6
   

HOLOCAUST........ Fact or Fiction?

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 12:39 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
The whole argument about Holocaust denial requires such a huge global conspiracy, and for so many people to keep quiet that it beggars belief.


Quote:


9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of "Conspiracy Theory"

by Paul Craig Roberts

While we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition.

A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps.

For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and opinions that the New York Times does not report and the US government does not endorse.

In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore.

When piles of carefully researched books, released government documents, and testimony of eye witnesses made it clear that Oswald was not President John F. Kennedy’s assassin, the voluminous research, government documents, and verified testimony was dismissed as “conspiracy theory.”

In other words, the truth of the event was unacceptable to the authorities and to the Ministry of Propaganda that represents the interests of authorities.

The purest example of how Americans are shielded from truth is the media’s (including many Internet sites’) response to the large number of professionals who find the official explanation of September 11, 2001, inconsistent with everything they, as experts, know about physics, chemistry, structural engineering, architecture, fires, structural damage, the piloting of airplanes, the security procedures of the United States, NORAD’s capabilities, air traffic control, airport security, and other matters. These experts, numbering in the thousands, have been shouted down by know-nothings in the media who brand the experts as “conspiracy theorists.”

This despite the fact that the official explanation endorsed by the official media is the most extravagant conspiracy theory in human history.

Let’s take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.

In addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control, caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft, and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires that burned on a few floors.

The Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and cause WTC building seven to collapse at free fall speed for several seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in controlled demolition.

The story that the government and the media have told us amounts to a gigantic conspiracy, really a script for a James Bond film. Yet, anyone who doubts this improbable conspiracy theory is defined into irrelevance by the obedient media.

Anyone who believes an architect, structural engineer, or demolition expert who says that the videos show that the buildings are blowing up, not falling down, anyone who believes a Ph.D. physicist who says that the official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, anyone who believes expert pilots who testify that non-pilots or poorly-qualified pilots cannot fly airplanes in such maneuvers, anyone who believes the 100 or more first responders who testify that they not only heard explosions in the towers but personally experienced explosions, anyone who believes University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Niels Harrit who reports finding unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples from the WTC towers, anyone who is convinced by experts instead of by propaganda is dismissed as a kook.

In America today, and increasingly throughout the Western world, actual facts and true explanations have been relegated to the realm of kookiness. Only people who believe lies are socially approved and accepted as patriotic citizens.

Indeed, a writer or newscaster is not even permitted to report the findings of 9/11 skeptics. In other words, simply to report Professor Harrit’s findings now means that you endorse them or agree with them. Everyone in the US print and TV media knows that he/she will be instantly fired if they report Harrit’s findings, even with a laugh. Thus, although Harrit has reported his findings on European television and has lectured widely on his findings in Canadian universities, the fact that he and the international scientific research team that he led found unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust and have offered samples to other scientists to examine has to my knowledge never been reported in the American media.

Even Internet sites on which I am among the readers’ favorites will not allow me to report on Harrit’s findings.

As I reported earlier, I myself had experience with a Huffington Post reporter who was keen to interview a Reagan presidential appointee who was in disagreement with the Republican wars in the Middle East. After he published the interview that I provided at his request, he was terrified to learn that I had reported findings of 9/11 investigators. To protect his career, he quickly inserted on the online interview that my views on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions could be dismissed as I had reported unacceptable findings about 9/11.

The unwillingness or inability to entertain any view of 9/11 different from the official view dooms to impotence many Internet sites that are opposed to the wars and to the rise of the domestic US police state. These sites, for whatever the reasons, accept the government’s explanation of 9/11; yet, they try to oppose the “war on terror” and the police state which are the consequences of accepting the government’s explanation. Trying to oppose the consequences of an event whose explanation you accept is an impossible task.

If you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is susceptible to future attacks, then a “war on terror” and a domestic police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans safe. The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible thought.

A country whose population has been trained to accept the government’s word and to shun those who question it is a country without liberty in its future.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25339
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 02:01 pm
@Krumple,
I am simply asking you to present your own homework. If you make an outlandish claim it is up to YOU to provide evidence.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 03:44 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

So what? You probably haven't heard most reps in Washington DC declaring Israel's "democracy." You're pretty ignorant, aren't you?


It doesn't matter what the hell they call Israel. The israelies are still committing cultural genocide on the palestinians.


In my opinion, the check-points, etc. does not make for "cultural genocide," since the Palestineans still practice their culture and religion. What one might be able to argue, in my opinion, is that the check-points, etc. may be a form of ghettoization? Now, Jews are quite familiar with ghettos, thanks to the love they received in Europe over the last millenium. However, Jews never suffered from "cultural genocide" within any ghetto. Not enjoyable, but no "cultural genocide."

And, the cause of this is the suicide bombers. Does that equate to cause and effect? I think so!
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 03:46 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:
With all the evidence now pointing to the holocaust having never taken place.

Which specific evidence are you referring to?

Are you arguing that Auschwitz and Buchenwald don't exist?
Or are you arguing that the pictures of dead bodies were all photo shopped?

Because frankly there is little doubt that many Jews were killed in camps. One can argue the exact number perhaps but even that is hard to argue since the German's kept pretty clear records.


One of the interesting things that people neglect to take into consideration when they look at all the photos of the dead bodies is why are they all missing hair? If they were dropped off the train and sent directly into the gas chambers why shave their heads? Seems a little odd to take all the time and mess to shave their heads only to send them to their deaths a few minutes later.


The lack of hair was to deal with lice when they first came into the camp.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 04:09 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Brainwashed? You mean because I was 'educated' by those, who survived and those who 'worked' as guards in KZs? Because I can understand what those people said and wrote?


Those who have a lot to gain by lying will lie to suit their agendas. The jews had massive incentive to lie and perpetuate lies for their agenda.


My dear Krumple: You might have the proverbial cart before the horse, since the "incentive to lie" may be Europe collectively, since very few wanted the Jewish survivors to return to their countries of origin. However, if some claim that the Jews were one big mass of Zionists, seeking a rationale for a Zionist State, then one can supposedly deduce that Jews were plotting the interpretation of history. However, in actuality, only 500,000 Jews remained in Europe to wind up in Israel, and that was by default, since their countries of origin might have killed them if they returned, since someone was already living in their previous homes, and owned their previous possessions. What you might not be aware of is that many German Jews that survived, and wound up in Israel, was not necessarily Zionists. Many were just German Jews that might have thought of Israel as a booby prize, compared to their pre-WWII life in Germany. You seem to make so many generalizations about Jews. You apparently do not know that Jews from different countries reflect that original country's culture. Only a rose, is a rose, is a rose. However, some people do think a Jew, is a Jew, is a Jew.

So, if 5,999,999 Jews died due to being worked to death or starvation or disease in the work camps, and only 1 Jew went to a gas chamber, do you think that that disqualitifes the need for a Zionist State, when the 500,000 survivors could not go back to their countries' of origin?

You might not understand the depth of anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Europe? It was so pervasive, that there were standard comments that "at least the Nazis got rid of the Jews."

Have a pleasant day my dear Krumple.
wmwcjr
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 04:48 pm
Krumple -- another hateful bigot to put on "Ignore." Oh, well, she's got the company of a few others.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:54 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Brainwashed? You mean because I was 'educated' by those, who survived and those who 'worked' as guards in KZs? Because I can understand what those people said and wrote?


Those who have a lot to gain by lying will lie to suit their agendas. The jews had massive incentive to lie and perpetuate lies for their agenda.


My dear Krumple: You might have the proverbial cart before the horse, since the "incentive to lie" may be Europe collectively, since very few wanted the Jewish survivors to return to their countries of origin. However, if some claim that the Jews were one big mass of Zionists, seeking a rationale for a Zionist State, then one can supposedly deduce that Jews were plotting the interpretation of history. However, in actuality, only 500,000 Jews remained in Europe to wind up in Israel, and that was by default, since their countries of origin might have killed them if they returned, since someone was already living in their previous homes, and owned their previous possessions. What you might not be aware of is that many German Jews that survived, and wound up in Israel, was not necessarily Zionists. Many were just German Jews that might have thought of Israel as a booby prize, compared to their pre-WWII life in Germany. You seem to make so many generalizations about Jews. You apparently do not know that Jews from different countries reflect that original country's culture. Only a rose, is a rose, is a rose. However, some people do think a Jew, is a Jew, is a Jew.

So, if 5,999,999 Jews died due to being worked to death or starvation or disease in the work camps, and only 1 Jew went to a gas chamber, do you think that that disqualitifes the need for a Zionist State, when the 500,000 survivors could not go back to their countries' of origin?

You might not understand the depth of anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Europe? It was so pervasive, that there were standard comments that "at least the Nazis got rid of the Jews."

Have a pleasant day my dear Krumple.


You invented this idea. I never claimed they were zionists or were plotting anything to do with the establishment of israel. So you basically set up a strawman argument, one that I never made. So where are these so called generalizations that I made about the jews?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 09:57 pm
@wmwcjr,
wmwcjr wrote:

Krumple -- another hateful bigot to put on "Ignore." Oh, well, she's got the company of a few others.


This is what I am talking about. I never said anything hateful towards the jews at all. I didn't wish them anything bad. Never said anything negative or derogatory towards jews at all. Yet I get branded a bigot because I question the number of deaths. Show me where I have been a bigot?

The only thing I have done was remind people like you, that you are a moron for misunderstanding the entire conversation.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 10:07 pm
@Krumple,

By ignoring all the facts (millions of hits on Search) and believing some right wing hate group for your info.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 10:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
By ignoring all the facts (millions of hits on Search) and believing some right wing hate group for your info.


What you call facts are skewed data. I say I have facts that do not support the numbers. You want to keep thinking that you have the accurate "facts" which is just restating the data that is unreliable.

Many of my sources are coming directly from that of jews that claimed to survive the camps. Designs of the buildings and how they were laid out. When you try to match the descriptions to the actual lay outs you can clearly see something is wrong. Stories don't add up. I don't get my info from pro-nazi or anti-jew sites like you want to think that I do. This is just another attempt at deflection of truth. You don't like that I am digging up the truth and displaying it so you want to shut me up and brand me.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 10:43 pm
@Krumple,
Explain the following;
a. Why the design of the buildings were not properly "laid out?"
* I visited Auschwitz and Birkenau, so you need to be specific.
b. What do you consider "something is wrong?"
c. What stories "don't add up?"
d. What truth that you think are being "deflected" are you talking about?
e. What sources did you use?

Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 10:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Explain the following;
a. Why the design of the buildings were not properly "laid out?"
* I visited Auschwitz and Birkenau, so you need to be specific.
b. What do you consider "something is wrong?"
c. What stories "don't add up?"
d. What truth that you think are being "deflected" are you talking about?
e. What sources did you use?


I have answered all of those questions already.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 11:03 pm
@Krumple,
No, you didn't. Show me?
If you had, I would have challenged each one.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 11:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Holocaust/k2reconstuction.jpg

Quick walk through. Reference the numbers in the picture. This is a design lay out isometric view of one Auschwitz crematorium.

8. This area was where the prisoners were brought in referred to as the changing room. It was under ground so at the upper end of the picture is a set of stairs leading up and outside of the building.

The prisoners were brought down the steps and into changing room where their clothes were taken away and their heads shaved. They were given prisoner uniforms at this point as well.

Once complete they were led toward room 5. Notice how cramped the area is.

There are two small hall ways that link room 8 to room 5. As claimed 2000 prisoners would have to be led from 8 to 5 to get into room 9.

9. This room is considered to be the "gas" chamber even though on all of the german design documents it is referred to as the delousing chamber.

This is where all the clothing confiscated from room 8 would end up as claims by the germans. However the other claims are that it was the gas chamber.

2000 people at a time were claimed to have been crammed into room 9. There are vents in the ceiling that were used to toss down the zyklon b to kill the prisoners with.

The center columns of room 9 are where the vents are. The claims that guards were on the roof of the building and would open hatches and toss down the zyklon b. A convenient story since the vents doubled as exhaust vents for the gas.

Mind you room 9 is also underground.

Once the gas was ventilated and the prisoners were dead the bodies had to be removed from room 9 by going back into room 5 and use the elevator 6.

6. The lift elevator is a small cramped location that wouldn't hold very many bodies at a time. But it is the only way to get into the crematory room 1.

2000 bodies had to be removed from room 9 and into room 5 and then up the lift 6. All of this would have been done by hand. I doubt bodies were carried by one worker. It would probably require two workers per body to carry them. With the cramped space I doubt there were more than two workers but that could be argued.

1. The crematory housed 15 cremators. The claims were that 4 or 5 bodies were piled into each at a time so the total would be either 60 to 75 bodies burned at the same time.

People involved in cremation of human bodies were interviewed and provided photographs of the crematory and even they claimed there wasn't enough space to cram in 4 or 5 bodies. At the most 2 could be placed in each.

Not only that but each body would require two hours of burning but if there were two bodies it would take longer.

So realistically only 30 bodies could be burned at a time. This leaves 1970 corpses left to burn after 2 or 2.5 hours.

It would require 130 hours to completely destroy 2000 bodies. This is assuming that it required 2 hours to burn 30 bodies at a time.

This means it required 5.4 days to burn 2000 bodies.

This means they could only cremate 12,000 bodies a month.

It means 144,000 a year.

There was only a 5 year time line from 1940 to the end of the war.

In the 5 year span a max of 720,000. Far short of a million.

Let me remind you. This would mean for 5 years straight non stop they would have to be bringing in prisoners, and sending them to the chambers immediately. No down time. If you add in the photographing, the head shaving, the clothing and the escorting it adds in more time needed to complete the job.

Not a very efficient plan at all.

You could suggest they used other methods such as digging trenches and tossing bodies into the pits. However you can't just toss a match into the pit and expect them to burn.

You could also dig trenches and just toss the bodies in and then bury it. They wouldn't have used this method because it would have polluted the ground water. The germans living in the camp used well water and this would have been polluted. Not only that but the water table in the area was extremely close to the surface. Making ground contaminates easier to spread.

Even if you were to add up all the camps who had crematories you can't get a 6 million figure.

Not only that but Auschwitz has been given the title where most of the deaths occured.

But just to humor the extreme case. Let's examine if the 6 bodies claim could be true.

It would then require 2.13 days to burn all 2000 bodies.
2.13 days. = 2000

This means 28k a month.
28,169 a month.

This means 338k a year.
338,028 a year

This means 1.6 million in 5 years.
1,690,140 in 5 years.

Far short of the 6 million mark.

Remember this would mean the best case possible scenario. It means the prisoners would have to be non stop moving into the camp. The trains would have to be constantly delivering new prisoners. They would have to immediately get brought in and processed. Photos taken, heads shaven, clothed and escorted.

It would be a 24 hour non stop process for 5 years straight. How realistic is that? This doesn't even take into consideration the time that bodies would be laying around waiting to be burned. That means for an entire two day span bodies would be laying around. What about the smell? What about flies? The crematory would reek of death that the next incoming group wouldn't be alarmed?

Not to mention groups of prisoners would have to over lap to make it work. This means while they were burning bodies they were sending more prisoners to their deaths.

Some argue there were additional crematories on the camp. Yes this is true but there was only two in operation. The third was never completed. The german guards also claim that crematory 1 (the other functioning building) was never used. Crematory 2 was the only one in operation according to many claims from guards.

Even if all three were working or in operation that still only makes the total 4.8 million at Auschwitz. But remember this would mean it was a non stop process. 24 hour every day for 5 years straight to get this number.

Not only is it short of the mark it is unrealistic.

Sure you could say there were other camps destroying bodies in the same method. Two camps running the same time could easily total over the 6 million mark. But this still takes into consideration that they would have to run non stop for 5 years straight.

It is simply not realistic that Auschwitz was the death camp that it is made out to be. When guards testimony and known details do not hold up to the claims.

It doesn't mean that they didn't have deaths. Sure there were many deaths from disease and malnutrition. To prevent the spread of disease the germans burned the corpses since putting them into the ground would pollute the water source.

I wanted to add another visual to help you understand the process. Refrence this video to show the 3d version of the lay out and process.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3EeTFtYr5E
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 02:48 am
@cicerone imposter,
You just made those claims; how could you have answered them?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 02:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You just made those claims; how could you have answered them?


See this is why it is a waste of time to explain anything to a moron. I get responses like this. You are a moron.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:49 am
@cicerone imposter,
Did you say anything relevant?
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:53 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Did you say anything relevant?


You respond to your own statement to ask yourself if you said anything relevant? Talking to yourself now?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
What's that again? I can't hear you!
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:57 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

What's that again? I can't hear you!


It's good to see you are supporting the fact that you are a moron. I did as you had asked, knowing the whole time it would be a waste of time. You accuse me of not responding to your request. When I do, you have nothing to say in response except a bunch of nonsense. I did it to prove to you and anyone else watching this thread that you are a moron. Thanks for proving my point for me.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 10:34:11