Was the Holocaust... a lie?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2012, 07:03 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(23-05-2012 05:27 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  look at dachau the report explicitly said that the gas was fed through the shower heads, when it was found that there were no pipes leading to the shower heads and all that was there when they were removed was just a ceiling. It's clear that someone blatantly lied about that part of the holocaust, and more so it brings into question why someone would report that if it weren't true. Unless they were trying to frame someone, now anyone in their right mind would have removed the shower heads during the investigation to see the pipes. But they OBVIOUSLY did not do that here. But the kicker is that they say they did. Because they themselves said that there were pipes there.

When they were caught in these lie they created another lie, saying instead, that the nazi's poured zyklon b pellets through the side of the walls and that the body heat would make the pellets turn into a gas form. I don't know about you. But the idea of shaking gas canisters like a salt and pepper shaker really doesn't fancy my jimbo.
Pipes can be removed, buildings can be incomplete or unused.
zyklon b turns into a gas at 25.6 degrees C, room temp on average is around 21 °C. a room filled with people would easily raise the temperature enough. Ever been in a cramped room with other people and felt how warm it can get?.

plus there is no reason the nazis couldn't have preheated the pellets.

How reliable are your sources really? seriously do a minimum amount of research into their backgrounds and you will see they have an agenda and are completely unreliable.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
23-05-2012, 07:06 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
That’s true, you have used other sources. Let’s have a look at the ones I can find.

You referenced David Cole, a Jewish Holocaust denier. It’s interesting to note that since making that video you linked to he’s actually retracted his statements regarding the Holocaust. Whether this is because of a change of heart or intimidation I cannot say, but he himself is no longer willing to stand as a source on this issue. I think someone referenced this fact earlier but didn’t provide a source, so here is one ( http://www.geniebusters.org/915/04h_Cole.html ); Cole has backed out of the competition, for whatever reason.

You then linked to David Irving. This man is an insult to the historical profession, an unashamed bigot, racist and anti-Semite who has been caught time and time again misrepresenting or deliberately misinterpreting his research to lend his arguments false credibility. The man would have you think he’s been sent to jail for ‘telling the truth’ or something along those lines. That’s not the case; his ass got sent to jail because he’s a proven liar and fraud. He’s a Hitler fanboy, a National Front member and all in all a top grade asshole. The fact that he still has the audacity to call himself a historian depresses me.

I’m not trying to pull an ad-hominem attack on the guy; he’s a proven fraud. The fact that he’s also a dick is just something I think is worth mentioning. In putting forward these arguments you are legitimising and, by proxy, defending pieces of shit like Irving. That’s something you may want to consider.

There’s thirty-something pages of this thread and I’m really fucking tired at the moment so forgive me if I don’t look through them all to find them. I’m not denying you have plenty of sources on this issue. All I’m saying is that if you have a source that’s calling the Holocaust into question that isn’t also in some way tied to bigotry, anti-Semitism or using ridiculous conspiracy theorist illogic it’ll be the first I’ve seen.

I respect your right to say this sort of thing. Just so long as you respect my right to call bullshit.

"Heaven and hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad.

But the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue."
- David Hume
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like ockhams_razorboy's post
23-05-2012, 07:14 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2012 07:24 PM by TheArcticSage.)
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(23-05-2012 07:03 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Pipes can be removed, buildings can be incomplete or unused.
zyklon b turns into a gas at 25.6 degrees C, room temp on average is around 21 °C. a room filled with people would easily raise the temperature enough. Ever been in a cramped room with other people and felt how warm it can get?.

plus there is no reason the nazis couldn't have preheated the pellets.

How reliable are your sources really? seriously do a minimum amount of research into their backgrounds and you will see they have an agenda and are completely unreliable.
Pipes can be removed yes, but there was not evidence of there being pipes ever there in the first place. Just the head of the shower attached to a ceiling. And yes I have been in a room of crowded people before, though if we were using pellets in winter I severely wonder how long it would have taken to gas people.

