Who said I was refuting it? I merely asked a question that I found puzzling.Hans wrote:Hi Scott!
Is that your refution of Pressac's gas-chamber proof or - what I honestly hope - something else?Scott Smith wrote:I'm curious... Why would anyone order wooden dummy showerheads on an invoice? Wouldn't you just make these in-house? Is there such a thing in the quartermastrer catalog? Do you write in "homicidal gaschamber" on the line that says Machine Gun?
Fake shower heads at Dachau. Props?
zyklon-b
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Nice try...
Re: Nice try...
Ach so, Scott! It was something else.
More problems with Pressac's reasoning or can we note that there is proof for homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau?
Acually the document is not ordering showerheads. It's an inventory of the crematorium when it was transfered from the central construction office to the Kommandantur.I'm curious... Why would anyone order wooden dummy showerheads on an invoice? Wouldn't you just make these in-house?
More problems with Pressac's reasoning or can we note that there is proof for homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau?
Says Roberto:
Says Scott:
Says Roberto:
Prof. Van Pelt during the Irving trial believes in the case of Krema I in the Auschwitz main camp that they used a wet drainage system there, which would prevent travel of HCN. (To explain: If you pee into a ditch with running water in it, that ditch would be a 'wet drainage channel' (please excuse my earthy language)). That is bull. A ditch like channel running through a crematorium! Come on!
But the professor got away with it. The principal of the wet drainage is used in laboratories to flush out chemical tubes and such.
And this brings us to the problem: How to get the Zyklon B into the morgue 1/'gas chamber'?
They can't find the holes in the ceiling, which even Prof. Van Pelt during his testimony in the Irving trial admitted.
A fellow will give a presentation about the wire mesh Zyklon B introduction column during a Irving sponsored conference on Labor Day in Cincinatti. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html. He made a model of the column to scale and will check out the feasibility of it. I am curious about his findings.
There were desinfestations, fumigations, efforts to control epedemics. There were several hospitals. A large medical staff.What "efforts of the SS especially in the area to prevent epedemics and of healthcare" is Sailor talking about, by the way?
Says Scott:
Morgue 1 of Krema II was also designed and served as an air raid shelter, according to senior engineer and construction superintendent in Auschwitz, Walter Schreiber of the firm Huta. It may have been a good idea to at least occasionally fumigate the morgue.It seems to me that a fumigation every so often of the morgue, with or without bodies, would be prudent and normal. Why not?
Says Roberto:
I don't know. It is up to the exterminationists to come up with an explanation, not to the critics.Assuming the True Believer knows something about architecture (which I don't), the questions would be:
i) How would the gas spread throughout the building through the drainage system, assuming there was one ?
ii) How long would that take to happen? If no longer than the time it took to a) gas and b) ventilate, no problem.
Prof. Van Pelt during the Irving trial believes in the case of Krema I in the Auschwitz main camp that they used a wet drainage system there, which would prevent travel of HCN. (To explain: If you pee into a ditch with running water in it, that ditch would be a 'wet drainage channel' (please excuse my earthy language)). That is bull. A ditch like channel running through a crematorium! Come on!
But the professor got away with it. The principal of the wet drainage is used in laboratories to flush out chemical tubes and such.
And this brings us to the problem: How to get the Zyklon B into the morgue 1/'gas chamber'?
They can't find the holes in the ceiling, which even Prof. Van Pelt during his testimony in the Irving trial admitted.
A fellow will give a presentation about the wire mesh Zyklon B introduction column during a Irving sponsored conference on Labor Day in Cincinatti. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html. He made a model of the column to scale and will check out the feasibility of it. I am curious about his findings.
According to the leading Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno, the Samuel Crowells bomb shelter thesis is "absolutely unfounded from the historical, documentary and technical point of view and should be rejected altogether". Further, the "total absence of references to "civil air defense measures" in the documents of the Zentralbauleitung before 16 November 1943 is explained only by the fact that before this date such measures did not exist and could not exist." (Carlo Mattogno: The Samuel Crowell bomb shelter thesis: a historically unfounded hypothesis)Sailor wrote: Morgue 1 of Krema II was also designed and served as an air raid shelter, according to senior engineer and construction superintendent in Auschwitz, Walter Schreiber of the firm Huta.
Note also: Schreiber didn't know about the gas vents and he didn't know anything about the fact that the semi-basement was a Zyklon-B gas-chamber. Either he had hardly anything to do with the construction of the crematorium or he is a liar.
Actually they found the holes in the ceiling, which even Prof. Van Pelt in his second expert report admitted:And this brings us to the problem: How to get the Zyklon B into the morgue 1/'gas chamber'?
They can't find the holes in the ceiling, which even Prof. Van Pelt during his testimony in the Irving trial admitted.
Source: http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... oles.shtmlProf. Van Pelt wrote: But all of this is probably no longer of importance because the holes in the roof of the gas chamber of crematorium 2 have been found. Attached to this report is a paper on the holes of crematorium 2. Entitled "A Report on Some Findings Concerning the Gas Chamber of Krematorium II in Auschwitz-Birkenau," it written by Daniel Keren, Ph.D., Jamie McCarthy, and Harry Mazal OBE.
In order to validate the results obtained by Keren, McCarthy and Mazal, I got Paul Zucchi, a senior partner of Yolles Engineering, one of the world's most prominent firms of consulting engineers, to review their report. I attach Zucchi's letter, dated March 11, 2001. It concludes as follows:
"In conclusion, it is my professional view that the authors present a strong and sustainable case that openings described as Zyklon vents 1, 2 and 4 were installed in the roof of the building during the course of construction. 78 In addition to the Keren, McCarthy and Mazal's report on the holes, which appears to be conclusive evidence of the existence of these holes in the roof of the gas chamber of crematorium 2, I observe that the inventory of crematorium 2, attached to the transfer agreement of March 31, 1943, lists in morgue 1 the presence of four wire-mesh introduction devices and four wooden lids. These are obviously the gas columns that connected to the holes, and the covers to close the holes."
Says Robert
You may want to consult:
'Confessions of SS Men who were at Auschwitz' by Faurisson at:
http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/2/2/Faur ... 3-136.html
where this nonsense is dissected.
There are several versions of Kremer's diary floating around.What was this "special action", so much worse than Dante's Inferno, that Kremer was talking about?2 September 1942.
For the first time at three o'clock in the morning I was present at a special action. Compared thereto Dante's Inferno seemed almost like a comedy to me. They don't call Auschwitz the camp of annihilation for nothing!
You may want to consult:
'Confessions of SS Men who were at Auschwitz' by Faurisson at:
http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/2/2/Faur ... 3-136.html
where this nonsense is dissected.
The original of his diary is reproduced in the book "Auschwitz in den Augen der SS - Rudolf Höß, Pery Broad, Johann Paul Kremer" published by the Auschwitz State Museum. The different "versions" mentioned by Faurisson are no different versions of Kremer's diary, they are just different _translations_ of the original German diary.Sailor wrote:Says RobertThere are several versions of Kremer's diary floating around.What was this "special action", so much worse than Dante's Inferno, that Kremer was talking about?2 September 1942.
For the first time at three o'clock in the morning I was present at a special action. Compared thereto Dante's Inferno seemed almost like a comedy to me. They don't call Auschwitz the camp of annihilation for nothing!
For those who are interested, Faurisson's article is taken apart in Zimmerman's Holocaust Denial (<-- Click!)
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Nice try...
Well, it is quite possible that there was a working shower in the Krema basement--good source of hot water there.Hans wrote:Acually the document is not ordering showerheads. It's an inventory of the crematorium when it was transfered from the central construction office to the Kommandantur.Scott wrote:I'm curious... Why would anyone order wooden dummy showerheads on an invoice? Wouldn't you just make these in-house?
More problems with Pressac's reasoning or can we note that there is proof for homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau?
But this doesn't explain why the Allies installed fake showerheads in the morgue of Dachau.
To ensure the functioning of the camp, sure. Not out of any consideration for the inmates.Sailor wrote: There were desinfestations, fumigations, efforts to control epedemics.
Really? Tell us more about them, Believer. What were conditions there like? What was the mortality/survival rate among those taken there?Sailor wrote: There were several hospitals.
What is it the True Believer calls a "large medical staff"? And what did they do for their patients?Sailor wrote: A large medical staff.
I suppose Mr. Schreiber said that - if he did - in an interview held by Sailor´s fellow True Believer Walter Lueftl under one of his pen names. Am I right?Sailor wrote:Morgue 1 of Krema II was also designed and served as an air raid shelter, according to senior engineer and construction superintendent in Auschwitz, Walter Schreiber of the firm Huta.
Roberto wrote:Assuming the True Believer knows something about architecture (which I don't), the questions would be:
i) How would the gas spread throughout the building through the drainage system, assuming there was one ?
ii) How long would that take to happen? If no longer than the time it took to a) gas and b) ventilate, no problem.
Trying to run away from my questions, old man?Sailor wrote:I don't know. It is up to the exterminationists to come up with an explanation, not to the critics.
It was you who contended that the gas would reach those it was not intended for through the drainage system.
Now please explain how that would supposedly have happened, or admit that you shot the bull and shut up.
Could the True Believer please provide a quote of van Pelt´s assertion´s that he is referring to? This should not be too difficult as van Pelt´s report for the trial is available online under various links. I have zero confidence in the rendering of sources by "Revisionists", you know.Sailor wrote:Prof. Van Pelt during the Irving trial believes in the case of Krema I in the Auschwitz main camp that they used a wet drainage system there, which would prevent travel of HCN. (To explain: If you pee into a ditch with running water in it, that ditch would be a 'wet drainage channel' (please excuse my earthy language)). That is bull. A ditch like channel running through a crematorium! Come on!
But the professor got away with it. The principal of the wet drainage is used in laboratories to flush out chemical tubes and such.
That´s hardly surprising, given that what is left of the ceiling is so full of holes that it´s virtually impossible to tell through which of them the gas was introduced. Big deal.Sailor wrote:And this brings us to the problem: How to get the Zyklon B into the morgue 1/'gas chamber'?
They can't find the holes in the ceiling, which even Prof. Van Pelt during his testimony in the Irving trial admitted.
A presentation on an Irving-sponsored show leaves me cold, jinxed as it will certainly be to be to fit certain pre-conceived notions.Sailor wrote:A fellow will give a presentation about the wire mesh Zyklon B introduction column during a Irving sponsored conference on Labor Day in Cincinatti. http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html. He made a model of the column to scale and will check out the feasibility of it. I am curious about his findings.
But I would like to know what explanation the True Believer has for the mention if "wire mesh insertion devices with wooden covers" in the inventory of one of the Leichenkeller of Crematorium II.
Last edited by Roberto on 05 Aug 2002, 04:38, edited 1 time in total.
Are there?Sailor wrote:Says RobertThere are several versions of Kremer's diary floating around.What was this "special action", so much worse than Dante's Inferno, that Kremer was talking about?2 September 1942.
For the first time at three o'clock in the morning I was present at a special action. Compared thereto Dante's Inferno seemed almost like a comedy to me. They don't call Auschwitz the camp of annihilation for nothing!
Well, I´m talking about the one submitted as evidence at the trial against Kremer before the Muenster County Court, the one from which I quoted and translated the entry of 2 September 1942 about the "special action".
Thanks, not interested. I´ve seen enough of VHO to know that the only nonsense is to be found in their "dissection".Sailor wrote:You may want to consult:
'Confessions of SS Men who were at Auschwitz' by Faurisson at:
http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/2/2/Faur ... 3-136.html
where this nonsense is dissected.
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
A Simple (and self-evident) Thesis...
Hmmm, I thought it was the Guardian himself who told us that when an assertion was made it should be backed-up. The exterminationist thesis is the assertion of all assertions. It is up to them to answer all the questions that might thereby arise.Roberto wrote:Trying to run away from my questions, old man?Sailor wrote:I don't know. It is up to the exterminationists to come up with an explanation, not to the critics.
It was you who contended that the gas would reach those it was not intended for through the drainage system.
Now please explain how that would supposedly have happened, or admit that you shot the bull and shut up.
Re: Disease Control 101
Scott Smith wrote:Roberto wrote:Which means that the burden of proof for the showerheads having been placed anywhere else than "Leichenkeller 1" lies with the True Believer.Scott Smith wrote:Which doesn't mean that is where they went, even if the invoice was correct.Roberto wrote:The inventory places the showerheads in "Leichenkeller 1", not anywhere else in the building:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... nvntry.jpg
Anything you can show us, Reverend?
What´s that supposed to mean, True Believer?Scott Smith wrote:It might if the document(s) were true-facts and not merely something retrospectively fulminant.
Squealing "forgery" now?
Roberto wrote:Which means that the burden of proof for the rooms having been put to any other legitimate use lies with the Reverend, who should also provide an explanation why, if such change of use occurred, they kept calling them "Leichenkeller" in transfer deeds, inventories and other documents.Smith wrote:Which doesn't mean that is what it was ultimately used for.Roberto wrote:A "Leichenkeller" is a corpse cellar. The place where they keep the stiffs.
Sure, the designation of a room in construction documents and transfer deeds has nothing whatsoever to do with the intended use of that room. How could I even think otherwise!Smith wrote:No, the Nazis could have originally called it the Conservatory or the Romper Room--but this doesn't make it so,
Well, the originally intended use may well have been as a morgue. But then they started using it for something called "Sonderbehandlung", yet took care not to change its designation ...Smith wrote:nor that it was always so used as intended (whatever that was).
Roberto wrote:What's the poet trying to tell us?Smith wrote:Some showerheads were sent to Auschwitz. Big deal. At Peenemünde they had trouble getting common supplies and often filled out invoices with more prosaic wants; for example, a "milling device for 5mm wooden-clad graphite dowels, cost RM 2,50" was an office pencil sharpener. A "device for recording alphanumeric test-data, cost RM 30," was a typewriter, and so on. Government procurement is often like that.
Roberto wrote:That a requisition for showerheads for Leichenkeller II may have in reality been for a delousing station at or near the Krema (obviously to utilize hot water) or, for that matter, diverted for the officer's club.
A very remote possibility.
Especially considering that the document in question was not a "requisition" but an inventory attached to the transfer deed of the crematorium.
Roberto wrote:Cremate them, of course. But for that Crematorium I in the main camp was perfectly sufficient. Yet they thought it necessary to build another four crematoria with 46 ovens at Birkenau, enough to dispose of the camp's whole permanent population when at its highest within a month. What for, Reverend?Scott wrote:And what did they do with "normal" morality and disease victims?
As soon as possible, I suppose.Scott wrote:Cremate them when? After how long? How ripe?
What does that have to do with my question?
As I said, the crematorium of the main camp would have been perfectly sufficient to handle the camp´s inmate mortality.
Why the additional 46 ovens, Reverend?
Cut out the platitudes and show us some evidence that Auschwitz was at any given time intended to have an inmate population that would have required a cremation capacity of 3-4,000 dead bodies per day.Scott wrote:As far as the crematoria capacity, that all depends on what this really was and how large Auschwitz was originally planned for. Big.
Roberto wrote:And what evidence is there to such "less nefarious" use?
A number of detailed and coincident eyewitness testimonials and defendants´depositions, corroborated by documentary and physical evidence, IIRC.Scott wrote:What evidence for homicidal uses?
Roberto wrote:Exactly. And what is the simpler explanation in this case, Reverend? Real showerheads in a corpse cellar for the corpse handlers to take a shower among the stiffs, or fake showerheads to deceive the people to be gassed there into thinking they were going to take a shower and thus prevent untimely panic?Smith wrote:Occam's Razor would hold that a simpler explanation has a greater likelihood of being true.
Very lame, buddy.Scott wrote:You're still assuming an awful lot.
I´m putting together the pieces of the puzzle.
Which isn´t all that difficult if your mind is not obstructed by Faith, you know.
Re: A Simple (and self-evident) Thesis...
Cut out the crap, Reverend.Scott Smith wrote:Hmmm, I thought it was the Guardian himself who told us that when an assertion was made it should be backed-up. The exterminationist thesis is the assertion of all assertions. It is up to them to answer all the questions that might thereby arise.Roberto wrote:Trying to run away from my questions, old man?Sailor wrote:I don't know. It is up to the exterminationists to come up with an explanation, not to the critics.
It was you who contended that the gas would reach those it was not intended for through the drainage system.
Now please explain how that would supposedly have happened, or admit that you shot the bull and shut up.
"I may shoot any bull I want and my opponent must then show that it´s bull"
is a very comfortable attitude, for sure.
But it´s also one that absolutely sucks.
Your fellow True Believer maintained that gas would leak out to those it was not intended for through the drainage system he thought to have detected in a construction document.
Challenged to expand on his contention, he tried to throw the ball into my court.
And he did that almost as unconvincingly as the Reverend.
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Burden of Proof...
Well, considering that nobody bothered with technical explanations prior to Pressac in answer to the objections of the Deniers, I think a skeptical attitude is warranted, especially when something doesn't quite add up. It seems to me that Sailor was only asking a question not making a claim. If you don't know the answer that is okay, but that doesn't make it an invalid question.
Re: Burden of Proof...
I´d say that shows how little such "technical explanations" matter to historiography.Scott Smith wrote:Well, considering that nobody bothered with technical explanations prior to Pressac in answer to the objections of the Deniers, I think a skeptical attitude is warranted,
Whether Smith likes it or not, the details of a murder weapon are a footnote to historiography.
And to criminal justice they only matter to the extent that they provide hints about the murderer´s identity.
If something didn´t "quite add up", as "Revisionists" pretend, this would only mean that knowledge of certain irrelevant minor details is incomplete.Scott Smith wrote:especially when something doesn't quite add up.
Haggling about such details thus wouldn´t get the Revs anywhere even if they had a point under technical aspects.
It wouldn´t make up for their woeful inability to plausibly account otherwise for the fate of millions of people who according to all existing evidence were murdered at a number of places where they disappeared from the face of the earth.
Let´s recall what Smith is talking about:Scott Smith wrote:It seems to me that Sailor was only asking a question not making a claim. If you don't know the answer that is okay, but that doesn't make it an invalid question.
Sailor wrote:What provisions were taken by the members of the "Sonderkommandos" to avoid spreading of the poisonous HCN gas throughout the building via the drainage system, while allegedly 2000 - 3000 naked people, men, women and children, were inside the morgue being processed?
If your fellow True Believer´s questions are to be considered "valid" within the context of an academic discussion about the sex of the angels, he should first of all substantiate the underlying assumptions.Roberto wrote:Assuming the True Believer knows something about architecture (which I don't), the questions would be:
i) How would the gas spread throughout the building through the drainage system, assuming there was one ?
ii) How long would that take to happen? If no longer than the time it took to a) gas and b) ventilate, no problem.
As simple as that.
- Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Burden of Proof...
Sorry, but the notion that technical considerations don't matter to historiography is no more valid upon the facts than the Inquisition refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.Roberto wrote:I´d say that shows how little such "technical explanations" matter to historiography.Scott Smith wrote:Well, considering that nobody bothered with technical explanations prior to Pressac in answer to the objections of the Deniers, I think a skeptical attitude is warranted,
Whether Smith likes it or not, the details of a murder weapon are a footnote to historiography.
Perhaps they offer some introductory courses in historiography in Portugal.