Response to HC on Gas Chamber Doors

[fireofice]

In response to these:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... flimsydoor
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... orpressure

In the plans for the building, there is a swinging door where there obviously couldn't be one if there was a gas chamber. The blogger in response says that they made mistakes on other plans, so they may have just made a mistake here. It's possible, but it seems like if there were mass gassings going on, this would be a big deal and the person making the plan would be much less likely to make a mistake on something like that.

In response to the pressure that could be mounted against the door or the concrete wall, he essentially argues that it would be impossible due to it being too crowded??? I'm no physics expert, but this just seems plain stupid to me, like they are just making up anything and hoping it sticks.

[Otium]

The HC claim is even more untenable because the walls of the morgues themselves were too thin to support such doors as only claimed by eyewitnesses. Their claim is purely based on faith, nothing more. The plans exist, claiming they could be due to "mistakes" is a claim that needs to be proven, not just asserted, as the popular atheist "Hitchens's Razor" dictum states: "A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Yet, as I just said, there is further physical evidence the Believers have to contend with, and that's the nature of the walls themselves:

While it cannot be ruled out that panic-proof, gas-tight steel doors were indeed delivered to Auschwitz and may have been installed elsewhere, it can be ruled out, based on war-time floor plans, that any such door could have been installed in the relevant door openings of the morgue of Krematorium I.

First, we need to be aware that the frame of a massive wooden or even a steel door designed to withstand a panicking crowd needs to be anchored firmly in the wall. Illustration 5 shows a hoop steel anchor with a so-called dovetail going some 14 cm (5.5 inches) into the wall. Needless to say, the wall itself had to be considerably thicker than 14 cm.

Turning to the war-time floor plans of this morgue, we see that the wall separating the morgue from the adjacent washroom and the wall separating it from the furnace room were both very thin: 15 cm, which is the width of a standard brick plus some plaster on both sides of it (see Illustration 6). Hence, these walls consisted only of one row of bricks set lengthwise. The wall separating the morgue from the furnace room consisted of two such walls with a gap of some 30 cm in between (for thermal insulation).

It is not possible to set a steel anchor into bricks. In such a case, bricks have to be removed, and then the anchor placed into a block of cement/concrete. However, since these walls consisted only of one row of bricks – unless they consisted only of a wooden framework of 2-by-5s plus some boards, in which case we need no longer discuss this issue – removing a brick to place an anchor embedded in cement in its stead would have left this chunk of cement held in place by nothing more than the bricks on top and at the bottom of it. Such a chunk would have become loose very quickly. Any forceful shaking of the door would have dislodged those anchors, bent the frame, and made the frame including the door fall out of the wall sooner or later.

In other words, the meager thickness of these walls proves that no sturdy, panic-proof door of any kind could have been installed in them.

Germar Rudolf, "The Thin Internal Walls of Krematorium I at Auschwitz: A Small Detail with Far-reaching Consequences", Inconvenient History, Vol. 12 (2020), No. 2.

So, as all the physical and documentary evidence shows, it was impossible that such doors as alleged by the Believers were installed in these Crematoria. They were simply unable to withstand considerable pressure from thousands of people day in day out.

Also, as Germar notes, the swinging door was found on "several war-time floor plans." (Ibid.) A mighty coincidence for such a "mistake" to have been made multiple times. . . How interesting though, the Holocaust narrative in this instance hinges (literally) on the nature of a door.

It's very strange too that these people are still peddling the Markiewicz report, seriously alleging that it "shows the presence of HCN in the former gas chambers", and then they claim "this wouldn't be enough for the deniers who would just claim those were delousing chambers." When if they actually payed attention to what "deniers" say, it's that the Markiewicz report simply precluded from the outset the possibility of detecting iron cyanide compounds, thus not actually "detecting" HCN at all! They literally could not detect the cyanide compounds, and they did this on purpose so they could obtain results that would seemingly show small traces in all the buildings they tested, to support their claims that only a small amount was necessary.

See Lamprechts concise debunking of these believer claims:

Full Size.

[Tiepolo]

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html#flimsydoor:

The gassings here were rare and occasional

This is also what mainstream hoaxstorians say about Majdanek, they back off the original claim and give a different explanation for what occurred at a certain place. How can these people tell the difference between small-scale gas chambers and full-time gas chambers? Whenever a room clearly wasn't used for homicidal gassings it suddenly becomes a room that was used for small-scale gassings.