zyklon-b

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Nice try...

#106

Post by Scott Smith » 03 Aug 2002, 19:50

Hans wrote:Hi Scott!
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?
Is that your refution of Pressac's gas-chamber proof or - what I honestly hope - something else?
Who said I was refuting it? I merely asked a question that I found puzzling.
:wink:

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 16:48
Location: Germany

Re: Nice try...

#107

Post by Hans » 04 Aug 2002, 12:54

Ach so, Scott! It was something else. :wink:
I'm curious... Why would anyone order wooden dummy showerheads on an invoice? Wouldn't you just make these in-house?
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.

More problems with Pressac's reasoning or can we note that there is proof for homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau?


Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002, 04:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

#108

Post by Sailor » 04 Aug 2002, 18:33

Says Roberto:
What "efforts of the SS especially in the area to prevent epedemics and of healthcare" is Sailor talking about, by the way?
There were desinfestations, fumigations, efforts to control epedemics. There were several hospitals. A large medical staff.

Says Scott:
It seems to me that a fumigation every so often of the morgue, with or without bodies, would be prudent and normal. Why not?
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.

Says Roberto:
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.
I don't know. It is up to the exterminationists to come up with an explanation, not to the critics.

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.

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 16:48
Location: Germany

#109

Post by Hans » 04 Aug 2002, 20:03

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.
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)

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.

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.
Actually they found the holes in the ceiling, which even Prof. Van Pelt in his second expert report admitted:
Prof. 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."
Source: http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... oles.shtml

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002, 04:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

#110

Post by Sailor » 04 Aug 2002, 22:15

Says Robert
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!
What was this "special action", so much worse than Dante's Inferno, that Kremer was talking about?
There are several versions of Kremer's diary floating around.

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.

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 16:48
Location: Germany

#111

Post by Hans » 04 Aug 2002, 23:40

Sailor wrote:Says Robert
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!
What was this "special action", so much worse than Dante's Inferno, that Kremer was talking about?
There are several versions of Kremer's diary floating around.
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.

For those who are interested, Faurisson's article is taken apart in Zimmerman's Holocaust Denial (<-- Click!)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Nice try...

#112

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Aug 2002, 02:07

Hans wrote:
Scott wrote:I'm curious... Why would anyone order wooden dummy showerheads on an invoice? Wouldn't you just make these in-house?
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.

More problems with Pressac's reasoning or can we note that there is proof for homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau?
Well, it is quite possible that there was a working shower in the Krema basement--good source of hot water there.
:)

But this doesn't explain why the Allies installed fake showerheads in the morgue of Dachau.
:mrgreen:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#113

Post by Roberto » 05 Aug 2002, 04:01

Sailor wrote: There were desinfestations, fumigations, efforts to control epedemics.
To ensure the functioning of the camp, sure. Not out of any consideration for the inmates.
Sailor wrote: There were several hospitals.
Really? Tell us more about them, Believer. What were conditions there like? What was the mortality/survival rate among those taken there?
Sailor wrote: A large medical staff.
What is it the True Believer calls a "large medical staff"? And what did they do for their patients?
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.
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?
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.
Sailor wrote:I don't know. It is up to the exterminationists to come up with an explanation, not to the critics.
Trying to run away from my questions, old man?

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.
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.
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: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.
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: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.
A presentation on an Irving-sponsored show leaves me cold, jinxed as it will certainly be to be to fit certain pre-conceived notions.

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.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#114

Post by Roberto » 05 Aug 2002, 04:05

Sailor wrote:Says Robert
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!
What was this "special action", so much worse than Dante's Inferno, that Kremer was talking about?
There are several versions of Kremer's diary floating around.
Are there?

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".
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.
Thanks, not interested. I´ve seen enough of VHO to know that the only nonsense is to be found in their "dissection".

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

A Simple (and self-evident) Thesis...

#115

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Aug 2002, 04:12

Roberto wrote:
Sailor wrote:I don't know. It is up to the exterminationists to come up with an explanation, not to the critics.
Trying to run away from my questions, old man?

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.
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.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Disease Control 101

#116

Post by Roberto » 05 Aug 2002, 04:33

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
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
Which doesn't mean that is where they went, even if the invoice was correct.
Which means that the burden of proof for the showerheads having been placed anywhere else than "Leichenkeller 1" lies with the True Believer.

Anything you can show us, Reverend?
Scott Smith wrote:It might if the document(s) were true-facts and not merely something retrospectively fulminant.
What´s that supposed to mean, True Believer?

Squealing "forgery" now?
Roberto wrote:
Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:A "Leichenkeller" is a corpse cellar. The place where they keep the stiffs.
Which doesn't mean that is what it was ultimately used for.
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:No, the Nazis could have originally called it the Conservatory or the Romper Room--but this doesn't make it so,
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! :lol:
Smith wrote:nor that it was always so used as intended (whatever that was).
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 ...
Roberto wrote:
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.
What's the poet trying to tell us?
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:
Scott wrote:And what did they do with "normal" morality and disease victims?
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:Cremate them when? After how long? How ripe?
As soon as possible, I suppose.

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?
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.
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.
Roberto wrote:And what evidence is there to such "less nefarious" use?
Scott wrote:What evidence for homicidal uses?
A number of detailed and coincident eyewitness testimonials and defendants´depositions, corroborated by documentary and physical evidence, IIRC.
Roberto wrote:
Smith wrote:Occam's Razor would hold that a simpler explanation has a greater likelihood of being true.
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?
Scott wrote:You're still assuming an awful lot.
Very lame, buddy.

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.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: A Simple (and self-evident) Thesis...

#117

Post by Roberto » 05 Aug 2002, 04:37

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sailor wrote:I don't know. It is up to the exterminationists to come up with an explanation, not to the critics.
Trying to run away from my questions, old man?

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.
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.
:)
Cut out the crap, Reverend.

"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.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Burden of Proof...

#118

Post by Scott Smith » 05 Aug 2002, 05:59

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.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Burden of Proof...

#119

Post by Roberto » 05 Aug 2002, 11:18

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,
I´d say that shows how little such "technical explanations" matter to historiography.

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.
Scott Smith wrote:especially when something doesn't quite add up.
If something didn´t "quite add up", as "Revisionists" pretend, this would only mean that knowledge of certain irrelevant minor details is incomplete.

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.
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.
:)
Let´s recall what Smith is talking about:
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?
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.
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.

As simple as that.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Burden of Proof...

#120

Post by Scott Smith » 06 Aug 2002, 03:18

Roberto wrote:
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,
I´d say that shows how little such "technical explanations" matter to historiography.

Whether Smith likes it or not, the details of a murder weapon are a footnote to historiography.
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.

Perhaps they offer some introductory courses in historiography in Portugal.
:)

Image

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”