RE: Debunking Holocaust Denial (part 4)

I ended those videos by saying, “I thought it was a waste of my time, covering this subject again.  Because I thought I was beating a dead horse at this point.  And I realized that the people who I was talking to were never going to change their mind.  They were only looking for an excuse to excuse their bigotry and denying that the holocaust ever happened is the perfect excuse.  So here I am a year later, and looking at the comment section, looking at the like-to-dislike ratio of those videos, I can see that holocaust denialism, especially online, is still a big issue.  So for that reason, I’ve decided to come here to Poland, to Auschwitz, to tackle the subject one more time.

All right, let’s get this over with.

Before going further, it’s worth pointing out some of the sites Myles links to which back up his position.  He has 3 links in this video, they all go to the same site, just 3 different pages of the site.  Holocaust Denial On Trial.  It uses this one book as a major source for much (but not all) of its information.  Robert Jan van Pelt’s The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial.  And guess what?  There’s a book that debunks the stuff in that book, called The Real Case for Auschwitz—Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed by Carlo Mattogno.  And guess what else?  That book is banned from Amazon, just like the Leuchter Reports.  Well, I just so happen to have a pdf copy of that book on my computer (it doesn’t take too long of a search to find downloadable copies of it, especially since they have been released to the public domain for educational purposes).  So we’ll see if I’ll need to reference it.

I would also like to correct a few mistakes I made in my previous videos, because mistakes are blood to these leeches.

He goes over a few things mentioned in the previous videos, and, well, it’s more accurate to say he clarifies points he made rather than correct any mistakes. That being said, it is worth addressing a point that he clarifies, which was brought up in his previous video, that I didn’t address.  The chimney connected to Crematorium I which isn’t actually connected to it at all.



Point #5: Chimney Connected Underground

1.) This chimney was rebuilt post-war, by the Soviets.  The reason it’s not connected to the building, at least on a visual level, is because it was connected underground.  There are plans/blueprints that show this to be the case, when it was a crematorium, a morgue, a gas chamber, and then an air raid shelter.

This is from Crematorium II, but the chimney connection to the structure is similar to that of Crematorium I from what I understand.

From what I’ve gathered, yes, this is true.  The chimney did exist at the time where it is pictured, and did connect underground.  But this raises some questions.

Gas and smoke float upwards.  And the gas chambers certainly weren’t underground.  So how the hell did the smoke make it from the crematorium room to the chimney if the pipes go underground (I’m going to assume this chimney in question was for the crematorium, since it has been determined the building initially had 2 cremation ovens before later being allegedly converted to gas chambers)?  Apparently, there were suction devices to blow the smoke (and other fumes) through the underground pipes and up through the chimney.  So assuming this is true for Crematorium I (and thus must be true for the other 4 crematorium buildings), this causes a problem to come up.  The amount of power required for these (and other) devices at the camp.

What is important here is that the “existing machines” which consumed so much
energy were the three Saugzug-Anlagen (forced draft suction equipment) in the three ducts of the chimney and the five blowers (DruckluftAnlagen) of the crematorium ovens. As we have already seen, Crematorium II went into operation on February 20, but at a reduced rate  – for the very reason that the power line allowed only “a reduced operation of the existing machines.” Because of this, the Gasprüfer were needed in order to check whether the reduced operation of the forced draft equipment and of the blowers still allowed an efficient combustion.
What remains to be elucidated is a question Pressac avoided and which further confirms the explanation given above: why did the ZBL request concern precisely 10 Gasprüfer? The answer is simple: they were to go into the 10 flue ducts (Rauchkanäle) of Crematoria II and III.

Summarizing, if the Gasprüfer were normal instruments for the control of the combustion gases, it is easy to see

a) why the order came from ZBL and not from the SS garrison surgeon;

b) why the order went to Topf and not to Tesch & Stabenow;

c) why they were ordered under the name of Gasprüfer and not as Gasrestnachweisgeräte für Zyklon;

d) what their function was;

e) why exactly 10 were ordered;

f) why, aside from the Gasprüfer, there was no order for either Zyklon B, gas masks, gas mask filters, or opening tools for Zyklon B cans.

— Footnote 174: The flue ducts (Rauchkanäle) were accessible through appropriate manholes (Fuchseinsteigeschächte). The chimneys of Crematoria II-V had a total of 10 flue ducts (Schornsteinröhren), but only the chimneys of Crematoria II and III were equipped with cleaning traps (Reinigungstüren). Therefore, the “Gasprüfer” were certainly intended for the flue ducts.

— The Real Case for Auschwitz (2nd ed.) p.110-111

So even if we are to assume that this crematoriums burned through between 1.1 million to 4 million Jews (depending on which source you go off of), and allegedly went through thousands of people a day, that would require a lot of power, daily.  More than your average crematorium burning through an average amount of bodies that would die due to disease or starvation or something else besides genocidal levels of killings.  Power problems made this unviable.  And that’s not even taking into account the lack of tools needed to utilize Zyklon-B, especially if that was the most commonly used method for offing people in these gas chambers.

You think anyone would notice all that smoke?

Plus you have to take into account that there were “corpse slides” outside of these crematoriums, where you could slide bodies into these chambers where they would be burned.  So from what I’ve gathered, according to Robert Jan van Pelt (see above), the SS wanted to remove the corpse slides to conceal the fact that the prisoners were being led to gas chambers as opposed to the showers.

No one has yet pointed out that on the ground floor blueprint, in the area where the slide and the staircase should have been found, there is a new room labeled “Abstellraum” (store room) linked, by means of a door, to a previously non-existent “Waschraum” (wash room [for corpses]). This means that this blueprint provided for an additional room closing off the opening which led from the outside to the half-
basement, clearly visible on blueprint 1173 (Pressac 1989, p. 274).

The reasoning behind this project is not explained in any document.  Strictly speaking, it is not correct to say that the new entrance constituted “the only access to the morgues,” because there was also a second route via the freight elevator. Actually, the ground floor blueprint shows that from the entrance to the crematorium, passing through an air-lock (Windfang) and a hall, one arrived in the “Waschraum” with the doors to the freight elevator on one side; the doors opposite led into the furnace hall.

This type of route is, admittedly, not very convincing, but doing away with the corpse-slide in two crematoria planned as normal sanitary installations is even less so, because the crematoria continued to receive corpses of registered inmates on a regular basis who had died in the camp (see chapter 12.7.).

If the SS had planned two crematoria with a total of 10 ovens of 3 muffles each for a daily capacity of 2,880 corpses per day, arising from the “natural” mortality of the camp, how could they possibly throw out the corpse slide?

— The Real Case For Auschwitz, p.130

All this supposed effort despite there being a big fucking chimney just outside the building to give this all away.

Yet even if we accept – again without conceding the point – that the slide was shortened so as to keep it from interfering with the victims’ path, why would it have to be “concealed”? To keep the victims from realizing that they were in a crematorium? In that case it would have been better to “conceal” the enormous chimney!

— The Real Case For Auschwitz, p.133

Aerial view of Auschwitz-Birkenau. By Ryszard Domasik (Photo by Ryszard Domasik.) [GFDL ( or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (], via Wikimedia Commons.

A few more points, then I’ll drop the chimney subject.

[7]: Van Pelt affirms that the SS “immediately began to work the ovens at full capacity,” but this is historically wrong, because the damage to the chimney and the flues was caused by “heating of single ovens only” (see chapter 8.8.3.).

[8]: Van Pelt claims that “the electrical system caught fire”; this is wrong, because the cause of the damage was not electrical but thermal, as I will explain next.

