Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 10537
Joined: 20 Aug 2018, 04:56
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Huntinger »

Turnagain wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 09:37 Are you saying that 3 corpses are placed in the muffle to start with or that the process begins with one corpse and a corpse added at 20-30 minute intervals?
These old fashioned crematoria might do this for a few corpses in the case of a family dying but not designed for years of constant abuse; I suspect they would simply fail. Firebricks have a life and take days to replace; this is the limiting factor.
You use arguments from incredulity and cherry picking.
Mere unsubstantiated opinion.
Turnagain
Posts: 11362
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement from witnesses, especially when the accused agrees with the victim, as proof. The eyewitnesses to gassings are also corroborated by documents, photos and circumstantial evidence. Denial is unique in its rejection of witness evidence when the witnesses say what they do not want to hear.

There are numerous eyewitnesses who agree that the gas chambers at Treblinka were hermetically sealed. However, you reject that evidence as being mistakes, exaggerations or hyperbole. What happened to your, "Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement..." claim? :lol:
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32743
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 10:32 Nessie wrote:
Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement from witnesses, especially when the accused agrees with the victim, as proof. The eyewitnesses to gassings are also corroborated by documents, photos and circumstantial evidence. Denial is unique in its rejection of witness evidence when the witnesses say what they do not want to hear.

There are numerous eyewitnesses who agree that the gas chambers at Treblinka were hermetically sealed. However, you reject that evidence as being mistakes, exaggerations or hyperbole. What happened to your, "Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement..." claim? :lol:
Hermetic sealing makes sense. It stops leaks, making gassings faster, using less gas and safer for those outside. There were orders for "gas tight" doors for the Kremas during the special action there. "Tight" means so they do not leak. There was also an order for "display devices for hydrogen cyanide residues" in Krema II to monitor any leaks. You have misunderstood the witnesses, again.
Turnagain
Posts: 11362
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 11:28
Turnagain wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 10:32 Nessie wrote:
Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement from witnesses, especially when the accused agrees with the victim, as proof. The eyewitnesses to gassings are also corroborated by documents, photos and circumstantial evidence. Denial is unique in its rejection of witness evidence when the witnesses say what they do not want to hear.

There are numerous eyewitnesses who agree that the gas chambers at Treblinka were hermetically sealed. However, you reject that evidence as being mistakes, exaggerations or hyperbole. What happened to your, "Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement..." claim? :lol:
Hermetic sealing makes sense. It stops leaks, making gassings faster, using less gas and safer for those outside. There were orders for "gas tight" doors for the Kremas during the special action there. "Tight" means so they do not leak. There was also an order for "display devices for hydrogen cyanide residues" in Krema II to monitor any leaks. You have misunderstood the witnesses, again.
I wasn't talking about Auschwitz. I was referencing Treblinka and why you reject the claims by multiple eyewitnesses that the chambers were hermetically sealed. Why are multiple eyewitnesses to be believed at Auschwitz but rejected at Treblinka?
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32743
Joined: 07 Mar 2014, 17:00
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 12:20
Nessie wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 11:28
Turnagain wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 10:32 Nessie wrote:
Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement from witnesses, especially when the accused agrees with the victim, as proof. The eyewitnesses to gassings are also corroborated by documents, photos and circumstantial evidence. Denial is unique in its rejection of witness evidence when the witnesses say what they do not want to hear.

There are numerous eyewitnesses who agree that the gas chambers at Treblinka were hermetically sealed. However, you reject that evidence as being mistakes, exaggerations or hyperbole. What happened to your, "Historians, courts and journalists all accept universal agreement..." claim? :lol:
Hermetic sealing makes sense. It stops leaks, making gassings faster, using less gas and safer for those outside. There were orders for "gas tight" doors for the Kremas during the special action there. "Tight" means so they do not leak. There was also an order for "display devices for hydrogen cyanide residues" in Krema II to monitor any leaks. You have misunderstood the witnesses, again.
I wasn't talking about Auschwitz. I was referencing Treblinka and why you reject the claims by multiple eyewitnesses that the chambers were hermetically sealed. Why are multiple eyewitnesses to be believed at Auschwitz but rejected at Treblinka?
This thread is about A-B and the special action that took place there. I am not rejecting claims by witnesses and from documents that gas chambers were made gas tight using hermetic sealing. It makes sense to stop leaks. :roll:
Turnagain
Posts: 11362
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
This thread is about A-B and the special action that took place there. I am not rejecting claims by witnesses and from documents that gas chambers were made gas tight using hermetic sealing. It makes sense to stop leaks.
Nessie has painted himself into a corner and is now frantically weasel dodging what he said about witnesses. At any rate, I can start a new thread on your contradictory statements. It should be fun seeing what kind of a weasel dodge you can come up with. :lol: :lol:
User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3566
Joined: 22 Aug 2012, 06:26
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by blake121666 »

