Oh no! Oy vey! Here we go again! It's happening!
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (112)
sorted by:
Wow.
I really don't know how to respond to this, since most of it is incorrect.
Modern day, INDUSTRIAL crematoria, take 3-4 hours to burn up 1 body. The skeleton remains at 3-4 hours...
Even within modern crematoria, which burn efficiently and at high temperatures, the skeleton will survive. The skeletal remains are then raked from the cremator and the remains placed in a machine known as a cremulator, which grinds the bones into ash.
In the 1940s, there were not robust natural gas production, transport and storage.
Temperature is important.
They could not use coal, or wood... where the hell do you get that much coal or wood during a war? Who gets it for you, during a war?
So, fuel oil... that you use... for burning jews, or running a war?
Or natural gas... I just don't know where the hell they got natural gas in that great of a supply.
The crematoria had to run 24/7, because there is no point stopping... and it takes time to warm up.
You can't stuff 50 bodies in there because... YES, calories are calories... and you're not going to burn 50 bodies at once with 1940's fuel and technology.
Does your car look the same as a 1940s car?
You need to fact check YOURSELF...
how are you burning 50 per hour?
I have asked a modern crematoria. You know those are tiny, run singles, and have dozens of gas jets?
Still takes a MINIMUM of 3 hours. TODAY.
If you stuff 50 in there, it'll take a whole day. Not 1 hour. And most of the bones will be left.
Where are all the bones?
Did we build a bone crusher for each crematoria? Where are they? Where are the plans for them?
3 hours MINIMUM is proven incorrect with a basic internet search. It often does take that long, but calling it a minimum is manipulation.
And yes in fact I would argue that cars of the 40s are basically the same today.
The technology has incrementally improved but is fundamentally the same.
They have improved considerably in efficiency. But it's efficiency in producing kinetic energy. Which has room for improvements in efficiency in ways simply producing heat does not.
That is why I didn't use a car analogy. But thanks for the strawman.
Since you decided to quote the part that I already SPECIFICALLY admitted was wrong, and argue that point I really don't see any evidence you're interested in a good faith discussion even if you are right.