Jews have a long tradition of magical ovens

[ivory bill]

Traditional jewish physics

Before the "HOLOCAUST" and 9-11-2001 there were several precedents in the jewish tradition of logic-defying conflagrations.


ABRAHAM IN THE FIERY FURNACE


Excerpt:
At the end of a year, the magnates of the realm presented themselves before the king, and advised him to cast Abraham into the fire, that the people might believe in Nimrod forever. Thereupon the king issued a decree that all the subjects of the king in all his provinces, men and women, young and old, should bring wood within forty days, and he caused it to be thrown into a great furnace and set afire. The flames shot up to the skies, and the people were sore afraid of the fire. Now the warden of the prison was ordered to bring Abraham forth and cast him in the flames.

Nimrod, however, was not to be turned aside from his purpose, to make Abraham suffer death by fire. One of the princes was dispatched to fetch him forth. But scarcely did the messenger set about the task of throwing him into the fire, when the flame leapt forth from the furnace and consumed him. Many more attempts were made to cast Abraham into the furnace, but always with the same success- whoever seized him to pitch him in was himself burnt, and a large number lost their lives.

http://classiclit.about.com/library/...gends-1-5f.htm

</H3> Quote:

SHADRACH, MESHACH, and ABEDNEGO

Now God had said long ago to the people of Israel that they should worship no other God than Him, so our Heroes wouldn't go against the word of God. Well, Nebuchadnezzar got mad. He had a furnace of fire prepared. This furnace was for anyone who disobeyed the order to worship the statue. If they didn't bow down, they were to be thrown into the fire.

After the king had Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego brought before him and they still refused to worship the statue, he got so mad he had his men heat the furnace seven times hotter than it was supposed to be. Strong soldiers tied up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and were told to throw them into the furnace. Poor guys. The fire had gotten so hot that just getting close enough to throw in the princes of Judah *killed* the soldiers.

Now the best part of the story. When the king's men threw the three into the furnace and were killed from the heat, the king looked into the flames and saw *four* figures there. He asked his counsellors, "Didn't we throw three men in the fire? I see four men in there walking around, and they aren't tied up."

Then Nebuchadnezzar called into the fire for them to come out. Well, the Lord had sent an angel to protect them. Nebuchadnezzar had said it looked like the Son of God. When Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came out of the fire, they were not only unhurt, their clothes weren't even singed. They didn't even smell like smoke ! !

http://www.asis.com/~stag/heroes/shadrach.html

[LeoAlbus]

Traditional jewish physics

Before the "HOLOCAUST" and 9-11-2001 there were several precedents in jewish tradition of logic-defying conflagrations.


In the more elderly and theisticly governed days, physics was endeavored by a numbered few by todays comparisons. When these theisticly governed times gradually began to lift its veil from people, including jewish ones, the focus yielded a more actual tradition of contemporary jewish physics for actual jewish physicists like;

Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Max Born, Heinrich Hertz, Wolfgang Pauli, Jonas Salk and John von Neumann to name a few.

[ivory bill]

In the more elderly and theisticly governed days, physics was endeavored by a numbered few by todays comparisons. When these theisticly governed times gradually began to lift its veil from people, including jewish ones, the focus yielded a more actual tradition of contemporary jewish physics for actual jewish physicists like;

Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Max Born, Heinrich Hertz, Wolfgang Pauli, Jonas Salk and John von Neumann to name a few.

I was thinking more of post-9-11 jewish physics; the type that explains away molten steel as the result of a kerosene fire.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h2.jpg

[Starr]

Ivory bill are all of the supposed experts who do not believe in the controlled demolition theory, jews?

[LeoAlbus]

I was thinking more of post-9-11 jewish physics; the type that explains away molten steel as the result of a kerosene fire.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h2.jpg

There's hardly any physicists or what have you that supports the "9/11 truth movement"-thesis.

It's a lemon dear, drop it and save yourself the embarresment.

[ivory bill]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2006/240406thermite1.jpg

Post 9-11 jewish physics shrugs off evidence such as this as being the result of burning jet fuel.

[ivory bill]

Ivory bill are all of the supposed experts who do not believe in the controlled demolition theory, jews?

No, dear, I suppose not. What is your point?

Ask yourself "who prospered?"

[Starr]

[QUOTE=ivory bill]No, dear, I suppose not. What is your point?

Ask yourself "who prospered?"

This worked out for the interests of a few different people. If the point of it was to strike back at the U.S. and hit us hard, than Muslims got what they wanted also. Remember there are Muslims who are itching for war or a so called clash of civilizations just as much as the neo-cons and the jews.

And you probably recall that while I do not believe in all of the wilder aspects of a greater conspiracy, involving remote control planes and the controlled demolition, I also do not believe in the official story, case closed, either. This did not need to be some big elaborate false flag operation. If there were actually middle eastern terrorists who were planning on committing certain acts and also people who were closely surveiling them(as we know to be the case) and who would have their own reasons for wanting this to happen,I am sure you can figure what could have happened from there. The simpler it is the less questions will be asked.

[LeoAlbus]

No, dear, I suppose not. What is your point?

Ask yourself "who prospered?"

I would think Alex Jones has prospered enormously.

[LeoAlbus]

Post 9-11 jewish physics shrugs off evidence such as this as being the result of burning jet fuel.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[ivory bill]

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Hilarious stuff! Thanks, I had no idea it would be so lame.

Read the following excerpt carefully, its a hoot. (Heat a massive slab of steel with kerosene, then pour water on it until it glows red hot and melts! Add some sheetrock and get out of the way!!!)

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!


http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg

[Kodos]

Ivory bill are all of the supposed experts who do not believe in the controlled demolition theory, jews?

LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFhDIm48a_4

[ivory bill]

LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFhDIm48a_4

Read what I just excerpted from a "debunker" site. Do you agree with such nonsense? Do you?

LOL indeed.

[LeoAlbus]

Hilarious stuff! Thanks, I had no idea it would be so lame.

Read the following excerpt carefully, its a hoot. (Heat a massive slab of steel with kerosene, then pour water on it until it glows red hot and melts! Add some sheetrock and get out of the way!!!)


Might be a good idea if you read this to grow some coherence.
It doesn't state melt in the liquid sense, had you missed that part?

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

[ivory bill]

Might be a good idea if you read this to grow some coherence.
It doesn't state melt in the liquid sense, had you missed that part?

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

You need to read it again.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

Its as I say: Heat a massive slab of steel with kerosene, then pour water on it until it glows red hot and melts! Add some sheetrock and get out of the way!!!

[koch curve]

ivory bill is your scientific conclusion based on empirical knowledge and scientific know-how or are you just really stupid and not sure of what any of this means and just making shitty jokes to hide the fact that you actually dont know anything about physics

[koch curve]

based on my own empirical knowledge im going with stupid

[ivory bill]

ivory bill is your scientific conclusion based on empirical knowledge and scientific know-how or are you just really stupid and not sure of what any of this means and just making shitty jokes to hide the fact that you actually dont know anything about physics

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!



All that water schpritzing on the fire! It just made it hotter! And then the gypsum! Oy!

Har har!

Any ad hominem you care to post against me won't help that make sense.

[LeoAlbus]

You need to read it again.

Its as I say: Heat a massive slab of steel with kerosene, then pour water on it until it glows red hot and melts! Add some sheetrock and get out of the way!!!

No actually you need to read it again, it doesn't talk at all about melted steel, ie liquified.

All that water schpritzing on the fire! It just made it hotter! And then the gypsum! Oy!


Are you totally lost on physics?

[ivory bill]

No actually you need to read it again, it doesn't talk at all about melted steel, ie liquified.



Are you totally lost on physics?

Sorry, but there are way too many photos and videos of molten (liquid) metal and bright cherry-red steel in the WTC.

A physicist isn't needed, any lowly blacksmith can tell you that jet-fuel or kerosene CANNOT bring about that kind of heat. Not even when you pour water on the metal, not even when you add sheetrock.

Toss all the ad hominems you like, that doesn't change.

[LeoAlbus]

Sorry, but there are way too many photos and videos of molten (liquid) metal and bright cherry-red steel in the WTC.

A physicist isn't needed, any lowly blacksmith can tell you that jet-fuel or kerosene CANNOT bring about that kind of heat. Not even when you pour water on the metal, not even when you add sheetrock.

Toss all the ad hominems you like, that doesn't change.

No there's no photo showing liquid metal, there certainly are photos showing hardened liquified substances ON a metal column, so what?

[ivory bill]

No there's no photo showing liquid metal, there certainly are photos showing hardened liquified substances ON a metal column, so what?

Who do you think you're fooling?

http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg

That steel may not be liquid but its far and away too hot to be the result of kerosene, water, and sheetrock.

[LeoAlbus]

Who do you think you're fooling?

That steel may not be liquid but its far and away too hot to be the result of kerosene, water, and sheetrock.

Nope.

