniers are prepared to sink to – not just for Jews (that pool is in the main camp – they were in Birkenau), but for Poles, Gypsies, Russians etc. Most deniers do concede Auschwitz was not a fun place to be and a lot of people died there.
Auschwitz was the largest concentration camp in the system – it was massive. And the inmate population had differing experiences according to 'race', nationality, category of prisoner, job they got etc. So if you were a kapo or got some administrative job, you might not do too badly and get perks – while some guy was starving or being beaten to death in the next block. Prisoners in Auschwitz I might not see anything of other parts of the camp. The 'death camp' aspect gets the most attention – and why are we surprised about that?

Now Cole knew it was irrelevant, he just had an axe to grind with his perceived denial it was there (I don't know if he's accurate about that) -

Quote:
We also understand
that the presence of this pool IN NO WAY negates the possibility of
gassings at Auschwitz. It’s totally irrelevant! But there’s no reason to
LIE about anything. Just be truthful. Don’t scream “LIAR - THERE WAS NO
POOL.” Just rationally explain “yes, there’s a pool, but at best it was
for the few favored Main Camp inmates - one of many perks available to
preferred inmates - but it is in no way representative of the experience
of rank and file inmates - especially Birkenau inmates.”


http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/cole.david/ftp.py?people/c/cole .david//interview.0695

So why should we care about the pool kbo? What relevance does it have to Jews being gassed?

To pick one other example, Kollerstrom says -

Quote:
and shown the paintings from its art class


What “art classes” are these? It's very well known art was produced in Auschwitz – many artists were incarcerated and Nazis, as it were, 'commissioned' them to produce art for them, as well as 'illegally' made art the inmates produced. This isn't some big, hidden secret for God's sake -

http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id =625&Itemid=51

But what “art classes” - like some kind of college course – were there? Well Kollerstrom hasn't managed to say. It seems clear he's simply determined to make Auschwitz look like a holiday resort. Or else why use such language?

Can you tell me?

While you think, here's another Cole quote -

Quote:
COLE: Have I encountered anti-Semitism from revisionists? That’s a
tricky one, because most of them are always on their best behavior when
I’m around. The ones, and there are many, who believe in wacky Jewish
conspiracy theories or the supremacy of the “white race” rarely let me in
on the joke because they know that I won’t share those views. I always
volunteer my views on such subjects as religion, race-mixing, conspiracy
theories, etc., just so there should be no confusion about where I stand
on those things. Plus my best friend, who is black, is REALLY imposing -
this is a BIG guy who, by his sheer size, doesn’t exactly encourage candor
>from white supremacists who might be in the same room. Anytime he’s
around, my revisionist pals are either silent or trying to say something
complimentary about black people (like “I really love that Marcus Garvey”
or “you people are such great Christians”). One time I was having dinner
with Mark Weber and his girlfriend. As we were coming out of the
restaurant, a trendy, expensive West L.A. eatery, Weber was talking
animatedly about some very “conservative” subjects. And who should come
walking up behind us, listening in, but the rapper Ice T, who, as many of
you would know, is as far left as Mark is far right. I managed to change
the subject before the situation could become dangerous. Still and all,
nowadays I wonder if I did the right thing. It’s not that I wish Mark any
harm, it’s just that, well, the image of a revisionist historian getting
clobbered by a famous rapper...well, as Beavis and/or Butt-head might say,
“that would be cool.”



http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/cole.david/ftp.py?people/c/cole .david//interview.0695

What do think this tells us about the kind of political affiliations Cole encountered in the denier scene?

