The alleged homicidal gas chambers.

[Sailor]

I doubt whether Sailor could possibly have read Appendices A & B to my essay "Typhus and the Jews." I suggest he find that essay and the appendices on VHO.org.

I do not remember reading Appendices A & B. I did this now. And I understand the HCN gasgeneration in those tunnels.

In Appendix ‘B’ it is explained that only very little HCN gas is needed to kill the lice in a train. Since the Holocaust people always are telling me that only 10% of the amount of HCN gas for killing lice is required to kill people, then 10% of ‘very little’ is ‘very very little’: almost nothing. In that case of course it is very easy to exhaust the ‘very very little’ amount of gas. Just lock the doors in the open position, and after the deed is done drive the train to the next coal-fired power plant or steel mill and incinerate all the bodies into electricity or steel.

Instead, Faurisson and Leuchter and their followers rely on totally ridiculous arguments such as the supposed "explosive nature of cyanide." Cyanide is only explosive in concentrations in normal air above 5.6%--which is far greater than the concentrations used for fumigation or executions

Am I to understand that Leuchter was wrong and that no explosion proof fixtures are required for US execution type gas chambers?

The requirements and provisions for explosion proof equipment for hazardous locations for liquids, gases and solids in the US are covered in NFPA 497M and NFPA 325M. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy.

According to the inventory lists morgue 1 has for lighting only a couple of lamp holders and light bulbs.
I wonder what DEGESCH provided for the interior illumination if any for their fumigation gas chambers. The pictures for the railroad tunnels don’t show any lighting at all.

Explosion proofing is a precaution. If there is any danger at all of fire or explosion you want to have something like that. The provision of explosion proof equipment is actually only a precaution, an insurance. While it is true that the average density of the HCN gas may have been less than 0.3%, there may be pockets with much higher and dangerous densities. This is difficult to control. If you have a million dollar crematorium and start fiddeling with an inflamable gas like HCN in the basement, you can be sure that the insurance companies would be on your back to make sure that all precautions are taken.

Of course in 1943 in Germany there was a tremendous scarcity of everything. On top I don’t have much trust in the technical capabitlities of the Auschwitz camp administratiopn: Rudolf Höß was a learnt book keeper, and spent most of his adult life in jail, either as an inmate or as a prison ward.

My first engineering job with Siemens in Erlangen, Germany, was for the Oil Port in Bombay, India. And the low voltage equipment had to be explosion proof. Quite an interesting subject. Our factory was for this in Berlin.
We are getting a little off track here.



fge

[Scott]

Instead, Faurisson and Leuchter and their followers rely on totally ridiculous arguments such as the supposed "explosive nature of cyanide." Cyanide is only explosive in concentrations in normal air above 5.6%--which is far greater than the concentrations used for fumigation or executions.

Am I to understand that Leuchter was wrong and that no explosion proof fixtures are required for US execution type gas chambers?

My understanding is that the acid-salt gas-generation method used in the USA, with no circulation of the air, cannot control the HCN concentration which becomes incredibly dense in a short period of time, and therefore the explosion-proof precautions are advised.

My first engineering job with Siemens in Erlangen, Germany, was for the Oil Port in Bombay, India. And the low voltage equipment had to be explosion proof. Quite an interesting subject. Our factory was for this in Berlin.

I think oil vapors would be more of a concern, plus, by low-voltage, I am assuming direct current. If that is the case, DC has a tendency to arc badly, so a switch would have to have a capacitor across it to reduce the arcing and prolong the life, whether hermetically sealed or not. Of course, this does not detract from your point.

On Degesch marketing its fumigation wares for American executions, Thomas Edison once built an electric chair which used alternating current for executions specifically in order to promote it as more dangerous, unlike his direct current electrical products that were less likely to stop the heart beating in case of shock. It could be that Degesch was simply not interested in the idea of marketing its fumigation material to a narrow American execution market with the stigma of its products seen as being deadly.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

Since most people believe quite tenaciously in the Holocaust hoax, the hoaxers have nothing further to do except keep the revisionists in a quiet corner--they have to prove nothing further to reap all the rewards of their lies. It is the revisionists who have to breakthrough somehow. I suggest that we can breakthrough with arguments that have validity rather than continue wasting our time and resources with false arguments that can be fended off by amateurs.

Friedrich Paul Berg

[Hannover]

The degree to which cyanide is combustible is small potatoes considering the overwhelming amount of information Revisionists have accumulated.
And, as said before, the story itself is the holocau$t Industry's worst enemy.

The breakthrough occurs when a few high profile individuals have the courage to go public and speak out...the masses will then follow. It's not if, but when.
Imagine the fear that resides within the shysters.

- H.

[Scott]

The breakthrough occurs when a few high profile individuals have the courage to go public and speak out...

This has already happened with people such as Irving, once a highly-respected popular historian. Then he dabbled in Holocaust Denial. And Leuchter, why could they not have gotten somebody to do his report who at least had an engineering degree?

"No-Holes/No-Holocaust" isn't going to go anywhere either because even if it were conclusively proved that there were no holes in the roofs of the Krema basements, the story will simply morph again, and in true Orwellian fashion there never were any holes.

For Revisionists to make any headway they will have to be able to answer questions about what really happened (and why), not just expect to discredit silly claims. If Revisionists want the public to believe something different about the Holocaust, the onus is (unfortunately) upon them to produce convincing arguments, not upon the Believers to tell a decent story.

[Hannover]

Revisionists have plenty of 'convincing arguments'...notice the lack of nerve to debate us. It's simply a case of getting the word out, the True believers cannot rebut Revisionists points, it's plain and simple.

Your attempt to reduce the entire Revisionist body of work to 'no holes/no holocaust' is IMO weak and in denial of the vast body of work that has come forth.
No one can touch informed Revisionists, the holocau$t Industry can only be dishonest, as you suggested, AND dodge us; which is what happens everyday at this Forum.

Take for example, the sham, so called "RODOH" site (which CODOH has announced it's going to severe it's link to...shysters, filthy language, and lies are not something CODOH wants to be associated with), any Believer nonsense they post has long ago been shot down right here at The Revisionist Forum, they're a sad lot.

It's not a case of poor Revisionst arguments, it's a case of dishonesty and censorship by the judeo-supremacist media; that won't last however. In fact it is in dire straits as we speak.

- Hannover

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

Indeed, the cyanide concentrations for killing humans are less than those needed to kill lice. This is because of the low metabolisms of lice and the fact that they tended to be deeply embedded in clothing or upholstery when they were not actually feeding on people.

I am delighted that Sailor recognizes that the railroad delousing tunnels would have been ideal for mass murder of Jews or anyone locked inside cattle cars--equipped as they routinely were with wooden slat walls, many air openings, through which gas could easily enter and escape. For venting after a mass execution, the doors need not be locked in the open position since the design allowed more thorough venting with the doors closed and with the large blower running to drive fresh air through the ductwork and railroad car prior to exhausting through a high vent pipe.

I have no idea as to whether explosion proof fixtures are required for US execution type gas chambers. They may well be required--but so what! That does not mean that Nazi gaschambers "without" explosion proof switches could never have existed as Faurisson and Leuchter have argued again and again. People do all kinds of things that they really should not do--even if we assume there was some danger of explosion. To insist, for example, that people do not really smoke cigarettes in gasoline-powered cars because of the dangers of explosion is ridiculous--but that would be the same type of false argument. Adolf Galland, one of Germany's best combat fighter pilots, was frequently photographed with a lit cigar in his mouth as he took off against the British. Does that prove he was a fake? Why not?

Today, in this country there have been and still are many horrible, fatal accidents involving Ford Marquis police cars where the cars explode after being hit in the rear. Dozens of police men have been horribly mutilated and killed in such accidents--and yet, Ford continues to sell essentially the same car and police departments continue to drive them. Would anyone in his right mind actually go to court and insist that such stories are impossible because of the obvious danger of explosion? Of course not--but, Faurisson has done essentially the same thing in court again and again--and, here is the really interesting part, he loses again and again.

In the DEGESCH chambers there was, I believe, no lighting at all once the doors were closed.

All the explosion-proof switches that I have ever seen rely on a mercury droplet in a vacuum bulb to make or break contact with two wires extending into the bulb. I am sure there must be other arrangements, especially today, because of our concerns about mercury pollution after the switches are no longer needed. But, mercury was, I dare say, a rare commodity during WW2. One could get it from Spain--but, in general, one tried to avoid unnecessary requests for rare materials during the war.
Since DEGESCH and even the American Cyanimid Co had actually been recommending the use of furncaces for heating during fumigations--how great could the dangers of explosion have possibly been?

Sure, there can be pockets of much higher than average concentrations of a gas inside a large chamber, but the liklihood of such occurences are low if the circulation fan is running. It is not difficult to control at all. Just make sure the circulation fan is running. I believe the DEGESCH chambers contained safety controls for just such a purpose.

But, even if there is a pocket of high concentration somewhere and some kind of ignition--perhaps a Jew puffing on a last cigarette--unless that pocket of high HCN concentration is extensive throughout the chamber, all that one will have is a "puff" rather than a serious explosion. Puffs are quite common in kitchens around the world when people have a gas stove turned on for a few too many seconds before the gas-mixture is actually ignited with a match or an electric spark. Ultimately, the best control is to not put more cans of Zyklon-B into the chamber than is actually needed--and that is far below what one needs for a serious explosion.

Ideally everything in the world would be explosion proof--but in the real world, everyone makes compromises based on common sense.

As to V. Hannover's comment, I must say that I disagree with him completely. Although we certainly do have a multitude of valid arguments against the hoax, when we go into court with even one invalid argument that our enemies can focus on--they will do precisely that and they have again and again. If we try to actually defend such invalid arguments in court, as revisonists like Faurisson and Leuchter have tried, they only make themselves--and all the rest of us as well--look ridiculous. Low and behold, revisionists lose again and again when they go to court. It is so frustrating and so stupid--and so unnecessary if we come to our senses. The odds against us are tough enough.

Friedrich Paul Berg

[Scott]

Revisionists have plenty of 'convincing arguments'...notice the lack of nerve to debate us. It's simply a case of getting the word out, the True believers cannot rebut Revisionists points, it's plain and simple.

Your attempt to reduce the entire Revisionist body of work to 'no holes/no holocaust' is IMO weak and in denial of the vast body of work that has come forth.

No one can touch informed Revisionists, the holocau$t Industry can only be dishonest, as you suggested, AND dodge us; which is what happens everyday at this Forum.

Take for example, the sham, so called "RODOH" site (which CODOH has announced it's going to severe it's link to...shysters, filthy language, and lies are not something CODOH wants to be associated with), any Believer nonsense they post has long ago been shot down right here at The Revisionist Forum, they're a sad lot.

It's not a case of poor Revisionst arguments, it's a case of dishonesty and censorship by the judeo-supremacist media; that won't last however. In fact it is in dire straits as we speak.

I am not attempting to "reduce the entire body of Revisionist work" to the mantra of the so-called Pope of Revisionism: No-Holes/No-Holocaust.

I merely disagree with Mr. Faurisson on this one approach and other simplistic arguments that can be defeated by amateurs (like me).

The Holocaust is not rocket science, folks. When generals cannot win battles they are replaced. If Revisionists cannot win their arguments they need to reexamine their tactics and some of their ideas. One needs to ask what is being done wrong in order to know what is right. Historical problems are complex but not irrational.

[Sailor]

I am not attempting to "reduce the entire body of Revisionist work" to the mantra of the so-called Pope of Revisionism: No-Holes/No-Holocaust.

I merely disagree with Mr. Faurisson on this one approach and other simplistic arguments that can be defeated by amateurs (like me).

You can? Donnerwetter!

Sofar nobody has been able to locate those alleged holes yet. Substantial parts of the morgues are still intact, including the foundatations and all walls, I understand. All that happened is that the roof collapsed, for Krema II partially and Krema III completely. It is not difficult to reconstruct the old roof or to locate the alleged holes, if there are or were any.

And without holes, how on earth did they get those Zyklon B pellets into the morgue? And without the Zyklon B introduction holes the confessions of perpetrators and testimonies of “Sonderkommando” witness about the Auschwitz gas chambers are going up in smoke.

On Plates 13, 14 and 15 Pressac includes in his “Die Krematorien von Auschwitz” detail ventilation drawings, plans and sections, for the ventilation system of morgue 1 of Krema II. I checked ever square inch of those drawings looking for the heater and HCN gas generator, there is nothing, absolutely nothing. Believe me.

We are all amateurs, and why would a debate with members of the “RODOH” forum does anything for the revisionism? (I sometimes think that Scott just wants to see the fireworks going off, which certainly will happen, while he would sit back, having a good old time)

To quote Hayward in The Fate of Jews in German Hands:
An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism

In my view, this inflexibility [of Holocaust believers], and stridency is a mistake. Its like putting all your eggs in one basket. Had I been in charge of this issue I would have anticipated that someday I might have to say, "OK, so maybe our figures aren't etched in stone, and maybe gas chambers weren't as prevalent as we thought. So what? It really doesn't change anything much, does it? However extensive it was, or wasn't, it was still terrible and deserves the universal condemnation of mankind."
Had they [the Holocaust believers] done this, they wouldn't have boxed themselves into a corner as they have. What could happen (and I think it will happen) is that no amount of repression and name-calling will keep scholars from investigating this issue (some might even be attracted by it on those grounds alone), and it's probably just a matter of time until some mainstream scholar, possibly nearing retirement, will publish the revisionist book that will break the dam and then all this effort has been for naught.

fge

[Scott]

I am not attempting to "reduce the entire body of Revisionist work" to the mantra of the so-called Pope of Revisionism: No-Holes/No-Holocaust.

I merely disagree with Mr. Faurisson on this one approach and other simplistic arguments that can be defeated by amateurs (like me).

You can? Donnerwetter!

Sure!

Okay, let's say I'm the "Pope of Exterminationism," Dr. Joe Q. Rabinowicz, Professor of Holo-History. My folks were gassed, you dirty bastard (just kidding).

Now, you crackerjack Revisionists with real engineering degrees have conclusively proved that those goshdarned holes were just never there in the first place. And all my Holo-horses and all my Holo-men can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. The holes just weren't there. And the word is already out. No Holes!

No Holocaust?

Non-Sequitur. It does not follow. It just does not follow.

You protest that all the Holo-witnesses say this-and-that about Zyklon-B and whatnot. I (Rabinowicz) reply, "so F****** what, Denier?! The witnesses got it wrong. Rumor and hearsay on the details. Nana and Pops are still DEAD. And the Nazis gassed them."

And then the myth morphs again. So ten years down the road we are talking not about holes in basements but about flying-saucers or some other equally-plausible figment. Maybe cylinders of chlorine or something for water treatment. Rabinowicz continues: "I have an invoice from the WVHA right here for shower heads to administer the gas and... Blah, Blah, Blah, X cylinders of chlorine for 'special treatment' of 'water' (=codeword for gassing Jews)."

Same old Holocaust™.

Sofar nobody has been able to locate those alleged holes yet. Substantial parts of the morgues are still intact, including the foundatations and all walls, I understand. All that happened is that the roof collapsed, for Krema II partially and Krema III completely. It is not difficult to reconstruct the old roof or to locate the alleged holes, if there are or were any.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done--on the contrary. Everything should be investigated. The Devil is in the details. I am attacking the notion of oversimplification. "If it didn't happen as alleged then it didn't happen" is a fine legal fiction. But it ain't gonna "work" for epistemology. And it won't convince anybody (if that is the desired outcome). Sorry.

And without holes, how on earth did they get those Zyklon B pellets into the morgue? And without the Zyklon B introduction holes the confessions of perpetrators and testimonies of “Sonderkommando” witness about the Auschwitz gas chambers are going up in smoke.

But Professor Rabinowicz has an alternate theory, THE theory: "Nobody has used the Zyklon-B and diesel theses since Hilberg and Poliakov (R.I.P.), and Revisionists had nothing at all to do with it. NOTHING, I tell you. NOTHING! And besides, nobody even teaches them anymore except for carefully selected modern curricula that you American bigots wouldn't understand." (Rabinowicz sets the accepted canon, you see, and the whole Industry voluntarily helps him "enforce" it.) "You don't want to be a Denier do you, Ms. Lipstadt?"

On Plates 13, 14 and 15 Pressac includes in his “Die Krematorien von Auschwitz” detail ventilation drawings, plans and sections, for the ventilation system of morgue 1 of Krema II. I checked ever square inch of those drawings looking for the heater and HCN gas generator, there is nothing, absolutely nothing. Believe me.

I don't know and I don't really care (although it is interesting). I'm skeptical that a half-million people were gassed in a basement. Period. Regardless of the existence or non-existence of holes, that is just MY prejudice. But you have to convince others--if you want to make headway with your thesis, that is. And why not?

Personally, we have seen that wartime basements were routinely fitted with airtight Luftwaffe bombshelter doors, in a solid bit of pertinent research. It is a simple Revisionist idea and a good one--not that testing for HCN on walls or looking for holes is a bad idea either, you understand. Let's just not go too far with our evidence.

So we have these airtight morgues. We stuff in these people on the ruse of getting a shower. Perhaps it really is plumbed as a shower. Anyway, we shut the door and go to lunch. When we come back they are all dead from suffocation. Why wouldn't it work? The hard part is unloading the bodies and washing the room for the next go-around. It may not work for the numbers claimed but the notion of millions murdered in special camps in special rooms is the weak point of the Holocaust™ anyway as I see it. (Faurisson is dead right on that score.)

We are all amateurs, and why would a debate with members of the “RODOH” forum does anything for the revisionism? (I sometimes think that Scott just wants to see the fireworks going off, which certainly will happen, while he would sit back, having a good old time)

Oh, you've got me pegged! I'm a little scamp, like my second grade picture shown. I would enjoy it. But like Beavis and Butt-Head, I'm not allowed to talk about fire here. It gives people ideas, see.

You know where to find me and I will answer your questions. Let's just say for now that I'm not that dumb. It might look bad at the moment but I know exactly what I'm doing.

To quote Hayward in The Fate of Jews in German Hands:

An Historical Enquiry into the Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism

In my view, this inflexibility [of Holocaust believers], and stridency is a mistake. Its like putting all your eggs in one basket. Had I been in charge of this issue I would have anticipated that someday I might have to say, "OK, so maybe our figures aren't etched in stone, and maybe gas chambers weren't as prevalent as we thought. So what? It really doesn't change anything much, does it? However extensive it was, or wasn't, it was still terrible and deserves the universal condemnation of mankind."
Had they [the Holocaust believers] done this, they wouldn't have boxed themselves into a corner as they have. What could happen (and I think it will happen) is that no amount of repression and name-calling will keep scholars from investigating this issue (some might even be attracted by it on those grounds alone), and it's probably just a matter of time until some mainstream scholar, possibly nearing retirement, will publish the revisionist book that will break the dam and then all this effort has been for naught.

Yes, but when you are dealing with a religion, which is what the Holocaust™ ultimately is, you find it is too easy to take the eggs out of the basket and put them in another. I can debate the divinity or even the existence of Jesus until hell freezes over and it will not change the mind of a True Believer. Does that mean that the rationalist should throw his hands into the air and start training to be a witch? No, it doesn't. Change can come a detail at a time and "consensus" follows. It starts when somebody looks through the telescope for the first time, kicking and screaming all the way.

But the tactics the Revisionists have been using for the last ten years or so--it seems to me--couldn't have been better advised by the ADL.


Look, I've known about Revisionism for a long time, 1979. I never really got all that interested in it, despite an undergraduate degree in History, until after the Irving-Lipstadt fiasco in 2000. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Irving's politics, he is a first-class historical author. So I read Debbie's book and thought it smacked so much of anti-intellectualism and the justification of Thoughtcrime that it was like a wake-up call for me. First they come for the "crackpots" and then they come for--well, anybody with different ideas, I guess. And I pride myself on my non-conformity. Holocaust or not, this is important to me. All I am asking is for Revisionists, too, to "think outside of the box."

[Hannover]

Oh please, Scott...you said:

All I am asking is for Revisionists, too, to "think outside of the box."

Revisionism is simple:
look at the allegations, look at what's called evidence, and rationally/scientifically analyze.

The ADL/JDL, whomever, can't debate us for a second without being routed, the posts at this Forum prove it.

Your attempts to drag it into the philosophical are frankly...bizarre. You seem to go in circles, I hope not intentionally.

- Hannover

[Sailor]

Okay, let's say I'm the "Pope of Exterminationism," Dr. Joe Q. Rabinowicz, Professor of Holo-History. My folks were gassed, you dirty bastard (just kidding).

Prof. Rabinowicz did not really prove the existence of the gas chambers, he rather told us that he believed in them.

Look, I've known about Revisionism for a long time, 1979. I never really got all that interested in it, despite an undergraduate degree in History […]

Interesting.
I have no idea how Historians do their research on Historic events. Do they really depend on what lawyers, judges and trial verdicts say? Because that seems to play really big with Holocaust believers.

I can only deal with the concrete, the architectural plans, designs, forensic tests. Show me a picture of a homicidal
Gas chamber in Auschwitz/Birkenau.
A spiritual gas chamber I don’t understand. Let the religious gurus and psychologists deal with that. If Jewish people believe in the homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz because it fits nicely into their spiritual views of the world and themselves, well, no discussion with anyone of the RODOH forum or alt.revisionism will change that.

But the tactics the Revisionists have been using for the last ten years or so--it seems to me--couldn't have been better advised by the ADL.

Is there a Revisionist movement? And I always thought that Revisionism is part of the human evolution. Something that comes naturally.

Right now Holocaust Revisionism is suppressed by force. Criticism of the Nazi ideology during the years from 1933 to 1945 was also suppressed, at that time they would have put you in jail or in a concentration camp for publicly opposing those ideas, similar as we have it now again in Germany in connection with the Holocaust.
That pot will boil over, sooner or later.

All I desire at this time is to freely exchange with similar oriented people critical ideas about the Jewish Holocaust story.

I have to post under a cover name now because I don’t wamt to be arrested at the airport in Germany when I go there once a year for vacation. And this in the 21st century. It is simply hard to believe.

And that is my problem. And no discussion with any RODOH or alt.revisionism people will change that. I tried it, and the believers gave me very eloquently thousand reasons why a free discussion on the Jewish Holocaust story should not be allowed in Germany.

And that is that.


fge

[Turpitz]

I'm new here. I have been reading everything for a few months now, but have felt a bit overwhelmed.

Anyway, I thought you would like to know (You might already know, and consider it inconsequential) that the Auschwitz museum has gone public about Krema 1 being a mock-up and the supposed induction holes in the roof have been added.

I quote:

"After the war, the Museum carried out a partial reconstruction. The chimney and two incinerators were rebuilt using original components, as were and several of the openings in the gas chamber roof."


http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl ... ium_1.html

[Moderator]

Scott:
You just don't get it. Your attempts to change the subject have gotten tiresome. Some drift is normal; but you, on the other hand, seem to consistently attempt it. There may be other less regarded sites where this is normal practice, but not here.

Please re-read the guidelines.

Your off topic post was deleted, again.

Moderator