Article 0796, Allen Andrew

Mark Van Alstine wrote on18 Jun 1996

> My question to you, Mr. Allen, was did YOU actually carry out a
>thourough examination of the ENTIRE floor where the introduction columns
would have been anchored?

No. I posted the following before:

>> 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.

and the following

>> 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.
>> That is, either the bolt holes are there or the
>>floor isn’t.

>How did you copme to your “understanding” of the state of the >floor, Mr.
Allen? Idle speculation or research?
I discussed the state of the floor with several individuals
who had the interest and integrity to actually visit the
site. Those who had checked stated that the floor exists.
Furthermore, I believe that the drainage system works and I
known that the inside walls are generally intact.
This would indicate that the original floor is still there waiting for
somebody to find bolt holes in it.

>> 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.

>Considering that the “little chimneys” were probably brick,
>do you find this suprising Mr. Allen? How can you tell the
>bricks from a little chimney apart from bricks in rubble? Or from >bricks
in a pile of other bricks elsewhere?
Yes, it is suprising. The bricks, (if that is what you want
to claim the chimneys were made of) would have been
cemented to the roof both to hold them in place and to
create a water tight seal to keep rain and snow from
going into the room below.

>But let us not forget, Mr. Allen, that there is a photograph of three >of
the “little chinmeys” on the roof of L.Keller 1 taken by the SS; th >ere
are Allied aerial photos of four “little chimneys” on the roof of
> L.Keller 1; that the inventory receipt for Krema II shows four
>”Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrivhtung” (wire mesh introduction devices) >and
four
>”Holzblenden” (wooden covers); and the multiople eyewitness >testimonies
confirming their existance and installation.
>Given all this, Mr. Allen, your bickering over bolt holes and such
>appears rather anti-climatic. To say the least.
We have gone over this before, ie. the issue of the relative value
of physical evidence vs. other types of evidence. I have asked you
this question once before;
If you have a picture of a wall with a hole showing in it but you can
inspect the wall and there is NO hole,
what do you believe, hole or no hole? That is, I believe, the basis of
the debate between Revisionists and Exterminationists.
Of course there are several pictures of the roof of Leichenkeller where
NO vent holes can be seen and
where they would have shown if they were there

From [email protected] Mon Jul 1 09:08:01 PDT 1996
Article: 47382 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.ac.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 Jun 1996 00:42:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 39
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on18 Jun 1996
>These are two seperate things, Mr. Allen. Even a toddler
>could tell the difference between a “little chimneys” ON
> TOP of the roof of L.Keller 1
>and wire mesh columns INSIDE the homicidal gas
>chamber that pass THROUGH the roof of L.Keller 1 to
>end up outside and SURROUNDED by the “little chimneys.”

We are back to the Exterminationist starting point:
Nothing has left any traces which can be examined;
no base for the “little chimneys”, to attachment points for
the wire columns, no wire columns, no bolt holes,
no roof, no holes, no floor. And you call us “deniers”.

>First, You have claimed, in essence, that as no bolt holes can be >found
in the ceiling of L.Keller 1 the introduction columns were, >pardon the
pun, a
>fabrication. You willfully ignore the simple explination that as the
>columns, which measured 70 cm x 70 cm, passed through holes in >the roof,
>which also likely measured 70 cm x 70 cm, the columns did not >need to be
>fastened to the roof as they were, for all practical purposes, >already
>”fastened” as they could not be moved laterally BECAUSE THE ROOF
>CONSTRAINED THEM.
Actually, my starting point is that there are NO 70 cm x 70
cm holes in the roof of Leichenkeller 1. The discussion of
the hypothetical pillar started with my further observation
that there are no bolt holes around the three “traditional”
vent holes in the roof of Leichenkeller 1.
As to your “simple explaination”, I am not ignoring it.
I have thought about it, it’s stupid. I feel that it is absurd to suppose
that the wire pillar could have withstood the alleged use without being
fastened at the roof. At best, you can assert that the metal tubes were
only prevented from moving laterally. Any fex in the tubing, any
horizontal or vertical pressure was unrestrained. Any pressures or
impacts would have been transmitted and levered by the lenght on the
tubing to the hypothecal “anchor bolts” on
the floor.
Your arguments that people somehow avoided bumping into the columns
during gasssing are specious.

From [email protected]ol.com Thu Jul 4 17:22:23 PDT 1996
Article: 48306 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!noc.van.hookup.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!news-out.microserve.net!
news-in.microserve.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.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: 4 Jul 1996 17:41:23 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 87
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jul 1, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote
> Actually, my starting point is that there are NO 70 cm x 70
> cm holes in the roof of Leichenkeller 1.

>Then please explain Document 46 on p.228 of _Technique_ and >explain why
the hole in the roof of L.Keller 1 is larger than the >sewer manhole cover
>which, when examining the Bauleitung drawing 1300, implies that >the
manhole cover should be at _least_ 60 cm x 60 cm.
My poor giddy Van Alstine. No wonder you are confused.
Document 46 is NOT a picture of a hole in the roof of
Leichenkeller 1. It is a picture of a drainage manhole with
a drainage manhole cover next to it.
Pressac, like all Hoaxters, avoids any clear pictures of what
he claims are vent holes.

>>Furthermore, your “observsation” regarding the lack of “bolt >holes”
applied to the roof of L.Keller 1.
It appears that you are agreeing with me that I am right
about there being no bolt holes on the roof.
[snip]

> Perhaps you would care to explain away all the above
>evidence for the existance of these “hypothetical” Zyklon B >introduction
columns?
I will, after I pin you down on the physical evidence
existing at the scene of the crime. Remember, it has only
been a few weeks since you admitted that the Leichenkeller
roof still exists.

[snip discussion of strenght of column, for now]
>And your reply to this is to “hypothesize” that there were no “bolt
>holes” in the floor? Simply amazing.
What is amazing is that no one has ever found the
bolt holes in the floor necessary to sustain your story
that there was a porous column.
No bolt holes equals no columns.
Find some bolt holes and you will have the pleasure of
seeing me eat my words!

[snip 2nd discussion of strenght of column, for now]

>> Your arguments that people somehow avoided bumping into the >>columns
during gasssing are specious.

>Simply put: Bullshit. You’re being an ass by saying this. Both Dr.
>Nyiszli
>and Henryk Tauber told of the victims piling up _away_ from the >pillars
when they died.

This is interesting. There were four columns. What did the
victims do, die in 5 lines between the columns?
I * I * I * I * I How thoughtful of the victims.
Did the Germans leave the lights on during
the executions so that the victims could see and avoid the
columns? How clever of the Germans.
Did the victims, having been led halfway around the
Crema building (please don’t look in the windows, the chimneys
are just for heating bath water), down a narrow stairway, into
a low ceilinged basement, through small room*, right turn into another low
ceilinged room (all on belief that they were going to take an
underground shower) suddenly realize that these strange wire columns were
emitting poison gas? What a sudden loss of innocence and scientific
insight of the victims.

*Some Hoaxters, such as John Morris, claim that they even went through
ANOTHER small room to finally get to the so-called
gaschamber at the south end of Leichenkeller.

>Ho”ess told of 1/3 of the victims in the gas chamber,
>those immediately near the Zyklon B introduction columns, dying
>immediately when the Zyklon B was introduced.
Did the Germans open the cans of Zyclon and
pour them down all four vent holes at the same time?
What skilled synchroneity!
Hoess’s story has more holes in it than your porous
pillars

“Gradually, over months on the Internet, it was disclosed to me that the
line separating Science (Revisionism) and Dogmatisim (Exterminationism)
passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political
parties–but right through every human mind–and all human minds.”

–David Cole–

From [email protected] Fri Jul 5 06:39:21 PDT 1996
Article: 48417 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.structured.net!
news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!news-res.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.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: 4 Jul 1996 17:39:43 -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

Jul 1, 1996 (Mark Van Alstine) wrote

>> Furthermore, I believe that the drainage system works and I
>> known that the inside walls are generally intact.

>And your basis for such assumptions, Mr. Allen?
Been there, seen it.

>> This would indicate that the original floor is still there waiting for
>> somebody to find bolt holes in it.

> >> 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.
>
> >Considering that the “little chimneys” were probably brick,
> >do you find this suprising Mr. Allen? How can you tell the
> >bricks from a little chimney apart from bricks in rubble? Or from
>bricks
> in a pile of other bricks elsewhere?

> Yes, it is suprising. The bricks, (if that is what you want
> to claim the chimneys were made of) would have been
> cemented to the roof both to hold them in place and to
> create a water tight seal to keep rain and snow from
> going into the room below.

>And. Mr. Allen? Are you asserting that no indications that these >”little
chimneys” now exist on the roof of L.Keller 1, Mr. Allen.
YES
>And that >because of this said “little chimneys _never_ existed?
AND YES

From [email protected] Sat Jul 6 08:00:52 PDT 1996
Article: 48598 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
newsfeed.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: 6 Jul 1996 04:04:26 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 91
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]bf02.news.aol.com>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On Jul 5, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote:

>The caption to Document 46 (_Technique_, pp.228-229) reads as >follows:

>”Concrete cover with metal handle, weighing about 20 kg, >origionally
made
>for the manhole of documents 44 and 45, now next to the remains >of an
>opening on the roof of Leichenkeller 1 (the gas chamber) of >Krematorium
>II, through which Zyklon B was poured.”

>Note that it is “an opening on the roof of Leichenkeller 1.”

You are wrong about what Document 46 shows.
Document 46 is a picture Pressac took to prove his point
that the “covers” that are next to the two “traditional”
vent holes on the roof of Leichenkeller 1 are really from
the manholes. Pressac MOVED the cover next to a manhole
to show that the cover “belonged” with the manhole.
The picture was not taken on the roof of the Leichenkeller.
I repeat, Document 46 is not a picture of any of the
“traditional” vent holes.
I do have some good news for the Truth seekers on this
thread. I found my pictures of vent hole D (the furthest to
the South). This is the hole that no Exterminationist dares
to photograph. I will send them up to Bradley Smith to
post or see if I can do it here.

> >>Furthermore, your “observsation” regarding the lack of “bolt >holes”
> applied to the roof of L.Keller 1.
> It appears that you are agreeing with me that I am right
> about there being no bolt holes on the roof.
> [snip]
>
> > Perhaps you would care to explain away all the above
> >evidence for the existance of these “hypothetical” Zyklon B
>introduction
> columns?
> I will, after I pin you down on the physical evidence
> existing at the scene of the crime.

>Mr. Allen, considering your above problem as to your intellectual
>abilities regarding the Zyklon B introduction hole in the roof of
>L.Keller
>1, I would suggest you be more concerned about not “pinning” >yourself in
the foot!
Mark, you are looking at the WRONG hole, boy. I hope that you
don’t have this problem in other fields too.

>> Remember, it has only been a few weeks since you admitted >>that the
>> Leichenkeller roof still exists.

>Mr. Allen, I have “admitted” that the roof of L.Keller has existed for
>many _months_. In fact, I have never denied it’s _existance_, I >have
>simply questioned how much of it was _intact_.
Gee, you sound as sophmoric as John Morris. Didn’t you
write something about “grass growing in the hole?” Anyway, you are
getting up to speed now.

> [snip discussion of strenght of column.]

>Oh? And why is this? I rather enjoued this discussion. I _do_ hope >we
can continue with it soon….
I don’t have the time to research the accounts of the victims’
reactions to being gassed. The stories range from people
singing patriot and religious songs, to screaming, to ripping
the rebar ventilation covers off and smashing the peephole
in the door to the Leichenkeller. The latter accounts would
conflict with your wire and tube Zyclon introduction device.

> >And your reply to this is to “hypothesize” that there were no “bolt
> >holes” in the floor? Simply amazing.
> What is amazing is that no one has ever found the bolt holes in
the floor necessary to sustain your story that there was a porous column.

>And who has looked for them? Nobody to my knowledge yet. >Certainly no
scholars of repute that I know of.
Ha! Then you should be eager to the corroborating
evidence which elegantly confirms your theories and
confounds all those dratted Revisionists.
Actually, there have been at least two archeological
investigations of the Leichenkeller. One by Polish authorities after the
war and one by some Germans in the mid-1960’s
> No bolt holes equals no columns.
>Actually, your empty assertions equals no argument.
I am not making an assertion. I am proposing a method
to TEST our respective views. You insist that the pillars were _anchored_
to the floor. And not attached to the ceiling. Ergo, bolt holes. I say
no signs of
attachment-no pillars.

From [email protected] Sat Jul 6 12:40:48 PDT 1996
Article: 48693 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.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: 6 Jul 1996 02:53:49 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 27
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthY wrote on 04 Jul 1996

>Let’s see — we all agree that, if there are bolt holes >there, the bolt
>holes would be on the floor, directly underneath the four >evenly-spaced
>insertion holes on the roof.
Yes

>We may disagree about whether those four holes are >there, but we can
>all point to those four evenly-spaced locations, without >much problem.
Actually, you can’t disagree. The roof is there
sans vent holes. However, I know what you mean, ie.
if the roof were not there, then we could still estimate
were on the floor the bolt holes would be.

>The question before you, Ceacaa, is:

>Is there any way we could observe those four places on >the floor?
Not all four. 35% of the Leichenkeller is easily
accessable. 75% of the floor is accessable with
some crawling. Therefore, 3 floor sites should be
visible without excavation.

>In other words, does the small crawl-space under the >collapsed ceiling
>of L.1, Krema II extend far enough that one could >photograph one of
>those locations on the floor?
Certainly 2, possibly 3

From [email protected] Mon Jul 8 08:50:49 PDT 1996
Article: 48975 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.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 Jul 1996 20:07:43 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 71
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON Jul 5, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote

>Just to clarify things, Mr. Allen, did _you_ actually go to >Auschwitz
and
>carefully examine the remains of the floor and drainge system of >the
Krema II’s L.Keller 1? If so, did you document this?
A triple conjuctive sentence! Yes and no and yes. Yes.

> >> This would indicate that the original floor is still there waiting
for
> >> somebody to find bolt holes in it.
>

> Perhaps you would care to walk through _all_ your assumptions,
>citing all corrobarating evidence, step-by-step for us?

That the floor is there? Sure, but first would you state
your position regarding the existence of the floor. I have
been informed that other persons are interested in this thread,
have been recording our words and plan on publishing them.
Therefore, I would like to get you “on the record” as it were.

#> >And. Mr. Allen? Are you asserting that no indications that these
#”little
#> chimneys” now exist on the roof of L.Keller 1, Mr. Allen.
>> YES
#> >And that >because of this said “little chimneys _never_ #existed?
> > AND YES

>Then please explain, Mr. Allen, the photo of Krema II, taken by the
>Bauleitung, that _clearly_ shows three “little chimneys” on the >roof of
L.Keller 1 (_Technique_, p.340, photos 17/17a). I am >_still_ awaiting
what must be a very illuminating answer….
Well, let’s start Revisi… er, Scientifically. When was the
photograph taken? Early in the construction. Pressac
guesses that it was between 9th and 11th of February 1943.
But the source of the photograph is L’Album D’Auschwitz.
They identify the photo (pg. 210 of the French version)
as La photo P.M.O. neg. n. 20995/504 date a peu de
janvier 1943.
This is odd because we are also informed that the
pour for the roof of Leichenkeller 2 Crema 1 was done
on January 25th or 26th (see Technique, pg. 338 Photo
14). That would mean that Leichenkeller 1 would have to
have been completed (with little chimneys installed) prior to
Leichenkeller 2 even having its roof poured. Hmmm.
There is an earlier picture of the roof of Leichenkeller 1
clearly without anything on its roof. Technique pg. 373.
It is hard to tell since there is a light covering of snow
on the roof, but the roof may be just the concrete slab without the
asphalt layer and the concrete cap.
It is not much earlier though, since the crematory furnaces have been
working. Note the melted snow. I would guess
that the picture was taken the day of the test firing. We
can track down that date. By the way, the picture on pg 373
proves what I have been writing that the vents were “put in”
after the roof was poured.
Then if we look at pg. 341 of Teccnique we see a
later photograph of the roof of the Leichenkeller.
Pressac notes that the “Zyclon-B introduction chimneys
scarcely visible”. Can you see the “chimneys” in the picture?
They definatively are less prominate than in the photos on
340.
I am have trouble with the photos on pg. 340. I cannot
tell anything about the state of Leichenkeller 2. I am also
wondering what the small square object under the middle
of the 5th window from the left (west). Is it on the roof too or beyond
the Leichenkeller?
CEACAA

From [email protected] Mon Jul 8 08:50:50 PDT 1996
Article: 48981 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.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 Jul 1996 21:05:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote on 06 Jul 1996

>The question then appears to be:

>Why have no “revisionist scholars” decided to test this >theory?
Money. Also, I would doubt that the Auschwitz camp
authorities want anyone to make a careful survey of
Leichenkeller 1. Finally, you are asking that Revisionists
“prove” the nonexistance of the boltholes. You must
understand that the supposed location of the vent holes
has “moved” over the last three years from the
“traditional” location as shown on the model of Crema
II at the Auschwitz State Museum to an “in-line”
arrangement.

>Why have we not seen careful maps of the floor of L.1 >showing the lack
>of signs of attachment, thus providing evidence for the >truth of
revisionist” claims?
Money
They should probably be done in much the same way that Pressac shows a
careful map of the _ceiling_ of L.1, showing the _presence_ of signs of
attachment of the dummy showerheads, thus providing evidence for the
truth of historians’ claims.

>Pressac’s photographic study of the ceiling was done at >least seven
>years ago. Why have no revisionists conducted a study of >the floor in
>the last seven years?
Money

From [email protected] Tue Jul 9 07:36:59 PDT 1996
Article: 49119 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
newsfeed.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: 8 Jul 1996 16:37:47 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 45
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote on July 7

> Then please explain, Mr. Allen, the photo of Krema II, taken by the
> Bauleitung, that _clearly_ shows three “little chimneys”

>Ceacaa then went on to write a lot of verbiage about the >photograph:
words without any apparent point or conclusion.
[snip stupid attempt at recapitualtion]
What is the point of all this?
Maybe you have a problem with analytical method, Jamie?
To put it simply, for your simple mind, since you are
confused by the dates I cite, What if the
photograph were taken in 1942? What would that mean?
I doubt if you even understand.

>Look, the photograph shows chimneys in the roof of
>Leichenkeller 1, right?
WRONG.
>Apparently we can agree on that much, because Ceacaa has not
>denied it anywhere in the morass of digressions he posted.
Wrong again
>What Mark Van Alstine and I would like to know is: if there
>were at
>least three chimneys on the roof of L. 1, when the photo was taken,
>how does Ceacaa reconcile this with his view that there
>never were any holes for those chimneys in the roof?

Sorry to bore you with the facts but it is pretty obvious
that the three boxes shown on the roof of Leichenkeller 1
were not “little chimneys”. The dates and facts of construction
of Crema II make this obvious. Conflicts with other photographic
evidence also makes this obvious. Finally, and decisively,
there are no holes in the roof where the boxes are sitting.
In fact, it is pretty obvious what the boxes are, if you
can be bothered to look at them and look at other pictures
of the construction site of Crema II and III.
Since I detect that you are a committed Hoaxter,
eager to believe any “proof” supporting the proposition
that there were mass gassings at Crema II, I was laying
a groundwork of accepted facts, from which the discussion
could proceed. I have wasted my time.
In short, the three boxes are just that, three boxes of
roofing material laid out at the job site.
Ceaaca

From [email protected] Tue Jul 9 07:37:00 PDT 1996
Article: 49152 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
portc01.blue.aol.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 Jul 1996 18:05:54 -0400
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

ON July 5, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote

>Then please explain, Mr. Allen, the photo of Krema II, taken by the
>Bauleitung, that _clearly_ shows three “little chimneys” on the >roof of
L.Keller 1 (_Technique_, p.340, photos 17/17a).
It does not clearly show three “little chimneys” unless you want to
believe that is what the three boxes are. In fact,
it is pretty clear from the date of the photograph, that the
three boxes could not have been “little chimneys”. Of
course, other evidence also rebutts the
claim that the boxes are little brick chimneys.
The photograph was taken in late January 1943.
see. L’Album D’Auschwitz. (pg. 210 of the French version)
as La photo P.M.O. neg. n. 20995/504 date a peu de
janvier 1943.
When one looks at the schedule of events that Pressac gives
regarding Crema II. see pg. 223 of Technique it is clear that completed
“vent holes” in January were way out of sync with the rest of the project.
Pressac writes that the work on the ventilation system of Leichenkeller 1
was worked on from March 1 through March 7 of 1943. Plans for a further
ventilation/heating system were also drafted in March. That is the same
time period when the door to Leichenkeller 1 was ORDERED (March 6). Both
the door and the ventilation system would be necessary to make
Leichenkeller 1 a gas chamber. A modification in either the door or
ventilation system could eliminate the need for ventholes in the roof yet,
if the picture does show “chimneys”, they would have to have been planned
and installed well over a month prior to other requisite parts even
having been ORDERED.
Another anomaly appears in timing if we agree that the
vents were not part of the original pour. (which I think is
generally admitted). That is, the pouring of the concrete
and the creation of the holes and chimneys would have had
to have happened within days of each other. This would
require a change in plans of the Leichenkeller sometime
early in January, 1943.
Another anomaly exists between the photos on page 340 and the aerial
photograph which showed FOUR marks spaced equidistant down the roof of the
Leichenkeller.
Of course, for me, the determinative fact, is that there
are NO holes in the roof at the locations of the three boxes
in the pictures.
Thus, the facile claim that the three boxes are “proof”
of anything is very weak and is supported more by a desperate eagerness to
believe than anything else. The claim that the picture proves your
“little chimneys” theory is contradicted by 1) documents of
construction, 2) other photographs and 3) physical evidence at the site.

From [email protected] Tue Jul 9 11:52:22 PDT 1996
Article: 49191 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
news1.io.org!winternet.com!n1ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!news.nstn.ca!
newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!
news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!nntp.coast.net!news-res.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.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 Jul 1996 18:07:17 -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

However, let’s look at the pictures as closely as we can.
The pictures of the three boxes are not clear but
it appears that the three boxes are covered with a light snow. That
makes sense since we can see from the rest of the picture that a light
snow has fallen.

That would mean that the objects are covered or have a top.
It also means that the top of the box is not warm enough to melt snow, ie.
it is not connected to the room below.

The top of the boxes also seems to be square, ie. there is not lip or
overhang around the edges of the boxes or a handle on top.
In fact, the boxes look just like boxes.

But if the three boxes are are NOT Homocidal
vent chimneys, what are they? Probably the three boxes
had something to do with the construction process.

Remember that the roof of Leichenkeller 1 was not a single layer but was
composed of at least three layers, including an ashpalt layer of damp
proofing. In January, 1943, it is likely that the roof of Leichenkeller 1
was incomplete but was in the process of having the last two layers put
on.
This would tie its construction in with that of L. 2. We know that the
roof pour of L2 was just taking place.
Therefore, I would propose that the three boxes are just that, three
boxes. As an aside, I worked for awhile as a carpenter. On any large
job, materials and lumber were
laid out on the job prior to starting the actual work. This
is exactly what happened in this picture. The slab of the
roof was poured, it was then to be waterproofed or treated.
Do similar boxes appear in other photographs of the
construction site? Of course! And, as would make sense,
in conjuction with treating a concrete floor. In both photo
1 and photo 1 pg. 332 of Technique there are similar, if not
identical boxes, sitting on the the newly poured
roof(floor) of the main crema building.
The boxes as boxes theory ties the date of the picture in with a actual
schedule of construction of Crema II and does not conflict with any other
known
facts.

CEACAA

From [email protected] Tue Jul 9 14:22:35 PDT 1996
Article: 49243 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!imci3!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 Jul 1996 21:49:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote on 07 Jul 1996
#> > Why have no “revisionist scholars” decided to test this theory?
>> Money.

>Didn’t you just offer to fly John Morris to Auschwitz, all
>expenses paid?
I offered $600 but Morris chickened out.

> Also, I would doubt that the Auschwitz camp
> authorities want anyone to make a careful survey of
> Leichenkeller 1.

>No, I don’t imagine they would be too happy with Holocaust-deniers
>poking around the ruins of Auschwitz, and particularly crawling >around
in the very site which saw more mass murder than probably >any other
single room in the history of mankind. I can’t blame >them for that.
Whether the room “saw” any mass murder is the question
being discussed. You are probably genuflecting at the wrong spot.
However, the very fact that you BELIEVE that Leichenkeller 1
“saw” so many murders show impell you to want to
investigate the site.
As to the duty of Museum officials to allow an archeological
investigation of the site: Of course they should!

>Still, Leuchter went fence-hurdling to avoid the guards, so I don’t >see
>why this would be any different. Not that I’m encouraging >revisionists
>to do this sort of thing. It just seems odd that respect for >authority
is being offered as a reason, that’s all.
Looking at the visible ruins is one thing. Digging in
the rubble and spending the time mapping the floor is
a timeconsumming different thing. Further, camp officials
have become far more guarded in allowing contact with
the public since they were caught on film making
embarassing admissions.

>> Finally, you are asking that Revisionists “prove” the nonexistance of
>> the boltholes. You must understand that the supposed location of the
>> vent holes has “moved” over the last three years from the
>>”traditional”
>> location as shown on the model of Crema II at the Auschwitz >>State
Museum to an “in-line” arrangement.

>Fair enough. Over the last three years, you say? I’ll have
>to go check
>Pressac again but I think I remember that Pressac strongly >criticized
the Museum’s model, and that was seven years ago.

>> Money
>> Money

>Didn’t you just offer to fly John Morris to Auschwitz,
>all expenses paid?
See above. An archeologic investigation of the site
would cost $20,000 to $50,000 and would be opposed by
everybody from the Polish Tourist Board to various
religious groups. It will have to wait another 25 years or so.

From [email protected] Wed Jul 10 06:53:24 PDT 1996
Article: 49397 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!news.his.com!news.frontiernet.net!
news.texas.net!nntp.primenet.com!news.cais.net!hunter.premier.net!
news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.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 Jul 1996 01:55:32 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 79
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON Jul 9, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote:

>But, of course, Mr. Allen, this has nothing to do with the
>fact that you now claim that the “little chimneys” were
>boxes of roofing material left on the roofs of the L.Kellers for >nearly
18 months!

The aerial photograph shows 4 marks on the roof of
Leichenkeller 1, not three, and, more importantly, shows
the marks in different locations than the boxes in the
late January 1943 photograph.
It contradicts the January photograph!
HOLES CAN’T MOVE AROUND IN CONCRETE.

Why is it that you Hoaxter guys have such problems with holes?
Morris thinks the Germans “forgot” to put the holes in; Pressac thinks the
holes “shifted” because of the collapse of the roof; Keren can’t count
holes, you mix up manholes and vent holes?
HOLES CAN’T MOVE AROUND IN CONCRETE.

Of course, the simple fact, written in concrete, is that
there are NO HOLES at the location of the boxes in the
January 1943 photograph.

Of course, the starting point is that the one clear photograph that
we have of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II, Technique pg. 373 shows
NO HOLES. This picture (taken in midjanuary) was probably taken just a
few days before the picture with the boxes (late January). Again, the
starting point of any discussion is that the roof was poured without
holes.

Since you now have learned (hopefully) that the roof
has 3 layers, you will also realize that the laying of the
asphalt layers (or layers) as well of the pouring of the
concrete cap, let alone the chipping of your alleged “vent
holes” and the building of your little chimneys could not
have taken place in the time between the holeless picture
of midJanuary and the one with the boxes. (late January)

Since you now know that the door to Leichenkeller one
was not ordered until March 10th you will recognize that it is out of the
normal order of events to claim that the “vents”and chimneys were designed
and built 1 1/2 months earlier.
ie. if you are putting in vent holes you know you are going to need a
gaschamber door too, why wait to order it?

Since you know that the ventilation system was still
being designed and installed in March you will recognize that it is out of
the normal order of events to claim that the “vents” and chimneys were
designed and built by late January since the design and installation of
the ventilation system could effect the need for “vent holes”.

Since I have pointed out to you that the snow on the
Leichenkeller roof has melted in the box picture but seems
to still be on the top of the boxes you can figure out if warm air was
rising out of holes in the roof inside the boxes.

In short, whatever the boxes on the roof were, the
evidence is massive that they were not little chimneys
around vent holes.

My guess that the boxes were just that, boxes, is
supported by the shape of the objects, the snow on
them, the fact that similar boxes show in other
photographs of the Crema II construction site
particularly in relation to “finishing” a concrete floor,
the fact that the roof was in the process of
have a waterproof layer and/or a concrete cap put on
and, therefor, more material was to be delivered to
the job, and then general observation that materials
are laid out at a job site prior to commencment of
work.

If anyone plans to write to me (or reads these
postings), they should know that I am going to be
away for two weeks and will not be able to respond.
A pleasant summer to all. Ceacaa

From [email protected] Wed Jul 10 14:57:33 PDT 1996
Article: 49476 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.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 Jul 1996 16:06:37 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 76
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]com>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

> ON July 10, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote
> >Then please explain, Mr. Allen, the photo of Krema II, taken by the
> >Bauleitung, that _clearly_ shows three “little chimneys” on the >roof
of
> L.Keller 1 (_Technique_, p.340, photos 17/17a).

> It does not clearly show three “little chimneys” unless you want >to
believe that is what the three boxes are.

>It cuts both ways, Mr. Allen. The difference being is that _I_ can >point
to multiple independant pieces of _evidence_
>that indicate that they are indeed “little chimneys,” while _you_ >cannot
“support” _your_ thesis
>wthout resort to wild speculation.
You call it “wild speculation” to see boxes of roofing
material on a roof during a roofing job?

>> In fact, it is pretty clear from the date of the photograph,
>>that the
>> three boxes could not have been “little chimneys”.

>Nope. It only your wishful interpretation that, for
>some as yet unspecified reason, you assert that
>L.Keller 1 could not have been
>completed before L.Keller 2 was.
You have missed my point. Projects usually work in
phases. L 1’s ceiling has its first pour, then L2’s; L 1’s steel
is put in, then L2’s, etc. We know that in late January
Leichenkeller 2 was having its second roof pour, that would
imply that L.Keller had its final pour and was ready for
application of waterproofing.
> Of course, other evidence also rebutts the claim that the boxes are
little
> brick chimneys.

Nope. To date you ahve offered no such “other” evidence. (See below.)

> The photograph was taken in late January 1943.
> see. L’Album D’Auschwitz. (pg. 210 of the French version)
> as La photo P.M.O. neg. n. 20995/504 date a peu de
> janvier 1943.

Pressac cites this photograph as being taken between February 9 and 11,
1943. It is part of the “Kamann series” which also includes photos 14-16
(_Technique_, pp.338-339).

> When one looks at the schedule of events that Pressac gives
> regarding Crema II. see pg. 223 of Technique it is clear that
completed
> “vent holes” in January were way out of sync with the rest of the
project.

Let us examine the relevent chronology of Krema II:

>Photo 14 (Ibid, p.338) shows the the roof to L.Keller 2 being >prepared
for the pouring of the final layer of concrete. The date is >January 25 or
26, 1943.
That is true. You are claiming that L.Keller 1 is waterproofed,
roofed, had vent holes knocked in, and little chimneys built by
the same date.

>In the summary of Kirschneck’s inspection report, dated January >29,
1943,
>he wrote (Ibid. p.214):
[snip report]
>[Pressac notes: “In fact it was oficially handed over on 31/3/43, a
>month and a half late.”]
Yes, Pressac does… what are the rest of Pressac’s comments
on the validity of the reports. They are relevant to the
discussion of the progress of the work.
Pressac, pg. 217 Technique, ” Then Bischoff, in response to a
request…for a progress report, sent the Prufer report off to
his chief…informing him that Krematorium II was completed
and claiming it was operational, WHICH WAS FAR FROM THE
CASE. (emphasis added).

From [email protected] Thu Jul 11 07:22:30 PDT 1996
Article: 49565 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
torn!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!
news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!portc01.blue.aol.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 Jul 1996 10:24:23 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 28
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON Jul 8, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote:

> And? Your point, Mr. Allen? That the “little chimneys”
>should be less visable after the _berm_ over the roof was
>added is hardly suprising….

Berm over the roof? Having learned that the roof and
the floor exist you have gotten too excited and are adding things now.
The roof was made of three layers
and does not appear to have been covered with earth. Some plans of the
Leichenkeller show it covered with earth, some do not. However, the
photographs taken at the
Liberation of the show a clean, although broken, roof.

This supports the Exterminationist position to
some degree in that it shows the Germans were
less concerned with insulation of the Leichenkeller.

____________________________________________________

“Gradually, over months on the Internet, it was disclosed to me that
the line separating Science (Revisionism) and Dogmatisim
(Exterminationism) passes not through states, nor between classes, nor
between political parties–but right through every human mind–and all
human minds.”

–David Cole–

From [email protected] Thu Jul 11 07:22:31 PDT 1996
Article: 49620 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!news.jumppoint.com!n2van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!
ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!news.inforamp.net!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!
newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!solaris.cc.vt.edu!
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: 10 Jul 1996 15:55:12 -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

[snip Bischof’s memo and discussion of “Vergasunskeller.”]
“Vergasunskeller” is an interesting subject but I
would like to stick to the subject of the construction
schedule of our porous pillars.
>Clearly, the construction of L.Keller 1 was completed before >L.Keller 2.
>Both L.Kellers, and Krema II, were “completed but for minor >details” at
>this time. Therefore it is safe to assume that the roof of L.Keller 1
>was
>completed by the end of January 1943.
You are relying on a report which was admittedly a month
and a half out of schedule. Pressac is right about the
reports!
How can you cite the photographs of the roof of Leichekeller
2 being poured as being taken between February 9 and 11,
1943. photos 14-16 (_Technique_, pp.338-339). and claim
that the project was substantially completed two weeks earlier?
Except for the admittedly optomistic report of Prufer
all documentary and photographic evidence shows that
work on the Leichenkellars 1 and 2 of Crema II was progressing
in late January 1943 and they were being roofed in this period
or later. Of course, the end result is that the Crena II was not
completed until March 31, 1943.

>An interesting aside is that on Febraury 10, 1942, work began on >making
an opening in Krema III’s L.Keller 2 for the _western access >stairway_.
This was completed on February 15, 1942. (Ibid. p.217.) >Obviously, such
things
>as cutting concrete to “retrofit” the L.Kellers for homicidal
>use was undertaken. Why not “vent holes” in the roofs as well?
Perhaps. But we are talking about what a picture taken in late
January/early February shows. You are telling me that other
possible homocidal modifications took place AFTER the latest possible date
of the “box” picture.
In fact, I believe that ALL the allegedly homocidal modifications
of the Leichenkeller occurred after the latest possible date
of the “box” picture.

From [email protected] Fri Jul 19 07:29:21 PDT 1996
Article: 51329 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.fibr.net!
nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.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: 19 Jul 1996 00:52:40 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 27
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON Jul12, 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote:

> CEACAA wrote:
>> The aerial photograph shows 4 marks on the roof of
>> Leichenkeller 1, not three, and, more importantly, shows
>> the marks in different locations than the boxes in the
> late January 1943 photograph.
> It contradicts the January photograph!
> HOLES CAN’T MOVE AROUND IN CONCRETE.

>Mr. Allen, the Bauleitung photo of Krema II that shows the three >”little
>chimneys” also shows that the chimney of Krema II was >incomplete. Yet in
>the aerial photographs that show the Kremas with four “little >chimneys”
>Krema III has a completed chimney. By your (above) reasoning the >photos
>would “contradict” each other because of this! Such a conclusion, >of
>course, would be erroneous because the two photos were taken at >(widely)
>different times from each other. The Bauleitung photo was taken >while
the
>Kremas were still under construction and the air
.photo was taken well
>after they were completed.

You lost me on this one. The Bauleitung photo shows
three boxes; the aerial photograph of Aug. 25, 1944 shows
4 marks in DIFFERENT locations on the roof.
HOLES CAN’T MOVE AROUND IN CONCRETE.

From [email protected] Fri Jul 19 07:29:22 PDT 1996
Article: 51330 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.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: 19 Jul 1996 01:07:39 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 36
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Reply to Van Alstine 7/12
The picture of three boxes is tenuous proof that there
are holes UNDER the boxes. Your repeated presentation
of the photograph is more indicative of your
desire to believe than of the probative value of the
picture. Clear and direct evidence which
rebutts the strained inferences you would draw
about what might be under the boxes.

1. There are NO holes in the roof where the boxes were:
2. A picture taken earlier (days or weeks) clearly shows
NO holes in the roof:
3. No other Holocaust story claims that there were THREE
holes:
4. The picture was taken at a time when the roof was
probably being waterproofed and/or having a concrete
cap applied:
5. The installation of “vent holes” in late January is out of
syn with the rest of the construction schedule of
Leichenkeller 1 Crema II. Of example, ventilation
system was not complete until March 13th.
6. The picture itself shows the snow melted on the roof
but not on the top of the boxes.

Mark, your insistance that there “really are vent holes
under the boxes in the picture” is as stupid as your
insistance that a picture of a manhole totally off the
roof was a “vent hole” in the roof. You have tried to
make your point. Move on to something new.

“Gradually, over months on the Internet, it was disclosed to me that the
line separating Science (Revisionism) and Dogmatisim (Exterminationism)
passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political
parties–but right through every human mind–and all human minds.”

–David Cole–

From [email protected] Fri Jul 19 07:29:23 PDT 1996
Article: 51371 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!
op.net!netaxs.com!tezcat.com!imci5!imci3!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: 19 Jul 1996 01:01:49 -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

Reply to Van Alstine 7/12

>> Since you now have learned (hopefully) that the roof
>> has 3 layers, you will also realize that the laying of the
>> asphalt layers (or layers) as well of the pouring of the
>> concrete cap, let alone the chipping of your alleged “vent
>> holes” and the building of your little chimneys could not
>> have taken place in the time between the holeless picture
>> of midJanuary and the one with the boxes. (late January)

>Really? I would disgaree, Mr. Allen. You seem to think,
>for unspecified reasons, that holes for the Zyklon B
>introduction columns could not be
>made in the roof in a “few days.”
“Could not” is too strong. “Unlikely” is more correct.
>
> Since you know that the ventilation system was still
> being designed and installed in March you will recognize that it is out
of
> the normal order of events to claim that the “vents” and chimneys were
> designed and built by late January since the design and installation of
> the ventilation system could effect the need for “vent holes”.

Mr. Allen I’ve dealt with these phony issues of yours in another post. To
recap, however, let me point out that the gas-tight door to L.Keller 1 you
speak of was for Krema III. Your claim that the ventilation system was
“being desinged” in March is false, as the ventilation system was simply
modified slightly to preheat L.Keller 1 with hot air from the forced
draught installation. Your concern over the ventilation system being
finished in March (work on the Krema II’s ventilation system was begun in
February) “could effect the need for ‘vent holes'” is specious as L.Keller
1’s ventilation system was desinged to aerate/deaerate the L.Keller from
the begining.

In short, Mr. Allen, your claims are baseless and without merit.

Your claim that Crema II was “complete” at the end of
January 1943 is incorrect. Pressac spends several pages
describing the large amount of work done in the first
weeks of March. See Technique pg.s 223 et seq.
As a example Pressac writes, On 10th March, Messing worked
for SIXTEEN HOURS straight, testing the ventilation and
air extraction systems of Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II.”
emphasis NOT added.
In March, plans for a warm air system were considered.
This is exactly the type of system that
would have been used in the Degesch system
(utilizing Zyclon) and which would have made the
“drop down the vent holes” method useless.

>> Since I have pointed out to you that the snow on the
>> Leichenkeller roof has melted in the box picture but seems
>> to still be on the top of the boxes you can figure out if
>>warm air was
>> rising out of holes in the roof inside the boxes.

>A specious comparison, Mr. Allen. L.Keller 1 did not have 5
>tripple-muffle
>Topf furnaces burning away in it. The furnace hall of
>Krema II did. The
>furnaces were probably operational some time between
>January 24 and 29, 1943. (cf. Ibid., pp.211, 213).
You missed the point, Mark. In the “little boxes”
picture, the snow has melted from the ROOF of the
Leichenkeller but not from the top of the boxes.
The boxes appear to be insulating the snow from the
heat of the Leichenkeller, not conducting warm air
up out of the Leichenkeller.

From [email protected] Fri Jul 19 16:19:48 PDT 1996
Article: 51480 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!globe.indirect.com!imci4!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
news.fibr.net!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.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: 19 Jul 1996 00:53:38 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 32
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ALSTINE WROTE ON 7/12
So too, for the same reason, is your assertion of a
>”contradiction” in the
>number of “little chimneys” also erroneous. Obviously,
>in the Bauleitung photo, not all the “little chimneys” had been
>contructed when the photo was taken. When the (much)
>later air photos of the _completed_ (and
>operational) Kremas were taken the “little chimney”
>that was “missing” on
>Krema III’s L.Keller 1 in the Bauleitung photo had
>been erected.

While it is possible to add holes to the concrete roof
it is unlikely that the Germans would cut, waterproof,
and build one chimney and then go on through the same
process with the next chimney. The expected and common
method of building would be to cut FOUR holes and then
have a crew of masons build FOUR chimneys.
Unless you want to claim the Germans ADDED another
hole at a later date, the Bauleitung photo shows three complete square
boxes and nothing at all which indicates that a
fourth chimney is being built.

>> Why is it that you …guys have such problems
>>with holes?
[snip]
>> HOLES CAN’T MOVE AROUND IN CONCRETE.

>And you, Mr. Allen, are grasping at straws with
>such absurd conjecture.
You lost me again.

From [email protected] Sat Jul 20 14:45:13 PDT 1996
Article: 51684 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.sprintlink.net!news-dc-10.sprintlink.net!news.inc.net!
newspump.sol.net!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!chi-news.cic.net!nntp.coast.net!
oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!nntp.primenet.com!uunet!inXS.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: 19 Jul 1996 00:55:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

REPLY TO VAN ALSTINE 7/12

>> Of course, the simple fact, written in concrete, is that
>> there are NO HOLES at the location of the boxes in the
>> January 1943 photograph.

>By “January 1943 photograph” I assume you mean the
>Bauleitung photo (cf. _Technique_, p.373) that shows
>L.Keller 1 with snow on its roof and no
>”little chimneys?”
No, the box picture. Ain’t no holes in the roof where
the boxes was. I know ‘cus I’ve been there and looked.
Of course, there ain’t no holes in the Bauleitung photo
either.
>So? If the holes were not made when the roof
>was poured, could not the
>holes simply be made in the roof afterwards, Mr. Allen?
>It would seem a rather mundane task, I would think,
>to make holes in the concrete roof.

The holes could have been made afterward, although
it would have been very much easier to box them in prior
to the pour.
Cutting SQUARE holes is actually rather hard to do.
Particularly, if you do not want to have something
called “overcuts” and particularly is you are cutting through
rebar. Round holes are very much easier to cut.
This leads to the question, Why square holes?
Why not round holes and a pipe column?

>> Of course, the starting point is that the one
>>clear photograph that
>> we have of the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II,
>>Technique pg. 373 shows > NO HOLES. This picture
>>(taken in midjanuary) was probably taken just a
>> few days before the picture with the boxes
>>(late January).

>The time between the two photos, Mr. Allen is certainly under >dispute.
You say a “few days.” By the dates for the phots that >Pressac gives, it
>appears to be a few _weeks_.

>> Again, the starting point of any discussion is
>>that the roof was poured
>> without holes.

>An irrelevent “starting point,” Mr. Allen.
A truculent response!` The discussion is about the
existence of “vent holes” on the roof of Leichenkeller
1 of Crema II. The fact the the roof started without vent
holes is highly relevant. It is also intertesting to note
that the conversion of the Leichenkeller to a gaschamber
(if it ever occurred) happened after this date.
The “snow on the roof” Bauleitung photo
(cf. _Technique_, p.373) shows that the roof started out
WITHOUT vent holes.

From [email protected] Sat Jul 27 11:56:55 PDT 1996
Article: 53561 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-res.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.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 Jul 1996 19:24:50 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 14
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On Jul 20, 1996 Jamie McCarthy wrote

>You say these items were boxes of roofing material.
>One quick, simple question: why would boxes of roofing
>material be so tall?
How tall and wide do you think the boxes are in the
picture?

Also please simply post your comments.
I do not wish to receive your posts in my mailbox.
This address is a collective site.

From [email protected] Sun Jul 28 07:10:22 PDT 1996
Article: 53795 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.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: 27 Jul 1996 18:03:22 -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

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 20 Jul 1996

>Here’s another one for Mr. Allen: The damp
>proofing material used in the
>L.Kellers was bituminous felt (cf. _Technique_, p.202).
>So where are these _rolls_ of “roofing material,” Mr. Allen?
>I don’t see_rolls_ of tar paper on the roof of L.Keller 1,
>Mr. Allen. Do you?
Gee Mark. Just a few weeks ago I was having
to painfully pound into your Hoaxter brain the fact
that the roof consisted of THREE layers, including a
layer of waterproofing. Today you have the pretension and
unmitigated gall to lecture everyone on the composition
of the roof. Of course, you are wrong. The roof was not
waterproofed with”tar paper”.

Further, the waterproofing material for the roof
was not necessarily
the same for the walls or floor. If you read my earlier
posts on the subject, I do NOT say the roof waterproofing
system (to use the Americanism for “type of application”)
is a simple tar and paper system. I do not think it is.
You will NOT see rolls of tar paper.

The three boxes shown in the photograph may have
been connected with any one of several steps in
the finishing of the Leichenkeller 1 roof slab or of
the application of the waterproofing layer or
of the concrete cap. These steps would have been
taken in the period Jan. 20 1943 through completion
of the project in March. The period 1/20 – 2/20 is
the likely period for waterproofing of the roof.

I regard Jamie McCarthy as the Tertullian of the Hoaxter
set. However, I found the following post in my mailbox
and wondered if Mark VanAlstine agreed with
the estimations of height-width given.

Date: Sat, Jul 20, 1996 12:12 AM EDT
From: [email protected]
X-From: [email protected] (Jamie McCarthy)
To: [email protected]

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
alt.revisionism)

Mr. Allen, these items photographed on the roof of L.1
are skinny. At a rough approximation, the left two
items are twice as tall as they are
wide. The right items is fainter and blurrier,
and looks about four times as tall as wide, but
it’s difficult to say for sure.

Here’s another one for Mr. Van Alstine then:
Is Jamie right?
******************************************

“Gradually, over months on the Internet, it was disclosed
to me that the line separating Science (Revisionism) and Dogmatisim
(Exterminationism) passes not through states, nor between classes, nor
between political parties–but right through every human mind–and all
human minds.”

–David Cole–

From [email protected] Wed Jul 31 13:57:59 PDT 1996
Article: 54611 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!netaxs.com!hunter.premier.net!
news.cais.net!chi-news.cic.net!newspump.sol.net!news.inc.net!
arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!
uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!psinntp!psinntp!portc01.blue.aol.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: 30 Jul 1996 20:05:58 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 70
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine made
the following post relevant to the size
of the alleged “little chimneys” claimed
to have been on the roof of Leichenkeller
1, Crema II.

Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
From: [email protected] (Mark Van Alstine)
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 12:37:38 -0700
Message-ID:

[snip]
>Given that the holes in the roof
>were about 70 cm x 70 cm; the fixed part of the Zyklon B >introduction
columns extended through the
>ceiling and about 40 cm above the concrete roof; that the introduction
columns were likely surrounded by bricking
>and/or concrete since they have
>been described as “little chimneys” and
>”short concrete pipes” (probably
>similar to the reconstruction of the Zyklon B
>vents found at Krema I)

For readers of this thread, these “little chimneys”
were a necessary attribute of the claimed vent holes
in the roof of the Leichenkeller. These “vent holes”, in turn, are needed
to support claims that Zyclon was
poured into a primative wire and tube contraption
called a “porous pillar”.
The “porous pillar”, in turn, allegedly held an “inner
porous pillar” which in turn, it has been speculated,
held a little cone devise which was needed to
disperse and retrieve the used Zyclon.
Belief in this Rube Goldberg device of little chimneys,
porous pillars, little cones, wires, tubes
and vent holes is NECESSARY to sustain faith in the
the story that Leichenkeller 1 “probably killed more people …than both
the atomic bombs dropped on Japan did.
And for a fraction of the cost.” as one Exterminationist
Pundit oddly put it.
The roof of the so-called “gas chamber” still
exists and can be inspected. People who have the good
sense and the time, simply go to the scene of the crime and examine the
alleged “murder weapon.” Of course, there
are no holes in the roof that were “vent holes”, no signs
of “little chimneys”, no bolt holes are fittings for
“porous pillars”. It is actually quite simple.

However, a photograph of Leichenkeller 1 taken in late
January early/ February of shows three boxes on the roof. This discussion
arose because of Exterminationist claims that these three boxes were
“proof” that there were holes UNDER the boxes.

Back to VanAlstine’s posting.
If the “little chimneys ever existed,
must have fit around the porous pillars, that is, the chimney must have
been approximately 40 cm. tall and
70 cm. wide plus the width of two courses of bricks.
Roughly 40 cm. tall and 90 cm. wide.

A review of the picture shows that the
demensions of the “boxes” are just the opposite
of what they would be if they were “chimneys”.
They are, quoting Jamie, two to four times as
high as wide. Hey, Mark, Do you think the Germans
built the chimneys on there sid

CEACAA

From [email protected] Mon Jul 1 09:08:01 PDT 1996
Article: 47287 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!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 Jun 1996 01:03:54 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 67
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com