Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Discussions
Hans
Poster
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:13 pm

I start a new thread on this issue, since the current discussion in the thread "My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs " has nothing to do with its original topic.

In the crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz-Birkenau, the poison gas pellets Zyklon-B were introduced into the semi-basement gas chamber through openings in the reeinforced concrete roof according to testimonial evidence, including (but not limited to) to former SS men

Rudolf Höß, Konrad Morgen, Josef Erber, Hans Aumeier, Hans Münch

and former prisoners

Michal Kula, Ananij Petko and Vladimir Pegov, Henryk Tauber, David Olere, Miklos Nyiszli, Paul Bendel, Filip Müller, Josef Sackar, Shaul Chasan, Leon Cohen, Yehuda Bacon, Karl Schultze, Hans Stark, Henryk Porebski, Shlomo Dragon, Dov Paisikovic, Stanislaw Jankowski, Salmen Lewenthal, Jaacov Gabai, Rudolf Vrba.

The accounts are compiled here:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_1.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_2.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_3.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_4.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_5.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_6.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_7.png

The testimonial evidence clearly establishes that the gas was introduced through four openings into metal shafts. The strength of the evidence demands from Revisionists to provide particular strong and compelling evidence, which justifies to reject the testimonial evidence.

The gas introduction openings have been a target of Revisionist authors for quite some while. One of the most popular arguments against the holocaust was and maybe still is the phrase "no holes, no holocaust" coined by Robert Faurisson in the early 90s. The alleged absence of openings in the roof was one of the key arguments in the so called Rudolf Report. The main objection by Revisionists against the openings is physical evidence.

The gassing basement of crematorium 3 has been heavily destroyed upon dismantling the site and usually not even Revisionists claim the gas openings have to be located there. The roof of the gassing basement of crematorium 2 fall down after the support pillars were brought down with explosives and cracked into larger as well as smaller chunks. It is this ruin of crematorium 2 where Revisionists claim there should be gas openings visible if the gassing claim was true and since there are not visible, there were no homicidal gassings taking place in the basement.

The issue had been settled about in 2001 when a research draft by Harry Mazal, Jamie McCarthy and Daniel Keren leaked into the public, which was later introduced as evidence in Irving's appeal against Lipstadt and then published as a paper in Holocaust and Genocide Studies in 2004:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... oles.shtml

Mazal et al. provided strong evidence that the gas introduction openings were made when the concrete was poured on roof of the basement. They have identified three holes in the ruins, which are characterized by aprox. size 50 x 50 cm, cut and inward bent rebar and 75 cm distance from the central support beam. Unlike what Revisionists like Bob claim (but never actually show) there is no evidence to demonstrate that these holes were created by the dismantling work or after the war.

If the approximate location of the three holes is drawn on a map, it turns out that there is an unusual large gap between the second and third hole. Given that the testimonial evidence clearly suggest four openings, it is reasonable conclude that the large gap was actually filled with another opening. However, this part of the roof is covered under rubble according to Mazal et al and so cannot be accessed at least for now.

I put the location of the three accessible holes into a model of the basement's roof, a forth opening that cannot be accessed for now, but which follows from testimonial evidence, in the way that it fits into the pattern of the other three holes and is hidden behind the smokestack in the SS February 1943 ground photograph of the basement as well a concrete chimnies around the openings as reported by eyewitnesses. A small animation of the model can viewed here:

https://rapidshare.com/files/3807709986/K2_basement.avi

Already my rough scaling and overlapping of the model with the SS February 1943 ground photograph shows indeed reasonable well agreement, as already demonstrated Mazal et al.'s paper, and which suggests that the little chimnies visible in the photograph are the concrete extension of the gas introduction openings:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... /new-2.png

In my opinion, scepticism is a welcomed attribute, but denying the existence of the gas introduction openings in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau, which are strongly backed up by testimonial, photographical and physical evidence, is unreasonable and does reflect a poor evaluation of the evidence.

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 Mar 04, 2012 1:29 pm

Hans, send me your model you used in obj. format, thanks.

-please, send me also your original scene with camera position settings and your model you used for "matching" the photo, you for sure have this scene saved.

Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Chester » Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:13 pm

Can anyone provide any reports from concrete, steel, or destructive testing engineers? This is a technical subject and requires the experience of materials experts.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:32 pm

Chester wrote:Can anyone provide any reports from concrete, steel, or destructive testing engineers? This is a technical subject and requires the experience of materials experts.



Chester,

there is an expert opinion of a structural engineer, who concluded that "it is my professional view that the authors [Mazal et al.] 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."

http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... scan.shtml

Hans
Poster
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:34 pm

Bob wrote:Hans, send me your model you used in obj. format, thanks.

-please, send me also your original scene with camera position settings and your model you used for "matching" the photo, you for sure have this scene saved.


Bob,

you can download the model here:

https://rapidshare.com/files/2184110634/K2_basement.skp

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 Mar 04, 2012 5:41 pm

Can you post it in different place, I am not interested in buying premium account because for some reason, free download is not available, thanks. Also, please, include scene with camera position, settings and etc, the setup you used to "match" photo.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9797
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:28 pm

Just click the "download" button. I've saved the file to my computer without having to buy a premium account.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

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 Mar 04, 2012 7:48 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Just click the "download" button. I've saved the file to my computer without having to buy a premium account.


I know there is free button, I know rapidshare, but I receive only this message "Download not available" and nothing happens.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9797
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:54 pm

It worked for me, that's all I can tell you.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:34 am

It worked for me as well.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Chester » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:06 pm

Hans, thanks for the ref. However, I was looking for actual technical reports. This letter is commentary by an expert who reviewed the work of others for a fee. This is common business practice for engineering firms.
Engineering reoprts, OTOH, tend to be very expensive, data heavy, and suitable for recognition by the courts.
The letter in question states that the writer was never on site and that he worked entirely from writings and photos submitted by the client. Thank you.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Mon Mar 05, 2012 6:24 pm

Chester wrote:Hans, thanks for the ref. However, I was looking for actual technical reports. This letter is commentary by an expert who reviewed the work of others for a fee. This is common business practice for engineering firms.
Engineering reoprts, OTOH, tend to be very expensive, data heavy, and suitable for recognition by the courts.
The letter in question states that the writer was never on site and that he worked entirely from writings and photos submitted by the client. Thank you.


Chester,

from a historical view point (evaluating historical evidence), it is clear and reasonable that there had been homicidal gassings in the basement. Mazal et al.'s paper supports this conclusion with some archeological evidence, which itself is supported by the expert opinion of the structural engineer.

There is no apparent reason why an additional engineering report is necessary to verify the existence of the openings. Just because some Revisionists keep denying the gassings is no justification that some "Anti-Revisionist" should pay for a "very expensive, data heavy, and suitable for recognition by the courts" engineering report on this issue.

In contrast, the burden is certainly on Revisionists to acquire an engineering report that shows that the basement was constructed without the gas openings in 1943, if they maintain no gassings took place in the basement despite the overwhelming positive evidence available.

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 » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:35 pm

Witness testimonies, i already quoted them here, no need to point out again their nonsenses, lies, contradictions and so on.
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17734&start=80#p273589

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:

The truth of the matter is, though, that yet again the authors make use of a little sleight of hand. The field of view of their photograph is very narrow and viewed from west to east. All it takes to get a better look at this area is to widen the view and reverse the perspective (looking from east to west; 2005d, photos 31-33, pp. 337ff.). Then one realizes that this area is not “badly damaged and covered with rubble” at all but that one can see two large cracks (one of which is Provan’s opening no. 8). These cracks are in such disagreement with an alleged Zyklon B opening that the authors have preferred to keep quiet about them and make us believe that there is an invisible alleged opening no.3!


Photos are in this book on pages mentioned above.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=18

About letter from engineer, as Chester said, this man never visited this place, he worked only with what he got from that team, and what he got? I do not know, propably even Hans do not know, but I am very suspicious.

Rapidshare download works now for me too, ok, I did some research Hans.

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. 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 because there are no holes for his column, and your only choice to invent own desgin as Mr. Meuhlenkamp and ignore Kula´testimony. 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.

Your holes are also placed in nonsense way, chamber is 31m and 8m (walls included, without walls 30m and 7m) you first hole is 375cm far from the edge of the chamber, second hole is 670cm far from the hole 1, third hole is 730cm far from the hole 2 and fourth hole is 530cm far from the hole 3, hole 4 is 515cm far from the edge of the chamber, Here is sketch. Such a construction is just pure nonsense. What did your engineer say about it?

Here we can end now, but that´s not all.

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.

Here is comparison with plan. You can see plan of Leichenkeller 1, drawing 932(p) and your model. I see that your alleged chimneys are placed without order with different distances from pillars as I already showed before, what is worse, your chamber is longer and protrude to other rooms of Krema II. Sketch from your source is even worse because is longer than your model, just ridiculous catastrophe. I guess you cant find plan which match with your "evidence". Again, did your team asked that engineer about this alleged construction of introduction holes and columns? I guess not, correct? No wonder.

Is really fascinating that nobody ever tried to bring some "eyewitnesses" to this place and let them identify where the alleged holes are. At least to my knowledge, because this would be complete disaster I guess, simple procedure, just normal and common, but I never saw such trip with alleged "eyewitnesses".

That is propably all, you tried it on codoh, you tried the same here again, but you only showed several cheats, and who need to cheat something what is true?

Chester
Account Locked
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Chester » Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:59 pm

Hans stated:
"from a historical view point (evaluating historical evidence), it is clear and reasonable that there had been homicidal gassings in the basement."

I reply:
It's not clear to me, yet.

Hans says:
"Mazal et al.'s paper supports this conclusion with some archeological evidence, which itself is supported by the expert opinion of the structural engineer."

I respond:
Sir, the engineer never visited the site, never ordered field or lab testing. The only thing he did was write a letter that has no standing in any engineering community. These guys write letters all the time for clients.

Hans:
"There is no apparent reason why an additional engineering report is necessary to verify the existence of the openings. Just because some Revisionists keep denying the gassings is no justification that some "Anti-Revisionist" should pay for a "very expensive, data heavy, and suitable for recognition by the courts" engineering report on this issue."

I reply:
I see revisionists asking for tangible proof on holes and gassings. Maybe a thorough inspection needs to be made, certified and entered into the public record.

Hans continues:
"In contrast, the burden is certainly on Revisionists to acquire an engineering report that shows that the basement was constructed without the gas openings in 1943, if they maintain no gassings took place in the basement despite the overwhelming positive evidence available."

I'm starting to understand Hans and reply:
Engineering reports start with a blank sheet of paper. A report is built on findings not the other way around.
I think revisionaries need to know the truth. Too many holocaust stories are just that. The best way to truth is science.

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 Mar 06, 2012 1:24 am

[quote="Hans"]The gas introduction openings have been a target of Revisionist authors for quite some while. One of the most popular arguments against the holocaust was and maybe still is the phrase "no holes, no holocaust" coined by Robert Faurisson in the early 90s. The alleged absence of openings in the roof was one of the key arguments in the so called Rudolf Report. The main objection by Revisionists against the openings is physical evidence.
Hello Hans- I am a Revisionist and have been to and
inside the Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II.

Just so we start off on the same page, I assume that you would agree with
me that the holes in the concrete roof would be absolutely necessaery
if Zyclon were to be poured into the room below.

That is, if I could show that there were no holes in the roof until December 1944, then you would have to radically rethink your position?
Correct?



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 Mar 06, 2012 5:58 am

Any discussion of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Krema II should being with the actual construction plans. What did the Germans plan and WHEN?
The problem for Believers is that the plans for crematorium II were drawn
in 1941 and slightly modified in January 1942. Pressac admits the
obvious: That there was no homicidal use of the building intended in the
first construction drawings.


A good place to start would be Bauleitung drawing 934 of a Krematorium project, the future Krematorium II,
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0356.shtml

Drawings 1173 and 1174 of 15th January 1942.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0357.shtml

The Leichenkeller 1 is partially underground (for insulation) and has no
vent holes.


Would you agree with me, Hans, that these construction documents do NOT have any vent holes shown on the roof?

Hans
Poster
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:51 pm

David wrote:Just so we start off on the same page, I assume that you would agree with
me that the holes in the concrete roof would be absolutely necessaery
if Zyclon were to be poured into the room below.

That is, if I could show that there were no holes in the roof until December 1944, then you would have to radically rethink your position?
Correct?


David,

if you could show there were no holes in the roof until December 1944, I would consider it necessary to re-evaluate the evidence and - depending on the outcome - I could imagine it would result in a revision of the gas introduction mechanism or dismissal of crematorium 2 as gassing facility.

The blueprints you link in your second posting certainly do not show the gas introduction openings. However, as you know, the gassing installations were incorporated into the crematorium 2 at a rather late stage of the planning and not planned from the scratch, so there is no surprise here.

Actually none of the available blueprints or construction drawings shows the gas introduction openings. The emphasis is one available, since the archive of the central construction office of the Auschwitz SS is known to be incomplete. In particular the drawing, which shows the reinforcing of the concrete roof and which was possibly containing the installation of the openings in the steel reinforcement, is missing.

Revisionist tend to argue that the openings are missing on Huta drawings dated September 1943, months after the completion of the basement. However, these drawings also do not show the addition of the direct access stairway to the undressing room nor can I identify 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.

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 Mar 06, 2012 9:09 pm

Hans wrote:David,

if you could show there were no holes in the roof until December 1944, I would consider it necessary to re-evaluate the evidence and - depending on the outcome - I could imagine it would result in a revision of the gas introduction mechanism or dismissal of crematorium 2 as gassing facility.

Reasonable. We are on the same page.

The blueprints you link in your second posting certainly do not show the gas introduction openings. However, as you know, the gassing installations were incorporated into the crematorium 2 at a rather late stage of the planning and not planned from the scratch, so there is no surprise here.
Actually, I think it was a big surprise when Pressac first announced the fact that the morgue was "modified" into a "gas chamber." But that is a different
topic.
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

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?




Actually none of the available blueprints or construction drawings shows the gas introduction openings. The emphasis is one available, since the archive of the central construction office of the Auschwitz SS is known to be incomplete. In particular the drawing, which shows the reinforcing of the concrete roof and which was possibly containing the installation of the openings in the steel reinforcement, is missing.

