More on the “holes” in the “gas chamber” roof (MazalPhoto2)

Documents on the
allegation about Zyklon B killings of victims in Nazi
concentration camps

Controversy: Are or were there ever holes in the roof of the Leichenkeller (Morgue) No. 1 at Krema (crematiorium) II at Auschwitz — the holes through which SS officers allegedly poured in the Zyklon B crystals?

Harry Mazal, OBE, has published on his website a photograph of the roof of Krema II at Auschwitz, sowing what he claims are the “hole”, at

http://www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20Aerial/KIIa-Color.htm

As we state, the Mazal image is rather a large file (nearly 1 MB).

We invited visitors to comment on this image. Samuel
Crowell has done so (Thursday, November 9, 2000 and we post herewith his edited comments):-

[Click on icons to download further actual
images]

(jpg, 214 kB) HOLE #1 — this is the large hole through which everyone [revisionists and their opponents] enters. It is off center (all of the holes are off center). One cannot argue that the holes moved when the roof shifted, because the photo also clearly shows that the roof did not shift but rather dropped down.

Note that HOLE #1 is part of a large piece that is relatively smooth on the top, this is the section of the roof whose underside is shown in several photos [see below]. Lipstadt expert Professor Van Pelt does not claim HOLE #1 as one of the holes, because
Pelt wrote in his report that the Holes were not visible, while this one clearly is visible.

(jpg, 665 kB) HOLE #2, is invisible in this photo, and therefore must be one of the holes the Germans
“filled in” before blowing the roof in their retreat.

Slightly below HOLE #2, and to the right, you will see another hole that Mazal does not comment on, this one has reinforcing steel bars in it, and is sometimes considered one of the holes. However this hole is off center, and it is visible, so it cannot match Pelt’s speculation.

More important: to its right, you can see a concrete slab that covers the emergency exit from the basement bomb shelter.

[no image] HOLE #3 appears to be a punched-in exploratory hole, the reinforcing steel bar is intact.

(jpg, 176 kB) HOLE #4 constitutes the roof break on the bottom end.

Again, none of these holes was claimed by Van Pelt as being of significance.

Further images of Krema II on Mr Mazal’s website are at
http://www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20jpg/AuschwitzText%20Page.htm

See David Irving closing speech, page 31.

Our own website photo of Krema II, Leichenkeller 1, underside of roof

Discussing the more detailed images with icons above, on Friday,
November 10, 2000 “Sam
Crowell” sends us these comments:

A few comments.

1. As indicated earlier, Holes #1 and #3 are both quite visible and are not in the
   proper location according to the aerial photo, or to any
   possibility of being in line with the supporting pillars.

   Indeed, as was suggested previously, there are numerous
   “holes” in the roof if one takes any crack in the
   concrete as constituting a “gas induction port.”

2. The photos of Hole #2
   still cannot be located in the larger photo, but that is
   easily explained by the presence of a shoe in one of the
   photos which indicates that the dimensions of this hole
   — intact rebar and all — could scarcely be more than
   4″-5″ inches square.

   Since the traditional dimensions of
   these holes was supposed to be on the order of over two
   feet square (70 cm), this hole cannot meaningfully be
   characterized as a “gas induction port.”

3. Finally, to characterize the crack on the Northern
   end of the roof as “Hole #4”
   is to use the term “hole” very expansively.

To repeat some well known facts:

1. There are numerous holes and cracks in the roof of
   Morgue #1 of Krema II, the vast majority of them quite
   small.

   All of them are in the wrong location, either in
   terms of the aerial photo, or in terms of the location of
   the supporting concrete pillars. (All narratives insist
   that the wire mesh cages which were led from the holes
   were attached to alternate concrete pillars.)

2. All of these holes were apparently created when the
   concrete roof cracked into slabs during its attempted
   demolition, or show signs of being enlarged from such
   cracks from the outside.

   It is important to note that the
   roof itself is still held together by the interstitial
   web of steel reinforcing rods (rebar).

3. None of these holes, except the one at the
   southwestern end, are large enough to be “gas induction
   port” holes, according to the alleged measurements of
   over two feet.
4. That particular hole in the south-west corner was
   explicitly excluded from consideration by Van
   Pelt, as it is excluded by any knowledgeable expert
   of the subject, because

   of its location.

5. All of the holes feature intrusions of rebar, which
   indicates that the roof was poured without any holes
   being planned, and the interfering rebar would have posed
   a formidable challenges for use, the necessary gas pellet
   recovery, and gastightness.
6. None of the holes bears any indication of attachment
   points on the topside for chimneys or on the underside
   for wire mesh columns.
7. Since the holes were clearly not planned, the wooden
   blocks in the underside

   of the roof (supposedly for fake
   showerheads) would be hard to associate with any
   hypothetical “gas induction ports.” We are left to
   conclude that the blocks were planned (for some purpose),
   but the holes were not. This is scarcely believable.

8. It is amusing to note that Mazal also includes
   in his gallery a photo captioned as a “perforated
   pillar,” this is a throwback to old stories about the gas
   coming out of the holes in the pillars of the gas
   chamber.

   However this particular pillar is solid
   concrete, and the holes were almost certainly drilled for
   dynamite prior to the attempted demolition. One thing is
   certain: no gas could have come from these holes.

In summary, it appears that Mr. Mazal has gone to a lot of time and expense to identify two holes that are well known, and well known as being in the wrong position, along with several other cracks which he has baptised as “gas induction ports.”

What makes this truly strange is that neither Pressac nor his epigone Van Pelt consider these holes to be legitimate candidates for “gas induction ports” so that Mazal’s labors have had the unintended consequence of contradicting the very experts he seeks to support.

© Focal Point
2000 write to David Irving