Quote:
The response of the revisionist “community” to this dispute has persuaded
me to sever my ties with those few revisionists I ever had “ties” with.
The response from Faurisson, Bradley Smith, Mark Weber, and Dr. Robert
Countess (among others) has been the same. “How can you be so hard on
Faurisson,” they ask, “he’s suffered so badly at the hands of the French
government. Have some compassion!” This response really burns me up, not
only because it bypasses any discussion of the truth of my specific
complaints about Faurisson’s work, but even more because it comes from
people who have NEVER given an OUNCE of compassion to concentration camp
survivors, even though these people have suffered far more than Faurisson
EVER has. To me, nothing is worse than a hypocrite. Time and again these
revisionists have derided and mocked camp survivors, bragging that they
won’t soften their tone because of the suffering of these people. Bradley
Smith, who called Mel Mermelstein a “fraud,” “vainglorious prevaricator,”
and “false tale-spinner,” and Elie Wiesel a man “not wrapped too tight,”
has lost the moral right to ask me to soften my tone on Faurisson because
“the poor man’s been through so much.” Faurisson has been telling
revisionists that I’m some kind of villain for being so “hard” on such an
“oppressed” man as he. But Faurisson, who took immense pleasure in
hounding Otto Frank until his dying day, and who was NEVER swayed by the
fact that Frank lost his entire family because of the Nazis, has NO RIGHT
to now ask for an immunity from criticism that he has always denied
others. Faurisson is suffering? Perhaps. But he has it a thousand times
better than a Jew living under Nazism. I refuse to have a double
standard. People may not like me, but I never want it said that I’m not
fair. I’ve criticized the testimony of survivors and mainstream Holocaust
scholars, and I’ll be damned if I’m not going to be just as hard if not
harder on a fraud like Faurisson. As I told Bradley in a recent letter,
my association with the revisionist “movement” was always conditional; I
share very little or nothing in common with any of these people except for
a desire to probe the unanswered questions regarding the Holocaust. The
minute I felt I could no longer trust the revisionists to be genuinely
interested in getting to the truth of the gas chamber / genocide story was
the minute I was out the door.


I think Cole is actually pretty spot on here about the whining of deniers alongside their contempt for people's suffering - like we see with Kollerstrom. What do you think?
What do you think of Cole seeming to think deniers are not actually interested in the truth?

Quote:
As an example, I'll point specifically to Faurisson's response to
David Irving's "Journal of Historical Review" essay/conference speech
on the Goebbels diary, appearing in the letters section of the
current "Journal of Historical Review" (March/April '95). Faurisson
quotes from the March 27, 1942 Goebbels diary entry, and then writes
"In itself, this last sentence ("Broadly speaking, one can probably
say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40
percent can be put to work" - Goebbels) tends to show that the Reich
Minister of Propaganda did not know for sure that there was a German
policy to physically exterminate the Jews, either totally or in
part."

"IN PART?" What does he think Goebbels is referring to, if not a
liquidation IN PART. Faurisson is pulling an old "exterminationist"
trick here by quoting a passage and then TELLING us what we've just
read, hoping we won't notice any incongruity between the passage and
Faurisson's explanation. Faurisson is quoting a passage that speaks
of exterminations in part - AT LEAST in part, and then he TELLS us
that we in fact HAVEN'T just read what we've read - with no
explanation given to clarify why Goebbels isn't actually saying what
he so clearly seems to be saying. I think Faurisson has grown too
used to having his word taken as gospel. Naked emperors don't only
exist on the "exterminationist" side. Faurisson's description of the
March 27 Goebbels diary entry reminds me of page 120 of dear old Mel
Mermelstein's book, where he shows a picture of Krema 1 and writes in
the caption "note the pipes and shower heads above").

The importance (to me of this Goebbels diary passage is that for the
first time we have a reliable piece of evidence which points to a
plan of separation between those Jews fit for "labor" and the rest,
who "have to be liquidated." Hate it though some of us may, this fits
the "exterminationist" model much better than it does the revisionist
one. If revisionists wish to explain this passage some other way,
they'll have to do better than the explanation offered by Faurisson.
For myself, I can say that the meaning of this Goebbels diary
passage, IN RELATION to events occurring at that time, has yet to be
adequately explained by any revisionist.

And Faurisson's explanation of the "Jew transport from Berlin. No
liquidation" Himmler note is similarly thin. He neglects to take into
account that this entire transport WAS liquidated, in toto. If "no
liquidation" meant "no individuals in this transport are scheduled
for execution," and if this was the policy (to inform Heydrich of any
individuals on each transport who might be scheduled for executions),
then why was the entire transport liquidated? It seems to me that a
better explanation is that these Jews were being sent to an area
where liquidations of Jews were taking place, and for whatever reason
(and this is something that the "exterminationists" have yet to
explain) Hitler and/or Himmler decided that this transport should be
exempted. But it was too late. If Faurisson wishes to support his
version, I'd ask him if there are any other notes from Himmler to
Heydrich, or records of any conversations between the two men, about
individuals in any of these transports who were scheduled for
execution upon arrival. In other words, if it was commonplace for
Himmler to alert Heydrich of any individuals in these transports who
were scheduled to be executed, then there should be records of these
orders (i.e. "Jew transport from Berlin. Five liquidations." "Jew
transport from Berlin. Twenty liquidations." "Jew transport from
Berlin. No liquidations." etc. etc.). I'm not asking rhetorically;
I'm genuinely curious.




http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/cole.david/ftp.py?people/c/cole .david//cole-vs-faurisson-struthof

What do you think of this commentary from your revisionist hero?

Quote:
There was something troubling about Faurisson's assertion that I need
not have investigated Krema 1 because he had already made his
pronouncement on the issue, and therefore it is now dead. In fact,
many of the points Faurisson has made about Krema 1 are dangerously
fraudulent. I'll give you my opinion of a few of Faurisson's favorite
points: The fact that the "Zyklon B induction chimneys" are not gas
tight is irrelevant because we know they were added after the war.
The fact that the door on the southeast side of the room is not gas
tight (and has no glass in the peephole) is likewise irrelevant, as
we know that this door was added AFTER the supposed "gas chamber"
phase of the room. Also irrelevant is the wall in front of this door,
that blocks the view from the peephole. This wall was added after the
"gas chamber" phase. The flimsy wooden door, also on the southeast
side, is irrelevant because it, too, was added after the "gas
chamber" phase. And the fact that the door on the northwest side has
panes of glass in it is moot because there was once a dividing wall
on that side of the room, in which was located the door that would
have been the door to the "gas chamber." This wall was knocked down
erroneously by the Soviets, who were trying to restore the room to
what they believed it looked like during its "gas chamber" phase.
That there is a doorway without a door, or evidence of hinges, which
leads to the crematorium ovens is not in and of itself evidence
against gassings because a door DID once exist that led from the
morgue into the cremation room. The current doorway without a door is
the post-war Soviet creation. And the fact that the chimney is not
connected to the building is not relevant because we know that there
was at one time a chimney there, and that it was connected to the
building, and that cremations did in fact take place in this
building, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY that the tour guides have always
honestly represented this chimney as a reconstruction, so we can't
make the charge of fraud.



http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/c/cole.david/ftp.py?people/c/cole .david//cole-vs-faurisson-struthof

If you've watched his 'documentary', you may notice he's here basically accusing Faurrison of what he himself did back then. And I think on his chat show appearance (I'm not watching it again now). What do you make of that?

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kbo234 wrote:
Here's something to get the thread back on topic.

You can see (revealed by an honest young Jew, God bless him) the solid physical evidence that Nick Kollerstrom referred to......blue walls in the genuine gas chambers, no staining on the 'human' ones, doors opening inwards etc.

I do not want 'The Holocaust' as my national religion.

It is, at its very heart, an enslaving lie:


Link



Those videos really do show how emotions are used to keep people from logical thinking, the narrator shows logically peoples perceptions are twisted by them.

We all seem to agree that atrocities did happen, but the cover up is who was mostly was responsible for them. And how does it sit with the long planned extradition of people to Palestine, when we get to know who was mostly responsible for these atrocities of all manner of people in those camps and the wider world war. Shown earlier in the thread.


Last edited by Andrew. on Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Prole
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 632
Location: London UK

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kbo234 wrote:
Prole wrote:

I watched this sequence at the Inquests with no pixelation of the other people in the images or the timestamps:



Why are the timestamps blurred for public consumption?

Are you saying that you saw the timestamps and they showed that the four were on the platform at 7:24?

I watched this at the Inquests and wrote:


7/7 07.21.54 Enter Luton, 07.22.29 Ticket hall, 07.22.43 Go through barriers, 07.23.27 On platform, 07.24.47 Train arrives, 07.24.56 Board, 07.25.36 Train leaves

_________________
'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thermate911 wrote:
Re: Protocols, regardless of who wrote them:-

Dogsmilk wrote:
I mean, people in the real world don't sit there saying we'll dominate this, we'll control that and that's that - it's like some bad B-movie.


It would appear in which case that you have never had the opportunity to sit in on any really high level Barclays or BoE board meetings. I can assure you that they do indeed often act & sound like a really bad B movie. They are also utterly devoid of testicular fortitude, buffered as they are by their control of vast wealth and power; sheltered as they are by those quite happy to accept payment to do their dirty work for them, by proxy. Probity (in this case aka moral cowardice) roolz, OK? The saddest facet is that they have never lived a real life at all, so, for the most part 'they know not what they do' and largely take their lead from the strongest, most pervasive & persuasive, the Rothschilds.


Wow. So you're saying at high level banking meetings, it's all just vague pronouncements of global dominance but nobody knows how they're going to go about anything? They could learn from the public sector (while it still exists) - at the kind of multi-agency meetings I go to, people decide specific action points determining who is going to do what to achieve what goal and these are then minuted.

How did you go from high level banking meetings to going round reading far right websites and believing teh protocolz? Got a bit carried away with the sniff?


Quote:

Oh and well done Prole, for yet again re-introducing that utterly blunted instrument of control we spent most the '90's thoroughly discrediting - anti-semitism.


Though the term anti-semitism - like racism or any other similar term - can be abused, are you denying that prejudice against Jews exists? If so, do you also deny racism, homophobia etc exist? Or just anti-semitism?

What was this "discrediting" you were engaged in during the 90s?

Quote:

Fascinating twists and turns this thread is taking but I have yet to see any conclusive evidence to demonstrate that certain posters here are not hell bent on defending the indefensible at any cost, yea even unto their credibility...


It might help if you said what the "indefensible" actually is. Judging by your posts on this thread, it's you making inane assertions you are then totally unable to defend.

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogsmilk wrote:

If you're going on about blue staining tripe, I shall remind you to pass on my message to Kollerstrom regarding that particular long debunked gibberish. Otherwise it won't be fair if I ever have reason to post anywhere about the mighty researcher chickening out of any kind of debate...again.



Yes, let's hear about the "blur staining tripe" and about the 5000 parts per million of cyanide in the delousing gas chamber walls compared to the 3 parts per million in the human gas chamber walls and the 2 parts per million control )kitchens, washrooms etc.)

For once some substance. I'm all ears.

Let's hear all about it. I have never seen an attempt at an explanation for these things.

_________________
--
http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="kbo234"]
Dogsmilk wrote:

If you're going on about blue staining tripe, I shall remind you to pass on my message to Kollerstrom regarding that particular long debunked gibberish. Otherwise it won't be fair if I ever have reason to post anywhere about the mighty researcher chickening out of any kind of debate...again.



Yes, let's hear about the "blur staining tripe" and about the 5000 parts per million of cyanide in the delousing gas chamber walls compared to the 3 parts per million in the human gas chamber walls and the 2 parts per million control )kitchens, washrooms etc.)

For once some substance. I'm all ears.

Well yesterday I posted links that explore these issues in some depth. Regrettably the material is not available in chat show format.

Enjoy.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/

What about the rest of my post? I thought you'd be pleased with all that Cole material.

And what about the pool? Do you agree with Kollerstrom that Auschwitz was some kind of fun park?

Oh - can I ask you a question?

Something has been bugging me for some time. I've asked a bunch of 'revisionists' about it, but alas have yet to get an answer.

Now we know deniers dismiss any and all evidence for the Holocaust while simultaneously expecting people to believe a range of alternative (frequently contradictory)accounts for which there's no evidence whatsoever - that's a given. Denial doesn't also get called negationism for nothing.

So for example, deniers claim the AR camps were transit camps. There's no evidence for this - Jews arrive there, vanish, we know clothes were shipped out and large areas of human remains have been found. We know there is zero record of them turning up anywhere else. But obviously deniers dismiss all this. So for example when an archaeologist mapped the mass graves at Belzec and published his work, he was automatically ten kinds of lying Zionist shill fraud. That goes without saying.

What intrigues me is what a 'revisionist' history book will look like when the Luciferian Jewish menace is conquered. So ok - the AR camps were transit camps. What were they like? So about 3/4 million Jews pass through Treblinka - what does the oral history of all those Jews say about their deportation experience? Out of all those Jews, some of them must have talked about it. What was the routine at these transit camps? What was it like to be a guard there? See they all say it was a death camp. Of course they're all liars, tortured, subjected to mind control rays etc - each and every one. But then how will the 'revisionist' history books describe these camps? There'll be not one single account of the AR transit experience. Even locals saw things like trains going in full and coming out empty, there being a really bad smell etc. Even they can't tell us about the AR transit experience.

What will this history be like that nobody saw? That there's no evidence for?

Can you explain to me how we construct a history based on contradicting everybody involved in that history? Will we just invent what we'd like things to have been like? How will this work?

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This fascinating post kinda puts things in perspective. It's a reply to someone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Terry
My central point, which remains unrefuted, was that it is prima facie implausible that so many SS men would testify to extermination if there had been no such policy. This implausibility begins in 1945, when the war ended and the SS were automatically interned. The implausibility increases with every passing year, and continues until the SS who were in a position to know passed away, and no deathbed confessions or 'to be opened after my death' statements were forthcoming.

Against this implausibility, you have offered, to date, only excuses as to why SS men did not refute the supposedly false claims of exterminations. You refuse to label these as a conspiracy, but a conspiracy of silence they must have been, if there was no policy of extermination. Otherwise someone, somewhere would have come forward with evidence to refute the charge.

There were many SS men who had a powerful motive to exculpate themselves directly by setting the record straight and explaining what really happened to the Jews who arrived at certain camps, either because they worked in those camps (all the death camp SS) or because they were involved in organising the deportations - complicity in deportations resulted in numerous convictions which were as a rule harsher if it could be demonstrated that the accused SS man knew the camps were death camps.

If the supposed truth of no extermination is so obvious according to you, then it should have been possible for these SS men to explain themselves and say what really happened. In 1945.

The circumstances of the initial interrogations in 1945 are such that the Allied interrogators - in the west - did not at first dispose of all of the hard evidence which later came to light. Crucial documents (we will come back to those) were either laying undiscovered in many tons of paper captured by the British and Americans, or had been captured by the Soviets and also lay undiscovered.

The US and British interrogators in Norway, western Germany and Austria had only the testimonies of camp survivors, which painted a grim picture, but according to several generations of deniers, this picture can be handwaved away, and the 'true' explanation put in its place. But not one SS man offered this 'true' explanation. No claims that Auschwitz was a transit camp were advanced.

Indeed, none had been advanced in the war from Nazi newspapers or in speeches. The cluelessness of the SS as to the supposedly 'true' explanation has deep roots going back to 1942 and the refusal of the Nazi regime to explain what was happening to the deported Jews.

The western Allies instead interrogated more and more SS men - both those who worked in the camps, as well as members of the WVHA and RSHA - who gave ever more detail on the policy of extermination. I know of more than 30 SS officers and NCOs who testified to gas chambers at Auschwitz before Hoess was even arrested in March 1946, and I don't think that's an absolutely complete tally. There were SS and policemen testifying to other camps such as Chelmno, too, and more SS like Wisliceny, Hoettl, Ohlendorf, Rauff, Mildner and Morgen (plus his assistant Wiebeck) who were confirming that a policy of extermination was implemented and that gassing facilities existed, either vans or chambers.