Revisionist tend to argue that the openings are missing on Huta drawings dated September 1943, months after the completion of the basement. However, these drawings also do not show the addition of the direct access stairway to the undressing room nor can I identify 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.


I don't disagree with you that the holes could have been put in without being in the construction documents.
However, the German plans are evidence of German intent at the time the plans
were drawn.


User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:21 pm

David wrote:....

The Leichenkeller 1 is partially underground (for insulation) and has no
vent holes.

.........



If insulation is needed, why not put many other buildings partially underground? Why only that building?

Putting something partially underground helps also to hide in and allow easy access to the roof.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:43 pm

Something else about Krema II is its doors.

http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwi ... -doors.jpg

Usually as you enter into a room, you open the door away from you. As you leave you pull the door open. The door sits in a frame within the wall. The doors above are not like that. They are attached outside the frame of the doorway and open outwards to enter. It also has solid hinges outside with strengthening bars across it, a peep hole and pivoting latches to keep the door closed.

You make doors like that if you want to make it easy open the door again so no one can block it from opening on the inside. You strengthen such doors to make it hard for them to forced open from the inside. That is because you no longer have the frame of the door to help secure it.

That they are made with solid wood with strengthening bars means they would be very strong indeed. In the UK a firedoor or security door is 44mm thick before it approved for use. Even with a battering ram such doors are very difficult to force open. They need specialist tools which involve prizing the door apart from its farme. People with no tools and only their own strength to push would not be able to force open such doors.

I know this because I have been trained in forcing open doors and also crime prevention. So I do know what is a secure door and what is not. This is

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... s/Door.jpg

So is this at Majdanek

http://www.deathcamps.org/majdanek/pic/bigdoor.jpg

with the added strength of being made with metal (hence the three hinges to take its weight).

This one is not

http://www.cwporter.com/gas%20chamber%20door.jpg

and its use in a homicidal gas chamber during its time of use is very doubtfull.

The doors that are used where they open outwards instead of in are perfect for securing people inside a room and then making it easy to get back in. The kind of doors you would want in a homicidal gas chamber.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:17 pm

Nessie wrote:
David wrote:....

The Leichenkeller 1 is partially underground (for insulation) and has no
vent holes.

.........



If insulation is needed, why not put many other buildings partially underground? Why only that building?

Putting something partially underground helps also to hide in and allow easy access to the roof.


Nessie,

the morgues, which were originally planned for the crematorium, had to be kept cool in order to slow down decomposition etc. of the corpses, so it did make some sense to put them half below ground and to cover the other half with earth banks.

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.

We know at least that such small scale killings were carried out in the old crematorium in Auschwitz main camp (see the section "Erschiessungen im alten Krematorium/Shootings in the old crematorium" in How reliable and authentic is the Broad report?) and also later in the crematoria in Birkenau.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:55 pm

Nessie wrote:The doors that are used where they open outwards instead of in are perfect for securing people inside a room and then making it easy to get back in. The kind of doors you would want in a homicidal gas chamber.


It is noteworthy that the door of the Leichenkeller 1 (the homicidal gas chamber) was changed from inward to outward opening in December 1942 (can been seen here). Per default, the doors of the morgues were inward opening, but suddenly somebody decided to change it specifically and only for the LK 1 at a time when the building was already planned for months and in fact already under construction.

In the new configuration, the outward opening double door (later replaced by a single door) was blocking the door of the elevator. As this could have hardly escaped the architects, there must have been a severe and not negotiable reason for this modification, which neatly fits to the transformation of the basement into a gassing facility.

By the way, the Revisionist explanation for the change of the opening direction of the door is that the slight subpressure inside the morgue would have caused an inward opening door to open automatically. I cannot see how this is supposed to make sense, since the door of the Leichenkeller 2 (the undressing room), which was also necessarily kept under slight subpressure due to its air extraction device, remained inward opening. Also the configuration of the ventilation system was known for many months and nothing new in late 1942.

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 Mar 07, 2012 4:07 pm

Nessie wrote:
David wrote:....

The Leichenkeller 1 is partially underground (for insulation) and has no
vent holes.

.........



If insulation is needed, why not put many other buildings partially underground? Why only that building?
Because it was a morgue and needed to be keep cool.


Putting something partially underground helps also to hide in and allow easy access to the roof.

Something partially underground makes it unique and invites attention. Having to get on the roof would have still been cumbersome and
caused a great deal of problems at night, in the wind, in the rain...and attracted
even more attention.
Plus the people on the roof needed to know when the door to the gas chamber
was closed. Right?
Last edited by David on Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:59 pm

Believer´s logic - is strange that morgues are almost complete underground and they use it as arugment, that this is because secrecy, but they ignore, that originally the morgues were planned completely underground and not partly underground, so Nazis hardly wanted to make it secret when they lifted them up. They lifted them up because of water. Believers also ignore, that alleged gas chambers in other gassing sites were not underground. They also ignore, that there was no secrecy at all in Auschwitz-Birkenau as also Pressac pointed out. Alleged "secrecy" is refuted nonsense and morgue underground is completely normal.

Hans wrote:It is noteworthy that the door of the Leichenkeller 1 (the homicidal gas chamber) was changed from inward to outward opening in December 1942 (can been seen here). Per default, the doors of the morgues were inward opening, but suddenly somebody decided to change it specifically and only for the LK 1 at a time when the building was already planned for months and in fact already under construction.


First criminal trace is dated to June 1942 according to Pressac (Pressac, 1989, p. 286), it took six months to Nazis to realize that door opening into the room is real big problem. They did not realize it even when they allegedly gassed peoples from Autumn 1941 in Krema I and later in Bunkers 1 and 2, interesting believer´s logic and of course absurd. Believers also ignore that chamber in Majdanek has door opening into the room, but Nazis did not change it = chamber is not homicidal chamber if believers want to say that changing of direction is evidence of homicidal gassing in Krema II, but if believers want to save this Majdanek chamber, they must drop alleged evidence in connection with the door in Krema, simple. They changed direction in Krema, but door is still double leaf, so again the Nazis still did not realize that double leaf door is not suitable for gassing because such a double door can be hardly made gas-tight. Finally, Nazis never realized that wooden door allegedly used for gassing and opening to outward is real problem, because such a door could be damaged much more than door opening into the room since there is no frame support, also this poor wooden door is just nonsense for homicidal gassing because of panicking victims behind the door, such a door is not even gas-tight in technical sense of this term as mentioned by Germar Rudolf (TRR, pp. 94-95), enough for delousing, absurd for homicidal gassing as alleged.

In the new configuration, the outward opening double door (later replaced by a single door) was blocking the door of the elevator. As this could have hardly escaped the architects, there must have been a severe and not negotiable reason for this modification, which neatly fits to the transformation of the basement into a gassing facility.


Again, they changed direction because of gassings according to believers, but they blocked poor elevator, one of the most important devices for transport of gassed bodies, again nonsense and absurd.

There could be many reasons why they changed it, one mentioned by Germar Rudolf and you read it, important is, that changing of direction has nothing to do with gassings as proven above.

Also the configuration of the ventilation system was known for many months and nothing new in late 1942.


Interesting statement, are you able to tell me why they implemented worse ventilation (suitable for morgues) to alleged gas chamber and better one to alleged undressing room and other rooms where no gassing took place?

Why they placed and used de-aeration near floor, and fresh air inlet near ceiling in alleged gas chamber?

I cannot see how this is supposed to make sense, since the door of the Leichenkeller 2 (the undressing room), which was also necessarily kept under slight subpressure due to its air extraction device, remained inward opening.


You have only this problem with Rudolf´s explanation, ok, here is explanation. Why you ignore that LK 1 was used for decomposed bodies and thus smelling with worse conditions? (Pressac, 1989, p. 284) But LK2 was not used for such bodies and used for newly arrived bodies ready and awaiting cremation (Ibid., p. 284) and this room served also as an undressing room for corpses, so there was no such a serious problem with smell and conditions like in LK1, simple, I see no reason why to change it.

I think you are not able to see what make sense. Also you can post reply to my comment above in connection with your model, report and etc., thanks.

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 Mar 07, 2012 5:33 pm

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!


.

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 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:43 pm

Hans wrote:David,

if you could show there were no holes in the roof until December 1944, I would consider it necessary to re-evaluate the evidence and - depending on the outcome - I could imagine it would result in a revision of the gas introduction mechanism or dismissal of crematorium 2 as gassing facility.


Reverse burden of proof, you must prove that there were holes. There were no holes because there is no evidence that the holes ever existed, simple.

Can you tell me what you consider as evidence in this case? As I see, you refused plans, physical evidence and also your favorite kind of evidence - witness testimony from HUTA senior engineer (you for sure know Walter Schrieber, do you?), so what exactly you want to see as proof that holes never existed?

The blueprints you link in your second posting certainly do not show the gas introduction openings. However, as you know, the gassing installations were incorporated into the crematorium 2 at a rather late stage of the planning and not planned from the scratch, so there is no surprise here.


You mean that they incorporated openings which you have showed above staggered in no order with different dimensions in nonsense way which also prevent uniform distribution and some architect or engineer decided to do such an absurdity?

Pressac said, that they chiseled them throught the roof later if I remeber him correctly, so you deny his thesis, what is your evidence?

Actually none of the available blueprints or construction drawings shows the gas introduction openings. The emphasis is one available, since the archive of the central construction office of the Auschwitz SS is known to be incomplete. In particular the drawing, which shows the reinforcing of the concrete roof and which was possibly containing the installation of the openings in the steel reinforcement, is missing.


Plan is missing, nobody ever saw it, we dont have it, but you have no problem make such a statement, suggesting that holes are there? Interesting and absurd I must say, no value. Pelt made this statement and is without value.

We know at least that such small scale killings were carried out in the old crematorium in Auschwitz main camp (see the section "Erschiessungen im alten Krematorium/Shootings in the old crematorium" in How reliable and authentic is the Broad report?) and also later in the crematoria in Birkenau.


Interesting, you forgot gassings, this room was not used for gassings?

Shooting in these rooms? Not very smart and absurd.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:22 pm

This, from Bob is not true

"Finally, Nazis never realized that wooden door allegedly used for gassing and opening to outward is real problem, because such a door could be damaged much more than door opening into the room since there is no frame support, also this poor wooden door is just nonsense for homicidal gassing because of panicking victims behind the door, such a door is not even gas-tight in technical sense of this term as mentioned by Germar Rudolf (TRR, pp. 94-95), enough for delousing, absurd for homicidal gassing as alleged."

Firstly outward opening doors can be made secure from force from the inside. A hinge attached to the wall and then the door is very secure. Bracing straps across the door also strengthen it. Then a solid wooden door of the kind shown here

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... s/Door.jpg

is easily strong enough to resist the strength of a group of naked, panicking people being gassed. Finally such doors are also, so long as the fitting is correct easily enough to be gas tight. Or else why do they use wooden doors now-a-days as fire doors where the need is to resist smoke spreading as much as, if not more than resisting fire? This is a standard firedoor

http://www.garagedoorsupplies.co.uk/ima ... tlatch.jpg

and from the side without the panic bar is very secure and could not be forced open just with bodily pressure, especially if also braced.

Finally why is gas tight for delousing different for homicidal gassing? Surly both need to gas tight or else there is a danger to people working out side. Indeed, since delousing takes longer, should such doors be able to resist gas for longer and so in effect be more gas tight?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:54 pm

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?

Hans
Poster
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:05 pm

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

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.

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 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:19 pm

Nessie wrote:This, from Bob is not true

Firstly outward opening doors can be made secure from force from the inside. A hinge attached to the wall and then the door is very secure. Bracing straps across the door also strengthen it. Then a solid wooden door of the kind shown here

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... s/Door.jpg

is easily strong enough to resist the strength of a group of naked, panicking people being gassed. Finally such doors are also, so long as the fitting is correct easily enough to be gas tight.


Not true?

Pressac presented alleged homicidal gas chamber doors Here and Here, do I see something what make these doors resistant to panicking mass of bodies? No they are all from wooden planks, I see the same fashioned doors Here and Here, these ones belongs to delousing chamber where nobody claims that gassing took place, the doors are identical, fascinating, isn´it? They just didn´t bother to order some good metal steel doors. They used solid metal door Here in Krema I in entry which didn´t belong to gas chamber and they didn´t bother to use it in gas chamber itself. Only the door from page 425 lacks peep-hole even when Pressac shows them as door from homicidal gas chamber, otherwise are identical. These doors are total nonsense for gassings as alleged.

For comparison the others can see doors from genuine gas chambers in USA for just one and in some cases two peoples which are even immobilized and they can´t move. Nessie is insulting our intelligence.

Did the Nazis had really good massive metal doors? Of course, Here and Here in Central Sauna, the most important hygienic facility.

But Nessie wants me to believe in some miraculous door. Can Nessie show how the door looked like and what is his evidence?

Or else why do they use wooden doors now-a-days as fire doors where the need is to resist smoke spreading as much as, if not more than resisting fire? This is a standard firedoor

http://www.garagedoorsupplies.co.uk/ima ... tlatch.jpg

and from the side without the panic bar is very secure and could not be forced open just with bodily pressure, especially if also braced.


Nessie´s claims are again ridiculous, doors against fire or smoke have nothing to do with this topic, I do not see that doors are designed to resist mass of bodies and panicking peoples, but they are for fire resistance and they are made from fire resistant materials and sealed against spread of smoke and equipped by panic bar to allow opening by panicking peoples. What these doors have to do with our topic? Nothing, only Nessie is propably claiming that doors mentioned by Pressac above could be used as a fire/smoke protection too because they are from wood as well, that´s the only "connection" I see.

You should have to visit some "fire-fighter" forum and entertain peoples there.

Finally why is gas tight for delousing different for homicidal gassing? Surly both need to gas tight or else there is a danger to people working out side. Indeed, since delousing takes longer, should such doors be able to resist gas for longer and so in effect be more gas tight?


Propably because nobody ever claimed that some peoples gazed without gas masks to delousing chamber to see how the lices are gassed to death? Maybe because nobody ever claimed that some SS without gas masks observed gassing process in delousing chamber? Maybe because nobody ever claimed that peoples worked or stood during delousing process without gas masks in direct vicinity of the delousing chamber?

Enough gas-tight for delousing chambers, not for homicidal gassings as alleged.

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 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:56 pm

Hans wrote: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.


The alleged chimneys were concrete? How do you know it?

Closed by thin cover? This alleged cover is really really thin because no elevation of snow is visible, do you have some idea how this cover hiding alleged holes looked like?

Plainly speaking, holes are not visible, is not possible to say if they are there, we have no evidence, so they don´t exist, simple.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Nessie » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:57 pm

Bob the links to all the doors you have shown are of doors easily strong enough to resist attack by people with no tools and sapping strength as they are gassed.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 048-07.jpe

That shows how soild the doors are. That they are made of planks is not an issue, or else how did they make boats out of planks of wood that are water tight? The metal hinges, as part of the strapping and onto a hinge bolt is very strong.

The modern firedoor I linked to is solid wood 44mm thick. It will resist fire and smoke for 30 miuntes. Thicker doors will last longer.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/estates/maintenanc ... TN_013.pdf

The doors to a gas chamber do not even have to resist fire, only gas, so they are easily capable of that. I have referred to modern doors to show how the doors used at the gas chambers are very similar and so will do the job just as well.

The US gas chamber is vastly over engineered. Proof of that are the delousing chambers used by the Nazis. Why is it that they were OK for use with deadly gas and built they way they were? If an American style gas chamber is needed as an absolute minimum for safe use of deadly gas, then why did the Nazis not build them for delosuing? In any case, your car is gas tight enough to kill yourself with carbon monoxide. So are bedrooms and other rooms in your house. I have shown you plenty of links to prove that.

If you want people working outside a delousing chamber or a homicidal one, you want them to be safe. There would be no difference, you don't want leaks.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 320
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Gas introduction in crematorium 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau

Post by Hans » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:02 pm

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).

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 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:21 pm

Nessie wrote:Bob the links to all the doors you have shown are of doors easily strong enough to resist attack by people with no tools and sapping strength as they are gassed.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 048-07.jpe

That shows how soild the doors are. That they are made of planks is not an issue, or else how did they make boats out of planks of wood that are water tight? The metal hinges, as part of the strapping and onto a hinge bolt is very strong.


You ignored it.

Another nonsense comparison, this time to "boat planks". Ok, tell me, the boat planks and construction of boat are the same as the construction of doors from delousing chamber or homicial chamber mentioned above?

Is possible to construct boat using the same technique and construction like in connection with doors in Auschwitz, correct?

The modern firedoor I linked to is solid wood 44mm thick. It will resist fire and smoke for 30 miuntes. Thicker doors will last longer.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/estates/maintenanc ... TN_013.pdf

The doors to a gas chamber do not even have to resist fire, only gas, so they are easily capable of that. I have referred to modern doors to show how the doors used at the gas chambers are very similar and so will do the job just as well
.

Doors from Auschwitz are solid 44mm thick doors that you use it as comparison? Where is stated that doors are resistant to panicking crowd and able to withstand such a pressure from mass of panicking peoples?

You are just lying to your eyes, they are not similar.

As Germar Rudolf and other revisionists pointed out, NO, these doors and their construction is not gas-tight in technical sense of this term to allow gassings as alleged, together with possible damage from victims, is suicide to use such a door in homicidal gassing scenario as narrative claims.

The engineers Nowak and Rademacher have shown that the “gas-tight” doors manufactured at Auschwitz by inmates from wooden planks could not have been gas-tight in a technical sense. The planks did not close hermetically, the fittings were simply fastened through the wood by means of bolts, and the seals consisted of felt strips.

One has to consider that a hypothetical homicidal “gas chamber” door would have to open outwards – a door opening inwards would be blocked by inmate bodies lying in front of the door. Such doors would require an especially stable arrangement, because the locks and hinges would have to be capable of resisting the pressure of hundreds of panicking people. The pressure exerted by such masses of people becomes apparent when one recalls the photographs of panicky spectators at football/soccer matches. Separating fences and partitions between individual spectator blocks are commonly trampled down like mere blades of grass in such situations. In any case, a simple wooden door, rendered provisionally gas-tight, as has been found in Auschwitz, a photograph of which is reproduced by Pressac in his book (see Fig. 32), could never have resisted such pressure. The camp administration could actually have ordered solid, technically gas-tight steel doors (air-raid shelter doors, Fig. 33) since they were offered such doors, but it can be proven that they did not order them. One must assume that they had no serious need for them.

»Gasdichte« Türen in Auschwitz
Von Dr.-Ing. Hans Jürgen Nowak und Dipl.-Ing. Werner Rademacher
http://www.vho.org/VffG/1998/4/NowRad4.html


I agree completely, just ridiculous nonsense and you please stop making your ridiculous claims about these doors.

The US gas chamber is vastly over engineered. Proof of that are the delousing chambers used by the Nazis. Why is it that they were OK for use with deadly gas and built they way they were? If an American style gas chamber is needed as an absolute minimum for safe use of deadly gas, then why did the Nazis not build them for delosuing? In any case, your car is gas tight enough to kill yourself with carbon monoxide. So are bedrooms and other rooms in your house. I have shown you plenty of links to prove that.

If you want people working outside a delousing chamber or a homicidal one, you want them to be safe. There would be no difference, you don't want leaks.


You should start reading my comments, see my comment again.

The US gas chamber is vastly over engineered - signed Nessie yep, for example, I assume they could used these miraculous doors from Auschwitz to save some penny of tax payers :roll: Just unbelieveable.

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.

that the amount of leakage was high enough to actually represent a danger to the people on the other side.


Is there some leakage? Take into consideration also panicking victims trying to demolish these doors from planks, so answer is Yes or No?

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 Mar 07, 2012 11:03 pm

Nessie wrote:Bob the links to all the doors you have shown are of doors easily strong enough to resist attack by people with no tools and sapping strength as they are gassed..


Hello Nessie. How thick is the door on your refrigerator?

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 Mar 07, 2012 11:06 pm

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?

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 Mar 07, 2012 11:25 pm

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

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

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 » Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:28 pm

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?

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".

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 Mar 07, 2012 11:48 pm

Hans wrote:

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.


Hello Hans- Let's step back. The problem was not just with leakage around
a door. It was the whole alleged "system,"
ie. the placement of a large gas chamber in the basement of an occuppied building.
The Krema II building had various offices and rooms both in the basement level and on the ground floor. It seems to have been the morgue record keeping center after that function left Krema I in the Main Camp in summer of 1943. This means that there were large numbers of people working in Krema II. In addition a few hundred inmates were alleged to be living on the top floor.

Dixit Pressac, the gas chamber room was filled with 35 times the fatal concentration of cyanide gas. A minor leak had the potential to kill people
in the building. And (as I understand it) the standard can of Zyklon did not
have the warning scent additive.


The possible sources of leaks are numerous. As examples- There has been no reported system of communication between the SS in the basement closing the doors and the SS on the roof pouring zyklon into the 4 different columns. And then
theoretically removing the zyklon a few minutes later BEFORE the door
was opened again. (Think about that problem!) Too early a pour- you kill
people in the building. Too early an opening of the door, same problem.

The actual ventilation system of the morgue compounds the problem.
The intake vents were along the floor. Pressac admits that this was an
impossible system. (another set of issues)
The inflow system was a set of fragile piping nailed to and hanging from wooden
blocks tacked to the ceiling. In point of fact, it would have been knocked down
very easily. The air extraction system seemed to have vented on the roof
so the piping carrying the highly toxic gas would have run through the entire
Krema II building.
See-
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... e369.shtml

Thus, there were (in the alleged system) serious risks of highly toxic cyanide
gas escaping from the "gas chamber" into the rest of the building.

But guess what? Where did the air that was brought into the building come from?
Take a look at http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... e369.shtml

What would have happened if there were a slight west wind blowing?


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 2:09 am

A review of Pressac shows that I was in error. I had thought that
Pressac had calculated the concentration of cyanide as 35 times the
lethal dose.

In fact he writes, 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

And if one looks at http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0369.shtml Pressac shows the Entrée d'air pour la chambre à gaz /
Air intake for the gas chamber was within a few feet of the Sortie d’air vicié de la chambre à gaz / Gas chamber noxious air outlet.

While this system would work to clear the Leichenkeller 1 of the stink of bodies
the air intake back into the "gas chamber" would be recycling the very dangerous 40
times the lethal concentration of cyanide albeit at a much lower concentration of
only 3 or 4 times fatal concentration back into the "gas chamber."

This whole problem is compounded by the large size of the Leichenkeller 1.It is a large amount of 40 times lethal cyanide gas that needs to be cleared.

The problem is also compounded by the alleged system of dumping the
zyklon pellets into the room. Depending on various factors, particularly temperature Zyklon emits cyanide gas for several hours. None of the "witnesses"
has ever mentioned the extraction of the pellets. One person suggested that
there was a little basket that collected the pellets at the bottom of the wire
column. So, either the zyklon was left in the room emitting cyanide or it was
pulled out of the room back on to the roof still emitting cyanide gas.

The German manual says

Airing

The airing is connected with the greatest danger for those participating and others.
Therefore it must be carried out particularly carefully and a gas mask should always
be worn.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0019.shtml

12. The airing should continue for at least 20 hours.

Ibid.

Cyanide gas at 40 times fatal concentration caused what Pressac calls
"flash death." Instant death.

It seems that the actual construction of Krema II of the air intake and extraction ventilation system (as described by Pressac) would have made use of Leichenkeller 1
as a gas chamber impossible.