"Second" Report of Robert Jan Van Pelt

[SKcz]

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

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.

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.

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

http://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. "

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801

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
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/noholes.html

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
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801

About Kula and columns, i already challenged you here about your Kula klaims. See challenges C14B. / C14C. / C14D.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801

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?

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.

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.
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/noholes.html

[Hans]

For some reason, the Germans or somebody destroyed this damning evidence, but they did not bother to destroy all other plans or material evidence. For some reason, there was no need to draw holes in later plans so the construction firm wasn´t confused by the fact that holes disappeared in later plans, they just somehow magically knew that holes need to be still there (maybe legendary incredible meeting of minds?). Pelt and Hans claims that Huta had knowledge of these holes, but they never bothered to write at least one single document to ask about these nonsensical holes in the morgue and not even one single piece of some evidence where the holes are mentioned, exist. They did not bother to write something even in the case when the holes disappeared from later plans. Is also good to notice, that Germans had no problem with the fact, that incriminating evidence is in the hands of construction firm for several months or even year(s) and they just didn´t bother with the possible leak of this incriminating evidence which has been so much damning and important, that this plan was the one worth of destroying.

Hello, common sense here, does this make sense to anybody? Is clear that Hans and Pelt are totally wrong and refuted.

Just because you do not understand something does not mean it is refuted. Please check your standards of proof.

So adress my quote to prove that I don´t understand, at this time, you are the one who don´t understand how absurd your/Pelt claim is.

You misunderstood my argument. I know my English is far from perfect, but it cannot be that poor. I think you should work on this issue as it would considerable shorten the discussion if you do not force me to explain not really complicated things twice or more.

You stated yourself that what you describe in your quote about the Germans and the documents does not make sense to you in the context of gassings in the basement of the crematorium, i.e. you do not understand it (how it is supposed to make sense). So this information we can take straightaway from your posting and I do not need to "prove" it. You wrote it yourself. My argument is now the following:

Just because something does not make sense to you, it does not mean that it is refuted. Means: There is a huge difference between a proper refutation and applying what one considers "common sense", but which is in fact based on one's highly subjective imagination paired with false or unfounded assumptions. I did address your false assumptions in the next paragraph of my previous posting, and I will illustrate it for you in more detail below.

The documents of the central construction office are incomplete, therefore any argument which goes into the direction why there is no document on this or that is highly problematic.

The only problematic issue is the fact, that nobody ever told us what is in this alleged plan, nobody knows if this plan had been really destroyed and what is in this plan, but you and Pelt uses this imaginary plan as proof of existence of the holes, explain me this first basic fallacy.

In that quote above I identified one of your false assumption. You argued:

"they never bothered to write at least one single document to ask about these nonsensical holes in the morgue and not even one single piece of some evidence where the holes are mentioned, exist."

But how you know that Huta never bothered to write to ask about the holes? This argument would only have some basis, IF the files were complete, THEN it would be clear that Huta never bothered to ask. But SINCE the files are not complete, it cannot be concluded that Huta never bothered about this just because there exists no file about this. You clearly make here an argument based on a false assumption.

The second problem with your argument is that there is compelling reason why the SS construction office and Huta could not discuss the implementation of the openings without putting a note about the discussion in their files. As a matter of fact, the SS may have requested Huta not to put a paper trail about it into the files, but treat it with high discretion and they may have treated the issue with the same.

Even Pelt do not know what is in the plan when he says "likely", he completely invented it only because of the fact, that plan is not here so he can invent content of this plan to make an impression, very scholarly.

Indeed, Van Pelt is very scholarly here. He says likely, because it is likely in his opinion, but not proven. This is how a proper scholar should approach an issue which can only be accessed with some certainty.

Mattogno clearly dispute content of this plan here:

You have the dubious "talent" to show things that are supposed to prove me wrong, but that I never claimed and even explicitly made clear so previously. I did not claim that Mattogno does not dispute what Van Pelt assumes was in the drawing, but that he does not dispute that the drawing is missing (did not survive). There is a fundamental difference between these two things and they should not be confused by you.

About "not surviving", your quote from Pelt do not speak only about „surviving“ but clearly about destroying or removing of incriminating evidence. Surviving or not surviving is not issue here, but claim about destroying evidence is the issue here. So again, do you agree or not with Pelt?

I do not know what happened to drawing. I think it is possible that the drawing was removed from the files by the SS.

Is clear that Mattogno dispute destroying of evidence, destroying of plans and etc., so you are wrong Hans, Mattogno dispute it.

I did not claim that Mattogno "dispute destroying of evidence" [by the SS, if this is what you mean]. Please read my postings more carefully, take your time. You are only "refuting" a straw men, but not my actual argument. I said that Mattogno does not dispute that the drawing did not survive. And this is absolutely correct, as your quotes from the book show.

[Hans]

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?

The rebars were originally bent inward, because the physical evidence today shows some were bent inwards and such multiple inward bending (of previously outward bent rebars) can unlikely happen by the explosion and collapse of the roof. Secondly, because this is how it would have been done according to expert Zucchi if the openings were made during the construction of the roof. Those rebars not clearly bent inwards were likely deformed by the destruction of the roof.

