Why would Stangl lie about this ?
Stangl was entangled in the marsupial escapades of the witchcraft trials of the 60s. Why wouldn't he lie about anything he was told to lie about in an attempt to save himself from a lifetime in prison?
Obviously something happened that resulted in the corpses in the pit catch fire.
There 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".
Stangl 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.
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 hypocrisy
Definition of a twig:
A young shoot representing the current season's growth of a woody plant.
Any small, leafless branch of a woody plant.
Definition of a branch:
Any of the main branches arising from the trunk or a bough of a tree
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.
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
So, 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?
3) No human was cremated in the experiment so a silly question. However he concludes it would be possible for a human to be rather thoroughly consumed based on this experiment.
Well, 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.
Are you saying Ettling was wrong in his conclusion ?
Yep, Ettling was basing his assumption on Steiner's fraudulent account of Treblinka.
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" ?
Because 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.
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
I am NOT responsible for your inability to comprehend the meaning of plain English, Lupus.
No Turnagain, it IS known about contact with ash and char. It was NOT in contact.
According 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.
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
WOW! 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?
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.
Well, 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.
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.