Lie bone fragments, Giwer Matt

[email protected] Mark Van Alstine wrote:

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


>> Another amazing description. Human ash constantly fell through
>> BUT the burning coke did not fall through the same grate. How do
>> you explain that? Why is it no one has found any bone crushing
>> equipment below the ovens? Perhaps Hoess was describing the
>> installation at Wolzek.

>REALITY CHECK: Giwer, continuing to wallow in his self-imposed ignorance,
>fails to realize that the furnaces used at Auschwitz did not burn coke in
>the muffles, but in the “generators” which were located at the back of the
>furnace and below the muffles. They were entirely seperate from the
>muffle, only venting hot combustion gases into the muffle. The coke ash
>was removed entirely seperate from the human remains.

Then you should go to Nizkor and did up the picture of the ovens.
You will see the backs of them are against the wall and the
fireboxs to stoke them are in the front.

And of from these pictures the source of air for combustion is in
the front and there are no apparent chimney exhaust in the front,
it is not clear how the heat from your supposed buring in the
rear would have gotten to the oven rather than going directly up
the flue. Perhaps you could explain that?

Do you have a picture different from theirs and if so, why have
you not sent it to them? You description is contrary to the
Nizkor picture. You appear to be making this up as you go along.

But then we still have the problem of finding the coke ashes
which also appear to have vanished without a trace.

As to why nobody has
>found bone crushing equipment at the base of the furnaces is simple: there
>were none there.

You fellow holohugger claimed there were. Take it up with him,
not me.

>Ho”ss, in his memoirs, stated that:

>”During the period when the fires were kept continiously burning without a
>break, the ashes fell through the grates and were constantly removed and
>crushed to powder. The ashes were taken to the Vistula [River], where they
>immediately dissolved and drifted away. The ashes taken from the burning
>pits near Bunker II and Crematory V were handled in the same way.” (_Death
>Dealer_, p.45.)

Ashes are not soluable. They do not disolve in water. It has
already been agreed that they will sink. You keep believing the
fool who created these memoirs and you are going to continue to
believe all kinds of impossible things.

You will also note, this has nothing to do with the vanished bone
crushing equipment. So both the coke ashes and the bone crushing
equipment have vanished.

>In addition:


>June 7 [1944]

>The management of the crematoriums in Auschwitz II orders four sieves from
>the DAW for sifting through human ashes. The sieves are to be equipped
>with an iron frame. The openings of the sieve screens are to be 2/5 inch
>in size.**

>** A former prisoner and member of the Special Squad, Szlama Dragon,
>states during the H”oss Trial that the ashes of the burned corpses are
>taken from the pits near the crematoriums, ground fine in special mortars,
>and taken to the Sola River (APMO, Dpr.-ZO/28a, p. 127).

>Source: “Auschwitz Chronicle, 1939-1945 / Danuta Czech. – 1st American ed.
>(ISBN 0-8050-0938-8); p. 642. (Ref: APMO, IZ-13/89, Various Documents of
>the Third Reich, p. 205, Invoice Copy for Bookkeeping (origional in BA

Evidence collected by the Soviet Union which proved the Nazis
responsible for Katyn Woods. You will believe most anything.


>Clearly, the bones were pulverized outside of the Kremas, and thus not in
>or at the bottom of the furnaces.

Tell that to your fellow holohugger. I thought it was ridiculous
also. My only problem is separating the stories into degrees of

For example, are his grates and bone grinders more ridiculous
than your disolving bone fragments that pass thour a 1 cm mesh?
The former could have existed. The latter is clearly impossible.
You know, that physical law stuff you have such a problem with.

>> >>>Nevertheless, they often were employed for several purposes: as fill for
>> >>>swamp lands, as thermal insulation between the walls of wooden buildings,
>> >>
>> >> Which would still be there to be founf but never has been.
>> >In the same testimony Hoess describes how the ashes were put on lorries and
>> >transported to the nearby river where they dissolved quickly…
>> Dissolved? Is this special nazi chemistry? Sorry but all those
>> tons are still on the banks of the river but no one has ever
>> found them.

>REALITY CHECK: Obviously, Giwer has forgotten that water naturally flows
>from a location of higher gravitational potential energy to one of lower
>gravitational potential energy. Giwer has also apparantly forgotton that
>rivers consist of large amounts of water flowing from one potential energy
>state to another. In the case of the Vistula River that meant it, ands the
>ashes, eventually ended up in the Baltic Sea.

You are neglecting to note that it was dumped in by the tons if
there is any truth to the claims of the cremation rate. You are
also failing to note that they were dumped on the banks by hand
(unless you can back a truck into river mud and are using dump
trucks and get it out a few feet.) The banks are where the water
flow is slowest.

>Giwer also seems to have chosen to interpet the ashes “dissolving” as
>implying some kind of gross chemical reaction between Ca3(PO4)2 and H20
>rather than colloidal or coarse suspension. In fact, Ca3(PO4)2 itself
>appears to not be very miscable in water. But then neither are silicates
>and they, in the form of silt, suspend quite well in water, as can be seem
>by the alluvial plains at the mouths of rivers.

Obviously the word disolving means disolving. You have also
giving the maxium size with the sieve size. And of course one
can say it is over 50 years later. But at the time our Soviet
allies did not think this bit of evidence worth collecting, any
more than they collected any other evidence, as a nada, zilch.
All they collect was Katyn Woods type testimony.


>> You are the one claiming bone ash is phosphate fertilizer, not
>> me. Anyone with an education should know better than that.

>REALITY CHECK: In truth, any person WITH an education knows how to find
>out that bone ash is basically calcium phosphate and that calcium
>phosphate has been used as a fertilizer. It is called looking in a
>dictionary. Obviously, Giwer sorely lacks an education. To whit:

>_The Penguin Dictionary of Chemistry_:

>bone ash – A white or creamy powder obtained by calcining bones.
>Essentially tricalcium phospate with some calcium carbonate. It is a
>characteristic constituent of English chinaware, mostly of bone china.

>_McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Chemical Terms_:

>bone ash – A white ash consisting primarily of tribasic calcium phosphate
>obtained by burning bones in air; used in cleaning jewelry and in some

>calcium phosphate – 1. Any phosphate of calcium. 2. Any of the following
>three calcium orthophosphates, all of which are white or colorless in pure
>form: Ca(H2PO4)2 is used as a fertilizer, as a plastics stabilizer, and in
>baking powder, and is also know as acid calcium phosphate, calcium
>dihydrogen phosphate, monobasic calcium phosphate, monocalcium phosphate;
>CaHPO4 is uded in pharmaceuticals, animal feeds, and toothpastes, and is
>also known as calcium hydrogen phosphate, dibasic calcium phosphate,
>dicalcium orthophosphate, dicalcium phosphate; Ca3(PO4)2 is used as a
>fertilizer, and is also known as tribasic calcium phosphate, tricalcium

All very interesting but you will remember that our California
chemist was playing his game of deception by stating that the
bone ash was an oxide of calcium, trioxide I believe. If you
want it to be something else I would suggest you take it up with
him, develop a consistent story, and get back to me.

It is impossible for me to deal with multiple true truths at the
same time.

Apparently you holohuggers are able to believe many mutually
exclusive things are true at the same time.

I do not find that an enviable ability.

From [email protected] Sun Jun 9 10:24:47 PDT 1996
Article: 42083 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Where did all the ashes go?
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 01:46:46 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Jun 08 8:48:54 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82