• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

Status
Not open for further replies.
Um.

Robert Jackson was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

As such, he was one of the most powerful men in America of his time — arguably more powerful than the President, considering that the Supreme Court routinely over-rules the President on constitutional matters.
 
Now by 1940 it was already virtually impossible to attain high office without being certified by organized Jewry.
.
Got any of that, you know, evidence that this was the case?
.
We have seen earlier (possible in the WW thread) that Jackson discovered to his horror that he could not build a case against the Germans:
.
Well, first there is nothing but bald assertion offered for the quote from the blog, not even on the blog itself.

Second, nothing in your offered quote even suggests that ***regarding the Holocaust*** (the, you know, the topic of this thread) Jackson felt he could not build a case against the ***Nazis*** -- I'd ask why you keep trying to blur this distinction, but it is obvious.
.
 
@Wroclaw: And SCOTUS judges are appointed for life, not for just four years. :)

@Nein11: You might want to read that thread I linked to, that was started by your buddy JerryWright. He got a thorough spanking for his idiotic remarks about Jackson.
 
Last edited:
Wroclaw tries to divert attention away from facts that are extremely inconvenient for him and the story he tries to peddle in the interest of his group, namely that we have 100% proof that the jew Blaha lied when he testified that numerous gassings had taken place in Dachau. And if the honorable court was willing to allow this shoddy testimony without contradiction, they might as well have faked the rest in addition.
.
No, *we* do not have any such *proof*.

We have the bare assertion of known liars.

And can you tell us who was convicted specifically of gassing victims @ Dachau?




What's that?





No one?





So, you think that the IMT should have disallowed certain testimony, based on your ideological need to believe it didn't happen?




Guess what -- ***all*** testimony, offered in open court, is allowed. It is the job of whomever the testimony indicts to contradict it. Which no one did.

The court, then, by implication either accepts or dismisses that testimony in their verdict.

And since no one was even *charged* with murder by means of gassing at Dachau, there was no need for the court to express an opinion one way or the other on the specific question.

Let me (futilely, I know) try to bring this home. Let's posit, for the sake of argument, that at the trial over the Dutch violence in Rawagede after WWII, someone had talked about Frans van Anraat on the stand -- would the court have to explicitly have offered an opinion on his activities?

Which reminds me, you never answered: given your penchant for "ethnic guilt," why shouldn't we hold you, personally, now and forever, responsible for van Anraat's having sold chemical weapon precursors to Saddam?
.
 
Last edited:
We have seen earlier (possible in the WW thread) that Jackson discovered to his horror that he could not build a case against the Germans:

Your conclusion is based on the idea that the Germans hadn't waged a war of aggression.

The problem with that line of reasoning, of course, is that's exactly what they'd done.

They invaded your country on 10 May 1940. In violation of your declared neutrality. Doesn't that bother you?
 
Indeed.

Why do I get the impression that our friend had no freaking idea Jackson had done nothing else but prosecute at Nuremberg?
.
Because the other haters from whom zie gets zir crap haven't spoon fed zie anything else.
.
 
And now some entertaiment!

Some Danish newspaper invited a Danish Nazi, who does not believe the H-word happened, to the Schwitz. The Nazi accepted, but was unannounced confronted in Auschwitz with a Jewish 'survivor'. The event turned out to be a PR desaster for the hoaxers.

Here is somebody who actually joined a gassing at the Auschwitz Spa! The guy must be at least 90, proving that a decent gassing can be very good for your health.
At 1:04 mr Gross says that "Yes, I have been to a gassing myself, but then I avoided".
Sort of: "yes, I was gassed but I did not inhale".

Priceless!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT8dUGF6PtA

A bit later the story is that he 'escaped' a gassing because of his professional similarity with Dolfie. :D

2:08 "I have not seen it directly... but I have been there".
That means he had his eyes closed. Missed opportunity! :(

2:40 The story changes, people no longer were decently gassed first, but 'burned alive' directly. Next the (burned?) corpses were put on a 'conveyor belt' directly into the crematorium and, I guess, put into an after burner.

2:59 "No I've heard - because afterwards I have seen it all". That must have been in the cinema, watching a Spielberg movie.

At this point the organizing journalist cuts the conversation between the Danish Jew and Danis Nazi off. The discussion is not going in the planned direction. The whole setup was intented to expose the Nazi as the evil criminal that he no doubt is.

Next the location changes from Auschwitz-1 to Birkenau. We are shown a lavatory where prisoners could wash their clothes.

4:30 All the prisoners got a course of 3-4 weeks how to behave as a prisoner before they were exterminated. :boggled:

4:40 All of a sudden mr Gross is not so sure anymore if people were brought to the camp to be killed.

5:45 The reason why mr Gross knew all along when he was imprisonned that Birkenau was an extermination center, was because he always saw smoke coming from the chimney. And not just smoke, even flames!

6:20 Mr Gross throws in some electrical equipment that was used to enhance the extermination process.

Mind you, this is not a setup initiated by the Nazi, but by a newspaper intended to setup the Nazi!

6:25 The prisoners were killed by electrical power!

7:20 He never saw somebody cremated himself, which is not too surprising. Why should they let prisoners watch cremations, that took place by the tenths of thousands as revisionists readily admit.

The video comes up with a max. cremation capacity of 386 corpses per day. If we assume ca. 55,000 deaths in 2 years time as recorded by the Germans themselves, than we have an average of some 100 deaths a day, with peaks during epidemics of maybe a few hundred, perfectly explaining the installed cremation capacity. But 1.5 million (30 times the amount he Germans administered) is bogus.

To sum it up: I am not saying this old man is lying on purpose. He is old and confused and demonstrates of how little value 'eyewitness' testimony is in comparisson with forensic evidence. People are told stories and next they interpret their experiences into these stories (Hineininterpretieren).

Once you have seen this video we start to understand why current holo pope Robert Jan van Pelt wants to destroy Auschwitz. He merely wants to destroy evidence because he understands the story had it's day. We in contrast want to preserve Auschwitz until the end of time as a monument of human stupidity and superstition and feeble mindedness and blind fith in authority.

The holocaust story is dead in the water and will not survive the internet.

James Randi (real name Zwinge, no doubt of German background) founded JREF by exposing the Jewish swindler Uri Geller. JREF can put itself in the overdrive and write history by exposing that other Jewish megafraud, the h-word.
 
Last edited:
Your conclusion is based on the idea that the Germans hadn't waged a war of aggression.

The problem with that line of reasoning, of course, is that's exactly what they'd done.

They invaded your country on 10 May 1940. In violation of your declared neutrality. Doesn't that bother you?

They had not. I am not going to repeat what has been said in this thread about the subject:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178524&page=100

or organized and summarized by me in this blog:

http://waroneurope.blogspot.com/
 
Um.

Robert Jackson was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

As such, he was one of the most powerful men in America of his time — arguably more powerful than the President, considering that the Supreme Court routinely over-rules the President on constitutional matters.

That's baloney. As long as the president acts within the limits of the Constitution he can send people to the moon, start wars of agression. propose political programs. A member of the supreme court can do nothing of the sort. Almost everybody remembers the previous 5-10 presidents, only a few know the names of the current member of the Supreme Court.Reason: power.
 
.
Because the other haters from whom zie gets zir crap haven't spoon fed zie anything else.
.

I am not going to put TSR on ignore, but I have noticed that the 'emotional temperature' of the posts written by him is rather high, with the risk of derails or flames being too high. And that would be a pity, since this a rather interesting thread. Once TSR will return to normality and civility, I might reconsider answering his posts.
 
@Nein11: You might want to read that thread I linked to, that was started by your buddy JerryWright. He got a thorough spanking for his idiotic remarks about Jackson.

Huh, I just read through it. You did not give him a spanking at all.
In the end he just had enough of your sneering and smearing based on irrelevant references to Stormfront.
Not everybody can stomach this like I can.
For the rest a very informative thread.
 
