Hans can consider my questions to him as challenges, if he know guidelines, he know what is needed.
Hans wrote:The steel bars were cut and bent and do not protrude to the hole. You may repeat the claim as often as you wish, but it does not get more correct. Andybody having the photograph in front of him can see the bars have been cut and bent away from the hole.
Why Hans ignore, that rebars are bent, and that is impossible to build anything like holocaust narrative claims in this hole? Can Hans explain how they installed columns, or chimneys and etc? I challenged him, but no response so far.
Now, you claim that I would ignore "that rebars are bent", whereas the exact opposite is true. All the way throughout my posting I was pointing out the rebars are bent. Right the first sentence of my posting reads: "The steel bars were cut and bent..."
Then you say that I ignored that is "impossible to build anything like holocaust narrative claims in this hole". Actually I addressed this in my previous posting, but you did dodge the challenge:
"You do not explain (but simply repeat Mattogno, who also does not explain anything as I already highlighted in the deleted posting, by the way*), why the bent rebars had to be removed to build chimneys. In fact, there is no apparent reason why the inward bent rebars posed any obstacle to build the chimnies."
Finally you ask me "how they installed columns, or chimneys". There is no documentation left regarding their installation and I do not have the knowledge on construction issues to deduce it by myself. This is something you have to ask somebody working on construction field.
2.Why Hans ignore, that even the bent rebars still protrude to space which has been marked as rebar hole pattern made during construction?
The bent rebar takes part in defining the opening. You misinterpret the rebar parallel to the original concrete edge as boundary of the openings.
3.Hans want to tell me that rebars has been bent during constructions and that is how Germans constructed it?
The body of evidence, some of it presented in the report by Mazal et al., strongly suggests that the rebar was bent during the construction of basement.
Only to be sure about this hole, can Hans tell me why Provan´s hole number 7 couldn´t be used as introduction hole as Provan also admited? Hans can see this Hole no. 7 herehttp://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/noholes.html
This is explained in Mazal et al's paper:
"Nothing marks this location on any known contemporary photograph, and a piece of rebar clearly ran across the hole before being cut and bent out of the way. This establishes that it was not a Zyklon hole. It is not known who made this hole, and we have no reason to believe that it was made before the liberation of the camp by the Red Army in January 1945. Clearly it was not made in an attempt to "fake" a Zyklon hole, or else the rebar would not have been left sticking out. This hole can be ignored for our purposes. "
Hans wrote:Two of the cut steel bars were clearly bent inwards, whereas two are more or less bent in the plane of the roof nowadays which of course does not mean they had been in this position when the concrete was poured and that they may have moved from inward to the plane of the roof for instance by the destruction of the roof. This physical appearance is consistent with the claim that the opening has been made when the concrete was poured. Your claim that "this prove, that holes had not been cast during construction" is false. .
False, really? Can Hans tell me in which position the rebars were during construction and during operation of the hole? They were straight, bent inwards or outwards?
They were bent inwards, as I already pointed out to you more than once.
7.I am afraid, that Hans´s statement make no sense. Rods bent inward of course means problem for installation of legendary Kula columns and to make the hole gas tight.
What problems? Tell us the problems! I already asked you exactly this in my previous posting and you keep ignoring elaborating the problem and instead simply repeating there is problem ad nauseam without identifying what the problem consists of.
8.Why Hans speak about removing of rods when the rods are only bent?
They have not been "only bent". They were cut, shortened and then bent. The whole procedure resulted in the removal of the bars from the opening.
9.Why Hans ignore that even bent rebars clearly protrude to hole, to allegeldy square genuine reinforced work which allegedly prove casting hole during construction?
The bent rebar takes part in defining the actual opening (when roof and concrete was intact), so - per definition - it cannot protrude into the opening. It defines the opening. You misinterpret the obviously distorted rebar parallel to the original concrete edge of the opening as original outline of the opening.
10. Hans is sure that rods which pose the biggest problem for him were bent by some men, can you tell me how did you arrive to your conclusion that only these rods were bent and why is not possible that all rods could be altered and thus you cannot know how the rebar work looked like?
We do not know for sure that the rebar was not cut and bent after the war. There is no 100% certainty it was made during construction, which is true for all historical incidents, by the way. There is no absolute truth in history. However, the body of evidence - which consists of the findings presented in Mazal et al.'s paper as well as the testimonial evidence - strongly suggests that the opening was created during the construction of the basement and the rebar was bent during the construction of the basement.
11.Construction workers simply bent rods out and that is how they constructed these holes instead of cutting them out, this is what Hans want to tell me and what should make sense?
Whether it makes sense to you is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is that cutting and bending of rebar passing through an opening of a steel-reenforced concrete slab is the proper way:
"Although not required in an absolute sense, it is a standard detail in our industry to curtail and hook abutting reinforcement short of openings or slab edges
. The attached typical detail demonstrating this principle is one we have used in our office throughout the 20 years I have worked at Yolles. "http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... ents.shtml
Can you tell me the reason why to take photo of place where is no hole to prove that future hole in this place wasn´t there earlier?
I did not argue that such a photo or whatever evidence has to exist if the hole was made after the war. I actually argued that the absence of evidence simply means that it cannot be shown by means of evidence that the hole was made during the destruction of the basement, which allows for both hypothesis that it was made during the destruction but - and this important for the "Anti-Revisionist" case - also for the hypothesis that it was made during the construction of the basement.
13.Or you mean after liberation? Can you tell me if you have photo of this hole before the team of Keren, McCarthy, Mazal arrived to support your claims about this hole and about how the hole looked like? For sure, investigation group after liberation couldn´t miss it, or am I wrong?
As far as I know there is no photograph known of the opening prior Mazal et al. identified it as candidate for gas introduction opening. And yes, the Soviet and Polish investigators missed it.
14.The roof was blown up, the roof collapsed on pillars, one of the pillars is clearly visible on your photo of Hole 4, still no evidence?
Yes, this is no proof that the opening was created by the destruction of the basement.
Can you tell me why this is not possible and why is Occam´s razor together with material evidence wrong?
You are misusing Occam's razor and applying it under the false assumption (or the assumption you try to show) that there had been no homicidal gassings in the basement. However, since homicidal gassings in the basement have been established beyond much doubt, applying Occam's razor tells us actually that the hole was most likely made by during the construction of the basement 1943 as this explanation requires the least additional assumptions as far as the body of evidence in concerned. 15.
What exactly is your evidence that this hole, or rest of the holes were made during construction, you did not presentd anything. [/quote]
The evidence was presented by Van Pelt and Mazal et al. It consists of
a) February 1943 ground photograph showing the little chimnies approximately at the location of three holes with properly cut and bent rebar nowadays in the roof, see http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -final.jpg
b) Aerial photographs showing four discolourations on the roof of the gas chamber supporting activity at four spots on the roof related to the presence of the gas introduction openings, see http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ure7.shtml
c) Material evidence showing three holes in the roof with cut and inward bent rebar as would have been done during the construction of the basement, see Mazal et al.'s paper.
d) Testimonial evidence from Rudolf Höß, Konrad Morgen, Josef Erber, Hans Aumeier, Hans Münch, Michal Kula, Ananij Petko and Vladimir Pegov, Henryk Tauber, David Olere, Miklos Nyiszli, Paul Bendel, Filip Müller, Josef Sackar, Shaul Chasan, Leon Cohen, Yehuda Bacon, Karl Schultze, Hans Stark, Henryk Porebski, Shlomo Dragon, Dov Paisikovic, Stanislaw Jankowski, Salmen Lewenthal, Jaacov Gabai, Rudolf Vrba. These are also compiled here: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_1.pnghttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_2.pnghttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_3.pnghttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_4.pnghttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_5.pnghttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_6.pnghttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_7.png
Note that just pointing out differences or related improbabilities in eyewitness accounts do neither invalidate nor explain them away. Thus Mattogno's treatment of some of those accounts does not "refute" them as Revisionists usually maintain. This testimonial evidence already makes a strong case for homicidal gassings in the basement and the existence of the holes. This is further corroborated and strengthened by the physical and photographical evidence.
I understand that Revisionists cannot accept homicidal gassings and therefore cannot be convinced by any evidence, including this. However, it is safe to say that most people outside this place will consider this body of evidence as strong and convincing.
16.Do you know at least the dimensions of your alleged holes and what is your evidence for their dimensions?
The most reliable evidence to determine the dimensions is the physical findings by Mazal et al. According to this the openings were about 50 x 50 cm. Since physical evidence trumps testimonial evidence, it is clear then that Michal Kula was mistaken with the dimension (a minor mistake) or his description is incomplete.
17.Why did you dismissed that your alleged hole could be created after the roof has been completed and how did you arrived to your conclusion?
I am not entirely dismissing this possibility, however, it is far more likely that the opening was made during the construction of the basement given the evidence cited above.
18.And one of the most interesting questions, why did you dismissed the rest of the holes on the roof as holes used for introduction of Zyklon B and how did you arrived to your conclusion?
You should explain which "rest of the holes" you are talking about. Identify each of them.