Right, so according to Turnagain someone forced Stangl to concoct a story about a grave full of corpses catching fire. Cos that really makes sense doesn't it ?
Oh and while your at it, just remind me what his sentence was
Just another rant based on no evidence. Nothing needs to be added.Turnagain wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:04 amThere weren't any pits/graves. That's why the alleged eyewitness accounts varied so widely. Pits/graves, hundreds of thousands of corpses were all imaginary so the tales all came from imaginations not direct observation. That's why Wiernik imagined 5 graves, Rajchman imagined 11 graves and Finklestein imagined 21 graves. Rajchman claiming that the blood of 250,000 Jews caught fire and burned for an entire night and the next day wasn't a "mistake" or due to the fact that he didn't know that blood wasn't flammable. He simply lied just as Czarny lied about blood having a chemical in it that rendered it flammable. Rachel Auerbach, the Jewess historian supported those fantasies by declaring that blood was a "first rate combustible".
I can't see Stangl mentioning anything about an 'explosion' . Are you lying again ? Again you cant prove Czarny was a liar , if he genuinelly believed blood was flammable then he isnt a liar. Ha Ha Turnagain introduces one of his dud witnesses again, Rachel Auerbach. How is this supposed to help him I havent a clue. Sounds like he's getting desperate againTurnagain wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:04 amStangl said that there was essentially an explosion from the corpse gasses with flames shooting up and a mushroom cloud of smoke. Rajchman said that the blood burned for an entire night and the next day. Czarny said that blood was the fuel that was used to cremate the cadavers in the lazarett grave. Auerbach lent her name to support those cockamamie claims. None of those claims bear any relationship to reality. All were pure imaginations. Your weak suck attempts to rationalize such fantasies is a FAIL, Lupus.
Again Turnagain demonstrates how desperate he is by pedantically quibbling over the definition of twigs and branches. Here is wikipedias definition of a twig -Turnagain wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:04 amDefinition of a twig:Twigs are the same as branches, and branches were used as fuel. So what's your argument ? Turnagain does his own 'cherry picking' with the 'twigs like toothpicks' testimony, yet he has the nerve to accuse me of cherry picking ~As well as a liar
Turnagain demonstrates his hypocrisyDefinition of a branch:twig twĭg►
A young shoot representing the current season's growth of a woody plant.
Any small, leafless branch of a woody plant.Well, Lupus' attempt to conflate "twigs" with "branches" just fell on it's arse. Same as his claim that they were used for fuel. They were supposedly used as kindling to set the cadavers ablaze whereupon the cadavers continued burning until they were completely cremated; nothing left but ash and carbonized bone. Once again, Lupus' fantasies get debunked. He should be getting used to it by now.Tree Branch
Any of the main branches arising from the trunk or a bough of a tree
So, twigs are part of branches, which means your attempt to claim Rajchmann changed his story is basically childish, silly and FALSE !a slender woody shoot growing from a branch or stem of a tree or shrub.
Turnagain desperately clings on to the hope that the sheeps wool was the reason why 70% of the sheep was cremated, even though sheeps wool wouldn't act as a wick due to it's low flammability and the experiments conclusions states that the wick was the char and ash, not the wool. Also, the sheeps wool is irrelevant anyway as it doesn't explain why a fire would last 3 hours with just the sheeps fat as fuel. I dont have to explain my reasoning, it's fucking obvious aint it, you dope .Turnagain wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:04 amSo, if 70% of a sheep, an animal covered in flammable wool, can be burned in a car fire, then 100% of 2,000 to 3,000 naked humans piled 20 to 30 layers deep on a grate of 6 inch railroad rail 50 to 70 cm off the ground can be totally cremated using nothing but twigs or brush (brushwood) for kindling. How is that experiment "tailored", Lupus? Care to explain your reasoning behind that claim?1) I understand it to mean that if 70% of a sheep can be thoroughly consumed in this experiment, then more or 100% of a human would be thoroughly consumed in a more tailored experiment
Yes to all your questions. From Ettlings conclusion it is obvious that the cremations at Treblinka would be a success, as confirmed by witnesses, which you have none to back up your claims, so where does that leave you ?Turnagain wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:04 amWell, at least one straightforward answer to a question. Ettling doesn't claim that the sheep was completely cremated. Then we have a "No" with conditions. No humans were completely cremated in the car fire. Now all that we need is a definition for "rather thoroughly consumed". Does that mean completely 100% cremated, Lupus? He also claims that "A" human could be rather thoroughly consumed. Does that include a pile of 2,000 to 3,000 cadavers? You should employ your psychic skills and search back through time to ferret out what Ettling actually meant.
There was no assumption . The results of the experiment were a reality , and they were similar to witness testimony from Treblinka regarding the cremation method. I think you'd better provide evidence of Steiner's fraud. You got any ?
So if someone writes in the first person, then according to you they are an actually an eye witness ???? GotchaTurnagain wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:04 amBecause Steiner wrote in the first person. He even went so far as to quote what Floss supposedly said. I thought that you were aware of Steiner's chicanery. I underestimated your actual ignorance of the orthodox narrative of Treblinka. Mea culpa.Is this supposed to be your answer to my query who this 'Steiner' geezer was ? So, now we have established he was a writer, why did you try and pass him off as some sort of eye witness when you said he claimed that "Floss only used matches to set fire to his little campfires" ?
Right, so you produce dud witnesses and it's all my fault.Turnagain wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:04 amI am NOT responsible for your inability to comprehend the meaning of plain English, Lupus.Why are you using individuals who werent even at Treblinka to back up your claims ? I know you tried it with Rachel Auberch a while back re hermetically sealed chambers, but after I caught you out I thought you'd learn your lesson by now . Obviously not
If you want the gap to be 1mm then carry on and be my guest. It won't help you one bit. As I said before wool isnt as flammable as you're trying to make out anyway. If it was then how come this wool wick effect didnt consume 70% of the sheep in the first experiment ?Turnagain wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:04 amAccording to your interpretation of what Ettling said. Could the sheep be 1 millimeter off the char or over 350 millimeters as claimed for the magic Jew barbeque? Did Ettling mean that the sheep's carcass was suspended but the wool was in contact with the ash and char? Ettling's indefinite ruminations aren't the equivalent of rigorous scientific testing. The purpose of his experiment was, in fact, to develop techniques for detecting the presence of acelerants in cases of arson. His speculations about the viability of the magic Jew barbeque were apparently the result of his reading Steiner's phony account of Treblinka.No Turnagain, it IS known about contact with ash and char. It was NOT in contact.
Who cares what the original purpose of the experiment was ? It's totally irrelevant. Again you need to provide proof that Steiner wrote a phony account.
Thats the beauty of science and experiments. A small scale experiment can provide the answers for larger case scenarios. Didn't you know that ? (Probably not, with you being a bit dopey an all that )Turnagain wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:04 amWOW! Lupus' imagination has just had a complete runaway. He has gone from one (1) partially cremated sheep in an experiment concerning the detection of acelerants in arson cases to the complete cremation of an average of 5,000 cadavers per day on the magic Jew barbeques. Do I have that right, Lupus?Most of them bodies on the grate would have been decomposed and therefore flammable. The witnesses even commented on how better the decomposed corpses burnt compared to the fresh bodies. So once you got the fat dripping onto the dry wood and rags , both soaked in gasoline , then you got one serious mother fucker of a fire. Left overnight the bodies would all be consumed and the fire would sustained from the fat dripping down onto the char and ash, just like some experiment I heard about .
Yep, just as I thought, your calculations re 20-30 bodies high are fabricated nonsense. I wont go into detail now, but as a little pointer, why don't you research the Dresden cremations and make a comparison and let's see what you come up with. To help you get started, 500 per grid were cremated in Dresden on a grid a quarter of the length of Treblinkas grids, with an approx height of 6 or 7 bodies . Now do the mathTurnagain wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 3:04 amWell, why don't YOU check my calculations, Lupus? Oh, that's right, you're an ignorant innumerate fool that has to take off his shoes and unzip his pants to count to 21. Best leave those number thingies alone. Leave that checking chore up to someone who made it through 4th grade arithmetic.You can imagine whatever you want regarding the size of the roasts, your back of a cigarette packet calculations mixing inches and meters (typical of you to muddle everything up) would need to be checked as they're bound to be way off the mark, just like everything else you do.
As far as mixing metric and imperial, that's something that we Yanks do all the time. Consider ammunition. The 9 mm parabellum is the 9 mm but the 9 mm short is called the .380. The 7.62X54 R is obviously metric while the .30-06, an equivalent cartridge, is obviously imperial measurement. Just as gauge is calculated in avoirdupois. There's no problem with converting back and forth except for the terminally stupid (such as yourself, Lupus).
Oh well, so it goes in holyhoax la-la land.