Well, HDenier, since you prefer not to explain what your post about Majdanek is referring to, I decided to do your work for you and poke around the page you linked to. Is this what the comment you quoted pertained to?
If so, the article is flat-out mistaken. The gas chamber building is unique. There are two closely matching but not identical bathhouses at the north end of the Economics Sector at Majdanek. These are B&D I (no. 41) and B&D II (no. 42), respectively the men's and women's bathhouses. No. 42 is the building closed to tourists. Closely adjacent to no. 41, a few feet north of it, is a bunker housing three gas chambers - one large room to the west, two smaller rooms to the east. The gas chamber structure is not "identical" to a building next to it - there is no building next to it!
The gas chambers are not in no. 41, as the article implies, according to the museum. They are in the bunker to the north. Both nos. 41 and 42 were used for processing arriving prisoners and showering/delousing prisoners. Most people studying the camp today are of the opinion that a room at the northern end of no. 41, marked "IV" on a diagram of the building made by a Polish-Soviet investigating commission in 1944, was used to disinfest clothing.
To help you understand this, here is an aerial view of the buildings made recently:
[imgw=800]http://i.imgur.com/us2120v.png?3[/imgw]
"GC" is the gas chambers bunker, and 41 and 42 are the bathhouses described above. During the war, when the camp was operating, the bunker was under a pavilion-style roof and surrounded by barbed wire. (A route which prisoners' commonly took on entering the camp is marked with yellow arrows, and 43 and 44 were called the Effektenkammer; these were the buildings where incoming prisoners surrendered their valuables before being taken into the bathhouses or to a waiting area for the gas chambers.)
Much more can be said. But for now let's just note that the article is mistaken.
In fact, the only people confused here are whoever wrote the article you linked to and "rizolitv," whose comment, as I already noted, is nearly unintelligible.
Edited by jsfisher:
IMGW tags substituted for IMG tags to produce an image of reasonable width.