Aktion 1005 Was Not To Destroy Remains?

[Stubble]

Bombsaway, there is a bit of a misunderstanding here on your part.

Meat, doesn't, pass, through, a, ball, mill.

[TlsMS93]

It is easier to try to determine whether 800,000 people died in Treblinka by calculating how many bones remain on average per body after cremation, rather than sifting ashes from the earth, but to do so you will have to turn over the hell that is the soil of Treblinka and they will not do that.

[bombsaway]

Bombsaway, there is a bit of a misunderstanding here on your part.

Meat, doesn't, pass, through, a, ball, mill.

Source? Should I just believe you? I guess you just disproved the Holocaust good job

[Stubble]

Bombsaway, there is a bit of a misunderstanding here on your part.

Meat, doesn't, pass, through, a, ball, mill.

Source? Should I just believe you? I guess you just disproved the Holocaust good job

You love AI, here...

Thank you for the clarification.

If you're **using a dry ball mill** and **loading it with wet material**, and you're experiencing **media binding** (grinding media clumping together or sticking to the material or mill components), this is a known issue when moisture is introduced into a system designed for dry grinding.

### Key Points:

- **Dry ball mills** are designed to grind **dry materials**, typically with low moisture content (usually less than 1–2% moisture).
- **Wet material** introduces moisture, which can cause:
- **Media agglomeration**: Balls sticking to each other or to the material.
- **Material buildup**: Material sticking to the mill liners or media, reducing grinding efficiency.
- **Reduced throughput**: Binding reduces the motion of the media, lowering productivity.
- **Potential damage**: Prolonged binding can lead to increased wear or even mechanical issues due to uneven loads.

### Causes of Media Binding in Dry Ball Mills with Wet Material:

1. **Moisture-induced adhesion**: Water or moisture acts as a binding agent, causing particles and media to stick together.
2. **Inadequate airflow**: Dry mills often rely on airflow to move material through the system. Moisture can impede this flow and cause clogging or clumping.
3. **Lack of drying capacity**: Dry mills typically don’t have a built-in drying mechanism. If the material is too wet, it overwhelms the system.
4. **Material characteristics**: Some materials are more hygroscopic (absorb moisture) or become sticky when wet.

### Solutions:

1. **Dry the material first**: The most effective solution is to ensure the feed material is sufficiently dry before entering the mill.
2. **Install a pre-drying system**: If moisture is unavoidable, consider adding a pre-dryer or using a flash dryer before the mill.
3. **Use grinding aids**: Certain additives can reduce adhesion and prevent media from sticking. These are often used in cement grinding.
4. **Adjust mill temperature**: Slightly increasing the mill inlet temperature can help evaporate moisture, but be cautious of overheating.
5. **Modify mill operation**: Reduce feed rate to allow the mill to handle any moisture present and prevent overload.

### Recommendation:
If wet material must be processed, consider switching to a **wet ball mill** system, which is designed to handle slurries and manage moisture effectively.

Let me know if you'd like help evaluating the material moisture content or selecting a suitable drying method.

If you want to say they used a wet mill, you are gonna have to find one.

Seriously.

Furthermore, that moves us into 'obliteration' territory and undermines the point you were literally just trying to make that the aktion wasn't about obliteration, hence the low fuel demand...

You have to reconcile this Bombsaway, yawning isn't going to cut it.

[bombsaway]

Bombsaway, there is a bit of a misunderstanding here on your part.

Meat, doesn't, pass, through, a, ball, mill.

Source? Should I just believe you? I guess you just disproved the Holocaust good job

You love AI, here...

Thank you for the clarification.

If you're **using a dry ball mill** and **loading it with wet material**, and you're experiencing **media binding** (grinding media clumping together or sticking to the material or mill components), this is a known issue when moisture is introduced into a system designed for dry grinding.

### Key Points:

- **Dry ball mills** are designed to grind **dry materials**, typically with low moisture content (usually less than 1–2% moisture).
- **Wet material** introduces moisture, which can cause:
- **Media agglomeration**: Balls sticking to each other or to the material.
- **Material buildup**: Material sticking to the mill liners or media, reducing grinding efficiency.
- **Reduced throughput**: Binding reduces the motion of the media, lowering productivity.
- **Potential damage**: Prolonged binding can lead to increased wear or even mechanical issues due to uneven loads.

