The religious and ethnic background of the people involved in the development and manufacture of Zyklon B is completely irrelevant to Nick's argument, proves precisely nothing, but could lead people to conclude that you have something against Jews, Karlos. Do you?
Do you think the fact that German chemical weapons were created/invented/manufactured/deployed by Jews somehow excuse these crimes?
The fact you have extrapolated from Fritz Haber to claim "German chemical weapons were created/invented/manufactured/deployed by Jews" speaks volumes. As does the way you try to flip the way you're now basically claiming Jews are responsible for chemical warfare into some idiotic suggestion Ian Neal is somehow trying to excuse its use.
Quote:
Theo Goldschmidt, however, did participate as the manufacturer of zyklon-B amongst other things. His company made the stuff.
As well as fellow zionist controlled Dupont.
So what are we saying here? The Jews are behind pesticide too?
The religious and ethnic background of the people involved in the development and manufacture of Zyklon B is completely irrelevant to Nick's argument, proves precisely nothing, but could lead people to conclude that you have something against Jews, Karlos. Do you?
It could also lead people to conclude Karlos is not afraid of Jews, and has no problem with stating a fact. And your words, Ian, could lead people to conclude you are afraid of them, and have problems with certain facts being stated. Do you?
Fritz Haber - a Jew - is the "father of chemical warfare"
he invented, developed and personally oversaw the deployment of chemical weapons which were used to kill Brits
his wife who was so horrified by his evil deeds she topped herself
As i have stated so many times, cant you find it possible in your narrow field of vision to condemn Fritz Haber, Theo Goldschmidt, Paul Warburg, Sali Meyer, Rockefeller, etc?
People who made it all possible.
The facilitators.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Back to zyklonB
has there been any tests to verify it?
The religious and ethnic background of the people involved in the development and manufacture of Zyklon B is completely irrelevant to Nick's argument, proves precisely nothing, but could lead people to conclude that you have something against Jews, Karlos. Do you?
Do you think the fact that German chemical weapons were created/invented/manufactured/deployed by Jews somehow excuse these crimes?
Look at the thread title. NK's views are of relevance to this thread title because he has taken part in the documentary (against the advice of many).
Look at what Nick has written, claiming that Zyklon B was NOT used by the nazi's as a chemical weapon but as a pesticide.
So claiming that jews were responsible for germany's chemical weapons programme
1) undermines Nick's claims
2) has the stench of promoting offensive 'jewish conspiracy theories'
3) is utterly irrelevant to the thread
The religious and ethnic background of the people involved in the development and manufacture of Zyklon B is completely irrelevant to Nick's argument, proves precisely nothing, but could lead people to conclude that you have something against Jews, Karlos. Do you?
It could also lead people to conclude Karlos is not afraid of Jews, and has no problem with stating a fact. And your words, Ian, could lead people to conclude you are afraid of them, and have problems with certain facts being stated. Do you?
Please explain why I or anyone else should be fearful of jews.
All the corpses were sent to one central temporary morgue.
It is a theory that some were moved and assigned to the bus.
Whose theory? Based on what exactly?
So are you suggesting that corpses were all sent to one morgue and then some subsequently dispatched and arranged - with no-one noticing - next to the bus?
What was the timescale for this gathering of bodies and shipping them around London?
Who was running this post mortem special delivery operation?
What would be the reason for this?
Is there any evidence for any of this?
Given that it was "Muad Dib" who advised Nick to contact the family concerned according to Nick, perhaps Danny, a follower and supporter of Muad Dib, can shed some light and confirm the origins of this theory and any evidence that supports it.
Fritz Haber - a Jew - is the "father of chemical warfare"
he invented, developed and personally oversaw the deployment of chemical weapons which were used to kill Brits
his wife who was so horrified by his evil deeds she topped herself
As i have stated so many times, cant you find it possible in your narrow field of vision to condemn Fritz Haber, Theo Goldschmidt, Paul Warburg, Sali Meyer, Rockefeller, etc?
People who made it all possible.
The facilitators.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Back to zyklonB
has there been any tests to verify it?
Dogsmilk refers to it as a pesticide as do the BBC
rather than a chemical weapon
I think the developmemt of chemical weapons is grim, but I am questioning what possible relevance Fritz Haber's Jewishness is. Jews do good things, Jews do bad things. Like everyone else. Why do you feel the need to highlight it if people who do bad things are Jews? Do you similarly highlight it if they are Christians, Muslims or Zoroastrians? If not why not?
Why is it remotely relevant to anything that Fritz Haber was Jewish?
Zyklon was/is a pesticide. It wasn't specifically developed as a chemical weapon. Or are you thinking there was special Jew killin' Zyklon B invented by evil Jewish scientists? It was already there - it was just a matter of a brainwave regarding an 'alternative' use.
Quote:
Back to zyklonB
has there been any tests to verify it?
You just happily go on and on about stuff you don't have a clue about don't you?
The first tests were Polish investigations immediately after the war.
But instead we see you promoting a blatantly fraudulent video even the bozos at CODOH have problems with. Though of course it's not surprising Nick Kollerstrom expressed great excitement about it before a few errors were pointed out to him there by people who aren't quite as moronic as he is.
Though besides the factually inaccurate claims about Zyklon B, it's interesting the way the shadow on the door apparently fails to move during the hour those fellas are allegedly in there. And you'd have to be at a level of gullibility insurance salesmen dream of to find the 'doctor' remotely convincing. The best bit is where she's listening to her stethoscope through some guy's clothes. Still, with people like you out there in internetland, these snake oil salesmen will never be short of buyers for something even committed Holocaust deniers don't find plausible.
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4111&postdays=0&postorder=asc&s tart=45
ian neal wrote:
Given that it was "Muad Dib" who advised Nick to contact the family concerned according to Nick, perhaps Danny, a follower and supporter of Muad Dib, can shed some light and confirm the origins of this theory and any evidence that supports it.
Thanks for the clarification. I look forward to Danny shedding some light on a theory I currently find to be rather bizarre.
I hope it doesn't involve too many scary Jews though, or I might just sh*t my pants!
Why am I not surprised another friend of Nick "Jewish mathematics" Kollerstrom is keen to talk about Jews. Michele "Judaism is a hateful and repugnant religion" Renouf will be popping up next!
I have never paid any attention to this 'Muad dib' other than just hearing a lot that this Ripple Effect was pretty awful.
But hang on -
Quote:
If so, I will provide you with a bullet-proof (if used properly) defence that you can use in court (if THEY* don’t immediately panic, get scared and drop all charges against you), in front of a jury of your peers, to clear yourself of all charges and bring down the evil system once and for all. Don't get mad, get determined!
To obtain this documentation and advice on how to fight against the evil police-state, including all necessary video and photographic evidence needed to clear yourself of all victimless charges, please send a donation of £100 sterling. We are so confident, that it works, that we will give you your donation back if it doesn't.
Quote:
Threatened with court action, imprisonment? Worried you don't have a chance of beating the system? Well now you have that chance! Clear your name the only way possible. Gird your loins with TRUTH and put on the Breastplate of Righteousness and wield the Sword of the Spirit. Use God’s Perfect Laws of Liberty against them.
Please send your donation, only in cash, with your name and address, to:-
Muad’Dib,
c/o JAH Publications,
P. O. Box 2129,
Canvey Island,
England. SS8 9UF
I have seen this before under a different design before this Ripple Effect stuff.
Quote:
I don't wear the seat-belt in my car, because I prefer to trust in God for my protection, and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay a £100.00 fine for doing so. When I drive, I watch the road, not the speedometer. I believe that this is how to ensure driving safely
Really? I use a seatbelt for the simple reason it may stop me dying in the event of a crash. Maybe that's a lack of faith or something, I dunno.
Needless to say I don't find the 'testimonial' remotely plausible.
Is this real?
Is this the same Muad Dib?
Is this who Kollerstrom is knocking about with?
Astonishing.
Can any one confirm this (it's all so bonkers I'm struggling to get my head round it), because if the answers are in the affirmative it's f*cking hilarious.
Edit - is this really the Jahtruth.net guy? LOL.
(ooh look! teh Protocols!)
Sorry if I'm slow on the uptake here, but I haven't been paying attention to this area. Does anyone know if Nick "I now pronounce myself a historian of science" Kollerstrom has chosen to use and endorse Dib's 'bulletproof defence'?!
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject:
Dogsmilk, the discussion on 7/7 Ripple Effect, and J7's position on this highly speculative production and it's creator Muad Dib can be found on this thread:
A recent email edict from Maud Dib beseeched his followers to:
Quote:
Can anyone, or more than one of you, please make copies of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" DVD and go to Kingston and give them to the accused's families in the public gallery and to members of the jury?
It's time to fight back. We cannot let these three people go to jail for 30 years when we KNOW it was an inside-job.
_________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
Ok so now from attacking and destroying Astro3 we have moved onto attacking MuadDib.
The Ripple Effect is the best 7/7 documentary made so far because it offers a chillingly realistic and accurate scenario.
What does Astro3's views on World War II history have to do with 7/7?
Any more than his membership of the Green party?
What does MuadDib's religious views have to do with 7/7?
Or his decision to wear a seatbelt?
You people just cant handle truth and that is why you choose to attack the messengers rather than the villains. _________________
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject:
Karlos wrote:
Ok so now from attacking and destroying Astro3 we have moved onto attacking MuadDib.
The Ripple Effect is the best 7/7 documentary made so far because it offers a chillingly realistic and accurate scenario.
Karlos, words fail me when I read your rabid posts. I think that the pertinent point here was made by NK himself in the interview he gave to the Mail:
Quote:
Dr Kollerstrom denied he was harassing the bombers' victims but admitted he was wrong to phone the father of one victim who died at Tavistock Square, to explore his theory that the victim may not have been on the No 30 bus at all.
The ex-academic said: 'It was wrong to do that but somebody urged me to do it because they said it was vital information. I raised the question '"was she on the bus?" and the family were very upset because they are convinced she was on the bus... I just don't know.
'It is a possibility this victim was not on the bus and her body was placed besides the wreckage at a later time.'
