Grok denies the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

[Archie]

...

9.5 air exchanges per hour is normal and close to the recommended level for a morgue. In fact 9.5 was less than the neighboring rooms, destroying any notion that the room was constructed with homicidal purpose.
...

I have explained this to Nessie numerous times. He just ignores all the points he's unable to address and repeats his usual misconceptions ad nauseum. He is either incapable of understanding or he refuses to understand.

I have explained to you, numerous times, that just because you think the 10 times air exchange Schultze reported, to clear the gas chambers, is too low and would not work, does not therefore mean there were no gas chambers. The argument, you are using, is called the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Despite repeated explanations as to why you are wrong, you are so wedded to using that fallacious argument, that you are doomed to keep on making the same mistake time and time again.

It is not just that you are using an illogical argument. The evidence is against you, as 100% of the Krema workers say it was used for gassing, camp documents record the construction of gas chambers and the circumstantial evidence around how the building operated, all corroborate and prove its use for homicidal gassing.

You cannot produce a chronological, revised history of usage for the Krema buildings. Instead, all you can do is suggest various alternative uses, without any dates that use was taking place. Therefore, you fail at the basic task of any historical or criminal investigation, you cannot prove what happened.

Why was LK2 (the supposed undressing room) also equipped for around 10 air exchanges/hour? Why was the autopsy room equipped for 10 air exchanges as well?

If it were true that 10 air exchanges/hour were a tell for a gas chamber, why do we see this in rooms which, by universal agreement, were not gas chambers?

Why do you refuse to address the contemporary German literature that says that morgues should be equipped for 5-10 air exchanges per hour?

[HansHill]

I think you're already aware of everything I've written here. Documents, physical evidence, and science are strongly against the gas extermination theory. So the question is why do you walk into these landmines time and time again? Are you just hoping that uninformed readers will only read your posts and take you at your word, without investigating any of your claims? Or are you just here to waste everyone's time?

In any case you seem to be conceding that Rudolf is correct.

I think its the former - the intention seems to be:

1) Clog up meaningful Revisionist spaces with garbage, in the hope it stifles engagement, and in turn looks dissuasive and cumbersome to newcomers
2) ???
3) Perpetuate the Holocaust legend

The strange thing is, I've never actually seen him score a persuasive "hit" over anybody in a debate. As you also mentioned he stumbles into these landmines which only serve to tee-up the engaging Revisionist for another slam dunk. Bombsaway seems to be a little more disciplined in this regard, and probably a standard deviation more intelligent. Ditto for Dr Terry.

Anyway, similar to the Confused Jew episode, i'll continue to land slam dunks as long as they are teed up for me. It's always someone's first day lurking Codoh!

[Nessie]

I have explained this to Nessie numerous times. He just ignores all the points he's unable to address and repeats his usual misconceptions ad nauseum. He is either incapable of understanding or he refuses to understand.

I have explained to you, numerous times, that just because you think the 10 times air exchange Schultze reported, to clear the gas chambers, is too low and would not work, does not therefore mean there were no gas chambers. The argument, you are using, is called the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Despite repeated explanations as to why you are wrong, you are so wedded to using that fallacious argument, that you are doomed to keep on making the same mistake time and time again.

It is not just that you are using an illogical argument. The evidence is against you, as 100% of the Krema workers say it was used for gassing, camp documents record the construction of gas chambers and the circumstantial evidence around how the building operated, all corroborate and prove its use for homicidal gassing.

You cannot produce a chronological, revised history of usage for the Krema buildings. Instead, all you can do is suggest various alternative uses, without any dates that use was taking place. Therefore, you fail at the basic task of any historical or criminal investigation, you cannot prove what happened.

Why was LK2 (the supposed undressing room) also equipped for around 10 air exchanges/hour? Why was the autopsy room equipped for 10 air exchanges as well?

What is the evidence that "LK2" and "the autopsy room" were also ventilated at 10 ACH?
If there is a ventilation system for the basement area of Kremas II and III, why not design it to have the same ACH, rather than have if different for different rooms?

If it were true that 10 air exchanges/hour were a tell for a gas chamber, why do we see this in rooms which, by universal agreement, were not gas chambers?

The evidence of 10 ACH is not being presented as evidence of gassings, alone. It is a detail that is part of the eyewitness evidence from Schultze.

There is no reason why the same ACH would not be used for different rooms. All Schultse was expected to do, was design a ventilation system, that would work for gassings. If he chose to apply it to other adjacent rooms, so what? It may have been necessary, the way the building was designed, to have the same ACH throughout.

Why do you refuse to address the contemporary German literature that says that morgues should be equipped for 5-10 air exchanges per hour?

How is that relevant to the evidence the Leichenkeller was converted to use as a gas chamber? As you argue your incredulity, you introduce irrelevant details. That a morgue may, or may not be, ventilated at the same rate Schultze decided to ventilate the gas chamber, is not of any evidential significance. You want it to be, to help craft your logically flawed argument that because you cannot work out how the ventilation system could cope, therefore there was no gas chamber. Why do you refuse to address your illogical argument?

[HansHill]

If there is a ventilation system for the basement area of Kremas II and III, why not design it to have the same ACH, rather than have if different for different rooms?

Because one of the rooms needs to be filled with poison gas and evacuated, repeatedly, on demand. And the other doesn't. Hence different requirements. Archie has you by the balls, again.

[Nessie]

If there is a ventilation system for the basement area of Kremas II and III, why not design it to have the same ACH, rather than have if different for different rooms?

Because one of the rooms needs to be filled with poison gas and evacuated, repeatedly, on demand. And the other doesn't. Hence different requirements. Archie has you by the balls, again.

Why, if the ventilation system was originally designed to cover rooms adjacent to the Leichenkeller, not just have them all vented at the same rate? It would be a simpler system, needing only one set of vent pipes/channels and fans. There is no reason why the room that the Topf & Sons engineers decided would be used for undressing and the room they decided would be used for gassing, had to have had different ventilation systems, venting at different rates. The undressing room can vent at the same rate as the gas chamber.

What about how Block 11, Krema I, the two farm house bunker and Krema IV and V gas chambers were vented? Why do we need to know, precisely, how they were vented, to your satisfaction, before their existence as a gas chamber is proven?

How can the existence of the gas chambers not be proven, if you, or Archie, Mattogno or Rudolf cannot work out, to your satisfaction, how the ventilation systems worked?

Why are you arguing it is not possible to prove the existence of a gas chamber, without knowing how its ventilation system worked?

[HansHill]

Why, if the ventilation system was originally designed to cover rooms adjacent to the Leichenkeller, not just have them all vented at the same rate? It would be a simpler system, needing only one set of vent pipes/channels and fans. There is no reason why the room that the Topf & Sons engineers decided would be used for undressing and the room they decided would be used for gassing, had to have had different ventilation systems, venting at different rates. The undressing room can vent at the same rate as the gas chamber.

What about how Block 11, Krema I, the two farm house bunker and Krema IV and V gas chambers were vented? Why do we need to know, precisely, how they were vented, to your satisfaction, before their existence as a gas chamber is proven?

How can the existence of the gas chambers not be proven, if you, or Archie, Mattogno or Rudolf cannot work out, to your satisfaction, how the ventilation systems worked?

Why are you arguing it is not possible to prove the existence of a gas chamber, without knowing how its ventilation system worked?

If you are asking why I, personally, "need to know precisely how they were vented" the answer is because I am interested in WW2 and the Holocaust. Call it a hobby if you need to call it something.

If you are asking why, objectively, it is necessary to substantiate a fundamental aspect of a claim, to the wider public, which has wide reaching and emanating impact on global institutions, governments and public policy - then the answer is, failure to do so will invite even more skepticism onto these claims (and by association those governments and institutions), which is exactly what has been happening in the West in recent years.

Anything less than a satisfactory explanation is unacceptable. Meanwhile, you can sit there and debate me, who is personally a hobbyist all you want, but your failure to realize how pathetic this comes across, is hilarious.

[Nessie]

Why, if the ventilation system was originally designed to cover rooms adjacent to the Leichenkeller, not just have them all vented at the same rate? It would be a simpler system, needing only one set of vent pipes/channels and fans. There is no reason why the room that the Topf & Sons engineers decided would be used for undressing and the room they decided would be used for gassing, had to have had different ventilation systems, venting at different rates. The undressing room can vent at the same rate as the gas chamber.

What about how Block 11, Krema I, the two farm house bunker and Krema IV and V gas chambers were vented? Why do we need to know, precisely, how they were vented, to your satisfaction, before their existence as a gas chamber is proven?

How can the existence of the gas chambers not be proven, if you, or Archie, Mattogno or Rudolf cannot work out, to your satisfaction, how the ventilation systems worked?

Why are you arguing it is not possible to prove the existence of a gas chamber, without knowing how its ventilation system worked?

If you are asking why I, personally, "need to know precisely how they were vented" the answer is because I am interested in WW2 and the Holocaust. Call it a hobby if you need to call it something.

If you are asking why, objectively, it is necessary to substantiate a fundamental aspect of a claim, to the wider public, which has wide reaching and emanating impact on global institutions, governments and public policy - then the answer is, failure to do so will invite even more skepticism onto these claims (and by association those governments and institutions), which is exactly what has been happening in the West in recent years.

Anything less than a satisfactory explanation is unacceptable. Meanwhile, you can sit there and debate me, who is personally a hobbyist all you want, but your failure to realize how pathetic this comes across, is hilarious.

How does a less than satisfactory explanation as to how the ventilation system for Krema II and III worked, prove that there was no gas chamber inside those buildings?

How does a less than satisfactory explanation as to how the ventilation system for Krema II and III worked, prove that there was no gas chamber inside Kremas I, IV and V?

What about where one person finds the explanation satisfactory and another does not, how can it be reliably be determined who is correct?

[HansHill]

How does a less than satisfactory explanation as to how the ventilation system for Krema II and III worked, prove that there was no gas chamber inside those buildings?

How does a less than satisfactory explanation as to how the ventilation system for Krema II and III worked, prove that there was no gas chamber inside Kremas I, IV and V?

What about where one person finds the explanation satisfactory and another does not, how can it be reliably be determined who is correct?

Because Nessie (and I am well aware that this whole thread is about Grok and "normie" interactions on Twitter), you and I both know that what is "satisfactory" to most peoples' understanding of the Holocaust is utter rubbish. Most people, if pushed, will admit they have absolutely no idea how the gas was allegedly put into the room, much less how it was evacuated. Most people, and yes most believers, have no idea what the hell a Kula column is, and probably thinks it was pumped in via showers. Which by the way, is not a "satisfactory" belief to hold, but they hold it anyway.

It being highlighted to them, that there are serious question marks over the operation behind these claims, is warranted, despite you and your ilk bending over backwards in damage control to deter this.

[Nessie]

How does a less than satisfactory explanation as to how the ventilation system for Krema II and III worked, prove that there was no gas chamber inside those buildings?

How does a less than satisfactory explanation as to how the ventilation system for Krema II and III worked, prove that there was no gas chamber inside Kremas I, IV and V?

What about where one person finds the explanation satisfactory and another does not, how can it be reliably be determined who is correct?

Because Nessie (and I am well aware that this whole thread is about Grok and "normie" interactions on Twitter), you and I both know that what is "satisfactory" to most peoples' understanding of the Holocaust is utter rubbish. Most people, if pushed, will admit they have absolutely no idea how the gas was allegedly put into the room, much less how it was evacuated. Most people, and yes most believers, have no idea what the hell a Kula column is, and probably thinks it was pumped in via showers. Which by the way, is not a "satisfactory" belief to hold, but they hold it anyway.

This discussion is still relevant to the thread, as Grok should think logically and understand evidencing. When it stopped doing that, it started to produce Holocaust denial. Just because the evidence is not satisfactory to some people, does not therefore mean there were no mass gassings.

You have not answered my questions. You have failed to explain how not knowing how the gas chambers were vented, to your satisfaction, proves there were no gas chambers. In the same way, thinking that gas came out the showers, or not knowing what a Kula column was, does not prove that there were no gas chambers. Whether something happened or not, is not exclusively determined by how satisfactory a description we have about that something. There are many good reasons why descriptions can be poor, or information is lacking and in the case of the gassings, it is down to that operation being considered secret and Nazi destruction of the evidence. That is why we do not have what you would consider a satisfactory explanation as to how the gas chambers were vented. Your argument from incredulity is of the same form as arguing that there is no way ancient Egyptians could have constructed huge pyramids as the descriptions of how they did it, are unsatisfactory, with even modern day engineers not being certain how it was done.

Again, and please do not dodge, if two people disagree and one finds an explanation satisfactory and the other does not, how should we reliably determine who is correct?

It being highlighted to them, that there are serious question marks over the operation behind these claims, is warranted, despite you and your ilk bending over backwards in damage control to deter this.

Many so-called "serious question marks" about gassings, raised by so-called revisionists, are dishonest. For example, the claim that the wooden door with the window, that visitors walk through, to get to view the gas chambers in Krema I, is the original gas chamber door! Or, that there were no witnesses to the gassings, or no other evidence of gas chambers inside the Kremas.
The so-called revisionists here, try to be a bit more sophisticated and less easily called out, over their arguments from incredulity. But, the bottom line is, just because you do not find witness descriptions and the available documentary evidence regarding the venting of the Krema gas chambers, satisfactory, does not prove that there were no such chambers.

The damage control, is trying to stop the spread of lies and deceptions, by Holocaust deniers and so-called revisionists.

[HansHill]

This discussion is still relevant to the thread, as Grok should think logically and understand evidencing. When it stopped doing that, it started to produce Holocaust denial. Just because the evidence is not satisfactory to some people, does not therefore mean there were no mass gassings.

You have not answered my questions. You have failed to explain how not knowing how the gas chambers were vented, to your satisfaction, proves there were no gas chambers. In the same way, thinking that gas came out the showers, or not knowing what a Kula column was, does not prove that there were no gas chambers. Whether something happened or not, is not exclusively determined by how satisfactory a description we have about that something. There are many good reasons why descriptions can be poor, or information is lacking and in the case of the gassings, it is down to that operation being considered secret and Nazi destruction of the evidence. That is why we do not have what you would consider a satisfactory explanation as to how the gas chambers were vented. Your argument from incredulity is of the same form as arguing that there is no way ancient Egyptians could have constructed huge pyramids as the descriptions of how they did it, are unsatisfactory, with even modern day engineers not being certain how it was done.

Again, and please do not dodge, if two people disagree and one finds an explanation satisfactory and the other does not, how should we reliably determine who is correct?

It being highlighted to them, that there are serious question marks over the operation behind these claims, is warranted, despite you and your ilk bending over backwards in damage control to deter this.

Many so-called "serious question marks" about gassings, raised by so-called revisionists, are dishonest. For example, the claim that the wooden door with the window, that visitors walk through, to get to view the gas chambers in Krema I, is the original gas chamber door! Or, that there were no witnesses to the gassings, or no other evidence of gas chambers inside the Kremas.
The so-called revisionists here, try to be a bit more sophisticated and less easily called out, over their arguments from incredulity. But, the bottom line is, just because you do not find witness descriptions and the available documentary evidence regarding the venting of the Krema gas chambers, satisfactory, does not prove that there were no such chambers.

The damage control, is trying to stop the spread of lies and deceptions, by Holocaust deniers and so-called revisionists.

Stop claiming I'm dodging your stupid question. I'm sure you think you are Sherlock Holmes dropping truth nukes, but this is silly and redundant:

"Again, and please do not dodge, if two people disagree and one finds an explanation satisfactory and the other does not, how should we reliably determine who is correct?"

Because moron, as I have already explained to you, most people have an uninformed passive misunderstanding of the Holocaust and how it """"happened"""", the example I gave you is gas via shower heads. If someone (mis)categorizes that as a satisfactory method of operation, then a Revisionist is perfectly warranted in correcting them. Whether they change their mind or not, is a different conversation.

That's about introduction of gas. Regarding gas extraction, exact same thing. Archie has your number on the equivalence between the various Krematoria rooms. Which some normie on Twitter has not thought about. If pushed, that same normie probably thinks there was some very sophisticated extraction device like you see in the movies. They would absolutely not tell you it was a 9.5 cycle per hour Mogue-standard-issue ventilation system with both vents on the same wall, low down near the floor, creating an airflow short-circuit.

In this instance, the Revisionist will be correct for highlighting this to the normie, and the normie will be baffled that this is what the story is supposed to have been. If they are a conscientious person, they may go on and do further reading, and learn more about all the horseshit you and your pals peddle.

[Archie]

I have explained to you, numerous times, that just because you think the 10 times air exchange Schultze reported, to clear the gas chambers, is too low and would not work, does not therefore mean there were no gas chambers. The argument, you are using, is called the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Despite repeated explanations as to why you are wrong, you are so wedded to using that fallacious argument, that you are doomed to keep on making the same mistake time and time again.

It is not just that you are using an illogical argument. The evidence is against you, as 100% of the Krema workers say it was used for gassing, camp documents record the construction of gas chambers and the circumstantial evidence around how the building operated, all corroborate and prove its use for homicidal gassing.

You cannot produce a chronological, revised history of usage for the Krema buildings. Instead, all you can do is suggest various alternative uses, without any dates that use was taking place. Therefore, you fail at the basic task of any historical or criminal investigation, you cannot prove what happened.

Why was LK2 (the supposed undressing room) also equipped for around 10 air exchanges/hour? Why was the autopsy room equipped for 10 air exchanges as well?

What is the evidence that "LK2" and "the autopsy room" were also ventilated at 10 ACH?
If there is a ventilation system for the basement area of Kremas II and III, why not design it to have the same ACH, rather than have if different for different rooms?

If it were true that 10 air exchanges/hour were a tell for a gas chamber, why do we see this in rooms which, by universal agreement, were not gas chambers?

The evidence of 10 ACH is not being presented as evidence of gassings, alone. It is a detail that is part of the eyewitness evidence from Schultze.

There is no reason why the same ACH would not be used for different rooms. All Schultse was expected to do, was design a ventilation system, that would work for gassings. If he chose to apply it to other adjacent rooms, so what? It may have been necessary, the way the building was designed, to have the same ACH throughout.

Why do you refuse to address the contemporary German literature that says that morgues should be equipped for 5-10 air exchanges per hour?

How is that relevant to the evidence the Leichenkeller was converted to use as a gas chamber? As you argue your incredulity, you introduce irrelevant details. That a morgue may, or may not be, ventilated at the same rate Schultze decided to ventilate the gas chamber, is not of any evidential significance. You want it to be, to help craft your logically flawed argument that because you cannot work out how the ventilation system could cope, therefore there was no gas chamber. Why do you refuse to address your illogical argument?

We have the specs for the fans, motors, and room volumes for all of these rooms because this documentation has survived. Pressac calculated the air exchanges for all these rooms in his 1993 book and this has been well-summarized by Rudolf.

– (4,800 m³/h÷483 m³) = 9.94 exchanges for Morgue #1;
– (10,000 m³/h÷966 m³) = 10.35 exchanges for Morgue #2;
– (10,000 m³/h÷1,031 m³) = 9.70 exchanges for the furnace room;
– (3,000 m³/h÷300 m³) = 10 exchanges for the autopsy room (HH#42, pg 100)

All of this was already explained in the OP of the ventilation thread (which has references for further reading).
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=162

It is pretty galling that you replied to that ventilation thread 14 times (!) despite not even reading the OP. You should be ashamed of yourself.

As for this,

There is no reason why the same ACH would not be used for different rooms. All Schultse was expected to do, was design a ventilation system, that would work for gassings. If he chose to apply it to other adjacent rooms, so what? It may have been necessary, the way the building was designed, to have the same ACH throughout.

No. The rooms had different fans and motors. LK2 had a larger fan than LK1 because it was a larger room. They obviously targeted around 10 air exchanges for all of these rooms. This is not incriminating whatsoever. Quite the opposite.

[Nessie]

...

Again, and please do not dodge, if two people disagree and one finds an explanation satisfactory and the other does not, how should we reliably determine who is correct?

Stop claiming I'm dodging your stupid question. I'm sure you think you are Sherlock Holmes dropping truth nukes, but this is silly and redundant:

"Again, and please do not dodge, if two people disagree and one finds an explanation satisfactory and the other does not, how should we reliably determine who is correct?"

Because moron, as I have already explained to you, most people have an uninformed passive misunderstanding of the Holocaust and how it """"happened"""", the example I gave you is gas via shower heads. If someone (mis)categorizes that as a satisfactory method of operation, then a Revisionist is perfectly warranted in correcting them. Whether they change their mind or not, is a different conversation.

The issue is whether or not the so-called revisionist correction, is, itself correct.

That's about introduction of gas.

You are correct about people being uniformed. The more aware of the evidence a person is, the more informed they are. The more they understand evidencing and logic, the more informed they are. People who think that gas came out of the shower heads, do so because they are not familiar with the evidence. They have either got their information from an inaccurate source, or they have conflated gassings with gas chambers made to look like showers and incorrectly put 2 and 2 together. Or, they have watched a dishonest denier video on X.

The point you are dodging, is evidence. Again! If two people disagree over whether an explanation is satisfactory or not, evidence will determine who is correct. The descriptions of how the gas chambers worked, are satisfactory to me. They are not to you. I am correct, because of the evidence that gassings took place inside the Kremas. You are incorrect, because of that evidence and your inability to produce a revised history of use.

Regarding gas extraction, exact same thing. Archie has your number on the equivalence between the various Krematoria rooms. Which some normie on Twitter has not thought about. If pushed, that same normie probably thinks there was some very sophisticated extraction device like you see in the movies. They would absolutely not tell you it was a 9.5 cycle per hour Mogue-standard-issue ventilation system with both vents on the same wall, low down near the floor, creating an airflow short-circuit.

No one, least of all Archie, has my number on this point. The argument he, you and other so-called revisionists use, is a logical fallacy. I can evidence what happened, you lot cannot. Therefore, I win, it really is as simple as that.

In this instance, the Revisionist will be correct for highlighting this to the normie, and the normie will be baffled that this is what the story is supposed to have been. If they are a conscientious person, they may go on and do further reading, and learn more about all the horseshit you and your pals peddle.

I will explain to the "normie" that the so-called revisionist is wrong and show them the testimony of Karl Schultze, the engineer who designed the ventilation system and all the corroborating evidence that it worked, to vent the chambers, not completely, but enough so that people could still work there. I would explain that just because the so-called revisionist does not believe it could have worked, is not evidence to prove it did not work and there was no gas chamber. I would explain the fallacy of argument from incredulity, assuming the "normie" has not already seen the huge flaw in the so-called revisionists claim. As for further reading, I would suggest Pressac, the denier who found so much evidence, he changed his mind and in particular, chapter 6, which has a ton of evidence on how the ventilation worked.

[Stubble]

[...] They obviously targeted around 10 air exchanges for all of these rooms. This is not incriminating whatsoever. Quite the opposite.

Hence the verdict in the engineers trial in Vienna...

[Nessie]

Why was LK2 (the supposed undressing room) also equipped for around 10 air exchanges/hour? Why was the autopsy room equipped for 10 air exchanges as well?

What is the evidence that "LK2" and "the autopsy room" were also ventilated at 10 ACH?
If there is a ventilation system for the basement area of Kremas II and III, why not design it to have the same ACH, rather than have if different for different rooms?

If it were true that 10 air exchanges/hour were a tell for a gas chamber, why do we see this in rooms which, by universal agreement, were not gas chambers?

The evidence of 10 ACH is not being presented as evidence of gassings, alone. It is a detail that is part of the eyewitness evidence from Schultze.

There is no reason why the same ACH would not be used for different rooms. All Schultse was expected to do, was design a ventilation system, that would work for gassings. If he chose to apply it to other adjacent rooms, so what? It may have been necessary, the way the building was designed, to have the same ACH throughout.

Why do you refuse to address the contemporary German literature that says that morgues should be equipped for 5-10 air exchanges per hour?

How is that relevant to the evidence the Leichenkeller was converted to use as a gas chamber? As you argue your incredulity, you introduce irrelevant details. That a morgue may, or may not be, ventilated at the same rate Schultze decided to ventilate the gas chamber, is not of any evidential significance. You want it to be, to help craft your logically flawed argument that because you cannot work out how the ventilation system could cope, therefore there was no gas chamber. Why do you refuse to address your illogical argument?

We have the specs for the fans, motors, and room volumes for all of these rooms because this documentation has survived. Pressac calculated the air exchanges for all these rooms in his 1993 book and this has been well-summarized by Rudolf.

– (4,800 m³/h÷483 m³) = 9.94 exchanges for Morgue #1;
– (10,000 m³/h÷966 m³) = 10.35 exchanges for Morgue #2;
– (10,000 m³/h÷1,031 m³) = 9.70 exchanges for the furnace room;
– (3,000 m³/h÷300 m³) = 10 exchanges for the autopsy room (HH#42, pg 100)

All of this was already explained in the OP of the ventilation thread (which has references for further reading).
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=162

It is pretty galling that you replied to that ventilation thread 14 times (!) despite not even reading the OP. You should be ashamed of yourself.

As for this,

There is no reason why the same ACH would not be used for different rooms. All Schultse was expected to do, was design a ventilation system, that would work for gassings. If he chose to apply it to other adjacent rooms, so what? It may have been necessary, the way the building was designed, to have the same ACH throughout.

No. The rooms had different fans and motors. LK2 had a larger fan than LK1 because it was a larger room. They obviously targeted around 10 air exchanges for all of these rooms. This is not incriminating whatsoever. Quite the opposite.

A 10 ACH for the gas chambers, as described by Karl Schultze, the man who designed it, worked. I know that, because of all of the corroborating evidence it worked and was used to gas people, 1943-4.

You can illogically argue it was not possible, based on what ever calculations you want to make, or believe, all you want. Since it is evidenced and proven to have happened, then logically, it was possible. I call you a so-called revisionist, because you cannot evidentially revise what Krema II was used for, 1943-4. You cannot provide witnesses, documents or anything else to prove, say, it was used to store corpses, or for people to take a shower and provide dates and a chronology of use for the building. Instead, you attempt to revise the history, by denying gassings by arguing that you think they were impossible as described. That is not how history is revised.

Sadly, you will not learn, so you are doomed to keep on making the same, repeated mistake, time and time again. Grok, thankfully, is a smart and quick learner and should not make that mistake again.

[Nessie]

[...] They obviously targeted around 10 air exchanges for all of these rooms. This is not incriminating whatsoever. Quite the opposite.

Hence the verdict in the engineers trial in Vienna...

Austrian courts were reluctant to prosecute Nazis.