Turnagain wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 09:37 Blake wrote:
Step one: Initial stoking of 3 corpses - there are 3 corpses in the muffle.
Are you saying that 3 corpses are placed in the muffle to start with or that the process begins with one corpse and a corpse added at 20-30 minute intervals?
The claims are that the ovens at Auschwitz were typically started off and stoked with multiple corpses. Topf was unaware of this having been the case at K1 until one of those engineers was told and witnessed this in person. It is thought that the designs of later ovens took this into account.
Werd
Posts: 11163
Joined: 10 Oct 2014, 06:38
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Werd »

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.
viewtopic.php?p=172695#p172695
Discussion ensues.
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? :lol:
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.

viewtopic.php?p=172695#p172695
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? :lol:

One more for the road:
Werd wrote: 15 Jun 2020, 23:28 Image
July 1941. It is absolutely necessary to install a separate ventilation in the morgue of the crematorium.

Image
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? :lol:

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.
and witnesses
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? :lol:

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! :lol: 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."
:lol:
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. :lol:
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.

The logical conclusion
Deductive or inductive logical? 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. :lol:

I use corroborating evidence to determine the logical conclusion.
Sounds like you have chosen inductive
Werd
Posts: 11163
Joined: 10 Oct 2014, 06:38
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Werd »

blake121666 wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 07:46 Tell me you understand this? 2+2=4, 2+3=5...Surely you must understand this?
Blake lecturing me about math and what Tauber must have really meant is interesting.
"According to the regulations, were supposed to charge the muffles every half hour. Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, 5 to 7 minutes was allowed to burn one corpse in a muffle. - Tauber
How else do you get a mathematical average of 7 minutes per corpse in one muffle unless you have 4 new ones charged in at the same time? Otherwise this mathematical average doesn't make sense with a proper staggering method of adding only 2 corpses into a muffle when the first 2 have already been burning for a while.
"Generally speaking, we burned 4 or 5 corpses at a time in one muffle, but sometimes we charged a greater number of corpses. It was possible to charge up to 8 "musulmans". "
Does blake seriously think it is possible to get up to 8 corpses in ANY condition of fire at a time in one muffle?
User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 3566
Joined: 22 Aug 2012, 06:26
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by blake121666 »

Werd wrote: 12 Jun 2021, 03:05
blake121666 wrote: 10 Jun 2021, 07:46 Tell me you understand this? 2+2=4, 2+3=5...Surely you must understand this?
Blake lecturing me about math and what Tauber must have really meant is interesting.
"According to the regulations, were supposed to charge the muffles every half hour. Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, 5 to 7 minutes was allowed to burn one corpse in a muffle. - Tauber
How else do you get a mathematical average of 7 minutes per corpse in one muffle unless you have 4 new ones charged in at the same time? Otherwise this mathematical average doesn't make sense with a proper staggering method of adding only 2 corpses into a muffle when the first 2 have already been burning for a while.
"Generally speaking, we burned 4 or 5 corpses at a time in one muffle, but sometimes we charged a greater number of corpses. It was possible to charge up to 8 "musulmans". "
Does blake seriously think it is possible to get up to 8 corpses in ANY condition of fire at a time in one muffle?
The translator took liberties. There could've been 8 corpses in the muffle + ash chamber. What is being referred to as "musulmans" here are corpses with little fat - which take a very long time to incinerate. Parts of them would've been in the ash chamber for hours - getting ever smaller.

I agree the 5-7 minute statement is just nonsense. Either Tauber or a Soviet added that part. More corpses than the optimal number (which he claims is not more than 3 per stoking - at about 30 minute intervals) would not bring the average down but would more likely raise the average. This is one of a few statements in his deposition which cannot be trusted.

My interpretation of his deposition aligns better to the German estimates of the time. There is no 5-7 minute estimate anywhere else than this one sentence. The sentence is a mistake.
Last edited by blake121666 on 12 Jun 2021, 03:38, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply