Comments on other threads.

[HansHill]

fluff

Just to be clear for anyone who happens to be reading. The answer to these technical problems is "trust me bro, the nazis figured it out. Whaddaya mean how, stop asking that!"

[Nessie]

fluff

What you dismiss as fluff, was me quoting two Nazis describing how they experimented with gassings. You asked;

1 - what happens when you continuously pump exhaust into a hermetically sealed chamber?
2 - Sub-question: At what point does the engine stall due to hitting equilibrium?

The answer to 1 is that the engine will eventually stall and I cannot answer 2 without knowing volumes, engine output and other technicalities, to say what point the engine will stall.

Just to be clear for anyone who happens to be reading. The answer to these technical problems is "trust me bro, the nazis figured it out. Whaddaya mean how, stop asking that!"

Your argument is that German engineers could not figure out how much engine exhaust was needed to be pumped into a gas chamber, to raise the level of CO to fatal, before the engine stalled.

Why do you think "the laws of nature" are being ignored, when I say German engineers figured it out?

Why do not think "common sense" tells us German engineers figured it out?

[Nessie]

Wetzelrad said;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20591#p20591

(Cremas II and IV did actually have refractory work done once, shortly after they were put into operation, and done on the chimney and ducts, not on the muffles. Problems with the forced-draft system and with unanticipated thermal expansion caused damage and partial collapse to the refractory bricks. This is what is actually documented, and it is the actual reason for which Prüfer came to Birkenau on this occasion. Prüfer later told his captors that the reason for the trip was because of "colossal strain", as Nessie randomly quoted above, but this is not documented and actually contrary to the documents from that period.)

I quoted what I could find about the damage mass cremations caused to bricks in the crematoriums. It is clearly something that witnesses did not think was that important and it was not discussed in any detail. Pruefer said;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61650

"I drew the conclusion that the ovens built by myself in the crematorium worked well and without failures."

He goes on to partially contradict himself and say;

"Once, presumably in the spring of 1943, I went to Auschwitz at the SS Construction Office’s invitation, in order to establish why the suck extraction ventilators at the ovens of the second crematorium did not work; head engineer Schultze also went there in order to carry out the necessary repair of the suck extraction ventilators and put them to function again."

So, the vents, rather than the ovens themselves failed.

This is a classic case of argument from incredulity. Just because you cannot work out, to your satisfaction, how the bricks used to construct the ovens could cope with mass continuous cremations, does not mean therefore there were no mass continuous cremations.

[Nessie]

Wahrheitssucher in typical form;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20588#p20588

Over a great many years I have discussed the flaws of numerous religions with their adherents.
In every case but one (Father Abelo, a Catholic priest) they have ALL gone into dishonest damage control when confronted in any undeniable way with the obvious fundamental flaws in their cherished belief-system.
That is because very few people can continue to discuss in an honest and reasonable way when their fundamental belief-systems are exposed to devastating critical analysis. It is a common flaw of human nature.

My MO is to discuss the flaws in the so-called revisionist cherished belief system. The result is damage control that now has me quarantined. Your damage control is to bully and abuse, with your favourite of constantly suggesting those who disagree with have psychological or other mental issues, as shown here, with all your comments on bombsaway in one relatively short post;

" I see as your psychologically/intellectually dishonest", "miscomprehendingly attempting", "you aren’t arguing intelligently", "only two online defenders of the history appeared to me to be arguing intelligently", "either that or miscomprehension", "I am interpreting as psychological dishonesty.", "I suggest proves you are arguing from your own diminished ability to discuss honestly and intelligently."

[Nessie]

Archie,

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20598#p20598

"If you don't agree with me you are delusional" is not an argument.

Look at my post above and read Wahrheitssucher's posts. He uses that argument constantly.

[Nessie]

Archie asks;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20628#p20628

If the Holocaust is true, the question that does arise is why the Allies didn't notice this themselves and why they needed to be prodded by Jewish orgs. In fact, this is exactly how all the Jewish historians spin this, saying the Allies were scandalously inattentive to the plight of the Jews during the Holocaust. There are tons of books in that vein.

The answer is anti-Semitism. The Nazis had a lot of support, far more than most countries are still prepared to admit. Only Denmark and Finland were prepared and able to protect the vast majority of their Jewish citizens. Everywhere else, the Nazis found people prepared to cooperate, especially in Eastern Europe. Romania ran its own Holocaust. Latvians and Lithuanians enthusiastically joined with the Einsatzgruppen, shooting Jews. From Quisling in Norway to Touvier in France, the Nazis had people in authority prepared to assist in the enforcement of the Nuremberg Race Laws, identifying, arresting and transporting Jews. News reports about mass shootings, were treated with scepticism and indifference in the UK and USA. The Hungarian government protected its Jews, until it was removed in 1944 and Eichmann was put in charge of arrests and transportations. Such was the level of support, many Nazis believed that Europe would be generally grateful for the destruction of the Jews. The Allies did notice what was happening, but their priorities were elsewhere, primarily stopping the spread of Nazism and then its defeat.

[Keen]

So-called revisionists... cannot work out how gassings etc were physically possible, based on the evidence, much of which was destroyed, therefore there were no gassings.

We know that there were no gassings at the AR camps because it has been proven that there is virtually no physical evidence of the existence of human remains at the camps.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

[Keen]

My MO is to discuss the flaws in the so-called revisionist cherished belief system.

No, your MO is to lie incessantly about the existence of the fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" then run away and dodge any questions that demonstrate what a craven, pathological liar you are.

Like here for instance:

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=674

[Nessie]

If the quarantine restriction is removed, I will steelman the main revisionist arguments, rather than explain why they cannot be steelmanned.

[Archie]

If the quarantine restriction is removed, I will steelman the main revisionist arguments, rather than explain why they cannot be steelmanned.

You had your chance. You blew it.

[Nessie]

If the quarantine restriction is removed, I will steelman the main revisionist arguments, rather than explain why they cannot be steelmanned.

You had your chance. You blew it.

Which was always going to happen, unless I switched to supporting so-called revisionism.

[Archie]

If the quarantine restriction is removed, I will steelman the main revisionist arguments, rather than explain why they cannot be steelmanned.

You had your chance. You blew it.

Which was always going to happen, unless I switched to supporting so-called revisionism.

Uh, the whole purpose of the thread was to a write a post supporting revisionism. The idea is to show that you understand the revisionist position and can articulate it a way that revisionists would feel accurately represents our views. No one was asking you to change your opinion, just to explain an opposing position fairly as an intellectual exercise.

On debate teams, typically debaters are assigned the position they will be arguing and must be able to argue either side, even if they disagree. In law, lawyers often have to defend clients even when they know the case is desperate. Legal teams also prepare memos summarizing the best possible arguments for the other side to help them prepare.

That you are unable (or unwilling) to do this indicates:
-you lack the intellectual ability (it's okay, Nessie, it's actually pretty hard and most people are not good at it)
-you are too emotionally invested or too biased in the topic discuss it objectively
-you are worried that publicly acknowledging any revisionist arguments non-dismissively, even in a clear "devil's advocate" context, would be a show of weakness that could then be exploited by revisionists (even though many revisionists have offered to reciprocate)

[Nessie]

You had your chance. You blew it.

Which was always going to happen, unless I switched to supporting so-called revisionism.

Uh, the whole purpose of the thread was to a write a post supporting revisionism. The idea is to show that you understand the revisionist position and can articulate it a way that revisionists would feel accurately represents our views. No one was asking you to change your opinion, just to explain an opposing position fairly as an intellectual exercise.

On debate teams, typically debaters are assigned the position they will be arguing and must be able to argue either side, even if they disagree. In law, lawyers often have to defend clients even when they know the case is desperate. Legal teams also prepare memos summarizing the best possible arguments for the other side to help them prepare.

That you are unable (or unwilling) to do this indicates:
-you lack the intellectual ability (it's okay, Nessie, it's actually pretty hard and most people are not good at it)
-you are too emotionally invested or too biased in the topic discuss it objectively
-you are worried that publicly acknowledging any revisionist arguments non-dismissively, even in a clear "devil's advocate" context, would be a show of weakness that could then be exploited by revisionists (even though many revisionists have offered to reciprocate)

Or,
- it cannot be done, for reasons I have been explaining to you for a long time now and you lack the intellectual ability to understand that, or you are too invested to be able to acknowledge the weaknesses.

Your legal analogy is a fail, because it is the equivalent of asking a lawyer to lie in court, by defending a client they know to be guilty, as if they are innocent, which they are not supposed to do.