Article 0596, Allen Andrew

Daniel Keren 30 Apr 1996
Ceacaa wrote:

# That is why I
# asked you the simple question, If the holes exist (dixit
# Pressac) does the roof exist? You never answered this question.

>No, Reichsdummkopf. I answered it every time you asked. The
>roof exists, but it’s severely damaged.
What is the present state of the vent holes? Can one see them?
Where are they located?

# The roof is broken but coherent. It’s lenght is approximately
# 30 meters.

>We’ll know soon enough if this is true or not.
Are you going to be using Mark Van Alstine measuring tape?

>How many supporting pillars are still there, Reichsdummkopf? I’ve
>asked this about six times already.
Actually, you have asked me this twice already but I am
getting the impression that you can’t count very well
(remember when you told me that Pressac said that there was
only ONE hole in the roof?). But I cannot remember distinctly and
will have to get my film out to give you an answer. My
impression is that several of the middle columns of the original
7 have been shortened (demolished).

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

From [email protected] Thu May 2 07:02:18 PDT 1996
Article: 34201 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!
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: 2 May 1996 00:57:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 31
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

(Mark Van Alstine
wrote 29 Apr 1996 (Ceacaa) wrote:

> 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????
embled a “pillar.” (_Anatomy_.p.167.)

>> …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.

>Actually, it’s a bit longer than a cigarette. It is actually a bit longer
>than one’s hand (if one’s hand if large) when measured from the base of
>the palm to the tip of the middle finger. And that’s just the _minimum_
>length required to hold 1.5 kg of Zyklon B.

>Furthermore, I notice no disagreement from you either, Ceacaa. What, cat
>got your tongue? No pertinent repartee? Amazing.

I don’t do pertinent repartee on Mondays. I was also looking for
a metric ruler before I commented on what looks like a strange
measurement of your bodyparts.

Note on Professor Shermer. He is now writing a book on
Revisionism with an emphasis on the aerial photographs

From [email protected] Fri May 10 06:53:27 PDT 1996
Article: 35728 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!csn!nntp-xfer-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: 9 May 1996 01:36:22 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 83
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

May 8, 1996 Michael P. Stein wrote:

#>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????

Van Alstine wrote:
. 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.

> My interpretation when I read Pressac’s textual description of >the
>core was a bit different. My understanding was like this: think of a
>common nail standing on its head. From the nail-head, project a
>wire-mesh
>cylinder up. The shaft of the nail presses an elongated and thinner
>layer
>of Zyklon against the wire mesh, which exposes more surface area >to the
>outside and increases the outgassing speed. Of course this >requires a
>longer core because of the space occupied by the central shaft.

> Reread the description again and see what you think.

I would agree with M. Stein. I wonder if the 9 cm. space which
Mark Van Alstine posits had enough surface area to allow for the
rapid evaporation of the cyanide from the diatomatious earth
of the Zyclon. Further, since cyanide gas rises, the core would
have to be long enough to get the gas to dispurse into the
room. I see what Mark describes as more of a wire basket.
On the otherhand, Van Alstine’s proposal has merit (to me)
in that it would allow the containment of the Zyclon.
Containment of the Zyclon would have been important to
facilitate removal of the Zyclon prior to aeriation of the
room. I assume that it would be hard to clear the air of
the room while the Zyclon was still in the room emitting
more cyanide.

However, the most efficient method of Zyclon use was
the actual Degesch system. The Zyclon was spread on
a wire mesh and warm air was blown through it. This
lead to the very rapid evaporation of the cyanide. Mark’s
system would make much more sense if there were a system
which would have blown air THROUGH the 9 cm. pile of
Zyclon.

If I were an Exterminationist I would wonder what the
little chimneys on the top of the induction holes were
for. If they were too tall to simply keep rain out or hold
the “induction system” they might have actually held a
simple blower system.
Then Mark’s description makes a great deal of sense.
Zyclon would be dumped into the hole, landing in and
contained by the basket. The fan would be turned on and
would blow air through the Zyclon and into the room. The
fan could be very low volume since its purpose was not
to ventilate the room but merely to create poisonous
gas. The major (internal) ventilation system of the Leichenkeller
would serve to aeriate the room.

In short, Mr. Stein’s position makes sense if the use
of Zyclon was a crude “dump in the hole” method. Mr.
VanAlstine’s makes sense if the production of gas was
more technologically advanced system based on the
Degesch method.

CEACAA

From [email protected] Fri May 10 06:53:33 PDT 1996
Article: 35814 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!
imci5!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: 10 May 1996 01:17:53 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 18
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Richard J. Green writes on
9 May 1996

>Ceacaa’s argument about HCN rising makes no sense. Does >Ceacaa also
>believe that nitrogen rises? It’s the temperature of the >gas and the
>turbulence that will determine the dispersion.

Mr. Green, in the conditions of Leichenkeller 1
Crema 2, do you think that dumping Zyclon into
a 9 cm. basket at the level of the ceiling is an
efficient, or even an effective, method of dispersing
HCN throughout a room?

With five minutes of thought, could you imagine a more effective system
for HCN dispersal, such as one
which would effect the temperature of the gas and the
turbulence, such as a fan?

From [email protected] Sat May 11 20:33:47 PDT 1996
Article: 36256 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
in2.uu.net!lexis-nexis!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!
newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 11 May 1996 12:23:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 147
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:36256 talk.origins:123603

On May 5, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote:

[snip]

>> 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.

>Alas, as I’ve stated before, I don’t have Pressac’s _Technique_ on hand.
>It’s rather hard to come by unfortunately. I’ve been trying to buy it
>for
>_months_ now.

>This, of course, is one of the reasons why you’ve beeen asked >countless
to
>times to post the photographs you say you have….

I am sorry, I thought that you had Pressac’s _Technique_.
I think that it is a very valuable book. I will try in the next
week to post some photographs.

>> If Pressac publishes pictures of the INSIDE of the Leichenkeller’s
>> ceiling, does the roof exist?

>How about: If areal photos show four structures on the roof of the
>L.Keller in corrosponding to eyewitness descriptions of the >placement
to,
>and purpose of, the four Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung on the >meorandum
of
>receipt for Krema II which Pressac mentions, and the construction >od
which
>Piper describes, how many holes in the roof to you think there >were?
HOLES IN THE ROOF OF LEICHENKELLER 1 CREMA 2
I agree with Pressac, that no holes were put in the roof
as part of the original construction. Sometime after the
original pour 3, or perhaps 4, holes were chipped through
to original concrete and rebar slab. I say “perhaps” because
the position of the 4th hole (in the north-most section of the
roof was covered with rubble at the time of my visit).
Pressac says that there are presently TWO HOLES in
the roof. These are the large hole at the south western
quadrent of the roof and a smaller hole in the center
section. What the Polish Museum and I count as a third
hole is a smaller ( 9 inch) hole at a crack in the slab in
the center section of the roof.

I would like to mention that there are some questions
about the aerial photograph which shows the 4 “holes” in
the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema 2. First, the holes do
NOT show on several other photgraphs of the roof.
Secondly, the holes appear to run along the center of the room. Quite
simply, there are not presently any holes in the roof at
these locations on the roof. Under the center of the roof
is a very thick concrete beam. This conflict between
what the one aerial photograph shows and what is actually
at the site is difficult to explain. Van Pelt attempts to
resolve this by claiming that the vent holes were really
next to the columns but were destroyed in the demolition
process. I bet that Prof. Van Pelt would claim that the
existing holes in the roof were put there as part of the
demolition process! (We will have to await his new book)

>And, of course, multiple eyewitnesses also described the four
>introduction
>columns. But be that as it may, would you mind e-mailing me the >ordering
>info for these videos?

Bradley Smith’s mailing address is P.O. Box 3267
Visalia California 93278
He has a Internet site
http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/
I can’t find Zundel’s right now.

>> The best evidence about the alleged “gaschambers” is the >>physical
evidence at
>> the site of the gaschambers.

>Indeed some of the best evidence about the gas chambers is >physical. It
by
>no means, however, is the _only_ best evidence. In fact, the >_really_
best
>evidence is the almagmation and cross-checking of _all_ the >evidence.
That
>way one can hope to ovoid “historical myopia” induced by bias. Or, >as in
the case of deniers, by intent.

I agree with you that a comprenhensive history should
deal with all the evidence but the question arises about
conflicts in evidence. For example, what if a photograph
appears to show a hole in a concrete block but an inspection
of the block revealed NO hole? What would you believe?
That is the sort of problem we are dealing with here.
Generally speaking, the law has established a hierarchy
of reliability of evidence to establish the Truth.
Physical evidence is usually considered the most reliable.
Photographic evidence, documentary evidence, eye-witness
testimony are other classes of evidence listed in a generally
accepted order of lessening reliability.
I believe that the physical evidence at the scene of the
crime is quite clear which is why I am even bothering to
post anything on the subject. It is also why I was hoping
that J. Morris would bother to go take a look. As I have
written, it does not take a Champollion to decypher the
riddle of the roof.

>> 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.

>Unfortunately, many of us “archair experts” have to hold down real jobs,
>pay the mortgage, have real lives, etc. and can’t simply pack up and head
>off to Europe whenever we want to….
Of course, but Morris was going to be in Europe anyway.
His given reason for not going to Poland was monetary, ie. the
$600 plane fare to Crakow from London. His visit to the site
would have been an interesting expedition for someone who
is obviously interested in the subject of the Holocaust and
would have answered some important questions that
seemed to be unresolved on this thread and in Holocaust
studies.

>But anyways, you still haven’t really explained the discrepency >between
>the photo I cited and the one you talk about (but won’t post).
I agree that the photographs of the Leichenkeller 1 Crema
II look as if the roof has been totally broken into pieces that
are incoherent without significant reconstruction. However,
my position is that the slab of the roof is a broken but
understandable whole. My position is supported by the Pressac
pictures and available video.
I have tried to explain that the roof was composed of
three layers, slab, asphalt and thin concrete cap. The cap
was severely broken during the demolition process.
It is the broken cap which “appears” in the photographs
not the more complete slab.

CEACAA

From [email protected] Thu May 16 12:13:00 PDT 1996
Article: 37175 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!
csulb.edu!drivel.ics.uci.edu!news.claremont.edu!kaiwan.kaiwan.com!usenet
From: Greg Raven
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 17:55:06 -0800
Organization: Institute for Historical Review
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Host: kaiwan086.kaiwan.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC)
To: Ceacaa

Ceacaa wrote:
> I agree that the photographs of the Leichenkeller 1 Crema
> II look as if the roof has been totally broken into pieces that
> are incoherent without significant reconstruction. However,
> my position is that the slab of the roof is a broken but
> understandable whole. My position is supported by the Pressac
> pictures and available video.
> I have tried to explain that the roof was composed of
> three layers, slab, asphalt and thin concrete cap. The cap
> was severely broken during the demolition process.
> It is the broken cap which “appears” in the photographs
> not the more complete slab.
>
> CEACAA

Isn’t it Faurisson’s position that there are no holes in the roof over
what was supposed to have been the “gas chamber”? I believe that is why
he now says, “No holes, no Holcaust.”


Greg Raven ([email protected])
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg

From [email protected] Sat May 18 07:36:16 PDT 1996
Article: 37624 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!news.inc.net!laslo.netnet.net!
en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!
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: 17 May 1996 03:36:10 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 39
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Greg Raven 15 May 1996 writes

>Isn’t it Faurisson’s position that there are no holes in the roof over
>what was supposed to have been the “gas chamber”? I believe that is why
>he now says, “No holes, no Holcaust.”

Greg Raven ([email protected]n.com)
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg

The existing holes in the concrete roof of one of the major gaschambers
(Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II at Birkenau appear to have been hastily
chipped in and have no sign of any attachments or fittings. Re-bar
still transects the holes. Pressac and others admit that these holes
were not part of the original pour. That means the holes were made
sometime after March 1943.
In fact, it is almost impossible to believe that the holes had anything
to do with introducing Zyclon into the room below. That is why
Van Pelt has reportedly given up claiming that the existing holes
were the “vent holes” and created “new” holes next to columns
running down the center of the room. Pressac appears to agree with
Van Pelt as far as expressing doubt about the existing holes. Therefore,
Faurisson’s position re. the existing holes is being vindicated.

I do not agree with Professor Faurisson’s statement,
“No holes, no Holocaust”. However, the statement emphasizes the
importance of the physical evidence at the scene of the crime and
the present state of the “murder weapon.” Without the holes in
the roof, Zyclon could not have been dumped into the room below.
Since the concrete roof of the so-called gaschamber is still
resting in a Polish field, it is not hard for anyone look at the
roof. That is what Revisionists like McCalden, Cole, Faurisson and
others have done. Revisionists emphasize the physical evidence
and ignore other types of evidence such as confessions and
eye-witness testimony. Exterminationists do the reverse.
My arguments on this thread have been limited to establishing what
is the state of the physical condition of the Leichenkeller, its
roof and the three holes in the roof.

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:47:10 PDT 1996
Article: 38121 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!
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: 20 May 1996 10:15:36 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 79
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote17 May 1996

>Pressac’s book contains a photo of a portion of the roof that
>contains a hole with the rebar still in it. However, this hole
>is rather close to the wall (that is, it’s on the side of the
>roof). It could not have been one of the Zyklon insertion
>holes, as these were in the middle.

My goodness, I have got to download this one before
D. Keren denies he posted it! Keren has just confirmed a
major Revisionist premise, that being that the hole that
is presently in the roof could NOT have been a Zyklon
induction vent. The model in the Polish State Museum
at Auschwitz has it as an Zyclon vent.

>Moreover, the portion of the roof which contains this hole is
>collapsed and heavily damaged.

Danny, as everyone has been telling you for several months, the whole roof
is collapsed. However, the southern 1/3 of the
Leichenkeller roof is the LEAST damaged section of the
roof. In fact, it is rather complete, only being cracked into
3 or 4 large pieces. Since you are viewing the Pressac photograph you
should be able to see this.
Why don’t you post a copy of Pressac’s photograph so that
everyone can see the condition of the vent hole and the southern
end of the Leichenkeller?

>It’s quite obvious that this hole was created when the chamber
>was dynamited. Your point is therefore moot; this was not one
>of the introduction holes.

I am often left amazed by D. Keren’s unique combination
of ignorance and pedantry, even in this case, where Keren
has inadvertently confirmed what I have been posting.

Keren is an example of being right but still being wrong.
Actually, the hole was not created when the “chamber
was dynamited.” This is obvious for several reasons; the easist to
explain is that the 6 pieces of rebar transecting the hole were
cut, in one place and bent out of the way downward into
the hole below.

>I suspect that’s the real reason you have not posted the photos
>you claim to have of the holes. You knew your bluff would be
>called. [snip]

On an’ off, for four months, I have been posting that the hole
in the southwest quadrant of the roof of Leichenkeller 1
of Crema 2 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN a Zyclon introduction hole.
With his usual incisive Exterminationist logic, Keren
“suspects” that I did not post pictures because they
would have proven my point. Now he admits that I was right
but somehow I don’t think he thinks that is what he is doing.

Anyway, now that we agree that one of Pressac’s two holes
is NOT a Zyclon introduction hole we can move on to show
that there were NEVER any Zyclon induction vents in the
roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II.

Danny, Mr. Pressac mentions that there are two (2) existing
holes in the roof. See Technique at page 354. Do you think
that the other unpictured hole was an induction vent?

Then we can move on and you can tell us all where you
think the Zyclon introduction vents were.

By the way, you never made any comment on the fact that
the existing roof is approximately 30 meters long. I thought
you were building up some sort of argument in support of
Morris’ theory of the half-sized gaschamber.

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

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:47:11 PDT 1996
Article: 38125 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!
news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.inc.net!
laslo.netnet.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!
rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!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: 17 May 1996 03:35:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 72
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On May 10, 1996 (Mark Van Alstine)

Oh, my. I see that Ceacaa has discombobulated himself in regards to his
_demand_ that I tell him how long the removeable core of the Zyklon B
introduction columns used in Kremas II and III were. Perhaps, for the
benifit of the rest of the group, so that Ceacaa doesn’t bamboozle them as
to what I wrote, I think I should reiterate my assumptions and then
further explain them:

(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????

>To which I responded:
[snip]

> that would mean that it would imply a minimum core length of >about 9
cm. In other words, not very much.

9 cm.!?? Mark, you missed my question (which for some
reason you call a “demand”). I understand your theory on the
hypothetical cone prism distribution system. I know that you also
mentioned that 9 cm. was the length of your hand, to which I can only say
that you have very little hands. For the rest of the
world, 9 cm. is about 3 1/2 inches, or, Mark, the lenght of
my middle finger, no offense intended.

But your core-with-a-tin-cone-inside had to have some
lenght. You say a minimum lenght of 9 cm. That is little more
than the thickness of the ceiling. Surely, you think that the
“core” extended into the Leichenkeller room? That is what I
mean by “how long was the core.”

This ties into my question about HCN rising. Green wrote:
> “It’s the temperature of the gas and the
> turbulence that will determine the dispersion.”

Exactly so. If your cone was at the ceiling level, the vaporising
HCN would have the same temperature as the surrounding
warm air at the ceiling level. I speculate that it would not
drop to the colder denser air of the floor level but would, in
effect, create an inversion level. A fan would be an obvious
answer to the dispersion problem but you haven’t mentioned
one yet.

_Where in the world is John Morris_?
By the way, I noticed that John Morris, after quoting
Van Pelt that 50% of the roof of the Leichenkeller exists
and tersely bailing from his promised fact finding mission
has gone mum. 50% of the roof is enough to examine.
Why bridle at a discussion of the real murder weapon?

Is Morris trying to figure out what Danny Keren
could possible mean when Keren writes that the roof of
Leichenkeller is “there but is destroyed” ? Is Morris wondering
where the 3 existing holes in roof came from if Van Pelt is
right and all the real (circa April 1943) holes were destroyed
as part of the demolition process?

Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in concrete.

From [email protected] Tue May 28 06:59:11 PDT 1996
Article: 39765 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 May 1996 04:09:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 43
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

May 20, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote

>BTW, Ceacaa, what evidence do you have that the Zyklon B in the
>removeable
>core was suspended near the ceiling?
I believe that this discussion was about the lenght of the
Zyclon containing “core” of the pillar.
I asked, “HOW LONG WAS THE REMOVABLE CORE?”
You estimated that the height of the Zyclon
containing core of the pillar was approximately 9 cm.
(3 1/2 inches). That lenght (alone) would put the
device at or above ceiling level.

And if there _was_ (which I >doubt) a
>problem with HCN dispersion if the Zyklon was so suspended, what >would
>have stopped the Nazis from simply lowering it on subsequent >gassing
until
>they found the optimun height for maximum lethality? After all, >we KNOW
>the Nazis used Zyklon B with maximum lethal effects….

I speculated that keeping the Zyclon at ceiling level
would have greatly slowed the dispersion of the gas.
Further, there would have been a tendency, on cold days,
for the warm air of the Leichenkeller to escape upward
out through the vents, taking the gas with it.

>Tsk Tsk! Sounds like you’re simply setting up and knocking down a
>strawman of your own we are writing about the
device which allegedly killed hundreds of thousands of
persons. To simply write “who cares? the Nazis would
have finally gotten it right.” seems rather indifferent
to an important question.

Ceacaa

From [email protected] Wed May 29 09:57:01 PDT 1996
Article: 39986 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!imci2!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: 29 May 1996 05:52:35 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On April 14 John Morris wrote:

[snip]
>It is rather disappointing to see you go into a wholesale
>retreat from interpretive and methodological questions.
By that I
>mean simply that I had hoped for some evidence that
Revisionists
>could offer up an alternative explanation of a subset of
the events >of the Holocaust that gave a satisfying account
of the evidence.

The Exterminationists on this thread have little
understanding of the evidence at the scene of the crime.
Until you all can get a grasp of the “evidence” it is pointless
to try and give you an explaination. The point of suggesting
that you go to Poland is simply to get evidence in a form
usable by members of this group. Then you, Keren,
VanAlstine and other armchair experts would finally know something about
what is actually there at Birkenau.
That is, gather evidence prior to propounding theories.
[snip]

>I can see why this retreat might be necessary: the explanation
>that you offered was pretty much of a bust.

Actually, the theory that the three existing holes were
created as part of the demolition process seems to becoming
the Standard Exterminationist Explaination. The only difference
is that the Revisionists feel the presently existing holes
were put in “by hand” while those Exterminationists who have
the intellectual honesty to actually visit the site seem
to believe the holes were created by a blast. In fact that is
what you have posted just below. However any but the most
cursory inspection will show that the Revisionists are right.
[snip]
>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.
How much? And how much can be seen from inside the
room? I say approximately 35% of the roof can be inspected
>from below.
>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.

Van Pelt is correct that the three existing holes were
NOT gas induction holes. Please be aware that this is not
been the traditional Exterminationist position. Van Pelt’s
is revising the location of the vent holes from the
position shown on the model at the Auschwitz State Museum.

Van Pelt had to “move” the vent holes somewhere else since
it is obvious that the existing 3 holes could not have been “vent holes”
.
From [email protected] Wed May 29 09:57:02 PDT 1996
Article: 39987 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!imci2!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: 29 May 1996 05:52:37 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 88
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Reply to Morris continued
Since a row of 4 spots appear on one or two of several aerial
photographs of Crema II Van Pelt has gone for a down the
center North/South axis of the building arrangment.
Since there is a central beam running the lenght of the
room he has to fudge a little and put the holes to the side.

Of course the problem with all Van Pelt’s theorizing (I almost
wrote “theologizing”) is that there ARE NO HOLES where he
claims they should be.

This brings us back to the question of how much of the roof
still exists. Exterminationists now have to become Deniers
and deny that the roof exists since thay cannot point to any
hole that was a vent. You have posted that 50% of the roof
exists. Therefore, you should be able to find 2 of the 4 hypothectical
vent holes. You can’t.

In fact, 90% or more of the roof exists.

>It is a reasonable inference that no bolt holes >would appear
>if the >holes for the induction columns were >destroyed
>along with the >roof.
First, bolt holes would extend into the roof. Unless you
claim the whole chunks of roof around each vent were blown
up then you would have existing bolt holes. That is not t you claiming
that the explosion
blew the bolt holes out of the floor too?

>Van Pelt would obviously not agree >with you that the roof
>was
>sufficiently intact to observe the connections between the
>roof, >the roof beam, and the support pillars.
The roof is 30 meters long with 7 columns. As far as I
know Van Pelt is vague on where he would put the vent holes. However,
more than enough roof exists to show that Van Pelt
is wrong.

>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.
Why does it cut both ways? I believe that the Soviets
made a major propaganda play from the Madajnak crematoria.
Sometime after the liberation of Lublin (9/44) the Germans recognized the
“photo opportunity” for the Soviets in the row of ovens at Birkenau. The
destruction of “evidence” at Auschwitz/Birkenau was focused on the
crematoria ovens,
not on the alleged gas chambers. The walls, floors, and roofs
of the Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II and III still exist. The
ae main camp was NOT touched.
Why? Because its crematoria had been removed before. Huge amounts of
documents relating to the Crema were left,
including drawings, specifications,and lists of S.S. personel
serving at the site.

My interpretive and methodological anyalysis of the evidence
shows that the Germans made a hasty attempt at destroying
evidence and it was focused solely on the Crematoria ovens,
not on the alleged gaschambers.

>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,
>There is, however, an alternative to sending me. Stephane >Bruchfeld will
be travelling to Birkenau in a few weeks time,
>and I understand [snip] that he is prepared to conduct an >examination
of the site for us.
[snip]

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

Speaking of wholesale retreats, busts and posturing, why
did you bail on going to Birkenau? And what is Bruchfeld doing?
Any chance of some honest investigation here?

CEACAA

From [email protected] Thu May 2 07:02:17 PDT 1996
Article: 34198 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: 2 May 1996 01:09:19 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 33
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com