We thus have many dozens of SS men confirming extermination and gassing in 1945 and very early 1946. No evidence exists that they were tortured, coerced, intimidated, bribed, promised exemption from prosecution, fed any lines or anything else. The SS men in question were treated in varying manners. The same pattern holds true ever after, which is why any claim that so-and-so testified in order to save their neck or avoid prison can be easily refuted by pointing to the testimony of another SS men who gave exactly the same evidence yet was convicted.

At the time, the SS were under indictment as a criminal organisation - this was precisely the moment when the leadership corps of the SS should have stood up and said, no there was no policy of extermination. IF there was no such policy.

Merely being under investigation, or being interned, or interrogated, or later on having the possibility of the Kripo knocking on your door and interrogating you in the Federal Republic, does not amount to coercion, intimidation, torture, bribery or any of the other excuses you have offered.

The SS men in 1945, held in internment, and the SS men in the 1960s, under Untersuchungshaft, were free to present the 'true' explanation and tell the 'real story'. Appealing to the zeitgeist as you keep on doing is no refutation of this point. The only thing that would refute this point is to provide evidence that there was indeed a systematic program of coercion and torture, spelling out how this was applied and what was necessary to keep the coercion in place. You have provided no such evidence, which does not exist.

This follows on from everything we know about the psychology of interrogations and confessions. Yes, some people falsely confess when in police captivity, but this involves a minority of suspects as a general rule. This is why the plausibility of claiming false confession or 'telling the Allies what they wanted to hear' decreases with every additional SS witness who was interrogated. It is plausible that 1 or 2 SS men might have been induced to falsely confess; it is implausible that 40 SS men would have been so induced, and it is utterly implausible that 4,000 SS men and thousands of other German soldiers and civil servants would have been so induced.

SS men at liberty, whether they had evaded internment as SS men by disguising themselves as Wehrmacht soldiers, or whether they had been released from internment, released from prison after being convicted, or had emigrated to countries beyond the reach of then-prevailing extradition laws, logically and necessarily could not even be oppressed by mere police custody.

Had Allied or West German police custody moreover been as oppressive and coercive and torture-laden as deniers claim, then there would be many statements to this effect from SS men who had been released. They don't exist, either. Which either means that the conspiracy has expanded still further, to intimidate former convicts, or that the probability - which is already shockingly low - of coercion is further reduced.

My argument is partly counterfactual. Historians make these all the time. We ask, if x was not so, what would we expect instead? It is reasonable to expect that if there was no policy of extermination, that someone would present evidence to refute it and offer the 'true' explanation. Given all of the other evidence, we can specify what that 'true' explanation would have to be if there had been no policy of extermination - 'transit' and 'resettlement'. This evidence was not forthcoming, ergo the counterfactual has been tested and the claim found wanting.

After early 1946, of course, ever more SS men testified to extermination. And ever more SS men did not provide evidence to refute a policy of extermination. The probability of no extermination decreases exponentially the further in time one travels, and the probability of extermination - based only on this category of evidence, which is not the only category - increases, although we are talking from 99.1 to 99.9%, leaving only a small doubt (as would pertain to any other event in the past - after all, we cannot prove a person called Napoleon ever existed by direct evidence today) which is essentially irrelevant to any conception of reasonable doubt.

Your attempts to explain away the silence of the SS contain a few hilarious foot-bullets, such as pointing out that reviving Nazism was illegal in postwar Germany (and Austria). But there I was thinking you had claimed that the truth of non-extermination offered by revisionism wasn't a neo-Nazi thing? Oops. Likewise, that Holocaust denial was eventually made illegal in Germany does not then explain the non-publication of books in the very many countries in the world - indeed, the majority - where it is not illegal. The law against HD could not apply, in any case, to a testimony which offered refutational evidence of the kind I have been specifying. Any German witness saying 'I saw 200,000 Jews arrive from Warsaw in 1942 at Dnepropetrovsk' who is smart enough not to wrap his claim in antisemitic verbiage and hoary old denier memes, couldn't be prosecuted for Holocaust denial.

At the end of all this, you are still left with a pile of statements from SS men and from other Germans which testify to extermination, no coherent, detailed explanation for how these statements came into existence, and no witnesses testifying to any other explanation. Please, apply Occam's Razor here.

One thing that has become very obvious in all of this is that you haven't even tried to make the case that the SS witnesses collectively were telling untruths. Oh, we've had you nitpick at Hoess and Gerstein, but we are in fact discussing 1000s of witnesses: probably 10s of 1000s to mass shootings, in such number that you are avoiding this part of the genocide like the plague, even though it amounted to more than 40% of the total number of victims; and 1000s who could present probative evidence regarding the death camps.

Every railwayman who was interrogated by the 1960s to the transports to the death camps who, even without setting foot in the camps, who testified to knowing that they were death camps, seeing smoke rising, etc, has to be explained. If there was no policy of extermination, why would they claim this? Appealing to the zeitgeist doesn't cut it.

Ditto every policemen assigned to transport duties who guarded such trains. Ditto every Sipo or Gestapo officer who knew what the camps were, every member of an SSPF staff in Poland who knew about the camps, every civil servant who was a Kreishauptmann or working for the district governor's office who testified to knowing what the camps were for, every businessman or construction official, every secretary in the typing pools - in short, any German who gave any kind of evidence of whatever quality, has to be explained. If there was no policy of extermination, why are they all admitting to knowing about something that didn't exist?

Within this much wider group, we have a substantial number who can offer probative witness testimony to the camps. The railwaymen and transport guards are as already pointed out, entirely capable of offering testimony to smoke and stench. There were many more visitors to these camps than just Gerstein. There are easily 100 German direct witnesses to Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka who left testimony after the war, out of a total complement of maybe 250 such Germans who ever served in those camps. None denied they were extermination camps and all offered pieces of testimonial evidence towards the puzzle. For Auschwitz, the number is more like 1,000.

Taking into account all those who witnessed the use of gas vans in Serbia and the Soviet Union, the employees of the six T4 euthanasia institutes, and the SS who served at 'ordinary' concentration camps where there were also gas chambers, then there are certainly a minimum of many hundreds more direct and thousands more indirect witnesses.

So far, you've discussed how many such witnesses? Two? Three?

It's your claim that these witnesses somehow collectively and spontaneously decided to 'tell the Allies what they wanted to hear'. Without a detailed exposition of how this went down, your claim is worthless. Moreover, you cannot point to such a detailed exposition because revisionism has not produced such a thing. The same SS witnesses - Hoess and Gerstein - get attacked over and over and over again in denier literature. Faurisson managed to discuss, what? three or four witnesses in an article entitled 'Confessions of SS Men at Auschwitz'. How is that even vaguely scientific, much less conclusive when there were 22 defendants at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial along with 91 other SS men giving evidence there?

So on this point - SS testimonies - I think we can await your argument, since you have not really even tried to present one. You've only been reacting to my skepticism of the plausibilty of a number of denier claims.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183784&page=13

Kbo - what is your opinion?

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
item8
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Judea declares war on Germany


Link


Part one of 9. The rest are available at the same link. WARNING!!! Possession of this material will lead to imprisonment in many European countries.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Dogsmilk"]
kbo234 wrote:
Dogsmilk wrote:

If you're going on about blue staining tripe, I shall remind you to pass on my message to Kollerstrom regarding that particular long debunked gibberish. Otherwise it won't be fair if I ever have reason to post anywhere about the mighty researcher chickening out of any kind of debate...again.



Yes, let's hear about the "blur staining tripe" and about the 5000 parts per million of cyanide in the delousing gas chamber walls compared to the 3 parts per million in the human gas chamber walls and the 2 parts per million control )kitchens, washrooms etc.)

For once some substance. I'm all ears.

Well yesterday I posted links that explore these issues in some depth. Regrettably the material is not available in chat show format.

Enjoy.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/

What about the rest of my post? I thought you'd be pleased with all that Cole material.

And what about the pool? Do you agree with Kollerstrom that Auschwitz was some kind of fun park?

Oh - can I ask you a question?

Something has been bugging me for some time. I've asked a bunch of 'revisionists' about it, but alas have yet to get an answer.

Now we know deniers dismiss any and all evidence for the Holocaust while simultaneously expecting people to believe a range of alternative (frequently contradictory)accounts for which there's no evidence whatsoever - that's a given. Denial doesn't also get called negationism for nothing.

So for example, deniers claim the AR camps were transit camps. There's no evidence for this - Jews arrive there, vanish, we know clothes were shipped out and large areas of human remains have been found. We know there is zero record of them turning up anywhere else. But obviously deniers dismiss all this. So for example when an archaeologist mapped the mass graves at Belzec and published his work, he was automatically ten kinds of lying Zionist shill fraud. That goes without saying.

What intrigues me is what a 'revisionist' history book will look like when the Luciferian Jewish menace is conquered. So ok - the AR camps were transit camps. What were they like? So about 3/4 million Jews pass through Treblinka - what does the oral history of all those Jews say about their deportation experience? Out of all those Jews, some of them must have talked about it. What was the routine at these transit camps? What was it like to be a guard there? See they all say it was a death camp. Of course they're all liars, tortured, subjected to mind control rays etc - each and every one. But then how will the 'revisionist' history books describe these camps? There'll be not one single account of the AR transit experience. Even locals saw things like trains going in full and coming out empty, there being a really bad smell etc. Even they can't tell us about the AR transit experience.

What will this history be like that nobody saw? That there's no evidence for?

Can you explain to me how we construct a history based on contradicting everybody involved in that history? Will we just invent what we'd like things to have been like? How will this work?


This stuff reminds me of nothing more than the 'debunking' of 'controlled demolition' of WTC7. Massive in-your-face evidence of unnatiral collapse and 'highly qualified' scientists (yea, you can trust these guys) start examining the manufacture of the nuts and bolts holding the building together on floor 37.....

.......only 'tiny' amounts of cyanide were required in these chambers, the 5 minutes it might have taken the inmates to die extracted the greater part of the poison etc...

Rudolf himself says chemical evidence does not 'prove' the 'deniers' case definitively but rather is very strong evidence that these were not homicidal gas chambers.
What people say about this issue is not to be trusted in my opinion. The only evidence of homicidal gas chambers is oral. 'Witnesses', like the woman who phoned in to Donoghue was clearly lying. The other woman was simply repeating what she'd been told (almost all 'witnesses' fall into this category).
SS guards will not be people of the most noble character and might easily be convinced to say what their captors wish to hear.

Your 'reliable' and 'authoratitive' documents are not mine Dogsmilk. Perhaps we do choose what we want to believe. If this is true. it is no less true for you than it is for me.

I would frankly never trust a word you say. Your unconcern about 9/11 (if that's what it is....and not a determination to defend Israel from any responsibility for this crime) defines you.

I do not want 'The Holocaust' as my national religion.

Full Stop.


It is an enslaving lie presenting us with a false image of innocent victimhood that does not spiritually liberate and inspire to a loving sense of universal brother (like the victimhood of Christ) but rather empowers the lowest form of organised criminals and thieves who, rather than ensure such horrors are never repeated, start new wars of aggression under cover of its satanic blessing while using this spiritual curse to blind the eyes and deafen the ears of the Godly into helpless and bewildered inaction.

Sneer away, Dogsmilk. it's all you're good for.

It really is something when people who are so keen to hold a sacred a particular suffering are so seemingly indifferent to other equally innocent suufering and so blind to the one being at least a partial cause of the others.

What about we end the hypocritical and unctuous moralising that exudes from the same b******* that happily slaughter innocents in more recent times and even today?

What about we make ending state violence a priority?

_________________
--
http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/


Last edited by kbo234 on Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:57 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 7 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group