Evening News article on 7/7 campaigner

outsider · Post by **outsider** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:26 am

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... article.do

I emailed a 'Comment' to ES, but needless to say it didn't appear. Thanks karlos for correct link; I should have checked it.
I abhor the quotation of NK, if the ES version of his posting about the Holocaust is correct, and dissasociate myself from NK in that Holocaust respect; obviously I agree 7/7 was almost certainly a 'False Flag' op.
If NK's comments about the Nazi Camps are as reported, I will have nothing more to do with him.

karlos · Post by **karlos** » Wed Jun 11, 2008 9:35 am

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... article.do

outsider · Post by **outsider** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:52 am

It has been pointed out that additional coverage of this subject appears in:

Relatives' fury as BBC pays expenses to Holocaust denier who 'pestered bereaved families after the 7/7 bombing' - Mail On Sunday + todays Daily Mail
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/arti ... mbing.html

BBC pays disgraced academic expenses for part in 7/7 bombings documentary - Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ntary.html

astro3 · Post by **astro3** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:47 pm

The diabolical accusation was made against me in this article by Rob Mendick the Evening Standard reporter, that I had phoned up the father of Miriam Hyman, and told him that his daughter's body had been moved to the Tavistock Square site afteer the blast. If you go to this thread you'll see what I did say to him:
www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14912

I wrote to Mr Mendick, to the Standard's editor and to the Press complaints commission, in protest, but have not heard anything in reply. I reckon what I discovered from that phone call was important but perhaps the only way the media can respond is with such a dire untruth.

The day after that Standard article I featured - if that is the word - in eight different papers. A lot of hate-reporting has come from that poisoned comment. On its front page the Standard said I had 'insulted' a survivor family, alluding to this made-up remark. Mendick did interview me, and made up this comment after so doing.

Prole · Post by **Prole** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:53 pm

astro3 wrote:The diabolical accusation was made against me in this article by Rob Mendick the Evening Standard reporter, that I had phoned up the father of Miriam Hyman, and told him that his daughter's body had been moved to the Tavistock Square site afteer the blast. If you go to this thread you'll see what I did say to him:
www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14912

I wrote to Mr Mendick, to the Standard's editor and to the Press complaints commission, in protest, but have not heard anything in reply. I reckon what I discovered from that phone call was important but perhaps the only way the media can respond is with such a dire untruth.

The day after that Standard article I featured - if that is the word - in eight different papers. A lot of hate-reporting has come from that poisoned comment. On its front page the Standard said I had 'insulted' a survivor family, alluding to this made-up remark. Mendick did interview me, and made up this comment after so doing.

Nick, did you agree to be interviewed and have your photograph taken by any journalists? If so, which newspapers did you actually speak to?

paul wright · Post by **paul wright** » Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:24 pm

There is an absolute innacuracy in the Evening Standard report

Dr Kollerstrom took flowers to the parents of Aldgate bomber Shehzad Tanweer but they refused to see him.

Certainly Nick bought some flowers and cold-called the family home, for good or ill, but was not refused by the parents, just seen by a daughter who ended up accepting the flowers.
Nick did try to keep the Beeb's cameras out of this encounter, but they moved in on the sly, filming from across the road.
This latter led to Nick falling out with the film crew on this occasion, and no further cooperation around this visit, as far as I know.
Nick used Yorks supporters to accommodate and taxi him around for no recompense from the Beeb, and without any previous advice on their involvement in this visit
This is one of many reasons, apart from carrying a personal muesli supply with bowl and spoon around with him, why I can give him no credibility or support whatsoever. He is a grumpy and impatient old man, with little sense of discretion or discernment

Dogsmilk · Post by **Dogsmilk** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:02 am

astro3 wrote:I reckon what I discovered from that phone call was important

In what way?

Danny is apparently a devotee of your favourite Messiah whose idea it was, but he appears unable to explain.

