Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
dantesnake
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:45 pm

Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby dantesnake » 8 years 4 months ago (Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:55 am)

Greetings.

In my latest effort to convince myself that holocaust really did happen, I visited ushmm.org and browsed the gallery.
Now I don't know what to make of this:

Image

but as far as my modest knowledge on the holocaust goes: this could be a delousing chamber, which would explain prussian blue stains on the wall.

If that really is the case (i would need some expert on Majdanek to confirm this) then this photo alone is a massive argument against the holocaust,
since no such stains are to be found in alleged Auschwitz gas chambers (it's enough only to destroy Auschwitz, rest of the lie follows)

stefanob
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby stefanob » 8 years 4 months ago (Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:48 am)

To stay on the topic, I think this is a delousing chamber for 2 reasons.

1) The peephole. There was a debate regarding the door that had been ordered for a Birkenau crematorium. Exterminationists claimed that the peephole indicated a gas chamber... but I think it is the opposite. Inf act, think about how delousing works: members of the squad TAKE the things to be deloused inside the room, then the door is locked and the delousing begins. The peephoòe may be sueful to check that nobody remained inside. On the other hand, supposed victims of a gas chamber would walk by themselves in the chamber, although pushed. At that point, who needs a peephole?

2) The window. A window in a gas chamber? Indeed there is at least one of the supposed Majdanek gas chambers that do have a glass window... That is one of the reasons why I (and many others) don't believe it was a gas chamber.
I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive errors and weird syntax

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby Hans » 8 years 4 months ago (Sat Jul 09, 2011 11:08 am)

stefanob wrote:On the other hand, supposed victims of a gas chamber would walk by themselves in the chamber, although pushed. At that point, who needs a peephole?


Huh, why do you assume that anybody is linking the loading of the gas-chamber to the peephole in gas-tight door?

The peephole was desired for the homicidal gas-chambers to overlook the gassing process.

dantesnake
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:45 pm

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby dantesnake » 8 years 4 months ago (Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:04 pm)

Ok, let's assume it was a gas chamber. What was the gassing process here?
With all those billions of documents and in proof of the holocaust, this should not be a problem to explain.

I'm not mocking, I'm seriously asking.

stefanob
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby stefanob » 8 years 4 months ago (Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:15 pm)

Hans wrote:
Huh, why do you assume that anybody is linking the loading of the gas-chamber to the peephole in gas-tight door?

The peephole was desired for the homicidal gas-chambers to overlook the gassing process.


I assume that because I think it is reasonable. I'm not selling this as scientifically verified fact. Way more likely then the need to overlook the gassing process.
Suppose a homicidal gas chember is used: once the victims are inside, you can tell it from the fact that there is no one left outside. And once the gas is released, they die. What is there to overlook? That cyanide is actually toxic?
Huh, wait, maybe they needed to make sure that the window was closed :lol:
... and that the people inside would not break the glass :lol:

@dantesnake
I have a detailed article on Majdanek. Searching for the link...
I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive errors and weird syntax

stefanob
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby stefanob » 8 years 4 months ago (Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:35 pm)

dantesnake, here is the link:

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/majdanek.html

This article by Jurgen Graf will give you background about Majdanek. It also includes a description about what the gassing process allegedly was according, as always, to witnesses. It was your last question.
I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive errors and weird syntax

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby Hans » 8 years 4 months ago (Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:38 pm)

stefanob wrote:Way more likely then the need to overlook the gassing process.
Suppose a homicidal gas chember is used: once the victims are inside, you can tell it from the fact that there is no one left outside. And once the gas is released, they die. What is there to overlook? That cyanide is actually toxic?
Huh, wait, maybe they needed to make sure that the window was closed :lol:
... and that the people inside would not break the glass :lol:



The main use of peep-hole in a homicidal gas-chamber is to verify the time when the killing is finished. Of course, you can operate a homicidal gas-chamber without peep-hole (as you can operate a delousing chamber without peep-hole) and it is possible that there is not much to see anyway as long as the chamber is warm and humid, but it was considered useful when they ordered the gas-tight doors for the crematoria.

And there were no glass windows in any homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz.

stefanob
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby stefanob » 8 years 4 months ago (Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:41 pm)

Hans wrote:
The main use of peep-hole in a homicidal gas-chamber is to verify the time when the killing is finished. Of course, you can operate a homicidal gas-chamber without peep-hole (as you can operate a delousing chamber without peep-hole) and it is possible that there is not much to see anyway as long as the chamber is warm and humid, but it was considered useful when they ordered the gas-tight doors for the crematoria.

And there were no glass windows in any homicidal gas-chambers in Auschwitz.


We have differente points of view about wether it is more reasonable to peep in a delousing chamber or a gassing chamber. OK, other participants will make up their minds.

But the topic here is the chamber in the photo above. Since it DOES have a window, it can not be for homicidal gassing.

Auschwitz is off topic here. Me and you know the matter well, and other participants may search 'auschwitz gas chamber' in the box above and read many pages of debate regarding it., Vrba, Muller, Bischoff etc...
I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive errors and weird syntax

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby Hannover » 8 years 4 months ago (Sat Jul 09, 2011 11:51 pm)

Hans said:
The main use of peep-hole in a homicidal gas-chamber is to verify the time when the killing is finished. Of course, you can operate a homicidal gas-chamber without peep-hole (as you can operate a delousing chamber without peep-hole) and it is possible that there is not much to see anyway as long as the chamber is warm and humid, but it was considered useful when they ordered the gas-tight doors for the crematoria.

Sorry Hans, you continue to repeat what has already been shown to be a laughable lie.
For starters I bring you yet another exposed 'holocaust' fraud, this one from the so called 'U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum ', the source of the photo in the initial post of this thread. Here are excerpts from some of my previous posts concerning Majdanek.

Hannover wrote:Concerning the fraudulent claims about homicidal 'gas chambers, this is damning.
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum displays standard German air-raid shelter door, describing it as the door to a gas chamber at Majdanek

By David Thomas

Image
At left: The door at the concentration camp Majdanek from which the USHMM made the replica which is now on display in Washington D.C.. At right, the real function of the door and thousands more like it is shown in a widely distributed German ad for bomb-shelter doors and window covers, intended for military and civilian use. Approximately 670,000 German civilians were killed in the massive Allied terror-bombing campaign directed at population centers throughout Germany.

ImageImage

A standard air-raid shelter door is displayed at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum along with the claim that it is a casting of the door to a homicidal gassing chamber at the Majdanek concentration camp. The peephole was supposed to be for monitoring the progress of killing with cyanide gas released from a common fumigation product called Zyklon B. Those looking through it were sometimes said to do so to monitor and improve the efficiency of the killing system, but a more common charge is that it was done for sadistic personal pleasure.

Many are convinced that German hatred for Jews was so great that they derived great amusement and satisfaction from watching their death throes, as well as engaging in bizarre forms of harassment and torture, some of them quite fantastic, bordering on the supernatural. There's been a steady tendency for the claims to increase their variety and horrific detail with the passage of time, perhaps showing the dubious phenomenon of recovered memory enjoying its most productive period ever.

The realities of the myths that sprang from a thirst for vengeance and are sustained by it still, with the added factor of a memorial industry and reparations in the billions of dollars that depend on it totally, are often very different.

The door and window shutter (Türen und Blenden) on the right appear in an advertisement for equipment to outfit the thousands of air-raid shelters built across Germany and occupied territories, including the concentration camps. (See: Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas Shelters in World War II, by Samuel Crowell) As noted in the Crowell article, and several more to come, it has recently been discovered that German air-raid shelters were required to also provide protection against gas attack. With WWII coming only 20 years after WWI, memory of the horrors of gas warfare then were relatively fresh, and the Germans took more defensive measures than most since the conflict was sure to be played out again on European soil.

The peepholes in the doors were for safety purposes. People inside wanted to be able to see conditions outside before exposing themselves to possible danger, and rescuers from outside had the same concern, plus wanting to make a quick evaluation without opening the door in order to save precious time (seeing if everyone was dead, or if no one was inside).


