9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[HereticHulk]

You see, HH, this is the kind of word game nonsense that makes these types of conversations turn away from rational, critical thinking. How about you try again without the attempts at a "gotcha!" game? If you're curious as to what I was saying about statements on the crematoriums that were false, then do so. Don't play intellectually dishonest with me.

OK, so you claim that:

The guy doing the voice-overs made such ridiculous statements (the comments about crematoriums was the most ridiculous) that are easily and demonstrably false.

So, I guess I am not that interested in trying to determine what you think may be demonstratively false.

 

[Oliver]

its an interesting topic. left best for another thread though. but basically, Jews were forced to adopt last names in the 17th and 18th century.

Well, in this case it doesn't need a seperate thread given your short explanation. I always wondered about that when reading those names since some Jewish people having those German names don't seem to have roots in Germany, such as polish Jews and Russian ones.

Anyway, thanks for the info, Parky.


ETA: I found a thread about that topic shedding some light into the root of Yiddish/German names.

 

[Corsair 115]

Hitler was obssesed with the idea he could ,by bombing the UK, break the Allied will to fight. It failed in 1940, when Germany had the edge in the air, and there was simply no chance in hell of it working in 1944.

Well, another problem there was that Germany only had twin-engined medium bombers. It never developed a four-engined heavy bomber, a type quite necessary if strategic bombing is to be done on any sort of useful scale.

What might might have been an even more damaging diversion was Hitlers insistence that the emphasis in Germany's Jet production be put on bombers instead of fighters. That delayed the ME262 by nearly a year.

My understanding there is that is more myth that fact. The biggest issue with the Me 262 wasn't Hitler wanting it to be a bomber, but rather engine production. They had a lot of problems getting the 262's engines into mass production while maintaining adequate quality. There simply weren't enough reliable engines until mid-1944, regardless of Hitler's interference, and by then it was too late. (A more interesting case is the He 280, a jet fighter prototype which flew on jet engines a year before the Me 262 did. Amazingly, it generated little official interest and nothing came of it.)

 

[Pardalis]

It seems impossible for you to view the holocaust as an event seperated from political context.

snip

And I certainly don't like that this mythological event is being used to push my society into a direction (multiculturalism) I don't like at all.

Contradiction. It's because you view the holocaust politically that you deny it.

Your denial is 100% politically and ideologically motivated, you just proved it. You are not interested in history or facts, you don't like the way reality plays out, so you deny it.

 

[Pardalis]

BTW, despite the Holocaust denial filth, this thread is most informative. If there's one good thing about Holocaust denial, it has the adverse effect in that makes one learn even more about it and WW2.

Kind of like when one reads Creationism/Evolution debates, one learns alot about Evolution, and its truth becomes even more solid.

 

[Skeptic]

9/11 investigator is annoyed that the inferiors, the scum of the earth -- Blacks, Jews, women, Latinos, etc. -- are overtaking him in life, and needs to find a villain to blame. Naturally, it is the Jews, since, according to his thinking, surely the Latinos or Blacks won't have the brains to organize such a conspiracy.

 

[MG1962]

9/11 investigator is annoyed that the inferiors, the scum of the earth -- Blacks, Jews, women, Latinos, etc. -- are overtaking him in life, and needs to find a villain to blame. Naturally, it is the Jews, since, according to his thinking, surely the Latinos or Blacks won't have the brains to organize such a conspiracy.

I fear your observation is pretty close to the mark

 

[HereticHulk]

BTW, despite the Holocaust denial filth, this thread is most informative. If there's one good thing about Holocaust denial, it has the adverse effect in that makes one learn even more about it and WW2.

Kind of like when one reads Creationism/Evolution debates, one learns alot about Evolution, and its truth becomes even more solid.

Great point!

 

[Simon39759]

9/11 investigator is annoyed that the inferiors, the scum of the earth -- Blacks, Jews, women, Latinos, etc. -- are overtaking him in life, and needs to find a villain to blame. Naturally, it is the Jews, since, according to his thinking, surely the Latinos or Blacks won't have the brains to organize such a conspiracy.

He is Dutch, so he is most likely more concerned about Muslim immigrants.

