Never heard of him, but thanks for pointing him out. nineeleven.co.uk has been a disgrace for a long time and clearly needs a massive cleanup or to be shut down -- it's good that Tony Gosling has finally got around to deleting holocaust denial material (but stupid that he thinks that Mossad is behind it...), but I don't understand why riotact objects to this material being deleted -- it should never been allowed in the first place.

If you search for astro3 and 9/11 one link that is thrown up is Nico Haupt's blogging [1] of astro3's critical review of Nafeez Ahmed's book, THE LONDON BOMBINGS - AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY [2]. Nico Haupt is totally discredited within the 9/11 truth movement for his stalking of other activists and his absurd views that no planes hit the twin towers, he is however promoted by the likes of 9/11 Cultwatch [3] -- promoting the people who discredit the 9/11 truth movement the most is not a new tactic...

The latest talk from Nafeez Ahmed on this site is here and it also has links to previous talks by him:

The Hidden Holocaust - Our Civilizational Crisis
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388961.html


[1]  http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ewing2001?id=515
[2]  http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=18419
[3]  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385261.html?c=on#c184026

Wonder who put him up to it ...

The architects of 911 are really starting to sweat, as their own ludicrous, disproven Conspiracy Theory falls apart under the weight of the evidence.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

(as reposted from Urban75)

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

...whether you conspiracy lunatics are being ironic/sarcastic or whether you're actually being serious. But then again, i'm probably an infiltrating zionist member of MI5 right?

There was no intention to stifle debate on this issue - came at a difficult moment as things had gotten out of hand and I was just implementing a policy, discussed behind the scenes, of no discussion of the Holocaust on the forum.

Still, this should be, and is, an exception to that rule.

see also
Mossad trick - Link 9/11 Truth to Holocaust denial
 http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14360

Any evidence of Mossad involvement Tony?

Anything at all?

Of course it's good that Nick Kollerstrom has been exposed, however the only post, out of 189 [1], the first one being from July 28, 2005, by astro3 (AKA Nick Kollerstrom) on holocaust denial on nineeleven.co.uk is his last one, posted yesterday (Sun April 20, 2008 3:31 pm, and it's fairly grim reading... he clearly is a holocaust denier).

However there have been many other posts on holocaust denial by others on nineeleven.co.uk over many years (which is a disgrace), including a massive thread that has now been hidden, so the question arises why did Johnny Void and Rachel North pick up on Nick Kollerstrom and promote him as being a "mainstay of the 'truth movement'" and a "prominent 911 'truth' activist" when he doesn't appear to be (what evidence is there that he is?) -- most his posts are on 7/7 and why did they do it when they did?

Their source was Blairwatch, who blogged on April 14th, 2008

"We've just found another conspiraloon, Nick Kollerstrom aka astro3, who's been pestering 7/7 survivors as they offer an inconvenient witness against his ludicrous theories. Although he specialises in that ultimate conspiracy theory, crop circles, he's not afraid to take a deep bath in Nazi apologism and Holocaust denial" [2]

Meanwhile over at nineeleven.co.uk Ian Neal has said:

"Nick was recently interviewed for the upcoming conspiracy files programme on July 7... I believe it was last Monday when the interview was recorded. A 'co-incidence' then that Blairwatch 'broke' this story on the same day" [3]

I don't know what the source is for Ian believing that the BBC interviewed Nick Kollerstrom on Monday April 14th, but nobody seems to be denying that this took place and since Nick Kollerstrom's holocaust denial posts (linked to in the article above) have been public for months, "Nick posted on CODOH last year" [3], it does seem odd, to say the least, that the story broke on the day the BBC interviewed him...

Needless to say the linking of people questioning the official story of 9/11 to racists is not new, as Jim Hoffman has pointed out:

"The association of challenges to the official myth of 9/11 with deniers of the Nazi Holocaust of Jews is one of the more potent weapons in the arsenal of the apologists for the official myth" [4]



[1]  http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/search.php?search_author=astro3
[2]  http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/2014
[3]  http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=115800#115800
[4]  http://www.911review.com/denial/holocaust.html

''Of course it's good that Nick Kollerstrom has been exposed, however the only post, out of 189 [1], the first one being from July 28, 2005, by astro3 (AKA Nick Kollerstrom) on holocaust denial on nineeleven.co.uk is his last one, posted yesterday (Sun April 20, 2008 3:31 pm, and it's fairly grim reading... he clearly is a holocaust denier).

However there have been many other posts on holocaust denial by others on nineeleven.co.uk over many years (which is a disgrace), including a massive thread that has now been hidden, so the question arises why did Johnny Void and Rachel North pick up on Nick Kollerstrom and promote him as being a "mainstay of the 'truth movement'" and a "prominent 911 'truth' activist" when he doesn't appear to be (what evidence is there that he is?) -- most his posts are on 7/7 and why did they do it when they did?

Their source was Blairwatch, who blogged on April 14th, 2008

"We've just found another conspiraloon, Nick Kollerstrom aka astro3, who's been pestering 7/7 survivors as they offer an inconvenient witness against his ludicrous theories. Although he specialises in that ultimate conspiracy theory, crop circles, he's not afraid to take a deep bath in Nazi apologism and Holocaust denial" [2]

Meanwhile over at nineeleven.co.uk Ian Neal has said:

"Nick was recently interviewed for the upcoming conspiracy files programme on July 7... I believe it was last Monday when the interview was recorded. A 'co-incidence' then that Blairwatch 'broke' this story on the same day" [3]

I don't know what the source is for Ian believing that the BBC interviewed Nick Kollerstrom on Monday April 14th, but nobody seems to be denying that this took place and since Nick Kollerstrom's holocaust denial posts (linked to in the article above) have been public for months, "Nick posted on CODOH last year" [3], it does seem odd, to say the least, that the story broke on the day the BBC interviewed him...''

Well, actually it was because I saw him on Monday at Kingston Crown court for the 7/7 trial, badgering a survivor. Something he has done before.

I was chatting to Blairwatch and mentioned it, they went off and googled him.

Nothing to do with the BBC, Jews, or any great conspiracy.

So there you go.

Thanks for clarifying the origin of the impetus for Blairwatch to investigate Nick Kollerstrom and for shining a light on his activities.

I wonder how the BBC will present him, if they use the footage of him in their show...

Rachel, your blog entry is entitled "Nick Kollerstrom, mainstay of the 'truth movement' is a holocaust denier"

Can you expain how he can be seen as a mainstay of the movement please?

thanks

It's interesting that the real archtects of 911, the Neo-Fascists who used them to start a regional war of aggression, have spent so much time and resources trying to discredit the Movement exposing their LIES, instead of proving their case instead ...

riotact posted a further article on this here:  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/397247.html

A week last Monday, April the 14, having just watched the Elephant in the Room premiere, I received a call from Tony Gosling to discuss nineeleven.co.uk and he mentioned he had just finished recording a piece with Tristan the producer of the BBC's Conspiracy Files programme on July 7. I thought he said that Nick had been with him but if Rachel says Nick was watching the trial in Kingston then clearly I'm wrong about this. Nick must have recorded his interview previously.

That said I would surprised if Nick would have come to anyone's attention were it not widely known that he had agreed to co-operate with the BBC in the making of this programme. That is not to say the BBC were involved in exposing Nick's beliefs about the holocaust just that the two events are linked, i.e. someone knowing Nick's co-operation with the BBC decided to dig into his cyber footprint.

The other point I would make is that the thread entitled "Understanding 911 -Does The Holocaust Matter?" and referred to in Rachel and Blairwatch's pieces is back in the public domain. Judge for yourself. In doing so you should be aware that several of the posters who crossed the line and broke the forum's rules outlawing racist/anti-semitic content were banned as a result and that many of the most persistent 'holocaust deniers / revisionists / obcessives' were recent arrivals on the site.

Finally it is worth repeating that www.nineeleven.co.uk is what it is (a public forum currently moderated by Tony and those he has appointed). It is not and never has been the British 9/11 Truth Campaign website. The views posted on this forum do not represent the campaign and I and those representing the campaign have consistently rejected racists or racism.

Ian Neal

Thanks Ian for answering my question from earlier:

"I don't know what the source is for Ian believing that the BBC interviewed Nick Kollerstrom on Monday April 14th"

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396964.html?c=on#c194036

In the comment above Ian Neal said:

"That said I would surprised if Nick would have come to anyone's attention were it not widely known that he had agreed to co-operate with the BBC in the making of this programme... someone knowing Nick's co-operation with the BBC decided to dig into his cyber footprint"

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396964.html?c=on#c194392

However Rachel North said earlier:

"actually it was because I saw him on Monday at Kingston Crown court for the 7/7 trial, badgering a survivor. Something he has done before.

I was chatting to Blairwatch and mentioned it, they went off and googled him."

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396964.html?c=on#c194060

So Ian, what is the evidence that Blairwatch knew about "Nick's co-operation with the BBC"?

I was guessing, speculating, hypothesising. I think that was fairly clear from what I've posted. So was it a mere co-incidence? Quite probably. Just because I believe in certain conspiracies does not mean I don't also believe that co-incidences and cock-ups also happen.