A big THANK YOU to The Black Rabbit of Inlé, who directed me to an article about the Dachau gas chamber, written by Carlo Mattogno, who is a famous Holocaust expert.
The article is quite long, so I am going to start by quoting from the very end of the article:
Here we come to the problem of fake showers. The sources cited above say that, originally, the showers were real. By whom and why were then installed the current fake showers?
First we must examine why these showers [at Dachau] are fake. The photograph was taken by me [Carlo Mattogno] of the Image 37 in 1990 to a shower pommel torn from the ceiling. Remains the external sheet and the center we see a circle that can be the outlet of a water pipe. The Picture 38, a photograph taken by Thomas Dalton in 2011 49, shows the recess in the ceiling that contained a pommel shower. Even here, at the center, there is a circle that looks like a metal water pipe dented.
The above quote from the article by Mattagno is followed by several photos, which look like photos that I took at Dachau and put on my website.
My photos above show the bins on the outside wall of the Dachau gas chamber, which I believe were added by the Americans after they liberated the Dachau camp.
I am very pleased that Mattogno seems to agree with me that my photos show work that was done by the Americans AFTER the camp was liberated.
Mattogno wrote the following, regarding the windows:
In this context, it remains important that the last element to be analyzed is constituted by the two windows. They were built just to pour into the room from the outside a can of Zyklon B?
It is unknown when and why they were built the two windows. Although, in principle, they can serve as devices for payment of Zyklon B, can be expressed reservations about the fact that they were conceived for this purpose.
The following quote is also from Mattogno’s article:
Even the size of the windows appear ridiculous: for what purpose to create openings in the local high70 cm? In addition, the device is quite plain compared to the estimated construction cumbersome the “gas chamber”: Zyklon-B pellets thrown on the floor, with the risk, as I explained above, that would end directly in the grids runoff.
This is similar to what I wrote on my website about the windows in the Dachau gas chamber. Putting the Zyklon-B pellets on the floor, near the drains in the
gas chamber shower room, would have made it easy for the victims to push the pellets down the floor drains.
This quote is also from Mattogno’s article:
The film shot by the Americans at Dachau (Picture 45) 61 shows a fence, like a small shack on the outside of the “gas chamber”, at the two windows above. Front has amassed a huge pile of corpses. This corresponds to the description of Captain Fribourg, who, on May 25, 1945, mentioned precisely a “palisade”, inaccessible because of storage of corpses. It is worth noting that these corpses had been there for more than three weeks, since there were already April 29.
I don’t think that the corpses were in front of the wooden structure on the day that the camp was liberated. I think that the photo of the corpses was taken a few days AFTER the liberation of the camp.
I wrote about the bodies and the wooden structure on this previous blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/wooden-enclosure-found-at-dachau-baracke-x-by-american-liberators/
In a previous blog post, I criticized Carlo Mattagno for using Eugen Siebold as a source. In this new article by Mattagno, I found the following quote:
The declaration of [Eugen] Seibold, as regards the true showers and the new ceiling of the “gas chamber”, remains enigmatic.
One of the fundamental problems of the “gas chamber” at Dachau is the fact that, despite being allegedly completed and functional, was never used. Above I mentioned that the crown of the plant, in the perspective Holocaust, is the fence that covered the two small windows, so that prying eyes could not see the operation of the payment of cans of Zyklon B into hoppers metal. If this were true, the “gas chamber” was now ready for use. Why, then, a “gas chamber” so sophisticated and cumbersome, which was undoubtedly cost much money and labor, was never used? So far they have been provided with the most convoluted conjectures (the “sabotage” of detainees, the fear of the population of the town of Dachau, etc.), But no one has given a convincing answer.
The most convincing answer is that the “gas chamber” was never used because it was not a “gas chamber”.
What Pressac says about the behavior of Americans is more plausible. They went to Dachau with the preconception that there should be a gas chambers (as explained in my first article) and made a play of disinfestation chambers with clothes hanging in front of them and the local “Brausebad” Next, considering the documentation on Zentrallbauleitung relative the the crematorium , they realized that their representation was unfounded and then “lightened” documentation “discarding” documents that shed light on the history of the alleged “gas chamber”
When they finally deign to make public all the documentation, you can answer with certainty to all questions that I raised above.
In his article, Mattogno included a photo similar to my photo below, except that his photo is reversed. I don’t understand why he reversed the photo.