What are the exterminationist theories on
how the existing holes in the roof were
created? posting 3
Back to the point that that the three existing holes were
>> created as part of the demolition process seems to becoming
>> the Standard Exterminationist Explaination.
A little set theory would help and since our resident
mathamatician is getting all ready to visit private libraries
at Chatsworth and Alnwick Castle in the Mother Country, I
will venture some.
Think of 3 sets.
Set one is all holes in the roof of L.1.
Set two is all existing holes that were VENT holes.
Set three is all existing holes that were not vent holes.
Right now we are just trying to put the numbers in the right
set. Van Pelt puts O (zero) holes in set two.
The Van Pelt theory was stated by Moris on 04/14 as:
>Robert-Jan Van Pelt also visited the site.. 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.
Mark, guess how Van Pelt explains the three irrelevant
existing holes?: Part of the demolition process!
For a variety of reasons, I think that Van Pelt’s positioning
of the vent holes makes more sense than the traditional
placement.
Right now, we should try to figure out the right number
to put in each set.
Set three is all existing holes that were NOT vent holes. It is
not a particularly interesting set and I would venture a
guess that all holes in this set were created during the
demolition process. I don’t think that any of the existing
holes looks like a hole created when the roof was poured.
For a picture of a “poured in place hole” see Pressac
at page 366 Document 21.
During my visit, after a somewhat cursory search, I found the
three “traditional” holes. However, the photographs in Pressac at page
265 photo 108 and 109 show another hole at the western ( and middle?) of
the Leichenkeller roof.
( This is Keren’s hole, I think) .
I agree with Keren that this hole was not a vent and
was also created as part of the destruction process.
I also suspect that there is one hole under some rubble at the north end
of the roof at the roof.
Therefore, as a start, we have probably have 5 holes in
set one and 5 holes in set three.
Mark, so unless you think that there IS an existing hole
that was also a VENT holes, you have to agree with
with my amazing statement.
If you you think that there is an existing hole
that was also a VENT holes, then I would like to know
where you think it is, ie. are you a traditionalist or
a “straight line down the middle” sort of Exterminationist.
By the way, I am not trying to “hold you” to any position.
It is only to point out that there is a conflict as to the
true position, and even existence, of the vent holes.
This conflict has led to some confusion in the
discussion.
What is really needed here is a survey of the roof and the
holes in the roof.
Best, CEACAA
From [email protected] Mon Jun 3 08:18:49 PDT 1996
Article: 40824 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!
bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
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: 2 Jun 1996 01:49:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 54
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Mark Van Alstine wrote on 5/30
>> Actually, the theory that the three existing holes were
>> created as part of the demolition process seems to becoming
>> the Standard Exterminationist Explaination.
[snip]
>Ceacaa, that’s a pretty amazing statement. It is also untrue. The >claim
>that “the three existing vent holes were created as part of the
>demolition
>process” was origionally put forward by none other than
yourself…
Mark, please read what I wrote. I did not say that the VENT
holes were created as part of the demolition process. I am not
sure where the vent holes really were. I said
that the existing three holes in the roof were part of the
demolition process, ie. the holes that are presently on the roof.
(I am going to have to revise the present number of holes on the roof due
to something D. Keren pointed out.)
On 5/17/96 Keren wrote:
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
From: [email protected] (Daniel Keren)
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:09:30 GMT
Message-ID:
[snip]
>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.
>Moreover, the portion of the roof which contains this hole is
>collapsed and heavily damaged.
>It’s quite obvious that this hole was created when the chamber
>was dynamited.
John (the Mum) Morris wrote:
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
From: [email protected] (John Morris)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 04:11:06 GMT
[snip]
>In the one readily available photograph, what appear to be two >holes
>are visible. Only one appears to be near enough to the central axis >of
>the L.Keller to have been a gas induction hole, but it also appears >to
>be to the west of the axis. It is impossible to tell from the photo
>whether it is near any support pillar, which we have agreed, though
>not proved, would have been a sensible arrangement for protecting >the
induction columns from damage.
Holes in the roof which are not near enough the central axis are deemed by
some Exterminationists as not having been vent holes.
From [email protected] Mon Jun 3 08:18:50 PDT 1996
Article: 40825 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!
bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!
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: 2 Jun 1996 01:49:11 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 46
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
part 2
When I visited Birkenau, there was a strong implication
that three particular holes were the actual vent holes used as
part of the extermination process. Concrete covers had been
placed next to each of the holes (see Pressac pg. 354 caption to Photo
b”), the holes were in the same position as the columns
and holes in the model of Crema II at the State Museum (see
Pressac pg. 345 Photo 27 and Page 378 ), and a picture of one of the holes
was shown in a booklet and identified as the “hole through
which gas was put.”
I started my arguments on the assumption that everybody
knew about and agreed where the “Traditional” vent holes were.
Without being critical, I think that there is confusion in the
Exterminationist postition as to where and/or if, any
of the vent holes exists today.
I would venture to say that the current Exterminationist position
is that there were four vents running north/south along the
center of the Leichenkeller, slightly to the west of the center.
This position is supported by the aerial photograph of
08/25/44 among other things.
The traditional position is shown on the Auschwitz model.
It is supported by the factat the locations on the model.
Traditional vents 2 and 3 are sort of in the center of the roof.
(The vent numbers are the ones assigned by Pressac on
page 378 and run lowest north to highest south). Traditional
vents 1 and 4 clearly conflict with the positioning of the
vents in the 08/25/44 photograph.
Some of this ambivalence comes through if you read
Pressac on page 354 Photocture b”’. The picture is of a hole
in the ceiling ASSUMED to be one of the Zyclon B introduction
vents.
With this confusion over where the vents holes were, I can
see how my remarks were also confusing. Everyone, or at least
those with suspicious minds, thought that I had found some
little irrelevant hole off on the edge of the roof and was
obfuscating things.
So far, does this seem correct to you? The I can point
out why at least two of the “traditional” vent holes
are now considered as having been created by the
demolition process.
From [email protected] Fri Jun 7 12:45:48 PDT 1996
Article: 41645 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!
ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!van.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!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: 7 Jun 1996 01:01:24 -0400
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
(Ceacaa) wrote:
“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.”
Response to Claim 3:
>Pressac states that there are TWO remaining Zyklon B introduction >holes
in the roof of L.Keller 1 of Krema II (Photo b”’ and caption,
>_Technique_; p.354.)
>Where is your evidence, Ceacaa, of the third remaining Zyklon B
>introduction hole?
I have answered this one before. The three holes that I found and
inspected are the three “traditional holes” as shown on the
model at the Auschwitz Museum. (see Pressac pg. 345 Photo 27
and Page 378 in which he numbers the holes) These holes are each of
different sizes. The largest is hole 4. That is the one Pressac
took a picture of (kind of).
I am confused as to the respective attributes of vent holes 3 and 2.
One of them is about 30 cm. across and is simply
a hole in the concrete roof. A concrete manhole cover was
placed next to it too.
The other hole is even smaller, about15 cm. It is at a crack in the roof,
that is, could be viewed as am expansion in the fault line rather than a
real hole. I do not think that Pressac counted this
hole as existing.
Finally, I will again note that I couldn’t inspect the position
of hole number 1 on the Auschwitz Museum model. This area was covered by
rubble. Since the museum model is based on an
actual inspection of the Leichenkeller roof, I would suspect
that there is a hole there too.
>It is also important to note that on the memorandum acknowleding >the
>receipt of Krema II there were FOUR >Drahtnetzeinscheibvorrichtung (wire
>netting inserting devices) listed, which clearly implies that there >were
>FOUR Zyklon B introduction holes in the roof of L.Keller 1. >(_Anatomy_,
>p.233; _Techique_, p.232, 430.)
I thought that the Drahtnetzeinscheibvorrichtung were
fabricated at the camp metal shop. Why would they be
part of the turn over documents? Does this mean the
Drahtnetzeinscheibvorrichtung were made prior to the
turn over date at the end of March 1943? Perhaps
one or two the these things were spares? They were made
of 15 mm tubing and 10 mm. angle iron. Not particularly
sturdy in 3 meter lenghts. Do you think that these
things lasted a whole year and half of use or were they
ever replaced?
From [email protected] Sat Jun 8 06:43:29 PDT 1996
Article: 41713 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.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: 7 Jun 1996 10:09:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 73
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 05 Jun 1996
>Just a quick reply to say that I resent this ceaseless baiting
>presented in lieu of a serious discussion.
Gosh, try being a Revisionist. I have been trying to
get a straight answer out of you for several months to the
question “How much of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 exists?”
That is a serious question. Instead you make a crack about
“playing Revisionist Hero” and then reproach me for baiting
you. Mon Dieu!
The main reason I hoped that you would go visit
Birkenau is because I fully recognize the weakness in
my survey of the roof. I believe that a thorough survey of
the roof (and holes therein) is needed. Then I don’t have
to spend anymore time on this thread.
You have sort of mumbled that VanPelt thinks 50% of the roof is still
there. Other Exterminationists/Hoaxters are all over the
map on it.
[snip Morris’ baiting in lieu of serious discussion]
>Months go by, and Mr. Allen cannot address the very simple >question of
>the locations of the positions of holes which he claims to have
>observed in the L.Keller roof.
I have posted answer to that comment several times as
follows.
When I visited Bithree particular holes were the actual vent holes
used as
part of the extermination process. Concrete covers had been
placed next to each of the holes (see Pressac pg. 354 caption to Photo
b”), the holes were in the same position as the columns
and holes in the model of Crema II at the State Museum (see
Pressac pg. 345 Photo 27 and Page 378 ), and a picture of one of the holes
was shown in a booklet and identified as the “hole through
which gas was put.”
I started my arguments on the assumption that everybody
knew about and agreed where the “Traditional” vent holes were.
Without being critical, I think that there is confusion in the
Exterminationist postition as to where and/or if, any
of the vent holes exists today.
I would venture to say that the current Exterminationist position
is that there were four vents running north/south along the
center of the Leichenkeller, slightly to the west of the center.
This position is supported by the aerial photograph of
08/25/44 among other things.
The traditional position is shown on the Auschwitz model.
It is supported by the fact that there are, indeed, holes
in the roof at the locations on the model.
Traditional vents 2 and 3 are sort of in the center of the roof.
(The vent numbers are the ones assigned by Pressac on
page 378 and run lowest north to highest south). Traditional
vents 1 and 4 clearly conflict with the positioning of the
vents in the 08/25/44 photograph.
Some of this ambivalence comes through if you read
Pressac on page 354 Photocture b”’. The picture is of a hole
in the ceiling ASSUMED to be one of the Zyclon B introduction
vents.
With this confusion over where the vents holes were, I can
see how my remarks were also confusing. Everyone, or at least
those with suspicious minds, thought that I had found some
little irrelevant hole off on the edge of the roof and was
obfuscating things.
Does John Morris have any serious thoughts on the comments
of traditional vent holes vs. down the center positioning?
CEACAA
From [email protected] Sat Jun 8 06:43:32 PDT 1996
Article: 41728 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.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: 7 Jun 1996 11:40:33 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 89
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
“My assumption that the holes were part of the demolition process arises
>from the state of the holes, not from any expert understanding of
demolition. The holes presently on the roof are of irregular shape,
varing size, chipped in after the roof was origninally poured. The rebar
of the roof is still in the holes, cut in one place and bent out of the
way.”
In addition, Ceacaa, you have made several other past claims regarding the
holes through which Zyklon B was introduced which I am now, having
procurred a copy of Pressac’s _Techique_, prepared to address in detail:
Claim 1:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa)
wrote:
“I have been into the so-called gaschambers of Crema II and III. There are
no remains of any porous pillars. The structure’s roof is built of
poured-in-place concrete. The pattern of the woodforms is visible in the
concrete, as are holes for fitings and conduit. Anything which was
attached to the ceiling would have left holes or fittings. There are none
around the 3 “vents” through which the pellets were poured and the porous
pillars attached.”
>Response to Claim 1:
>As to the alleged lack of any retaining fixtures in the ceiling for >the
>Zyklon B introduction columns, this would be in accordance
>with the fact
>that the columns passed _through_ the roof of the L.Keller
> and was likley surrounded by a “chimney,” much like that
>found in the reconstruction of
>the Zyklon B vents of Krema I (_Technique_, p.150), which would >firmly
hold the top of the column in place.
>The fixed portion of the introduction column was approximately 3 >meters
in
>length. If you were to study the Huta drawings 109/13A and >109/14A of
>21/9/43 (_Technique_, pp.322-325), you would see the inside >dimension
for
>the floor to ceiling height of L.Keller 1 to be 2.40 meters and that >the
roof of L.Keller 1 is about 26 cm thick. This would imply that >the fixed
>portion of the introduction columns protruded about 40 cm
>above the
>concrete roof of L.Keller 1. This is in general accord with Piper’s
>description that says: “…they passed through openenings in the
>ceiling,
>ending outside as little chimneys closed with a concrete cover >equipped
with two handles.” (_Anatomy_, p.167.)
Response to the response.
So your response is that the “little chimneys” were not attached
to the roof in a manner that would leave any trace? Nor was
the pillar attached to the roof and/or ceiling in any manner which
would leave a mark?
This does not seem likely to me. Remember the pillar was
supposed to withstand the pressure of hundreds of stampeding
persons.
One would think that the column would have to attached
somewhere. Since it wasn’t attached at the top it must have
been attached at the bottom. We should be able to find some
bolt holes there.
But , if we look at the Schematic Diagram of the
so-called Introduction Column on page 487 of Pressac,
we come upon another surprise!
Oddly enough, the column doesn’t have any attachment
points at the bottom either, no bolt holes, straps, or rivets!
What do you think Mark? This column was the actual murder
device. Was it just free standing? Or are there bolt holes
somewhere?
I should also note that Pressac confirms what I posted
about the ceiling of the Leichenkeller being poured in place
concrete. Please note in the photographs on page 354 that
the wood grain of the forms in visible in the concrete. His
other photographs confirm exactly what I have stated.
The problem comes because Pressac avoids any clear
picture of the all important vent holes and avoids any
discussion of the state of the roof of the Leichenkeller.
It is the official Hoaxter position to
pretend that nothing can be learned from visiting the
site of the alleged “gaschamber. Unfortunately,
it seems to be the posture of many of the
armchair Exterminationists on this thread.
From [email protected] Tue Jun 11 01:36:56 PDT 1996
Article: 42515 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.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: 10 Jun 1996 21:21:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 42
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
Reply VanAlstine part 2
>> But , if we look at the Schematic Diagram of the
>> so-called Introduction Column on page 487 of Pressac,
>> we come upon another surprise! Oddly enough, the column doesn’t >have
any
>> attachment points at the bottom either, no bolt holes, straps, or
>>rivets!
> Indeed, the sketch doesn’t show how the column was anchored to >the
floor. Neither does it show the column passing throught the >roof of the
L.Keller. What it shows is a simplistic rendering of the >fixed wire mesh
column and the removeablecore.
Actually, it is a fairly detailed description giving the
size and type of material used in the construction, the net,
the type of tubing use, as well as the dimensions of the
“pillar”.
This otherwise detailed description avoided the embarassing
but important question: How did the darn thing stay in place?
>The simple act of them passing through the roof, in combination >that
they _were_
>anchored to the floor, constrained them against any movement >whatsoever.
That’s a pretty powerful statement, partner. You’re talking
“anchored”. Why don’t you zip on down to Orchard Supply
again and pick yourself up a 3 meter long strip of angle
iron just like the one they used in your pillar. Bolt it to the floor.
Go back across the room and then run
into the darn thing, preferably head down. Do this three or
four times. Are you still an Exterminationist? If so, look
at the bolts. I’ll bet you 50 cents that they are sprung.
If you are looking for any support from the roof, then you are
going to have to have a very, very tight fit.