I do not know of any rebars bent outward at the openings. Some of the rebars seem to be deformed by the destruction, but destruction is not a uniform process that effects any even close area with the same strength and result.

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.#

Of course, the bent rebar was embedded in the concrete structure and not sticking out. Why? Because it is reasonable to assume that "the Germans" were able to properly make an opening in a concrete slab.

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.

In order to determine the actual outline of the opening, the photograph is not particular suitable because it lacks the scaling and seems not taken perpendicular to the roof chunk. The lines in the drawing determine roughly the maximum size of the opening in the respective directing according to the location of the bent rebar, the actual opening was square of course and the lines have to be adjusted accordingly if the proper scaling is known:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... utline.png

I assume that the two rebar on the lower, right side have been deformed by the destruction. If this assumption is incorrect, then obviously the line as to be moved a bit leftwards. In both cases then, there is no rebar protruding into the hole in its original state.

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.?

Yes, cutting and bending of rebar to form an opening in a concrete slab is normal.

Hole 7 has its rebar not shorten significantly and also bent in the wrong direction, which allows to exclude it as gas introduction opening.

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.

I always thought Revisionists like expert opinions. At least they always demand them when they think its serves their purpose. Now, here we have an expert on building construction. I do not know about you, but I prefer to follow what a real expert has to say about the openings instead of sticking to a non-expert like Mattogno. Zucchi has not only provided his expert opinion but also a sheet of construction instruction which further support his expert opinion.

The rebar is sticking out of the concrete TODAY, because the actual concrete outline of the opening has been destroyed not because it was constructed like this in early 1943.

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.

As explained in Zucchi's letter, Van Pelt sent him the full report, Zucchi reviewed it from the perspective of a structural engineer and sent his opinion to Van Pelt, who implemented this expert opinion into his report. If you have further questions, I suggest you contact Zucchi and Van Pelt directly.

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.

It is wrong because the fact the basement was blown up does not mean that any hole in the ruin was caused by the destruction of the basement.

a)I already challenged you about this photo here C14I.
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801

I am not here to make your homework. Feel free to estimate the size of the objects if you think it poses a problem for their interpretation as gas introduction objects. But note that they may have been smaller than 74 cm if the the chimnies were poured of concrete. The chimnies are clearly much larger than 50 cm (from the comparison of their width with the basement) and so consistent with Mazal et al.'s estimation of the opening size.

b)You claim that four smudges on the roof are shadows of alleged chimneys, right? If not, tell me what these smudges are.

I do not know exactly what the smudges are. I was not there in Auschwitz on the basement at the time the photographs were taken. However, the presence of four spots on the roof close the central beam is most likely related to activity at the four gas introduction openings. There might be cavities in the earth bank, vegetation planted at the openings to provide some cover, discoloration from the walking SS men. There are certainly not shadows of the chimneys as these were much too low as the February 1943 ground photographs indicates.

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.

Strictly speaking, all witnesses support "my theory" of the holes. Any witnesses who has testified about gas introduction openings does support that the gas introduction openings existed.

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.

About 50 x 50 cm according to physical findings. Human memory as well as human ability to estimate dimension is imperfect, therefore testimonies given months and years after an event are usually not an adequate tool to determine the exact dimensions of the openings.

All witnesses who have actually given dimensions of the openings were on the right order of magnitude with their estimation, which indeed corroborates the existence of "the holes". These are Karl Schultze (25 x 25 cm) and Yehuda Bacon (40 x 40 cm) as well as the drawing by David Olere showing the column with dimensions aprox. at the right order.

This is major flaw in the Revisionist reasoning, that because a testimonial account contains an inaccuracy, improbility or contradiction in some detail, it has to be dismissed. They wish that "the holes" disappear simply because Schultze and Bacon (or Kula, if we take the device) did not gave 50 x 50 cm as dimension. However, this is an accuracy that cannot be necessarily expected with human estimation and memory, so it does not justify to dismiss the core of the testimony.

The fact is that neither Schultze nor Bacon "refute" Mazal et al.'s finding or vice versa, but they corroborate the 50 cm x 50 cm openings, by a) confirming there had been openings at all in the roof and b) confirming they were at this order of magnitude. Physical evidence naturally trumps and corrects inaccuracies in testimonial evidence.

-number of holes.

Four, as reported by the majority of witnesses, namely Rudolf Höß (3 or 4), Ananij Petko & Vladimir Pegov, Henryk Tauber, David Olere, Miklos Nyiszli, Paul Bendel, Josef Sackar, Yehuda Bacon, Jaacov Gabai, Karl Schultze, Henyrk Porebski.

-dimensions and appearance of wire-mesh columns and material.

The dimension is either 70 cm square if only the second net went through the roof or 50 cm square if also the outer mesh went through the roof. The other dimensions are given in Kula's account.

-how the columns were attached.

Not accessed by testimonial evidence.

-lids on the chimneys, their dimensions and material.

According to most accounts the final cover was of concrete: Miklos Nyiszli, Leon Cohen, Shlomo Dragon, Dov Paisicovic.

-dimensions of chimneys.

Not accessed by testimonial evidence.