 

[dudalb]

He is Dutch, so he is most likely more concerned about Muslim immigrants.

I think that is covered in etc in the original statment....anyway, the point that 9/11 Investigator is driven by hatred and bigotry are the same.
Ironic that his hatred of the Jews causes him to take positions a lot like that held by Muslim extremists, though....

 

[Thunder]

History teaches us that between 4.5 and 7 million Jews were murdered from 1938 to 1945.

Holocaust deniers say these Jews were not murdered. And yet there is still, even today, a deficit of around 5 million Jews from pre-WW2 numbers.

So, Holocaust deniers, where...are these missing Jews?

Its not OUR job to figure it out. Its your job.

 

[headscratcher4]

There's the Goodwin rule (?) first one to bring up Hitler, loses the argument. There needs to be an adendum for holocaust deniers, first one to bring up Fred Leuchter loses the argument.

I love how 9/11 raises Leuchter (as if people here didn't know who he is or how he has been completely discredited) and than once he's caught with has pants down, he than tries to argue that the next so-called expert he brings up is even stronger.

Why would you not go with your strongest proof first? After Fred Leuchter, you've lost all hope of even trying to pretend that your "experts" have any merit or are worth learning from.

Pathetic. Simply Pathetic.

BTW...for the non wing-nuts here, just finished Roland Evan's third volume, the Reich at War. Fantastic book, great trilogy. His overview of the mechanics of the holocaust is terrific and heartbreaking...not to mention exceptionally well documented.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

History teaches us that between 4.5 and 7 million Jews were murdered from 1938 to 1945.

Holocaust deniers say these Jews were not murdered. And yet there is still, even today, a deficit of around 5 million Jews from pre-WW2 numbers.

So, Holocaust deniers, where...are these missing Jews?

Its not OUR job to figure it out. Its your job.

And the death toll may be even higher according to a french priest

 

[~enigma~]

lamp shades from human skin, a complete fabrication

Apparently the holocaust denier maggots have never heard of their Ilse Koch.

 

[GreNME]

OK, so you claim that:

The guy doing the voice-overs made such ridiculous statements (the comments about crematoriums was the most ridiculous) that are easily and demonstrably false.

So, I guess I am not that interested in trying to determine what you think may be demonstratively false.

No, I really don't think you're that interested. I think that, much like is normally the case with this subject-- which is not unlike the Dorothy Murdock automatons or the Creationism/ID followers-- you're looking for more common dismissals of Holocaust denial/revisionism to add to your confirmation-bias-dominated ignore filter. And no, I don't think you'll accept pictures that show the clearly visible smoke coming from one of the Nazi-operated crematoriums (I'd expect dismissals like "that's not the exact one she was talking about"). But for the sake of the thread and to give you the benefit of the doubt-- you have in the past shown the ability to display critical evaluation of your own positions and the positions you may initially disagree with that can be well-explained-- I'll go ahead and expand on my otherwise short remark.

The thing that made the voice-over guy's comment about crematoriums the most ridiculous, though the "explanation" for the tattoos ran neck-in-neck for the lead, was the fact that he was making horribly inaccurate statements about how much smoke crematoriums emit by making an equally inaccurate statement about the emissions of a gasoline-powered auto engine. The statement made by the voiceover is that the crematoriums couldn't have emitted thick smoke because crematoriums don't emit thick smoke, much in the same way (the voiceover claims) automobiles don't give off heavy smoke. So, for the sake of providing you with an explanation of what I mean, let's start with the false-ness of an automobile's exhaust, and then move on to demonstrating that 60+ year old crematoriums do, in fact, emit plenty of noticable smoke, and I will further display that the crematoriums were being overused above capacity, which further creates thicker and more noxious smoke.

Automobile exhaust is not like the smoke from something being burned (like in a crematorium) in the conventional sense. Smoke is a vague term (example from WP), but automobile exhaust is a form of smoke with a different makeup than smoke from a fire. Unlike smoke from a fire or incineration, auto exhaust is primarily made up of unburnt gasoline and water vapor (example from WP, again), with some particulates as well. This is due in large part to the heavier amount of concentrated hydrocarbons and other flammable chemicals in gasoline, as well as the type of controlled combustion that takes place.

