One Third Of The Holocaust:More Compelling Evidence It Never Happened

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Bit early isn´t it?
[for the 6 million count]
No, I don't see why its early.


There is mutual agreement that the major camp transports started no sooner than 1942, making 1943 or even 1944 as a time to start mentioning figures "as many as six million Jews were killed" strange to say the least. No one knew for sure until the Soviets liberated Auschwitz in 1945 anyway, up until then it was all speculation.



They didn't want lice and disease spreading throughout the population.
The argument that you would not shave prisoners if you are going to kill them anyway. This is a point.



No contest. This seems like a perfectly logical reason to shave.



And, agian, question this, WHY are the prisoners in the FIRST place? Its because the nazis thought that the jews, as a people, culture, and practice, are a problem that needs to be 'dealt' with.


Totally irrelevant. I nor anyone else is questioning the transports, the subhuman treatments, and the insanity of the "übermensch" master race ideology. Again, just placing logical indications against history being tought and data being presented as evidence to support the official version of the Holocaust, and if parts are exagerrated, looking for answers as to why those exaggerations where created or by whom.



When you start installing secret gas chambers into such a situation, its pretty clear that the solution to the problme isn't to move them out, re-educate them, or anything other than to kill them.


If they were so secret, they would have built them underground. Surely the Germans could very well have figured out that aerial photos could be taken in the future? Which brings me to a later point: I have looked at the aerial photos, and wonder how anyone can determine that any building would have been certainly used to gas people. If you can prove this to yourself please convince me too.



The nazis used the people in the camps as slaves. That means that they had to do basic things to keep the camp operational, such as dealing with head lice, and rather than treat head lice, they just cut their hair off. They didn't do it to be nice or make the prisoners comfortable.


No contest. On the contrary, I´m sure they made the prisoners very uncomfortable. After all they were by law not even considered human and were stripped from all civil rights.



Diesel Fumes Kill 21,000 Americans Yearly.


O, come now. There is a big difference between cancer and heart disease risk and claiming that everyone in a non-hermetically sealed room died within half an hour because of Diesel fumes. Really...



What's more, who cares if diesel couldn't kill? Zyklon-B certainly does,


Again, that is precisely the point. If several Treblinka witnessess claim that masses were killed using Diesel fumes, and this turns out to be untrue I want to know why they lied, and what else was lied about!


and a methodological programme of starvation certainly does, and the actual death counts clearly show that around 6 million jews went into the death camps, and only a tiny fraction ever made it out.


I have searched and searched, but I have not once encountered a source with actual death counts where not the word "estimates" was present. Other arguments are usually, "well not everyone was registered" and "it is very hard to get factual numbers because in those days most people were not even registered in their own towns" or words to that effect. Again, I am not saying that these people were not killed, I am not saying that they were not persecuted, I am saying that there are at least conflicting indications and voices (which clearly are not all neo-nazis) which say the numbers do not add up, and that many accounts are highly exaggerated. I want to know who is right, and want to find this out by analyzing as much "raw" information -not propaganda either way- as is available preferably.


The secret gas chambers at the camps had air-tight, pressure doors. They were NOT showers. THey had FAKE shower heads. They had drawers for inserting zyklon-b in them, and the 'exit' door lead straight
to the camp morgue.


Not according to people like Gemar Rudolf. I´m quite sure that there are dozens of eyewitness accounts that state otherwise, (even though it strikes me as odd that a witness could get in a gas chamber and get out alive again) but technical studies say otherwise, e.g. that some sections were simply created post war as they "would have been".



The forensic evidence clearly shows that they were using gas chambers and starvation and just plain old shootings to execute millions of jews.


Anecdotal != Forensic by a long shot.


I would accept only experiments if they were of logical use to the Nazis




So people who witnessed these things can't give an accurate accounting, or docuemnts must be fake, if they don't seem like sensible experiments?

There were terrible and well documented experiments in the camps for sure. But... Do you not think that some claims of eyewitnesses seem over the top? Again, strange that prisoners were able to witness these experiments in the first place, as they would have been conducted in a controlled environment away from the general population.



What is 'lrational' to a irrationialist like a nazi?

Germans in general are known for their meticulous efficiency. German Nazis were even worse to that effect in that they completed their tasks in a structered, controlled and efficient way. Are experiments which served no obvious purpose to the German Reich or the war effort more likely to have happened or not to have happened?

continued on next page

Edit: spelling and quote errors

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Truth4hire]




posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   


Since they cremated many remains, hardly seems like a sensible claim. What mathematics prove this?


Why were no ashes or human remains found at Treblinka by the team of Australian scientists when they did a geological survey? See above. Simple volume calculations will tell you you cannot bury 700.000 corpses under a 300 x 180 meter terrain, not even in 6 layers.




The soap story at least is urban legend, debunked by Yad Vashem et al:

And what does Yad Vashem, Yehuda Bauer, et al, say about the holocaust itself?
They say it happened, and that it consumed around 6 million Jews.


My point being that some stories simply were not true. What they say about the Holocaust itself is irrelevant to the soap argument.



True enough, there are untrue stories surrounding the holocaust


Why? Give me one good reason why some witnesses have lied, exaggerated and distorted the truth? I simply fail to understand why someone e.g. invent a story about the damned soap.



, BUT, it is still true that the nazis planned to exterminate the jews in germany,

They most certainly wanted them out of the German Reich, and yes, probably kill them all in the end well hello, if you think logically, that must have been the intention. They were certainly not going to keep them in camps indefinitly.



moved them into death camps, and killed around 6 million before they

were defeated, many of which were annihliated in gas chambers.


That´s what history tells us. I´m trying to figure out if it was scientifically possible with whatever forensic evidence is available. I could make it easy for everyone by saying. OK I accept that! Ofcourse history is correct and it happened exactly as we are told.

(...but I would still check it all the same because I am stubborn until I see the forensics)


Anyone questioning history as it happened should not be called or be classified as a Nazi./quote]
I think its fair enough to be convinced by a slick presentation. But the people that made that film are flat out

liars, they are making stuff up and distroting the facts to deny the holocaust.


Why the anger? I´d rather see specifics before calling anyone flat out liars. Let me give you an example. If one Mr. Callahan, former flight director of the F.A.A. steps into a conference holding factual forensic evidence of an unidentified flying object being tracked and recorded by ATC computers, noone believes him. But when scores of people tell the most gruesome stories about atrocities that are so bad that they are very hard to believe without (enough) forensic evidence everyone says "O, it must be so". An emotional or knee-jerk response that "WHAT ABOUT THE STACKS OF BODIES EH?".

Well ofcourse they were there. This was no holiday camp. People were executed, hundreds died of typhoid each and every day in the last year (and that IS a fact because the bodies were examined). Your stacks of bodies of which those famous pictures were taken died of desease and malnutrition. This makes sense, because the victims who were gassed would have naturally been cremated, because the Zyklon-B Blausäure is highly toxic, and you would not be able to leave stacks of remains lying around. Do not get me wrong, I am not degrading the memory of the victims, but just saying what I think seems logical, and doing so without emotion.


THere are plenty of serious researchers out there who've looked into the holocaust to sperate fact from fiction, debunking some stories, getting accurate counts, etc. The people that made that film clearly are not 'honest, radical, historians', they are promoting lies, to vilify the jews. They are neo-nazis.


I do not even know what neo-nazi means. Truly. What is that, someone who hates Jews? Someone who admires Hitler? Someone who has National-Socialist beliefs as in cravings for a fascistic regime with a single leader and persecutions of minorities?. I do not think that the author of this film hate Jews. I do not hate Jews. I do not even know any Jews personally. What I do think is that the author tries to warn about the influence of the Jewish race in the current time. See above about the Jewish influence in Media, Politics, Business etc. What annoys me is that if you even say the word Jew or mention that there are a lot of Jewish people in important positions all over the world you are labelled a neo-nazi. So I cannot remark that I find it odd that the most important governing bodies of the world are manned by people from Jewish origine? What if tomorrow suddenly top executives of banks and media were all Finnish? All Hykannenn Fraggennarhyk and Grötenfrökne or what ever these Finnish names are? Then all of a sudden it seems odd. But not to the Media, because naturally the Finnish would not report it in their own Media.




Noone should be punished for researching the past.

If only that was what most holocaust deniers were actualy doing. THey're not. Rather, they are simply

interested in covering up the holocaust, reducing the number of people killed, and puting up more attacks

on the jews.


Well thanks, I wasn´t aware I was doing that at all until you mentioned it. Caramba. Now I´m really in trouble for wrting the remarks in the former paragraph about the Jewish power structure.

continued on next page



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   



It sure is. And if these records are tamper-proof, validated by several independent authorities and undisputed by all parties, I rest my case and humbly apologize if I offended anyone by questioning history.

Short of an all powerful jewish conspiracy that magically made up all sorts of records and somehow dumped all these bodies into mass graves and moved all these jews out of europe and fabricated every eyewitness account of the executions, both by prisoners and nazi's operating the camps and the nazis weren't really all that bad and just wanted the jews to move......then we'll have to go with 'it happened, it was real, they killed around 6 million people'


That´s precisely what I am looking for. Was there a conspiracy? Were documents faked? Is it at all possible that eyewitness accounts were faked? These questions must be asked if you are to review the entire evidence presented in the case of the Holocaust. I will probably conclude that it must have happened because there appears to be a lack of evidence which undeniably proves there was a conspiracy and that documents were faked and that witnesses lied and exagerated (on a large scale).



I mean, you started out with 'i want to look at the evidence, and let it lead me', but now you are saying 'the evidence can't be trusted, because the jews and zionists MIGHT have gotten to it.
One of the reasons I have asked to change the subject of this thread is that there are indications (not evidence) that there was tampering.



Again, what does it matter if some zionists were in talks to relocate jews to palestine, spain, etc?


It matters in the context of a conspiracy. Zionists doing backroom deals with the Nazi regime is not exacly popular history is it?



Again, what does ANY of this have to do with the actual number of people murdered in the death camps as part of a plan to exterminate the jews?


He is trying to prove his point that the Holocaust scenario might have been planned by the Zionists to obtain the state of Israël. Bonding of the people, centralization, and the funds to finance their state.



quote: While German men were off fighting the jobs they had as civilians still needed to be done, materials for WAR needed to be created, hence the term LABOR camps.

These were slave labour camps, and only 'undesirables' and soviet prisoners were put into them. If the nazis put people into camps, and didn't feed them, even if they intended to feed them, then they are still responsible for their deaths.


Well ofcourse they were fed. If not everyone would be dead within four weeks, and no slave work could have been done. You seem to forget that the Red Cross visited all three compounds on a regular basis, and that they did not find evidence of systematic extermination by either gassing or starvation.


They wanted to exterminate them, and did so in large part by scientifically rationing out their food to give them enough strength to be able to perform the forced labour, until the next trainload of healthier prisoners showed up to obsolete them.


You are probably exactly right, but this does not explain the Red Cross.



The Jews were NOT enemies of the state. They were innocent GERMAN civilians.


Wrong and Right. They were enemies of the state by law, and they were innocent german (...) civilians.



quote: The Zionists wanted the Jews out, the German leadership wanted the Jews out. They BOTH colluded to get this done. FACT. Its true that zionists wanted to have the jews have the option to leave germany for zion. Thats a fact. THe distortion is that they worked with the nazis to create the holocaust. The distortion is that the fact that the zionists were smart enough to want a homeland for the jews to avoid the persecution that they were experiencing, somehow legitimatizes the holocaust, or somehow contradicts the fact that the holcaust happened.


Interesting theory, but until I need to read the books you referred to earlier in this thread to see why you think that.



And what does any of it matter, since the nazis had de-parasitizing fumigation chambers right next to the death chambers that used toxic gas on clothing, and that clearly the commandant wasn't so stupid as to have his quarters sitting in wafts of toxic gas???


You´re angry again. And wrong. Look at the map of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the three delousing chambers lay to the north east, clear of the prisoner barracks, and even further clear of the crematoria, which were located to the south. (If you declare the top of the map North).



Odd that you would cite IHR as proof that there were no gas chambers at aushwitz, when they offered a $50,000 to anyone that could prove they existed, and ended up paying it to a camp surivor.


I did not know that, link please. Love to see what testimony convinced the court.



There is aerial photography showing that the chambers, vents and all, existed, if the eyewitness accounts of prisoners and camp operators isn't enough. There are chamber blue prints, forms to order the zyklon-b, foresnic evidence that they were being used to exterminate human beings, etc.


Yes, but no traces of BlauSäure on the walls.

Wikipedia : About Gemar Rudolf

More revisionist material

I do neither endorse nor condemn the authors of these, I merely provide a pointer. After all, this is a conspiracy discussion board, and right or wrong, discussion is good. Especially if you are a lone conspiracy nut like me.

