Zyklon-B wire mesh insertion devices debunked

[Richard Perle]

I used to take it for granted that the morgues of Kremas II & III had a covering of earth, but I think it's clear from the aerial photos that they were uncovered, which makes a mockery of the top drawing and anyone who described it. Is Ball wrong about the morgues being covered?

[Bergmann]

I used to take it for granted that the morgues of Kremas II & III had a covering of earth, but I think it's clear from the aerial photos that they were uncovered, which makes a mockery of the top drawing and anyone who described it. Is Ball wrong about the morgues being covered?

From the aerial photos I have seen it is not clear at all that the morgues were not covered with sand.
Which photo are you referring to specifically?

[Richard Perle]

Well, any of them really. You can see the bold, straight outline of the buildings which I'm sure would not be so distinct and regular if it was covered in earth.


Don't you think those look like bare concrete structures? There does seem to be dark matter around the morgues of Krema III, though.


The irregular, patchy colour of the surrounding ground seems to cease when it meets the side of the building, at least at Krema II. Is that a shadow I see being cast by the morgue/'undressing room'?

[Hotzenplotz]

What do you say about the documents Pressac included in his "Technique and Operation" supposedly showing the "wire mesh introduction devices" existed?

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 430.02.jpe

This is supposed to be the inventory of Krema II. Following is a magnification of the lines saying "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung" (wire mesh introduction device) and "Holzblenden" (wooden flaps). One can't really read it but let's assume Pressac deciphered it correctly.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 430.03.jpe

The number given is 4, so that would fit with the photos, testimonies etc. that are usually cited as evidence for the storyline.

to see the documents in context:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0429.shtml
and the following page.

Pressac says the documents have been found a long time after the testimonies concerning the wire mesh were given (probably around 1946, Hoess supposedly mentioned them too). If this is true (and the document authentic) the wire mesh must have been used for *some* purpose because witnesses making up something as weird and uncommon as wire mesh columns and them appearing conincidentally in a document would be unacceptably improbable.

I‘m not saying this is a definitive proof for anything. I just would like to hear what you think about it.

Considering that life victims could have easily destroyed the wire mesh, perhaps it is most reasonable to accept there was a gas chamber, though not a homicidal one (as Faurisson held).

[Richard Perle]

The "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" are one of Pressac's 'criminal traces' and have been delt with. I most recently read Samuel Crowell's interpretation.

I'll paste the relevant text, but reading the entire article gives vital context.

Criminal Trace #8 4 Dratnetzeinschiebvorrichtung

and

Criminal Trace #9 4 Holzblenden

Since these two elements on the inventory agree in number, and were written in, it is assumed by all parties that their function is connected.

Blenden are simply shutters, and may be made from either steel or wood. They were commonly used in anti-gas shelters in order to make an opening gas tight, such as a window, or any other opening [Source: GL39, 111; GL40, 22ff; GL40, 26]. A benign interpretation is possible, therefore it is not a criminal trace.

Further on this point, Pressac [ATO, 425ff] provides several photographs of shutters, which are identified as the gassdichten Fenster (or Türen) of Crematoria IV and V. These shutters are generally identical in size, shape, and construction to ordinary wooden Blenden as can readily be seen by consulting the literature cited above, and they are also of the right size for emergency exits. Thus gassdichten Fenster (or Türen ), Blenden and Holzblenden, and wooden shutters are all the same thing. This is important not only because it demonstrates the propensity of the Birkenau construction workers and engineers to describe things by unconventional names, but also because it helps put Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung in context.

Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung is a neologism, and we cannot offer a definitive explanation. Pressac speculates that it represents a wire mesh device whereby Zyklon B was "induced" into the extermination gas chamber, but there is no material corroboration for this. We offer the following observations to support our inference:

1) At least two advertisements depict wire mesh screens in the anti-gas shelter literature, one depicts a screen behind an open shutter. [Source: BL42, v]

2) The anti-gas shelter literature contains an advertisement for wire mesh [Drahtnetz]. [Source: BL42, v]

3) According to the anti-gas shelter literature, all windows and other openings require some kind of mesh, netting, grating or grille [Rost, Gitterstäbe, Geflecht von Draht]. [Source: LB 182, 183; GL40 26; BL40, 263]

4) The Auschwitz work order Nr. 353 dated April 27, 1943 [ATO, 441] contains an order for "12 stücke Fenstergitter 50 x 70 cm" which is accepted as a reference to wire mesh screens or grilles for the 12 gassdichten Fenster (or Türen), noted above as identical to Blenden and Holzblenden.

5) Therefore, we can propose that the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung bear a relationship to the Holzblenden similar to the relationship of the Fenstergitter to the gassdichten Fenster (or Türen ) of Crematoria IV and V.

6) In addition, the literature specifies that such openings must be available for emergency egress. Hence, we hypothesize that these inserts must be removable. [Source: S 5, LDB 174ff, 182, 183]

7) There are several references in the anti-gas shelter literature to "Schieber" which serve the function of something that slides in and blocks, filters, or mediates a space (Absperrschieber, Rosettenschieber, Aufbläseschieber). All of these characterize a "Schieber" as something that is slid into something else, none of them describe a device that is slid into something else so that something else can be slid into it. [Source: advertisement, BL42, V] Therefore, we conclude that the characterization of Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung as a "wire mesh induction device" is semantically incorrect.

8) Finally, the Auschwitz work order Nr. 78 dated March 11, 1943 [ATO, 440] contains an order in Polish "na wykonanie zaslon i kontowek dla krematorium II /BW 30/ z tresci ktorego wynika, ze dla wykonania tego samowienia zuzyto gaze druciana i druciana plecionke." which can be translated as "for the manufacture of screens with scantlings [or screens with edges] for Crematorium II /BW 30/ the gist of which is [z tresci ktorego wynika] that wire gauze and wire mesh are to be used to meet the order."

The above order is in Polish because the original order is not available. According to Pressac, (ATO 438), someone at the Auschwitz Museum borrowed the document for home study and didn't return it. This is the only document missing, hence Pressac had to rely on a Polish language abstract prepared for the Höß trial and notarized by Jan Sehn. However, it seems clear that the order is significant in defining the nature of the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung. The reference to screens is not a reference to induction devices, and indeed, they sound like the screens for emergency exits discussed earlier [LBD 174-177]. If our rendering of the admittedly vague Polish is incorrect, it would be helpful if the document was returned to the Museum where it belongs.

Our hypothesis, then, is that the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung were simply removable wire mesh screens that were placed into openings that the Holzblenden were designed to cover. The corroboration for this inference derives from the points from the literature noted above. A benign interpretation is possible, therefore it is not a criminal trace.

Finally, it should be noted that Pressac himself has observed that the roof of Morgue #1 of Crematorium II (for which these 4 pairs were designated) shows only two holes in its largely collapsed but still intact roof (ATO, 436). Therefore, in whatever manner these 4 pairs of Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung and Holzblenden were meant to be used, they could not all have been used exclusively in the roof of Morgue #1 of Crematorium II. This fact weakens Pressac's interpretation concerning their construction and intent.

http://vho.org/GB/c/SC/inconpressac.html

So basically, the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung are wire mesh screens with Holzblenden - wooden shutters - gas proof like most if not all German bomb shelter doors and openings. They appear odd and perhaps suspicious to anyone not familiar with German bomb shelter design of the 1930s and 40s.




Mattogno apparently disagrees with Crowell on the actual intended use for these parts, but naturally he doesn't agree with Pressac. Note that the parts in question appear in relation to Leichenkeller 2, the alleged undressing room.

Mattogno:

Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung does not signify "dispositifs d’introduction en treillis de fil de fer" ["introduction devices made of wire netting"] (p. 79), but rather, insertion devices (the verb einschieben, means in fact, "insert, to slide into"; for example, one "inserts" a drawer in a closet).

The device for the introduction of Zyklon B in the alleged homicidal gas chambers would be called Einwurfvorrichtung (Pressac himself speaks in fact of déversement, "pouring out," of the Zyklon B in the alleged homicidal gas chambers [p. 89]). The Holzblenden, obturateurs de bois, "wooden obstructors" (p. 79), cannot be what Pressac maintains, i.e. wooden covers of the alleged introduction devices of the Zyklon B: These devices would be called in fact Holzdeckel, precisely covers, not obstructors.

Pressac states that the above-mentioned devices were found in "morgue 1" (p. 79), that is, in Leichenkeller 1, the alleged homicidal gas chamber. In reality, in the inventory of Crematory II, [84] these devices are attributed to Leichenkeller 2, the alleged changing room (for the supposed homicidal gas chamber): Did the SS want to gas the victims in the "changing room"? But that’s not all! These devices do not figure at all in the inventory of Crematory III: [85]Then how did the SS think they could introduce the Zyklon B into the gas chamber?by affably asking the victims to carry in the cans of Zyklon B and open them after the gas-proof door closed behind them?

Therefore, these devices could have been anything but what Jean-Claude Pressac claims.

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/anf/Mattogno.html

Here Crowell addresses Mattogno:

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/SC/inconscrmtgno.html

[Bergmann]

What do you say about the documents Pressac included in his "Technique and Operation" supposedly showing the "wire mesh introduction devices" existed?

For a bill of matrial for Krema II the listing seems to be rather thin and incomplete. The crematorium II was equipped with five ovens, each with three muffles, compressed air equipment to supply the muffles with air necessary for the cremation, air blowers for the coke ovens, etc, etc. None of this equipment is listed.

This is supposed to be the inventory of Krema II. Following is a magnification of the lines saying "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung" (wire mesh introduction device) and "Holzblenden" (wooden flaps). One can't really read it but let's assume Pressac deciphered it correctly.

"Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung" does not translate to "wire mesh introduction device" in my opinion. The German "schieben" means "to slide", sliding devices are removable and can be used in ventilation duct openings.

[Bergmann]

Well, any of them really. You can see the bold, straight outline of the buildings which I'm sure would not be so distinct and regular if it was covered in earth.

I agree. If the morgues were covered with 50 cm of dirt as indicated on the drawings, the embankments on the side would probably slope at about 45 degrees with smooth edges.
There would be no sharp edges. So maybe the sand cover was not installed.

[Radar]

Another poster said the devices were simply sliding mesh screens that slid into the vent opening where they exited the morgue. A common feature for any room vent system...


RP:

Look at the "Little Train" photo to see the morgue extending above ground.

[Hotzenplotz]

The "Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung" are one of Pressac's 'criminal traces' and have been delt with. I most recently read Samuel Crowell's interpretation.

Criminal Trace #8 4 Dratnetzeinschiebvorrichtung
[...]
Our hypothesis, then, is that the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung were simply removable wire mesh screens that were placed into openings that the Holzblenden were designed to cover. The corroboration for this inference derives from the points from the literature noted above. A benign interpretation is possible, therefore it is not a criminal trace.

Mattogno:

Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung does not signify "dispositifs d’introduction en treillis de fil de fer" ["introduction devices made of wire netting"] (p. 79), but rather, insertion devices (the verb einschieben, means in fact, "insert, to slide into"; for example, one "inserts" a drawer in a closet).

Thanks everybody. This refutation of Pressac was better than I had imagined was possible. Indeed, after considering the Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung could be connected to the air shelter hypothesis, Mattogno's analysis of the German word struck me as obvious (and I must attribute to a remnant of Big-H-conditioning that I didn't realize it myself): "Einschieben", as Bergmann said correctly, means "slide in" which is definitely not what you would do with the Zyklon (throw, drop). German synthetic words are generally ambiguous (like "Weizengries" is semolina out of wheat, while "Kindergrieß" is semolina, well, not out of, but for children), but I interpret our word as meaning "Einschiebevorrichtung for the Drahtnetz"; i.e. it most probably refers to the device fastened at the windows where the wire mesh could be slid in. (Or alternatively in front of the ventilation, as Radar suggested - seems quite plausible as well)

We've got at least two interpretations that are a lot more plausible than Pressac's, destroying his "criminal trace" utterly.

And hasn't it been admitted officially by the Auschwitz museum that the "gas chambers" had been changed to an air shelter by the end of the war? (Or is this only in the Cole video?) Then all the documents Pressac presents in fact show that there were no gas chambers, since the rebuilding had seemingly be done already in 1943.

Maybe he is a closet revisionist after all?

[Richard Perle]

The 'gas chamber' you are referring to is the one in Auschwitz I main camp, which was out of action when the Birkenau chambers were allegedly put into action.

[Hotzenplotz]

The 'gas chamber' you are referring to is the one in Auschwitz I main camp, which was out of action when the Birkenau chambers were allegedly put into action.

Ah ok... thanks.

[The_Revisionist]

...they are making it up as they go along and don't know what they are talking about.

And yet they claim to disapprove of revisionism?

[Radar]

In Dr Green's Report at the Irving Trial he quotes Nyiszli's description of a Birkenau gassing from beginning to end.

Witness Nyiszli describes the SS men coming to the gas chamber roof and throwing the Zyklon into the gassing column.

He says the Zyklon ended up in a lump at the bottom of the column.

He then tells how the victims died in 5 minutes and how the sadistic SS men waited another 5 minutes to make sure they were dead.

Finally, he says they left.

Nowhere in this beginning to end eyewitness gassing tale does he describe the pellets being withdrawn back out to the roof as Dr Green contends.

[Bergmann]

Nowhere in this beginning to end eyewitness gassing tale does he describe the pellets being withdrawn back out to the roof as Dr Green contends.

I checked out about 100 eyewitness testimonies on this very problem, both perpetrators and survivors, and found that not a single one testified to an early withdrawal of the Zyklon-B pellets prior to complete discharge.
During debates with Holocausters they usually respond, that it "stands to reason" that the pellets were withdrawn after 10 or 15 minutes.
When I responded, that specifically the testimonies of Tauber and Kula mentioned, that the Zyklon-B pellets were only withdrawn after they completely discharged and asked whether those two keye witnesses lied, I got no answer.

One witness, Fillip Mueller, said that inside the insertion column was a spiral mounted, which was to ensure an "even" distribution of the Zyklon-B pellets. Besides the fact that nothing will be evenly distributed sliding down a spiral, how would he picture withdrawing the pellets from the top with the spiral in the way?

With other words, the Zyklon-B was left to completely discharge for about 1 1/2 to 2 hours. Given the fact that Zyklon-B discharges about 10% of its HCN after 10 minutes, it would take at least a tenfold overdose to achieve the desired effect.

But no blue staining in walls and ceiling from the formation of prussian blue!

[Richard Perle]

If the pellets were withdrawn then even eyewitnesses who never saw the columns (i.e. they were only ever outside) should have described the process.
These columns are a farce.