zyklon-b

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Post by Sailor » 06 Aug 2002 05:33

Says Roberto:
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?
No

Roberto:
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.
So then you are telling us that the gas could not travel through the drainage piping? And why not?

Roberto:
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.
Ah, Roberto, you should be a little trustful!
We discussed this on the other board, Crayon brought it up. Now they closed shop and unfotunately I did not make a copy. Sorry. It was in connection with Leuchter's Report. When I find it I will let you know. I have to go through van Pelt's testimony. But on the other hand why the effort, it doesn't work, and the guardian doesn't believe it anyway.
I thought to help you and give you a hint for a solution.

Roberto:
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.
You tell us. We want to learn. What is that thing used for in morgue 2? I don't have the foggiest.

The item was added handwritten, the rest is typed. It may have been added later. On a listing like this all revisions and additions are usually identified, initialed and dated. This was not done here .

Also: The list calls it a 'Drahtnetzvorrichtung'. There is no such a word. The correct word woud be 'Maschendrahtvorrichtung'. It seems that the fellow who added it was not too familiar with the German language.

Any idea who may have added this item to the inventory list?

Roberto:
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
So many? How did you arrive at that figure, guardian?

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Post by Sailor » 06 Aug 2002 13:48

Hans wrote:
Sailor wrote:Pressac in his popular account "Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers," writes (page 264):
This study already demonstrates the complete bankruptcy of the traditional (Holocaust) history ... a history based for the most part on testimonies, assembled according to the need of the moment, truncated to fit an arbitrary truth and sprinkled with a few German documents of uneven value and without any connection with one another.
Jean-Claude Pressac clearly would not be permitted to post on this forum.
Sailor, thats nonsense. Pressac does not deny the Holocaust. In fact, his study has demonstrated the reality of homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz.
Did I misquote? Then what did Pressac say on page 264?

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Post by Sailor » 06 Aug 2002 15:21

Scott asks: What evidence for homicidal uses?

Answers Hans:
According to Pressac:

"Page 231
--------

Etc, etc
Are you telling us that because Pressac says so and because this is also listed at the Nizkook site morgue 1 was used as a homicidal gas chamber, and that you concur with this? And that this is evidence that morgue 1 was used homicidally?

The ideas expressed by Pressac have been thoroughly discussed by Faurisson
http://vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Faurisson1.html

For example Hans listed:

"Leichenkeller 1 was fitted with a 'Gasdichte Tür/Gas-Tight Door'."

These doors were manufactured and installed in Germany for air raid shelters, Hans. Are we to believe now that air raid shelters then were also used as homicidal gas chambers? We had hundreds of these in my home town. And I had no idea!

By the way, showerheads are usually attached to and supported from the pipes that supply the water, not directly from wood block inserts in the ceiling.

It is normal procedure to place these wooden blocks for mounting pipes, electrical conduits, ducts and fixtures into the form before pouring concrete. To do this afterwards is very tough, especially then, when the only way was manually with hammer and chisel.

Wooden inserts are normally not listed in such inventories, neither are bolts, nuts and nails.

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Post by Sailor » 06 Aug 2002 16:56

Hans:
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)
I must be a lousy Holocaust denier, Hans: I haven't read any of these two articles. And I also had reservations about the idea of morgue 1 as an air raid shelter. The ceiling consisted of some 20cm reinforced concrete only, in no way could this protect one from a bomb hit. Also: Who wants to spend an hour or so together with a couple of dead bodies during an air raid? Yuck!

An air raid shelter like morgue 1 however would protect against flying shrapnell from exploding anti aircraft shells (and there was a lot of it) and bombs exploding at some distance. It probably served to give shelter to the stokers who were working above. And they were used to the sight of dead bodies and probably didn't mind. It makes sense to me!

Hans:
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.
Hans is speculating. How on earth does anyone know 60 years after the event what Schreiber could have known, should have known or could not have known? On a construction site like Auschwitz most people working there know what is going on.

Says Hans about the holes:
Actually they found the holes in the ceiling, which even Prof. Van Pelt in his second expert report admitted:
[…]
During the Irving trial van Pelt sent a special team to Auschwitz to find those holes. Irving for sure would bring these up during the trial and they needed evidence. They spent weeks. Result: They didn't find no holes!
And van Pelt admitted this in court.

These evil deniers right away jumped on this: Ha, no holes! and I am not surprised by his second report. Imagine: With no holes in the ceiling, how would they get the Zyklon B down into the morgue? The whole Auschwitz/Gas-Chamber theory would collapse, Lipstedt would loose the case. Van Pelt had to come up with another 'proof of evidence' for these holes, after all he was on the Lipsted side. And he then produced with the help from Daniel Keren, Ph.D., Jamie McCarthy, and Harry Mazal OBE from the Holocaust-History gang his second report.

Van Pelt is very careful with his wording about this paper: 'which appears to be conclusive evidence'.
Could he really have said anything else?

I am not a hole expert and have to leave this to more qualified people.

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Post by Hans » 06 Aug 2002 19:58

Sailor wrote:
Roberto:
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.
You tell us. We want to learn.
The four wire mesh insertion devices went through four holes in the roof of the gas-chamber in crematorium II and were used as Zyklon-B introduction vent. This device is described in detail by the Auschwitz prisoners Michal Kula and Henryk Tauber and the former Auschwitz SS officer Josef Erber. It was drawn by the former Auschwitz prisoners David Olere and Yehuda Bacon.
What is that thing used for in morgue 2?
There is evidence that these wire mesh insertion devices were actually installed into the so called "Leichenkeller 1", the homicidal gas-chamber. The author of the document did in fact switch the lines "room 1: corpse cellar" and "room 2: corpse cellar" when he wrote in the figures for the "Zapfhähne". Since this entry is located very close to the next entry he made, the wire mesh introduction devices, it is very likely that he did the same mistake again.

Notice that the leading Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno has discussed the document in his work Auschwitz: Das Ende einer Legende. Historisch-technische Überlegungen, apparently he consideres this to be a refutation of Pressac. There, Mattogno explains that Pressac says that the wire mesh insertion device was installed into "corpse cellar 1" and not into "Corpse cellar 2". Mattogno adds that this is wrong, the device was installed into "corpse cellar 2" according to the document. He fails however to address Pressac's arguments why he believes that the device was actually installed into the other cellar and why he thinks that the person who wrote the document simply switched the lines. Imagine: In his "refutation" of Pressac Mattogno failed to address Pressac's arguments!

Mattogno must have realized that he has simply ignored Pressac's reasoning and so he tries it again in the essay Leichenkeller di Birkenau: Gasschutzräume o Entwesungsräume? (italian). Note the nonsense in the (rethoric) question!

Hidden in footnote 17,
Mattogno wrote: Si tratta del "Verzeichnis der Einrichtungsgegenstände" della Übergabeverhandlung del crematorio II un modulo quadrettato prestampato in cui nelle righe orizzontali del margine sinistro è indicata la designazione dei locali, nelle colonne verticali della parte destra la designazione degli oggetti di arredamento. I Leichenkener 1 e 2 figurano nelle prime due righe dell'inventario. Pressac, dal confronto con la pianta 2197 del crematorio si è accorto che nella colonna verticale "Zapfhähne" le cifre relative al Leichenkener 1 sono attribuite al Leichenkener 2 e viceversa e ne ha dedotto che una tale inversione èstata fatta anche nelle colonne "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" e "Holzblenden", perciò ha attribuito questi dispositivi al Leichenkener 1. (Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, pp. 429-430). L'argomento èinfondato, perché nel documento sono state invertite soltanto le cifre di questa colonna. Le cifre della colonna relativa alle lampade sono infatti attribuite correttamente.
This is actually an unfounded argument. The column for the lamps is located on the left side of the document, very close to the lines "corpse cellar" 1 and 2, so it was quite easy for the author to write the lamps into the correct line. However, the wrongly attributed Zapfhähne and the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung are both located on the right side of the document, therefore it was very easy for the author to make a mistake with one column, if he already made a mistake with the other column. In this case, he wrote the Zapfhähne into the wrong lines and as a consequence also the Drahtnetzschiebvorrichtungen!

Pressac's thesis is very reasonable, and in contrast to Mattogno's unfounded argument as quoted above also corroborating with numerous other pieces of evidence, for instance the aerial photos which show four dark structures on the roof of "corpse cellar 1" but not on the roof of "corpse cellar 2". Mattogno's ignores this argument of course, in his "refutation". How typical!
The item was added handwritten, the rest is typed.
Wrong. Much of the document is handwritten. In fact, all significant "Zeilen" (lines?) on the left are handwritten. Take a look at the document:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... inventory/

It may have been added later.
This is no argument. The documents which "prove" the bombing of Dresden may have been produced later. In fact, every document that proves something may have been produced later. Do you agree that your unproven claim is no argument, Sailor?

You have to back up your claims with evidence.
On a listing like this all revisions and additions are usually identified, initialed and dated. This was not done here .
It was done here. March 31, 1943 is the date of the addings according to the documents. The name of the initials of the author should appear on the first page of the transfer documents.
Also: The list calls it a 'Drahtnetzvorrichtung'.
Actually, the list calls it Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung or Drahtnetzeinschubvorrichtung.
Any idea who may have added this item to the inventory list?
Im afraid not, but Mattogno has written a nice, little book in italian: La Zentralbauleitung der Waffen-SS und Polizei Auschwitz. You find in this book a long list of the people who worked in the central construction office and could have prepared the inventory.

best regards,

Hans
Last edited by Hans on 06 Aug 2002 23:50, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Post by Hans » 06 Aug 2002 20:46

Sailor wrote:Scott asks: What evidence for homicidal uses?

Answers Hans:
According to Pressac:

"Page 231
--------

Etc, etc
Are you telling us that because Pressac says so and because this is also listed at the Nizkook site morgue 1 was used as a homicidal gas chamber, and that you concur with this?
I posted "evidence for homicidal uses" as requested by Scott.
And that this is evidence that morgue 1 was used homicidally?
Well, I've never seen a refutation of Pressac's line of argumentation.
The ideas expressed by Pressac have been thoroughly discussed by Faurisson
http://vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Faurisson1.html
This is an article about Pressac's second book, not about Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers where the quotation comes from. Faurisson is far away from refuting Pressac. In fact, all what he says is
Faurisson wrote: Ich verweise hier auf meine Rezension, in der ich hervorhob, daß das Vorhandensein gasdichter Türen sowie von Duschen in einem Krematorium eine ganz normale Sache ist (R.H.R., Nr. 3, S. 95 - 99). [WHATS THAT??? - Hans] Halten wir übrigens fest, daß in dem deutschen Dokument nicht von vierzehn (falschen) Duschen, sondern von vierzehn echten Duschköpfen die Rede ist.
Obviously, Faurisson fails to address Pressac's arguments why the shower heads were dummy showers. As his comrades, he carefully avoids the discussion. He simply claims they were real. Try it again, Sailor!
For example Hans listed:

"Leichenkeller 1 was fitted with a 'Gasdichte Tür/Gas-Tight Door'."

These doors were manufactured and installed in Germany for air raid shelters, Hans. Are we to believe now that air raid shelters then were also used as homicidal gas chambers?
Of course not, Sailor. But you have not understand Pressac's argument. He doesn't say that a room with gas tight door is a homicidal gas-chamber. In fact, he states:

"It is not possible _with these documents alone_ to prove that it was 'homicidal."

Clearly, your argument has nothing to do with Pressacs or my reasoning.I haven't claimed that a gas tight door makes a room being a homicidal gas-chamber nor has Pressac, in fact he clearly stated that this is not the case!

It is normal procedure to place these wooden blocks for mounting pipes, electrical conduits, ducts and fixtures into the form before pouring concrete.
Thanks for this translation from the Rudolf Report. You will have noticed that Rudolf - as Graf, Mattogno and Faurisson - fails to address the evidence produced by Pressac that the showers were dummy showers. As said, I have yet to see a refutation of Pressac's proof.

By the way, Pressac's attempt to establish an irrefutable physical proof for the holocaust in Auschwitz is absurd in my opinion. But that's exactly what holocaust denier claim is nessecary, and that's where Pressac came from, as you know perhaps.

The holocaust in Auschwitz is proven by a convergence of evidence, by the couple of documents mentioned by Pressac, by many more, corroborating documents, by numerous eyewitness accounts, by photographical, physical and chemical evidence.

When we talk about the bombing of Dresden, we are not talking about one single proof, that Pressac and the Holocaust denier wish to see for Auschwitz gas chambers, we are talking about a convergence of evidence: eyewitnesses, documents and photographs. The same must be true for Auschwitz.
Last edited by Hans on 06 Aug 2002 23:23, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Post by Hans » 06 Aug 2002 21:15

Hans:
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.
Hans is speculating. How on earth does anyone know 60 years after the event what Schreiber could have known, should have known or could not have known? On a construction site like Auschwitz most people working there know what is going on.
Huh?
Actually I think Hans made a very good point. Schreiber claimed in the alleged interview that he doesn't remember holes in the roof and he claimed that he it didn't know anything about gas chambers in the crematoria and that it would have been impossible for the SS to build them. Both claims are wrong. There were holes, there were gas chambers.
German "revisionists" told me the following rule: Sachbeweis vor Dokumentbeweis. Means: Physical evidence is stronger than documentary than testimonial. Schreiber's testimony is refuted by physical and documentary evidence. His testimony is false. So why made Schreiber these false claims? This is what I asked myself. If I am a "revisionist scholar" (like you) I have to conclude that Schreiber is a liar (remember that you have called Münch a liar without a shred of evidence).
But I take also other possibilities into account. One explanation for Schreiber's false testimony could be that he was senile when he was interviewed and/or that his memory was manipulated by the "revisionist scholar" Lüftl. Or that he had hardly anything to do with the construction of the crematoria. Or Schreiber was a liar.
Whatever is true, what is certain is that Schreiber has zero credibility as witness on the purpose of the corpse cellars in Birkenau.

