Article 0996, Allen Andrew

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 02 Sep 1996 [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:

> >> The starting point of the discussion was that
> >> most (90%) of the orginal slab roof exists.
> >> Would you agree with this? I am asking you
> >> in your capcity as a Nizcor expert.
Mark’s answer (a hesitating reluctant answer) is
below in the second part of this reply.

>> Is this the same Mark VanAlstine who wrote >>contentiously:
>> The roof didn’t have three layers but “consisted
>>of just two
>> layer [sic], which sandwiched the damp-proofing >>between them.”?
>Yep.
Yep? Well, Mark, you’re a fool but a proud fool.

From [email protected] Tue Sep 3 07:43:46 PDT 1996
Article: 61861 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.emf.net!
gatech!nntp0.mindspring.com!news.mindspring.com!newspump.sol.net!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!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: 3 Sep 1996 00:43:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 51
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mike Curti swrote on 01 Sep 1996

[email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:

> > Anyway, the whole roof is about in the same intact
>> condition as the 35% that Pressac crawled under
>> and took a picture of.

>Who claims it was 35%? How can one tell
>if it is 35%? Define intact?
>Intact to me means that it is full and unbroken,
>complete.
Coherent. One can look at the pieces and easily discern
what the original roof was like.

> The complete roof is there.

Complete in what form?

>> It wasn’t blown up but was dropped into the room
>> below.

>This usually happens when things get blown up.
>Are you suggesting that
>this structure wasn’t blown up?
Blown up means blown UP^. The roof wasn’t. The
supporting columns were blasted and the roof dropped.

>> You know that a large percentage of the roof is in
>> reasonable condition. Why would the rest of the
>> slab not be in the same condition?
You didn’t answer the question, Mike.

>> Anyway, how can we resolve the question?
You didn’t answer the question, Mike.
>> What would it take to convince Mark VanAlstine
>> that the roof “is there” and how do we marshall the
>> evidence?
You didn’t answer the question, Mike.

>I don’t think the question is that there are
>forms of the roof there.
Yes. It is exactly the question. And it is the starting
point of any rational discussion of the so-called
gaschamber at Crema II.
>I think the question concerns what can
>be said about what is there.
Once we all admit that the roof is still there then
we can proceed to see if there is any evidence of the
so-called gaschamber.

From [email protected] Wed Sep 4 07:04:59 PDT 1996
Article: 62109 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!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: 3 Sep 1996 23:37:43 -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 02 Sep 1996 (Ceacaa) wrote:

#> >> The starting point of the discussion was that
#> >> most (90%) of the orginal slab roof exists.
#> >> Would you agree with this? I am asking you
#> >> in your capcity as a Nizcor expert.

#>> You know that a large percentage of the roof is
#>>in reasonable condition.
#>> Why would the rest of the slab not be in the same condition?

>Why _should_ it, Mr. Allen?

>> You even admit that you cannot be certain about
>>the remaining 70% of the
>> roof, yet you get on my case for saying that it is a
>>coherent set of pieces.

>Indeed I do, Mr. Allen. Deservedly so, I might add.
I don’t expect Mark VanAlstine to have the
brains or honesty to admit that most of the
roof of Leichenkeller 1 is still in a coherent
form. It would be nice if he could try not
to dissemble so much.

>> What would it take to convince Mark VanAlstine that the roof “is
there”
>> and how do we marshall the evidence?

>Unequivoicable evidence, Mr. Allen. Like a detailed and
>objective examination of the ruins. With photos.
I am always amazed at the LACK of information the
Nizcor bunch has regarding the present condition of
the most important physical evidence of mass killings
at Birkenau. I am also amazed that you can equivocate
for months in answering a simple question, “How much
of the roof is still there?”
Months ago I suggested that somebody we all more or
less trust go make your “detailed and objective
examination. Unfortunately, Morris the Hoaxter
chickened out.
While disappointed in Morris’ craven behavior, it
still remains the most resonable way of confirming
the Revisionist position.
So, Mark, do you know any honest Exterminationists
out there who know what a slab of concrete looks
like and have more sense of honor than Morris?

