Moderated: Gas Vans and the Holocaust

[Moss]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

I have attached a link to a German site for truck spare parts. It links directly to the exhaust pipe section. Show me ONE metal-made "SCHLAUCH" in any section of the part lists..

http://www.autoteileplus.de/lkw-satt...teile.html#top

And again you insist on using contemporary comparisons to check for the plausibility of statements made almost 70 years prior. You do realize that that is not a valid way to argue?
Feel free to find a truck spare part catalogue of the time and then we might be inclined to discuss whether that has any impact on the understanding of the document at hand.
What you keep on doing is establishing a baseline for oranges while discussing apples and then complain that the apples do not conform to that baseline.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

I have attached a link to a German site for truck spare parts. It links directly to the exhaust pipe section. Show me ONE metal-made "SCHLAUCH" in any section of the part lists..

http://www.autoteileplus.de/lkw-satt...teile.html#top

Okay.

http://www.autoteileplus.de/autoteil...let/teile.html

Quote:

Hosenrohr

Das Hosenrohr dient als Verbindungsstück zwischen Abgaskrümmer und Auspuffanlage und ist eine der am meist thermisch belasteten Komponenten an einer Auspuffanlage. Daher wird das Flammrohr zum großen Teil aus dickerem Material gefertigt als die restliche Abgasanlage. Umgangssprachlich hieß das Hosenrohr auch Flammrohr, da bei den früheren Motoren Flammen aus dem Krümmer in Hosenrohr schossen, welche bei direktem Kontakt zum Schalldämpfer diesen beschädigt hätten. Daher wurde ein Flammrohr zwischen Krümmer und Schalldämpfer montiert in dem die Flammen erloschen konnten. Da sich die Motoren beim Betrieb bewegen wird zwischen Krümmer und Hosenrohr ein bewegliches Verbindungsstück geschraubt, oder ein flexibler Metallschlauch am Hosenrohr geschweißt. Durch diese Verbindung werden die Vibrationen vom Motor nicht über das Hosenrohr an die restliche Auspuffanlage übertragen.

There you go. A metal Schlauche described as part of a motor vehicle's exhaust system.

[Border Reiver]

[quote=Clayton Moore;8406865]The people had to be collected.

After a while the people would get the gist that the vans were the dreaded gassing vans and the vans would be avoided like the plague. But besides that.
[quote]

Not a problem, collection is simple. The people are already collected into camps. Getting them into to the vans is also simple. At morning roll call announce that the following people are being transferred to Camp Dogzilla and that they are to get into the trucks. So long as the people at the camp don't also unload, no one need be the wiser.

Quote:

The soldiers, not the sonderkommandos, round up the victims, get them in the van and the van goes for a ride and returns with dead people in them?
Would the van, in hostile territory, be driven away from the protection of the soldiers?

The camps weren't right at the front lines and weren't generally in areas with high partisan activity. While the driver and his co-driver would need to be vigilant, they weren't at a great risk either.

Quote:

The dead people must be removed from the van and disposed of by the soldiers.

And? The alternate is to use labour camp inmates.

Quote:

the soldiers must clean up the van. Then what? Go search out more victims for van gassing? And if the weather forbids the gassing cycle what are the soldiers assigned to do that they could stop doing when the weather became clement?

Again why is this a problem to clean? A hose is fairly basic and simple to use.

And weather? Do you think these were union guys going, "Scharfurher Schmidt, I am a driver, I can't possibly do anything else."

You purport to have served. How far do you think you'd have gotten in the US military trying that, let alone as an SS guard? Military drivers don't just drive - they do basic maintenance on the vehicles, stand guard, get extra duties for hitting on the Sergant's girlfriend, etc. If that's your "A" game the deniers are in trouble.

[Bluespaceoddity]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

[i]Quote (myself): In addition it is totally unclear why those pipes should rust on the inside only. If connecting exhaust pipe with the back of a truck they certainly have to be installed at least for some length on the outside of the truck. If it would be a problem of the material, they also would rust on the outside.

Your answer:
The original does not say that the tubes rust where they are installed on the inside of the truck, it says that they rust from the inside of the tube itself - because of the corrosive CO2.

My assumption that those piping were partially installed on the outside of the truck meant that this way they come into contact with humidity on THEIR outside and should also rust from THEIR outside. By the way we are talking about CO, not CO2.

MaxMurx, You don't identify whose answer you meant with "your answer". I'm guessing you're only responding to Norumaru with this comment. I wrote that I disagreed with Norumaru's comment about the cause of the corrosion. Is it the lag from having the comments go through moderation perhaps the reason why you haven't addressed my points yet?