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Post by Sailor » 07 Aug 2002 06:08

Hans about Kremer:
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.
And Roberto:
What was this "special action", so much worse than Dante's Inferno, that Kremer was talking about?



The German word 'Sonderaktion' could mean many things. Exterminationists claim that the SS used this word as a secret code word for homicidal gassing of people. There is no proof for a list of such secret words. In this case it might mean the selection of the arrivals for the work group.

Kremer was only for 3 months in Auschwitz. During this time there was a terrible typhus epedemic, with alsmost 15 000 dead. Kremer might be describing this when he was referring to Auschwitz (Pressac 1993, p.145).

Can the originals of Kremer's diary and the protocols of his Münster trial now be viewed? This was not always possible. According to the German § 185 Abs.5 RiStBV viewing of the trial files by private persons were in principal 'verboten'.

There are questions concerning the authenticity of the diary, I have different versions.
Also some trial details as published by Auschwitz busybody Langes-Bein about Kremer seem to be questionable.

Also: I am right now reviewing the German Nazi trials, starting with Auschwitz in 1965.
Any advice where I could find some of the official trial summaries etc on the Internet? I would greatly appreciate this. These trials, probably because they are all in German, are not too well known here in the US.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 07 Aug 2002 14:49

Sailor wrote:Hans about Kremer:
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.
And Roberto:
What was this "special action", so much worse than Dante's Inferno, that Kremer was talking about?



The German word 'Sonderaktion' could mean many things.
Precisely, since it has no inherent meaning. That's why it was a logical choice as a euphemism by the Nazis.
Exterminationists claim that the SS used this word as a secret code word for homicidal gassing of people. There is no proof for a list of such secret words. In this case it might mean the selection of the arrivals for the work group.
Historians have proven that the SS used the term in that way. No list of secret words was necessary, but you get credit for inventing one of the more outrageous excuses for denying fact I've seen in a while!
Kremer was only for 3 months in Auschwitz. During this time there was a terrible typhus epedemic, with alsmost 15 000 dead. Kremer might be describing this when he was referring to Auschwitz (Pressac 1993, p.145).
Let's look at how ridiculous this claim is.

Here's Kremer's diary from 9/2/42 again:

"September 2, 1942. Was present for the first time at a special action at 3
a.m. By comparison Dante’s inferno seems almost a comedy. Auschwitz is justly called an extermination camp!"

So "Special Action" was an event, that Kremer could be present for, and which occurred at 3 a.m. No connection to typhus.

Let's look at September 5th!

"At noon was present at a special action in the women’s
camp (Moslems)—the most horrible of all horrors. Hschf Thilo, military
surgeon, was right when he said to me today that we are located here in the anus mundi. In the evening at about 8 p.m. another special action with a draft from Holland. men compete to take part in such actions as they get additional rations—1 /5 litre vodka, 5 cigarettes, 100 grammes of sausage and bread. Today and tomorrow (Sunday) on duty."


Again, he's describing an event, that is "most horrible of all horrors", one which the SS reward men for taking part in. No possible tie in to typhus.

And finally, let's look at October 18, 1942.

"October 18, 1942. In wet and cold weather was on this Sunday morning present at the 11th special action (from Holland). Terrible scenes when 3 women begged merely to have their lives spared."

The plain words of the diary make no sense in the context of typhus, and total sense in terms of murder.

Of course we don't need to rely on Kremer's written words alone, since he provided detailed testimony about the entries after the war.
Can the originals of Kremer's diary and the protocols of his Münster trial now be viewed? This was not always possible. According to the German § 185 Abs.5 RiStBV viewing of the trial files by private persons were in principal 'verboten'.
So what?
There are questions concerning the authenticity of the diary, I have different versions.
There are no questions about the authenticity of the diary, and you do not have different versions.

You can parrot these denier canards all you want, but you'll have significantly less success here than you did at CODOH.

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Post by Sailor » 07 Aug 2002 16:53

Charles Bunch:
There are no questions about the authenticity of the diary, and you do not have different versions.
And how do you know this?
You can parrot these denier canards all you want, but you'll have significantly less success here than you did at CODOH.
Now, now, Mr. Charles Bunch!

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 07 Aug 2002 17:26

Sailor wrote:Charles Bunch:
There are no questions about the authenticity of the diary, and you do not have different versions.
And how do you know this?

Because none have been shown.

You can parrot these denier canards all you want, but you'll have significantly less success here than you did at CODOH.
Now, now, Mr. Charles Bunch!
[/quote]
Now, now yourself Mr. "Sailor".

A cursory look at virtually any post you make reveals a falsehood.

Your claim that there are different versions of Kremer's diary is a lie.

Your claim that Van Pelt sent a team to Auschwitz to find the holes is a lie.

I note you had no response on your "Sonderaktion" nonsense.

What would Hannover say?

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Post by Sailor » 09 Aug 2002 00:38

Mr. Bunch:
Your claim that there are different versions of Kremer's diary is a lie.
Can you back this up?

A cursory look at virtually any post you make reveals a falsehood.
I am not perfect.

Your claim that Van Pelt sent a team to Auschwitz to find the holes is a lie.
On this one you are correct Mr. Bunch, I made a mistake. The team that inspected the holes during the Irving trial was independent and had nothing to do with van Pelt.
What would Hannover say?
Ask him. He posts on http://www.air-photo.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.html
I don't like to talk about people behind their back.
I note you had no response on your "Sonderaktion" nonsense.
Well, Mr. Bunch, it is like this. I have one opinion, you have another, ok, let's leave it at that. There is nothing to add. You consider my opinion as nonsense, fine! How do you think I consider yours??

The subject of this thread is 'Zyklon B'. If there is nothing to add to this I am over and out from this thread.

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Post by Hans » 09 Aug 2002 07:56

Sailor wrote:
What would Hannover say?
Ask him. He posts on http://www.air-photo.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.html
Well, whenever "von Hannover"'s lies are revealed, he checks his password for the "Moderator" and deletes it. I know this because that's what he has done with my postings, when I revealed his known lies and falsehood about "roofs", Bendel, Tauber and Broad. Of course, dear Sailor, that's nothing unusual if you discuss the holocaust in a forum moderated by holocaust deniers. They defend their "truths" with all means - and frankly, I can understand that they have to do this!
I don't like to talk about people behind their back.
Hannover is the king of air-photo.com. This is his own Reich, where he can say whatever nonsense and lies he want without fearing that his lies are revealed. He will never leave his Reich, except for posting his lies and falsehoods in the other forum moderated by Holocaust deniers, the C"OD"OH forum. In forums not moderated by Holocaust deniers he is just another "revísionist" liar, so why should he go there? He knows that he cannot score in a forum where he cannot censor his opponents posts.

Sailor, before you leave this thread, could you please answer Roberto's question and explain the purpose of the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung in the "Leichenkeller 1" or if you want, in "Leichenkeller 2" if it was not the wire mesh Zyklon-B introduction device that his mentioned by numerous eyewitnesses and which presence is confirmed by the SS ground photo that shows little chimnies on the roof of the gas-chamber, by aerial photos which show 4 dark structures on the gas-chambers's roof and by holes in the roof that were made into the roof when the concrete was poured?

best regards,

Hans

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 09 Aug 2002 14:58

Sailor wrote:Mr. Bunch:
Your claim that there are different versions of Kremer's diary is a lie.
Can you back this up?
Yes. No evidence exists that there is more than one.

But you can't back up your assertion. It is a denier canard.
A cursory look at virtually any post you make reveals a falsehood.
I am not perfect.
With effort I'm sure you can make it 100%.
Your claim that Van Pelt sent a team to Auschwitz to find the holes is a lie.
On this one you are correct Mr. Bunch, I made a mistake. The team that inspected the holes during the Irving trial was independent and had nothing to do with van Pelt.
What team would that be?

What would Hannover say?
Ask him. He posts on http://www.air-photo.org/wwwboard/wwwboard.html
I don't like to talk about people behind their back.
He not only posts, he moderates. And in his usual fashion he censors posts because that is the only way he can prevent being made a fool of.

I note you had no response on your "Sonderaktion" nonsense.
Well, Mr. Bunch, it is like this. I have one opinion, you have another, ok, let's leave it at that. There is nothing to add. You consider my opinion as nonsense, fine! How do you think I consider yours??
Opinions are irrelevant. It's what can be supported with evidence that counts. Your "opinions" were wild, desperate attempts to deny clear evidence for the meaning of the term "Sonderaktion" in Kremer's diary.
The subject of this thread is 'Zyklon B'. If there is nothing to add to this I am over and out from this thread.
Sail away!

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”