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

The match of the holes and the February 1943 ground photo was shown by Mazal et al.:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -final.jpg

For the May 31 1944 photograph: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... st_fit.png

For the August 25 1944 photograph it is something in between these two:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... t_fit1.png

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... t_fit2.png

Note that the outline of the basement is subjected to some uncertainty on the aerial photographs, so the fit can only be regarded as an approximation and that the dark spots are not "the holes", but they are only related to the presence of the gas introduction openings and to activity at the little chimneys.

The comparison shows there is indeed a correlation of the openings nowadays in the roof and the little chimnies with the dark spots on the aerial photograph (location of opening and chimney number 3 is of course interpolated). The fit on the aerial photograph is not perfect, but this may due to uncertainty of the method and due to the indirect relation of the dark spots to the openings.

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.)

Testimonial evidence is usually uncertain to determine exact dimensions, but this does not substantially affect its ability to demonstrate that an object existed.

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
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801

There is no photograph with known scaling. It makes little sense to draw a 50 cm x 50 cm hole when we do not know what 50 cm are in the photograph.

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 reason why Kula may have been mistaken about the outer dimension is imperfect human memory, not that he was supplied with wrong dimensions (absurd explanation).

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?

What you see here is actually proper historical revising. If it were an -ism, it would really deserve the term revisionism.

Prior Mazal et al.'s study, Michal Kula was best source on the dimensions of the openings and device, because he took part in manufacturing the device and provided a detailed and quite reliable account. Accordingly, it was accepted that the opening and device was presumably 70 cm square. However, when Mazal et al. investigated the ruin, new evidence came to light and they found that the most likely gas introduction openings are actually around 50 cm x 50 cm. This new and fresh evidence triggered a revision of the dimensions of the openings and device or at least a revision of how the device looked like. This is how real researchers should do it: Follow where the evidence leads one.

I wish Revisionism (big r) would follow this rule.

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.
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/noholes.html

Regarding Provan's hole 7, this was addressed already in Mazal et al.'s paper and I even cited the passage, so please check again my posting.

Regarding Provan's hole 8, it has rebar going straight through half of the opening, which explains why it is not considered as an gas introduction opening.

[Toshiro]

These are Karl Schultze (25 x 25 cm) and Yehuda Bacon (40 x 40 cm) as well as the drawing by David Olere showing the column with dimensions aprox. at the right order.

You see, no crack is too small to be an introduction hole! Even if the holes were 20x20 cm, they'd just ignore the 70x70, 50x50 and 40x40 claims. No big deal!

Regarding Provan's hole 8, it has rebar going straight through half of the opening, which explains why it is not considered as an gas introduction opening.

I think you're mistaken here. Provan's hole 8 is Mazal's hole 3. Or am I mistaken?

[SKcz]

These are Karl Schultze (25 x 25 cm) and Yehuda Bacon (40 x 40 cm) as well as the drawing by David Olere showing the column with dimensions aprox. at the right order.

You see, no crack is too small to be an introduction hole! Even if the holes were 20x20 cm, they'd just ignore the 70x70, 50x50 and 40x40 claims. No big deal!

Regarding Provan's hole 8, it has rebar going straight through half of the opening, which explains why it is not considered as an gas introduction opening.

I think you're mistaken here. Provan's hole 8 is Mazal's hole 3. Or am I mistaken?

Mazal´s hole in Keren, McCarthy, Mazal report? No, their hole 3 is not visible, they just assume that somewhere under rubble, there is magic hole, see here
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801

I will adress Hans later, i don have enough time now, but lot of interesting claims again.

[Toshiro]

I see. I read here that hole no. 8 is Mazal's hole no. 3. I suppose that's a mistake then.

[Hans]

Unlike the others, hole or chimney number 3 is not accessible by physical evidence (due to rubble) or photographical evidence (due to the smokestack in the February 1943 ground photograph of the basement). It can be neither proven nor refuted directly by physical or photographical evidence at least presently. In case the rubble is removed one day and provided the area is not too heavily destroyed, it might be possible to obtain positive or negative physical evidence in the future.

Mazal et al. reasonably assume that it existed/exists based on a) the testimonial evidence suggesting 4 and not 3 openings, b) the aerial photographs indicating 4 and not 3 areas of activity on the roof and c) the fact that hole 1, 2 and 4 fit into an even pattern if hole 3 exists, and it would make certainly sense to put the openings in a pattern with equal distances on the roof instead of leaving a large gap.

[Zulu]

Zulu, I also have some experience re. holes in a concrete slab, and I hope this will not derail this thread. Structural engineers don't like holes, but if there have to be some, precautions must be taken so as to not jeopardize the integrity of the slab. Round holes are preferred, since there is no danger from cracks originating at corners. But if square/rectangle holes are required, special reenforcing steel must be placed diagonally to the corners to prevent cracking. Depending on the size of the hole, rebar is added around the hole if needed.

We must remember that the original holes supposedly measured 70cm x 70cm, quite the large opening, an engineers nightmare. Those holes have now shrunk to 45cm x 45cm since the “Holes Report” prepared by the Holocaust History crew, no explanation offered as to why they have shrunk. The HH people asked a New York engineering company to prepare a report, here it is.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... ents.shtml

Question: Why did they not ask a structural engineer to accompany them to the site??? And also, this report is imprecise/vague at best. But this is not all, van Pelt wrote at the end of “8.”:

“The two crematoria under development (2 and 3), were retro-actively fitted with homicidal gas chambers.”
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/van/1

What v.P. is saying is that the holes, originally 70cm x 70cm, were chopped in later and that close to the center support beam, absolute impossible. Here is an article/drawing by McCarthy/Van Alstine showing the original size of the holes:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... o-columns/

Now I know we have been there and back several times, but what I would like to see is a structural engineer take a look at this, one of us, if you will. Is it possible to find one? I have no more connections to the industry, too bad, my awakening came after I quit the construction business and moved.

Zulu, do you have a friend in the business, or would you be able to come up with a drawing showing the requires reenforcing steel, etc., etc.?

Regards
Wilf

You are right. Holes represent a rupture of continuity in the structure of reinforced concrete. For important holes of 70 cm x 70 cm into a 20 cm thick ceiling of concrete it would be necessary to compensate the discontinuity of the bars of reinforcement introduced by the holes by an extra frame of bars which would give an equivalent resistance for all the framed structure. In order to illustrate that point, you can see an example of solution on the page 4 of that document in French about reinforced floors. That is not exactly the same thing that for reinforced concrete by mean of framed bars but it is useful to understand the need for compensating a discontinuity into a structure of reinforced floor. In that particular case, on 2 edges of the large hole (called here Trémie) the beams are doubled (poutrelles jumelées) and on the other 2 perpendicular edges, 2 additional little beams called "chevêtres" are mounted.

On that holes' topic I made 2 questions still unanswered:
- where is the drawing of the frame of the reinforcement of the ceiling of Leichenkeller 1 mysteriously missed by Pressac?
That is the drawing # 109/6 (7015/IV) Bew. der Decke über dem Keller I / Reinforcement for the ceiling over Leichenkeller 1 updated 22/10/42 and never modified since.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0317.shtml
- why have 4 holes NEVER been DRAWN on the plans they had to appear even on those updated on 9/10/43 like the # 109/16 (Krema. 2 (3) / Krematorien II (and III))?
I have a friend who have worked on structures of reinforced concrete. He is now retired but I can ask him for some advice on that matter.

[neugierig]

Thanks Zulu, it would be of real benefit if your friend could help. The engineer that was hired provided a drawing, showing the extra re-bar placed at the corners of the opening. And this is what we should see, never mind the silly bends of the re-bar sticking in, we don’t know who did the bending. Thus it isn’t what we see but what we don’t have.

Regards
Wilf

[Zulu]

Thanks Zulu, it would be of real benefit if your friend could help. The engineer that was hired provided a drawing, showing the extra re-bar placed at the corners of the opening. And this is what we should see, never mind the silly bends of the re-bar sticking in, we don’t know who did the bending. Thus it isn’t what we see but what we don’t have.

Regards
Wilf

The drawing you show gives a solution of extra reinforcement used for holes into slab. For myself, I think that point would be definitely closed by the exhibition of the "missing drawing" # 109/6 I mentioned before. I suspect that Pressac voluntarily omitted to comment about it for a obvious reason: the holes were not planed at that date before the pouring of the ceiling and never were made after 22/10/42. I don't know whether this drawing would be available from the Auschwitz Museum but I'll try to contact them for that.

[SKcz]

Thanks Zulu, it would be of real benefit if your friend could help. The engineer that was hired provided a drawing, showing the extra re-bar placed at the corners of the opening. And this is what we should see, never mind the silly bends of the re-bar sticking in, we don’t know who did the bending. Thus it isn’t what we see but what we don’t have.

Regards
Wilf

The drawing you show gives a solution of extra reinforcement used for holes into slab. For myself, I think that point would be definitely closed by the exhibition of the "missing drawing" # 109/6 I mentioned before. I suspect that Pressac voluntarily omitted to comment about it for a obvious reason: the holes were not planed at that date before the pouring of the ceiling and never were made after 22/10/42. I don't know whether this drawing would be available from the Auschwitz Museum but I'll try to contact them for that.

My opinion - I have no problem with this image, I have only problem with claim, that the same techniuqe was used for holes shown in Mazal report when is obvious, that holes able to accomodate rods as shown on the image would be smaller than they claims in their report where they omitted to provide us with dimensions and they only "estimate". So that is why I doubt that Pelt provided this engineer with all needed information.

Hope I will have time to answer Hans this day.

[neugierig]

This whole undertaking by Keren, McCarthy and Mazal was just voodoo science, smoke and mirror stuff. For if those holes would exist, they would have taken an engineer along to verify what they allege and second, the rubble over the 4th hole would long have been removed to produce the hole if there was a hole. We all know however that it is impossible to find what does not exist, thus the dog and pony show.

They did hire an engineering firm, Yolles Engineering of Toronto, a long range effort if you will.
file:///C:/Users/Wilf/Desktop/zucchi-review-comments.shtml

Paul Zucchi replied to the request by van Pelt for a professional opinion, here is what Zucchi starts out with:

“This is in response to your request that I review and provide my professional comments regarding the draft document titled, "A Report on Some Findings Concerning the Gas Chamber of Krematorium II in Auschwitz-Birkenau", prepared by Daniel Keren, PH.D, Jamie McCarthy and Harry W. Mazal OBE....I also wish to state that I did not visit the site and base my opinions solely on the content of the above draft report and the figures (photographs) contained therein. I assume that the observations made concerning the holes, the measurements taken, as well as the reports on conditions of reinforcement are correct and readily verifiable...”

Paul Zucchi knows that he has to be careful, the wrong report and he can kiss his career good-by. He does however make clear that he has not visited the site and “assumes” that the data provided is correct.

His report is based on assumptions, thus useless. His drawing is useful however, it shows that re-bar must be placed diagonally to the edge of the opening if the opening is formed in before concrete is placed. I see no sign of any of it. But to really make a case we need an engineer to look at what we have, someone retired perhaps with his money under the mattress?

And this is what we are fighting, nobody willing to risk his/her livelihood and who can blame them? But we have the other side claiming Revisionism is dead. It is not, just severely restricted, for should open research ever be allowed this holo story would disappear like snow in May.

Sorry for not relying to posts, but I have caught the mother of a cold, please forgive me.

Regards
Wilf

[Hannover]

The entire bizarre alleged 'holes' for inserting Zyklon-B into absurdly claimed morgues converted to 'gas chambers' is easily refuted and has been repeatedly at this forum. No matter how many time those like 'Hans' are demolished, they just keep coming back with the same arguments which have been thoroughly refuted. It seems to be the nature of the beast.
And notice the challenges that this Hans dodges, give me a break already.

and see:
'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111
and:
'Altered Aerial Photos and the Shadows of Doom'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3249&p=48549
and:
'Challenge number 14 - Zyklon B Introduction holes'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801&p=49157
excerpt:

More challenges for 'Hans' in regards to claims of gassings at Auschwitz/Birkenau:

- How were Jews tricked into thinking they were getting showers when the storyline states that SS men stood on the roof of the alleged 'gas chambers' and poured Zyklon-B granules (a pesticide) into the alleged openings on the roof? The alleged homicidal gas chamber was mostly buried, meaning the roof was just a few feet above ground level and in clear sight of the alleged next batch of 2,000 Jews who were allegedly standing just outside the 'gas chamber' door awaiting their turn.

- How were Jews tricked into thinking they were getting showers when the storyline states that SS men on the roof removed the Zyklon-B containers that supposedly they had previously lowered into 'holes' in the 'gas chambers' roof? It takes hours for the Zyklon-B granules to finish releasing it's lethal cyanide load and the story states that batches of 2,0000 Jews were gassed in mere minutes within the 'gas chambers'. Allegedly there was another batch of Jews awaiting their turn just outside the alleged 'gas chamber' where they could watch this entire procedure, as well as being gassed where they stood.

- How were Jews tricked into thinking they were getting showers when the storyline states that the 'gas chambers' ventilation systems removed the cyanide gas out into the open air where another batch of Jews were supposedly standing right next to the 'gas chambers'. And wouldn't the people dropping like flies in the vicinity have told you something?

- How were Jews tricked into thinking they were getting showers when the storyline also states that the SS opened the alleged 'gas chambers doors' in just minutes in order to allow the cyanide to escape into the open air thereby gassing everyone in the general vicinity?

- How were Jews tricked into thinking they were getting showers after viewing the dead bodies of allegedly gassed Jews, since the 4 ft. X 9 ft. hand drawn elevator which was supposed to have lifted 2,000 Jews in just a few minutes to the crematoria above the alleged ' gas chamber' would not have been capable of such a magical feat?

and:
'Challenges number 12 and 13 - Ventilation System'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6800&p=49147
excerpt:

The story absurdly claims that the alleged gas chambers at kremas II & III were ventilated by ducts running along the base of each wall. But also according to the storyline, the bodies were piled up like this:

So, how did that work?

The debate is over and Revisionists have trounced the irrational Jewish supremacists. It's not even close.

- Hannover

[mdmguyon]

Franciszek Piper said that the gas chambers were used to kill people only 20 to 30 minutes per day.

[SKcz]

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?

The rebars were originally bent inward, because the physical evidence today shows some were bent inwards and such multiple inward bending (of previously outward bent rebars) can unlikely happen by the explosion and collapse of the roof. Secondly, because this is how it would have been done according to expert Zucchi if the openings were made during the construction of the roof. Those rebars not clearly bent inwards were likely deformed by the destruction of the roof.

Physical evidence shows rods bent inward (this rod is also circled) and outward and i wanted to know how do you know original direction when your physical evidence support both of your claims and how did you arrive to your opinion, that was the question.

Sorry, but picture from your source Zucchi clearly shows that rods are not bent inward or outward, but they are bent to the side and not up or down as you claim. Or did I missed something? Where is stated that rods are in these cases bent inward as you claim?

Becuase I do not see it here, and picture is clear.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... ents.shtml

I do not know of any rebars bent outward at the openings. Some of the rebars seem to be deformed by the destruction, but destruction is not a uniform process that effects any even close area with the same strength and result.

I see one clearly cicrled by yellow circle, see photo on the first page again. My question is still unanswered, how is possible that rods are bent inward and not outward as the one cirlced caused by explosion as you claim? All concrete just fly away due to explosion as you claim in explanation of missing shape, but rods miraculously remained bent inward?

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.#

Of course, the bent rebar was embedded in the concrete structure and not sticking out. Why? Because it is reasonable to assume that "the Germans" were able to properly make an opening in a concrete slab.

As you see, the „holocaust“ Germans are not able, rods are bent, but even the bent rods protrude to hole so they still stick out of concrete, you can explain it only with making the hole smaller and not 50cm. I will adress this issue below about your sketch.

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.

In order to determine the actual outline of the opening, the photograph is not particular suitable because it lacks the scaling and seems not taken perpendicular to the roof chunk. The lines in the drawing determine roughly the maximum size of the opening in the respective directing according to the location of the bent rebar, the actual opening was square of course and the lines have to be adjusted accordingly if the proper scaling is known:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... utline.png

I assume that the two rebar on the lower, right side have been deformed by the destruction. If this assumption is incorrect, then obviously the line as to be moved a bit leftwards. In both cases then, there is no rebar protruding into the hole in its original state.

Hans, you drawed potential shape small to avoid problems of protruding bent rebars, but I must challenge you again, in this time i challenge you to tell me if you really consider this shape as 50cm x 50cm because I really doubt this because you can use scale of course, do you see the supporting pillar? Pillars are 40cm x 40cm, your blue shape is no way 50cm in comparison with supporting pillar, and we know dimension of pillars, see here.

Yes, cutting and bending of rebar to form an opening in a concrete slab is normal.

Hole 7 has its rebar not shorten significantly and also bent in the wrong direction, which allows to exclude it as gas introduction opening

But normal in the way as your source Zucchi claim, but your bent rebars stick out of concrete even when they are bent. Your source also show in the picture that rebars are bent to side and not inward or outward. See above. According to your source, all reabars are bent in wrong direction, see picture. This holes 7 looks completely same as the alleged genuine introduction holes, you can use the same excuses as about your holes, rebars bent, shape demolished by explosion, concrete blown out by explosion, rods remained and etc., look you can also see geniune square lattice work, so where exactly is the difference?

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.

I always thought Revisionists like expert opinions. At least they always demand them when they think its serves their purpose. Now, here we have an expert on building construction. I do not know about you, but I prefer to follow what a real expert has to say about the openings instead of sticking to a non-expert like Mattogno. Zucchi has not only provided his expert opinion but also a sheet of construction instruction which further support his expert opinion.

As explained in Zucchi's letter, Van Pelt sent him the full report, Zucchi reviewed it from the perspective of a structural engineer and sent his opinion to Van Pelt, who implemented this expert opinion into his report. If you have further questions, I suggest you contact Zucchi and Van Pelt directly.

I have no problem with expert witness, but when I see that expert witness could be cheated, I need to see sources for this expert witness. Now is clear that rods protrude to your opening even when they are bent and are bent inward, i doubt that expert witness could accept such a nonsense as your witness proved with his picture where are shown bent rods „casted“ inside of concrete and not sticking. That is why I need to see if Pelt showed him all information, but he didn´t, because as i see, this report completely lacks dimension of the holes, there are only estimates, so this expert witness clearly don´t know that rods would stick out of concrete even in bent postition.

Sorry, but I never received any response when I requested some information which indicate that my interest is somehow strange to be from believer, so I want this information from you, you present proof, you must provide me with info, I think this is fair.

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?

It is wrong because the fact the basement was blown up does not mean that any hole in the ruin was caused by the destruction of the basement.

But I did not claim that any hole, I clearly said that hole 4. is this case, so answer my question please why this is not possible. No dodging please.

a)I already challenged you about this photo here C14I.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801

I am not here to make your homework. Feel free to estimate the size of the objects if you think it poses a problem for their interpretation as gas introduction objects. But note that they may have been smaller than 74 cm if the the chimnies were poured of concrete. The chimnies are clearly much larger than 50 cm (from the comparison of their width with the basement) and so consistent with Mazal et al.'s estimation of the opening size.

Hans, you have refused my challenge, right?

I want to see if you can demonstrate that chimneys are of correct dimensions, are all the same, and what is object which you ignore. See picture with dimension here from Rudolf, objects are not the same. Photo refute your theory.


And you have big problem, your holes are not 50cm as proved even with using your own sketch above, clear contradiction here with your photo.

I think that your claim about concrete chimney is absurd, can you show how did you arrive to this conclusion that chimneys are poured from concrete and not from normal usual brickwork? I think that this is pure invention from you right here and right now. Is quite complicated to build plainwork for such a chimney, is of course simplier, faster and also prpably cheaper to use brick. Also these chimneys are quite bight in comparison with dark rest of the morgue even when light fall from the same direction on the same vertical concrete surface.

This photo refute holes.

b)You claim that four smudges on the roof are shadows of alleged chimneys, right? If not, tell me what these smudges are.