Post by **TonyGosling** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:03 pm

paul wright wrote:There is an absolute innacuracy in the Evening Standard report
Dr Kollerstrom took flowers to the parents of Aldgate bomber Shehzad Tanweer but they refused to see him.
Certainly Nick bought some flowers and cold-called the family home, for good or ill, but was not refused by the parents, just seen by a daughter who ended up accepting the flowers.
.................He is a grumpy and impatient old man, with little sense of discretion or discernment

Unnecessary Paul.
Maybe its Nick's impatience which has served us all so well in digging out some of the prime facts of 7/7?

The other major inaccuracy seems to be the allegation he 'told' the Hyman family Miriam's body had been moved. This death certainly looks like a key event so Nick was right to call the family and ask sensitive questions.

If Nick HAD any money he could easily sue Mendick and the Mail. As he hasn't he's stuffed!!!

paul wright · Post by **paul wright** » Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:26 pm

TonyGosling wrote:
Unnecessary Paul.
Maybe its Nick's impatience which has served us all so well in digging out some of the prime facts of 7/7?

I don't know. It takes one to know one, and as someone of the same gender and close to the majority of Nick, I have to say that, given his outpourings on Auschwitz happening alongside his regional visit, financially subsidised -if that's true -I'm left with the impression of an ivory-towered user so immersed in his theoretical hubris that he's immune from the everyday threats and practicalities. How anyone can cooperate with a superficially ok guy like Tristan 'Panorama' Quinn and his scene-setting without getting pissed off for so long, beats me
It became obvious to me after an hour or two of BBC heat
The Naysayers from every quarter, J7, Muad 'Dib, Ian Neal etc were absolutely correct in the first place
You don't need more than a little while with these guys to know you're being set up.
It took a whole incident for Nick to get the point
And I suspect he still feels no harm done

outsider · Post by **outsider** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:08 am

Groan

Prison Planet at it's worst;

Not good news for us, I'm afraid -

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ju ... attack.htm

Alexander · Post by **Alexander** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:31 am

Perhaps AJ will have Nick on his radio show to discuss things.

numeral · Post by **numeral** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:13 pm

outsider wrote:Groan Prison Planet at it's worst;

Not good news for us, I'm afraid -

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ju ... attack.htm

Why is the Prison Planet article not good news?

BBC Set To Launch New Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth
New documentaries about 9/11, 7/7 and who's representing the "conspiracy theorists"? A holocaust denying, Neo-Nazi crop circle fanatic!

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 20, 2008
| StumbleUpon

The BBC is set to launch another savage smear attack on the 9/11 truth movement with two documentaries about the September 11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings that attempt to debunk evidence of government complicity and smear doubters of the official story as holocaust deniers, Neo-Nazis, and crop circle fanatics.

Having taken its rightful place alongside Popular Mechanics and The History Channel as one of the 21st century's most plentiful peddlers of yellow journalism with their first 9/11 hit piece last year, "Auntie Beeb" is set to have another crack at the whip on July 6th when it airs a documentary about the collapse of WTC Building 7, the 47-storey skyscraper that imploded into its own footprint on 9/11 without being hit by a plane, called The Third Tower.

The preview clip for the show claims that the program will offer the solution to the "final mystery of 9/11," presumably self-satisfied that the BBC's previous woeful effort to debunk 9/11 truth dismissed the mountains of other contradictions and outright falsehoods of the official story.

(Article continues below)

Judging from the end of the clip, it seems as if the BBC is ready to violate the fundamental laws of physics and proclaim that fire caused the steel-framed building to collapse, an unprecedented event in history.

The making of the show was undoubtedly motivated by the BBC themselves having been shamed last year by footage that emerged of them reporting the collapse of Building 7 before it had happened, a revelation that prompted a series of blundering PR gaffes on behalf of the corporation and seemingly a vendetta against 9/11 truthers who bombarded the company with bad publicity at the time.

The BBC's flustered attempts to adopt damage control over questions about why their correspondent reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and exalted questions surrounding WTC 7 to the point where it is now the Achilles' heel of the official conspiracy theory.

The new hit piece features an interview with 9/11 shill extraordinaire and former chief counter-terrorism adviser to the White House Richard Clarke, who denies a controlled demolition took down Building 7.

The BBC's first stab at debunking the 9/11 truth movement was a jaw-dropping exercise in journalistic prostitution more befitting of state-controlled TV stations in Communist China or Zimbabwe.

The show was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end, structured around fallacy, lying by omission and an overwhelming dearth of impartiality.

During a follow-up radio debate, producer Guy Smith had no answers for the plethora of inaccuracies that littered the program.

The BBC has also completed a documentary on the 7/7 bombings, set to air in Autumn, which puts forward an individual called Nick Kollerstrom as the main proponent of "conspiracy theories" surrounding the 2005 London Underground attacks.

Despite the fact that we were at the forefront of 7/7 coverage immediately after it happened and have produced scores of articles on the subject that received millions of readers, the BBC did not choose to speak to us and instead interviewed a radical astrologist who also dabbles in crop circles, holocaust denial and making apologies for Hitler.

Kollerstrom is just about the wackiest person the BBC could have picked to represent alternative explanations behind 7/7. The idea behind it is simple - pick a nutcase closet Neo-Nazi to talk about 7/7 thus sending a very clear message to the viewer - anyone who questions the official government story behind 7/7 is a holocaust denier, a lunatic, and potentially dangerous.

In pursuing such dirty smear tactics once again, the BBC has proven itself to be not only biased and agenda-driven, but the producers of the show have displayed their complete ineptness in judging who to interview for the documentary.

"The stakes are high because conspiracy theories are spreading suspicion about the official account of what happened, ultimately questioning whether the authorities can be trusted," writes producer Mike Rudin. "Establishing whether what is argued is true or false, and scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves, is clearly in the public interest and is a serious and legitimate task for the BBC."

Oh diddums, now we wouldn't want to question whether the authorities should be trusted now would we Mike? Because we know governments never lie, have never engaged in any conspiracies and always have the interests of the people at heart.

The BBC thinks it is in the "public interest" and a "legitimate task" to run defense for this criminal Blair-Brown government that has already aided in the slaughter of over 600,000 innocent people in Iraq based on their own conspiracy theories about weapons of mass destruction, by smearing anyone that questions the official story behind 7/7.

This is a damning indictment of how the BBC views itself and corporate media today as a whole - not as an independent media outlet tasked with putting politicians' feet to the fire, muckraking, and asking hard questions - but acting as a Ministry of Truth to put a lid on the shocking facts behind 7/7 and backing up a Labour government that has refused all along to allow a proper investigation into the bombings come hell or high water.

"Scrutinising the way proponents conduct themselves," as Rudin calls it is merely newspeak for "taking the piss out of mentally unstable Neo-Nazis and then claiming they represent conspiracy theorists."

The BBC masquerades as some kind of credible arbiter of "case closed" truth, yet the corporation is almost universally loathed in the United Kingdom because Britons are forced to fund its existence through a TV license tax and in return the BBC provides them with utter garbage on a regular basis.

The BBC's latest serving of yellow journalism is likely to be little improvement.

We invite readers to leave a comment on producer Mike Rudin's blog so as to give him the opportunity to write a new blog expressing his phony outrage to hostile put-downs of his career in yellow journalism.

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:15 pm

outsider wrote:Groan Prison Planet at it's worst;

Not good news for us, I'm afraid -

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ju ... attack.htm

The article should really be called, "Paul Joseph Watson smears Nick Kollerstrom by calling him a closet Neo Nazi."

Bad form, Paul. How does questioning things about the Holocaust make one a closet Neo Nazi?

And how does this article make you unlike the BBC?

They are so effective aren't they? Getting us to attack each other and write myriad posts which all really boil down to how "I'm not as crazy as these others, please believe me o honourable main stream media. Your good opinion means so much to me".

It really is pathetic.

karlos · Post by **karlos** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:04 pm

For some reason, people have got this political correctness disease.
By saying i am not as mad/bad as him somehow gains us credibilty.
Wrong.
As i have said before.
The mainstream zionist controlled media already regards 911 truthers, 7/7 researchers, global warming deniers, moon landing hoaxers and World War II historians as one and the same
Anyone who refuses to accept the official doctrine on any one of these issues is already a subversive element in their eyes and will never be accepted into the fold.
So why bother.
I personally cannot see how a person can reject one conspiracy yet believe in all the other fairytales?

