Challenge: let's see your best case for 'gas chambers'

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:58 pm)

Thirdly, it had a metal protective grid, something else which the delousing chamber door didn't have.



A standard air raid gas shelter would have a reinforced peep hole in order to keep blasts from shattering the glass and allowing penetration of gas.


Finally, it also had a gas detector at the bottom left.



If the detector was on the inside it would be impossible to use in high gas concentrations following a gassing. If on the outside its purpose would be obvious as a gas detector for air raids.



Michael Tregenza also noted that the HCG at Majdanek was adapted to produce CO gas,



Well, which was it at Majdanek, CO (which doesn't stain) or cyanide?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:11 pm)

A commercial German bomb shelter as advertised. Peep holes, gas tight doors, etc.
Image

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:20 pm)

said:
The thing is, why would there be cyanide stains within the room itself, from the floor to the walls to the ceiling? If it was an air raid shelter, surely the whole purpose of it would be to keep out gas? Also, if the Germans were using the room as a shelter, how would they know whether it was safe to venture out in the corridor? The gas detector was on the outside of the door, not within the room itself. In other words, it would only be helpful to someone standing outside the room, since it would be showing them how much gas had accumulated within the room. The last thing the Germans would have wanted is to be stuck in a room filled with gas.

But what about adapting the camp to produce CO gas, which is fatal to warm-blooded animals and useless for disinfection purposes according to Tregenza?

- a keyword in my post was 'provisional' bomb shelter, as in additional use of room, perhaps 'auxiliary' would be better, it was not only a bomb shelter

- "cyanide" gas chambers at Majdanek? Evidence?

- The gas detector outside would tell them if it was safe, the peep hole would allow visual inspection to the outside where any dropped gas would be sensed.

- What is your evidence for CO gas? Specifics please.

Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Rumpelstiltskin
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:26 am

Postby Rumpelstiltskin » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:23 pm)

Radar wrote:
Thirdly, it had a metal protective grid, something else which the delousing chamber door didn't have.



A standard air raid gas shelter would have a reinforced peep hole in order to keep blasts from shattering the glass and allowing penetration of gas.


Finally, it also had a gas detector at the bottom left.



If the detector was on the inside it would be impossible to use in high gas concentrations following a gassing. If on the outside its purpose would be obvious as a gas detector for air raids.



Michael Tregenza also noted that the HCG at Majdanek was adapted to produce CO gas,



Well, which was it at Majdanek, CO (which doesn't stain) or cyanide?


Like I said, it was apparently adapted later to produce CO gas. What I'm trying to point out is that if it were simply a gas shelter, why would there be so many stains within the room (something that David Cole was arguing about with regards to Mauthausen)? The reason I'm asking is because the whole purpose of a gas shelter is to keep all unwanted dangerous substances out. But looking at the photograph, the room seems to be covered totally covered in stains.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:23 pm)

Hi Rumpelstiltskin,
Welcome to the forum.

You seem to be aware of what the gas chambers looked like, so I'd like you to comment on this statement by Robert Faurisson. Is Faurisson talking about "B&D 1" ? And if so, how do you explain the windows?

Browning had also testified that Majdanek was the only place where there were original gas chambers. This contradicted his other testimony in which he maintained that the Germans had destroyed the evidence. Faurisson had inspected Majdanek and what was put forward as the gas chambers were in fact disinfection chambers. Immediately after the war, it was the shower room at Majdanek that was represented to be the gas chamber: "I suppose," said Faurisson, "that they realized that this shower room could not have been a gas chamber for a simple reason. You have windows beginning at this high, I mean the half of my body, so now the disinfection gas chamber[s] are described as gas chamber[s] for killing the people." The first accusation of the exterminationists made without proof, said Faurisson, was that the Germans gassed people in those places. The second accusation without proof was that the Germans destroyed those places. (30-8215 to 8217)

from:
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF880413.html
from the Zundel trial in '88

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:32 pm)

Here are David Cole's observations of Majdanek.
- Hannover
Unanswered Questions Regarding the Physical Evidence at the Majdanek Concentration Camp (Poland)
from: 'Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers'

by David Cole

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gc46-ORIGI.HTML
:arrow: Gas chamber 1 has two doors, both of which open INTO the gas chamber room. How can a homicidal gas chamber have two doors which open IN? Wouldn't the bodies be pressed up against the doors, as described numerous times by eyewitnesses?

:arrow: The main door into the gas chamber 1 has no locks. It can be opened from either the inside or the outside. There are no holes or fittings where a lock might have been. What stopped the inmates from opening this door?

:arrow: Gas chamber 1 has a plate glass window in it. There are no holes or fittings around the window where bars or any other kind of cover might once have been. Since the plaster around the window is covered with blue stains, we know that it is the plaster that existed during the time Zyklon B gas was used in this room. If there WERE bars or any other type of cover attached to this window, why are there no traces? What would have stopped the inmates from trying to climb out the window, or breaking the window and causing a gas leak?

:arrow: There is a room INSIDE gas chamber 1. Why would there be a separate room INSIDE a gas chamber? Doesn't this room indicate that gas chamber 1 was used for something OTHER than killing people?

:arrow: Gas chambers 2 and 3 are designed backwards. Chamber 2 has a Zyklon B induction hole in the ceiling, but no Zyklon B traces or blue stains. Chamber 3 has heavy, floor-to-ceiling Zyklon B traces and blue stains, but no Zyklon B induction hole. And, like the roof of Krema 2 at Auschwitz, the ceiling shows no sign of a hole having ever been there. Why would chamber 2 have a Zyklon B induction hole and no traces, and chamber 3 plenty of traces but no hole?

:arrow: The ceilings in chambers 2 and 4 are low enough so that the Zyklon B induction holes could have been blocked by the victims. What would have stopped the inmates from blocking the holes?
(33) The doors to chambers 2,3 and 4 are built to latch from the outside AND the inside. The latches can be opened from either side. Does this suggest that the rooms were used for something other than killing people?

:arrow: Getting back to the issue of hemispherical grids covering the peepholes, it is said that the point of these grids was to prevent the inmates from breaking the glass of the peepholes and causing a gas leak. Yet the hemispherical grids attached to the peepholes on the doors of chambers 2, 3 and 4 are attached on the OUTSIDE of the doors. These grids wouldn't prevent someone INSIDE the room from breaking the glass...but they WOULD prevent someone OUTSIDE the room from doing so. Why are the grids not on the inside? Does this contradict with the statements by Pressac and the eyewitnesses regarding the need for grids in a homicidal gas chamber?

:arrow: The Majdanek camp is built on a hill. At the top of the hill is the camp crematorium. At the opposite end of the camp, at the bottom of the hill, is the "Bath and Disinfection" complex, which houses the gas chambers. From the Nazi's point of view, what was the wisdom in putting the gas chambers at the opposite end of the camp from the ovens, and at the bottom of the hill (after each gassing, the dead bodies would have to have been dragged up the hill, the length of the entire camp, to the ovens)?

:arrow: As the Nazis were preparing to abandon the Majdanek camp, they destroyed the crematorium building. Why were the gas chambers not similarly destroyed? Why would the Nazis leave their weapons of mass murder intact for the world to see? How hard would it have been for the Nazis to destroy the gas chambers, just like they did the crematorium building? At least, shouldn't the Nazis have filled in the Zyklon B induction holes, which serve as direct proofs of homicidal gassings? Either way, the destruction of the crematorium is clear proof that the Nazis had both the time and the ability to demolish buildings in the camp if they wanted to. Why were the gas chambers not demolished?

:arrow: In his book "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers", Jean-Claude Pressac publishes a photo of the Majdanek gas chambers, with the caption "Photograph taken at the Majdanek concentration camp in June 1979, showing one of the disinfestation gas chambers thought to be a homicidal gas chamber." On page 555, he also has this to say about the Majdanek gas chambers: "I am sorry to say, and I am not the only one in the West, that the Majdanek homicidal and/or delousing gas chambers are still waiting for a true historian, which is mildly upsetting in view of the fact that the camp fell into the hands of the Russians intact in 1944." Do these comments suggest that the gas chambers at Majdanek may in fact have been disinfestation gas chambers? At least, don't these comments suggest that there has not yet been a thorough investigation into the purpose of these rooms? **

:arrow: To sum up the Majdanek gas chamber issue: If we take Pressac's comments and then factor in the doors that don't lock, the doors that open INTO the gas chamber, the doors with latches that can be manipulated from both the outside AND the inside, the window in gas chamber 1, the room inside gas chamber 1, the lack of any Zyklon B induction hole in gas chamber 3, the lack of any Zyklon B traces in gas chamber 2 (which DOES have a "Zyklon B induction hole"), the heavy blue stains on the OUTSIDE of the building, and the location of the building, at the bottom of a hill, at the opposite end of the camp from the crematorium, is it reasonable to suggest that these rooms were delousing chambers?


