9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[9/11-investigator]

You have severe problems with honesty.


1. Hans: Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war.... Give us the details, the date it was sent by who, to whom and what did it say, full and complete details.

2. Hans: Why did 2.8 to 3.3 million Soviet POWs die in Nazi 'care'? More than 50% against 3.5% of western POW taken by the Nazis?

3. Hans: 9/11 give us your vision of the world in 1946 if the English and French hadn't declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland? What would have happened?

4. Hans: So why didn’t all the horribly terrible countries that wanted to attack Germany not do so? Why didn’t Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Britain and France just all attack in 1933, 34, 35,36,37 or 38 or 39 why sit there and wait for Germany to attack them? Elucidation 9/11?"

5. TSR: Prove a single lie from the *judgments* at Nuremberg.

6. TSR: Prove that Poland fought wars with *all* of its neigbhors for expansion post WWI.

7. TSR: Where in this document which you cited is the word "lebenstraum" even mentioned?

8. TSR: And what did Bullitt say to Cordell Hull in '36 and why?

9. TSR: What evidence does Suvorov cite in his book(s)?

10. TSR: What, specifically, did each of those tens of thousands you admit were shot "in the East" do to deserve being shot?

11. TSR: What does this from your own source do to your citation of Stefan Scheil as authority?

Dabei ignoriere Scheil folgende Tatsachen:
die Hoßbach-Niederschrift vom November 1937, nach der Hitler den Krieg gegen Polen angestrebt und für unvermeidbar erklärt hat,
Hitlers Kriegskurs seit dem Münchner Abkommen 1938,
unannehmbare Forderungen des NS-Regimes an Polen, so dass dessen Regierung eine gegenseitige Grenzgarantie im März 1939 ablehnte,
die „bewusst eskalierten Spannungen mit Polen im Sommer 1939“,
dass die Wehrmacht seit Juni 1939 angriffsbereit war,
dass die „teilweise martialischen Töne“ in Polen bedeutungslos waren, weil den Deutschen ihre reale militärisch-technische Überlegenheit klar war,
Hitlers Rede am 22. August 1939 vor Wehrmachtsgenerälen, in der er zur Zerschlagung Polens und Vernichtung seiner Führungsschicht aufrief und kein Eingreifen der westlichen Bündnispartner Polens erwartete,
dass Stalin Hitler mit dem Hitler-Stalin-Pakt nicht zum Krieg gegen Polen drängte, sondern dessen Angriffswillen für eigene gefahrlose Gebietsgewinne nutzte.

12. TSR: In what way am *I*, personally, an enemy of Europe?

13 What were Anne Frank's crimes?

Off-topic spamming. Questions answered here.

Are you allowing this behavior, moderators?

 

[TheRedWorm]

You never answered them honestly. Try now, for a change.

 

[dafydd]

sqking

Off-topic spamming. Questions answered here.

Are you allowing this behavior, moderators?

Asking awkward questions of bigots does not contravene the rules of this forum. You cannot be allowed to change the subject every time some one asks you a question.

 

[dafydd]

You never answered them honestly. Try now, for a change.

Does a Holocaust denier even know what honesty is?

 

[Wroclaw]

Off-topic spamming. Questions answered here.

Are you allowing this behavior, moderators?

What a baby you are...

 

[TSR]

.
For someone familiar enough with the rules to claim these posts violate them, one wonders why niner hasn't actually *reported* them.

But then, he's barely read them: "impress .. with spelling mistakes." LOL

1. Hans: Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war.... Give us the details, the date it was sent by who, to whom and what did it say, full and complete details.

2. Hans: Why did 2.8 to 3.3 million Soviet POWs die in Nazi 'care'? More than 50% against 3.5% of western POW taken by the Nazis?

3. Hans: 9/11 give us your vision of the world in 1946 if the English and French hadn't declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland? What would have happened?

4. Hans: So why didn’t all the horribly terrible countries that wanted to attack Germany not do so? Why didn’t Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Britain and France just all attack in 1933, 34, 35,36,37 or 38 or 39 why sit there and wait for Germany to attack them? Elucidation 9/11?"

5. TSR: Prove a single lie from the *judgments* at Nuremberg.

6. TSR: Prove that Poland fought wars with *all* of its neigbhors for expansion post WWI.

7. TSR: Where in this document which you cited is the word "lebenstraum" even mentioned?

8. TSR: And what did Bullitt say to Cordell Hull in '36 and why?

9. TSR: What evidence does Suvorov cite in his book(s)?

10. TSR: What, specifically, did each of those tens of thousands you admit were shot "in the East" do to deserve being shot?

11. TSR: What does this from your own source do to your citation of Stefan Scheil as authority?

Dabei ignoriere Scheil folgende Tatsachen:
die Hoßbach-Niederschrift vom November 1937, nach der Hitler den Krieg gegen Polen angestrebt und für unvermeidbar erklärt hat,
Hitlers Kriegskurs seit dem Münchner Abkommen 1938,
unannehmbare Forderungen des NS-Regimes an Polen, so dass dessen Regierung eine gegenseitige Grenzgarantie im März 1939 ablehnte,
die „bewusst eskalierten Spannungen mit Polen im Sommer 1939“,
dass die Wehrmacht seit Juni 1939 angriffsbereit war,
dass die „teilweise martialischen Töne“ in Polen bedeutungslos waren, weil den Deutschen ihre reale militärisch-technische Überlegenheit klar war,
Hitlers Rede am 22. August 1939 vor Wehrmachtsgenerälen, in der er zur Zerschlagung Polens und Vernichtung seiner Führungsschicht aufrief und kein Eingreifen der westlichen Bündnispartner Polens erwartete,
dass Stalin Hitler mit dem Hitler-Stalin-Pakt nicht zum Krieg gegen Polen drängte, sondern dessen Angriffswillen für eigene gefahrlose Gebietsgewinne nutzte.

12. TSR: In what way am *I*, personally, an enemy of Europe?

13. dafydd: What Anne Frank's crimes were. Was she a spy,did she blow up any airfields,was she involved in a plot to kill Hitler? Why did the Nazis murder her?

14. TSR: What 'certain topics', relevant to the defense of the Nazis, were forbidden at the IMT?

15. TSR: What proof do you have theat the Polish, pre WWII, 'dreamed of marching on Berlin'?

16. TSR: What evidence do you offer that all 25k+ children mentioned just in the Jäger report alone were partisans engaged in atrocities?
.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
For someone familiar enough with the rules to claim these posts violate them, one wonders why niner hasn't actually *reported* them.

But then, he's barely read them: "impress .. with spelling mistakes." LOL

1. Hans: Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war.... Give us the details, the date it was sent by who, to whom and what did it say, full and complete details.

2. Hans: Why did 2.8 to 3.3 million Soviet POWs die in Nazi 'care'? More than 50% against 3.5% of western POW taken by the Nazis?

3. Hans: 9/11 give us your vision of the world in 1946 if the English and French hadn't declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland? What would have happened?

4. Hans: So why didn’t all the horribly terrible countries that wanted to attack Germany not do so? Why didn’t Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Britain and France just all attack in 1933, 34, 35,36,37 or 38 or 39 why sit there and wait for Germany to attack them? Elucidation 9/11?"

5. TSR: Prove a single lie from the *judgments* at Nuremberg.

6. TSR: Prove that Poland fought wars with *all* of its neigbhors for expansion post WWI.

7. TSR: Where in this document which you cited is the word "lebenstraum" even mentioned?

8. TSR: And what did Bullitt say to Cordell Hull in '36 and why?

9. TSR: What evidence does Suvorov cite in his book(s)?

10. TSR: What, specifically, did each of those tens of thousands you admit were shot "in the East" do to deserve being shot?

11. TSR: What does this from your own source do to your citation of Stefan Scheil as authority?

Dabei ignoriere Scheil folgende Tatsachen:
die Hoßbach-Niederschrift vom November 1937, nach der Hitler den Krieg gegen Polen angestrebt und für unvermeidbar erklärt hat,
Hitlers Kriegskurs seit dem Münchner Abkommen 1938,
unannehmbare Forderungen des NS-Regimes an Polen, so dass dessen Regierung eine gegenseitige Grenzgarantie im März 1939 ablehnte,
die „bewusst eskalierten Spannungen mit Polen im Sommer 1939“,
dass die Wehrmacht seit Juni 1939 angriffsbereit war,
dass die „teilweise martialischen Töne“ in Polen bedeutungslos waren, weil den Deutschen ihre reale militärisch-technische Überlegenheit klar war,
Hitlers Rede am 22. August 1939 vor Wehrmachtsgenerälen, in der er zur Zerschlagung Polens und Vernichtung seiner Führungsschicht aufrief und kein Eingreifen der westlichen Bündnispartner Polens erwartete,
dass Stalin Hitler mit dem Hitler-Stalin-Pakt nicht zum Krieg gegen Polen drängte, sondern dessen Angriffswillen für eigene gefahrlose Gebietsgewinne nutzte.

12. TSR: In what way am *I*, personally, an enemy of Europe?

13. dafydd: What Anne Frank's crimes were. Was she a spy,did she blow up any airfields,was she involved in a plot to kill Hitler? Why did the Nazis murder her?

14. TSR: What 'certain topics', relevant to the defense of the Nazis, were forbidden at the IMT?

15. TSR: What proof do you have theat the Polish, pre WWII, 'dreamed of marching on Berlin'?

16. TSR: What evidence do you offer that all 25k+ children mentioned just in the Jäger report alone were partisans engaged in atrocities?
.

17. DZ: In 1990, the Auschwitz Museum lowered the death toll at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1.1 million. Where did those 2.9 million victims go if they weren't exterminated?

18. DZ: In 1945, according to the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol 1, Indictment: Count Three, 1.5 million folks were murdered at Majdanek. According to Yad Vashem, the death toll stands at 360,000. Where did those 1.14 million martyred souls go if they weren't exterminated?

19. DZ: According to the Indictment against Adolf Eichmann as reported in the New York Times on April 11, 1961, the Belsen extermination camp employed poison gas and other methods of extermination between 1942 and 1943. What was the name of the poison gas, where within the confines of the camp was it deployed and how was it deployed?

20. DZ: If any of the facts in Questions 17, 18, or 19 are considered unreliable or never proven, please provide evidence that the Court in question found said facts unreliable or unproven.

21. DZ: If any of the facts in Questions 17, 18, or 19 were never taken seriously by western historians, please provide evidence that they were not taken seriously by western historians.

22. DZ: If any of the facts in Questions 17, 18, or 19 were unproven and/or never taken seriously by western historians, explain why should we consider the facts that have superseded them reliable?

23. DZ: The indictments against the Defendants in the International Military Tribunal consisted of four Counts. Each Count contained a number of specific facts. At least one Defendant was found guilty of each of these four Counts. If the Tribunal found that any of the individual facts enumerated in the four Counts was unreliable or unproven, please prove that said fact was found unreliable and/or unproven.

23a. DZ: If any of the facts in the indictments proven during the trial have subsequently been found false or unproven, please provide proof that said fact is no longer considered true.

24. DZ: The verdicts in the trial held by the International Military Tribunal contained a number of specific facts. If any of these specific facts was considered by the International Military Tribunal to be unreliable or unproven, please provide evidence thereof.

24a. DZ: If any of the facts in the verdicts have subsequently been found false or unproven, please provide proof that said fact is no longer considered true.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So there, put that in your syringe and shoot it!

 

[TheRedWorm]

Does a Holocaust denier even know what honesty is?

Most likely not.

 

[Wroclaw]

17. DZ: In 1990, the Auschwitz Museum lowered the death toll at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1.1 million. Where did those 2.9 million victims go if they weren't exterminated?

Are you kidding?

You're seriously asking that?

Back in 1961, Raul Hilberg published The Destruction of the European Jews. In the appendices, he accounts for Jews killed during the war based on year, place, camp, etc. For camps, he gives a figure for Auschwitz.

So go find yourself that book and know that the question was answered fifty years ago.

 

[TheRedWorm]

You never answered them honestly. Try now, for a change.

Does a Holocaust denier even know what honesty is?

Most likely not.

17. DZ: In 1990, the Auschwitz Museum lowered the death toll at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1.1 million. Where did those 2.9 million victims go if they weren't exterminated?

Are you kidding?

You're seriously asking that?

Back in 1961, Raul Hilberg published The Destruction of the European Jews. In the appendices, he accounts for Jews killed during the war based on year, place, camp, etc. For camps, he gives a figure for Auschwitz.

So go find yourself that book and know that the question was answered fifty years ago.

QED

 

[Wroclaw]

17. DZ: In 1990, the Auschwitz Museum lowered the death toll at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1.1 million. Where did those 2.9 million victims go if they weren't exterminated?

Answered.

18. DZ: In 1945, according to the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol 1, Indictment: Count Three, 1.5 million folks were murdered at Majdanek. According to Yad Vashem, the death toll stands at 360,000. Where did those 1.14 million martyred souls go if they weren't exterminated?

See Hilberg's appendices.

19. DZ: According to the Indictment against Adolf Eichmann as reported in the New York Times on April 11, 1961, the Belsen extermination camp employed poison gas and other methods of extermination between 1942 and 1943. What was the name of the poison gas, where within the confines of the camp was it deployed and how was it deployed?

There is no article from the Times during April 1961 that mentions poison gas at Belsen. A single article during that month mentions Belsen at all, and it is incidental to which camp a witness at the Eichmann trial had been in. I can post that article here and will.

20. DZ: If any of the facts in Questions 17, 18, or 19 are considered unreliable or never proven, please provide evidence that the Court in question found said facts unreliable or unproven.

Doesn't matter. There is no clear and present connection between something being true or untrue and a court finding so. If you disagree, ask whether O.J. killed his ex-wife.

21. DZ: If any of the facts in Questions 17, 18, or 19 were never taken seriously by western historians, please provide evidence that they were not taken seriously by western historians.

See Hilberg. Again.

22. DZ: If any of the facts in Questions 17, 18, or 19 were unproven and/or never taken seriously by western historians, explain why should we consider the facts that have superseded them reliable?

Well, for one thing, because they were never superseded.

23. DZ: The indictments against the Defendants in the International Military Tribunal consisted of four Counts. Each Count contained a number of specific facts. At least one Defendant was found guilty of each of these four Counts. If the Tribunal found that any of the individual facts enumerated in the four Counts was unreliable or unproven, please prove that said fact was found unreliable and/or unproven.

Wouldn't that be your job to do, i.e., show the tribunal had been wrong?

23a. DZ: If any of the facts in the indictments proven during the trial have subsequently been found false or unproven, please provide proof that said fact is no longer considered true.

24. DZ: The verdicts in the trial held by the International Military Tribunal contained a number of specific facts. If any of these specific facts was considered by the International Military Tribunal to be unreliable or unproven, please provide evidence thereof.

24a. DZ: If any of the facts in the verdicts have subsequently been found false or unproven, please provide proof that said fact is no longer considered true.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So there, put that in your syringe and shoot it!

Again, those last would be your job.

 

[TSR]

17. DZ: In 1990, the Auschwitz Museum lowered the death toll at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1.1 million. Where did those 2.9 million victims go if they weren't exterminated?

.
As has been explained to you before, I believe, they didn't go anywhere ***because they never existed***.

Nor was the four million ever a number any real historian used in assessing the total death toll of the Holocaust.
.

18. DZ: In 1945, according to the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol 1, Indictment: Count Three, 1.5 million folks were murdered at Majdanek. According to Yad Vashem, the death toll stands at 360,000. Where did those 1.14 million martyred souls go if they weren't exterminated?

.
As above.

Your turn: in the actual *judgments*, what were the numbers of people each individual defendant was convicted of killing?
.

19. DZ: According to the Indictment against Adolf Eichmann as reported in the New York Times on April 11, 1961, the Belsen extermination camp employed poison gas and other methods of extermination between 1942 and 1943. What was the name of the poison gas, where within the confines of the camp was it deployed and how was it deployed?

.
Well since there appears to be no such article, I'm going to have to ask for a better citation.

Perhaps a citation to a *real* historian who ever called Bergen-Belsen an extermination camp, or the specific charge that was laid against Eichmann which contained this claim?
.

20. DZ: If any of the facts in Questions 17, 18, or 19 are considered unreliable or never proven, please provide evidence that the Court in question found said facts unreliable or unproven.

.
False dilemma -- it's also possible they they found them irrelevant to the actual charges.

The lack of their mention in the actual judgments themselves strongly suggests one of the three -- if *you* have evidence to contrary, please present it.
.

21. DZ: If any of the facts in Questions 17, 18, or 19 were never taken seriously by western historians, please provide evidence that they were not taken seriously by western historians.

.
And what form would this evidence take, exactly?

Perhaps their never having mentioned them in any work as being the basis of any of their conclusions is sufficient?
.

22. DZ: If any of the facts in Questions 17, 18, or 19 were unproven and/or never taken seriously by western historians, explain why should we consider the facts that have superseded them reliable?

.
Because those facts have been determined by complete different methodologies which have yet to have been challenged, least of all by denier scum?
.

23. DZ: The indictments against the Defendants in the International Military Tribunal consisted of four Counts. Each Count contained a number of specific facts.

.
No, they contained a number of *claims*. You *do* know that there is a difference between a claim and a fact, right?

Some of those claims have withstood the test of time, others not.

Can you point to any fact cited in the actual *judgment* which has not?
.

At least one Defendant was found guilty of each of these four Counts. If the Tribunal found that any of the individual facts enumerated in the four Counts was unreliable or unproven, please prove that said fact was found unreliable and/or unproven.

.
A re-phrasing of your question #20, asked and answered.
.

23a. DZ: If any of the facts in the indictments proven during the trial have subsequently been found false or unproven, please provide proof that said fact is no longer considered true.

.
You've provided proof yourself, right above.

Now, in order to have anything even approaching a point, demonstrate that any of these disproven claims (*not* "facts") had any bearing on the actual judgments rendered.
.

24. DZ: The verdicts in the trial held by the International Military Tribunal contained a number of specific facts. If any of these specific facts was considered by the International Military Tribunal to be unreliable or unproven, please provide evidence thereof.

.
Obviously, if they were cited in the verdicts, the IMT considered them reliable and having been proven.

Can you tell us which facts in those verdicts to which you refer?
.

24a. DZ: If any of the facts in the verdicts have subsequently been found false or unproven, please provide proof that said fact is no longer considered true.

.
There aren't any -- at least, none that you have bothered to cite.

A lot of your ifs don't seem to have any basis in fact, just like your denial doesn't.

Quite a coeinkydink, eh?

Another one bites the dust, but will claim that it is actually prime rib that they taste.
.

 

[Dogzilla]

Answered.

Not.

See Hilberg's appendices.

Not an answer.

There is no article from the Times during April 1961 that mentions poison gas at Belsen. A single article during that month mentions Belsen at all, and it is incidental to which camp a witness at the Eichmann trial had been in. I can post that article here and will.

That's weird. I searched for Belsen in April 1961 and found three articles. But none of them were the one I was referencing. If you search the 1851 to 1980 New York Times archive for "Text of the Indictment Containing Charges Filed by Israel Against Eichmann" and you'll find the article that mentions Belsen.

Doesn't matter. There is no clear and present connection between something being true or untrue and a court finding so. If you disagree, ask whether O.J. killed his ex-wife.

So we can safely discard all the evidence for the holocaust that was based upon the findings or verdicts in a court of law?

See Hilberg. Again.

Not an answer.

Well, for one thing, because they were never superseded.

Not an answer.

Wouldn't that be your job to do, i.e., show the tribunal had been wrong?

Uh, no. And not an answer.

Again, those last would be your job.

Uh, no. And not an answer.

 

[Wroclaw]

See here:

http://remember.org/eichmann/charges.htm

It's Belzec, not Belsen.

 

[TSR]

.
D*mmit, Wro, I was going to string DZ along for several more days, especially since zie just tried to claim zie had found it (but still, strangely neglected the actual *cite* again).

Belzec used the CO from engines in their chambers, eliminating any of the considerations regarding storage and so forth about which DZ asking. Now shush about that, I'm going to have fun showing how much bigger a credulous fool would have to be to ask the questions zie is about to.

Denier "scholarship," and all that...
.

 

[Craig4]

.

Denier "scholarship," and all that...
.

And that Nazi has the nerve to whine about being treated like a joke. Self inflicted wound there.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Please change your name to Holocaust-Investigator

My position on the bunnycaust is that I will believe that it happened if somebody can demonstrate it to me that it happened.

Why don't you change your name to Holocaust-Investigator?

People might associate you with 9/11, which would be unfair.
Or is that your purpose, to discredit 9/11 investigation?

There's overwhelming evidence that the holocaust occurred,
including photographs, eye witness reports, brandings, and confessions.

You might find a visit to the Holocaust Museum in DC educational.
Even better a trip to Germany to see Dachau in person.

 

[carlitos]

Uh, there is overwhelming evidence that 9/11 occurred as reported, including photographs, eye witness reports, forensic and documentary evidence, and confessions.

You might find a visit to the WTC in NY educational. Even better a trip to Shanksville.

As repugnant as his views are, at least 9/11 Investigator is consistent in his illogic.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Uh, there is overwhelming evidence that 9/11 occurred as reported

There is even more overwhelming evidence the 9/11 report was a fail.
Even Commission leaders of the Official Report say it "was set up to fail" (Kean, Hamilton).
One quit, calling it "compromised" and "a scam...disgusting". (Senator Cleland).

Is it too much to ask for the Commissioners to speak well of their own Report?
The NASA Challenger Commission report was done right and rarely debated.

>confessions
After how many water boardings of KSM?

>You might find a visit to the WTC in NY educational.
>Even better a trip to Shanksville.

Yes my trips were educational and raised many questions.

>As repugnant as his views are, at least 9/11 Investigator is consistent in his illogic.

Being consistent for consistency's sake is not a virtue,
especially with illogic, the opposite of logical reasoning.

911-Investigator does NOT speak for probably 99% of 9/11 Truthers.
And about 99% of his postings are for his holocaust arguments.

Ref:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0LBARGBupM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLuZB6vJUzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtQY4u8gHTo&NR=1

 

[dudalb]

Anti semitism, either open or ill concealed, is pretty damn common in the Truther Community.
Both Holocaust Denial and 9/11 Truth basically consist in ignoring evidence and facts because of a ideological agenda.


Nice try at a derail, though.