(This article was originally published on November 4th, 2022. It has been updated with new information)
Gas chambers with wooden doors is a well known aspect of Holocaust revisionism. Here the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) addresses the issue:
Notice the phrase, “there is no physical evidence as to how the door of the extermination gas chambers looked like”. They are admitting that they don’t know what the doors looked like but since they found a door that maybe could have worked for a homicidal gas chamber that’s good enough for them.
Side note, JVL admits that none of the alleged extermination facilities are in the original state. This is a new admission as they used to pass off Crema I for being in the original state. For an in depth look at this watch Germar Rudolf’s Curated Lies—The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions.
Back to the wooden doors. JVL references the book, AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, by Jean-Claude Pressac. Wikipedia claims Pressac’s book “demonstrated the technical possibility of mass killing by gas chambers during the Holocaust, thus debunking many falsehoods promoted by Holocaust deniers”. Despite this book being so important to debunking Holocaust deniers it had limited printings and is rare. Copies can sell for over $1000. Fortunately there is an online version. For more about Pressac’s book and how unscientific is it see this article that I wrote
Unlike JVL, Pressac makes no admission that there is an uncertainty about the doors used. He says that the door found in the Bauhof, or builders yard, certainly was an alleged homicidal gas chamber door. He says the proof is the peephole with the grid protecting the peephole from the inside. The following is the photograph that JVL was referring to:
Germar Rudolf’s book, The Chemistry of Auschwitz, has a better photograph of what the alleged homicidal gas chamber doors probably looked like according to orthodox Holocaust historians:
As for the peephole allow me to quote Rudolf, “Peepholes were in fact required for all disinfestation doors, because anyone entering a disinfestation chamber had to be observed by another person from the outside in order that, in case of an accident, help could be provided immediately.” (page 123). There are plenty of reasons for the peephole to be protected on the inside that are not sinister. For example; if the clothing was being disinfected on racks there is a possibility that the rack could damage the peephole. What doesn’t make sense is having a peephole to observe the alleged gassings as according to the official story the room would have been so packed that an outside observer wouldn’t have been able to see past the person that was immediately by the door.
Here is Pressac’s detailed description of the door:
It is interesting to note that Pressac describes how everything in the alleged gas chamber was destroyed but the door. Could this door have withstood two thousand or more panicking people? Could it have remained gas tight while a mass of people were pressing upon it? Without experimentation there is no way to know for sure, and orthodox Holocaust historians are against such scientific exploration. In the end it doesn’t actually matter as it is not known for sure what doors were used for the alleged homicidal gas chambers.
Thanks to this article I have become aware of another Holocaust museum deception. In the early ’90’s the newly opened US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC fraudulently displayed this replica as the door to the alleged homicidal gas chambers when it was known that it was actually the door to a delousing chamber. The dishonesty of the Holocaust affirmers knows no bounds.