Why is ANYONE turning their back on 9/11 & What Happened

[newsmedianews]

In the past few days a friend of mine posted a link to my 9/11 page - http://www.newsmedianews.com/wtc.php on the UK Ecademy website, of which he has been a member for several years.

Within a very brief period, his post, entitled Do you believe elements of the US government were directly implicated in 9/11? at http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=66266 attracted a high number of views and comments.

When he attempted to pursue the train of thought and reaction on what is supposedly an open blog site, albeit 'networking related', he suddenly found his posts removed and himself the subject of a number of insulting comments. The resulting argument this gave rise to on the site can be viewed at http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=66311

Among the comments were such as:
When will you stop coat tailing on the dead?

and

Free speech is welcomed here but only in a positive and ethical way....'

... doesn't the latter sound familiar somehow?

The sad reality is those who fail to stand up for freedom whilst professing to do so run the risk of seeing it taken away from themselves and others. And we are seeing this happen on a daily basis.

And George Orwell - well, strangely enough he was American too?
(George Orwell http://www.levity.com/corduroy/orwell.htm
The Beat Generation : Writers from the Beat Era of American Literature)
against
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/gorwell.htm


Keith Harris
editor
newsmedianews.com

[TimmyG]

its crazy innit?

why is independent thinking so offensive to people?!!!!

[who murdered di ?]

Some people have there third eye/forehead controled and some dont, thats why independent thinking is so offensive to some people?!!!! i.e. They would need to face there internal weaknesses.

[scar]

I suppose it would be unlikely for those obsessed with accumulating as much paper as possible in full reliance on the system to question that same system.
Like how those who achieve lots in capitalism argue that its completely meritocratic even when they inherited all their money...
Bit of a shame your friend chose to go down the pod route, imo there is far more convincing evidence. Even so, i doubt the majority of people on that site would consider much that questions the official story.
Too much invested in the whole illusion.

[TimmyG]

yeah i think the pod theory needs to be abandoned.. unless better quality images can be found or other evidence.
not saying theres definately no pod, but there's much harder evidence which shows elements of the gov were responsible.
the pod theory does more damage to the movement than good

[HERA]

The detractors fall, mostly, into two categories.
1 Infiltrators.
2. The cognitive dissonant.
The former need no comment. The latter : many people are genuinely frightened by non-Establishment opinions. Their security is under threat from sheep facing the wrong way. As children - and possibly still now - they would cover their ears and shout "I'm not listeningggggg."

Dont waste ANY time on them : concentrate on the 5%.

[who murdered di ?]

Pod Theory ! Best sticking with the apparent mobile calls from the plane's because according to industry experts, the crucial link in wireless cell phone transmission from an aircraft is altitude and beyond a certain altitude which is usually reached within a few minutes after takeoff, cell phone calls are no longer possible.In other words, given the wireless technology available on September 11 2001, these cell calls could not have been placed from high altitude. http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

[Poseidon]

Theories such as the "pods" or "planes were holographic projections" or "no bombs on London Tubes, only power surges" are pushed by cranks or infiltrators. Although the official conspiracy theories will be incredulous compared to the sensible class of unofficial theories, unofficial theories that are even worse than the official account are created and promoted, specifically to discredit "conspiracy theorists".

This is how a debate ought to go: the official theorists start with ad hominem attacks on their opponents, then the level of debate is raised to take a quantitative analysis of the science behind the official theorists' claims. Note how at this stage, the official theorists must rely on the sort of qualitative description that is promoted by popular magazines, where the author of the magazine article just happens to be related to a Government official. Eventually, the pro-government / pro-sheep camp will slink off with their tails between their legs.

The best 9/11 elements to concentrate on are the collapse of WTC 7 followed by the Twin Towers, and the refusal to publicise video evidence of the Pentagon impact (apart from a pathetic 5-frame forgery concocted months after the event).

[Ally]

[Poseidon]

Ally says:

[Andrew Johnson]

I think one of the "give aways" here is the fact that Holocaust denial is now an arrestable offence in Austria

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

If we want freedom of speech - all of us who want it - Brits, Jews, Muslims and us Yorkshire people(!) have to realise we are sometimes on the receiving end of it.

This issue has to be debated on demonstrable evidence, not emotive assumptions.

I too have looked at (some of) the evidence and have more questions now than I did before.

This topic recently came up in an e-mail discussion. 1 person remarked "I know the holocaust happened because I know too many of the surivivors". Survivors of Death Camps and Gas Chambers? Of course the prison camps existed and many people died - they were put into slave labour etc - I don't think anyone denies that.

Again, people fail to distinguish between "extermination in Gas chambers" and slave labour in camps where typhus was rampant.

Again we have a similar situation here to those who say "talking about 9/11 Truth dishonours victims and their families" etc

Our wish is not to upset people, but to try and look at the evidence and see what the truth is.

[brian]

A Factual Appraisal Of The 'Holocaust' By The Red Cross

http://www.rense.com/general69/factua.htm

ICRC, Germany denying access to Holocaust archive

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/23288.html

[Ally]

ARCHIVES FROM NAZI RULE KEPT BY RED CROSS TO BE HANDED OVER
- Nazi archives may finally be made available to historians after Germany backed the move.

INTERVIEW: SARAH BLOOMFIELD, US HOLOCAUST MUSEUM - I'm thrilled and stunned, this will be a milestone. The archives contain from 30 to 50 million pages of information about people who were put in concentration camps and killed. The material will allow survivors to come and research it from themselves. Victims want a sense of closure because they are reaching the end of their lives, people like to know how their loved ones died.

BBC W/S radio. 07:10 - 19/04

Guess I'll have to read the archives than rely on these suspect revisionists.

[Poseidon]

Andrew Johnson wrote:

[Garrett Cooke]

I would be interested in Poseidon's response to this: http://andrew.mathis.net/hufschmid.html

Garrett

[wtc7]

Where do you folks stand on the left-right spectrum... (I'm getting worried...)?

What about this?

Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth - http://www.911review.com/denial/holocaust.html

Being linked to Holocaust denial is not exactly going to help in getting anyone to listen to what you say...

[wtc7]

"No Planes and No Gas Chambers" - Holocaust deniers push hoaxes that sabotage 9/11 Truth Movement

http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html

Which is even better than the 911review.com article...

[Ally]

Oil empire are among the most poisonous 911 shills on the web.

[xmasdale]

In my humble opinion anything on this website which smacks of holocaust denial should be banned. It is irrelevant to the 911 truth cause and will do us irreperable damage.

Noel

[Andrew Johnson]

Noel,

I don't think saying something should be banned is a humble opinion! (Sorry!)

The way I argue this is simply as follows:

What did or did not happen in Auschwitz and similar places in Germany does not affect the acceleration due to gravity.

If anyone has any interest in personal credibility being challenged, they might as well keep a low profile in the 9/11 Truth Campaign.

This campaign is fought on evidence and in the case of WTC 1,2 and 7, it isn't a "point of view". They were demolished with explosives. Debating otherwise is really like debating what will happen when you jump off a crane doing a bungie jump.

Sorry.

[xmasdale]

If what you are saying, Andrew, is that we should allow on this website posts which deny or diminish the seriousness of the holocaust, I strongly disagree with you.

Others judge us by what is on our website. There are powerful people out to discredit us. It doesn't matter whether there is or is not evidence for revision of numbers of people gassed in the holocaust. This website is about 9/11 not the holocaust. If anyone uses it for peddling their theories on holocaust revisionism, our enemies will seize on those posts as evidence that we are an anti-semitic group, in my arrogant opinion.

Any such post should be removed forthwith.

Noel

[xmasdale]

A further point which needs making is that, because we are an open forum, anyone who wants to discredit us can put posts on our forum with the very intention of damaging our credibility.

In the discussions I have had with Quaker Peace and Social Witness earlier this week, certain posts on our forum were taken as evidence that we are peddling ridiculous ideas.

Noel

[markburdge]

I completely agree.

We should stick the big unanswered questions (there are plenty):

1/ WT1,2 and 7 were demolished. - Please provide evidence to the contrary.

2/ An airliner did not hit the Pentagon based on all the evidence we can see.

etc.etc.

There are so many easy targets for our campaign that we should not be distracted. It only gives ammunition to those that would love to write us off as cranks.

[Andrew Johnson]

Noel,

Sorry - I was not suggesting anything other than what was in my post.

Discussing the aspects of the historical record about the Holocaust does not make one a "holocaust denier". This is a psychological label from the same "group" that gave us the "conspiracy theorist" label. People must check the definitions of words such as "denier" and "theorist" and "evidence" if comments and debate is/are to made fairly.

This is a forum for free speech. People have made statements backed up by documented evidence, in most cases.

No subject should be off limits in my view. The struggle for truth is an uncompromising one.

The holocaust was a terrible event - in a very similar way to 9/11. All evidence should be discussed and debated - especially when it has historical relevance to 9/11.

Intelligent commentary has been given on this thread and EVERYONE is free to challenge it. That is, by definition, freedom of speech - even though it upsets some people - it is ONLY speech, not ACTION.

I have had people challenging me personally about things that I have experienced and I have to deal with it mentally. This is how we must take personal responsibility for our emotional response to COMMENTS or STATEMENTS made. This applies to all people who wish to participate fairly in 2Freedom of Speech" - in a phrase "no one should take offence".

Where comments may affect someones safety or empoyment, that is somewhat different.

This thread is in the "General" Forum, and IS relevant to 9/11 and should be discussed vigorously, though sensibly and sensitively.

Where posts are taken as evidence that "we are idiots" it is up to us to focus on the evidence we are discussing and be assertive. This subject is not "pure". If it is suggested that we should start to "filter posts" based on their relevance to 9/11 then:

1) This is censorship
2) It's a helluva job
3) People who deny the evidence will use ANYHTING to ridicule us - even mis-spellings, bad layout or a single factual error. (I have experienced this many times during debates without any conentious posts being mentioned)

People whose beliefs are heavily integrated into a political, religious or idealogical group usaully have a harder time accepting 9/11 truth and the content of this forum, to me, in the final analysis only has a marginal effect on this.

i.e. if it means I have to work harder to convince people of the evidence in a debate because of "dodgy" posts on this board, I am willing to work that much harder to keep this forum open-ended and allow freedom of speech (within rules re advertising and not being horrible to people etc).

To censure our posts to improve this marginal advantage is, in my view, a step not worth taking.

I am not worried about my own credibility or that of this website - I am concerned about people not accepting the effects of the law of gravity on 9/11.

[Pikey]

Banning people from what they have to say, should be the absolute last resort! After all thats the action and culture I associate with gatekeepers and a dictorial fascist state.

I do however understand Noels concerns on this subject!

I totally endorse an earlier statement Andrew Johnson made:-

[wtc7]

What is a shill? I looked it up on the Wikipedia, but I'm not really any the wiser about what you mean in this contex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

I haven't read everything on the http://www.oilempire.us/ site but it seems reasonable to me, politically better than many sites that have 9/11 coverage but it's presentional style is rather off putting, (another one that I have a lot of time for is http://www.globalresearch.ca/ ) but I guess I would say this since I'm on the left... where do your politics lie -- until I came here the only people I was aware of who were questioning the holocaust were fascists (though I never really understood why they did since they seem to be in favour of the extermination of the everyone on the left and non-whites, though of course they just say they want to deport them...).

I'm sorry that my anonomity causes you to question my motives -- I assure you that they are not what you fear (you seem to think I'm a spook).

My background is the building industry and the far left -- this is why WTC7 is the thing that got me questioning the official story, I have worked on steel framed buildings and I know how they fail and the most convincing explaination for the structural failure of WTC7 is controlled demolition.

I don't know what hit the Pentagon.

There doesn't appear to be anyone active on here close to where I live.

[freddie]

I'm confused - I skim read the initial links and niether piece is denying the holocaust, they're just highlighting the fact that some have tried to link this movement with theirs. Wasn't WTC7 just doing the same?

Ally, I was wondering why you say that OilEmpire is one of the worst websites out there. I've come across the site a few times (months ago) and found it to be far less dogmatic than some of the more popular sites - I didn't go through the whole thing so could well have missed something dodgy ... could you give us a heads up on why you say they're so bad?

Cheers

EDIT: Just realized my browser went a bit special and what I thought was the start of the thread was actually page two

[Poseidon]

After investigating the various claims of Andrew E. Mathis, I find nothing to convince me that they are anything more than a last-ditch attempt by an agent or dupe of the trillion-dollar zionist crime syndicate to prop up the "disinfestation chambers were gas chambers" hoax, and the associated "six million" myth (copyright 1900) of Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, for a few more years.

The Majdanek concentration camp was the subject of a major revisionist study by Jurgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno entitled Concentration Camp Majdanek, A Historical and Technical Study; the English edition was published June 2003. A free .pdf file may be downloaded here. The room shown in the Andrew Mathis piece is Chamber III of disinfestation installation barrack 41. The walls have indeed sustained iron blue staining; hydrogen cyanide was employed for treating the prisoners' clothing.

A feature of Majdanek is that the barracks were adapted from old horse stables. At most of the camps, the delousing fumigation rooms were too small to support charges of mass murder by gassings; these small disinfestation rooms had high levels of cyanide on the walls whilst the larger shower rooms allegedly used for mass gassings had negligible or zero levels. Chamber III in the picture is about 30' 5" by 12' 6" by 7'. Hence, the exterminationist conspiracy theorists dare not supply images of the other alleged gas chambers, instead resorting to the ruse that they were "destroyed" by the Germans (reminiscent of Saddam's nuclear weapons).

The Germans were meticulous in their record-keeping, and the death books for Majdanek had columns including name, nationality and date of birth for each deceased. According to the Red Cross figures, the Majdanek deaths totalled 8,831. December 1942 was a bad month with 2,983 dying, 2,505 of whom were Jewish. The camp population was down to 10,900 in January 1943, then increased to peak at 22,500 in June 1943.

Suppose prisoners had somehow been tricked or forced into Chamber III in such quantity that each had an area of only about 20 ins by 10 ins. Pressac, of the exterminationist school, has postulated that 520 to 729 people at any one time were gassed in a 75 m^2 area, which is 1.2 to 1.55 ft^2 per person and consistent with a 200 ins^2 or 1.4 ft^2 estimate. The fact that the room had no showers is something of a giveaway, and the naked inmates would surely suspect something was wrong when the others kept piling into the room in such quantity. It could take half an hour to get everyone to line up, even short of a mass insurrection. However, given that the room area is 365 ins by 150 ins, this would allow INT(365 / 20) * INT(150 / 10) = 270 individuals per gassing in this room. The ventilation of the room was very limited, and in Germar Rudolf's The Rudolf Report, also available as a free download at the vho.org site, he estimates (p.226) for guards not wearing a gas mask, entry to carry out the bodies would only be safe some 3 to 4 hours after a gassing had commenced. If wearing a gas mask but no protective clothing, hard physical work such as carrying out bodies would be possible by about 1.5 to 2 hours after a gassing (with a higher concentration the sweating guards would have been poisoned).

At rest, human respiration may be 10 litres per minute or less; under stress or in depleted oxygen this will increase considerably. In the above scenario, each person is packed into a volume of 1.4 ft^2 by 7 ft = 9.8 ft^3 = 0.277 m^3 = 277 litres. Even averaging 15 litres per minute and without allowing that their bodies occupied much of the volume, they would be inhaling no better than exhaled air within 19 minutes. On page 213 of the Rudolf Report, Rudolf estimates 45 to 60 minutes as the suffocation time for 1,000 people in a 504 m^3 volume which is nearly twice the 277 litres p.p. estimate for a very tightly packed gas chamber. So, given airtight chambers, employment of Zyklon B would have slowed down the murder productivity, increased the cost, and exposed the guards to unnecessary risks - compared to simply asphyxiating the prisoners. Zyklon B was perfect for delousing clothes, but absurd as a mass murder weapon. Suffocation, drowning by way of dastardly water pumping apparatus, use of CO instead of hydrogen cyanide, or of course the old fashioned bullet in the back of the head or bayoneting as everyone else did, would all have been a more efficient means of genocide.

Given the fluctuations in death rates from typhus epidemics, there may well have been temporary periods when the cremation ovens' capacity was too low and it was necessary to resort to burning in pits in order to dispose of the victims in a timely manner. The Auschwitz Topf ovens had several muffles, but it was only possible to cremate one body per muffle at any one time, and the time required per cremation was around one hour. Thus, with 52 muffles, the maximum capacity was 52 bodies per hour or 624 in a 12-hour day, or 374,400 in 600 days without allowing for breakdowns and maintenance. And it would have taken some 30 kg of coke per body or 30,000 tonnes for 1 million. Coke deliveries to Auschwitz averaged about 80 tonnes per month in 1943, so in order to process 1 million they would have had to have started 375 months before 1944, i.e. about 1913 when Hitler was only 24. All ovens are subject to the same laws of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics etc; it is no good the conspiraloons postulating that Holocaust ovens were of a "special" type that could operate supernaturally.

As for the German word vergasung, it does not mean "killing with gas", as a test with any on-line translator will prove. The word means "gasification", or vergasungskellar means gasification cellar. The plans for the Majdanek facility state Baracken fur Oefen und Vergasungen which is "barracks for furnaces and gasifications". To a lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists, gasification might denote "murder by gassing", but in this context the more rational interpretation is of gassing for disinfestation.

Andrew E Mathis could be a dupe; it is more likely that he works for the crooked cabal. The relevance of all of this to 9/11 is that it is the same clique who started a hoax about "six million" dead or dying Jews back in 1900, who played a major role in instigating two World Wars resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions, who killed over 1,000 in the recent sinking of an Egyptian ferry, who killed thousands in the WTC demolition, and have now achieved such influence by terrorising, blackmailing and bribing governments.

[ian neal]

Thanks for your recent post WTC 7

Firstly when you say

[ian neal]