The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:23 pm)

Pon:
At this forum we usually create separate threads for different topics. Just glancing at your post, very little of it is even dedicated to the topic of cyanide residue in the gas chamber / delousing chamber walls, which is the focus of the topic you created.
It is fine to talk about other topics, but they should be separated into different threads. If you search the forum for "Wyatt" you will see this happened in about a half dozen threads. In this case, I will break up my replies into separate posts, so I suggest, at the very least, you respond to the separate subjects in different posts.

As for the number of people allegedly missing, what is this based on? Census reports? These numbers are not a good way to determine how many Jews died, especially at a specific place like Auschwitz.

I don't know what the specifics of Auschwitz is based on (perhaps deportations papers and such documents, I would have look into that more to give a answer, the total number though can be assessed by comparing the statistics, here is a source of such statistics of jews in the world before and after world war 2: https://www.jewishgen.org/databases/giv ... despop.htm

The problem with those statistics are already explained here:

Issues with post-WWII Jewish census figures
viewtopic.php?t=12735

If a person refuses to identify as "Jewish" they are counted as a death in your statistics. Does this make sense to you?

If you want to prove that 1 million Jews died at Auschwitz based on documents, or that 5-6 million Jews died during WWII, then I suggest you post them in that thread, some other thread, or create one for that purpose. It is a topic unrelated to cyanide wall residue.

Pon:
Have we seen anything of this sort for Treblinka? Which, if the story was true, would be the largest mass grave site ever excavated in human history...

As I explained earlier the jews have a law against disturbing graves which is partly why scientists isn't allowed to excavate, non-ground penetrating methods can be used though (the one I meant) using ground radar and other techniques. I was hoping to find a document which was a very large study of treblinka but it seems to be overshadowed by the Sturdy Colls excavasion (which I didn't know about until now), I will have to find it later instead.


I don't buy it. Sturdy Colls excavated what is alleged to be the largest mass grave site in human history ever excavated (700-900 thousand, milions of pounds of remains) but failed to prove the existence of 0.1% of the alleged remains (70-90). Why can't we see a photograph?

This is a CRIME SCENE - therefore, it can be excavated. The "It is against Jewish law" excuse is sad and pathetic.

If you are a true believer, I suggest you claim the $100,000 reward here: http://www.nafcash.com/

See also:
"Jewish Burial Law" as excuse
viewtopic.php?t=8997

Like I said before, this topic is not even related to Auschwitz. So, if you want to prove some huge mass graves at Treblinka, make a thread. Here is one for Auschwitz:

Cremated remains, bone ash, and water-solubility // the ash ponds
viewtopic.php?t=12278


I will respond to other claims in additional posts.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:37 pm)

Pon:
And spraying the walls with a hose, causing them to be moist, would have only increased their tendency to absorb HCN and produce iron cyanide. This is pointed out in the links provided.

While at the same time washing away the compound.
Not necessarily. See:

Those Prussian Blues Just Won't Wash
viewtopic.php?t=4600

R.Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide
viewtopic.php?t=3706

Why They Could Not Have Hosed Down The Gas Chambers
viewtopic.php?t=3332

Humidity increases the formation of iron cyanide in walls exposed to HCN. Iron cyanide (Prussian blue) does not wash out.

From: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/6.html
6.7.4. Effects upon the Formation of Iron Blue

The first step in the formation of Iron Blue in masonry is the absorption of gaseous hydrogen cyanide. A cool (10°C ) wall in a cellar with atmospheric humidity near the saturation point, due to its higher water content (by a factor of at least 10), has an increased ability (by a factor of 10) to absorb hydrogen cyanide compared to warm walls in a heated room built above ground with lower atmospheric humidity (20°C, 50% rel.).

The second step in the formation of Iron Blue is the ionic split (disassociation) of the hydrogen cyanide, that is, its conversion into simple cyanide.[405] This procedure requires an alkaline environment, which, in lime mortars, lasts only for a few days or weeks, but which are present for months or years in cement mortar and concrete.
Note: The alleged homicidal gas chambers were cement + concrete, but the delousing chambers were lime mortar. Continued, same source:
The next step is the formation of iron(III)-cyanide, a process that hardly occurs in a strongly alkaline environment and which occurs slowly in slightly alkaline environments. In the neutral range, this reaction is once again slowed down because the cyanide converts into non-reactive, volatile hydrogen cyanide by the humidity in the wall. The environment around the carbonation limit of concrete and mortar (which is slightly alkaline), can therefore be addressed as the area in which iron(III)-cyanide can form easily. In a strongly alkaline area of the masonry, it only arrives at this prior stage of Iron Blue formation through the slow detour of the reduction of slight traces of iron(III)-cyanide to iron(II)-cyanide. A large surface area, as found in cement mortars and concrete, is especially favorable to the solid-liquid interface reaction between solid rust and cyanide in a liquid solution. These generally have the advantage of retaining an alkaline medium for longer periods of time, so that the cyanide accumulated in the masonry is not lost and has enough time to react with rust. Once again, a high water content, which broadens the range of moderately alkaline acid values, is advantageous.[406] The reduction of a part of the iron(III)-ions to iron(II)-ions finally, the next to last step in Iron Blue formation, requires a moderately alkaline acid value, but also occurs in the strongly alkaline range. A distinction can be made between three areas of different reactivity in masonry:

1. Larger quantities of cyanide ions can accumulate in the non-carbonated portion, due to the alkaline medium, further favored by the increased absorption of hydrogen cyanide by the still-humid material. The cyanide is only bound as iron(III)-cyanide to a slight extent. This is converted quite rapidly into the more stable iron(II)-cyanide due to its strong oxidation behavior in the alkaline medium. An accumulation of iron(III)-cyanide will therefore take place over a longer time period.

2. In the zone of carbonation, the tendency to accumulate cyanide is reduced, since the disassociation equilibrium lies increasingly on the side of the hydrogen cyanide. The oxidation strength of the iron(III)-cyanide is also diminished. On the other hand, the pigment itself now becomes stable, so that increased quantities of iron(II)-cyanide will be converted into Iron Blue, intimately mixed with the lime which is now also forming in this area, with the now somewhat more easily soluble iron(III)-ion at the carbonation limit.[407]

3. In the pH-neutral, carbonated part of the masonry, the formation is considerably dependent on the available cyanide concentration, which is strongly reduced there. Already formed iron(II)-cyanide is gradually converted into Iron Blue in the presence of humidity.

Table 7 shows the adsorption values of hydrogen cyanide in various building materials.[409] They confirm the assumption of considerably higher reactivity of cements compared to brick, as well as the greater tendency of fresh cement compared to older and generally more humid building materials toward accumulation of hydrogen cyanide. The hydrogen cyanide accumulation in concrete masonry, the age of which is unfortunately not indicated, is astonishingly high. Since by definition there is no considerable difference between the composition of cement mortar and concrete, it is furthermore not clear how the differing analytical results are to be interpreted. These data are therefore not without their difficulties.[410] But at least the tendency of humid masonry to absorb higher quantities of hydrogen cyanide is confirmed (compare lime sandstone: factor 8 at equal temperature and relative atmospheric humidity, but different prior history). W.A. Uglow showed in a detailed series of tests that concrete absorbs approximately four to six times as much hydrogen cyanide as lime mortar. He also found a strong tendency of humid building materials towards increased adsorption of hydrogen cyanide. He also noted a dark blue pigmentation running through the entire concrete sample and did not therefore exclude the possibility of a chemical reaction of the hydrogen cyanide with the material.[411]

So, as we see, the humidity of the wall being washed previously would increase the rate of iron cyanide forming in the next gassing. As the people are gassed, the moist, humid walls would have been exposed to HCN. And, after the people died, they would not be able to wash out the alleged homicidal gas chamber until they have pulled all of the bodies out. And once the iron cyanide is formed, it will not wash out. And pulling the bodies out would cause cyanide-infused water to begin smearing into the concrete. It just doesn't make sense.

Germar Rudolf:
Concrete, reliable values on the solubility of Iron Blue are not recorded in the scientific literature. However, based on comparative calculations between the known solubility of Fe(OH)3 on the one hand, and the threshold value of the pH stability of Iron Blue on the other hand (pH 10), the approximate solubility of Iron Blue in water can be calculated (see Paragraph 6.6.2.2). It amounts to ca. 10-24g Iron Blue per liter of water, this means that 0.000000000000000000000001 g Iron Blue dissolves in 1,000 g of water.
page 204: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:39 pm)

Pon wrote:A lot of the evidence for the gas chambers will be found here, (that's the page of the foreword, you go forward from there). I will try to give links and cite the most interesting ones.

Have you read these total demolitions of that work?

(Rudolf et al) Auschwitz: Plain Facts—A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/14-apf.pdf

(Rudolf) Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers—An Introduction and Update to Jean-Claude Pressac’s Magnum Opus
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/42-ataootgc.pdf

Also:

(Crowell) Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas Shelters in WWII: A Refutation of J. C. Pressac's "Criminal Traces"
https://codoh.com/library/document/883/
Last edited by Lamprecht on Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:50 pm)

Pon:
Two quotes from this page: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0200.shtml
On 15th August 1942, a situation plan of the whole POW camp was completed [Document 15], projecting its extension to four construction stages, numbered (from south to north) IV, I, II, III, with a capacity of 60,000, 20,000, 60,000 and 60,000 respectively or a total of 200,000 prisoners.

A capacity for incinerating 200,000 prisoners.

Where does it say anything about incinerating 200,000 people? It says nothing about cremation capacity here. You are confused. That is not what it says at all. In the next sentence:
A letter of 27th August 1942, signed by Bischoff and addressed to the SS Construction Inspectorate at Posen for the Head of Office C/V of the SS WVHA in Berlin, confirmed that the "lodging" capacity of the POW camp was to be increased to 200,000 prisoners
So I don't know where you got the idea of "incinerating 200,000 prisoners" from any document here.

The contract for the construction of the four chimneys for the TWO OTHER KREMATORIEN (IV and V], of a different model from II and III, was awarded to Messrs Robert Koehler on 20th August 1942 [file BW 30/26, pages 52 and 53]. Thus the incineration capacity of the camp was to be increased to 52 muffles while on 19th August 1942 at the evening roll call there were 22,925 prisoners in the camp.

Number of prisoners in the camp: 22,925. I'll let you draw the lines.

Yet you initially misread your own source, which quite readily explains a plan to increase the total population of people in the camp. Naturally, this would require more crematoria.

And on the same page, your source claims:
THEIR CAPACITY WAS EXCESSIVE IN RELATION TO THE REAL NEEDS OF THE CAMP

This is incorrect. As shown by Germar Rudolf, from the link cited above:

Image

If you would like to create a new thread on cremation capacity, go ahead; or post in one already existing. Cremations are quite irrelevant to the subject of this thread: cyanide concentration in the walls.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 7:56 pm)

Pon:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0204.shtml
2) Regarding the installation of each of the 2 3 muffle furnaces near the “bathing installation for special actions”

Why would there be 2 3 muffle furnaces near the "bathing installation for special actions"? Example of euphemism.

There is no euphemism, you're grasping at straws here.

Rudolf addresses this in the "Auschwitz: Plain facts" book linked above, on page 185:
In the beginning, the SS had not planned undressing rooms for Bunkers 1 and 2; the victims undressed "in the open air," but then:

"Bischoff demanded in his second report the construction, close to the two Bunkers, of four wooden huts as undressing rooms for the unfit. The cost of each hut was 15,000 RM. The request was formulated thus: four pieces huts for the special treatment of the prisoners at Birkenau." (pp. 45f, Pressac's emphasis)

The report in question was written at the end of July 1942, during a full scale typhus epidemic. As we have explained, the "special treatment of the prisoners" did not have a criminal significance, but was a health measure included in the sanitary provisions taken by the SS to stop the epidemic. Needless to say that the connection between these four huts and the Bunkers 1 and 2 is, as usual, based only on Pressac's fantasy and has no documentary basis whatsoever. 112

The "bathing facilities for special actions" (Badeanstalten fur Sonderaktionen) mentioned in the file memo of August 21, 1942 (p. 52), had the same function; each had to be equipped with two three-muffle ovens of the simplified models, evidently to cremate infected corpses of prisoners who died of typhus. 113


There is nothing sinister about this at all. Putting a shower near a crematoria makes sense, because you can use the heat to warm the water. Back in the 1940s they did not have the same technology as we do, you know.

On 16 May 1943, Bischoff sent Hans Kammler, Amtsgruppenschef C of the SS-WVHA, a "Report on measures taken to implement the special program ordered within the KGL [prisoner of war camp] Auschwitz by SS-Brigadeführer and Generalmajor der Waffen-SS Kammler, Doctor of Engineering" in which, at Item 6, we read:

"Disinfestation plant. An Organization Todt disinfestation plant for the disinfestation of prisoners' clothing is anticipated in each of the individual parts of the BAII camp[140]. To ensure the thorough physical disinfestation of the prisoners, storage heaters and boilers should be mounted in the two existing prisoners' bathrooms in the BAI so that hot water will be available for the existing shower room. Heating coils are moreover to be mounted inside the waste incinerator of Crematorium III to obtain the [hot] water needed for a shower installation to be built in the cellar of Crematorium III. With regards to execution of construction for this plant, we have negotiated this with the firm Topf and Sons of Erfurt".


Nothing sinister about this at all. Read more:

"The Truth About the Gas Chambers"? Historical Considerations relating to Shlomo Venezia's "Unique Testimony"
https://codoh.com/library/document/1920/
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:01 pm)

Pon:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0217.shtml
However, in his letter Bischoff made an enormous gaff, explaining to Kammler that though it had unfortunately not been possible to remove the formwork from the ceiling of Leichenkeller 2, because of the Silesian cold, this was of little importance, because the “Vergasungskeller” could be used in its stead [as a normal morgue]. There was the fateful word, “gassing cellar”, written by Bischoff himself and designating Leichenkeller 1, as can be seen after cross-checking with Kirschneck’s report and Prüfer’s simplified “inspection report”. This is the first of the “slips” that SS and civilians could not help making

Gassing cellar.

Please refer to the following threads dedicated to this document:

Letter: Karl Bischoff to Hans Kammler (mentioning "gassing cellars") / 'Vergasungskeller'
viewtopic.php?t=10413

the 'vergasungskeller' note
viewtopic.php?t=1001

If you think this documents proves Jews were gassed, please post in one of those.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:09 pm)

If you still think this document proves some sort of homicidal gassings, I suggest you make a new thread about it.

Pon:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0218.shtml
On 26th February, on a hand-written note, countersigned by Kirschneck, concerning the terra cotta pipes for the drainage of Krematorium II and the supply of doors and windows for Krematorium III, there was mention of the entrance to the future undressing room of Krematorium II (BW 30, Eingang Keller 2), accompanied by tough sketch showing the western access stairway [Document 29]. This is the first trace of this stairway, which could be used only by living people (assuming drawing 2003 was totally respected), which did not appear on the initial drawings but did on the inventory drawing, 2197 [see annex]. At 6.20 pm, SS Second Lieutenant Kirschneck (his name having been written on a copy by Jährling during filing) sent to Topf a telegram requesting the immediate despatch of TEN GAS DETECTORS for BW 3O, i.e. Krematorium II [PMO file BW 30/34, page 48, presented in Part II Chapter 6 "The ventilation systems of Krematorien II and III" and Chapter 8 "Criminal traces"]. This telegram on is own establishes that Messrs Topf, and in particular their representative at Auschwitz, Prüfer, had compromised themselves up to the neck in installing a gas chamber in Krematorium II. Since Topf ’s production consisted essentially of brewery equipment (cauldrons, vats, etc)

Gas detectors, ventilation systems.

Document in question is:
Telegram of the Zentralbauleitung Auschwitzto the Firm J.A. Topf & Söhne, Erfurt, of February 26, 1943. APMO, BW 30/34, p. 48.Translation: “[...] Send off immediately 10 gas detectors as discussed. Hand in estimate later.’ [...]

Germar Rudolf writes:
4.4.8. The Ten Hydrogen Cyanide Gas Detectors (p. 71-72)

With the hydrogen cyanide gas detectors we leave the sphere of "slip" and "bungles," of "criminal traces" and "beginnings of evidence" to discover, finally, "definitive evidence" and even "the definitive evidence."

Of what, exactly?

Of the "existence of a homicidal gas chamber in crematory II" (p. 72). The reader is astonished to see the immense edifice of the gravest accusation brought against the German people thus built on a simple business letter.

On March 2, 1943, the firm Topf und Sonne of Erfurt sent a letter to the central construction office at Auschwitz concerning an order for ten hydrogen cyanide gas detectors for crematory II. There is nothing odd in that. The letter is commercial, with nothing secretive about it. It reads quite plainly Gasprtifer/Krematorium (gas detectors/crematory). The instruments were called Anzeigegerdte fur Blausdure Reste (hydrogen cyanide trace detectors). These are what I called the "residual gas detection equipment" in my Memoire en defense... , 53 an expression which, on that occasion, was the translation of Gasrestnachweisgerdt. 54 This equipment could be found wherever the gassing (Vergasung) gear was stored and wherever disinfections with Zyklon B were carried out. What with the ravages effected by typhus at Auschwitz and the accumulation of corpses of epidemic victims in the crematories, operations to disinfect those places were sometimes necessary and the use of these detectors, made of sensitive paper, was normal. Since 1922 55 and up to today, Zyklon has been used to disinfect dwellings, silos, libraries, ships etc.

In some of these deceptive expedients that Pressac borrows from the historians, one can often detect a large dose either of ignorance or of bad faith, but, as will be seen, the apothecary uses deceits of his own devising.
This is from "Auschwitz: Plain Facts" linked above.

On this topic, read more, from Crowell:
Technique and Operation of German Anti-Gas Shelters in WWII
https://codoh.com/library/document/883/
Criminal Trace #2: 10 Gasprüfer (gas detectors)

As noted above, Gasprüfer and Gasspürer were common in German chemical warfare equipment and in anti-gas shelter equipment. [Source: US 525ff] A benign interpretation is possible, therefore it is not a criminal trace.

There is more to this trace. In 1993, Pressac published another book, which was at once a condensation and augmentation of the first, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz [Munich:1994, hereinafter, DKA]. In it he quoted a letter from Kurt Prüfer to the Auschwitz Bauleitung, in which he claimed that he had unsuccessfully sought to acquire the 10 gas detectors, which he now specified as Anzeigegeräte für Blausäure-Reste ["Indicators for HCN residue", DKA 93], and there is indeed no record that they were ever located or delivered. At any rate, they were not available for the purpose which Pressac assumed. [DKA 94] If we chose, we could dismiss this criminal trace right now: the Germans had been gassed with HCN in World War One, expected its use, and had prepared for it. The presence of HCN detectors has no criminal significance at all.

But there is still a problem: why would one ask an oven maker to purchase gas detectors? In other words, we know that the manufacturers of Zyklon had HCN gas detectors, and we are certain that the Wehrmacht and the SS had their own. Thus, why would one ask the builders of the cremation ovens for gas detectors, and why ten in number? The simplest answer is that these gas detectors were meant for the 10 three-muffle cremation ovens that comprised Crematoria II and III, and they probably were meant to have some characteristic (heat resistance) to make them usable in or by the ovens. That the gas detectors would be meant for Crematoria II and III makes sense, because, first, Pressac notes that the crematoria were always discussed as pairs (II and III, IV and V) [ATO, 452], and because Crematoria IV and V did not have 10, but rather 4 double muffle ovens apiece.

Then we have to ask what their function would be. Pressac argues that these detectors prove gassings with Zyklon B in the crematoria: but in the event of such gassings, certainly the crematoria operators would not need to be informed that dangerous concentrations of the gas were nearby. In other words, the need for detectors for the ovens suggests the ability to detect the presence of HCN residues created by other processes, but not by the release of pure HCN in the Crematoria.

In early March, 1997, Dr. Arthur R. Butz argued that the incineration chute behind the cremation ovens of Crematoria II and III could have generated high levels of HCN in the crematory ductwork if certain fabrics were burned. There is merit to this argument, since it is known that German uniforms from the beginning of the war were composed of a wool-rayon combination, and that the proportion of rayon increased throughout the war [US 541ff]. It is not unreasonable to assume that most concentration camp fabrics contained similar proportions of wool and rayon, nor is it unreasonable that highly flammable rayon fabrics would be treated with flame retardant which would provide a catalyst for HCN release when burned.

In addition, our review of the literature has shown that several other substances produced HCN, and could have a poisonous effect, including leather, celluloid, and proteinous matter. All of these could have been burned in the incinerator as well. [G 55]

The counter argument is that these gas detectors had special characteristics that were meant for measurement for homicidal gassings. Aside from this being purely speculative, the argument offers no clue as to what these characteristics might be, nor does the counter argument explain why so many would be needed or how they would be used or consulted in a space that after all had only one door. Nor does the counter argument explain why, if the 10 gas detectors sought were important for homicidal gassings, why such gassings were supposed to have proceeded, presumably using nothing more than the typical DEGESCH gas detectors.

Recognizing that the problem is not a question of the criminality of these detectors, but rather a question of why Topf should be acquiring them, I accept the general validity of Dr. Butz' thesis and direct the interested reader there.[10]



Also suggested:
Fumigation of barracks and other buildings at Auschwitz
viewtopic.php?t=12731
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:38 pm)

Pon:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0221.shtml

In accordance with your suggestion, the service agrees that cellar 1 should be preheated with the air coming from the rooms of the 3 forced draught installations. The supply and installation of the ductwork and blowers necessary to this end are to be effected as soon as possible. As you point out in your above mentioned letter. execution should commence this week. We would ask you to send in triplicate detailed quote for supply and installation.

At the same time, we would ask you to send an additional quotation for the modification of the air extraction installation in the undressing room.

After receipt of these quotations we shall send a written order.

Head of the Auschwitz Waffen SS and Police
Central Construction Management
[Bischoff's initials]
SS Major [Jährling initials]

There is nothing sinister about this at all. Crowell, cited above:

Supplementary Criminal Trace #30 Reference to pre-heating the morgue

This is a relative criminal trace, that is, is it criminal only to the extent that other traces are shown to be criminal. On the other hand, heating an anti-gas shelter is referred to in the literature, where specific temperatures are cited as preferable to keep humidity low [Source: BL42, 105-116]. A benign interpretation is possible, therefore it is not a criminal trace.


Pon:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0223.shtml
On 5th March, the Bauleitung ordered from the metalworking shop of the Auschwitz DAW [German Equipment Workshops] “1 St[ü]ck Handgriff für Gastür Ø 12 / 1 handle for gas [tight] door, 12 [mm] diameter” for Birkenau Krematorium II. The order was received on 6th March and completed on 10th. This was not an ordinary door handle, but a metal bar 20 to 30 cm long, riveted at each end and fitted horizontally on the door to facilitate its handling.

On 6th March, the Bauleitung ordered from the DAW metalworking and wood working shops "one gas [tight] door, 100 [cm wide] by 192 [cm high] for Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium III, BW 30a, to be made on the same pattern as dimensions as the cellar door of the Krematorium opposite [II] with a 8 mm double glass peep-hole, with rubber sealing strip and fittings". The door had still not been made by 31st March. This order proves that the Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorien II and III were filled with gas tight doors [see this extract from a letter of 31st March 1943, Part II, Chapter 8, "Criminal traces"]. The same day, the Bauleitung sent a letter to Messrs Topf, written by Jährling and signed by Bischoff, agreeing to the written suggestion (by Prüfer) [this has not been found, and was probably destroyed because it discussed the project in "too realistic" terms] that the CORPSE CELLAR [LEICHENKELLER] 1 SHOULD BE PREHEATED with the hot air coming from the three small rooms housing the motors for the forced draught installation [Document 30]. This installation, driven by those 15 HP (11 kW) motors driving the three fans drawing the flue gases from the furnaces to the chimney, produced a lot of heat, and neither the SS nor Prüfer had planned any way of dissipating it. It is more than likely that it was again Prüfer who had the bright idea of getting around this problem by channeling the unwanted heat to the Leichenkeller 1, where heat was required to bring the temperature of the room up as quickly as possible to 25 or 30 degrees centigrade (the temperature of evaporation of hydrocyanic acid being 26-27° C). If the gas chamber were to be preheated, the toxic effect would be instantaneous, producing a "flash" death. Prüfer, while claiming at act our of "humanity" towards the poor Jews, was doing everything in his power to push firm's sales, on which he got a commission of 2%. In the author 's opinion, this letter is one of the most vital elements in proving the existence of a homicidal gas chamber in Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II. Otherwise it is incomprehensible and absurd that there should be plans to heat a morgue, a place that by definition should be kept cool.

Yes, a rule of thumb is to keep the morgue cool, not preheated :)

Gas tight doors are a common feature for air raid / anti gas shelters. What is the issue? If you need a door, why not have one that can also protect against such things.

Also, since the date is from June 1943 it must be a replacement door only.

See:
Hamburg WWII air raid shelter / peepholes, gas-tight doors
viewtopic.php?t=7835

Image

Pon, with my emphasis:
From the same page:
Furthermore. one cellar of Krematorium III I formally designated an "Auskleideraum / Undressing room". The letter does not specify which cellar, but Messing, in his timesheets, indicates it precisely: "Auskleidekeller II / undressing cellar II [for 2]". Thus, this document contains two damning "slips", important indirect proofs demonstrating the "abnormality" of the Leichenkeller: Leichenkeller 1 can no longer be an underground morgue because there are plans to "preheat" it; Leichenkeller 2 can no longer be a morgue because it has become a place where people get undressed. However, before Prüfer's bright idea could be put into practice, one of the forced draught motors caught fire, damaging the installation. This fire caused the system to be withdrawn from service in Krematorium II and totally abandoned in Krematorium III. Natural draught was henceforth used in all four Krematorien, which meant lost commission of several hundred Reichsmark for Prüfer and the impossibility of preheating the Leichenkeller 1.
Plans to reheat the room abandoned, mentions undressing room in the cellar, next to the "morgue". (document here

So it was abandoned. And therefore means what? You're really grasping for straws here, Pon...

Germar Rudolf writes (in PDF linked above):
Warm-Air Supply

On pages 221 and 230, Pressac reproduces documents referring, among other things, to a plan to channel warm air from the overheating forced-draft blowers into Morgue #1. of Crematorium II. On p. 454 Pressac states:
“Heating a mortuary is nonsensical. The extracts from these two letters are criminal traces of capital importance.”

On page 375 he writes in more detail (similar on p. 223):

“This document constitutes damning evidence. If [… Morgue] 1 remained a ‘morgue,’ it would be mad or stupid to want to ‘preheat’ a place, by definition cool or cold, destined for the temporary storage of corpses. […]”

However, standard works on building crematoria disagree. In his classical treatment on crematoria, Heepke writes:130 “If morgues exist in a crematorium, they must, of course, be equipped with a separate heating system, preferably in the form of a continuously operating stove; but heating of the morgues must always be made possible and is frequently specified by the authorities.”

Neufert writes in a more recent work, a copy of which the Auschwitz Construction Office owned:131

“The temperature level in the mortuary [must be] ≥ 2 – ≤ 12°C, never lower, because frost may cause the corpses to expand and to burst.”

Furthermore, Pressac’s favorite witness Henryk Tauber said in this regard (see on p. 482):

“All [corpses] were frozen and we had to separate them from one another with axes.”

Hence, these crematoria had a design flaw which this suggested modification was to remedy: their basements had no heating. Aware of this, the Topf Company wrote already in a letter of November 4, 1941, that they will install more forced-draft devices because in winter132 “frozen corpses will be incinerated, requiring more fuel which causes the exhaust gas volume to increase.” Morgue #1 was the target for this heating option, because due to its more-powerful ventilation system, this was the morgue where corpses several days old or even older were to be stored, as Pressac himself states on p. 284, increasing the risk of them freezing in winter. Hence, gently heating a morgue in winter is neither mad nor stupid. In addition, this project never came to fruition, because the overheating forced-draft blowers, whose excess heat was to be the heat source of this system, were removed. So the whole point is moot.
Last edited by Lamprecht on Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:42 pm)

Pon:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0224.shtml
Disregarding February 1942 (incomplete data) and stopping at the end of February 1943, we can determine the average monthly coke consumption of Krematorium I over a twelve month period: 31.1 tons. As Krematorium I had 3 double muffle furnaces, one muffle required approximately 5.2 tons of coke per month.
That's a lot.

Yes it is "a lot," Pon. A lot of people died at Auschwitz, but nowhere near 1 million.

According to Mattogno:
5.2. Heat Balance of Topf Double-Muffle Cremation Ovens at Auschwitz

The heat balance of the Topf double-muffle ovens at Auschwitz can be calculated following this approach by taking into consideration the slightly different operating temperature, cremation time, and surface area of the oven.[126] Our calculations for the coke required for a single cremation in this type of oven in thermal equilibrium resulted in the following:[127]
• normal corpse: 23.5 kg (51.5 lbs) coke;
• moderately thin corpse: 28.0 kg (61.3 lbs) coke;
• emaciated corpse ("Muselmann"): 32.5 kg (71.1 lbs) coke.
The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html

31.1 [Imperial] tons is 31599.06 kg,

Divided by 23.5 kg (normal corpse) and you get... 1,344 total corpses per month on average over the 12 months, based on those figures.

The Auschwitz Death Books show the following rounded inmate mortality since the peak of the typhus epidemic in August 1942:
August 1942: 8,600
December 1942: 4,600
September 1942: 4,500
January 1943: 4,500
October 1942: 4,500
February 1943: 5,900
November 1942: 4,100

Not a huge quantity, really Pon, at least in comparison to the actual deaths acknowledged by revisionists. Auschwitz was offered a 4 story continuous operation corpse incineration furnace. They said no. Why, Pon?

Read: viewtopic.php?t=10617#p79804

Image
Last edited by Lamprecht on Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:46 pm)

Pon:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0231.shtml
the description of the building [Document 50] associated with the deed of transfer for Krematorium II [Document 49] shows that Leichenkeller 1 was fitted with a “GASDICHTETÜR / GAS TIGHT DOOR” [Document 51], and the basement inventory [Document 52] also lists 4 “DRAHTNETZEINSCHIEBVORRICHTUNG[EN] / WIRE MESH INTRODUCTION DEVICES” with 4 “HOLZBLENDED / WOODEN COVERS,” [incorrectly attributed by a Bauleitung clerk to Leichenkeller 2. Seethe explanation in Part II, Chapter 8]. These, apparently “neutral” terms, designated, with no possible shadow of a doubt, the heavy mesh columns into which the Zyklon B was poured in the form of pellets, the top of which, outside the roof, were closed by wooden covers. This proves formally that Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II was filled out as A GAS CHAMBER USING ZYKLON B. It is not possible with these documents alone to prove that it was “homicidal”. But, Messing’s designation of Leichenkeller 2 as the UNDRESSING CELLAR, together with the fact that in the ceiling of Leichenkeller 1 about twenty emplacements for dummy showers still exist in the ruins (these are not shown on the Krematorium II basement inventory, whereas the 14 of Kr III are), introduce the missing, “human”, element. We now have the set:

(undressing cellar) + (gas tight door + 4 mesh columns
+ 4 covers + about 24 dummy showers),
which no longer corresponds to:
(corpse cellar 2) + (corpse cellar 1),
but to:
(undressing room) + (homicidal gas chamber).


Sorry Pon, but this is debunked by Crowell:

Criminal Trace #8 4 Dratnetzeinschiebvorrichtung

and
Criminal Trace #9 4 Holzblenden

Since these two elements on the inventory agree in number, and were written in, it is assumed by all parties that their function is connected.

Blenden are simply shutters, and may be made from either steel or wood. They were commonly used in anti-gas shelters in order to make an opening gas tight, such as a window, or any other opening [Source: GL39, 111; GL40, 22ff; GL40, 26]. A benign interpretation is possible, therefore it is not a criminal trace.

Further on this point, Pressac [ATO, 425ff] provides several photographs of shutters, which are identified as the gassdichten Fenster (or Türen) of Crematoria IV and V. These shutters are generally identical in size, shape, and construction to ordinary wooden Blenden as can readily be seen by consulting the literature cited above, and they are also of the right size for emergency exits. Thus gassdichten Fenster (or Türen ), Blenden and Holzblenden, and wooden shutters are all the same thing. This is important not only because it demonstrates the propensity of the Birkenau construction workers and engineers to describe things by unconventional names, but also because it helps put Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung in context.

Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung is a neologism, and we cannot offer a definitive explanation. Pressac speculates that it represents a wire mesh device whereby Zyklon B was "induced" into the extermination gas chamber, but there is no material corroboration for this. We offer the following observations to support our inference:

1. At least two advertisements depict wire mesh screens in the anti-gas shelter literature, one depicts a screen behind an open shutter. [Source: BL42, v]

2. The anti-gas shelter literature contains an advertisement for wire mesh [Drahtnetz]. [Source: BL42, v]

3. According to the anti-gas shelter literature, all windows and other openings require some kind of mesh, netting, grating or grille [Rost, Gitterstäbe, Geflecht von Draht]. [Source: LB 182, 183; GL40 26; BL40, 263]

4. The Auschwitz work order Nr. 353 dated April 27, 1943 [ATO, 441] contains an order for "12 stücke Fenstergitter 50 x 70 cm" which is accepted as a reference to wire mesh screens or grilles for the 12 gassdichten Fenster (or Türen), noted above as identical to Blenden and Holzblenden.

5. Therefore, we can propose that the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung bear a relationship to the Holzblenden similar to the relationship of the Fenstergitter to the gassdichten Fenster (or Türen ) of Crematoria IV and V.

6. In addition, the literature specifies that such openings must be available for emergency egress. Hence, we hypothesize that these inserts must be removable. [Source: S 5, LDB 174ff, 182, 183]

7. There are several references in the anti-gas shelter literature to "Schieber" which serve the function of something that slides in and blocks, filters, or mediates a space (Absperrschieber, Rosettenschieber, Aufblaseschieber). All of these characterize a "Schieber" as something that is slid into something else, none of them describe a device that is slid into something else so that something else can be slid into it. [Source: advertisement, BL42, V] Therefore, we conclude that the characterization of Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung as a "wire mesh induction device" is semantically incorrect.

8. Finally, the Auschwitz work order Nr. 78 dated March 11, 1943 [ATO, 440] contains an order in Polish "na wykonanie zaslon i kontowek dla krematorium II /BW 30/ z tresci ktorego wynika, ze dla wykonania tego samowienia zuzyto gaze druciana i druciana plecionke." which can be translated as "for the manufacture of screens with scantlings [or screens with edges] for Crematorium II /BW 30/ the gist of which is [z tresci ktorego wynika] that wire gauze and wire mesh are to be used to meet the order."

The above order is in Polish because the original order is not available. According to Pressac, (ATO 438), someone at the Auschwitz Museum borrowed the document for home study and didn't return it. This is the only document missing, hence Pressac had to rely on a Polish language abstract prepared for the Höß trial and notarized by Jan Sehn. However, it seems clear that the order is significant in defining the nature of the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung. The reference to screens is not a reference to induction devices, and indeed, they sound like the screens for emergency exits discussed earlier [LBD 174-177]. If our rendering of the admittedly vague Polish is incorrect, it would be helpful if the document was returned to the Museum where it belongs.

Our hypothesis, then, is that the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung were simply removable wire mesh screens that were placed into openings that the Holzblenden were designed to cover. The corroboration for this inference derives from the points from the literature noted above. A benign interpretation is possible, therefore it is not a criminal trace.

Finally, it should be noted that Pressac himself has observed that the roof of Morgue #1 of Crematorium II (for which these 4 pairs were designated) shows only two holes in its largely collapsed but still intact roof (ATO, 436). Therefore, in whatever manner these 4 pairs of Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung and Holzblenden were meant to be used, they could not all have been used exclusively in the roof of Morgue #1 of Crematorium II. This fact weakens Pressac's interpretation concerning their construction and intent.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:50 pm)

Pon:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0233.shtml
Rear view of one of the 145 galvanized plates, perforated by hand, which were set into and nailed to the wooden fresh air ducts in the upper part of Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorien II and III, now kept in the PMO “stores”, Block 25. Toxicological analyses were carried out in 1945 by the Cracow Forensic Institute (7 Copernicus street) on 4 complete plates and 2 damaged ventilation orifices found in the ruins of Krematorium II. After scraping the white substance that covered these objects back to the metal, 7.2 grams of scrapings were collected and subjected to two qualitative analyses, which established the presence of cyanide compounds. The report, signed by Dr Jan Z Robel, was written on 15th December 1945 and transmitted to the Examining Judge, Jan Sehn.

Cyanide compuonds in the ventilation plates of "leichenkeller 1", the cellar..


What is the issue? Rudolf found cyanide traces in the alleged "homicidal gas chamber" this is nothing new. he found it all over the camps:

Fumigation of barracks and other buildings at Auschwitz
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12731

From exterminationist "Historian" van Pelt's book on Auschwitz:

"Zykon B had been introduced in Auschwitz in July 1940, when it was used to fumigate the Polish barracks which, according to Hoess, 'teemed with lice, fleas, and other bugs.' [...] A violent typhus epidemic erupted in Auschwitz-Birkenau in the summer of 1942, and the whole lice-infested camp-barracks, offices, and workshops-had to be fumigated with tons of Zyklon B."
- Robert Jan van Pelt & Debórah Dwork (2002) 'Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present', pp. 219, 222
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Mon Sep 30, 2019 8:54 pm)

Pon:
I realise that you might not like eye-witness accounts but here are two witness accounts of wire-mesh columns:
"Dr Paul Bendel..."
and
Witness drawings
and
Schematic diagram of the Zyklon-B introduction system [taken via a drawing]: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0287.shtml

Sorry Pon, but anyone can draw anything they want, it's not proof of anything, except maybe their artistic ability :lol:

Your Jewish "eyewitness" Dr. Charles Bendel claimed that 1 or 2 thousand people were packed into a 10x4 meter area, and that young children were tossed above the adult's heads when the chamber was packed full. When asked how so many people can fit in such a small space, he said: "It can only be done by the German technique."
Not very reliable. Go ahead and start a thread on your eyewitnesses, Pon

And your silly "mesh columns" are debunked here:

Germar Rudolf demolishes the alleged Zyklon-B 'Kula Columns'
viewtopic.php?t=10949

I suggest you post in the appropriate thread for this topic, or make another on these alleged mesh columns.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 3 weeks ago (Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:08 pm)

I must have missed this one (please create a new thread if there is any other thing I have missed)
Pon wrote: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0302.shtml
The new arrangement of the basement shows the following modifications as compared with drawings 932, 933 and 1311:

1. The double door of Leichenkeller 1 now opens outwards (it had been realized that it would be impossible to open the doors of the gas chamber if they opened inwards, as in the original design);

2. The corpse chute has been eliminated (a vital point, implying that since this was no longer required the Leichenkeller could no longer be morgues in any normal sense, or else that the “corpses” arrived on foot.

3 The installation of an access stairway leading directly from the north yard of Krematorium II to a basement antechamber between the goldworking room and the associated office, and then to the junction between Leichenkeller 2 and 1. The western access stairway direct to Leichenkeller 2 was not yet planned [the first mention of it found in the PMO Bauleitung files being dated 26th February 1943], so that the stairs drawn by Dejaco became the ONLY POSSIBLE ACCESS to the Leichenkeller, through which the “corpses” had to pass. Replacing a chute designed to take corpses by an ordinary stairway defies all logic — unless the future corpses entered while they were still living and could walk down the stairs. But if the basement was being filled with live people, what could the function of the “morgues” now be?
Suggested thread:
The Vanishing Chute in Krema II
viewtopic.php?t=6405

Anyway, Pressac is wrong here.
The blueprint (Bauleitung drawing 2003) is focused on adding basement entries. It does not have the corpse chute or the staircase drawn in, because omitting them simplified the drawing for the intended purpose. For Pressac to say the corpse chute is eliminated is simply preposterous, and contradicted by his own book. The date of the drawing is given on the page:
"Drawn on 19/12/42 by SS Second Lieutenant Dejacof"

Yet from this very book, the following blueprints from after this date confirm the existence of the corpse chute:

– #2136 of Feb. 24 ,1943 for Crematorium III (page 305): https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0305.shtml
– #2197 of March 19, 1943 for Crematorium II (page 307): https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0307.shtml
– #109/15 by Huta of Sept. 24, 1943 for Crematoria II and III (page 327): https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0327.shtml
– #109/16A by Huta of Oct. 9, 1943 for Crematoria II and III (page 329): https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0329.shtml

There was also a blueprint for a new crematorium in the Auschwitz main camp dated 24 October 1941, with no chute but a staircase, yet there is no claim it was used as a homicidal gas chamber.

The adding of new entrances to Krema II & III does not imply any sort of homicidal intent, it is simply so that corpses can be transported into a basement without a corpse chute.

Pressac did not even consider this one of his "Criminal traces"... for these reasons, we can assume he added this with a deliberate attempt to deceive.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: The Official Explanation of the Preussian Blue Bleeding Through the Brick Work

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:05 pm)

Pon:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0340.shtml
Three chimneys of the gas chambers can be seen (the third is a bit obscured) and the fourth is hidden behind the chimney of the train.


Mattogno has this to say about these shapes:

4. The Objects on the “Train Photograph”

In their effort to demonstrate the presence of the four presumed holes on the roof slab of morgue 1, the authors utilize three photographs – one terrestrial and two aerial.

The first is the well-known shot from the “Kamann” series of February 1943, which has been published and analyzed by Jean-Claude Pressac.[19] Because of the presence in the foreground of a small locomotive with several little cars, the authors call it the “Train Photograph”.[20]

In its background, this photograph shows morgue 1 of crematorium II, on top of which there are four unidentifiable objects, which D. Keren and his colleagues take three to be the chimneys for the introduction of Zyklon B. As results from their Fig. 4 on p. 80, they claim to have identified the first two chimneys, starting from south; the third one is said to be “entirely occluded by the smokestack” of the engine (p. 71) whereas the fourth appears for them “just to the left of a locomotive’s smokestack” (p. 71, see document 2a.). The analysis of this photograph by the authors is extremely superficial and skirts purposely many essential elements.

1. First of all, let us state that the presence of chimney # 3 behind the smokestack of the locomotive is pure conjecture and does not result from the photograph.

2. Secondly, the claim that the three indistinct objects, which one can see on the roof slab of morgue 1, are introduction chimneys for Zyklon B, is likewise an undemonstrated and not demonstrable assumption, which is even, as we shall see under item 7, contrary to the evidence.

The authors attempt to lend weight to their claim by bringing in two likewise known aerial photographs of the Birkenau area taken on 25 August 1944, with which I shall deal in the next section. Anticipating their later arguments, they in fact state the following conclusion:

“That the holes alternate in Crematorium II is supported by the aerial photograph, the Train Photograph, the physical findings, and Tauber’s testimony:” (p. 72)

3. Actually, the indistinct objects taken by the authors to be chimneys 1 and 2 for Zyklon B are both situated on the eastern half of the roof of the mortuary, as shown by the corresponding diagram (see document 2b), which is at variance with their basic thesis.

4. If one calculates the position of objects 1 and 2 along the median of the surface of the morgue, it results from this diagram that they stood at 7.2 and 10.5 m from the southern end of the morgue. This is fully borne out by the diagram prepared by Provan on which I have marked by numbers 1 and 2 the position of the respective objects (see document 2i).

Image
Document 2i: Triangulation diagram for the objects #1 and #2 on the roof of morgue 1 of crematorium II, drawn by C.D. Provan.[21] My numbers 1 and 2 mark the position of the respective objects. The third (left-most) line refers to an object, which D. Keren et al. do not consider to be a chimney for Zyklon B.

This means that object 1 is situated next to pillar # 2 and east of the central beam, whereas D. Keren et al. claim that the alleged chimney 1 is next to pillar # 1 and west of the central beam. Object 2 is about 3.3 m away from object 1, whereas, according to D. Keren et al., the alleged chimneys 1 and 2 should be located about 7.6 m apart. In document 1a, I have indicated on the diagram of D. Keren et al. the position of objects 1 and 2 with respect to their alleged Zyklon B chimneys 1 and 2.

5. According to D. Keren et al., object 4 should be located slightly in front of the last pillar of the morgue, hence some 4 m from the wall of the crematorium. Instead, it is touching the wall and its height is therefore 45 cm – half the distance between the pair of windows to its left and the plane of the morgue. The windows of the crematorium were, in fact, some 90 cm above the plane of morgue 1, as shown by drawing 1173-1174 (p)[22] and confirmed by the “Train Photograph”; thus the height of the object is half this distance.

If instead the object had been at the position indicated by the authors, it would be even lower because of the perspective. Already on plan 936 of January 15, 1942,[23] and in the later ones as well, a layer of earth had been specified for the top of morgue 1; plan 109/16a dated October 9, 1943, gives the exact thickness of this layer: 50 cm.[24] It follows that object 4, rising less than 50 cm above the concrete surface of the morgue, would have been buried in this layer of earth, therefore it could not have been a chimney for Zyklon B.

6. To the left of object 2 is another object on that roof. But because it obviously has a noticeably different shading and shape and because it is located at an inconvenient location, D. Keren et al. simply claim that this can not be a Zyklon B chimney. But if we are certain that there is at least one object on that roof which is not a Zyklon B chimney, is it not possible that the objects 1, 2, and 4 were “other” objects as well?

7. What may these objects have been? The photograph in question does not allow us to solve this riddle, but there is another photograph, also from the Kamann series, taken a few weeks earlier, which shows the morgue of crematorium II in greater detail (see document 3). On this photograph the alleged chimneys for Zyklon B do not appear at all. In my article cited initially I have already demonstrated that the hypothesis of a creation of holes in the ceiling of morgue 1 for the introduction of Zyklon B is technically absurd and also in total disagreement with one of the principal tenets of the official thesis shared also by the authors.[25]

In the photograph just mentioned, there is, on the roof of the morgue, an object with square sides, leaning against the wall to the left of the third pair of windows, which seems to be made up by a pile of boxes (see documents 3 and 3a). It is odd that the position of this object corresponds exactly to the alleged chimney 4 of the “Train Photograph”. We may have here an alternative explanation of chimney # 4.

Image
Document 3: Photography of crematorium II in Birkenau, January 1943.[26]

Image
Document 3a: Section enlargement of doc. 3.

8. Let us move on to the other two objects. D. Keren et al. assume as an established fact that they were rectangular in shape and answer D. Irving’s hypotheses as follows:

“David Irving has speculated that the holes are really ‘drums containing sealant,’ but it is obvious that this cannot be the case: a cylindrical object would produce a gradual light pattern, while the objects above display a sharp change between uniform light and uniform shadow.” (p. 71)

Actually, this is anything but “obvious.” As is shown by an enlargement of objects 1 and 2, they have a shape that is rounded at top and bottom (see documents 2c and 2d), which is absolutely incompatible with the shadow zones of a parallelepiped; this also results from a comparison with one of the ventilation chimneys of the crematorium (document 2e) and the chimney of the ovens (document 2f).

It is therefore clear that the objects have a cylindrical shape.[27] But an object, cylindrical in shape, appears clearly just in front of the south wall of the morgue (see document 2g). Its dimensions, considering that the cylinder is right against the wall, are compatible with the two objects located on top of the morgue. We have here, no doubt, drums that were used during the construction. A similar cylinder, identifiable as a metal barrel, appears also in a photograph, which shows the erection of the chimney of crematorium III (document 2h). David Irving’s hypothesis therefore remains the most probable one.
The Openings for the Introduction of Zyklon B, Part 2
https://codoh.com/library/document/1752/


Pon:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0335.shtml
Furnaces 1, 2, 3 and 4 (but not 5) are being warmed through to dry out, as can be seen by the fact that there is no snow on the central part of the roof. In the right foreground, the structure of Leichenkeller 1 is complete, including the roof. The chimneys through which the Zyklon-B was poured were installed later and the roof was covered with an earth bank.

Shows a photo of the roof of the alleged gas chamber, covered with a sheet of snow, without the chimneys but otherwise completed.

See above, that photo contains one of the objects that has been confused for a Zyklon-B induction hole :lol:


Germar Rudolf also addresses this:
Pressac reproduced a photo of Crematorium II of around February 10, 1943, showing three objects located on the roof of Morgue #1 (p. 340; the fourth object obviously lies behind the cellar). The same photograph also appears in Danuta Czech’s book(1989, p. 454), see Figure 74. The decisive detail is magnified in Figure 75. If these objects are really Zyklon-B-introduction shafts, as Pressac believes, then one must assume that the objects are:

a) of equal size

b) regularly aligned

c) evenly distributed along the roof

d) nearly the same color and

e) casting approximately the same shadows.

Figure 75 points out the outlines of the cellar, indicating its breadth as well as the approximate width of the three objects. Despite the mediocre resolution of the photograph, it may be concluded that these objects are of differing widths, not evenly distributed over the roof, but stand, on the contrary, close together.

Image

It also seems peculiar that the shady side of the first object seen from the left, compared with those of the other two objects, is remarkably light in color. Figure 77 shows the alignment of perspective, viewed from above, on which these objects can possibly be located (Boisdefeu 1994, p. 168). As none of the requirements set forth above is met, the argument that these objects are above-roof parts of Zyklon-B-introduction shafts must be rejected.

Image

It should be mentioned in passing that these objects are not to be seen in other photographs of the morgue, see Figure 76 taken on January 20, 1943 (Czech 1989, p. 398; Pressac 1989, p. 335), as well as another photograph reproduced by Pressacand taken in the summer of 1943.154 It will therefore be necessary to find another explanation for the objects in the photograph taken in February 1943, such as, for example, that some sort of objects had been placed on the roof – perhaps in the course of constructing the building, under-takings which were obviously still underway – or less likely that the picture has been retouched at a later date.

Image

The Chemistry of Auschwitz
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests