Nick Kollerstrom's Crap Circles - updated

This man was in court today, watching the 7/7 conspiracy trial. He bothered a man who survived the Aldgate bombings, told him about his barking ''theories'' about 7/7 ( he claims the bombers were innocent ''patsies'' executed by the State who were behind the bombings).

I remember when he tried to take over a book launch held by respected peace-activist, Milan Rai about the 7/7 bombings and the Iraq war, getting onto the floor to make a speech about his conspiracy theories, saying the 7/7 bombers were innocent. He has previously said my book was ''a work of fiction'' ( I asked the moderators of the site in question to remove the libel). He once phoned up a 7/7 survivor in my carriage whilst the man was at work and asked him questions about the bombings. He has sent messages to other 7/7 survivors, I do not know how many or what he has said to them - but I can guess

Thank you for exposing this

7/7 conspiracy,Nazis? crop circles??Blairwatch has reaced a new low of intellectual perversion.Unbelievable.you folks are in need of a good bath,clean yo selves up a bit !

google video trhis

77

release 6 [

London

bombings] [Shocking new evidence]

When you play the 'conspira-racist' card, you should also aknowledge, for fairness and balance, that the vast majority of holocaust-denying Nazi apologists support the official Conspiracy Theory.

Bridget, we have noticed on several occassions that the '7/7 truth' campaigners are frequently active holocaust deniers - and we've provided evidence of that position. That's not 'playing a card' but showing facts.

It's hardly a 'card'. It's right there, all over the internet, publishged by him with his name on it. And his PHD. From UCL. Where he is a 'research fellow'

Distancing yourself from Nick Kollerstroms views are you now, Bridget?

 Which of his views are you distancing yourself from? You seem to agree with him re denying what happened on  7/7 - what about his other views?

Hmmm, interesting.

It seems to be more important to Bridget to cling to her view that the 7/7 bombers guilt is merely an official conspiracy theory, rather than make any attempt to distance herself and her ''7/7 truth'' website from Nazi apologists.

Conspiraloonery deleted

It included an invitation to visit her site and look for holocaust denial. Quite how we could do that when the site has private forums wasn't explained.

Comment by net loon Felicity Jane Lowde deleted. She accuses Blairwatch of being Nazis.

Conspiraloon comment deleted

Comment by net loon Felicity Jane Lowde deleted, once again accusing us of being Nazis.

*Yawn*

Hi Bridge,

most people would view Kollerstrom as someone who 'supports the most vile racism and hate speech is not just irritating, but horrid, hateful, a defender of genocide, a holocaust-denier and a whining front for those who kill ...stands with the defenders of genocide Scum. Pondlife.' 

Wouldn't you say? Oh, my mistake - that was someone else, wasn;t it? Someone who criticised conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories like ''7/7 bombers were innocent'' and ''The Holocaust was a lie''.

 How strange, that you when you read  about the outing of a Nazi apologist/7/7 Truth denier see it as a smear on YOU and YOUR forum and YOUR website. 

Most people wouldn't...it's almost as if...no, surely not.

By the way - you asked people to look at your site and see if they could find evidence of holocaust denial.

It's hard to do that when you have secret forums. Who knows what you discuss in there?

I thought you were terribly keen for everything to be in the public domain?

Not a sympathiser with Kollerstrom's views? Or just not all of them?

Want us to believe you?

Release the evidence! 

Bridget Dunne,

just visited your site.Looks good.Just bookmarked it.

Blair watch is a government cover site .They are known as "Gatekeepeers"many on the net know this.

Bridget, how do you and the others in the 7/7 truth movement respond to what Rachel reported the other day, on how there is CCTV footage of the bombers despite what you and others have consistently argued?  The fact is that your theories are falling apart, yet you're still clinging to them.

We have never argued that there is no CCTV footage, on the contrary, we have consistently campaigned for all the CCTV and forensic evidence to be released. Now that it has been shown in court, we're asking for it to be released into the public domain.

As I pointed out earlier, it's difficult to examine your site when parts of it are private. We have shown, yet again that a prominent 'truther' is a holocaust denier.

More difficult than that is attempting to hold an open and honest discussion with people here when you censor comments. Just for the record, we don't have a private part of the forum dedicated to UFO's, Reptiles, Holocaust denial, Elvis etc.

Bridget,

We delete comments that are either offensive, boring or off-topic. As to your board, there is a private area. We know this because of our referrers from your forum are leading to threads that are inaccessible.

As for truth, the facts are clear, Nicholas Kollerstrom is a leading 9/11, 7/11 'truther' AND a holocaust denier. Interestingly, he has commented on Blairwatch, using astro3 and giving his website as... any guesses, people? Yes, Bridget Dunne's site! What's to debate?

Out of interest, what's your position on the holocaust? Do you accept that it happened?

 strange that in this thread, where people are repeatedly accused of not answering questions, their responses are repeatedly deleted.

Admin Comment: The deletions contained no answers. All they contained were repetetive accusations that we're making accusations against a certain forum. no rebuttal of our discoveries or statements disassociating themselves from holocaust denial.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't understand how the fact that some of these people are Nazi apologists disproves or should discredit any of their claims about 9/11 or 7/7. Isn't this a classic ad hominem? Surely it's enough to point out what they're wrong about?

Admin Comment: What is shows is that these 'researchers' can't do real research to save their lives. If someone's 'research' leads them to believe that Auschwitz was no more than a holiday camp, it must surely leave us to wonder if their other research has any validity whatsoever.

Interesting, given his dismissal of the Nazi mass-murders, he seems to find the culling of cows heart-rending:

"It was a holocaust, with nearly four million farm animals slaughtered... As corpses were shovelled into mass landfills and funeral pyres burned across England, the madly-deranged official logic justifying all this seemed to resemble the writhing of Medusa's serpents. One is haunted by the memories of MAFF officials in Cumbria hunting out pet goats owned by children to kill them. Then MAFF itself dissolved in May, from guilt too terrible to bear, morphing into a more forgettable acronym.

MAFF had no shred of legal right to enter farms full of healthy cows, to exterminate them. There were a very few such farms which had the moral backbone to challenge the legality of this, and in each such case MAFF backed away. The terror they wielded was like Medusa's gaze, which paralysed the will of farmers, permitting the officials to enter. Vets up and down the country betrayed the sacred Hippocratic oath of their profession, to protect life and not take it, as they wrote the 'official' notes permitting the army to enter and kill."

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/algol.html

It is a disturbing truth that a stealthy revisionism of European history is underway in order to emerge a nice Euro-centric narrative that rehabilitates the Germans and makes the French fell a bit more at ease with their somewhat difficult past during the years 1940-1945. The core pillars of this new narrative are (1) the Germans were innocent victims of the Nazis (2) Bombing Dresden was a 'war crime' on par at least with the Genocide (3) Germany was 'invaded' in 1945 by the Americans and British and 'occupied' for decades. I have heard these thmes repeated at academic conferences, by civil servants and by students.

The post 9/11 world, with the 'War on Terror', the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, whatever the merits or not and Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank have provided the environment for this revisionism to take place. It is dangerous, it is unbalanced, subjective and further has provided a shelter for a quite remarkable coaliton of all sorts of groups from eco-fanatics to new strands neo-Nazis as well as the usual crop of conspiracy theorists.

I am sorry and i am confused.....

I just logged on to check the latest posts. To find out what strange things are happening in UK politics. All i found was this post, which seems to be an attempt to rebuff any conspiracy.

After reading Rachels post the other day after being in court, i was happier that the truth was getting out and people / witnesses felt some justice being served. My fealing is not a conspiracy, but we are still being let down by our government in formenting this kind of extremism by our blind support for the US wrong foreign polices.

I do however question some of the so called 'facts' regarding 9/11 .  Does this make me a conspiraloony ??? Are you calling me one ?

I also question what i was taught at school regarding Hitler, it was definately one sided and did not say anything bad about the 'Allies' ... So am i a conspiraloony for questioning this ???

So the original post, appears to attack many people because they question things. I am not a deniar, but a truth seeker.

Keep your eyes and your mind open, and always form your own conclusion about things, never believe the press/media as you will never get the whole truth about a subject. And most importantly , dont think you are some sort of 'Conspiraloon', just because you question something.

I await the next post on this blog site, that deals with news and politics, not attack posts that could be regarded as attacking the readers.

I'm not sure it matters how you lable yourself.

It's the action taken during that process.

If you are actively researching historical evidence or fact which can support your argument and have the relevant details which are verifable then that's being an anthropological archiologist. good. However, if you are relying on poor evidence often second or thrid hand evidence which isn't from clear soruces and may indeed be entirely fabricated, the lack of rigour within your evidence tends to build in lack of rigour in your argument. (I'm saying your not to define you in particular but to define the alternative to me the writer).

If it's the former then no you're not a conspiraloon, if it's the later then you are.

You are rgiththe tautology ought to be better defined, however, common sense dictates that no one is disintrested in the truth of the matter arising, what the act of spreading suposition as fact does however is supress the truth and surrond it with an almost inpenitraitable layer of misinformation, which detracts and removes crediblity.

once it has gone down the route of personalised opinion based on flawed premises then it becomes dogmatic, and as such a new relegion is born, where you have to have faith to beleive the interpreatiation which you have formed of the 'truth' as you see it.

This then being the thing which is invested in and given significant power by virtue of it being a totem or a talisman along with all the ritualistic aspects or dogmas built up around the belief system means that deprogramming can be difficult.

but make no mistake it is a form of NLP.

you are telling yourself that you are right all others are incorrect that your verison of events is the only true one etc etc is exactly the same for some people as you are a beautiful unique person said in the mirror 20 times a day...

Off topic post deleted

It was my mistake to trust that I could leave a comment on Blairwatch with the intention of pointing out that so-called 'holocaust deniers' exist amongst those that disbelieve and believe the Official Conspiracy Theory of what happened on 7/7.  Pointing out that the left's Iraq 'blowback' explanation for 7/7 is precisely the same Iraq 'blowback' explanation of 7/7 spewed by the neo-Nazi's of Nick Griffin's BNP was no doubt an uncomfortable truth, but it is a truism that cannot be denied. 

The intention behind my original comment was to prompt an open and reasoned debate about a statement made by Quarsan: “One fact that keeps cropping up is the links between these self-professed truthers and Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists”. As the original Blairwatch article has been revised a number of times (historical revisionism, anyone?) and now includes a smear against myself and the July 7th Truth Campaign, I hope Blairwatch will allow me to make these final points on the subject: 

As anyone following the story of 7/7 may know, J7 was approached last year by the BBC's Conspiracy Files and asked to participate in the making of an episode about 7/7, scheduled to be aired this summer.  J7 refused to participate in the programme and published a lengthy and detailed response to the BBC for all to read. It clearly outlined why J7 as a group, nor any member of the July 7th Truth Campaign, would be participating in this programme.  

Nick Kollerstrom, who seems to concern himself principally with the the story of 9/11, is working with the BBC on the same 7/7 Conspiracy Files programme that J7 refused.  Perhaps it is just a curious coincidence of timing between Nick Kollerstrom's collaboration with the BBC and attempts to link either myself and J7 with holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists. 

Regarding the misleading statements made about private areas of our forum, as a geographically diverse group we of course have member-only areas and editorial areas in which the content for our web site is developed.  As I pointed out in a comment that was later to be disingenuously misquoted by Quarsan, we do not have private areas for the discussion of the holocaust, UFOs, lizards, etc. Neither do we have any control over who links to our web site or who uses our website address as a link from their username. 

J7 is a serious political campaign for the truth, as evidenced by our website and the fact that our continuing research has twice forced the government to amend their insulting 'narrative'.

Bridget,

This post was about us uncovering a leading conspiracy theorist as a holocaust denier, not for the first time. My statement of “One fact that keeps cropping up is the links between these self-professed truthers and Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists” stands. We are fully aware that holocaust denial is found in many circles, but here, we are talking about the conspiract theorists.

We often update posts to reflect new information and these updates are clearly marked. This is entirely legitimate and to call it 'historical revisionism' is just silly.

You invited us to look for holocaust denial on your site. We asked how we could do that when the site has private forums. You then said you didn't have private forums and after we provided evidence you finally admitted that you do have private forums.

For a group that repeatedly insist that everyone else puts everything into the public domain it is unusual that you keep some things private. I ask you once again, how can we check your site for holocaust denial when parts of it are private?

We stand by everything we've said and note that you haven't challenged the fact that Nicholas Kollerstrom is a holocaust denier. Neither have you distanced yourself from his views. This is telling.

Equally telling is that the thread we linked to has been, in the words of Tony Gosling 'hidden' because it is a Mossad plot. We've also been accused in this thread of being agents of Mossad, MI6 and Nazis. Such is the logic of the conspiracy theorists.

Your earlier mentions of the BNP and Iraq are entirely spurious but I make one observation. In a memo US policy process was described as 'intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy'.

This is a concise summary of how conspiracy theorists work.

Hi, I note you seem to object to my having defended the proposition that: no German ever put a Jew into a gas chamber. You call that Holocaust Denial, well I’m proud to be associated with it. I’m happy to defend, it any time, any place. It happens to be true!

Thanks for alluding to my recent article ‘School trips to Auschwitz.’ (1) You quote:

Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming-pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates … etc,

And ask: ‘Where does he get his vital research and evidence? It's ordained in the stars!’ Well, if you’d bothered to follow the reference there given it would have taken you to the thread ‘Auschwitz in Memoriam’, where I give 15 references  in support of those statements. (2) If you care to peruse that and then comment here, I’m sure we would all appreciate it.

The Zyklon-B worked very well in the Nazi gas chambers of WW2, for delousing mattresses etc, but no human being was put into these. That notion is The Greatest Lie Ever Told and has a termination date upon it. My interest in this topic has been chemical: analysis of the remains of the German camps has shown exactly where the cyanide was used and where it wasn’t. My thread on ‘Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz’ had had over ten thousand hits and might well be the definitive modern statement on the subject. (3)    

You inform your readers that I’m some kind of neo-Nazi: sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t happen ever to have been interested in them, and my political track-record (which you can check) is the Green Party, CND and Respect, that’s all. I don’t know what you are alluding to in saying that I posted on your site – if I did it must have been a long time ago. I basically just post on the two sites, CODOH (Committee for Open Discussion of the Holocaust) and www.nineeleven.co.uk.

1. http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrnktrip.html  school trips

2. http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4332&highlight=   In Memoriam

3. http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4111  Chemistry

Nick, we don't agree with your idea that Auschwitz was some type of holiday camp or your denial of the holocaust. You quote 15 references - mainly fellow deniers but we expect little else. Your evidence has been thoroughly debunked already and we're not going to waste time on your lunacy.

qurasan.A legend in his own bathtub!

hy quarsan its well know that during wars propoganda to make the other side look bad id rife eh??

Link to You Tube of tedious conspiraloonery video deleted

qurasan.

you are a sad fucker.seems to me you are nazi.

15-year old Nayirah, who gave testimony anonymously, testified before the Human Rights Caucus of the United States Congress in October 1990 that she was a refugee volunteering in the maternity ward of Al Adan hospital in Kuwait City, and that during the Iraqi occupation she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers dumping Kuwaiti infants out of their incubators onto the ground, and leaving them to die. The testimony came at a crucial time for the Bush administration, which was pressing for military action to eject Iraq from Kuwait. Nayirah's story was widely publicized, and Amnesty International at first seemed to corroborate the report. The story helped build domestic support for the Persian Gulf War.^[1]

Nayirah was later disclosed to be Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA. She was demonstrated to have connections to the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was at that time working for Citizens for a Free Kuwait.^[1] The latter activist group was organized by the exiled Kuwaiti government, to gain support for the Kuwaiti cause.^[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Nayirah

The point I´m trying to illustrate is that during time of war.Propoganda is a vital tool to get peoples support.

No one I think denies the killing of the Jewish people during ww2 but over 20 million russians died also.

Lets keep some balance on events that happened over 60 years ago.

Equating 7/7 sceptics or 911 sceptics with holocauset deniars is as low as you can get.

No one I think denies the killing of the Jewish people during ww2

Nicholas Kollerstrom does deny that. See his comment above and the articles he has written.

Bridget Dunne said

As anyone following the story of 7/7 may know, J7 was approached last year by the BBC's Conspiracy Files and asked to participate in the making of an episode about 7/7, scheduled to be aired this summer.  J7 refused to participate in the programme and published a lengthy and detailed response to the BBC for all to read. It clearly outlined why J7 as a group, nor any member of the July 7th Truth Campaign, would be participating in this programme.  

Nick Kollerstrom, who seems to concern himself principally with the the story of 9/11, is working with the BBC on the same 7/7 Conspiracy Files programme that J7 refused.  Perhaps it is just a curious coincidence of timing between Nick Kollerstrom's collaboration with the BBC and attempts to link either myself and J7 with holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists.

Well- actually Bridget, I had no idea Kollerstrom had been interviewed by the BBC about 7/7, so yes, it is a curious coincidence. Thanks for letting me know though! I'll pass on what I have found out about Nick - and his links - to the BBC!

Kollerstrom is a prominent conpsiracy theorist activist  on the subject of 7/7 - he linked to your site no less than three times, here, and neither you not Keir seemed to have a problem with that at the time. On the nineeleven boards he writes mostly about 7/7, not 9/11, contrary to your claims, and I understand that he is writing a book about 7/7

( not 9/11) which he is writing, containing material from your site plus his own 'research' into the train times -  which you have  used as a key plank of your own theories on your website - and indeed on your own blog ( although you never troubled to credit Kollerstrom for doing the original research).

 Kollerstrom was spotted by me at Kingston Crown Court last Monday hassling an Aldgate  survivor. Something he has done before - remember when you and he and other 'truth-seekers' turned up to heckle Milan Rai's book launch, attended by injured survivors of 7/7, to tell them that 7/7 was 'an inside job' and the 'bombers were innocent'? Nick demanded to make a spech, didn't he? You sat there and watched him, quite happily, didn't you? Then handed out leaflets saying 7/7 was an inside job. Remember?

I was chatting to Blairwatch about Monday's events, and mentioned I'd seen Kollerstrom, and spoken to the man he was hassling afterwards,when we were watching the afternoon's events in court. The man expressed concern and irritation at being barracked over lunch by 'a nut'.

Blairwatch went off googling, we did some research into 'astro3'/Nick Kollerstrom. What we found out, we shared. We provided evidence to support our claims that he was a Holocaust-denier, something he soon confirmed himself on numerous blogs including my own blog.Other websites picked it up, and passed it on to UCL, who reacted swiftly.

 It took us ten minutes on google, with Quarsan doing the bulk of the research, and later Unity did even more research into his far right facist sources. Shame you didn't bother to do anything of the kind yourself. I thought sitting about googling for information was your thing? Or are you only into criticising and googling survivors and bereaved families and posting up their details, not fellow-travellers and 'truthseekers'?

Now, given all that we have found out about the views of certain '7/7 Truthseekers', why should I believe your 'official account' of you/your site not having some sympathy with Kollerstrom's views - after all, he has sympathies with your views about 7/7 and is a fellow traveller and citer of your site.

You have secret forums and we don't know what you discuss on there. Release the evidence! Or at the very least, make an effort to distance yourself from him - all I can see is you and your site contributors alternately going on the attack, and bizarrely,  distancing yourself from a programme which is attempting to critically analyse the events of 7/7 - odd, in a 'researcher' who claims she 'only wants to know the truth' and has 'questions to be answered'. But of course, although you link to numerous BBC articles and reports as hard news fact on your site, the mere idea that they might investigate your theories and find them wanting  means you can't possibly take any part in their programme where they analyse conspiracy theories to see if they have any truth in them seems to send you into a coy fit of the vapours.

'Only the truth stands up to rigorous analysis', you are fond of remarking.

Mmmmmm. I see.

In the last ten days, CCTV footage of the bombers journey to London was shown. Did you bother to come and look at it, after years of campaigning to see it presented in court?

Nope.

Ah well, never mind. It's funny, isn't it, that not one of the survivors or families campaigning for an inquiry into 7/7 wants anything to do with your site or your campaign. I am sure this must gall you, perhaps even puzzle you. If you think about the events and the evidence presented this last week, perhaps you might start to understand why.

A bit off topic, but not that much, for those with a keen interest in secret forums and revisionism, welcome to CAMERApedia:

Following EI's report, Gilead Ini a CAMERA staffer and Wikipedia editor informed members of the group that, "Because member of this group [sic] affiliated with the anti-Israel propaganda cite [sic] Electronic Intifada decided to share the content of our discussions, I will be temporarily or permanently closing access to the group, in hopes that members' personal contact information will not be made public."

Nick, I was dubious about your musings for a while now and nearly bypassed your links.

I'm glad I didn't. All three articles are pretty lucid and quite an eye-opener.

Thanks for that.

Paul

Anonymous, you must have some kind of web magic because those links have been down for some days now!

As common following major terrorist attacks and other tragidies, many questions, rumors and theories about the july 2005 London bombings have been raised, and become a puzzle on the peoples mind.

Amongst complaints that the government was only releasing processed  photographs of the alleged bombers, came reports that there may be videos that have not been released to the public, including videos of al-Qaeda members confessing the attacks, they are claiming for the attack maybe this just one of those scripted scene by the government.  While no warnings before the 7 July  bombings have been officially documented or acknowledged.

Prime