And you it sound as if it was water that made the iron hot to begin with, which it didn't, though the iron did obviously react with the steam (ie vaporized water), this is physics 101 and nothing uncommon, as Mark Ferran explains here. (http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm)

Something to consider;

http://www.debunking911.com/alabamatruck1.jpg

The iron columns of the WTC towers did not "melt" in the scientific sense of the word, but they certainly EXPANDED (due to heat), and yielded (due to the enormous pressure caused by their own thermal expansion). Just turn these above pictures from horizontal to vertical, and think what would happen if that beam were instead a column holding up a heavy building. (Look at the distorted iron, heated by ordinary hydrocarbon fuel burning, and keep in mind what Professor Jones said: "almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail." ) Also note how the metal of the fuel tank itself so completely disintegrated. (see the other photos at http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm). It's tank may have been made of flammable aluminum metal, like the skin and structure of a jetliner, or of stainless steel. I believe that the fires confined inside the world trade center towers could have been much hotter than this fairly "open air" (unconfined) gasoline fire, due to the greater containment of the heat-of-combustion by the ceilings, floors and debris in the burning WTC towers.

[ivory bill]

Originally Posted by ivory bill
Who do you think you're fooling?

That steel may not be liquid but its far and away too hot to be the result of kerosene, water, and sheetrock.


Nope.

And you it sound as if it was water that made the iron hot to begin with, which it didn't, though the iron did obviously react with the steam (ie vaporized water), this is physics 101 and nothing uncommon, as Mark Ferran explains here.

Physics 101, huh? Tell me, do you think the firemen sprayed steam on the rubble?

It's the "debunker" who claims that water (steam) and sheetrock added to kerosene-heated steel beams create a thermal reaction that actually increases the temperature of the massive steel beams.

Read it again and appreciate the absurdity:


Quote:
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!


http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

[LeoAlbus]

Read it again and appreciate the absurdity:

Ok, gloves are off.

I'm issuing a lengthy clarification on the many theories, takes and facts concerning the fires=collapse.

It's especially important to bear in mind NIST's conclusions about the tower collapses (see FAQ questions below.). Almost all CT's (conspiracy theorists)deliberately or unintentionally misrepresent the NIST report by saying:

1) That the buildings collapsed from fire alone. (No. Structural damage + Fire on multiple floors + loss of fire protection on steel = conditions for collapse.)

2) That the officlal version is that the core and exterior columns of the towers got hot enough to buckle on their own. (No. The lightweight floor trusses got hot and caused sagging, which pulled inwards on the exterior columns.

3) That the officlal version is that the collapse started with "pancaking" floors. (No. NIST explicitly rejects that hypothesis)

As for the conditions in the rubble piles, no one knows for sure what the temperatures were deep inside or what the main fuel was. What we do know is that there's no reason to believe that the byproducts of "controlled demolition" would have added anything to the heat. For me, the bottom line is that I have no reason NOT to believe that the fires within the piles were hot enough to produce molten metal per se.
Unless CT's can somehow divine what the conditions were there, they have no basis for saying that the fires couldn't be that hot.
They were hot enough to melt aluminum at the surface.

A common misperception is that all of the heat within the piles came from the fires high in the buildings. While that hot material certainly would have both started fires in the rubble and added to the overall heat there, many new fires started in the lower levels after the collapses. For instance, many automobiles in the parking garages caught fire.

About the molten metal in the basements. Some knowns and unknowns:

1) We know that temperatures were hot enough at the surface to melt aluminum, which melts at about 660C. I have no reason to doubt that temperatures were much hotter below. Hot enough to MELT steel, so that it's actually white-hot liquid? Maybe. There was a huge amount of fuel in the piles, and more oxygen in places than one might expect, due to the many passages and levels below. Not everything was packed tight with debris. Of course, if the temperatures was hot enough to melt steel it would be hot enough to melt pretty much every other metal on the site, and any molten metal would likely be a mixture of metals and carbonized material

2) The "molten metal" was never tested by anyone. Ex-professor Steven Jones claims to have tested samples that were taken from a memorial. However there is no chain of custody for that steel that we can be certain of. The material may have been contaminated. It could be that he was simply testing metal that was melted by torches.

3) The claims that Steven Jones found evidence of thermite or thermate on the steel are not supported by the facts. The levels of metals and oxides he found were entirely consistent with the environmental levels that would be expected in a building collapse. In one case, he was testing dust from the site, not the metal!
Further, no traces of cuts made by thermite/thermate were found on any WTC steel. Had it been used, an enormous amount would have been needed to weaken the steel. NIST calculates this amount in their FAQ. Some CT's posit that the thermite/thermate caused the high temperatures in the piles. This is highly unlikely, since no trace of it was found, and it exhausts itself within seconds. It is not a slow-burning fuel that would be available for weeks and months. High explosives like RDX "cutter charges" do not make steel hot.

4) The strangely eroded and sulfidated metal found at the site was found NOT to have reached temperatures exceeding 1000C. CT's always get this wrong: they assume the metal melted. It didn't. Ie it did not become liquified in the scientific sense.
Under the right conditions, steel can erode badly without melting.

"The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)"

5) Just before the south tower collapsed, a stream of what appears to be molten metal flowed from its northeast corner. CT's always this is steel that was melted by thermite. This is highly unlikely. That corner was an inferno since the moment flight 175 hit it and piled office and aircraft debris there. Thermite would not have survived the impact and fire. And why only one corner? Also, again, if the temperature was hot enough to melt steel it would be hot enough to melt aluminum first, and we know there was a lot of aluminum in that corner. Ah, but aluminum doesn't glow like that in daylight! Yes, it can, when it's corrupted with other material. Also, window glass melts at about the same temperature as aluminum. It's possible that some of that material was glass. It's also likely that the material was flowing along the floor which was clearly sagging in the direction of the broken exterior columns. I have personally held teardrop-shaped blobs of aluminum from the WTC that had cooled while falling through the air.

[LeoAlbus]

Professor Steven Jones: "Almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail."

Mark Roberts: Oh, brother! If structural steel can't fail in a fire, why is it mandatory for steel to be fire-protected in office buildings?!?

*****

The effects of office fires on structural steel are covered on pages 72-77 of a specific paper "WTC 7 and the Lies of the Truth Movement".
There are numerous links to resources about structural steel and fire, including steel buildings that have collapsed from fire only, on page 77.
http://911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
or http://911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

*****

Essential Reading, in brief: NIST Frequently Asked Questions http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Excerpts from the NIST FAQ:

Question: How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

NIST's Answer: The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.


Question: a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
–OR–
Question: b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

NIST Answer: In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

*****

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested you see, Ivory Bill.
In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
In depth: NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm

In depth: NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm

*****

“The fire conditions in the towers on 9-11 were far more extreme than those to which floor systems in standard U.S. fire rating tests are subjected." –Shyam Sunder, NIST Lead Investigator

*****

The standard fires do not always represent the most severe fire conditions. Structural members having been designed to standard fires may fail to survive in real fires. For example, the modern offices tend to contain large quantities of hydrocarbon fuels in decoration, furniture, computers and electric devices, in forms of polymers, plastics, artificial leathers and laminates etc. Consequently, the fire becomes more severe than the conventional standard fire.?http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...eCurves/default.htm (http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm)

*****

Jet Fuel Burned off Quickly, Building Contents Burned Hot

Now, surely you have heard about or thought about the fact that the jet fuel would have burned, caused the building to burn, and probably think the jet fuel played the sole role in the fires. The jet fuel acted much like a matchstick. It was something that spread throughout the building in those affected floors and caused ignition of the fires. But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes.

So what burned over the next hour, or hour and a half, was really the contents of the buildings, the everyday contents of the buildings.
And the model that I’m going to show you at the bottom, shows you how the fire was burning in the buildings.
The red blotches are the hot temperatures of the gas, and the green is intermediate, and blue is the cold regions. And as you go over time, you will see that the hot regions evolved. Typically, a region remains hot for about 15 to 20 minutes. By that time, the contents in that region are consumed, and the fire moves to the next region where the contents have not been burned, and if there's oxygen, it will go there. If there's no oxygen, it won't go there. So, how we captured the availability of oxygen in predicting the fires is also very important.

Jim Hill, NIST investigator Public meeting NYC 2/12/04 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20T...ithlinks.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Public%20Transcript%20021204%20Final1_withlinks.pdf)

*****

IN THE PILES

*****

05-12-01;
More than 130,000 gallons of oil from transformers and high-voltage lines -- most of it containing low levels of hazardous PCBs -- were lost at the World Trade Centre on Sept. 11 when two downtown Con Edison substations were destroyed. In addition to the Con Ed release, confirmed by company spokesman Mike Clendenin, the Port Authority is unable to account for 50,000 of 70,000 gallons of diesel and fuel oil stored in belowground tanks at the Trade Centre complex to power emergency generators.

As much as 180,000 gallons of flammable oil -- roughly equivalent to 10 times the amount of jet fuel in the two airliners that crashed into the twin towers -- may be feeding the fires that have been burning for more than two months at the site. Con Ed and Port Authority officials say they don't know whether the contaminants seeped into the soil, burned or drained off into the Hudson River. Environmental Protection Agency officials confirmed they are searching for the oil and pumping it out when they find it.

A private environmental data firm hired by the city to report on known hazardous materials at the Trade Centre warned in a letter to federal and state environmental officials that the oil "could be fuelling the onsite fires", a letter from Walter Hang, president of Ithaca, NY-based Toxics Targeting, said.

"That's exactly what's burning," said a Fire Department source. "All that fuel, all those cars that were in parking lots down there, all kinds of stuff."

