Article 1096, Allen Andrew

Mark Van Alstine wrote on
26 Sep 1996
CEACAA wrote
>> 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.

>After you, Mr. Allen. Care to give it a go?
>I’m sure I’ll have _plenty_ to
>criticize regarding your typically abysmal “research.”

If you are sure you’ll “have plenty
to criticize” why not just honesty write what you
feel is the true story and have done with it?

Since you are the one who advocates belief in
Exterminationism, you should present your own views.
It is hard for a non-believer to do. As Pressac
writes, “The tendency to turn the history of the camp
into legend was very strong indeed in the 50’s…”

Of course, my “research” consists of having visited
the site and having an idea of what is actually
there at the “scene of the crime”.
There is NO possibility that 1,000 men condemed
to death worked and lived in the Crema II and III.
The security was low. There was not
enough space for sleeping, eating, or bathrooms.
Of course, SHM also has a foundry, a carpentry shop,
a dissecting room, a room for a doctor or two,
some SS guards, storage rooms, and a few other
uses all crammed into the two Cremas. This is on
top of storage of all the coal, the undressing room,
and the alleged gaschamber.

The Revolt of the Sondercommandos

The whole story of the “Revolt of the
Sondercommandos” is entirely a legend.

None of the Cremas show any sign of
having been the site of gun battles. There are
no bullet marks on any of the ruins of Crema II or III
nor on any of the bricks that remain from the
walls of Crema IV or V. Since the legend (or legends)
have Sondercommando revolts occuring at different
Cremas at different times and in different degrees of
intensity of fighting it’s rather hard to disprove all
the legends at once. However, the stories of prolonged
gun battles at Crema II or III are not supported by any
physical signs on the existing ruins.

From [email protected] Fri Oct 4 07:05:51 PDT 1996
Article: 71553 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!
istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!
newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!agate!spool.mu.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: 4 Oct 1996 01:05:26 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 120
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 01 Oct 1996
CEACAA wrote
#> >> I was wondering if Mr. Van Alstine could help
#> >> the readers of this thread with a synopsis of
#> >> the story of the “Sondercommandos

>> >After you, Mr. Allen. Care to give it a go?
> >>I’m sure I’ll have _plenty_ to
> >>criticize regarding your typically abysmal “research.”
>
>> If you are sure you’ll “have plenty
>> to criticize” why not just honesty write what you
>> feel is the true story and have done with it?

>Because, Mr. Allen, I would like to criticize what _you_ write.

>> Since you are the one who advocates belief in
>> Exterminationism, you should present your own views.

>If one wishes to better understand what I
>believe about the Holocaust, one need only read the works of the
>plethora
>of historians and Holocaust researchers
>who have written and researched
>the Holocuast.

Like Olga Lengyel?? Is she a solid source that
you rely on?

>> As Pressac writes, “The tendency to turn
>>the history of the camp
>> into legend was very strong indeed in the 50’s…”

>So?
So, the “Four Million Myth” was once part of
“history”, now you disavow it. What parts of
the Sondercomando story do you believe in
and what parts will you disavow?

> Of course, my “research” consists of having visited
> the site and having an idea of what is actually
> there at the “scene of the crime”.

>> There is NO possibility that 1,000 men condemed
>> to death worked and lived in the Crema II and III.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> The security was low.

No answer from VanAlstine

> There was not enough space for sleeping, eating, or bathrooms.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> Of course, SHM also has a foundry, a carpentry shop,
>> a dissecting room, a room for a doctor or two,
>> some SS guards, storage rooms, and a few other
>> uses all crammed into the two Cremas.

>So?
So you believe this stupid garbage? You are dumber
and more dishonest than I thought.

>> This is on top of storage of all the coal, the undressing room,
>> and the alleged gaschamber.

>So?
So what you call the “history” and I call the Standard
Holocaust Myth is wrong.

>> The Revolt of the Sondercommandos
>
>> The whole story of the “Revolt of the
>> Sondercommandos” is entirely a legend.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> None of the Cremas show any sign of
>> having been the site of gun battles.

>Oh, please, Mr. Allen. It hurts to watch
>you grasp at straws so. The
>Kremas were demolished by the Nazis with explosives.
There are extensive ruins. Take a look at Pressac
Technique. Ruins with no bullet holes. pg. 261, 257, 265
pg. 237 pictures of handrails of access stairways
pg. 232 pictures of doors.

>> There are no bullet marks on any of the ruins of Crema II or III
>> nor on any of the bricks that remain from the
>> walls of Crema IV or V.

No answer from VanAlstine

> Since the legend (or legends) have Sondercommando revolts occuring at
> different Cremas at different times and in different degrees of
> intensity of fighting it’s rather hard to disprove all
> the legends at once. However, the stories of prolonged
> gun battles at Crema II or III are not supported by any
> physical signs on the existing ruins.

No answer from VanAlstine

VanAlstine has no answer to some simple and clear
observations about the present condition of the
ruins of Crema II and III and Birkenau. Any visitor to
the site can see this. Anyone with photographs of the
ruins can verify the Revisionist point.
VanAlstine could win his point simply by pointing
to any evidence of any bullet hole anywhere on
the ample ruins. He cannot. Rather than address
this problem he “takes the offensive” with personal
insults and indignate posturing. Note that he obfuscates
the real or best Exterminationist story and
DENIES THE VALUE OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
AT THE SITE. The real “Deniers” are people
like Mark VanAlstine.

From [email protected] Sat Oct 5 08:55:05 PDT 1996
Article: 71832 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!ott.istar!
istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!
newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!agate!howland.erols.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: 4 Oct 1996 23:40:30 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 116
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 01 Oct 1996
CEACAA wrote
#> >> I was wondering if Mr. Van Alstine could help
#> >> the readers of this thread with a synopsis of
#> >> the story of the “Sondercommandos

>> >After you, Mr. Allen. Care to give it a go?
> >>I’m sure I’ll have _plenty_ to
> >>criticize regarding your typically abysmal “research.”
>
>> If you are sure you’ll “have plenty
>> to criticize” why not just honesty write what you
>> feel is the true story and have done with it?

>Because, Mr. Allen, I would like to criticize what _you_ write.

>> Since you are the one who advocates belief in
>> Exterminationism, you should present your own views.

>If one wishes to better understand what I
>believe about the Holocaust, one need only read the works of the
>plethora
>of historians and Holocaust researchers
>who have written and researched
>the Holocuast.

Like Olga Lengyel?? Is she a solid source that
you rely on?

>> As Pressac writes, “The tendency to turn
>>the history of the camp
>> into legend was very strong indeed in the 50’s…”

>So?
So, the “Four Million Myth” was once part of
“history”, now you disavow it. What parts of
the Sondercomando story do you believe in
and what parts will you disavow?

> Of course, my “research” consists of having visited
> the site and having an idea of what is actually
> there at the “scene of the crime”.

>> There is NO possibility that 1,000 men condemed
>> to death worked and lived in the Crema II and III.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> The security was low.

No answer from VanAlstine

> There was not enough space for sleeping, eating, or bathrooms.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> Of course, SHM also has a foundry, a carpentry shop,
>> a dissecting room, a room for a doctor or two,
>> some SS guards, storage rooms, and a few other
>> uses all crammed into the two Cremas.

>So?
So you believe this stupid garbage? You are dumber
and more dishonest than I thought.

>> This is on top of storage of all the coal, the undressing room,
>> and the alleged gaschamber.

>So?
So what you call the “history” and I call the Standard
Holocaust Myth is wrong.

>> The Revolt of the Sondercommandos
>
>> The whole story of the “Revolt of the
>> Sondercommandos” is entirely a legend.

No answer from VanAlstine

>> None of the Cremas show any sign of
>> having been the site of gun battles.

>Oh, please, Mr. Allen. It hurts to watch
>you grasp at straws so. The
>Kremas were demolished by the Nazis with explosives.
There are extensive ruins. Take a look at Pressac
Technique. Ruins with no bullet holes. pg. 261, 257, 265
pg. 237 pictures of handrails of access stairways
pg. 232 pictures of doors.

>> There are no bullet marks on any of the ruins of Crema II or III
>> nor on any of the bricks that remain from the
>> walls of Crema IV or V.

No answer from VanAlstine

> Since the legend (or legends) have Sondercommando revolts occuring at
> different Cremas at different times and in different degrees of
> intensity of fighting it’s rather hard to disprove all
> the legends at once. However, the stories of prolonged
> gun battles at Crema II or III are not supported by any
> physical signs on the existing ruins.

No answer from VanAlstine

VanAlstine has no answer to some simple and clear
observations about the present condition of the
ruins of Crema II and III and Birkenau. Any visitor to
the site can see this. Anyone with photographs of the
ruins can verify the Revisionist point.
VanAlstine could win his point simply by pointing
to any evidence of any bullet hole anywhere on
the ample ruins. He cannot. Rather than address
this problem he “takes the offensive” with personal
insults and indignate posturing.

From [email protected] Sat Oct 5 08:55:06 PDT 1996
Article: 71833 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!n1van.istar!van.istar!west.istar!
ott.istar!istar.net!tor.istar!east.istar!news.nstn.ca!
newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!news.duq.edu!
newsgate.duke.edu!agate!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: 4 Oct 1996 23:40:40 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 15
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

I has also struck me that there was no
security to guard against external attack
(specifically a partisan attack). The guardtowers
were of wood with no protection from an attack
>from the outside. 25 partisans could have
attacked and destroyed the Cremas and liberated
the hundreds of prisoners there.

The question for Exterminationists is,
IF THE CREMATORIA WERE REALLY GASCHAMBERS
WHEREIN HUNDREDS OF MEN WERE IMPRISONED
WHY WAS THERE NO EXTERNAL SECURITY TO
PROTECT THE CREMAS FROM ATTACK FROM THE
OUTSIDE?

From [email protected] Wed Oct 9 08:06:46 PDT 1996
Article: 72828 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
spool.mu.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: 9 Oct 1996 01:08:27 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 50
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote on 07 Sep 1996

>Does it really make any difference if the
>roof slab is fully intact if
>most of it is obscured beneath tons of rubble?
Yes. It means that the physical evidence is still
there for examimation. Of course, you are wrong
about it being “obscured beneath tons of rubble”.
Anyone can go climb on the slab and LOOK
for themselves.

[snip]

>No, Mr. Allen is not ever going to tell us
>his remarkable theory of
>how the mere fact of the existence of
>the L.Keller roof proves that
>there was no Holocaust.

See above. The L.Keller roof is a piece of evidence
not dealt with by Exterminationist theory.

>After all, in his previous attempt to explain
>this “self-evident” roof
>slab, he asserted that holes had been cut
>through concrete and rebar
>in order to vent the destructive force of
>the demolition charges [snip]
That was a tenative hypothosis based on
the state of the so-called vent holes. Try dealing
with some REAL arguments such as:
1. the fact that Leichenkeller 1 was built WITHOUT
any vent holes at all.
2. Or that there are no holes on the roof that could
have been vent holes.
3. Or that the so-called “porous pillars” could
not have been attached at the roof level.
4. Or that there were no bars or locks on either
Crema II or III to confine the “Sondercommandos”.

In short, j. Morris, please do something better than
create strawmen and then natter about it. You
have not dealt with the evidence on the ground
at Birkenau nor any or the serious questions the
evidence raises. Instead, you have dishonestly and falsely
mistated what I and other Revisionists have written
and prevaricated and dissembled about what is
actually at the scene of the crime.
[snip]
CEACAA

From [email protected] Wed Oct 9 17:33:11 PDT 1996
Article: 72939 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!
news.texas.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: 9 Oct 1996 01:05:41 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 95
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

John Morris wrote on 07 Sep 1996

Ceacaa) wrote:

>[It’s slab of concrete, dammit! Don’t you
>understand? Are you blind?
>Concrete! It proves there was no Holocaust!
>Why can’t you see that!?]

Poor John has been reduced to trying to
win debating points by false attributions.
Of course, the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Crema II is
a slab of concrete but I don’t think John Morris is
blind (and wouldn’t comment on it if he were). I know
he makes stupid arguments and strongly suspect that
he is a somewhat silly twit. Although he came up
with a glimmer of intelligence when he raised some
questions about the positioning of the vent holes in
aerial photographs his analytic abilities have faded like
aurora borealis in summer.

[snip]
>In another message, Mr. Allen called me “craven”
>for not going the
>Birkenau at his behest this summer.
>Now I have to wonder who is
>”craven,” since he accuses me publicly of
>failing to keep a promise I never made, and
>since he does not do me the courtesy of
>cc’ing me with his accusations.
Sorry John. I would have answered sooner but
you DIDN’T copy me either. Pot, Kettle Black?

>It should be apparent after my long absence
>that I am no longer a
>regular participant in alt.revisionism.
>How easy it is to lie behind
>someone’s back. How “courageous”
>of our Revisionist friend.
Long absence? John, maybe your evil twin brother
is posting under your name? We have postings from you
in June and one on July 17. Now you are back on
September 7. “Long absence” is a rather pretentious
and misleading discription of an absence that nobody
noticed anyway.

>And how will this gutless wonder Andrew Allen
>respond to my annoyance
>that he is lying about me again?
>The same way as last time he got
>caught: he will say nothing.

By reposting what you wrote on April 14, 1996:

Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
From: [email protected] (John Morris)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 04:11:06 GMT

# I cannot possibly go before
#August when I will be in England on the
#second part of a three part
#research trip for an historian at U Alberta.
#The lowest quote I could
#get for current return fares from
#London to Crakow was slightly more than $400 US.

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

Actually, I am not writing to annoy you, John. That
is too easy but your April 14 posting would seem
to be a commitment to do some honest “on the
ground” research, at least if you were a gentleman.

>Meanwhile, it is beyond me how anyone
>in their right mind could insist
>for nine months running on the importance of
>the state of the gas
>chamber roof at Birkenau Krema and never
>quite get around to saying
>why it is all so important.
Your ARE such a dummy. If the slab does not have
vent holes now, it didn’t in 1944.
No vent holes = no Zyclon through the vent holes =
no mass gassings.

> Does it really matter
>whether the roof had
>tar paper on it?
Yes. Everything should matter to an honest
historian and it should matter to get it right. If you don’t
believe this then stop your pretentious self-promotion
as a “Holocaust resource”.

From [email protected] Sat Oct 12 10:53:45 PDT 1996
Article: 73556 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news1.wtn.mci.net!news.internetMCI.com!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: 12 Oct 1996 10:35:12 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 96
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Since, as has been noted elsewhere,
the Exterminationists cannot
answer Revisionist Questions
and cannot question Revisionist Answers”,
the Nizkor people have faded away from this
thread. Some of them have been posting directly me.
Rarely anything nice. Often, the most uncivilized
hate mail.

John Morris wrote on 10/10 1996 saying that I
wasn’t nice and made fun of him and am Andrew Allen
and never said he was going to go to Poland.

> I suggested an alternative…
> Stephane Bruchfeld will be travelling to Birkenau
>in a few weeks time,
> and I understand through a third party (Stephane is off-line
> due to a computer breakdown) that he is prepared to conduct
>an examination of the site for us.

Well, my sensitive Canadian friend, whatever happened
to your colleague, Stephane Bruchfeld?

>At this point, you might want to get a clue:
>I am not answering your
>posts in this thread anymore except to demonstrate
>that you are an
>habitual liar.
>There is no point in attempting
>to debate with liars.
Actually, the reason you have
stumbled off the thread is because you have
nothing much to add to the discussion.
If you had anything GREAT to say I doubt you
could restrain yourself from posting it.
The last intelligent thing you put up was about
anomalies with the positions of the marks
on the roof of Leichenkeller 1 in the aerial photographs.
Other than that I am impressed and irritated by your
LACK of knowledge about basic facts regarding the
so-called gaschambers and the silly arguments
you come up with.
Look at the 5 reasons you gave
for why the Germans built Leichenkeller 1
Crema II WITHOUT the vent holes necessary
to use the room as a gaschamber.
It should be of interest to you that the Germans did
not plan on building a gaschamber as of 1/15/43
but it seems to be a fact which you cannot deal with.
Therefore you ignore it.

>There is no point in attempting
>to debate with liars.
What I have posted relates to
the physical evidence at the “scene of the crime”
and how that evidence effects the traditional
story of mass gassings. For the most part all
I have been doing is repeating that “there is
physical evidence to be examined, there is
physical evidence to be examined!!” like
a retrospective Cassandra.
The slab roof is there. Guardtowers are there.
Enough ruins are there to learn something from.
These are observable facts; not a debate.

While there are grounds to debate, the attempt
of the Nizkor group to deny the existence of
the existing evidence is both irritating and stupid.
Anyone who visits the site can see, instantly, the
state of the evidence. To me, Nizkor comes across as
little more than obfuscationists.
It is also ironic since you guys try to label
Revisionist as “deniers”.

Anyway, don’t take it so personally that I have
called you a craven, prevaricating, Exterminationist
dog (and from Ponoka at that). I can’t pretend to
respect you until you come up with a few intelligent
arguments. Anyway you are supposed to be in this
thing for the Truth.
Try dealing with some real questions:
1. the fact that Leichenkeller 1 was built WITHOUT
any vent holes at all.
2. Or that there are no holes on the roof that could
have been vent holes.
3. Or that the so-called “porous pillars” could
not have been attached at the roof level.
4. Or that there were no bars or locks on either
Crema II or III to confine the “Sondercommandos”.

CEACAA

From [email protected] Tue Oct 15 07:58:47 PDT 1996
Article: 74302 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!
newspump.sol.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: 15 Oct 1996 01:30:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 75
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]com>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Post of Bilik 10/4

>> My interpretation that the Southeast corner of
>>Crema II did not have a fence is based on the
>>May 1944 aerial photograph. However, there are
>>some odd things about the aerial photograph, ie
>>the lines on the photograph do not correspond to
>>where the actual fence was. Do you have a
>>copy of the aerial photographs or of John Ball’s
book?
[snip]
>> I do not mean to say that there was NO security
>>at the west end of the camp. However, it is clear that
>>there were serious gaps if hundreds of men were
>>actually imprisoned at the Cremas. I also believe
>>that the level of security the camp dropped as the use of
>>Birkenau changed from a Soviet prisoner of War
>>camp to confining civilains.

The security was odd, but it was perhaps
more economical for such a surface. You
have the towers around, and in the Lagerstrasse, the Hauptstrasse also;
and around the camp,
external squadrons that went to the point
required when something was wrong.
The tower you see for the K2 is at a good
place; the blind
view is behind, near the south,
and this place is covered from the Hauptstrasse.

So, when troubles occured with the K4
(stones throwes from the selection aso),
the internal squadrons went to the K4, and
for the security some SS to the K2
and K3. At this time, the SK seeing these
few SS coming cutted the fence with
electrical pliers they had since six monthes
(as explosives) and ran toward the
NW. The SS here were totally upset
when they get the explosives. After some
miles the escaping prisoners were joined, and killed
after a short time (they had one or
two guns). A total of three SS were killed.

During this time, the SK in the courtyard of
the K4 were simply killed with
machine-guns.

The total is I believe (I didn’t give a look, it’s an indication) 350
deathes.

Keep in mind that the SK were during a long
time in barracks, btw the 13 of B2.
It was only near the end that the SK slept in the
second floor of K2 and K3,
or dressroom and coal bunkers of K4 and K5.
I don’t think as you: this measure
enforced the security, since the SK could less easily communicate with the
another inmates to prepare an uprising
(the example of the explosives from
Auschwitz 3..).

>From [email protected] Fri Oct 4 15:42:51 1996
Return-Path: [email protected]
Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com
[149.174.217.135]) by emin02.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id
PAA14381 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 15:42:50 -0400
Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id PAA26753; Fri, 4 Oct 1996 15:42:47 -0400
Date: 04 Oct 96 15:35:05 EDT
From: Miloslav Bilik <[email protected]>
To: “INTERNET:[email protected]
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Message-ID: <[email protected]>\

From [email protected] Fri Oct 18 09:25:15 PDT 1996
Article: 75308 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!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: 17 Oct 1996 22:53:00 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 35
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

A large part of the claims that the Germans
murdered millions of people by poison gas
is centered on two buildings at the southwestern
corner of Birkenau Camp in Poland: Crema II and
Crema III.
The physical remains of the so-called gaschambers
still exists but, thanks to M. Pressac,
we also know that almost the entire record of the
construction and operation of the Cremas still
exists too.
From the record and from photographs taken during
the construction process, we know that Crema II and
III were not designed or built as “gaschambers” but,
according to Pressac, were modified sometime after
January 1943 or even later. In the records is a
picture of the concrete slab of the roof of
Leichenkeller 1 Crema II. See Pressac Technique
at pg. 373 Document 34. The roof was built
WITHOUT the vent holes. These vent holes were
a vital part of the story that Zyclon was dropped
through the holes.

According to Standard Holocaust Mythology (SHM)
the Germans had a gas chamber in use in the summer and
winter of 1942- the so-called “Bunker”. This building
could (SHM) be used to kill 2,800 people at a time-
the same number as Crema II. The “Bunker” according
to the story was convenient, isolated, right next to
burning pits. The question becomes, why abandon its
use and go to the vast expense (millions of marks)
of converting Crema II into another gaschamber?
This is particularly true when Exterminationist stories
about reducing the size of the Crema II gaschamber
are considered.
Any answers out there from Exterminationists?

From [email protected] Mon Oct 21 07:02:05 PDT 1996
Article: 76047 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
nova.thezone.net!hookup!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!
xara.net!emerald.xara.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: 21 Oct 1996 01:47:00 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 59
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote18 Oct 1996

>Ceacaa)” writes:

># The question becomes, why abandon its use and go to the
># vast expense (millions of marks) of converting Crema II
># into another gaschamber?

>”millions of marks”? For converting it into a gas chamber??

>To put there a gas-tight door, make a few holes in
>the roof, and build the introduction columns (very
>cheap, very simple)?

>You’re joking, right?

Actually, I am incorrect. The figure per crematoria is
closer to 1,000,000 Reichmarks for total construction.
Pressac gives a base figure for Crema II of 646,000 RM
with extras for chimneys, architectural work, etc.
The Huta contract was 116,000 RM with various subcontractors
receiving more. The chimney was built by Messrs Robert
Koehler; Topf & Sons got 110,000 Rm per crematorium.
For the record, we should note that there were other
“additions” to convert the Leichenkeller into a gaschamber,
a ventilation system being the biggest one.

However, the basic point remains-prior to the construction
of Crema II and III, SHM has people being killed in groups of
2,500 in the “Bunker” and then cremated the bodies in pits.
PIT CREMATION
The same cremation system that allegedly worked so well
at Treblinka (900,000) Sobibor (250,000), Baba Yar. In fact,
the “pit” method was supposedly never abandoned at Birkenau
but was used to cremate a large majority of the bodies there
too.
-so-
Why spend approximately 2,000,000 RM on a system which
only increased the cremation capacity slightly (25%)
over a proven Treblinka style pitcremation method ?

>I recall you posted that you used to be a construction
>worker (no offense intended – you did post this, right,
>unless I’m confusing you with someone else?). Based upon
>your experience, how much would it cost to drill a few
>holes in the roof of the gas chamber?
No offense taken.
Depends: Union work with government contract $115,285.35;
Non-Union with Independent contractor $ 125.00.

Of course, you do raise an interesting point:
Are gas chambers hard to build or easy to build?
Do you believe that a “gaschamber” can be built by
putting on a gas tight door and putting a few holes in
the roof?

From [email protected] Tue Oct 22 23:07:44 PDT 1996
Article: 76429 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!news.mindlink.net!uniserve!news.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!
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: 22 Oct 1996 18:02:42 -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

Kurt Stele wrote on18 Oct 1996

>It doesn’t appear as yet the exterminationists
>want to debate you about the real points of
>the Holocaust. Evidently they are too busy trying to smear
>revisionists. I guess it’s
>easier and more enjoyable to them to personally
>attack revisionists than defend a soundly
>debunked, thoroughly discredited, and indefensible HOAX.

The Exterminationists are rather like the defenders of
the Ptolmeic system in 1500 A.D. Most of them firmly
believe in their own position and they cannot conceive of
anyone honestly holding a contrary view.

This is also my explaination of how Exterminationists
disregard the clear evidence that I find so convincing.
There is a saying in French is, “Une poule qui a trouve’ un
couteau”, a chicken that found a knife.

In reading Pressac’s Technique… I am impressed time
and time again how Mr. Pressac ignores (what seems to me)
powerful evidence that there could NOT have been gas
chambers at Leichenkeller 1 of the Cremas; solid physical
evidence such as the lack of vent holes or the impossiblity
that “porous pillars” were attached to the roof or floor.
Pressac seems more than content with what he calls
“criminal traces”, usually little “slips” in the masses
of documents that the Germans left. Ask Pressac
to look at the actual ruins, Une poule qui a trouve’ un
couteau!

Best Revisionist Regards

From [email protected] Tue Oct 22 23:07:45 PDT 1996
Article: 76432 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
nic.win.hookup.net!pull-feed.internetmci.com!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: 22 Oct 1996 21:04:36 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 65
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote 21 Oct 1996 .

>But the price of converting LK1 into a gas chamber
>was much smaller, of course. All they had to do
>was drill holes in the roof, add a gas-tight door,
>and the introduction devices.

# Why spend approximately 2,000,000 RM on a system which
# only increased the cremation capacity slightly (25%)
# over a proven Treblinka style pitcremation method ?

>Probably because they wanted to kill far more people.
>But your point is moot; the Kremas were built.
>You don’t deny that, do you?

The point is NOT moot. If you believe in the
pit cremation stories then there is NO NEED for
the Crematorium. Why not just dig another pit?

If you believe that 100% of the bodies at Treblinka
were “pit cremated” , and 100% of the bodies at
Sobibor were pit cremated, and 75% of the bodies
at Birkenau were pit cremated; then the building of
2,000,000 RM buildings MAKES NO SENSE.
The building of the Crematorium and the
stories of pit cremations are incompatable.

# Of course, you do raise an interesting point:
# Are gas chambers hard to build or easy to build?

>They are quite easy to build. All you need is a
>gas-tight room with a strong gas-tight door,
>and a simple mechanism to
>introduce Zyklon-B. You don’t even have to install
>a ventilation system, if the gas chamber is above
>ground level and you have, say, two or three doors to
>allow faster natural ventilation.

Mr. Keren, I AGREE WITH YOU 100%
Of course, your view raises a serious question,
if gas chambers “are quite easy to build” then
why ship people all the way from Greece to
Birkenau to kill them? Especially during a war when
rail usage is at a premium?
Why not just have a barn somewhere in
Serbia to bump off all the nonworking “underhumans”
in the Balkans? Save the cost and trouble of
transporting a Million people across the Continent?
The fact that gaschambers are easy to build
and the fact that the Germans shipped people
clear across Europe is inconsistant.

>You don’t even have to install
>a ventilation system, if the gas chamber is above
>ground level and you have, say, two or three doors to
>allow faster natural ventilation.

Mr. Keren, AGAIN I AGREE WITH YOU 100%
Of course, your view raises a serious question,
to wit, Why then did the Germans build the alleged
gas chambers UNDERGROUND? This made an
expensive ventilation system necessary and
lead to a longer ventilation time. Why not
a nice big shed with two or three doors?

From [email protected] Thu Oct 24 08:19:32 PDT 1996
Article: 76675 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!van-bc!news.mindlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
spool.mu.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: 24 Oct 1996 01:41:17 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 53
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy writes on
23 Oct 1996
Ceacaa) wrote:

>> Pressac seems more than content with what he calls
>> “criminal traces”, usually little “slips” in the masses
>> of documents that the Germans left. Ask Pressac
>> to look at the actual ruins,

>I assume you can explain how Pressac found
>the places where the dummy
>showerheads were attached to the ceiling of L.1.
Actually, I cannot explain how Pressac found
the places where “dummy showerheads were
attached to the ceiling” because I looked
for them and COULD NOT find them.
There were some wooden blocks set into the
ceiling (this is a never before printed or posted
item) but Pressac is not clear if he bases
his claims on these wooden blocks. He
neglected to take any pictures.

>You know, the showerheads that show up in
>he inventory document, a copy
>of which he reproduces.
Could you please post a citation for this.

>You know, the showerheads that many eyewitnesses
>have testified to.

Do you actually think that 1,000,000 people were
uniformly dumb enough to think that they were going
UNDERGROUND to take a shower? Further
both Leichenkeller 1 and 2 were low ceilinged,
untiled rooms, about as bathlike as a root celler.
Remember this is also after the victims
had been made to walk around the Crema
building itself (please don’t look in the
windows at the crematorium). The story
doesn’t fit with the physical layout of the
two Crematoria buildings.

>I’m sure it’s just a “little ‘slip'” — but why don’t
>you explain them
>for us anyway. After all, you’re an expert on the
>actual ruins.
I am not really an expert; I just have been
there. That seems, unfortunately, more than
you Nizkor guys have bothered to do.

>Thanks.
Welcome

From [email protected] Thu Oct 24 11:43:09 PDT 1996
Article: 76728 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news-dc.gsl.net!
news.gsl.net!news-stock.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!
news-hk.gsl.net!news.gsl.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 Oct 1996 01:18:14 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 59
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

ON 21 Oct 1996 Daniel Keren raised an
important point asking,

>the Kremas were built.
>You don’t deny that, do you?

No, Revisionists don’t deny that the Kremas
were built. The fact that the Kremas WERE built
is a significant Revisionist argument. The
building of the Kremas makes no sense in the
standard Holocaust story.
Remember that Kremas II and III at Birkenau were
built in March and June of 1943 respectively. This was
after over 1.2 million people were murdered
and cremated in pits at Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec
(SHM). This had been done very efficiently in a matter of
about 12 months and all done cheaply with “pit cremation”.
Also remember that “pit cremation” was supposed to
have been used at Auschwitz/Birkenau both prior to
and after the construction of the Kremas. The question
becomes, why spend two million Reichmarks and
six months on building two Crematorium which only
increases your “capacity” 25% when it is possible to reach
the same end immediately (and for free) by digging another
pit? Further, why give up a proven reliable system for the
the problems of a system that had various complexities
and has subject to breakdowns such as the burn out of the
chimneys at Kremas IV and V.
The construction of Kremas II and III is a significant
anomaly in the Holocaust story.

The building of the Kremas only makes sense in a
Revisionist context, ie. that Birkenau was a place
of mass confinement but not mass murder. In
that context the capcity of the two Krema is
in-line with the total need of the Auschwitz
Birkenau complex

Revisionists claim that Kremas II and III were
built as a result of the typhus outbreaks in
Auschwitz/Birkenau in the summers of
1941 and 1942. In thoses outbreaks two or three
thousand inmates died each week.
Further, the Kremas were designed to deal with
the massive increase in inmates planned for
Birkenau. The “Mexico” project in the north area
of the camp would have more than doubled the
housing in the camp to approximately 120,000
persons.
The projected capacity of Kremas II and III
was in line with the projected increase in
camp population but at a slightly higher
muffle to prisoner ratio than camps in Germany
due to the experience of typhus outbreaks.

From [email protected] Fri Oct 25 09:00:44 PDT 1996
Article: 76821 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!pull-feed.internetmci.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!
www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!
news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!
newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 25 Oct 1996 00:06:42 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 93
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On Oct 23, 1996 Jamie McCarthy wrote:
(Ceacaa) wrote:

>> The fact that gaschambers are easy to build
>> and the fact that the Germans shipped people
>> clear across Europe is inconsistant.

>This is kindergarten-level stuff, and Ceacaa
>only looks foolish by posting it.

>Auschwitz was a work camp and a death camp
>simultaneously; arrivals
>were gassed within hours if they were unfit
>for work, but they would be
>used as slaves for weeks or months. When their usefulness >expired, due
>to malnutrition or disease, they were
>killed in the gas chambers.
Jamie, not only did you NOT answer the original
question-Why ship people all the way across
Europe to kill them in Poland?, but you raise a second
question,
“Why ship people all across Europe, set up
expensive camps, require hundreds of guards
if you are going to work the “slaves” to death
doing simple manual labor in a matter of weeks?
The value of a few weeks of slave labor is
clearly outweighed by the costs of camps,
guards, transportation, administration.

As a comparison the cost of guarding and
feeding one prisoner in the US Federal system
is approximately $25,000 per year. Chain gangs
and prision labor have never paid its way.

>> Why not just have a barn somewhere in
>> Serbia to bump off all the nonworking “underhumans”
>> in the Balkans? Save the cost and trouble of
>> transporting a Million people across the Continent?

>Once against, “Ceacaa” knows the answer quite
>well, but is pretending
>otherwise.
Actually, you didn’t answer the first question as
will be shown below.

>The problem is not killing a few hundred thousand people;
So we all agree!!

>the problem
>is doing it secretly, and then disposing of their bodies.
Exactly!! So combining a labor camp with a death
camp does NOT make sense. Why have 60,000
witnesses to murder and body disposal, especially
husbands mothers, etc. particularly concerned with
their loved ones who just disappeared “up the ramp”??
Does not make any sense.

No. The obvious thing to do would be to seperate the
workers from the non-workers at the “collection site”.
Only transport the workers across Europe.

>To do it secretly requires a base staffed by
>military men, or a
>concentration camp.
Jamie, to be blunt, I am shocked by your ignorance
of basic Holocaust history. Do you know how big
the German “staff” at Treblinka was?, or at Sobibor?,
or at Belzec? Ever hear about the Einsatzgruppen?
Or about Baba Yar? Do you actually claim that
a killing facility had to be a huge operation like
Auschwitz? You are wrong, wrong, wrong. (once
for each of the Operation Reinhard “death Camps”)

>To dispose of the bodies requires being out in
>the middle of nowhere.
Right-not next to a big town like Oswiecim. But,
as I suggested, a small valley in the Balkens.

>To dispose of the bodies most efficiently
>requires a large crematory facility.
Jamie, to be blunt, I am shocked by your ignorance
of basic Holocaust history. Do you know how bodies
were disposed of at Treblinka ?, or at Sobibor?,
or at Belzec? Or at Baba Yar? These “disposals”
didn’t cost anything but the time of the guards.
The Kremas at Birkenau cost millions. Not very
“efficient”.

My questions may be “kindergarten level” but it
looks like you flunked kindergarten.
Tommorow we will look at your “defense” of
underground gas chambers.

From [email protected] Fri Oct 25 14:09:28 PDT 1996
Article: 76997 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
nntp.portal.ca!news.bc.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!
feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
in1.uu.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 25 Oct 1996 12:19:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 97
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren wrote on 24 Oct 1996(Ceacaa)” writes:

># Remember that Kremas II and III at Birkenau were
># built in March and June of 1943 respectively.

>Can you tell the difference between “built” and
>”completed”?
??? Built can mean “completed”. The building process
took from October 1942.

># The question becomes, why spend two million Reichmarks
># and six months on building two Crematorium which only
># increases your “capacity” 25% when it is possible to reach
># the same end immediately (and for free) by digging another
># pit?

>Yet again, you’re confusing the price of the whole
>crematorium with the price of the cremation furnaces,
>which was much lower. I posted the figures yesterday,
>Why did you ignore them?
Sorry. I made the post prior to reading your figures.
I am just quoting Pressac. But I fail to see the point
of seperating the cost of the furnaces from the
cost of the chimney needed to have the furaces
or the cost of the building needed to support the
chimneys. All in all the total figure was around
2,000,000 RM.

>The gas chambers had to be built anyway, no
>matter how
>the corpses were to be burned.
My goodness, you are forgetting Bunker 2?
(subsequently renamed the “White House”).
The Germans already HAD a gas chamber,
See Pressac pg. 171 of Technique.
This structure could dispach 2,500 people
at a time. More than Leichkeller 1 could.
And remember that Leichenkeller 1 was
supposed to have been divided in half (SHM)
to accomodate smaller groups.
And building a gas chamber is one thing-
building it UNDERGROUND is an very expensive,
illogical, different thing. Consider excavation
problems, drainage and waterproofing problems,
and, as you correctly mentioned, ventilation problems.
Also think of all the problems of tricking people
into going down underground to take a shower.
No, the slightest consideration will show that
you were right in your last posts, an above ground
structure with two or three doors would have been
simple and easy to build (or built?)

># In that context the capcity of the two Krema is in-line
># with the total need of the Auschwitz Birkenau complex

>No, it’s about 20 times higher.
Where did you get these figures? Pressac makes
it 4.5 times higher than the other camp ratios but
he includes Crema I (abandoned) Kremas IV and V
(which were also abandoned) to increase the number
of muffles (retorts) and does not count any of
the planned increases in camp population to
120,000 persons.

># Revisionists claim that Kremas II and III were
># built as a result of the typhus outbreaks in
># Auschwitz/Birkenau in the summers of 1941 and 1942.

>This is ridiculous. No one builds so many
>crematoriums unless he’s expecting huge numbers
>of people to die,
>over a long period of time.

>Try to think. If you have this camp in which you’re
>expecting mass death from “typhus”, why would you
>keep sending so many people there?
Dealing with a problem and wanting a problem
are two different things. I was a fireman
for some time. We didn’t want fires. We tried
to prevent fires but we kept our LaFrance and VanPelt
ready.
The evidence shows massive deaths in the
camps from typhus but there is also significant
evidence that the Germans took many steps to
combat typhus and other diseases. I have
been into the Zentral Sauna building at Birkenau.
It is a very impressive structure, entirely built to
control contagion. From shaving inmates heads
to posting the famous Eine Laus Dein Tod! poster
around the Camp vigourous efforts were made to
combat Typhus.
Pressac, himself, notes that over 95% of Zyclon-B
was destined for delousing pg. 15 of Technique.
I would venture to guess that the Germans spent
many times more on the Zentral Sauna building,
the camp hospital, and on Typhus control than they
did on the admittedly expensive Krema II and III.

From [email protected] Sat Oct 26 00:07:32 PDT 1996
Article: 77117 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!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: 26 Oct 1996 01:06:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 115
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Sara aka Perrrfect wrote on 24 Oct 1996
(Ceacaa) wrote:

>> Do you actually think that 1,000,000 people were
>> uniformly dumb enough to think that they were going
>> UNDERGROUND to take a shower? Further
>> both Leichenkeller 1 and 2 were low ceilinged,
>> untiled rooms, about as bathlike as a root celler.
>> Remember this is also after the victims
>> had been made to walk around the Crema
>> building itself (please don’t look in the
>> windows at the crematorium). The story
>> doesn’t fit with the physical layout of the
>> two Crematoria buildings.

>Well, let’s see.

[snip description of events prior to arrival]

>Suddenly the train stops. They are herded out
of the dark car into the bright light by shouting
soldiers and barking dogs. Many of them can barely
walk now, they are so exhausted and dehydrated.
Perhaps a gun is fired to
hurry them along. Perhaps someone is shot for
dawdling. Or perhaps they
whole group moves out without incident.
Okay with that so far?

They’re in a strange place. Nothing is familiar.
They are herded along, not
kindly, by the soldiers. They are told to go
“over there” and take off
their clothing. It might be summer. It might be
winter and freezing. But
there are men and guns and dogs and
children crying and old people praying,
and they are tired, and hungry, and dirty, and
disoriented. Their clothes
are soiled. So they do what they’re told.
Okay with that so far?

Maybe they’re told they’re going to a
shower. Shower! What a relief!
Finally they can get clean, feel water on
their bodies again. Do they
believe it? Does it matter? Any hope, no
matter how feeble, is worth
clinging to.
Okay with that so far?

Perhaps one man objects. “That’s not a shower,
it’s in a basement,” he
shouts. The parents may shout him down;
they don’t want to frighten their
children. Or perhaps a soldier silences
him with a gun butt or a bullet.
Either way, no one WANTS to believe him.
Okay with that so far?

So these hungry, tired, frightened,
filthy, dehydrated, scared, resigned,
disoriented people go where they are told by the
men with the bright uniforms and polished
boots and guns and barking dogs. They hold
their children in their arms, and they
go to the showers they’re told to go to.

And they go to their deaths.

>What part of this don’t you understand?

>Sara

Your description implies that there was no need
for deception, security or crowd control measures.
My belief is that people, when deeply afraid,
will often freeze or could stampede. But, the
psycology of crowds aside, I am interested
how you explain the following descriptions:

“All these people were unaware of the fate
awaiting them. They were merely upset at being separated…
To render their welcome more pleasant at this time-
June, July 1944- an orchestra composed of internees-
all young and pretty girls, dressed in little white
blouses and navy blue skirts-
played, during the selection… gay tunes such as “the
Merry Widow. ” Martin Gilbert The Holocaust at pg 686
quoting Claude Vaillant Couturier.
-and-
“To the captivating tunes played played by the internee
musicians…the cortege of the condmned wound toward
Birkenau. Fortunately, they were unconscious of the fate
that awaited them…The S.S. TROUPS ESCORTING THEM
WERE IRREPROACHABLY ‘CORRECT’ … the newly arrived
had to be handled properly to the very end…The
‘bath Director’, in a white blouse, distributed towels
and soap.” emphasis added.

Dr. Olga Lengyel Five Chimneys The Ziff-Davis Publishing Co.
London (1984) at page 84.

How do you reconcile your description which emphasizes
force with the actual survivor eyewitness accounts
which clearly state that the victims were tricked into the
gaschamber?

From [email protected] Sun Oct 27 01:02:04 PDT 1996
Article: 77248 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!
news.texas.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: 27 Oct 1996 01:07:57 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 78
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren writes on 23 Oct 1996:
CEACAA wrote:
># Why then did the Germans build the alleged
># gas chambers UNDERGROUND? This made an
># expensive ventilation system necessary and
># lead to a longer ventilation time.

>Remember that the gas chambers of Kremas IV and V
>were above ground.
That may be true but it doesn’t answer the question
about why Krema II and III’s alleged gaschambers were UNDERGROUND.

>The ventilation system was not that expensive. On p.
>233 of “Anatomy” we see that the offer for the Krema
>IV and V ventilation systems was for 2,510 RM.
I will have to check Pressac but I think he quoted
more. However, the ventilation time and possible
breakdown problems also seem to be significant
disadvantages of a ventilation system and reasons
not to make the gaschamber underground. There would also be some logistic
problems of herding people underground and then getting the bodies back
up.

># Why not a nice big shed with two or three doors?

>It’s very possible that Pressac is right, and that the
>gas chambers of Kremas II and III were planned as
>morgues,
>and then converted to gas chambers. But, again, your
>point is moot, because they *did* build them. What
>for, do you suggest, did they built them?

The Leichenkellers 1 were built to be and were used
as Leichenkellers.
I will toss out my theory. Maybe even John Morris
will be lured back to take a shot at it.
The Leichenkeller 1s were built to tie in with the
operating schedule of the crematorium. I do not think
that it is possible to continuously run the crematoria
furnice without burning out the chimney or damaging the
ovens. Pressac mention this as happening to K.IV and K.V.
The operating cycle of the Kremas.
I believe that a furnice, once fired-up, takes an
hour to warm to operating temperature, and then can
operate for a period of several hours (I guess 12-14)
without damaging the interior of the chimney or the
muffles. At that point, it has to be shut down for
a period of time to cool off, perhaps two or three
days. The cooling is not the real problem
but cracking due to too rapid a cooling.
In K.II and K.III there may have been some
rotation among the 5 furnices however,
sooner or later, the whole furnice had to have been
shut down and allowed to cool and be serviced.
If the furnices was not run continously, the bodies
had to be collected until the furnice was fired-up.
Even the local crematoria “collects” the bodies
for a day or two before “firing up”. And the local
plant must deal with the constraints of dealing
with the public.

In its operatation period of 12 hours K.II could probably have
dealt with around 1,200 bodies. T
his would tie in with the capacity of the Leichenkeller.
Why UNDERGROUND.
Since a body might wait several days before 1,200
bodies were collected, it would have to be stored in
a cool place, UNDERGROUND. This explains why the
trouble was taken to insulate the Leichenkeller and
put weather stripping on the door. A cool place was
needed until the furnice was ready to be fired up.
Why SMOKE
Many survivors remember smoke and then the smell
of cremation. However, Crematoria do NOT smoke when
running. However the Crema would smoke while heating
up, until the temperature rose enough to prevent smoke.
This would be just prior to cremations.
( continued)

From [email protected] Sun Oct 27 15:59:17 PST 1996
Article: 77366 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!news.umbc.edu!news.ums.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.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: 26 Oct 1996 15:48:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 80
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Daniel Keren writes on 23 Oct 1996:
CEACAA writes:
># If you believe that 100% of the bodies at Treblinka
># were “pit cremated” , and 100% of the bodies at
># Sobibor were pit cremated, and 75% of the bodies
># at Birkenau were pit cremated;

>Not 75%; much less.
Why do you say that? I have NOT seen any analysis but
have relied on the stories of massive pit burnings.
[discussion of added cost of crematoria snipped as
being discussed elsewhere]

>Now, why didn’t they use (only) cremation ditches in
>Birkenau as well? Good question, actually. Possibly,
>because they didn’t know in advance how efficient the
>ditches would be.
Except that by January 1943 they had the experience
of Treblinka, Sobibor behind them. Hoess was supposed
to have even visited Treblinka to learn “techniques”.

>Possibly, because digging the ditches,
>and always collecting all that wood and fuel refuse to
>burn the corpses, seemed rather cumbersome to them.
This seems like a posibility.
However part of the Treblinka story is that the
corpses, once started and with old ladies on the bottom,
burned on their own, ie. little fuel actually had to
be gathered. I do not know if this is “official”
Holocaust history or not. or what is the offical position
on how the 900,000 bodies at Treblinka were burned.
Clearly, if Treblinka was “efficient” or cheap (just
using camp labor) then that should have been the
method used at Auschwitz two years later.

# Of course, your view raises a serious question,
# if gas chambers “are quite easy to build” then
# why ship people all the way from Greece to
# Birkenau to kill them?

>To the best of my knowledge, the answer is very simple:
>if people know they are being led to their death, they
>may revolt. They may run away and hide.
I agree with you on that but see the posting of
Sara Prrrfect on this thread.

>The attempt to
>use gas chambers for the mass murder of the
>mentally retarded
>and insane Germans (the “euthanasia” murders), caused
>problems: the local German population learned of what
>was going on, and screamed bloody murder.
>It would not have been easy to, say, build a few
>gas chambers right
>outside of Paris and kill the French Jews there.
In the Ardennes, perhaps? That would save 1,200 kms.
of travel and keep trains full of people crossing the Reich.
Actually, the situation of the 75,000 deported French
Jews is somewhat unique. I was thinking of Vilnus
or the unfortunates from Greece.

>Rumors would travel around, and the Jews
>would start to escape
>and rebel, just like they did in the
>Warsaw Ghetto;
>and one thing the Nazis surely didn’t
>want was another
>such uprising.
Another reason to keep from transporting people
too far.
Actually British and then Soviet radio propaganda
(or news) started mentioning Nazi deathcamps by summer
of 1942. The history of these reports is worth
some thesis by a grad student.
You ask a fair question-what the Leichenkellers
were for? I will try to answer that tommorow.
It is an important question.

From [email protected] Tue Oct 29 12:00:51 PST 1996
Article: 77698 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!
newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.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: 27 Oct 1996 23:57:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 57
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

On Oct 23, 1996 Jamie McCarthy wrote:
CEACAA wrote

>> Of course, your view raises a serious question,
>> to wit, Why then did the Germans build the alleged
>> gas chambers UNDERGROUND? This made an
>> expensive ventilation system necessary and
>> lead to a longer ventilation time. Why not
>> a nice big shed with two or three doors?

>I recall Ross Vicksell raising the exact
>same question over two years
>ago; I answered him with a laundry-list
>of reasons why an underground
>gas chamber is superior, and he never
>answered. I wonder if “Ceacaa”
>will be any different.
>Here are the first three reasons that come to mind:

>* It was warmer in the winter,
>aiding in the Zyklon outgassing (you
> know, the outgassing that Rudolf says
>couldn’t happen because it was
> too cold).
Gee, Jamie, do you think that “Rudolf” ever
heard about a heater? Cost about 15 bucks, much
cheaper than trying to bury a whole room underground.
Or are you refering to the reindeer?

>* The walls couldn’t be pushed over or kicked
>down from the inside.
Gee, Jamie, the answer to this fairytale is in
another fairytail, The Three Little Pigs.
In all the “above ground”
gas chambers at Treblinka, Sobibor, at Auschwitz
Main Camp, at the Bunker, or Krema IV or V,
did you ever hear of a story of the walls being “pushed
over or kicked down”. No.
Why don’t you make-up a real winner like,
“It was clearly built underground
to withstand tornados”

>* A solid concrete room deadened the screams
>of the dying, aiding the
> secrecy effort a bit more.
Maybe, but the question was, “why bury it underground?”
If secrecy was so important as to require a
“bit more” effort why were Krema II and III
right in plain view from much of the camp, with
the camp soccer field next to K. III and living units
next to K. I? If fact, why was the alleged
extermination effort done with 60,000
witnesses?
If Ross Vicksell didn’t bother to reply to you
it was because you didn’t post that was
worth responding to.

From [email protected] Tue Oct 29 21:45:49 PST 1996
Article: 77741 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!
hookup!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.erols.net!newspump.sol.net!
news.mindspring.com!mindspring!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: 29 Oct 1996 19:18:55 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 91
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com

Jamie McCarthy wrote 26 Oct 1996

CEACAA wrote:

>> Jamie, not only did you NOT answer the original
>> question-Why ship people all the way across
>> Europe to kill them in Poland?,

>The six extermination camps were located where
>the majority of the Jews
>who were killed were located — in Poland.
>Poland saw three million of
>its Jews exterminated, as many as the rest of
> Europe and the Soviet
>Union put together.
>If the camps were _not_ located in Poland,
>you would be asking me why.
That’s true. But since we agree that a gaschamber
is easy to built, why not one in France, one in Serbia,
one in Vilna. Save shipping that other three million
1,000 KM.s. That was the question. Please try an
answer.

>> but you raise a second question,
>> “Why ship people all across Europe, set up
>> expensive camps, require hundreds of guards
>> if you are going to work the “slaves” to death
>> doing simple manual labor in a matter of weeks?
>> The value of a few weeks of slave labor is
>> clearly outweighed by the costs of camps,
>> guards, transportation, administration.

>I see, so you have evidence that the Nazis
>undertook an economic
>analysis, found that it would be inefficient to
>have slave labor, and
>then went ahead and did it anyway?
>No, of course not.

>Have you done an economic analysis yourself,
>comparing the “bottom line”
>as the Nazis might have seen it?
No, of course you haven’t.
Yes I have. Four weeks of slave labor was not worth
the price of a train ride from Vilna to Crakow, let alone
>from Paris. Throw on the cost of the guards, the camp,
the disinfectant, the security problems and you have
a system that screams “red ink.”

>In short, you expect us to take your word for it
>that the cost of guarding the Jews outweighed
>whatever reasons the Nazis might have had
>for imprisoning them, using them as slaves,
>and killing them.
No, but I do expect you to be able to add. If you
do, you can quickly see that the idea of transporting
somebody 1,000 Km.s to work him to death in
6 weeks does not make economic sense.

[snip]
>This is insanity, of course. The Jews were killed
>because Nazi ideals on racial purity demanded their
>removal or extermination. And as long
>as they were going to be killed, they might
>as well do a little hard
>work before they died.
You miss the point. There is a conflict between
the story of easy to build extermination camps
and the costs of creating a huge guarded city
like Auschwitz/Birkenau.
There is a conflict between value of 6 weeks
forced labor and the immense cost of getting that
slave labor.

> >the problem
> >is doing it secretly, and then disposing of their bodies.
> Exactly!! So combining a labor camp with a death
> camp does NOT make sense. Why have 60,000
> witnesses to murder and body disposal, especially
> husbands mothers, etc. particularly concerned with
> their loved ones who just disappeared “up the ramp”??
> Does not make any sense.It makes perfect sense if everyone  (or nearly everyone) in the camps is

>under a death sentence.
Earlier you said that 10% of inmates were not
killed. If there were 1,000,000 inmates, how
many witness does that leave? No, your story
is not consistent.

From [email protected] Wed Oct 2 08:16:42 PDT 1996
Article: 70756 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: 1 Oct 1996 22:17:33 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 59
Sender: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References:
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ceacaa)
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com