I do not know exactly what the smudges are. I was not there in Auschwitz on the basement at the time the photographs were taken. However, the presence of four spots on the roof close the central beam is most likely related to activity at the four gas introduction openings. There might be cavities in the earth bank, vegetation planted at the openings to provide some cover, discoloration from the walking SS men. There are certainly not shadows of the chimneys as these were much too low as the February 1943 ground photographs indicates.

So no shadows, ok I think is clear, otherwise this would violate physic.

Caused by activity/walking SS – this is false, this would mean that whole place should be black since for example, entry to undressing room is the place where around 500,000 peoples allegedly walked to undressing room. Also this claim means that SS jumped like kangaroo from opening to opening. In fact, ground is brighter due to activity.

Cavities – irrelevant, since cavities have nothing to do with zyklon vents.

Vegetation planted as cover – nonsense, you invented it now without evidence and without witness evidence and the witness couldnt miss it. Your alleged vegetation don´t correspond with your openings and is planted in different location. And according to you, they bothered to camouflage vents with some black vegetation and did not bother to camouflage whole chamber or Kreamtorium since there is only usual barber wire fence and they even placed soccer pitch behind the Krema III.

I am afraid your explanations are refuted.

-dimensions of holes.

About 50 x 50 cm according to physical findings. Human memory as well as human ability to estimate dimension is imperfect, therefore testimonies given months and years after an event are usually not an adequate tool to determine the exact dimensions of the openings.

All witnesses who have actually given dimensions of the openings were on the right order of magnitude with their estimation, which indeed corroborates the existence of "the holes". These are Karl Schultze (25 x 25 cm) and Yehuda Bacon (40 x 40 cm) as well as the drawing by David Olere showing the column with dimensions aprox. at the right order.

Plainly speaking, you have not even one testimony which speaks about these dimenisons even when they spent months or year/s in gas chambers according to their testimonies.

Your claim about „order of magnitude“ is ridiculous, for you every dimension is in right order of magnitude, this is untenable. Physical findings prove that not even one of them saw what they claims. You call it „inaccuracies in deatil“when material evidence speaks itself.

The fact is that neither Schultze nor Bacon "refute" Mazal et al.'s finding or vice versa, but they corroborate the 50 cm x 50 cm openings, by a) confirming there had been openings at all in the roof and b) confirming they were at this order of magnitude. Physical evidence naturally trumps and corrects inaccuracies in testimonial evidence.

Hans, this is not fact but clearly false, your witness dont corroborate your findings and refute findings about alleged four 50cm holes, so stop please, material evidence clearly refute your witnesses as already demonstrated even by you. This excuse, that every false testimony is just mistake, this is really untenable.

-number of holes.

Four, as reported by the majority of witnesses, namely Rudolf Höß (3 or 4), Ananij Petko & Vladimir Pegov, Henryk Tauber, David Olere, Miklos Nyiszli, Paul Bendel, Josef Sackar, Yehuda Bacon, Jaacov Gabai, Karl Schultze, Henyrk Porebski.

Which means that other witnesses are false, ok. Using these witnesses is also untenable, for example, your Miklos Nyiszli spoke about four elevators instead of one and was off about ovens and Bendel with his totally wrong description of basic dimensions of alleged gas chamber and its 1.6m ceiling is one of the most ridiculous liars I have ever seen. Yehuda Bakon speaks about two columns in each chamber of Krema II and III when he magically divided each chamber in two smaller ones, he even spoke about some magic ventilators below columns and he also spoke about some „water sprinkles“ looking pipes surrounded by wire, he also completely missed chimneys and according to him, there were no chimneys and only lids protected the hole itself. David Olére spoke about legendary „gas bombs“ hoax which were introduced through columns, his drawings are quite good proof about how false he is. Should i continue with exposing of your other witnesses? You know for example Case for Sanity from Carlo Mattogno, thus you know very well all these absurdities and i only wonder how you dare to call these liars “witnesses“

I think that Pressac himself treated some of them quite good here.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0469.shtml

Your witnesses are normal liars as demonstrated on your examples, you explanation that are mistaken is absolutely untenable.

-dimensions and appearance of wire-mesh columns and material.

The dimension is either 70 cm square if only the second net went through the roof or 50 cm square if also the outer mesh went through the roof. The other dimensions are given in Kula's account.

Is obvious why you omitted height, because height is 3m, so your claim about movable part is untenable no matter what part is movable. I wanted to see also material because of my question below.

Tell me what prevent demolishing or damaging of these perforated columns by mass of the victims inside chamber?

-how the columns were attached.

Not accessed by testimonial evidence.

Do you have any evidence of attaching in the floor, ceiling or pillars which indicate existence of columns?

-lids on the chimneys, their dimensions and material.

According to most accounts the final cover was of concrete: Miklos Nyiszli, Leon Cohen, Shlomo Dragon, Dov Paisicovic.

This means that witnesses about wood cover are false.

Concrete - 50cm + 7cm + 7cm = 64cm, this is dimension of your chimney when I take into consideration your claim about concrete chimneys and not brickwork, and I am still too generous about only 7cm. With assuming thickness of only 5cm for concrete cover and specific gravity for concrete of 2.3, his weight would be some (0,64 x 0,64 x 0,05 x 2300) = 47kg, assuming need of rebar in this cover and some handle, this cover would weight some 50kg.

http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html

Mattogno´s calculation for chimney with dimension of 70cm according to Kula who manufactured columns:

We must also note that, according to Kula, the Zyklon B introduction device measured 70×70 cm and extended through the ceiling of the alleged homicidal gas chamber of crematorium II (and III) and above it. If it was surrounded by a brick facing on the outside (necessary both to seal the crudely knocked-in ceiling hole and to accommodate the heavy concrete cover), the overall size would have been 94×94 cm (see Mattogno 2005d, p. 372). Concrete has a specific gravity of 2.1-2.5. Assuming an average value of 2.3, a concrete cover with a minimum thickness of 5 cm would weigh (0.94×0.94×0.05×2300=) 101.6 kilograms. Each gassing would have been a truly Herculean operation!

Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity, Carlo Mattogno, pp. 408, 409.

Hans, did you ever lift something what weight 50kg or 100kg? This is ridiculous and untenable again.

-dimensions of chimneys.

Not accessed by testimonial evidence.

Kula with his columns made these chimneys some 40cm high. Dimensions of your holes provide us with dimensions, so no problem, see above.

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

The match of the holes and the February 1943 ground photo was shown by Mazal et al.:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... -final.jpg

For the May 31 1944 photograph: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... st_fit.png

For the August 25 1944 photograph it is something in between these two:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... t_fit1.png

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/Ro ... t_fit2.png

I am sorry, but this ground photo from February 1943 doesn´t match model as clearly visible in chimneys area and you also don´t care about other object on the roof. I have also problem with dimensions of this model from Mazal report here
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ure5.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ure6.shtml

If columns are 48cm as they claim, how is possible that they are smaller than 40cm pillars?

Here is how these pillars should have to look like, so this Mazal/Keren/Maccarthy model from their report looks like complete fraud, not only the chimneys doesn´t match, but also dimensions are altered. Can somebody correct if I miss something, or this is really complete fraud? Please, if someone is able to correct me, this is quite serious.

August 25 1944 – again I am sorry, but it doesn´t match again with your smudges as you see and your model also don´t match in overal size, as you can see I scaled down your model to match photo from August 25 1944, width is good, but your model is too long, or your photo somehow altered.

May 31 1944 – here I am especially sorry, because you marked your gas chamber completely wrong, in fact you marked only east side of the mortuary and consider it as your „matching“ smudges as you can see below, so in fact, your smudges disappeared.

September 13 1944, you missed this photo even when I provided it to you, your smudges disappeared again.

Your photo evidence seems to be completely false.

Testimonial evidence is usually uncertain to determine exact dimensions, but this does not substantially affect its ability to demonstrate that an object existed.

“some object existed“ is testimony with zero value and material evidence is against you.

There is no photograph with known scaling. It makes little sense to draw a 50 cm x 50 cm hole when we do not know what 50 cm are in the photograph.

I agree that this could he hard, but you should be able to draw at least shape, I already did it here, see below. This is the largest square which I was able to accomodate to this hole.

Is this shape 50cm x 50cm? Really?

The reason why Kula may have been mistaken about the outer dimension is imperfect human memory, not that he was supplied with wrong dimensions (absurd explanation).

What I want to tell is that is impossible to by mistaken when he was for sure provided with dimensions from SS and he measured them and manufactured them. Your explanation si untenable again as I already said above, he clealry directly said without problem what were the dimensions. I never claimed that he was provided with wrong dimensions, I said that he was provided with correct dimensions for sure, in untenable to be mistaken and he never expressed such impression in his testimony, see here again, he even provided dimensions for netting and other minor deatils in millimeters!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801#p49262

You completely missed my challenges here. See challenges C14B. / C14C. / C14D. (14D is partly answered, answer the rest)
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6801

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?

What you see here is actually proper historical revising. If it were an -ism, it would really deserve the term revisionism.

Prior Mazal et al.'s study, Michal Kula was best source on the dimensions of the openings and device, because he took part in manufacturing the device and provided a detailed and quite reliable account. Accordingly, it was accepted that the opening and device was presumably 70 cm square. However, when Mazal et al. investigated the ruin, new evidence came to light and they found that the most likely gas introduction openings are actually around 50 cm x 50 cm. This new and fresh evidence triggered a revision of the dimensions of the openings and device or at least a revision of how the device looked like. This is how real researchers should do it: Follow where the evidence leads one.

No, proper historical revising, this is opportunism to save untenable, nobody had problem with Kula, he was best witness, but everything exploded with investigation of material evidence when the holes were miraculously discovered in 1998+, so Kula is now big problem for you. But nevermind, material evidence refute your claims anyway.

Regarding Provan's hole 7, this was addressed already in Mazal et al.'s paper and I even cited the passage, so please check again my posting.

Regarding Provan's hole 8, it has rebar going straight through half of the opening, which explains why it is not considered as an gas introduction opening.

I adressed you above about this.

Please note, that my words like nonsense and the other similar words are not intended as offensive, I just don´t know better word.