I can quote many emails from the Messiah himself where he beseeches people to do his bidding.
edit: How about this piece of dangerous and delusional fantasy:
Quote:
I would like to point out to you and to everyone that I personally sent a copy of "7/7 Ripple Effect" on DVD to both Gareth Pierce (1 copy) and Imran Khan (2 copies) in November of 2007 and neither of them has responded to me, which I do not see as a good sign, especially when Imran Khan defended Hasina Patel - MSK's widow - and I asked him to please give her a copy of it for me (I sent him 2 copies for that purpose).
Why have neither of them mentioned the 7/7 Ripple effect film at Kingston and used it to undermine the case against these three falsely accused patsies? Are they going to?
Can we get copies of "7/7 Ripple Effect" to the families of these three accused, to use to undermine the case against them?
Anyone know their addresses, to send the DVDs to?
If so, please send them to me asap.
Thank-you.
Long live the Fighters (for God/good),
Muad'Dib.
_________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
I think he makes a good point.
Imran Khan has made alot of money defending terror suspects.
But they have all ended up with huge prison terms and he has never used the argument that these attacks were staged.
The question is legitimate as to whether these chaps are getting a proper defence.
Osama Bin London was another one stiched up.
Firstly 'Bin' means of. Exactly like the 'O' in O'Callaghan.
He is calling himself Osama of London or Osama from London.
He ended up convicted for simply going paintballing.
So i think MuadDib makes a valid point, is Imran Khan a true advocate.
I would have thought that you as the leader of a group campaigning for 7/7 truth you would cooperate and agree with others batting for the same team.
Unless you are another appointed gatekeeper just doing your job keeping the lid on.
ps;
re your post on the other topic.
Have you trademarked J7? _________________
What does Astro3's views on World War II history have to do with 7/7?
His views undermine his credibility as a 7/7 researcher and is being used to undermine the hard work by more credible researchers such as Nafeez and those at J7 and Ludicrous Diversion
karlos wrote:
What does MuadDib's religious views have to do with 7/7?
MD's view that he is the messiah and his promotion of jewish conspiracy theories undermine his credibility as a 7/7 researcher, not that he has much in the first place IMO.
Now perhaps you can tell what the religious views of the men you claim were behind the nazi's chemical weapons has to do with anything let alone 7/7?
Why is it remotely relevant to anything that Fritz Haber was Jewish?
It is you who has the problem with Fritz Haber and all the others such as Theo Goldschmidt. The fact that they were all Jewish does not fit in with your brainwashing and so you cannot deal with it.
You seem to have a block when it comes to apportioning blame and guilt.
PhD researchers such as Norman Finkelstein have no such problem.
Why not visit Jewish websites such as http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/gedalyaLieber mann.cfm
It is you who has a problem with Fritz Haber and the others being Jewish.
Real Jews regard him and the others as murderous villains.
Quote:
Back to zyklonB
has there been any tests to verify it?
The first tests were Polish investigations immediately after the war.
You will ofcourse be aware that it is still used in the USA as a spray. After testing on humans was banned by Clinton it was legalised again under Bush.
My question is, has there been any tests recently to verify that it kills and under what concentrations and over what time.
Rat Poison kills but only in extremely large concentrations.
So what of this stuff.
Surely you would want to prove to yourself that this stuff is actually fit for purpose?
Just like the recent case of chapathi flour, water and black pepper not being capable of making a viable explosive.
Recent research data must exist.
Let me make myself clear. I do agree that there was a Holocaust.
But it is a fact that there has been a great deal of guilding the lily.
Lies serve no justice to the victims. Pretending that zionists were not involved is a disgraceful lie not born out by the historic facts. Without Paul Warburg's money, Rockefellers oil, Goldschmidt's chemicals, etc it could not have happened.
Pretending that Mossad was not involved in 7/7 serves no justice to Miriam Hyman or any othe the other victims. _________________
What does Astro3's views on World War II history have to do with 7/7?
His views undermine his credibility as a 7/7 researcher and is being used to undermine the hard work by more credible researchers such as Nafeez and those at J7 and Ludicrous Diversion
karlos wrote:
What does MuadDib's religious views have to do with 7/7?
MD's view that he is the messiah and his promotion of jewish conspiracy theories undermine his credibility as a 7/7 researcher, not that he has much in the first place IMO.
Now perhaps you can tell what the religious views of the men you claim were behind the nazi's chemical weapons has to do with anything let alone 7/7?
Round and round we go
Ok, it is an undisputed fact that the Nazis were supported by certain people.
I am in favour of these supporters and collaboraters and participants being exposed and if possible punished.
Unfortunately, people dont want to hear these kind of truths.
IBM, Warburgs, Standard Oil, Ford, are all still in business and all were supporters and collaboraters and participants.
I would love it if the Simon Wiesenthal centre exposed the Bush family and Prince Philip's Nazi involvements.
As i said Astro3 and MuadDib's political, religious, historic views have no bearing on their work regarding 7/7. Unless you want to smear them in some way. I think the fact that their research has cut a little too close to the truth is exactly why people are against them.
Anyone who researches 7/7 and puts blinkers on to avoid Israeli involvement is in my opinion not a researcher but simply a repeater of the official line.
PS:
Shaid Malik is a Muslim Labour MP who voted in favour of 42 detention of Muslims and supports the war against Muslims.
I am perfectly comfortable pointing out that the traitor is himself a 'Muslim'
I was very pleased when he was arrested by airport security when he travelled to the states.
So why is it wrong to point out that the creator of German chemical weapons Fritz Haber was Jewish? _________________
Shaid Malik is a Muslim Labour MP who voted in favour of 42 detention of Muslims and supports the war against Muslims.
I am perfectly comfortable pointing out that the traitor is himself a 'Muslim'
I was very pleased when he was arrested by airport security when he travelled to the states.
So why is it wrong to point out that the creator of German chemical weapons Fritz Haber was Jewish?
I have no problem with exposing war criminals and 'traitors' including jewish and zionist war criminals. The key difference here is that the fact that Shaid Malik's faith is incidental whilst the faith of Fritz Haber seems to be central to your arguments and beliefs.
The simple solution is to be 'faith-blind' and 'colour blind' and expose all war criminals and terrorists and their apologists and collaborators regardless of their faith and if their faith is mentioned show how it has any relevance to their crimes.
Dogsmilk, the discussion on 7/7 Ripple Effect, and J7's position on this highly speculative production and it's creator Muad Dib can be found on this thread:
A recent email edict from Maud Dib beseeched his followers to:
Quote:
Can anyone, or more than one of you, please make copies of the "7/7 Ripple Effect" DVD and go to Kingston and give them to the accused's families in the public gallery and to members of the jury?
It's time to fight back. We cannot let these three people go to jail for 30 years when we KNOW it was an inside-job.
Thanks. I see I need to do some revision.
karlos wrote:
t is surely fair to say that the university that awarded him him his Ph.D. for work on the history of science made that pronouncement.
I was under the impression his Phd is in astronomy. Is that not the case? However, it is - to be precise - "science historian" he has suddenly started describing himself as. I think this is partly to mask the fact he has zero qualifications relating to the study of the Holocaust and by his own admission read a whopping four non Holocaust denial books as part of his 'extensive research' (though he didn't appear familiar with a key fact I quoted to him from one of them)which it actually appears basically consisted of hoovering up the kind of nonsense off the internet you're such a sucker for.
Quote:
What does Astro3's views on World War II history have to do with 7/7?
Any more than his membership of the Green party?
*Because the the TM/J7 get associated with Holocaust denial no matter how unfair or inaccurate one may feel that is and - however inadvertently - he has contributed to this.
*Because his 'research' was of such shockingly poor quality it raises serious questions about his ability and judgement
*He has conspicuously failed to defend his views in any reasonable forum which is not the behaviour you would expect of someone who is championing a 'controversial' theory and bodes poorly for someone who has endeavoured to be a 'public face' for the TM. To be nevertheless consistently claiming he'll debate anyone shows him to be a total bullsh*tter which is another lamentable trait in any spokesperson.
*He has displayed a lack of tact and sensitivity
*He endorses long debunked dogsh*t touted frequently by neo-Nazis and Hitler apologists who - funnily enough - feature heavily in his 'sources'.
Quote:
What does MuadDib's religious views have to do with 7/7?
Or his decision to wear a seatbelt?
*Because the website makes wild, implausible claims which kind of mirror Ripple effect's lapse into stating theory as fact
*The wild content of the website potentially subtracts credibilty from the notion of questioning the 7/7 narrative.
*He is obviously some kind of scam merchant
*Sending DVDS to the families is the kind of thing only an idiot would be doing
Mind you...and this is actually 100% true...
When I was a teenager I got pulled by a cycle copper for some seriously dangerously overtaking. Did he take me in? No - he told me off a bit and let me go. Years later I got caught turning right at a no right turn sign in Manchester (I was lost and confused). I should have got points for it at least. But they gave me a producer, I complied with that and then nothing else came of it!. More recently still, I left my car all day in a two hour parking bay at Sainsburys without getting a ticket!
How did I do it?
Well Karlos, let me know if you're interested and I'll give you an address. Send me a ton - cash - and I'll mail you back my secret....guaranteed!!
After all, God is predominantly preoccupied with motoring related offences and I am simply doing the Lord's work by concentrating on these as the single most pressing need in today's world.
For the lord sayeth that thou shall drive how thou likes and as fast as one likes and he recogniseth not traffic lights for they are the Devil's work. Particularly the red one, the colour of Satan himself if fictional representations are to be believed. Those that have faith shall ignore the sinful worldly trappings of the seatbelt and put thy faith in God. And thou shalt smoke weed at the wheel if thou so desire. Only the sinful shall experience delayed reaction times
- Book of Clarkson, Chapter 4 vs 8-12
Quote:
You people just cant handle truth and that is why you choose to attack the messengers rather than the villains
What "truth" is this? I seem to have missed it.
Quote:
The Ripple Effect is the best 7/7 documentary made so far because it offers a chillingly realistic and accurate scenario.
Do you rate it as highly as your Zyklon B film?
Quote:
Unless you are another appointed gatekeeper just doing your job keeping the lid on.
Which gate are they keeping? Is it the one that would lead you up the garden path?
Last edited by Dogsmilk on Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Ok, it is an undisputed fact that the Nazis were supported by certain people.
I am in favour of these supporters and collaboraters and participants being exposed and if possible punished.
Unfortunately, people dont want to hear these kind of truths.
IBM, Warburgs, Standard Oil, Ford, are all still in business and all were supporters and collaboraters and participants.
Could you explain how any of this relates to the stuff Kollerstrom has been coming out with?
Can you explain why big corporations wouldn't deal with the Nazis? Plenty of unsavoury regimes today are armed to the hilt by big business, something your beloved Thatcher was well into. Isn't today's arms trade and corporate dominance of the third world actually more important?
Can you explain in what way it's any kind of dramatic revelation that Henry Ford was a pro-Nazi anti-semite?
Can you confirm if you have actually read that book you periodically show the cover of?
Can you explain in what way it is actually controversial or conflicts with history as it is already written?
t is you who has a problem with Fritz Haber and the others being Jewish.
Don't be ridiculous. I think it is irrelevant - I have enquired as to why you think it is somehow relevant and this is something you have failed to explain. You are in a poor position to talk about brainwashing given your habit of blindly believing any old codswallop simply because it is 'alternative media'.
Quote:
My question is, has there been any tests recently to verify that it kills and under what concentrations and over what time.
Have you considered googling - say - 'HCN toxicity' to consider the intriguing question of whether hydrogen cyanide gas is potentially a bit dangerous? Just a thought.
t is surely fair to say that the university that awarded him him his Ph.D. for work on the history of science made that pronouncement.
I didnt write this, you have misquoted me.
Karlos wrote:
What does Astro3's views on World War II history have to do with 7/7?
Any more than his membership of the Green party?
dogsmilk wrote:
*Because the the TM/J7 get associated with Holocaust denial no matter how unfair or inaccurate one may feel that is and - however inadvertently - he has contributed to this.
My dear - 7/7 truth, 911 truth, Climate change, etc are already linked to World War II history. Dont you read any papers?
The zionist media classes all deviant views as equally subversive
Personally i dont see how a person can believe in 911 and 7/7 truth and not also accept wider truths. After all there are common culprits in all.
Quote:
Quote:
The Ripple Effect is the best 7/7 documentary made so far because it offers a chillingly realistic and accurate scenario.
Do you rate it as highly as your Zyklon B film?
I havent made any film.
But if i did i would be sure to point out who made Zyklon B.
The book about 150,000 Jews who served in the Third Reich armed forces.
Which bit of that are you interested in?
The fact the book too was written by a Jew?
The fact that many of them served as high ranking officers?
Or the fact that this history is not usually covered by the mainstream media.
I think the fact that big corporations such as Ford supplied the means for Germany to wage war need to be exposed. It is relevant because the allies deliberately did not bomb Ford's German factories and even compensated Ford when a stray bomb hit one of the plants.
You call Ford an anti semite. (Wrong phrase but you know why you use it.)
So is Theo Goldschmidt the maker of Zyklon B also an anti semite?
Or is Paul Warburg the provider of finance for Hitler also an anti semite?
And is Rockefeller the sponsor of Mengeles evil experiments and also the supplier of 50% of Germany's oil without which the Luftwaffe could not have carried out the Battle of Britain is he also an anti semite?
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject:
karlos wrote:
re your post on the other topic.
Have you trademarked J7?
Another irritatingly irrelevant question.
We weren't talking about the letter of the law but the principle and spirit of the law Karlos. Nobody's hiring a bloody lawyer to sue anybody else - have you lost your mind?
This was a genuine mistake IMO which could have been cleared up between Brigit and Belinda with a quick, quiet phone cal.
A 'common decency' and 'common law' approach to the issue of rights to names and nomenclature
I have some degree of knowledge and experience of things patent, trademark, and copyright, and I think there's a precedent here that might be of assistance to those who are unclear as to where things stand in regard to terrorism nomenclature - specifically 7/7, 21/7 and the like:
'Vacuum cleaner' is a generic descriptive term (known and accepted as the definition of a machine which utilises low pressure to draw dirt and debris into a container for the purpose of cleaning), it is therefore entirely adequate and appropriate.
'Hoover' has also become synonymous with the exact same machine, whilst both are legitimate and appropriate, 'Hoover' will have no precedent prior to its use in this regard by the Hoover company. There may be previous instances of the use of the word 'hoover', but it can be clearly demonstrated that in regard to 'low pressure suction inducing cleaning devices' the term or name 'hoover' is Hoover's, and theirs alone.
Dealing specifically with dates, 'Thursday 12th June 2008' or '12/6/08' as descriptors are widely accepted. In particular regard to the 7th July 2005/July 7th 2005 bombings/incidents', 7/7 was rapidly adopted due to its synergy with 11/3 and 9/11 (9/11 being based on the slightly bizarre practice of jumbling sequentially accrued time and date data in a numerological descriptor).
Clearly, whilst coincidentally selecting the secret society friendly date of 7/7/2005 / '777', al-Q were also being thoughtful about the confusion yet another terrorist atrocity with another transatlantic unfriendly date would cause come media monkey narrative time.
The use of a single letter to describe what are considered to be 'ordinary' dates in isolation (e.g. outside of calendaric systems where sequentiality provides context) is too vague to be of use. If however, the date in question were out of the ordinary and an individual or group first referred to that particular memorable date - in this instance the 7th July 2005 - as "J7" before anyone else did, then that same individual or group would have reasonable and just cause to consider that to be their intellectual property.
The only times J7 have objected to the use of the term 'J7' by others, are when J7 have been at risk of being misquoted, misrepresented, or being impersonated by an other or others, or otherwise at risk of having their extensive and labour intensive research used by others in order to make money, or by accident or design put at risk the reputation and/or efforts of J7 itself.
In a fashion similar to the way a corporate brand name can become a generic term such as 'Coke' in description of cola, there will sometimes arise issues when one organisation has used the other's identity - whether knowingly or accidentally - to describe or market their own products, the 'products' being in this case research and repute.
In this specific instance, there has been - after much investigation by a colleague - no precedent discovered for the use of J7 as a descriptor for the 7th of July 2005 incidents/bombings by any individual or group prior to its use by The July Seventh Truth Campaign, it is therefore demonstrably the case that being created by their instigation, 'J7' is the 'sole common law property' of J7 itself.
Furthermore, the descriptive text "J7 researcher" or "J7 research" is ambiguous and prone to causing confusion when used by others than J7 - The July Seventh Truth Campaign as not being of use as a specific date identifier it can only correctly relate to a broader contextual specificity - in this case The July Seventh Truth campaign.
Taking corporate trademark and copyright laws as a broad model for what I assume to be our embracing of 'common law' fairness, it is appropriate that the descriptor "J7" should only be used with the express pre-consent of J7 itself, as, if we are to hold to the kind of values we aim to protect, this is the only reasonable course to take.
In the name of avoiding any confusion in future, I would recommend that in the case of descriptive copy, video, or audio or any other presentation materials, 7/7, 21/7 and the like are referred to as 7/7, 21/7, and so on in the name of clarity and ingenuosness, as the use of J7 can be clearly demonstrated to conflate the organisation shorthanded to J7 (The July Seventh Truth Campaign) with any other or others whom are not involved with it.
We, it is hopefully safe to assume, are here for the benefit values diluted, re-branded and chipped away and blown apart by the state, ideas such as justice, freedom, fairness - for us to leave any opportunity for anyone to hoist us with our own petards, is to make their cynical game easier, and I would hope that we are not here to lose but rather to succeed in doing what we can in protecting things we are told to hold dear as we are ordered to wave them goodbye.
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject:
Belinda has confirmed that the BBC CF were intending to film Nick Kollerstrom (the mis-named J7 researcher) speaking at the meeting on 25th June. I surmise that this explains much of the shenanigans surrounding the leaflet. _________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
My dear - 7/7 truth, 911 truth, Climate change, etc are already linked to World War II history. Dont you read any papers?
Apparently not. Please educate me.
Quote:
The zionist media classes all deviant views as equally subversive
I'd love to have the psychological security blanket of living in a world as clear cut and simplistic as the one you do. Things must seem so...straightforward without all that maddening complexity and context.
Quote:
Personally i dont see how a person can believe in 911 and 7/7 truth and not also accept wider truths. After all there are common culprits in all.
What culprits in what "wider truths". Are they Jewish by any chance?
Quote:
I havent made any film.
But if i did i would be sure to point out who made Zyklon B.
Very funny.
I was, of course, referring to the comedic effort you posted.
Incidentally, this comes from Fr ederick "complete tw&t even by denier standards" Toben's crew who brought us arguably the most laughable denial film of all time, Judea declares war on Germany. Interestingly, in that steaming dog turd, the exact same narrator presents some guy wearing a full body chemical protection suit and soberly advises us these are required to handle Zyklon B yet these were not available at Auschwitz!. Aside from the implication that we've now entered the unique territory of delousing denial, one wonders why the 'doctor' in your film hadn't got one, or if Zyklon B is too dangerous, not dangerous at all or what. Not that such a contradiction would likely bother you even if you watched both back to back.
Quote:
The book about 150,000 Jews who served in the Third Reich armed forces.
Which bit of that are you interested in?
The fact the book too was written by a Jew?
The fact that many of them served as high ranking officers?
Or the fact that this history is not usually covered by the mainstream media.
I'm not massively interested in any of it as it's not controversial or not known about and I don't see what the big deal is.
What do you find so interesting?
Please answer this one question - Have you actually read the book. (I doubt it otherwise you'd probably find it's not as exciting as you think)
Quote:
I think the fact that big corporations such as Ford supplied the means for Germany to wage war need to be exposed. It is relevant because the allies deliberately did not bomb Ford's German factories and even compensated Ford when a stray bomb hit one of the plants.
It has already been "exposed", but I agree the amoral nature of capitalism and corporate power doesn't get enough attention.
Quote:
You call Ford an anti semite. (Wrong phrase but you know why you use it.)
If the international Jew doesn't count as anti-semitic I'd be interested to know what you think actually does.
Quote:
So is Theo Goldschmidt the maker of Zyklon B also an anti semite?
Or is Paul Warburg the provider of finance for Hitler also an anti semite?
And is Rockefeller the sponsor of Mengeles evil experiments and also the supplier of 50% of Germany's oil without which the Luftwaffe could not have carried out the Battle of Britain is he also an anti semite?
Not that I'm aware of. Why?
Quote:
I asked you a simple question. Simple because you seem to know alot about this subject.
How much Zyklon B will kill a person.
and how long must the person be exposed for.
Cigarettes contain zyklon B too if i am not mistaken.
So dosage matters.
IIRC you might find about 300ppm should kill you within minutes, though smaller quantities may be fatal over a longer duration. Look it up for yourself - are you suddenly google challenged or something? Your cigarette example is very funny. You are a very abstract guy. I can see you've found that video convincing and are believing it. By next week you'll probably be going round claiming cyanide is harmless.
Note - why has the swear filter edited out "F r ederick" as in Fred Toben????. Is there a new sex act I'm not clued up on or something? A while ago the word f l i c k disappeared out of one of my posts for no reason whatsoever (the only possible rude connotation I can think of is for a lady to 'f l i c k her bean' - an obscure reference I've never seen mentioned here). Now even the benign c r a p is automatically replaced by "nonsense". Not content with posters being subjected to the bizarre and patronising control freakery of being involuntarily labelled according to arbitrary moderator whim (something I have seen on no other forum), we are now apparently being subjected to a nanny state run by Mary Whitehouse.
re your post on the other topic.
Have you trademarked J7?
Another irritatingly irrelevant question.
We weren't talking about the letter of the law but the principle and spirit of the law Karlos. Nobody's hiring a bloody lawyer to sue anybody else - have you lost your mind?
This was a genuine mistake IMO which could have been cleared up between Brigit and Belinda with a quick, quiet phone cal.
Really no need for all this fuss.
I agree mate it was a storm in a teacup.
But i make the point. Prole has not trademarked J7. If i want to talk about J7 i am free to do so as you are or as anyone else is.
I object to debate being constantly stifled by Prole.
The weblink after all is advertising her site for free and she should welcome it rather than threaten.
She attacked the Ripple effect film, she attacked Daniel Obachike, she attacked Nick's research and she boycotted the J7 public debate last year.
Queen Canute holding back the tide comes to mind _________________
You call Ford an anti semite. (Wrong phrase but you know why you use it.)
If the international Jew doesn't count as anti-semitic I'd be interested to know what you think actually does.
Well the semetic race are actually Arabs from palestine/jordan.
Most Jews are actually white european from Ashkenazi background and so are not ethnic semites.
Quote:
So is Theo Goldschmidt the maker of Zyklon B also an anti semite?
Or is Paul Warburg the provider of finance for Hitler also an anti semite?
And is Rockefeller the sponsor of Mengeles evil experiments and also the supplier of 50% of Germany's oil without which the Luftwaffe could not have carried out the Battle of Britain is he also an anti semite?
These Jews caused the deaths of million of Jews yet you dont regard them as anti Semetic. What in your boks does a person have to do to be anti semetic in that case?
Quote:
IIRC you might find about 300ppm should kill you within minutes, though smaller quantities may be fatal over a longer duration
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 632 Location: London UK
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:11 am Post subject:
karlos wrote:
TonyGosling wrote:
karlos wrote:
re your post on the other topic.
Have you trademarked J7?
Another irritatingly irrelevant question.
We weren't talking about the letter of the law but the principle and spirit of the law Karlos. Nobody's hiring a bloody lawyer to sue anybody else - have you lost your mind?
This was a genuine mistake IMO which could have been cleared up between Brigit and Belinda with a quick, quiet phone cal.
Really no need for all this fuss.
I agree mate it was a storm in a teacup.
But i make the point. Prole has not trademarked J7. If i want to talk about J7 i am free to do so as you are or as anyone else is.
I object to debate being constantly stifled by Prole.
The weblink after all is advertising her site for free and she should welcome it rather than threaten.
She attacked the Ripple effect film, she attacked Daniel Obachike, she attacked Nick's research and she boycotted the J7 public debate last year.
Queen Canute holding back the tide comes to mind
Tony Gosling of mass email fame is hardly the person to advise on quick, quiet phone calls.
No one is objecting to you talking about J7, we only ask you to acknowledge that J7 is the July 7th Truth Campaign. Perhaps what you really meant was free to talk about 7/7? If anyone here truly believes that J7 is generic for 7/7, then can I ask, why don't you describe yourselves as S11ers?
I am not attempting to stifle debate, I was just making the point that we at J7 objected to a leaflet which had advertised J7 researchers speaking at a meeting of which we had no knowledge. That the BBC CF were due to film NK speaking at this meeting might explain why someone might wish to conflate him with J7. After all we told the BBC where to go when they approached us to participate in their risible programme. Since NK's strange articles on the Holocaust came to light (not until he started working with the BBC) many attempts have been made to smear J7, or anyone with any doubts about 7/7, using Kollerstrom as the example. So yes, I do have to hold back the tide sometimes, the tide of unmitigated rubbish that is often directed our way.
What 'J7 public debate' was held last year and how did I boycott it? _________________ 'The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought'. JFK
I agree mate it was a storm in a teacup.
But i make the point. Prole has not trademarked J7. If i want to talk about J7 i am free to do so as you are or as anyone else is.
I object to debate being constantly stifled by Prole.
The weblink after all is advertising her site for free and she should welcome it rather than threaten.
She attacked the Ripple effect film, she attacked Daniel Obachike, she attacked Nick's research and she boycotted the J7 public debate last year.
Queen Canute holding back the tide comes to mind
I doth my cap and prostrate myself before your stunningly obvious obtuseness.
A 'common decency' and 'common law' approach to the issue of rights to names and nomenclature
I have some degree of knowledge and experience of things patent, trademark, and copyright, and I think there's a precedent here that might be of assistance to those who are unclear as to where things stand in regard to terrorism nomenclature - specifically 7/7, 21/7 and the like:
'Vacuum cleaner' is a generic descriptive term (known and accepted as the definition of a machine which utilises low pressure to draw dirt and debris into a container for the purpose of cleaning), it is therefore entirely adequate and appropriate.
'Hoover' has also become synonymous with the exact same machine, whilst both are legitimate and appropriate, 'Hoover' will have no precedent prior to its use in this regard by the Hoover company. There may be previous instances of the use of the word 'hoover', but it can be clearly demonstrated that in regard to 'low pressure suction inducing cleaning devices' the term or name 'hoover' is Hoover's, and theirs alone.
Dealing specifically with dates, 'Thursday 12th June 2008' or '12/6/08' as descriptors are widely accepted. In particular regard to the 7th July 2005/July 7th 2005 bombings/incidents', 7/7 was rapidly adopted due to its synergy with 11/3 and 9/11 (9/11 being based on the slightly bizarre practice of jumbling sequentially accrued time and date data in a numerological descriptor).
Clearly, whilst coincidentally selecting the secret society friendly date of 7/7/2005 / '777', al-Q were also being thoughtful about the confusion yet another terrorist atrocity with another transatlantic unfriendly date would cause come media monkey narrative time.
The use of a single letter to describe what are considered to be 'ordinary' dates in isolation (e.g. outside of calendaric systems where sequentiality provides context) is too vague to be of use. If however, the date in question were out of the ordinary and an individual or group first referred to that particular memorable date - in this instance the 7th July 2005 - as "J7" before anyone else did, then that same individual or group would have reasonable and just cause to consider that to be their intellectual property.
The only times J7 have objected to the use of the term 'J7' by others, are when J7 have been at risk of being misquoted, misrepresented, or being impersonated by an other or others, or otherwise at risk of having their extensive and labour intensive research used by others in order to make money, or by accident or design put at risk the reputation and/or efforts of J7 itself.
In a fashion similar to the way a corporate brand name can become a generic term such as 'Coke' in description of cola, there will sometimes arise issues when one organisation has used the other's identity - whether knowingly or accidentally - to describe or market their own products, the 'products' being in this case research and repute.
In this specific instance, there has been - after much investigation by a colleague - no precedent discovered for the use of J7 as a descriptor for the 7th of July 2005 incidents/bombings by any individual or group prior to its use by The July Seventh Truth Campaign, it is therefore demonstrably the case that being created by their instigation, 'J7' is the 'sole common law property' of J7 itself.
Furthermore, the descriptive text "J7 researcher" or "J7 research" is ambiguous and prone to causing confusion when used by others than J7 - The July Seventh Truth Campaign as not being of use as a specific date identifier it can only correctly relate to a broader contextual specificity - in this case The July Seventh Truth campaign.
Taking corporate trademark and copyright laws as a broad model for what I assume to be our embracing of 'common law' fairness, it is appropriate that the descriptor "J7" should only be used with the express pre-consent of J7 itself, as, if we are to hold to the kind of values we aim to protect, this is the only reasonable course to take.
In the name of avoiding any confusion in future, I would recommend that in the case of descriptive copy, video, or audio or any other presentation materials, 7/7, 21/7 and the like are referred to as 7/7, 21/7, and so on in the name of clarity and ingenuosness, as the use of J7 can be clearly demonstrated to conflate the organisation shorthanded to J7 (The July Seventh Truth Campaign) with any other or others whom are not involved with it.
We, it is hopefully safe to assume, are here for the benefit values diluted, re-branded and chipped away and blown apart by the state, ideas such as justice, freedom, fairness - for us to leave any opportunity for anyone to hoist us with our own petards, is to make their cynical game easier, and I would hope that we are not here to lose but rather to succeed in doing what we can in protecting things we are told to hold dear as we are ordered to wave them goodbye.
Prole is right and J7 do IMO have legitimate claim to the 'brand' 'J7' to represent their campaign. The leaflet was wrong and Belinda has apologised and changed it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
