The use of the words "mostly" and "may have" are correct in their context. The old gas chambers were described as unreliable and often not working. We do not know if there was a wall that people could stand on and watch prisoners go to the gas chambers or not. There is a level of doubt and uncertainty that I am acknowledging with my use of those words.been-there wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 2:52 pmThe following is a good example of the simple-minded, unintelligent and dishonest ways people will argue for an emotionally held belief.
It demonstrates that the belief is not concerned with facts, evidence, logical consistency, rationality, physical possibility or accuracy. It is only concerned with avoiding at all costs any requirement to acknowledge that the cherished belief may be seriously flawed.
This person is clearly floundering and therefore the resort to dishonest usage of concession words such as “may have” and “mostly” show the person knows his belief-system is seriously challenged.Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 10:23 amYou need to check chronology...been-there wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:47 am...Full marks, Turnagain.
1. Corpses of persons killed by gassing with petrol-engine exhaust would not be “black-blue”. They would be red-pink (or possibly black-red/pink if “rotting”).
2. None of the supposed “eye-witnesses” ever described their being any “walls” anywhere in T2, only fences. So Stangl supposedly ‘confessed’ to standing on an imaginary “wall” which overlooked the ‘tube’...
...under the chaos of Eberl's command... the old chambers were mostly[?] not working and prisoners were shot and those who had died on the trains had not been properly buried...
...the camp as it was under Eberl, with its original lay out and the old gas chambers... may well have [had] a wall back then. It was Stangl who ordered the construction of new gas chambers in September 1942. It would also be pertinent to check the original translation to see if it is correct and he did use the word wall. [ ]
...you have no witness or any other evidence to back up your claim no one was gassed...
Thus he alters and even undermine the accepted/enforced holocaust narrative in order to fit whatever difficulty of argument he currently faces, in order to avoid admitting his entire irrational belief can not withstand any critical analysis.
The logic of his argument can be compared to the following:
Toothfairy-truebeliever: "we KNOW that tooth fairies have wings and can fly. They must have wings to be able to enter the children's bedrooms on upper floors of houses when collecting milk-teeth.
Doubter: “Erm, well actually, we do not even know that tooth fairies exist”.
Toothfairy-truebeliever: "Of course they do! Otherwise where do all the teeth go, then? We are talking about hundreds of thousands of teeth just disappearing if the tooth-fairies aren’t collecting them”.
Doubter: “It is simple. The parents dispose of them and leave a coin”.
Toothfairy-truebeliever: “No, you are a tooth-fairy denier! Tooth fairies do exist. And your attempts to disprove them is a fail. And I know that because you can’t come up with evidence which conclusively proves no tooth fairies”.
And — for the record — I have never EVER “claimed no one was gassed”. When a person needs to be so deceitful in order to buttress their belief-system it shows they have become dishonest to the point of being slightly mentally ill.
The post is about TII. I have seen you admit that you believe Oskar Groening's claim about a gassing at Birkenau in one of the bunker/converted farm houses. I have never seen you admit to there having been gassings at TII. Do you now admit to believing there were gassings at TII?