We don't know precisely how this figure was derived
I do! It is because the industry have told so many lies, that even they cannot keep them straight.
Unfortunately, this has not stopped certain uninformed persons from misrepresenting the information as the death toll over the camp's entire existence.
How can you say that, when they misrepresented the death toll at Auschwitz for fourty-five years by 2,900.000?
And even then, it's still way too high.
The term 'built' here could be misleading
Not in regard to the laughable chimney-stack that resides outside, but does not even connect in any way to the rest of the structure. It represents the very essence of the term 'built'.
is the original wartime building
The main shell is the original building, but what you see now is a highly tampered with piece of garbage, that has been completely defiled by communists and Zionist's.
It was converted during 1944 into an air-raid shelter facility
Can you show me the plans containing all amendments for the buildings change of use please?
which included the building of partition walls within the mortuary space.
From what I have seen on the David Cole video, I will have to disagree and suggest the internal partition walls were slung up as part of the initial build, using their own foundation. After the war the Commu/Zionists have smacked them out, so as to turn the once many rooms into a single laughable gas-chamber room.
Tell me Hebden. In this interview with Piper at Auschwitz I. Cole asks Piper 'how they knew where to knock holes back in the roof that the Germans are said to have plugged?'. Piper answers 'That the obvious marks from the plugs were clearly visible in the roof slab and that is how they knew'.
How does that fit in with Pelty's thesis that plugging concrete is an invisible method? I mean, why should a plug in the roof-slab at Auschwitz I be visible, yet the Birkenau plugs are not? Just what was that special formula and composite they used at Birkenau?
Can you tell me who is lying, Pelty or Piper?
Hebden said 'reconstructed'
And this is what worries me. It is so reminiscent of Van-Pelt who calls a vertically rising square cross-section a 'column' when a column is round. Van-Pelt is no architect; he does not even know the basic terminology for the classical orders.
The term reconstruction differs from restoration by the use of different material other than the existing fabric. It can sometimes be justified, but only if there is sufficient evidence to show that such reconstruction is not based on guesswork.
The process of restoration is a highly specialised operation. It’s aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins and in this case moreover any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp. The restoration in any case must be preceded and followed by an archaeological and historical study of the monument.
Preservation allows what exists to be preserved for future generations without addition to or subtraction from the fabric. No intervention of any kind may be appropriate in some circumstances or only limited critical interventions which are necessary to prevent further deterioration.