|
Die Verflechtungen gehen weiter:
Another alias of Gregory Douglas is "Walter Storch", editor of TBRNews.org. TBRNews is an offshoot of The Barnes Review, a magazine founded by Willis Carto. (Wikipedia-Eintrag, wurde inzwischen komplett verändert, weitere Quelle)
TBRNews behauptet folgendes:
This report was sent by a German source in January of 2002 to a number of interested individuals. (Quelle)
Über diese Revisionisten-Quelle bemerkt das ebenfalls in der Holocaust-Leugnung umtriebige Institute for Historical Review - dem Barnes Review feindlich gesonnen - folgendes:
'Barnes Review' Web Site Fraud
A new Barnes Review web site (http://www.tbrnews.org), which claims to offer "up to date information on current and past items of interest to the historical revisionist community," should be viewed with skepticism because some of what it presents is misleading and false.
A good example is a "German Intelligence Briefing of April 5, 2002" (http://www.tbrnews.org/a007.htm). Supposedly a document prepared by Germany's federal intelligence agency, the BND, this "top secret Background Report" purports to show that President Bush and other high-level US officials knew in advance of the Sept. 11 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "The terrorist attacks on American targets were fully known to many [US government] entities well in advance," it declares. "The US President was fully informed as to the nature and exact time of these attacks."
Not surprisingly, this document is a fabrication. It was first made public at the June 2002 Barnes Review conference in Washington, DC, by "Gregory Douglas," who has produced several books of fraudulent documents, including Gestapo Chief. (A critical review of Gestapo Chief, published in The Journal of Historical Review, is posted on the IHR web site.
In addition to his writings in The Barnes Review magazine, "Douglas" is also a "correspondent" of the weekly American Free Press (AFP). Both periodicals are controlled by Willis A. Carto, who has, since 1993, waged a furious legal and smear campaign against the Institute for Historical Review. For more on this, see the "Willis A. Carto Information Site." -- October 16, 2002 (Quelle, via Overthrow.com)
Welcher Holocaust-Leugner-Organisationen soll man in dieser absurden Kontroverse eher glauben? Die Entscheidung wird durch jemanden erleichtert, der mit dem umstrittenen Dokument etwas vertrauter ist - eine weitere prominente Person aus der Holocaust-Leugner-Szene: Germar Rudolf.
Rudolf war u.a. auch auf der Barnes Review Conference 2003 als Redner eingeladen. Auch der bereits erwähnte 9/11-VT-Protagonist Christopher Bollyn war erneut als Redner anwesend.
Was hat Germar Rudolf zur Sache beizutragen?
Rudolf war an der Fälschung beteiligt, wenngleich er nach eigenen Worten keine Fälschung produzieren wollte:
"Documents"
In early 2002, Stahl and I agreed upon publishing a book on 9/11, as he had received several information about detailed pre-knowledge of the administration of 9/11. He claimed to have received a memorandum that the US- President had been informed in advance by German and French diplomatic sources about the exact date, time, locations and targets of the attacks. However, the memorandum he received had neither letter head nor signature or anything. It was just a piece of paper and as such rather worthless. Of course, as a future publisher I was not happy with proving an outrageous claim (they knew and let it happen) with a meaningless piece of paper, so I asked him to try to get something more from the same source from where he received this document . At one day, while writing his manuscript, he asked me if I can make a translation from English to French. I said I could, but that my French is rather bad, thus it would be better to ask one of my friends. When asked what he needed it for, he responded that he was thinking about making a document which looks like a real one and which would support his claims. I told him that under no circumstances I would want to be a part of this, and I massively attacked him how he could even think along this line when at the same time he tries to defend himself against accusation from David Irving and Mark Weber that he forges documents? He replied that if I was unwilling to do it for him, he will find somebody else. "Then find somebody else" I responded. At the same time, I downgraded the 9/11 book project, as I figured that this isn't going anywhere.
Several days later Stahl mailed me a version of what he called a part of his manuscript for his 9/11 book. He urged me to read it, which I did. Including many facts that Stahl had found in media reports and enriched by his own thoughts and the claims of his alleged German memorandum,it read like a report written by some German intelligence agency on their findings of 9/11, without, however, spelling out who wrote it. Stahl called me back, and after I asked him what this was meant to be, he told me that he wanted me to translate that into German and make it look like a document from the German intelligence agency BND, with letterhead, reference number, names, signature and rubber stamp. I told him
- there is no way he can get me to forge a document
- if he insists in me or anybody else doing this I will immediately drop the project, as I will not go along with a book that includes a forgery
- nobody in his or my range could possibly forge such a document in a way that it would not be immediately exposed as a forgery
- he must be aware if he does this that he will destroy his own reputation once and for all. He will be dead meat regarding any future publication
He apparently changed his mind, as he later re-defined what he wanted: He wants to use just the text of this report as a sample of information of what the upcoming book will contain. His plan was not to turn it into a document, but to leave it in the form of an essay. He wished to have a anonymous mailing made to various news and political sources in Washington, which includes the announcement of the book and a copy of this essay summarizing the upcoming book's statements. Hence, it was to be a promotion move to get attention for the book.
Under these circumstance -- no letter head, no names, no signature, no stamps, nothing that would make it a document, no inclusion in the upcoming book, no claim that this is a document, use only as an anonymous promotional mailing -- I agreed to translate it.
Already during the process of translation (late May/early June 2002), he circulated a copy of his English essay to some individuals at The Barnes Review/American Free Press. It thus ended up at some organization of the Republican Party, which contacted Stahl only a few days later, asking about the 9/11 book (so his claims...). Hence, Stahl associated with this essay already before it was even supposed to be released.
In June 2002, during the Barnes Review Conference, Peter Stahl presented his "findings" about 9/11 during his speech to the audience. During this speech, he pulled out my translation, claimed that it was an original German document, which he claimed he had received from his friend, the German public prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, and Stahl gave copies of this document to interested people.
I subsequently canceled the 9/11 book project as well as all other pending book projects I had with Peter Stahl, informed several people that this was not a document and that they should stop distributing it. I also made sure that The Barnes Review deleted Stahl's speech from their website.” (Quelle, unformatierte Version)
Anmerkung 1: TBRNews propagiert das ‘Dokument’ weiterhin ohne entsprechende Hinweise. (Stand April 2009)
Anmerkung 2: Der Originalartikel von Germar Rudolf über die Person ‘Gregory Douglas’ erschien in Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 6(3) (2002). Dort fehlt das Postscriptum, unter dem die oben angeführten Bemerkungen gemacht wurden. Dieses wurde ergänzend hinzugefügt, leider ist nur die oben angeführte Cache-Version verfügbar:
The above article was written in early 2002. Several important events happened afterwards, which are worthwhile reporting to shed some light on the person and personality of Peter Stahl.
Das Netzwerk von Revisionisten, Neo-Nazis und einigen 9/11-Verschwörungstheoretikern wird u.a. hier, hier, hier und hier thematisiert. Die Zweckbündnisse von linkem und rechtem Rand werden u.a. hier betrachtet.
Von politisch gesteuerten Interessen wird vorwiegend im Zusammenhang mit der ‘offiziellen’ Version gesprochen. Eine bemerkenswerte ‘Einäugigkeit’.
Fazit:
Das ‘Geheimdokument’ lässt eine ausgeprägte Fokussierung des Textes auf Israel und dessen Geheimdienst erkennen. Die antisemitische Motivation ist angesichts des grotesken Hintergrundes nicht zu bestreiten. Die Verflechtung von Holocaust-Leugnern und 9/11-Leugnern ist ausgeprägter als mancher wahrhaben will.
Das Ziel wurde jedoch erreicht, indem ein weiteres Mosaiksteinchen im VT-Dschungel platziert wurde. Die Urheber ziehen sich mit einem nie beachteten Disclaimer aus der Verantwortung:
“use only as an anonymous promotional mailing”.
Das Motto lautet: Mein Name ist Hase. Wer es glaubt, ist selber schuld.
Ein selbsternanntes ‘Scientific Panel for the Investigation of Nine Eleven’ lässt einen ungenannten angeblichen ‘Intelligence Expert’ das Machwerk aus der Neonazi-Szene kommentieren:
It has not been proven to be a forgery. [...] Germany's public silence could well be explained by concern about the extremely sensitive relation of Germany to the state of Israel, and by the horrifying implications this document would have for its relation to its NATO ally, the USA. We offer this document for what it is worth.” If anyone can find proof that it is spurious, we welcome such proof. If not, it must remain as a possibly genuine document with truly devastating implications.
“We welcome such proof” soll einen ergebnisoffenen Eindruck machen, ist jedoch reine Augenwischerei:
Despite angry denunciations of the authenticity of the report from various quarters, the German government has to the best of our knowledge not issued a denial of its authenticity. Even if it were to do so, the alleged urgent request for secrecy could provide grounds for such a denial. (Quelle)
Demzufolge werden die bereits vorhandenen Hinweise auf die Fälschung als “bösartige Denunziationen” gewertet. Die deutsche Regierung hat zu dem Machwerk kein Dementi abgegeben - hat überhaupt jemand angefragt oder muss sich eine Regierung inzwischen zu jedem Dreck erklären?
Aber selbst wenn die Echtheit dementiert würde, wäre auch das kein Beleg - laut des anonymen “Experten”.
Es handelt sich um ein typisches VT-Manöver, mit dem man die ‘Authentizität’ des Dokuments bereits fast gesichert hat. Der ‘Experte’ erklärt auch umgehend, wie die Echtheit zu verifizieren wäre:
If Ambassador Ischinger did not go to Crawford, Texas, on the date named, nor made telephone contact with the President, then the document may not be truthful. [...] It will be possible for someone to verify or refute the facts of Ambassador Ischinger's whereabouts.
Klingelts?
Es wird ernsthaft ein Beleg dafür gefordert, ob am 06.August.2001 kurz vor sechs Uhr das angebliche Telefonat stattgefunden hat oder nicht.
Wer soll das belegen/widerlegen?
Der Botschafter selbst, der BND oder Bush? Mit anderen Worten: Die Lügner?
Die unerfüllbare, immunisierende Vorgabe soll davon ablenken, daß zahlreiche sachliche Fehler in diesem ‘Geheimdokument’ zu finden sind. Ein simples Beispiel:
Am 11. September flogen US-Präsident Bush und seine Gefolgschaft nach Florida, wo der Präsident mit den Kindern eines Kindergarten sprach. (S. 6).
Das ist nachweislich falsch und auch ohne BND-Kenntnisse nachzuprüfen. Der Präsident war bereits am 10. September in Florida und besuchte am 11. September eine Grundschule. (Quelle)
Solche offensichtlichen Falschinformationen überlesen die selbsternannten ‘Intelligence Experts’ eines selbsternannten ‘Scientific Panels’ jedoch großzügig hinweg.
Der Ex-Bundesminister Andreas von Bülow äußert immerhin zaghafte Zweifel an dem ‘Geheimdokument’:
Die sehr direkte Sprache, das Zitieren der Quellen, die unverblümte Beleuchtung des Ölhintergrunds der Bush-Administration erwecken Mißtrauen in Bezug auf die Echtheit. Doch wer verfaßte dann die Fälschung zu welchem Zweck? (Die CIA und der 11. September, Fußnote 168)
Oben steht die Antwort - während sich der bücherschreibende Ex-Bundesminister mit Fragen begnügt.
Und nun eine weitere simple Frage an den Leser, der es durch den braunen Sumpf tatsächlich bis an diese Stelle geschafft hat:
Wenn Sie ein sogenannter Whistleblower wären und ein hochbrisantes BND-Dokument an die Öffentlichkeit bringen wollten, welchen Weg würden Sie dann wählen?
Ausgerechnet über die Holocaust-Leugner-Szene?
Aus den vielen Details dieses ‘BND-Hintergundberichts’ und seiner grotesken Historie ergibt sich ein konsistentes Bild zur Bewertung dessen Glaubwürdigkeit.
Diese Bewertung wiederum bildet ein Indiz zur Bewertung der Glaubwürdigkeit des selbsternannten ‘Scientific Panel for the Investigation of Nine Eleven’ (SPINE).
|