** In what can only be considered an unfortunate example of how major disputes between Holocaust historians are shielded from the public, the same room Pressac describes in his book as a "disinfestation gas chamber" is featured in the book "The World Must Know," the official book of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., written by Museum director Dr. Michael Berenbaum.
In that book, Berenbaum describes the room as a HOMICIDAL gas chamber and, what's more, a CASTING of this room was made for display AT THE MUSEUM, as PROOF of the homicidal gas chambers! Thus, in both Berenbaum's book AND in the Museum itself, the ONLY material proof given of homicidal gassings is THIS ROOM, a room Pressac staunchly believes to be a disinfestation gas chamber (in fact, in his Auschwitz book, Pressac actually RIDICULES those who say that this Majdanek room is proof of homicidal gassings, and criticizes everyone from the man who prosecuted Faurisson in France to the Majdanek State Museum personnel for perpetuating a fraud).

But does anyone give a damn that the general public, all the millions, might be receiving fraudulent information? Some might suggest that disputes such as these should be kept private so as not to shake the public's confidence in Holocaust history, or in the Holocaust historians. But don't you think we have a RESPONSIBILITY not to knowingly feed the public falsehoods or unproven claims disguised as unquestioned facts? Don't you think we have a responsibility to be honest about our research? If not, what makes us any different from the "historians" of the Soviet Union, or Hitler's Germany, who knowingly tailored their research to produce a politically expedient conclusion? When the ends begin justifying the means, watch integrity go flying out the window.

As bad as the public misinformation about Majdanek is, the Stalin-esque purging of Pressac's "Auschwitz; Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers" from the official record is worse. This master-work of historiography, once loudly heralded in the press (see enclosed clippings), is NOW nowhere to be found when references to Pressac are made. A recent article in "Publishers Weekly," detailing a forthcoming U.S. Holocaust Museum book containing 29 original essays from Holocaust scholars including Berenbaum and Pressac, not only neglects to mention Pressac's gas chamber book, but seems to suggest that Pressac's conversion from revisionist to gas chamber believer came only recently, as he was researching his just-published "slim volume" about the Auschwitz crematorium.

The entire period of the 1980's, which Pressac spent researching his gas chamber book after his "conversion", is omitted.
Yet scholars around the world continue to use Pressac's gas chamber book (if they're lucky enough to have one of the few copies), mainly because, even if one disagrees with Pressac's conclusions, his book is STILL the best (and the only) single source for the blueprints, construction slips, alteration plans, and inter-office communiques regarding the Auschwitz "gas chambers".

Neither side in this debate agrees entirely with Pressac...but for the gas chamber supporters, his book is an embarrassment because it IS so thorough. It is the most thorough work yet produced about the gas chambers, yet Pressac cannot find that elusive objective proof of gassings. So now, apparently, the historians have just decided to pretend the book doesn't exist. I've always referred to the Pressac gas chamber book as the most popular book that never existed!
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:40 pm)

I admit I have to study up on Majdanek, but I'd like for Rumplestilskin to describe exactly how the Zyklon pellets were introduced into this B&D chamber at Majdanek?

I'd also like for him to explain why, with all the witnesses, did they first claim the shower was the gas chamber and then changed the story?

Is it possible that your chamber wasn't originally pointed out as the gas chamber because prisoner witnesses told them it was the delousing chamber? Remember, the "D" means "disinfektion"...


But, gentlemen, we can claim a major victory for revisionism in this thread. Why? Because if you are sharp you'll recall that we've been told over and over again that gassings didn't leave stains at Birkenau. In fact, our beloved Dr Green went through pages and pages of "scientific" reasoning in order to show us why homicidal gassing leaves no stains and to disprove Leucter. Yet you claim the stains in this Majdanek chamber are proof of human gassings?

Rumplestilskin???
Last edited by Radar on Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1677
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:07 pm)

Rumpelstiltskin:

Some points to assist the debate and avoid anymore deletions.

We want your comments and specifics rather than mere citations which may or may not support your view.

Please note that you're missing Hannover's point and going in circles. The use of structures as air raid shelters was noted as "provisional/auxilliary", a multi-purpose use, not exclusively an air raid shelter in this case.

Thanks and welcome to The Revisionist Forum.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

Rumpelstiltskin
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:26 am

Postby Rumpelstiltskin » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:14 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:Hi Rumpelstiltskin,
Welcome to the forum.

You seem to be aware of what the gas chambers looked like, so I'd like you to comment on this statement by Robert Faurisson. Is Faurisson talking about "B&D 1" ? And if so, how do you explain the windows?

Browning had also testified that Majdanek was the only place where there were original gas chambers. This contradicted his other testimony in which he maintained that the Germans had destroyed the evidence. Faurisson had inspected Majdanek and what was put forward as the gas chambers were in fact disinfection chambers. Immediately after the war, it was the shower room at Majdanek that was represented to be the gas chamber: "I suppose," said Faurisson, "that they realized that this shower room could not have been a gas chamber for a simple reason. You have windows beginning at this high, I mean the half of my body, so now the disinfection gas chamber[s] are described as gas chamber[s] for killing the people." The first accusation of the exterminationists made without proof, said Faurisson, was that the Germans gassed people in those places. The second accusation without proof was that the Germans destroyed those places. (30-8215 to 8217)

from:
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF880413.html
from the Zundel trial in '88


Thanks for the welcome, Carto's Cutlass Supreme :) Faurisson says that the gas chamber was just the a shower room. However, on Tregenza's diagram, it shows the entrance, the vestibule, Dis. 2, then in the centre a bath and a shower room and on the far side (separate from the shower room) another room labelled as the Disinfektion 1, which was believed to be the homicidal gas chamber.

The room which has the window is the delousing chamber. The photograph which shows the room thought to be the homicidal gas chamber does not have a window( as far as I can see), just an opening where Zyklon-B pellets were thought to have been poured through. The difference between the two rooms is clear: the delousing chamber has white, stained walls with a clear, see-through window, a piece of wood running down the side of the wall and a patched hole used to evaporate the Zyklon B.
The HGC room has black, stained walls, a small opening near the top of one side of the walls and does not have a patched hole (as far as I can tell)

However, the scope of the room thought to be the HCG is not entirely covered in the photograph.

But even if there was a ventilation hole or a small window, it would be understandable, since if the Nazis were gassing people they would have to evaporate the Zyklon-B before walking into the room themselves (just as they had a way of evaporating the Zyklon-B in the delousing chamber).

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:24 pm)

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
But what about adapting the camp to produce CO gas, which is fatal to warm-blooded animals and useless for disinfection purposes according to Tregenza?


There are two alleged CO containers on view today. The one with legible markings is marked CO2 - carbon dioxide. It is thought that during disease epidemics when the amount of dead inmates exceeded the capacities of the morgues and ovens, this gas was piped into the rooms which were being used as morgues to cool them and delay decomposition.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:25 pm)

The gassing argument is unsustainable as the storyline at Majdanek has changed from cyanide to carbon monoxide (CO) in bottles. But, the "CO" bottles outside the "gas chambers" are actually carbon dioxide with another ingredient which has been scratched out, that product turns out be Cartox, a mixture of carbon dioxide and ethylene oxide also used for fumigation and sold by Degesch.
Image
- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:30 pm)

Oh, that's interesting. I got my info from the Mattogno text.

Just when you think the revisionist case couldn't get any stronger it is reinforced yet further.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:44 pm)

Rumpelstiltskin said:
But even if there was a ventilation hole or a small window, it would be understandable, since if the Nazis were gassing people they would have to evaporate the Zyklon-B before walking into the room themselves (just as they had a way of evaporating the Zyklon-B in the delousing chamber).

Remember these alleged gassings were said to have been done in mere minutes, thus supposedly allowing the numbers alleged.

more problems:
the cyanide in the Zyklon would continue to outgas for hours, so what to do with it? And, any quick ventilation would simply gas the entire camp. Whereas delousing was done slowly, allowing the gas to dissipate over a lengthy period. Any ventilation would be minimal and of low cyanide density.

I also notice that he did not address the posted David Cole points. Why?

- H.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Radar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:25 pm

Postby Radar » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:03 pm)

Anyone care to answer why the chambers at Birkenau were not stained yet this one at Majdanek was?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9975
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:44 pm)

On the use of various structures for air raid and gas protection we have the German document: 'Guidelines for Bomb Shelter Construction in the GG' (Source: NA, T501, Roll 216, 1444-1447)

- a set of directions dated August 6, 1942, entitled "Richtlinien für den Aufbau der Luftschutzes im Bereich des M.i.G." or "Guidelines for the Construction of Air Raid Shelters in the Area of the Military Authority in the Government General", meaning occupied Poland.

- the document covers ground familiar to defense: it stresses the need to build air raid shelters, these are to be constructed such that the entire occupancy of a building are accommodated, basements are to be used, and if there are no basements, ground floors are to be used, attention should be paid to anti-gas measures.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: borjastick, MSN [Bot] and 2 guests