Pugwash · Post by **Pugwash** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 9:43 pm

Karlos, Totally agree with you, the only arguments that matter are one that that can be presented on a one to one basis.

Better to have someone say ´did you see that toss pot on 911 last night´ than not to mention it at all. Only then can you start to put them straight.

chrisc · Post by **chrisc** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:00 pm

Actually this is one of the better articles from them, this is a nice summary of the situation:

Paul Joseph Watson wrote:Kollerstrom is just about the wackiest person the BBC could have picked to represent alternative explanations behind 7/7. The idea behind it is simple - pick a nutcase closet Neo-Nazi to talk about 7/7 thus sending a very clear message to the viewer - anyone who questions the official government story behind 7/7 is a holocaust denier, a lunatic, and potentially dangerous.

Dogsmilk · Post by **Dogsmilk** » Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:18 pm

karlos wrote:For some reason, people have got this political correctness disease.
By saying i am not as mad/bad as him somehow gains us credibilty.
Wrong.
As i have said before.
The mainstream zionist controlled media already regards 911 truthers, 7/7 researchers, global warming deniers, moon landing hoaxers and World War II historians as one and the same
Anyone who refuses to accept the official doctrine on any one of these issues is already a subversive element in their eyes and will never be accepted into the fold.
So why bother.
I personally cannot see how a person can reject one conspiracy yet believe in all the other fairytales?

Absolutely. As usual, you are totally spot on. It is incredible to think that people can possibly subscribe to one theory and not subscribe to all the others. It is so clear to me now. Anyone with the slightest suspicions about 911 or 7/7 should automatically believe in everything else: Holocaust denial, moon landing hoaxes, we-went-to-the-moon-but-there-were-aliens-there, lizard overlords, NPT, pod theory, non-NPT controlled demo theory, LIHOP, chemtrails, greys from Zeta Reticuli hanging round Dulce, Nazi flying saucers, the Loch Ness monster, peak oil is a scam and peak oil is being downplayed, the entire world is run by Jews, the 'Synagogue of Satan', Elvis is still alive, Paul McCartney was replaced, the Cottingly fairies...it is simply insane to suggest you can be sceptical about one conventional narrative without automatically subscribing to every other theory anyone else might be into. And you should do your level best to make people think that you do, especially when it comes to Holocaust denial. And by crikey, there is simply no point being anything but darned proud if other people think that you do too. Why anyone in the truth movement should be remotely concerned the public at large might get the impression they're probably also a Holocaust denier with an affinity for neo-Nazi literature is simply a mystery. After all, if the TV suggests this might be the case, you may as well just go along with it.
For the love of reason, Kollerstrom is just not wacky enough! He should declare himself the Messiah, claim the world is controlled by magical imps that live in his shoes and deny the Holocaust while wrestling with his arm as it tries to sieg heil on its own a la Dr Stranglove and constantly referring to the interviewer as "Mein Fuhrer": Only then should he talk about 7/7 theories on national television.
People like Paul Watson simply don't have a grip on the realities of the situation and they should thank him for his contribution and the credibility he has bestowed upon them.
And you are right to draw attention to the disgusting attitude the media has to world war II historians. It is likely that the next series of the conspiracy files will see a hit piece on Ian Kershaw's definitive two volume biography of Hitler followed by one making dark allegations about the personal life of Anthony Beevor.

danny wrote:The article should really be called, "Paul Joseph Watson smears Nick Kollerstrom by calling him a closet Neo Nazi."

I tend to agree there's no evidence he is a closet Nazi. But considering his uncritical use of neo-Nazi/anti-semite sources and the dodgy company he keeps (including some protocols of Zion touting lunatic who thinks he's the Messiah I believe) it is difficult to believe any educated person can be that naive and credulous.

karlos · Post by **karlos** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:38 am

you talk such a load of twaddle dogs im sure you are here just as an agent provocateur

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBNMDjj5LKc[/youtube]
anti-semitic?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kRrwSaAF4[/youtube]
neo-nazi?

chek · Post by **chek** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:01 am

I don't know who the provocateurs are, but their string of useful idiots has been obvious for some time.

They come in two flavours: those who spout nonsense, and those who spout damaging nonsense. It's not hard to tell.

Dogsmilk · Post by **Dogsmilk** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:07 am

karlos wrote:you talk such a load of twaddle dogs im sure you are here just as an agent provocateur

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBNMDjj5LKc[/youtube]
anti-semitic?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kRrwSaAF4[/youtube]
neo-nazi?

I am sure you're here for some kind of abstract art project.

For example, posting videos totally unconnected to what is being discussed for no apparent reason is likely intended as: Irrelevance - the nadir of rational discourse in the postmodern age.

Danny · Post by **Danny** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 4:24 pm

Dogsmilk wrote:I tend to agree there's no evidence he is a closet Nazi.

It is shameful what Paul Joseph Watson has said.

Dogsmilk wrote:But considering his uncritical use of neo-Nazi/anti-semite sources and the dodgy company he keeps (including some protocols of Zion touting lunatic who thinks he's the Messiah I believe)

Tell me, when did you first realize you were insane, so that you could begin your return to sanity, and be able to deliver sound opinions on the subject?

If you never have, you are not qualified to do such. Since you remain a lunatic unbeknownst to your self.

Dogsmilk wrote:it is difficult to believe any educated person can be that naive and credulous.

If the education you are on about makes people incredulous of everything not within the scope of that education, it can't be that good.

chek · Post by **chek** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:11 pm

Danny wrote:
Dogsmilk wrote:But considering his uncritical use of neo-Nazi/anti-semite sources and the dodgy company he keeps (including some protocols of Zion touting lunatic who thinks he's the Messiah I believe)
Tell me, when did you first realize you were insane, so that you could begin your return to sanity, and be able to deliver sound opinions on the subject?

May I point out that that is a less than reassuring answer to the questioner's (and the reader's) concerns?
Indeed, it's just the sort of answer only a total cult would give.

Dogsmilk · Post by **Dogsmilk** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:19 pm

Danny wrote:It is shameful what Paul Joseph Watson has said.

Well I rarely read Advertising Planet.com these days, but in the past I've noticed PJW does lapse into something like tabloid journalism all too frequently with the ensuing exaggeration and unsupported statements. That said, I think the article in general contains some perfectly reasonable observations. I don't think Kollerstrom is a 'closet Nazi' (though he may be for all I know) because many people who know him say he's not, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable someone may come to that conclusion based on his use of rather dodgy sources with known affiliations in that particular direction.

Tell me, when did you first realize you were insane, so that you could begin your return to sanity, and be able to deliver sound opinions on the subject?

If you never have, you are not qualified to do such. Since you remain a lunatic unbeknownst to your self.

If this nonsense statement is the kind of 'teaching' you get of Dib, if I were you I'd be asking for my money back. Unless you get cool robes for being a disciple.

Flawed as it may be, the concept of sanity is essentially socially defined. I tend to think we're all on a continuum - I've yet to meet anyone that didn't have their foibles. As it is, I've met an awful lot of insane people and spent many years being paid to help them out. To date, I've yet to be classified or felt the need to classify myself in that matter. I'd probably prefer to think of myself as eccentric.
I'm just glad I don't need the psychological nappy of having some self-proclaimed guru spouting a load of mumbo-jumbo to follow and can make my own way in the world. Or that I think I'm the Messiah - that's just such a cliche. I wonder what would happen if all the self-declared Messiahs in the world were put into one big room at the same time? God knows.

If the education you are on about makes people incredulous of everything not within the scope of that education, it can't be that good.

Well a good education should equip you with the necessary critical thinking skills to ultimately be able to critique the contents of that education itself. And that which lies beyond it. After all, it is simply not big and not clever to assume that that which lies outside the boundaries of 'conventional' thinking is inherently more likely to be true. As it is, humans have worked to develop criteria for making the best possible sense of things within the confines of language. So if two people are discussing, say, 911 it is likely both parties will be attempting to persuade one another using generally understood 'rules' of rational discourse. That would tend to include a sober and critical examination of the validity of sources cited. Anyone who seriously uses e.g. JudicialInc as a source would generally fall under the catagory of the ill-educated as it is a blatant propaganda site with numerous easily checkable instances of fallacious information. Hence that would imply the person doing the citing has a poor grasp of what generally constitutes valid source material. So for an educated person to use such poor material suggests they are probably inherently naive or credulous.

Mark Gobell · Post by **Mark Gobell** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:54 pm

Dogsmilk.

I have followed your interest in this subject since you first expressed it.

Whilst not wishing to discuss the H, as such.

Could I ask you this:

What would you consider to be non-dodgy sources of information that might help agnostics to evaluate alternative viewpoints of the H ?

chek · Post by **chek** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:19 pm

Far be it from me to butt in, but the sure-fire way to tell is that you determine that they don't suffer from stupidity.
That's the gold standard that's instantly recognisable, anytime, anywhere.

If you're still not sure, a handy double check is to ask yourself:
"Would this appeal to morons?"

If, after that, you're still not sure then ... really, don't worry about it.
You're in a lot of prestigious company.

Mark Gobell · Post by **Mark Gobell** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:59 pm

chek wrote:Far be it from me to butt in,

Surely you're not butting in Chek. This is an open forum.

chek wrote:but the sure-fire way to tell is that you determine that they don't suffer from stupidity.

That's the gold standard that's instantly recognisable, anytime, anywhere.

What is stupidity?

How do you recognise it?

chek wrote:If you're still not sure, a handy double check is to ask yourself: "Would this appeal to morons?"

Fantastic advice. Thanks.

I agree with setting the bar that high. Ever so high as it is. Which type of morons and who's morons though?

chek wrote:If, after that, you're still not sure then ... really, don't worry about it.

Some might still be troubled Chek about which sources to believe and which sources are dodgy. That's my point.

chek wrote:You're in a lot of prestigious company.

Well that comment, kinda prompted my question in the first place.

How is anyone supposed to know anything about the H, if all contrary sources are deemed to be "dodgy"?

Alternatively, how is anyone supposed to know anything about the H, if all official sources are not deemed to be dodgy?

Am I way off here ?

chek · Post by **chek** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:13 pm

Mark Gobell wrote: Am I way off here ?

In a word - yes you are.

You're asking for a few recommended scraps of fish.
I'm pointing out to you how to make a fishing rod.

Mark Gobell · Post by **Mark Gobell** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:23 pm

Cheers Chek.

Your contribution is much appreciated.

And please Chek, butt in any time you like.

To paraphrase Prole, one only asks questions . . .

And what is wrong with that?

Dogsmilk · Post by **Dogsmilk** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:11 am

Mark Gobell wrote:Dogsmilk.

I have followed your interest in this subject since you first expressed it.

Whilst not wishing to discuss the H, as such.

Could I ask you this:

What would you consider to be non-dodgy sources of information that might help agnostics to evaluate alternative viewpoints of the H ?

Your later comments make your position more clear.

How is anyone supposed to know anything about the H, if all contrary sources are deemed to be "dodgy"?

If you've been 'following my interest', you'll already know exactly why I think certain 'contrary' sources are dodgy and you can agree or disagree as is your whim. Frankly, I don't think the fact that I find a stock set of aging and generally fairly predictable arguments concocted by people who almost invariably have certain political leanings unconvincing means I can't know anything about the Holocaust.

And how exactly do you define 'contrary'?

Alternatively, how is anyone supposed to know anything about the H, if all official sources are not deemed to be dodgy?

I'm sure there is plenty of dodgy material in 'official' sources depending on your point of view. For example, Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's willing executioners is considered well dodgy by loads of people (can't say myself, but from what I know of it, his thesis does sound pretty bobbins). There is not one 'official' Holocaust narrative - there are a bunch of people arguing with each other about all kinds of aspects of it.
If you are suggesting there are basically two positions - an 'official' one and a 'contrary' one, then that is something of a straw man.
And anyway, what makes the 'official' account 'official?
Could you define exactly how it is 'official'?

blackcat · Post by **blackcat** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:51 am

Could you define exactly how it is 'official'?

Because there are laws prohibiting its denial on pain of imprisonment?

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

Evening News article on 7/7 campaigner

Evening News article on 7/7 campaigner

Not bad at all...