D. Cole: 46 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS REGARDING 'GAS CHAMBERS'

[Holycaust]

Ok, as stated in my last post before I had it deleted, according to a post by deathonacracker on r o d o h these questions have been answered long ago by one Ulrich Roessler. Roessler's answers for all of these questions weren't provided in the post and so far I haven't been able to find them all but his answers to questions 1-4 are given below.

I'll leave it up to everyone here to decide for themselves how satisfactory these answers are.

: 1) What explanation can there be for the low levels of traces, and
: absence of blue staining, in the homicidal gas chambers?
: 2) If one suggests that the Zyklon traces in the homicidal gas
: chambers have been "weathered away", how can one explain the traces
: and staining on the OUTSIDE of the delousing complexes...traces which
: have NOT been weathered away after fifty years?


The absence of blue-staining can be explained
a) by the fact that blue-staining doesn't necessarily follow from
exposing building materials to HCN.


b) delousing takes considerably longer and needs far higher HCN
concentrations than killing people. Moreover, the delousing
chambers were used round the clock for a total longer time span
than the gas-chambers which were usually at most used once a
day for an hour or so with long periods in between when they
weren't used at all.


c) Apparently, some of the blue-staining at the outside of buildings
in the main-camp in Auschwitz appeared only after the war. Either
this was the final slow formation of Prussian blue through intermediate
stages when the cyanid was present in other form. Then, such processes
could not form much Prussian blue in the destroyed gas-chambers
of Auschwitz-Birkenau where the level of soluble cyanide compounds
would have been washed out to a great amount. Or the blue staining
wasn't a consequence of the usage of Zyklon-B in the buildings but
was the result of paint-work with Prussian blue as coloring pigment.


: 3) It has been suggested that the amount of Zyklon B needed to kill
: people, even cumulative millions of people, would not leave traces as
: strong as the amount needed to kill lice in the delousing chambers.
: But when we factor in the Zyklon B traces still existing in the camp
: barracks and offices, we see that infrequent gassings will still leave
: SOME traces.


Well, and such traces have been found there - actually the researchers
of the Cracow forensic institute found more traces in the relics of
the gas-chambers than the background found in the barracks even though
one knows that these barracks have been fumigated at least one to
during one of the typhoid fever epidemics.


So the relative amount of cyanides found at various places in
Auschwitz are in accord with our knowledge about its role both
as concentration and slave-labour camp and as mass-destruction
center where people where killed with HCN.


: 4) Once one has fashioned an explanation for the minute traces and no
: blue staining in Kremas 1, 2 and 3 at Auschwitz, how does one THEN
: explain the HIGH levels of Zyklon B traces and DEEP, FLOOR-TO-CEILING
: blue staining in three of the four Majdanek gas chambers?


Could have to do with the fact that that gas chamber wasn't destroyed,
or with the different composition of the building materials there.

[Coder62]

These are far from answers to the questions,

by the fact that blue-staining doesn't necessarily

Doesn't sound too sure of his/her own reasoning for this to even be close to an answer.

Moreover, the delousing chambers were used round the clock for a total longer time span than the gas-chambers which were usually at most used once a day for an hour or so with long periods in between when they weren't used at all.

This goes against claims that the gas chambers were being used all day long and one is left wondering why the Nazis were aiming to exterminate an entire race yet apparently worked round the clock to get rid of as many lice as they could when they could have just brought more and more people in to take over the dead's jobs.

Apparently, some of the blue-staining at the outside of buildings in the main-camp in Auschwitz appeared only after the war.

Proof?

Or the blue staining wasn't a consequence of the usage of Zyklon-B in the buildings but was the result of paint-work with Prussian blue as coloring pigment.

Kidding right, this is probably the worst excuse for a lack of evidence I have ever seen.

actually the researchers of the Cracow forensic institute found more traces in the relics of the gas-chambers than the background found in the barracks

We can rule that out as evidence right away.

So the relative amount of cyanides found at various places in
Auschwitz are in accord with our knowledge about its role both
as concentration and slave-labour camp and as mass-destruction
center where people where killed with HCN.

Its in accordance with we know it was a labour camp but still no evidence given to state this was ever a mass-destruction center.

Could have to do with the fact that that gas chamber wasn't destroyed, or with the different composition of the building materials there.

Why build killing centers out of different building materials, if one found a style that works then one would stick with that and not build different types for the same purpose.
The gas chambers being destroyed in Auschwitz has nothing to do with it, prussian blue as we have found doesn't weather away so this is another mute point.

His so called answers are nothing but theorys of which as marked out he himself doesn't sound too sure about, these are just repeated internet, "answers" to the questions.

- Coder62

[Hannover]

The entire range of irrational & desperate nonsense from the True-Believers-in-the-impossible-'gas-chambers' has already been demolished.

From the sham 'Cracow Institute' to the laughable 'blue paint made from HCN', it's all debunked here:

'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4111

- Hannover

[Moderator]

Coder62,
Give us your specific comments on the various points, do not simply copy in someone's response from another site and then ask us what we think.
M1

[Coder62]

This is the case brought against David Coles questions by Roberto from the R O D O H forum, he stated the following:

I’m having some difficulty understanding the fuss that is being made about Cole’s questions, especially those regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau.