Steadily, piece by piece, the sources of the myth are being exposed at an accelerating pace. Camps inside the borders of Germany were available for inspection by many people after the war, and the adamant accusations of killing centers there made in 1945-46 were officially admitted to be false in 1960. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, show trials were held to reinforce the story in the public mind, particularly and most successfully in Germany, and another group of German veterans were convicted based on flimsy, contradictory and often quite unbelievable oral testimonies, as at the earlier kangaroo trials. There, accusations that someone struck a prisoner were sufficient to result in a death sentence for participating in a conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity. It was not necessary to prove that the person killed anyone, only that he or she played an active part in a sprawling system that did so. Despite the fact that the false allegations about mass gassing chambers in Dachau and other German camps came from some of the same sources that made similar charges about Auschwitz, Treblinka and Majdanek, there was no call to question the now suspect testimony. It was accepted as fully true with no hesitation.

But with the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of many of its archives, fresh eyes and attitudes are actively seeking the truth of the matter and in the process finding truth to be a scarce commodity when atrocity charges are involved. The now Religion of the Holocaust has defenders as fiercely immune to logic and a concern for truth as any fundamentalist religion that has ever existed. Nevertheless, at some point the burden of supporting the unsupportable will become too hard and too dangerous, and we predict that at that time the gas chamber canard will be quietly abandoned in favor of the real and documented wrongs of a lesser but still horrible magnitude.

Perhaps the Allied powers will one day own up to their own crimes, committed in an effort to grind the will of the German people into dust so that they would not pose a future threat to those who consider domination of world trade and finance to be their exclusive possession. Almost 15 million Germans were summarily expelled from their homelands that in some cases went back 700 years or more, cast into the harshest European winter in a century with only what they could grab and carry. More than two million of them died of starvation, disease, and merciless attacks from those they encountered on their frozen paths of desperation. It was a pogrom of a magnitude unmatched in recorded history, and not only have the victims never received any kind of compensation, their story is known to very few because of a virulent anti-German bias that flourishes in the corridors of power. The innocent souls of the German victims are surely as worthy of acknowledgement as any other group victimized, and the situation cries out for justice, for at least a chronicling of the truth.

That lot will fall to another generation, but this will be the one to force a public and honest re-examination of what really went on inside the German forced labor camps from 1940 to 1945. Any who feel threatened by truth or the search for it say far more about the validity of their own positions than do their critics.

-- David Thomas, 7/12/97

full article here:
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DT/gcturen.html

And this from American Jew, David Cole's crushing demolition of the homicidal gas chambers lies, ' 46 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS REGARDING 'GAS CHAMBERS'. I have lifted the section on Majdanek:

27) 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?

28- 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?

29) 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?

30) 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?

31) 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?

32) 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?

34) 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 girds in a homicidal gas chamber?

35) 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)?

36) 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?

37) 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? *

38 ) 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!


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

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby Hannover » 8 years 4 months ago (Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:26 am)

And now, excerpts from:
'Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas Shelters in World War II: A Refutation of J. C. Pressac's "Criminal Traces"
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/SC/inconpressac.html

Image
The personal residence of Auschwitz camp commander Rudolf Höß. Note small gas-proof shutter (Blende) to the right of the door.

It is well known that although poison gas was used extensively in World War One, it was not used in World War Two. As a result, we tend to forget that most people in the 1930's expected gas warfare to be a feature of any future conflict. The German civil defense literature reflected the anxiety of the time, describing in great detail how German bomb shelters were to be made secure from both bombs and poison gas. In other words, German bomb shelters were also anti-gas shelters. [1]

Image
Air-raid shelter door on display at USHMM as a "gas chamber door"

In 1989, a book appeared in English by the Frenchman, Jean Claude Pressac, entitled, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers [hereinafter, ATO] Pressac sought to prove, strictly on the basis of documentary materials, that extermination gas chambers were built in each of the four crematoria at Birkenau. The core of his demonstration was a list of 39 "criminal traces" for these gas chambers. [2]

... document is entitled Schutzraumabschlüsse [Bomb Shelter Seals], Berlin, 1939, by Doctor-Engineer R. Scholle; hereinafter, [S].

This booklet describes in great detail the ways in which a bomb shelter (Schutzraum) should be made gas tight; indeed, Scholle emphasizes that a shelter needs to be secure from poison gas (gassicher), debris (trümmersicher), and bomb splinters (splittersicher) [S 2]. Scholle specifies that the protection from debris and bomb splinters should be on the outside, while the protection from gas should be on the inside, of any window or emergency exit [S 3]. This would mean, in practical terms, that any screening or grille-work would be on the outside, and any gas tight cover would be on the inside, of an opening.

Image

Image
He also describes the need for bomb shelter doors to be gas tight and to have a gas tight peephole:
Every anti-gas bomb shelter door must be equipped with a peephole. The peephole should be made round, without the use of putty or other easily hardened materials to be made gas tight, and it should have a view of 40 millimeters. The disc of multi-layered glass of at least six millimeters in thickness should be protected from damage with a perforated steel plate. The purpose of the peephole in a bomb shelter door was so the Fire Warden could check on the inhabitants of a shelter, to ensure their needs and safety. Thus the thin glass disc would be recessed in the door, and it would be the inside, flush to the door's surface, that would require protection against damage. [cf. photos, S 32, 37] Although a perforated steel plate would be the preferred protection, it should be clear that a number of other means could be used. [8]
Image

Of particular interest in the discussion of pressure release valves (Überdruckventile). One of these is a peephole that is sealed by means of a weight. The peephole can be pushed forward, creating an aperture for the passage of air or even messages (S, 37, 32). A more typical Überdruckventil consists of a pipe that is fitted into the bomb shelter wall. The open end of the pipe faces the outside, the inside end is closed, but at the bottom of the inside end there is an opening that is sealed with a rubberized screw-on cap (S 38).

Image

[advertisement graphic from a public German publication]:
Image

A particularly noteworthy article entitled Behelfsmässige Luftschutzräume, falsch und richtig [Do it Yourself Bomb Shelters, Right and Wrong], by Doctor Engineer Ernst Baum, appeared in that year [GL 22ff]
Image
The article contains several photographs [passim] of gassichere Fensterblende [gas tight window shutters], most of which are constructed of wood. It also describes an incorrect method for fixing a shutter up against the grating of the window grille...

Full text + more images:
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/SC/inconpressac.html

Also recommended. While focusing mostly on Auschwitz, the usual canards of 'peepholes' and 'gas tight doors' etc. are expertly covered here:
Germar Rudolf
The Rudolf Report - Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz [full text / free download]
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/
and:
from The CODOH Revisionist Forum
'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

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

dantesnake
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:45 pm

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby dantesnake » 8 years 4 months ago (Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:23 am)

thank you stefanob, I'll check out that link, and thanks to you too hannover, that's some useful info.

joachim neander
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:39 pm

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby joachim neander » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:46 pm)

I am grateful to Hannover that he showed examples of customary gas-tight doors advertised for air-raid shelters in the late 1930s/early 1940s in Germany.
Their function was to keep away poisonous gases that might appear in the environment from getting into the interior of a room. (Aside, these poisonous gases need not necessarily have come from enemy gas weapons. A fire caused by conventional bombing produces enough poisonous gases.)

I remember well from my time spent in the military (eight years) that, in the barracks, we had two types of gas-tight doors: simple ones without a peephole, for Gasschleusen (gas sluices(?)), and special ones with a peephole for rooms intended for people to stay there during an attack. Hannover rightly stressed that the peepholes were for those outside (firefighters, rescue crews equipped with gas masks) to check whether there were people inside, and, let us not forget how carpet bombing of towns works, if those inside still were alive.

Now exactly the same type of door can serve to protect gas that is inside a room from dissipating into the environment. If someone builds a room for delousing clothing or mattresses, a simple gas-tight door is sufficient - no disinfector would be so stupid as to stay within the room when gassing begins. It is he who puts the objects into the room, then shuts the door and applies the gas.

A peephole in the door makes sense if and only if the gassing process must be observed from outside. For a delousing chamber, a peephole is never necessary: the exposition times are known, and an outside observer cannot see through the peephole whether all lice had died. If the SS building office would have bought doors with peepholes, which cost more than simple doors, for pure delousing chambers, they would have gotten into trouble with the audit division (Rechnungshof), which, as I know from personal experience, would have had recourse against them. So you can think by yourselves, why the SS building offices for some (not all) gas chambers ordered doors with peepholes?

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby The Warden » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:26 pm)

joachim neander wrote:I am grateful to Hannover that he showed examples of customary gas-tight doors advertised for air-raid shelters in the late 1930s/early 1940s in Germany.
Their function was to keep away poisonous gases that might appear in the environment from getting into the interior of a room. (Aside, these poisonous gases need not necessarily have come from enemy gas weapons. A fire caused by conventional bombing produces enough poisonous gases.)

I remember well from my time spent in the military (eight years) that, in the barracks, we had two types of gas-tight doors: simple ones without a peephole, for Gasschleusen (gas sluices(?)), and special ones with a peephole for rooms intended for people to stay there during an attack. Hannover rightly stressed that the peepholes were for those outside (firefighters, rescue crews equipped with gas masks) to check whether there were people inside, and, let us not forget how carpet bombing of towns works, if those inside still were alive.

Now exactly the same type of door can serve to protect gas that is inside a room from dissipating into the environment. If someone builds a room for delousing clothing or mattresses, a simple gas-tight door is sufficient - no disinfector would be so stupid as to stay within the room when gassing begins. It is he who puts the objects into the room, then shuts the door and applies the gas.

A peephole in the door makes sense if and only if the gassing process must be observed from outside. For a delousing chamber, a peephole is never necessary: the exposition times are known, and an outside observer cannot see through the peephole whether all lice had died. If the SS building office would have bought doors with peepholes, which cost more than simple doors, for pure delousing chambers, they would have gotten into trouble with the audit division (Rechnungshof), which, as I know from personal experience, would have had recourse against them. So you can think by yourselves, why the SS building offices for some (not all) gas chambers ordered doors with peepholes?


Of course, if we're to follow the traditional belief that the Germans were as efficient as the Believers claim, then it should be quite easy to see such an efficient operation simply ordered the doors with peepholes in order to use them as a dual purpose item. One to keep gasses in during delousing, and the other to keep gasses out and people safe with the ability to see outside during bombing raids. The only logistical problem being if delousing was being performed during an air raid, there was no safe haven for the people who would normally enter the room. But with limited spaces which contained gas tight doors, it was a timing issue they were apparently willing to take while still installing a dual purpose item.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c

joachim neander
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:39 pm

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby joachim neander » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:42 pm)

At Majdanek, the gas chamber was far too small to be used as an air raid shelter. In addition, its walls were not strong enough to withstand a bomb explosion. The SS in the camps had their own, concrete, underground or half-underground air-raid shelters, and the prisoners did not need such devices.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Gas chamber at Majdanek with blue stains

Postby Breker » 8 years 4 months ago (Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:25 pm)

joachim neander wrote:At Majdanek, the gas chamber was far too small to be used as an air raid shelter. In addition, its walls were not strong enough to withstand a bomb explosion. The SS in the camps had their own, concrete, underground or half-underground air-raid shelters, and the prisoners did not need such devices.

Too small for an air raid shelter? That could just as easily be said to have been too small for a gas chamber. 'Thousands of gassed Jews', remember? During an air raid, people will be looking for any place, big or small, to avoid bomb fragments and Allied gas. I doubt any above ground air raid shelter could absorb a direct hit by a bomb, but there certainly was a lot of them.
It also is quite obvious that Mr. Neander avoided the information from Mr. Cole that made mincemeat out of the claim there was a gas chamber for mass murder at Majdanek. Mr. Neander also ignored the clear case of fraud that is promoted by the USHMM who falsely represent a bomb shelter door as a mass murdering gas chamber door. Why did you ignore this information, Mr, Neander?
Breker
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests