Article 0496, Allen Andrew

Mark Van Alstine writes:

>How about when the Nazis designed Krema II they weren’t origionally
>planning on gassing people in it?

I agree.

>So what this means, as indicated above, is that L.Keller 1 in Krema II
was
>NOT origionaly designed to be a gas chamber. There are
>too many converging pieces of evidence that support this view.
> One could easily argue that if the vents were added, so then the vent
>_holes_
>in the roof of L.Keller 1 of Krema II were added.

Mark, I agree. But tell us, how many holes are on the
roof today?

From [email protected] Mon Apr 1 23:02:24 PST 1996
Article: 29546 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 1 Apr 1996 18:18:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 46
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I have been surprised that the present state of the
alleged gaschambers at Crema II and III at
Birkenau was not better known to the Exterminationist
“experts” on this thread and that, after several months
of trying, we can’t any agreement on the subject.
Perhaps this is because it is generally accepted
that the gaschambers were “blown up” as part of an
attempt to remove the “evidence”. Therefore, there is
no evidence at the site of the crime.
It may also be because a cursory view of the roof of
L. 1 of Crema II does not show much. That is because the
roof of Leichenkeller 1 was/is composed of three elements.
The slab roof of poured in place concrete;
a waterproof covering over the slab made of an asphalt-like
material;
and, on top of the asphalt, another layer of concrete.
This last layer of concrete is broken into small pieces
and has grass and moss growing on it. At first impression,
it looks as if the roof is destroyed. Of course, as I have
stated, the concrete slab roof underneath, is generally
intact. But this might also explain why so many people
claim the roof is destroyed.

I have tried to accurately put forward my observations
of the present state of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II
because I think that the present state of the Leichenkeller
is the best evidence of what was on the site 52 years ago.
My observations were made a decade ago, under the
constraints of avoiding patroling guards, and in an extempore
manner, without a guide to what I should be looking for, or a
plan of the Crema. I clearly missed investigating relevant
material such as the state of the roof of Leichenkeller 2
or the roofs of Crema III. It seems clear that some form of
solid “proof” is required to move this discussion along.
So, I propose that the “poor doctorial candidate” from
Alberta, John Morris go to Birkenau and see for himself if
the roof is there and report back to us. The trip should not
cost more than $2,000 U.S. I am willing to contribute $200
just to have D. Keren stop nattering at me. Plus it will
let Mr. Morris get out of Edmonton and see a really big
sophisticated city like Bielsko-Biala.
John, are you ready for a summer trip to Europe in the
name of Truth? Are you “Holocaust experts” ready to put
your money where your e-mail is?

From [email protected] Tue Apr 2 07:24:06 PST 1996
Article: 29575 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!en.com!news.his.com!
news.frontiernet.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 1 Apr 1996 16:56:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 11
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Dear Mr. Raven:
One would think that D. Keren would be able to answer
the simple question as the the number of the important
vent holes in the roof of the alleged gaschamber but
I think you are pushing D. Keren too hard. As a Hoaxter,
he is unable to tell the truth about anything; as an ignoramus
he doesn’t know the truth about anything; as a petty academic
posturing as a Holocaust expert, Keren won’t admit that he
doesn’t know anything. He keeps calling people “Nazi”
because he can’t answer their arguments with anything
intelligent.

From [email protected] Wed Apr 3 13:44:44 PST 1996
Article: 29768 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 3 Apr 1996 09:48:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 78
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On 01 Apr 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote

[section on use of asphalt snipped]
>This sounds reasonable as the walls and floors of the
>L.Kellers were underground and the water table of the camp
>was high. Not so for the roof of the L.Kellers. The roof of L.Keller
>1 of Krema II, for
>instance, extended a couple of feet above ground level, as can be seen in
>the photos on p.318 in _Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-1945_ or p.57 (photo
>7a) in _Air Photo Evidence_. Groundwater seepage would not then be an
>issue for the roof of L.Keller 1. (And presumably for L.Keller 1 of Krema
>III).
I believe that Mark is correct that the walls of the
L.Kellers extended several feet above the ground. In passing I mention
that
the walls were not made of concrete but were composed of brick.
The brick was layed in several courses, had waterproofing on the
exterior wall and, if my memory serves me, was plastered on
the inside walls, at least on the western wall.
The room of the L.Keller was partially filled with water
when I was there.

In addition, the one image image of that shows the remains of the gas
chamber of Krema II I have so far located on the Web at:

http://modb.oce.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/chambr01.html

> However, given your current claims as to the state of Krema II’s
>L.Keller 1, your conclusions are far from certain. Furthermore,
>to ignore the convergence of the _other_ evidence that indicates that
>L.Keller was was indeed used as a gas chamber, solely in
>favor of evidence based on what you cite, but
>decline to make available, leaves your argument significantly weaker.
I would agree that there is much other evidence which I have not
discussed. However, I feel that the evidence of the present
state of the L.Kellers in Crema II and III is powerful. I am
just trying to reach an agreement as to what is presently on
the site so that we have a common ground to work from.

>Indeed. Have you contacted the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and
>inquired for detailed photos of Krema II’s L.Keller 1, specifically the
>roof and any vent holes? Has anyone? If not, don’t you agree that
>contacting them would be the a good idea? Perhaps somebody in the
>newsgroup knows of a contact point at the museum?
Good points

>Interesting. If Mr. Morris is willing then I would be happy to also
>contribute U.S. $200 for such a trip. I would stipulate, however, that
>_this_ trip should be done with the full cooperation of the
>Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. I would also stipulate that an agenda
>and goals for such a trip be planned and declared ahead of time
>and that the research methods for gathering evidence be agreed
>upon as well.
>(Photographic, video, and documentation, I would assume.)
Agreed, if possible, agreed, andf agreed

>No sneaking around to surreptitiously pinch samples from a state
>historical site. Bad manners that.
So many Revisionists have done this that I wonder if the
roof is still there

# John, are you ready for a summer trip to Europe in the
# name of Truth? Are you “Holocaust experts” ready to put
# your money where your e-mail is?

>I think, more aptly, Mr, Leu… er, Ceacaa, the question should be are
the
>deniers ready to do so?
Well, I am. I would suggest that you, Mark, are the escrow of the
funds, if such a task is not too onerous.

From [email protected] Sat Apr 6 23:06:33 PST 1996
Article: 30033 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.umbc.edu!cs.umd.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!
admaix.sunydutchess.edu!ub!csn!news-1.csn.net!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 6 Apr 1996 13:17:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 13
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

MORRISON KEITH MURRAY writes: “Moronic drivel” when
asked how many holes are presently on the roof of the
alleged gas chamber.
I think we have another victim of the “Mad Keren disease”
acquired by exposure to the half-cook bull of D. Keren.
The syptoms of this disease are that the victim, when asked
how many holes are in the roof of the alleged gas chamber,
rolls his eyes, gives incoherent or contradictory answers,
and finally exhibits hostile agressive behavior.
However, I admit that I don’t have a particularly
powerful anwer to the question, “if the holes weren’t
there for gas induction vents, what were they for?”

From [email protected] Mon Apr 8 06:54:55 PDT 1996
Article: 30166 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!
news.mid.net!sbctri.tri.sbc.com!newspump.wustl.edu!newsfeed.rice.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!cmcl2!newsjunkie.ans.net
newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 6 Apr 1996 13:05:43 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 53
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

>John Morris 3/29writes

>Pressac says that the gas chamber was divided in two to reduce the
>number of persons gassed to 1000 at a time. He claims that this was
>done after better estimates were made of the capacity of the crematory
>furnaces. Franciszek Piper also confirms that the gas chamber was
>divided in two, and he adds that the southern part of the room was
>used as the gas chamber after it was divided. Piper bases his
>assertion on testimony by Sonderkommando members H. Tauber and
>Wladyslaw Girsa given at the Hoess trial. Pressac refers back to his
>first book (which I am still waiting for).
This really does not make much sense. First of all, the roof
of the L.Keller is best preserved exactly on the Southern end of the
room. This can be seen in the Pressac book at pag. 354. One of
the “vent holes” is in the south west corner of the roof.
Secondly, I did not see any sign of a subdividing wall in
the so-called “gas chamber” although I had not heard of this one and
was not looking for it.
However, the agrument that the gas chambers were made
smaller in order to tie in with the capacity of the crematory
furnaces does not seem logical. Just think Revisionisticly
for a second. 1. If you only wish to kill 1,000 people at a time
(as opposed to 2,000) why not just put 1,000 people into the
room? 2. If you have a trainload of victims standing around
the central road of the camp waiting to take an underground
bath, are you going to make them wait, catch-on that something
is odd and dangerous and riot or just try to kill them as fast
as possible. 3. The bodies couldn’t wait 24 hours for their
turn to be cremated. 4. What about the famous “burning pits”
Finally, since the victims entered the gaschamber from the
north end of the room, it would be more logical to expect that
the northern half of the room would have been used as the
gaschamber, not the southern end. This would have kept the
victims from having to walk through another room prior to
being killed, facilitated crowd controll and body removal.

>Leichenkeller I was divided into two parts late in 1943. The northern
>half of the roof collapsed nearly intact during demolition late in
>1944; the southern half was completely destroyed.
Again, this conflicts with what is presently on the site

However, on March 31, 1943, the SS took delivery of Krema II. The
acknowledgment of receipt indicates that the four grillwork columns
were already installed. If any evidence of the induction holes for the
grillwork columns had survived demolition, there should have been only
two such holes in the surviving portion of the roof.
Makes sense but, again, it conflicts with the evidence on the
site. Again, I ask the questions
What does the existing roof show? How many holes? and How many of these
holes were vent holes used as part of the
killing operations?
Rest of reply will be posted later

From [email protected] Mon Apr 8 10:37:24 PDT 1996
Article: 30219 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!
news.sojourn.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 8 Apr 1996 00:10:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 60
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Reply to John Morris posting of 3/29

> This is literaly “solid evidence”, empirical evidence you
>can bump your head against.

[snip discussion of discovery of skull of primative
AustralioMcFeeicus]

>>Van Pelt suggested to me that the holes were not, as has been
>>supposed, evenly spaced between the concrete support pillars, but
>>that they were immediately adjacent to the concrete pillars.
> This makes more sense since there was and is a concrete
>beam running between the pillars.
It would also make sense in that the pillars would have
had more support to resist crowd pressures but make less
sense in that one side of the pillar would have been against
the column and not open to release gas.

>>themselves destroyed when the pillars were dynamited to collapse
>>the roof. As Van Pelt, also says, his theory about the placement
>>of the holes is unprovable since they no longer exist.
> This is incorrect. In most of the pillars, the roof pillar
>connection is obvious. No missing holes.

Although I assume that Van Pelt has been to the site most
Exterminationists have not made comment on the vent
holes. As we are all finding out, it is hard to find a
photograph of the holes through which the Zyclon was
poured. Most exterminationists look at these vent
“comme une poule qui a trouve un couteau”

>>What I find really interesting is that the blotches are not at
>>all as irregularly spaced as might it seem from the photos.

>> As I have noted in other threads, I have wondered about
>>the aerial photographs too. You may have a good point.

>Whew! This is better than flattery! I must say that this is very
>refreshing. Not that you agree with me, but that unlike the
>usual run
>of alt.revisionists, you considered the merits of what I was saying
>rather than taking issue with my use of words like “speculate,”
>”unprovable,” and “theory.”
I think that the aerial photographs are worth a lot of study.
I took some blow-ups when I went to Birkenau.

>Nevertheless, I still find your explanation of the “murder weapon”
>less compelling than the explanation already posited by historians.
My comments on the vent holes is not really an explaination
of the murder weapon as an attempt to clarify what is
presently on the site. The vent holes are only one issue
of many but I had thought it would have been the easiest
to prove.
There is a great deal of heat and little light on this
subject. That is why I think that it would be a great
idea for you to go look for yourself and all of us
here on Alt. rev. So far there seems to be about
$600 in the Morris Mission pot. Are you game?
June in Poland is lovely, er well, not so bad.

From [email protected] Tue Apr 9 07:14:28 PDT 1996
Article: 30315 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 9 Apr 1996 02:14:44 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 80
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)

The single most important site in the Holocaust
story would have to be the two alleged “gaschambers”
located in the two crematorium at the Birkenau Camp
at Auschwitz. These rooms were constructed in early
1943 and it is claimed that they were the location of
the murder of hundreds of thousands or even millions
of people. This thread has concentrated on one
of the rooms, commonly identified as Leichenkeller 1
of Crema II and, specifically, what is on the site today,
April 8, 1996. Surprisingly enough, there is little agreement
on this simple fundamental factual question.
The generally accepted story is that Zyclon was poured
through vents in the roof into some sort of hollow
“pillars” which then allowed for the cynanide gas to
seep out of the pillar and into the room. So far this thread
has tried to concentrate on the present state of the roof
and the present state and location of the holes through
that roof.

The Revisionist position is that the best evidence of
what was at the so-called gas chamber in 1944 is the
evidence of what is there today. Revisionists subscribe
to the empirical method of “going to the scene of the
crime and looking at the murder weapon.”
They have found that the roof was/is made
of poured in place concrete and is a substantially complete
but broken whole. There are only two large and one small
hole visible in the slab today. These three holes were
crudely chipped into the roof after the original pour and
have rebar, cut in one place and bent out of the way, tran-
secting the holes. There are no bolts, bolt holes or
other sign of attachments around either the top of the
holes or the bottom or ceiling entry of the hole. Thus,
it would no be possible to have have any “hollow pillar”
attached to the slab. In the course of this thread
other specific information was given regarding the
construction of the roof and walls of the Leichenkeller 1.
It was suggested that the holes were put in in December
1944 as part of the demolition process.

The Exterminationist position is widely varied.
The roof was “totally destroyed”, the roof exists
but the holes were destroyed”, the roof is 50% in existance
but all the vents were destroyed and new holes created
by the Germans. Some Exterminationist/Hoaxters, D.
Keren is the prime example, are trying to obfuscate the
issue by refusing to state any position to the questions
given below and “demanding” that photographs of the
holes be posted. Most Exterminationists writers look at
the existing vent holes “comme une poule qui a trouve un
couteau”.

Since Revisionists recognize that there is
reasonable confusion on basic observable and cardinal
issues, Ceacaa has offered to help pay for the
Heroic John Morris (a prominent Exterminationist)
to venture to Birkenau and resolve the questions
which have delayed the advancment of the this
thread. This offer has been matched by several
generous members of the exterminationist camp.
It has been proposed that Mark V.A. be the guardian
of the funds. A specific itinerary and agenda would
be developed if Mr. Morris agrees to carry the torch
to light the darkness which presently covers
Leichenkeller 1.

Having tried to clearly state the Revisionist view of
what is on the site of Leichenkeller 1, I restate my
questions to the Exterminationist community.

What does the existing roof show? How many holes are
presently in the roof? How many of these holes were vent holes used as
part of the killing operations?
Will you help send a poor doctorial candidate from
Canada to Poland in the name of Truth?

Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in concrete.

From [email protected] Fri Apr 12 09:36:01 PDT 1996
Article: 30651 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!
news.sojourn.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 11 Apr 1996 02:20:53 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 85
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote:

>(Ceacaa) wrote:

>> I have tried to state clearly what I remember:
>> That the concrete roof of the L.Keller 1 exists in broken pieces;
>> That it is possible to see almost the total roof;
>> That there are only three holes presently on the roof;
>> That they correspond in position with the model in
>> the Auschwitz Museum;
>> That the holes were put in after the original pour of the
>> roof, are crudely chipped in, transected by cut rebar;
>> That there are not any bolts, bolt holes, are other signs
>> of attachment around the holes.

>And the evidence for these assertions is at where, exactly?

Mark, the evidence is in a field in Poland for anyone to see.
Since you don’t believe Pressac or the Auschwitz State
Museum or me, get J. Morris to go Poland and confirm this
question. Or get a little information out of the Auschwitz
Museum.
Your bickering over the number of holes on the roof is a
waste of time. The simple answer is “Go
Look.” You seem to have gone over to the darkside of
the debate (the Keren side), rather than try and resolve an
important series of questions, you parrot Keren.

>Actually, the questions of deniers deal with contriving “conflicting”
>evidence. Typically by ignoring the totality of the evidence to narrowly
focus on a supposed “conflict.”

This is absurd. Any honest scholar admits there are
many conflicts in Holocaust stories. That does not mean
that all stories are untrue, some might be. But to claim
that Revisionists “create conflicting” evidence is a
mischaracterization.
Take this very thread.
Do you agree with VanPelt’s argument (dixit Morris) that
the vents were all off center and next to
columns? Do you agree that Leichenkeller 1 was divided
into two rooms sometime after 1943 and only the southern
end was used as the gas chamber?
And that only two vents were used in the extermination process?
Your Canadian collegue does. I do not mean to make light
of or belittle Mr. (soon to be doctor) Morris’ agruments but,
instead, hold them up as an example of thoughtful consideration
of a confusing subject or confused subject.

But let’s look at your “theories” in the same light as you
look at others:
> The metal introduction pillars were comprised of an outer grid,
>an inner grid, and a removable core. The outer grid was comprised of a
>wire grid, the with a cross-section measuring 70 cm square and seperated
>from the inner grid by 150mm. This would imply the inner grid had a
>cross-section of 55 cm square. The moveable core, which was introduced
>through an opening in the ceiling and was surrounded by the outer and
>inner wire grids, had a cross-section of 150 mm x 150 mm.

>Now, that’s 15 cm x 15 cm for the core, the part that actually was
>introduced and removed via the hole in the ceiling. A hole that you claim
>was 40 cm x 40 cm. Hardly a “conflict,” IMO….

This detailed description of Mark’s “Magic Double Layered
Column” is absurd on its face in light of the present state
of the vent holes and the uses he claims it was put but let’s
all see how far Mark will carry his stupid farce of the magic
column.

Gee, Mark, you’ve told us before but please mention it again
for the other readers of this thread. This 70 cm outer grid
was not attached to the ceiling was it? And you are not claiming
that a 70 cm “column” can go through a 40 cm hole?

And please tell us all a little more about your 15 cm by
15 cm “core”. I think you said it extended above the
roof of the Leichenkeller. Could you please tell how
far? And did your “core” go all the way to the floor
of the Leichenkeller? Any other information about your
column that you can make up, er, I mean “discover”, please
post for us. Thank you

From [email protected] Wed Apr 17 07:15:41 PDT 1996
Article: 31588 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 16 Apr 1996 17:51:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 187
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote 14 Apr 1996 04:11:06 GMT

>In the aerial photograph of January 14, 1945 both Kremas II and III
>are seen to be still standing. Their roofs are snow-covered,
>indicating that they had fallen into disuse by that time. I would
>suggest that the dynamite was to be used to destroyed the remains >of the
Kremas.
I was looking at the aerial photograph of December 21,
1944, the best reproduction is in John Ball’s book
Air Photo Evidence at page 66. In that picture it appears
that the roof of Leichenkellers 1 and 2 of Crema 1 have
been dropped. Ball writes: “the roofs appear to have
been removed” This is what I was writing about, Leichenkeller
1.
It is also apparent that further demolition of the Cremas took
place after December 21st

[snip review of photograph for now]

> First, it could be that you simply do not know because you were >too
busy playing Revisionist Hero
>and avoiding the guards to take proper measurements. It all sounds
>very gallant, but there is really no reason for that kind of
>silliness.
Really? Propounding Revisionist views is/was a felony
in Germany and not likely to be viewed with sympathy in
Poland. Think of going to the People’s Republic of North
Korea with pro democracy literature or to Myamar with a
Aung San Suu Kyi T-shirt as comparison.
But I agree with you, my method could surely have used
refinement.

>Secondly, it occurs to me that you know where the holes are but >won’t
say.
I have said that the 3 existing holes are exactly where
they are shown in the model in the Polish State Museum
except for the northern most hole. Whoever made the model
and I agree.
I will also state that I got involved in this discussion
with a simple statement of fact (I thought): that the
roof still exists and the vent holes can be viewed. I had
expected this to be rapidly agreed upon and we could move
on to a discussion of how the “porous pillars” might have
been attached. No luck for Ceacaa! We have widely divergent
views on the simple fact of whether the roof exists!

Interpretive and methodological questions can only be
addressed after there is an agreement on basic data. I
assumed that the roof would be the foundation (so to speak) of
any interpretive discussion. However, because I recognize
defects in my methodology and my inability to present
clear evidence of what I write, I proposed that this thread
send an investigator to Poland.

> I had hoped that this exchange might result in some evidence that
>Revisionists were capable of theorizing their position.
> You have yet to explain why vent holes were necessary to lessen >the
force of the blast meant to destroy the gas chamber roof.

I agree that my argument regarding demolition blasts may
have more holes in it than the roof does. However, the condition
of the holes (which I have stated before) makes it evident that
they were hastily made and made after the original pour.
I did not look for what evidence of the demolition process
exists today. Which is another reason to send an investigator.

As to the physical description of the holes, you say you observed the
following during an on-site visit ten years ago:

I have tried to state clearly what I remember:
That the concrete roof of the L.Keller 1 exists in broken pieces;
That it is possible to see almost the total roof;
That there are only three holes presently on the roof;
That they correspond in position with the model in
the Auschwitz Museum;
That the holes were put in after the original pour of the
roof, are crudely chipped in, transected by cut rebar;
That there are not any bolts, bolt holes, are other signs
of attachment around the holes.

>Robert-Jan Van Pelt also visited the site and says that the roof is
>broken in pieces, but that only part of it can be seen intact.

Even 50% is enough to start to draw some conclusions
from and one does not have to be a Champollion to
decipher some of the mystries of the roof.

>He appears not to think the three holes are at all relevant to the
>question of the gas induction columns because he believes they >were
located at some other position, probably adjacent to the >support pillars.

Of course he has to say that (!) because the three holes
I am writing about could NOT have been vent holes. There
are no attachment points on the roof, there are probably
no attachment points on the floor, and the holes are too far
>from the support columns or wall to be attached to them.
The central supporting columns DO have holes in them
which could have provided support to an “induction pillar”. Thus,
Van Pelt is the only Exterminationist who (in my view)
deals with the on site evidence.
The trouble with Van Pelt’s theory is that the roof area
around the top of the support columns is not obliterated
enough. At least, that is what I remember. But again this
is something for our investigator to investigate.

[snip discussion on holes]

> Until you tell us exactly where the holes are, we can only >speculate as
to their purpose and history. The rebar could have >been cut at almost any
time for any number of reasons none of >which necessarily having to do
with the gas induction columns.

>Aside from the issue of the holes, I have not seen any satisfactory
>explanation for why the Kremas were singled out for destruction. >Your
explanation that the Soviets would have made propaganda out >of the
existence of a mass cremation facility cuts both ways. >Either the Nazis
were destroying evidence of deaths from mass >murder or evidence of
massive deaths from other causes of >persons in their custody.

I believe that is about what I wrote.

>Mr. Van Alstine has covered the issue of why the gas chamber was
divided… [snip]
The alleged division of the gas chamber makes little
sense to me but I still have to read Mr. Van Alstine’s posting.
One more thing for our investigator to investigate.

>Lastly as to the proposal to send me to Birkenau to make my own
>examination of the site, I assume that this was largely posturing >on
your part, since $400 or $600 dollars would not make it >possible…
Nevertheless, I cannot possibly go before
>August when I will be in England on the second part of a three part
>research trip for an historian at U Alberta. The lowest quote I >could
get for current return fares from London to Crakow was >slightly more than
$400 US. Since I am already in some difficulties >covering an
>additional week-and-a-half of accommodations while I do my own
>research and read a paper at a conference, most of the full $600 >will be
necessary to defray my incidentals and accommodations >while in Poland.
Unfortunately, I have only seen posts pledging >$400. Where is the
additional $200 coming from?

I thought that it had been pledged. If I am mistaken, I
will cover it. However, without putting ANY condition on
my commitment, I think that we should aim for a budget
of $1,200.

>There is, however, an alternative to sending me. Stephane >Bruchfeld will
be travelling to Birkenau in a few weeks time, and I >understand through a
third party that he is prepared to conduct an >examination of the site
for us.
>If you are concerned about whether he will give an honest account, >I
would point
>out that Miloslav Bilik has also offered to go to Birkenau using the
>money pledged so far. I am sure that the two of them can keep each
>other honest.

I believe that most people following this thread would
report honestly even if they have strong feelings on
the subject; that includes Mr. Bilik. I found the Camp very
depressing; two investigators may work better together and
have a more interesting time. I have no objection to Mr. Bilik.

>One way or another, it is time for us to be defining our research
>parameters. Any suggestions?

Yes. I have a string of questions to investigate. They relate to
the windows on the guard towers, the steps into Leichenkeller 2,
the connection between L.2 and L.1, drainage ditches,
security at the back (western), condition of the firebrick
>from the chimneys which is around Crema III, ground evidence
of aerial photographs around Crema II, demolition of Cremas
IV and V, nightime security around “Mexico”, and, of course,
the condition of Leichenkeller 1, Crema II. I will try and
get them organized.

I suggest that copies of the aerial photographs could be very useful
as would the French version of “Auschwitz Album”. I
assume that copies of all or some would be at the Auschwitz
State Museum.

From [email protected] Wed Apr 17 22:49:58 PDT 1996
Article: 31707 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 17 Apr 1996 02:36:45 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 149
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote 4/12/96
[snip section on getting and posting photographic
evidence]

>Meanwhile,I have cited
>http://modb.oce.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/chambr01.html
>as showing the current state of the gas chamber of Krema II. This >photo
is from Pressac’s _Technique_ (p.261) and show L.Keller 1 do >be
completely demolished, the with much rubble and debris in the >floor of
the gas chamber.

“Completely demolished”???? So, is it your position that
there is no roof left to see? Arrggh, backsliding to square one.

[snip]

> Or get a little information out of the Auschwitz Museum.

Tak, Dobre pojecie

>It is clear from Dr. Piper’s account that the _four_ introduction
>columns passed through holes in the ceiling of the gas chamber. >Ergo,
_four_holes.

My question to you, to be answered once we can agree
on how much of the roof still exists, is “How many of the
vent holes exist today?” I say 3. More particularly,
2 large and one small holes, Specifically the three
southern most holes as shown on the model of the
Leichenkeller at the Auschwitz State Museum.
Once we have determined this we can proceed to see
what can be learned from the vent holes.

>Need I remind you that it was YOU who brought up this whole >sordid issue
about the number of the holes in the attempt to >”disprove” that Zyklon B
was not introduced through the metal >introduction columns?

I object to your use of the word “sordid” in connection with
the Leichenkeller. Tragic or macbre, not sordid.

[snip section on Revisionists being dishonest humbugs
who spend all their time concocting devilish but false
contradictions on evidence]

>> Take this very thread. Do you agree with VanPelt’s argument (dixit
Morris)
>> that the vents were all off center and next to columns?

>Your cite for this, please?
My cite was an earilier posting of Mr. Morris on this
thread wherein Mr. Morris quoted a discussion with
Mr. Van Pelt.

[snip Van Pelt and Pressac’s description of stacks ]
> Not implanted off center and next to the pillars,
>but between them.

I agree that this was Van Pelt’s earlier position
but Mr. Morris indicated that Van Pelt’s position is changing.
That Van Pelt’s position would change makes sense to
me as it is a logical response to the observable
condition of the roof. Direct observation shows that
there are no holes between the columns.

>”Photographs taken by the Allies in 1944 indicate that the gas
>introductin columns of crematorium II were arrayed in a straight >line.

The aerial photographs are a subject worth their own major
discussion. The vents show up in one or maybe two of the
aerial photographs and not in others. They are placed
on L.1 Crema II down the center of the room just where
there is a very large concrete beam (although on Crema III
they are scattered). This thread is trying to stick to the
existing physical evidence which can then be used later
to analysize the photograph evidence.

>> Do you agree that Leichenkeller 1 was divided into two rooms >>sometime
after 1943 and only the southern end was used
>>as the gas chamber?

>L.Keller 1, according to Pressac (_Anatomy_, p.224) was divided >into two
smaller gas chambers at the end of 1943 to “regularize” >the gassings. It
>had operated up until then as one large gas chamber with four >Zyklon B
>introduction columns.

Again Dr. Piper comments (_Anatomy_, p.167):

>”At the end of 1943, each of the gas chambers in both crematoria >was
divided by a wall, and the passgae linking them was closed by >a door
identical to the entrance door. After that time, smaller >transports were
led into the back room.”

>From Dr. Piper’s description I understand him to be saying that the
>backmost (southern) gas chamber was used to gas transport that >had a
>”small” number of people on them. This doesn’t mean that _both_ >gas
>chambers weren’t used to gas large numbers of people at one time.

>After the division of L.Keller 1 into two equal size gas chambers, I
>would assume, as the vents appear to be more or less evenly space
>out in the ariel photos, that each gas chamber would have had two
>introduction columns. Don’t you?

Sounds reasonable, but it is the division of Leichenkeller 1 into
two rooms that I question. Consider the ventilation system, was it
divided too? However, I will address your comments in your earlier
post on the subject

[snip]

>Pardon me while I blow my nose in your general direction.

Readers of this thread should know that this is a
dreaded Dutch curse which causes flue-like symtoms
in the victim.

> it was a removeable core. You know, like it could be
>_removed_ from the introduction columns that were inside the gas
>chamber?
>That’s how the spent Zyklon B was extracted. What extended above >the
roof
>of L.Keller 1 was what Dr. Piper called “little chimneys” and >Pressac
called “stacks that opened into the four grillwork columns.” Dr. Nyiszli,
a prisoner in Birkenau, described them as “short concrete pipes [that]
jutted up from the ground.”

>> Could you please tell how far?

>How tall is “little” or “short?”
I guess it depends on what you are measuring
but when one is writing about “stacks” does one meter
sound right to you?

>> And did your “core” go all the way to the floor of the Leichenkeller?

>According to Dr. Piper the introduction column was fastened to the floor.

I was asking about the “core”. It couldn’t have been
fastened to the floor and also have been removable

>My assumption is that it probably did. I would assume,
>though, that the Nazis placed at whatever height they determined
>was most condusive to ensure the “rapid and uniform spread” of
>the HCN gas.

Then can we assume that the “removable core” had the
biggest surface area and, therefore, probably went to the
floor? TO BE BLUNT, HOW LONG WAS YOUR REMOVABLE CORE????

From [email protected] Sat Apr 27 06:43:57 PDT 1996
Article: 32972 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!
hunter.premier.net!insync!news.io.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 26 Apr 1996 02:38:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 47
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote on 24 Apr 1996

>But who said there were three holes in the roof? You claim that
>currently there are three holes. But a large portion of the
>roof was totally destroyed.
Actually, Pressac says that there are 2 holes presently on the
roof. He doesn’t count a small hole at a crackline.

>You’re claiming that 90% of the roof is intact? How long do you
>claim this “90%” is? The gas chamber was 30 meters long. Are
>you claiming that the part of the roof that is still intact is
>about 27 meters long? Or didn’t you bother to measure it?

The roof consisted of three components, the poured in place
concrete slab, the asphalt covering, and a concrete cap.
(please note that Pressac writes in Technique at pg. 322
that the the roof had a bituminous felt covering and was also
covered with earth). I do not remember any earth covering and
doubt that the Leichenkeller was ever covered in earth.

The concrete cap is scattered into small pieces, the average
size of about 12 cm. These pieces cover the slab.

The slab was poured into wooden forms. The imprint of
the wooden forms is very clear on the lower ceiling side
of the slab. The slab is heavily reenforced with steel
rebar.
This slab is broken into approximately 20 pieces. Many
of the pieces are still held together by the rebar and the
pattern of the forms is not destroyed by the cracks between
the pieces. The pieces generally are broken in lines that run
east/west (across the room) although some parts of the
slab rest on the side walls and slant into the room. The roof
is still very solid and can be walked upon with no give or apparent
shifting.

The broken pieces do not lie on the floor of the Leichenkeller
but rest on the concrete columns or side walls. It is possible
to climb through one of the existing holes and stand in the room
itself. The height of the room varies due to the tilt of the
ceiling.
The slab is clearly exposed at the ceiling of the room.
It is here where the traces of any marks, fixtures, or fittings can
best be seen.
The condition of the pillars is very interesting but I must
go. I will try to post about them soon.
How ’bout helping Mr. Morris go to Poland?

From [email protected] Sat Apr 27 15:12:07 PDT 1996
Article: 33160 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!
admaix.sunydutchess.edu!ub!csn!news-1.csn.net!csus.edu!csulb.edu!newshub.csu.net!imci3!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!
not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 23 Apr 1996 18:18:51 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 216
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <317[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van wrote Apr 18, 1996

Sorry to have been slow in replying but I have been
out with the flu. I also want to thank you for the postings of
photographs. I can see that this is a good way to introduce the
evidence. Unfortunatly, we had a problem with our server
software which I am just resolving

>The photo mentioned (_Technique_, p.261) shows that the roof of L.Keller
>one is completely demolished. You have, I believe, claimed
>that much of the south end of the roof is
>intact. That is not apparent from this photo.
The photograph on page 261 is a view of the entire roof
looking north. The southern end of the roof consists of the
large blocks in the foreground of the picture.
As I have noted before, the roof is comprised of three layers,
the lower concrete slab, the asphalt covering and a second layer
of concrete. It is the top layer of concrete which has broken up
and gives the impression that the slab is demolished. The best pictures
of the state of the slab roof are on pages 353-354 of _Technique_
These pictures show clearly what I was writing about re.
the construction of the roof, ie. poured in place concrete.
The imprint of the wooden forms are distinct. They also show
the condition of the southern end of the slab, intact

[snip]

Much can already be determined about the L.Keller, introduction columns,
and therefore the vent holes already. We know, for instance that the metal
introduction columns for fabricated in the metalwork shop at Auschwitz
(_Anatomy_, p.180ff) and that when Krema II was delivered om March 31,
1943, that the memorandum acknowledging this indicated that L.Keller 1 was
equipped with a gas-tight door, four _Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung_, or
“wire netting inserting devices,” i.e. the metal grillwork columns four
pouring Zyklon B into the gas chamber. (_Anatomy_, p.233.)
Now why would the Nazis go to the trouble of making and installing _four_
introduction columns and only make three holes in the roof?

Mark, I think you missed what I was saying about the number
and position of the holes. It is my estimation that the slab is 90%
intact and in the EXPOSED part of the roof are three holes.
The location of the fourth northern most hole on the roof (as placed
on the model in the Auschwitz State
Museum) is covered by rubble from the Crema building so I couldn’t
check that so-called vent hole. In fact I suspect that there is a hole
there simply because the Polish Museum officials put one in the model.
That part of the roof is not easily accessible from below either.

The reason I emphasize that there are only three holes in the
_visible_ part of the slab, was, besides it being true, to focus
our attention on these holes. Since the slab exists, since there
are only three holes in it, ergo these must have been the “vent
holes”. One extra hole somewhere on the roof is only one extra
piece of evidence to examine.

[snip]

#> >> Take this very thread. Do you agree with VanPelt’s argument
#> >> (dixit Morris) that the vents were all off center and next to
#columns?
>
>> >Your cite for this, please?
>
>> My cite was an earilier posting of Mr. Morris on this
>> thread wherein Mr. Morris quoted a discussion with
>> Mr. Van Pelt.

>Which post, exactly, was this? Perhaps Mr. Morris would be so kind as to
>repost this?
On 3/29/96 John Morris posted …

>>Van Pelt suggested to me that the holes were not, as has been
>>supposed, evenly spaced between the concrete support pillars, but
>>that they were immediately adjacent to the concrete pillars.

>>themselves destroyed when the pillars were dynamited to collapse
>>the roof. As Van Pelt, also says, his theory about the placement
>>of the holes is unprovable since they no longer exist.

>>What I find really interesting is that the blotches are not at
>>all as irregularly spaced as might it seem from the photos.

>> As I have noted in other threads, I have wondered about
>>the aerial photographs too. You may have a good point.

>Whew! This is better than flattery! I must say that this is very
>refreshing. Not that you agree with me, but that unlike the
>usual run
>of alt.revisionists, you considered the merits of what I was saying
>rather than taking issue with my use of words like “speculate,”
>”unprovable,” and “theo
[ End of quote]

I am sorry not to have to entire posting but it was deleted
>from my server.

>Then I would ask for the primary cite that indicates Van Pelt’s position
has chaged.
I am quoting Mr. Morris. Otherwise, we will have to wait until
his book comes out. However it makes sense that Van Pelt’s
position would change. Exterminationists who have visited the
“gaschamber” are uncertain about these vents that I keep
writing about. Note that Pressac says the hole he shows
is “assumed” to be a vent hole.

>Such assumptions, of course, are unsubstantiated. In contrast, air photos
>show the vents, or “little chimneys,” to be arranged along the centerline
>of Krema II’s L.Keller 1. Eyewitness accounts also reported that the
>introduction columns were arrayed along the centerline of L.Keller 1.

Pressac writes (_Technique- pg. 354 Photo b”’),
Upper left, the hole in the ceiling is assumed to be one of
the Zyclon-B introduction openings, but the positions of the
two holes that can be seen today do not correspond to those
of the U.S Air Force photograph taken on 25th August 1944.
The reason for this yet unexplained difference could well
be simply that the roof shifted considerably when dynamited.”

This quote from Pressac, along with the pictures, confirms
what I have been writing except for the number of holes
presently on site. I believe that Pressac does not count
the small hole that is at a crack at the slab. This small hole
is counted by the Polish Museum as the site of one of the
“vent holes”.
If you agree with Pressac that “two holes … can be seen
today” then I will ask you the question that stumped
Dan Keren;
If the holes exist today, does the roof exist today?

[snip interesting discussion of aerial photographs]

>In which direction is this beam placed? Along the centerline of the roof?
>Or _across_ the centerline of the roof? Again, looking at the photo from
>_Technique_ (p.261) I see no evidence of a beam running _along_ the
>centerline of L.Keller 1. I see what is perhaps the remains of a beam,
>about midway along L.Keller 1, running _across_ L.Keller 1.

Flip to pg. 354 photograph B for a picture of the north/south
beam.

>I would imagine it would be a trivial exercise to place the introduction
>columns so that they wouldn’t be under such a cross-wise beam.
The beam was not “cross-wise” but north/south or lenght-wise.
This is why Van Pelt’s new theory will be the “next to the column”
theory. Van Pelt is trying to reconcile the aerial photograph of
8/24/44 with the fact that there is a central beam. He is
happy to abandon the existing holes since they couldn’t have been
used as vent holes.

>Even if both gas chambers were vented when only one was
>used this would be rather irrelevent, as the purpose for dividing them
>appears to be so that the gassings were “regularized” to economize,
>among other things, on how much Zyclon B was used in the gassings. The
>aeration/deaeration of the gas chambers would not effect the amount of
>Zyklon B used.
If the ventilation system ran in both rooms, then both rooms
would have becomed poisoned during any gassing and had to have
been aereated after each “use”. The building of an underground
wall and double door which matched the northern door into the room
would have been an expensive and time consuming matter. All to
save some Zyclon? Perhaps, however, the best evidence is
at the site, if the wall is still in the Leichenkeller
then the existing physical evidence will speak for itself.

[snip]

>> Then can we assume that the “removable core” had the
>> biggest surface area and, therefore, probably went to the
>> floor? TO BE BLUNT, HOW LONG WAS YOUR REMOVABLE CORE????

>Yet again, I don’t know for sure. In trying to “stick to the existing
>physical evidence” I thought it best not to guess until I had more
>information.
[snip calculations]
>Call it 1 g/cu cm.

Isn’t that the density of water?

>Using coarse salt as a substitute for Zyklon B, as they at least, _look_
>aproximately the same; and because we know that diatomite (the HCN
>carrier in Zyclon B) absorbs twice its weight; and that liquid HCN has a
>specific
>weight of 0.682 (water is 1.0), assuming 1 g/cu cm is a reasonble
>number. (_Nazi Mass Murder_, p. 206.)

>In addition, according to Pressac (_Anatomy_, p.232) on March 13, 1943,
>1,492 Jews were killed in the gas chamber of Krema II. Six kilos of
>Zyklon
>B were used. That would be 1.5 kilos per introduction column, which is
>exactly what largest size cannister of Zyklon B held. (_Anatomy_, p.209.)

>Now, we have something to go on. Using our guestimated value of 1 g/cu
>cm for Zyklon B, we see that it would require 1,500 cu cm of volume in
>the core. As each linear cm of the core has a volume of 175 cu cm, that
>would mean that it would imply a minimum core length of about 9 cm. In
>other words, not very much.
I follow your calculations. Except for the density of the
Zyclon, they make sense to me. I would have thought that the
diatomatious earth along with the absorbed liquid HCN would have
been more dense.

>So, to anwser your question, Ceacaa, less than 1 meter. Probably much
>less.
While a 9 cm. long column does not quite qualify as a
Costa minimal surface structure, I would wonder if such a
short structure would allow for efficent gas diffusion.
Particularly, if the structure is at the ceiling of the room.

Have you heard from Mr. Morris? I would like to plan for
the expedition to Birkenau. I am ready to post my funds and
write the agenda for the trip.

CEACAA

From [email protected] Sun Apr 28 10:08:47 PDT 1996
Article: 33269 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!
cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 28 Apr 1996 00:12:22 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]ol.com (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On 27 Apr 1996 John Morris writes:

>Stephane Bruchfeld is definitely going to Birkenau, and I have
>forwarded your questions to him.

>Keep your money, Mr. Allen. I am not going to Birkenau.

Why the change in heart? I would expect someone who spends
as much time on the subject of the Holocaust as you do want
to see the site of the crimes. I think that you must also admit
that there are numerous unanswered questions about the
state of the Cremas that can only be answered by an on site
investigator.

From [email protected] Sun Apr 28 10:08:53 PDT 1996
Article: 33403 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 28 Apr 1996 12:07:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 80
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Van Alstine wrote:

>Ceacaa, your above claim is quite interesting. Especially in the face of
>the photo of L.Keller 1 (_Techique_, p.261) which does NOT appear to
>agree with your description.

>The photo is located at:

>http://modb.oce.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/chambr01.html

>Would you care to explain this apparant discrepency?

Mark! Please pay attention. This is what I wrote a few days
ago in response to exactly the same question:

# The photograph on page 261 is a view of the entire roof
#looking north. The southern end of the roof consists of the
#large blocks in the foreground of the picture.
# As I have noted before, the roof is comprised of three layers,
#the lower concrete slab, the asphalt covering and a second layer
#of concrete. It is the top layer of concrete which has broken up
#and gives the impression that the slab is demolished. The best pictures
#of the state of the slab roof are on pages 353-354 of _Technique_
#These pictures show clearly what I was writing about re.
#the construction of the roof, ie. poured in place concrete.
#The imprint of the wooden forms are distinct. They also show
#the condition of the southern end of the slab, INTACT (empasis
added)
The ceiling of the Leichenkeller, consisting of the exposed concrete
slab, is the easiest place to view the so-called vent hole. The two
other holes in the roof can be seen from above. The slab of
the roof is coherent but broken into about 20 pieces.

Flip your Pressac Technique to pages 353 and 354.
These are a series of photographs of the _inside_
of Leichenkeller 1. There is even a picture of the underside of
one of the all important vent holes. Since you have never answered
my question, “If the holes exist, does the roof exist” I will try
a simpler one for you:
If Pressac publishes pictures of the INSIDE of the Leichenkeller’s
ceiling, does the roof exist?
Of course, I have cited other film references to the INSIDE of
the Leichenkeller. McCallden’ video being the best and easily
availible from either Zundel or Bradley Smith.

The southern end of the Leichenkeller roof is the most elevated part
of the roof. It is accessable through the one and only vent hole in the
Southwest quadrant of the roof. Through this so-called vent about
30% of the ceiling can be easily inspected. Then the ceiling slants
too near the floor (or touches it in part) to allow easy passage.
The roof rises up again near the second vent holes and then touches the
floor of the Leichenkeller at the northern end.

The Leichenkeller also fills up partly with water after a rain but the
drainage system still works

Mark, although you seem to be the most capable and informed of the
Exterminationists on this thread, your continued confusion over the
state of the Leichenkeller roof shows the dangers of your
Armchair Style of Exterminationism. The best evidence about the alleged
“gaschambers” is the physical evidence at the site of the gaschambers.
Unfortunately, Armchair Exterminationist Experts like Morris and
Keren would rather spend weeks and months pontificating on the subject of
the roof than spend an hour on the site actually seeing the
subject of their theories. (See below)

Note Re. Van Pelt. Van Pelt’s book is due out this May. I have heard
that it is a history of Auschwitz starting in the 1200’s with a
general theme of Germanic expansion in the east, ie. Auschwitz
Camp is but the culmination of a historic German trend. Expect
him to crib Pressac’s pictures of the plans of a developed German
Auschwitz. These pictures are in the back of _Technique_.
I am further informed that Van Pelt does “move the vent holes”
>from the traditional position to one next to the columns.

Note Re. Morris . Morris seems to be backpedaling on his offer to
go to Birkenau in August. This is a shame. Mr. Morris remains
cryptic on the reasons for his change of heart.

CEACAA

From [email protected] Sun Apr 28 10:08:54 PDT 1996
Article: 33405 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 28 Apr 1996 12:19:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 30
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote on
28 Apr 1996
Some questions are:

>1) Why do you keep posting your unsupported garbage here, while
> posting a photo of the holes you claim you took in Birkenau
> would be much more informative?
Unsupported? I have referred you to two seperate confirming
photographic sources, Pressac and McCalden. You have even
tried to quote Pressac yourself, although you had trouble with
the difference between one hole and two holes. That is why I
asked you the simple question, If the holes exist (dixit
Pressac) does the roof exist? You never answered this
question.

>2) Why don’t you tell us what is the length of the remaining
> portion of the roof? You claim you saw it a few years ago.
> So why don’t you tell us?
See the previous posts for a detailed description of the state of
the roof. The roof is broken but coherent. It’s lenght is approximately
30 meters

Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in concrete.

-Lu Xun.

From [email protected] Mon Apr 29 08:07:45 PDT 1996
Article: 33557 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
in2.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 29 Apr 1996 00:46:33 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 35
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]ol.com>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van wrote on Apr 18, 1996

Ceacaa wrote:
>> Then can we assume that the “removable core” had the
>> biggest surface area and, therefore, probably went to the
>> floor? TO BE BLUNT, HOW LONG WAS YOUR REMOVABLE CORE????

>In addition, according to Pressac (_Anatomy_, p.232) on March 13, 1943,
>1,492 Jews were killed in the gas chamber of Krema II. Six kilos of
>Zyklon
>B were used. That would be 1.5 kilos per introduction column, which is
>exactly what largest size cannister of Zyklon B held. (_Anatomy_, p.209.)

>Now, we have something to go on. Using our guestimated value of 1 g/cu
>cm for Zyklon B, we see that it would require 1,500 cu cm of volume in
>the core. As each linear cm of the core has a volume of 175 cu cm, that
>would mean that it would imply a minimum core length of about 9 cm. In
>other words, not very much.

>So, to anwser your question, Ceacaa, less than 1 meter. Probably much
>less.

For persons just arriving on this thread, Mark Van Alstine is
the first person to have tried to calculate something about the
size of the “murder weapon”, ie. the core which held the
poisonous Zyclon and which was used to kill hundreds of thousands
of persons.

In fact, according to Mark’s calculations, this core pillar was
at least 9 cm. long. That is, for you all in the United States, less than
5 inches, about the lenght of a cigarette.

From [email protected] Mon Apr 1 09:55:51 PST 1996
Article: 29291 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.tcst.com!
news.spectrum.titan.com!dildog.lgc.com!news.sesqui.net!oitnews.harvard.edu!cmcl2!newsjunkie.ans.net!
newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 29 Mar 1996 18:34:04 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 17
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com