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20242.htm

[LeoAlbus]

OSHA: Inside the Green Line;
http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3189/osha3189.html

The parking garage under the WTC held nearly 2,000 automobiles, each tank holding an estimated five gallons of gasoline. When recovery workers reached the cars, they found that some had exploded and burned while others remained intact.

HOT STEEL
Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in Mohammad Ayub and Scott Jin, structural engineers from its national office, to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards.

The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23.
On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis,
"when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

*****

"So what you've got is a smoldering situation," said George Miller, president of the National Association of State Fire Marshals.
"Judging from my 32 years of experience, this could burn for a long time."

Exactly how long "a long time" is, no one knows for sure. But fire engineers and safety experts told the Daily News that the blaze likely will continue burning for months -- until most of the 1.2 million tons of debris are hauled away.

A fire needs three things to survive: fuel, oxygen and a heat source.

"If you can break that formula in any way, it will go out," said Marko Bourne, a spokesman for the fire administration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. "The problem is how to do that with this fire."

"While the blaze is starved for oxygen, the scalding steel buried below ground will retain its heat until enough air reaches it or water douses it", said Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert for the National Operating Engineers Union.

"There are pieces of steel being pulled out that are still cherry red," Carson said as he stood amid the smoking debris this week. "It's like the charcoal that you put in your grill. ... You light it and it stays hot." http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-sub...der_for_Months

*****

WHAT WAS IN THOSE PILES?

– Up to 180,000 gallons of fuel oil, diesel fuel and transformer oil (a high estimate)

– 2,000 automobiles and trucks. Not all were burned, but a large percentage were (I'm not aware of a count) Each one with fuel on board, each with four tires, foam and fabric upholstery and carpeting, engine oil, rubber hoses, belts, weatherstripping, wiring harnesses, loads of plastic, paint.

– Carpeting. Doesn't sound like a big deal. Imagine going into your local carpet dealer and asking for installation for your living room. Dimensions: 20 feet wide, 65 miles long. Add carpet backing or padding to that.

– Tens of thousands of miles of wiring covered with plastic insulation.

– 5 million square feet of painted surfaces.

–*Hundreds of tons of wood and particle board.

– Millions of pounds of paper

– 20,000 viscoelastic tower shock absorbers.

– Tens of thousands of computer terminals covered in plastic.

– Hundreds of tons of trading-floor equipment.

– Tens of thousands of telephones covered in plastic.

– Thousands of fax machines covered in plastic.

– Thousands of copiers and toner cartridges covered in plastic.

– Thousands of computer peripherals: printers, scanners, hubs, zip drives (remember them?), millions of CD-ROMs and floppy disks. User manuals for everything. Calculators. Everything covered in plastic.

–*All of the electronics above have plastic-insulated wiring and plastic circuit boards.

– About 75,000 chairs, most with foam padding and synthetic coverings.

– Hundreds of upholstered couches.

– Millions of plastic pens and markers.

– Tens of thousands of cardboard boxes

– Tens of thousands of plastic wastebaskets

– Tons and tons of flammable mailroom supplies

– Hundreds of supply closets filled with office consumables, including untold quantities of paper and plastic.

– The contents of the receiving areas: perhaps thousands of boxes of supplies

– Thousands of flammable items used by repair and maintenance crews.

– The contents of over 100 retail stores, with all their merchandise, shelves and display cases, and back rooms filled with stock in boxes. These include 18 clothing stores, several bookstores, newsstands, card shops, two music stores (plastic!), two consumer electronics stores, pharmacies.

– The contents of Windows on the World, the highest-grossing restaurant in the U.S. and one of the largest, with all of its supplies, oils, table linens, wall treatments, upholstered furniture, etc.

– The contents of numerous other restaurants, cafés and shack bars.

When you stop to think about it, it really adds up.


Some sources for the spill info, and general WTC pile fire info:

http://wardgriffin.com/fire.htm
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/meeting/pdf02/kahnp.pdf
http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/eis/Appendix_D.pdf
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20242.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3189/osha3189.html
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

[ivory bill]

There's a saying, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance then baffle them with your bullshit."

You offered that absurd "debunking" site with it's dense columns of pseudoscientific gibberish. Further barrages of verbiage won't help you get past the photos taken shortly after the collapse showing the glowing taffy-like steel, nor past that damning photo, taken in the same time-frame, showing the steel column burned through in a straight diagonal line.

This one:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2006/240406thermite1.jpg

[LeoAlbus]

What? You've had enough? How about part 4 of 3? Bwahaha!

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF NORMAL FIRES MELTING OR BUCKLING STEEL, COPPER, ETC;

http://godetia.com/dirt/closet/005012.html
Fire temperatures exceeded 2000 degrees. The flames melted steel and turned brick to ashes.

http://www.kthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=15436
He says the fire was so hot, the melted steel beams look like pieces of bent licorice.

http://www.coverall.net/customers/ro...mes_print.html
The steel walls contained the fire, it became like a 'blast furnace' inside. The heat literally bent and melted one inch thick steel.

http://dailybulletin.com/entertainment/ci_3982478
Melted plastic, paint, steel and electrical components from the refrigerator, stove and microwave mixed together to create an unbearably rancid stench.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/10/11/fire.html
The fire reached temperatures of 2,000 degrees, which melted steel beams, investigators said.

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/fseab_cb.asp
The most obvious reason for the presence of melted copper is that the fire temperature exceeded the copper's melting temperature. There are many documented examples of such melting and brazing to solid steel walls.

[LeoAlbus]

You offered that absurd "debunking" site with it's dense columns of pseudoscientific gibberish. Further barrages of verbiage won't help you get past the photos taken shortly after the collapse showing the glowing taffy-like steel, nor past that damning photo, taken in the same time-frame, showing the steel column burned through in a straight diagonal line.


Oh come off it Ivory Bill, you're simply repeating the same short-hand crap from the Jones-tent while not having the slightest interest in actually using your brain and then apply some basic insight to it of physics.
That photo shows nothing, except cut columns with some substances on it, which could be anything, heck it could be aluminium, ever tried to get the grey-matter out of the brown area long enough to grow more coherent?

Consider yourself debunked.

:welcome:

[ivory bill]

Every free-speech forum has its minyan of "debunkers", all with their lists of corroborative links. We all know that there are many "debunking" sites. I don't need to see more of them any more than you wish to consider photographic evidence.

If you like you may quote Larry Silverstein saying that he didn't really mean pull it when he said "pull it".

History will make the final judgement according to who gets to write the history. For here and now the horse is truly dead. :deadhorse: and you are truly boring.

[ivory bill]

A physicist isn't needed, any lowly blacksmith can tell you that jet-fuel or kerosene CANNOT bring about that kind of heat. Not even when you pour water on the metal, not even when you add sheetrock.


Just below the steam, steel, and sheetrock =hydrogen theory of melting steel is another hilarious debunker "theory" from the same delightful source. Here we are asked to believe that the energy generated by the collapsing building heated the steel to the melting point:

So to obtain yellow hot steel requires not only sufficient energy, but if heated from the exterior, high temperatures. If the energy was supplied by pressure pulses, as suggested, then simply the friction of repeated slamming the bottom of a box column into unyielding concrete or granite suffices.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

[LeoAlbus]

Just below the steam, steel, and sheetrock =hydrogen theory of melting steel is another hilarious debunker "theory" from the same delightful source. Here we are asked to believe that the energy generated by the collapsing building heated the steel to the melting point:


Melted iron in the analytic, scientific context of observation doesn't equate with being "liquified", as I've repeatedly told you. Also, this quote of yours does not refer to melted iron, but yellow hot iron, which would be weak enough to yield and thus it wouldn't take much additional energy for it to lose enough integrity, do you compute?!? It doesn't talk about liquified iron.

In Sweden we have a saying; "Many creeks make one big river". Which means that a plethora of causes are to be considered and analyzed, as it obviously wasn't due to the halfwittedly one-dimensional "thermit" theory. :rofl:

[Trojan]

IB - you've just been spanked.

There is another old saying, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

:rofl:

[ivory bill]

Melted iron in the analytic, scientific context of observation doesn't equate with being "liquified", as I've repeatedly told you. Also, this quote of yours does not refer to melted iron, but yellow hot iron, which would be weak enough to yield and thus it wouldn't take much additional energy for it to lose enough integrity, do you compute?!? It doesn't talk about liquified iron.

In Sweden we have a saying; "Many creeks make one big river". Which means that a plethora of causes are to be considered and analyzed, as it obviously wasn't due to the halfwittedly one-dimensional "thermit" theory. :rofl:

What crap. Your flaccid retorts are as absurd as the inane "theories" in your "debunking" site. Again, you can build a barrel as big as the WTC and fill it with jet fuel and set it alight and it WON'T approach a temperature that would cause it to glow bright yellow and become plastic like the steel in the damning photos of the WTC rubble pile.

Your debunking site should be a source of embarrassment to you. "What caused the steel to be yellow-hot? Why, steam and sheetrock, that's the ticket! No? Then would you believe friction?" Har har!

Perhaps you'd do better to join Globus and Trojan barking out denials on a holohoax thread. Just say rubbish a lot and call people stupid. It works for them.

[cerberus]

IB - I just have a few problems with the ovens being magic.

Going back to one of my favorite revisionist "historians" Dr. Fred Toben , who runs the much respected "Adelaide Institute" (:deadhorse: :rofl: ).

He claimed that the germans had flea killing down to being state of the art and that their technology in this area was 1st class .
So why the need for such cremation capacity if the SS had the health interests of the inmates so much in hand ?

I take it that when building these technological flea killing wonders that was a vote of no confidence in them that two huge cremation units would have to be built as well , not to mention two more just around the corner ?

Now if the Germans whom "Dr" Toben claimed to be such great techanical brains and leading builders of efficent machines were going to pay out on major building contracts do you think that they would be paying out on creamation units which did not work ?

Given that all these units took time to build it points to a purpose in having the cremation units - theyexist only to burn bodies and if disease was being controlled and as has been so often ( mis) quoted Himmler ahd ordered that thedeath tol be reduced why would such a large and incresed creamation capacity be needed.
Why would bodies have to be burnt in pits to agument a cremataion process , which Toben by his own assertions would have us believe would not be required.

Much talk about "morgues" - storage for the dead - why when disease was being controlled ?

How can orders be found to confirm that cremation units have been relined and serviced prior to the deportation to the camp of large numbers of people .
This would seem to indicate that someone was expecting people to die in large numbers.

Yur comments regarding adults and children - you will find that in any crowd situation children are the first to be killed , they are the most dependent , the weakest and the most vunerable and in a life or death situation in which panic and fear , the "fight or flight response" rules and regulates behaviour, your empty concerns and questions cease to have any value.

[calvin]

Much talk about "morgues" - storage for the dead - why when disease was being controlled

A contingency inspired by the body disposal emergency that had arisen during a previous typhus outbreak.

This would seem to indicate that someone was expecting people to die in large numbers

Only if we assume that these crematoria were to used in an extraordinary way. Would you attempt to establish the mortality rates in any given urban conurbation by assessing the maximum possible capacities of the local crematoria? If these crematoria were used in a normal way, infrequently, one body at a time a few times a day with longish periods of inactivity, there would be no reason to suppose that they were created to cope with extravagantly vast numbers of bodies.

[cerberus]

calvinA contingency inspired by the body disposal emergency that had arisen during a previous typhus outbreak.

This calvin if you will pardon me does sound rather like a "lame dog".
If you are building such structures as Krema II and III you are not producing a contingency plan - you are planning for the future- which is a totally different thing.
If "Dr" Toben was correct regarding the state of theart killing of fleas , would this not seem to be the problem solved - so why the huge cremation capacity being built purely as a "contingency measure" ?
Given the cost of building these units - would it not have made more sense to have put the money into improving camp living conditions , such as the dire sanitation , overcrowding and the poor diet of the inmates ?

Your answer fails at all levels and in itslef does sound like a "continegncy plan" in its own right for an akward question.

Let us assume nothing calvin - simply answer the question.
Even for a camp population of the size of Birkenau say 60,000 - the cremation capacity was already too high.
You do not do history by way of assuming calvin - you feel free to carry o down the yellow brick road - I prefer to stay linked to reality.

[calvin]

If "Dr" Toben was correct regarding the state of theart killing of fleas , would this not seem to be the problem solved - so why the huge cremation capacity being built purely as a "contingency measure" ?

Firstly, if these crematoria were intended to be used like any other crematoria, their capacity was not as huge as affirmers claim. Secondly, I agree that their capacity was far too large for anyone to claim that they were installed to cope with normal death rates. The crematoria were not neccessarily intended for continuous use, these installations may have been designed to cope with periodic large numbers of deaths over short periods of time, due to mass outbreaks of deadly infections.

Your point about the efficacy of German prophylactic measures can be argued in reverse; perhaps the Germans had to refine their disinfestation procedures to such an extent because of the magnitude of the danger posed by lice, danger of such magnitude that the Germans also built extensive cremation facilities to swiftly deal with any failure of these measures.

German prophylactic measures are discussed extensively by Pressac, who presents evidence of lice lying in dense clusters beneath the clothing of inmates in disinfestations rooms.

[cerberus]

calvin
The crematoria were not neccessarily intended for continuous use, these installations may have been designed to cope with periodic large numbers of deaths over short periods of time, due to mass outbreaks of deadly infections.

calvin are you suggesting that perhaps we might be serving health care better if we were to do no preventative medicine close down hospitals and build a few crematoria in each town , ones which might not be designed for continious use but for say -
continuous use, these installations may have been designed to cope with periodic large numbers of deaths over short periods of time, due to mass outbreaks of deadly infections.


You seem to abandoned the idea of preventing disease and gone straight to body dispoal in a single leap , I did suggest that if the camp had been run better and not been so over crowded that perhaps deaths might have been prevented.
How do you think the SS did on a rating of 1-10 as far as care of the inmates went ??

Your point about the efficacy of German prophylactic measures can be argued in reverse; perhaps the Germans had to refine their disinfestation procedures to such an extent because of the magnitude of the danger posed by lice, danger of such magnitude that the Germans also built extensive cremation facilities to swiftly deal with any failure of these measures.


So you think we as a society should have units like this ready to burn the dead at short notice ?
You again make no effort to say why people were dying of disease and are not doing very well in explaining these units as purely innocent units of body disposal.

In short calvin , it cannot be argued in reverse simply because no effort has been made at any stage to reduce the cause of the disease in any meaningful manner. ( By improving the basic living conditions which caused the ourbreak. )

Why then after spending almost three months dismantleing them were they blown up and why did they feel the need to burn down "Kanada" ?

German prophylactic measures are discussed extensively by Pressac, who presents evidence of lice lying in dense clusters beneath the clothing of inmates in disinfestations rooms.
I refer you back to my point on the failure of German efforts to provide even the most basic living conditions and "Dr" Toben's misrepresentation of the truth.
Your attempts to justify the existance of these units on the basis of disease alone is not working.

[LeoAlbus]

What crap. Your flaccid retorts are as absurd as the inane "theories" in your "debunking" site. Again, you can build a barrel as big as the WTC and fill it with jet fuel and set it alight and it WON'T approach a temperature that would cause it to glow bright yellow and become plastic like the steel in the damning photos of the WTC rubble pile.


What the heck are you blabbing about? Barrel of jet fuel as big as the WTC? Is that supposed to be a coherent simily? :confused: And yet you accuse me of purporting absurd retorts? Hah!

The so called "damning photos" have been explained to you, as has the fires, the heat-variables, the semi-isolated pockets that did exist, other buildings on fire (without any jet-fuel etc) where the steel melted (not liquified) and so forth.

You do not get to mock anything since you just evade anything I've addressed to you.

Now, answer/counter my previous posts point by point or go tell it on the mountain.

:nopity:

[cerberus]

calvin
The crematoria were not neccessarily intended for continuous use, these installations may have been designed to cope with periodic large numbers of deaths over short periods of time, due to mass outbreaks of deadly infections.

calvin are you suggesting that perhaps we might be serving helath care beter if we were to close down hospitals and build a few crematoria in each town , ones which might not be designed for continious use but for say -
continuous use, these installations may have been designed to cope with periodic large numbers of deaths over short periods of time, due to mass outbreaks of deadly infections.


You seem to abandoned the idea of preventing disease and gone straight to body dispoal in a single leap , I did suggest that if the camp had been run better and not been so over crowded that perhaps deaths might have been prevented.

How do you think the SS did on a rating of 1-10 as far as prevention of infectious disease went ??

Your point about the efficacy of German prophylactic measures can be argued in reverse; perhaps the Germans had to refine their disinfestation procedures to such an extent because of the magnitude of the danger posed by lice, danger of such magnitude that the Germans also built extensive cremation facilities to swiftly deal with any failure of these measures.


So you think we as a society should have units like this ready to burn the dead at short notice ?
You again make no effort to say why people were dying of disease and are not doing very well in explaining these units as purely innocent units of body disposal.

In short calvin , it cannot be argued in reverse simply because no effort has been made at any stage to reduce the cause of the disease in any meaningful manner.

If these units were built for the reasons you claim it is an acknowledgement that attempts to prevent disease were not being taken and were not going to be taken.

No units like this in POW camps which housed Allied service men , why ?????


Why then after spending almost three months dismantleing them were they blown up and why did they feel the need to burn down "Kanada" ?

[delete]

You seem to abandoned the idea of preventing disease and gone straight to body dispoal in a single leap , I did suggest that if the camp had been run better and not been so over crowded that perhaps deaths might have been prevented.
How do you think the SS did on a rating of 1-10 as far as care of the inmates went ??


What I find most idiotic with the whole Nazi-mass killings in death-camps are the totally missing industrial waste incinerator. If you were to burn jews on a continous matter you would go for reusing the heat.
http://www.gec.jp/WASTE/data/img/wstfig_G-2-3.gif
This plant incinerates construction and demolition wastes. They are constantly fed into the stoker incinerator, in which they are completely burned. High temperature flue gas is flown into waste heat boiler, and then it is cooled down by heat recovery there. Generated steam is converted into electric power by steam turbine. Flue gas is discharged to the atmosphere after hazardous substances like dust, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and dioxin are removed by gas treatment equipment.
http://www.gec.jp/WASTE/data/waste_G-2.html




So you think we as a society should have units like this ready to burn the dead at short notice ?


We don't have do be able to completly burn the victimes. In case of outbreak of disease, we can char the bodies, meaning we burn them enoght to kill all bacteria and viruses, and leave the rest in the ground as food for various microorganisms.


Why then after spending almost three months dismantleing them were they blown up and why did they feel the need to burn down "Kanada" ?

Did they the Germans blow up parts of Northern Norway to hide genocide there aswell?

[Globus]

Firstly, if these crematoria were intended to be used like any other crematoria, their capacity was not as huge as affirmers claim.

They were intended to be used as a means of destroying evidence of mass murder as quickly as possible, and the Nazis own estimates of their capacity ran into the thousands per day.

Secondly, I agree that their capacity was far too large for anyone to claim that they were installed to cope with normal death rates. The crematoria were not neccessarily intended for continuous use, these installations may have been designed to cope with periodic large numbers of deaths over short periods of time, due to mass outbreaks of deadly infections.

A ridiculous notion. As the historian Robert Jan Van Pelt has noted in his expert report to the court in the Irving trial:

If we now fast forward to February 1943 -a time that Birkenau was fully committed to play its central role in the Holocaust -we see that the numbers have changed considerably.In February 1943 the projected inmate population of Auschwitz was 30,000,and of Birkenau 140,000,but the total incineration capacity which was by that time supposed to be available was 75 units.52 This 210 brings the unit-per-inmate ratio to 1 :2267.This means that,in comparison with Dachau or Buchenwald,Auschwitz has double the incineration capacity.The official incineration capacity of Auschwitz after the completion of all the crematoria was 4,756 corpses per day.53 Assuming the camps to be completed and fully occupied,this would mean that,on average,Auschwitz had an excess incineration capacity of more than 2,350 corpses per day -or,in other words,the ovens could accommodate two daily transports of 1,000 people easily.

At the same time morgue capacity had dropped significantly.The ten morgues with a total capacity of 250,000 cu.ft.,included in the plan of January 6,1942,had disappeared from the plan of February 17,1943,and instead the theoretical morgue capacity in crematoria 1 -5 was 136,000 cu ft.,or 1,150 corpses -that is 1 corpse per 147 inmates,or Auschwitz was to have one third of the normal morgue capacity of a "normal " concentration camp..54 In fact,the situation was much worse, because in February 1943 all the morgues in crematoria 2 and 3 had been redesigned and were being equipped to function as undressing rooms and gas chambers,while the morgues in crematoria 4 and 5 were to destined as undressing rooms.By the time the crematoria were finished, Auschwitz had virtually no permanently dedicated morgue capacity This is very important:putting it very crudely,a design for a camp with a low incineration capacity and low morgue capacity indicates the expectation of low mortality;a design for a camp with low incineration capacity and high morgue capacity indicates the expectation of high mortality,most likely due to contingent circumstances (epidemics);a design for a camp with high incineration capacity with low morgue capacity indicates the expectation of high mortality,most likely due to humanly controlled circumstances (murder).

[Globus]

We don't have do be able to completly burn the victimes. In case of outbreak of disease, we can char the bodies, meaning we burn them enoght to kill all bacteria and viruses, and leave the rest in the ground as food for various microorganisms.

But disease wasn't the reason for cremation. Destruction of evidence was.

An acquaintance of the history being denied is always useful.

[cerberus]

delete
Did they the Germans blow up parts of Northern Norway to hide genocide there aswell?
Go on indulge me , explain .
BTW The Germans left some great bunkers in Norway.

[delete]

delete

Go on indulge me , explain .
BTW The Germans left some great bunkers in Norway.

The Germans used what is called what we call "burned ground tactic". I think it is called the same in English as well.

It is all about not leaving anything usefull for the enemy, and trying to deny him the posibility of living of the land.

You can read about it here. LOFOTEN WAR MUSEUM (http://www.lofotenkrigmus.no/e_finnmark.htm)
During the retreat of the German forces in Finnmark
to the line of defence, Lyngenfjord-Skibotn, 16718 buildings
became prey to the flames

Notice the precice number. This is not black propaganda. Norwegians know every building standing in their country, as you have to pay tax for them, and register and get them aproved in every direction.

The Nazis in Norway are viewed as somebody who both build a lot and detroyed a lot, and there is little hate left for the Germans of today.

[calvin]

This means that,in comparison with Dachau or Buchenwald,Auschwitz has double the incineration capacity

Robert Jan Van Pelt

In response to a uniquely severe typhus outbreak in this particular camp.

…or,in other words,the ovens could accommodate two daily transports of 1,000 people easily

Robert Jan Van Pelt

Or could accommodate several hundred typhus victims in one day.

By the time the crematoria were finished, Auschwitz had virtually no permanently dedicated morgue capacity.

Robert Jan Van Pelt

These buildings were designed to function as morgues in an emergency situation, out with these circumstances the morgues were used for other purposes.

At the same time morgue capacity had dropped significantly

Robert Jan Van Pelt

As it became apparent that German prophylactic measures had obviated the risk of another typhus epidemic.

This is very important putting it very crudely,a design for a camp with a low incineration capacity and low morgue capacity indicates the expectation of low mortality;a design for a camp with low incineration capacity and high morgue capacity indicates the expectation of high mortality,most likely due to contingent circumstances (epidemics);a design for a camp with high incineration capacity with low morgue capacity indicates the expectation of high mortality,most likely due to humanly controlled circumstances (murder).

Robert Jan Van Pelt

Risible bullshit, in an epidemic the last thing that you want is thousands of potentially infected or putrifying bodies lying about in morgues. To avoid this the Germans prioritised incineration capacity above corpse storage capacity. In an epidemic situation the most desirable course of action would be the immediate removal of disease victims from their place of death and their immediate incineration. The facilities at Auschwitz were perfectly designed to do just this. You don’t need vast morgue capacity when you have swift and efficient incineration capacity.

[cerberus]

delete - yes similar term .
Thanks for the link - will take a look later on when time allows.
My late father had close contact with german U-boatcrews in may 45 - he certainly didn't come away with hatred for them and contrary to popular opinion I do not harbour any hatred towards the German people either.

[Globus]

This means that,in comparison with Dachau or Buchenwald,Auschwitz has double the incineration capacity
Robert Jan Van Pelt


In response to a uniquely severe typhus outbreak in this particular camp.

No, as the evidence shows it was not a response to disease, and typhus at Auschwitz was not unique.


…or,in other words,the ovens could accommodate two daily transports of 1,000 people easily

Robert Jan Van Pelt

Or could accommodate several hundred typhus victims in one day.

Wrong again. They could accomodate thousands per day, over 2000 more than a typhus epidemic would require.


By the time the crematoria were finished, Auschwitz had virtually no permanently dedicated morgue capacity.

Robert Jan Van Pelt


These buildings were designed to function as morgues in an emergency situation,

No they weren't. And as the evidence shows, they were never used as morgues.


At the same time morgue capacity had dropped significantly

Robert Jan Van Pelt

As it became apparent that German prophylactic measures had obviated the risk of another typhus epidemic.

Contradicting your own argument!! Obviously in that case they wouldn't have continued with the building of such a massive cremation capacity.


This is very important putting it very crudely,a design for a camp with a low incineration capacity and low morgue capacity indicates the expectation of low mortality;a design for a camp with low incineration capacity and high morgue capacity indicates the expectation of high mortality,most likely due to contingent circumstances (epidemics);a design for a camp with high incineration capacity with low morgue capacity indicates the expectation of high mortality,most likely due to humanly controlled circumstances (murder).

Robert Jan Van Pelt

Risible bullshit, in an epidemic the last thing that you want is thousands of potentially infected or putrifying bodies lying about in morgues.

A typical denier response to a knowledgeable argument!

The evidence shows typhus had nothing to do with the cremation capacity, which Van Pelt shows was much more than could have possibly been necessary even if the epidemic had continued, which it didn't.

To avoid this the Germans prioritised incineration capacity above corpse storage capacity.

No they didn't. They built such massive capacity because they knew there would be planned [as in deportation schedules] need which made the existence of morgue capacity unnecessary.

The denier "epidemic" excuse for massive cremation capacity falls on the facts.

[cerberus]

calvin
In response to a uniquely severe typhus outbreak in this particular camp.
calvin
Or could accommodate several hundred typhus victims in one day.
delete
These buildings were designed to function as morgues in an emergency situation, out with these circumstances the morgues were used for other purposes
calvin
As it became apparent that German prophylactic measures had obviated the risk of another typhus epidemic.
calvin
You don’t need vast morgue capacity when you have swift and efficient incineration capacity.


calvin - you really don't want to mention why this disease was dealt with only in terms of the dead and body disposal.
It was in fact dealt with quite efficently and it could have been worse.
The often misquoted words of Himmler had much to do with preventing workers being subject to disease - productivity tends to go down.
Now can you reconcile the long term plan to build with the outbreak of disease ?
Best way to prevent a repeat is to take the basic steps to prevent disease spreding - if the camp doctors didn't know what to do they should not have been given jobs there - plain and simple !!
Building units to dispose of bodies is not the best way to deal with disease , door , closed , after , horse has bolted - know what I am hinting at ?

Besides which calvin lets go back again to the man who acme all te way from Adelaide to Birkenau to search for holes in the roof wearing a very neat blue sports jacket and trousers, boy he came prepared and he even assures his listeners / viewers that he has done the reseach prior to his visit.

Problem is calvin he has interviewed someone he identifies only as "an expert" who says that coke is a poor fuel to use to burn bodies and he says that what you say is untrue - that the cremation units would have been very ineficent - so the body disposal arguement as a means of limiting spread of disease does seem to fail.
Whom to believe ?
"Dr" Toben on one hand who travelled all the way from "Oz" or you ?
In common with you Toben says that no one was gassed - heck I even saw him look for the holes and he never even got dirt on his shoes - what an extensive search he made - took all of five minutes.

Don't you think calvin that the interests of the Reich would have been better served if in a "work camp" like Birkenau that they prevented living people becoming bodies and that way they would not have had to build the units to burn bodies and the Reichsfuhrer SS would not have asked them to reduce the death rate ?
You see calvin it does not add up to burning diseased bodies alone - no matter how you try to present it as such.

[delete]

You see calvin it does not add up to burning diseased bodies alone - no matter how you try to present it as such.

You see cerberus. It does not add up that one would use individual chrematoria if one chose to mass murder jews. The germans would have been using industrial incinerators if this were the case.

The main point is to reuse the heat to save both fuel and time, and the name of the game is a conveyor belt based incinerator, and not some big, but inefficient collection of ovens for individual body chremation.

The big slaughter houses for animals at the time did use conveyor belt techniques, so the concept was not forreign.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by cerberus
You see calvin it does not add up to burning diseased bodies alone - no matter how you try to present it as such.

You see cerberus. It does not add up that one would use individual chrematoria if one chose to mass murder jews. The germans would have been using industrial incinerators if this were the case.

Sorry, that's not evidence, but a subjective speculation refuted by the evidence. That the Nazis did use these multi-muffle ovens is proven by the evidence. Until you deal with that you're not really making an historical argument, but sharing your articles of faith.

[cerberus]

delete
The main point is to reuse the heat to save both fuel and time, and the name of the game is a conveyor belt based incinerator, and not some big, but inefficient collection of ovens for individual body chremation.

delete sorry to pour water on your fires here , but it was found that when the units were in use for a while the efficiency of combustion imporved - something to do with heat perhaps ?

[delete]

delete
delete sorry to pur wter on your fires here , but it was found that when the units were in use for a while the efficeny of them went up - something to do with heat perhaps ?

If they were smart enough to know this, and to build three and three ovens together to save fuel, they would have known how puny those oven were if mass slaughter was on the agenda.

A continuesly feeding idustrial incinerator is what they would have used, if they wanted to turn jews into bone meal most effisciently. You could also make arangements for boiling off the fat first, for later use, before absolute cremation took place, turning the jews into agricultural fertilizer. .

[Globus]

If they were smart enough to know this, and to build three and three ovens together to save fuel, they would have known how puny those oven were if mass slaughter was on the agenda.

Of course they knew that these ovens weren't not puny and calculated in their own documents that the capacity was over 4000 corpses per day.

It is this kind of inconvenient evidence which you need to account for, rather than offer speculations which have no evidentiary support.

Or doesn't Holocaust denial operate on the basis of evidence?

[calvin]

delete sorry to pur wter on your fires here , but it was found that when the units were in use for a while the efficeny of them went up - something to do with heat perhaps ?

To do with thermal mass to be more precise, the bricks and masonry heat up and begin to radiate heat. Russian ovens use thermal mass to heat dwellings with low amounts of solid fuel. The problem with this is that the crematoria would never generate enough heat to incinerate a corpse without additional fuel, because only a percentage of the retained heat is radiated back into the muffle; the additional fuel required to incinerate a corpses continually raises the temperature of the masonry and brickwork, once a certain temperature is reached the structure itself would fail.

[calvin]

Building units to dispose of bodies is not the best way to deal with disease , door , closed , after , horse has bolted - know what I am hinting at ?

I think that you are making intelligent deductions but are stretching them beyond their circumstantial limitations. The camp authorities were ordered to make Auschwitz into a vast industrial labour complex. They had to do this in an area that had a high water table, the extent of the camp made overcrowding inevitable, the war made food scarce and nutrition bad, the camp commander couldn’t just turn around to Himmler and say that the camp’s size and productive power had to be substantially decreased.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Cerberus
delete sorry to pur wter on your fires here , but it was found that when the units were in use for a while the efficeny of them went up - something to do with heat perhaps ?


To do with thermal mass to be more precise, the bricks and masonry heat up and begin to radiate heat. Russian ovens use thermal mass to heat dwellings with low amounts of solid fuel. The problem with this is that the crematoria would never generate enough heat to incinerate a corpse without additional fuel, because only a percentage of the retained heat is radiated back into the muffle;

That is nonsense. As the manufacturer of the ovens noted in their operating instructions, there was a danger of too much heat being retained and the need to use fresh air to keep the temperature from rising too much after the combustion of corpses. That is because corpses have excess energy compared to what it takes to incinerate them, and once the ovens have reached good incineration temperatures, the corpses become a source of fuel.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/cremation/topf-manual.shtml

OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS FOR COKE-FIRED TOPF
DOUBLE-MUFFLE INCINERATION FURNACE

Before charging the two hearths with coke, the two furnace dampers and the main rotary damper in the chimney must be open.

The fire can now be lit and maintained, being sure to open both secondary openings to the right and left of the cinder removal doors (of the coke furnace).

Once the cremation chamber (muffle) has been brought to a good red heat (approximately 800°C), the corpses can be introduced one after another in the cremation chambers.

Now the pulsed air blower situated to the side of the furnace should be switched on and run for about 20 minutes, ensuring that the two cremation chambers do not receive too much or too little fresh air.

Regulation of the fresh air is by means of a rotary valve in the sir duct. In addition, the air intakes, to the right and left of the chamber doors, should be half open.

As soon as the remains of the corpses have fallen from the chamotte grid to the ash collection channel below, they should be pulled forward towards the ash removal door, using the scraper. Here they can be left for a further 20 minutes to be fully consumed, then the ashes should be placed in the container and set aside to cool.

In the meantime, further corpses can be introduced one after the other into the chambers. The two coke furnaces must be fed with fuel from time to time.

Every evening, the furnace fire bars must be cleaned of clinker and the cinders removed.

In addition, care must be taken that at the end of operations, as soon as the furnace, having burnt everything is empty and no coals remain, that the air valves, doors and damper are closed, so that the furnace does not cool.

After each incineration, the temperature rises in the furnace. For this reason, care must be taken that the internal temperature does not rise above 1100°C (white heat). This increase in temperature can be avoided by introducing additional fresh air.

Operation instructions for the Topf furnaces. Source: Auschwitz Museum. Reproduced in "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers", J.C Pressac, the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, NY, 1989, page 136

the additional fuel required to incinerate a corpses continually raises the temperature of the masonry and brickwork, once a certain temperature is reached the structure itself would fail.

The temperature could be controlled, as the operating instructions indicate.

[cerberus]

So what you are saying is that the people who designed these units - a professional german firm , managed to get by selling duff gear for years to the SS ?
And no one noticed ?
This might be a case of "Z.O.C." :)

[calvin]

So what you are saying is that the people who designed these units - a professional german firm , managed to get by selling duff gear for years to the SS ?
And no one noticed ?
This might be a case of "Z.O.C."

The crematoria were perfectly capable of performing the job they were designed to do, namely to cope with a sudden spike in mortality rates caused by a recrudescence of epidemic typhus. They were not designed for mass-exterminations and the disposal of millions of murder victims. These crematoria did not differ significantly from standard civilian models and yet were supposedly designed to cope with millions more bodies than standard civilian crematoria and to run continuously for months on end at maximum operating capacity.

That is nonsense. As the manufacturer of the ovens noted in their operating instructions, there was a danger of too much heat being retained and the need to use fresh air to keep the temperature from rising too much after the combustion of corpses. That is because corpses have excess energy compared to what it takes to incinerate them, and once the ovens have reached good incineration temperatures, the corpses become a source of fuel

At a certain point in the cremation process a cadaver achieves optimum combustibility, at this point it would, if removed from any external source of heat, continue to burn. It would not, in the absence of a separate heat source, burn with enough vigour or intensity to justify calling it “fuel”. This is just another affirmer fantasy.

[Globus]

The crematoria were perfectly capable of performing the job they were designed to do, namely to cope with a sudden spike in mortality rates caused by a recrudescence of epidemic typhus.

But that is not what they were designed to do, which must be why you never call upon any evidence in your argument.

The manufacturers of the ovens, Topf, knew very well what they were building and why, as their testimony and documents show.

They were not designed for mass-exterminations and the disposal of millions of murder victims. These crematoria did not differ significantly from standard civilian models

Both of these empty claims are simply false.

http://www.topfundsoehne.de/media_de/abb_047.html

A portion of which translates as:

The high demand of incineration ovens for concentration camps - which lately has shown especially in what concerns Auschwitz, and which according to Mr. Pruefer's report again led to an order of 7 three-muffle ovens - led me to examine the question whether the current oven system with muffle for the above-mentioned entities is the right thing. In my opinion things don't go fast enough in the muffle ovens to remove a huge number of corpses within a desirably short time. Thus one helps out with a multitude of ovens or muffles and by stuffing full the individual muffle with several corpses, without thereby solving the basic source [of the problem], i.e. the deficiencies of the muffle system.

So even though the multiple oven design and the operational reality of multiple, simultaneous cremation helped with the intended goal of massive cremation, Topf was already thinking of even more efficient designs to keep up with mass extermination.

At a certain point in the cremation process a cadaver achieves optimum combustibility, at this point it would, if removed from any external source of heat, continue to burn. It would not, in the absence of a separate heat source, burn with enough vigour or intensity to justify calling it “fuel”. This is just another affirmer fantasy.[/QUOTE]

More nonsense. Of course there is a separate source of heat, the heat already existing inside the muffle!

This ignites the corpse and then provides energy, even more than is necessary, which is why the temperatures rose after a corpse incineration.

[calvin]

In my opinion things don't go fast enough in the muffle ovens to remove a huge number of corpses within a desirably short time. Thus one helps out with a multitude of ovens or muffles and by stuffing full the individual muffle with several corpses, without thereby solving the basic source [of the problem], i.e. the deficiencies of the muffle system

Your witness is affirming my assertion that the crematoria in question were designed for normal use and were incapable of dealing with constant mass-incinerations of the type alleged by collaborating ex-employees and Nazis.

This ignites the corpse and then provides energy, even more than is necessary, which is why the temperatures rose after a corpse incineration

Nothing to do with the build up of heat from the coke required to burn the corpse then Globus? ROFL!

[Globus]

In my opinion things don't go fast enough in the muffle ovens to remove a huge number of corpses within a desirably short time. Thus one helps out with a multitude of ovens or muffles and by stuffing full the individual muffle with several corpses, without thereby solving the basic source [of the problem], i.e. the deficiencies of the muffle system

Your witness is affirming my assertion that the crematoria in question were designed for normal use

Only if you're blind!

He is affirming that even though the ovens had special features and were operated with a procedure to incinerate over 4000 bodies per day, that this was still not enough, because of the massive numbers [more than 4000, obviously having nothing to do with an epidemic] which needed to be cremated.


Originally Posted by Globus
This ignites the corpse and then provides energy, even more than is necessary, which is why the temperatures rose after a corpse incineration

Nothing to do with the build up of heat from the coke required to burn the corpse then Globus?

Of course it is Calvin, the heat comes from the burning corpses. Burning of corpses is an exothermic process.

In any event, the evidence, as opposed to your unsupported assertions, demonstrates that the ovens were expected to have a capacity far in excess of what disease would indicate, that they were constructed and operated with the goal of incinerating the corpses of daily mass murder, and that they still were not efficient enough and the Nazis partner in crime, Topf & Son, whose representatives admitted to being involved with helping the murder of Jews, was working on a an entirely new patent for a crematoria to address the problem.

[delete]

So what you are saying is that the people who designed these units - a professional german firm , managed to get by selling duff gear for years to the SS ?
And no one noticed ?
This might be a case of "Z.O.C." :)

The crematoria was suited to the work they were designed for. They were not meant for handeling mass executions, as mass graves or industrial incinerators are called for when this job is being done.

When you are killing thousands a day, you need some sort of conveyor belt system as everything starts to revolve around logistics when this scale is beiing reached. The influx of live prisoners, the killing and the destruction all have to go at same speed to avoid clogging up the system.

[Nordicist]

How does one know a jew is lying? His lips are moving.

[Globus]

The crematoria was suited to the work they were designed for. They were not meant for handeling mass executions, as mass graves or industrial incinerators are called for when this job is being done.

You know, I don't know what you expect to accomplish by repeating the same nonsense over and over again, without ever have the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. History is written on the basis of evidence, not your wish to believe what suits your political and social agenda. Evidence like this:

http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0247.htm

Here's an English translation of that Nazi document.

28 June, 1943.
Concerns: the completion of crematorium 3.
Reference: none
To the SS-Administrative and Economic Head Office,
department C,
SS-Brigadeführer and General Major Dr. Ing. Kammler
Berlin—Lichterfelde—West
Unter den Eichen 120-135.
Report the completion of crematorium 3 at 26 June 1943. Therewith all the crematoria
ordered have been completed.
Capacity of the now available crematoria per 24 hours:
1. old crematorim 1
3 x 2 muffle ovens 340 persons
2. new crematorium 2 in KGL
5 x 3 muffle ovens 1,440 persons
3. new crematorium 3
5 x 3 muffle ovens 1,440 persons
4. new crematorium 4
8 muffle oven 768 persons
5. new crematorium 5
8 muffle oven 768 persons
Total per 24 hours 4,756 persons
The leader of the Central Building Administration
of the Waffen SS and Police Auschwitz,
Signed: Jahrling
SS-Sturmbannführer.
Cc: dossier—Janisch
dossier—Kirschnek
file KGL BW 30.50

That's a capacity of 4,756 corpses per day, or over 120,000 per month.

Sound to you like they weren't meant to handle mass executions?

[calvin]

That's a capacity of 4,756 corpses per day, or over 120,000 per month

A complete nonsense figure, contradicted by your previous witness from Topf &Sons, based on the fictitious Soviet estimates of the overall death toll.

[Globus]

A complete nonsense figure, contradicted by your previous witness from Topf &Sons, based on the fictitious Soviet estimates of the overall death toll.

Not contradicted at all by Topf.

And utterly destroying the notion that disease required this level of crematoria.

[calvin]

And utterly destroying the notion that disease required this level of crematoria

Actually, in a worst-case scenario, in an expanding camp, this level of cremation capacity may have been required for a couple of days. It is highly doubtful that this document is genuine; if it is genuine at all it has probably been doctored to conform to the usual fourfold exaggeration highlighted by Pressac and even then it is a statement of maximum potential, not optimum, capacity over a 24hr period. It is not an estimate of capabilities in a sustained usage situation, so in fact the crematoria had a maximum short-term capacity (working at optimum efficiency not at the ultimate limits of possibility) that would conform to requirements created by recrudescent epidemic typhus.

[Globus]

Actually, in a worst-case scenario, in an expanding camp, this level of cremation capacity may have been required for a couple of days.

LOL!!!

You don't spend hundreds of thousands of DM and work for many months to fit a capacity of a couple of days.

It is highly doubtful that this document is genuine;

No it isn't. You've just sunk to mindless denial of evidence.

[calvin]

You don't spend hundreds of thousands of DM and work for many months to fit a capacity of a couple of days

Yeah, that’s right Globus, you take the worst-case death toll as your starting point and then divide it by ten and then waste hundreds of thousands of DM on building morgues to house the corpses you can’t incinerate.

No it isn't. You've just sunk to mindless denial of evidence

It is an absurdly high estimate and the evidence from Topf indicates that even with adaptions in operation, the crematoria could simply not keep up with this level of throughput.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
You don't spend hundreds of thousands of DM and work for many months to fit a capacity of a couple of days.

Yeah, that’s right Globus, you take the worst-case death toll as your starting point and then divide it by ten and then waste hundreds of thousands of DM on building morgues to house the corpses you can’t incinerate.

You may have stumbled onto something, Calvin.

You go to the trouble of spending considerable sums of money and effort to construct what you need. Building 4 crematoria so you can let them lie idle until you want to charge them all up to incinerate accumulated corpses in a couple of days is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as proposing this scenario when there was no morgue space to store the bodies until waiting to charge them all up!

As Van Pelt points out, this kind of massive capacity with no morgue capacity only fits a plan to incinerate large numbers of people right away, and according to a predetermined, planned schedule. The excess of 2500 corpses which Van Pelt referenced is just about what was needed to dispose of transports of 3000 each day, an amount which was common for the deportations arranged by Eichmann's staff.


Originally Posted by Globus
No it isn't. You've just sunk to mindless denial of evidence

It is an absurdly high estimate and the evidence from Topf indicates that even with adaptions in operation, the crematoria could simply not keep up with this level of throughput.

It is not an estimate. The memo was written after all crematoria were up and running. There is nothing absurd about it. What Topf indicates is a capacity for mass murder, just not high enough.

[Dances with Wolves]

In the more elderly and theisticly governed days, physics was endeavored by a numbered few by todays comparisons. When these theisticly governed times gradually began to lift its veil from people, including jewish ones, the focus yielded a more actual tradition of contemporary jewish physics for actual jewish physicists like;

Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Max Born, Heinrich Hertz, Wolfgang Pauli, Jonas Salk and John von Neumann to name a few.

Umm...Leo? Would you mean the·is·ti·cal·ly? To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what you were trying to say in that rather incoherent post but Jonas Salk was not a physicist.

Surely you aren't trying to suggest that the jews you rattle off could have made any contribution without the work of non-jewish physicists like James Maxell, Michael Faraday, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Michelson, Henri Poincaré or Olinto De Pretto, whom your hero Einstein plagiarized, btw?

I'm even going to mention Thomas Alva Edison, whom I don't believe was even a physicist, but got his ideas from reading R.G. Parker's School of Natural Philosophy.

Know any jews like that, Customized Cerebral?

[calvin]

You may have stumbled onto something, Calvin

Holocaust affirmers are obviously too stupid to have ever connected the inadequate morgue space to the capacity of the crematoria, unfortunately it works just as well in a scenario of mass death through epidemic disease.

Pressac goes to some length to establish that the memo overestimated the capacity of the crematoria.

The memo has never been authenticated by a neutral third party.

In short, the long term capabilities of the crematoria have been grossly exaggerated. The entire complex was created to prevent and deal with epidemic disease.

[Globus]

You may have stumbled onto something Calvin!

You go to the trouble of spending considerable sums of money and effort to construct what you need. Building 4 crematoria so you can let them lie idle until you want to charge them all up to incinerate accumulated corpses in a couple of days is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as proposing this scenario when there was no morgue space to store the bodies until waiting to charge them all up!

As Van Pelt points out, this kind of massive capacity with no morgue capacity only fits a plan to incinerate large numbers of people right away, and according to a predetermined, planned schedule. The excess of 2500 corpses which Van Pelt referenced is just about what was needed to dispose of transports of 3000 each day, an amount which was common for the deportations arranged by Eichmann's staff.


Holocaust affirmers are obviously too stupid to have ever connected the inadequate morgue space to the capacity of the crematoria, unfortunately it works just as well in a scenario of mass death through epidemic disease.

Of course that is ridiculous! Why build four crematoria that in a couple of days could incinerate around 9000 corpse so you could let that number build up [with no place to store them since there were no morgues!] so you could start up the crematoria and dispose of them? The answer is no sane person would. The high cremation capacity and nonexistent morgue capacity clearly shows the expectation of ongoing high levels of cremation without storage, the kind of expectation associated with mass murder on a controlled, scheduled basis. That is why Eichmann's staff went to such lengths to organize the deportations from numerous European countries in the amounts and timing they did.

Pressac goes to some length to establish that the memo overestimated the capacity of the crematoria.

Nah, he gives his opinion. Others disagree. But whatever the facts were, it is clear that is what the Nazis thought they were getting for capacity based on operating experience and it is these expectations which reveal their intentions.

The memo has never been authenticated by a neutral third party.

A meaningless piece of rhetoric. It was evaluated just as all historical documents are by historians.

[quoteIn short, the long term capabilities of the crematoria have been grossly exaggerated.

What do you mean "in short"! Do you wish people to think you've actually made a "long" argument, backed with evidence, to support this!

Of course you haven't. And your assertion doesn't fit the evidence.

[ivory bill]

[quote]



What do you mean "in short"! Do you wish people to think you've actually made a "long" argument, backed with evidence, to support this!

Of course you haven't. And your assertion doesn't fit the evidence.

The long and the short of it is that Globus is reduced to mere wordplay.

[LeoAlbus]

Umm...Leo? Would you mean the·is·ti·cal·ly? To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what you were trying to say in that rather incoherent post but Jonas Salk was not a physicist.


Theistically is derived from theism, has to do with religious adherence, discipline and principles.

Basically what's obvious from my previous post that you replied to is, the intense study and focus of the given religion was substituted a bit more with science for example.

And yes, that's correct, Jonas Salk was not a physicist but a physician.

Surely you aren't trying to suggest that the jews you rattle off could have made any contribution without the work of non-jewish physicists like James Maxell, Michael Faraday, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Michelson, Henri Poincaré or Olinto De Pretto, whom your hero Einstein plagiarized, btw?

Don't be ignorant, I've never suggested any scientist appeared out of an intellectual vaccum of course, jewish or non-jewish, however that wasn't even a relevence in what I was confirming in my previous post.

And no, Einstein didn't plagiarize, already delt with that on Stormfront.

I'm even going to mention Thomas Alva Edison, whom I don't believe was even a physicist, but got his ideas from reading R.G. Parker's School of Natural Philosophy.


True, he wasn't a physicist, he was educated in a more unorthodox way, first by his mother and then later by his mentor, F.L Pope who was an well-known electric engineer and inventor during the mid 19th century or so.

Know any jews like that, Customized Cerebral?


Like what?
A jew that contributed to something noteworthy without having the paralleled doctorate, academic title or?
Johann Philipp Reis, Itzhak Bentov would be another one, Joseph Friedman, Emile Berliner others, but what point are you trying to make?
That modern scientific contributions have mostly come from men of european descent, that's well-established but quite moot to my previous post isn't it?

[Globus]

[QUOTE=Globus]

The long and the short of it is that Globus is reduced to mere wordplay.

The long and short is no arguments or evidence are every made by deniers. Just assertions they cannot support.

When will you try, Ivory Bill?

[LeoAlbus]

The long and short is no arguments or evidence are every made by deniers. Just assertions they cannot support.

When will you try, Ivory Bill?

Oohh do not ask him to do that, Globus, for heavens sake, why deny me the nice view of watching simplified first-hand polemic deviation-rethorics?

:bitchfight:

[calvin]

Oohh do not ask him to do that, Globus, for heavens sake, why deny me the nice view of watching simplified first-hand polemic deviation-rethorics?

Why watch it when your own sentence demonstrates that you are so eminently capable of writing it?

[LeoAlbus]

Why watch it when your own sentence demonstrates that you are so eminently capable of writing it?

Indeed I am eminently capable of that as well, ie general polemics, though as opposed to some other people it is not the contenta of my writings ;)

Besides, how fun is it to watch ones own writings for humorous context? That doesn't make any sense.

[calvin]

Besides, how fun is it to watch ones own writings for humorous context? That doesn't make any sense

The fun would obviously not be in watching (or even reading, which is what I think you meant to say) ones own writing for humorous content, it would lie in the pleasure derived from anticipation of the recipients response whilst you were writing. Does that make any more sense?

[LeoAlbus]

The fun would obviously not be in watching (or even reading, which is what I think you meant to say) ones own writing for humorous content, it would lie in the pleasure derived from anticipation of the recipients response whilst you were writing. Does that make any more sense?

First of all, you said "watch" yourself, hence is why I used it in this context as well, so no need for you to "think what I meant to say".

Secondly, surely it is not without a humorous quality to anticipate the other's response, even while one is writing. This takes us back to my first comment on it, that still stands.
Your turn :)

[calvin]

Oohh do not ask him to do that, Globus, for heavens sake, why deny me the nice view of watching simplified first-hand polemic deviation-rethorics?

Post No. 81

First of all, you said "watch" yourself, hence is why I used it in this context as well, so no need for you to "think what I meant to say

Post No.85

I was obviously using the word “watch” to paraphrase your bad grammar; for your benefit I’ll use italics next time.

[LeoAlbus]

I was obviously using the word “watch” to paraphrase your bad grammar; for your benefit I’ll use italics next time.

Well I do not agree that it's necessarily bad grammar to print;
why deny me the nice view of watching simplified first-hand polemic deviation-rethorics

Effectively it can refer to an act of taking a patient look, "seeing" or "observing" would have worked fine as well.

Though you probably know more about the grammar of the english language than, it's my second language you see.

[cerberus]

calvin
Holocaust affirmers are obviously too stupid to have ever connected the inadequate morgue space to the capacity of the crematoria, unfortunately it works just as well in a scenario of mass death through epidemic disease.

And it is stupid calvin to run a large camp in such a way as to make "epidemic disease" the norm and to plan for it becoming a "fact of life" and an indirect means of death.

Surely it would have made more sense to have put the money into ensuring people did not die rather than merely accepting that they would and building these engines to burn the bodies ?

calvin in the event of epidemic disease - it only takes a doctor who can identify disease processes to say what is killing people - storage is not a major issue - destruction of the bodies is.

I have asked you to comment on the preventative measures taken to prevent disease , do you think that the basisc conditions of the camp if improved might have greatly reduced the death rates ?
Don't you think that tackling the problem at source might have been money better spent ?

You see calvin I have this suilly idea , and I know it is silly but hear me out.
I entertain this idea that deaths were not a major issue and that those dying (as long as the work force could be mantained) did not create major issues to the SS.
Because these people were unwanted and ear marked for death sooner or later (as identified in the Wansee conference) that preventing death by way of improving living conditions was not going to be considered.

This brings us back to these cremation units again , why have them ?
At best it is an admission that death by disease was viewed as natural wastage , nature taking its course.

(If I might borrow a line from "Conspiracy" - "Let us astonish Charles Darwin")

The ovens were there to burn bodies and the nature of the build does indicate that their use was going to be long term and that Auschwitz was not going to be flash in the pan.
The extension of the camp which was never completed "Mexico" would have involved the creation of other creamation units.

Pointing to the end product of a disease control policy , which on the basis of the build and what you say , did not exist at the very least suggests that neglect was looked upon as a way of killing poeple - death by indifference if you like.
"Why prevent disease or cure them , if you can burn them" , if you like.

[LeoAlbus]

There's a saying, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance then baffle them with your bullshit."

You offered that absurd "debunking" site with it's dense columns of pseudoscientific gibberish. Further barrages of verbiage won't help you get past the photos taken shortly after the collapse showing the glowing taffy-like steel, nor past that damning photo, taken in the same time-frame, showing the steel column burned through in a straight diagonal line.

This one:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2006/240406thermite1.jpg

Going to respond once again on this after having done a bit more "looking into it".

It turns out that is quite normal for excavation crews to cut steel columns at a diagonal. Why? Well because the melted steel runs down, pre-heating the cut so that even though it’s a longer cut, it cuts faster.

Here's another picture from the "Ground Zero" site showing several of these cut columns.
http://www.debunking911.com/anglecut2.jpg

But what about the loonies... I mean 9/11-truthers claim on it not being possible for a torch of any kind to cut it as so, showing melted residue on the sides etc?
Well look at these pics of a welder doing this very thing!

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/cut2.jpg

And compare it with the original one, close-up.
http://www.debunking911.com/cut3.jpg

Now role over and say ouch! :viking: