Alright /pol/, I've lurked Holohoax threads for awhile,

>what is the burden of proof
this website is for adults
how about the fact that """(((((gas chamber)))))""""" doors were not airtight and were just flimsy regular wooden doors

File: trezestema.png (22KB, 113x128px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 113x128px

>>128926071
Or that the chamber at Crematorium 1 was on a lower floor to the crematoria
Or that the crematoria aren't fast enough for the supposed rates of cremation

Supposedly they purpose built Auschwitz, why was it so inefficient then?

I honestly wish there was an easy, bluepill answer so I could stop myself from this torture. I don't want to be a holohoax denier. It's not fun. It's not gratifying. It's only an eternal torture granted by the truth, and only the truth.

File: Holocaust_doors.jpg (1MB, 1317x2239px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1317x2239px

>>128926071
Copy pasting from http://imgur.com/gallery/725A7

> In this widely circulated pic, holocaust deniers try to make us aware of the existence of gas chambers for executing people in the United States and use them as proof of how "complicated" gassing with Zyklon-B really is, and how the lack of such doors in Auschwitz is proof no homicidal gassings could have possibly taken place there. Both Fred Leuchter and Robert Faurisson are pretty hysteric regarding this.

> Already, part of this "infographic" is a flat-out LIE obviously intended to only fool the clueless, because the door pictured on the bottom right is NOT the gas chamber door of Auschwitz's Krematorium I, and isn't even claimed as such by any historian or reputable camp authority. What you are seeing instead, is the 2nd of two wooden doors in Krema I's enlarged gas chamber today. I have explained what the 1st wooden door is previously. This 2nd one (the two are distinguishable from one another in that this one does not have a missing wooden panel in the upper half) leads into a small vestibule built in 1944 in front of the other exit of Krema I (you can see the far sturdier metal door behind it).

> Now let's look at the other two doors in the infographic's bottom left. The denier narrative goes, that these doors were claimed to be homicidal gas chamber doors, but in reality are innocent delousing chamber doors.

> Even if we assume the two doors on the bottom left are not homicidal gas chamber doors, but doors of the delousing chambers, holocaust deniers have a problem: If the deniers are correct about them being made out of wood, and therefore "flimsy", and therefore Zyklon-B gas leaking out, then they would have to abandon their argument about Zyklon-B being used for delousing as well, because using the same "leaking is lethal" argument the case can be made that even the delousing chambers would kill everyone around them due to gas leakage.

File: IMG_2814.jpg (34KB, 385x385px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 385x385px

>>128926548
^-this. Knowing the despicable truth about our governments and the mountain of lies they bury us under from birth is eternal torture. Believing the lies was so much easier but there's no going back

>>128927202
I'm not interested in shilling for the Holocaust or (((them))), but I am interested in trying to ascertain what the truth is. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty at the moment, as people like Eric Hunt and David Irving seem to re-converted to Holocaust orthodoxy, though we have precedent from David Cole that just because they say something in public, that doesn't mean they are telling the whole truth (they might be trying to salvage a life of normalcy, or have been paid off, or something similar).

I have also seen claims that the Holocaust is impossible on grounds that the Crematoria (>>128926548 says Crematoria 1) was located on a different floor than the supposed gas chamber (which I believe the revisionists claim is a morgue?) and thus all the bodies would have had to be hoisted from one floor to the other using the elevator, and revisionists claim that this elevator had a maximum capacity of 750lbs which would mean that it would only be able to take ~12 persons of 60kg, creating a bottleneck in the 'industrial killing process', but people like Van Pelt claim that it was up to 1500lbs?

Also, I have seen people claim that the holocaust would be impossible on the basis that it would take too long to cremate everyone after they have been 'gassed'. If we accept the orthodox's position, people who were unfit to labor were immediately sent to the gas chambers upon arrival, which would mean that they would not have time to become emaciated and would therefore burn at rates comparable to modern day cremations. However, the mainstream will argue that the crematoria were capable of holding multiple people (up to 4 each), and that when you do not care about someone's dignity, you will not follow the usual procedures for cremations.

Any insights would be appreciated

>>128926957
>enlarged gas chamber today
What did he mean by this? When was it enlarged, and why?

Also, the real issue isn't gas leakage (it's often brought up, probably what KNONmyFl meant, but not my real issue with it), it's actually holding however many people. Admittedly, a steel door would do the job, perhaps.

You still have the other two things, I mentioned

>>128928288
It's not that it would be impossible, it's that it would've been an extremely inefficient task (pulling bodies out of the chamber through a small enclosure, upwards and into the cremation chamber). Sure, put enough will to it and anything's possible, but the story is that this camp was, again, purpose built, not just some kind of repurposed building or anything, right? Why would you incorporate such a flaw in your extermination site? There's one answer I can think of: it wasn't designed that way and was repurposed (can't find anything suggesting this).

As for the multiple people thing, I kind of doubt that helps much. It's not that it's about dignity, it's that there's a limit at which the process simply wouldn't be useful anymore - why cremate a body if it's just going to largely be the same size? Ends up being more of a waste.

Honestly, I'll take it for granted, but it's dubious and holocaust denial laws just make me wearier of it.

>>128927202
>>128929324
Okay, so according to http://science.howstuffworks.com/cremation1.htm
> An average human body takes from two to three hours to burn completely and will produce an average of 3 to 9 pounds (1.4 to 4.1 kilograms) of ash. The amount of ash depends usually on the bone structure of the person and not so much their weight
> two to three hours to burn completely
Counterpoint from https://web.archive.org/web/20130109050448/http://www.holocaust-history.org/quick-facts/crematorium-capacity.shtml

1. Deniers claim out that since modern cremations take about 2 hours, the number of Jews cremated at the camps must have been exaggerated.

2. As the Quick fact points out, there is a vast difference between a modern crematorium and the furnaces in the Nazi camps.

Crematoriums burn one body at a time. The body is placed in a cold furnace which normally uses natural gas or fuel oil. Once the body is in place, the furnace is fired up and allowed to reach the temperature where the remains are reduced to bones and ashes. The furnace is then allowed to cool down so that the ashes and bones can be recovered by the crematorium staff. These bones and ashes are then placed in a bone grinder (similar to a domestic coffee grinder) and reduced to a fine powder which is then delivered to the family. That process takes around two hours.

The "crematoriums" in the camps are more properly "incinerators". In these facilities the furnaces are coal or coke fired and are kept running at a high temperature all of the time. There is no need to start the heating process for every corpse. The bodies are fed into the furnace one after another - and often several corpses at one time. The design of these incinerators allow the bones and ashes of the corpses to drop through a chute of sorts where they can be recovered with shovels and tongs by the workers. There is no effort to separate the remains of one corpse from another.

Such a continuous incinerating process is identical to the one used in modern Continual Burn Incinerators. A description of this process was taken from the brochure of one of the manufacturers of this type of incinerators:

In the Continual Feed process, waste is introduced into a charging hopper either manually or by an, automatic cart dumper. Then the charging hopper door is closed, the primary chamber refractory lined, gate is raised, and the waste is introduced into the primary chamber by a hydraulic ram, mechanism., Next, the burning waste is moved through the primary chamber by a charging ram and one or more, ash pushers. They move the steadily-reducing mass of waste to the end of the chamber. Then, if the, system is equipped with automatic ash removal, the ash drops through a water seal into a water, filled tank. From there it is moved by either a drag conveyor, or an ash sweep,, to a dumpster for removal from the area. In systems not equipped with the, automatic ash removal, the ash remains in the primary chamber until the system is cooled down. It is, them removed manually.
At or near capacity our continuous feed incinerators operate without auxiliary fuel. The systems, maintain precise control over the combustion process through a design which rigidly governs the, introduction of all air.

Another type of incinerator is that used for pathological materials, carcasses, etc. These have the following characteristics:

Pathological Incinerators are designed to consume Type IV waste.
This includes:

Human and animal remains, consisting of carcasses, organs and solid wastes from hospitals, laboratories, abatoirs, animal shelters and similar sources. These waste consist of up to 85% moisture and 5% incombustible solids with a heating value of 1000 BTUs per pound as fired
>>128929324
Yeah, I think the whole thing is fishy, and the fact that they refuse open debate on it is suspicious as fuck (not to mention the enormous financial incentive to make up stories)

>>128930156
>>128930547
Alright, this is enough to satiate me for now. It's not that I couldn't think up more question, it's that I don't care enough and find it to make sense, sans further investigation.

Still, remains fishy, but at least I can ease off the pain for now.

>>128930547
Unlike the starved-air systems of Continual Burn and Batch Burn Incinerators, Pathological Incinerators function on excess air. This design parameter addresses the need to evaporate the majority of the waste being destroyed, and it also permits the system to be loaded during operation without risk of an environmental upset or a disturbance in the combustion process.

Pathological Incinerator also differs from other systems in that the hearth is heated from combustion occurring within the secondary chamber which is below the primary chamber. The heated hearth allows for a better reduction of the oils and other liquids emanating from the Type IV waste.

Waste can be loaded every 15 minutes at one fourth of the hourly rated capacity. For example, a 200-pound-per-hour unit could be loaded with approximately 50 pounds of waste every 15 minutes.

Obviously the larger the furnace, the larger the incinerating capacity.

3. It is clear from this that the denier claim is false.
> tl;dr
As far as I can tell, this website is claiming that if you had a crematoria running at top temperatures non-stop, you'd be able to keep adding material without a problem.
>>128930794
At the very least, I'm glad that /pol/ has shown me that another side of this debate exists, and the plethora of historical facts which are conveniently omitted from the narrative, such as Rudolf Hoess being tortured, Goring denying the existence of gas chambers, Anne Frank's diary being a fake, and a bunch of other stuff I'm probably forgetting. I'm not convinced yet.

>>128931189
Okay, so the folks at CODOH have been discussing this for a long time, and this is what they have to say http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11143&p=83790&hilit=cremation#p83790

Very interesting, and they provide a quote from one of the engineers who designed the ovens used at Auschwitz, specifically about their capacity
> I spoke about the enormous strain on the overused furnaces. I told Chief Engineer Sander: I am worried whether the furnaces can stand the excessive usage. In my presence two cadavers were pushed into one muffle instead of one cadaver. The furnaces could not stand the strain.

> From the interrogations of Topf engineers by the Soviet SMERSH between 1946 and 1948. The records were published by Gerald Fleming.
This would seem to pose a problem for the mainstream holocaustians who believe that you can shove endless amounts of material into these ovens and not expect any kind of lag in performance