Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

RU-486 Abortion Pill Manufactured by Same Company as Nazi Zyklon-B Gas

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Please just read this substansial study by a Notre Dame Law Professor and tell me if you still believe they are not hugely influential in population control at least until 74'
    http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=76&action=inline
    You are reasoning that abortion equals population control.
    The paper is reasoning that advocating abortion is the same as advocating population control.
    This is just not true.

    And again dodging questions.
    And have you any evidence that this difference is caused by the Rothschilds or Rockefellers?
    Could there be other explanations you haven't considered or do you just jump to these conclusions?


  • Options
    #63
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    IG Farben in German, who happened to have 10 Jews on their board as late as 1933.


    For someone who has insisted on previous occasions that religion is not the issue, I'd ask you to either rephrase this point and show that there is something other than religion relevant about these individuals, withdraw it, or explain why it is that you are stressing the religion of these individuals as though it is important.


  • Options
    #64
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    bonkey wrote: »

    For someone who has insisted on previous occasions that religion is not the issue, I'd ask you to either rephrase this point and show that there is something other than religion relevant about these individuals, withdraw it, or explain why it is that you are stressing the religion of these individuals as though it is important.
    Its not the issue of faith/race its of apparent contradictions. To expand - IG Farben (and Wall St Bankers) were supporting the rise of Hitler from the beginning, well before 1933.

    Hitler was a noted anti-semite. This does not add up at all for me.


  • Options
    #65
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Its not the issue of faith/race its of apparent contradictions. To expand - IG Farben (and Wall St Bankers) were supporting the rise of Hitler from the beginning, well before 1933.

    Hitler was a noted anti-semite. This does not add up at all for me.

    So because it doesn't add up for you it must be a vast conspiracy?

    Have you even considered other explanations?

    But what is your explanation? That these Jews were in on it?


  • Options
    #66
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Its not the issue of faith/race its of apparent contradictions.

    I didn't ask you about race. I asked you why you have been stressing the religious beliefs of a subset of the board.
    To expand - IG Farben (and Wall St Bankers) were supporting the rise of Hitler from the beginning, well before 1933.
    Hold on a sec. It is known that IG Farben officials supported Hitler. These were directors of Farben firms. Which ones? Which directors supported Hitler?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Kernel
    Registered Users Posts: 4,388 ✭✭✭Kernel


    RTDH, have you read the section in Freakonomics! about abortion. It's interesting, however, it's murder of the unborn, so I'd be more favour of some kind of sterilisation programme.


  • Options
    #68
    Undergod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    I'd imagine sterilization programs would be even more open for abuse by a conspiracy bent on eugenics than voluntary abortions.


  • Options
    #69
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    bonkey wrote: »
    I didn't ask you about race. I asked you why you have been stressing the religious beliefs of a subset of the board.

    Thats a big question and not one for this thread I'd guess. While it is true the term "the Jewish Race" has been used to dehumanise Jews that is not why I used it. There are secular Jews in Israel who don't believe in God and some Jews would consider themselves a Hebrew, Israelite Race.


    Hold on a sec. It is known that IG Farben officials supported Hitler. These were directors of Farben firms. Which ones? Which directors supported Hitler?[/quote]

    All directors of the 6 were automatically given a place on the board of IG.
    Warburg was definitely Jewish, as for the others I cannot say but the book where it is quoted from is on the Seeley Library Book of Accessions list of 2001, so that gives it some validity.
    Hayes, Peter
    Industry and ideology: IG Farben in the Nazi era; 2nd ed.
    Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
    Classmark:10.12.488
    http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/library/accessions/accessions-may-2001.html


  • Options
    #70
    Woger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 165 ✭✭Woger


    Kernel wrote: »
    RTDH, have you read the section in Freakonomics! about abortion. It's interesting, however, it's murder of the unborn, so I'd be more favour of some kind of sterilisation programme.

    http://www.lifenews.com/nat4688.html


  • Options
    #71
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    King Mob wrote: »
    You are reasoning that abortion equals population control.
    The paper is reasoning that advocating abortion is the same as advocating population control.
    This is just not true.
    On a personal level it is not but i believe that to support, promote, and fund abortion is akin to population control. And the fact that it is more likely to be the immigrant class who get abortions this ties it into eugenics.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And again dodging questions.

    Can I ask you a question? what is your stance on the practice and philosophy of eugenics? I'd imagine mine is quite clear.

    And also, your main 2 alternatives as to why the IG HQ Edit: Despite being massive and a part of the Nazi war machine) (end) was left intact during the allied bombing that the left the rest of Frankfurt in rubble are in the RUMOURS section of a WIKIPEDIA article, hardly the usual high standards you insist on others.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    On a personal level it is not but i believe that to support, promote, and fund abortion is akin to population control. And the fact that it is more likely to be the immigrant class who get abortions this ties it into eugenics.
    Oh I had no idea that abortions were being forced on immigrants.

    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Can I ask you a question? what is your stance on the practice and philosophy of eugenics? I'd imagine mine is quite clear.
    I'm against eugenics. But I imagine you include alot more than I do into eugenics. Why is it important?
    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    And also, your main 2 alternatives as to why the IG HQ Edit: Despite being massive and a part of the Nazi war machine) (end) was left intact during the allied bombing that the left the rest of Frankfurt in rubble are in the RUMOURS section of a WIKIPEDIA article, hardly the usual high standards you insist on others.
    No my one alternative was that the building was not a target because is wasn't a factory, it was close to a POW camp and that it could be used as a base.
    What evidence do you have that your explanation is more likely?


  • Options
    #73
    feoil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭feoil


    hey folks,
    Very first post on Boards, so be kind :P

    To the question of population control, watch this before coming to any conclusions
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY,

    Why does IG Farben still exist?, well simply put, the western allies namely the US, didn't really go in for the russian idea of reducing the german state and people to a peasant agrarian society. It required german industry to survive in order for the Marshall plan to work. So today we still have Braun, Krupp, Volkswagen even Skoda.

    OP, if you really want to look for population control conspiracies, I suggest you research the "codex alementarious" or perhaps even the policy of flouridation. This pill, just a mega morning after pill surely.


  • Options
    #74
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    RU486. Non-surgical abortions using RU486 are performed in the first 63 days of the first trimester.1 Roussel Uclaf, the French pharmaceutical subsidiary of Hoechst AG is the manufacturer of RU 486.

    During WWII, Nazi Germany used gas chambers to kill millions of Jews. The gas that was used was called Zyklon-B. Zyklon-B was made by IG Farben.
    Good to know that they're using a well working solution. At least you know it'll work, and not be wondering if you'll still go full term.

    =-=

    If someone came into Ireland now, to clean up the mess, would you support them? Germany was in a bad state back in '33, so of course the bank welcomed some dude that said he'd bring Germany to be epic.


  • Options
    #75
    feoil
    Closed Accounts Posts: 32 ✭feoil


    the_syco wrote: »
    Good to know that they're using a well working solution. At least you know it'll work, and not be wondering if you'll still go full term.

    =-=

    If someone came into Ireland now, to clean up the mess, would you support them? Germany was in a bad state back in '33, so of course the bank welcomed some dude that said he'd bring Germany to be epic.

    Here's a little back story on the nazi's for you, and maybe who Hitler actually worked for you.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D6fxyOtVeI


  • Options
    #76
    Demonique
    Registered Users Posts: 2,824 ✭✭✭Demonique


    Kernel wrote: »
    RTDH, have you read the section in Freakonomics! about abortion. It's interesting, however, it's murder of the unborn, so I'd be more favour of some kind of sterilisation programme.

    Murder is defined as an illegal killing, since abortion is legal ergo it can't be murder


  • Options
    #77
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    You really have no idea how inaccurate bommbing was in WW2 do you?
    The reason they did blanket bombing of areas was because the accuracy was so bad.
    It's not a stretch to imagine the could miss.
    It is however a stretch to imagine that they blanket bombed an aera but completely avoid the building.

    What are you on about? Its not a stretch to "imagine" they could miss and it is a strecth to "imagine" they could miss, leaving out if it was blanket bombed or not, the point being could they miss, so which is it and why? is it just your imagination maybe? an opinion even, that they missed..


  • Options
    #78
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    WakeUp wrote: »

    What are you on about? Its not a stretch to "imagine" they could miss and it is a strecth to "imagine" they could miss, leaving out if it was blanket bombed or not, the point being could they miss, so which is it and why? is it just your imagination maybe? an opinion even, that they missed..

    I meant it's not a stretch that they would miss the area but it would be a stretch that they did hit the area destroy every other building in the area but leave that building untouched.


  • Options
    #79
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    I meant it's not a stretch that they would miss the area but it would be a stretch that they did hit the area destroy every other building in the area but leave that building untouched.

    Ok let me put another way then, leaving out the words stretch & imagine and an explanation in your opinion, which you’ve already stated a couple of times, as to why you think they didn’t miss, is it possible for whatever reason, whatever that reason might be, that they could of missed?, simple yes or no will suffice.


  • Options
    #80
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Ok let me put another way then, leaving out the words stretch & imagine and an explanation in your opinion, which you’ve already stated a couple of times, as to why you think they didn’t miss, is it possible for whatever reason, whatever that reason might be, that they could of missed?, simple yes or no will suffice.

    If there where actually bombing the area or the building itself, no it would be unlikely they could leave that building untouched.
    I'm arguing that they didn't target the building or the immediate area for several reasons. The idea that Rothschild owned it was not one of those reasons..


  • Options
    #81
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    If there where actually bombing the area or the building itself, no it would be unlikely they could leave that building untouched.
    I'm arguing that they didn't target the building or the immediate area for several reasons. The idea that Rothschild owned it was not one of those reasons..

    With all due respect that’s not what I asked you that being is it “likely” or “unlikely”. Is it possible that they could of missed or is it impossible?, for whatever reason, is what Im asking you. Yes its possible they missed or no its impossible they missed are the only two possible answers to the question, excuse the pun. I would appreciate a strait forward yes or no answer please, its all relevant.


    From reading the thread I can see three probable reasons for you argument, with regard to the building, and I quote, “I have however provided three other (more likely) explanations have I not? end quote,page4, 4th comment on page. So what are the other four reasons if you are arguing several as stated in your comment above? Have you got any evidence to back up your “several” arguments considering there “more likely” according to you, the three you’ve already stated and the four your going to tell me about? Is it fair to say your just guessing or making assumptions, again?


    Its obvious you don’t subscribe to the Rothschilds being responsible in some way and are arguing against it, maybe they had something to do with it or maybe not, but how do you know for sure they had nothing to do with it? Is that indeed what you are saying? Can you state that with 100% certainty (Rothschilds had nothing to do with it) seen as though you are asking other people to provide evidence to the contrary? If you can make that statement on what basis are you making it? Can you provide any evidence to substantiate what you are saying?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    WakeUp wrote: »
    With all due respect that’s not what I asked you that being is it “likely” or “unlikely”. Is it possible that they could of missed or is it impossible?, for whatever reason, is what Im asking you. Yes its possible they missed or no its impossible they missed are the only two possible answers to the question, excuse the pun. I would appreciate a strait forward yes or no answer please, its all relevant.
    What are you on about?

    WakeUp wrote: »
    From reading the thread I can see three probable reasons for you argument, with regard to the building, and I quote, “I have however provided three other (more likely) explanations have I not? end quote,page4, 4th comment on page. So what are the other four reasons if you are arguing several as stated in your comment above? Have you got any evidence to back up your “several” arguments considering there “more likely” according to you, the three you’ve already stated and the four your going to tell me about? Is it fair to say your just guessing or making assumptions, again?


    Its obvious you don’t subscribe to the Rothschilds being responsible in some way and are arguing against it, maybe they had something to do with it or maybe not, but how do you know for sure they had nothing to do with it? Is that indeed what you are saying? Can you state that with 100% certainty (Rothschilds had nothing to do with it) seen as though you are asking other people to provide evidence to the contrary? If you can make that statement on what basis are you making it? Can you provide any evidence to substantiate what you are saying?
    Well is there any evidence to suggest that the Rothschilds played any part in it what so ever?

    However there is evidence that the place was not a priority target (being only an administerive building and having a POW camp next to it.)
    What is wrong with that explanation exactly?

    Sofa King Good's argument was: that the Rothschild's intervention was the only explanation for the building being spared when all the other building near it where bombed.
    This however is is not the case. It is not the only explanation and it was unlikely that the area around the building was targeted at all.


  • Options
    #83
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    What are you on about?

    Well is there any evidence to suggest that the Rothschilds played any part in it what so ever?

    However there is evidence that the place was not a priority target (being only an administerive building and having a POW camp next to it.)
    What is wrong with that explanation exactly?

    Sofa King Good's argument was: that the Rothschild's intervention was the only explanation for the building being spared when all the other building near it where bombed.
    This however is is not the case. It is not the only explanation and it was unlikely that the area around the building was targeted at all.


    Its actually pretty clear what Im about it seems to be going over your head though for whatever reason, you keep saying its "unlikley" Im asking do you think its possible? there is a difference between the two words,(possible&likely) is pretty simple really.

    Is there any evidence to suggest they didnt play a part in it? Also, how do you know that "this however is not the case" your saying thats a fact right?


  • Options
    #84
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Its actually pretty clear what Im about it seems to be going over your head though for whatever reason, you keep saying its "unlikley" Im asking do you think its possible? there is a difference between the two words,(possible&likely) is pretty simple really.
    Unlikely means possible but with a low possibility.
    It is unlikely because bombing in WW2 was very inaccurate. Therefore they had to use use carpet bombing. So if they were attacking buildings that were nearby it would be unlikely that the IG faben building would be unharmed.
    The more likely possibility is that the building and the area around it was not directly targeted.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Is there any evidence to suggest they didnt play a part in it?
    Is there any they did?
    There is no evidence to show fairies didn't play a part in it. Therefore it was fairies that saved the building.

    WakeUp wrote: »
    Also, how do you know that "this however is not the case" your saying thats a fact right?
    Because I have offered several other explanations. Therefore Sofa king good's argument of "Rothschild intervention is the only possibility" is not valid because there are other more likely possibilities.


  • Options
    #85
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    Unlikely means possible but with a low possibility.
    It is unlikely because bombing in WW2 was very inaccurate. Therefore they had to use use carpet bombing. So if they were attacking buildings that were nearby it would be unlikely that the IG faben building would be unharmed.
    The more likely possibility is that the building and the area around it was not directly targeted.

    Is there any they did?
    There is no evidence to show fairies didn't play a part in it. Therefore it was fairies that saved the building.



    Because I have offered several other explanations. Therefore Sofa king good's argument of "Rothschild intervention is the only possibility" is not valid because there are other more likely possibilities.


    KM [font=&quot]Unlikely means possible but with a low possibility

    [/font]     So you accept it is possible that they missed on purpose, thank you, it took you a while but you got there eventually. Technically, unlikely is not defined as you’ve stated I am assuming the above is your own understanding of it upstairs, anyway the dictionary defines “unlikely” as follows,

    not likely to be or occur; improbable; marked by doubt
    holding little prospect of success; unpromising; likely to fail
    not ingratiating; objectionable.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unlikely



    and the definition of possible for the record..


    that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used
    that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possible



    KM Is there any they did?
    There is no evidence to show fairies didn't play a part in it. Therefore it was fairies that saved the building.


    Leaving fairies aside the less said about them the better that’s fairly god damn random actually, but if you played baseball you would most certainly play for the LA Dodgers. Please answer my question, can you say with 100% certainty that they had nothing to do with it? It is really fairy simple Yes I can say this or no I cant say this. (with 100% certainty)



    KM [font=&quot]Because I have offered several other explanations[/font]


    Ah well if you’ve offered several explanations then that’s it, stop the lights and ring Koffi, tis all over get out that megaphone what you say is the one and only well several possibility(purposely non-plural)and your right, gimme a break. Again can you remove your baseball hat please. You said in a bold matter of fact way “this however is not the case”. I then asked are you stating this as fact? Its really simple yes or no its all relevant hopefully you can give two strait forward answers considering you’re the one making the assumptions and then we can move on from this particular “exchange”.


  • Options
    #86
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Thats it folks, keep making it personal so the ban crazy mods can step in.


  • Options
    #87
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    WakeUp wrote: »
    So you accept it is possible that they missed on purpose, thank you, it took you a while but you got there eventually.
    That's not what I'm saying at all. Nor do I accept that they could target and hit buildings right next to it and yet miss the IG Faben building intentionally.
    They were simply not accurate enough to target specific buildings. Therefore they had to carpet bomb the area to hit a target. If they were targeting buildings right next to the IG Faben building they would have had to carpet bomb the area. This means the IG Faben building would have been damaged.

    I am arguing that they did not target either the building or the area around it.
    But not because of the Rothschilds.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Technically, unlikely is not defined as you’ve stated I am assuming the above is your own understanding of it upstairs, anyway the dictionary defines “unlikely” as follows,

    not likely to be or occur; improbable; marked by doubt
    holding little prospect of success; unpromising; likely to fail
    not ingratiating; objectionable.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unlikely



    and the definition of possible for the record..


    that may or can be, exist, happen, be done, be used
    that may be true or may be the case, as something concerning which one has no knowledge to the contrary
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/possible
    You're joking right?
    You realise something that is unlikely to happen is, by the definitions you gave, is possible but improbable.
    And things can be both possible and improbable.
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Leaving fairies aside the less said about them the better that’s fairly god damn random actually, but if you played baseball you would most certainly play for the LA Dodgers. Please answer my question, can you say with 100% certainty that they had nothing to do with it? It is really fairy simple Yes I can say this or no I cant say this. (with 100% certainty)
    No I can't say with 100% certainty that the Rothschilds weren't involved.
    Nor can I (or you for that matter) say with 100% certainty fairies didn't stop the bombs from damaging the building.

    But there is exactly as much evidence to support the fairy hypothesis as there is for the Rothschild one: none.

    So why should anyone believe the Rothschilds were involved when there is no evidence to support that they were?
    WakeUp wrote: »
    Ah well if you’ve offered several explanations then that’s it, stop the lights and ring Koffi, tis all over get out that megaphone what you say is the one and only well several possibility(purposely non-plural)and your right, gimme a break. Again can you remove your baseball hat please. You said in a bold matter of fact way “this however is not the case”. I then asked are you stating this as fact? Its really simple yes or no its all relevant hopefully you can give two strait forward answers considering you’re the one making the assumptions and then we can move on from this particular “exchange”.
    If you actually read any of my responses you'd see when I said “this however is not the case” I was referring to Sofa King Good argument that the Rothschilds involvement was the only explanation.
    This is not the only explanation, I have offered several other ones.

    And I'd like to note for all this arguing about semantics, not one person has offered a scrap of evidence to support the idea that the Rothschilds saved this building.


  • Options
    #88
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    felt the need to backtrack a little...
    King Mob wrote: »
    So what you're saying here is that because they where Rothschild connected the bomber pilots knew not to bomb their property?

    Really am tired of being misrepresented. I did not say anything of the sort! YOU DID!

    What I said was 'this is strange', and judging by the fact that despite our mutual efforts we cannot say for certain why it has happened <i would say that it was a fair point.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Did they have a giant sign on the roofs? Did it glow in the dark?
    Another ridiculous claim.

    I agree it is a ridiculous claim. To say that the IG Farben building was indistuinguisable from the air for reasons I've previously mentioned is ridiculous.

    As is the words you so kindly felt free to put in my mouth 'because they where Rothschild connected the bomber pilots knew not to bomb their property?'.

    What you are saying here is that fighter pilots do not have to follow orders???

    To backtrack a little, the quote I mentioned earlier which I described as 'strange' was this
    Despite (1.)the incredible devastation of most German cities from World War II air bombings, the I.G. Farben building in Frankfurt, 2.(one of the largest buildings there,) 3."miraculously" survived intact. A large Rockefeller mansion in Frankfurt also was left untouched by the war, despite the saturation bombing. 4.Frankfurt was the birthplace of the Rothschild family

    All 4 are established, unquestionable facts. What is strange is 3 despite one. Do you doubt any of the others?

    Post 24
    King Mob wrote: »

    The fact that buildings can survive bombing? No.

    I really need to read your posts better. 'The fact that buildings can survive bombing?' nobody mentioned such a thing. In fact it is crucial to understanding that the building was not bombed at all, is it not?

    King Mob wrote: »
    The rest where the usual nonsense where you try to link people to the Rothschilds through the flimsiest of links.

    What flimsy links? You have to accept truths...Frankfurt was the the birthplace of the Rothschild's banking dynasty. The building was a Rothschild building, Rothschild money supported both sides of the war.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And?
    We've already established that this company supplied the German army during the war.


    Yet their HQ are not a legitimate military target??? ffs man:confused::confused::confused:

    otherwise,
    The historic Paulskirche, a site of great historic significance for Germany, was destroyed during these bombardments by what has been called directed bombardment, (see it is possible ;)) a measure that is not in line with the military significance of the site and would constitute a war crime. Others have questioned this account and claim the bombardment to have been accidental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Frankfurt_am_Main_in_World_War_II

    please, please, please keep in mind that we have established that they supplied the German army during the war, in your own words.

    to follow on, forgive for reposting a post but it is a follow up on the last point and it is crucial too understanding.

    Originally Posted by King Mob viewpost.gif
    Because there's no way the bombers would be able to differentiate or avoid those particular buildings during a carpet bombing.
    Quote:
    On its completion, the complex was the largest office building in Europe and remained so until the 1950s.[2] The IG Farben Building's six square wings retain a modern, spare elegance, despite its mammoth size.
    Can we agree now that that just can't be the case?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by King Mob viewpost.gif
    So the much more likely explanation is they were no t in the same areas that where bombed

    Quote:
    During World War II, the surrounding neighbourhood was devastated, but the building itself was left largely intact
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by King Mob viewpost.gif
    and where not priority targets.

    Quote:


    - Common sense would dictate that it should have been an Allied military target as it was a Nazi installation.
    - The surrounding neighbourhood was devastated and
    - it was unmissable from the air or anywhere else.

    Can we agree that its escape was "miraclous" as previously described?

    Source: http://eng.archinform.net/projekte/1...cond_World_War
    King Mob wrote: »

    And? Imagine it at bombing height, in the middle of the night, with no lights on, traveling very fast over the area that you're completely unfamiliar with and with flak and search lights all around.


    And imagine bombing in the middle of the afternoon...you are taking in the sights of the ruins below you of a defeated enemy...straight ahead you see the largest office complex in Europe, critical to the enemies war effort...stupidly you decide to bomb a cathederal instead:confused::confused:

    Worth pointing out that Frankfurt was bombed in daylight also.

    I could go on, but I am sure it is painful enough reading for others already.

    (this better work).


  • Options
    #89
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    King Mob wrote: »
    Therefore Sofa king good's argument of "Rothschild intervention is the only possibility" is not valid because there are other more likely possibilities.

    only possibilty? please KM where have I said this,? please use the quote function rather than the inverted commas

    Edit: Looky here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=7032610

    the ony time that quote has been used (other than this) in the history of the forum was at hmmm 11.03, today. By whom I wonder?


  • Options
    #90
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You don't actually seem to understand how bombing worked in World War Two.

    When they targeted a building they had to saturate the the area with bombs.
    You claim that the immediate area was targeted but somehow manger to leave that building untouched.
    This is incredibly unlikely if they were targeting the immediate area.
    The damage to the buildings around the IG Faban building could have been caused by spreading fire from a bombing further away.

    I have given several reasons why they would not have target the area.
    The POW camp right next door.
    The fact it was an administrative building and would be a low priority target despite your instance otherwise.
    - Common sense would dictate that it should have been an Allied military target as it was a Nazi installation.
    - The surrounding neighbourhood was devastated and
    - it was unmissable from the air or anywhere else.

    Can we agree that its escape was "miraclous" as previously described?
    So do you believe that this "miracle" was due to Rothschild influence?

    And how exactly did you come to this conclusion?
    And do you have any evidence for it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    only possibilty? please KM where have I said this,? please use the quote function rather than the inverted commas

    Edit: Looky here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/search.php?searchid=7032610

    the ony time that quote has been used (other than this) in the history of the forum was at hmmm 11.03, today. By whom I wonder?

    When you described the buildings escape as miraculous and ascribed it to the building alleged Rothschild connection.
    You dismiss other possibilities as impossible but with no good reasoning or evidence to back that up.

    Care to express the other possibilities you think might have let this building survive?


Advertisement