To say that this unsupported structure was
“constrained them against any movement whatsoever”
is dogmatic prevarication.
From [email protected] Tue Jun 11 06:44:41 PDT 1996
Article: 42559 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.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: 11 Jun 1996 01:34:18 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 37
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 on 05 Jun 1996
Ceacaa wrote:
>>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.
>Oh, but can’t I? But you, apparently cannot bring yourself to >describe
>the locations of the holes you claim are “crudely chipped-in” after
>the fact and with bent and cut rebar. Where are they? Cat got your
>tongue?
Wha you mean ca go my ongue? Wook at wha I posted before:
“The three holes that I found and
inspected are the three “traditional holes” as shown on the
model at the Auschwitz Museum. (see Pressac pg. 345 Photo 27
and Page 378 in which he numbers the holes) These holes are each of
different sizes. The largest is hole 4. That is the one Pressac
took a picture of (kind of). …
Finally, I will again note that I couldn’t inspect the position
of hole number 1 on the Auschwitz Museum model. This area was covered by
rubble. Since the museum model is based on an
actual inspection of the Leichenkeller roof, I would suspect
that there is a hole there too.”
What better could you ask for than a picture?
>But let’s consider the two holes along the west side of the centre
>beam at approximately the first and third pillars from the south,
>shall we? Let’s start with an analogy.
Hold it, hold it…I thought that you said that the Southern
end of the Leichenkeller was totally destroyed? Are you,
ah, well, revising that position?
From [email protected] Tue Jun 11 17:09:00 PDT 1996
Article: 42632 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news2.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!
agate!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 Jun 1996 00:28:29 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 68
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
On Jun 8, 1996
Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>> So your response is that the “little chimneys” were not attached
>> to the roof in a manner that would leave any trace?
>And where did I say that, Mr. Allen?
You didn’t. It simply follows logically from the
fact that there are NO traces of your little chimneys
anywhere on the roof of the Leichenkeller. Ipso facto the
chimneys were not attached in a trace leaving manner.
>> Nor was the pillar attached to the roof and/or ceiling in any >>manner
which would leave a mark?
>Yes, this is very likely, as the Zyklon B introduction columns >passed
through the ceiling and would not have needed to have been >anchored to
the ceiling with bolts as you have claimed.
VERY LIKELY? This is one of the stupidest comments that I have
yet read on this thread. Maybe you should just insist that
the Germans GLUED the column in place. The slightest
consideration of the forces that crowds of people
would have exerted your “pillar” shows that it would need to
have been well secured.
>> One would think that the column would have to attached
>> somewhere. Since it wasn’t attached at the top it must have
>> been attached at the bottom. We should be able to find some
>>bolt holes there.
>Indeed you should be able to Mr. Allen.
>Did you examine the floor of L.Keller 1 in detail for such holes Mr.
Allen? You know, the floor >that is
>under many centimeters of water. The floor that is basically, as I
>understand it, missing near the suriving pillars. The floor that is
>almost entirely burried under the collapsed roof and rubble?
Are you trying to discuss a subject honestly or jiber at me?
Alstine’s points are:
1. The bolt holes ARE there.
2. But the floor ISN’T there.
3. But you can’t see anything anyway because everything
is covered in water.
4. But you can’t see anything anyway because everything
is covered in rubble.
Your discussion has gone beyond tendentiousness
to being strident and contradictory. Cool your jets, get
back with the dialectic.
I do not know if there are any bolt holes anywhere on the
floor.
You do not know if there are any bolt holes on the floor.
I doubt that there are.
You assert that there are.
At this point all you and I should be able to agree upon is that
if you are right about your columns and the floor is in place,
we should find your bolt holes. If the floor “is basically,
as I understand it, missing near the suriving pillars” then
that will show too.
That is, either the bolt holes are there or the floor isn’t.
Of course, the amazing point of all this is that neither remains
of little chimneys or bolt holes on the floor have ever been
found.
From [email protected] Fri Jun 14 07:16:44 PDT 1996
Article: 43087 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!news5.digex.net!news2.digex.net!
uunet!uunet!in1.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: 13 Jun 1996 01:00:11 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 81
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 on 05 Jun 1996
>You seem to believe that physical evidence is >self-evident and
unproblematical,
Some physical evidence is, much physical evidence is
inconclusive. My point is that physical evidence tends to
be more reliable than other forms of evidence. The position and
condition of the Traditional vent holes is self-evident and nearly
conclusive that the holes were chipped in after the roof was poured etc.
etc.
The physical condition of the so-called holes is an anomaly in the
standard story of mass extermination at Crema II.
>so tell me: did the Soviets do this to my >basement
>and sidewalk?
Maybe a hockey team threw a party in your basement?
Please try not to waste everyone’s time with
stupid questions, irony is best in small dosage. If you think you have a
good point, see if you can express yourself clearly.
>My description does, after all, match your description
>of the Krema II ruins. Or do you think that it is just possible that
>what you have taken to be “crudely chipped-in” holes might be more
>crude than they once were because of the natural effects of
>weathering.
No. Look at Pressac pg. 366. photo 21 and 22. These are
pictures of holes in the concrete floor of Crema II that
were built as part of the original pour. Note the effect
of weathering on this hole. The edges of the hole are still
clear and defined. 50 years of weathering did not create
a crudely chipped in effect.
>But more: tell me about your experience with rebar. Have you ever
>actually seen a straight piece?
Yes. straight pieces are visible at breaks in the concrete.
>Is it impossible that an end could be bent before the concrete was
>poured over it?
Not likely.
>Have you ever seen a piece of rebar that *wasn’t* cut?
At other parts of the roof and column there are but not
in the three traditional holes that I inspected.
>You have been so reticent to admit that you went to Auschwitz >with a
theory to test that perhaps you really didn’t have a theory >to test.
>Maybe you just went there looking for any straw to grasp to prove >that
>the Holocaust was a hoax. Maybe, just maybe, you “overlooked” the
>effects of forty or fifty years of weather,
the westward shift of >the
>roof because of the blast, that fact that the ends of rebar are
>*always* cut, maybe you overlooked all that so you could “prove” >the
hoax.
Great closing arguments. You should try out as a prosecutor at the
next Zundel trial. What do you mean “theory to test?”
I went to Auschwitz to see what was there; to see the scene of the crime
and look at the murder weapon.
If the evidence was not so strong in support of the Revisionist position I
would be an Exterminationist. Further, I don’t particularly think that
the Holocaut was a “hoax”. I believe that the evidence is very strong
that Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II could not have been used as a gaschamber.
My appelation of certain posters on this thread as “Hoaxters” is meant to
express my contempt for their obtuse dogmatisim, not to
demean the tragedy that was Auschwitz.
Let’s review your arguments:
1. Weathering- Wrong as show above;
2. Explosion making a westward shift of the roof-Wrong.
The edges of the roof are at the edges of the room
below. There has been no “westward shift” of the
roof. Further, the traditional vent holes are not
in line. Hole 4 is two or three meters to the west
of holes 3 and 2. So, unless you believe that the
explosion moved only1 of 3 of the holes and moved it
across a solid concrete roof, then Pressac’s tenative
explaination, which you seem to have ferverently
embrased, can only be described as absurd
Hoaxterism.
3.The ends of rebar are*always* cut. -Right but Wrong. Numerous rebar
are cut and bent out of the way. The continuation of the rebar extends
>from the other side of the hole. In several instances, one can look at
the entire lenght of rebar not at an end (or begining).
From [email protected] Fri Jun 14 21:13:16 PDT 1996
Article: 43276 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!
imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!
usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!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: 14 Jun 1996 00:23:19 -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
John Morris wrote on 6/5
>You have been so reticent to admit that you went to Auschwitz >with a
theory to test that perhaps you really didn’t have a theory >to test.
>Maybe you just went there looking for any straw to grasp to prove >that
>the Holocaust was a hoax. Maybe, just maybe, you “overlooked” the
>effects of forty or fifty years of weather, the westward shift of >the
>roof because of the blast, that fact that the ends of rebar are
>*always* cut, maybe you overlooked all that so you could “prove” >the
hoax.
There is a great deal of vehemence in your arguments but
not much acurracy. You should try out as a prosecutor
at the next Zundel trial. What do you mean “theory to test?”
I went to Auschwitz to see what was there, to view the scene
of the crime and look at the murder weapon. The condition
of the vents was only one of a dozen powerful reasons supporting
the Revisionist position. If the evidence was not so strong in support of
the Revisionist position I would be an
Exterminationist. Further, I don’t particularly think that the Holocaut
was a “hoax”. I believe that the evidence is very strong that
Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II could not have been used as a gaschamber. My
appelation of certain posters on this thread as “Hoaxters” is meant to
express my contempt for their obtuse dogmatisim not to demean the tragedy
that was Auschwitz.
Let’s review your arguments:
1. Weathering- Wrong as show above;
2. Explosion making a westward shift of the roof-Wrong.
The edges of the roof are at the edges of the room
below. There has been no “westward shift” of the
roof. Waive, waive Pressac pg. 265 Document 106
which shows both edges of the roof next to the
edges of the wall.
Further, the traditional vent holes are not
in line. Hole 4 is two or three meters to the west
of holes 3 and 2. So, unless you believe that the
explosion moved only1 of 3 of the holes and moved it
across a solid concrete roof, then Pressac’s tenative
explaination, which you seem to have ferverently
embrased, can only be described as absurd Hoaxterism.
3. The ends of rebar are*always* cut. -Right but Wrong. Numerous
rebar are cut and bent out of the way. The continuation of
the rebar extends from the other side of the hole. In several
instances, one can look at the entire lenght of rebar not at
an end (or begining).
From [email protected] Sat Jun 15 10:18:41 PDT 1996
Article: 43368 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!
news.sover.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!
imci5!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: 14 Jun 1996 01:55:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 38
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 on 05 Jun 1996
>You seem to believe that physical evidence is self-evident and
>unproblematical,
Some physical evidence is, much physical evidence is
inconclusive. My point is that physical evidence tends to
be more reliable than other forms of evidence. The position and
condition of the Traditional vent holes is self-evident and nearly
conclusive that the holes were chipped in after the roof was
poured etc. etc.
>so tell me: did the Soviets do this to my >basement
>and sidewalk?
Maybe a hockey team threw a party in your basement?
By the way, I don’t think the Soviets trashed Crema II
>My description does, after all, match your description
>of the Krema II ruins. Or do you think that it is just possible that
>what you have taken to be “crudely chipped-in” holes might be more
>crude than they once were because of the natural effects of
>weathering.
No. Look at Pressac pg. 366. photo 21 and 22. These are
pictures of holes in the concrete floor of Crema II that
were built as part of the original pour. Note the effect
of weathering on this hole. The edges of the hole are still
clear and defined. 50 years of weathering did not create
a crudely chipped in effect.
>But more: tell me about your experience with rebar. Have you ever
>actually seen a straight piece?
Yes. straight pieces are visible at breaks in the concrete.
>Is it impossible that an end could be bent before the concrete was
>poured over it?
No.
>Have you ever seen a piece of rebar that *wasn’t* cut?
At other parts of the roof and column there are but not
in the three traditional holes that I inspected.
CEACAA
From [email protected] Sat Jun 15 10:18:42 PDT 1996
Article: 43380 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!
news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!
hunter.premier.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: 14 Jun 1996 21:14:08 -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
John Morris wrote on 6/5
>Yes, Van Pelt was vague about the exact position of the vent holes,
>because I didn’t ask and he didn’t tell me.
Maybe he was vague because he didn’t know.
>.>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.
>Goodness me! Is it your position now that the SS did not dynamite >the
>L.Keller?
>That it fell down of its own accord? The blew the whole
>installation, crematory and gas chambers both.
The Germans did attempt to destroy the Leichenkeller but were more
concerned with the crematorium. In the main structure they destroyed the
roof and walls, only the floor remains with its rail tracks.
>> The walls, floors, and roofs
>of the Leichenkeller 1 of Crema II and III still exist. The
> ae main camp was NOT touched.
>The Main Camp was not touched because traces of
>the extermination
>process had long before been removed.
>The entire operation was moved to Birkenau by
>the end of 1943.
What are you talking about? The entire alleged
gaschamber was left standing. A gaschamber, if it were
one, is a “trace(s) of extermination.”
>>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.
>
[snip]
> If the SS *did* blow up
>the L.Kellers how does that make their efforts to destroy
>evidence “focused solely on the Crematoria ovens.”
Your right. I overstated the argument. Strike “solely”.
>Come to think of it, if they were so careful to destroy he evidence >of
>mass cremations, why did they, as you say above, not destroy all of
>the documents a well? Oh right: hasty retreat even though they had
>known for months that the Soviets were coming and knew that the
>Soviets would make propaganda hay out of any indication of the >mass
destruction of human lives.
That is the point. They weren’t “careful” to destroy the evidence
of the Cremas. The Germans did not start the destruction process until
December 1944. They blew up the “evidence” just before the Soviets came
into the camp.
On Crema II and III they did an incomplete job.
As you point out, they knew for months (or years) that the
Soviets were coming.
Majdanek was liberated by the Soviets July 24, 1944.
Photographs of the crematorium were a
major Allied propaganda item in August. In December the
Germans reacted by starting to dismantle the Cremas.
The point is, of course, that the Germans were not careful to
destroy the evidence of the Cremas. Huge amounts of plans, prints,
orders, even photographs of the construction were just left by the Germans
when they retreated. These documents had the names of everyone who worked
with the Bauleitung.
We know the individuals who built the Cremas: SS Captain
Bischoff, Lieutenant Dejaco, Lieutenant Jothann et al. from
the construction documents THEY LEFT BEHIND.
They even left behind photographs of themselves building the so-called
“gaschamber”.
Not a very organized destruction of evidence.
CEACAA Fiat lux.
From [email protected] Sat Jun 15 10:18:43 PDT 1996
Article: 43381 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!
nntp.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.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: 14 Jun 1996 21:14:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 54
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 on 6/5
>According to the conservation of energy, 100% of the roof
> still exists in some form. The question is: in what form?
Mr. Morris, please try not be sophmoric. 90% of the
roof exists in a coherent form which allows a viewer to
determine the number of holes presently in the roof.
>What floor? Are you claiming that the floor is intact under a roof
>slab that collapsed intact onto the floor below? Did you
>excavate to find this intact floor?
>You seem to like waving Pressac’s _Technique_ under
>our noses. Look at
>the pictures on pp. 353-354. How much intact floor do
>you see there
>beside the partially destroyed support pillars?
Actually I have been banging you about the ears with it,
thumping its cover, insistently citing its pages. That is
because it is the best source of primary evidence of
the condition of the so-called gaschambers.
Pressac, being an Exterminationist, has avoided giving
evidence on certain embarassing subjects such as the
amount of roof still available for inspection and the condition
and location of the all important vent holes. For the same
reason he avoids any pictures of the floor of the Leichenkeller
and, of course, any bolt holes.
>Did you look for bolt holes? Did it occur to you that even if there
>was an intact floor there that a holes that were partially >submerged at
different times of the year might have filled with >mud and debris?
More obscurantism. If the floor is there then Exterminationists
should easily point to the bolt holes. The destruction of
the floor can also easily be shown. They have done neither.
I believe the floor is intact without bolt holes. I do not claim
to know.
You seem to believe something else but I don’t think that
you claim to know either.
The obvious solution to the question is to go and look.
We are discussing something which can be tested.
This is another advantage of concentrating on
physical evidence at the site. Ultimately the argument
can be resolved by somebody actually getting a little
dirty and seeing what is there.
I am pleased to put my beliefs to the test.
Lies written in ink cannot disguise facts written in
concrete.
From [email protected] Mon Jun 3 08:18:47 PDT 1996
Article: 40803 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!imci5!imci4!imci3!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!chi-news.cic.net!news.math.psu.edu!
news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.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: 3 Jun 1996 00:19:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 77
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
