"Second" Report of Robert Jan Van Pelt

[SKcz]

This thread will be about report which was quite unknown to me.

I know this report prepared for Irving/Lipstadt trial
http://hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van

But I came across another report which you can find here
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/vanpelt/

This report looks mostly like a response to this critique from Germar Rudolf
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CritiqueGray.html

I was quite shocked by this report, aside the usual attacks on G. Rudolf or on revisionists, aside all the usual lies about revisionists, I was shocked by the rest of the report which is consited from absurd claims or from long refuted claims, here are some examples: (emphasies added)

About relocation of stairs needed for better access to crematoria because of morgues which prostruded above ground

Which brings us to the question if the location of crematoria 2 and 3 in Birkenau would have made it necessary to relocate the entrance. While the use of semi-basements for the morgue did provide some difficulties for vehicles seeking access from the side of the station, it did not cause more than a detour of a little over 120 meters (morgue 2, which caused the obstruction, jutted 49 meters west from the footprint of the main building, and it was some 9 meters wide)

About inventory document regarding the morgues and about wire mesh columns.

in a second inventory attached as an appendix for that same morgue 1 four Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung(en) or wire mesh introduction devices, and four Holzblenden or wooden covers.[..]the four wire mesh introduction devices with their wooden covers mentioned in the inventory of March 31, 1943.

I do not know what possible "ordinary mortuary use" these wire mesh introduction devices could have served, and Rudolf ignores them. It seems, however, very likely that these Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen are identical to the four wire mesh gas columns which Henryk Tauber and Michael Kula described in detail in their 1945 affidavits

About evidence for air-raid shelter use in crematoria

And, once again, there is not a single document that directly refers to such a use of those spaces as air raid shelters, and neither is there a single piece of eyewitness evidence.

About spy-hole in gas-tight door

also letter of March 31, 1943 with its reference to a Gastür - yet one would wonder why this door would need a spy-hole of double 8mm glass.

About Zyklon B introduction holes

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.

According to eyewitness evidence which seems confirmed by aerial photos taken in 1944, these four gas columns were connected to four openings in the roof of the gas chamber, and were with removable covers - the four Holzblenden listed in the inventory.

About Nazi code language

He also suggests that the designation "SB," commonly known to refer to Sonderbehandlung or "special treatment," which also means killing during the war, in fact refers to some infirmary.

About what happened to inmates who had died of "natural" causes. (really extraordinary explanation and true gem)

Which brings us to the question if, after their conversion to killing centers, crematoria 2 and 3 were meant to store the bodies of those who had died of "natural" causes, which according to Rudolf "amounted to thousands of bodies." (p. 17). Rudolf does not provide any evidence that this indeed happened, and I do not know of any evidence that corpses of people who had died in the camp were stored in these crematoria. In fact, given the great incineration capacity of these buildings, and crematoria 4 and 5, there was no need for morgues. Even if the camp would have achieved its intended population of 140,000, and even if there would have been a repetition of the 1% daily mortality that occurred during the typhus epidemic of August 1942, the combined incineration capacity of crematoria 2-5 of over 4,000 corpses per day would have more than sufficient to take care of the corpses.

These are only a few examples. Did anybody here see this shocking piece of text before? I really wonder, is this man serious? Why he do this, why he lies so obviously? Why he makes such an absurd claims and why he lied so many times when his lies could be easily exposed with documents which he verbally falsified in his report to support his agenda? Why he lie when his lies could be easily exposed by his witness testimonies which is the most imporatant evidence for Pelt? Why he lies when his lies could be easily exposed by material evidence? Why he lies about missing evidence in cases mentioned above when he as an "expert" must know very well that evidence is not missing? And finally, why he lies that Rudolf ignore some evidence when Rudolf clearly adressed this evidence in article which is quoted by Pelt (and even in previous articles dated to 90´s) and Pelt has no problem to present refuted evidence again?

I don´t assume that he don´t have the knowledge, he must know all these basic facts as an "expert", so I really wonder why he do this, he must know that what he claims is not true, but he has no problem to lie, I can´t understand how is this possible for normal human being. He just expect that most of the readers are uneducated or that they will don´t waste time to verify his claims and the negligible part consited from educated peoples are too small to be worry about false claims and lies? I really wonder.

[Mkk]

Laughable to see Van Pelt repeat all the old arguments. Van Pelt's main thesis' are debunked in Mattogeno's case for sanity book.

It is indeed strange Pelt rely's on arguments that were demolished 20 years ago. Anyone familiar with revisionist research knows that. Brief refutation for our new readers:

Which brings us to the question if the location of crematoria 2 and 3 in Birkenau would have made it necessary to relocate the entrance. While the use of semi-basements for the morgue did provide some difficulties for vehicles seeking access from the side of the station, it did not cause more than a detour of a little over 120 meters (morgue 2, which caused the obstruction, jutted 49 meters west from the footprint of the main building, and it was some 9 meters wide)

in a second inventory attached as an appendix for that same morgue 1 four Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung(en) or wire mesh introduction devices, and four Holzblenden or wooden covers.[..]the four wire mesh introduction devices with their wooden covers mentioned in the inventory of March 31, 1943.

I do not know what possible "ordinary mortuary use" these wire mesh introduction devices could have served, and Rudolf ignores them. It seems, however, very likely that these Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen are identical to the four wire mesh gas columns which Henryk Tauber and Michael Kula described in detail in their 1945 affidavits

also letter of March 31, 1943 with its reference to a Gastür - yet one would wonder why this door would need a spy-hole of double 8mm glass.

These are rip offs of Pressac's criminal traces and have been covered in the above mentioned case for sanity.

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.

Covered by Mattogeno in "Auchwitz lies".

According to eyewitness evidence which seems confirmed by aerial photos taken in 1944

Amusing to see him rely on that 1944 photo, which was covered by John Ball many years before.

He also suggests that the designation "SB," commonly known to refer to Sonderbehandlung or "special treatment," which also means killing during the war, in fact refers to some infirmary.

See Mattogeno's "Special Tratement in Auschwitz".

the combined incineration capacity of crematoria 2-5 of over 4,000 corpses per day would have more than sufficient to take care of the corpses.

The in-depth calculations of Mattogeno in his upcoming work on cremations show that it could have cremated about 1000 corpses a day at maximum. Anyway, historians now admit these rooms were originally planned as crematoria, and were obviously originally planned with morgues, so the argument makes little sense whichever way you look at it.

[Zulu]

Laughable to see Van Pelt repeat all the old arguments. Van Pelt's main thesis' are debunked in Mattogeno's case for sanity book.

It is indeed strange Pelt rely's on arguments that were demolished 20 years ago. Anyone familiar with revisionist research knows that. Brief refutation for our new readers:

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.

Covered by Mattogeno in "Auchwitz lies".

According to eyewitness evidence which seems confirmed by aerial photos taken in 1944

Amusing to see him rely on that 1944 photo, which was covered by John Ball many years before.

Concerning the holes issue, it is clear that those openings never appears on the plans of crematories KII and III even on those updated months after the beginning of the alleged gassing operations there.
See my post on that point
I have a huge experience on building installations and I know the extreme rigor which led the relation between the Zentralbauleitung of Auschwitz and its subcontractors. So, I assume that the alleged 4 holes on the Kremas'roof represent a feature of such important consequences regarding the ceiling's definition and resistance as well as the amount of manpower needed for their construction and attached costs, that they had to be mandatory mentioned on the drawings corresponding to the buildings KII and III. Those drawings engaged the Huta's responsibility for the conformity of the construction and justified their invoices as subcontractor. So, if the 4 holes were actually realized, Huta couldn't have any drawings updated on October 9th, 1943 which didn't show them.

I am still expecting for some convincing explanation about such omission on the plans. Why such holes were never drawn as they were not supposed to be "criminal traces" a la Pressac for morgues? Actually, they could have passed for innocent artifacts built to provide the natural illumination of the underground rooms L1 and L2 by means of external chimneys on the roof, tall enough in order to avoid direct sun rays on the stored bodies. In French we call it "puit de lumière" (Light's well).

[neugierig]

Zulu, I also have some experience re. holes in a concrete slab, and I hope this will not derail this thread. Structural engineers don't like holes, but if there have to be some, precautions must be taken so as to not jeopardize the integrity of the slab. Round holes are preferred, since there is no danger from cracks originating at corners. But if square/rectangle holes are required, special reenforcing steel must be placed diagonally to the corners to prevent cracking. Depending on the size of the hole, rebar is added around the hole if needed.

We must remember that the original holes supposedly measured 70cm x 70cm, quite the large opening, an engineers nightmare. Those holes have now shrunk to 45cm x 45cm since the “Holes Report” prepared by the Holocaust History crew, no explanation offered as to why they have shrunk. The HH people asked a New York engineering company to prepare a report, here it is.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... ents.shtml

Question: Why did they not ask a structural engineer to accompany them to the site??? And also, this report is imprecise/vague at best. But this is not all, van Pelt wrote at the end of “8.”:

“The two crematoria under development (2 and 3), were retro-actively fitted with homicidal gas chambers.”
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/1

What v.P. is saying is that the holes, originally 70cm x 70cm, were chopped in later and that close to the center support beam, absolute impossible. Here is an article/drawing by McCarthy/Van Alstine showing the original size of the holes:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... o-columns/

Now I know we have been there and back several times, but what I would like to see is a structural engineer take a look at this, one of us, if you will. Is it possible to find one? I have no more connections to the industry, too bad, my awakening came after I quit the construction business and moved.

Zulu, do you have a friend in the business, or would you be able to come up with a drawing showing the requires reenforcing steel, etc., etc.?

Regards
Wilf

[SKcz]

“The two crematoria under development (2 and 3), were retro-actively fitted with homicidal gas chambers.”
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/1

What v.P. is saying is that the holes, originally 70cm x 70cm, were chopped in later and that close to the center support beam, absolute impossible. Here is an article/drawing by McCarthy/Van Alstine showing the original size of the holes:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... o-columns/

Pelt adopted report from Keren, McCarthy and Mazal, and they claims, that holes were casted during the construction:

“Hole 4 can be identified by a pattern in the rebar (Figure 16) at the very northern end of what remains of the roof. […]. Hole 4 can be identified by the unimpeded square opening set in the rebar in 1943. The surrounding edges were shattered by the explosion and the folding of the roof, leaving only the telltale rebar latticework. Its measurements are 0.5×0.5 m. […]. The deliberately looped rebar proves that this hole, and almost certainly the other three, was cast at the time the concrete was poured in January 1943.“

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

If hole no. 4 had been casted during construction, this must apply to all holes, logically. They started new chain of absurdities with this claim and they can´t move back. This claim is of course wrong as can be seen in photo of this hole:



Everybody can see that rods protrudes to the hole, and they were simply bent, some inwards, some outwards, this prove, that holes had not been casted during construction as they falsely claims and I only wonder if they are serious and what "expert" arrived to this absurd conclusion.

No holes, No...

[neugierig]

Well done Skcz. So, Mr. Robert van Pelt has changed his mind, what a surprise! It is this flip-flopping back and forth that gives the story away as a lie, for a lie has many versions, the Truth but one.

Thank you also for posting the picture of the “hole”. When comparing this to the Zucchi drawing, linked to in my previous post, the question must be asked: Where is the reenforcing steel diagonally to the corners, if the holes were formed in before the concrete was placed? No sign of it. Also, Signor Mattogno took pictures of the cracks and blemishes identified as “The Holes” years ago, and my, my, how they have changed, right along with the holocaust story. No mention anymore of the original, 70cm x 70cm size, making a mockery out of the Kula column story with the smaller holes.

It is this we should be concentrating on instead of stepping into the trap set by The Industry and debate the picked through documentation. But that is my opinion only.

Regards
Wilf

[SKcz]

Well done Skcz. So, Mr. Robert van Pelt has changed his mind, what a surprise! It is this flip-flopping back and forth that gives the story away as a lie, for a lie has many versions, the Truth but one.

Robert Jan Van Pelt said

"Today, these four small holes that connected the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys cannot be observed in the ruined remains of the concrete slab.[...]While there is not certainty in this particular matter, it would have been logical to attach at the location where the columns had been some formwork at the bottom of the gas chamber ceiling, and pour some concrete in the holes, and thus restore the slab."

Van Pelt expert report, "Chapter IX, The Leuchter Report," p. 295.
http://holocaustdenialontrial.org/en/tr ... nse/van/ix

And he also said this during examination

Irving: I only wanted to know roughly what size of wire mesh we are talking about, what the width of this column going up to the ceiling was. We have probably got a pretty clear picture of [the] kind of thing it was, larger than a drainpipe.

Van Pelt: Yes. Kula says these columns were around 3 metres high and they [were] 70 metres square.

Irving: 70 metres?

Van Pelt: 70 centimetres.

Irving: The wire mesh columns?

Van Pelt: Yes.

Irving: 70 centimetres is of the order of 2 feet 6 inches?

Van Pelt: Yes, a little less, 2 feet three inches.

Irving: So this hole in the roof or these holes in the roof, how many wire mesh columns were there, four?

Van Pelt: Four.

Irving: So the holes in the roof would have been up to 2 foot 6 inches across?

Van Pelt: Absolutely not, because the whole column may be 2 feet 4 inches, but Zyklon B is only introduced right in the centre piece. The centre piece, we have concentric columns, so ultimately the centre piece can be a rather narrow thing, so the hole through the roof could have been a relatively narrow pipe.

Irving: But we are told here he had a concrete cover with two handles covering this whole, which rather suggests something larger than a tennis ball?

Van Pelt: But the concrete cover, we have a picture of these actual chimneys in the documents. Of course you do not when you create this pipe which comes up out the centre of the wire mesh columns, of course you take a larger kind of little chimney around it.

Justice Gray: As a funnel?

Van Pelt: As a funnel, yes. Like a chimney itself always is wider than the actual smoke channel going through it.

Irving: Yes. So you are saying there was a relatively small hole or four small holes smaller than 2 foot six inches across then, and after they had spent all this money building this underground crematorium with all the 3problems of damp that is implicit in that, somebody was allowed to come along after the event, because it was not 5included in the drawings, and knock holes in right next to 6the supporting pillars?

Van Pelt: I did not say that. The crematorium roof, as we know from other documents, there were problems with finishing the crematorium, roofs of the Leichenkeller, in December of 1942 and January 1943. We actually have photos of the completion of the roof.

Irving: But this is not the question.

Van Pelt: May I finish? No, but the thing is you assert that
14they knocked holes inside the roof of the gas chamber.

Irving: Through the roof.

Van Pelt: That did not happen.

Irving: Through the roof?

Van Pelt: Through the roof. Well, the modification and design had been made before that roof was completed.

Irving: What modification?

Van Pelt: The roof of the gas chamber, or morgue No. 1, and the roof of morgue No. 2, later the undressing room, were only completed in December and January, in December 1942 and January 1943, by which time the modification of the building into a genocidal extermination machine had already been decided on. But they did not have to make holes in the roof because the roof was not yet complete at the time.

Irving: But if you were an architect, and neither of us is an architect, and some SS Rottenfuhrer comes along and says, "I am going to knock four holes in the roof right next to the supporting pillars", what would you have told that man?

Van Pelt: May I just point out that if we look here at, for example, that column and that column, there is a beam supporting, connecting the two columns. Of course it is going to be a real problem when you go right through the beam you weaken the beam. That is one of the reasons that these columns are placed next to the column, so that they do not challenge the structural integrity of the main beam. If they had been -- may I point it out?

Justice Gray: Yes. I think I understand what you are saying.

Van Pelt: I am just going to make a drawing here. This is the gas chamber. The columns are right here. The structural beam sits right on top of that. So your point is absolutely valid if you put the columns right there, but if you put the grid columns right here, then there is absolutely no structural, the structural integrity of the roof is in no way challenged.

Transcript, January 25, 2000. P-181-185.
http://hdot.org/en/trial/transcripts/day09/pages181-185

And I only wonder, how is possible that he missed these miraculously discovered holes by team of Keren, McCarthy and Mazal, when he said in his report, that couldn´t be observed and had been fillled? Where are the holes for columns from Kula, when even Pelt testified under oath that these columns were 70cm x 70cm and three meters high? What Pelt means with "pipe" which come through the roof, he miraculously transformed columns to some "pipe funnels" which protruded through roof? Why he completely avoided subject of correct measurements of the holes needed to acommodate alleged columns? You can also notice that he self contradicted or refuted gassing in Krema III when he clearly said that holes chiseled through the central beam would be "real problem " to stability, but as we know, the holes in Krema III were allegedly placed in one line through the central beam and they were allegedly placed in this position to hide them from the eyes of victims behind the supporting pillars which were only 40cm x 40cm. You can also notice that they avoid discussion about places where the alleged columns were not used.

My personal opinion is that Mr. Irving failed in his examination, he could demolish this "expert" totally

Is´t fun how they refute their own claims? I really enjoy refuting this absurd story with using of their own claims, just priceless how they must defend one lie with other lie, but this start another chain of lies : )

Thank you also for posting the picture of the “hole”. When comparing this to the Zucchi drawing, linked to in my previous post, the question must be asked: Where is the reenforcing steel diagonally to the corners, if the holes were formed in before the concrete was placed? No sign of it. Also, Signor Mattogno took pictures of the cracks and blemishes identified as “The Holes” years ago, and my, my, how they have changed, right along with the holocaust story. No mention anymore of the original, 70cm x 70cm size, making a mockery out of the Kula column story with the smaller holes.

I agree with your points. You can also notice that Pelt´s "narrow pipes" disappeared too. They are silent about Kula when they try to prove alleged holes, is obvious why, their own best witness contradict their claims. I also didn´t see even one testimony which support their alleged measurements of holes, if somebody know about some, please tell me.

I personally don´t know what is more absurd and ridiculous, that holes had been casted during construction or that they chiseled them through the roof after the roof was completed?

No wonder that Hans and other believers avoid challenges about the holes since this subject is pretty damning.

It is this we should be concentrating on instead of stepping into the trap set by The Industry and debate the picked through documentation. But that is my opinion only.

Completely agree, that revisionists are often trapped by exterminationists in unimportant and illogical matters. For example, they are able to speak about cremations, but they completely avoid subject of gas chambers, of their constructions, but without gas chambers there is no need to discuss everything what depend on existence of gas chambers, right? Is good to notice, that they avoid discussion about still remaining gassing sites, about best documented place like Auschwitz, they are often concentrate on places, where there is the biggest lack of information. But I understand that revisionists need to address everything so they let themselves to be trapped in discussion about unimportant subjects.

[Breker]

SKcz said:

... revisionists are often trapped by exterminationists in unimportant and illogical matters. For example, they are able to speak about cremations, but they completely avoid subject of gas chambers, of their constructions, but without gas chambers there is no need to discuss everything what depend on existence of gas chambers, right? Is good to notice, that they avoid discussion about still remaining gassing sites, about best documented place like Auschwitz, they are often concentrate on places, where there is the biggest lack of information. But I understand that revisionists need to address everything so they let themselves to be trapped in discussion about unimportant subjects.

This is one of the best paragraphs I've read at this forum in some time.
It summarizes the methodology of those that are becoming increasingly desperate, hence their attempted distractions away from what really matters. Notice the attempted shift of late to the easily discredited 'holocaust by bullets' silliness and the continued inferences that are made by citing Anne Frank, who was not murdered, and the litany of 'survivors', who were not murdered, on and on it goes. All of this while they continue to oppose free speech.
It's been said before, and I'll say it again, desperation and panic are setting in, it's palpable. Any and all methods to silence revisionists are and will be attempted. Of course there are the existing anti free speech laws against "Holocaust denial' in Europe, Canada, Australia and this latest example here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6850
And those authoritarian methods and behaviour clearly indicate that revisionists are right in their assessments.
Our moderator's signature says it well:

Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

B.

[Hans]

@SKcz

This claim is of course wrong as can be seen in photo of this hole:

Image

Everybody can see that rods protrudes to the hole, and they were simply bent, some inwards, some outwards, this prove, that holes had not been cast during construction as they falsely claims and I only wonder if they are serious and what "expert" arrived to this absurd conclusion.

The steel bars were cut and bent and do not protrude to the hole. You may repeat the claim as often as you wish, but it does not get more correct. Andybody having the photograph in front of him can see the bars have been cut and bent away from the hole.

Two of the cut steel bars were clearly bent inwards, whereas two are more or less bent in the plane of the roof nowadays which of course does not mean they had been in this position when the concrete was poured and that they may have moved from inward to the plane of the roof for instance by the destruction of the roof. This physical appearance is consistent with the claim that the opening has been made when the concrete was poured. Your claim that "this prove, that holes had not been cast during construction" is false.

I will also briefly address your remarks on this opening from the locked thread.

Bent rebars need to be removed to build chimneys above holes and to introduce column to hole and make all gas-tight.

The statement makes no sense. You do not explain (but simply repeat Mattogno, who also does not explain anything as I already highlighted in the deleted posting, by the way*), why the bent rebars had to be removed to build chimneys. In fact, there is no apparent reason why the inward bent rebars posed any obstacle to build the chimnies.

*Note that just because Mattogno has written an article or book about something, it does mean he has refuted anything. Also his arguments need to be carefully checked.

Straight rebars need to be removed not to protrude to hole which prevent installation of column.

The straight rebar was cut and bent and thereby removed from the opening.

When you straighten these bent rebars, they clearly protrude to your alleged hole, some holocaustian forgot to cut off these rebars which are clearly longer and protrude to this hole! Do you see it? When you straighten them they protrude to hole!

It is irrelevant that the bars would protrude into the opening IF they were NOT bent, SINCE the bars were bent. The rebar did not protrude into the opening exactly because it was bent.

What is more absurd, even the bent rebars protrude to hole!

You have a misconception of what defined the opening. It was not the rebar parallel to the edges, but the concrete edges, which are however heavily destroyed nowadays.

Is impossible that explosion from inside the chamber can bent rebars inside to the hole, so this was clearly made by some man.

Exactly, the bending of the rebar was made by men. And there is nothing which suggests it was not made by the construction workers in early 1943.

C14H. I challenge Hans to provide me with explanation how was possible use this hole as introducttion hole for Zyklon B when remaining bent rebars are clearly longer and protrude to hole number 4 which means, that was not possible to install wire-mesh column or to build chinmney above hole and made this hole gas-tight

The explanation is very simple in this case: you are wrong that the rebars protrude into the opening. They were cut and bent and did not protrude into the opening, as can be clearly seen on the photograph.

So let me emphasize the crucial point. There is clearly a hole in the collapsed roof here. The only question is whether it was made during the construction or during the destruction of the roof. There is no evidence which proves it was made during the destruction of the roof (such hypothetical evidence would for instance include earlier photographs of this part of the roof showing no hole or uncut and unbent rebar going through the hole). Therefore, it immediately follows that it may have been made during the construction of the roof and thus already invalidates the claim "no holes, no holocaust" (which is nonsensical anyway) or "no holes, no gas chamber".

[Hans]

I am still expecting for some convincing explanation about such omission on the plans. Why such holes were never drawn as they were not supposed to be "criminal traces" a la Pressac for morgues?

This was already explained by Van Pelt in Case of Auschwitz, p. 370:

"Furthermore, it is important to note that the set of drawings that survived is far from complete. The archives in Oswiecim and Moscow contain remarkably few working drawings, which in any case were produced by the contractors. In November and December 1942, when I believe the wire mesh columns were designed, Crematoria 2 and 3 were under construction, and at that time working drawings were the major tool of communication between architect and contractor. Changes would have been made in the working drawings. The archive of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum contains a list with sixteen Huta working drawings for Crematorium 2 which all carry the general number 7015/IV. One of these drawings concerns the "Reinforcement for the ceiling over morgue 1." It was drawn on October 22, 1942, and it was given the number 7015/IV - 109/6. It is likely that this working drawing was the instrument to make modifications that introduced the holes and possibly the gas columns. It is important to note that shortly before the liquidation of the camp, the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung requested Huta to send all working drawings back, both originals and copies. The only possible explanation is that the architects wanted to removed incriminating evidence. The working drawing of the roof of Morgue 1, which most likely would have contained the change involving the wire-mesh column, drawing 7015/IV - 109/6 was returned, but it did not survive."

So, the fact is (undisputed by Mattogno who also knows the files) that the drawing showing the reinforcement of the ceiling of the homicidal gas chamber did not survive. Therefore, it remains unknown from this drawing if openings were or were not implemented into to roof.

[SKcz]

Hans can consider my questions to him as challenges, if he know guidelines, he know what is needed.

The steel bars were cut and bent and do not protrude to the hole. You may repeat the claim as often as you wish, but it does not get more correct. Andybody having the photograph in front of him can see the bars have been cut and bent away from the hole.

1.Why Hans ignore, that rebars are bent, and that is impossible to build anything like holocaust narrative claims in this hole? Can Hans explain how they installed columns, or chimneys and etc? I challenged him, but no response so far.

2.Why Hans ignore, that even the bent rebars still protrude to space which has been marked as rebar hole pattern made during construction?

3.Hans want to tell me that rebars has been bent during constructions and that is how Germans constructed it?

4.Only to be sure about this hole, can Hans tell me why Provan´s hole number 7 couldn´t be used as introduction hole as Provan also admited? Hans can see this Hole no. 7 here

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/noholes.html

Two of the cut steel bars were clearly bent inwards, whereas two are more or less bent in the plane of the roof nowadays which of course does not mean they had been in this position when the concrete was poured and that they may have moved from inward to the plane of the roof for instance by the destruction of the roof. This physical appearance is consistent with the claim that the opening has been made when the concrete was poured. Your claim that "this prove, that holes had not been cast during construction" is false. .

5.False, really? Can Hans tell me in which position the rebars were during construction and during operation of the hole? They were straight, bent inwards or outwards?

6.Can Hans explain how rods bent inward were somehow caused by explosion as he claim about rods which are bent outward?

Is bad that Hans ignored rest of my points, I look forward to see him adressing my other points.

will also briefly address your remarks on this opening from the locked thread.

Good.

Bent rebars need to be removed to build chimneys above holes and to introduce column to hole and make all gas-tight.

The statement makes no sense. You do not explain (but simply repeat Mattogno, who also does not explain anything as I already highlighted in the deleted posting, by the way*), why the bent rebars had to be removed to build chimneys. In fact, there is no apparent reason why the inward bent rebars posed any obstacle to build the chimnies.

The straight rebar was cut and bent and thereby removed from the opening.

It is irrelevant that the bars would protrude into the opening IF they were NOT bent, SINCE the bars were bent. The rebar did not protrude into the opening exactly because it was bent.

7.I am afraid, that Hans´s statement make no sense. Rods bent inward of course means problem for installation of legendary Kula columns and to make the hole gas tight. Rods bent outward of course means that problem to build chimney on these bent rods, can Hans explain how they constructed columns or chimneys in this hole with all of these bent rods?

8.Why Hans speak about removing of rods when the rods are only bent?

What is more absurd, even the bent rebars protrude to hole!

You have a misconception of what defined the opening. It was not the rebar parallel to the edges, but the concrete edges, which are however heavily destroyed nowadays.

9.Why Hans ignore that even bent rebars clearly protrude to hole, to allegeldy square genuine reinforced work which allegedly prove casting hole during construction?

Is impossible that explosion from inside the chamber can bent rebars inside to the hole, so this was clearly made by some man.

Exactly, the bending of the rebar was made by men. And there is nothing which suggests it was not made by the construction workers in early 1943.

Exactly? Good, so Hans can answer question 7.

10. Hans is sure that rods which pose the biggest problem for him were bent by some men, can you tell me how did you arrive to your conclusion that only these rods were bent and why is not possible that all rods could be altered and thus you cannot know how the rebar work looked like?

11.Construction workers simply bent rods out and that is how they constructed these holes instead of cutting them out, this is what Hans want to tell me and what should make sense?

The explanation is very simple in this case: you are wrong that the rebars protrude into the opening. They were cut and bent and did not protrude into the opening, as can be clearly seen on the photograph.

If I am wrong, Hans can explain my points mentioned above to support his claim that I am wrong. At this time, Hans is wrong.

So let me emphasize the crucial point. There is clearly a hole in the collapsed roof here. The only question is whether it was made during the construction or during the destruction of the roof. There is no evidence which proves it was made during the destruction of the roof (such hypothetical evidence would for instance include earlier photographs of this part of the roof showing no hole or uncut and unbent rebar going through the hole).

12.Your comment is a bit confused to me. What you mean with earlier photograph, you mean before liberation? Can you tell me the reason why to take photo of place where is no hole to prove that future hole in this place wasn´t there earlier?

13.Or you mean after liberation? Can you tell me if you have photo of this hole before the team of Keren, McCarthy, Mazal arrived to support your claims about this hole and about how the hole looked like? For sure, investigation group after liberation couldn´t miss it, or am I wrong?

14.The roof was blown up, the roof collapsed on pillars, one of the pillars is clearly visible on your photo of Hole 4, still no evidence? Can you tell me why this is not possible and why is Occam´s razor together with material evidence wrong?

You have no evidence Hans, you don´t have photo, witness, film, plans, material evidence, you don´t have logic, you miss everything. But revisionists have material evidence, logic, plans, photos, the most damning evidence.

Therefore, it immediately follows that it may have been made during the construction of the roof

15.What exactly is your evidence that this hole, or rest of the holes were made during construction, you did not presentd anything. I still wait on your evidence, you promised photos, but still nothing. So what exactly you have to support your claims that these hole are introduction holes for Zyklon B and that were made during construction? Do you have photo? Film? Plans? Or at least witness which suport your holes?

16.Do you know at least the dimensions of your alleged holes and what is your evidence for their dimensions?

Evidence is against you Hans and refute your claims.

17.Why did you dismissed that your alleged hole could be created after the roof has been completed and how did you arrived to your conclusion?

18.And one of the most interesting questions, why did you dismissed the rest of the holes on the roof as holes used for introduction of Zyklon B and how did you arrived to your conclusion?

and thus already invalidates the claim "no holes, no holocaust" (which is nonsensical anyway) or "no holes, no gas chamber".

Let imagine, the most lethal building in Auschwitz with 500,000 victims according to Pelt, is proved to be lie. This means that mirrored copy Krema III is false too. This means that Krema I is false too since it allegedly used the same introduction system and also witnesses which testified about Krema II are in some case the same as for Krema I. Without these Kremas is hard to imagine that other gassing sites as told by the same witnesses could be trusted and thus are again false because witnesses were proved to by liars in previous gassing sites and I even didn´t take account about the technical aspect of these gassing sites. With these facts, the whole Auschwitz legend explode and i only wonder who sane human would believe in just far more ridiculous claims about gassing in other sites. With falling of gassing legend, who sane human would believe in some extermination by bullets which is the same controversial and nonsensical claim again supported by another “reliable“ witnesses?

I completely agree with Faurisson, his slogan have strength to express what is going on with these mythical holes and is clear why the subject of Auschwitz holes is so damning to story of holocaust and why is so avoided.


Hans, please, adress my challenges from that locked thread and not only points about this hole, I challenged you to start new thread to adress them.

[SKcz]

I am still expecting for some convincing explanation about such omission on the plans. Why such holes were never drawn as they were not supposed to be "criminal traces" a la Pressac for morgues?

This was already explained by Van Pelt in Case of Auschwitz, p. 370:

"Furthermore, it is important to note that the set of drawings that survived is far from complete. The archives in Oswiecim and Moscow contain remarkably few working drawings, which in any case were produced by the contractors. In November and December 1942, when I believe the wire mesh columns were designed, Crematoria 2 and 3 were under construction, and at that time working drawings were the major tool of communication between architect and contractor. Changes would have been made in the working drawings. The archive of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum contains a list with sixteen Huta working drawings for Crematorium 2 which all carry the general number 7015/IV. One of these drawings concerns the "Reinforcement for the ceiling over morgue 1." It was drawn on October 22, 1942, and it was given the number 7015/IV - 109/6. It is likely that this working drawing was the instrument to make modifications that introduced the holes and possibly the gas columns. It is important to note that shortly before the liquidation of the camp, the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung requested Huta to send all working drawings back, both originals and copies. The only possible explanation is that the architects wanted to removed incriminating evidence. The working drawing of the roof of Morgue 1, which most likely would have contained the change involving the wire-mesh column, drawing 7015/IV - 109/6 was returned, but it did not survive."

So, the fact is (undisputed by Mattogno who also knows the files) that the drawing showing the reinforcement of the ceiling of the homicidal gas chamber did not survive. Therefore, it remains unknown from this drawing if openings were or were not implemented into to roof.

In the other words, the plan which don´t exist and nobody saw it, prove that hole were drawed into this plan, right?

For some reason, the Germans or somebody destroyed this damning evidence, but they did not bother to destroy all other plans or material evidence. For some reason, there was no need to draw holes in later plans so the construction firm wasn´t confused by the fact that holes disappeared in later plans, they just somehow magically knew that holes need to be still there (maybe legendary incredible meeting of minds?). Pelt and Hans claims that Huta had knowledge of these holes, but they never bothered to write at least one single document to ask about these nonsensical holes in the morgue and not even one single piece of some evidence where the holes are mentioned, exist. They did not bother to write something even in the case when the holes disappeared from later plans. Is also good to notice, that Germans had no problem with the fact, that incriminating evidence is in the hands of construction firm for several months or even year(s) and they just didn´t bother with the possible leak of this incriminating evidence which has been so much damning and important, that this plan was the one worth of destroying.

Hello, common sense here, does this make sense to anybody? Is clear that Hans and Pelt are totally wrong and refuted.

Hans, can you support your interesting claim that Mattogno did not dispute that alleged drawing with implemented holes has been destroyed by Germans? Consider it as challenge please.

Is good to notice that Hans speak about this total nonsense as about "the fact"

[Hans]

Hans can consider my questions to him as challenges, if he know guidelines, he know what is needed.

The steel bars were cut and bent and do not protrude to the hole. You may repeat the claim as often as you wish, but it does not get more correct. Andybody having the photograph in front of him can see the bars have been cut and bent away from the hole.

1.Why Hans ignore, that rebars are bent, and that is impossible to build anything like holocaust narrative claims in this hole? Can Hans explain how they installed columns, or chimneys and etc? I challenged him, but no response so far.

Now, you claim that I would ignore "that rebars are bent", whereas the exact opposite is true. All the way throughout my posting I was pointing out the rebars are bent. Right the first sentence of my posting reads: "The steel bars were cut and bent..."

Then you say that I ignored that is "impossible to build anything like holocaust narrative claims in this hole". Actually I addressed this in my previous posting, but you did dodge the challenge:

"You do not explain (but simply repeat Mattogno, who also does not explain anything as I already highlighted in the deleted posting, by the way*), why the bent rebars had to be removed to build chimneys. In fact, there is no apparent reason why the inward bent rebars posed any obstacle to build the chimnies."

Finally you ask me "how they installed columns, or chimneys". There is no documentation left regarding their installation and I do not have the knowledge on construction issues to deduce it by myself. This is something you have to ask somebody working on construction field.

2.Why Hans ignore, that even the bent rebars still protrude to space which has been marked as rebar hole pattern made during construction?

The bent rebar takes part in defining the opening. You misinterpret the rebar parallel to the original concrete edge as boundary of the openings.

3.Hans want to tell me that rebars has been bent during constructions and that is how Germans constructed it?

The body of evidence, some of it presented in the report by Mazal et al., strongly suggests that the rebar was bent during the construction of basement.

4.Only to be sure about this hole, can Hans tell me why Provan´s hole number 7 couldn´t be used as introduction hole as Provan also admited? Hans can see this Hole no. 7 here

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/noholes.html

This is explained in Mazal et al's paper:

"Nothing marks this location on any known contemporary photograph, and a piece of rebar clearly ran across the hole before being cut and bent out of the way. This establishes that it was not a Zyklon hole. It is not known who made this hole, and we have no reason to believe that it was made before the liberation of the camp by the Red Army in January 1945. Clearly it was not made in an attempt to "fake" a Zyklon hole, or else the rebar would not have been left sticking out. This hole can be ignored for our purposes. "

Two of the cut steel bars were clearly bent inwards, whereas two are more or less bent in the plane of the roof nowadays which of course does not mean they had been in this position when the concrete was poured and that they may have moved from inward to the plane of the roof for instance by the destruction of the roof. This physical appearance is consistent with the claim that the opening has been made when the concrete was poured. Your claim that "this prove, that holes had not been cast during construction" is false. .

5.False, really? Can Hans tell me in which position the rebars were during construction and during operation of the hole? They were straight, bent inwards or outwards?

They were bent inwards, as I already pointed out to you more than once.

7.I am afraid, that Hans´s statement make no sense. Rods bent inward of course means problem for installation of legendary Kula columns and to make the hole gas tight.

What problems? Tell us the problems! I already asked you exactly this in my previous posting and you keep ignoring elaborating the problem and instead simply repeating there is problem ad nauseam without identifying what the problem consists of.

8.Why Hans speak about removing of rods when the rods are only bent?

They have not been "only bent". They were cut, shortened and then bent. The whole procedure resulted in the removal of the bars from the opening.

9.Why Hans ignore that even bent rebars clearly protrude to hole, to allegeldy square genuine reinforced work which allegedly prove casting hole during construction?

The bent rebar takes part in defining the actual opening (when roof and concrete was intact), so - per definition - it cannot protrude into the opening. It defines the opening. You misinterpret the obviously distorted rebar parallel to the original concrete edge of the opening as original outline of the opening.

10. Hans is sure that rods which pose the biggest problem for him were bent by some men, can you tell me how did you arrive to your conclusion that only these rods were bent and why is not possible that all rods could be altered and thus you cannot know how the rebar work looked like?

We do not know for sure that the rebar was not cut and bent after the war. There is no 100% certainty it was made during construction, which is true for all historical incidents, by the way. There is no absolute truth in history. However, the body of evidence - which consists of the findings presented in Mazal et al.'s paper as well as the testimonial evidence - strongly suggests that the opening was created during the construction of the basement and the rebar was bent during the construction of the basement.

11.Construction workers simply bent rods out and that is how they constructed these holes instead of cutting them out, this is what Hans want to tell me and what should make sense?

Whether it makes sense to you is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is that cutting and bending of rebar passing through an opening of a steel-reenforced concrete slab is the proper way:

"Although not required in an absolute sense, it is a standard detail in our industry to curtail and hook abutting reinforcement short of openings or slab edges. The attached typical detail demonstrating this principle is one we have used in our office throughout the 20 years I have worked at Yolles. "

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

Can you tell me the reason why to take photo of place where is no hole to prove that future hole in this place wasn´t there earlier?

I did not argue that such a photo or whatever evidence has to exist if the hole was made after the war. I actually argued that the absence of evidence simply means that it cannot be shown by means of evidence that the hole was made during the destruction of the basement, which allows for both hypothesis that it was made during the destruction but - and this important for the "Anti-Revisionist" case - also for the hypothesis that it was made during the construction of the basement.

13.Or you mean after liberation? Can you tell me if you have photo of this hole before the team of Keren, McCarthy, Mazal arrived to support your claims about this hole and about how the hole looked like? For sure, investigation group after liberation couldn´t miss it, or am I wrong?

As far as I know there is no photograph known of the opening prior Mazal et al. identified it as candidate for gas introduction opening. And yes, the Soviet and Polish investigators missed it.

14.The roof was blown up, the roof collapsed on pillars, one of the pillars is clearly visible on your photo of Hole 4, still no evidence?

Yes, this is no proof that the opening was created by the destruction of the basement.

Can you tell me why this is not possible and why is Occam´s razor together with material evidence wrong?

You are misusing Occam's razor and applying it under the false assumption (or the assumption you try to show) that there had been no homicidal gassings in the basement. However, since homicidal gassings in the basement have been established beyond much doubt, applying Occam's razor tells us actually that the hole was most likely made by during the construction of the basement 1943 as this explanation requires the least additional assumptions as far as the body of evidence in concerned.

15.What exactly is your evidence that this hole, or rest of the holes were made during construction, you did not presentd anything. [/quote]

The evidence was presented by Van Pelt and Mazal et al. It consists of

a) February 1943 ground photograph showing the little chimnies approximately at the location of three holes with properly cut and bent rebar nowadays in the roof, see http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -final.jpg

b) Aerial photographs showing four discolourations on the roof of the gas chamber supporting activity at four spots on the roof related to the presence of the gas introduction openings, see http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ure7.shtml

c) Material evidence showing three holes in the roof with cut and inward bent rebar as would have been done during the construction of the basement, see Mazal et al.'s paper.

d) Testimonial evidence from Rudolf Höß, Konrad Morgen, Josef Erber, Hans Aumeier, Hans Münch, 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. These are also 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

Note that just pointing out differences or related improbabilities in eyewitness accounts do neither invalidate nor explain them away. Thus Mattogno's treatment of some of those accounts does not "refute" them as Revisionists usually maintain. This testimonial evidence already makes a strong case for homicidal gassings in the basement and the existence of the holes. This is further corroborated and strengthened by the physical and photographical evidence.

I understand that Revisionists cannot accept homicidal gassings and therefore cannot be convinced by any evidence, including this. However, it is safe to say that most people outside this place will consider this body of evidence as strong and convincing.

16.Do you know at least the dimensions of your alleged holes and what is your evidence for their dimensions?

The most reliable evidence to determine the dimensions is the physical findings by Mazal et al. According to this the openings were about 50 x 50 cm. Since physical evidence trumps testimonial evidence, it is clear then that Michal Kula was mistaken with the dimension (a minor mistake) or his description is incomplete.

17.Why did you dismissed that your alleged hole could be created after the roof has been completed and how did you arrived to your conclusion?

I am not entirely dismissing this possibility, however, it is far more likely that the opening was made during the construction of the basement given the evidence cited above.

18.And one of the most interesting questions, why did you dismissed the rest of the holes on the roof as holes used for introduction of Zyklon B and how did you arrived to your conclusion?

You should explain which "rest of the holes" you are talking about. Identify each of them.

[Hans]

For some reason, the Germans or somebody destroyed this damning evidence, but they did not bother to destroy all other plans or material evidence. For some reason, there was no need to draw holes in later plans so the construction firm wasn´t confused by the fact that holes disappeared in later plans, they just somehow magically knew that holes need to be still there (maybe legendary incredible meeting of minds?). Pelt and Hans claims that Huta had knowledge of these holes, but they never bothered to write at least one single document to ask about these nonsensical holes in the morgue and not even one single piece of some evidence where the holes are mentioned, exist. They did not bother to write something even in the case when the holes disappeared from later plans. Is also good to notice, that Germans had no problem with the fact, that incriminating evidence is in the hands of construction firm for several months or even year(s) and they just didn´t bother with the possible leak of this incriminating evidence which has been so much damning and important, that this plan was the one worth of destroying.

Hello, common sense here, does this make sense to anybody? Is clear that Hans and Pelt are totally wrong and refuted.

Just because you do not understand something does not mean it is refuted. Please check your standards of proof.

The documents of the central construction office are incomplete, therefore any argument which goes into the direction why there is no document on this or that is highly problematic.

The Huta plans dated after the construction of the buildings were not particular up to date or they only updated and included certain details of interests. This is clear from the fact that they do not include the additional access stairway to the undressing room. Indeed, this demonstrates that the Huta drawings cannot be used to show that something was not build because it is not in those drawings.

Hans, can you support your interesting claim that Mattogno did not dispute that alleged drawing with implemented holes has been destroyed by Germans?

I did not claim that "Mattogno did not dispute that alleged drawing with implemented holes has been destroyed by Germans" but that Mattogno does not dispute that the "drawing showing the reinforcement of the ceiling" did not survive. This you find in Case of Sanity, p. 91.

[SKcz]

For some reason, the Germans or somebody destroyed this damning evidence, but they did not bother to destroy all other plans or material evidence. For some reason, there was no need to draw holes in later plans so the construction firm wasn´t confused by the fact that holes disappeared in later plans, they just somehow magically knew that holes need to be still there (maybe legendary incredible meeting of minds?). Pelt and Hans claims that Huta had knowledge of these holes, but they never bothered to write at least one single document to ask about these nonsensical holes in the morgue and not even one single piece of some evidence where the holes are mentioned, exist. They did not bother to write something even in the case when the holes disappeared from later plans. Is also good to notice, that Germans had no problem with the fact, that incriminating evidence is in the hands of construction firm for several months or even year(s) and they just didn´t bother with the possible leak of this incriminating evidence which has been so much damning and important, that this plan was the one worth of destroying.

Hello, common sense here, does this make sense to anybody? Is clear that Hans and Pelt are totally wrong and refuted.

Just because you do not understand something does not mean it is refuted. Please check your standards of proof.

So adress my quote to prove that I don´t understand, at this time, you are the one who don´t understand how absurd your/Pelt claim is.

The documents of the central construction office are incomplete, therefore any argument which goes into the direction why there is no document on this or that is highly problematic.

The only problematic issue is the fact, that nobody ever told us what is in this alleged plan, nobody knows if this plan had been really destroyed and what is in this plan, but you and Pelt uses this imaginary plan as proof of existence of the holes, explain me this first basic fallacy.

The Huta plans dated after the construction of the buildings were not particular up to date or they only updated and included certain details of interests. This is clear from the fact that they do not include the additional access stairway to the undressing room. Indeed, this demonstrates that the Huta drawings cannot be used to show that something was not build because it is not in those drawings.

You did not adress this issue, see my quote again please.

Hans, can you support your interesting claim that Mattogno did not dispute that alleged drawing with implemented holes has been destroyed by Germans?

I did not claim that "Mattogno did not dispute that alleged drawing with implemented holes has been destroyed by Germans" but that Mattogno does not dispute that the "drawing showing the reinforcement of the ceiling" did not survive. This you find in Case of Sanity, p. 91.

Hans, but your quote from Pelt don´t speak only about reiforcement of the ceiling, but he clearly says that alleged plan likely contained holes and maybe columns, so you adopt Pelt´s claim or not? Do you agree with him or not?

Even Pelt do not know what is in the plan when he says "likely", he completely invented it only because of the fact, that plan is not here so he can invent content of this plan to make an impression, very scholarly.

Mattogno clearly dispute content of this plan here:

This explanation is historically and documentarily inconsistent. First of all, if the alleged columns for the introduction of Zyklon B were designed “in November and December of 1942,” then one cannot see why a blueprint drawn on October 22 could be “the instrument to make modifications that introduced the holes and possibly the gas columns” and could already contain such a modification. This would be even more nonsensical, because the concrete ceiling of Leichenkeller 1 was poured without openings, as I have explained in chapter 2.4. This means that the holes were planned and drawn into the blueprint of October 22, 1942, then completely forgotten during the work on the ceiling of the room, only to be manually broken through later on with a hammer and chisel, grinding through a slab of reinforced concrete 18 cm thick! The caption on blueprint 7015/IV-109/6 is “Bew. der Decke über Keller I,” where “Bew.” stands for b“Bewehrung,” reinforcement. The blueprints 7015/IV-109-5, and 109-7, drawn on October 20 and November 6, 1942, respectively, concern the rebars (reinforcing bars) of the ceilings in “Keller II” and “Keller III,” respectively.136 That the blueprint 7015/IV-109-6 should contain “most likely” the drawing for the openings and the Zyklon B columns is an unfounded conjecture on the part of van Pelt.

Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity, Carlo mattogno, p. 91
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=22

About "not surviving", your quote from Pelt do not speak only about „surviving“ but clearly about destroying or removing of incriminating evidence. Surviving or not surviving is not issue here, but claim about destroying evidence is the issue here. So again, do you agree or not with Pelt?

About destroying, Mattogno says:

A letter from the SS-Neubauleitung of Dachau of September 30, 1940, mentions the fact that “according to the order of Reichsführer-SS, all blueprints of buildings in concentration camps are to be considered as secret blueprints.”138 It is therefore obvious that Huta had to return to ZBL the blueprints received from it. Furthermore, we should stress here the fact that the return to ZBL of those 15 drawings on December 19, 1944, at the explicit request of the latter, is in glaring contradiction with van Pelt’s assertion that the SS, in January 1945, “overlooked the archive of the building office that had been closed some months earlier,” with the result that this archive remained “more or less intact” (see chapter 1.2.). All we have to do now is to draw our conclusions. Van Pelt claims without proof that “the wire-mesh columns were totally dismantled after the cessation of gassing and before the demolition of the crematoria,” in order to explain why “no remains were found” of these devices (2002, p. 207). This is all the more extraordinary, as the Soviets found various items of the “extermination machinery” at Auschwitz: two gas-tight doors allegedly belonging to the presumed homicidal gas chambers of the crematoria at Birkenau, the wooden benches of the “undressing rooms” of crematoria II and III, the temporary freight elevator of crematorium II, various gas-tight covers of the presumed homicidal gas chambers of crematoria IV and V, and the ductwork of the ventilation system of Leichenkeller 2 of crematoria II and III. Yet no trace was found of the eight alleged introduction devices for Zyklon B.

Therefore we have no trace of these ghostly columns, neither in the planning stage, nor in the construction phase, nor when they were dismantled, nor did they leave any scrap behind – there is no trace whatsoever to show that they ever existed. And this includes the total lack of any traces in the concrete of both ceiling and floor of Leichenkeller 1 of crematorium II, to which those devices would inevitably have to have been bolted. And of the testimonies, Kula’s most fundamental statement is refuted by the ledger of the “WL-Schlosserei.”

Ibid., pp. 91, 92.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=22

Is clear that Mattogno dispute destroying of evidence, destroying of plans and etc., so you are wrong Hans, Mattogno dispute it.

Did you ever read page 91-92?.