The first 14 questions regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau seem to address essentially two subjects: cyanide traces and the holes in the roof of the underground gas chambers of Crematoria 2 and 3.

The former subject has been examined in detail in the discussion between Germar Rudolf and Dr. Richard Green, which is the subject of several articles published by Dr. Green on the THHP site and of Dr. Green’s expert opinion submitted at the Irving-Lipstadt trial. Unless there’s anything in Cole’s questions that has not been addressed by Rudolf and Dr. Green, these questions are yesterday’s news.

As to the holes, the issues raised by Cole should have lost interest with the publication of the study by Keren, McCarthy and Mazal mentioned in this article. Cole’s questions hinge on the assumption that the Zyklon B introduction holes cannot be identified, which doesn’t seem to be the case according to the aforementioned study. So unless there’s anything in Cole’s questions that has not been addressed by this study, these questions are also cold coffee.

Questions 7) and 8 ), which do not belong to either of the above groups, are based on assumptions that need to be verified in order to make these questions worth responding to (this applies to many of Cole’s other questions as well). Would the "ditches which run the length of the camp perimeter" really make a person "invisible both to ground fire AND fire from the guard tower", as Cole claims? And how would deportees or inmates being taken to Kremas 2 and 3 reach those ditches, what area would they have to cross and what obstacles to overcome? Does the Auschwitz State Museum actually claim that the inmates would often "riot" as they were being marched toward Kremas 2 and 3? That would surprise me in what concerns the arriving deportees, who had no idea of what was going to happen to them and regarding whom procedures to calm them down and quickly eliminate eventual "troublemakers" had been implemented, according to e.g. Höss’ memoirs and the notes he wrote following his pre-trial interrogations in Polish captivity. It would also surprise me in regard to permanent inmates selected for gassing, who as far as I know tended to be emaciated "musulmans" too weak and apathetic to "riot" or try to escape. Equally unknown to me is the notion that gassings were moved to Birkenau "because the inmates were starting to get an idea of the homicidal purpose of Krema 1", as is supposedly claimed by the Auschwitz State Museum. Based on what evidence? And I also don’t know if Kremas 2 and 3 were "put in plain sight of all sectors of the Birkenau camp". What exactly could Birkenau inmates, not to mention inmates of the Auschwitz main camp, notice of the gassings in Kremas 2 and 3?

The reasons for the placement of Kremas 2 and 3 were explained by Höss in his notes headed The Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Auschwitz, where he also addressed the "camouflage" issue:

Quote:Die Krematorien waren am Ende der beiden großen Achsen des Lagers Birkenau errichtet worden, um erstens die Ausweitung des Lagers nicht noch mehr zu vergrößern und dadurch auch noch die Sicherung; und zweitens [sollten sie] nicht zu weit vom Lager entfernt sein, da nach Einstellung der Vernichtungsaktion die Gas- und Auskleideräume als Badeanlagen benutzt werden sollten.

Gegen Einsicht sollten die Anlagen durch eine Mauer bzw. Hecken geschützt werden. Aus Materialmangel unterblieb dies. Provisoirisch waren alle Vernichtungsstellen durch Tarnzäune gesichert. Die drei Geleise zwischen Bauabschnitt I und II des Lagers Birkenau sollten als Bahnhof umgebaut werden und überdacht und bis zu Krematorium III und IV weitergeführt werden, so daß auch die Entladung gegen Einsicht Unberufener geschützt wäre. Materialmangel zwang ebenfalls, den Plan fallenzulassen.



My translation:

Quote:The crematoria were erected at the end of the two large axes of the Birkenau camp, first in order to avoid a further extension of the camp and thus also of the security, and second they should not be too far from the camp because after the end of the extermination action the gassing and undressing rooms were to be used as bathing installations.

It was planned to protect these installations against view by means of a wall or by hedges. Due to lack of material this was not done. Provisionally all extermination sites were protected by camouflage fences. The three rails between Construction Sectors I and II of the Birkenau camp were to be converted into a railway station and continued up to Crematoria III and IV, so that also the unloading would have been protected against uncalled-for viewers. Lack of material also forced to drop this plan.



So it seems that Cole’s question # 8 is not only based on at least one mistaken assumption (regarding there being "no camouflage of any kind"), but also need not have been asked if its author had just done a little reading. How many of Cole’s other questions are affected by such fallacies?

Question # 13, about why the Nazis bothered to blow up Kremas 2 and 3, is based on the obviously mistaken assumption that "great care was obviously taken to remove even the slightest trace of two of the Zyklon B induction holes". It also suggests a faulty logic that kept its author from wondering why the Nazis would have bothered to blow up Kremas 2 and 3 if not in order to conceal the traces of their crimes. What was there about plain and simple crematorium buildings that would require their not being allowed to fall into enemy hands? Did the Germans destroy any industrial installations in the Auschwitz-Birkenau area so as to keep them from falling into Soviet hands, which would have been an understandable measure under a "scorched earth" policy? If not, their having blown up a concentration camp’s crematorium building, of all things, is even harder to understand. Was it a general policy to blow up cremation installations and not let them fall into enemy hands? Cole apparently doesn’t know, for he asks whether "cremation facilities at other camps, camps that were never claimed to have gas chambers" were also destroyed – apparently unaware that a negative answer to this question would shred his arguments.

Now, in what other concentration camps that "were never claimed to have gas chambers" were crematoria blown up in order to keep them from falling into enemy hands? I don’t know of any. Does anybody here know about any such concentration camp?

At the end of his collection, Cole has three more questions regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, nos. 44, 45 and 46. No. 44, in which Cole asks what kept the pellets thrown into the gas chambers of Birkenau Crematoria 4 and 5 from "going down the drain or being kicked or brushed down by the victims", would be a funny showpiece of “Revisionist” idiocy if it were not for the subject matter it addresses. First of all – and assuming that Cole is right about the presence of floor drains – if the contents of three or four cans of Zyklon B were poured through gas-tight windows into the gas chamber, how many of these hundreds of pellets could be expected to make their way to a floor drain somewhere in the room, especially if that drain was opposite to the side of the room onto which the pellets were dropped? Second, who of the victims would, in his or her mindless death panic, think of trying to sweep pellets towards and down a floor drain? And third, how long would such an exceptionally cool-headed and cold-blooded person live, considering the high dose of Zyklon B it would catch from the pellets it tried to sweep towards and down a floor drain, especially in hot weather when the pellets can be expected to have released several times a lethal dose of hydrogen cyanide within minutes?

The other two questions, # 45 and # 46, are all the harder to understand as they come from someone who, IIRC, prides himself on having "demonstrated" that the Krema I gas chamber in the Auschwitz main camp is a postwar reconstruction, after the SS had converted the gas chamber into an air raid shelter or so, and that curators of the Auschwitz Museum used to leave visitors unaware of this fact. How does Cole know that the manhole he makes a fuss about in question # 45 was not part of the gas chamber’s wartime conversion into an air raid shelter, which the postwar re-constructors failed to remove? And, assuming that the manhole existed while the room was a morgue also used for homicidal gassing (what would a morgue have a manhole for?), how many of the victims who broke into mindless death panic when the gas was introduced could be expected to climb down a manhole big enough for only one person at a time? And how many human beings on this planet would be cool-headed and cold blooded enough, in such a situation, to get the brilliant idea of "kicking or brushing the Zyklon B pellets down the manhole and closing the cover", even assuming that the pellets' out-gassing was as slow as Cole claims? Cole obviously failed to take human nature into account in his smart-ass considerations. As to the morgue’s temperature and the out-gassing time, he apparently knew little about the out-gassing speed of hydrogen cyanide at various temperatures, which has been discussed in detail in the Veritas Team’s 3rd Response, Steve Mock’s post # 889, and about how hot it is likely to have been in the gas chambers during most homicidal gassings, be it due to the victims’ body heat (which had time to build up as the gas chamber was being filled with people), to the use of portable coke braziers when the weather was cold, or to both factors. The misrepresentation of Höss’ description of the gassing process is a straw-man that Cole obviously needs to help his "point" in this respect. What Höss actually wrote, as quoted in the above-mentioned post, was the following:

Quote:Commandant Hoess: "The process could be observed through the peep hole in the door. Those who were standing next to the air shaft were killed immediately. I can state that about one-third died immediately. The remainder staggered about and began to scream and struggle for air. The screaming, however, soon changed to gasping and in a few moments everyone lay still. After twenty minutes at the most, no movement could be detected. The time required for the gas to take effect varied according to weather conditions and depended on whether it was damp or dry, cold or warm. It also depended on the quality of the gas, which was never exactly the same, and on the composition of the transports, which might contain a high proportion of healthy Jews, or the old and sick, or children. The victims became unconscious after a few minutes, according to the distance from the air shaft. Those who screamed and those who were old, sick, or weak, or the small children died quicker than those who were healthy or young."



According to Höss, it took up to twenty minutes until "no movement could be detected". Here’s what Cole made of this:

Quote:Commandant Hoess speaks of a very swift process - herd 'em in, drop down the gas, ventilate the room.



Question # 46, where Cole makes a fuss about the holes in the gas chamber of the Krema 1, may have lost its relevance with the identification of the holes in the above-mentioned study by Keren, McCarthy and Mazal, but it is still worth noting for several features that can be considered characteristic of the "Revisionist" stance.

The first characteristic feature is the apparent notion that eyewitness testimonies are no evidence that a conviction could be based on in a court of law, when Cole writes the following:

Quote:We have no description of the Krema 1 murder weapon, but we ALSO have no evidence of any murders in Krema 1. Even the best prosecutor in the world would be hard pressed to get a conviction were this case to be tried in any standard American court. All that we have are testimonies. And just a few.



I keep wondering what procedural rules or rules of evidence "Revisionists" could have derived this notion from, especially as none of the "Revisionist" wisecrackers I have asked to show me such rules has been able to do so.

The second characteristic feature is the misrepresentation of Pressac that follows the above statements:

Quote:Yet Pressac spends much of his gas chamber book demolishing these testimonies as false.



Does he, Mr. Cole?

Here’s what Pressac writes about the testimony of Alter Fajnzylberg:

Quote:ALTER FAJNZYLBERG affirms that an incineration muffle in one of the three furnaces (the mouth opening was 0.60 x 0.60m, and the internal dimensions 0.70 x 0.70 x 2.10m, or 1.029m3 according to Topf drawing D57253) could “swallow” TWELVE bodies at a time (which is mathematically possible, but not practically), but that normally five were “fitted in”. The latter figure is closer to reality which was on average three (normal adult) bodies at a time. The witness clearly gave way here to the general tendency to exaggerate at that time (in the years 1945–50). His description of the equipment of Krematorium I is valid (though the building had been converted into an air raid shelter and the furnaces had been removed), except for its length (50m) and the dimensions given to its gas chamber: 30 x 5m (150m²) instead of 17 x 46m (78.2m²). This error in estimation is more than excusable, in particular as the PMO, in a note to his figures [30 x 5m], indicates the following dimensions: 17.00 x 4.50m giving a floor area of 65m² [!], an area regularly reproduced in the early histories of the camp, but not corresponding to the facts. What is remarkable n his new declaration in September 1980 is that the witness repeats exactly the same dimensions as he did in April 1945, a proof of the sincerity and authenticity of his statements.[my emphasis – RM]



About that of Filip Müller:

Quote:FILIP MÜLLER wrote that in May 1942 (the date of his arrival at the camp, page 23), the chimney of Krematorium I was of circular section (p. 37) [an initial state confirmed verbally to the author in 1981 by a former prisoner. Mrs. Hertig, No. 68919, who lived in the town of Auschwitz before being interned in the camp]. The Topf drawings for the installation of the third furnace (“neuer Ofen / new furnace”) 59042 a and b of 25th September 1941 indicate that the chimney was a square section and thus had already been rebuilt. This casts a doubt on the presence of the witness during the fire that he describes (pages 45 and 46) and the resulting damage to the chimney that had to he rebuilt more solidly, hence of square section. However, there is a series of documents concerned with an order of 13th May 1942 by the camp administration [Documents C1a and C1b] requesting the repair of the Krematorium chimney (first item), which is wrong, because the description of the work [Documents C2a and C2b, C3a and C3b] and the final report [Documents C4a and C4b] show that the repair was actually only on an underground flue ("Kaminnterkanal"). These documents fully confirm the witness’s account of the accident (jets of cold water on fire bricks heated to a a temperature of 800-1000° C), but negate the existence of a “round” chimney in May 1942, because even the sketch on the description of the work [C2a] shows it to be square.

This error on the form of the Krematorium I chimney, first noted by the Auschwitz Museum, is minor, since the damage caused by the accident is confirmed by the repair documents. F. Müller. who can be seen in Claude Lanzmann's film “SHOAH” (script published by Fayard in 1985, where he states on page 73 that “the firebricks exploded suddenly, and the [underground] flues linking the Auschwitz Krematorium to the chimney were obstructed”, an explanation perfectly in line with the repair documents) is a valuable witness with a “technical” eye, even if like anyone else, he is sometimes mistaken (on facts going back 40 years!).[my emphasis – RM]



About that of Rudolf Hoess:

Quote:RUDOLF HOESS describes one of the first gassings [of 900 Russian prisoners of war] at which he was present, in the morgue of Krematorium I (page 164). Two details are unlikely: the squeezing of 900 persons into 78.2m² and the “rapid” drilling of several holes in the ceiling to pour the Zyklon B. Drilling through 10 to 15cm of concrete was not a job that could be done on the spur of the moment. Hoess participated in the “special actions” strictly in accordance with his obligations and occupied his mind with the almost insurmountable tasks imposed by the exponential growth of his camp, thus not allowing his conscience to dwell on the moral question. He was present, without seeing. In the author’s opinion, this attitude explains the involuntary errors[my emphasis – RM] found throughout his autobiography.



About that of Pery Broad (emphases are mine):

Quote:PERY BROAD's testimony raises problems yet to be solved. His account of the various “activities” of the camp is one of the most striking. But the form and tone of his declaration sound false. His writings cannot be the faithful reflection of the thoughts of an SS man and indeed reading them gives the impression that they were written by a former prisoner. Pages 148 and 149 and 153 to 156 have to be read carefully for this to be seen. Lastly, who wrote (page 172): “for these SS monsters, the spectacle of the suffering of ill treated Jews constituted an amusing pastime!” (true as that may have been)?

The basis of P. Broad’s testimony seems authentic, despite many errors, but its present literary form is visibly coloured by a rather too flagrant Polish patriotism. Furthermore, the original manuscript of his declaration is not known, However, this text should not be rejected and its “special tone” can be explained: either Broad had adopted the “language of the victor” (hypothesis put forward by Pierre Vidat Naquet), or his declaration has been “slightly” reworked by the Poles (present author’s opinion.



And about these testimonies in general:

Quote:Whatever criticisms one might level at the might level at the accounts of these four witnesses, all affirm one identical fact: homicidal gassings took place in the morgue of Krematorium I. Even if their accounts diverge on the number of holes through which Zyklon B was poured or on the number of extractor fans, details in fact unlikely to be noted and remembered unless one actually designed or installed them, the utilisation of the morgue for criminal purposes is established.[my emphasis – RM]



So, does Pressac "demolish" these testimonies as false?

Does he, as Cole claims later in question # 46, doubt the credibility of the testimonies?

No, Pressac conclusion is that, although they contain a number of errors, these testimonies are credible in what concerns the essential facts that they describe, the homicidal gassings at the Auschwitz main camp’s crematorium. Cole’s reading of Pressac’s assessment of these four testimonies suggests that Cole was carried away by his wishful thinking. Or then he’s a very sloppy reader. Or then, he’s a rotten liar hoping that his readers will not check behind him.

The third characteristic feature of “Revisionist” argumentation that shows in Cole’s question # 46 is the absence of logic that becomes apparent from his triumphant final sub-question:

Quote:And it is therefore legitimate to ask, "If you don't know whether there were three or four holes, how do you know that there were ANY holes?"



One is tempted to reply: "Because several eyewitnesses independently of each other described the presence of such holes, as well as the substance that was poured through them and the effects that substance had, you silly moron." Cole’s reasoning is almost as imbecile as if one would argue that if someone asked to describe the inside of a large bakery he entered a couple of times couldn’t tell if it had three or four ovens we can’t be sure if the bakery had any ovens at all. As Pressac correctly pointed out, the exact number of holes is a detail unlikely to be noted and remembered unless one actually designed or installed them.

So much for Cole’s questions regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau.

As to his questions regarding Mauthausen, Dachau, Majdanek and Stutthof, I know too little about these camps to determine to what extent they are based on mistaken assumptions and/or would have been rendered unnecessary if their author had conducted more thorough research. However, there is one question that jumped up to me in the course of my cursory reading, regarding which I can point out such fallacies. This is question # 36, about why the SS destroyed the Majdanek crematorium building but not the gas chambers:

Quote:(36) As the Nazis were preparing to abandon the Majdanek camp, they destroyed the crematorium building. Why were the gas chambers not similarly destroyed? Why would the Nazis leave their weapons of mass murder intact for the world to see? How hard would it have been for the Nazis to destroy the gas chambers, just like they did the crematorium building? At least, shouldn't the Nazis have filled in the Zyklon B induction holes, which serve as direct proofs of homicidal gassings? Either way, the destruction of the crematorium is clear proof that the Nazis had both the time and the ability to demolish buildings in the camp if they wanted to. Why were the gas chambers not demolished?



What Cole doesn’t tell us just how the Majdanek crematorium building was "destroyed". According to this page:

Quote:The original wooden crematorium building at Majdanek was burned by the Nazis on July 22, 1944, just before they abandoned the camp, but the ovens remained intact.



So the SS burned down the wooden building but did not blow up the ovens which, as they were made of brick and steel, survived the fire. This suggests that they had no time to blow up the ovens because they were in a hurry to get out before the Red Army reached the camp, which alone answers Cole’s question. The hastiness of Majdanek’s evacuation is mentioned in several sources, for instance here:

Quote:In late July 1944, as Soviet forces approached Lublin, the Germans hastily evacuated Majdanek. The SS had evacuated most of the prisoners to concentration camps further west during the spring of 1944. Soviet troops captured Lublin and liberated Majdanek on July 24. The Germans did not have time to dismantle the camp entirely. Captured virtually intact, Majdanek was the first major concentration camp to be liberated.



and here:

Quote:The trauma of the hasty evacuation of Majdanek and its capture by the Red Army in June 1944 was still fresh and painful in the German memory. There the Germans failed to destroy all the evidence in time, and the Soviets thus obtained documents and other incriminating evidence of the gas chambers and crematoria. Worst of all, in German eyes, was that prisoners who remained in the camp were able to give first-person accounts of the atrocities perpetrated there.



Yet Cole tells his readers that "the destruction of the crematorium is clear proof that the Nazis had both the time and the ability to demolish buildings in the camp if they wanted to".

Did Cole not know that the SS at Majdanek had had time for no more than burning the wooden construction that housed the crematorium ovens and did no longer manage to destroy the ovens themselves? If so, his research is of such sloppiness that questions derived from it are likely to be based on mistaken assumptions, so it would be fair for anyone challenged to answer these questions to demand that Cole substantiate the assumptions on which they were based, first of all. Who wants to waste time on answering questions that are based on mistaken assumptions and therefore merely hypothetical?

Or could it be that Cole knew that the SS had had no time to destroy the Majdanek cremation ovens? If so, that would make him a liar, and it would mean that none of the assumptions underlying his questions can be trusted unless substantiated with evidence. This, in turn, means that no one should bother trying to answer any of these questions until substantiation is forthcoming. Why should anyone waste time on answering questions that may be based on lies?

Last but not least, I would like to call attention to Cole’s question # 26 regarding Dachau, which if compared to his question # 13 provides a good example of how “Revisionists” argue on both sides of their mouth:

Quote:(26) It is often said that the Nazis tried to hide the evidence of their extermination program by speaking in code, and rarely speaking of the exterminations on the record. It is similarly held that, as it became clear that they were losing the war, the Nazis tried to destroy the proofs of their crimes (the destruction of the four Birkenau Kremas is said to have been part of this "cover-up"). How, then, does one explain the Dachau gas chamber? The obviously false shower heads are incontrovertible proof of the homicidal purpose of this room. It is impossible not explain away the fake shower heads/a homicidal gas chamber. Yet we are to believe that this gas chamber was NEVER USED. And we are also supposed to believe that the room in its present state is exactly as the U.S. Army found it when the camp was liberated. Now, the details of the liberation of Dachau are well known: Dachau was not taken in some surprise attack. The guards at Dachau knew that the Americans were on their way. Therefore, we are asked to believe that the Nazis, KNOWING the camp would be surrendered, left the gas chamber room (which was not even being USED as a gas chamber) in a state which unashamedly points to its homicidal purpose. Why were the fake shower heads not removed? *
Why was there no attempt at a "cover-up," like at Auschwitz? Unlike the Auschwitz gas chambers, THIS one was not even in use! What good was an unused room which only served to scream to the world "the Nazis are gassing the Jews"? Why would the Nazis, who were NOT using the "gas chamber" to kill people, leave it in this blatantly homicidal state, especially as the Americans drew closer? Keep in mind that, with the fake shower heads, this room was also impossible to us as a SHOWER. Therefore, this room served NO PURPOSE: it wasn't used as a gas chamber, and couldn't be used as a shower. We are asked to accept that the Nazis kept a large, USELESS room in one of the more important buildings in the Dachau camp (the "gas chamber" is located in the building which houses the Zyklon B clothing fumigation cubicles) and that this room remained UNUSED for years but was never stripped of the fake shower heads which pointed irrefutably to the Nazi's murderous intentions.
Surely, understanding the great pains the Nazis took to keep their gassing/extermination plans a secret, and the great pains they supposedly took at OTHER camps to "hide their crimes" once the Allies were advancing (i.e. the destruction of Kremas 2 through 5 at Auschwitz), we can expect that they would have performed the very simple task of removing the fake shower heads (and perhaps plastering over the marks where the shower heads had been). Why didn't the Nazis do this?



Remember that in question # 13 Cole wonders why the Nazis blew up the Birkenau crematorium buildings when, as he claims, they contained no incriminating traces of homicidal gassing. His rambling about the Dachau gas chambers leaves little room for doubt as to how he would have argued had the Nazis not destroyed the Birkenau crematoria, and especially if incriminating traces of homicidal gassing had been found in the intact buildings (this report shows that such traces were found even in the ruins, by the way): he would have argued that the crematorium buildings must have been “planted” by someone because the Nazis would never have left behind such flagrant evidence.

Now, what about Cole’s claim that the obvious homicidal layout of the Dachau gas chamber is evidence against its having been built by the Nazis for homicidal use, irrelevant though that is in the absence of conclusive evidence that it ever was used? I’d say it is nonsense. First of all, if the gas chamber had never been actually used for homicidal purposes, there was no need for anyone from the camp staff to worry much about it, for on what basis could they have been indicted for having something in their camp that could have been used for murder? The Dachau staff is likely to have been more concerned with hiding evidence to the crimes it had actually committed, and for which a number of its members were later put on trial and sentenced by the Americans. Second, the Dachau staff also had other problems on its hand at the time, with large number of inmates evacuated from other camps coming in and the resulting overcrowding and dying from malnutrition and disease, leading to the piles of dead bodies that American troops found nearby the crematorium (which, to partially answer one of Cole’s sub-questions in question # 13, was not blown up). The SS seems to have been barely able to manage the camp in its final days. Getting rid of evidence to the existence of an unused homicidal gas chamber, just because it might otherwise be used to condemn the regime they had served (and probably couldn’t have cared less about at the end of April 1945, when it was falling to pieces), is likely to have been the Dachau camp staff’s least concern under these conditions, and something they may thus well have forgotten to do.

I hope the above has helped to give our readers an idea of what Cole’s vaunted "Forty-Six Important Unanswered Questions Regarding the Nazi Gas Chambers" are obviously good for: finding instructive examples of the sloppy research and/or mendacity and flawed reasoning that characterize “Revisionism”. Further examples may be forthcoming as I make myself more familiar with Mauthausen, Majdanek, Dachau and Stutthof concentration camps, though none of these is ever likely to become a topic of major interest for me. Showing that and why "Revisionism" sucks is always an entertaining exercise.

The following is my own responce at R O D O H:

"The former subject has been examined in detail in the discussion between Germar Rudolf and Dr. Richard Green,
which is the subject of several articles published by Dr. Green on the THHP site and of Dr. Green’s expert opinion
submitted at the Irving-Lipstadt trial. Unless there’s anything in Cole’s questions that has not been addressed by
Rudolf and Dr. Green, these questions are yesterday’s news."

Roberto.

Three points need to be made here:

1)Holes are meantioned three times in total in Dr. Greens report, none actually describing why the holes are so
large in CIA air photos but instead concentrating on if the holes actually existed.

2)In Dr. Greens report we see nothing in regards to why the four holes in the alledged gas chamber roof of Krema
2 now no longer exist, despite the fact that the roof, while collapsed is still fully visable from the top and the bottom and intact.
What is visible instead is as David Cole puts it, "two crudely chiseled holes at opposite ends of the roof slab
(one is more like a huge crack than a hole)"

3)Basically none of David Coles physical questions about the gas chambers of Auschwitz are answered.

Moving on you note that an article from Holocaust-History has explained the hole situation further, this is not
the case, in fact they even give misinformation:

1)"To be sure numerous witness statements, from concentration camp survivors even to SS people, acknowledge the
existence of these openings, as well as a photo from the construction period of the death factory and two aerial
photographs of the Allies from August 1944"
What they neglect to meantion here is that the, "witness statements from camp survivors" and, "SS people" all
indeed do achnowledge the existence of the openings, however in all different descriptions to which we are shown from the aerial photographs.

2)"Nevertheless such holes cannot be recognized in the ruins of the cellars of the two crematoria that the SS blew up at the end of 1944."
This is not evidence of holes having been there, in fact due to that almost all descriptions that have been given of the holes and that the aerial photos have been shown to be too large for the simple pouring of Zyklon-B, one can assume that there is still not enough evidence to prove that these holes ever existed in the state which
we are told.

3)"The case of the roof openings of the gas chamber in the crematorium of the main camp is more complicated.
This building, built as an ammunition dump, was expanded into a murder site at the end of 1941 and used until 1943.
Then the SS equipped the former gas chamber to be an air-raid shelter - naturally for themselves. Partition walls were put in and the roof openings were paved over. After the war, the now responsible Polish authorities reversed this reconstruction."
The only evidence we have that this room was ever used to murder people is that of eye witness accounts.

4)"On the basis of photos from the time before the reconstruction and from today"
Do they have these pictures where one can easily see where at one stage the holes did exist?

As a final note the above website did not disprove David Cole, they simply stated their belief once again that at one stage there had been holes in the roof, gave eye witness accounts to this and also a brief meantion that apparntly a Polish investigater did state in a report that he could see where the holes were that the Nazis had used in the past, however without the picture he meantions showing the roof with the evidence holes, this is not proof.

Points that werent discussed and proved:

1)Why two of the holes in Krema 2 are not present today, "shifting" aside there is no reason why this basically intact roof does not have the additional 2 holes.

2)They do not meantion in the article that the holes are given different descriptions all round, but instead concentrate on that people do infact say they did exist.

3)They do not explain a possible reasoning behind why the Nazis would attempt to destroy evidence of their mass murder by destroying a couple of holes in the roof and why they stopped there.

4)Nothing is explained as to why the, "covered holes" in the roof slab of Krema 1 were not covered up, as stated the Polish claimed they could see the holes and thus easily reopen them, yet the Germans went through such lengths to blow up two holes in Krema 2.

Finally these points were not addressed in the article given and thus are not answers to David Coles first questions.

Questions 7) and 8 ), which do not belong to either of the above groups, are based on assumptions that need to be verified in order to make these questions worth responding to (this applies to many of Cole’s other questions as well). Would the "ditches which run the length of the camp perimeter" really make a person "invisible both to ground fire AND fire from the guard tower", as Cole claims? And how would deportees or inmates being taken to Kremas 2 and 3 reach those ditches, what area would they have to cross and what obstacles to overcome? Does the Auschwitz State Museum actually claim that the inmates would often "riot" as they were being marched toward Kremas 2 and 3? That would surprise me in what concerns the arriving deportees, who had no idea of what was going to happen to them and regarding whom procedures to calm them down and quickly eliminate eventual "troublemakers" had been implemented, according to e.g. Höss’ memoirs and the notes he wrote following his pre-trial interrogations in Polish captivity. It would also surprise me in regard to permanent inmates selected for gassing, who as far as I know tended to be emaciated "musulmans" too weak and apathetic to "riot" or try to escape. Equally unknown to me is the notion that gassings were moved to Birkenau "because the inmates were starting to get an idea of the homicidal purpose of Krema 1", as is supposedly claimed by the Auschwitz State Museum. Based on what evidence? And I also don’t know if Kremas 2 and 3 were "put in plain sight of all sectors of the Birkenau camp". What exactly could Birkenau inmates, not to mention inmates of the Auschwitz main camp, notice of the gassings in Kremas 2 and 3?

Roberto.

In regards to this you are speculating, for you to be able to answer these questions you need to actually visit the camp and see this for yourself, otherwise it appears you are trying to give an answer for the sake of it.
"Equally unknown to me is the notion that gassings were moved to Birkenau "because the inmates were starting to get an idea of the homicidal purpose of Krema 1", as is supposedly claimed by the Auschwitz State Museum."

video.google.co.uk/videop...&plindex=2

David Cole - The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz 2 of 2: 02:00 / 03:05

Question # 13 - Here you speculate again, not giving an answer.

Regarding your answers to questions 44, 45 and 46 -

1) Not an answer and in fact far from one, once again you use speculation and theorys to attempt to answer the question,
what you have failed to miss is that the weather outside of the gas chamber wouldn't have affected the Zyklon-B pellets
INSIDE the gas chamber where it was cold.

2) Your assuming right away people knew they were going to be killed and were in death panics, one could rightly
state that the people were level headed and would have been more than capable to brush pellets down a nearby drain.
In this statement given, David Cole gives evidence and you give a theory, thus you fail to answer the question.

3) "Zyklon B were poured through gas-tight windows into the gas chamber" I thought it was put through the holes in the roof?

In regards to your next, "answer", once again you use a theory without evidence, you claim David Cole to be a, "smart ass" and it appears you seem to know better than anyone how someone acts in a life or death situation.
You also note the time given, what David Cole was refering to was that within the 20 minutes people have by far enough time to realize what is happening and look for a way out and my god a man hole in the floor would have been by far a preferable solution to dying.
Roberto in his laughable theory also forgets to achnowledge that people will do anything to survive and we are led to believe by Roberto that in NONE of the transports did ANYONE ever think to actually look down and open the damn man hole, ridiculous.

Your comments later on do nothing to answer the questions but I will respond to a few of the worst ones right away,

1)"Did Cole not know that the SS at Majdanek had had time for no more than burning the wooden construction that housed the crematorium ovens and did no longer manage to destroy the ovens themselves? If so, his research is of such sloppiness that questions derived from it are likely to be based on mistaken assumptions, so it would be fair for anyone challenged to answer these questions to demand that Cole substantiate the assumptions on which they were based, first of all. Who wants to waste time on answering questions that are based on mistaken assumptions and therefore merely hypothetical?"

You are wrong here, in Thomas Blatt's story of his escape from Sobibor he notes that while hiding with two of his
friends at an old school friends house, he writes often of her fathers behavoir towards his party regarding news of how far the Soviets had pushed back the Germans, he notes several times nearing the end of his book how news had spread that the Russians were close to arriving but were being stopped and apparntly the father knew all of this.
Now lets take it from a military point of view, as we have read above Thomas Blatt obviously describes how a non military local village farmer knew the position of the battle front, so the military or the SS would have had extensive knowledge in exactly how close the Soviets were coming to Majdanek, (Sobibor would have been reached most likely before Majdanek) and would have been able to carry out extensive destruction.
More so due to that as stated the Soviets were reportedly pushed back often while nearing Poland, so it would not have been a case of pack up and run for the guards at Majdanek and indeed they would have had time aplenty to destroy more evidence than they did.

Finally Robertos answers are indeed NOT answers but more a bunch of theorys to debate on, laughable.

In responce to, "davidwoolfe", he stated the following;

"I would add that people were tightly packed into these gas chambers. Freedom of movement was limited,
if it existed at all. That means moving piles of scattered granules across a gas chamber floor to a drain
and brushing them down would have taken a highly coordinated effort whereby one person sweeps several piles
of granules in one direction, taking care not to apply too much force and scatter them over a wide area.
Then another takes up the task and pushes them over to yet another person, closer and closer to the drain,
until one person brushes them down the drain. So Cole's version is that a gas chamber floor is essentially
turned into a soccer field whereby piles of granules are passed from person to person. And all of this has
to be done in presumably less than one minute, while everyone there is inhaling deadly HCN gas. Should anyone
really have to trouble themselves to even answer such nonsense?"

1) Your assuming inmates were not able to see the drains and manhole cover while walking in.

2) The pellets would have been able to be moved quite easily, simplely kicking them towards the drains would have in the space of 20 minutes gotten rid of almost all of them, your assuming a coordinated effort would have been needed, again this is another case of using Roberto's fact VS theory.

3) The soccer field comment is just laughable, another attempt to put theorys against David Coles comments.

4) The last comment is perhaps the most amusing, "all of this has to be done in resumably less than one minute", davidwoolfe seems to forget that it took 20 minutes for everyone to die, but in a cold room on a winters day the process would have taken even longer and certainly not one minute.

The last point is another speculation, davidwoolfe tends to argue against David Coles reasoning yet does the same
thing in not giving us an answer as to how high the ceiling is, if you have a large container, (for this we can assume that the pellets will all be the same size but if this is not the case then movement out of the container would take longer) people would be easily able to stop the process of the slow pouring.
Davidwoolfe also neglects to meantion that the doors to this gas chamber can be opened from the inside, so rather than blocking the Zyklon-B which would have been an option, they could rather have just walked out of the gas chamber.

He also forgets to tell the reader about the drain in this room as well, which could easily have allowed the small amount of people to drop the pellets down the drain.

Finally david also forgets to meantion the piping in the room which could have been used for three different
purposes;

1) To block the induction holes administering Zyklon-B

2) To knock out the peephole glass in the gas chamber door

3) To attack any guards outside after they have opened the door and walked out

Once again the believers use laughable theorys as answers to these questions which still have stood the test of time.

It should be interesting to see what you all think.

- Coder62

[Harald]

I'm not sure whether it makes really sense, but I once heard that the relative lack of cyclon-residues and blue stain in the gas chambers (in comparison to the delousing chambers) can be explained by the fact that defumigation needs much greater amounts than killing people.

[Hannover]

I'm not sure whether it makes really sense, but I once heard that the relative lack of cyclon-residues and blue stain in the gas chambers (in comparison to the delousing chambers) can be explained by the fact that defumigation needs much greater amounts than killing people.

That moronic canard has been demolished. Try reading some of the threads here, such as:

'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4111
and:
'Green, Mathis refuted / cyanide: lice, humans, & more'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=267

- Hannover