Comments on other threads.

[Stubble]

I'll work this up into an article for Inconvenient History. I'm also going to reach out to a structural engineer to double check my maths.

You severely underestimate the force applied by a panicking crowd in a life or death situation, regardless of if they are wearing clothes or not. Your entire camp does.

That there have been no real comments there than you with regard to the wall not being panic proof is not proof of a lack of support. You are assuming what everyone else thinks because of what you think.

If I were you I would start shouting 'logical fallacy' at you over and over.

That reminds me, just because you can not work out how crowds bend steel and collapse bricks doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Proof abounds. Your incredulity has 0 evidentiary value.

[Nessie]

I'll work this up into an article for Inconvenient History. I'm also going to reach out to a structural engineer to double check my maths.

You severely underestimate the force applied by a panicking crowd in a life or death situation, regardless of if they are wearing clothes or not. Your entire camp does.

You seriously overestimate people's ability to force open doors and break down walls. I cannot say that your entire camp also overestimates, since your claim is unique to you.

That there have been no real comments there than you with regard to the wall not being panic proof is not proof of a lack of support. You are assuming what everyone else thinks because of what you think.

If I were you I would start shouting 'logical fallacy' at you over and over.

That reminds me, just because you can not work out how crowds bend steel and collapse bricks doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Proof abounds. Your incredulity has 0 evidentiary value.

There is evidence how the door was reinforced, to prevent people from forcing it open. There is no evidence people managed to break down the walls. Therefore, my beliefs are evidence based.

[Stubble]

It was a standard door, are you saying the doors of the delousing chambers were 'panic proof' you fucking Muppet?

For fucks sake.

[Nessie]

It was a standard door, are you saying the doors of the delousing chambers were 'panic proof' you fucking Muppet?

For fucks sake.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

"It was a wooden door, made of two layers of short pieces of wood arranged like parquet. Between these layers there was a single sheet of material sealing the edges of the door and the rabbets of the frame were also fitted with sealing strips of felt."

The door was three layers thick. The inner material, which the Auschwitz museum descibes as "suprema (a mixture of wood shavings and cement)", would act as a sponge that would absorb blows. That is not as standard door.

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/stop-denia ... -chambers/

"At about head height for an average man this door had a round glass peephole. On the other side of the door, i.e. on the gas chamber side, this opening was protected by a hemispherical grid. This grid was fitted because the people in the gas chamber, feeling they were going to die, used to break the glass of the peep-hole. But the grid still did not provide sufficient protection and similar incidents recurred. The opening was blocked with a piece of metal or wood."

The peephole had to be reinforced and then blocked, because it was being broken.

"The people going to be gassed and those in the gas chamber damaged the electrical installations, tearing the cables out and damaging the ventilation equipment."

The people inside, in the panic, did cause damage, rather than attacking the walls. Only a few would have been able to apply any pressure to the door, or try to kick it down.

"The door was closed hermetically from the corridor side by means of iron bars which were screwed tight."

The iron bars were the reinforcement, to ensure the door was securely closed tight. You are a fantasist, to think you cpuld kick a door like that open.

[Stubble]

So, you are saying that all the doors were panic proof by design.

Dude, that iron for the locks is just to press the door into the seal, you push on that iron and it is going to bend, straight up.

You have to treat the force in the crowd as hydraulic pressure because that that density, people are bags of salt water with legs.

When you do this, you get up to around 8 kN/m.

There is no door on earth I'm aware of that is going to hold that, and it is around 8x the force needed to break the bond of the mortar to the brick leaving the brick in a pile in the vestibule and the room utterly open.

[Wetzelrad]

For you to claim that it would have been straightforward for naked people being gassed to death, to force open metal reinforced wooden doors and push down walls, a claim unique to you, which is not getting much in the way of support, is a sign of your desperation.

This argument is not unique to Stubble, as I've said something similar, and I'm sure I wasn't the first. Possibly it requires some phrasing more careful than what you've used (I would not say it is "straightforward"), but it is a legitimate line of discussion which you are attempting to stem with crude denial.

The baseline question is: is destroying any wall or door possible? And clearly the answer is yes. Your own attempted gotcha was:

Give me an example of a panicking crowd trapped inside a room, pushing down one of its brick walls.

Which Stubble adequately provided. You were wrong. Now the discussion can move forward to whether the same physical concept can apply to Auschwitz, where the crowd sizes were much larger.

What is the lateral load generated by a panicing crowd of 75 people, and what is the lateral load rating of a brick wall with no header, footer, or integrated tie ins and supports?

This is a good angle to pursue, but I'm not certain personally. To me, it's obvious that the door would be the weakest part of the wall and the first target for gassing victims, and based on previous discussion it would not be able to withstand the crowd pressure. I'm less sure the same is true of the wall itself. I agree with mengelemyth that freestanding walls are quite different than those in a basement. Outside of that, the only attempted counter-arguments against this have been sputtering, devoid of substance. Hopefully your mathematical approach works out.

The trouble with finding real-world examples of this is that it's a rare combination of many different factors. How often is there a large crowd which turns into a crowd panic, where there is also locked doors or limited door access, where the walls are made out of brick and well-constructed? And is that even newsworthy if there is no video of the event and no substantial injuries? The reason some sports event collapses are newsworthy is because of video, plus people get badly injured by falling from a height through the gap where the wall was or by the wall collapsing on top of them. Rare fact patterns.

The simple reality is that there are no real-world events exactly like the Holocaust gassing story, so there's nothing to compare it to. In real life, people who are gassed are restrained to prevent damage like this from happening.

[Wetzelrad]

It was a standard door, are you saying the doors of the delousing chambers were 'panic proof' you fucking Muppet?

For fucks sake.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

"It was a wooden door, made of two layers of short pieces of wood arranged like parquet. Between these layers there was a single sheet of material sealing the edges of the door and the rabbets of the frame were also fitted with sealing strips of felt."

The door was three layers thick. The inner material, which the Auschwitz museum descibes as "suprema (a mixture of wood shavings and cement)", would act as a sponge that would absorb blows. That is not as standard door.

That is in fact a standard door. It is the exact design of the delousing doors. I feel you're playing at being ignorant intentionally.

[Stubble]

For you to claim that it would have been straightforward for naked people being gassed to death, to force open metal reinforced wooden doors and push down walls, a claim unique to you, which is not getting much in the way of support, is a sign of your desperation.

This argument is not unique to Stubble, as I've said something similar, and I'm sure I wasn't the first. Possibly it requires some phrasing more careful than what you've used (I would not say it is "straightforward"), but it is a legitimate line of discussion which you are attempting to stem with crude denial.

The baseline question is: is destroying any wall or door possible? And clearly the answer is yes. Your own attempted gotcha was:

Give me an example of a panicking crowd trapped inside a room, pushing down one of its brick walls.

Which Stubble adequately provided. You were wrong. Now the discussion can move forward to whether the same physical concept can apply to Auschwitz, where the crowd sizes were much larger.

What is the lateral load generated by a panicing crowd of 75 people, and what is the lateral load rating of a brick wall with no header, footer, or integrated tie ins and supports?

This is a good angle to pursue, but I'm not certain personally. To me, it's obvious that the door would be the weakest part of the wall and the first target for gassing victims, and based on previous discussion it would not be able to withstand the crowd pressure. I'm less sure the same is true of the wall itself. I agree with mengelemyth that freestanding walls are quite different than those in a basement. Outside of that, the only attempted counter-arguments against this have been sputtering, devoid of substance. Hopefully your mathematical approach works out.

The trouble with finding real-world examples of this is that it's a rare combination of many different factors. How often is there a large crowd which turns into a crowd panic, where there is also locked doors or limited door access, where the walls are made out of brick and well-constructed? And is that even newsworthy if there is no video of the event and no substantial injuries? The reason some sports event collapses are newsworthy is because of video, plus people get badly injured by falling from a height through the gap where the wall was or by the wall collapsing on top of them. Rare fact patterns.

The simple reality is that there are no real-world events exactly like the Holocaust gassing story, so there's nothing to compare it to. In real life, people who are gassed are restrained to prevent damage like this from happening.

Of course the door is going to give first. I don't know how many of you have worked with iron, but, those locks are going to bend like taffy when you load that door up with force.

I'm poking around for an engineer to look at my math and see if it needs refinement or if it is good to go. Then I will pen an article for Inconvenient History and get it 'on the board' as it were.

My point in pursuing this line of inquiry was to assume, as the exterminationists do, that the door was made from 'unbreakium' and just grant that out of hand, along with the frame.

Doing so, I came to a force of around 1.2 kN/m to fail the mortar and I got a crowd size of around 75 people to generate that much force, if they coordinate.

At the density in Krema II and III, you move past that immediately and get into pressures that are absolutely mind-boggling.

Exterminationists have absolutely 0 respect for crowd panic.

I thought i did pretty good providing the panicked crowd in South Africa pushing out a brick wall when somebody threw a gas grenade into the crowd. I considered that a decent analog even if it was just tear gas and even if the crowd was way smaller.

Note: this also applies to the now missing wall in Krema I.

[Wetzelrad]

Doing so, I came to a force of around 1.2 kN/m to fail the mortar and I got a crowd size of around 75 people to generate that much force, if they coordinate.

Hrm. I'm not able to speak confidently on this, but I think it needs criticism so I will try.

Surprisingly, the horizontal force of a human is not something very well established on the internet, but if we go by the workout numbers in this paper, it should average 195.5 N. With that figure, just 7 people could generate over 1,200 N, and they could reasonably do it within one meter or square meter of wall space.

With 75 people, you're no longer working in one meter of wall space.

It's true that crowds behave more like a liquid at high density, but I think it would be best not to resort to that for your paper. Not until you've established the point in simpler terms, at least.

I'm not sure how to evaluate some of the figures I see (like N/m^2 or psi) when dealing with larger areas. I don't think the people testing the lateral/shear/pushover strength of a wall distribute their force across a wide surface area. How to deal with this problem?

Is 1,200 N a sure number for the required load? I see that number appears in https://hal.science/hal-03894225v1]this paper, but that is for a red brick wall of exactly one square meter. The paper shows that a bigger force is needed for larger walls. Also this example is freestanding, affixed only at the bottom, so of course more force would be needed for an interior wall. Auschwitz's walls were also cemented front and back, therefore thicker than the bricks themselves, plus some of them were probably multiple bricks in thickness. Also vertical load from the wall above will add to its stability. Altogether, I think the load required could be many times larger than 1,200 N. I'm not sure about N/m^2.

By the way, I think it likely that the walls of Crematorias I, IV, and V were all more vulnerable to this problem than those of II and III.

[Stubble]

Like I said, I need to talk to an engineer. I'm coming at this with a background in HVAC-R and agricultural systems. Construction isn't really my strong suit. The data that I have gathered and the formulas I have used are from peer reviewed papers on crowd pressure. You can't just take the maximum force from each person and compound it. There are formulas for calculating the force though and it has been modeled.

Psi isn't going to look very impressive, and lbf (pound feet) are generally used from what I gather.

The LK-1 basement was basically standing room, so, your force is applied to the whole wall. You model it as hydraulic pressure because people are bags of salt water with feet. At 1.2kN/m this works out to a load of around 1,800 lbf on the wall. You get this at around 75 people. The mortar fails around there.

The lateral load is the problem here, because a brick wall can do vertical pressure for days. Lateral loads, not so much.

The skin of mortar isn't something I factored in, because it is just a thin coat of mortar.

One thing is, you can't model this as 1 meter, you have to include the entire surface area, so, for 2m, double it, 3, triple. It compounds fast. Let's say you have a 10 unit wall, and you have x force per unit, well, collectively you have a load of 10 × x.

We also aren't talking about the minimum here (75 people) there is a lot more potential in a crowd of 2,000. Just by weight, not even pushing, you have a load. Not enough to bring the wall down, but, also not insignificant.

At 8kN/m across the entire wall, the numbers get pretty silly. A load of 12,500 lbf on the wall.

Note, I've edited this post 3 times now and need to not post while I am doing other things when presenting a technical argument. I'm doing some captioning for a video right now, and, not having my notes in my hand, I wrote down some wrong numbers, because first, I didn't consult the prints for the size and thought I remembered it right. I didn't. Anyhow, these numbers are right, assuming the models are right. The models are based off of real world analysis of bent steel and toppled walls, as well as some novel pedestrian traffic studies. So, at 1.2 kN/m you get mortar failure and at 8 you are well past the wall holding anyone in.

[Nessie]

For you to claim that it would have been straightforward for naked people being gassed to death, to force open metal reinforced wooden doors and push down walls, a claim unique to you, which is not getting much in the way of support, is a sign of your desperation.

This argument is not unique to Stubble, as I've said something similar, and I'm sure I wasn't the first. Possibly it requires some phrasing more careful than what you've used (I would not say it is "straightforward"), but it is a legitimate line of discussion which you are attempting to stem with crude denial.

The baseline question is: is destroying any wall or door possible? And clearly the answer is yes. Your own attempted gotcha was:

Give me an example of a panicking crowd trapped inside a room, pushing down one of its brick walls.

Which Stubble adequately provided. You were wrong. Now the discussion can move forward to whether the same physical concept can apply to Auschwitz, where the crowd sizes were much larger.

I was not wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to question a claim and ask it to be evidenced. You do it all the time. The example provided was not one where a wall was breached to escape, it was an internal wall that collapsed during a panic. A lot more would need to done, to evidence the walls of the Kremas could be breached.

What is the lateral load generated by a panicing crowd of 75 people, and what is the lateral load rating of a brick wall with no header, footer, or integrated tie ins and supports?

This is a good angle to pursue, but I'm not certain personally. To me, it's obvious that the door would be the weakest part of the wall and the first target for gassing victims, and based on previous discussion it would not be able to withstand the crowd pressure. I'm less sure the same is true of the wall itself. I agree with mengelemyth that freestanding walls are quite different than those in a basement. Outside of that, the only attempted counter-arguments against this have been sputtering, devoid of substance. Hopefully your mathematical approach works out.

The trouble with finding real-world examples of this is that it's a rare combination of many different factors. How often is there a large crowd which turns into a crowd panic, where there is also locked doors or limited door access, where the walls are made out of brick and well-constructed? And is that even newsworthy if there is no video of the event and no substantial injuries? The reason some sports event collapses are newsworthy is because of video, plus people get badly injured by falling from a height through the gap where the wall was or by the wall collapsing on top of them. Rare fact patterns.

The simple reality is that there are no real-world events exactly like the Holocaust gassing story, so there's nothing to compare it to. In real life, people who are gassed are restrained to prevent damage like this from happening.

It is yet another example of a revisionist what if, hypothetical exercise. They like that, as it makes them think they are still in the game, as it acts as a substitute for what they are missing, which is actual evidence, such as an eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas. There is zero evidence of walls being damaged, despite the claims about the scratch marks on the walls of Krema I. There is evidence of fittings and the door being damaged, but no reports of escapes.

How about you work with the evidence, rather than what you would like to happened?

[Nessie]

It was a standard door, are you saying the doors of the delousing chambers were 'panic proof' you fucking Muppet?

For fucks sake.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

"It was a wooden door, made of two layers of short pieces of wood arranged like parquet. Between these layers there was a single sheet of material sealing the edges of the door and the rabbets of the frame were also fitted with sealing strips of felt."

The door was three layers thick. The inner material, which the Auschwitz museum descibes as "suprema (a mixture of wood shavings and cement)", would act as a sponge that would absorb blows. That is not as standard door.

That is in fact a standard door. It is the exact design of the delousing doors. I feel you're playing at being ignorant intentionally.

I would not describe a delousing chamber as a standard door. It is a specific to a task door. A standard door would be like the one the really ignorant deniers on X, think was the door into the gas chamber, a normal internal door, of which examples would be found everywhere.

[Nessie]

Like I said, I need to talk to an engineer. I'm coming at this with a background in HVAC-R and agricultural systems. Construction isn't really my strong suit...

There are so many factors that you will have to theorise, including how organised can a crowd get when they are all asphyxiating from HCN?

This is the latest in a long line of theoretical suggestions, whereby you think, if you cannot figure something out, that means it is suspect and acts as evidence it did not happen. You even admit that your skills are not appropriate and then you show no signs of acknowledging that is going to affect your ability to reach an accurate conclusion.

You revisionists are an arrogant bunch, who make all sorts of judgements, on witnesses, archaeology, construction, imagery, documents and the evidence in general, without really knowing much about the subject. It is blatantly obvious that you are looking for reasons to doubt that evidence, to support your beliefs.

This claim of yours falls into the same category as another called Turnagain, who could not work out, to his satisfaction, how the Nazis dug the pits used for the mass graves and what happened to the spoil? Since many of his questions went unanswered, such as where did the Nazis pile the spoil from the pits, he believed he had found evidence to prove no pits were dug. That is despite all the evidence, from witnesses and geophysics, pits were dug. Real evidence was ignored and desired belief based on his puzzlement won.

You think puzzling over why those being gassed did not breach doors and walls, is somehow the same as evidence.

[Nessie]

This is a classic example of revisionist theoreticals, as a substitute for evidence;

viewtopic.php?p=23530#p23530

by Archie » Fri Mar 27, 2026 4:24 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 12:55 am
The distributor cone could have been removable, and I would say it was.

It sounds like the "can" thing was a mistranslation and Tauber consistently referred to it as a box, which would be able to collect the pellets more effectively.

Your criticisms here are therefore solely relegated to 'they described part of the mechanism but not the whole thing'. Given the failure to address the 0 witnesses that describe ANY aspect of the largest population transfer and resettlement in history, this is an unworkable argument for revisionists. I don't even have to tell you why it's weak criticism, you aren't bothered by incompleteness happening at a much much higher scale with your own belief system.

Given that Van Pelt badly bungled his drawing of the column, you should consider publishing your version. You are blazing a trail in Holocaust studies here.

Bombsaway points out a massive part of the revisionist suggested history that lacks evidence and Archie completely ignores that as he theorises what it means when witnesses do not provide the same description of an item.

To really revise the history of the Holocaust, revisionists should be researching an evidence gathering, to prove millions of Jews still alive in 1944-5. Instead, in the thread linked to, they puzzle over why one witness does not describe a basket/bucket/canister, when other witnesses do. They cannot even say what the point of the thread is and what it is supposed to evidence. Utterly bizarre.

[Keen]

C S-C found numerous pits in the parts of the camp witnesses identified as having mass graves...

How is Krege's survey that found nothing at all, confirmed by the 11 pits that C S-C located...

The lying pig Colls alleges that she located 15 "possible grave sites" / "probable burial / cremation pits."

Also roberto:

Geophysics scientifically and conclusively proves that there are pits, G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54 and that they exist. But it does not prove that those pits contain human remains.

CSC:

Without intrusive activity it is not possible to conclusively determine the nature of these pits.