The pipes corrode on the outside as well as on the inside but it is Just -or his mechanics servicing the vans personally- who noticed that accumulation of fluids entering the pipes from the inside was having a -greater- corrosive effect on the system of pipes than regular weather influences have on the exterior of exhaust pipes underneath cars. It is the corrosion from fluids running in from the inside of the "cargo" area that he identifies as the problem which requires modification of the way the pipes are installed and he in fact provides solutions that make this clear. So no, there is no indication that "those pipes should rust on the inside only". Your use of the word "only" is misleading. The problem Just identifies is corrosive influences eating away from the interior of the pipes - these are in addition to corrosion from the outside, not from the inside only, as you implied. These pipes do indeed come into contact with humidity as well from the outside but he identifies substances entering from the inside as the bigger problem.

The pipes were indeed partially installed on the outside because they connected the engine's exhaust with additional pipes leading to the interior of the "cargo" section of the vehicle.

In addition to ANTPogo's comment that a Schlauch can be made of metal there is also the usage of Rohr in point 4.) of Just's letter which I would suggest refers back to that same system of pipes leading from the engine exhaust to the interior of the "cargo bay" of the vehicle he already mentions in point 3.).

This "3.) Die Verbindungsschläuche zwischen Auspuff und Wagen [...]"
refers to the same system of pipes as this:
"4.) [...] Ein Eindringen der Flüssigkeiten in die Röhren wird somit weitgehendst unterbunden."

In case you are still working on a reply to my earlier comment - I suggest you take these additional remarks into consideration because I don't think you can argue about point 3 and 4 not being connected.

We are talking about a combination of gasses and fluids causing corrosion of the pipes and we're dealing with a document connecting exhaust pipes to the cargo area of a vehicle. "Cargo" has been identified as human beings.
Are you still in France, btw?

[Robrob]

Simple Google search shows plenty of plastic, rubber, metal, etc... Shlauch. Many with automotive uses.

[MaxMurx]

Quote:

MaxMurx, You don't identify whose answer you meant with "your answer". I'm guessing you're only responding to Norumaru with this comment.

Correct, my fault, sorry. My sub heading "Your answer" was exclusively related to "Norumaru".


Something about Walther Rauff, the leader of the RSHA, Dept. II D and alleged responsible person for the construction of gas vans:
He escaped US Military Prison in Rimini / Italy and worked in Syria till 1949 to reorganize the Syrian Secret Service.

Since 1949 he live in Quito/Chile under his regular name and never used an alias. He also made no secret out of his German military and RSHA/SS-past (He originally was Navy specialist for torpedoes but had left the Navy due to personal reasons / divorce in 1938. Worked in SS/RSHA since 1938).

In 1958 he was recruited as undercover agent by the German Bundesnachrichtendienst BND, the former "Organisation Gehlen". The Organization Gehlen was the former "Wehrmacht Secret Service Dept. 12, Eastern Armies" (I have no better translation for "Abt. 12 Generalstab des Heeres; Abt. "Fremde Heere Ost").

The military past was known to the BND. Rauff in 1958 and 1960 was in Germany to receive Secret Service instructions. The gas van accusations were made first in 1962.
Rauff was arrested in Chile in 1962 following an extradition request by the Federal Republic od Germany. Rauff had been warned about his coming arrest but refused to go on the run "in order to clarify the accusations". The BND "switched off" Rauff (meaning: dismissed him from service) for reasons of the high publicity of the affair, "no matter if guilty or not guilty of the accusations" (quote from an internal BND paper).
In 1963 Chile's Supreme Court dismissed the extradition request. Rauff lived in Chile and where he died in 1984.
The link to the (German) BND paper:

http://www.bnd.bund.de/cln_236/nn_21...itteilung2.pdf


Although the accusations are repeated in the paper it is hard to believe that the former Wehrmacht Secret Service East did not know if Rauff was guilty or not of the accusations. In addition: Why were the accusations against Rauff made in 1962 and not before? Was the Eichmann-publicity effect already gone?

[EternalSceptic]

And what about the "rusting tubes" which cannot be made of metal?

[Moss]

Originally Posted by EternalSceptic

And what about the "rusting tubes" which cannot be made of metal?

Apparently not important anymore now that that argument has failed.
Murks eben.

[MaxMurx]

Quote:

And what about the "rusting tubes" which cannot be made of metal?

For the German word "Schlauch" I will use "hose" from now on.

Of course metal hoses exist for special applications. In my own lab we have metal hoses which are produced for high vacuum applications and for use in nuclear plants. Those consist of a stainless steel mash and are absolutely water and gas tight.
Those hoses never rust. The price depends from the diameter of the hose. Our hoses with a diameter of 15 centimeters (10 inch) cost € 840.- per meter, roughly US $ 300.- per foot. I strongly doubt that those were used in the alleged gas vans.

Just by chance I came about another gross misconception in the gas van complex, I never understood, but now I do:

http://archive.org/details/Kroll-Wer...r-Gasgenerator

From the Rauff letter:

It would appear that a reduction in the cargo area is necessary. This can be achieved by shortening the compartment by about one meter.

Then there is a part which was left out in the official translation:

In a conference with the producer this side mentioned that shortening the cargo compartment leads to an unfavorable distribution of the load. It was mentioned that the front axle would be overstressed.

Mechanically I never understood this conclusion. These days I came across a 1943 German handbook how to turn trucks running with regular Diesel into "generator gas trucks", run by solid fuels like wood or coal. This procedure requires a huge gas generator, which can be attached to the truck in the following ways:

Für die Unterbringung des Gaserzeugers innerhalb der Pritschenflache, der meistens angewendeten Einbauart, gibt es grundsatzlich drei Anordnungsmoglichkeiten. Bei jeder muss die Pritsche entsprechend geandert werden
: .....(some irrelevant parts left out)
Anordnung 3 : a) durch Aussägen eines über die ganze Pritschenbreite gehenden Rechteckes
b) durch Zurückverlegen der gesamten Pritsche.

Die Anordnung nach 3 b) darf nur bei lademässig gering beanspruchten Fahrzeugen
angewendet werden, da durch die Zurückverlegung der Pritsche die Hinterachsbelastung sehr stark ansteigt.

Translation:

For the placement of the gas generator inside of the cargo area, the application which is the one used most frequently, in principle three configurations exist. For each configuration the cargo compartment has to be altered accordingly.
This means:.....
Configuration 3a: Cutting out a rectangle covering the complete width of the cargo compartment
3b: Shifting the complete cargo compartment to the rear.

The configuration according to 3b should only be applied in vehicles being stressed not too much by cargo loads, because by shifting the cargo compartment to the rear the stress on the rear axle will be increased significantly.

End of translation, highlighting by myself

The text above says that shortening is the alternative to shifting the compartment to the rear, however shifting it to the rear can overstress the rear axle.

From this the author of the Rauff letter concluded that shifting the compartment (or the load distribution) to the front, would overstress the front axle.
However this is a misconception. The front axle is under the drivers cabin. Shifting a cargo department to the front would mean for the truck "to the center" and would not overstress the front axle. Shifting it to the back, where it exceeds the outer limits of the vehicles undercarriage anyways, would overstress the rear axle by increased weight of the center of the cargo department on the axle and take weight from the front axle by the laws of leverage which had to be carried by the rear axle too.
That all is not the case shifting a cargo load to the front into the direction of the drivers cabin. The sentence in the Rauff letter is another ill logic conclusion which says a lot about the expertise of the author.

So much about Rauff.

Another interesting quote which I always was interested to have explained is found in the same book (together with some very interesting similarities to the Rauff text):

Was versteht man unter Vergasung?
Unter Vergasung versteht man begrifflich die Umwandlung fester Brennstoffe, sei es Holz, Braunkohle, Steinkohle, Koks oder dergleichen, in den brennbaren Zustand unter Zusatz von Luft oder Luft und Wasserdampf. Hierbei ist die zugeführte Luftmenge kleiner, als zur vollstandigen Verbrennung notwendig ist. Als Rückstand verbleiben bei diesem Vergasungsvorgang die mineralischen Bestandteile in Form von Asche oder Schlacke.

What means "gassing"?
The term "gassing" means the transition of solid fuels let it be wood, brown coal, black coal, coke or something comparable into the flammable condition by adding air or air and water vapor respectively. The volume of air fed (own remark: into the system) is smaller as necessary for complete combustion. As remainder this gassing process leaves mineral compounds in form of ashes or cinder.

End of translation

The same is valid for "Vergasung" of liquid fuels. ""Vergasung" however is always the transition of something into the gaseous state and never the exposure of something or someone with gas, which is "Begasung". I always wondered about the wrong usage of the word. Recently I read an (English) text that the word "Vergasung" is explicitly used in the German language for procedures to kill people. Just look above.

Anyways, I very strongly object one of the comments above, depicting me as a "Holocaust Denier". My opinion is that any forged, fabricated or falsified evidence is damaging the reputation and credibility of the accuser, which in this case is the "non-denier". That documents were forged in Russian courts at least since Katyn is not a secret. Therefore the "Non Deniers" must be those whose interest is to remove all suspicious documents. With those hundreds of thousands of other documents at hand which are not fabricated the elimination of forgeries should not be expected to damage their case.
As long as they unconditionally defend however any piece of paper how ridiculous and illogical it might be, they do themselves a bad favor and a real great favor to the deniers.

My own interest has only marginally to do with the Holocaust. It is to remove all fabrications and forgeries from the records of any science, including historical sciences.

And my personal opinion on this present topic: Democracy is based on the free will of the citizen and voter. That "free will" depends from accurate information. If that information is manipulated the will of the voter is everything but "free", it is manipulated in parallel. Democracy then becomes an illusion.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

Although the accusations are repeated in the paper it is hard to believe that the former Wehrmacht Secret Service East did not know if Rauff was guilty or not of the accusations.

Of course they knew. The BND agent who recruited him, Rudolf Oebsger-Röder, was once a fellow SS officer of Rauff's in RSHA. This Spiegel article explains the relationship between Rauff and the BND.

Quote:

In addition: Why were the accusations against Rauff made in 1962 and not before? Was the Eichmann-publicity effect already gone?

The "accusations" were made long before 1962. Rauff's involvement with the gas van project had been known to the Allies pretty much immediately after the war ended. His name is all over captured documents talking about the gas van project, he gave a statement in October 1945 to Allied interrogators in which he acknowledged those captured gas van documents with his name all over them were genuine, and his involvement (and the documents proving his involvement) was discussed and testified to by the Nazi defendants during the 1946 war crimes trials.

Neither the gas vans nor Rauff's involvement with the gas vans appeared out of nowhere in 1962.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

For the German word "Schlauch" I will use "hose" from now on.

Of course metal hoses exist for special applications. In my own lab we have metal hoses which are produced for high vacuum applications and for use in nuclear plants. Those consist of a stainless steel mash and are absolutely water and gas tight.
Those hoses never rust. The price depends from the diameter of the hose. Our hoses with a diameter of 15 centimeters (10 inch) cost € 840.- per meter, roughly US $ 300.- per foot. I strongly doubt that those were used in the alleged gas vans.

So, when the very German website you yourself linked to describes a "Metallschlauch" as part of a regular truck's engine exhaust system, is it saying that these trucks are also using those same 840 €-per-meter special hoses used in nuclear plants?

[EternalSceptic]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

For the German word "Schlauch" I will use "hose" from now on.

Of course metal hoses exist for special applications. In my own lab we have metal hoses which are produced for high vacuum applications and for use in nuclear plants. Those consist of a stainless steel mash and are absolutely water and gas tight.
Those hoses never rust. The price depends from the diameter of the hose. Our hoses with a diameter of 15 centimeters (10 inch) cost € 840.- per meter, roughly US $ 300.- per foot. I strongly doubt that those were used in the alleged gas vans.

http://www.witzenmann.de/witzenmann/...schlaeuche.php
Just to mention one example of all kinds of metal hoses.

Again you have shown, that you don't have the slightest idea of hose - technology and availability. Or, maybe, you are trying to pull our legs.

Fail.

Quote:

Just by chance I came about another gross misconception in the gas van complex, I never understood, but now I do:

http://archive.org/details/Kroll-Wer...r-Gasgenerator

From the Rauff letter:

It would appear that a reduction in the cargo area is necessary. This can be achieved by shortening the compartment by about one meter.

Then there is a part which was left out in the official translation:

In a conference with the producer this side mentioned that shortening the cargo compartment leads to an unfavorable distribution of the load. It was mentioned that the front axle would be overstressed.

Mechanically I never understood this conclusion. These days I came across a 1943 German handbook how to turn trucks running with regular Diesel into "generator gas trucks", run by solid fuels like wood or coal. This procedure requires a huge gas generator, which can be attached to the truck in the following ways:

Für die Unterbringung des Gaserzeugers innerhalb der Pritschenflache, der meistens angewendeten Einbauart, gibt es grundsatzlich drei Anordnungsmoglichkeiten. Bei jeder muss die Pritsche entsprechend geandert werden
: .....(some irrelevant parts left out)
Anordnung 3 : a) durch Aussägen eines über die ganze Pritschenbreite gehenden Rechteckes
b) durch Zurückverlegen der gesamten Pritsche.

Die Anordnung nach 3 b) darf nur bei lademässig gering beanspruchten Fahrzeugen
angewendet werden, da durch die Zurückverlegung der Pritsche die Hinterachsbelastung sehr stark ansteigt.

Translation:

For the placement of the gas generator inside of the cargo area, the application which is the one used most frequently, in principle three configurations exist. For each configuration the cargo compartment has to be altered accordingly.
This means:.....
Configuration 3a: Cutting out a rectangle covering the complete width of the cargo compartment
3b: Shifting the complete cargo compartment to the rear.

The configuration according to 3b should only be applied in vehicles being stressed not too much by cargo loads, because by shifting the cargo compartment to the rear the stress on the rear axle will be increased significantly.

End of translation, highlighting by myself

-- and what about configuration 1 and 2?

Quote:

The text above says that shortening is the alternative to shifting the compartment to the rear, however shifting it to the rear can overstress the rear axle.

From this the author of the Rauff letter concluded that shifting the compartment (or the load distribution) to the front, would overstress the front axle.
However this is a misconception. The front axle is under the drivers cabin. Shifting a cargo department to the front would mean for the truck "to the center" and would not overstress the front axle. Shifting it to the back, where it exceeds the outer limits of the vehicles undercarriage anyways, would overstress the rear axle by increased weight of the center of the cargo department on the axle and take weight from the front axle by the laws of leverage which had to be carried by the rear axle too.
That all is not the case shifting a cargo load to the front into the direction of the drivers cabin. The sentence in the Rauff letter is another ill logic conclusion which says a lot about the expertise of the author.

So much about Rauff.

So much about your knowledge of physics. Fail again.

Quote:

Another interesting quote which I always was interested to have explained is found in the same book (together with some very interesting similarities to the Rauff text):

Was versteht man unter Vergasung?
Unter Vergasung versteht man begrifflich die Umwandlung fester Brennstoffe, sei es Holz, Braunkohle, Steinkohle, Koks oder dergleichen, in den brennbaren Zustand unter Zusatz von Luft oder Luft und Wasserdampf. Hierbei ist die zugeführte Luftmenge kleiner, als zur vollstandigen Verbrennung notwendig ist. Als Rückstand verbleiben bei diesem Vergasungsvorgang die mineralischen Bestandteile in Form von Asche oder Schlacke.

What means "gassing"?
The term "gassing" means the transition of solid fuels let it be wood, brown coal, black coal, coke or something comparable into the flammable condition by adding air or air and water vapor respectively. The volume of air fed (own remark: into the system) is smaller as necessary for complete combustion. As remainder this gassing process leaves mineral compounds in form of ashes or cinder.

End of translation

The same is valid for "Vergasung" of liquid fuels. ""Vergasung" however is always the transition of something into the gaseous state and never the exposure of something or someone with gas, which is "Begasung". I always wondered about the wrong usage of the word. Recently I read an (English) text that the word "Vergasung" is explicitly used in the German language for procedures to kill people. Just look above.

Aha, so bugs, when gassed ("Wanzen werden vergast" -mit Cyankali) disappear as a clod of gas through the chimney?
MaxMurx, you have not the slightest legitimation to complain:

Quote:

Anyways, I very strongly object one of the comments above, depicting me as a "Holocaust Denier". My opinion is that any forged, fabricated or falsified evidence is damaging the reputation and credibility of the accuser, which in this case is the "non-denier". That documents were forged in Russian courts at least since Katyn is not a secret. Therefore the "Non Deniers" must be those whose interest is to remove all suspicious documents. With those hundreds of thousands of other documents at hand which are not fabricated the elimination of forgeries should not be expected to damage their case.
As long as they unconditionally defend however any piece of paper how ridiculous and illogical it might be, they do themselves a bad favor and a real great favor to the deniers.

My own interest has only marginally to do with the Holocaust. It is to remove all fabrications and forgeries from the records of any science, including historical sciences.

And my personal opinion on this present topic: Democracy is based on the free will of the citizen and voter. That "free will" depends from accurate information. If that information is manipulated the will of the voter is everything but "free", it is manipulated in parallel. Democracy then becomes an illusion.

Why? because you are trying to fool yout audience with claims that are so obvious lies
(You wrote, that you are a native german speaker, which is, given your interpretation of german words, either
1) an obvious lie
or
2) a pretty helpless attempt to fool people, who are not in a perfect command of the german language)

Miserable fail again.

[MaxMurx]

Quote:

Myself: However this is a misconception. The front axle is under the drivers cabin. Shifting a cargo department to the front would mean for the truck "to the center" and would not overstress the front axle. Shifting it to the back, where it exceeds the outer limits of the vehicles undercarriage anyways, would overstress the rear axle by increased weight of the center of the cargo department on the axle and take weight from the front axle by the laws of leverage which had to be carried by the rear axle too.
That all is not the case shifting a cargo load to the front into the direction of the drivers cabin. The sentence in the Rauff letter is another ill logic conclusion which says a lot about the expertise of the author.

So much about Rauff.

End of own text

Your comment:
So much about your knowledge of physics. Fail again.

You don't think it is necessary to give anybody any idea which qualified own consideration of the laws of physics has lead to your conclusion that my knowledge of physics "fails again"?

Concerning the "vergasen" problem I give you a half point. According to the actual "Duden", which is the standard reference book of the German language, the term "vergasen" means exactly what I have described above in "professional language or terminology" (Fachsprache), it means also "to kill someone by gas" (no definition is given in which sub type of the German language. The contrary to "Professional terminology" (Fachsprache) however is "unprofessional terminology" (Laiensprache) or in other words: Your terminology. So keep that half point for "nonprofessionality".

According to the Witzenmann list metal hoses for "Nutzfahrzeuge" (utility vehicles) are "korrosionsbeständig" (corrosion resistant) which is bringing us back to the point of departure: they do not rust.



Two more riddles:

1.Rauff letter: Um ein schnelleres Entladen des Fahrzeuges zu ermöglichen, ist ein ausfahrbarer Rost anzubringen.

(To enable faster unloading of the vehicle, a deployable grate has to be attached.)

How does a "grate",which is a part of a combustion unit for solid fuels or coal ovens, facilitate the unloading of a truck? Just by chance in the book about gas generators at least 50 different grates are mentioned, because here a grate is required and makes sense. Very amusing is the term "Drahtseilzugwinde". Is the alternative the "Hanfseilschubwinde"?

2. As justification to shrink the cabin of the truck, the Rauff letter says: Bei einer Verkleinerung der Stückzahl wird nämlich eine längere Betriebsdauer notwendig, weil die freien Räume auch mit CO angefült werden müssen.
(In case of a reduction of the lot size the operation time period will be extended because the free spaces have to be filled with CO gas too.)

That is another unprofessional misconception. The conclusion is only valid if the solubility of CO in human tissue is known. Instead of the solubility coefficients for gases in humans blood/gas or oil/gas partition coefficients are the technical and medical standard. If CO has a blood/gas partition coefficient above 1.0 the reduction of persons in the cabin would shorten the necessary operation time. The conclusion above is only valid if the blood /gas partition coefficient for CO gas is below 1.0. I have searched now for three days and didn't find it. How can the author of the letter can come to such a qualified conclusion? Do my friends the experts have the CO specific coefficients and could let me know it? And PLEASE don't say; "Fail again". Exposure of human beings to medical and toxic gases and vapors, atmospheric and workplace pollution by those gases and vapors is MY professional speciality. I have 150 international publications on that topic and gave more than 200 invited lectures on the topic in all places of the world. So please if you want to let me know that I fail again,, be so kind to write 2 or 3 words of justification.

Edited by Gaspode:

Edited for moderated thread.

[MaxMurx]

Quote:

a pretty helpless attempt to fool people, who are not in a perfect command of the german language)

Like Austrians?

May I suggest that native Austrians regard themselves as native Austrian, not German, speakers and call again in discussions with people from the Steiermark, Burgenland or the Gänsehäufl? I live so close to the Austrian and Swiss borders to be able to pretend that some fine peculiarities of the German language have not yet arrived there.

[swright777]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

...
According to the Witzenmann list metal hoses for "Nutzfahrzeuge" (utility vehicles) are "korrosionsbeständig" (corrosion resistant) which is bringing us back to the point of departure: they do not rust.

...
[/edit]

"Corrosion resistant" does not mean the same as "corrosion proof". Corrosion proof materials would not corrode/rust. Corrosion resistant materials will corrode/rust, just not as quickly as non-resistant materials.

Same thing with water proof and water resistant. Different meanings.

[MaxMurx]

Some additional information: If you need to seperate fabrications written by Ausrian-educated from fabrications by German-educated writers look for the word: "allfaellig". Itr is not used in German but used in Swiss and Vienna originating local slang language (and also used in a very limited area in Vorarlberg, at the border to Switzerland).
Despite this fact you will find it in at leats 10 allegedly "official" German documents, released in Berlin. If you would be shown a document from Obama written in "gutter speak", would you accept it immediately without asking?

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

Some additional information: If you need to seperate fabrications written by Ausrian-educated from fabrications by German-educated writers look for the word: "allfaellig". Itr is not used in German but used in Swiss and Vienna originating local slang language (and also used in a very limited area in Vorarlberg, at the border to Switzerland).
Despite this fact you will find it in at leats 10 allegedly "official" German documents, released in Berlin. If you would be shown a document from Obama written in "gutter speak", would you accept it immediately without asking?

You´re seriously trying to tell us that the vast Zionist conspiracy, when forging documents vital to supporting a hoax to extort billions, would make dumb amateur mistakes like that? Heck, *I* wasn´t that sloppy writing a mere diploma thesis.

[EternalSceptic]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

Some additional information: If you need to seperate fabrications written by Ausrian-educated from fabrications by German-educated writers look for the word: "allfaellig". Itr is not used in German but used in Swiss and Vienna originating local slang language (and also used in a very limited area in Vorarlberg, at the border to Switzerland).
Despite this fact you will find it in at leats 10 allegedly "official" German documents, released in Berlin. If you would be shown a document from Obama written in "gutter speak", would you accept it immediately without asking?

If you insist in analyzing documents using word definitions from Duden you must remain precise yourself:

all*fäl*lig

Wortart: Adjektiv

Gebrauch:<B>besonders </B>österreichisch, schweizerisch

'nuff said

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

Some additional information: If you need to seperate fabrications written by Ausrian-educated from fabrications by German-educated writers look for the word: "allfaellig". Itr is not used in German but used in Swiss and Vienna originating local slang language (and also used in a very limited area in Vorarlberg, at the border to Switzerland).
Despite this fact you will find it in at leats 10 allegedly "official" German documents, released in Berlin. If you would be shown a document from Obama written in "gutter speak", would you accept it immediately without asking?

Probably the best known example where a Nazi document uses 'allfaellig' is the Wannsee protocol, but that was drafted by an Austrian - Eichmann.

People moved around in the Third Reich a lot - they got promoted or seconded to offices in Berlin, no matter where they were from; and bureaucracies were built up from scratch without a proper cadre of legally trained Beamten writing supposedly perfect Hochdeutsch.

Of all the crappy arguments ever proffered by deniers, the claim that 'they wouldn't have written it like this' has always been the most loony.

[Simon666]

Originally Posted by Bluespaceoddity

What could have been disinfested in the back of such a truck as cargo that would have been scared in the dark, for example?

Cattle? We're supposed to believe that people were very tightly packed by Germans in such vans and that a silly light will calm them down? Almost as ridiculous as packing them with thousands together in a gas chamber and claiming fake showerheads will calm them.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Simon666

Cattle? We're supposed to believe that people were very tightly packed by Germans in such vans and that a silly light will calm them down?

Why would the SS Einsatzgruppen need to gas cattle in the back of trucks?

Quote:

Almost as ridiculous as packing them with thousands together in a gas chamber and claiming fake showerheads will calm them.

Except we know that the Nazis built rooms with fake showerheads in them, rooms with gastight doors. We have their own documentation about this. Why would you build a room with fake showerheads in it and a gastight door?

Likewise, we have the Nazis own documentation about the gas vans. That's why deniers try to "prove" that the gas van documents are fake.

[EternalSceptic]

"Quote:
Myself: However this is a misconception. The front axle is under the drivers cabin. Shifting a cargo department to the front would mean for the truck "to the center" and would not overstress the front axle. Shifting it to the back, where it exceeds the outer limits of the vehicles undercarriage anyways, would overstress the rear axle by increased weight of the center of the cargo department on the axle and take weight from the front axle by the laws of leverage which had to be carried by the rear axle too.
That all is not the case shifting a cargo load to the front into the direction of the drivers cabin. The sentence in the Rauff letter is another ill logic conclusion which says a lot about the expertise of the author.

So much about Rauff.

End of own text

Your comment:
So much about your knowledge of physics. Fail again.

You don't think it is necessary to give anybody any idea which qualified own consideration of the laws of physics has lead to your conclusion that my knowledge of physics "fails again"? "

It should not be necessary, because, if you had enough physical background, you would immediately understand, that shifting the load in a balanced vehicle puts additional load to the front axle if the load is shifted to the front.

This is so obvious that even a 10 year old kid will understand immediately.

Therefore it is obvious, that you are trying to pull our leg once more. Or that you are desparately trying to deny the holocaust without looking like a denier. This is a very common practice among european deniers to avoid to be sentenced to up to five years in prison.

Miserable Fail.

[Simon666]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Except we know that the Nazis built rooms with fake showerheads in them, rooms with gastight doors.

Those doors are hard to come by nowadays and the only room with fake showerheads left in existence used to have an Orwellian doublespeak sign Gas chamber - ... Never used as gas chamber. The sign has been removed, apparently mainstream historians have revised history too but didn't care to inform us?

http://furtherglory.files.wordpress....dachaue019.jpg

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Simon666

Those doors are hard to come by nowadays and the only room with fake showerheads left in existence used to have an Orwellian doublespeak sign

That's why I noted that we have the Nazis' own documentation about the gas chambers and gas vans, so that their guilt is still evident despite their (incomplete) efforts to conceal and destroy the evidence when they knew they were losing the war.

Such as the documents mentioned at the start of this thread.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Simon666

The sign has been removed, apparently mainstream historians have revised history too but didn't care to inform us?

Was the sign placed there by mainstream historians?




No?


So why do you expect one of them to go out of their way to tell *you* about a perfectly normal process in historiography?

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Simon666

Those doors are hard to come by nowadays and the only room with fake showerheads left in existence used to have an Orwellian doublespeak sign Gas chamber - ... Never used as gas chamber. The sign has been removed, apparently mainstream historians have revised history too but didn't care to inform us?

http://furtherglory.files.wordpress....dachaue019.jpg

You have a serious problem with staying focused. This thread is about gas vans. We have been discussing documents referring to a gas van which mention lighting, which you ridiculed with an argument to incredulity, and compounded with another argument to incredulity about, apparently, the Auschwitz gas chambers ('packed with thousands'). It was then pointed out that there is perfectly good evidence for fake showerheads, but this now leads you to plate-spin yet again all the way over to Dachau in some kind of bizarre goalpost moving exercise.

And you gotta love these weasel words

Quote:

apparently mainstream historians have revised history too but didn't care to inform us?

perhaps you might deign to inform us which mainstream historians you have read, as currently the answer appears to be 'none'.

[Simon666]

Originally Posted by TSR

Was the sign placed there by mainstream historians? No?

Relevance? No?

Are any such changes most likely on the advice and counseling of the cleaning lady who was upset having to clean the sign or on the advice and counseling of historians? I sure hope the latter.

Originally Posted by TSR

So why do you expect one of them to go out of their way to tell *you* about a perfectly normal process in historiography?

Removing a sign that it wasn't used as gas chamber and starting to pretend the opposite without a word of explanation about the process of change is pure dishonesty. That's why. Any more silly questions?

[Simon666]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

You have a serious problem with staying focused. This thread is about gas vans.

I made the analogy with fake showerheads and it ended up derailing. Sorry.

[Straw Man]

Originally Posted by Simon666

I made the analogy with fake showerheads and it ended up derailing. Sorry.

It was more than an analogy, but I'm pleased that you are willing to return to the subject of the S-Wagens.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

Nobody much cares that the gas vans themselves have not survived, because nobody sensible expects that out of more than a million vehicles in Nazi Germany and Wehrmacht/SS vehicle parks, the 20 or so gas vans could be found intact when so much else was being destroyed in 1944-45.

Were the gas vans used for capturing Jewish people near the Russian front?
How many Jewish people were gassed to death in those "gas vans"? Were the gassed people buried in ditches dug by Nazi soldiers?

[000063]

Clay, what are you asking those questions in service of? Are they rhetorical? Is this a fishing expedition? What are you getting at?

[Simon666]

Could some shed some light as to why Majdanek, next to a multifunctional (human delousing AND "human delousing") gas chamber as well as gas chambers operating on both carbon monoxide AND Zyklon B, additionally needed a gas van? Nazi overkill (pun somewhat intended)?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

...
Last but not least: I am not only a native German speaker but in addition review submissions to scientific journals. If anyone ever dares to send me a manuscript starting with the word "Beispielsweise"; he or she will get it back without further reading and the recommendation to learn accurate German semantics.

This is implausible.


You thought that "lichte Weite" is a term in trucking, and trucking only (or mainly).
Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtes_Ma%C3%9F
Tells you that it is used in many technical contexts.
Simply put, it is the outer dimension of the largest object that you can fit into, or through, an opening (a window, a pipe, a tunnel, ... a slit), the usable distance between two opposing sides of that opening.

Your explanation showed that this technical term was completely foreign to you, so you are either not a native speaker, or your education in technical and scientific language is insufficient for the job you claim to be doing. "Lichte Weite/Höhe" is not even a very specialized term, it is one that many non-technical people come across.


I am a native speaket, too, by the way. Just wanted to add some more weight to the several who already exposed MaxMurx' nonsense.


(His other linguistic analyses are likewise nonesense, as pointed out by several)

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

...
Concerning the "vergasen" problem I give you a half point. According to the actual "Duden", which is the standard reference book of the German language, the term "vergasen" means exactly what I have described above in "professional language or terminology" (Fachsprache), it means also "to kill someone by gas" (no definition is given in which sub type of the German language. The contrary to "Professional terminology" (Fachsprache) however is "unprofessional terminology" (Laiensprache) or in other words: Your terminology. So keep that half point for "nonprofessionality".

This is nonsense to anyone with a natural feel for the German language.

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

According to the Witzenmann list metal hoses for "Nutzfahrzeuge" (utility vehicles) are "korrosionsbeständig" (corrosion resistant) which is bringing us back to the point of departure: they do not rust.

This is FALSE.
"korrosionsbeständig" doesn't mean it doesn't corrode at all, it means it doesn't corrode easily - within design envelope. What is described in context is an environment that exceeds what these metal are designed for.

[quote=MaxMurx;8445346]Two more riddles:

1.Rauff letter: Um ein schnelleres Entladen des Fahrzeuges zu ermöglichen, ist ein ausfahrbarer Rost anzubringen.

(To enable faster unloading of the vehicle, a deployable grate has to be attached.)

How does a "grate",which is a part of a combustion unit for solid fuels or coal ovens, facilitate the unloading of a truck? [quote=MaxMurx;8445346]
There are more kinds of Roste than those used in fireplaces. For example this will do fine to get people up and done a step or two:
http://www.baulinks.de/webplugin/2004/i/0289-ddz1.jpg

It's called a Trittrost.

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

Very amusing is the term "Drahtseilzugwinde". Is the alternative the "Hanfseilschubwinde"?

You apparently never read any military document in German, or you wouldn't be surprised. This is perfectly ordinary.

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

2. As justification to shrink the cabin of the truck, the Rauff letter says: Bei einer Verkleinerung der Stückzahl wird nämlich eine längere Betriebsdauer notwendig, weil die freien Räume auch mit CO angefült werden müssen.
(In case of a reduction of the lot size the operation time period will be extended because the free spaces have to be filled with CO gas too.)

That is another unprofessional misconception. The conclusion is only valid if the solubility of CO in human tissue is known. ...

This is easily the stupidest thing I have so far read all week - and I read a lot of stupid things this week.

A person occupies roundabout 70 liters of volume. If you remove a person from a room, these 70 liters will fill up with gas - usually air. In a gas van, having one person left in it means you need to pump in additioal CO to make 70 liters poisonous (to reach a poisous concentration)

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by MaxMurx

Some additional information: If you need to seperate fabrications written by Ausrian-educated from fabrications by German-educated writers look for the word: "allfaellig". Itr is not used in German but used in Swiss and Vienna originating local slang language (and also used in a very limited area in Vorarlberg, at the border to Switzerland).
Despite this fact you will find it in at leats 10 allegedly "official" German documents, released in Berlin. If you would be shown a document from Obama written in "gutter speak", would you accept it immediately without asking?

Eichmann and Kaltenbrunner, beispielsweise, were from Austria and worked in Berlin.

You are saying...?