______________________________________________
Scientific Revisionism, firmly based on empirical data
is Most Excellent. Heard at meeting of bicycle messagers
8/31/96

From [email protected] Fri Sep 6 10:59:34 PDT 1996
Article: 62941 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!
usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!
news-pen-4.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!
news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!news.inc.net!
newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news-peer.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: 6 Sep 1996 10:45:57 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 57
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON Sep 4, 1996 Mike Curtis wrote:

(Ceacaa) wrote:
>
>#> >> The starting point of the discussion was that
>#> >> most (90%) of the orginal slab roof exists.
>#> >> Would you agree with this? I am asking you
>#> >> in your capcity as a Nizcor expert.
>
>#>> You know that a large percentage of the roof is
>#>>in reasonable condition.
>#>> Why would the rest of the slab not be in the same condition?
>
[snip]

>Pot. Kettle. Black. This type of discussion is
>going know where. He
>doesn’t have to admit to a thing until you
>give him a reason to admit
>to something. IOW _you_ have to be convincing.

VanAlstine is not doing ME a favor by admitting
that the roof of Leichenkeller 1 is a coherent but
broken whole. He owes it to the Truth.
I doubt that Mr. VanAlstine would be convinced by me
about anything even if I had a halo and wings. BUT
there is enough evidence to suggest that I might be right,
therefore VanAlstine, Keren, et al. have a duty to
due a little investigation of their own.

>You have have to be specific about how you arrive
>at your points.
I went to Auschwitz/Birkenau and climbed around on and in
the ruins of Crema II. The concrete slab of the roof should
still be there. Even a cursory viewing would substantiate
what I have been posting, ie. the roof of Leichenkeller 1 is
still there. Pressac has clear pictures of the southern
30% of the roof which shows the general condition of the
slab. David McCalden did a pretty good video which shows
the roof. David Cole the same. I ain’t asking anyone to take
my word for nothing.

>After all, it is you who
>claims to be a revisionist. So the burden of revisionism
>is clearly in your court. Historical revisionism is
>not an easy chore, I know. You,
>however, have chosen to accept that burden. Along with that >acceptance
goes the work.
You are right but this has turned out to be
Sisyphean. While I expected some tendentiousness,
the Exterminationists who post on this thread
are obdurate. It is not as if I am asserting any
complicated theory. I claim that a several ton
slab of concrete is presently lying in a Polish
field; ready for anyone to bump their toe or
theories on.

From [email protected] Sat Sep 7 09:23:12 PDT 1996
Article: 63090 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!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news-peer.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: 6 Sep 1996 10:46:22 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 61
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I do not know that the present condition is the most
>important
>physical evidence or evidence of mass killings at
>A-B. This is your
>claim. You are tasked with justifying that this
>assertion is in fact
>true. I haven’t seen much from you at all.
>I’ve seen pictures posted
>by Nizkor (not Nizcor).

[snip]
>> Months ago I suggested that somebody we all more or
>> less trust go make your “detailed and objective
>> examination. Unfortunately, Morris the Hoaxter
>> chickened out.

>Well, considering the name you called him just now,
>I doubt that he
>would mean your standard of mutual trust.
I would trust Morris in a situation where he couldn’t
avoid the truth. Confirming that the roof of Leichenkeller
1 is still there is such a situation.

>You guys want to
>FUND a two
>man trip, I’d even go.
I am still good for about a $350 contribution. That may
not be much but I have gotten involved investigating what
is probably the 2nd most important historical/psycological
mystery of the 20th Century.* Donations may be made to
support vital research into this historical question.

>> While disappointed in Morris’ craven behavior, it
>> still remains the most resonable way of confirming
>> the Revisionist position.

>Give me the URL to your article please. Seems I’ve
>lost your original
>claim because of all the dust being tossed around.
I don’t understand what you mean by “my orignial article”.

> So, Mark, do you know any honest Exterminationists
> out there who know what a slab of concrete looks
> like and have more sense of honor than Morris?

>It wouldn’t be yurself, I can tell. I’m extremely disappointed
>at the sense of integrity you so another human being here.

Most Exterminationists on this thread are not much more
than prevaricating obfuscators. It is irritating to argue
whether a twenty ton slab of concrete is really lying in
a Polish field with people claiming to be “experts” on
the Holocaust. I’ve cited some pretty good pictures of
Pressac and some pretty good Revisionist video’s.

*send to: Committee to Investigate Why the French Like
Jerry Lewis.

From [email protected] Sat Sep 7 11:51:21 PDT 1996
Article: 63199 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.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 Sep 1996 11:05:15 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 33
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

(Miloslav Bilik wrote on 04 Sep 1996

>Is anyone here to explain, what’s the difference
>between a roof made
>of three layers, and a roof made of two layers
>which sandwitched a
>third damp-proofing layer ?

>I doesn’t unsderstand it.

Pane Bilik:
Don’t feel badly if you don’t understand it. It doesn’t
make any sense but VanAlstine keeps repeating it because
it is his most powerful and intellegent argument so far.

VanAlstine first presented it on Aug. 10:
CEACAA wrote
>> Remember that there were two layers of roof over
>>the original slab.
That is not in accordance with the construction drawings,
Mr. Allen. The roof consisted of just two layer [sic], which
sandwiched the damp-proofing between them.
(Now known as the VanAlstine Theorem)

I would also like to inquire if you are still willing to
travel to Auschwitz/Birkenau to investigate some of
the questions which have arisen on this thread? John
Morris was unable to complete his promised task.
I hope that we could raise the cost of travelling
expenses on this thread. Please post reply.

From [email protected] Sat Sep 7 18:06:51 PDT 1996
Article: 63281 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!eloi.vir.com!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!
new-news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!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: 7 Sep 1996 14:04:59 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine) writes 04 Sep 1996

>More ad hominems? Obviously,
>you have nothing else to
>offer this discussion except your typical denier insults and >hypocrisy.

After denouncing personal attacks, Mark goes on to
present HIS arguments:

>the denier “position” (i.e. bent over with
>head-up-ass).

> are you _always_ such a stupid fuck?

Pot, Kettle, Black, Mark? Or can’t you see the contradiction
contained in your posting?
CEACAA

P.S. We are all waiting for you to clearly state your position
on the condition of the roof. Please try.
P.P.S. Your “theory” on layers (the VanAlstine Theorem)
is really confusing everyone (see 9/4 posting of Biak
as example). Maybe you should take a little break for
a week or two, smoke a J, try and get laid, you know,
chill. Trying to defend the Hoaxter position is
clearly getting to you.
P.P.P.S. Picture of vent will come soon!

From [email protected] Sat Sep 7 21:44:55 PDT 1996
Article: 63328 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!nntp.teleport.com!news.serv.net!news.cstone.net!
news.accessone.com!news.sprintlink.net!news-ana-24.sprintlink.net!
news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!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: 7 Sep 1996 15:09:38 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 57
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

New Subject raised below:

To be honest (I always am), I have
gotten tired of waiting for Mark VanAlstine
and the CyberHoaxters to come up with
a clear admission that the roof of Leichenkeller 1
Crema II (the roof of the so-called gaschamber)
is still there in several large but coherent pieces.
The evidences supporting the Revisionist position are
numberous photographs taken by Pressac, video’s
taken by David McCalden (available from Bradley Smith),
and eyewitness testimony.

Mark and the CyberHoaxters haven’t come up with
any reasonable explaination as to why there are no
holes in the roof which could have been the infamous
gasvents.

So while we wait for some brave Exterminationist to
go look at the scene of the crime, view the “murder weapon”
and report back, let’s move on to a totally new area of
Revisionist debate;
Security at the Birkenau Cremas.

I put foreward the amazing proposition that the windows
of the guardtower guarding the western (back) fence and
Crema III could NOT have been opened.

Remember that the Standard Holocaust Mythology (SHM)
has hundreds of thousands of persons being tricked into
going down two little stairways for an underground
shower in either Crema II or Crema III. All that kept
anybody from running into the fields and woods at the
west end of Birkenau camp were two guard towers.
The windows in one tower (south tower) were a type
of vertical sliding panes, but the windows of the
north tower could NOT even have been opened!!
Thus, any guard who wanted to shoot an escaping
prisoner had to break the window first!

To compound the security problem of dealing with
hundreds of thousands (or millions) of soon to be
murder victims:
1. The west end of the camp had several drainage
ditches which would provide full concealment and
led out of the camp.
2. There was no fence or gate on the west end of
the broad “Lagerstrasser”
3. The view from the northern tower was blocked by
a large tree.

Also remember that SHM has hundreds of “Sondercommandos”
living in the two Crema building (all condemded to death).
What are we to make of the German’s security arrangments???

From [email protected] Sat Sep 14 08:50:38 PDT 1996
Article: 65408 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.uoregon.edu!
enews.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
news-peer.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: 14 Sep 1996 10:49:48 -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

Ken Lewis wrote on 10 Sep 1996

>Strange that you have to vouch for your
>own honesty.
>No one else willing to go out on a limb
and do it for you?
Ken: Now that you’ve made a stab at
insults, can you answer the question
I posted about security at Birkenau?
Or have you just expended all your wit
and wisdom?

From [email protected] Tue Sep 17 09:10:45 PDT 1996
Article: 66332 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!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.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: 16 Sep 1996 22:34:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 23
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Security at Crema II and III

According to Standard Holocaust Mythology (STM)
Crema II and III were the home of hundreds
of “Sondercomandos”. These were healthy
men who supposedly ran the gas chambers.
They organized and sorted the clothing
and belongings of hundreds of thousands
(or millions) of victims. Every few months
(STM) they were all killed.
One would imagine that the security arrangements
guarding these condemed men would be rather
high, especially as the Soviet armies approached
the Camp.
Oddly enough, the records and plans of the
Cremas LACK any sign of heightened security.
No bars on windows, on locks on doors, no
special fittings such as bolt holes. As noted
in a posting of several days ago, Crema III
was only watched by a small guardtower with
windows that didn’t open!
Exterminations have no explaination for this.

From [email protected] Sat Sep 21 09:50:45 PDT 1996
Article: 67237 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!uunet!
in2.uu.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!
news.msfc.nasa.gov!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: 20 Sep 1996 20:14:06 -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

:Brian Harmon wrote on,17 Sep 1996

Ceacaa wrote:
>
> Security at Crema II and III
>
>> According to Standard Holocaust Mythology (STM)
>> Crema II and III were the home of hundreds
>> of “Sondercomandos”. These were healthy
>> men who supposedly ran the gas chambers.
>> They organized and sorted the clothing
>> and belongings of hundreds of thousands
>> (or millions) of victims. Every few months
>> (STM) they were all killed.

>And your citation for this is ???
You’re asking me what you Exterminationists believe?
If you don’t believe it, just say so and we can move
on to something else. However a typical cite would
be Martin Gilbert’s anthology of myths and fairie tales
(with a few true stories thrown in) HOLOCAUST.
As example of numbers and condition of
“Sonnderkommando” and need
for security see pg. 656-656
“on February 24, two hundred of the eight
hundred prisoners in the Sonderkommando
were transported to Majdanek”

>a few questions:

> 1) how do you know there were _hundreds_ of
> Sonderkommando at any given time?
See above

> 2) What makes you say they were healthy?
See above. SHM is that they were hand-picked.

>> One would imagine that the security arrangements
>> guarding these condemed men would be rather
>> high, especially as the Soviet armies approached
>> the Camp.

> Why would it need to be any higher than the rest
>of the camp? they were on the _inside_ of a well guarded
>extermination camp loaded with soldiers and guns?
This is not true. Cremas II and III were located at
the far Western end of the Camp. A single line of
wire seperated then Cremas from the woods and
fields surrounding Birkenau Camp. Drainage ditches
and trees provided cover for escape. These Cremas
had next to NO security.

From [email protected] Sat Sep 21 09:50:46 PDT 1996
Article: 67265 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!
n3ott.istar!ott.istar!istar.net!winternet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!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: 20 Sep 1996 21:06:16 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 42
Sender: [email protected]02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy writes 17 Sep 1996
Brian Harmon wrote:

>> Why would it need to be any higher than the rest
>> of the camp? they were on the _inside_ of a well guarded
>> extermination camp loaded with soldiers and guns?
This is not true. Cremas II and III were located at
the far Western end of the Camp. A single line of
wire seperated then Cremas from the woods and
fields surrounding Birkenau Camp. Drainage ditches
and trees provided cover for escape. These Cremas
had next to NO security. In the very complete records
of supplies for the building, the photographs of it,
and the existing ruins, no Exterminationist can
find any sight or trace of a barred window, a prison
grade lock or anything else which would be used
to control hundreds of men condemed to death.

>Exactly. The Sonderkommando were treated
>better than most of the rest
>of the Jewish inmates — according to the accounts
>I’ve read, they ate
>better and had a heated place to sleep in the winter.
Sure, like on top of Crema ovens at 1,200 degrees.

>(Until they were killed, of course, but they never
>knew exactly when
>that would be, and 90% of the remaining Jews
>in the camp would be
>killed anyway.)

>Where could they have run to?
Into the Tatra Mountains
>What would have been gained?
Their lives.
>What exactly is Ceacaa proposing
>is wrong with this picture?
A deathrow with no bars, or no security. Don’t make no
sense.

From [email protected] Sat Sep 21 15:07:08 PDT 1996
Article: 67399 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!imci5!imci4!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: 20 Sep 1996 21:03:30 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 56
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote on 17 Sep 1996

(Ceacaa) (Andrew Allen) writes:

# One would imagine that the security arrangements
# guarding these condemed men would be rather
# high, especially as the Soviet armies approached
# the Camp.

>They were.

Gee, Dan. Try looking at a picture of the completed
Cremas. Pressac Technique pages 342 and 343 have
such pictures. One wire fence. No lights. No guard towers
except at westend of buildings. No bars on windows. No gate on exit to
Camp.

# Oddly enough, the records and plans of the
# Cremas LACK any sign of heightened security.
# No bars on windows, on locks on doors, no
# special fittings such as bolt holes.

>What plans? Who said *all* the plans survived?
Pressac. See Technique. As an example of records
Pressac cites a 103 page book of Bauleitung
Orders concering the four Crema. pg. 91.
Also see the “turn over” list of equipment
dated march 1943.
>Who
>said that every tiny detail would appear in the plans?
Pressac. See Technique.
>Every bloody lock on the door would appear in the plans?
Locks are expensive. More expensive than many items
which appeared on the plans.

# As noted in a posting of several days ago, Crema III
# was only watched by a small guardtower with
# windows that didn’t open!

>Says who?
Keren, I am suprised and shocked that you don’t
know such simple and obvious facts. I thought you
were holding yourself out as a Holocaust Resource
or something.

>You’re really desperate, aren’t you?
Bored waiting for you Hoaxters to admit the
roof is there with no vent holes in it. Desperate
in the fight for the Truth.

>-Danny Keren.
What happened to the quote from Lu Xun?

From [email protected] Sun Sep 22 07:51:48 PDT 1996
Article: 67577 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!
news-dc-5.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.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: 22 Sep 1996 01:30:35 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 25
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Richard Schultz WROTE ON 18 Sep 1996

: Obviously the poor man suffers from chronic ITCPA
: (Inability To Create Proper Acronyms).

>Don’t you mean IOCPA (Inability To Create Proper >Acronyms)?

>FWIW, I believe that ITCPA stands for
>Incompetent, Totally Confused
>Photographic Analysis — from which he also suffers.

—–
Richard Schultz [email protected]
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
—–
I’m sorry if I hurt you when I fell asleep last night,
But I was just exhausted from the act of being polite.

It appears that Schultz thinks that the discussion
about the homicidal gaschambers should be
carried out with vulgar personal “witisism”.
Here, Dick, I will make another typo for you
to giggle at. Tens of thousands of persons
surffered and died at Auschwitz but not millions.

From [email protected] Wed Sep 25 01:57:37 PDT 1996
Article: 68572 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!
news-peer.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: 24 Sep 1996 23:09:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 66
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 21 Sep 1996
Re. Security at Crema II and III

>Mr. Allen, may I direct your attention to
> _Air Photo Evidence_, pp. 38-39?
You may.
There, if you dare, you will see that the
>Holocaust denier, Mr. Ball, has,
>from the May 31, 1944, aerial photo of
>Birkenau (RG 373 Can D 1508,
>exp.3055), identified the guard towers
>surrounding the Kremas.

>In fact, from the map Mr. Ball so convientantly
>provides (p.38),
Glad you are finally using some more reliable
sources. Even so, the map on pg. 38 (not prepared by Ball but
>from the Auschwitz Museum) is not correct in the
placement of the towers. The tower which is shown
at the Western end of the
LagerStrasse was really 10 meters further to
the South. This
is evident from the photograph Ball provided on
pg. 39.

> one can
>see that the four guard towers at the western
>perimeter of Kremas II and
>II are but part of the 37 (as identified by Mr. Ball)
>perimeter guard
>towers surrounding the Birkenau extermination camp.
>However, examining
>Photo 17 bis (_Technique_, p.341), one can also see that
>there is _also_ a guard tower at the _eastern_
>perimeter of Krema II, between Camp B-Ib and
>the grounds of Krema II.

If you look at the AUSCHWITZ ALBUM Random House New York
pg. s 4, 15, and 19 you will see three pictures of wide central
road of the camp, which included the so-called Ramps.
These pictures all look to the west. These photographs
show clearly that there were no guard towers on the
eastern perimeter of Crema II. The one large and one
small guard towers (exactly as I described) are visible at
the far western end of the camp.

A small unoccupied
platform is visible in two of the pictures. Are you
claiming this platform is a watchtower? On what
basis? There are three pictures of the small structure
on three different occasions (including a so-called
selection) and the structure is never occupied.

The perimiter of the camp was guarded by a line of
one large tower and then two small towers.
The large towers were two story, with a small
first floor room. (For non-US that would be 2nd floor).
The windows on the top floor of the large towers could
slide open vertically.

Crema III appears to have been guarded by one
small tower only on its western side. At one time
there may have been a platform (which VanAlstine
claims is a “guardtower”) on the northern side of
the central corridor.

From [email protected] Wed Sep 25 07:38:44 PDT 1996
Article: 68665 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!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news-peer.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: 24 Sep 1996 20:37:39 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 76
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Mark Van Alstine wrote on 21 Sep 1996
Re. Security at Crema II and III

>As to to the “one wire fence,” which was part
>of the perimeter fence
>system, you seem to have “forgotten,” Mr. Allen,
>that the perimeter fence
>system at the Birkenau extermination camp was
>electrified (cf. _Anatomy_,
>p.503) -as were the fences surrounding the Kremas:

I had not forgotten that. The wires were held to
the concrete posts by white ceramic insulators.

But even an electrified wire fence
is easily snipped, knocked down, or shorted out.
50 or 60 Sondercommandos should have gone
through the fence with no problem, let alone
the 500 men supposedly in each Crema (SHM).
As you should know, the Sondercomandos were
(again SHM) workers equiped with many tools
useful in going through a wire fence. They
had shears, pliers, iron bars, etc. etc.
Compare the securtiy at the Crema with the
security at the Main Auschwitz Camp. Main Camp
had a WALL, lights, multiple electrified fences,
and closer guard towers.

BUT MORE IMPORTANT IS THE PHOTOGRAPH OF
MAY 31, 1944. This photograph shows that there
was not even a fence around Crema II. More
accurately, the fence only went 3/4 around the
building. In May 1943, there was no physical
barrier to keep Sondercommandos from walking
out of Crema II and into the woods!!!!
NO FENCE, ELECTRIFIED OR NOT. NO FENCE-NO WALL.
Only The good Soldier Schweik and his 6 shot
Mausner between 500 condemned men and
freedom.

The prisioners walking away from Crema II would
have had to pass between two of the small guard
towers but they would have been screened from sight
by water purification tanks in an area not lighted.

>Furthermore, Mr. Allen, your claim that there
is “no gate on [the] exit to
>[the] Camp” (the ramp actually) in the photos
>on pages 342 and 343 is
>quite in error.
[snip]
You missed what I posted, try reading it again.
The enclosures around the Cremas had TWO gates
on the sides facing into the “ramp” or large central
street which ran the length of the camp. They
also had at least one and perhaps two gates on the
side opposite to the central coridor.
The Crema enclosures had LOTS of gates.
What did NOT have a gate, fence, or wall
of wide central road of the camp. This would have
been more important for crowd control of the
hundreds of thousands of victims tricked into
believing that they were going to take an
underground bath. The wide central area also
had at least two drainage ditches in it and
a tree in it! Some security.
Only The good Soldier Schweik and his 6 shot
Mausner between 500 condemned men and
freedom.

Thus the Aerial photographs show NO Gates
and, at least in May 1944, NO Fence around
Crema II.

From [email protected] Wed Sep 25 10:21:39 PDT 1996
Article: 68693 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!imci5!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
howland.erols.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: 24 Sep 1996 22:53:46 -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

Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
John Morris wrote on 22 Sep 1996

>Having considered the arguments of the Revisionist
>Brain Trust,
>represented by Messrs. Giwer and Allen,
>it is unclear as to why
>Birkenau was surrounded by guard towers
>and electrified barbed wire at all.

Having considered this argument of John Morris, I realize
why his incisive wit has gained him renown as
the Fibonacci of Ponoka. Of course, after his craven
backing out of his visit to Birkenau he should be known
as the FIB onacci of Ponoka.

Birkenau was surrounded by barbed wire
because it was established as a P.O.W. camp
for Soviet prisoners. Later tens of thousands
of Jewish civilians were imprisoned there.
The camp was so big because tens of thousands
of persons were living there.

However, as we can see from the aerial photograph
of May 31, 1944 the allegedly (SHM) high-security
Crema II did NOT have a fence around it. The
whole southeast side of the building was unfenced.

>Clearly, the Brain Trust will have to conclude
>that the inmates of
>Birkenau were in the camp of their own free
>will and that the wire and
>towers were there to keep someone out. I wonder who?
John, do you know what a “strawman” is?

> John Morris
>at University of Alberta

From [email protected] Wed Sep 25 20:05:05 PDT 1996
Article: 68857 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!nova.thezone.net!hookup!
gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!
spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!
nntp.primenet.com!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!
news-peer.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: 25 Sep 1996 19:39:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 49
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On 21 Sep 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote
trying to claim that the security at Crema II and III
was something other than very lax.

The story that there were hundreds of
“Sondercommandos” who worked away in
Cremas II and III at Birkenau is a key to
the belief that mass gassings occurred at
these locations. These Sondercommandos
were supposed to have helped move the
hundreds of thousands of victims into the
small stairway down into the underground
baths, gassed them, clipped hair, pulled teeth,
cremated bodies, sorted the victims clothes,
etc. Every two or three months
they were all murdered. SHM is that the
first job of a new set of Sondercommandos
was to cremate the bodies of their
predecessors. SHM is that 500 of these
condemed men were housed in Crema II
and 500 in Crema III.
Any signs of security relating to the Sondercommandos?

A visit to the ruins of the two Crema would
show that there are no signs of any security
necessary to contain hundreds of men condemed
to death: No lights, no bars on windows, no security
systems on doorways.
A review of the very complete plans and material
lists for the two Crema presented by Pressac in TECHNIQUE
reveals a TOTAL LACK of any security in either of the
two Crema buildings.
A review of numerous photographs of the buildings
presented in Auschwitz Album and other places
confirms that there were no modifications such
as bars on windows or doors, or exterior lighting
which would prevent escape by prisoners.
Finally a review of the aerial photograph of
MAY 31, 1944 shows that there
was not even a fence around Crema II. More
accurately, the fence only went 3/4 around the
building. The entire Southeastern quadrant of
Crema II had no physical barrier to keep
Sondercommandos from walking
out of Crema II and into the woods!!!!
The obvious conclusion is that Crema II and III
were not built as a high security facility.

CEACAA

From [email protected] Fri Sep 27 08:57:33 PDT 1996
Article: 69267 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!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: 25 Sep 1996 20:08:08 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 29
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Miloslav Bilik wrote on
24 Sep 1996

[email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:

>> As example of numbers and condition of
>> “Sonnderkommando” and need
>> for security see pg. 656-656
> > “on February 24, two hundred of the eight
> hundred prisoners in the Sonderkommando
> were transported to Majdanek”

>Yes. It was a reason for the uprise of the K4 further.
I am sorry but I am not sure of the story of the
uprising at K4. Would be please be so kind as to
explain. Also, are there still claims of a gun
battle at Crema II or Crema III between
prisoners and SS?

>I didn’t count the wires, but the first was electrified an >deadly.
>Some SK commit suicid with it.
That is the story. Please note that in the
May 31, 1944 aerial photograph, the fence does
NOT cover the southeastern part of Crema II.
So whatever the effect of an electricifed fence
would be, it appears irrelevant to security at
K.II at least prior to May 31, 1944.
Best

From [email protected] Fri Sep 27 08:57:34 PDT 1996
Article: 69272 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!news-peer.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: 27 Sep 1996 00:10:10 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 19
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On 21 Sep 1996 Mark Van Alstine wrote
regarding the security arrangements for
the “Sondercommandos” at Crema II and III.

I was wondering if Mr. Van Alstine could help
the readers of this thread with a synopsis of
the story of the “Sondercommandos”: How many,
what they were supposed to have done, etc.
However, since we want to do more than just
spin baseless stories, would Mr. Van Alstine
fill in the details of were all these “Sondercommandos”
slept, ate, bathed, etc.
We can all check the stories against the blue prints
of the Cremas, which were part of the masses of
documents the Germans left.

Nizcor is bedeviled by questions it can’t answer
and answers it can’t question.
Bradley Smith

From [email protected] Tue Sep 3 07:43:46 PDT 1996
Article: 61853 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!newshub.csu.net!
newshub.sdsu.edu!news1.best.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!
howland.erols.net!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: 3 Sep 1996 00:30:13 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 16
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com