[9]: Van Pelt asserts that “both the forced-draft system that fanned the incinerator flames and the ventilation system to extract the Zyklon B from the gas chamber were damaged,” which is utter nonsense.  Kirschneck’s Aktenvermerk of March 25, 1943, states clearly that the only units that suffered damage were the three forced-draft units and that the damage had been caused by overly high temperatures. ZBL intended to retain “the three electric motors (15 HP each),” provided “that they were not damaged by the high temperatures,” 290 which confirms that the damage was not electrical. The “ventilation system to extract the Zyklon B from the gas chamber” i.e. the Belüftung / Entlüftung had, of course, not been damaged. The “forced-draft system,” on the other hand, served to remove the smoke during the cremations by increasing the draft of the chimney, but this increased the air-feed to the hearths only indirectly. Van Pelt, for his part, believes that the forced-draft units “fanned the incinerator flames” like a pair of bellows. This serious lack of understanding demolishes van Pelt’s conjectures once and for all.

— The Real Case for Auschwitz, p.193

So in a nutshell, yes, this chimney did exist at the time, and it was connected via underground chambers/tunnels/whatever.  This does go against the assertion that construction of the chimney while not being visibly connected to the building proves revisionists right.  However, these arguments should not be considered the only ones, let alone the primary ones, any decent revisionist would have today.  Because stating that these crematoriums were used for anything other than the burning/disposal of bodies that died through “natural” means in the camp (by natural, I mean due to starvation, old age, weakness, injury, infection, beatings, etc.) introduces a large number of statistical and scientific problems.  And these problems are not limited to just the examples I pulled from here.

Myles then goes on to address Leuchter’s questionable methods of acquiring evidence on whether people were gassed in the chambers at Auschwitz or not, which is something I already covered in the previous article.  But he does bring up one other thing worth addressing:

In February 1999, the director of the Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow conducted a fair experiment where they extracted ion cyanide based compounds from the walls gas chambers.  […]  They tested them and, ‘lo and behold, they found hydrogen cyanide residue.  […]  The Institute for Forensic Research demonstrated that cyanide was present in all [5 of] the facilities where it’s claimed gassing took place.

Point #6: The Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow proved that the facilities in Auschwitz had gassing chambers used to kill thousands of prisoners.

Once again, Mattogno has this covered (though he basically references a book for chemists who are interested in the nitty gritty details to look up for themselves if they really want to go that far in their research):

I will close this chapter with another quotation of the same vein directed against Leuchter by van Pelt (p. 387):

“Then he took no account of the fact that the gas chambers of Crematoria 2 and 3 had been purposefully demolished in 1944, that their remains had been exposed to the elements for forty-five years, and that the walls had been washed with acid rain – a fact of some importance because, contrary to Leuchter’s belief, ferro-ferri cyanide is not stable under all conditions but tends to slowly dissolve in an acidic environment.”

These assertions show up van Pelt’s crass technical and even archeological ignorance. As any visitor to Birkenau can see, the outer walls of the gas  disinfestation chambers of BW 5a still exhibit vast areas stained blue with ferric ferrocyanide or Prussian Blue (less so at BW 5 b), even though they, too, have been “washed with acid rain” for decades. As Germar Rudolf has shown, Prussian Blue has its highest stability in a slightly acidic environment as produced by acid rain (Rudolf 2003b, p.170).

In this context van Pelt refers to the chemical expert report commissioned by the Auschwitz Museum in 1994 to the Jahn Sehn Instytut Ekspertyz Sądowych (Institute for Forensic Research) based in Krakow (Markiewicz et al.) and states that its results “positively demonstrate that the alleged gas chambers were used to kill people” (van Pelt 2002, p. 355). I will not go into chemical matters here and would merely like to point out that the chemist Germar Rudolf has shown this expert report in question to be methodically and scientifically flawed and thus unfounded (Rudolf/Mattogno 2005, pp. 45-67; Rudolf 2003b, pp. 270-273).

— The Real Case For Auschwitz, p.494-495

Emphasis added in bold.  And I’ll end this with some comments from the YouTube page; comments that Myles is likely to ignore or have deleted, just like in the last few videos, where he cherrypicked some comments to use at the beginning of this video:

Time to debunk Myle’s video here. His whole “argument” boils down to a few assertions.
1. He claims only 300ppm of Hydrogen Cyanide gas after only 2 minutes is lethal for humans. This is false.
The average (estimated) lethal amount for humans is around 600ppm at an exposure time of 10 minutes.
2. He uses this claim as an excuse for why there isn’t any blue staining in the supposed “gas chambers” that can otherwise be found on Zyklon B fumigation/delousing chambers (used to kill lice.) The obvious flaw in this argument is that, even at smaller concentrations, the alleged gas chamber operations were happening every 10 minutes or so. The ultimate amount of Hydrogen Cyanide that would have passed through the supposed homicidal gas chambers would have been similar if not greater than the amount used in the delousing chambers. Myles gives an estimate for 16,000 ppm used to kill insects (over 24 hours)…
The homicidal gas chambers would need at least around 600ppm every instance, which could end up being around 1500-3000ppm every hour. That’s around 18,000-30,000ppm every day (12 hours.)
3. The last part of his “argument” is that the homicidal “gas chambers” were supposedly washed down with water and “chemicals” after each instance. The main problem with this claim is that the Prussian blue staining doesn’t simply wash off.
In fact water/humidity actually speeds up the Prussian blue staining reaction.
The idea that they washed the gas chamber out after each instance also doesn’t explain why we don’t see Prussian blue staining on different parts of the building like the outside walls, (which is what we see all over the delousing/fumigation buildings found in German camps.)
Hydrogen Cyanide is a liquid (or gas) which penetrates deep into walls, it doesn’t just sit on the surface layer like some kind of solid paint.
Washing it down with water would only send the Hydrogen Cyanide deeper into the bricks/walls.
As for the alleged ‘mystery chemical’ referred to by Myles, the quote he gave actually says that it was supposedly used to remove the “odor of the gas,” not to clean the walls from Prussian blue staining. Oops.


12:13 “self-proclaimed specialist on execution chambers”? WRONG! At the time, Leuchter was THE US expert on gas chamber construction & had designed & constructed most, if not all, of the US gas chambers.< > N.B. Yes Leuchter got some items wrong & was later corrected by leading German chemist Germar Rudolf. (Leuchter was a Holocaust believer until he visited the “crime scene” himself) Of course jews destroyed his career with LieKlone B gas! How “LAZY” of you Pyles Mower! (Your intellectual hemorrhoids are hemorrhaging!)

2 thoughts on “RE: Debunking Holocaust Denial (part 4)

  1. Questions… What are the building design payoffs or benefits of having the gas chamber in the basement, and the furnace room upstairs like they are at Auschwitz Crematoria 2 and 3? Why not a kill center structure with one level only? Gas them in the basement, then an estimated 120 tons of human carcass per gassing has to be hauled upstairs for cremation or burn pit. For those who do not understand the law of gravity, think about it like this… Say your boss gave you the choice of two tasks, hauling 120 metric tons of sandbags, 60kgs each, UP one floor, OR throwing those same 60kgs sandbags off (free fall drop) from an area one floor up? Which would you choose to do? Which task is easier? Did not the German engineers of the day not understand how to make the Law of Gravity work for them instead of against them? It was the Germans in the 18th century that came up with the cucclock that is driven on the principle of using gravity to drive the clock. Note it is the weights on the clock that are slowly lower to the floor thus law of gravity. think about it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Good question, especially considering they would have to go through a large number of people at a rapid rate. Not only would it be more physically demanding, but this process of carrying bodies up out of the gas chamber would take longer than if the chamber was above the furnace. Plus it would keep them within the confines of a structure so that there wouldn’t be a risk of others seeing the bodies being carried outside. It would still be far-fetched to believe that no one would get the gist of what’s happening with a large number of people disappearing on a daily basis, but just for the sake of argument.

      From what I can deduce, having a furnace further below ground would involve more pipes and longer chimneys, and more power required for venting those rooms (smoke and such). So it likely wouldn’t be practical to have the furnace room too far below ground. In other words, they wouldn’t be able to operate the furnace efficiently (or even at all) if it were that far below ground due to the electric power demand (which as I’ve already pointed out was sketchy and not entirely reliable to begin with in this area).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s