Hans wrote:SKcz wrote:1.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.
You still ignore these bent rods, but they are problem for what you claim.
No dodging from me, but ingoring from you, see point 7.
So Hans don´t know how was possible to install these columns or chimneys, so he only asume that were somehow installed/built
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
I must repeat my point 2.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
What Mazal et al. evidence are you talking about? “Strongly suggest“ means that you actually don´t know.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote:4.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 here
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. "
About photograph, in fact you have no photograph, see later.
There are rods, they are bent, and that is one of the main reasons why this is not introduction hole, but Mazal and you have no problem to ignore this about your hole 4 or about hole 1, can you explain me your logic?
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote:5.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.
So all rods were bent inward, how did you arrive to your conclusion.? You again only assume I guess.
I am also curious, how do you think that rods were bent inward during construction and not outward?
How it possible that some rods bent outward because of explosion according to you and some not even when they are in the same place?
Hans you missed point 6. but nevermind, my question above is the same.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
There is alleged introduction hole, the rods are bent inward, you want to install Kula wire-mesh column, and to make this gas tight, but this is problem, because your hole is full of bent rods. Do you understand now? Answer my point 7.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
But they are not removed, they are only bent, and they are not removed from the opening if you have eyes and see that photo, answer me again.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
Hans, I challenge you to draw shape of the introduction hole to the picture posted earlier to demonstrate your postition since this leads to nowhere, then we can move forward.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
So you don´t know this and don´t have any evidence, ok.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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
Wait a minute, you claim, that bending of these rods is normal instead of simply cut them out to get rid of problems with installing chimneys or columns when even you or Mazal expressed these problems about hole 7.?
Who is that Zucchi who claim that bending of these rods is standard procedure and I can see rods stick out of concrete which is the issue here? Hope you don´t want to tell me that this man is really engineer as I read in your link which is known to me.
If he is engineer, this looks like a cheat on him, only to be sure, send me all information which he received about this to be sure that he didnt produce this nonsense with using bad information from Pelt. Is possible that Pelt sent him only fragment of needed information to get proper reponse from him, so please, provide me with what I demand.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote:12.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.
In the other words, the evidence which don´t exist and even couldn´t exist since there was no reason to take these photos, supports your unfounded hypothesis, right? This is another fallacy
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
In the other words nobody noticed it, nobody know how looked like, nobody know if exist before liberation, nobody recognized it as hole for Zyklon B, no investigation group ever claimed that hole is introduction, even expert Pelt claimed that no introduction hole can be seen, but in 1998+? this hole miraculously became introduction hole without single piece of evidence.
This is really, really weak Hans and i must say, absurd.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
But why, I am still waiting for your response to express your doubts about why this is wrong.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
Hans, you mean this seriously? You are the one who use fallacy logic and base you false claims on assumption that there was homicidal gas chamber even when you don´t have single piece of evidence. You have only witnesses, I adress them below.
Beyond much doubt and established? You did not prove at least one single hole for introdcution of Zyklon B, your claims are refuted even with using your own evidence. When you repeat false claim it will not become a fact Hans.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote:15.What exactly is your evidence that this hole, or rest of the holes were made during construction, you did not presentd anything.
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.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_2.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_3.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_4.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_5.png
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... eite_6.png
http://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.
a)I already challenged you about this photo here C14I.
b)You claim that four smudges on the roof are shadows of alleged chimneys, right? If not, tell me what these smudges are.
Adress this before we can move forward.
c)Material evidence refute your claims as already shown.
d)Testimonial evidence. I think that would be the best to just quote testimony which support your theory about holes, I challenge you of course. Provide me with following data to actually see how your alleged holes or columns looked like to set things straight since you must clearly see that your witnesses are really worthless for your claim that they „prove“ something. But instead of adressing every witness separately which is really exhaustive and messy, I would like to see following data to set things straight, don´t forget source for every information:
-dimensions of holes.
-number of holes.
-dimensions and appearance of wire-mesh columns and material.
-how the columns were attached.
-lids on the chimneys, their dimensions and material.
-dimensions of chimneys.
(we are speaking about Krema II only)
Are you able to place location of the holes in the roof to match your 1943 and 1944 photo? Please draw it to photos, they must match of course. Feel free to use other photo here
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... er1944.jpg
And 31 May 1944 Birkenau here, feel free to use better version
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
Is good to see that material evidence is better than testimony even for you.
In the other words, you actually don´t have even one single testimony to support these dimensions which means that your material findings prove that witnesses were wrong even when they spent years in alleged gas chamber, am I right? (I only assume this, you can correct me.)
Can you provide me with evidence about dimensions of holes in the roof which you consider as introduction holes? Are you sure that are all 50 x 50cm, where is your evidence? I think you should be able to draw shape of your hole 50cm to photos of hole no. 1, since we have best photos about this hole, you can find them here
About Kula and columns, i already challenged you here about your Kula klaims. See challenges C14B. / C14C. / C14D.
And also adress this from link above:
According to Hans, 70cm instead of 48cm (Hans´s source) and 3m instead of 2,41 is minor mistake. You want to tell me that he was not provided with correct measurements from SS and requirements for this device so he didn´t know how wide and how long this device must be and he simply manufactured it without any requirements from SS?
The holes existed first before devices, or they made holes after Kula manufactured “some“ columns so this whole operation depended on Kula´s devices and SS didn´t care how long or how wide or how they will operate this device?
Explain to me your claim that Kula was mistaken even when he manfactured these columns according to his testimony.
You can also explain me why your source use this image when completely contradict your claims.
Let me guess, this image is from period before Mazal et al. began claim that they found holes and then was too late to dismis this picture?
Can you provide me with evidence if somebody ever claimed that Kula is so mistaken about dimensions of columns before Mazal et al. announced their findings?
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
In the other words, you don´t know, you just chose more suitable possibility for your theory without showing evidence for your choice.
Hans wrote:SKcz wrote: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.
For example hole . 7 mentioned above, or hole no. 8 (Provan´s numbers), both you can find here.