Request: documents showing "designs" for "gas chambers"

[Nessie]

The way Nessie has grossly oversold this (and that's the charitable way to put it) ... It is really not in your interest to bluff like this.

There is no bluff. I have shown you multiple documents recording how the gas chambers were designed. You are now trying to downplay that evidence, which you clearly did not fully understand, or knew existed.

[Archie]

You claimed you could show us "designs" for "gas chambers." I requested this and you pivoted to the "criminal traces" (after beating around the bush and posting a gish gallop). You were lying, just like you were lying about the "photos galore" in Sturdy-Colls.

I'm not going to debate the Pressac criminal traces with you because you are only capable of copy-pasting and repeating your pre-determined conclusion like a mindless idiot. You have no understanding whatsoever of the arguments.

We've been through all this before.

Arguments are necessary for interpreting and giving meaning to the available data. In a situation where the evidence is so obvious that it speaks for itself, perhaps you could say that argument would be so trivial that it goes without saying, but that's obviously not the situation we are in here.

Wrong. When dozens of witnesses state a Krema has a gas chamber, and there are documents recording the construction of gas chambers, the evidence is obvious and there is little to infer or argue about.

Your views do NOT reflect Pressac, especially in terms of reasoning and approach. Your views are closer to the unthinking orthodox views that he criticizes.

-Pressac admits that there are major problems with the witness statements (you do not admit this)
-Pressac harshly criticized the mainstream side for overreliance on witnesses (you refuse to admit this point and think the mainstream work is not guilty of this)
-Pressac does not think the documents speak for themselves. He presents intricate (and flawed) argumentation for his conclusions.
-He specifically rejects the practice of e.g. assuming that Vergasungskeller must refer to a homicidal gas chamber (which is what you are doing when you say no interpretation of the documents is required)

Keeping strictly to German source documents, Georges Wellers counter-attacked using only ONE LETTER, that of 29th January 1943 [Document 1]. Not reasoning like a revisionist, it seemed to him that this document, backed up and authenticated by the testimony of survivors and of the SS themselves, would suffice. It was in fact the only material “criminal proof” that he had available. It was effective, and Faurisson was never able to produce a valid counter-explanation, only very weak arguments bordering on the foolish.

Neither Wellers nor, fortunately, Faurisson, were aware that the “slip” contained in this letter, as it was presented in 1978, was historically unusable because incomplete. It lacked Kurt Prüfer’s clarifying report, unknown in France at the time, but found subsequently in the Auschwitz. Museum Archives [Documents 2 and 2a].

To affirm, SOLELY on the basis of the letter of 29th January 1943 that the term “Vergassungskeller” designated a homicidal gas chamber installed in Leichenkeller 1 / corpse cellar 1 of Krematorium II was irresponsible, for though “gas chamber” was correct, there was no proof that it was “homicidal”, for to be able to demonstrate this, the following factors must all he taken into account and a number of steps must necessarily be followed:

a) The letter of 29th January 1943 DOES NOT STATE which of the Leichenkeller of Krematorium II the SS are referring to. Drawing 932 shows that THREE Leichenkeller were planned, numbers 1. 2 and 3 [Documents 3 and 4];

b) Two other Bauleitung drawings of Krematorium II, numbers 1311 and 2003. show that Leichenkeller 3 was converted for other functions nothing to do with its original purpose;

c) The report by the engineer responsible for the installations, Kurt Prüfer, clearly states that it is Leichenkeller 2 from which the shuttering could not yet be removed;

d) The only remaining Leichenkeller, designated by Bischoff as the Vergassungskeller, is therefore Leichenkeller 1. His letter means above all that it is to not be used for the moment as a “gassing cellar”, but as a “corpse cellar”, i.e. a “morgue”.

e) The letter shows that the SS called Leichenkeller 1 of Krematorium II the Vergassungskeller / gassing cellar. The existence of a gas chamber in the basement of Krematorium II is thus proven, BUT THAT IS ALL. It is not until this “slip” is compared with and united with others, that the evidence that this was in fact a homicidal gas chamber becomes overwhelming. (Pressac, 503)

He says explicitly here that Wellers was too hasty in his conclusions and says that we must reason through "a number of steps," i.e., we must MAKE ARGUMENTS. Saying there is no need to for argument or interpretation is IDIOTIC. All of the "criminal traces" he presents require elaborate argumentation. Notice Nessie that none of the others on your side are willing to publicly embarrass themselves by saying any of this stuff you say.

Pressac found evidence, mostly documents, that he was clearly unaware of, and he realised that they corroborated the witnesses. There is little interpretation needed, the argument is settled, by the corroborating evidence.

There is a ton of interpretation needed. For instance, one of Pressac's arguments is about the 14 Brausen (showerheads). He says these are fake. How does he know? This requires ARGUMENTS and REASONING. The documents do not say the Brausen are fake. This is an INFERENCE he has made which can be challenged. Pressac further assumes that the supposedly fake showerheads were attached to the wooden blocks in the ceiling. Once again, there is no proof of this. This is an inference he has made. These points require argumentation.

You sideline as much of the evidence as possible, because it is not in your favour, as in you cannot evidence agreed usage. Historians can and Pressac realised that and sided with them. He saw that when the "traces", as in the documentary evidence was gathered and arranged chronologically, they matched perfectly with the witness chronologies. Mass transports of people arrived, there were selections, those selected to work are evidenced to have survived, at least for a time. Those not selected for work, were sent to the Kremas, where they undressed and were told they would shower. They were gassed and then cremated and there is no more evidence of their existence. A case is strong, when the vast majority of work is done by the evidence, with little room for interpretation or argument.

You have to emphasise interpretation and argument, as you try to craft the evidence, into something that it is not. None of the so-called revisionists are very good at that, which is why you cannot agree, amongst yourselves, what the Krema usage was. Every day I read so called revisionists on X, who argue they were used as delousing chambers, whilst they also support Leuchter and Rudolf, who argue they cannot have been used as delousing, let alone gas chambers! It is also daily that claims are made about the wooden and glass door in Krema I, pouring scorn on it being the supposed gas chamber door, when basic research would establish it was a door into a store/washroom! The level of ignorance on X is incredible. The mistakes, deluded claims and outright lying is off the scale. Another example is the claim about only 271k dead, because of an IRC report. No one seems to notice it is for only 13 of the camps and none of the ghettos! Over quarter of a million dead in only a few of the camps, is a massive death toll!

You do not understand what evidence is. You define too narrowly. Anything that informs our conclusion is evidence. You routinely ignore evidence that you don't like. Looking at the documents for the ventilation and noting that it is typical for morgue and way less powerful than what would be used for a Zyklon B chamber is evidence. Comparing the ventilation fan for the LK2 (the "undressing room") and noticing that was more powerful than the fan in LK1 (the "gas chamber") is evidence. You have your interpretation ("the witnesses say it was a gas chamber, so it was, no matter how illogical and ridiculous the design") and I have mine ("no one in their right mind would design a Zyklon gas chamber like this since it would take hours to ventilate; this story is clearly BS").

You have quoted Pressac stating that whilst Krema I did not have a ventilation system designed for a gas chamber, it did have a ventilation system that worked.

LK1 in Krema II. Not Krema I.

Pressac routinely presents material that points one way (toward it not being true) but then ends up moving toward the orthodox conclusion (sort of). I place more weight on the substance of what Pressac's admits than I do on his opinions or conclusions. If he says "well, this ventilation design makes zero sense. But, uh, it must have worked somehow!" I am not obliged to take that conclusion seriously. I am free to note his concession and then draw my own conclusion based on the problematic facts he acknowledges about the ventilation design.

[Nessie]

You claimed you could show us "designs" for "gas chambers." I requested this and you pivoted to the "criminal traces" (after beating around the bush and posting a gish gallop). You were lying, just like you were lying about the "photos galore" in Sturdy-Colls.

I'm not going to debate the Pressac criminal traces with you ...

Pressac is irrelevant and off topic. I merely used him as part of the source of the documents that record the designing of gas chambers, to be fitted inside the Birkenau Kremas.

C S-C Treblinka thesis does contain photos of human remains. My use of the word "galore" was obvious hyperbole and was made because there is a lot more detail about the finding of human remains at the site.

When I prove a point, such as there was design work to install gas chambers and human remains were found at TII, you go into nitpick mode. Your Holocaust denial is dependent on pretending that vast quantities of evidence to prove the Holocaust do not exist.

[Archie]

<<My use of the word "galore" was obvious hyperbole>>

Lmao. Gets caught lying. "I was being hyperbolic." No. You were lying to people on X hoping they wouldn't check and wouldn't know any better. That is deliberate deception.

[Nessie]

<<My use of the word "galore" was obvious hyperbole>>

Lmao. Gets caught lying. "I was being hyperbolic." No. You were lying to people on X hoping they wouldn't check and wouldn't know any better. That is deliberate deception.

Saying photos galore with a lot more here, and a link to what I am referring to, is an odd deception and certainly not a lie.
You thought you would catch me out over designs for the gas chambers, which you have failed to do.

[Hektor]

...
I will repeat my advice to you from the other thread. It is really not in your interest to bluff like this.

Another tip I would give you. Statements like the following, I think are a mistake (even from your side's perspective): "They are corroborated by SS and Topf & Sons documents that record the ordering, design, construction and use of gas chambers and multiple corpse cremation ovens." You are overplaying your hand. You do this habitually. The problem here is that if someone follows up and asks to see these "records" with "designs" for "gas chambers" what you have to show them will not measure up to what you have promised in that sentence. And then your credibility is shot. This is one of the main things that turned me away from the anti-revisionist side early on. If you make a bold claim and I do several hours of research to confirm it and I find out you are lying to me, I'm not going to be happy with you.

There is quite some documentation on correspondence between camp camp officials and the supplier, but also internally.

Now the Holocaustians take this as evidence that a million of people were cremated there. But it actually isn't. The epidemics would create demand for 100s of people a day to be cremated, which can exceed the capacity present. So they stuffed the muffle ovens ultimately damaging them. That doesn't prove extermination, it contradicts the notion that the capacity of ovens could be increased by pushing more corpses into a muffle at once.

[Nessie]

...
Now the Holocaustians take this as evidence that a million of people were cremated there. But it actually isn't. The epidemics would create demand for 100s of people a day to be cremated, which can exceed the capacity present. So they stuffed the muffle ovens ultimately damaging them. That doesn't prove extermination, it contradicts the notion that the capacity of ovens could be increased by pushing more corpses into a muffle at once.

No murder is proved by just one piece of evidence. No historian claims that document is evidence to prove the Holocaust, you lied and made that up.

[Hektor]

...
Now the Holocaustians take this as evidence that a million of people were cremated there. But it actually isn't. The epidemics would create demand for 100s of people a day to be cremated, which can exceed the capacity present. So they stuffed the muffle ovens ultimately damaging them. That doesn't prove extermination, it contradicts the notion that the capacity of ovens could be increased by pushing more corpses into a muffle at once.

No murder is proved by just one piece of evidence. No historian claims that document is evidence to prove the Holocaust, you lied and made that up.

I did not say that. But the document is most def. used to make the Holocaust-Narrative believable, which it actually doesn't

[Nessie]

...
Now the Holocaustians take this as evidence that a million of people were cremated there. But it actually isn't. The epidemics would create demand for 100s of people a day to be cremated, which can exceed the capacity present. So they stuffed the muffle ovens ultimately damaging them. That doesn't prove extermination, it contradicts the notion that the capacity of ovens could be increased by pushing more corpses into a muffle at once.

No murder is proved by just one piece of evidence. No historian claims that document is evidence to prove the Holocaust, you lied and made that up.

I did not say that. But the document is most def. used to make the Holocaust-Narrative believable, which it actually doesn't

It is part of the evidence that proves mass gassing and cremations.

[Nessie]

Stubble;

viewtopic.php?p=24207#p24207

Here are the central construction office documents. By all means, show me, any, document that supports your claim. It, does not exist, there are no documents supporting your claim. You are mistaken.

I am going to use this list, rather than the one you provided, that requires downloading.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

The process that eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas described, was mass transports arrived, there was a selection process, those not needed for work were sent to the Kremas. Their personal possessions were stolen and sorted, stored and eventually sold. Inside the Kremas, people were told to undress, they were going for a shower, they were gassed and then cremated in multiple corpse cremations ovens. It was for a special action involving infirm prisoners, Jews and Hungarians.

The documents in that list corroborate those claims and that process. For example;

"Letter from central construction office Auschwitz to SS-WVHA of 9 June 1942 on “for the special treatment of Jews, erection of 4 horse stable barracks for accomodation of effects" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews..., p.109]"

"Telegram of Kammler to the central construction office Auschwitz on "for the special action Hungary, immediately erect three horse-stable barracks at the swerve bunkers" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.149]"

"Report (1,2) from Heinrich Kinna of 16 December 1942 on “imbeciles, idiots, cripples and sick people have to be removed from the camp within a short time by liquidiation to unburden the camp…Poles have to die of a natural death contrary to the measures applied on the Jews” [IPN GK 69/169, reproduced in Jaczynska, Sonderlaboratorium SS, p. 423, see also The Kinna Report - German Document on the Killing of Unfit Jews in Auschwitz]"

"Letter from Eduard Wirths of 21 January 1943 on “undressing room” in crematorium 2 [Mattogno ATCOS, vol. 1, p. 72]"

"Memo from Heinrich Swoboda of 29 January 1943 on “cremation with simultaneous special treatment” in crematorium 2
Letter from Karl Bischoff of 29 January 1943 on “gassing cellar” in crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 432]"

"Transfer inventory of 24 June 1943 on “14 showers” and “1 gas tight door” in crematorium 3 [Pressac, Technique , p. 430] "

"Work time sheet of 2 March 1943 on “concrete in gas chamber” in crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 446]"

"Letter from Topf to central construction office Auschwitz of 2 March 1943 on “display devices for hydrogen cyanide residues” for crematorium 2 [Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, p. 92]"

"Order of 5 March 1943 of “handle for gas door” for crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 433]"

"Report from Fritz Sanders of 14 September 1942 on "stuffing the individual muffles with several corpses" [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 443] "

Each part of the process the witnesses describe, is mirrored and corroborated by at least one, and often multiple documents.
The documents mirror and so corroborate the various parts of the process the eyewitnesses describe. Both eyewitnesses and documents record the same series of events and prove the usage of the Birkenau Kremas, 1943-4.

Stubble goes on to say;

I was going to also go in to asking Nessie about the morgue documents and have him try to walk me through how you get people to go into a morgue full of dead bodies to be gassed with a fumigant. I suppose I won't get to that point.

Where is his evidence the Krema Leichenkellers were used to store corpses, 1943-4? No document records that happening. No eyewitness reports it. Instead, documents and eyewitnesses corroborate that the rooms were used for gassing, not corpse stores.

[Stubble]

So, you don't have a blueprint of a homicidal gas chamber, as you claimed, and, you have only eyewitness testimony which we have established is the weakest form of evidence possible. Got it.

How can you fail so miserably, not retract, quinteple down, and still be unashamed? It's remarkable.

[Nessie]

So, you don't have a blueprint of a homicidal gas chamber, as you claimed,

I have never claimed to have had a blueprint of a gas chamber. You have made that up.

... and, you have only eyewitness testimony which we have established is the weakest form of evidence possible. Got it.

I have more than eyewitness testimony, which is the strongest form of evidence, when it comes to establishing a narrative

How can you fail so miserably, not retract, quinteple down, and still be unashamed? It's remarkable.

Documents recording the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas here;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

Letter from Karl Bischoff of 29 January 1943 on “gassing cellar” in crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 432]

Memo from Fritz Sander of 17 February 1943 on “the gas cellar” in crematorium 2 [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 456, back-up 1st and 2nd page]

Order of 13 February 1943 on “12 gas tight doors approx. 30/40” for crematorium 4 and 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 444]

Order of 15 February 1943 on “210 anchors for gas tight doors” for crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 448]

List of materials of 24 February 1943 on “12 gas tight doors approx. 30/40” for crematorium 4 and 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 444]

Delivery note of 24 February 1943 on “fittings of 12 gas tight doors” for crematorium 4 and 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 443]

Work time sheet of 28 February 1943 on “fit gas tight windows” in crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 445]

Work time sheet of 2 March 1943 on “concrete in gas chamber” in crematorium 4 [Pressac, Technique, p. 446]

Letter from Topf to central construction office Auschwitz of 2 March 1943 on “display devices for hydrogen cyanide residues” for crematorium 2 [Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, p. 92]

Order of 5 March 1943 of “handle for gas door” for crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 433]

Order from Karl Bischoff of 31 March 1943 on “3 gas tight doors” of crematorium 4 and 5 and “gas door 100/192 for corpse cellar 1…with double 8 mm glass and peephole” of crematorium 2 and 3 [Pressac, Technique, p. 436]

Transfer document of 31 March 1943 on “gas door” in crematorium 2 [Pressac, Technique, p. 437]

Order of 6 April 1943 on “24 anchor bolts for gas tight doors” for crematorium 4 and 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 454]

Order of 16 April 1943 on “iron for fittings for 5 gas doors” for crematorium 4 and 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 438]

Order of 16 April 1943 on “fitting for 1 gas door” for crematorium 3 [Pressac, Technique, p. 439]

Transfer inventory of 24 June 1943 on “14 showers” and “1 gas tight door” in crematorium 3 [Pressac, Technique , p. 430]

Work time sheet of 16 April 1943 on “fit gas door” in crematorium 5 [Pressac, Technique, p. 454]

The multiple documents are orders from and communications between the camp's construction office and Topf & Sons, the company responsible for modifying the Leichenkellers for use as gas chambers. They prove that each of the Birkenau Kremas had gas chambers built inside them in 1943. Those documents corroborate the eyewitnesses who worked inside the buildings in 1943-4.

[Stubble]

Oh, you're retarded and don't understand how you still haven't provided a blueprint of a homicidal gas chamber, and that your witness testimony is literally the extent of your evidence. OK.

The morgues were morgues, and, there is no physical evidence to support the testimony because the testimony does not reflect what occurred. I hope that's clear.

[Nessie]

Oh, you're retarded and don't understand how you still haven't provided a blueprint of a homicidal gas chamber, and that your witness testimony is literally the extent of your evidence. OK.

I have never claimed there was a blueprint that showed a gas chamber and I have just provided you with a list of documents that corroborate the stages of the process described by the eyewitnesses who worked inside the buildings. You call me retarded, but you appear to still not understand basic corroboration and evidencing.

The morgues were morgues, and, there is no physical evidence to support the testimony because the testimony does not reflect what occurred. I hope that's clear.

I hope it is clear, though in your case, it appears to not be so, that there is no evidence the Leichenkellers were used as morgues 1943-4. You have no eyewitness, documents or physical evidence to support your corpse store claim.
Every eyewitnesses agrees the buildings were used for gassings. Documents record the construction of gas chambers. The Nazi destruction of the buildings can be used to infer criminal activity on their part and physical items have been found that further corroborate the witnesses and documents.