My sources seem pretty reliable, just a few defaming reports here and there specifically intended to disclaim the source rather than the source's claim. I'd be much more impressed if they countered the claims than if they countered the source.

And about preheating the pellets... the pellets were in cans, if you heat up a can with gas pellets inside and the pellets evaporate. What do you think would happen?

Ah about the people being crowded in a room and gas, that reminds me of my earlier hypothesis that the jews all farted themselves to death. It gets funnier the more you think about it.


Also Okham I know Cole 'recanted' but I've already stated why he did such, and again that does not discount his claims. It's far easier to discount the source rather than the claim of the source and a lot of people don't use david irving because of all the other baggage. But if you're going to discount him I'd prefer if you discounted his claims instead of his person. And as for the others It's perfectly alright if you don't feel like browsing through 30 pages to find them all Tongue
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2012, 07:21 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
Quote: Ah about the people being crowded in a room and gas, that reminds me of
my earlier hypothesis that the jews all farted themselves to death. It
gets funnier the more you think about it.
Fuck this, I'm out. Responding to people like you just legitimises the shit you peddle, and I want no part in that.

"Heaven and hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad.

But the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue."
- David Hume
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like ockhams_razorboy's post
23-05-2012, 07:29 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2012 07:51 PM by TheArcticSage.)
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(23-05-2012 07:21 PM)ockhams_razorboy Wrote:  
Quote: Ah about the people being crowded in a room and gas, that reminds me of
my earlier hypothesis that the jews all farted themselves to death. It
gets funnier the more you think about it.
Fuck this, I'm out. Responding to people like you just legitimises the shit you peddle, and I want no part in that.
You clearly have never watched Family Guy.

And for anyone who wants a general idea.
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2012, 07:55 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(23-05-2012 07:14 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  My sources seem pretty reliable, just a few defaming reports here and there specifically intended to disclaim the source rather than the source's claim. I'd be much more impressed if they countered the claims than if they countered the source.

So you think that Nazis and antisemites are a reliable unbiased source of information about nazi death camps?

People with an agenda to hide nazi war crimes are a reliable source?

Would you say that a creationist was a reliable source of information regarding evolution?

Or a young earther as a reliable source for the age of the earth?

Some how i doubt you would. If you could provide a legitimate unbiased source to back up your claims i have absolutely no doubt people would listen, i know i would.

Id also like to point out that attacking individual pieces of evidence is easy, anyone can do it and make it look worthless. But when you put the sheer volume of evidence for the Holocaust taking place, your position crumbles away into nothing.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2012, 08:03 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2012 08:16 PM by TheArcticSage.)
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(23-05-2012 07:55 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  
(23-05-2012 07:14 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  My sources seem pretty reliable, just a few defaming reports here and there specifically intended to disclaim the source rather than the source's claim. I'd be much more impressed if they countered the claims than if they countered the source.

So you think that Nazis and antisemites are a reliable unbiased source of information about nazi death camps?

People with an agenda to hide nazi war crimes are a reliable source?

Would you say that a creationist was a reliable source of information regarding evolution?

Or a young earther as a reliable source for the age of the earth?

Some how i doubt you would. If you could provide a legitimate unbiased source to back up your claims i have absolutely no doubt people would listen, i know i would.

Id also like to point out that attacking individual pieces of evidence is easy, anyone can do it and make it look worthless. But when you put the sheer volume of evidence for the Holocaust taking place, your position crumbles away into nothing.
I couldn't care if they were a creationist or a young earther, but they absolutely must have scientific evidence to back up their claims. And David Irving is not my only source. In this thread I have attacked the gas chambers, the conditions of the camps, and the piles of dead bodies. And that is everything that makes the holocaust is it not? Occams razor man. The simplest answer is usually the right one. In which is that if people are lying about the functions of gas chambers and deliberately tried to cover up that they were fake, and also lied about the conditions at the camps, then the answer simple answer is that they are lying entirely. And that means that the holocaust never happened.

I mean take for example, when I proved way back that the gas chamber at dachau was a fake. The gas pipes are missing, and they changed their story. If this were a murder trial that would be a changing of testimony. But not only that they must then have falsified documents that were used at the nuremburg trials to condemn innocent men to their deaths. Now we also have forgery and conspiracy. But instead you complex the situation by adding gas pellets and saying that the pipes could've been removed or were never finished. Yet you still failed to take into the consideration the aforementioned about just what that would mean.

Do you understand now that my explanation is far simpler?
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2012, 08:09 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(23-05-2012 08:03 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  Occams razor man. The simplest answer is usually the right one.
Exactly. You don't seem to be able to see that the simple answer is that your sources are nothing but works of fiction created by Known neonazis with an agenda to make the nazis look good. Come on man its obvious.

Scientific evidence? what evidence? If there was evidence then their claims would be taken seriously.

Until you can provide unbiased evidence, your claims will be nothing more than the ramblings of nazi fanboys.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
23-05-2012, 08:27 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(23-05-2012 08:09 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  
(23-05-2012 08:03 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  Occams razor man. The simplest answer is usually the right one.
Exactly. You don't seem to be able to see that the simple answer is that your sources are nothing but works of fiction created by Known neonazis with an agenda to make the nazis look good. Come on man its obvious.

Scientific evidence? what evidence? If there was evidence then their claims would be taken seriously.

Until you can provide unbiased evidence, your claims will be nothing more than the ramblings of nazi fanboys.
Were you not listening? Okay let's take for one second here, just forget about any and all sources on either and any side. And purely look at Dachau.

As I said before, it was stated and used in the Nuremberg Trials that the Dachau gas chamber had shower heads connected to pipes in the ceiling. Yet decades later when it was found that there are no pipes in the ceiling or any evidence to support that pipes were there they suddenly changed their tone and said, 'dachau was did not have any homocidal gas chambers' or 'it was experimental' or 'they fed pellets of zyklon b gas through the ports on the walls'. So we not only have the fact that the document at the Nuremberg trial was false but that people conspired to make it seen as a truth and lied about whatever 3 reasons you can choose from above.

Is it not then simpler to say that they lied about the gas chamber at Dachau, then it is to make excuses? And once we take that into consideration, what then stops you from questioning the other gas chambers?

Remember this is a proven fact. No matter how much you damage anyone's sources what was discovered at Dachau can not be undone.
Find all posts by this user
23-05-2012, 08:36 PM
RE: Was the Holocaust... a lie?
(23-05-2012 08:27 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  As I said before, it was stated and used in the Nuremberg Trials that the Dachau gas chamber had shower heads connected to pipes in the ceiling. Yet decades later when it was found that there are no pipes in the ceiling or any evidence to support that pipes were there they suddenly changed their tone and said, 'dachau was did not have any homocidal gas chambers' or 'it was experimental' or 'they fed pellets of zyklon b gas through the ports on the walls'. So we not only have the fact that the document at the Nuremberg trial was false but that people conspired to make it seen as a truth and lied about whatever 3 reasons you can choose from above.

Is it not then simpler to say that they lied about the gas chamber at Dachau, then it is to make excuses? And once we take that into consideration, what then stops you from questioning the other gas chambers?

Remember this is a proven fact. No matter how much you damage anyone's sources what was discovered at Dachau can not be undone.
So one gas chamber turns out to not be a gas chamber after all. All that proves is that, that one wasn't used as a gas chamber or at least not used in the way originally described. It says nothing about the other chambers, Or disproves anything else.

(23-05-2012 08:27 PM)TheArcticSage Wrote:  Were you not listening? Okay let's take for one second here, just forget about any and all sources on either and any side

No i have, it still doesn't change the fact that biased sources are unreliable and have no credibility, yet your entire argument relies heavily on them being correct when the most likely conclusion is that they are fabrications with either circumstantial evidence or downright lies.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: