Re: The Nonexistent Auschwitz Gas Chambers of Deborah Lipstadt and Robert Jan van Pelt

Binjamin Cram'er wrote:

The Nonexistent ?Auschwitz Gas Chambers? of Deborah Lipstadt and Robert Jan
van Pelt, Part II

By Paul Grubach copyright 2006

(Pictured: Holocaust Propagandists--the "lovely" Deborah Lipstadt and the
"charming" van Pelt)

Preliminary note: This essay is dedicated to Holocaust revisionist
scholar Dr. Robert Faurisson. He was the first to point out the chemical
and toxicological impossibility of these Auschwitz gas chamber stories.

I

In early 2005, Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt published her widely
admired History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving.1 The book is
her version of events surrounding the high-profile, 2000 libel trial in
which British
historian David Irving sued Lipstadt for labeling him a ?Holocaust denier.?
During the duration of the trial, the media spotlight fell upon the ongoing
battle between revisionist and traditional views of the Jewish tragedy
during W.W.II. In her publication, she put forth in laymen's terms that
everyone could understand, straightforward reasons as to why one should
reject Holocaust revisionist theories and accept the existence of the
homicidal Auschwitz gas chambers.

In Part I of this two part series, we rebutted a portion of Lipstadt?s
critique of Fred Leuchter, the American gas chamber expert who carried out
the first ever forensic study of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers. We
saw that, although Leuchter?s pioneering report had its shortcomings, its
findings were essentially corroborated by the more thorough and exacting
scientific study of the former Max Planck Institute chemistry doctoral
candidate, Germar Rudolf.

Both reports found only minuscule traces of hydrogen cyanide gas (HCN)
residue in samples taken from the walls and floors of the alleged homicidal
Auschwitz gas chambers. Yet, very large amounts of HCN residue were found
in samples taken from the non-homicidal disinfestation chambers, where HCN
was used only to delouse mattresses, clothing and other belongings. If the
structures in question were actually used as homicidal gas chambers, one
would expect to find a considerable HCN residue buildup, somewhat
comparable to that found in the non-homicidal disinfestation chambers. In
both reports the conclusions are the same. The alleged homicidal gas
chambers never existed.

Here in Part II, we will examine the technique and operation of the alleged
Auschwitz gas chambers as put forth by Professor Lipstadt and one of her
main expert witnesses, Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt, and then ask the questions:
?Is this scientifically possible??Did the gas chambers ever exist??

II

In her attempt to prove that the Auschwitz gas chambers existed, Lipstadt
critiques the report of Holocaust revisionist and gas chamber expert
Leuchter. ?Had Irving done some research,? she writes, ?he might have
discovered Leuchter?s mistaken assumption that it took 3,200 parts of HCN
per million to kill humans, when in fact it took far less. On the basis of
this wrong calculation, Leuchter had contended that the residue from such a
large amount of gas [would have necessitated that] the Sonderkommandos?the
inmates who removed the bodies?would have had to wait twenty-four hours
before entering the chambers.?2

In order to give the reader the appropriate perspective, let us recreate
Lipstadt?s scenario. The intended victims (one to two thousand) were
jammed into the gas chamber. The deadly hydrogen cyanide was circulated
throughout the chamber, and the victims were murdered. The ventilation
systems removed the residual HCN. Now it was time for the inmates to go
into the chamber and remove the bodies for cremation. She asserts that it
was wrong for Leuchter to claim that the Sonderkommandos would have had to
wait twenty-four hours before entering the chamber. This claim and others
were wrong, Lipstadt insists, ?because it actually took only 10 percent of
what Leuchter had assumed was necessary to kill humans.? She claims this
is Leuchter?s fundamental mistake??the assumption that it took far more gas
to kill humans than to kill vermin, when, in fact, the reverse was true."3

Simply put, much more gas was used in a non-homicidal disinfestation than in
a homicidal gassing.4

The assertions of the late Jean-Claude Pressac--a widely respected expert on
the Auschwitz gas chambers whose work attempted to refute the Holocaust
revisionists--undermines Lipstadt. Pressac claimed that 12 to 20 grams per
cubic meter was the concentration of the HCN allegedly used in a homicidal
gassing, while 2 to 5 grams per cubic meter was the concentration used in a
non-homicidal disinfestation/delousing.5 Contradicting Lipstadt, Pressac
is claiming that a greater gas concentration would have been used to kill
humans than that needed to kill vermin in a delousing. Once again,
Pressac?s claim contradicts Lipstadt, which suggests that she and her
fellow promoters of the Holocaust ideology change their story according to
the propaganda needs of the moment.

Enter Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt, a professor of architecture at the University
of Waterloo, Canada. He is widely considered to be the foremost expert on
the technique and operation of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers. In
connection with the defense of Professor Lipstadt at the Irving-Lipstadt
libel trial in London from January to April 2000, van Pelt testified as an
expert witness on these alleged instruments of mass murder. It is readily
apparent that Lipstadt relies heavily on the work of van Pelt in her
attempt to prove the existence of the Auschwitz gas chambers. So, any
critique of Lipstadt?s theories must also be a critique of van Pelt.

In his magnum opus, van Pelt makes three important claims in regard to the
technique and operation of the homicidal gas chambers. First, most of the
deadly hydrogen cyanide gas released into the chamber was absorbed by the
victims? bodies. Contradicting Holocaust revisionist claims, he insists
that the ventilation systems of the gas chambers were efficient enough to
remove virtually all of the remaining HCN after a mass gassing so that the
Sonderkommandos could enter the chambers within a very short time after the
death of all of the victims in order to do their work. In van Pelt?s own
words: ?The situation in the gas chambers was different. With its powerful
ventilation system and with the fact that most of the hydrogen cyanide was
absorbed by the victims? bodies, the time [needed to ventilate the gas
chambers so the Sonderkommandos could safely enter them to remove the
bodies] could be reduced to twenty minutes.?6

Finally, he claims that David Olere, a French-Jewish deportee to Auschwitz
in 1943, is one of the most important eyewitnesses to the operation of the
gas chambers. In his own words, the sketches of Olere ?provide a very
important visual record of the design and operation of the gas chamber and
incinerators of Crematorium 3??7 Indeed, throughout his entire study he
attempts to demonstrate that Olere is a credible eyewitness by showing how
his sketches are consistent with physical evidence.

Jean-Claude Pressac also claimed that the drawings of Olere that will be
examined in this article are an important visual record of the operation of
the homicidal gas chambers.8 And last but not least, Deborah Lipstadt
attempts to convince her readership that Olere is a credible eyewitness by
showing how his claims are consistent with the physical evidence. In this
regard, she refers to the ?drawings by Sonderkommando David Olere, who,
upon liberation sketched the gas chambers. The sketches, Robert Jan [van
Pelt] noted, were fully corroborated by the architectural plans in the
Auschwitz Central Construction Office and the aerial photos.?9

Thus, Lipstadt, Pressac and van Pelt claim that Olere is perhaps the most
important eyewitness to the alleged mass gassings, and his sketches,
paintings and drawings provide the world with an accurate description of
the technique and operation of the Auschwitz gas chambers. But is this so?
Professor van Pelt?s omission and inclusion suggest otherwise.

Let us begin with van Pelt?s omission. In his book van Pelt published some
of Olere?s more important sketches regarding the structure and operation of
the alleged gas chambers, but failed to include one of his most important
drawings. It is the painting showing the Sonderkommmandos opening the gas
chamber door and pulling the bodies out after a mass gassing. In the
painting, the inmates are shirtless, and they are not wearing any gas
masks, rubber gloves or protective suits. Before proceeding, the reader is
strongly urged to view and study the sketch in question. It is online at
the address in this footnote. Scroll down to ?Document 30.?10
http://www.honestmediatoday.com/nonexistent_gas-chambers2.htm




I already made some remarks about the disputable "accuracy" of Olère's drawings
and is rare "selective memory".

<quote zulu>

[...] However, according to the same "eyewitness" named Olère there
was no ventilation at the room corresponding to the scene described
by the drawing above.


See


http://web.archive.org/web/20030208062329/http://www.holocaust-info.dk/auschwitz/k3_side.htm

Some observations can be made:


1- Olère has some technical knowledge by observing the detailed
technical information that can be seen on this drawing.


2- Note the P label or "aspirateur de fumées" which means "P. Smoke
vacuum" which is a real technical detail concerning the Ovens' operation.


3- See the reference to "O. Accelerator" which are the machines
needed to boost oven's combustion .


4- See also the detailed underground intricate exhaustion circuit of
the smokes on Ovens' room.


Now, a question comes in observer's mind:


Why such a skilled drawer "forgot" to draw the needed complex
"ventilation system" related to the functioning of alleged "gas
chambers" including equipment like ventilators or conducts ?????????


So, according to the fundamental eyewitness David Olère, there was no
ventilation at Krema III.


So, there is a deep functional incompatibility between the 2 Olère's
drawings


http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Images/493.02.jpg
http://web.archive.org/web/20030208062329/http://www.holocaust-info.dk/auschwitz/k3_side.htm

To go to the point: Is David Olère credible?


To go to the point, is he expected to have gotten every single detail
exactly right?


No exactly. What is amazing is that he described perfectly the ovens'
room with detailed equipment but he isn't so "accurate" when he draw the
"Gas chambers". In particular he forgot completely all "ventilation
system" of that room.

2 possible alternatives

A. He drew the "truth"

1- he depicted well the ovens room because he worked there.
2. he never worked near the "gas chambers"

But there is a contradiction because he have drawn scenes like the
removing of corpses from the chambers. So, according to the dogma he
must have waited 15 min for the ventilation of the chamber before
interring in and such "detail" shouldn't be out of his memory so
accurate in case of oven's room.

BUt if he drew the "truth" then, we must accept that the gassings didn't
use ventilation to remove the gas. So another contradiction with the
dogma because his operators don't use mask.

B. He lies

1. He knew about ovens' installation by existing drawings (which have
been exposed later by Pressac in his book about Birkenau).

2. He invented the scenes of gassings by taking his "inspiration" with
numerous existing "testimonies".

A OR B => He doesn't depict the "truth" about gassings.

</quote zulu>

http://minilien.com/?L6da4FZdDX


.