Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Discussions
Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:26 am

David wrote:
Hans wrote:
David wrote:
Hans wrote:
But it is true that such underground structures can be also quite useful to cover up atrocities. I would guess that the buried basements were also considered useful by Gestapo officers for instance to carry out executions with a small caliber rifle in the basement even before the facility was considered for mass extermination.

Yes, shooting off a rifle in an underground room is really a
great idea! You might even kill your unpleasant commanding officer with a
ricochet or at least deafen him!


.
David,

can you elaborate what problem you see with shooting somebody from at close range into the neck employing a silencer (as this is how execution were usually carried out in Auschwitz) in a basement?
Now we are adding silencers to the rifles? ok
ricochets?
Silencers are reported by several former prisoners even for outside shootings.. On the other hand, the used small calibre rifle is generally described as relatively quiet (see for instance http://www.dsb.de/media/PDF/Recht/Waffe ... _Kurze.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; shows that the small calibre rifle is 10 to 30 decibel quiter than other weapons), so it is possible that some witnesses may have mistakenly assumed there was a kind of silencer attached exactly because the small calibre rifle was much less loud than any short arms, shot gun or large calibre rifle. The use of silencer is also reported for shootings inside the crematorium in the main camp. If a small calibre rifle without silencer was too loud for a basement (was it?), they may have certainly taken a weapon with a silencer.

Actually I want you to elaborate how likely a ricochets is when you shoot somebody from at close range into the neck (assume a backstop at the next wall), since you were making the claim (quite polemically if your remember) that it was the problem.
Last edited by Hans on Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:43 am

Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:
Enough gas-tight for delousing chambers, not for homicidal gassings as alleged.
Please show that the gas tight doors in Auschwitz were not gas tight enough for homicidal gassings, i.e. that the amount of leakage was high enough to actually represent a danger to the people on the other side.

Feel free to check the Rudolf report, but he did not show this either (or that the wooden doors could not withstand the pressure of the victims).
See my response to Nessie, here is evidence from competent peoples with arguments, feel free to refute them.
Neither Rudolf nor Lüftl ("Rademacher") show and provide sufficient evidence that the gas tight doors in Auschwitz were in fact not sufficiently gas tight for cyanide gassings. They do not quantify the leakage. They do not show that the cyanide leakage through the felt sealant was high enough to result in harmful concentration on the other side.

Your hypothesis that the SS in Auschwitz operated cyanide delousing chambers with doors that did not sufficiently hold back the cyanide is of course utterly absurd. The doors employed in the delousing chambers were designated as "gas tight", which shows that the construction office considered them gas tight enough for cyanide gassings and the cyanide concentrations were not significantly different (´the exposure time was even one order of magnitude higher in delousing chambers).
Last edited by Hans on Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:19 am, edited 2 times in total.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:39 am

Bob wrote: About your hole 3 "covered by rubble". This is not true, Carlo Mattogno already showed photos from different perspective which show that there are "holes", Mattogno commented it with this:

Mattogno's photographs actually support Mazal et al.'s findings. His two photos show no large intact parts of the concrete structure, but mostly debris and rubbel. Whether there is a crack somewhere in the area in the rubble does not the question if the projected location of opening number 3 is heavily damaged.

Even without my arguments, is evident that your model does not match alleged chimneys, Here is correct matching compostition if we assume that objects have square cross section, your model is very off. Dimensions are not mine, but from Germar Rudolf. I see that objects are of different size in all aspects so now way these objects could be alleged introduction chimneys. Third picture is from Carlo Mattogno, perspective line prove that objects are located on eastern half of the roof, so this again contradict your theory. Photo contradict holes and chimneys and is good for revisionists. You also ignore another object which does not match your theory.
1. You have mis-scaled Rudolf's sketch, the windows do not fit at all. Obviously, if you distort the scaling, then also the positions of the objects get distorted in comparison. Rudolf has also grossly underestimated the size of the second chimney. Both objects are about 60 cm (plus minus some cm) when I compare them against the 8 m wide roof slab.

2. The model I posted above is mainly to show the match of the position of the openings identified by Mazal et al. in the ruin with the position of the little chimnies on the SS ground photograph and the correspondence is quite well. The chimnies were modeled with 70 cm, which is a bit larger than the objects on the roof. But the 70 cm are no fix and definite value, it was just a first assumption I had to make in order to illustrate the location of the openings.

The 50 cm x 50 cm opening size refers to the reinforcement, so that the concrete opening would be less than that, like 45 x 45 cm. The thickness of the solid forming the chimnies is an unknown parameter, but the comparison with the ground photo indicates the wall thickness was between 5 to 10 cm.

3. Mattogno's sketch does not show the objects are on the eastern side of the basement. He simply estimated the outline of the basement even though especially its south-eastern corner is not properly distinguishable. In contrast, Mazal et al. have matched an entire model of the basement including the crematorium main building with the photograph, which is a much more robust approach.

Even my own model is more robust as it has a fixed and correct width to length ratio at least unlike Mattogno's sketch.

4. The "other object" does not show a perceptible east-west extension (unlike chimnies 1 and 2). It is entirely unclear whether this an object on the roof or something at the crematorium main building wall (unlike chimnies 1 and 2). It can be dismissed as gas introduction chimney because it does not fit to any opening in the basement, it is far too east for assigning it as opening 3 and it does not fit into the pattern of the gas openings.

In fact, the issue of the "other object" has been already addressed in Mazal et al.'s paper (does not look like you have actually read it):

"The shape under Window 5 is not an introduction chimney but a portal, discoloration, or another shape on the wall of the crematorium proper. Additionally, a lighter shadow appears near the middle of the gas chamber, under the east edge of window three. This does not correspond to an introduction port either. It may be an object on or near the roof of the gas chamber. It is lower and narrower than "Chimneys" 1 and 2. Also, while "Chimneys" 1 and 2 have at the right of their dark shadows shades of gray that are measurably lighter than the wall behind, the shade of gray to the right of the unidentified form is not clearly distinguishable from the wall. This can be verified by scanning the image and examining the gray levels (i.e., intensities)."

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... oles.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Your alleged chimneys in your .skp file are all 70cm wide and 70cm tall and holes are 50cm, so not for Kula 70cm columns, you ignore Kula´s testimony
Physical evidence always trumps testimonial evidence. It is absolutely senseless to argue against holes 50 cm x 50 cm, which follow from physical evidence, because a witness testimony can be interpreted in the way that it indicates the openings were 70 x 70 cm.

Now, as you were told by myself several times, Kula did not explicitly say that the device was 70 cm wide over the whole 3 m length. He may have meant to say this, but it is not absolutely clear. It cannot be ruled out that according to his testimony only the inner mesh penetrated the roof. The inner mesh had a width of 40 cm and thus would easily fit into the openings identified by Mazal et al. In this case there is no contradiction whatsoever with his testimony and the physical reality.

Secondly, it is not a big deal and entirely possible after 2 years have passed that Kula was mistaken with respect to the 70 cm. Human memory is imperfect and if Kula falsely remembered the dimensions of the device, it would by no means invalidate his account. In any case, Kula's testimony is important to understand the layout and function of the gas introduction column.
Your model does not match model from team who prepared your false report, Here is comparison (I matched it as close as possible). Is obvious that you both invented own false models which does not correspond with other evidence which you use nad which contradict your claims, and why? Because every of you chose own way how to match photo which simply doesn´t not match at all, yep, all of you chose own way how to match one lie with another lie and turn it to truth, but lie will never match, that´s the problem. I also tried to use their scheme Here but I completely failed to match it Here, your model is 8m and 31m, their too as they claims (30 and 7 plus thick of the walls), but they don´t match, so I dropped to use it, just another false sketch. No matter how I am trying to match it, they are off.
1. In contrary to what you claim, my model and the Mazal et al.'s model and the February 1943 ground photograph fit well. The only notable difference is chimney number 3, but this has not much relevance as its location was not derived from physical findings and is actually a parameter that can be adjusted in certain limits. The point of the modeling is to verify whether the physical findings on opening 1, 2 and 4 fit to the chimnies on the February 1943 ground photograph.

2. The sketch of the roof in aerial perspective provided by Mazal et al. contains a systematic misplacement of all openings towards north by about 30 - 50 cm. Whether this is just a mistake in this drawing or also in their model, I don't know.

Here is comparison of your current model and your previous blue sketch available on Codoh forum where you already tried to show holes, this blue sketch is dated Feb 19, 2012. You used this sketch to match air photo from May 31, 1944, there are also two blue sketches dated the same day and you used them to match air photo from August 25 1944. I see that your "holes" or chimneys does not match, especially the number 3, and why you moved your chimney number 3 on your model which you have showed here? Because you have propably realized that there is something wrong with your "evidence" and without this little trick this chimney should have to be visible on photo with train from your composition above and this chimney would not have been hidden behind the train smokestack as you claim, so you simply moved chimney to avoid this problem and to be able to say "chimney 3 is hidden behind the train smokestack, is not visible, but is there.". This needed little trick is in perfect accordance with the fact, that hole 3 simply don´t exist in "your" report and is completely invisible without any photo or evidence to show it. Your other chimneys or holes migrate on the roof as you need it for the sake of current argumentation as proven by your models of alleged gas chamber. You don´t use one scheme based on some evidence, you choose everytime the most suitable scheme, because with sticking to one scheme the whole lie just explodes. You are using these tricks to cheat peoples who have no clue about this subject and which are too lazy to do some research. I suspect you from these cheats, because I do not know how this could happen by mistake.
You fail do understand and take into account that the exact location of opening number 3 (which as I already pointed out in my first posting can be concluded to exist because of a) testimonial evidence, b) for reasons of more even distribution and c) because the aerial photographs indicate four areas of activity on the roof) is not known from physical or ground photographical evidence, and has to be treated as variable parameter.

This has nothing to do with cheating, but is simply fitting a variable paramater in certain limits (derived from evidence) to the available evidence, which is perfectly reasonable to do.
Last edited by Hans on Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:39 am, edited 4 times in total.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:15 am

Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:employing a silencer (as this is how execution were usually carried out in Auschwitz) in a basement?
Please, Hans, interesting statement, can you provide me with evidence for this?
Examination of Glowacki of 23 April 1964 in Frankfurt:

"Er schoß mit einem kurzen kleinen Karabiner mit Schalldämpfer."

Examination of Küsel of 3 August 1964 in Frankfurt:

"Als Waffe benutzte er ein schalldämpfendes Gewehr."

Interrogation of Hirsch of 24 February 1959 in Stuttgart:

"Ich sah oft, wie Angehörige der Politischen Abteilung mit ihren speziellen Hinrichtungsgewehren, eine Art Kleinkaliber mit Schalldämpfer, zu Erschießungen zum Block 11 gingen."

Examination of Müller of 5 October 1964 in Frankfurt:

"Und Stark hatte einen Karabiner. Und der Mensch steht hier, und er schießt, es machte nur noch so [imitiert Schuß]. [Proceeding judge: Es war ein Schalldämpfer drauf, ja.]"
Also, explain me why they allegedly practiced shootings in this absurd way in alleged gas chamber when they allegedly executed thousands of peoples in front of the so-called "black wall".
Care to explain what exactly is absurd with carrying out an indoor execution? David seems to need your help here.

The reason for carrying out some executions in a crematorium instead of at the execution site in the yard of Block 11 was obviously because there was no transport of corpses to the incineration site necessary and because of secrecy (both are also related to each other). For instance, a particular gruesome killing such as the shooting of children would have been likely conducted rather in a covered area such as a crematorium morgue or oven room then in a comparable open area as the yard between Block 11 and 13.

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 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:13 pm

Hans wrote:Neither Rudolf nor Lüftl ("Rademacher") show and provide sufficient evidence that the gas tight doors in Auschwitz were in fact not sufficiently gas tight for cyanide gassings. They do not quantify the leakage. They do not show that the cyanide leakage through the felt sealant was high enough to result in harmful concentration on the other side.
You ignored article and my question, ok.
Hans wrote:Your hypothesis that the SS in Auschwitz operated cyanide delousing chambers with doors that did not sufficiently hold back the cyanide is of course utterly absurd.
Hm, sorry Hans, but this is lie, I did not say this "doors from cyanide delousing chambers did not sufficiently hold back the cyanide".
Mattogno's photographs actually support Mazal et al.'s findings. His two photos show no large intact parts of the concrete structure, but mostly debris and rubbel. Whether there is a crack somewhere in the area in the rubble does not the question if the projected location of opening number 3 is heavily damaged.
How can you say this nonsense when Mattogno said the opposite and proved opposite.
1. You have mis-scaled Rudolf's sketch, the windows do not fit at all. Obviously, if you distort the scaling, then also the positions of the objects get distorted in comparison. Rudolf has also grossly underestimated the size of the second chimney. Both objects are about 60 cm (plus minus some cm) when I compare them against the 8 m wide roof slab.
Untrue, i did not modify Rudolf´s sketch and I did no modify your picture. You want to see it scaled and matching your picture? No problem, Here it is. Rudolf´s picture was identical to photo you have used, I scaled it with the same values along the vertical and horizonal line and it match as I tried to match it as close as possible, your claim was false as you see. Problem with your model is that does not match even the basic lines of morgue let alone the chimneys, you probably tried to match the chimneys as close as possible and you completely distorted basic shapes of morgue to achieve your goal, you south wall of the moruge don´t match and the perspective lines as well. And you have enough gall to say that Rudolf is wrong and that i distorted images. You are wrong as you see, these are not chimneys and are of different sizes and located on the eastern part of the roof as proven by perspective line. You also proved that you are trying to match belief and your assumptions and not real evidence, otherwise your model would not be off from the actual photo.
2. The model I posted above is mainly to show the match of the position of the openings identified by Mazal et al. in the ruin with the position of the little chimnies on the SS ground photograph and the correspondence is quite well. The chimnies were modeled with 70 cm, which is a bit larger than the objects on the roof. But the 70 cm are no fix and definite value, it was just a first assumption I had to make in order to illustrate the location of the openings.
As proven, you are wrong.
The 50 cm x 50 cm opening size refers to the reinforcement, so that the concrete opening would be less than that, like 45 x 45 cm. The thickness of the solid forming the chimnies is an unknown parameter, but the comparison with the ground photo indicates the wall thickness was between 5 to 10 cm.
Here we go, openings are now 45cm and they shrinked and columns as well. :roll: Here is your quote from Jan 29, 2012 from codoh forum:

"It is also possible that Kula was simply mistaken on the dimension. It is – thirdly – also possible that only the second mesh with 50 * 50 cm went through the roof. "

According to Mr. Muehlenkamp:

(Let's assume that the actual distance (Kula said "about") was more like 10 cm on either side (20 cm in total, leaving 70-20 = 50 for the inner colum) and/or that the holes estimated to have measured 0.5 m x 0.5 m actually measured 0.55 x 0.55 m.) and (Now let's assume (Kula said "about") that the distance on either side was just 12.5 cm, 25 cm in total, 45 cm left for the inner column.)

Nevermind that you both ignore Kula´s description explicitly saying tha column was 3m and two nets manufactured in the same way connected together formed column with square section 70cm and 3m high with only one other column inside - movable part, you are not even able to invent scenario which works, and why? Because you are trying to turn a lie to truth, what is worse you are still changing your claims as you need.

Mattogno about Pelt´s column said this.
He presents furthermore a drawing allegedly “based on the testimony of Tauber and Kula,” (p. 208) but which actually contains two contradictory elements. First of all, a reduction in the cross-section of the columns at the height of the ceiling in such a way that the length of the sides tapers off from 70 cm inside Leichenkeller 1 to 48 cm within the ceiling and at the outside.

Here is Pelt´s invention and falsification of Kula´s testimony
http://books.google.cz/books?id=83dvJxP ... tz&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the other words as I said, everybody change openings, columns and etc. for the sake of currrent argumentation, because ONE final scheme simply don´t match other "evidence", because there is no evidence, openings never existed.
3. Mattogno's sketch does not show the objects are on the eastern side of the basement. He simply estimated the outline of the basement even though especially its south-eastern corner is not properly distinguishable. In contrast, Mazal et al. have matched an entire model of the basement including the crematorium main building with the photograph, which is a much more robust approach.
This is not true of course, see it again, take a look on whatever version you want, everytime with using perspective line, the objects are on the eastern half of the roof, everybody can do it self, you can´t cheat perspective.
Even my own model is more robust as it has a fixed and correct width to length ratio at least unlike Mattogno's sketch.
This is false, see above.
4. The "other object" does not show a perceptible east-west extension (unlike chimnies 1 and 2). It is entirely unclear whether this an object on the roof or something at the crematorium main building wall (unlike chimnies 1 and 2). It can be dismissed as gas introduction chimney because it does not fit to any opening in the basement, it is far too east for assigning it as opening 3 and it does not fit into the pattern of the gas openings.
Again not true, see above.
It can be dismissed as gas introduction chimney because it does not fit to any opening in the basement
None of your alleged opening fit alleged chimneys.
and it does not fit into the pattern of the gas openings.
There is no pattern of your openings, you are simply moving them and changing their dimensions as you need for the sake of current argumentation. You self proved that there is no pattern.
In fact, the issue of the "other object" has been already addressed in Mazal et al.'s paper (does not look like you have actually read it):
Of course I read it, this paper is good proof about how false this whole issue is.
Physical evidence always trumps testimonial evidence. It is absolutely senseless to argue against holes 50 cm x 50 cm, which follow from physical evidence, because a witness testimony can be interpreted in the way that it indicates the openings were 70 x 70 cm.
I agree, physical evidence refuted claims of witness, and proved to be false. But no problem for you, instead of telling truth, you simply distort "witness" statement to match physical evidence, something just unbelievable and without success, you have still problems.
Now, as you were told by myself several times, Kula did not explicitly say that the device was 70 cm wide over the whole 3 m length. He may have meant to say this, but it is not absolutely clear. It cannot be ruled out that according to his testimony only the inner mesh penetrated the roof. The inner mesh had a width of 40 cm and thus would easily fit into the openings identified by Mazal et al. In this case there is no contradiction whatsoever with his testimony and the physical reality.
Again not true, here is his testimony again, two nets connected together, manufactured in the same way forming column, column is 3m high, 70cm cross section, inside is movable core/other column, everything explicitly said by Kula.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 80#p273589" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Secondly, it is not a big deal and entirely possible after 2 years have passed that Kula was mistaken with respect to the 70 cm. Human memory is imperfect and if Kula falsely remembered the dimensions of the device, it would by no means invalidate his account. In any case, Kula's testimony is important to understand the layout and function of the gas introduction column.
Again untrue, he said even the tiny details like dimensions of mesh in millimeters. He explicitly said, that two connected nets were manufactured the same and the second net inserted to first net and then connected, here again "The second net was constructed in the same way and was inserted into the interior of the first......Both nets on angle irons were connected by an iron bar.". Is obvious why you are trying to distort it, but this is untenable.

And please, stop with your repetitive excuse about imperfect memory mixed evidence and the other absurd excuses you use everytime when you are dealing with false claims, first this is unacceptable approach to subject and secondly - this itself prove that witness is unreliable any you demolished your own witness, simple.
1. In contrary to what you claim, my model and the Mazal et al.'s model and the February 1943 ground photograph fit well. The only notable difference is chimney number 3
Oh, really? Here it is again and blowed up, are you kidding me or...? I have eyes, they are off, very off. Chimney 3 is the biggest problem, especially in connection with your previous blue sketch. This of course mean that you have absolute no clue where the alleged opening is and you are moving it as you need in current situation, both of you.
, but this has not much relevance as its location was not derived from physical findings and is actually a parameter that can be adjusted in certain limits.
Yes, because don´t exist, correct. Adjusted means moved freely as is needed for the sake of current argumentation, proven above and on previous page.
The point of the modeling is to verify whether the physical findings on opening 1, 2 and 4 fit to the chimnies on the February 1943 ground photograph.
Yes, and I see that don´t fit, simple.
2. The sketch of the roof in aerial perspective provided by Mazal et al. contains a systematic misplacement of all openings towards north by about 30 - 50 cm. Whether this is just a mistake in this drawing or also in their model, I don't know.
Yes, I see, just false sketch. If the same problem is in their model, this cannot be said, I can only say, that their model does not match photo as your model and both of you have chose own dimensions and pattern in effort to match something what cannot be matched because it don´t match.
You fail do understand and take into account that the exact location of opening number 3 (which as I already pointed out in my first posting can be concluded to exist because of a) testimonial evidence, b) for reasons of more even distribution and c) because the aerial photographs indicate four areas of activity on the roof) is not known from physical or ground photographical evidence, and has to be treated as variable parameter.
Testimonial "evidence adressed previously.
"Distrubition" is false, you self proved that openings are in total nonsense way without order and correct dimensions, you omitted to adress this issue.
Aerial photographs? Show them, I saw them already in codoh forum and you failed to explain what actvity you mean and why these areas are completely missing in other photo(s). I saw your claims there.
This has nothing to do with cheating, but is simply fitting a variable paramater in certain limits (derived from evidence) to the available evidence, which is perfectly reasonable to do.
Your models, sketches and even your own previous sketches are different, holes and chimneys migrate over roof, are changing dimensions....looks like cheating to me, otherwise where is problem to make one final sketch and final model when the "evidence" is "clear"?
Examination of Glowacki of 23 April 1964 in Frankfurt:

"Er schoß mit einem kurzen kleinen Karabiner mit Schalldämpfer."

Examination of Küsel of 3 August 1964 in Frankfurt:

"Als Waffe benutzte er ein schalldämpfendes Gewehr."

Interrogation of Hirsch of 24 February 1959 in Stuttgart:

"Ich sah oft, wie Angehörige der Politischen Abteilung mit ihren speziellen Hinrichtungsgewehren, eine Art Kleinkaliber mit Schalldämpfer, zu Erschießungen zum Block 11 gingen."

Examination of Müller of 5 October 1964 in Frankfurt:

"Und Stark hatte einen Karabiner. Und der Mensch steht hier, und er schießt, es machte nur noch so [imitiert Schuß]. [Proceeding judge: Es war ein Schalldämpfer drauf, ja.]"
But I asked for evidence that silencers were used usually for executions as you claimed, see again "this is how execution were usually carried out in Auschwitz"

Can you show me the rifle with silencer used for executions as mentioned by your witnesses? I am not unable to find any german WW2 rifle with silencer, thanks.

Your logic is that if they needed silencers in Auschwitz during alleged indoor shootings, they for sure needed them outdoor since outodoor shooting is not secret, this is logical, correct?

Or they used silencers only during indoor shootings to avoid damage to their hearing and not for secrecy?
Care to explain what exactly is absurd with carrying out an indoor execution? David seems to need your help here.
He doesn´t need my help.
The reason for carrying out some executions in a crematorium instead of at the execution site in the yard of Block 11 was obviously because there was no transport of corpses to the incineration site necessary and because of secrecy (both are also related to each other).
Some? How many?

They allegedly killed thousands in front of the black wall, but why if you claim that tranport issue and secrecy issue was the reason why "some" executions were carried in alleged gas chamber? It does not make sense.
For instance, a particular gruesome killing such as the shooting of children would have been likely conducted rather in a covered area such as a crematorium morgue or oven room then in a comparable open area as the yard between Block 11 and 13.
Shooting of children is somehow more gruesome than shooting of adults?

This does not make sense why to shoot children in indoor area, and adults (harder to transport, less secret) to shoot in the yard and openly outdoor.

Oven room? So now the shootings were carried also in the oven room? Interesting.

These alleged shootings in gas chamber and oven room looks like another nonsense to dodge problem of gassings in this room, this looks like a try to shift this room from gassings to "holocaust by bullets", but try to explain these nonsenses and contradictions and i will accept your claim about shootings.

You forgot to answer my following comments in connection with your claims.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:14 pm

David wrote:
Hans wrote:
David wrote: So that we continue on the same track, you say that "the gassing installations were incorporated into the crematorium 2 at a rather late stage of the planning
I believe that Pressac says that the holes were put in late in the actual
construction process. He has a photograph of the snow covered roof of
Leichenkeller 1 Krema II which seems to show a hole-less roof.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0335.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pressac dates the photograph, "View of the south side of Krematorium II, with in front of it Leichenkeller 1 (the future gas chamber), taken on a southwest/northeast line on the same day as Photo 7, i.e. between 20th and 22nd January 1943.

Would you agree that the holes were put in after January 20-22 1943?
I don't agree. It is not possible from the photograph to conclude whether the openings are already in the roof (and closed by a thin cover) or not. We can only see that the conrete chimnies have not been built yet, but this is not particular exciting for you, I guess.
No holes. Your possible explaination is that they were closed by a "thin cover." Not impossible. Yet the layer of snow is very thin. The workers have not seemed to cover other openings in the roof in either picture on the page.

But to continue the discussion. When do you claim the holes were put in the
roof? During the original pour or chipped in later with the re-bar cut?

Take a look at real German built ventilation vents from Krema III
Here are pictures of two different vents built by the Germans as part of their construction Document 21 and 22

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0366.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

David,

the earliest clear piece of evidence that a gas chamber was installed in the basement is dated 29 January 1943 (the Vergasungskeller letter), but there are several other pieces which suggest that the decision to use the crematorium as gassing facility was already made at least in October/November 1942. When the decision was made, the SS must have already known a good solution how to introduce the poison gas into the basement. The most obvious solution was to introduce it through openings in the roof, exactly how they already did in the crematorium in the Auschwitz main camp.

I understand that the roof was constructed in January 1943, so that there were probably several weeks between decision making and pouring of the concrete and placing the tar, and so enough time to implement the openings in the roof during the construction process.

Mazal et al. have noted that there are drops of tar at the edge of opening number 1, which strongly suggests that the opening was made during the construction of the roof. Further, they point out that at opening number 4 both ends of the loop of the bent rebar in the lower circle are sticking in the concrete, which is also evidence that the opening was made when the concrete was poured, that is in January 1943.

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 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:56 pm

Hans wrote: Actually I want you to elaborate how likely a ricochets is when you shoot somebody from at close range into the neck (assume a backstop at the next wall), since you were making the claim (quite polemically if your remember) that it was the problem.
Hello Hans- Having had a ricochet bullet zing over my head, I might be more than
normally aware of the issue.

Here is a longish quote which discusses the various factors and concludes that the risk is "a common hazard" of shooting.
However, if you read the factors, it seems to me that firing small caliber rifle in
a concrete walled room is very dangerous.

The likelihood of ricochet is dependent on many factors, including bullet shape, velocity (and distance), target material and the angle of incidence.[1]

[edit] Bullet

Bullet construction has a major factor in determining both the likelihood of ricochet as well as where the bullet will travel afterward. Hard bullets have a greater tendency to penetrate than softer ones. Bullets that break up, such as varmint hunting bullets have a low risk of ricochet. The lower chance of ricochet is one of the reasons the newer .17 HMR round with its frangible bullet has gained popularity against the older non-fragmenting .22 WMR.

[edit] Velocity

Ricochets are often more common with low-power calibers such as .22 or .177 calibre, which can have trouble penetrating some materials, although a ricochet can occur with any caliber. Higher velocity projectiles have a tendency to either penetrate the target, and/or to break-up on contact with it.

[edit] Target material

Bullets are more likely to ricochet off flat, hard surfaces such as concrete or steel, but a ricochet can occur on almost any surface, including grassy soil, given a flat enough angle of impact. Materials that are soft, give easily, or can absorb the impact, such as sand, have a lower incidence of ricochet.[2] Though it may not be obvious, bullets easily ricochet off water;[3][4] compare stone skipping.

[edit] Angle

The angle of departure, both vertically and horizontally, is difficult to calculate or predict due to the many variables involved, not the least of which is the deformation of the bullet caused by its impact with the surface it strikes.[5] Ricochets will almost always continue on a somewhat diagonal trajectory to their original trajectory, unless the impact is against a flat surface perpendicular to the angle of incidence (or approach), in which case the angle of reflection depends on the other variables involved.

[edit] Dangers

Ricochets are a common hazard of shooting because the bullet that ricochets poses a serious danger of causing collateral damage to animals, objects, or even the person who fired the shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricochet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems that penetration of the target prevents ricochets. The situation of
a low caliber rifle fired in a room with concrete walls would seem to have
a very high likelihood of ricochet. The victim might also be moving, which would
effect the angle of the shot. A rifle would give a higher velocity projectiles which would normally reduce ricochets due to increased penitration but not in a room with
hard walls, roof and floor.
I don't know about you but I would not want to fire a rifle off in a concrete bunker.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:26 pm

It seems that penetration of the target prevents ricochets. The situation of
a low caliber rifle fired in a room with concrete walls would seem to have
a very high likelihood of ricochet. The victim might also be moving, which would
effect the angle of the shot. A rifle would give a higher velocity projectiles which would normally reduce ricochets due to increased penitration but not in a room with hard walls, roof and floor.
I cannot see the very high likelihood. I was reading several accounts on shootings at the black wall some time ago (which was also surrounded by brick walls as the crematorium basements by the way) and I don't remember having read about ricochets or missing the target. The only "accidents" I recall were that the small calibre rifle did not shoot occasionally at the first try.

So my feeling is that you tend to exaggerate the likelihood of a ricochet when shooting on a not moving target from close vicinity. Also the victims could have been placed directly infront of backstop exactly to avoid ricochets.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:58 pm

Bob, your dismissal of witness testimony shows what little you understand about it.

"And please, stop with your repetitive excuse about imperfect memory mixed evidence and the other absurd excuses you use everytime when you are dealing with false claims, first this is unacceptable approach to subject and secondly - this itself prove that witness is unreliable any you demolished your own witness, simple."

If that really was true, how would any court in the world function?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:02 pm

again, i suggest bob watches the bbc tv programmes called eyewitness as he very clearly doesn't understand eyewitness experience and testimony...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s6qdj/episodes/guide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thanks

rich

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 » Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:10 pm

Nessie wrote:If that really was true, how would any court in the world function?
You are suggesting that court use this approach to testimony and every false information is replaced by invention not based on evidence and testimony is still credible?

Answer please.

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 Mar 09, 2012 12:46 am

Hans wrote:Mattogno's photographs actually support Mazal et al.'s findings. His two photos show no large intact parts of the concrete structure, but mostly debris and rubbel. Whether there is a crack somewhere in the area in the rubble does not the question if the projected location of opening number 3 is heavily damaged.

Hello Hans- So that we are all on the same page regarding the state of the roof of L1

I inspected the roof of L1 and have climbed inside the "gas chamber."
It is not commonly know but the roof consisted of three layers;
a solid concrete layer, a layer of asphalt felt water proofing, and a cap of thin concrete.

The concrete cap has been badly broken up and may confuse an understanding of
what the holes look like and were caused by,
The best way to view holes in the roof is from inside the "gas chamber."
This is what I did.
To understand what I am writing about see
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0354.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by David on Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 Mar 09, 2012 1:01 am

Hans wrote:
David wrote: But to continue the discussion. When do you claim the holes were put in the
roof? During the original pour or chipped in later with the re-bar cut?

Take a look at real German built ventilation vents from Krema III
Here are pictures of two different vents built by the Germans as part of their construction Document 21 and 22

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0366.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[/color]

David,

the earliest clear piece of evidence that a gas chamber was installed in the basement is dated 29 January 1943 (the Vergasungskeller letter),
I understand the claims regarding the letter as evidence but do you think the letter actually means the holes have been added?


but there are several other pieces which suggest that the decision to use the crematorium as gassing facility was already made at least in October/November 1942. When the decision was made, the SS must have already known a good solution how to introduce the poison gas into the basement. The most obvious solution was to introduce it through openings in the roof, exactly how they already did in the crematorium in the Auschwitz main camp.

Excuse me but "the SS must have already known a good solution how to introduce the poison gas into the basement." is more of a statement of faith, not evidence of a practical solution of the technical problems of putting a
gas chamber in the basement of an occupied building. In fact, I think that the
technical problems would never have been overcome.


I understand that the roof was constructed in January 1943, so that there were probably several weeks between decision making and pouring of the concrete and placing the tar, and so enough time to implement the openings in the roof during the construction process.
My question relates to whether you claim the holes were part
of the pour of the roof or were chipped in later?


Mazal et al. have noted that there are drops of tar at the edge of opening number 1, which strongly suggests that the opening was made during the construction of the roof. Further, they point out that at opening number 4 both ends of the loop of the bent rebar in the lower circle are sticking in the concrete, which is also evidence that the opening was made when the concrete was poured, that is in January 1943.
|When I was looking at the large hole (on the southwest part of the roof) the re-bar clearly had spanned the hole but had been cut and bent downward into the room below. I did not look for or notice any tar drops. Of course,
in the course of 50 years the tar could have been heated on a hot summer's day.
Any comments on the contrast between a hole we know was part of the original
construction and the vent holes?

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 Mar 09, 2012 1:30 am

Hans wrote:
It seems that penetration of the target prevents ricochets. The situation of
a low caliber rifle fired in a room with concrete walls would seem to have
a very high likelihood of ricochet. The victim might also be moving, which would
effect the angle of the shot. A rifle would give a higher velocity projectiles which would normally reduce ricochets due to increased penitration but not in a room with hard walls, roof and floor.
I cannot see the very high likelihood. I was reading several accounts on shootings at the black wall some time ago (which was also surrounded by brick walls as the crematorium basements by the way) and I don't remember having read about ricochets or missing the target. The only "accidents" I recall were that the small calibre rifle did not shoot occasionally at the first try.

So my feeling is that you tend to exaggerate the likelihood of a ricochet when shooting on a not moving target from close vicinity. Also the victims could have been placed directly infront of backstop exactly to avoid ricochets.
No offense, but I feel that the likelihood of ricochets
is very high especially of struggling prisoners. So we have a factual question
that could be explored

Onward...
The Black Wall- next to Block 11. Supposedly 20,000 people were
shot in front of it. When the Soviets arrived the ground was soaked
5 feet deep in human blood!
Guess what? Not a single bullet mark (ricochet or other) on the brick wall.
or anywhere else in the courtyard between Block 10 and Block 11


I find that pretty amazing, 20,000 executions in front of a wall and not one
went wrong.









User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:03 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:If that really was true, how would any court in the world function?
You are suggesting that court use this approach to testimony and every false information is replaced by invention not based on evidence and testimony is still credible?

Answer please.
I am seriously struggling with what you mean there. But I will say that you have consistently said physical evidence trumps witness testimony and then left it at that. But courts are more sophisticated that you are. They will also ask why is there an inconsistency?

For example, a witness sees a chamber. They see what appear to be hermetically sealed doors. They see a pipe or pipes going into it and there is an engine in a room nearby. That witness later claims the room was where people were taken and killed by the creation of a vacuum. You shout liar, as that is not what happened and it is a odd conclusion. Others will look more closely and say, whilst wrong about their conclusion, what is important is that there was a room, with gas tight doors, with a pipe or pipes going in and out and an engine. That witness did not see vents anywhere, so was not to know that the use of gas was more likely. They decided, erroniously that the engine drove a pump.

So courts will say, OK part of what the witness said was wrong, but there is a reason for that and the main issue is that the witness speaks to people being taken into a chamber and killed. So they are not lying and their evidence is credible. You just shout lair and think that is the end of the matter. So you show a very unsophisticated and ignorant use of witness testimony which would fail in any courtroom.

It also shows how you are very bad at seeing the big picture. You find a tiny detail, it does not make sense when you only concentrate on the tiny detail, so you announce that the big picture also does not make sense. That is wrong, because if you then step back and put the tiny detail into the more complex bigger picture, it may well then make sense. You cannot see the wood for the trees. Courts with witnesses are looking for the wood and not blinding themselves with the trees.
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 » Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:21 pm

I wasn´t interested in another of your wrong claims, I only wanted to see answer on my simple question because of your previous comment, thanks.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:04 pm

This is a simple question :?

"You are suggesting that court use this approach to testimony and every false information is replaced by invention not based on evidence and testimony is still credible?"

What do you mean by "false information is replaced by invention"? They appear to be same thing. Giving a statement knowing you are giving false information or invention is a crime. Where you say "not based on evidence and testimony is still credible" I see that as related to your first point about false information and invention. So you are claiming that courts will regard false information not based on evidence as still credible?

That is of course utter nonsense and another of your twisted inventions about what I have said about how witness evidence works in the court process.

Or do you mean something else with your question? Answer please.
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 » Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:14 pm

Nessie wrote:...
I replied to Hans in connection with Kula, see whole thread to actually know what i am talking about. Hans dismissed part of Kula´s testimony even when he was clear in his description, he invented own version to match his belief and witness is still credible and "device existed".

I replied with my comment about absurd excuse.

You arrived with your claim: "If that really was true, how would any court in the world function?"

Now answer my question, is simple and clear.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:40 pm

"Again untrue, he said even the tiny details like dimensions of mesh in millimeters. He explicitly said, that two connected nets were manufactured the same and the second net inserted to first net and then connected, here again "The second net was constructed in the same way and was inserted into the interior of the first......Both nets on angle irons were connected by an iron bar.". Is obvious why you are trying to distort it, but this is untenable.

And please, stop with your repetitive excuse about imperfect memory mixed evidence and the other absurd excuses you use everytime when you are dealing with false claims, first this is unacceptable approach to subject and secondly - this itself prove that witness is unreliable any you demolished your own witness, simple."

This is as I have already explained to you. A witness gives the best description they can, after the event and because you find that they may be millimetres out and details not quite match up, they are unreliable and demolished. But when giving statements witnesses will very very rarely get it 100% correct. Indeed who is to say what is 100% correct, especially if what they speak about is not there anymore. If you were to show 10 people a wesh system for putting Zyklon B through a hole in a roof, let them hold it, try out out then ask them a few years later to describe it, their descriptions will have diverged. People have their own perspective, that is how witnesses work. I explained that to you with the idea vacuums were used to kill.

I suits you not not to be able to cope with how witness evidence really works and to just use a highly unsophisticated 'they lie' when they say something that does not equate with your version of events.

Then there is the wood for the trees. You are so intent on small details, you fail to notice the wood. He speaks to an entirely credible way of introducing Zyklon B to the chamber at Krema II. That is a building with holes in its roof.
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 » Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:10 pm

Again, you are completely off and you have no clue what is going on here, I did not say anything about incorrect and not matching milllimeters and that this is the reason why is witness demolished. :roll:

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:31 pm

David wrote: Any comments on the contrast between a hole we know was part of the original
construction and the vent holes?[
The ventilation openings of the furnace room of crematorium 3 show a different (namely lesser) degree of destruction than the three gas introduction openings that can be identified in the gas chamber of crematorium 2 today.

This might tell us that a) that the gas openings were not additionally reinforced or b) that the gas openings were subjected to more violence during dismantling of the basement than the ventilation openings of the furnace room of crematorium 3.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:38 pm

Bob wrote:Again, you are completely off and you have no clue what is going on here, I did not say anything about incorrect and not matching milllimeters and that this is the reason why is witness demolished. :roll:
So Kula is estimating the sizes and they appear to be out. Is that what your issue is?
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 » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:46 pm

Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:Again, you are completely off and you have no clue what is going on here, I did not say anything about incorrect and not matching milllimeters and that this is the reason why is witness demolished. :roll:
So Kula is estimating the sizes and they appear to be out. Is that what your issue is?
Kula dont estimate, see his testimony.

Read thread again to get idea of the subject.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:22 pm

David wrote:
Hans wrote:Mattogno's photographs actually support Mazal et al.'s findings. His two photos show no large intact parts of the concrete structure, but mostly debris and rubbel. Whether there is a crack somewhere in the area in the rubble does not the question if the projected location of opening number 3 is heavily damaged.

Hello Hans- So that we are all on the same page regarding the state of the roof of L1

I inspected the roof of L1 and have climbed inside the "gas chamber."
It is not commonly know but the roof consisted of three layers;
a solid concrete layer, a layer of asphalt felt water proofing, and a cap of thin concrete.

The concrete cap has been badly broken up and may confuse an understanding of
what the holes look like and were caused by,
The best way to view holes in the roof is from inside the "gas chamber."
This is what I did.
To understand what I am writing about see
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0354.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
David,

the projected location of opening number 3 (which is the only gas opening still missing) is about 3 m from the western wall and about 11 or so m from the norther wall. I ask you straightforward: Is exactly this part of the roof still intact AND accessible? This is the only relevant question to answer. It does not matter whether some (or even most) parts of the roof are mainly intact and accessible even (or especially) from below. It only matters if those 3 m from the west and 11 or so m from the north are or are not.

Well, the photographs show debris and rubber but no larger intact upper part. According to Mazal et al. the area is not accessible from below, nor does Mattogno show or argue that is it is accessible from below.

Now it's your turn.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:55 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Bob wrote:Again, you are completely off and you have no clue what is going on here, I did not say anything about incorrect and not matching milllimeters and that this is the reason why is witness demolished. :roll:
So Kula is estimating the sizes and they appear to be out. Is that what your issue is?
Kula dont estimate, see his testimony.

Read thread again to get idea of the subject.
You said and quoted

"Here we go, openings are now 45cm and they shrinked and columns as well. :roll: Here is your quote from Jan 29, 2012 from codoh forum:

"It is also possible that Kula was simply mistaken on the dimension. It is – thirdly – also possible that only the second mesh with 50 * 50 cm went through the roof. "

According to Mr. Muehlenkamp:

(Let's assume that the actual distance (Kula said "about") was more like 10 cm on either side (20 cm in total, leaving 70-20 = 50 for the inner colum) and/or that the holes estimated to have measured 0.5 m x 0.5 m actually measured 0.55 x 0.55 m.) and (Now let's assume (Kula said "about") that the distance on either side was just 12.5 cm, 25 cm in total, 45 cm left for the inner column.)

Nevermind that you both ignore Kula´s description explicitly saying tha column was 3m and two nets manufactured in the same way connected together formed column with square section 70cm and 3m high with only one other column inside - movable part, you are not even able to invent scenario which works, and why? Because you are trying to turn a lie to truth, what is worse you are still changing your claims as you need."

So Kula, is quoted as saying "about" which is an estimation. and you then say that he was explicity the cloumn was 3m. So which one is it? Is Kula estimating or is he being precise?

I say he is doing both going by this quote

"Among other things the metal workshop made the false showers intended for the gas chambers, as well as the wire-mesh columns for the introduction of the contents of the tins with Zyklon into the gas chambers. These columns were around 3 meters high, and they were 70 centimetres square in plan. Such a column consisted of 6 [recte: 3] wire screens which were built the one within the other. The inner [recte: outer] screen was made from 3 millimeter thick wire, fastened to iron corner posts of 50 by 10 millimeters. Such iron corner posts were on each corner of the column and connected on the top in the same manner. The openings of the wire mesh were 45 millimeters square. The second screen was made in the same manner, and constructed within the column at 150 millimeters distance from the first. The openings of the second were around 25 millimeters square. In the corners these screens were connected to each other by iron posts. The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column with a square footprint of around 150 millimeters made of sheet zinc. At the top it was closed by a metal sheet, and at the bottom with a square base. At a distance of 25 millimetres from the sides of this columns were soldered tin corners supported by tin brackets. On these corners were mounted a thin mesh with openings of about one millimeter square. This mesh ended at the bottom of the column and from here ran in the [Verlaenderung] of the screen a tin frame until the top of the column. The contents of a Zyklon tin were thrown from the top on the distributor, which allowed for a equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column."

http://sv.metapedia.org/wiki/Michal_Kula" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even so, is he working off plans or an actual column or memory? That will affect the measurements.
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 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:22 am

Nessie wrote:So Kula, is quoted as saying "about" which is an estimation. and you then say that he was explicity the cloumn was 3m. So which one is it? Is Kula estimating or is he being precise?
Citation in brackets is from Muehlenkamp :roll: , not from me, and he also do not say anything about estimating height of the column, Muhlenkamp spoke about different issue.

Kula did not said "about" in connection with height 3m, you again proved that you are confused, literally saying "you are off like holocaust survivor" And you lack of knowledge is boring and your comments thus really ridiculous.

Here is source "This column had a height of 3 meters with a square cross-section (width) of about 70 cm." ( February 8, 1943, testimony, Trial of Höss, vol. 2, June 11, 1945, pp. 99f.)

Where the hell you see "about/around"? You still insults peoples as deniers, nazis, but you quoted metapedia as your source? :lol:

See you favorite original wikipedia about your metapedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapedia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Owned :mrgreen:

In fact, this description came from Pelt´s http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/e ... nse/van/IV report and not metapedia, he used word "around" but this is irrelevant, nobody ever disputed that column was not 3m, this is accepted generally, believers only claim that some "inner" column was 3m and not outer column. Your Pelt forgot to write "about" in connection with distance from the outer net.

You should start to do basic research and gather basic knowledge, finally.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:48 am

You are more interested in having a go at me than dealing with the issue of witness testimony. I say you are dodging dealing with how badly you treat witness evidence. Please answer the question about Kula

"Even so, is he working off plans or an actual column or memory?"
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 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:07 am

Nessie wrote:You are more interested in having a go at me than dealing with the issue of witness testimony. I say you are dodging dealing with how badly you treat witness evidence. Please answer the question about Kula
Wrong, I am interested in exposing of every of your flaws. Your claim about dodging is lie to cover that you are the one who dodge all the time, you did it again, i exposed your false claims, and you simply ignore it and continue as nothing has happened and you even accused me of dodging.
Nessie wrote:"Even so, is he working off plans or an actual column or memory?"
He described column as he manufactured it. You effort to completely omit problem of columns with suggesting that his whole description can be false is obvious and in fact irrelevant, his description is generally accepted by both sides with mentioned exception/s. You also did not realize that you yourself with this suggestion demolish your own belief with suggesting that this is all based on possible false testimony, logic is somehow strange to you.

Feel free to provide your own design of this column to demonstrate how the column looked like and was efficiently used for gassing prupose, I am all ears.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:03 am

I asked if he was working from memory, plans or an actual column. As far as I can figure out he was working from memory, no plan, no actual column and he drew it from memory. Your answer is "He described column as he manufactured it" but you are missing the point, again.

That Kula's measurements do not necessarily fit how you think they should be, does not mean you can just dismiss his evidence. His memory will not be as precise as you demand. The big picture is that there is a witness that speaks to mesh columns were used to introduce Zyklon B into the gas chamber.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:57 am

Hans wrote:

David,

the projected location of opening number 3 (which is the only gas opening still missing) is about 3 m from the western wall and about 11 or so m from the norther wall. I ask you straightforward: Is exactly this part of the roof still intact AND accessible? This is the only relevant question to answer. It does not matter whether some (or even most) parts of the roof are mainly intact and accessible even (or especially) from below. It only matters if those 3 m from the west and 11 or so m from the north are or are not.

Well, the photographs show debris and rubber but no larger intact upper part. According to Mazal et al. the area is not accessible from below, nor does Mattogno show or argue that is it is accessible from below.

Now it's your turn.
Excuse me but I will have to go and look at my photographs.
You are entitled to laugh but I want to give you an accurate answer and it has been
a few years since I was on and under the roof. I don't trust my own testimony
much more than any other "eye witness!"

My impression is exactly what Pressac shows, the roof is cracked in places but generally held together by the rebar. In parts the roof flexed when we walked on it.
There were only two holes were the re-bar was cut, one of which was the only entry into the Leichenkeller. These two holes were clearly chipped in after the original pour.
The Poles had put drain covers on the roof next to the holes... apparently to
"suggest" air tight vents.


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 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:46 am

Nessie wrote:I asked if he was working from memory, plans or an actual column. As far as I can figure out he was working from memory, no plan, no actual column and he drew it from memory. Your answer is "He described column as he manufactured it" but you are missing the point, again.

That Kula's measurements do not necessarily fit how you think they should be, does not mean you can just dismiss his evidence. His memory will not be as precise as you demand. The big picture is that there is a witness that speaks to mesh columns were used to introduce Zyklon B into the gas chamber.
Again, you are off as usual, I am not the one who is dismissing his evidence, but Hans and other believers are claiming that he is mistaken, and etc., not me, I see good straight description including every detail, but this is problem for you, becuase his description refute gassing claim. But his column never existed, if exsted, no problem, refute gassing claim anyway.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:55 pm

David wrote:
Hans wrote:

David,

the projected location of opening number 3 (which is the only gas opening still missing) is about 3 m from the western wall and about 11 or so m from the norther wall. I ask you straightforward: Is exactly this part of the roof still intact AND accessible? This is the only relevant question to answer. It does not matter whether some (or even most) parts of the roof are mainly intact and accessible even (or especially) from below. It only matters if those 3 m from the west and 11 or so m from the north are or are not.

Well, the photographs show debris and rubber but no larger intact upper part. According to Mazal et al. the area is not accessible from below, nor does Mattogno show or argue that is it is accessible from below.

Now it's your turn.
Excuse me but I will have to go and look at my photographs.
You are entitled to laugh but I want to give you an accurate answer and it has been
a few years since I was on and under the roof. I don't trust my own testimony
much more than any other "eye witness!"
David,

In contrary, I appreciate very much you want to provide an accurate and thoroughly backed up account on the question of opening number 3.

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 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:12 pm

Hans, can you locate your opening 3 in these great photos and videos from 2007?

Your hole should be located here
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2870.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2871.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2868.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can you locate your hole 2?
http://bp0.blogger.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R7s ... G_2868.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/S ... G_3259.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://moranen.blogspot.com/2008/02/aus ... osa-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:11 pm

Bob wrote:Hans, can you locate your opening 3 in these great photos and videos from 2007?

Your hole should be located here
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2870.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2871.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AB36D4g8j4Q/R ... G_2868.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No, since I don't know what part of the roof the photographs show.

The projected location of opening number 3 (in the original roof!) can be estimated approximately. What is not known from your posting is where this is supposed to be in the photographs. But this is the essential point. Only if we know the part of the ruin that actually represents 3,25 m of the west wall and 20 m (plus minus 1 or 2 m) of the south wall in the original roof and only if this part is mainly intact and accessible, we could easily check whether an opening is there or not.

Again, it is not relevant that some or even most parts of the roof are mainly intact and would easily show an opening if there was one. What is relevant is weather the part of the roof, where opening number 3 is expected according to the evidence, is intact and accessible. The photographs do not answer this question.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:29 pm

Mazal et al believe the projected location of opening number 3 is here:

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

As one can see, there is a lot of debris and rubble. Is there an opening? Unless the rubble is removed, I don't see how we can tell beyond doubt.

And please, Bob, spare us with Mattogno's if you widen the view and change the direction stuff as if this would transform the rubble into a visibly intact roof.

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 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:36 pm

Hans wrote:No, since I don't know what part of the roof the photographs show.
You don´t know? Interesting, because these photos show exactly the parts of the roof where your hole should be located, especially photo 2871 shows precisely this location. I really don´t care if is under some rubble or not, just show location, the location in which you believe, you should know it.

Please, show also Hole 2.
Last edited by Bob on Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:37 pm

Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:No, since I don't know what part of the roof the photographs show.
You don´t know? Interesting, because these photos show exactly the parts of the roof where your hole should be located, especially photo 2871 show precisely this location.
How do you know?

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 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:40 pm

Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:
Hans wrote:No, since I don't know what part of the roof the photographs show.
You don´t know? Interesting, because these photos show exactly the parts of the roof where your hole should be located, especially photo 2871 show precisely this location.
How do you know?
Because of your own source here
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/ ... -final.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -final.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is another photo to help you, as you can see there are holes, but ignored by your source. One of them, Provan´s hole 8.
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-31-blowup.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Bob on Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3073
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:43 pm

Bob wrote:
Nessie wrote:I asked if he was working from memory, plans or an actual column. As far as I can figure out he was working from memory, no plan, no actual column and he drew it from memory. Your answer is "He described column as he manufactured it" but you are missing the point, again.

That Kula's measurements do not necessarily fit how you think they should be, does not mean you can just dismiss his evidence. His memory will not be as precise as you demand. The big picture is that there is a witness that speaks to mesh columns were used to introduce Zyklon B into the gas chamber.
Again, you are off as usual, I am not the one who is dismissing his evidence, but Hans and other believers are claiming that he is mistaken, and etc., not me, I see good straight description including every detail, but this is problem for you, becuase his description refute gassing claim. But his column never existed, if exsted, no problem, refute gassing claim anyway.
Sorry, you are not dismissing his evidence, but his description of the column refutes gassing and in any case it never existed. :?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:45 pm

Bob wrote:Please, show also Hole 2.
Here is opening number 2 (most likely):

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

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

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

The location is 4.1 m from the southern wall and 3.25 m from the western wall (in the original state).

Where exactly this is in the photographs you posted, how should I tell from here?

But I know that also semi-Revisionist Charles Provan and Revisionist Carlo Mattogno have taken pictures of the hole, so I fail to see the point of the exercise.