[NOTE: The replies regarding this document mentioned directly below has been moved to the following thread:viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12781
This document is a inventory for crematorium II, https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/19430331-inventory/
Near the top right, we see that there are two inventory items which have been written in by hand. They are a little difficult to make out, especially in this reproduction, but they read "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" and "Holzblenden." The numeral 4 is written in each category. In this closeup, the text has been rotated ninety degrees:
Inventory: insertion devices, wooden covers.
"Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" is a large compound word. Words like this are quite common in the German language. Its meaning is put together from the words which form it:
der Draht - wire
das Netz - grid, net
einschieben - insert
die Vorrichtung - device, mechanism
This is best translated as "wire-mesh insertion device" or "wire-mesh introduction device."
"Holzblenden" means "wooden covers."
The only discrepancy is that they were listed for the undressing room and not the morgue (or gas chamber), (then again other items were switched between the two as well), there may be any reason for that, but just the fact that there is a inventory item which can be translated as wire-mesh introduction device should raise an eyebrow, especially if they are meant for the cellar, oh, and that there are four of them.
According to the narrative, two alleged holes were present on each side of the central beam of morgue 1. However, Germar Rudolf pointed out that air photos show the four dark spots all on the same side of the central beam for the Morgue 1 of Krema IIhttps://imgur.com/c9b84vi
That can be easily dismissed as the dark spots obviously aren't the holes themselves but indications of the holes, could be explained with that the germans were predominently on one side of the chimney disturbing the ground beneath them more on that side, that would shift the impression of the holes to were the germans were mainly standing. It just isn't a good argument.
It's too small to see for sure. But it is quite obvious here that the alleged holes in the aerial photo posted in the OP, which had a higher resolution, do not correspond to the holes in this image: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his
And also do not correspond to the 50 x 50cm holes mentioned in the other study you have cited.
It is a bit hard to see, it is actually reminding me more of the roof of gas chamber III, either way it corresponds to the zig-zag pattern and my guess is that although it's hard to see the roof on gas chamber II was similar to that of gas chamber III, although perhaps placed closer to the center, we are though studying dots more or less so we can't say for sure.
And there is also no actual visual evidence that there was any sort of mesh column attached/fastened to these walls/holes. They just appear to be broken through. There is nothing for anything to attach to.
Well, they don't know the details of that so we don't know how it worked, I'm sure they figured it out though, it wouldn't be that hard to build a frame around the hole and attach it to that. I didn't even need to stretch my imagination.
I do not understand exactly what you are claiming here. You do not have any idea what sort of induction device was there? So, if a witness says something that does not coincide with the actual holes that exist here, then that part of his testimony is discarded, and we just find someone else's contradictory it fits, and ignore anything else they say which is absurd? But somehow this small minority of cherry-picked, contradicting testimonies, complete with absurdities in every case, give one another credence? It's laughable.
As I said, there is really no evidence whatsoever of homicidal gassings at Auschwitz, just a handful of mostly jewish "eyewitness" who claim suchabsurdities. And now you are frantically trying to figure out how these ridiculous holes were somehow used.
It just seems silly to me, Pon. The building was not built to be an effective homicidal gas chamber at all. You need more than a just a room with holes smashed at the top. It would have been crude and primitive for the purpose even though the Germans had far superior designs for such things and could have made something better. Why would they make highly effective delousing chambers, but highly ineffective homicidal gas chambers to "systematically exterminate" hundreds of thousands of Jews?
We only have witness accounts which are to a degree unreliable, there is however many such accounts from different people (not only jews) which makes it credible that there was comumns, the unreliability is mainly in the details. I guess you know next to nothing of how to judge witnesses just like me so best leave it to the experts on how to judge the witness accounts, it's just silly trying as a layman to determine the credibility, but I do know that when a witness account corroborates with evidence, especially evidence that person couldn't have known (the inventory document, earial photos showing zig-zag placement of the holes) then it is taken seriously. Also why would several witnesses mention wire-mesh columns? Wasn't the popular belief that the gas came from the showers? At least I thought they did before looking closer at it. It seems such a out-of-place thing to invent and pretty ridiculous to think that many people have invented the same thing unrelated to eachother (there are people from many walks of life mentioning these things). I don't think that it was common knowledge at the time (just as it isn't common knowledge now) which would be required unless they all sat in a room together planning what to say.
Tauber is simply unreliable. He claimed corpses burned on their own just from the fat. He also said 5 to 8 people could be incinerated in one oven muffle. Along with many other absurdities:
Given enough heat almost anything serves as fuel (this is simply a physical fact), it is said that they needed only to add small amounts of coke once the heat was enough for the bodies to self-combust, 5 to 8 people was a exaggeration, the probable number was 3 in one muffle if I remember correctly (I could look it up if you want), I think this was raised in the Irving-Deborah trial (but it's a mess reading through everything to find it).
The building was not built to be an effective homicidal gas chamber at all. You need more than a just a room with holes smashed at the top. It would have been crude and primitive for the purpose even though the Germans had far superior designs for such things and could have made something better. Why would they make highly effective delousing chambers, but highly ineffective homicidal gas chambers to "systematically exterminate" hundreds of thousands of Jews?
As I understand it the building of Crematoria II was rushed (as was the subsequent crematorias), this in conjunction with the need to have a low profile (it should look as if it was made for something else than gassing) might be the reason for the less than excellent but still efficient for its purpose design.
These holes were clearly tampered with post-war, this has been explained by Mattogno in the link.
There are also not very good images of these holes, unfortunately. I wish we had some better images from multiple angles. I do not even see the exact rebar you are claiming is supposedly bent backwards into the concrete, which does not itself suggest anything sinister.
I would also like to see more pictures of the holes, my guess is that it is the lower rebar that is bent into the concrete, I'd like to see a better image showing that, but anyone can go there to look at it themselves so I guess it is just a matter of time before such a image comes up (maybe there is a image somewhere showing that already). It doesn't suggest, in itself, anything sinister, but it proves that it wasn't tampered with which makes it important.
Which still is not even enough for your silly Kula columns to fit.
You can repeat your claim, it doesn't make it true, obviously if physical evidence shows that the holes were less than 50 on each side then the columns had to be also (or at least the part that protruded through the roof). Why would he know the exact figures, he made a estimate, obviously physical fact trumps estimates.
Although it is still broken, cracked we can look at it to get a general idea of what it was like
A general idea, yes, but to be honest the roof is a mess.
Possibly one or more holes could have been bashed by the Poles or Russians to fake their silly "Zyklon-B induction holes" and as described by Mattogno, some holes have been made larger over the years.
For a fact, one hole was made after liberation, probably to take a look underneath it, no one knows who made it but there was no effort to cut the rebar, showing the probable intent of simply looking inside.
Possibly one or more holes could have been caused by the damage when it was demolished
- The holes seem just too crude to have been designed by Germans to be induction holes to be used to gas 100s of thousands of Jews. The one example you claim of a rebar being bent over into the concrete, it could have been bent before the hole was made. The holes do not appear to have been based on any sort of design for a roof with holes in it; the roof was clearly broken to produce the holes we see
The "gas chamber" use seems to be a late addition, why would they bend the bar? There's just no reason, in the image where they lay the roof of the undressing room no bars are seen to be bent. The damage when it was demolished could have damaged the holes so that it looks like they have been smashed in with a hammer (also explaining why the bent bars protrude through).
The holes we see today do not even line up with the marks on the aerial photos, or the holes in the drawing you provided. Rendering your entire point absolutely moot
According to the report they do line up, attention has to be made that the roof shifted and parts of it rotated, it is perfectly explained in the report.
The various other absurdities of the laughable "Auschwitz Homicidal gas chamber" (some of which are posted in your original thread, which you ignored) show conclusively there were no Jews killed in these places with Zyklon-B at Auschwitz
I notice you dodged all of the other points in the previous thread. I wonder why.
I haven't had time to revisit that thread, I've been quite busy with the aerial photos and the holes on the roof.
Exterminationist Holocaust "Expert" van Pelt, a 'Professor of Architecture':
"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. Yet does this mean they were never there? We know that after the cessation of the gassings in the fall of 1944 all the gassing equipment was removed, which implies both the wire-mesh columns and the chimneys. What would have remained would have been the four narrow holes and the slab. While there is no 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 hole and thus restore the slab. "
That book was made in 2002, the report on the holes was made in 2004, the simple explanation is that he just didn't know yet that the holes had been found.https://i.imgur.com/lrnlM4Q.jpg
- In this photo the marks can be seen on "gas chamber III". That not all photos show the details is probably because of exposure, if it was so important for them to fake it, then why weren't they faked on all the photos?
Interesting factoid: The CIA captions we see were made by Dino A Brugioni, who later wrote a book on Photo Fakery.
Dino A Brugioni: Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation
If we subvert that narrative then he probably would have spotted if they were fake. That someone writes about it doesn't mean that he himself would succumb to faking photos, at least not of this historical importance.borjastick:
I haven't heard the claim that the dark patches on the alleged gas chamber roof would have been people, it would, kind of, be a logical circle to assume that the photos are faked because the gassings couldn't have taken place. When the photos themselves are a part of the evidence for the gassings to have taken place. Admittedly it might be a logical circle to assume they are real just because we assume that the gassings are real, as well, but it shouldn't be used as a argument either way, something to be cautious of when analysing things, that we don't fall into the trap of confirmation bias.
I hope I've answered everything, if I missed something you can point it out, no need to assume I've dodged something for conveniance sake (if I don't mention that I'll answer it later, I'm pretty honest about my motives of things (as I hope has been shown in our discussion)). It was quite a trouble keeping it tidy when there's so many arguments, so my answers might not be in the order they were posted.