Nessie wrote: ↑10 Jun 2021, 09:40
Werd wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021, 23:25
Nessie wrote: ↑08 Jun 2021, 10:16
I am not ignoring relevant documents.
Sure you are.
What evidence will you accept Krema I was being used for corpse storage in 1941?
Documents. Already posted and discussed.
Chapter 2 starts here.
You do know that documents are written by eyewitnesses, don't you? Like the Topf & Sons engineers.
Does Nessie recall when we first debated about Krema I in depth in this old topic and you confirmed that yes, corpses were in fact being stored there, but he just claimed the purpose of the room changed later.
Nessie wrote: ↑23 Jun 2020, 18:19
Werd wrote: ↑23 Jun 2020, 17:40
Nessie wrote: ↑23 Jun 2020, 17:06
"The best you could" was to copy and paste Mattogno's arguments from incredulity and ignorance, which are fallacies and not evidence.
Including the documentation that forced you to admit that the morgue was actually used for storing corpses and that the ventilation system that was being discussed as far back as November 1940 for the ventilation room was genuinely about ventilating a genuine corpse room?
I never denied that was it's original use.
Nessie wrote: ↑30 Jun 2020, 19:24
Werd wrote: ↑30 Jun 2020, 13:58
Isn't it great how Nessie just makes shit up when he's losing a debate?
Isn't it funny how Nessie already admitted that pre October 1941, Krema I's morgue was in fact a morgue based on the documents Mattogno combed from the archive of the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz
, and we were able to know that without finding a phantom document that quantified exactly how many dead people were stored there but with other documents such as building plans and discussions in the Central Construction Office of Auschwitz about storing corpses and building ventilation systems in late 1940 and early to mid 1941?
It was built as a mortuary. It seems reasonable to presume corpses were stored there prior to the gassings.
So I'm wondering why you're flip flopping now.
You are so insane as to actually claim Germans built 5 kremas, EACH WITH MORE THAN ONE LEICHENKELLER IN IT, and it turned out to be a waste of time because there were always ovens available and NEVER AT ANY TIME DID THEY HAVE TO STORE ANY CORPSES IN ANY OF THOSE ROOMS! No ovens ever broke down and no chimneys ever needed repair and they never had to resort to outdoor pyres. God you're an idiot.
These are my comments interspersed between the pages:
The dissection room has a rate of 10 air exchanges an hour and the corpse room has 20 per hour. Material for a chimney could be supplied within 3 months. A correspondence with the Topf company reveals Topf would be able to sell a fan to extract 6000 normal cubic meters as well as a motor with 1.5 horsepower. There is an exhaust duct that ran from the dissecting room to the fan installed in the morgue.
Pressac's caption to a photo in his book contained a huge error of his. He misinterpreted the Topf letter by saying "10 fold" and "20 fold" exchanges of air per hour. He read them as "10 air intake ports" and "20 air intake ports" and then DREW THEM HIMSELF into a picture of a blueprint of the floorplan! In early 1941, Topf was drawing up a cost estimate for for 1 ventilation system. The equipment would be the same as before.
Schlacter tells Topf that he didn't want a new chimney and the design would have to be changed with the exhaust air now feeding into the existing chimney. So Topf worked out a third estimate. In March the delivery was confirmed but due to it taking a while, Schlacter ordered a temporary ventilation system to come by the end of February. Grabner wrote a letter in June saying that a separate ventilation system needed to be installed in the morgue because the existing ventilation system had been rendered useless by the installation of the second furnace.
Grabner requested TWO blowers in the morgue, one for fresh air and one for exhaust air, and the building of a separate conduit to the chimney. Between end September and middle October ventilation work (stemming from Grabner's complaints) was carried out in the crematorium.
ventilation caps and air tight flaps were made. An inventory map drawn by a Polish inmates contained a few errors about a "exhaust fan" and a "duct for exhaust air." How could the SS have decided to discharge waste air from the morgue and also lethal gas from a duct no more than 5 feet high off the ground? Even discharging corpse air was recommended to have been done by Topf via a chimney 10 meters high from the ground! And the SS would certainly agree that discharging lethal gas so close to the ground (via the Polish inmates' mistaken drawing labels), would've been a disaster for Germans.
NESSIE, HOW COME THEY WERE TRYING TO DISCHARGE DIRTY AIR FROM A CORPSE CELLAR? WHAT WAS IN THERE THAT COULD BE STINKING THEM UP? CORPSES PERHAPS?
One more for the road:
Werd wrote: ↑15 Jun 2020, 23:28
July 1941. It is absolutely necessary to install a separate ventilation in the morgue of the crematorium.
Why? Many reasons: One to reduce the amount of flies in the corpse cellar. Temporary ventilation system of the morgue was in place. Work was being done on a second
crematorium. In September and October 1941
, ventilation work was done in the crematorium. Grabner requested TWO blowers in the morgue. Why would that be the case unless there really were corpses in there still?
Why were there flies in the morgue, a room which needed a new proper ventilation system if there were no human corpses in there, Nessie? Were the flies just hanging out? Why were the Germans concerned in the letter about flies spreading disease? What possible disease can there be for flies to spread if there are no corpses in there Nessie? Or is all this talk about flies just more lies from the Nazis covering up their intent to gas people a year later? How far do you want to stretch the limits of sanity and credibility? How far do you want to take your ridiculous conspiracy theory?
I must admit, this new theory of yours that the Germans wasted time and money building corpses cellars, and wasted time and paper trying to get ventilation equipment for these rooms, that they never needed because despite oven breakdowns and chimneys being rebuilt, they never needed to store corpses because there was always enough ovens working...is one of the dumbest you have ever come up with.
Your doubts over the laws of physics, as you try to work out how cremations happened, from partial information, do not trump the evidence from documents
WHAT DOCUMENTS? NO CRIMINAL TRACES EXIST.
blah blah blah.
To successfully coordinate hundreds of people to go to court, write books, be interviewed by journalists and appear on TV, without any of them slipping up, is incredible.
Nessie is incredibly dishonest. He has been shown PLENTY OF EXAMPLES of CLEAR LIARS IN COURT NOT BEING PUNISHED FOR LYING! The funniest is when he tried to claim that despite no actual evidence of medical examination presented at the Eichmann trial, Simon Srebrnik (sp?) claimed to have had a wound in the back of his neck from where he was shot. The bullet went in, damaged his pallet and screwed up two teeth allegedly. The judge said where is your wound? He turned around, pointed on the back of his neck, judge shook his head in a 'yes' motion and that was it.
Nessie back then tried to pretend that it would have been impossible in a Jewish court in a Jewish country with Jewish witnesses and Jewish judges and lawyers with a German defendant, to have not even taken the basic steps to make medical documentation. He tried to pretend he had evidence of no corruption and all checks and balances were in place. CLEARLY THEY WEREN'T. WHERE WAS THE MEDICAL REPORT CONFIRMING SIMON'S WOUNDS? WHY WAS IT NOT PRESENTED AT TRIAL, IF IT EVEN EXISTED? WHY ARE MEDICAL REPORTS ALWAYS GIVEN AT TRIALS, BUT STRANGELY NOT THIS ONE? WHY THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE?
I guess in Jewish courts in Jewish countries, the normal rules of evidence and burdens of proof don't apply. We can just a priori assume it all worked out fine and then we can beg the question. I mean, that is clearly Nessie's style.
I looked at all of the evidence as to what happened at Birkenau and once I had evidenced and proved mass gassings and theft, I concluded that "special" referred to that action.
You did no such thing. You ignored the documents Mattogno found, settled for isolating one evil sounding line totally out of context and threw it on the pile of other pieces and claimed, "bam, here's my inductive argument." Sorry, but I'm allowed to pick apart your inductive argument piece by piece in isolation.
The list of property leaves nothing for the Jews to be resettled with. Not even their underwear.
Yeah, and it also "converges" on the revisionist hypothesis. Steal from the Jews as revenge for them starting the second world war and kick them out back to the land of Soviet Bolshevism.
Kick them out with what?
Themselves and nothing else. Duh.
You are dodging that the Nazis left them with nothing.
Nope. I just admitted it and showed how it works on a revisionist hypothesis.
Taking their suitcases, shoes, underwear, everything, is not conducive to a resettlement operation.
Says who? You? Based on what? NOTHING!
Why is it logically and physically impossible to steal from the Jews, put them on trains, dump them off in the east and forget about them? If you admit they can send Jews to the east to do work, why not just send them off with nothing? The Thomas Dalton book GOEBBELS ON THE JEWS speaks of many diary entires in late 30's and early 40's when Goebbels and Hitler begin putting the Jewish question into action. Plenty of talk about evacuation and deportation.
So I guess we need a tiebreaker don't we? When we get rid of lying eyewitnesses, chemical residue and documents without "criminal traces" what are you truly left with? I'll tell you. Missing Jews. "I can't find the Jews. Therefore..." and "Nazis admitted the holocaust at a series of non-biased trials and no German was tortured and no eyewitness lied and if they were, they were surely punished."
List the property the Jews were being resettled with.
Didn't I just say that having little or no property has nothing to do with whether the Nazis can put them on trains and ship them east just as easily as they did to many Jewish workers? Yes I did. So I don't have to do anything.
From what the Nazis recorded as being taken from Jews arriving at Birkenau and being sorted in "Canada", I cannot see anything left. No shoes, no spectacles, no underwear, no gold teeth, no suitcases, nothing. The theft at Birkenau diverges from the revisionist hypothesis.
Non sequitor fallacy again. You're trying to "logic" your way into truth via deductive argument. Stop the circular reasoning.
Deductive or inductive logical?
The logical conclusion
It's important because if you're trying to define things into existence or truth, a priori style, that's question begging. So all you're left with is inductive. Which puts us right back at the beginning. Sure theft is claimed to have happened before Jews were gassed. But it's also consistent with a revisionist hypothesis. Again, right back where we started. Simply using the word "logical" doesn't equate victory, Nessie.
I use corroborating evidence to determine the logical conclusion.
Sounds like you have chosen inductive