Article 1, Allen Andrew

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:

> On April 14 John Morris wrote:


> >I can see why this retreat might be necessary: the explanation
> >that you offered was pretty much of a bust.
> Actually, the theory that the three existing holes were
> created as part of the demolition process seems to becoming
> the Standard Exterminationist Explaination.


Ceacaa, that’s a pretty amazing statement. It is also untrue. The claim
that “the three existing vent holes were created as part of the demolition
process” was origionally put forward by none other than yourself, and to
which the traditionalists, myself included, have never (to my knowledge)

To whit:

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:
“My belief is that three holes were chipped through the roof as part of
the demolition process in November or December of 1944.”

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:
“My assumption that the holes were part of the demolition process arises
>from the state of the holes, not from any expert understanding of
demolition. The holes presently on the roof are of irregular shape,
varing size, chipped in after the roof was origninally poured. The rebar
of the roof is still in the holes, cut in one place and bent out of the

In addition, Ceacaa, you have made several other past claims regarding the
holes through which Zyklon B was introduced which I am now, having
procurred a copy of Pressac’s _Techique_, prepared to address in detail:

Claim 1:

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:
“I have been into the so-called gaschambers of Crema II and III. There are
no remains of any porous pillars. The structure’s roof is built of
poured-in-place concrete. The pattern of the woodforms is visible in the
concrete, as are holes for fitings and conduit. Anything which was
attached to the ceiling would have left holes or fittings. There are none
around the 3 “vents” through which the pellets were poured and the porous
pillars attached.”

Response to Claim 1:

As to the alleged lack of any retaining fixtures in the ceiling for the
Zyklon B introduction columns, this would be in accordance with the fact
that the columns passed _through_ the roof of the L.Keller and was likley
surrounded by a “chimney,” much like that found in the reconstruction of
the Zyklon B vents of Krema I (_Technique_, p.150), which would firmly
hold the top of the column in place.

The fixed portion of the introduction column was approximately 3 meters in
length. If you were to study the Huta drawings 109/13A and 109/14A of
21/9/43 (_Technique_, pp.322-325), you would see the inside dimension for
the floor to ceiling height of L.Keller 1 to be 2.40 meters and that the
roof of L.Keller 1 is about 26 cm thick. This would imply that the fixed
portion of the introduction columns protruded about 40 cm above the
concrete roof of L.Keller 1. This is in general accord with Piper’s
description that says: “…they passed through openenings in the ceiling,
ending outside as little chimneys closed with a concrete cover equipped
with two handles.” (_Anatomy_, p.167.)

Claim 2:

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:
“The vent holes are crudely chipped in. Re-enforcing steel rods are in the
roof. These rods transversed the holes. The re-bar was cut in one place
and bent out of the way at the vents. Whoever chipped the holes in the
roof did not even bother to finish cutting the re-bar., it is still in

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:
“I repeat that I am talking about roof of Leichenhalle 1 Crema II.
Although there is a hole in the ground at the site of the alleged
gaschamber there is something in the hole. I had hoped that J. Morris
would make a clear response to my request for confirmation what is there.
All readers of this thread should rely on Pressac. Please refer to Pressac
Technique & Operation at page 354….”

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:
“…You would come to a conclusion regarding the roof of the alleged
gaschamber by reference to the sources upon which you normally rely. I
refered you to Pressac _Auschwitz Technique …_ at page 354 et seq. I
would hope that other informed persons would confirm my personal

Response to Claim 2:

In regards to the photo on page 354 of _Technique_ being a Zyklon B
introduction hole, Pressac indeed states that this is one of the _two_
remaining Zyklon B introduction holes. However, I see no evidence (as you
claim) that the “rebar of the roof is still in the holes, cut in one place
and bent out of the way.” What I see are some bent or flattened weed/grass
stems protruding into the left of the hole. There is no evidence of any

Furthermore, a close-up photograph of a Zyklon B introduction hole of
L.Keller 1 of Krema II also shows no evidence of rebar in it, nor does it
appear to be
“crudely chipped in.” (Document 46 and caption, _Technique_; pp.228-229.)

Claim 3:

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:
“My question to you, to be answered once we can agree on how much of the
roof still exists, is “How many of the vent holes exist today?” I say

Response to Claim 3:

Pressac states that there are TWO remaining Zyklon B introduction holes in
the roof of L.Keller 1 of Krema II (Photo b”’ and caption, _Technique_;

Where is your evidence, Ceacaa, of the third remaining Zyklon B
introduction hole?

It is also important to note that on the memorandum acknowleding the
receipt of Krema II there were FOUR Drahtnetzeinscheibvorrichtung (wire
netting inserting devices) listed, which clearly implies that there were
FOUR Zyklon B introduction holes in the roof of L.Keller 1. (_Anatomy_,
p.233; _Techique_, p.232, 430.) An Allied air photograph of Krema II,
taken on August 25, 1944, appears confirm that there were FOUR holes in
the roof of L.Keller 1, as they show FOUR “chimneys” on its roof. (_Air
Photo Evidence_, p.46. Source: National Archives Air Photo Library,
Washington, D.C.; RG 373 Can F 5367, exp. 3185.)

Claim 4:

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ceacaa) wrote:
“But my question is what to make of a conflict between the document and
what is on the site today, for example the document says the mesh pillar
was 70 cm by 70 cm but the holes are all less than 40 cm?”

Response to Claim 4:

The existance and size of the vent holes are confirmed by Document 46 and
caption, and the Bauleitung drawing 1300 (_Technique_, pp. 228-229,297). A
measurment of the drainage manholes in drawing 1300 gives the size of the
manhole to be about 60 cm x 60 cm. Document 46 show the _manhole_ cover in
the photo to be smaller than the Zyklon B vent hole. Given that the
introduction column is described as going _through_ the roof (_Anantomy_,
p.167) it is very likely then that the dimensions of the Zyklon B vent
holes were about 70 cm x 70 cm, which corrosponds to the dimensions of the
fixed portion of the Zyklon B introduction column that would pass through


posted/e-mailed to Mr. Morris, Dr. Keren, and Ceacaa.

“Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties–but
right through every human heart–and all human hearts.”

— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “The Gulag Archipelago”

From [email protected] Thu May 30 20:44:46 PDT 1996
Article: 40264 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected] (Mark Van Alstine)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 15:18:40 -0700
Organization: rbi software systems
Lines: 168
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Newsreader: Yet Another NewsWatcher 2.0.5b5