Tony Blair.

[WalksWithTurkeys]

But it IS a Jewish owned resource. Hardly impartial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709128.stm

No doubt the BBC is also Jewish. The world world is Jewish. Must be a conspiracy. I do have a sudden craving for a salt beef bagel. Oh no, have those evil Jews put something into the water. I'm turning into a Jew. Nooooo

 

[joe-90]

Yet another so-called 'fact' with no supporting source. Hence we can discard it as yet another made up lie by Herr Holzkopf, the forum resident neo-Nazi.

The source is the German records you've just been quoting. Get a grip, Turkey.

 

[joe-90]

But it IS a Jewish owned resource. Hardly impartial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709128.stm

No doubt the BBC is also Jewish. The world world is Jewish. Must be a conspiracy. I do have a sudden craving for a salt beef bagel. Oh no, have those evil Jews put something into the water. I'm turning into a Jew. Nooooo

You were born one.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

Yet another so-called 'fact' with no supporting source. Hence we can discard it as yet another made up lie by Herr Holzkopf, the forum resident neo-Nazi.

The source is the German records you've just been quoting. Get a grip, Turkey.

According to you. No source given. You are a serial liar. You have previously quoted as source criminals convicted of spreading racial hatred by knowingly spreading false information. They have connections to neo-Nazis. You know of course that David Irving travels to America to lecture to neo-Nazi groups. You hang out with distasteful types.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

But it IS a Jewish owned resource. Hardly impartial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709128.stm

No doubt the BBC is also Jewish. The world world is Jewish. Must be a conspiracy. I do have a sudden craving for a salt beef bagel. Oh no, have those evil Jews put something into the water. I'm turning into a Jew. Nooooo

You were born one.

Weak, very weak. Actually I was officially born a Christian in the sense that I was baptised, but I don't care for religion, irrespective of its views on bacon butties.

 

[joe-90]

I don't know anything about him. I don't listen to smears either. You can't have it both ways. If you quote official Nazi sources that you think strengthen your argument than you also have to accept the same records that weaken your argument. Cherry picking isn't allowed.

 

[vinty]

Err no they didn't. Common sense should tell you that if it takes a modern cremating oven two hours to burn one body with a burner that looks like a jet fighter afterburner, then to burn two will take four hours and three will take six hours. Putting five bodies in an oven designed to take one body (they don't fit btw) would probably stop the oven from working and put the thing out. Also, the records for the amount of coke used at the camp are available - and nowhere near enough went to that camp to burn millions of bodies. If we can't do it today - then they surely couldn't do it in a wartime camp. Aren't you a structural engineer? Well why don't you understand the first thing about science?

It's not the same as a modern situation. The majority of the bodies they were dealing with were skin and bone with virtually no fat and very low levels of water, typically less than 50kg or 60kg. They also weren't concerned with decent treatment of the bodies. The Topf and sons ovens were also industrial types originally designed for large animals and adapted for human use. It's also recorded that many bodies were under cremated and archaeologists have specifically commented on that fact. So 90 to 120 minutes is viable and I see no technical problem with that.

You still haven't addressed the contemporary records. Why would Topf say the capacity was thousands per month? Why did they need 52 ovens? Why did they need over 800 stokers? That's 16 per oven. If you were generous and said four per oven that would be three 8 hour shifts per 24 hours. All these facts from different sources confirm the figures. The German soldier who wrote the report knew nothing of Prufer yet their reports, made at different times, for different reasons, concur.

You should do some more research mate, according to the "records" no more than 38 of the 52 ovens were operational at any one time, there were periods of idleness recorded as well as breakdowns.
The Topf ovens were basic coke fired models if you look at some of the original photos of these ovens you can see cremation urns stacked beside the oven, these were for the ashes of the individuals who were cremated, most of what you have posted above is untrue, the claim that you can somehow use human corpses as fuel to cremate other corpses is absurd.
The claim that over a million people were cremated using the 52 Auschwitz ovens doesn't stand up, according to Topf each oven was only guaranteed for 3000 cremations and that is with proper maintenance, regular cleaning ect, so do the sums yourself.
You should also look at the sources of your information, all this stuff about using thin bodies as fuel to cremate fat bodies comes from the same sources that put up the "4 million died here" sign at Auschwitz.
As for the Archaeologists who commented on the fact that some bodies were under cremated , who were these Archaeologists and did they ever see these bodies in person and if they did why didn't they take hair or tissue samples to have them analysed for cyanide poisoning.

Don't know where you got that from but I never said it. The facts I did quote are from people at the time who had no reason to make anything up.

According to Holocaust eyewitness's themselves the Germans devised a way of using bodies to burn other bodies. apparently an emaciated body has less water content than a fresh body so therefor burns better, if burned along with a fresh corpse the emaciated body will help evaporate of water content in the fresh body therefor reducing to time required to cremate both bodies, the only problem is that if a body is emaciated it may not have much water content but it wont have much body fat either so one would cancel out the other and I can't see skin and bone have anything near the calorific value of coke or coal.
Sounds all a bit odd.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

I don't know anything about him. I don't listen to smears either. You can't have it both ways. If you quote official Nazi sources that you think strengthen your argument than you also have to accept the same records that weaken your argument. Cherry picking isn't allowed.

Except that you never ever give a respectable source for your information. So basically you trawl extremist conspiracy theorist web sites for text to cut and paste. Just because an extremist web site says something is true, does not make it so. They never quote any respected historian, just nutters with a prison record for inciting racial hatred. Whereas sites such as Wikipedia and others I cited give references which can be checked. Oddly enough a Google of the garbage you post only ever throws up links to neo-Nazi web sites. I wonder why?

Incidentally, the fact that you say I am Jewish, hence cannot be believed (although I am not, although I don't see why that matters), and most other sources such as Wikipedia are Jewish, hence cannot be believed, and all witnesses are Jewish, hence cannot be believed is direct proof that you are a racist. If someone said "All black people are liars", that would be racist. Saying "All Jews are liars" is the same. So, I am ending this nonsense, and will put you on ignore. I should have done so long ago. That won't stop you filling the thread with unsubstantiated text copy and pasted from seedy web sites. In my view you have demonstrated quite clearly that you are at best someone who sympathises with neo-Nazis, if not a neo-Nazi.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

Err no they didn't. Common sense should tell you that if it takes a modern cremating oven two hours to burn one body with a burner that looks like a jet fighter afterburner, then to burn two will take four hours and three will take six hours. Putting five bodies in an oven designed to take one body (they don't fit btw) would probably stop the oven from working and put the thing out. Also, the records for the amount of coke used at the camp are available - and nowhere near enough went to that camp to burn millions of bodies. If we can't do it today - then they surely couldn't do it in a wartime camp. Aren't you a structural engineer? Well why don't you understand the first thing about science?

It's not the same as a modern situation. The majority of the bodies they were dealing with were skin and bone with virtually no fat and very low levels of water, typically less than 50kg or 60kg. They also weren't concerned with decent treatment of the bodies. The Topf and sons ovens were also industrial types originally designed for large animals and adapted for human use. It's also recorded that many bodies were under cremated and archaeologists have specifically commented on that fact. So 90 to 120 minutes is viable and I see no technical problem with that.

You still haven't addressed the contemporary records. Why would Topf say the capacity was thousands per month? Why did they need 52 ovens? Why did they need over 800 stokers? That's 16 per oven. If you were generous and said four per oven that would be three 8 hour shifts per 24 hours. All these facts from different sources confirm the figures. The German soldier who wrote the report knew nothing of Prufer yet their reports, made at different times, for different reasons, concur.

You should do some more research mate, according to the "records" no more than 38 of the 52 ovens were operational at any one time, there were periods of idleness recorded as well as breakdowns.
The Topf ovens were basic coke fired models if you look at some of the original photos of these ovens you can see cremation urns stacked beside the oven, these were for the ashes of the individuals who were cremated, most of what you have posted above is untrue, the claim that you can somehow use human corpses as fuel to cremate other corpses is absurd.
The claim that over a million people were cremated using the 52 Auschwitz ovens doesn't stand up, according to Topf each oven was only guaranteed for 3000 cremations and that is with proper maintenance, regular cleaning ect, so do the sums yourself.
You should also look at the sources of your information, all this stuff about using thin bodies as fuel to cremate fat bodies comes from the same sources that put up the "4 million died here" sign at Auschwitz.
As for the Archaeologists who commented on the fact that some bodies were under cremated , who were these Archaeologists and did they ever see these bodies in person and if they did why didn't they take hair or tissue samples to have them analysed for cyanide poisoning.

Don't know where you got that from but I never said it. The facts I did quote are from people at the time who had no reason to make anything up.

According to Holocaust eyewitness's themselves the Germans devised a way of using bodies to burn other bodies. apparently an emaciated body has less water content than a fresh body so therefor burns better, if burned along with a fresh corpse the emaciated body will help evaporate of water content in the fresh body therefor reducing to time required to cremate both bodies, the only problem is that if a body is emaciated it may not have much water content but it wont have much body fat either so one would cancel out the other and I can't see skin and bone have anything near the calorific value of coke or coal.
Sounds all a bit odd.

So basically you are saying that the historians and academics who study these things are wrong. Maybe you should write to some well known historians with your query, giving your reasoning, and see what they say?

The Germans initially used their own troops, and officials such as police in occupied countries to shoot victims in cold blood. I recall one account where a senior Nazi while watching had some brains splatter on his smart uniform, which he found disgusting. They seemed to have no trouble killing lage numbers of people, and burying the bodies in large pits. The concentration camps were to avoid their troops having to commit murder in person, they preferred to let the Jews (Sondercommando) do the dirty work for them.

 

[Brigadier]

The problem with relying on the so called academics is that this subject is so toxic that any Historian who voiced any doubts would have their careers destroyed overnight, the fact that people have been jailed for questioning the accepted version of the holocaust is evidence enough that the story can't stand on it's own.
How many of these so called respected academics ever witnessed a single person being gassed never mind four millions, Raul Hilberg the worlds "leading"authority on the Holocaust had never set foot in concentration camp except for a commemoration ceremony at Auschwitz some years ago , the problem is that a lot of these so called authorities copy each others work without doing any primary research into the subject, as the holocaust is such a sensitive subject they know that what they write will never be subjected to any sort of critical analysis and if it is they scream "denier."

Complete nonsense.

"the fact that people have been jailed for questioning the accepted version of the holocaust "

Actually no, they have been jailed for deliberately and knowingly lying about the Holocaust, in order to advance their own agenda. Any historian and/or academic can publish research that contradicts any accepted fact, as long as they provide supporting evidence, or show that the accepted fact lacks supporting evidence. Regarding David Irving, one such example, I quote from Wikipedia:

"Irving's reputation as a historian was discredited when, in the course of an unsuccessful libel case he filed against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, he was shown to have deliberately misrepresented historical evidence in order to promote Holocaust denial."

You may not like Wikipedia, but unlike neo-Nazis and their hangers on, they give sources so you can check that the above is indeed factually correct. People are not jailed for carrying out research with honest intentions. They are jailed if they can be shown to have deliberately made up or misrepresented evidence.

You might have noticed that the Nazis were quite through in keeping records, many of which survive despite concerted attempts to destroy it by the Nazis at the end of the war.

Deborah Lipstadt, Wikipedia:

Despite her acrimonious history with Holocaust denier David Irving, Lipstadt has stated that she is personally opposed to the 3-year prison sentence Austria imposed on Irving for two speeches he made in 1989, where he claimed there had been no gas chambers at Auschwitz. In Austria, minimizing the atrocities of the Third Reich is a crime punishable with up to 10 years imprisonment. Speaking of Irving, Lipstadt said "I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people for speech. Let him go and let him fade from everyone's radar screens... Generally, I don't think Holocaust denial should be a crime. I am a free speech person, I am against censorship."[3][4]


In Austria, minimising the atrocities of the Third Reich is punishable by up to ten years in jail.
Presumably then, there is an unimpeachable line below which no-one may dare venture?

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

Deborah Lipstadt, Wikipedia:

Despite her acrimonious history with Holocaust denier David Irving, Lipstadt has stated that she is personally opposed to the 3-year prison sentence Austria imposed on Irving for two speeches he made in 1989, where he claimed there had been no gas chambers at Auschwitz. In Austria, minimizing the atrocities of the Third Reich is a crime punishable with up to 10 years imprisonment. Speaking of Irving, Lipstadt said "I am uncomfortable with imprisoning people for speech. Let him go and let him fade from everyone's radar screens... Generally, I don't think Holocaust denial should be a crime. I am a free speech person, I am against censorship."[3][4]


In Austria, minimising the atrocities of the Third Reich is punishable by up to ten years in jail.
Presumably then, there is an unimpeachable line below which no-one may dare venture?

America has far more liberal laws on freedom of speech compared to this country. We are very restricted in comparison.

But I have sympathy for Lipstatt's views, within reason.

I suspect the criteria in an Austrian court would be the intent. An academic with a record for reliable research who accidentally stated a falsehood about the Holocaust would not be in trouble. They would simply check the research, and correct themselves if needed, or point out why they were right. But Irving repeatedly made statements which he later agreed were incorrect. He also mixes with neo Nazis, which kinda gives a clue as to his agenda.

I happen to think UK laws on speech are too heavily in favour of various ethnic groups. Even several British friends of Asian descent said the same thing. It creates resentment. Racism such as discrimination for a job is wrong, and I would be happy with a country with police, MPs etc that reflected our racial mix. But I don't think PC Nazis help achieve that.

 

[joe-90]

There were no gas chamber is Auschwitz. No-one ever witnessed one. No-one has ever seen a gassed body, The so-called gas chamber was made from an air raid shelter after the war. Not only that, the same people that Turkey believes put a plaque outside that for forty five years said 4 million had died there. It was later proven to be a total lie. Now he's run off and put me on ignore. Head in the sand. Done a runner.

 

[jeds]

The Concentration Camp Crematorium:

One of the main problems with the 6 million jews being murdered claim was disposal of the bodies. It was claimed at Nuremberg that they had been disposed of in the camp crematorium. There were crematorium in each camp, but they simply didn’t have the capacity. Each crematorium oven could burn a body in about one and a half hours, meaning a maximum capacity of 16 bodies every day or just less than 6000 bodies per year per oven. The camps had between four and twelve ovens each giving 24,000 to 72,000 bodies per year maximum at each camp – this still wouldn’t be possible as you can’t run these ovens non-stop without the metal fracturing. Even double or triple loading wouldn’t help as this increased the time to three hours for two bodies or four and a half hours for three bodies. Also bodies aren’t totally reduced by this process and usually leave the pelvis and thigh bones which need crushing with special machinery – no such machinery was found at any of the camps. There is also the problem of fuel as each body would need about 40 kilograms of coke to burn – there is no record of the massive amount of coke required being supplied.


Each oven could only burn less than 6000 bodies per year if working non-stop which isn’t possible without fracturing the metal.

Now, now joe. You know this isn't true - as I conclusively proved some time ago. Maybe you've forgotten this post:

"Hartmut Topf spent most of his life investigating the role his family played at Auschwitz. He was shocked when, as a young boy, he saw his family nameplates across the rows of ovens in news films. He initially said it was unthinkable that his family could have knowingly contributed and set out to find the truth. After years of compiling internal documents from the firm he changed his mind and said they couldn't have not known.

In the early days there were 6 ovens in operation at Auschwitz. An internal memo dated September 1942 records a meeting between Kurt Prufer (Topf engineer/designer) and Obersturmführer Krone who was in charge of ordering equipment at Auschwitz under the building director Kammler. The memo quotes the capacity of the 6 ovens as 250 per day.

The memo goes on to say that another 10 ovens were under construction, which would have a further capacity of 800 per day and another 16 were being redirected from another camp which would add another 800. That's 32 ovens with a capacity of 1850 bodies per day. The letter also says that Krone stated that this number was insufficient and more ovens must be delivered as quickly as possible.

At the peak a total of 52 ovens were in operation at the Auschwitz complex with a capacity of 2650 per day - or 80,000 per month. Nobody denies this, it is a fact detailed in the business documents written at the time. Auschwitz camp reports also note that there are over 800 stokers for the ovens. Again, this can't be denied because it is written fact.

So where does that leave Joe's assertion that mass cremations never happened? In tatters I'd say."

Read more: //www.diynot.com/diy/threads/tony-blair.436024/page-9#ixzz3eoilRPms

 

[jeds]

Don't know where you got that from but I never said it. The facts I did quote are from people at the time who had no reason to make anything up.[/QUOTE]According to Holocaust eyewitness's themselves the Germans devised a way of using bodies to burn other bodies. apparently an emaciated body has less water content than a fresh body so therefor burns better, if burned along with a fresh corpse the emaciated body will help evaporate of water content in the fresh body therefor reducing to time required to cremate both bodies, the only problem is that if a body is emaciated it may not have much water content but it wont have much body fat either so one would cancel out the other and I can't see skin and bone have anything near the calorific value of coke or coal.
Sounds all a bit odd.[/QUOTE]

It does sound odd. But my point was that you made it sound like it was something I had said - which it wasn't. Most people know that bodies will burn, albeit very slowly. So-called spontaneous combustion is really just a body catching fire and slow burning over a long period. In that situation almost everything disintegrates - including the bones. The only thing that usually remains are the feet because they contain less fat. But as far as I know that type of combustion requires some form a wick - usually the clothing - to work. But it does show that joe's idea that bodies don't burn because they are mostly water is nonsense.

 

[joe-90]

The Concentration Camp Crematorium:

One of the main problems with the 6 million jews being murdered claim was disposal of the bodies. It was claimed at Nuremberg that they had been disposed of in the camp crematorium. There were crematorium in each camp, but they simply didn’t have the capacity. Each crematorium oven could burn a body in about one and a half hours, meaning a maximum capacity of 16 bodies every day or just less than 6000 bodies per year per oven. The camps had between four and twelve ovens each giving 24,000 to 72,000 bodies per year maximum at each camp – this still wouldn’t be possible as you can’t run these ovens non-stop without the metal fracturing. Even double or triple loading wouldn’t help as this increased the time to three hours for two bodies or four and a half hours for three bodies. Also bodies aren’t totally reduced by this process and usually leave the pelvis and thigh bones which need crushing with special machinery – no such machinery was found at any of the camps. There is also the problem of fuel as each body would need about 40 kilograms of coke to burn – there is no record of the massive amount of coke required being supplied.


Each oven could only burn less than 6000 bodies per year if working non-stop which isn’t possible without fracturing the metal.

Now, now joe. You know this isn't true - as I conclusively proved some time ago. Maybe you've forgotten this post:

"Hartmut Topf spent most of his life investigating the role his family played at Auschwitz. He was shocked when, as a young boy, he saw his family nameplates across the rows of ovens in news films. He initially said it was unthinkable that his family could have knowingly contributed and set out to find the truth. After years of compiling internal documents from the firm he changed his mind and said they couldn't have not known.

In the early days there were 6 ovens in operation at Auschwitz. An internal memo dated September 1942 records a meeting between Kurt Prufer (Topf engineer/designer) and Obersturmführer Krone who was in charge of ordering equipment at Auschwitz under the building director Kammler. The memo quotes the capacity of the 6 ovens as 250 per day.

The memo goes on to say that another 10 ovens were under construction, which would have a further capacity of 800 per day and another 16 were being redirected from another camp which would add another 800. That's 32 ovens with a capacity of 1850 bodies per day. The letter also says that Krone stated that this number was insufficient and more ovens must be delivered as quickly as possible.

At the peak a total of 52 ovens were in operation at the Auschwitz complex with a capacity of 2650 per day - or 80,000 per month. Nobody denies this, it is a fact detailed in the business documents written at the time. Auschwitz camp reports also note that there are over 800 stokers for the ovens. Again, this can't be denied because it is written fact.

So where does that leave Joe's assertion that mass cremations never happened? In tatters I'd say."

Read more: //www.diynot.com/diy/threads/tony-blair.436024/page-9#ixzz3eoilRPms

Jeds to start with your proof fails in that it wasn't logistically possible to operate 52 ovens.
So answer these questions:

1) Why did none of the chimneys show up on Aerial Photos in operation? No fire without smoke.

2) Where were these ovens situated? Looking at plans of the site it was a pretty cramped place.

3) Did they build new chimneys to cater for the 40 odd new ovens? They won't work without an updraft. They can't run 24/7 or they crack. Why did they advertise for 800 stokers when it was the Jews themselves that supposedly loaded the ovens? Why couldn't they load the coke too?
Why were there no photos of trains bringing coke? Why are there no aerial photos of piles of coke on the ground?

4) How did they transport millions of people to the camp when there were few engines or carriages in Poland at the time? If the trains and lines did exist - then why are they on no aerial photos? Why did none of them ever get strafed by aircraft?

5) Why did the Red Cross deny the numbers killed?

6) Why did the French Resistance (who were in all the camps) deny the Holocaust?

7) What happened to all of the new ovens when the camp was vacated? If they didn't take them with them - they'd still be there.

8)Why has no bone grinding machinery ever been found in ANY camp?

9)Where did they put all the new arrivals when they got there? Did they put them straight to death? There are numerous pictures of happy looking children leaving the camps, so where were they staying? More importantly, If people were ravaged by typhus - then why did they let them take precious room in the huts when they could have sent them straight to the gas chambers? What was the purpose of keeping them and treating them?

So you see Jeds, it matters not what one person was coerced into saying. Maybe he didn't like crushed nuts.
What matters is logistics - and if you can't sort out that conundrum, then you simply have to accept that the holocaust never happened.
So you answer my questions - failure to do so will mean you agree with me that it just never happened.

Over to you.