### Causes of Media Binding in Dry Ball Mills with Wet Material:

1. **Moisture-induced adhesion**: Water or moisture acts as a binding agent, causing particles and media to stick together.
2. **Inadequate airflow**: Dry mills often rely on airflow to move material through the system. Moisture can impede this flow and cause clogging or clumping.
3. **Lack of drying capacity**: Dry mills typically don’t have a built-in drying mechanism. If the material is too wet, it overwhelms the system.
4. **Material characteristics**: Some materials are more hygroscopic (absorb moisture) or become sticky when wet.

### Solutions:

1. **Dry the material first**: The most effective solution is to ensure the feed material is sufficiently dry before entering the mill.
2. **Install a pre-drying system**: If moisture is unavoidable, consider adding a pre-dryer or using a flash dryer before the mill.
3. **Use grinding aids**: Certain additives can reduce adhesion and prevent media from sticking. These are often used in cement grinding.
4. **Adjust mill temperature**: Slightly increasing the mill inlet temperature can help evaporate moisture, but be cautious of overheating.
5. **Modify mill operation**: Reduce feed rate to allow the mill to handle any moisture present and prevent overload.

### Recommendation:
If wet material must be processed, consider switching to a **wet ball mill** system, which is designed to handle slurries and manage moisture effectively.

Let me know if you'd like help evaluating the material moisture content or selecting a suitable drying method.

If you want to say they used a wet mill, you are gonna have to find one.

Seriously.

Furthermore, that moves us into 'obliteration' territory and undermines the point you were literally just trying to make that the aktion wasn't about obliteration, hence the low fuel demand...

You have to reconcile this Bombsaway, yawning isn't going to cut it.

How wet are incinerated bodies?

can a ball mill process 90% incinerated bodies (water weight gone) without encountering serious media binding issues , mostly for crushing bone into fragments, if it is cleaned regularly




Show thinking
Yes, a ball mill can effectively process 90% incinerated human remains to crush bone into fragments without serious media binding issues, provided it is cleaned regularly and proper operational procedures are followed. The process is feasible due to the nature of the material and the mechanics of the milling process.

Material Properties and Ball Mill Operation
Incinerated human remains, with the water weight and organic matter removed, consist primarily of calcined bone, which is composed mainly of calcium phosphate. This material is notably brittle, making it well-suited for the impact and attrition forces generated within a ball mill. The objective of the milling process in this context is to reduce the size of these brittle bone fragments into a finer, more uniform powder.

Media binding, a common issue in ball milling where the grinding media becomes coated or clogged with the material being processed, can be mitigated through several key practices:

Regular Cleaning: As the prompt suggests, a consistent and thorough cleaning schedule is paramount. This prevents the accumulation of fine particles that can lead to caking and binding of the grinding media (the balls).

Removal of Contaminants: Prior to milling, it is crucial to remove any non-bone materials from the incinerated remains. This includes metallic objects such as surgical implants (e.g., hip replacements, dental fillings) or casket hardware. These items can damage the mill and interfere with the grinding process.

Proper Mill Speed and Media Size: The efficiency of the grinding process and the prevention of issues like binding are highly dependent on operating the ball mill at an optimal speed and using the correct size and type of grinding media. The selection of these parameters will depend on the specific characteristics of the bone fragments and the desired final particle size.

Industrial Precedent
The practice of grinding calcined bone is not new. Historically and in modern applications, ball mills and similar grinding apparatuses are used to process animal bones that have been calcined (heated to high temperatures to remove organic matter) to produce bone ash. This bone ash is then utilized in various industries, most notably in the production of bone china and as a component in some ceramic glazes. This established industrial application demonstrates the viability of using ball mills to process materials with properties very similar to incinerated human remains.

[Stubble]

You have a mental error that isn't going to be fixed until you actually grind something. You completely lack any understanding or respect for the process.

The industrial preperation of bone ash and desiccating corpses on railroad tracks using a minuscule amount of wood are radically different things, furthermore, at Belzec there is no evidence a bone mill was used, what's less mallets and tin.

At Treblinka II, as I would expect, you have a similar described in the initial reports. Bodies turned up from the soil in various states of decay and putrefaction, hence the sand.

This measure was obviously hygienic, the timeline speaks to this as does the material evidence such as it is.

You are also undermining your 'it wasn't for obliteration' statement by now introducing a method of obliteration. This is compounded by the fuel problem you just reintroduced with the obliteration.

You are holding two counter views simultaneously.

You need to adopt a position, not twist and contort yourself around both.

They are irreconcilable.

[bombsaway]

You have a mental error that isn't going to be fixed until you actually grind something. You completely lack any understanding or respect for the process.

The industrial preperation of bone ash and desiccating corpses on railroad tracks using a minuscule amount of wood are radically different things, furthermore, at Belzec there is no evidence a bone mill was used, what's less mallets and tin.

At Treblinka II, as I would expect, you have a similar described in the initial reports. Bodies turned up from the soil in various states of decay and putrefaction, hence the sand.

This measure was obviously hygienic, the timeline speaks to this as does the material evidence such as it is.

You are also undermining your 'it wasn't for obliteration' statement by now introducing a method of obliteration. This is compounded by the fuel problem you just reintroduced with the obliteration.

You are holding two counter views simultaneously.

You need to adopt a position, not twist and contort yourself around both.

They are irreconcilable.

Yeah there's plenty of evidence of body destruction in the witness testimonies re Belzec, watchu talkin about willis

What two counter views? Every non -revisionits believes the bodies were incinerated first, that's what the witnesses say too. It's just factually incorrect statement after factually incorrect statement, and you've diverted from your original point which was something about bodies being destroyed so that they couldn't be counted being dumb? Well that's what I believe.

[Stubble]

Then you are back to your fuel problem Bombsaway, because the pyres do not sufficiently destroy the remains for such post processing.

Look at the Kola study again, and read the primary reports about body parts at Treblinka II.

Either the incineration was total, allowing for post processing as described (not borne out by the evidence by the way) or it wasn't.

You've got ligament, hair and soft tissue inside the ash layers at Belzec. You've got skulls, fingers etc. That obviously hasn't been through any post processing. It was diluted with sand, for sanitation, and it was buried.

If you are going to claim post processing, you are better off sticking to knocking tin with mallets, because that at least in theory could happen. Running a corpse from one of these pyres through a ball mill isn't.

Now, at Chelmno, you might could use a mill assuming you used the carcass incinerator, but, you have a throughput problem there.

With pyres? That's a no go buddy.

[bombsaway]

Then you are back to your fuel problem Bombsaway, because the pyres do not sufficiently destroy the remains for such post processing.

Look at the Kola study again, and read the primary reports about body parts at Treblinka II.

Either the incineration was total, allowing for post processing as described (not borne out by the evidence by the way) or it wasn't.

You've got ligament, hair and soft tissue inside the ash layers at Belzec. You've got skulls, fingers etc. That obviously hasn't been through any post processing. It was diluted with sand, for sanitation, and it was buried.

If you are going to claim post processing, you are better off sticking to knocking tin with mallets, because that at least in theory could happen. Running a corpse from one of these pyres through a ball mill isn't.

Now, at Chelmno, you might could use a mill assuming you used the carcass incinerator, but, you have a throughput problem there.

With pyres? That's a no go buddy.

THe corpses were buried first, sometime 1-1.5 years before being burned, further dehydration. Of course I believe the bodies were incinerated, I don't know to what extent. I said 90% to the AI, should I go lower? At 75% water weight gone it gives the same answer, but yes it would have to be cleaned.

[Archie]

Why do you say Jews?

+$1 in the Bombsaway Is Not White jar

Since revisionists speculate so much about the underlying motives and psychology of the 'promoters' I think it's fair to point out the obsession you guys clearly have with Jews -- the speculation about me is just another example of this. You know there are more evolved anti semites like Richard Spencer who have rightly pointed this out as a pathology. He's crazy, don't get me wrong, but I do wonder how it feels to be thought of as a bumpkin by so many people in your camp.

Bombsaway,

You have repeatedly attacked us for bias and lack of objectivity. In my mind, this makes the issue of YOUR motivations fair game.

Furthermore, you have repeatedly claimed that your interest in this topic owes to nothing more than pure intellectual curiosity. And you have said you talk to us not because you are personally invested in defending the Holocaust (no, no!) but because you are just randomly fascinated in studying us as examples of psychopathology. You imply with these statements that you are not Jewish, yet you conspicuously refuse to say explicitly that you are not Jewish. Why the caginess? I don't care if you are Jewish or not, but if you are going to come in here claiming to be 100% disinterested in this topic while in reality you are just a Jew defending your ethnic group then you are being a dishonest snake and you deserve to be called out for it. My strong suspicion is that you are full of shit.

For the record, I consider myself something of a moderate on the JQ. When ConfusedJew showed up here, note that I was reasonably friendly to him. I did lose some patience with him with time, but that was more because of his posting style. I initially found his forthrightness refreshing compared to a guy like you who has been talking to us for like five years and is still pretending not to be Jewish.

If core believers like CJ and the Fish Fryer have no intention of shifting their beliefs or taking on another viewpoint and yet remains so fervent in their position why are they even coming here?

If we are a bunch of knuckle dragging flat earth types who would be laughed at in general media and discussion forums and have nothing whatsoever to back our claims up, then why are they coming here?

If every claim and question we have and raise is beneath contempt for these Dead Sea pedestrians and fake jews and their argument is that there is no argument, then why do they come here?

I can't speak for the others but I think you guys are interesting psychologically, the debate itself is also fascinating and leads into other subjects like what evidence is, how historical events may be determined. Revisionists also ask questions about the history which are unorthodox and often worthwhile to look into.

A deeper question for me is how this relates to societally, misinformation spread thru internet is having a big influence on current events and likely will need to be addressed directly sometime in the future. AI can probably do this but there are big issues w it for now. Callafangerw and others will likely see this as deinite bs but idk it's my truth. I also forgot to.mentiom that this is entertaining to g for me,.maybe lole playing a video game

"I just think you guys are interesting pscyhological specimens"

"I'm just here for fun, this is like video game for me"

I don't believe you.

[Stubble]

The bodies were 'stored' in the water table for a year or a year and a half at Treblinka II. That's not going to desiccate them.

We are talking past each other me thinks. You should reflect on what I have put out there and ponder it and I will do the same.

It would be a disservice to the thread and to the forum for us to continue to clutter the thread saying the same thing over and over again.

To be as clear as possible, meat doesn't go in a ball mill Bombsaway, it is problematic, for a series of reasons, starting with it being gummy. To use the mill on a corpse, that corpse need to be, at least mostly, skeleton. Ligament and soft tissue and meat aren't going to be conducive to the operation of the equipment.

I will ruminate on what you are saying, maybe I misunderstand you as badly as you misunderstand me, I mean, you threw out this statement here, which is so far away from what I am saying that I don't know where to start;

It's just factually incorrect statement after factually incorrect statement, and you've diverted from your original point which was something about bodies being destroyed so that they couldn't be counted being dumb? Well that's what I believe.

If you really think this, than you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.

[bombsaway]

The bodies were 'stored' in the water table for a year or a year and a half at Treblinka II. That's not going to desiccate them.

We are talking past each other me thinks. You should reflect on what I have put out there and ponder it and I will do the same.

It would be a disservice to the thread and to the forum for us to continue to clutter the thread saying the same thing over and over again.

To be as clear as possible, meat doesn't go in a ball mill Bombsaway, it is problematic, for a series of reasons, starting with it being gummy. To use the mill on a corpse, that corpse need to be, at least mostly, skeleton. Ligament and soft tissue and meat aren't going to be conducive to the operation of the equipment.

I will ruminate on what you are saying, maybe I misunderstand you as badly as you misunderstand me, I mean, you threw out this statement here, which is so far away from what I am saying that I don't know where to start;

It's just factually incorrect statement after factually incorrect statement, and you've diverted from your original point which was something about bodies being destroyed so that they couldn't be counted being dumb? Well that's what I believe.

If you really think this, than you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.

And it's impossible to clean you're saying? I don't get it. The incorrect statements are thing like : at Belzec there is no evidence a bone mill was used, what's less mallets and tin.

there is witness testimony here so

And yep, they destroyed the bodies to prevent counting. What was that whole point about?

[Wetzelrad]

Wrong. When I read Hilberg stating "leave no mass graves", or Himmler ordering "erase the traces", I do not take that literally. It is physically and forensically impossible, to return a mass grave to its original state. They are referring to the cover-up of the murders, by the use of cremation. That neither Hilberg, nor Himmler go into detail about the way cremations would cover up the murders, is either because to them, it is blindingly obvious, or they lack forensic awareness, or they do not think the how, is that important.

I agree that true erasure is physically and forensically impossible, but that is none the less the consensus position on the Holocaust. You are way out in the fringe by claiming that Hilberg and the museums and their sources are all wrong about this.

One of Hilberg's sources is Blobel's postwar statement where he explicitly says that the purpose of his assignment was to erase "all traces of Einsatzgruppen executions". That is, he was to hide the crime itself, not just the victims' identities or their number. Since Blobel is supposed to be the commander of Aktion 1005, he ought to have known what his own job was, but you seem to think you know better.
https://www.whlcollections.org/fulltext/1655-2673/4/

Also relevant: prosecutor Smirnov claimed that as part of Aktion 1005 trees were planted on top of the graves. Other sources claim that branches, tree trunks, grass, flowers, and roads were put on top of the graves. Was this done to render the bodies unidentifiable or uncountable? No, it was done to "camouflage" the graves so that they couldn't be found. Smirnov uses the word "camouflage" several times. Historians like Hilberg adopted his claim.

I can further point out that, from the limited number of attempts to refute revisionists on the subject of mass cremation, none agree with you. No debunker makes mention of the revisionists' supposed misunderstanding of what they believe Aktion 1005 was. All debunkers agree implicitly or explicitly that destroying "all traces" was 1005's goal.
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/by3-exhumation/
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... art-1.html
https://archive.org/details/caseforauschwitz00pelt/

And where attempts were made to debunk Holocaust denial more generally, they just come out and say it: Aktion 1005's purpose was "to hide all evidence of their activities."
https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/faqs.html

I am astonished to watch you disagree with all of the experts on your side on one of the core aspects of the Holocaust narrative.

It has clearly never dawned on so-called revisionists, how cremations would serve to cover up the murders. I suspect that they also took the words of Hilberg, and Himmler, literally, causing them to become confused. It is obviously news to them, that the cremations served to cover up the murders by preventing body counts, identification and establishing the cause of death.

How amusing. Revisionists have in fact repeatedly raised questions over the many absurdities in the narrative of mass cremation, among them whether the ground was disturbed at all, why aerial photos lack signs of burial or cremation, how everything fit into the alleged mass graves, where the ashes went, how the bones were made to disappear, why evidence and witnesses were left behind, and the logical inconsistencies of incomplete secrecy or incomplete erasure, quite in line with the issues you raise. These are core arguments for revisionism. Carlo Mattogno's The Einsatzgruppen is all about this.

Notably, mainstream historians have never had any good explanation for these concerns. The fact that you have also begun to share these concerns does not bear well on the narrative. You pose a question of "how cremations would serve to cover up the murders". A great question to put to the Holocaust authorities, if you get the chance.

[Stubble]

And it's impossible to clean you're saying? I don't get it. The incorrect statements are thing like : at Belzec there is no evidence a bone mill was used, what's less mallets and tin.

there is witness testimony here so

And yep, they destroyed the bodies to prevent counting. What was that whole point about?

1) witnesses said all kinds of crazy shit Bombsaway.

At Belzec you don't have physical evidence congruent with the use of a ball mill. That was my point about there not being evidence of a ball mill at Belzec.

2) Dresden. Pyres were used at Dresden.

The state of the bodies at Belzec and described in the initial reports from Treblinka II are consistent with what would be expected from such a partial open air cremation. Furthermore, they don't indicate post processing, at all.

Now, let's reflect on each other's positions and let this point of contention rest and ruminate for a while.

[bombsaway]

The state of the bodies at Belzec and described in the initial reports from Treblinka II are consistent with what would be expected from such a partial open air cremation. Furthermore, they don't indicate post processing, at all.

If I show the reports do indicate, would that change anything for you? If I showed you testimony saying they destroyed the bodies to prevent counting what change your mind on anything? It's not worth my time