Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Discussions
User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:46 pm

So instead of even trying to have a debate Bob continues with his willful misrepresentations of what I have actually said.

"When he said "not to have heavily stained walls" then is clear that this man really believes that walls are stained, but not heavily, once for all he again proved his total incompetence and lack of knowledge."

No Bob, all that means is Krema II does not have the heavily stained walls that are present elsewhere, where it is known Zyklon B was used in very large quantities continuously to delouse clothes. I did not say anything about what level of staining, if any at all Krema II has.

Then further misrepresentation and sheer arrogance that you know better than I do about what I think.

"His thread simply contradicts his idea and yet, he produced idea which is exactly the opposite of what he suggested" I said I had the idea from the thread, nothing more. There was no discussion about that idea in the thread. I have shown how the idea developed during the thread. You cannot mind read, you cannot determine what I am thinking.

This all out attack mode of Bob's makes me very suspicious that he is unable to reasonably respond to many of my points about typhus, Leuchter and the state of Krema IIs roof. No wonder I am the only person who has bothered with him here to any extent. It takes a thick skin to deal with nasty, abusive, deceitful little shits.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:04 pm

No Bob, all that means is Krema II does not have the heavily stained walls that are present elsewhere, where it is known Zyklon B was used in very large quantities continuously to delouse clothes. I did not say anything about what level of staining, if any at all Krema II has.
Why Nessie used "not to have heavily stained walls" suggesting that there is some slight staining, instead of using "does not have stained walls"....
"His thread simply contradicts his idea and yet, he produced idea which is exactly the opposite of what he suggested" I said I had the idea from the thread, nothing more. There was no discussion about that idea in the thread. I have shown how the idea developed during the thread. You cannot mind read, you cannot determine what I am thinking.
And i proved that this idea is not in the thread and is clearly contradicted by the thread, so one must wonder how Nessie created his idea based on that thread.
This all out attack mode of Bob's makes me very suspicious that he is unable to reasonably respond to many of my points about typhus, Leuchter and the state of Krema IIs roof. No wonder I am the only person who has bothered with him here to any extent. It takes a thick skin to deal with nasty, abusive, deceitful little shits.
More accusations together with foul language as usual when believer is not able to argue with revisionists.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:08 pm

This is only the case "Why Nessie used "not to have heavily stained walls" suggesting that there is some slight staining, instead of using "does not have stained walls"...." because of your misrepresent and attack tactic. Why not use heavily stained walls when referring to heavily stained walls? If you think there is a suggestion, why no clarify instead of misrepresent and attack?

This is nonsense "And i proved that this idea is not in the thread and is clearly contradicted by the thread, so one must wonder how Nessie created his idea based on that thread." I have shown how my thought process as it developed and you are not able to prove otherwise as it was my thought process. The supposed contradiction is because you are unable to read minds and cannot understand (or willfully misrepresent) the development of the idea that came to my mind. That thread was not about the topic of does staining indicate a likeliness of use for a chamber? It was about proving clothing was the only item that went into gas chambers where there are any signs of staining.

You have a twisted form of argument that willfully/mistakenly misrepresents what you have been told and then you argue against that. You take a few words or a sentence and decide what you think it means and you decide on the meaning to suit your next attack. It does not bother you whether or not that is what was meant. You arrogantly claim you know what I am thinking.

I can and will continue to argue with denier/revisionists, but it becomes pointless when the person being debated makes up what they think the other side has said.

1 - How many Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz survived to the end of the War?

2 - How many Hungarian Jews died at Auschwitz of typhus?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Bob » Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:19 pm

I can´t read Nessie´s mind, true, only Nazis had mind reading ability as Hilberg informed us, but I can read Nessie´s thread, thus I refuted his idea as unfounded. The rest, again unfounded and false accusations or off topic.

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1467
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Darren Wilshak » Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:25 pm

Where's the foul language? I missed that bit.
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

Matt Baumann
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:57 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matt Baumann » Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:10 am

I think it's interesting that the holes in the room were recontructed or created after the war.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:01 am

Hans wrote:The following is a review posting on the evidence and Revisionist arguments on the issue gas introduction in crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz-Birkenau. I have tried to include as much material as possible, and if I missed something or if Revisionists provide fresh arguments, I will work them into this posting.

Testimonial evidence

Testimonial evidence is an important type of evidence to study history. Testimonies are typically available in high number and allows good access to the matter of interest from different perspectives. A problem can be memory fading and manipulation, which needs to be taken care of by means of comparing against each other as well as against other evidence.

So far I have collected 26 affirmative accounts on the gas openings in crematorium 2 and 3, which are compiled here. A summary table can be found here.

It is first of all striking that the accounts are not limited to a certain group and certain occasion, but are distributed among several groups involved in the concentration camp – SS, Jewish prisoner, Polish prisoner, Soviet prisoner, civilian – and were given at numerous different circumstances – Soviet/Polish investigations, British investigations, Allied investigations, West-German investigations, letter to historian, interviews with historian, interview with Revisionist even, contemporary reports, drawings, books. The heterogeneous nature of the accounts is remarkable and already indication that we are dealing with an authentic and reliable piece of history here.

Numbers of openings

11 accounts have identified four gas openings.

2 accounts have identified three or four openings.

3 accounts have mentioned two openings. According to testimonial evidence (Henryk Tauber, Yehuda Bacon, Paul Bendel, Daniel Bennahmias, Josef Sackar), the gassing basement(s) was (were) later subdivided into two separate chambers in order handle smaller transports more easily. Each chamber was then equipped with two gas openings. The references to two gas openings can be interpreted in the context of the subdivision and are thus in principle compatible with a total number of openings of four for the whole basement. In total, these are 13 accounts that have explicitly referred to four gas openings and 4 accounts that have possibly referred to four gas openings.

2 accounts have described one opening, but the descriptions do not - implicitly or explicitly - exclude that there were in fact more openings in the basement (thus I wrote "at least 1" in the summary table). 2 accounts stated there was more than one gas opening and four accounts did not specify the number of openings.

The 2 remaining accounts have given a figure of three as the number of gas openings.

Thus, if we summarize the figures, two gas openings are can be supported with 3 accounts, three gas openings with 4 accounts and four gas openings with 16 accounts. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude there had been four gas openings in the gas chamber's ceiling.

Gas introduction devices

18 of 26 accounts have mentioned or described a column leading down into the gas chamber. Those who commented on the material of the column have identified it as perforated metal/wire mesh.

Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß described it was “fenced around with a grating”, SS investigator Konrad Morgen remembered it as “grilled shaft” and the SS officer Josef Erber explained it consisted of “four iron bars...encased by steel wire mesh".

The Polish prisoner Michal Kula described them as "columns of wire netting" made of "3 mm iron wire stretched over angle irons", the Soviet prisoner Ananij Petko and Vladimir Pegov as "lattice-work columns", the Jewish prisoner Henryk Tauber as “made of grills of thick steel wire”, the Jewish prisoner Paul Bendel as "mesh tubes", the Jewish prisoner Miklos Nyszli as "sheet-iron pipes, the sides of which contained many perforations", the Jewish prisoner Filip Müller as "hollow columns...surrounded by perforated sheet", the Jewish prisoner Josef Sackar as "pillars with cages around them", the Jewish prisoner Shaul Chasan as "latticework shaft...made of perforated metal", the Jewish prisoner Yehuda Bacon as "steel bars surrounded by thick fence wire", the prisoner Michel Scheckter as "latticework chimney-like structures" and the Jewish prisoner David Olere draw them as four bars surrounded by wire mesh.

These descriptions are well corresponding and are essentially referring to the same outer structure of the device. The variants wire mesh and perforated metal, though technically different, are similar and could have been easily confused.

The inner part of the column is known from fewer sources. The most detailed description is from Michal Kula, who took part in the construction of the device and mentioned a second wire mesh fixed inside. This was also testified by Henryk Tauber at his interrogation of 27-28 February 1945 (Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies). At a later depostion, Tauber mentioned a third fixed wire mesh, but which is most likely mistaken in the light of Kula's account and Tauber's own earlier description

Kula also described that there was a movable inner column made of wire mesh with a central cone to distribute the pellets to the sides. Because of the large amount of details provided by him on the device and his position in the metal workshop, Kula has to be taken as primary witness on the columns - unless a detail is clearly contradicted by strong evidence. Thus, the mobile inner part described by Kula was likely constructed and used at least in the beginning. Filip Müller mentioned there was a “spiral” inside the column to “distribute the gas”. This is possibly a misleading and misunderstanding reference to the cone described by Kula.

For Henryk Tauber the movable inner part was a “box”, which could be regarded as a very simplified and somewhat inaccurate description of Kula’s mobile column. On the other hand, Josef Erber’s “sheet with low edge” is hardly compatible with Kula’s account anymore and suggests that the more complex and bulky device may have been later replaced by Erber’s simpler container. Both Tauber and Erber agreed that the mobile part was lifted up with a wire.

Chimnies

Several witnesses, Henryk Tauber, Henryk Porebski, Yehuda Bacon, Dov Paisikovic, Stanislaw Jankowski and Miklos Nyiszli, have mentioned chimnies on top of the openings. The roof was supposed to be covered with soil and grass (according to Henryk Tauber and construction documents), which might explain the difficulty for many witnesses to notice and characterize the chimnies. The chimneys are in fact most likely visible on a February 1943 ground photograph still showing the bare roof and not yet covered by soil (see also section on ground photographs).

Chimneys are certainly a reasonable feature to provide protection against water and to allow burying the basement under earth. But what was the construction material of the chimneys? It is usually assumed that the chimnies were made of brick, which seems the most reasonable choice, but so far I could not find direct confirmation for this in the eyewitness accounts. So it cannot be ruled out that the chimney were of a different material like concrete or even a corrosion resistant metal.

The covers of the gas shafts were described as “concrete” by five witnesses, while Josef Erber remembered an “iron cover”. The “glas” version provided by Jaacov Gabai is very doubtful, not corroborated and can be rejected as severe memory fading or hearsay knowledge. Early evidence from the transfer inventory of crematorium 2 suggests that a wooden cover was used in the beginning.

Size

The civilian engineer Karl Schultze stated that there were four openings of 25 x 25 cm in the roof, Yehuda Bacon estimated the column to be 40 x 40 cm and Michal Kula recalled the dimension of the column as 70 cm x 70 cm. Strictly speaking, we have to consider two sets of openings and columns, those of crematorium 2 and those of crematorium 3, which did not necessarily have the same dimensions. Crematorium 2 was completed and used much earlier so that modifications might have been incorporated in crematorium 3.

Without taking into account other evidence, it would appear reasonable to assume the opening and device to be at the order of 70 x 70 cm as estimated by Kula, since he is the first choice witness on the device. However, when taking further evidence into account the picture of the device derived from Kula’s testimony has to be modified. According to physical evidence (see the respective section), which trumps testimonial evidence (when misinterpretation of physical evidence can be excluded at least), the openings in the roof of the gas chamber of crematorium 2 were somewhat less than 50 x 50 cm.

There are in principle three explanations for the apparent contradiction of the physical evidence with Kula’s account: a) Kula was referring to the device of crematorium 3, which was larger than the device of crematorium 2 in this case, b) he was mistaken with respect to the dimension, c) his description is incomplete/inaccurate and did not mention that the outer wire mesh was not penetrating the roof. Which of explanations is actually true is hard to decide without additional evidence.

Counter witness

As far as I know, there is a single account doubting the existence of gas openings. The German civilian engineer Walter Schreiber and former chief inspector of Huta in Kattowitz stated that he did not remember about openings in the reinforced concrete roof of the cellars and that he would have objected against the construction of openings in the roof. If anything, this would indicate that the SS in Auschwitz implemented the openings on their own without the civilian firm. But there is a serious problem with the testimony. Schreiber stated that he did not know anything about gas chambers in the crematoria, but the documents from the Auschwitz archives prove that the workers of his own firm equipped the crematoria with gas tight doors and windows. This clearly shows that Schreiber's knowledge on what was going on at the crematoria construction sites was very limited or he was suffering severe memory fading at the time of the testimony (not surprisingly at an age of 90). In any case, his single, isolated, late and uncorroborated account is not suitable to shed serious doubts on the existence of the openings.

Revisionist arguments
Spoiler:
Revisionism (aka Holocaust denial) has shown from its foundation up to now almost complete refusal to properly evaluate testimonial evidence. In fact, many or most of Revisionism’s misconceptions are born from poor analysis of testimonial evidence. Does Bob make any difference here?

His take on the testimonial evidence is actually even worse then most Revisionist ramblings. He borrows foul ingredients from Mattogno and adds to the meal some of his own misconceptions. As a result, Bob merely names a few minor mistakes or inaccuracies in only few of the accounts without explaining the testimonies, and actually believes this would invalidate the testimonial evidence.

Mattogno thinks (adopted from Stäglich and repeated by Bob) that because the SS investigator Konrad Morgen, who spent only little time in Auschwitz and occupied his mind with many other things during the war, confused the subcamp Monowitz with Birkenau at his Nuremberg testimony, his description of the gas chamber not only at the IMT but also at the later West-German Auschwitz trial has to be dismissed. Such a reasoning clashes with reality and any common sense that human memory is imperfect. Any proper evaluation has to take into account the liability of testimonial evidence for mistakes and inaccuracies. Historical truth has to be extracted from testimonies by means of comparing, corroborating and filtering out any mistakes and inaccuracies. Morgen was apparently mixing some features from Monowitz with Birkenau in Nuremberg, but his description of the crematorium is corroborated by numerous other accounts. Mattogno's conclusion that because of the confusion over Monowitz and Birkenau, Morgen is a "completely unreliable witness" on the crematorium is in fact completely nonsense.

The Jewish Sonderkommando member Jaacov Gabai told the historian Gideon Greif in the 90s that “a blue vapor spread through the chamber. The gas came in the form of blue cubes”, which is enough for Bob to dismiss the entire testimony because it is a “clear lie” and “ridiculous”. Bob failed to properly analyze the testimony. It is apparent from the context that the Gabai could not observe the evaporation of the gas, since he was on the other side of the gas tight door and after opening of the door the gas chamber was already ventilated. So if Gabai talked about the color of the gas vapor, he was necessarily guessing what the vapour looked like. Since the pellets he remembered were bluish (and maybe also because the gas is called “blue acid” in German), he has assumed that the evaporated poison was also blue.

The color of the gas soaked pellets was depending on the actual carrier material employed. The SS private Pery Broad confirmed in his report written shortly after the war that “the cans contain blue pellets of pie size” and indeed the Zyklon-B could have been delivered as blue cubes exactly as mentioned by Gabai. So it is in fact not the witness who was lying, but Bob himself!

This is an interesting observation and inspires to spin that thought further. If we apply Bob’s bogus standard of what is a lie and method that a single mistake invalidates anything produced by a person, we can conclude that because Bob has lied about Zyklon-B never being blue cubes, anything claimed by him so far and anything that is claimed by him in the future can be safely dismissed as false.

Bob believes that Miklos Nyszli and Paul/Charles Bendel “never saw gas chamber/morgue” because they gave a wrong dimension of the basement (both arguments are taken from Mattogno). Bendel stated in his examination of 1 October 1945 that the gas chamber was filled with corpses “to the height of one and a half metres”. On 2 March 1946 he testified at the Tesch trial that the gas chamber was 1,70 m high. The figure of 1,60 m was actually put into his mouth by the defendant lawyer, conveniently omitted by Bob as well as by Mattogno. In any case, the basement was some 2,41 m high according to blueprints, so that Bendel had grossly underestimated its height.

Does that mean that Bendel never saw the basement, as claimed by Bob? Bendel gave several accounts on Auschwitz and the degree of details and insider knowledge he provided on the activity at the crematoria suggests that he was actually part of the crematoria personnel. As such, he had at least direct contact to people who worked in the basement, but also could have witnessed the basement himself. The underestimation of the gas chambers height could suggest that Bendel did not step inside the chamber but only observed it from the outside through the door. A room packed with corpses might have very well given him the impression of a very low roof. Alternatively, Bendel was heavily traumatized, which effected his memory on the ceiling height. But his description of the gassing device is corroborated by other evidence and is thus not unreliable at all.

Miklos Nyszli described the gas chamber basement four times longer than it actually was. Does that mean that Nyszli never saw the basement, as Bob claims? Nyszli had written a lengthy account on Auschwitz and it is also apparent from the large amount of details on the crematoria provided by him that he was part of the crematoria staff. It is likely that he saw the basement from some perspective, irrespective of the question whether it was a gas chamber, and therefore the exaggeration of the basement length has to be attributed to poor estimation qualities, poor observer position and/or memory fading, rather than not having seen it. Conversely, if we would accept Bob’s explanation that Nyszli never saw the basement, we would end up with the unsolved problem to explain the genesis of his account.

Shaul Chazan testified that the gas had a “pungent smell”, which Bob thinks is “really absurd” because “HCN has slight odor” and it “must be some other miracle and he survived gassing or he magically breathed through the door”. Yet, it is not Chazan’s account which is absurd, but again Bob’s sluggish and ignorant analysis.

Zyklon-B was not pure hydrogen cyanide soaked into a carrier but did contain additives as stabilizators and warning agent. The warning agents had to have a pungent odor in order provide proper warning of the poison. Even without a warning agent – it is known that some Zyklon-B was delivered without it – the gas released by Zyklon-B could have a pungent smell from a stabilizer like ethyl chloroacetate.

The warning agent was chosen so that it was already present (or still present) when the toxic concentration was not reached yet (or already diluted). Thereby it was possible to smell the warning agent released from the Zyklon-B when the cyanide concentration was below a critical level. So even a ventilated gas chamber, that was entered by the Jewish Sonderkommando prisoners without risk, could smell from the warning agent. If Bob had actually studied Chazan’s account, he would know that Chazan indeed explained that “sometimes there were still residues of toxic gas there” after the Sonderkommando entered the gas chamber, which in case the pungent smell was related to Zyklon-B, was of course the warning agent or stabilizator. Such an error is entirely irrelevant since Chazan did not had technical equipment to study the origin of the pungent smell.

Filip Müller is accused of having plagiarized Miklos Nyszli by Mattogno and Bob thankfully jumped on this bandwagon. There is in fact passage in Müller's book which was evidently taken from Nyszli's 1961 work, a speech hold at the crematorium site. But Müller already described the wire mesh column in 1946, years before the article from Nyiszli was published and so he could not have taken the description from there.

It was also suggested by Bob that testimony providing less details is contradicting more detailed testimonies. The argument is relying on the ignorance to take into account the context and circumstance of a testimony. The degree of detail actually depends on a number of factors. It depends on the actual time and the position a person could spend to actually witness the matter. It depends on the memory of a person and the rate of memory fading. It depends on the time after the observation the testimony is made. It depends on the way the testimony is extracted. It depends on the question and knowledge of the examining person. It depends on the time a person can spent to gather the memory. It depends on the internal motivation of a person. It depends on intelligence and personality what a person considers worth to recall etc.

For example, Rudolf Vrba was not a member of the Jewish Sonderkommando and did not have access to basement. He could not witness the gas introduction device by himself, but only from hearsay but which is more likely to escape when writing something down. Hans Münch was interview by Rudolf when he was apparently already suffering from severe memory fading. One cannot expect too much details from such an account.

Karl Schultze was working at the ventilation system of the homicidal gas chamber. He reported towards Soviet investigators that there were four openings 25 x 25 cm in the roof, but did not mention the device. We do know from physical evidence that the openings were already made when the concrete was poured and when Schultze was working in the gas chamber, but we do not know exactly if the device was already in place. It is entirely possible that the device was not installed yet when Schultze was inside the basement (even after the first gassing was already carried out in the basement, the device was an optional not a necessary piece of equipment) and that he did not mention it simply because it was not installed yet.

Such specific context of a testimony is usually conveniently ignored by Revisionists resulting in misleading or false analysis of the testimonial evidence.
Ground photographical evidence

On a SS ground photograph taken in February 1943, three cuboids can be seen on the roof of the homicidal gas chamber of crematorium 2. The location of the cuboids corresponds well with the location of the gas openings identified by archeological evidence (see also the section on physical evidence), as shown by the overlap of the model of the building based on the blueprints and the physical findings with the ground photograph as published by Mazal, Keren, McCarthy here. I tried to verify the result by modeling the basement myself and feeding it with the physical findings. The match of my model with the ground photograph also shows good agreement and confirms the result.

Another photograph taken earlier in January 1943 shows the gassing basement of crematorium without the chimnies, which shows they were constructed between both photographs. It is not possible to tell from the photograph whether the gas openings are in the roof, since a) the basement is covered by snow and b) there is almost no view on the actual roof surface from the perspective. However, the archeological evidence indicates the openings were made when the concrete was poured and that they are already in place at the time this photo was taken.

Revisionist arguments
Spoiler:
According to Mattogno, the objects identifed as gas chimnies are cylindrical because they are "rounded at top and bottom, which is absolutely incompatible with the shadow zones of a parallelepiped". Actually the objects show a similar curvature as the ventilation chimnies on top of the basement on the best resolved not-photoshopped image available.

Bob claimed that Mazal et al.'s model and the photo do “not match” and to illustrate his claim referred to these close-ups of Mazal’s et al. image. But the close-ups actually show a well match of the model and the photo. The model of chimney number 1 fits almost perfect, the model of chimnies number 2 and 4 show a deviation from the respective objects on the ground photograph by only few pixels. These deviations are small and within the error margin of the method. The location of the openings could only be estimated approximately due to the destruction of the roof, especially the north-south position was prone to some error. For instance, for opening number 4 it is given as 1 m by Mazal et al.

Bob further claimed on here that the model’s south-eastern edge does not match with the photograph. The deviation between the model’s south-eastern angle and what Bob thinks is it on the photograph is about 20 cm if compared against the roof slab, which is small. Moreover, the photograph is particular blurry and irregular in this area, so that it is not possible to definitely identify that the feature Bob thinks is the south-eastern angle is actually the south-eastern angle and not some building material masking the actual edge.

Bob also referred to a sketch of Rudolf or Mattogno (third here) which supposedly shows that the objects that have been identified as gas chimnies 1 and 2 are located both on the eastern side of the basement whereas the physical evidence suggest that opening number 1 was located on the western side. The problem with the approach is that it requires high accuracy especially of the upper southern angle in order to properly determine whether chimney number 1 is left or right of the central line of the basement. The position is very sensitive to the determination of the central line. A deviation of 1 or 2 pixels of the upper south edge already flips the chimney between the eastern and western half. Considering the low quality and blurriness of the photograph as well as that large parts of the basement necessary for the construction are masked, it is rather arbitrary whether one sees the object west or east of the central line with the method Rudolf employed.

When the above was pointed out to Bob, he claimed “you have no proof of chimneys because according to you, photo is bad, no double standard”, which shows that Bob has not understand what the photograph was used for by Rudolf (to prove the object 1 is on the eastern side) and what it was used by Mazal et al. (to match it with the model), which have both entirely different demands on qualities of the photograph. The photograph is bad to conclusively determine the exact central line of the basement (and exact means with a deviation of not even few pixels), so Rudolf's point is moot. But it cannot be too bad to match it with a model and see if there is a well correspondence or not. Such a procedure can be always done and the blurriness does only define an error margin and limits the accuracy. The overlap of course does not conclusively prove that the objects on the photograph are where they have been modeled – and I did not claim it does – but it provides strong evidence that the objects can and have to be interpreted as gas chimnies on top of the gas openings.

Bob also critized that my model and overlap with the train photograph did not correspond to Mazal et al.’s overlap. But even this roughly scaled overlap already shows good correspondence of chimnies 1, 2 and 4 and the deviation of chimney 3 isbecause did not place their chimney 3 more close to chimney 4 in their model. Since the position of opening number 3 is not yet defined by physical or photographical evidence, both assumptions are in principle possible and not contradicted by evidence.

David has posted a photograph of the backside of crematorium 2 taken presumably in summer 1943 and argued it shows “no "chimneys" visible on the roof of Leichenkeller 1”. Actually it was already pointed out by Revisionists Jean-Marie Boisdefeu and Carlo Mattogno in "Auschwitz Lies" some seven years ago that “morgue 1…was mainly outside of the field of view and could not be seen on the photograph” (p. 298). Independently of them, since I was not aware of the writing at the time, I have also showed in this blog posting that the photograph does not show the relevant part of the gassing basement.

David also linked to the January 1943 photograph of the gassing basement and argued that it “seems to show a hole-less roof”. However, as already pointed out, the bare surface of the roof is actually not visible - it is a side view plus snow layer on the roof - and thus it cannot be seen if there are openings are in the roof or not.

So both photographs submitted by David disprove or suggest nothing with regard to the existence of the openings in the basement. The January 1943 photograph demonstrates that no chimnies had been built at the time of the photograph. The chimnies are actually visible on the later photograph dated February 1943, conveniently omitted in David’s summary.
Aerial photographical evidence

In summer 1944, Auschwitz-Birkenau was overflown and photographed by the British RAF, the US Air force and German Luftwaffe. The RAF photographs published in the internet are of too poor resolution to allow reasonable analysis on the issue of activity on the gassing basements of the crematoria. Four available US Air Force and Luftwaffe photographs are compiled here.

The undressing basements (parallel to the main buildings) do not show any features on top of the basement. Except for the footage of September 13 1944, the photographs do show four spots and interconnection of them of the gassing basement of crematorium 2. The September 13 1944 photograph shows the four spots very weak and faint but lacks the interconnection. This is possibly related to masking of the basement by smoke from the bombing of Birkenau. The photograph shows heavy smoke at the sewage plant south of crematorium 2 and smoke coverage of the security screen at the gassing basement as well as smoke plums between crematorium 2 and 3. The smudges are also visible on the 21 December 1944 photograph, but the two southernmost spots are only weak and poorly pronounced, which could be related to dismantling activities (the undressing room seems to be already dismantled).

Four strong alternating spots as well as a weaker spots near the south eastern and north-western corners are visible on the aerial photographs for the gassing basement of crematorium 3.

The absence of any features on top of Leichenkeller 2 (undressing room) and the presence of spots on top of the Leichenkeller 1 (gas chamber) are clearly corresponding with the use of the latter as gas chamber operated from above. The match of the number of spots on top of the gas chamber of crematorium 2 and the number of spots, which are most pronounced, on top of the gas chamber of crematorium 3 with the number of gas introduction openings derived from testimonial evidence is striking. In all cases, the number is four.

However, it is clear from the size and the shape that the spots cannot be the actual gas chimneys and their shadows (as pointed out by Revisionist Germar Rudolf). The actual origin of the smudges is still not known for certain. It was speculated that the dark spots are compacted earth from movement at the gas chimnies, but Mattogno correctly pointed out that the sand at least in the front yard of the crematorium did not lead to such features. It was also proposed that there might be different growth pattern of grass on the roof due to acid environment upon washing the mobile gas devices. In any case, the numerical and distributional correlation strongly suggests that the spots are related to activity at the gas chimnies.

Overlaying the August 25 1944 US Air force photograph of crematorium 2 and crematorium 3 with the location of the gas openings according to physical evidence, which corresponds well to the locations of the chimnies on the February 1943 ground photograph, shows that the smudges include or are attached to the gas openings, which corroborates that the origin of the smudges is related to the activity at the gas chimnies.

Documentary evidence

The transfer inventory of crematorium 2 of 31 March 1943 lists four “wire mesh slide in devices” and “wooden covers” for the Leichenkeller 2 (undressing room). There are three correlations of the devices with the gas columns:

a) material correlation: both the gas columns and the devices mentioned in the document were made of wire mesh

b) numerical correlation: both the gas columns and devices mentioned in the document were four

c ) locational correlation: both the gas columns and the devices mentioned in the document were located in the basement of crematorium 2

On the other hand, there are two problems:

d) locational contradiction: the gas columns were located in the gas chamber, whereas the devices are mentioned for the undressing room

e) Functional contradiction: The mobile part in gas columns was moved down by gravity, whereas the devices mentioned in the document seems to have been be pushed by some extra force.

The first problem can be easily resolved. The gas chamber and undressing room are placed in a list after each other and designated as morgue 1 and 2. This already allows for some speculation that the entry in question may have been switched between the two basements. The probability that such mistake occurred gets greatly enhanced by the fact that the previous entry in the document, the number taps, was in fact switched between the gas chamber and the undressing room. Since the clerk who filled out the document thought that the line for the gas chamber was actually the undressing room and vice versa, when he entered the number taps, there is considerable likelihood that, as he went on to fill in the wire mesh slide in devices and the wooden covers, he did not notice his mistake and continued to switch the entries between the basements.

The second problem was resolved by Roberto, who brought forward the argument that the wire mesh slide may not describe its function but the layout and construction principle, which is a sound explanation. Thus, the most likely interpretation of the document is that wire mesh slide in devices were the gas introduction columns of the gas chamber in crematorium 2, but switched between the lines and so falsely attributed to the undressing room.

The wooden covers were apparently only a temporary solution and later replaced by more robust concrete covers according to testimonial evidence.

Revisionist arguments
Spoiler:
Bob argued that the cover of the chimneys could not have been made of wood and later replaced by concrete because Henryk Tauber is supposed to have "described concrete covers with wooden handles" used in mid March 1943, two weeks before the transfer inventory was written. Bob is reading from the testimony what is not inside. Tauber did not testified that he saw how concrete covers were lifted from the chimneys in mid March 1943. In fact, if Bob had read Tauber's account carefully he would have noticed that Tauber was locked in the autopsy room during the gassing in mid March 1943 ("shut up in a room located at the back") and during later gassings they "were locked up in the coke store". It was only later that he was allowed to stay in the boiler room during the gassing and "observed how the "Cyklon" was poured into the gas chamber".

Bob also complained that the device did not appear in the respective transfer inventory of crematorium 3. Since the testimonial evidence indicates that the devices were also employed at crematorium 3, it may suggest that the devices were not installed yet when the building was formally handed over to the camp administration and implemented later for instance because of construction delay. But it does not refute that the wire mesh slide in devices listed for crematorium 2 are gas columns.

Mattogno argues that the construction of the device is not reflected in the files of the locksmith's shop, therefore it was never build. The argument is flawed and unfounded. That the device does not appear in the files, shows that it was not put into the files or cleared from the files, but it does not exclude its construction. It is certainly possible that the devices were ordered and received from the locksmithery but deliberately without writing it into the locksmith's shop's ledger. Mattogno objects that gas tight doors do appear in the records, but he does not explain whether all gas tight doors installed in the crematoria appear in the ledger (which, if not, would immediately rebut his whole argument). Gas tight doors and windows were a standard feature of delousing chambers, while the wire mesh device was developed just for the homicidal gas chambers, which may explain why the first were entered into the ledger of the locksmithery, but the latter, from this perspective more incriminating piece, not. Further, it is also possible that we are dealing here with different customers. The gas tight doors were ordered by the construction office to install them into the crematoria, which were then handed over to the camp administration. The gas columns were possibly initiated and ordered by the camp administration or by the Gestapo directly with a different policy of secrecy employed. In short, the absence of the devices in the ledger of the locksmith's shop is certainly no proof that they were never build as Mattogno claims.

David argued that "plans never showed vent holes". But the construction drawing, which showed the reinforcing of the concrete roof and which would most likely contain a modification in the roof, is missing. Huta drawings which are actually dated after the construction of building do not show other features which were definitely build, such as the direct access stairway to the undressing room or the five ventilation openings in the ceiling of furnace room on them. If these features were not of relevant for the drawings, then it is hard to see why the gas introduction openings should have been.
Physical evidence

A research of team consisting Harry Mazal, Daniel Keren and Jamie McCarthy investigated the ruin of the gas chamber of crematorium 2 in the late 90s and spotted three suitable candidates for gas openings in collapses roof (see their paper The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau). The location of the three openings in the ruin as well as the projected location of the forth still missing opening is shown here.

First it helps to ask what characterizes a suitable candidate for a gas opening. The main element of a gas opening candidate nowadays in the ruin (unless there is evidence the opening was filled in - and there is not) is that that there must be a concrete and reinforced steel free area in the roof. Also it can be expected the that the openings were not arbitrary placed but in a certain pattern and more or less equal distribution. It is, however, not a strict requirement to have four straight and intact edges (as in the original state) because possible destruction needs to be taken into account.

The candidate for opening number 1 (counting from south to north) is shown here. Photographic footage from 1945 shows that the opening already existed at the time. The opening has been enlarged since then, but this is only apparent for what is not considered part of the original gas opening anyway. There are drops of tar visible at a straight side of the opening, which suggests that the opening was already in place at the time the tar was put on the roof for waterproofing in early 1943.

The candidate for opening number 2 is shown here, here and here. The cut and bend rebar indicates it was artificially made.

According to Mazal et al., opening number 3 - if it exists, and the testimonial, aerial photographic and documentary evidence suggests that it exists - is supposed to be in a badly damaged area not accessible without the removal of rubble.

The candidate for opening number 4 has been identified here. It shows cut and bent rebar and Mazal et al. noticed out that “both ends of this loop are firmly embedded in a large chunk of concrete to the east of the hole, contradicting any claim of tampering after the war”.

The size of the three openings as indicated by the cut and bent rebar around them is about 50 x 50 cm. Since the concrete likely extended into the opening, the original size was somewhat less. They are located 75 cm from the centre of the roof. The distance between the openings 2 and 4 is peculiar large compared to the distance of opening 1 and 2, which suggests that there is a forth opening in between not identified so far, as also supported by testimonial, aerial photographic and documentary evidence.

The arguments and photographs presented by Mazal et al. have been reviewed by a structural engineer, who concluded that “it is my professional view that the authors present a strong and sustainable case that openings described as zyklon vents 1, 2 and 4 were installed in the roof of the building during the course of construction”.

Revisionist arguments
Spoiler:
Carlo Mattogno claims that the hole number 1 was made by Soviet or the Poles after the war. He argues that the hole was not mentioned by the Polish expert Dawidowksi, which however does not show that the hole did not exist at the time of his investigation or was created after the war, but merely that Dawidowski did not identify the hole as a gas introduction hole, which of course could be related to the damage the opening suffered upon dismantling the basement. Mattogno also ignored the argument that there are tar drops visible at an edge of the opening.

David has suggested that the tar may have been melted on a hot summer day after the war. However, any other photograph we have seen so far showing a piece of the broken roof slab does not seem to have tar drops at the edges and David himself confirmed he did not “notice any tar drops” when he wandered through the ruin. Therefore, the tar drops at opening number 1 seem to be a local phenomenon, which does not suggest it was caused by melting of the sun after the destruction, but rather that they formed during the construction of the basement.

Mazal et al.'s claim that the projected location of opening number 3 is in a badly damaged area covered with rubble has been disputed by Mattogno, however, he merely referred to a photograph, where it is unclear how this is supposed to show that the projected location of opening number 3 is in fact intact.

On opening number 4, Mattogno claims it was caused by crushing of support pillar against the roof, but fails to demonstrate this. He claims that “the lateral bars have not been cut as would have been necessary to erect the brick chimneys around the opening”, but he does not explain why the chimney could not have been erected. He also ignored Mazal et al.'s claim that the both sides of the bent rebar are embedded in the concrete, which - if true, and Mattogno should be able to actually refute the claim if it was not true since he investigated the opening - would rigorously demonstrate the opening was made when the concrete was poured in early 1943.

David says "there are no other holes cut into the roof" but without explaining why the three holes identified by Mazal et al. are not suitable candidates for openings and providing evidence that the projected location of their opening number 3 is accessible and intact. He also argues that are is no "sign of chimneys, attachments, wire columns, lids, etc" but looking at the openings identified by Mazal et al. shows that they are heavily damaged, so one cannot necessary expect to see such features. In fact, areason why the openings are heavily damaged may exactly because they were already partly destroyed upon dismantling of the chimnies and wire mesh devices before the basement was brought down with explosives.

Bob linked to some photographs from the ruin and asked me to locate opening number 2. I cannot see clearly matching features on the close ups of opening number 2 and the photo Bob linked to, which would allow a reasonable guess. The physical existence of what has been identified as opening number 2 by Mazal et al. is confirmed also by Revisionist researchers Mattogno and Provan, so there can be no doubt that the hole exists and it is irrelevant whether it is visible or not and whether I can see or not on this specific photograph Bob linked to. If Bob can see, he is invited to explain where.
Final remark

So where does the evidence leads us? I think that the testimonial evidence establishes that there had been four openings with wire mesh columns and little chimneys in the roof of the homicidal gas chambers of crematorium 2 and 3 to introduce the poison gas, which is nicely corroborated by ground photographical, aerial photographical, documentary and physical evidence, as illustrated in this overview slide.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:53 pm

Matt Baumann wrote:I think it's interesting that the holes in the room were recontructed or created after the war.
Matt,

in case you are still missing what Mathew was trying to tell with the full quote: there is fairly good evidence that the holes for introducing the gas into the chamber were made during the war by the Germans, most likely when the concrete of the roof was poured.

Matt Baumann
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:57 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matt Baumann » Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:12 pm

I was confused because there is a video of the head person in charge of the tours there saying they were constructed after the war. I never understood where the gas went after either. Did it rise to ground level and poison more people?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:35 pm

Hans wrote:
Matt Baumann wrote:I think it's interesting that the holes in the room were recontructed or created after the war.
Matt,

in case you are still missing what Mathew was trying to tell with the full quote: there is fairly good evidence that the holes for introducing the gas into the chamber were made during the war by the Germans, most likely when the concrete of the roof was poured.
Exactly. You did all the good work. I simply re-posted your overview. As I do not know much about this topic I simply read this thread as it progressed and made no posts. I got a free history lecture!

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:43 pm

Matt Baumann wrote: I never understood where the gas went after either. Did it rise to ground level and poison more people?
There is a quite a bit to read to understand the mechanisms. May I suggest you start with Nizkor and then investigate parts of the story in other internet references and books.

http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/auschwitz/au ... aq-06.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12436
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by kennyc » Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:52 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Hans wrote:
Matt Baumann wrote:I think it's interesting that the holes in the room were recontructed or created after the war.
Matt,

in case you are still missing what Mathew was trying to tell with the full quote: there is fairly good evidence that the holes for introducing the gas into the chamber were made during the war by the Germans, most likely when the concrete of the roof was poured.
Exactly. You did all the good work. I simply re-posted your overview. As I do not know much about this topic I simply read this thread as it progressed and made no posts. I got a free history lecture!

Yes, isn't the interwebz wonderful!
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:52 am

Matt Baumann wrote:I was confused because there is a video of the head person in charge of the tours there saying they were constructed after the war.
Matt,

the building you are talking about is the so called crematorium 1 in the Auschwitz main camp (Auschwitz I). The morgue of this crematorium was used as killing site for small calibre rifle executions and later in 1942 as homicidal gas chamber. The crematorium was shut down in 1943 and converted into a bomb shelter by the SS in 1944.

After the war, the building was indeed reconstructed into what the Poles considered to be the original state in 1942. This included opening of the holes in the roof of the former gassing room that had been closed with concrete by the Germans. A photograph of the roof taken prior the reconstruction measures shows smudges most likely indicating the closed gas openings.

But what we are talking about in this thread are crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz-Birkenau (Auschwitz II). Birkenau was located 2 km at distance from the main camp.

Hope this helps!

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:10 am

Matt Baumann wrote: I never understood where the gas went after either. Did it rise to ground level and poison more people?
Matt,

the liquid hydrogen cyanide was soaked into carrier pellets (the entire product was called Zyklon B). These pellets were poured on the ground into the gassing rooms (or into the wire mesh columns discussed for crematorium 2 and 3) and were releasing the hydrogen cyanide as gas. The gas was spreading in the entire gassing room by convection and diffusion and killing the people inside. The rooms routinely used for homicidal gassing were equipped with gas tight doors and windows, so that the gas could not easily reach the outside (some would leave through gas openings of the roof at crematoria 1, 2 and 3, since these were not really gas tight).

Once the SS decided the gassing time was sufficient, the ventilation was used to remove the gas from the rooms (in case of crematoria 1, 2 and 3). The gas was ejected from the ventilation chimneys and had quite a pathway to go to reach any human beings and thus was likely diluted down to concentrations not harmful anymore.

At those gassing sites without technical ventilation (namely Bunker 1 and 2 and crematoria 4 and 5) the doors and windows were opened allowing for natural ventilation.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:12 am

Hans wrote:
Matt Baumann wrote: I never understood where the gas went after either. Did it rise to ground level and poison more people?
Matt,

the liquid hydrogen cyanide was soaked into carrier pellets (the entire product was called Zyklon B). These pellets were poured on the ground into the gassing rooms (or into the wire mesh columns discussed for crematorium 2 and 3) and were releasing the hydrogen cyanide as gas. The gas was spreading in the entire gassing room by convection and diffusion and killing the people inside. The rooms routinely used for homicidal gassing were equipped with gas tight doors and windows, so that the gas could not easily reach the outside (some would leave through gas openings of the roof at crematoria 1, 2 and 3, since these were not really gas tight).

Once the SS decided the gassing time was sufficient, the ventilation was used to remove the gas from the rooms (in case of crematoria 1, 2 and 3). The gas was ejected from the ventilation chimneys and had quite a pathway to go to reach any human beings and thus was likely diluted down to concentrations not harmful anymore.

At those gassing sites without technical ventilation (namely Bunker 1 and 2 and crematoria 4 and 5) the doors and windows were opened allowing for natural ventilation.
Your answer is what we in the US call Bullsh*t-
To deal with your first lie regarding Krema II and III.
Pressac points out that the ventilation system of Leichenkeller 1 was exactly opposite of what was needed for a "gas chamber" although it was perfect for a Leichenkeller.
The air extraction vents were at floor level. This would have made clearing
cyanide gas from the room impossible because cyanide gas is lighter than normal
air and was also the floor level vents would have been blocked by bodies; if
the tale of mass gassings were true.
The air intake vents were fragile wooden ducts hanging from the low ceiling
They would have been certainly knocked down and rendered useless.
The exhaust vent on the roof was next to the air intake vent
meaning that the "supposedly" extremely toxic air from the "gas chamber"
would be sucked right back into the building. Pressac gives a toxicity level of
25 times instantly fatal amounts for the "gas chamber.
It is quite obvious that the Krema II and III could not have been used as a
gas chamber....(more than once!)
One can also point out that the location of the "gas chamber" inside a larger building
made no sense since everyone in the building would have been sicken or killed
if the door to the morgue had been opened at the wrong time.

The lay-out of Krema IV and V makes that tales of "throwing gas" into the building
equally absurd.
Here is a picture of Krema IV
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... ema401.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Note the lack of any ventilation systems in the west (right) side of the building
where the "gas chamber" was.

Except the "gas chamber" really was a set of 8 rooms and closets!
Some of the rooms would have been impossible to ventilate
For some reason the Nizkor gang was pulled the actual floor plan off its site.

The best Believers can do is claim that the door on the west end of the building
would have ventilated the cyanide gas.
That is just a declaration of faith, not logic or science.

Of course, the "gas chambers" at Block 11 and at Krema I main Camp had
no ventilation systems whatsoever.




Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:21 am

David the lying holocaust denier wrote: Your answer is what we in the US call Bullsh*t-
Oh good. David is going to start lying again.
David the lying holocaust denier wrote: Pressac points out that the ventilation system of Leichenkeller 1 was exactly opposite of what was needed for a "gas chamber" although it was perfect for a Leichenkeller.
No he does not. Here is Pessac. Quote Pressac's words that say the ventilation system was "exactly opposite".
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0489.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please don't edit out Pressac's words as per usual. "The figure of 3000 is theoretical and exaggerated, but if we take it as correct, then so is my correspondent's hypothesis and the ventilation is blocked and cannot work." Also don't forget what Hoess, the commanding officer said...."There were four gas chambers underground; two large ones each accommodating two thousand people and two smaller ones each accommodating sixteen hundred people" That's not 3,000 people David, but only 1600 people. You already knew you were going to lie before you started posting.

David the lying holocaust denier wrote: It is quite obvious that the Krema II and III could not have been used as a gas chamber.One can also point out that the location of the "gas chamber" inside a larger building made no sense since everyone in the building would have been sicken or killed if the door to the morgue had been opened at the wrong time..
Henryk Tauber, Slave worker wrote: Despite the fact that the ventilation remained on for some time after the opening of the gas chamber, we wore gas masks to work there. Our job was to remove the bodies
David the lying holocaust denier wrote: Here is a picture of Krema IV
This thread is about Krema II. Did you forget?

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:06 pm

David wrote:
Hans wrote:
Matt Baumann wrote: I never understood where the gas went after either. Did it rise to ground level and poison more people?
Matt,

the liquid hydrogen cyanide was soaked into carrier pellets (the entire product was called Zyklon B). These pellets were poured on the ground into the gassing rooms (or into the wire mesh columns discussed for crematorium 2 and 3) and were releasing the hydrogen cyanide as gas. The gas was spreading in the entire gassing room by convection and diffusion and killing the people inside. The rooms routinely used for homicidal gassing were equipped with gas tight doors and windows, so that the gas could not easily reach the outside (some would leave through gas openings of the roof at crematoria 1, 2 and 3, since these were not really gas tight).

Once the SS decided the gassing time was sufficient, the ventilation was used to remove the gas from the rooms (in case of crematoria 1, 2 and 3). The gas was ejected from the ventilation chimneys and had quite a pathway to go to reach any human beings and thus was likely diluted down to concentrations not harmful anymore.

At those gassing sites without technical ventilation (namely Bunker 1 and 2 and crematoria 4 and 5) the doors and windows were opened allowing for natural ventilation.
Your answer is what we in the US call Bullsh*t-
To deal with your first lie regarding Krema II and III.
Pressac points out that the ventilation system of Leichenkeller 1 was exactly opposite of what was needed for a "gas chamber" although it was perfect for a Leichenkeller.
The air extraction vents were at floor level. This would have made clearing
cyanide gas from the room impossible because cyanide gas is lighter than normal
air and was also the floor level vents would have been blocked by bodies; if
the tale of mass gassings were true.


David,

If your claim about gas separation were true, you could not even breath on the ground, since the "heavy" carbon dioxide and argon would accumulate.

The density difference between gases can be neglected in the homosphere (that extends from the Auschwitz gas chambers to 100 km by the way). It is called "homosphere" exactly because the air in this region has roughly the same composition irrespective of density differences of its constituents; it is homogenous (due to the low free mean path of the molecules and dominating convection effect).

And even without convection (but which was of course present already because of the ventilation injecting and extracting the air or possible temperature gradients) the chemical gradient of a gas mixture due to density differences is neglectable on a length scale of a typical gas chamber height and only relevant if you consider some kilometers (see for example, Badino, The legend of carbon dioxide heaviness, Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, volume 71, issue 1, page 100 ff.).

The air intake vents were fragile wooden ducts hanging from the low ceiling
They would have been certainly knocked down and rendered useless.


There is nothing that would have prevented the Germans in Auschwitz of properly fixing the ventilation ducts so that these cannot simply be knocked down if the victims could actually reach them.

Same goes for protecting the air extraction vents getting blocked.

The exhaust vent on the roof was next to the air intake vent[/b]
meaning that the "supposedly" extremely toxic air from the "gas chamber"
would be sucked right back into the building.


Just why would anybody design a ventilation system to provide fresh air for an underground room where the air intake is just "sucking back" the foul exhaust?

Whatever the purpose of the basement was, the ventilation system was certainly designed to provide fresh air for the basement - and not reinjecting the exhaust.

Indeed, the chimneys of the air in and out take were some 6 m away estimating from the blueprints. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this was not enough to avoid critical concentrations of cyanide at the air intake.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:43 pm

David,

If your claim about gas separation were true, you could not even breath on the ground, since the "heavy" carbon dioxide and argon would accumulate.
Actually they do in caves, but seriously, try releasing a helium ballon in a room. Think about it.

The density difference between gases can be neglected in the homosphere (that extends from the Auschwitz gas chambers to 100 km by the way). It is called "homosphere" exactly because the air in this region has roughly the same composition irrespective of density differences of its constituents; it is homogenous (due to the low free mean path of the molecules and dominating convection effect).

And even without convection (but which was of course present already because of the ventilation injecting and extracting the air or possible temperature gradients) the chemical gradient of a gas mixture due to density differences is neglectable on a length scale of a typical gas chamber height and only relevant if you consider some kilometers (see for example, Badino, The legend of carbon dioxide heaviness, Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, volume 71, issue 1, page 100 ff.).
I can't tell if you are serious or not. The air in the "alleged" gas chamber would have been hot and full of cyanide gas. Air coming in from the outside would
have been (generally) colder and full of cyanide gas. Try releasing a helium ballon in a room. Think about it.

The air intake vents were fragile wooden ducts hanging from the low ceiling
They would have been certainly knocked down and rendered useless.
There is nothing that would have prevented the Germans in Auschwitz of properly fixing the ventilation ducts so that these cannot simply be knocked down if the victims could actually reach them.

Same goes for protecting the air extraction vents getting blocked.

Except we know what the Germans did in Leichenkeller 1. The wooden ducts were attached to and suspended from small wooden battens set in the ceiling. Pressac has pictures in Technique and Operation.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0354.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pressac also notes that the ventilation system would have been impossible (as built)
to use as a gas chamber...so he claims the German MUST have put bollards around the floor level vents. The trouble with that "excuse" is that no sign of bollards was found
when the Leichenkeller was excavated in the 1960's, nor are there any records of
changes being ordered, nor do any witnesses comment on the bollards, or the placement of bollards.
So, yes, the Germans COULD have built a workable gas chamber but they didn't.
By the way, the entire idea of the morgue being used as a "gas chamber" is
silly. But that is a different topic


The exhaust vent on the roof was next to the air intake vent[/b]
meaning that the "supposedly" extremely toxic air from the "gas chamber"
would be sucked right back into the building.
Just why would anybody design a ventilation system to provide fresh air for an underground room where the air intake is just "sucking back" the foul exhaust?

Whatever the purpose of the basement was, the ventilation system was certainly designed to provide fresh air for the basement - and not reinjecting the exhaust.

Indeed, the chimneys of the air in and out take were some 6 m away estimating from the blueprints. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this was not enough to avoid critical concentrations of cyanide at the air intake.[/quote]

First, I am not sure you are correct with your 6 meters.
See
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0369.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But to answer your comment.
Obviously, wind direction would have been important.
Concentration of cyanide would also be important. Pressac states the
air in the "gas Chamber" would have had about 25 times lethal levels.
A wind from the west would have blown the gas right over the intake chimney
and back into the building

The ventilation system was designed and built as a morgue.
Cold smelly air was to be pulled from the morgue floor level while fresh air was brought into the room.
The roof top exhaust vent and intake vents were far enough apart to "clear the air" of
the smell of stored bodies if it were not a matter of getting rid of cyanide gas!

As an aside, the intake vent for the building is far to the east of Leichenkeller 1.
Can you tell from the plans if it pulled air in for other parts of Krema II?

So, now we have shown that the ventilation system of Krema II and III could not
be used as a "gas chamber" AS BUILT.

Do you want to look at the plans for Krema IV and V?
How many rooms and closets do you count?


Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:24 am

Hans wrote: David, If your claim about gas separation were true, you could not even breath on the ground, since the "heavy" carbon dioxide and argon would accumulate.
David the lying holocaust denier wrote: Actually they do in caves, but seriously, try releasing a helium ballon in a room. Think about it.
A balloon is a rubber membrane that keeps all the helium together. The helium gas can't mix with the other gases in the room. Your argument using the balloon is hilarious.

Oxygen weighs more than Nitrogen David. Our atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen mixed together. The nitrogen doesn't all float up to the stratosphere because the air is continually moving.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Daedalus » Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:40 am

:lol:

David, you must be a liar like Matt says, because NOBODY could be as monumentally stupid as you seem to be.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:26 am

Daedalus wrote::lol:

David, you must be a liar like Matt says, because NOBODY could be as monumentally stupid as you seem to be.
"David", the holocaust denier, is more upset because he got caught lying about Pressac. "David" knows absolutely nothing about the holocaust other than what he copies from Bradley Smith's "donation scam" blog. .

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:24 pm

David wrote: Except we know what the Germans did in Leichenkeller 1.
The wooden ducts were attached to and suspended from small wooden battens set in the ceiling. Pressac has pictures in Technique and Operation.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0354.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If the ducts were attached as originally planned, it shows that there was no problem with knocking down the ventilation ducts - either because the victims could not reach them or because they were fixed already too strong or because the victims did not attempt to knock them down.

Pressac also notes that the ventilation system would have been impossible (as built)
to use as a gas chamber...so he claims the German MUST have put bollards around the floor level vents. The trouble with that "excuse" is that no sign of bollards was found
when the Leichenkeller was excavated in the 1960's, nor are there any records of
changes being ordered, nor do any witnesses comment on the bollards, or the placement of bollards.
So, yes, the Germans COULD have built a workable gas chamber but they didn't.
If the Germans did not build any "bollards", it shows that the ventilation openings were not blocked by the victims in the gas chambers.
By the way, the entire idea of the morgue being used as a "gas chamber" is
silly. But that is a different topic
According to contemporary German documents, a hydrogen cyanide gas chamber was installed into the crematorium 2 in Birkenau.

On 29 January 1943, the head of the central construction office in Auschwitz reported to his superiour in Berlin that the corpse cellar 1 is a "gassing cellar". On 17 February 1943, a Topf engineer referred to the room as "gas cellar". On 2 March 1943 the Topf company wrote the Auschwitz construction office on looking for "display devices for hydrogen cyanide residues" for crematorium 2. The transfer document of 31 March 1943 and an order of 31 March 1943 confirm that a “gas door 100/192...with double 8 mm glass and peephole" was indeed installed into the basement.

Whether you consider the installation of a gas chamber into the crematorium basement as silly is utterly irrelevant - it was done.
First, I am not sure you are correct with your 6 meters.
See
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0369.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But to answer your comment.
Obviously, wind direction would have been important.
Concentration of cyanide would also be important. Pressac states the
air in the "gas Chamber" would have had about 25 times lethal levels.
A wind from the west would have blown the gas right over the intake chimney
and back into the building

The ventilation system was designed and built as a morgue.
Cold smelly air was to be pulled from the morgue floor level while fresh air was brought into the room.
The roof top exhaust vent and intake vents were far enough apart to "clear the air" of
the smell of stored bodies if it were not a matter of getting rid of cyanide gas!
In other words, you cannot demonstrate that the air intake would have taken in significant amounts of hydrogen cyanide from the exhaust.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:27 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
A balloon is a rubber membrane that keeps all the helium together. The helium gas can't mix with the other gases in the room. Your argument using the balloon is hilarious.

Oxygen weighs more than Nitrogen David. Our atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen mixed together. The nitrogen doesn't all float up to the stratosphere because the air is continually moving.
OK Matt, glad you have based your position on the idea that
warm air doesn't rise. :lol: :lol:

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:48 pm

Hans wrote:
David wrote: Except we know what the Germans did in Leichenkeller 1.
The wooden ducts were attached to and suspended from small wooden battens set in the ceiling. Pressac has pictures in Technique and Operation.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0354.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If the ducts were attached as originally planned, it shows that there was no problem with knocking down the ventilation ducts - either because the victims could not reach them or because they were fixed already too strong or because the victims did not attempt to knock them down.

Hans, if the low hanging wooden ducts were attached to
small wooden battens as Pressac shows, then that is the fact you have to deal with.
Your statement of Faith is nice but I already had guessed that you are a Believer.


Pressac also notes that the ventilation system would have been impossible (as built)
to use as a gas chamber...so he claims the German MUST have put bollards around the floor level vents. The trouble with that "excuse" is that no sign of bollards was found
when the Leichenkeller was excavated in the 1960's, nor are there any records of
changes being ordered, nor do any witnesses comment on the bollards, or the placement of bollards.
So, yes, the Germans COULD have built a workable gas chamber but they didn't.
If the Germans did not build any "bollards", it shows that the ventilation openings were not blocked by the victims in the gas chambers.

Hans, the extraction vents were along the west wall at floor level. Pressac says
that would have made use of the room as a mass gas chamber impossible because
bodies would have blocked the vents and the poison gas could not be extracted from the room.
That seems an obvious physical fact.
Again, you are merely "declaring your Faith" rather than dealing with real
issues that surround the problems of "getting the cyanide" out of the room.

By the way, the entire idea of the morgue being used as a "gas chamber" is
silly. But that is a different topic
According to contemporary German documents, a hydrogen cyanide gas chamber was installed into the crematorium 2 in Birkenau.
[snip off topic]
Whether you consider the installation of a gas chamber into the crematorium basement as silly is utterly irrelevant - it was done.
The topic was
" I never understood where the gas went after either. Did it rise to ground level and poison more people?"

That was a good question since it was actually about impossible to clear the cyanide gas from the alleged gas chambers of Block 11 or Krema I - V.

Now you are off on documents you believe in and declaring your Faith again.
I will go with science and the physical evidence, thank you.






First, I am not sure you are correct with your 6 meters.
See
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0369.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But to answer your comment.
Obviously, wind direction would have been important.
Concentration of cyanide would also be important. Pressac states the
air in the "gas Chamber" would have had about 25 times lethal levels.
A wind from the west would have blown the gas right over the intake chimney
and back into the building

The ventilation system was designed and built as a morgue.
[snip]
In other words, you cannot demonstrate that the air intake would have taken in significant amounts of hydrogen cyanide from the exhaust.
No, depending on wind direction not in all cases but, when dealing with cyanide gas at high levels of concentration, being wrong one time can have serious consequences.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

How in the world did they get the Gas out??

Post by David » Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:16 pm

It is pretty clear that the high levels of cyanide gas could not have been cleared from the underground "gas chambers" of Krema II and III.

It is also clear that airing out the "gas chamber" by opening the door and waiting
a day or two would have risked killing everyone in the building.
Even the normal ventilation system would have sucked "gas" back into the building.

How About Krema IV and V?

It is worth looking at the "gas extraction system" of the alleged gas chamber of
Krema IV and V.
Guess what? There wasn't any!
That is right. Two of the alleged big gas chambers had zero way to ventilate the
rooms.

Even more amazing, the "gas chamber" consisted of numerous small rooms
which could not have been ventilated.

Look at the as built floor plan.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... e391.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
See Document 14.

There were 7 rooms! Only two had exterior doors, At least 3 rooms had no windows or doors to the outside.
How in the world could the lethal gas be gotten out?

It is worth pointing out that the structure had a peaked roof. Silly me would have thought that warm air would rise to be trapped at the ceiling.

But, of course, Believers in this thread will claim that hot cyanide-rich air
did not rise


User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Daedalus » Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:40 pm

What's clear is that you're as ignorant as you are senile Davie.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:29 pm

David the really stupid holocaust denier wrote:OK Matt, glad you have based your position on the idea that warm air doesn't rise.
David? Air is a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen. Your previous argument was that the heavier element would separate from the lighter element. You just ended your previous ridiculous claim.

You really are an idiot!

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:53 pm

Mad Matt Ellard wrote:[quote="David the Skeptic]OK Matt, glad you have based your position on the idea that warm air doesn't rise.
David? Air is a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen. Your previous argument was that the heavier element would separate from the lighter element. You just ended your previous ridiculous claim.

You really are an idiot!
[/quote][/quote]

I am sorry my crazed Believer friend but there are two reasons
why "gas" in your alleged gas chambers would rise...trying to think of two things at
once must have confused you.
First to quote Pressac cyanide gas is lighter than air...

Prussic acid is a gas which is generated by evaporation.
Boiling point 25 degrees Centigrade
Freezing point -15 degrees Centigrade
Specific gravity 0.69
Steam density 0.97 (Air 1.0)

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0018.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Secondly, warm air is lighter than cold air. I hope I don't have to explain that to
you and your "admirer," Daed.

Supposedly the alleged "gas chamber" of Krema II and III became
very warm and filled with cyanide gas. Pressac called it "Flash Death."

Warm air filled with cyanide gas would be lighter than cold air.
Now do you understand?

As a further attempt to lift you up from your sick twisted Belief here is more
on the alleged concentration of "gas" in the underground rooms.

Immediately mortal concentration: 300mg/m3 or 0.3g/m3.
• A concentration equal to or greater than 12gm/m³ (1%) would not tolerable even for a man wearing a mask except in case of necessity and not for more than a minute
• A concentration of 24g/m³ (2%) may bring loss of consciousness in ten minutes for a man with a mask.
• Concentration used in homicidal gassing in Birkenau: 12g/m³ (1%), or 40 times the lethal (or mortal) dose.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0018.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please note that I had conservatively stated that the cyanide gas concentration
was 25 time fatal concentration.
In fact, Pressac shows that it was 40 times the lethal (or mortal) dose.

Yes, sir...those Germans sure were stupid putting the air expulsion vent
next to the intake. Must of killed hundreds of them before they figured it out.


Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:37 pm

David the really stupid holocaust denier wrote: there are two reasons
why "gas" in your alleged gas chambers would rise...trying to think of two things at
once must have confused you.
You completely forgot to mention that the air in the gas chamber was moving due to the people being gassed at the time. Hans only explained this to you three posts ago. Did you forget again? Senility is not your friend David.

David the really stupid holocaust denier wrote: Yes, sir...those Germans sure were stupid putting the air expulsion vent next to the intake. Must of killed hundreds of them before they figured it out.
It was slave workers who took the bodies out of the gas chambers. They wore gas masks as quoted two posts ago. Did you also forget this? Senility must be a real bummer for you.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:10 am

Mad Matty, The Believer Fanatic wrote:[quote="David the Rational] there are two reasons why "gas" in your alleged gas chambers would rise...trying to think of two things at
once must have confused you.
You completely forgot to mention that the air in the gas chamber was moving due to the people being gassed at the time. Hans only explained this to you three posts ago. Did you forget again? Senility is not your friend David.

Oh? After they were dead? Please tell us more of your amazing
Tales, Matt.


Davidthe Skeptic wrote: Yes, sir...those Germans sure were stupid putting the air expulsion vent next to the intake. Must of killed hundreds of them before they figured it out.
It was slave workers who took the bodies out of the gas chambers. They wore gas masks as quoted two posts ago. Did you also forget this? Senility must be a real bummer for you.[/quote]

We were discussing the roof top location of the exhaust vents from the building and the air nearby air intake, Mad Matty. The vent where all of this allegedly
40X lethal concentration of cyanide gas blew out was a few meters from the
air INTAKE.
See Pressac-
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0369.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
THE SLAVES WORE GAS MASKS
But since you are spinning new lies about "getting the gas" out of the underground morgue, pray do tell us more....such as "WHY" did the slaves need to wear gas masks?
Didn't the ventilation system work? :lol: :lol:
And do your visions reveal if the "slave workers" also needed gloves?
Might want to re-vision your Tales since cyanide is absorbed through the skin.

And, if the "slave workers" had to wear gas masks due to there being gas in the
gas chamber, what do you think happened to the gas when the door to the
morgue...er... "gas chamber" was opened?
Wasn't the "gas chamber in the basement of a larger building?
Do you visualize the everybody in the building dying?
Or vacating the building?
Or wearing gas masks too?

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to Believe.


User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Daedalus » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:11 am

David wrote:
Mad Matty, The Believer Fanatic wrote:[quote="David the Rational] there are two reasons why "gas" in your alleged gas chambers would rise...trying to think of two things at
once must have confused you.
You completely forgot to mention that the air in the gas chamber was moving due to the people being gassed at the time. Hans only explained this to you three posts ago. Did you forget again? Senility is not your friend David.

Oh? After they were dead? Please tell us more of your amazing
Tales, Matt.


Davidthe Skeptic wrote: Yes, sir...those Germans sure were stupid putting the air expulsion vent next to the intake. Must of killed hundreds of them before they figured it out.
It was slave workers who took the bodies out of the gas chambers. They wore gas masks as quoted two posts ago. Did you also forget this? Senility must be a real bummer for you.
Image[/quote]
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:19 am

David the lying holocaust denier wrote: We were discussing the roof top location of the exhaust vents from the building and the air nearby air intake,
No we were not. You introduced a bizarre "balloon" story. We all had a laugh at you and reminded that Hans already dealt with your question. You are now pretending to forget due to your senility.
David the lying holocaust denier wrote:"WHY" did the slaves need to wear gas masks?
Because they were slave workers clearing out dead bodies from a gas chamber to quickly get the next lot in for execution.

Why do you think Tauber was pulling bodies out of a German gas chamber in Auschwitz David?

( David's answer is going to be hilarious! David is going to explain to us why the German C.O. of Auschwitz and the slave Jewish workers give the same evidence of mass executions at Auschwitz. David thinks they all met and had a "cup of tea" after the war and got their stories straight, so as to help Israel fake propaganda after the war. David is mad as a hatter)

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:42 am

David? Are you claiming you went to Auschwitz? Was this in 1987 with your partner, holocaust denier, McCalden?

Can you remember writing these words back then?

When was it converted, Believer? In all your tapdancing just give us a date when you Believe the morgues were converted..........I find the Believer mind a weird twisted thing.

Was this you?

( I think I know who you are)

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:02 pm

David wrote: Hans, if the low hanging wooden ducts were attached to
small wooden battens as Pressac shows, then that is the fact you have to deal with.
Your statement of Faith is nice but I already had guessed that you are a Believer.
You argue that the ventilation ducts "would have been certainly knocked down" by the victims in the gas chamber. However, you did not present any shred of evidence to justify the claim.

On the other hand, I provided a logical argument: Since there had been homicidal gassings carried out in the basement, which is a premise justified by the available evidence and since there had been ventilation ducts attached to the ceiling, it follows that (provided that the ventilation ducts were necessary to carried out the gassing) the ventilation ducts had not been knocked down by the victims.
Hans, the extraction vents were along the west wall at floor level. Pressac says
that would have made use of the room as a mass gas chamber impossible because
bodies would have blocked the vents and the poison gas could not be extracted from the room.
That seems an obvious physical fact.
Again, you are merely "declaring your Faith" rather than dealing with real
issues that surround the problems of "getting the cyanide" out of the room.
Again, as above you are confused about who of us is making a statement of faith. You are claiming that "bodies would have blocked the vents".

But it is not self-evident that the victims would have blocked the vents. If the gas chamber was not densely filled, it is unclear why the victims should pressing themselves against the ventilation ducts. On the other hand, if the gas chamber was loaded very dense, the victims at the walls can be considered to be stuck between the wall and the surrounding people and do not necessarily fall down on the ground to block the opening. What you declare as "obvious physical fact" is neither obvious nor a fact.

Now, suppose the deaeration openings had been blocked (you did not demonstrate they had to have been, but for the sake of argument), not even this would make the "use of the room as a mass gas chamber impossible".

In this case, the gas chamber could have been still ventilated by the aeration system injecting fresh air into the chamber and for example the gas introduction openings as deariation vents. And - to anticipate your response - no, you did not show that such a ventilation was not efficient enough for reducing the cyanide concentration down too a level where the Sonderkommando prisoners were not severely effected anymore.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:02 am

Hans wrote:
David wrote: Hans, if the low hanging wooden ducts were attached to
small wooden battens as Pressac shows, then that is the fact you have to deal with.
Your statement of Faith is nice but I already had guessed that you are a Believer.
You argue that the ventilation ducts "would have been certainly knocked down" by the victims in the gas chamber. However, you did not present any shred of evidence to justify the claim.
Other than showing the ducts were low hanging, wooden, and tacked to the ceiling on little strips of wood? Maybe you should go look at
my cites to Pressac?


On the other hand, I provided a logical argument: Since there had been homicidal gassings carried out in the basement, which is a premise justified by the available evidence and since there had been ventilation ducts attached to the ceiling, it follows that (provided that the ventilation ducts were necessary to carried out the gassing) the ventilation ducts had not been knocked down by the victims.

Please go read what Pressac says is the physical evidence of
the ventilation in Leichenkeller 1 Krema II. Pressac is right. I've seen it.
Please deal with the evidence.
I understand you are a Believer...maybe for other good reasons but your
faith is not one of them.

Hans, the extraction vents were along the west wall at floor level. Pressac says
that would have made use of the room as a mass gas chamber impossible because
bodies would have blocked the vents and the poison gas could not be extracted from the room.
That seems an obvious physical fact.
Again, you are merely "declaring your Faith" rather than dealing with real
issues that surround the problems of "getting the cyanide" out of the room.
Again, as above you are confused about who of us is making a statement of faith. You are claiming that "bodies would have blocked the vents".
Sigh. So does Pressac.
But let's go on.


But it is not self-evident that the victims would have blocked the vents. If the gas chamber was not densely filled, it is unclear why the victims should pressing themselves against the ventilation ducts. On the other hand, if the gas chamber was loaded very dense, the victims at the walls can be considered to be stuck between the wall and the surrounding people and do not necessarily fall down on the ground to block the opening. What you declare as "obvious physical fact" is neither obvious nor a fact.
Let's gather a little information, first.
Here is a plan of the morgue 1 at Krema II.
http://www.awesomestories.com/assets/au ... ion-system" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Can we both agree that the air extraction vents were at floor level?

If so, the question is merely to analyze if a room full of bodies would block the
floor level vents.

Your "defense" is that the bodies did " not necessarily fall down on the ground to block the opening." Correct?
Would it not need to be that the dead bodies all remained standing? Every time?...and what about the claims that the people defecated and
urinated as they were killed? That's got to be rough on an air vent.

I know, of course, that witnesses are all over the map about finding people
in the "gas chamber." Everything from little babies being alive to a room full
of statutes, to vast piles around the edge of the room as people fought to
"get away from the gas."



Now, suppose the deaeration openings had been blocked (you did not demonstrate they had to have been, but for the sake of argument), not even this would make the "use of the room as a mass gas chamber impossible".

In this case, the gas chamber could have been still ventilated by the aeration system injecting fresh air into the chamber and for example the gas introduction openings as deariation vents. And - to anticipate your response - no, you did not show that such a ventilation was not efficient enough for reducing the cyanide concentration down too a level where the Sonderkommando prisoners were not severely effected anymore.
I agree that technology could solve most problems.
Blowing air into the room and having the vents in the ceiling would have been
the most logical system....to ventilate the room. But that is not the Story.
But even the theory of blowing the gas out the roof vent holes has several problems.
1. Remember the air intake system that hung on little slats? The one that would have been knocked down? You need to go read the cites to Pressac to see
that that would have been a problem too. Allegedly (in some accounts) the
bodies would pile to the ceiling at the doorway. This would have kept air from
being blown into the room.
2. The alleged vents were supposed to be (in some accounts) in little chimneys
and there was supposed to be a "little basket" that the Zyclon D was put in.
At the end of the gassing the "little basket" was presumably pulled back up into the top of the chimney. They would have impeded aeration through the alleged
roof vents/
3. Importantly, none of these "possible" solutions were ever noticed or commented upon. The various witness gave short, varied, and vague descriptions that simply
emphasized the first part of the Tale, ie. getting "gas" into the room.

As to "cyanide concentration down too a level where the Sonderkommando prisoners were not severely effected anymore" that is a technical question
which depends of the concentration of cyanide in the air but also the
residue of cyanide left ON THE BODIES themselves.
"The most toxic form of cyanide is free cyanide, which includes the cyanide anion itself and hydrogen cyanide, HCN, either in a gaseous or aqueous state.... Although HCN is highly soluble in water, its solubility decreases with increased temperature and under highly saline conditions. Both HCN gas and liquid are colorless and have the odor of bitter almonds, although not all individuals can detect the odor.
- See more at: http://www.cyanidecode.org/cyanide-fact ... iRFOc.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course you could come up with the theory that the Sonderkommando
MUST have worn gloves and suits and respirators. They must have!





Last edited by David on Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Daedalus » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:04 am

David trying his hand at engineering?!

:lol:

The {!#%@} horror!
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:39 am

Daedalus wrote:David trying his hand at engineering?!

:lol:

The {!#%@} horror!
I was referring to Pressac, the physical evidence at Krema II,
and the plans for the morgue. Hans is the one trying to "engineer" his way
around the obvious fact that "getting the gas" out of the underground morgue was
impossible.
You Believers ignore real scientific evidence and go for a handful of "testimonies" and "confessions." Just like the believers in witches did.


User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Daedalus » Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:46 pm

David wrote:
Daedalus wrote:David trying his hand at engineering?!

:lol:

The {!#%@} horror!
I was referring to Pressac, the physical evidence at Krema II,
and the plans for the morgue. Hans is the one trying to "engineer" his way
around the obvious fact that "getting the gas" out of the underground morgue was
impossible.
You Believers ignore real scientific evidence and go for a handful of "testimonies" and "confessions." Just like the believers in witches did.

:lol:

Wow, you really are senile.. damn, but Matt has your number.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:31 pm

David the lying holocaust denier wrote:I was referring to Pressac
No you were not. You fabricated a quote from Pressac and got caught. Where's the full Pressac quote David? C'mon......quote Pressac......


David? Your'e Andrew Allen's current sexual partner aren't you? .That's how you got your paws on an email addressed to Andrew Allen. You met after McCalden acquired AIDs. Is that right?
.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by David » Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:48 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
David the lying holocaust denier wrote:I was referring to Pressac
No you were not. You fabricated a quote from Pressac and got caught. Where's the full Pressac quote David? C'mon......quote Pressac......


David? Your'e Andrew Allen's current sexual partner aren't you? .That's how you got your paws on an email addressed to Andrew Allen. You met after McCalden acquired AIDs. Is that right?
The Believer is getting desperate :lol: :lol: "Your'e"? The idea of Gay sex seems to make your forget how to spell, Matt. Something you want to tell us? Like you are a homophobic bigot as well as a Believer bigot?

To stick to the discussion for people who are serious about learning.
Pressac has detailed plans and photographs of Krema II. Just Goggle
Pressac Technique
They show that it was impossible to use the morgue 1 of Krema II as a "gas chamber."
Pressac is a Believer but admits that Krema II and III could not have been designed as "gas chambers."
But, Matty, that is solid evidence. It contradicts your crazed Beliefs so don't
even bother.

The question for honest Believers is to actually try and explain the physical
and documentary evidence relating to the "gas chambers."