Last edited:
As long as the president acts within the limits of the Constitution he can send people to the moon, start wars of agression. propose political programs.
.
So. we'll add "American mode of government" to the list of things 9/11 knows very little about, but about which zie feels qualified to pontificate.

A President, by zirself, can do none of those things. A President can *propose* that those things be done, but then Congress has to actually authorize funding for each of them. And guess what -- a common citizen can *also* propose all of those things.

And if the President does, and Congress does, if challenged by someone with standing to do so after following the proper procedure, the Supreme Court can still say "No" and that's the end of it (of course, there has to be a pretty good reason to say "no," but they have that power.)

It's a little something we big kids call "checks and balances," but the bottom line is that the power is the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has the power to determine what the Constitution means in any given situation.

The Congress can, and has amended that document on several occasions, and that is *their* power. For example, both the establishment and repeal of Prohibition (neither of which, BTW, were proposed by the sitting President.) In neither case could the President simply have decided to do either.

The President *is* Commander in Chief, and so can issue orders to the military , such as when Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas Nation Guard during the Little Rock Nine crisis. That's *zir* power.

But you know what? Eisenhower did so in support of ...





wait for it







wait for it








A DECISION BY THE THE SUPREME COURT








Similar checks and balances are in place in France, which is why your whine about them being "Jewish controlled" because you believe the President is Jewish (which he's not) is such an epic failure. Well, that and the fact that in France executive power is shared with the Prime Minister, who is, as far as I know, Roman Catholic.


Of course, the religion of the executives is of no concern to anyone but mindless racists anyway...
.
 
Last edited:
.
Of course, the religion of the executives is of no concern to anyone but mindless racists anyway...
.

Interesting that TSR leave open an escape route by linking religion to race. Which of course is baloney except for one case: Judaism.

It is true that Sarko was not raised as a religious Jew, he nevertheless is an ethnic Jew and a Mossad operative at that.

TSR knows that very well but he likes to fool the dumb goyim a little bit.
 
That's baloney. As long as the president acts within the limits of the Constitution he can send people to the moon

That costs money, which only the Congress can allocate.

start wars of agression

That requires military force, which only the Congress can authorize.

propose political programs

Which usually requires legislation, which only the Congress can pass.

And which the Supreme Court can overrule, as they did with key parts of the New Deal, despite Roosevelt packing the court.

A member of the supreme court can do nothing of the sort.

Except he (or she) can prevent any of these things from happening by ruling on the constitutionality.

Almost everybody remembers the previous 5-10 presidents, only a few know the names of the current member of the Supreme Court.Reason: power.

That doesn't mean they aren't powerful.

By the way, you should review this extremely important SCOTUS ruling to get an idea of who's more powerful, POTUS or SCOTUS:

United States of America v. Richard M. Nixon

I'll summarize for you: The court ruled unanimously that Nixon could not keep his office tapes from the Watergate investigating committee. As a result of this ruling, Nixon resigned from office.

You should refrain from expressing opinions concerning things about which you know nothing.
 
The President *is* Commander in Chief, and so can issue orders to the military , such as when Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas Nation Guard during the Little Rock Nine crisis . . . But you know what? Eisenhower did so in support of ... A DECISION BY THE THE SUPREME COURT

An excellent point and a great example of how balance of power works in the United States.

Ike never could have done what he did in Arkansas without the Brown case having been decided — in fact, it could be argued, without Brown having been decided unanimously because that amounted to a mandate.

I wonder if our little friend can name one of those nine justices who voted unanimously?
 
It is true that Sarko was not raised as a religious Jew, he nevertheless is an ethnic Jew and a Mossad operative at that.

Sarkozy, ethnically speaking, is one-quarter Sephardi Jewish. He's half Magyar and a quarter French.

This leaves me wondering exactly how Jewish one must be for one to be considered "Jewish."

Please advise.
 
Interesting that TSR leave open an escape route by linking religion to race. Which of course is baloney except for one case: Judaism.

What about Hinduism?

What about Sikhism and Jainism?

What about Shinto? Or Obeah? Or Santeria?

What about, um, the Dutch Reformed Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom