The CODOH Revisionist Forum

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 12:45 am

Leon Feldhendler wrote about the start
of the cremation of the corpses in the camp:
In the first period, there was no crematorium. After gassing, the people were laid
into the graves. Then, out of the soil, blood and a bad odor of gas began to surface;
terrible smells spread over the whole camp, penetrating everything. The water in
Sobibor became rancid. This forced the Germans to build a crematorium. It was a
large pit with a roaster above it. The bodies were thrown on the roaster. The fire was
ignited from beneath, and petrol was poured on the corpses. The bones were crushed
into ashes with hammers. . . .5

Thank you for providing more direct evidence that cremations were for sanitary measures, not 'cover-ups'.

That aside, let's assume that petrol/gasoline was indeed poured upon the corpses. Do we care to estimate how much it was? Here's some more testimony from Sobibor (Mattogno, TORC):

Josef Trajtag (Sobibor) said:

It was said that people died in this chamber [w tej komorze] within five minutes. Then the workers entered the pit [do dołu] that was under this chamber into which the corpses of the murdered people fell thanks to the automatic opening of the iron floor; they transported the corpses of those killed on wagons [na wagonetki] and took them to a large pit, about 50 meters away from the chamber. The corpses were doused copiously with gasoline and burned.

Alexander Pechersky (Sobibor) said:

The ‘bath’ attendant observes the entire procedure through a small pane in the ceiling. In fifteen minutes it is all over. The floors open up and the dead bodies tumble down into small wagons that are standing ready below, in the ‘bath’s’ cellars. The full wagons roll out quickly. Everything is organized in accordance with the last word in German technology. Outside the bodies are laid out in a certain order. They are soaked with gasoline and set aflame. There is where they are burning,’ he pointed again.

Therefore, we have two additional sources saying that there was some heavy 'dousing' in order. Oddly enough, though, both of these testimonies 'converge' to claim a known falsehood: that there was an extraordinary engineering feat of a trap-door and wagons underneath, ready to wheel away the corpses. Therefore, 67% of your Sobibor testimony which claims liquid fuel was used at all also tell famous lies about 'diabolical German engineering'.

But what about Treblinka? You also mentioned Matthes:

At that time SS Oberscharführer or Hauptscharführer [Herbert] Floss, who, as I
assume, was previously in another extermination camp, arrived. He was in charge of
the arrangements for cremating the corpses. The cremation took place in such a way
that railway lines and concrete blocks were placed together. The corpses were piled on
these rails. Brushwood was put under the rails. The wood was doused with petrol. In
that way not only the newly accumulated corpses were cremated, but also those taken
out from the graves.

But who else spoke of liquid accelerants at Treblinka?:

Leon Finkelsztein (on Treblinka) said:

...in the end the usual grates of iron rails on concrete bases were built. On such a grate, many corpses were placed together, and the burning gave good results. Such a grate was lit with a small amount of wood or rags soaked in gasoline, and then the corpses burned by themselves.

Abe Kon (Treblinka) said:

Later, the extermination process proceeded as follows: suffocation and burning. They were incinerated in a specially manufactured furnace, which could hold up to 6,000 bodies. The furnace was filled with corpses. Gasoline or petroleum was poured over them and burned. The cremation lasted up to an hour.

Of course, this description of a 'special furnace' which could be 'filled with corpses' doesn't match any known evidence. We can assume he's talking about the pyres but this still renders the 6,000 capacity as completely impossible and invented.

Just for good measure, let's also look at Belzec (Ibid.):

Rozalja Schelewna Schier, quoting her husband:

Inside the shed, the floor folds automatically, and the corpses fall into a previously dug trench where the victims are doused with a flammable liquid and burnt.

More 'dousing'... but also more 'magic floors'...

Are these the witnesses you want to hang your hat on, bombsaway? If not, do you have any others? And do any of them mention a process by which at minimum tens of thousands of liters could be applied at a time? Because I've already allotted you ten liters per corpse for accounting purposes, so even if we're talking just 1,000 corpses, you're going to need at least 10,000 liters applied to account for just ~5% a reduction in wood required.

But please, show us your own numbers/accounting, just so we can all be sure that I'm not up to my sneaky "denial" tactics.

fireofice wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 1:23 am Dresden was basically one big cremation oven when it was being bombed.

The incineration of large numbers of people in Dresden is also indicated by estimates of the extreme temperature reached in Dresden during the firestorm. While no survivor has ever reported the actual temperature reached during the Dresden firestorm, many historians estimate that temperatures reached 1,500° Centigrade (2,732° Fahrenheit). Since temperatures in a cremation chamber normally reach only 1,400 degrees to 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, large numbers of people in Dresden would have been incinerated from the extreme heat generated in the firestorm.

https://codoh.com/library/document/how- ... t-dresden/

From the article

The evidence is also that asphyxiation or building collapse was the cause of most deaths

“[T]here is no substance to the reports that tens of thousands of victims were so thoroughly incinerated that no individual traces could be found. Not all were identified, but—especially as most victims died of asphyxiation or physical injuries—the overwhelming majority of individuals’ bodies could at least be distinguished as such.”

This is clear from the literature about these bombings. People got to bomb shelters but the air was sucked out of them.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 1:44 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 12:45 am

Leon Feldhendler wrote about the start
of the cremation of the corpses in the camp:
In the first period, there was no crematorium. After gassing, the people were laid
into the graves. Then, out of the soil, blood and a bad odor of gas began to surface;
terrible smells spread over the whole camp, penetrating everything. The water in
Sobibor became rancid. This forced the Germans to build a crematorium. It was a
large pit with a roaster above it. The bodies were thrown on the roaster. The fire was
ignited from beneath, and petrol was poured on the corpses. The bones were crushed
into ashes with hammers. . . .5

Thank you for providing more direct evidence that cremations were for sanitary measures, not 'cover-ups'.

That aside, let's assume that petrol/gasoline was indeed poured upon the corpses. Do we care to estimate how much it was? Here's some more testimony from Sobibor (Mattogno, TORC):

Josef Trajtag (Sobibor) said:

It was said that people died in this chamber [w tej komorze] within five minutes. Then the workers entered the pit [do dołu] that was under this chamber into which the corpses of the murdered people fell thanks to the automatic opening of the iron floor; they transported the corpses of those killed on wagons [na wagonetki] and took them to a large pit, about 50 meters away from the chamber. The corpses were doused copiously with gasoline and burned.

Alexander Pechersky (Sobibor) said:

The ‘bath’ attendant observes the entire procedure through a small pane in the ceiling. In fifteen minutes it is all over. The floors open up and the dead bodies tumble down into small wagons that are standing ready below, in the ‘bath’s’ cellars. The full wagons roll out quickly. Everything is organized in accordance with the last word in German technology. Outside the bodies are laid out in a certain order. They are soaked with gasoline and set aflame. There is where they are burning,’ he pointed again.

Therefore, we have two additional sources saying that there was some heavy 'dousing' in order. Oddly enough, though, both of these testimonies 'converge' to claim a known falsehood: that there was an extraordinary engineering feat of a trap-door and wagons underneath, ready to wheel away the corpses. Therefore, 67% of your Sobibor testimony which claims liquid fuel was used at all also tell famous lies about 'diabolical German engineering'.

But what about Treblinka? You also mentioned Matthes:

At that time SS Oberscharführer or Hauptscharführer [Herbert] Floss, who, as I
assume, was previously in another extermination camp, arrived. He was in charge of
the arrangements for cremating the corpses. The cremation took place in such a way
that railway lines and concrete blocks were placed together. The corpses were piled on
these rails. Brushwood was put under the rails. The wood was doused with petrol. In
that way not only the newly accumulated corpses were cremated, but also those taken
out from the graves.

But who else spoke of liquid accelerants at Treblinka?:

Leon Finkelsztein (on Treblinka) said:

...in the end the usual grates of iron rails on concrete bases were built. On such a grate, many corpses were placed together, and the burning gave good results. Such a grate was lit with a small amount of wood or rags soaked in gasoline, and then the corpses burned by themselves.

Abe Kon (Treblinka) said:

Later, the extermination process proceeded as follows: suffocation and burning. They were incinerated in a specially manufactured furnace, which could hold up to 6,000 bodies. The furnace was filled with corpses. Gasoline or petroleum was poured over them and burned. The cremation lasted up to an hour.

Of course, this description of a 'special furnace' which could be 'filled with corpses' doesn't match any known evidence. We can assume he's talking about the pyres but this still renders the 6,000 capacity as completely impossible and invented.

Just for good measure, let's also look at Belzec (Ibid.):

Rozalja Schelewna Schier, quoting her husband:

Inside the shed, the floor folds automatically, and the corpses fall into a previously dug trench where the victims are doused with a flammable liquid and burnt.

More 'dousing'... but also more 'magic floors'...

Are these the witnesses you want to hang your hat on, bombsaway? If not, do you have any others?

Maybe you can show some credible witnesses that attest to the corpses having been burnt with wood?

I don't think you think there are any credible witnesses.

Let's say that 5 thousand bodies per gassing cycle per day occurred, assuming a conservative amount of 20 liters of gasoline per body, we are talking about 100 thousand liters of gasoline per day in each field, it would be a Dresden per day in each field, where did they bring it from and how did they bring all of this to those fields?

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 1:57 am
Maybe you can show some credible witnesses that attest to the corpses having been burnt with wood?

I don't think you think there are any credible witnesses.

More deflection/dodging, we all know I don't find your witnesses -- any of them -- to be credible. If they claim a "Holocaust", I am convinced they are lying, because that is what the overall patterns of evidence clearly demonstrate.

Case in point: you dodge the matter of quantifying anything at all here. You keep doing it. Any deflection, left or right, up or down, you're all for it -- just so long as we don't discuss the math.

Why do you keep dodging the math, bombsaway? Am I going to have to dive into it without you? I keep trying to give you the first shot. I guess you don't want it.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 2:13 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 1:57 am
Maybe you can show some credible witnesses that attest to the corpses having been burnt with wood?

I don't think you think there are any credible witnesses.

More deflection/dodging, we all know I don't find your witnesses -- any of them -- to be credible. If they claim a "Holocaust", I am convinced they are lying, because that is what the overall patterns of evidence clearly demonstrate.

Case in point: you dodge the matter of quantifying anything at all here. You keep doing it. Any deflection, left or right, up or down, you're all for it -- just so long as we don't discuss the math.

Why do you keep dodging the math, bombsaway? Am I going to have to dive into it without you? I keep trying to give you the first shot. I guess you don't want it.

Why do I have to do the math? There are unknowns, the most important of which is how thorough the bodies must be burned in order for it to be relatively easy to break them apart. This sounds like a lot of work on my end, examining all the possibilities here, which I don't have the time or energy for. If you want to pay me to look through this and the corpse math in detail, I'd do it for 50 an hour. But by all means, you do the corpse math if you feel such a need.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 4:37 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 12:17 pm Bombs has pushed this liquid-fuels-instead-of-wood theory of his for a couple of years now. It's amazing to me that he hasn't abandoned this yet. It's been explained to him multiple times. If he hasn't gotten it by now, he's never going to get it. He obviously has no experience building fires.

The simpler truth is I think you guys are basically insane when it comes to Holocaust stuff (due to committing so much time and going so deep into this rabbit hole, existing in this echo chamber for years or decades) and I'm not readily going to believe the things you tell me, about science or anything else

https://chatgpt.com/share/68ed2a27-105c ... 92d26f6061

Some bombsaway trademarks here. 1) the lame and very transparent attempts at psychological manipulation, 2) appeals to AI. You see this from him especially when his argument isn't going very well.

Bombs, see if you can find a local boy scout troop and ask them if them if they will teach you how to build a fire. Try to make a few campfires. That should clear up these misconceptions of yours. The fact that nobody else on your side tries to argue for liquid fuels as the primary fuel source should be a hint that you've lost the plot.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 2:21 am Why do I have to do the math? There are unknowns, the most important of which is how thorough the bodies must be burned in order for it to be relatively easy to break them apart. This sounds like a lot of work on my end, examining all the possibilities here, which I don't have the time or energy for. If you want to pay me to look through this and the corpse math in detail, I'd do it for 50 an hour. But by all means, you do the corpse math if you feel such a need.

Maybe you should spend 15 minutes on ChatGPT and just dish out your best shot? Are you suddenly averse to an opportunity to 'stick it to deniers', right when you're on a roll with your gasoline theory? What timing.

Here is the Biomass Energy Data Book (2011 edition, US Department of Energy):
https://tedb.ornl.gov/wp-content/upload ... tion_4.pdf

It is pretty much the most authoritative source on all questions of how much energy is contained within various forms of biomass (e.g. wood, gasoline, you name it). On pages 201-205, we see that:

• Conventional gasoline has a lower heating value (LHV) of 43.45 MJ/kg (other liquid fuels are similar). This means that one liter of gasoline has an LHV of about 32.6 MJ (1 liter of gasoline = 0.75 kg of gasoline).
• Fresh/green wood, on the other hand, has an LHV of about 8.78 MJ/kg (HHV of dry hardwood is about 20 MJ/kg; apply formula for 50% moisture content: LHV = HHV(1-M) - 2.447M)
• Divide the energy release of 1 liter of gasoline by that of 1 kg of green hardwood and we confirm that 1 liter of gasoline replaces only about 3.7kg of wood.

Of course, there is some room for a margin of error (let's say plus or minus 2%, since this data is extremely reliable) but overall, our whole debate on the matter of gasoline/petrol as a supplementary or replacement fuel in the context of outdoor cremations is bound to this data. There is no way around it, bombsaway. And here's how you are screwed, sadly:

• Green wood with modest 50% moisture has an LHV of 8.78 MJ/kg -- each kg produces a maximum of 8.78 MJ of energy/heat (dry wood produces just over double this)
• Gasoline has LHV of 43.45 MJ/kg -- barely five times higher per kg than the wood!
• This means -- conclusively and beyond any reasonable doubts -- that even with outrageous amounts of gasoline, you are barely denting the amount of wood needed

The reason we use LHV instead of HHV is because for outdoor cremations, all heat in the water vapor is lost (if the water were to re-condense in a closed environment, the heat could be reused; but this is obviously not the case outdoors, so it's an exemplary use of LHV over HHV).

Altogether, bombsaway, your theory is dead. And the fact that you have worked so hard to maintain it is an exhibition to all of us of just how much your confidence has been flailing in the establishment 'Holocaust' narrative. You're forced to desperately defend a 'gasoline theory', even as it became more and more clear just how ridiculous it is. I mean, really?:

Is this the official narrative we are all familiar with?

Can we lock it?

I think this is an absolutely perfect thread.

Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:20 am Can we lock it?

I think this is an absolutely perfect thread.

Hall of Fame worthy!

Archie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:03 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 4:37 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 13, 2025 12:17 pm Bombs has pushed this liquid-fuels-instead-of-wood theory of his for a couple of years now. It's amazing to me that he hasn't abandoned this yet. It's been explained to him multiple times. If he hasn't gotten it by now, he's never going to get it. He obviously has no experience building fires.

The simpler truth is I think you guys are basically insane when it comes to Holocaust stuff (due to committing so much time and going so deep into this rabbit hole, existing in this echo chamber for years or decades) and I'm not readily going to believe the things you tell me, about science or anything else

https://chatgpt.com/share/68ed2a27-105c ... 92d26f6061

Some bombsaway trademarks here. 1) the lame and very transparent attempts at psychological manipulation, 2) appeals to AI. You see this from him especially when his argument isn't going very well.

Bombs, see if you can find a local boy scout troop and ask them if them if they will teach you how to build a fire. Try to make a few campfires. That should clear up these misconceptions of yours. The fact that nobody else on your side tries to argue for liquid fuels as the primary fuel source should be a hint that you've lost the plot.

I stated that we did not know, and that I was purely speculating. I don't think people have argued that it's all wood either, where do you see that?

However if it was mostly liquid fuel, I still believe that would have worked based on real world examples. Callafangers, your picture "applies" to Dresden as well you know, or was that fake too?

bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:59 amCallafangers, your picture "applies" to Dresden as well you know, or was that fake too?

If there is anything which claims that corpses were incinerated with less fuel than is needed to incinerate them, it isn't true. It's a concept of endothermic demand, which doesn't change no matter which fuel is used. We have already calculated and established that fairly green wood (~50% moisture) has a LHV of 8.78 MJ/kg. This means that where a kg of this wood is directly burning another object with zero heat loss (this is impossible; 20-50% is typically the maximum efficiency), the absolute maximum possible MJ input to that body from the kg of wood is 8.78 MJ. But a total of 200-400 MJ per body is needed (see Yerman 2018, Rudolf 2024), and the Yerman experiments show that real-world heat losses are far more extreme, such that some 5-9x total body weight in dry wood are ultimately needed for complete cremation (but far more so for emaciated corpses and green wood).

As for gasoline (and similar in other liquid fuels), we are looking at 32.6 MJ of maximum potential heat transferred per liter, but most of that is lost to evaporation and explosiveness. The actual MJ potential of gasoline toward meeting the endothermic demand per corpse would be far lower (even less efficient transfer than wood), altogether making a near 1:1 ratio by kg to MJ between wood and gasoline more or less accurate.

In other words, are you trying to eliminate 1,500 kg of wood? You'll be needing around ~1,500 - 2,000 liters of gasoline in its place.

The bottom-line is that this theory is a hard dead-end, thanks to the laws of thermodynamics and the inflexibility of endothermic demand. Claims of using gasoline/petrol on open pyres don't actually add any simplicity to your explanation for an extraordinary lack of fuel evidence at alleged 'extermination' camps.

Let's focus on the narrative. At Treblinka, some claim they used wood, and others that they used brushwood soaked in gasoline, but neither here is clear.

Let's say they used brushwood, as the Treblinka website claims, let's say it was all soaked. How much would this reduce the need for brushwood as fuel?

Pure but moist brushwood would have required over 100,000 tons to cremate the 800,000 victims of Treblinka. That would be around 4 million small trees, like filling 1,300 Boeing 747s. Using gasoline would reduce the need for brushwood by 14-24%, depending on how soaked the biomass was. This would have required between 12.8-22.5 million liters of gasoline. It would have hardly changed if it had been benzene, considering the cost of obtaining it and its toxicity.

I wonder if the entire Reich in 1943 produced that total amount of fuel for its needs, let alone gasoline or benzene.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 10:48 am depending on how soaked the biomass was.

And this is also why CF's questions were so important, if as his cartoon suggests it was merely hosed onto an open fire pit (LOL) as the fire is raging, there would be hardly soakage undertaken, and any fuel gains are short-lived.

To get "maximum soakage" would obviously require a process, something like entire pallets of dry wood being soaked and left for X-Weeks in a fuel pit / barn or some other process, then left to dry again. So a chop-dry-soak-redry process (!)

The latter of course only leads to more questions, rather than answers! What barn? Who did the soaking? For how long? Did the "soaking time" cause any throughput delays? Who did the drying?

So yes, all of this has completely backfired on Bombsaway.

HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 11:27 am
So yes, all of this has completely backfired on Bombsaway.

That's why the narrative focuses little on the issue of wood, they know it's a Pandora's box.