If Auschwitz "gas chambers" were "bomb shelters", how do revisionists explain the holes?

[mengelemyth]

A 1943 inventory list does refer to a “Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung” (wire mesh insertion device) and “Holzblenden” (wooden covers)

I suppose that does muster some evidence for theoretical kula columns and insertion covers.

Do people have a better explanation for those in the inventory?

[Stubble]

For LK-2. Herr Hill has a post about this in my Kula Columns thread.

viewtopic.php?p=2903#p2903

This post;
viewtopic.php?p=3526#p3526
Images here
viewtopic.php?p=3527#p3527


The page from Technique featuring the document, courtesy of PHDN.org Holocaust-History. Org
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0430.shtml

[mengelemyth]

Thank you Stubble. Shall have a read. I’ll try to stop posting questions and use the search function in future.

[Stubble]

It's no sweat bud, cross posting saves future readers confusion and in my opinion is a good practice, I'd hate for someone to read this thread and miss the other.

Some further reading about gas tight air raid shelters;

https://ihr.org/journal/v18n4p-7_crowell.html

The emergency egress for Krema I was a tunnel. I'm unsure of the egress for Kremas II and III.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that egress was through a set of gas filter assemblies, as these filter holders, by design, were to permit emergency egress.

Also, this article confirms some of my earlier statements about the peephole/viewport.

(The sources in this article are outstanding and would keep me busy for a month)

This thread from Curious Soul also merits a mention;
viewtopic.php?p=2045#p2045

[Wahrheitssucher]

…What do Holocaust proponents claim happened to the kula columns?
It’s a bit weird they were never found.

Not so “weird” if they never existed.

Michel Kula was a liar. He’s a rather classic lie-witness eye-witness.

What I find “weird” is that anybody still believes anything the guy said about the myth of mass-gassings.

He claimed in court that trucks bringing jews to the alleged gas chambers had a tipping mechanism, and that there was a concrete ramp, by which victims slid straight down into the gas chamber.
He claimed the gassed corpses were ‘greenish’, when as Fritz Berg so effectively emphasised, people poisoned by HCN gas actually turn a very noticeable lobster pink.

Germar Rudolf’s encyclopedia has a section on him.

His metalworking team allegedly manufactured Zyklon-B introduction columns for the Crematoria II and III. However, in two separate depositions, he gave entirely different dimensions for them. The first description made them too large to fit into the claimed space, and the second version made them so small and narrow that they could not have functioned as he claimed. Finally, there is no material or documental trace of these columns. For example, had they been installed, they had to have been bolted to the concrete floors of these morgues, yet no traces of any such anchoring points can be found in the floors.
The vast documentation of orders submitted to the metalworking shop has no trace of such columns ever being manufactured.

It was his research that I previously provided you a link for.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/techn ... vices/948/

[Archie]

Interesting points. I agree, Krema I is so incredibly dubious.

Also: re the alleged holes at KII and KIII. What do Holocaust proponents claim happened to the kula columns? It’s a bit weird they were never found.

You may not be realizing the implications there. If Krema I is a fraud, then that would mean the testimonies claiming gassings there are fraudulent. It would discredit Rudolf Hoess, among others.

[HansHill]

In addition to Herr Stubble's links to various posts and threads, I will add this thread to the mix also:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=549

Here we demonstrate (amongst other things) that the items in question are inventoried to the undressing room (LK2). To mis-attribute them to the "gas chamber) ie LK1 is at best disingenuous, and at worst intentionally deceitful and manipulative. They categorically cannot be a murder weapon if they are listed in the wrong place where no murders are alleged to have occurred.

[Stubble]

In addition to Herr Stubble's links to various posts and threads, I will add this thread to the mix also:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=549

Here we demonstrate (amongst other things) that the items in question are inventoried to the undressing room (LK2). To mis-attribute them to the "gas chamber) ie LK1 is at best disingenuous, and at worst intentionally deceitful and manipulative. They categorically cannot be a murder weapon if they are listed in the wrong place where no murders are alleged to have occurred.

Even if we grant out of hand that they were allocated to LK-1, that's not a murder weapon. It is emergency egress for an anti-gas shelter/air raid shelter.

As air raid shelters, they would have had to have emergency egress. I know Krema 1 had a tunnel, I don't know what Kremas II and III used.

Of course, we would have to have holes for that. Those aren't forthcoming.

Mengelemyth did say there were some hoops cast in at least one of the concrete openings of LK-1. Hoops would be acceptable for mounting one of these, although, not that mannesmann one.

I'm curious if Mengelemyth could provide an image of one of these openings with hoops.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…are there Jews or Germans who were there [Auschwitz] who insist no gassings/killings happened?

…if there were no gassings, I would also expect to find the odd Jew who asserted that exterminations never happened, or that the crematoria were not for gassings.
Do they exist?
Did any Germans at Auschwitz make such an assertion?

If you are genuinely investigating Auschwitz, sincerely researching the allegations of mass-gassings there, and are really new to revisionist research plus arguments, then you will find this introductory overview useful:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/

Regarding your specific question of Germans who were present at Auschwitz and refuted the holyH narrative, I have given you FIVE named German individuals.

Wilhem Stäglich’s rebuttal of the mass-gassing myth at Auschwitz would be worth your while to read.
He was a German Judge so not only did he have his personal eye-witness experience but he could also get access to relevant files, documents etc., plus as a trained, qualified legal investigator, he approached the evidence methodically and fairly.

Here is the 2015 holyH Handbook edition:
https://archive.org/details/auschwitz-a ... glich-2015

In the course of the increasing media propaganda about Auschwitz in the 1960s, caused primarily by the great Frankfurt Auschwitz trial from 1963 to 1967, Stäglich felt obliged to relate his experiences during the war at Auschwitz. He therefore wrote a letter, initially not meant for publication, to the German monthly magazine Nation Europa. In it he explained that, during his military service near the camp, he had experienced nothing indicating that the attested-to mass gassing or other atrocities had indeed happened.

Only in 1973, after Thies Christophersen had published his (in)famous brochure The Auschwitz Lie, did he allow his letter to be published, because the experiences Christophersen describes in his brochure confirmed what Stäglich had witnessed.

…As a consequence of this letter to the editor, Stäglich was subjected to disciplinary procedures aiming at removing him from his position as a judge at the Hamburg Finance Court.
During this procedure Dr. Stäglich decided to retire early for reasons of health. At the end of these disciplinary procedures, his pension was cut.

Inspired by this witch hunt against him and with lots of spare time at his disposal, Wilhelm Stäglich dedicated the full creativity of his best years to the task of investigating the Auschwitz subject to the best of what he was able to do at that time and with the full exactitude of his profession.

Working through the pertinent literature and all accessible court files led him to the discovery of a veritable bundle of whopping lies on the part of politically and financially interested parties. In addition to this he revealed serious deficiencies in the way the courts conducted the relevant criminal cases and handled the evidence. Yet Stäglich did not find the slightest indication that he had erred in his letter to the editor. He therefore saw no reason to correct himself, but decided to the contrary to publish the results of his thoroughgoing inquiry as a book.

He trusted in the Basic Law, Germany’s notional constitution, which states in the first paragraph of its Article 5:
Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate his opinion in word,
writing and image ...

He was determined to exercise the right set forth in the third paragraph of the same Article, which states:
Arts, science, research and teaching are free.

The result of Staglich’s research was published in German in 1979…

Thies Christophersen’s pamphlet ‘The Auschwitz Lie’ can be read here!
https://archive.org/details/1979auschwi ... 4/mode/1up

In a memoir first published in Germany in 1973, he related his wartime experiences as a German army officer in the Auschwitz camp complex. “During the time I was in Auschwitz, I did not notice the slightest evidence of mass gassings,” he wrote in Die Auschwitz-Lüge (“The Auschwitz Lie”). As one of the first important works squarely to confront the Auschwitz extermination legend, Christophersen's first-hand account was a major factor in the growth and development of Holocaust revisionism.

“The Auschwitz Lie” caused an immediate sensation in Germany, where it was soon banned. This did not stop publication of German-language editions in Switzerland and Denmark, however, and before long editions appeared in all the major European languages, including several in English. Christophersen predictably came under hostile and mendacious media attack.

[Stubble]

Excellent post Herr Seeker.

Just to add, we also have a thread on The Auschwitz Lie.

viewtopic.php?p=15308#p15308

I'd also like to mention, Mengelemyth in the OP had implied compelling evidence that there were extant holes in the roof of LK-1 at Krema II at Auschwitz-Birkenau. I wonder if it has occurred to anyone to inform Van Pelt of this.

https://ihr.org/journal/v20n5p33_Renk.html

He seemed to be unable to locate them on any of his visits, not unlike, everybody else.

What is presented as proof of the holes in the roof is as fake as pictures of victims of Allied bombing and typhus in western camps pawned off on naive and trusting school children as proof of an extermination campaign by the Germans.

You get the molested pictures from one photo set that show, something on the roof, but, whatever it is (given it also has blocks of people standing on roofs, I'm going to go with a manipulated negative, doctored, fake, forgery), it isn't zyklon introduction holes. Then there is the picture of the forms with the train. Again, these are not the zyklon introduction holes.

If the holes, are there, I'm eager to see them. I've heard some of these holes have rebar hoops, cast into the concrete. That is something I'd like to see. I am unable to find photographic evidence for this claim of photographs.

If there are holes, and I know the measurements, maybe I can ask if there are any window frames with sliding screens and wooden hatches that fit the bill, and I can look through the construction documents to see if any gas filters were ordered with those dimensions.

Without any of this, not only do I find the claim of a mythical unicorn kula column dubious, I also can't investigate the air raid shelter thesis, as it is dead in the water with no emergency egress.

/shrug

Oh, and I found, 'the hoops'. What a let down;



This is one way to tie off rebar when your joint is shorter than the span so you need more than 1 rod to make the span. This doesn't look like it is for mounting anything. It looks like it is a tie in...

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... oles.shtml

Im told the above is compelling, I don't see it...

I also see that Wetzelrad has provided this study and the images from in in Herr Hill's thread in the research section he linked above, so, I'm about a year late to the party. Better late than never I suppose.

viewtopic.php?t=362

[Wetzelrad]

Yes, I'm broadly in agreement with the responses in this thread, but we can cut to the chase more simply and directly using the "Holes Report". The Holes Report is the best attempt to-date to locate, authenticate, and describe the supposed "Zylon B introduction holes" at Crematoria I through III. According to its authors, these were the four holes at Crema II:



As you can see, the pictured holes are shapeless. They don't have the clear-cut lines of the ventilation holes found in the same buildings. They cannot be differentiated from other cracks and holes in the rubble. This is despite the authors' claim that the holes were "original" to the pouring of the roof.

The authors tried to shore up their case with descriptions like "unimpeded square opening", "straight flat edges", and "straight cast edges in the concrete of the roof", but these descriptions contradict their own photos!

Their argument collapses with it having been clearly proven that at least one of their photographed holes has been expanded over time. Carlo Mattogno also described what he saw as chisel work on this hole.



Under these circumstances, how can any of these holes be assumed to be "original" to the German occupation? These and other points are made in much greater depth in Auschwitz Lies, section 2.7.3 and section 4, and in The Chemistry of Auschwitz, section 5.4.1.2.8.

And that is the best argument for these holes. Alternative and contadictory arguments have been made. A book apparently endorsed by the Auschwitz Museum claimed that it was "futile" to look for the holes. Robert Jan van Pelt argued at trial, based on no evidence of any kind, that the holes were cemented over (quoted and argued against in this article).

The Holes Report also undermines a key argument of the establishment. In claiming that the holes were "already there [...] while the roof was still being constructed", they contradict attempts to refute revisionists, who have long pointed out that these holes and associated features do not appear on any blueprint or document. They ought to appear on the blueprints if they existed during construction.

[Wetzelrad]

This is one way to tie off rebar when your joint is shorter than the span so you need more than 1 rod to make the span. This doesn't look like it is for mounting anything. It looks like it is a tie in...

On Pressac's page 338, there is a photo of the rebar work before concrete was poured on LK2. Can you tell from looking at it if that type of tie had been used or needed to be used?

[Stubble]

I don't do a lot of concrete work, and I do less work with the steel. That said, when you look at photo 14, it looks like they have the span split into thirds. Look on the right side where the work with the rebar is finished.

The guy on the left seems to be finishing up working with the rebar.

When you look at the picture from the study, you can see the rebar that was woven in, the 2 circles are the only 'hoops' the other piece doesn't pass through. I'm going to guess this has more to do with an explosion that construction.

[Wahrheitssucher]

.
OVERVIEW
The fake ‘holocaust’ historiography is predicated (without credible evidence) on two premises:
i.) there was an intentional genocide of ALL Jews,
ii.) it was a partly accomplished genocide, principally achieved using planned, designed, homicidal gas-chambers.

This fake history is perpetuated — as we ALL have witnessed — by the intimidation and coercion of the global population into compulsory belief by numerous deceitful tactics and illogical arguments.

One is: 
a.) by demonising and persecuting doubters and critical researchers personally (the logical fallacy of ‘ad hominem’ argument).

The other tendency is:
b.) by discouraging intelligent, fair appraisals of their findings by falsely discrediting it as irrational, racist ‘denial’ (the ‘poisoning the well’ logical fallacy).

A third logically fallacious technique used to promote the quasi-religious historical narrative is:
c.) by misrepresenting what is actually being questioned, doubted and critically examined and then arguing against and/or demonising that misrepresentation.

I.e. the ‘holocaust’ historiography deceitfully presents itself as beyond any form of normal revision by creating then knocking down a ‘strawman’ misrepresentation of revisionist arguments rather than knocking down the actual ones.

The strawman the masses are fed is that anyone who doubts any part of the narrative is denying the entirety of the Jewish experience during WW2. An obviously preposterous strawman and yet it is one that vast swathes of otherwise intelligent, educated people have accepted as being true.
No ‘revisionist’ or skeptic is doubting that the Jews were prejudiced against, nor that they were transported to camps and incarcerated there, nor that many hundreds of thousands died there from hardship and disease, nor that many were shot in reprisals against partisans during Operarion Barbarossa, etc. But that IS what this pseudo-history is claiming is being ‘denied’.

 —————-
  
Just one example of how this logically fallacious, ‘strawman’ argument is applied would be the globally co-ordinated defamation and career-destruction (by a collective of jews internationally) of WW2 historian David Irving. This collective co-ordinated a smear campaign against him before, during and after the pretence of a genuinely honest and open-ended libel trial against Professor of RELIGION Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin books.

Irving lost that high-profile case and is now permanently tarred as a ‘holocaust denier’. But what exactly is this thing vaguely called ‘the holocaust’ that he is supposedly denying? That has to be specified and defined first. Obviously. And yet in that trial (that was a pretence of justice) that was never done.

A jewish Danish reporter [Sanchia Berg] working for the Jewish-controlled BBC, interviewed Irving at the time of the libel trial and quoted him as saying:  
“If I carry the day on Auschwitz — if I'm right on crematorium number two at Auschwitz — then as far as I'm concerned I'm right on my position on the Holocaust: that it has been grossly inflated and there's been a hell of a lot of lying by the eyewitnesses...”

Where is the “denial” there, in that statement?
There isn’t any.
Not if we apply the accepted definition of that word. 

denial:
“refusal to admit what is the self-evident truth or reality of something”. 

Irving was not saying in that quote that ‘the holocaust never happened’. Though that is what this fake historiography wants people to believe. Irving said very clearly that in his opinion “it has been grossly inflated and there's been a hell of a lot of lying by the eyewitnesses...”

... ... ... ... ... ...

WHAT HAS ANY OF THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE NON-EXISTENT ROOF HOLES OF BIRKENAU MORGUES?

Here is an excerpt from a book of the trial by one of the highly paid ‘experts’. He was paid handsomely for his ‘expertise’ by jews internationally, who funded Lipstadt’s defence of her libel of Irving. It concerns the absence of the empirical evidence which should be still detectable for the eye-witness testimonies and holocaust allegations regarding Birkenau mass-gassings to be true.
The book is titled: ‘The case for Auschwitz’ by R. J. van Pelt. (Published 2002) and this excerpt is on Pg.3.

…Irving offered to abandon his libel suit against Penguin and Lipstadt if I [van Pelt] could show archeological evidence of those holes.
I responded that this was impossible, as the concrete roof of the gas chamber was too badly damaged. Yet Irving did not give up, trying to get me at least to accept the principle that a causal chain existed in which the holes would prove the gas chamber, the gas chamber would prove the use of Auschwitz as an extermination camp, and the use of Auschwitz as an extermination camp would prove the Holocaust.

[Irving]: "And do you accept, do you not, that if you were to go to Auschwitz the day atter tomorrow with a trowel and clean away the gravel and find a reinforced concrete hole where we anticipate it from your drawings, this would make an open and shut case and I would happily abandon my action immediately?"

[Van Pelt]: "I think I cannot comment on this. I am an expert on Auschwitz and not on the way you want to run your case."

[Irving): "There is my offer. I would say that that would drive such a hole through my case that I would have no possible chance of defending it any further."4

1. First, it was van Pelt who denied reality there by claiming the empirical evidence of the existing roofs is “impossible” to examine.

2. Secondly he is practicing a presumably self-delusional deceit there, as “archeological evidence” for the roof holes whereby ZyklonB pesticide pellets were allegedly inserted into the Birkenau leichenkeller (morgues) would NOT “prove the holocaust”, as he claimed. 
It would only strongly support the testimony claiming there had been some degree of mass-gassing at Birkenau.

It wouldn’t prove there was a policy to exterminate ALL Jews.
It wouldn’t prove THAT was the intent of the policy called ‘the final solution of the Jewish question”.
It wouldn’t prove that Hitler ordered such a genocide.
It wouldn’t prove any of those other aspects of the ‘holocaust’ narrative that are forbidden to be questioned, nor would it “prove” those aspects of the narrative that are not doubted or questioned.

3. Thirdly, van Pellet is ironically showing that Irving wasn’t “denying” anything. On the contrary, it shows he was offering to admit error and drop his libel case if he could be shown very specific and central empirical evidence on a key point. 
 
Van Pelt is here in his book, peddling the strawman that Irving was arguing that ‘the holocaust’ either happened or it didn’t: that it is ALL a lie or it is ALL true.
This is just one of numerous example of the deceit upon which this fake historiography castigates, demonises and punishes ANY form of intelligent analysis.

Irving asked a supposed Auschwitz ‘expert’ for “archeological evidence” of roof holes and if it was provided would admit defeat in the libel trial and would concede error of his views.
Q: In what kind of deranged, delusional world-view does that count as ‘denial’? 
A: in the deranged, delusional world-view of ‘holyhoax’, holocaust-cult believers.