Cremation, on the other hand, involves literally burning the body in an incinerator at concentrated and high temperatures, much higher than that which takes place in a combustion engine. The main reason this is necessary is because the human body isn't very flammable, and even today cremation takes hours (though it's described as being as low as two hours in the WP article) to complete. The time it takes to fully incinerate a body is notable because the time it takes now is most definitely reduced from what it used to be 60+ years ago, at least by half (though different sources will give different estimates). The reason this is notable is because crematoriums back then couldn't reach the extreme and controlled temperatures they do now for two reasons: 1) the materials were primarily brick and iron, not conducive to concentrating temperatures in excess of 2000 degrees fahrenheit; and 2) the delivery systems for the bodies required the doors being open for longer, leaking out any heat that had been concentrated up to the point the doors were opened to administer the body. This isn't just guessing about the makeup of the crematoria, it's easily verifiable by looking at examples of the fronts and backs of the crematory furnaces in use at the time (or you could track down the plans that are available from multiple locations and verify yourself). As the popular point about fire in the truther world tends to be (improperly) applied, flames burning at a lower temperature tend to give off more smoke.

That's not all, though, and if that were all I'm sure some excuse could be made about something or other in order to dismiss my accusation of demonstrable falsehood in the voiceover's statement. However, it would be lazy of me to not provide a demonstration of where modern crematory systems have had complaints or had to undergo upgrades to filtering mechanisms-- of which the crematories of 60+ years ago had none that we know-- due to their output of thick and noxious smoke. As a matter of fact, this is a sighting that is dated this year (2009), where there complaints about a crematory's smoke (in Malaysia) being obtrusive. Also, this (Hong Kong) government environmental page has a before and after picture of a facility that was upgraded to address the problem with smoke exhalation. These are modern examples, not examples from sixty years back, which would have had even fewer mechanisms in place to control the smoke coming from their chimneys. Essentially, the most demonstrable proof that the voiceover guy was completely and utterly wrong (or lying) in his statement would be to show more modern, more technologically improved, and more filtered examples where the smoke can still be a problem, which are presented in the links in the previous sentences.

The most first-hand evidence that the concentration camps had demonstrable smoke problems, however, comes from the testimonies of the Topf and other workers who manned many of these furnaces. Even if the crematories were supposed to have only a limited amount of smoke, and even if the denier/revisionist claims that the prisoner barracks were too far away (despite the above-linked posting about an apartment complex complaining of smoke from a crematorium nearby in Malaysia), the overloading of the furnaces would be sure to produce heavier, thicker smoke than was even normal for crematories of that time. Example text from Body Disposal at Auschwitz by John Zimmerman:

The issue of oven overuse surfaced in the recently discovered post war interrogations of three Topf engineers by the Soviets. Kurt Prüfer, builder of the ovens, was asked why the brick linings of the ovens were damaged so quickly. He replied that the damage resulting after six months was "because the strain on the furnaces was enormous." He recounted how he had told Topf's chief engineer in charge of crematoria, Fritz Sanders, about the strain on the furnaces because of so many corpses waiting to be incinerated as a result of the gassings. ^[121] Sanders stated that he had been told by Prüfer and another Topf engineer that the "capacity of the furnaces was so great because three [gassed] corpses were incinerated [in one oven] simultaneously." ^[122] A Sonderkommando, one who worked in the crematoria during this period of time, wrote that cracks in the brickwork of the ovens were filled with a special fireclay paste in order to keep the ovens running. ^[123]

Even if the notes about the gassings is disregarded (as I'm sure they will be), the fact is that the designers and engineers who created the crematories even stated that they were often overused. A result of the cracking in the chimneys the smoke would have been even more thick (remember about the leaking heat and lower temps), more low to the ground (heavier particulates would weigh down the smoke), and depending on the way the wind blows on a given day be more present in the camps the prisoners were in. Keep in mind, also, that even if using the denier/revisionist numbers often claimed that the number of dead were only in the hundreds of thousands, that would still be several (perhaps dozens) of bodies a day that would need to be incinerated over the course of more than ten years-- maybe around 4,000 to 5,000 days, with more deaths occurring in the later years-- which would mean more single bodies than could be incinerated one at a time even under the most likely of denier/revisionist accounts of the number of bodies. Basically, even the numbers allowed by the denier/revisionist claims would have been far too high to have been cleanly disposed of, requiring the doubling (and, if the testimony is to be believed, tripling) of the bodies placed in the furnaces at a given time, run practically in a constant succession for months at a time (at best, longer and past the need for maintenance at worst).

Essentially, HH, the denier/revisionist voiceover guy can't even reconcile his claims to the facts about modern crematories, past crematory designs, and the denier/revisionist numbers themselves. This isn't simply an omission or miscalculation on the part of the voiceover guy, though. It's a clear and obvious example of the type of confirmation bias that goes on in these attempts to dismiss or disregard details that point very clearly to the conditions the people who lived in these camps were experiencing on a regular basis. The self-assured and arrogant tone of the voiceover guy's dismissal just demonstrates how little actual thought went into such a ridiculous and snide comment, meant only to "preach to the choir" in terms of context to the video.

 

[Skeptic]

Apparently the holocaust denier maggots have never heard of their Ilse Koch.

The lampshade story, like the soap story, ISN'T true. Quoting John Toland's excellent biography of Hitler, p. 774 of my edition:

Morgen [one of the very, very few Germans who investigated and warned of the genocide as it was happening - Sk.] did his best [during the war] to convict Ilse Koch... he was sure she was guilty of sadistic crimes, but the charges could not be proven. After the war Morgen was asked by an American official to testify that Frau Koch made lampshades from the skins of inmates. Morgen replies that while she undoubtedly was guilty of many crimes, she was truly innocent of this charge. After personally investigating the matter, he had thrown it out of his own case [against her].

It's typical of holocaust denying scum to think that because two or three stories are not accurate, the whole thing didn't happen. But that's another issue. Also, of course, nobody ever called Toland a "holocaust denier" for publishing the claim that the lampshade story isn't true. If anything, he and other historians who checked inaccuracies and corrected errors about the holocaust have been thanked for their efforts in establishing the truth. Neither have historians who claimed the number of dead is less than exactly 6 millions (say, 5.3) been derided as "holocaust deniers", or those who claimed the number of dead is more (say, 6.7) been praised as "holocaust enhancers". Where there was real research aimed at establishing what really happened, it was judged by on its own merits.

So much for the "holocaust is a dogma that cannot be questioned" story.

I note, by the way, that 9/11 investigator had still not answered my question. Why, 9/11 investigator, were there no grandparents, uncles, aunts, or older siblings in my dad's neighborhood, a neighborhood of those who came from Europe after being there during the war?

What happened to them?

 

[Nick Terry]

There's the Goodwin rule (?) first one to bring up Hitler, loses the argument. There needs to be an adendum for holocaust deniers, first one to bring up Fred Leuchter loses the argument.

I love how 9/11 raises Leuchter (as if people here didn't know who he is or how he has been completely discredited) and than once he's caught with has pants down, he than tries to argue that the next so-called expert he brings up is even stronger.

Why would you not go with your strongest proof first? After Fred Leuchter, you've lost all hope of even trying to pretend that your "experts" have any merit or are worth learning from.

Pathetic. Simply Pathetic.

The more telling detail is that Leuchter's much vaunted and utterly bogus report was 21 years ago, and the repeat attempt by Germar Rudolf appeared 16 years ago.

9/11-investigator mentioned another 'report', by Richard Krege, claiming that GPR scans show no mass graves at Treblinka. The few scans released show contrary to Krege's claims evident ground disturbance, as can be discerned by a simple comparison with textbook examples. Unfortunately Krege has never published this report, which was first announced almost 10 years ago.

9/11-investigator has been spamming links to IHR materials, yet seems unaware that the director of the IHR, Mark Weber, announced in January 2009 that the IHR will give up promoting Holocaust revisionism (and it has produced no new revisionist materials since 2002 anyhow) to concentrate on anti-Zionism and other contemporary issues.

Taken together, what these facts indicate is something of an epic fail by 'revisionists' to convince anybody but a tiny minority of nutcases that there is anything to their claims, as well as a tacit admission by the IHR that its advocacy of 'revisionism' was politically motivated; when it became obvious that HD was counterproductive, they decided to drop it.

That the best 9/11-investigator can come up with is a 21 year old discredited report speaks volumes.

It also suggests we can predict the half-life of more recent CTs like Da Twoof.

JREF has been overrun by 9/11 Truthers over the past four years, literally 100s of them have turned up here to argue and debate. Yet in the same time-period, if there have been more than 20 people who have dared argued overtly for Holocaust denial on JREF, I would be very surprised. And that despite the public scandals over a head of state, a renegade Catholic bishop, and the jailing of big-name deniers like Zundel, Irving and Rudolf. HD is in the news all the time, yet nobody seems very convinced by it.

The other predictor is of course the declarations of imminent victory and the collapse of the 'hoax'. HDers have been making such declarations since the 1980s and early 1990s. 20 years later, the 'hoax' has not collapsed.

 

[~enigma~]

The lampshade story, like the soap story, ISN'T true. Quoting John Toland's excellent biography of Hitler, p. 774 of my edition:

There is video of the lampshades that were seen by the residents (not camp but German residents) of the town outside Buchenwald after the camp was freed.

 

[9/11-investigator]

The more telling detail is that Leuchter's much vaunted and utterly bogus report was 21 years ago, and the repeat attempt by Germar Rudolf appeared 16 years ago.

Is that you Nick:

http://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596

Nick Terry used to hang out with rock stars while working as a music journalists on many different publications in Britain and America. Since 1997 he has been researching 20th Century Central and East European History at a British university and a research institute in America.

Aha: a groupy, immersed in sex, drugs and rock and roll.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/05/jrgen-graf-is-liar.html

You should not forget to respond to that accusation against you:

The liar here is Nick Terry, because he commits the Lie of Omitting. The text of Hilberg states nothing about any proof and speaks of 3 different events (in October '41, March '42 and April '42). About this so called 'witness' Mund, he: "...had HEARD (from the second or eighth hand?) that a long row of jews were forced to crowl on their knees to the station."
For nothing else does Hilberg here give any 'evidence', except for his own unreliability (Or do you seriously mean that real proof for this came in 1957 from the 'collection'(?) of a certain Friedmann from (of all places) Haifa? Me surely not.)

This is a perfect example of the 'quality' of 'proof' this imposter and exaggerator Hilberg used to produce.
And of a liar, that (as usual) only wants to throw mud on one of his scientific and intellectual superiors.

I have read Graf's 'Giant with Feet of Clay' (about holo pope Hilberg) myself and found it rather interesting:

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/Giant/Chapter6.pdf

(Although he could have saved me his NPD-propaganda at the end).

 

[9/11-investigator]

I am shocked, look at the Times of today!

http://entertainment.timesonline.co...inment/books/book_extracts/article6718913.ece

Simon Wiesental is exposed as the complete fraud that he is, a fact well known to revisionists but now it becomes official:

Since the early 1960s Simon Wiesenthal’s name has become synonymous with Nazi hunting. His standing is that of a secular saint. Nominated four times for the Nobel peace prize, the recipient of a British honorary knighthood, the US Presidential Medal of Freedom, the French Légion d’honneur and at least 53 other distinctions, he was often credited with some 1,100 Nazi “scalps”.

His reputation is built on sand, however. He was a liar — and a bad one at that. From the end of the second world war to the end of his life in 2005, he would lie repeatedly about his supposed hunt for Eichmann as well as his other Nazi-hunting exploits. He would also concoct outrageous stories about his war years and make false claims about his academic career. There are so many inconsistencies between his three main memoirs and between those memoirs and contemporaneous documents, that it is impossible to establish a reliable narrative from them. Wiesenthal’s scant regard for the truth makes it possible to doubt everything he ever wrote or said.

My goodness, what's happening here? Has the Times been taken over by neo-nazi's or what?

Critical thinkers have long known that Wiesenthal was a complete fraud:

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesenthal.shtml
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n4p-2_Weber.html

Mind you that Wiesenthal, together with Elie Wiesel and Deborah Lipstadt, constituted the core of the holocaust movement. It's good to know that an important member of the MSM as The Times now acknowledges the true nature of this pathetic liar.