Thank you for taking the time to respond Nygdan.

Edit: fixed quote errors

[edit on 3-2-2007 by Truth4hire]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
If I recall correctly, back in the 1970's/1980's in a court of law in California it was proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Holocaust really did happen. Sides the survivors, and I have met about 2, were very convinced on what had happed to them and what was going on around them and to their families.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
All I have to say about this topic is this:

Saying the Holocaust never happened is saying hundreds of thousands of jewish people lied and are all keeping a secret. It is saying all the testimony by the Nazis is a lie and they all kept a secret. Get my point?

Now everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when the facts are right in your face and you fail to realize it, it just shows pure ignorance.



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I think what ticks people off the most about the holocaust is the compulsory guilt that gets spun from it.

The Armenian massacre was probably just as brutal, and i dont think i was ever taught anything about it or even the entire ottoman empire that matter. but the slaughter of jews...? why is it so important?

Life was brutal back then, it still is in a lot of parts, but even the norm was pretty harsh to deal with.

Canada had forced labour camps, we took everything the japanese owned and sent them to labour camps. we sent chinese, japanese, indians, you name it, truckin off into a tunnel with a lite stick of dynamite. ya i guess we expected them to come back, but sometimes...

I like how the American dealt with the american native indian, real civilized



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

by sdcigarpig:
If I recall correctly, back in the 1970's/1980's in a court of law in California it was proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Holocaust really did happen.


Link to trial transcript please.


by sdcigarpig:
I have met about 2, were very convinced on what had happed to them and what was going on around them and to their families.


What does "about 2" mean? You cannot remember exactly how many Holocaust survivors you have met?


by MasterRegal:
Saying the Holocaust never happened is saying hundreds of thousands of jewish people lied and are all keeping a secret.


I agree. Who is saying that? I´ve asked for a mod to change the subject of this thread already, and have already mentioned several times that "it never happened" should be followed by "...as history tells us".


by MasterRegal:
Now everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when the facts are right in your face and you fail to realize it, it just shows pure ignorance.


Accepting facts based on refutable evidence like heresay seems to me more likely the pure ignorance you are referring to.


by tom goose:
I think what ticks people off the most about the holocaust is the compulsory guilt that gets spun from it.


What sparks my interest is the possibility of some form of conspiracy with regards to the Holocaust history, and the implications this has.


by tom goose:
The Armenian massacre was probably just as brutal,(...) how the American dealt with the american native indian, real civilized


I agree and could give you scores of other examples like the Allied bombing of Dresden for example where well over 100.000 civilian woman and children died. Or the camps of Stalin. I could go on and on and on about atrocities done by armies and regimes in the past and present, but this would distract me from the purpose of this thread, which is to determine the validity of the claims made in the documentary "One Third Of The Holocaust", and the subsequent discussion about the validity of evidence supporting the official story of the Holocaust as it is known in modern history, and, as you say, why there seems to be some form of censorship if you wish to research anything remotely relating to the Holocaust.

Thanks for all replies.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Truth4hire]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
There are also many accusations of the falsification of documents. Where are these aerial photographs and how do we know when they were taken? Since the reconstruction of the "gas chambers" seemed to be an American priority following the end of the War it would also stand to reason that the motive for such haste would also compel the perpetrators to recreate other so-called evidence.


The aerial pictures do exist, links are in this thread somewhere. However the rebuilding of the alleged gaschambers is a crucial point, it would certainly explain the absence of Iron Blue in the walls like Leuchtner and Rudolf state.

I would expect much more members of ATS to come forward with critical questions like the ones subz addresses above. The absence of those questions speaks volumes about the taboo which rests on this subject.

Why such a taboo? Or am I simply on everyone´s ignore list?

Let me disclose to you who is on mine:



[edit on 4-2-2007 by Truth4hire]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
in regards to all the testimony from acctual survivors, i have a very lrge thorn in my mind.

*for some reason the holocaust web site is down right now so my references are null*

but if you take the the survivor/barber he tells a story of pain and loss, constantly referring to the "gas chamber"(that he worked in). it very possible he was told it was a gas chamber after the war. prior to his release he only had suspicion, because he never seen the others again(people fear what they dont know). after he was told it was a gas chamber the story changes in his mind.

now im not say this infact did happen , what im saying is it seems likely.

now let superimpose this idea on the whole incident.

1 we can say the captives were never told anything they did not need to know.

2 becuase of this absense of knowledge, rumors stat to develop

3 most people that went though this never seen thier families again(separated by distance/death)

4 the people that were woking with the nazi's wanted answers.

5 the new govts provided that answer, in a broard news release


so we have a bunch of people that havent a clue why these things are taking place, and then they are told genocide was the prime directive. the people who did survive are greatful their turn never came. but what if no ones turn every came, but the deaths camps explained their separation from their loved ones. so they opted their intellect for the to painfull reality that was presented to them(loss).

now i know many survivors are no longer with us(old age). but out of all of them how many acctually tried to find out what really happened??

death camps or delousing camps???



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
WTF said it was a shower? I didnt.

You said its not a gas chamber. So what is it subz? What is that chimney venting if not toxic gas? What was that room labeled 'showers' on their blueprints, if not a fake shower or a real shower, and what was the chimney for?

Oh, so when you're wrong it just doesn't matter eh?

I never said I was wrong, so I fail to see how this statement is relevant.

The "gas chambers" at Auschwitz are not authentic, they are reproductions.

Subz, no one is saying that the gas chambers that are at the museums now were entirely built by the nazis. The camp was attacked, raided, and the structures, to say the least, weren't being preserved by anyone. Are you saying that there were infact gas chambers, but that they were destroyed, and these ones are just reproductions, or that there were never any gas chambers there at all and the whole thing is fantasy?

Care to cite any evidence of this $50,000 pay out or should we just accept everything you say as Gospel?


www.nizkor.org.../m/mermelstein.mel//mermelstein.text

Defendants LIBERTY LOBBY, WILLIS CARTO, ELISABETH CARTO, LEGION FOR SURVIVAL OF FREEDOM, INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, and NOONTIDE PRESS, and each of them, are jointly and severally liable to plaintiff MEL MERMELSTEIN for the sum of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00)



There are also many accusations of the falsification of documents.

This is meaningless. Either demonstrate that the documents were falsified, or admit that it hasn't been demonstrated that they've been falsified.

Aliens from dimension X could have teleported 6 million jews out of the germany, and then fabricated with their alien printing presses nazi documents to make it look like they were killed.
Yes. That is a possibility. Again, any demonstration that the documents used to uncover how many people were killed, the methods used, and even the private diaries of the nazi camp operators, were all falsified?

Where are these aerial photographs and how do we know when they were taken?




Could aliens from dimension x have created these and other images? Yes, its possible. Can you demonstrate that they did?


would also compel the perpetrators to recreate other so-called evidence.

No one sites the existence of the holocaust museum at aushwitz right now as proof that the holocaust happened.




Truth4hire
If they were so secret, they would have built them underground.

I am sorry, but I think we can all agree that because the nazis didn't do soem things that we might've expected them to do, that therefore they didn't do the holocaust.
The chambers are real. They had fake shower heads. They lead directly into the morgue. They had drawers and vents and pressure sealed doors for the zyklon-b that they had in the camps.
The fact that the chambers weren't underground does not somehow negate those other facts.
Besides, if you make the jews walk down stairs and then kill them, you've got to lug them upstairs to burn them. Better to do it at floor level.

I have looked at the aerial photos, and wonder how anyone can determine that any building would have been certainly used to gas people. If you can prove this to yourself please convince me too.

For what purpose would there be that room, next to the clothing fumigation room, leading to the camp morgue, with gas vents??

There is a big difference between cancer and heart disease risk and claiming that everyone in a non-hermetically sealed room died within half an hour because of Diesel fumes.

If you really beleive that diesel fumes are, infact, healthy, because of their oxygen content, then by all means, rent a diesel engine truck, connect a hose from the exhaust to the cab, roll the windows up, and start the engine.

If several Treblinka witnessess claim that masses were killed using Diesel fumes, and this turns out to be untrue I want to know why they lied, and what else was lied about!

Even if the SS officer who gave that testimony was lying, why does that mean that everyone lied?
And here's the thing, there is nothing to indicate that he was lying. Diesel fumes can and will kill you, you can fit the number of people into the rooms that he said were put in, and other, independant, witnesses gave corroborating testimony to witnessing other diesel gassing episodes.

but I have not once encountered a source with actual death counts where not the word "estimates" was present

Yes. There will never be anything other than an estimate. Indeed, how could there be?

I want to know who is right, and want to find this out by analyzing as much "raw" information -not propaganda either way- as is available preferably.

I would fairly and openly suggest that you should start with the people making the 6 million 'claim', get the books from Yehuda Bauer, check his sources, and do follow-ups on his bibliography.

Not according to people like Gemar Rudolf.

Rudolf claimed that there was more cyanide in the fumigation chambers than in the gas-chambers.

www.nizkor.org...
Markiewicz, Gubala, and Labedz of the Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow demonstrated that HCN was present in the homicidal gas chambers, i.e., Krema I, Krema II, Krema III, Krema IV, Krema V, and the cellars of Bunker 11, at levels above other facilities in the AB complex

Essentially, Rudolph claimed that the fumigation chambers were stained with Prussian Blue, a byproduct of Cyanide Gas, and the death chambers weren't. THe problem is that there is more CN gases in the death chambers, and that the death chambers were regularly cleaned of blood and excrement after use, whereas the fumigation rooms weren't, this would also wash away the Prussian Blue.

And notice also that we see here why those little neo-nazi singers have chosen Prussian Blue as their band's name.

What nice girls.

And yes, I know that that has nothing to do with the claims, but I can't help but to point it out as an interesting side note.


Anecdotal != Forensic by a long shot.

I do not understand, what are you saying is anecdotal here?

Do you not think that some claims of eyewitnesses seem over the top?

No. Mankind is capable of horrors that you can't even imagine.

Are experiments which served no obvious purpose to the German Reich or the war effort more likely to have happened or not to have happened?

The nazi psychology and philosophy is anti-rational, so, again, I don't see why it should be important if they were doing irrational things. It was irrational to hate the jews, fellow germans at that, in the first place. There is nothing rational in the nazi ideology. It is 'beyond rationality'.

My point being that some stories simply were not true. What they say about the Holocaust itself is irrelevant to the soap argument.

Yes, some stories were not true, and some were not verified. But again, that doesn't mean that all stories were not true, and none of that means that they didn't order, store, build, and use execution gas chambers. If we rely on the non anecdotal evidence alone, then we have nothing left to conclude other than that they were exterminating millions of jews and other people in these things.

Why? Give me one good reason why some witnesses have lied

It is irrelevant.

I simply fail to understand why someone e.g. invent a story about the damned soap.

People more reported that they had heard that the nazis were making soap out of human remains, british POWs in particular. They didn't lie about it, they said that they had heard rumours about it. This is quite different from someone lying about having seen it happen, or anything like that. IN some cases, the POWs beleived that the nazis made people into soap because germans threatened to do this to them.


But the holocaust deniers don't tell this, they simply say, 'people slandered the germans by saying that they did this, but it never happened, such liars!". Its propaganda, subtly distorted and partially released information, done to illicit an effect, a mental state, in the recipient of the propaganda. NOT historical research.



. I´m trying to figure out if it was scientifically possible with whatever forensic evidence is available.

But what scientific evidence have you seen that refutes there having been these things done? What scientific evidence do you want to see? Thye chemical studies on the residues in the execution chambers? The requisition orders for the killing gas? The tabulations of the number of jews shipped in, and the number of jews that were left at the end? Which?

because I am stubborn until I see the forensics

What forensic evidence did that 4 hour series of videos present?


Why the anger?

I am angry with the so called 'holocaust revisionists' because they are lying cowardly scum, who try to hide behind the very freedoms and protections that people died trying to defend at home and restore to germany, and they do all this just to be able to attack the jews. They are lying cowardly scum.
I don't have any anger at people who read their propaganda and become convinced by it. The nazis are good at propaganda, so good infact that they are able to use it to convince people that the holocaust itself is just 'anti-nazi propaganda'.

I´d rather see specifics before calling anyone flat out liars.

Again, what evidence are you reserving judgment for?

I am not degrading the memory of the victims, but just saying what I think seems logical, and doing so without emotion.

But what are you saying happened then?
You agree that the nazis wanted to exterminate the jews.
You agree that there were execution chambers.
Are you just questioning the number of dead?
Because there is no chemical evidence telling us the number of dead, indeed there can't be. It is all based on nazi records and demographic studies. If you disagree that it was around 6 million, then you need to look at the demographic studies, the actual demographic studies and not just nazi-propaganda summaries of it, or denials that it exists, and then show what errors were made.

I do not even know what neo-nazi means. Truly. What is that, someone who hates Jews? Someone who admires Hitler? Someone who has National-Socialist beliefs as in cravings for a fascistic regime with a single leader and persecutions of minorities?. I do not think that the author of this film hate Jews.

Anyone who is going to make a movie containing lies and deceptions about the holocaust like that and that tries to cover up the nazi crime practically, by definition, hates jews. Its not that the person making the film is simply mistaken or incorrect, they are lying. The research exists and is out there, and yet they are pushing flat out lies. Why? They're not doing historical research that is 'controversial', they are pushing lies.


What I do think is that the author tries to warn about the influence of the Jewish race in the current time. See above about the Jewish influence in Media, Politics, Business etc. What annoys me is that if you even say the word Jew or mention that there are a lot of Jewish people in important positions all over the world you are labelled a neo-nazi.

WTF does it matter if a politician is jewish or not?
WTF is the 'jewish race' doing? They are human beings. If you don't know any jews, then perhaps you shoudl try to make an effort to meet some, and then you might realize that 'they' aren't some 'organization' trying to take over the media or running the banks.

What if tomorrow suddenly top executives of banks and media were all Finnish?

If magically out of nowhere the Finns took over all banking and media positions? Yeah, that would be weird. That is NOT what has happened with the jews, there is nothing suspicious about 'the jews', they are people. Being people, they some are in positions of power, influence, and society.

Well thanks, I wasn´t aware I was doing that at all until you mentioned it.

I have no idea as to what you personally are doing, and I can only assume that you, like the rest of us here, are on this board to have a discussion about unusual topics. As far as I can tell, you watched this video, and think that it makes some convincing points.

That´s precisely what I am looking for. Was there a conspiracy? Were documents faked? Is it at all possible that eyewitness accounts were faked? These questions must be asked if you are to review the entire evidence presented in the case of the Holocaust.

Don't you see the inherent problem in assuming that there was an all-powerful and evil jew conspiracy here?

Zionists doing backroom deals with the Nazi regime is not exacly popular history is it?

Its not what you get in a high school history class, but then again, anyone that thinks the education that they got in high school history was the be all and end all is pretty mistaken anyway no?

He is trying to prove his point that the Holocaust scenario might have been planned by the Zionists to obtain the state of Israël.

I understand that that is what the nazis want us to think. During the lead up to the war, they wanted us to think that the zionists had made secret backroom deals to loose the war for germany, to aide themselves, and now they want to trick us into thinking that the nazi crime was actually a jewish crime, and an ongoing on that we must struggle against.

You seem to forget that the Red Cross visited all three compounds on a regular basis, and that they did not find evidence of systematic extermination by either gassing or starvation.



www.nizkor.org...

[Red Cross] president admits "moral failure" in Holocaust
Sommaruga, in a statement to mark the 50th anniversary of the conflict, said that the ICRC regretted what he called its "possible omissions and errors of the past."



www.nizkor.org...
WWII documents bolster Nazi-Red Cross connection

One OSS document, dated Jan. 11, 1944, says: "A series of observations commenced by the French and continued by this organization indicate that the I.R.C.C. is probably controlled by the German I.S. The German delegate to the I.R.C.C. in Geneva is known to be a German agent and the head of the I.R.C.C. to be German controlled."

The document adds: "Enough is known to warrant the assumption that any delegate of the I.R.C.C. should be considered a potential if not actual German I.S. agent." The letters I.S. stood for Intelligence Service.


I think that, unlike the case with the holocaust documentary evidence, here we DO have evidence of a conspiracy to forge documents and falsify claims. If you are at all skeptical of the 'pro' holocaust documents, then you'd have to completely reject any Red Cross claims.

And apparently they made no claims to responsibility at the time anyway:

www.nizkor.org...

You will see from the enclose that it is, unfortunately, extremely difficult for the International Red Cross Committee to help the Jewish population in Germany and the occupied countries. As we have written to you before, the German authorities do not consider the civilians who are arrested in occupied countries, including France, as civilian internees, thereby excluding them. from the application (by analogy) of The Geneva Convention regarding Prisoners of War. The International Red Cross Committee's field of action, unfortunately, does not include this large category, known as "detained civilians".

Inasmuch as it is impossible for the International Committee to visit the camps where these people are interned, the Committee is not in a position to check on the distribution of relief supplies. For this reason these concentration camps are not included in the category of internment camps to which the Blockade authorities allow relief supplies from overseas to be sent, Furthermore, the International Red Cross Committee does not receive any lists of the names of the Detained Civilians.
[emph added]


Wrong and Right. They were enemies of the state by law, and they were innocent german (...) civilians.

I really don't see how it is at all relevant that the nazis considered the jews to be worthy of destruction, and that that somehow affects their destruction. They were clearly not enemies of the state. Yes, the nazis said that they were. That hardly makes it true. The only enemy germany had during that time was the nazis. They murdered millions of germans, destroyed germany's economy, and used the german nation to wage nazi wars.
I also don't understand why you are using an elipsis there and a few other times in this context.


but until I need to read the books you referred to earlier in this thread to see why you think that

?
Are you suggesting that the zionists that were meeting with the nazis were urging them to exterminate the jews????
The nazis pretty clearly didn't need any outside influences to get them to want to get rid of the jews.


Look at the map of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the three delousing chambers lay to the north east, clear of the prisoner barracks, and even further clear of the crematoria, which were located to the south.

Alright, I am wrong about the gas chambers being close to the fumigation rooms.
The claim was that they can't be gas chambers, because they are too close to the camp commander's quarters. THe camp commander himself claimed that they were gas chambers. That seems to nullify that that can't have been because the gas would kill him.


[edit on 5-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   


The Nazi's were systematically KILLING them, didnt they ADMIT to it during the Nuremburg trials?
And the allies admitted to gaining that confession through torture, and we all know people will say anything to end their agony.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   
images.google.com...

history1900s.about.com...

There is so much evidence that the Holocaust did happen, I have to wonder about the faculties of the doubters. Victims, witnesses, photos, etc... I've seen nothing to cause any doubts. 10 seconds on Google will provide countless links.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
just to point out.


Nygdan
The claim was that they can't be gas chambers, because they are too close to the camp commander's quarters. THe camp commander himself claimed that they were gas chambers. That seems to nullify that that can't have been because the gas would kill him.


this here could be proof they infact were not gas chambers. the commander in question could have claimed they were gas chambers to illustrate they infact could not be gas chambers. because if they were real gas chambers he would indeed be dead.

with in the video the narrator shows many times that this tactic of unreasonable logic was used.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Nygdan, "!=" stands for "is not". Sorry, old engineering shortcut.

I need some time because I´m trying to read and understand a lot of material to reply to all your remarks.

Prussian Blue is scary because it shows that White Supremacy and National Socialism is alive today. I will not link to them again, you know which groups I am talking about.

For now about Diesel:



Hilberg says that the murders were committed with diesel motors in Belzec and Treblinka and that the Saurer trucks used for killing persons in Chelmno were also equipped with diesel motors. Hilberg claims 1.45 million Jews were killed by this method (750,000 in Treblinka, 550,000 in Belzec and 150,000 in Chelmno). The suitability of diesel exhaust gas for purposes of mass murder has been addressed most thoroughly by German-American engineer Friedrich P. Berg, whose analysis we summarize here briefly: While it is not in principle impossible to kill people with diesel exhaust gas, it is very difficult, since the latter contains very little poisonous carbon monoxide. While with a gasoline motor one can easily achieve a concentration of carbon monoxide of seven percent or more per cubic meter of air, with a diesel motor one cannot produce a concentration of carbon monoxide of even one percent. Experiments on animals have shown that it is impossible to kill the occupants of a diesel-fed gas chamber within the half hour claimed by the witnesses.
It would take at least three hours, and the motor would have to be run constantly under a heavy load. In these circumstances, the fact that the motor might break down several times a day would also have to be taken into account.[1]


From: Jürgen Graf: Giant with feet of clay



In 1992, a working draft paper authored by Walter Lüftl, President of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Engineers, described mass murder with Diesel exhaust as a “sheer impossibility.” Shortly hereafter, he substantiated his view as to the relative harmlessness of Diesel exhaust in an essay, which was publicly attacked as well. For readers familiar with auto emission issues, much of what follows represents a kind of ‘overkill’ and rightly so. But in order to put the Holocaust monster to its final, well-deserved rest – at least its Diesel portion – one must be rigorous and even exhaustive.[2]


More technically:



According to the exterminationists, the gassing was always done in about half an hour or less. To determine the carbon monoxide concentration needed to kill in only half an hour instead of a full hour[ref 25], one can use a widely accepted rule of thumb known as “Henderson’s Rule,” which is:

%/vol. CO × exposure time = Constant for any given toxic effect.

In other words, for any given toxic effect, the poisonous concentration must be inversely proportional to the time of exposure. This means that to kill in half an hour, one needs twice the concentration that one would need to kill in a full hour. Applying this rule to the ‘0.4% and above’ needed to kill in “less than 1 hour,” we get 0.8%/vol. as the minimum concentration needed to kill in less than half an hour. Applying the same rule to the 0.15 to 0.20%/vol. range, which is “dangerous” for one hour of exposure, we get 0.3%/vol. to 0.4%/vol. as the range of CO concentration, which is dangerous for half an hour of exposure. What all this means is that to have any kind of practical gas chamber using carbon monoxide as the lethal agent, one needs an average concentration of at least 0.4%/vol. carbon monoxide – but, possibly as much as 0.8%/vol. We should keep ‘0.4% to 0.8%’ in mind as benchmark numbers to which we will refer shortly. Please note that these data hold true only in the presence of a normal oxygen content of the air! If one were to reduce the oxygen content by half for example – from the normal 21%/vol. to only 10.5%/vol. – any given concentration of CO will be twice as toxic. Even a CO concentration of only 0.2%/vol. would then suffice to kill in one hour. So, in order to determine the actual effectiveness of a (...)

[25] According to the eyewitness statements in E. Kogon, H. Langbein, A. Rückerl et al. (eds.), Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, Fischer, Frankfurt/Main 1986, p. 159 (E. Fuchs, 10 mins.), p. 167 (K.A. Schluch, 5-7 mins.), p. 174 (K. Gerstein, 18 mins.), p. 181 (A. Goldfarb, 20-25 mins.), the gassing procedure allegedly sometimes took much less time; in accordance with Gerstein: Matthes, in H. P. Rullmann, op. cit. (note 23), p. 167: 30 min. [3]


[2] & [3]G. Rudolf(ed) Dissecting the Holocaust - The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory Friedrich Paul Berg pp. 435-470 (Warning:16MB)

This was the book that got Rudolf convicted, extradited to and recently jailed in Germany.

Continued on next page.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   


by Germar Rudolf:
While researching historical events, our highest goal must be at all times to discover how it actually was – as the 19th century German historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Historians should not place research in the service of making criminal accusations against, for example, Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan forever be defined solely by Khan’s victims and enemies? The same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich. Both revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating National Socialism and that such an effort is reprehensible or even criminal, is a boomerang: This accusation has as a prerequisite that it is deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate National Socialism historically, and by so doing, always also morally. But by declaring any hypothetical exoneration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not to be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating National Socialism historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs. And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those accusing revisionists to misuse their research for political ends have themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is therefore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political motives – though quite a few of them certainly are – but with absolute certainty all those who accuse others of attempting to somehow historically exonerate a political system which has long since disappeared. As a consequence, our research must never be concerned with the possible ‘moral’ spin-off effects of our findings in relation to politicians or regimes of the past, but solely with the facts. Anyone who argues the opposite does not understand scientific research and should not presume to condemn others on the basis of authentic research.”



From: Revisionism brochure (Recommended if you wish to see what drives Revisionists)

The fact that he recently was imprisoned in Germany (solitary confinement) does not come as a surprise anymore. His site Rudolf indeed briefly was a member of the right wing party Republikaner but he himself admitted that that was a mistake.


by SiRiNO:
And the allies admitted to gaining that confession through torture, and we all know people will say anything to end their agony.


They sure for days beat the crap out of Höss, former Auschwitz camp commandant before he signed his confession. Not good.


by BlueRaja:
There is so much evidence that the Holocaust did happen, I have to wonder about the faculties of the doubters. Victims, witnesses, photos, etc... I've seen nothing to cause any doubts. 10 seconds on Google will provide countless links.


BlueRaja, no cheap shot intended:

There are so much indications that the Holocaust did not happen as history tells us, I have to wonder about the faculties of the believers. Conflicting testimonies, confessions under duress, fabricated evidence, reconstructed gas chambers, and conflicting evidence, etc... I´ve seen enough to cause serious doubts. 10 seconds on Google will provide countless links.

I know the common views, those was taught in school as history. I grew up with media telling me all about this subject. I was never taught the stuff I am reading right now, and I must read it all before I can determine if it is neo-nazi propaganda, or if it is worthwile discussing further.

Revisionism downloadable archives



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
This is page two of three of my reply. Not sure what happened.


by Nygdan:
I am angry with the so called 'holocaust revisionists' because they are lying cowardly scum, who try to hide behind the very freedoms and protections that people died trying to defend at home and restore to germany, and they do all this just to be able to attack the jews. They are lying cowardly scum. I don't have any anger at people who read their propaganda and become convinced by it. The nazis are good at propaganda, so good infact that they are able to use it to convince people that the holocaust itself is just 'anti-nazi propaganda'.


I doubt that the bulk of the revisionist materials is "nazi-propaganda", especially after reading some of it, but I cannot judge it yet.



Who are the Holocaust Revisionists?

Holocaust Revisionists are not a homogenous group. Our numbers include Jews (Josef G. Burg, Roger-Guy Dommergue, David Cole, Stephen Hayward); Christians (Germar Rudolf, Michael A. Hoffman, Robert Countess); Muslims (Ibrahim Alloush, Ahmed Rami) and Atheists (Bradley Smith, Robert Faurisson).

Some Revisionists suffered persecution by the National Socialist regime as well as internment in concentration camps (Paul Rassinier, Josef G. Burg). Others are Army veterans of World War II, from both the German and Allied armies (Werner Rademacher, Wilhelm Stäglich, Douglas Collins.)

Some Revisionists are professors (Prof. Robert Faurisson, Prof. Arthur R. Butz, Prof. Christian Lindtner, Prof. Costas Zaverdinos) and some have Ph.D degrees (Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, Dr. Robert Countess, Dr. Stephen Hayward, Dr. Herbert Tiedemann). Some have degrees in Chemistry, Physics, or Engineering (Michael Gärtner, Germar Rudolf, Arnulf Neumaier, Friedrich Berg), others are Historians (Mark Weber, Robert Countess, Carlo Mattogno), or teachers in other fields, such as Jürgen Graf.

The ranks of Holocaust Revisionists include Communists and Socialists (Paul Rassinier, Roger Garaudy), moderate Left-
ists (Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion), Liberals (Andrew Allen, David Cole, Bradley Smith, Richard Widmann), Conservatives (Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Werner Rademacher), Rightists (Udo Walendy, Mark Weber) and National Socialists (Ernst Zündel). Since the author does not consider it important to classify revisionists according to political orientation, he can not vouch for the correctness of these designations. Included also are Frenchmen (Robert Faurisson, Pierre Guillaume, Roger Garaudy, Paul Rassinier, Vincent Reynouard, Jean Plantin), Americans (Bradley Smith, Mark Weber, Arthur Butz, Richard Widmann, Fredrick Leuchter), Germans (Germar Rudolf, Werner Rademacher, Michael Gärtner, Arnulf Neumaier, Wilhelm Stäglich), Swiss (Jürgen Graf, Arthur Vogt), Italians (Carlo Mattogno), Spaniards
(Enrique Aynat), Jordanians (Ibrahim Alloush), Moroccans (Ahmed Rami), Swedes, Danes, Britons, Poles, and Russians, to name just a few.

(...) In contrast, the governments and media of most western societies publicize the cliché that all Revisionists are right wing extremists who are attempting to rehabilitate the National Socialist regime in order to usher in a new authoritarian government of the right. This may be true for Revisionists of the extreme right wing, but they are a small minority within Revisionist ranks. Perhaps a few prominent examples will illustrate the political variety of Revisionist opinion:

Paul Rassinier: what would motivate a French Communist who was interned in a German concentration camp on account of his activities in the Resistance, to rehabilitate National Socialism in Germany?

Josef G. Burg: What would motivate a Jew who suffered under the occupation of both the Germans and Russians during the Second World War?

David Cole: What would motivate a liberal young American of the Jewish faith?

Fredrick Leuchter: What would motivate an entirely non-political American expert in the technology of gas execution chambers?

Pierre Guillaume, Serge Thion: What would motivate left-anarchist Frenchmen to rehabilitate National Socialism in Germany?

Roger Garaudy: What would motivate a longtime prominent French Communist?

Bradley Smith, Richard Widmann: what would motivate liberal Americans?

Vincent Reynouard, Jean Plantin, Germar Rudolf: young liberal and conservative European professionals, born in the mid-60s. What would motivate them to rehabilitate National Socialism?

Does it really matter what a Revisionist is trying to achieve with his political or other ideas? (...)


by Germar Rudolf:
“To everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists are motivated by a desire to whitewash National Socialism, or
restore the acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a breakthrough of Nationalism, I would like to say
the following:



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
This is why it matters that for example the mainstream media are not controlled by a single group. (In this case individuals from Jewish origine with a clear pro-Israël stance. Partial reply to previous question)

This video was deleted from Google



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I belive the holocaust did hapen, and it's my personal opinion as I belive.
I saw some old video arhives with german troops making masacres.
I saw civilians diging their own graves and then later they were shoot in the head near their own grave.
I also saw german troops lining up civilians near a big hole in the ground and then a officer coming to each of them and shooting them in the head, 1 by 1.
Also gas vans were used in russia, rusian civilians were put is some kind of truck and gased.

But.......

Point number 1
This is not the jew's holocaust, hittler was a mad man, and did not only kill jews, but also every one that was not arian.

Point number 2
I also belive that who does not belive it did happned should be free to say so, as long as no one kills any one, and as long as no one get's hurt, they should be able to say so, this is a major restiction from freedom of speach.
Maybe they are right to some level, maybe the numbers were inflated, or maybe not, it should be researched, but no one does so because.....
What bothers me is that any research on the matter will be seen as anti semitic.
This is really the main problem.







[edit on 5-2-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glyph_D
this here could be proof they infact were not gas chambers. the commander in question could have claimed they were gas chambers to illustrate they infact could not be gas chambers. because if they were real gas chambers he would indeed be dead.

Huh?

The forensic evidence shows that they were gas chambers. The documentary evidence shows that they were gas chambers.The eyewitness testimony shows that people were put into them, killed, and their corpses were burned.




vho.org...
Experiments on animals have shown that it is impossible to kill the occupants of a diesel-fed gas chamber within the half hour claimed by the witnesses.

But how about hundreds of animals crammed into a confined space that is then shut air tight and then has diesel exhaust pumped into it? WHich will contain co2, and soot, etc.

working draft paper authored by Walter Lüftl, President of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Engineers, described mass murder with Diesel exhaust as a “sheer impossibility.”

This also puts at question as to why the SS officer who witnessed these people die by diesel truck exhaust isn't reliable, when every detail of his story has been shown to be reliable and confirmed by seperate eyewtinesses. True enough, if there was a manipulation of the evidence, then this, because there is at least some evidence suggesting that its not phsyical workable to kill with diesel fumes, would be a good potential example. BUT, the problem again is that the eyewitness accounts are extremely detailed, and the details check out. Why would, say, the hoaxers work out just how many people can be violently crammed into these rooms, and then coach mutliple people to tell matching stories, but not bother to check if diesel exhaust can kill???? Wouldn't they have just said that the hose was hooked up to a truck, and not specifically say it was a diesel truck? Wouldn't they have just said that they were gassed with zyklon b? Why not simply say that they were shot, if you're making up the story?

ALso, lets just face up to it, the basic suggestion is that a few hundred people violently whipped and stabbed and pushed into a crowded room, which is then shut air tight, and then pumped with diesel exhaust, can't kill people.

That is flat out stupid. Of course people in that situation will suffocate.


www.nizkor.org...

"The Toxicity of Fumes from a diesel Engine Under Four Different Running Conditions", by Pattle et al., British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1957, Vol 14, p. 47-55. These researchers ran a few experiments in which various animals were exposed to diesel fumes, and studied the results.

In the experiments, the exhaust of a small diesel engine (568 cc, 6 BHP) was connected to a chamber 10 cubic meters (340 cubic feet) in volume, and the animals were put inside it. In all cases, the animals died.[...]
Even in cases where the CO output was low, the animals still died from other toxic components - mainly irritants and nitrogen dioxide.



They sure for days beat the crap out of Höss, former Auschwitz camp commandant before he signed his confession.

Who tortured him? What evidence shows he was tortured?

www.nizkor.org...

A lurid book by one Rupert Butler called Legions of Death. Butler tells of seeing Hoess beaten when he was first found.

A piece of hearsay that is supposedly contained in a secret document which the "revisionist" Robert Faurisson is not at liberty to reveal.

Why is eyewitness testimony so concrete now, but not when its multiple independent people telling stories that corroborate each other and that are corroborated by the documentary evidence and forensic evidence?


There are so much indications that the Holocaust did not happen as history tells us

But what are you saying didn't happen like we were told?

We know that the nazis wanted to get rid of the jews. We can see that there were gas chambers and that they were used to kill jews. We have demographic and documentary evidence showing that the number dead is around 6 million.
What aspect are you questioning? That diesel engines weren't used? Or that Hoss's confession and diaries were valid? Even if that was true, which apparently it isn't, what would it matter, you still have the genocide of around 6 million jews with gas chambers used.


This is why it matters that for example the mainstream media are not controlled by a single group. (In this case individuals from Jewish origine with a clear pro-Israël stance. Partial reply to previous question)

?
The video is right there. And what says that it was shut down by a jewish conspiracy?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
You said its not a gas chamber.

What? I said no such thing, I said those "gas chambers" are not authentic. Meaning that the "gas chambers" on display were built by the Americans, not the Germans. The buildings that were converted into the so called "gas chambers" that we see today were used as morgues and air raid shelters. The allegation of them being used to exterminate Jews is far from solid fact.


Originally posted by Nygdan
So what is it subz?

I never offered an opinion on what they were, I said the buildings on display today are not authentic Nazi buildings and I stand by my position. Prove me wrong.


Originally posted by Nygdan
What is that chimney venting if not toxic gas?

I don't know, ask the Americans who built it. If it actually existed before the American remodelling work it could of been for a crematoria. After all, I'm not disputing that Jews weren't locked up by the Nazis and they'd have to get rid of those who died there. Judea declared war on the Nazis after all and they were interred just like the Americans interred the Japanese Americans.


Originally posted by Nygdan
What was that room labeled 'showers' on their blueprints, if not a fake shower or a real shower, and what was the chimney for?

Sorry but I'm not claiming to be some kind of expert. I had very few points to make but they were salient ones. You can argue around in circles as much as you like.


Originally posted by Nygdan
I never said I was wrong, so I fail to see how this statement is relevant.

I know you didn't say you were wrong, I said you were wrong. You said it doesn't "matter" in that you were proven wrong with regards to the authenticity of the "gas chambers". That is why it was relevant, you were basically saying "Yeah so what, the gas chambers were rebuilt - even though I said they weren't. It doesn't matter any way".


Originally posted by Nygdan
Subz, no one is saying that the gas chambers that are at the museums now were entirely built by the nazis.

ORLY? You were pretty emphatic earlier.


Originally posted by Nygdan
The americans didn't build gas chambers, they were already there.

If they were already there why did they have to rebuild anything? My whole argument surrounds the fact that the "gas chambers" in Auschwitz are not authentic and that they were built by Americans. If a Nazi morgue was destroyed and then it was rebuilt with chimneys and all other sorts of features (which cannot be proven to be part of the original design, or intended for the reasons we are told today) it could be fobbed off as anything that suits the deception that's being painted by those who rebuilt it.


Originally posted by Nygdan
The camp was attacked, raided, and the structures, to say the least, weren't being preserved by anyone. Are you saying that there were infact gas chambers, but that they were destroyed, and these ones are just reproductions, or that there were never any gas chambers there at all and the whole thing is fantasy?

Hmm now you're getting it. I said they are not authentic and I have my doubts as to whether they were "gas chambers" who's expressed purpose was to exterminate humans. Don't forget there is the thorny issue of where these millions of people are supposed to have gone after they were "gassed". Do I need to direct you back to my indepth analysis of how the methods described by Concentration Camp survivors of how bodies were destroyed are impossible? I'm sorry, the facts just don't add up. You've acknowledged earlier that you know that I am not a Neo-Nazi thus I have no vested interest in disproving or denying the Holocaust. I am a man of facts and believe what's plausible. I've looked at the details of the Holocaust and I am simply not convinced.

[edit on 6/2/07 by subz]





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join