A message to Jonnie Hannover Hargis ...

Author	Comment
Roberto	Re: Response to "Wahrheit"	#61	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 9-Nov-2007 23:51	My post on the History Channel thread disappeared for some reason, so I posted again: *Quote:* truth-seeker > And on CODOH, I was not telling you to join the > discussion. Merely showing the on-going debate > between believer bulldog Roberto Muehlenkamp and > myself, on two different forums. We don't need to discuss on two forums. We can discuss right here. The current status of the debate is the following: 1. Your posts of Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:53 pm and Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:42 am under http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?t=4600 2. My posts # 9520 and # 9526 under http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=161.topic&start=51&stop=60 3. Your post of Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:18 pm under http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?t=4600 4. My post # 9591 under http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=161.topic&start=51&stop=60 You may continue from there. If you prefer a forum with a more user-friendly formatting than this one, post your reply on my above-mentioned thread of the RODOH forum. My posting on your thread of the CODOH forum is not possible because I am banned from that forum. If you prefer to post under the protection of a moderator who can intervene in your favor when you're on the ropes (by deleting the links to my RODOH thread), stick to CODOH. In that case, we will have to continue debating on two different forums. Its up to you. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Wahrheitseeker	Response to Muehlenkamp	#62	[url]	[-]
Posts: 486 11-Nov-2007 21:56	Wahrheit reporting for historical-debating duty. As shown by the post disapperances of the History Channel forum, where the aforementioned posts no longer appears, I have provided a copy of my response to RODOH. Since this has little to do with "The Memory Hole" perhaps we should migrate to another of RODOH's forums? I shall try to be clean in debating, as in hopes of Roberto doing the same. We're grown ups here. Let us not jump into the pit of harassment and name-calling. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* To which I will respond point by point, and as "Wahrheit" and his fellow true believers will be reading this thread, my response will also include questions and requests for substantiation of claims made that I expect "Wahrheit" to respond to. And this is my attempt to clarify my position and points, all the while responding in return. --Roberto Muehlenkamp [quote]W. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto wrote: Quote: In this time aspect, homicidal gassings, which lasted half an hour at most before the gas was ventilated out, differed from fumigations, be it in the Auschwitz-Birkenau fumigation chambers or in the rooms mentioned by Dr. Bachmann, where the HCN can be assumed to have been in contact with the walls for hours. Cyanide can also be assumed to have remains in contact with the gas-chamber walls for hours. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why so, and how much cyanide? [/quote] The graph given by Rudolf showing a simulation of the hydrogen cyanide levels inside the Birkenau homicidal gas chambers in morgue 1 of crema II is very informative on this area. Assuming the realistic five air exchanges per hour in the gas chamber, the concentration of cyanide in the room would remain above 1 g/mg^3 for two hours. www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/7.html#7.3.2.2.3. Yet time is not the, or one of the, important factors for the creation of Prussian Blue. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* Please show evidence to how the homicidal gas chamber walls differed from the delousing chambers walls, and quantify the alleged higher absorption capacity resulting from this supposed difference. For one thing, material. The delousing chamber's walls were largely made of brick, compared to the "gas chambers'" which had concrete. Location is also an important difference. As I have pointed out, the morgues were underground, and would therefore certainly have more humid and moist walls as compared to it's above-ground, and heated delousing chamber brothren. In hopes of quantifying this difference, us turn back to Rudolf who reproduced information found in a HCN study by Schwarz and Deckert. *Quote:* Table 7: Absorption of hydrogen cyanide by various building materials under the effect of 2% HCN by volume over 24 hours.[409] Material HCN [mg m-2] Terracotta 55.2 Brick 73.0 Lime sandstone, naturally humid 22,740.0 Lime sandstone, briefly dried 4,360.0 Lime sandstone, dried approx. 1/2 year at 20C 2,941.0 Concrete block, dried for 3 days 8,148.0 Lime mortar blocks, a few days old* 4,800.0 Cement mortar blocks, a few days old* 540.0 Cement mortar blocks, a month old* 140.0 Cement blocks, pure, a few days old* 1,550.0 * 2.5 to 3.3% HCN by volume.[408] The vol. % data, according to the authors, represent theoretical nominal values, which, in practice, however, are only reached up to 50% or less, through adsorption onto walls and fumigation materials. With brick having absorbed 73 mg, while a month old cement block absorbed 140 mg, we can safely quantify the factor by at least 2; yet, this factor is an underestimate for our reasons, as our cement would be humid and moist (note the increase in absorbtion of naturraly humid vs. briefly dried lime sandstone, for instance). Then consider that W.A. Uglow found that concrete absorbs ~four to six times as much HCN as lime mortar (Rudolf Report, p.188). Also, the morgues would be freshly built and quickly put into use according to the literature, meaning our gas chamber walls would be more inclined to absorb as the concrete blocks that were either "dried for three days", or were "a few days old", both with much higher abrobtion rates than the HCN-exposed brick. So by several times the gas chamber walls could absorb more than the delousing chambers. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* W. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cyanide would easily cling to the moist walls that were to be found inside morgue's cellar. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you demonstrate that this would be so, considering the expectable levels of moisture inside the morgue? See Schwarz and Deckert's table above. Where the materials exposed to HCN were moist, they absorbed considerably more than compared to it's drier compatriots. For instance, with lime sandstone the HCN mgs absorbed were: *Quote:* Lime sandstone, naturally humid 22,740.0 Lime sandstone, briefly dried 4,360.0 Lime sandstone, dried approx. 1/2 year at 20C 2,941.0 Also, in Dr. Bachmann's study, his dry-room for fumigation wasn't humid-less, and actually did contain some amount of moisture. It contained some 30% relative humidity, with a temperature right near 20 deg Celsius, not to far from where the gas chambers are alleged to have operated temperature wise. Still wasn't enough to form Prussian Blues, as his 90-95% relative humidity fumigations were. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* What matters is not so much when the walls were washed but the level of humidity inside the chamber, which would affect the walls independently of whether they were washed directly. A high level of humidity inside the chamber would always be present. But, as Dr. Bachmann has stated, and as other scientists have studied and found out, higher humidity INCREASES the likelihood of Prussian Blue formation, not the reverse. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* According to other testimonies I have read, water was also shed on the floor to facilitate the dragging of the bodies in the chamber. The specific statements from these eye-witnesses would be appreciated, so as to ascertain their significance in relation to our discussion. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* In other words, during periods of major gassing operations the homicidal gas chambers would constantly have a level of moisture that I expect to have been much higher than that of basements or churches that are not in contact with water so often and so intensively. Again, moisture facilitates the Prussian Blue formation process. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* No, what is crucial is what concentrations of cyanide residues could form on the moist walls while high amounts of gas were available inside the gas chamber, which was for a relatively short period of time. Yes, and given their higher moisture content, their more favorable Ph-level, and it's higher absorbtivity level of the walls, any level of concentrations of cyanide in the gas chambers would be multiplied in the walls. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* As the formation of Prussian Blue is dependent on a high concentration of CN- ions, any factors reducing that concentration such as, in this case, the shortness of the time during which high amounts of gas were inside the chamber and the increased humidity as compared to a level favoring formation of Prussian Blue in much longer fumigation operations is significant. Given that the cyanide concentration of the gas chambers is likely to have reached a 10-12 g/m^3 for soem minutes, and a level hovering to that for an even longer amount of time, the CN concentrations in the room with a high absorbitive capacity would be more than sufficient for the creation of Prussian Blue. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* Why not both? In his article Chemistry is not the Science, Dr. Green points out the logical assumptions related to this splitting not absence of ventilation in one part, but reduction of ventilation times in the part that was used in each case: Green seems instead to suggest that ventilation is the unused portion of the "gas chamber" was sealed, so as to double the ventilation capacity of the section still in service. Green States *Quote:* If one makes the logical assumption that the intake and exhaust vents were also blocked off in the unused portion of the gas chambers, this modification doubled the ventilation rate of the remaining portion. Yet don't at least several witnesses state that both sections were used, at least several times? With the Hungarian action occuring a few months after the split, and with the capacity at the camp alleged to have been at full-bore, it's doubtful that, if there were gassings, they would let half the gas chamber stay unused. Pressac,in his book, states that the smaller portion of Krema II had inefficient ventilation capacity anyway. While providing Tauber's deposition, Pressac provided some thoughts: *Quote:* Tauber: At the end of 1943, the gas chamber was divided in two by a brick wall to make it possible to gas smaller transports. In the dividing wall there was a door identical to that between the corridor and the original gas chamber. Small transports were gassed in the chamber furthest from the entrance from the corridor. Pressac: [One of the very few contestable points in the deposition. It would seem more logical to gas in the gas chamber CLOSEST to the entrance, as this meant less distance to transport the corpses and the ventilation system at the far end of the gas chamber must have been inefficient because it was poorly designed.] --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* W. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, in the smaller portion of Krema II, Bennahmias describes that smaller transports were exterminated there in the usual fashion, but that the clean-up process did not begin for many days later. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A precise quote would be appreciated, as it seems highly unlikely that dead bodies were allowed to lie in a gas chamber for days after the gassing. A precise quote is warranted. From pg 53 of The Holocaust Odyssey of Daniel Bennahmias, Sonderkommando, emphasis mine: *Quote:* "Despite the foregoing, the system still proved its efficiency because there were fewer people to process and a smaller area to clean. After splitting the chamber in this way, and employing the technique described, it was not unusual for the smaller of the two chambers to remain sealed and intact with its complement of people for as long as four or five days or longer. When the door finally was opened, the Sonderkommando was assaulted by an overhwelming stenchand the ghastly sight of putrid flesh. The bodies had turned blue and were bloated to double and treble their normal size, and Danny was among those who had to extricate them." Given that a stench remained in the room, and that the bodies were blue (showing lack of oxygen, cyanide victims are pink), it suggets there was no ventilation in use for this portion. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* So, will our friend now argue that a regularly hosed-down basement will be less humid than a church or a basement where no such hosing is done? No, but we have yet to see how this high humidity will be too much for Prussian Blue formation. Again, Bachmann created Prussian Blue at 90-95% humidity in a room at over 20 deg. Celsius, which puts it in the range given by Dr. Green and McCarthy. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* I figure that adding cold water may reduce the humidity of a washing chamber insofar as that humidity is caused by the presence of a lot of hot water, which is hardly surprising. I wonder, however, if our genius can demonstrate that his humid church or basement would become less humid if regularly washed with cold water. When the water is still cold, or anything less than warm, I consider it a possibility. Either way, it's insignificant to the Prussian Blue issue. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* Of course cold water contributes less to increasing a rooms humidity than cold water, but an experiment more interesting than W.s shower-room suggestion would be to regularly wash a church or basement with cold water (all of it, and not just a corner relatively corresponding to the size of the shower-place in W.s bathroom) and measuring the impact that this has on the ambient humidity. Certainly would be interesting; however, I do not have the resources to perform such an experiment. I look forward to the results if its performed by Muehlenkamp, or someone else. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* Interesting graph. Where does it come from, and what is it based on? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg Appears in accordance with more advanced scientific websites, although the graph is the most user-friendly display of information. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* Where did Green and McCarthy write that the gas chambers were likely in the range of 15-20 degrees centigrade? In Chemistry is not the Science, Dr. Green writes the following I accept my mistake on their hypothesis for the temperature range of the gas chambers. Would be beneficial for more studies to be done on this area by both sides of the historical debate (on gas chamber operating temperatures), since now the only working estimate has a 20 degree Celsius (or 36 deg. Farhenheit) range. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* This means that W. will have to increase his reasonable maximum temperature for the water. One might also expect the temperature difference between the colder water and the hotter ambient temperature to produce steam, which is what I presume accounts for higher moisture when you run a hot shower in a colder bathroom. The cold water would have to heat up before adding much moisture to the gas chamber's atmosphere. High water temperature causes high vapor pressure. This is why a cold shower adds little moisture to the walls of the bathroom, while a warm one does. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* W. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a room with moderate humidity, 10 deg Celsius water is likely to have a vapor pressure of 1.23 Kilopascals. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No idea if thats correct, but Ill accept it from any objective source that W. can provide. Here for the Kilopascal data from water vapor pressure. Here for the Kilopascal conversion into atmosphere. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* It would especially be interesting to learn what amount of water W. considered in his calculations. It's not the amount of water that matters, but the temperature of the water, which affects the vapor pressure (thereby the room's humidity). --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* I note that he mentioned a relative humidity that must have been much higher than what can be expected in Dr. Bachmanns churches and basements, none of which ever had sweating human beings packed like sardines into them. In other words, W. has unwittingly provided another reason why Dr. Bachmanns churches and basements are no indication that Prussian Blue need have formed in the homicidal gas chambers of Birkenau. Actually, as stated before, Dr. Bachmann's humid environment was within the range of Dr. Green and McCarthy's hypothesis for the temperature inside the gas chambers (Bachmann was at ~23-4 deg. Celsius), with a relative humidty nearing the peak of its possibility (90-95%). --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- *Quote:* I have no idea why ammonia are used to remove cyanide residues from US execution gas chambers, if they are. But what W. has to demonstrate is that this is done in order to prevent Prussian Blue from forming, and that Prussian Blue would form if it were not done. Good luck! Actually, that's not necessary. I simply must show that ammonia us used to remove cyanide crystals remaining in the gas chamber after use, which could have the effect of preventing the formation of Prussian Blue. No cyanide, no Prussian Blue. In your own post #7219you display a Zundel article which details the pre-gassing procedures of a US execution chamber. Prior to the arrival of the warden, the assistant warden and a chemist must go through and check several matters, the first one being (emphasis yours): *Quote:* "1) Ensuring that four ammonia reservoirs in the bottom of the gas chamber were filled. This ammonia was released after the execution to help reduce the cyanide gas to crystals which could be washed away. (32-8877, 8878)" You went on to agree with this point, telling "Mr. Bergmann": *Quote:* So what was the ammonium used for in this gassing?....To help remove the cyanide gas from the gas chamber by reducing it to crystals that could be washed away. The ammonium was part of the process of clearing the gas chamber of cyanide gas, together with the ventilation. Ammonia for cyanide removal, and then water, which suggests water is not able to do the job itself, as Dr. Green would have us believe.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#63	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 12-Nov-2007 03:36	W. *Quote:* Wahrheit reporting for historical-debating duty. As shown by the post disapperances of the History Channel forum, where the aforementioned posts no longer appears, I have provided a copy of my response to RODOH. Since this has little to do with "The Memory Hole" perhaps we should migrate to another of RODOH's forums? No, let's leave it here, so the CODOH folks don't lose the link. W. *Quote:* I shall try to be clean in debating, as in hopes of Roberto doing the same. We're grown ups here. Let us not jump into the pit of harassment and name-calling. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To which I will respond point by point, and as "Wahrheit" and his fellow true believers will be reading this thread, my response will also include questions and requests for substantiation of claims made that I expect "Wahrheit" to respond to. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And this is my attempt to clarify my position and points, all the while responding in return. --Roberto Muehlenkamp W. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto wrote: Quote: In this time aspect, homicidal gassings, which lasted half an hour at most before the gas was ventilated out, differed from fumigations, be it in the Auschwitz-Birkenau fumigation chambers or in the rooms mentioned by Dr. Bachmann, where the HCN can be assumed to have been in contact with the walls for hours. Cyanide can also be assumed to have remains in contact with the gas-chamber walls for hours. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why so, and how much cyanide? The graph given by Rudolf showing a simulation of the hydrogen cyanide levels inside the Birkenau homicidal gas chambers in morgue 1 of crema II is very informative on this area. Assuming the realistic five air exchanges per hour in the gas chamber, the concentration of cyanide in the room would remain above 1 g/mg^3 for two hours. www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/7.html#7.3.2.2.3. You call that reasonable? The fellow claims that "quantities of at least 20 kg of Zyklon B per gassing (ten 2 kg cans or twenty 1 kg cans) would probably have had to have been used for the gassing procedures described" in order to reach "a quantity of hydrogen cyanide of approximately 1.5 kg released and spread out after five minutes" (the "five minutes" requirement is a red herring, but thats another story). This is quite an overestimate. The concentration that Rudolf assumes 1,500 grams of Zyklon B in 430 cubic meters, a concentration of ca. 3.5 g/m is almost 11 times the concentration that, according to the sources cited in Dr. Greens articles Chemistry is not the Science and The Chemistry of Auschwitz, is "rapidly fatal" to an average human being. In a gassing at Birkenau Krematorium II on 13 March 1943, described by Pressac as quoted in The Chemistry of Auschwitz, the SS used 6 kilograms of Zyklon B to wipe out 1,492 women, children, and old people, selected from a convoy of 2,000 Jews from the Krakow ghetto. Krema II, according to Dr. Greens article Chemistry is not the Science, had a volume of 504 cubic meters, which would mean that on the occasion in question a concentration of 6,000 ./. 504 = 11.9 g/m was used. According to Rudolf himself, the "free volume" presumably the volume not occupied by the victims bodies was 430 m, so 6,000 grams of Zyklon B would make for 13.95 g/m -42 times the concentration lethal to an average human being. How fast this concentration would develop depended on the ambient temperature. There is this table featured on Rudolfs website, which corresponds to the right part of "Illustration 1" of R. Irmschers 1942 article Nochmals: Die Einsatzfhigkeit der Blausure bei tiefen Temperaturen and translated on the same site. This curve, which shows the evaporation of Zyklon B from Erco carrier material at temperatures of 18 C, - 6 C, 0 C and 15 C, makes clear that, even at the lowest of the temperatures considered, about 10% of the Zyklon evaporates within a period of about 5 to 15 minutes, the lower of these periods being roughly where the curve reaches the 10 % mark regarding the highest temperature, i.e. 15 C. This would mean that, at a temperature of 15 C, the concentration of Zyklon B in the gas chamber would after 5 minutes have reached 1.19 g/m or 1.395 g/m, depending on whether it is referred to the gas chambers total volume or to the free volume calculated by Rudolf 3.6 to 4.2 times the lethal concentration. At a temperature of 20 centigrade, evaporation would have occurred much faster, according to a monograph published in 1933 by Gerhard Peters of the Degesh company, translated by Dr. Ulrich Roessler and quoted in The Chemistry of Auschwitz. Peters, as quoted by Green, wrote that the poison began to evaporate "with great vehemence" as soon as the tins were poured out, and that "the greatest part, nearly all" of the Zyklon B evaporated within 30 minutes at an ambient temperature of 20 centigrade. Assuming that the evaporation progressed linearly over time which is unlikely, if only because the amount subject to "vehement" evaporation would be higher at the outset and thus more gas would be released at the beginning of the process this means that roughly one-sixth of the substance would have evaporated after five minutes, making for a concentration of 1.98 g/m or 2.33 g/m - 6 or 7 times the lethal concentration. However, an ambient temperature of 20 Celsius, still somewhat below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide (25.6 degrees Celsius, according to the Merck Index, quoted by Dr. Green) is also likely to have been a rarity in the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau. For these chambers were full of human bodies and human body temperature is 37C, far above the boiling point of Zyklon B. The temperature inside the gas chamber is likely to have been like in a sauna, due to pre-heating with coke braziers plus the victims cumulated body heat in colder weather and due to the latter factor alone in warmer periods of the year, when most of the homicidal gassings took place. It is thus described by several witnesses, e.g. Henryk Tauber: *Quote:* It was very hot in the gas chamber and so suffocating as to be unbearable. If an increase in temperature from 15 C to 20 C, still somewhat below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide, cut the evaporation time and accordingly increased the gas concentration after 5 minutes evaporation by almost 70 %, it seems reasonable to assume that, at a far higher temperature well above the boiling point, the concentration after 5 minutes would be higher by at least the same factor 3.31 g/m or 3,88 g/m, 10 to almost 12 times the lethal concentration. This, in turn, would correspond to roughly 28 % of the concentration after full out-gassing (11.9 g/m or 13.95 g/m), or roughly 1.7 kg of evaporated Zyklon B. So we can safely say that the amount required to reach the concentration that, according to Rudolf, is applied in US prison executions, was just 6 kg of Zyklon B for 430 cubic meters. This was sufficient, at the temperature in the gas chambers produced by pre-heating and/or the body heat of many frightened people packed together, to bring about a concentration of hydrogen cyanide that would meet both Rudolfs "five minutes" straw-man and his postulations regarding the gas concentration at US prison executions. The above-mentioned concentrations at full out-gassing in g/m correspond to roughly 11,000 or 13,000 ppmv, the assumed concentrations after five minutes to ca. 3,000 or 3,500 ppmv. As you probably know, Dr. Green has demonstrated in his expert report for the Irving/Lipstadt trial how fast the ventilation system installed in the gas chambers of Birkenau crematoria II and III would be able to reduce even a concentration much higher than the full out-gassing concentrations mentioned above (not to mention the assumed concentrations after five minutes). I quote from page 12 of that report: *Quote:* I anticipate the argument that the initial concentration assumed is too low. On p. 189 of his affidavit Rudolf provides an estimate that the initial concentration was 1%. 1% is 10,000 ppm, the difference is inconsequential as shown in the results of the calculation with C0=10,000 ppm: Time (minutes) HCN concentration (ppm) 15 Minute Mean Exposure 0 10000 3689 10 1908 704 20 364 134 30 70 26 40 13 5 50 2 1 In an effort to show the unimportance of such an argument, I perform the same calculation setting C0=20,000 ppm, a gross overestimate of the gaseous concentration that would have been present when the ventilation system was turned on. The following table shows the results of the calculation: Time (minutes) HCN concentration (ppm) 15 Minute Mean Exposure 0 20, 000 7378 10 3815 1407 20 728 269 30 139 51 40 26 10 50 5 2 Even with this gross overestimate, it would have been safe for a slave laborer to enter somewhere between 30 and 40 minutes. Even with an concentration of 20,000 ppm before out-gassing, which is twice of what Rudolf assumed, the concentration would be down to 139 ppm after 30 minutes. Yet Rudolf assumes 1 g/m3 for two hours, which is about 900 ppm. Thats far too much. W. *Quote:* Yet time is not the, or one of the, important factors for the creation of Prussian Blue. Time is important insofar as the probability of Prussian Blue formation depended on the concentration of CN- ions that could develop while a high gas concentration was available, among other factors. If the possible concentration wasnt high enough independently of dilution, we need not even talk about the other factors. Lets assume that the above 6 kg of Zyklon B were allowed to outgas completely, until they reached about 13,000 ppm (they certainly were not, as there was the possibility of withdrawing the wire-mesh baskets containing the Zyklon B through the introduction columns and it would make sense to do so in order to streamline the process), and that the temperature was 30 Celsius, (which is probably an underestimate for most gassings considering what I wrote above about the temperature in the gas chamber). In this case, according to the graph shown on page 47 of Dr. Greens expert report, the liquid phase concentration of HCN (only liquid HCN can form Prussian Blue) would be 0.1 mole/liter at best. Assuming a pH of 6-7 as measured by Markiewicz et al (see expert report, page 50 the CO2 exhaled by the victims means that the pH was, if anything, even lower than that, see the end of footnote 61 on page 54 of the report), this would lead to a concentration of CN- ions in the order of 10-3 (0.001) moles/liter, 1 % of the HCN concentration. A mere tenfold dilution by ambient water would bring this concentration below the minimum level required, according to Alich et al, for formation of Prussian Blue to be possible. This concentration is 3.3 x 10-4 (0.00033) moles/liter (expert report, page 45, last paragraph and footnote 56). Now, lets assume that only the amount required to killed within five minutes was allowed to outgas (3.31 g/m or 3,88 g/m, according to my above calculations). Make that 4 g/m to simplify finding a value in Dr. Greens table on page 47. The value of the liquid phase concentration is about 0.025 moles/liter, and the concentration of CN- ions at a pH of 6-7 is 1 % of that or 0.00025 = 2.5 x 10-4 moles/liter. The concentration would thus be lower than the concentration required for Prussian Blue formation, independently of any dilution, i.e. we dont need to talk about how much humidity there was in the gas chamber. Concentrations of CN- ions would be significantly higher with the basic pH of about 10 assumed (but not substantiated) by Rudolf. However, this would mean that, while there might be sufficient CN- ions under certain humidity conditions to allow for this step in the formation of Prussian Blue, the basic pH would inhibit a next step of that process, as pointed out on page 50 of the expert report (emphasis is mine): *Quote:* On the other hand, even if Rudolf were correct that the gas chambers had a pH of 10, this fact also inhibits the formation of the hexacyanoferrate (III) ion, which is a necessary precursor to Prussian blue as the base makes its formation compete with the formation of Fe(OH)3. Rudolf acknowledges this fact, but hides it in footnote 481: An overly alkaline environment would, however, disturb the complexing of the Fe3+ -ion by cyanide, which is then displaced by OH- (Fe(OH)3 then occurs as a by-product) and/or the latter can hardly be displaced from the iron. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please show evidence to how the homicidal gas chamber walls differed from the delousing chambers walls, and quantify the alleged higher absorption capacity resulting from this supposed difference. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For one thing, material. The delousing chamber's walls were largely made of brick, compared to the "gas chambers'" which had concrete. Location is also an important difference. As I have pointed out, the morgues were underground, and would therefore certainly have more humid and moist walls as compared to it's above-ground, and heated delousing chamber brothren. In hopes of quantifying this difference, us turn back to Rudolf who reproduced information found in a HCN study by Schwarz and Deckert. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 7: Absorption of hydrogen cyanide by various building materials under the effect of 2% HCN by volume over 24 hours.[409] Material HCN [mg m-2] Terracotta 55.2 Brick 73.0 Lime sandstone, naturally humid 22,740.0 Lime sandstone, briefly dried 4,360.0 Lime sandstone, dried approx. 1/2 year at 20C 2,941.0 Concrete block, dried for 3 days 8,148.0 Lime mortar blocks, a few days old* 4,800.0 Cement mortar blocks, a few days old* 540.0 Cement mortar blocks, a month old* 140.0 Cement blocks, pure, a few days old* 1,550.0 * 2.5 to 3.3% HCN by volume.[408] The vol. % data, according to the authors, represent theoretical nominal values, which, in practice, however, are only reached up to 50% or less, through adsorption onto walls and fumigation materials. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With brick having absorbed 73 mg, while a month old cement block absorbed 140 mg, we can safely quantify the factor by at least 2; yet, this factor is an underestimate for our reasons, as our cement would be humid and moist (note the increase in absorbtion of naturraly humid vs. briefly dried lime sandstone, for instance). Then consider that W.A. Uglow found that concrete absorbs ~four to six times as much HCN as lime mortar (Rudolf Report, p.188). Also, the morgues would be freshly built and quickly put into use according to the literature, meaning our gas chamber walls would be more inclined to absorb as the concrete blocks that were either "dried for three days", or were "a few days old", both with much higher abrobtion rates than the HCN-exposed brick. So by several times the gas chamber walls could absorb more than the delousing chambers. --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cyanide would easily cling to the moist walls that were to be found inside morgue's cellar. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you demonstrate that this would be so, considering the expectable levels of moisture inside the morgue? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Schwarz and Deckert's table above. Where the materials exposed to HCN were moist, they absorbed considerably more than compared to it's drier compatriots. For instance, with lime sandstone the HCN mgs absorbed were: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lime sandstone, naturally humid 22,740.0 Lime sandstone, briefly dried 4,360.0 Lime sandstone, dried approx. 1/2 year at 20C 2,941.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, lets assume for the time being (i.e. until I have arguments to counter the above) that the walls of the homicidal gas chamber absorbed more HCN than those of the delousing chambers. This would mean that conditions for formation of Prussian Blue were facilitated in the former if the necessary concentration of CN- ions was a) present at the outset and b) not diluted to a level insufficient for Prussian Blue formation by the ambient humidity. W. *Quote:* Also, in Dr. Bachmann's study, his dry-room for fumigation wasn't humid-less, and actually did contain some amount of moisture. It contained some 30% relative humidity, with a temperature right near 20 deg Celsius, not to far from where the gas chambers are alleged to have operated temperature wise. Still wasn't enough to form Prussian Blues, as his 90-95% relative humidity fumigations were. If accurate, this tells us that 90-95% relative humidity is propitious to formation of Prussian Blue provided that the necessary concentration of CN- ions is present. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What matters is not so much when the walls were washed but the level of humidity inside the chamber, which would affect the walls independently of whether they were washed directly. A high level of humidity inside the chamber would always be present. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But, as Dr. Bachmann has stated, and as other scientists have studied and found out, higher humidity INCREASES the likelihood of Prussian Blue formation, not the reverse. That may be so in fumigations, where the time during which high amounts of gaseous HCN are in contact with the walls allowed for a concentration of liquid HCN significantly higher than what can be expected to have formed in the homicidal gas chambers before the gas was ventilated out. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to other testimonies I have read, water was also shed on the floor to facilitate the dragging of the bodies in the chamber. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The specific statements from these eye-witnesses would be appreciated, so as to ascertain their significance in relation to our discussion. Shaul Chasan, Page 313 of Gideon Greif, "Wir weinten trnenlos ", my translation: *Quote:* As the gas chamber gradually became emptier, we had more room for movement. We shed water on the concrete floor so that it became more slippery in order to drag the corpses. Who shed the water on the floor? We. Whenever we noticed that the floor was drying we again let water out of the water-tap. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In other words, during periods of major gassing operations the homicidal gas chambers would constantly have a level of moisture that I expect to have been much higher than that of basements or churches that are not in contact with water so often and so intensively. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, moisture facilitates the Prussian Blue formation process. It does if the concentration of CN- ions is high enough. If the concentration is so low that dilution through moisture leads to an insufficient concentration, moisture hinders the process instead of facilitating it. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, what is crucial is what concentrations of cyanide residues could form on the moist walls while high amounts of gas were available inside the gas chamber, which was for a relatively short period of time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, and given their higher moisture content, their more favorable Ph-level, and it's higher absorbtivity level of the walls, any level of concentrations of cyanide in the gas chambers would be multiplied in the walls. Your claim is taken note of, now please substantiate it. I would especially like to see evidence that a) The pH-level was more favorable in the walls of the homicidal gas chambers, b) Any however low concentration of cyanide could have started a Prussia Blue reaction under the conditions you claim. According to a source used by both Rudolf and Dr. Green (Alich et al), a certain minimum concentration of CN- ions is a must for Prussian Blue to form. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the formation of Prussian Blue is dependent on a high concentration of CN- ions, any factors reducing that concentration such as, in this case, the shortness of the time during which high amounts of gas were inside the chamber and the increased humidity as compared to a level favoring formation of Prussian Blue in much longer fumigation operations is significant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that the cyanide concentration of the gas chambers is likely to have reached a 10-12 g/m^3 for soem minutes, and a level hovering to that for an even longer amount of time, the CN concentrations in the room with a high absorbitive capacity would be more than sufficient for the creation of Prussian Blue. Even with gaseous cyanide concentrations that high, which are unlikely, the concentrations of liquid HCN and hence of CN- ions would have been so low that even minimal dilution by the humidity present would have pushed them below the minimum threshold required for Prussian Blue formation, see above. There is no evidence that a "high absorbitive capacity" of the building material can make up for a too low concentration of CN- ions. The building material can only absorb as much liquid HCN as has condensed from the gaseous phase. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why not both? In his article Chemistry is not the Science, Dr. Green points out the logical assumptions related to this splitting not absence of ventilation in one part, but reduction of ventilation times in the part that was used in each case: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Green seems instead to suggest that ventilation is the unused portion of the "gas chamber" was sealed, so as to double the ventilation capacity of the section still in service. Wheres the difference between your statement and mine? W. *Quote:* Green States Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If one makes the logical assumption that the intake and exhaust vents were also blocked off in the unused portion of the gas chambers, this modification doubled the ventilation rate of the remaining portion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yet don't at least several witnesses state that both sections were used, at least several times? With the Hungarian action occuring a few months after the split, and with the capacity at the camp alleged to have been at full-bore, it's doubtful that, if there were gassings, they would let half the gas chamber stay unused. Using both halves would only mean that the ventilation capacity was not doubled in any half, not that there was no ventilation capacity. Greens calculations of the time it would require to ventilate the gas chamber are not dependent on the doubling assumption, as Green clearly points out in Chemistry is not the Science (emphasis is mine): *Quote:* If one makes the logical assumption that the intake and exhaust vents were also blocked off in the unused portion of the gas chambers, this modification doubled the ventilation rate of the remaining portion. However, we will continue to use the figures from 1943; if a gassing from 1944 is referenced, ventilation times would be cut in half. W. *Quote:* Pressac,in his book, states that the smaller portion of Krema II had inefficient ventilation capacity anyway. While providing Tauber's deposition, Pressac provided some thoughts: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tauber: At the end of 1943, the gas chamber was divided in two by a brick wall to make it possible to gas smaller transports. In the dividing wall there was a door identical to that between the corridor and the original gas chamber. Small transports were gassed in the chamber furthest from the entrance from the corridor. Pressac: [One of the very few contestable points in the deposition. It would seem more logical to gas in the gas chamber CLOSEST to the entrance, as this meant less distance to transport the corpses and the ventilation system at the far end of the gas chamber must have been inefficient because it was poorly designed.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whatever Pressac meant by "inefficient", Dr. Green has shown that the ventilation capacity was sufficient to reduce the gas concentration in the chamber to safe levels within 30 to 40 minutes at maximum. W *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, in the smaller portion of Krema II, Bennahmias describes that smaller transports were exterminated there in the usual fashion, but that the clean-up process did not begin for many days later. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A precise quote would be appreciated, as it seems highly unlikely that dead bodies were allowed to lie in a gas chamber for days after the gassing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A precise quote is warranted. From pg 53 of The Holocaust Odyssey of Daniel Bennahmias, Sonderkommando, emphasis mine: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Despite the foregoing, the system still proved its efficiency because there were fewer people to process and a smaller area to clean. After splitting the chamber in this way, and employing the technique described, it was not unusual for the smaller of the two chambers to remain sealed and intact with its complement of people for as long as four or five days or longer. When the door finally was opened, the Sonderkommando was assaulted by an overhwelming stenchand the ghastly sight of putrid flesh. The bodies had turned blue and were bloated to double and treble their normal size, and Danny was among those who had to extricate them." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that a stench remained in the room, and that the bodies were blue (showing lack of oxygen, cyanide victims are pink), it suggets there was no ventilation in use for this portion. I dont think you can demonstrate that cyanide victims are necessarily pink, and I would attribute the blueness and bloating to the effects of decomposition Bennahmias speaks of putrid flesh which is independent of the room's being ventilated. There is nothing to indicate that the ventilation was only switched on when the door was finally opened this would be a detail likely to deserve mention by the witness, as it would also be contrary to standard operating procedure. Ah, and thanks for pointing out that this kind of procedure is not likely to have been adopted very frequently, especially at the time of the Hungarian transports. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, will our friend now argue that a regularly hosed-down basement will be less humid than a church or a basement where no such hosing is done? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, but we have yet to see how this high humidity will be too much for Prussian Blue formation. It is for you to demonstrate that it will not be too much to push an already low concentration of CN- ions below the minimum level required for Prussian Blue formation assuming, see above, that the concentration was not already so low at the outset as to hinder Prussian Blue formation independently of dilution. W. *Quote:* Again, Bachmann created Prussian Blue at 90-95% humidity in a room at over 20 deg. Celsius, which puts it in the range given by Dr. Green and McCarthy. Dr. Green and McCarthy may make their calculations with 20 Celsius for the sake of argument, but they point out that the actual temperature is likely to have been much higher. The concentrations of liquid HCN condensing from the gas phase that they consider are certain to have been much lower than those that developed in any of Bachmanns churches or basements during the 16-or-so hours of a fumigation. The humidity in Bachmanns churches or basements was also lower, for two factors packing with sweating human bodies, regular hosing/shedding of water/washing of walls were missing. And if I understood your Bachmann quote correctly, he didnt say that formation of Prussian Blue under his high humidity conditions was a must. He just considered it a risk to be avoided. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I figure that adding cold water may reduce the humidity of a washing chamber insofar as that humidity is caused by the presence of a lot of hot water, which is hardly surprising. I wonder, however, if our genius can demonstrate that his humid church or basement would become less humid if regularly washed with cold water. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When the water is still cold, or anything less than warm, I consider it a possibility. A counterintuitive possibility that is, therefore requiring further explanation. W. *Quote:* Either way, it's insignificant to the Prussian Blue issue. No, "it" is of a certain significance to the extent to which Bachmanns churches or basements can be assumed to compare to the gas chambers of Birkenau in what concerns the humidity level. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course cold water contributes less to increasing a rooms humidity than cold water, but an experiment more interesting than W.s shower-room suggestion would be to regularly wash a church or basement with cold water (all of it, and not just a corner relatively corresponding to the size of the shower-place in W.s bathroom) and measuring the impact that this has on the ambient humidity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certainly would be interesting; however, I do not have the resources to perform such an experiment. I look forward to the results if its performed by Muehlenkamp, or someone else. You claimed that cold water would not greatly impact humidity, so if you cannot demonstrate that for a scenario resembling conditions in the Birkenau gas chambers as closely as possible, your claim is unsubstantiated and can therefore be dismissed. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting graph. Where does it come from, and what is it based on? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg Appears in accordance with more advanced scientific websites, although the graph is the most user-friendly display of information. Ill have a look at that later, thanks. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where did Green and McCarthy write that the gas chambers were likely in the range of 15-20 degrees centigrade? In Chemistry is not the Science, Dr. Green writes the following -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I accept my mistake on their hypothesis for the temperature range of the gas chambers. Would be beneficial for more studies to be done on this area by both sides of the historical debate (on gas chamber operating temperatures), since now the only working estimate has a 20 degree Celsius (or 36 deg. Farhenheit) range. Try my above 30 Celsius scenario. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This means that W. will have to increase his reasonable maximum temperature for the water. One might also expect the temperature difference between the colder water and the hotter ambient temperature to produce steam, which is what I presume accounts for higher moisture when you run a hot shower in a colder bathroom. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The cold water would have to heat up before adding much moisture to the gas chamber's atmosphere. High water temperature causes high vapor pressure. This is why a cold shower adds little moisture to the walls of the bathroom, while a warm one does. The question here is how much humidity regular hosing/washing of floor and walls in the entire gas chamber (and not in an area relatively corresponding to that taken up by the shower in your bathroom) would add. Cold water entering a hot room might not cause a vapor pressure as high as hot water, but the vapor pressure and thus the contribution to humidity is likely to be higher than when cold water enters a cold room. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a room with moderate humidity, 10 deg Celsius water is likely to have a vapor pressure of 1.23 Kilopascals. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No idea if thats correct, but Ill accept it from any objective source that W. can provide. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here for the Kilopascal data from water vapor pressure. Here for the Kilopascal conversion into atmosphere. Thanks, Ill look at that later. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would especially be interesting to learn what amount of water W. considered in his calculations. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not the amount of water that matters, but the temperature of the water, which affects the vapor pressure (thereby the room's humidity). So it makes no difference to the humidity level whether you shed a single bucket of hot water on the floor or spray walls and floor with many gallons of water? Come on. W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I note that he mentioned a relative humidity that must have been much higher than what can be expected in Dr. Bachmanns churches and basements, none of which ever had sweating human beings packed like sardines into them. In other words, W. has unwittingly provided another reason why Dr. Bachmanns churches and basements are no indication that Prussian Blue need have formed in the homicidal gas chambers of Birkenau. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, as stated before, Dr. Bachmann's humid environment was within the range of Dr. Green and McCarthy's hypothesis for the temperature inside the gas chambers (Bachmann was at ~23-4 deg. Celsius), with a relative humidty nearing the peak of its possibility (90-95%). So Dr. Bachmanns churches and basements couldnt have become more humid if they had been filled to bursting with sweating people and/or regularly washed with water? What would have happened, then, if they had been subjected to either or both influences? By the way, Im becoming increasingly interested in what Dr. Bachmann writes about this 90-95% humidity in his cellars or basements and the implications thereof. So could you please provide a comprehensive quote? All you have quoted so far is this: *Quote:* "Fumigation of rooms and buildings with HCN should preferably be carried out under relatively low humidity. Our experiments have shown that with relative humidities up to 30%, formation of corrosion layers on metals is either absent or negligible. Prior to fumigation, the humidity should be measured with a calibrated hygrometer. Rooms likely to be inherently humid (churches, vaults, basements, etc.) should be heated and/or ventilated before fumigation, either with already existing heating installations or with portable heaters, until the relative humidity has been sufficiently lowered. Drying agents, such as burnt lime or silica gel in open dishes, will further reduce humidity. These precautions and provisions require little effort compared with the troublesome removal of discolorations and layers after fumigation." Another thing, can I find Bachmanns "Prevention of Biodeterioration of Wooden Objects of Art: Influence of Fumigation with Hydrocyanic Acid on Metals" anywhere online? W. *Quote:* --Roberto Muehlenkamp-- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have no idea why ammonia are used to remove cyanide residues from US execution gas chambers, if they are. But what W. has to demonstrate is that this is done in order to prevent Prussian Blue from forming, and that Prussian Blue would form if it were not done. Good luck! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, that's not necessary. I simply must show that ammonia us used to remove cyanide crystals remaining in the gas chamber after use, which could have the effect of preventing the formation of Prussian Blue. No cyanide, no Prussian Blue. No, my friend, its not that easy. You have to demonstrate that there would be Prussian Blue if they didnt use ammonia, otherwise the use of that substance (which may be related to safety considerations or whatever) is without relevance to your argument. W. *Quote:* In your own post #7219you display a Zundel article which details the pre-gassing procedures of a US execution chamber. Prior to the arrival of the warden, the assistant warden and a chemist must go through and check several matters, the first one being (emphasis yours): Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "1) Ensuring that four ammonia reservoirs in the bottom of the gas chamber were filled. This ammonia was released after the execution to help reduce the cyanide gas to crystals which could be washed away. (32-8877, 8878)" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You went on to agree with this point, telling "Mr. Bergmann": Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So what was the ammonium used for in this gassing?....To help remove the cyanide gas from the gas chamber by reducing it to crystals that could be washed away. The ammonium was part of the process of clearing the gas chamber of cyanide gas, together with the ventilation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ammonia for cyanide removal, and then water, which suggests water is not able to do the job itself, as Dr. Green would have us believe. No, it doesnt necessarily suggest that water is "not able to do the job". It may just be that reducing the cyanide to crystals with ammonium is an easier and safer way to remove all cyanide from the gas chamber than rinsing with water, which may leave or transport cyanide residues sufficient to cause a slight poisoning. Even slight hazards to the health of employees are likely to be a US employers concern, so a method is employed that eliminates all possible risks, however small the possibility and even if the consequences of an eventual risk occurrence are not grievous. No US employer wants lawsuits from employees arguing that their health suffered from any exposure to cyanide, so a method excluding any possibility of such lawsuits is chosen. The speculation that the method may have something to do with keeping the gas chamber walls (which I expect to be tiled anyway) from getting blue spots seems to be rather far-fetched. Thats it for now, my friend. Thanks for also posting here. The incoherent babbling of Mr. "Hektor" on the Cesspit I will address later on. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#64	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 12-Nov-2007 14:23	The CODOH thread Those Prussian Blues Just Won't Wash also features the following post by Hektor: *Quote:* Wahrheit wrote: ...Since Muehlenkamp has posted another response to my work (http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm18.showMessageRange?topicID=161.topic&start=51&stop=57), it seems I am not quite finished with this subject, and will get back to it in a few days. A large part of his response merely deals with clarifying some of my points. ... Just make sure they are really debating, not throwing smokescreens and using deconstruction to extent the communication. I often observed it that they try doing this. Firstly one should have certainty with the rules of scientific logic. And this rests on: 1. Verifyable facts 2. Scientific laws 3. Sound conclusions from those facts. In the case of the Holocaust this would mean: 1. physical evidence 2. a) evidence demonstrates that there are traces for extermination by gassing. b) There is no evidence contradicting this or pointing to tempering with the evidence. 3. Conclusion: There are substantial reasons to believe that Jews were exterminated with Zyklon B. If they deviate from this, rest your case or point out the fallacies they are using. They possibly will try to get rid of the burden of proof on them. My comments: H. *Quote:* Just make sure they are really debating, not throwing smokescreens and using deconstruction to extent the communication. I often observed it that they try doing this. Is that so, my friend? Then kindly show your readers where Im supposed to be or have been "throwing smokescreens and using deconstruction to extent(?) the communication", in the current discussion with "Wahrheit" or in any other discussion. H. *Quote:* And this rests on: 1. Verifyable facts 2. Scientific laws 3. Sound conclusions from those facts. No problem with that statement, except for the orthography. I wonder what "verifyable facts" can be invoked by "Revisionists" in support of their "Hoax" articles of faith, by the way. And what scientific laws they have shown to be incompatible with the evidence that challenges those articles of faith. I see them try like hell and fail miserably every time. H. *Quote:* In the case of the Holocaust this would mean: 1. physical evidence 2. a) evidence demonstrates that there are traces for extermination by gassing. b) There is no evidence contradicting this or pointing to tempering with the evidence. 3. Conclusion: There are substantial reasons to believe that Jews were exterminated with Zyklon B. Here Im not following. Why should physical evidence be the only or the main evidence on the basis of which a historical event, crime or other, is reconstructed? Neither historiography or criminal investigation work that way, but both disciplines put great emphasis on other categories of evidence as well, namely eyewitness testimonies, documents and demographic data. In fact eyewitness testimonies and documents alone can prove a historical fact beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a constitutional states criminal courts, and have been held to provide such proof at numerous trials before West German courts, conducted at a time when the Cold War made assessment of the physical evidence by a western court a difficult undertaking at best. I also wonder how a South African "White Nationalist" means to prove all the bad things he claims to have been done to his Boer people predominantly or solely through physical evidence. As to Hectors other items: 2a): There is evidence demonstrating that there are traces for extermination by gassing in the ruins of the Birkenau crematoria, see here and here; 2b): There is no evidence contradicting 2a) or pointing to tempering with the evidence. On the contrary, all known eyewitness, documentary, demographic and other physical evidence to mass gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau corroborates the 1945 and 1994 findings of the Institute for Forensic Research Cracow. So Hector will have to draw the conclusion he stated in item 3: *Quote:* Conclusion: There are substantial reasons to believe that Jews were exterminated with Zyklon B. "Substantial reasons to believe" is an understatement, of course. There are no reasons to doubt that Jews were exterminated with Zyklon B in the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#65	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 12-Nov-2007 14:33	On page 2 of the same thread, a particularly rabid true believer by the handle of Aitgun rambles away as follows: *Quote:* Every year US taxpayers are bilked of millions of dollars to construct and maintain holyhoax 'museums'. It would take a very small percentage of those millions to conduct the scientific tests necessary to resolve once and for all any question concerning the validity of holyhoax claims. Its curious how cretins such as Muehlenkamp will try to exploit even the smallest degree of uncertainty in a scientific investigation but would never support a comprehensive scientific investigation of the 'hoax. This while mouthing pious declarations of opposition to the imprisonment of Rudolf, Zundel, et. al. Their resistance to a definitive investigation proves conclusively that the 'believers' are aware that they are defending a hoax. My comments: Aitgun *Quote:* Every year US taxpayers are bilked of millions of dollars to construct and maintain holyhoax 'museums'. It would take a very small percentage of those millions to conduct the scientific tests necessary to resolve once and for all any question concerning the validity of holyhoax claims. No (further) "scientific tests", whatever the poor soul means by that, are necessary to confirm the validity of a historical record based on eyewitness, documentary, demographic and physical evidence that has been assessed by historians and criminal justice authorities throughout the last decades, at least to the same extent and with the same level of detail as the evidence to any other historical event has been assessed. In other words, the "scientific tests" that the pertinent disciplines (historiography and criminal investigation) require have long been made. This doesnt mean that, if further "tests" that may expand our knowledge of these events can be made, such "tests" should be refrained from. The more we know about these events, the better. But to claim that such "tests" are necessary to establish whether these events occurred at all is just idiotic. Aitgun *Quote:* Its curious how cretins such as Muehlenkamp will try to exploit even the smallest degree of uncertainty in a scientific investigation but would never support a comprehensive scientific investigation of the 'hoax. Following his name-calling, the fellow interestingly acknowledges that there is "uncertainty" in the pseudo-scientific "Revisionist" crap he refers to as "scientific investigation". Actually its an understatement to speak of "uncertainty" when "Revisionist" pseudo-scientists have never managed to demonstrate that the evidence inconvenient to "Revisionist" articles of faith is essentially at odds with the laws of nature or contemporary technical possibilities, however hard they have tried. The best they can claim to have managed is to demonstrate that one or the other eyewitness must have been mistaken about details that eyewitnesses may well be mistaken about without that affecting the essential accuracy of their overall account. Mass killings are not the only events regarding which eyewitnesses make mistakes about details while on the whole recollecting the event quite accurately. No one in his right mind would, for instance, claim that there was no traffic accident because a witnesss recollection of the cars speed or any other detail is not plausible. As to a "comprehensive scientific investigation" of the events commonly known as the Holocaust, I consider that to have long been done, as explained above. And contrary to what Mr. "Aitgun" tries to make believe, I dont oppose any further investigation of these events by whatever means. On the contrary, I strongly favor the furtherance of historical knowledge through revisionism (= revising accepted elements of the historical record based on newly discovered evidence or a reasonable new assessment of previously known evidence), which is not to be confounded with the propagandistic charlatanry that unduly calls itself "Revisionism". A "comprehensive scientific investigation" of the "hoax" claim wouldnt last very long, by the way. It is all too obvious that theres no evidence whatsoever to anyones "hoaxing" having been involved in bringing about the historical record, and that such a monumental hoax (involving, among other spectacular achievements, the silencing of millions of potential exculpatory witnesses throughout the world) is about as plausible as UFO landings on our planet. Aitgun *Quote:* This while mouthing pious declarations of opposition to the imprisonment of Rudolf, Zundel, et. al. My custom signature contains no "pious declarations" but expresses my conviction that imbecility should not be punishable by law. I also dont like the idea of mendacious propagandists portraying themselves as martyrs, which is another reason for my opposition to hate speech laws. The day all such laws disappear, Ill throw a party, because "Revisionist" ramblers will then have no pretext to claim "persecution" and one excuse less for the miserable results of their "research". Aitgun *Quote:* Their resistance to a definitive investigation proves conclusively that the 'believers' are aware that they are defending a hoax. Such "resistance" only exists in the poor loonys mind, as pointed out above. But the resistance of many "Revisionist" true believers to engaging in open debate, and their hiding in online Fhrerbunkers like CODOH and throwing manure from there, suggests that they are fully aware of just how full of sht their "hoax" fantasies are. Wahrheit, could you please tell Mr. "Aitgun" that I expect to see him here on the RODOH forum? Thanks! Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Wahrheitseeker	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#66	[url]	[-]
Posts: 486 15-Nov-2007 22:10	A delayed response to Muehlenkamp, but here it is: *Quote:* No, let's leave it here, so the CODOH folks don't lose the link. I do not see the big problem, since a link to RODOH still exists on CODOH, in addition to links to your holocaustcontroversies blog. In this discussion we have to scroll down for a good amount before finding the relevant posts. I also doubt very many readers of CODOH will travel over here. They know the game by now. CODOH for largely deniers/revisionists, RODOH for largely believers. R.M. *Quote:* You call that reasonable? The fellow claims that "quantities of at least 20 kg of Zyklon B per gassing (ten 2 kg cans or twenty 1 kg cans) would probably have had to have been used for the gassing procedures described" in order to reach "a quantity of hydrogen cyanide of approximately 1.5 kg released and spread out after five minutes" Rudolf has explained his own reasons that he supports such a large figure in his report, but let us focus on your statements for now. R.M. *Quote:* (the "five minutes" requirement is a red herring, but thats another story). Why is the "five minutes requirement" such a red herring? R.M. *Quote:* The concentration that Rudolf assumes 1,500 grams of Zyklon B in 430 cubic meters, a concentration of ca. 3.5 g/m is almost 11 times the concentration that, according to the sources cited in Dr. Greens articles Chemistry is not the Science and The Chemistry of Auschwitz, is "rapidly fatal" to an average human being. Rudolf's assumptions use data on cyanide amounts from U.S. execution chambers, which also use similarly lethal concentrations, as you note. A question also comes up over just how fast is "rapidly fatal". Remember that the Occupational Safety regulation sources that Dr. Green uses in his works put their figures out for safety reasons. As you point out later in your post, US employers do their best to ensure safety of their workers, which includes the weakest of the weak. The sources Green cites are aimed at such cautionary measures, and can be seen as the amount fatal to those most susceptible to cyanide poisoning (weak, small, heavy breathing, etc...). Realistic experiments have shown that the figure for cyanide tolerance is much higher. A while ago I found an interesting article published in January, 1931 in the Journal of Hygiene called "The Toxicity of Atmospheres Containing Hydrocyanid Acid Gas" by Joseph Barcroft, a member of the Experimental Station of the US War Department at the time. I printed the article off the internet, but have been unable to find the article since, just references to it. If needed I shall copy the relevant sections of it for you to verify. Barcroft's articles studied the effects and time-duration those effects took upon various animals, as well as humans. For the article, something which would be illegal to do so now, he exposed a 45 yr old, 70 kg male and a 12 kg dog to a room containing a HCN concentration between 1/1600 and 1/2000, or between 0.8mg/litre and 0.6mg/litre, almost double the "rapidly fatal" concentration stated by modern governmental-employer safety regulations. The male remained in the chamber for 1.5 minutes, only exiting to try to save the dog, which was convulsing on the floor and crying. The dog passed away almost immediately after exiting the chamber. The male, on the other hand, only experienced light symptoms of cyanide poisoning. Feeling nausea after 5 minutes, and then having some difficulty focusing in close conversation. In his Chemistry is Not the Science, Dr. Green cites DuPont's Material Safety Data Sheet which states: *Quote:* Don't overreact. While prompt treatment is essential where poisoning has occurred, treatment of a lucid, conscious patient would rarely be necessary. The effects of cyanide poisoning are immediate, not delayed, and a conscious person that can communicate does not have significant cyanide poisoning. Given that the subject in Barcroft's experiment could communicate, albeit maybe loosely in close conversation, we can see that even though exposed to double the "rapidly fatal" amount for almost 2 minutes, he still did "not have significant cyanide poisoning." Barcroft also cites scientific literature at the time on the Hydrogen cyanide toxicity to humans. Here is the relevant paragraph (emphasis mine): *Quote:* "A report by S.H. Katz and E.S. Longfellow from the American Bureau of Mines issued in July 1923 states: "Men employed in fumigation with HCN have been tested while at rest in 250 parts per million of air for 2 minutes and in 350 parts per million for 1 1/2 minutes, but felt no dizziness, although possible on exertion they might have done so. In experiments during the war (WWI) men have been exposed to 500 parts per million for about a minute without injury. Hydrocyanic acid gas was formerly considered one of the deadliest gases in minute concentrations, but later experience, especially in the war, has shown that man is more resistant than some other forms of life-whereas recently Kohn-Abrest determined that 1000 parts per million are impossible to breathe for many minutes." 1000 parts per million, 3 times the "rapidly fatal" amount given by Dr. Green's sources, are impossible to breath "for many minutes", suggesting that it could be inhaled for some minutes. R.M. *Quote:* According to Rudolf himself, the "free volume" presumably the volume not occupied by the victims bodies was 430 m, so 6,000 grams of Zyklon B would make for 13.95 g/m -42 times the concentration lethal to an average human being . Upon a full outgassing, which no one alleges took place on either side of this debate, as I am allowing for the Zyklon-B introduction columns to exist, despite my doubts otherwise. R.M. *Quote:* How fast this concentration would develop depended on the ambient temperature. There is this table featured on Rudolfs website, which corresponds to the right part of "Illustration 1" of R. Irmschers 1942 article Nochmals: Die Einsatzfhigkeit der Blausure bei tiefen Temperaturen and translated on the same site. Interesting that Irmscher also notesthat humidity poses serious problems in maintaining such advanced outgassing rates (emphasis mine). *Quote:* In any event the calculation of relationships could not be made using this procedure in cases in which the humidity in the room is high thereby depositing upon the evaporating surfaces water or snow (depending upon the temperature) which significantly diminish the rate of evaporation. As we both agree that humidity would be very high in the gas chambers, this throws a wrench into the works of the gas chambers. While Irmscher did not quantify this "significantly diminishing rate of evaporation" for the Zyklon-B, one way to correct and makeup for this problem (as noted by Rudolf) would be to upgrade the amounts of Zyklon-B used. R.M. *Quote:* This would mean that, at a temperature of 15 C, the concentration of Zyklon B in the gas chamber would after 5 minutes have reached 1.19 g/m or 1.395 g/m, depending on whether it is referred to the gas chambers total volume or to the free volume calculated by Rudolf 3.6 to 4.2 times the lethal concentration. So you can guess. Unfortunately, too many factors are at play to be certain on specifics. A few problems posed: 1. What effect would the high humidity, which "significantly diminish evaporation rates", have on the figure? 2. What effect would the Zyklon-B introduction columns themselves have on the outgassing? 3-wire mesh columns would undoubtedly limit the air flow to and from the gas carriers, especially with no air circulation units in the gas chamber. 3. Would the humidity and wire-mesh columns work in tandem against evaporation? As the basket carriers of the Zyklon-B would only expose some of the material, what would the outgassing rates be once condensation appears on the exposed material? And we have seen that scientific literature state that HCN atmospheres of 1000 parts per million (close to your above calculated lethal concentration) could be withstood for some minutes. Pressac states the gassing event described above was over in 5 minutes, when the ventilation instruments were kicked on. It's unclear whether the killing could occur so quickly, as the HCN would not immediately reach that concentration, but shortly thereafter, meaning longer time for victims to survive. R.M. *Quote:* Assuming that the evaporation progressed linearly over time which is unlikely, if only because the amount subject to "vehement" evaporation would be higher at the outset and thus more gas would be released at the beginning of the process this means that roughly one-sixth of the substance would have evaporated after five minutes, making for a concentration of 1.98 g/m or 2.33 g/m - 6 or 7 times the lethal concentration. See above for the problems that the outgassing rates would have run into. R.M. *Quote:* However, an ambient temperature of 20 Celsius, still somewhat below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide (25.6 degrees Celsius, according to the Merck Index, quoted by Dr. Green) is also likely to have been a rarity in the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau. For these chambers were full of human bodies and human body temperature is 37C, far above the boiling point of Zyklon B. I am interested in what work and studies you have done on the amount of BTUs emitted from humans in the time they were to be in the gas chamber, and the heating effects that they would have had on the gas chambers? What heat loss would be suffered by the room? Also, curious as to what was your base morgue temperature (prior to heating by future victims)? R.M. *Quote:* The temperature inside the gas chamber is likely to have been like in a sauna, due to pre-heating with coke braziers plus the victims cumulated body heat in colder weather and due to the latter factor alone in warmer periods of the year, when most of the homicidal gassings took place. I would much like to see the eye-witness statements on the pre-heating with coke-braziers if you have the source at ready. R.M. *Quote:* If an increase in temperature from 15 C to 20 C, still somewhat below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide, cut the evaporation time and accordingly increased the gas concentration after 5 minutes evaporation by almost 70 %, it seems reasonable to assume that, at a far higher temperature well above the boiling point, the concentration after 5 minutes would be higher by at least the same factor 3.31 g/m or 3,88 g/m, 10 to almost 12 times the lethal concentration. This, in turn, would correspond to roughly 28 % of the concentration after full out-gassing (11.9 g/m or 13.95 g/m), or roughly 1.7 kg of evaporated Zyklon B. Again, there would be obstacles for the Zyklon-B's outgassing process, and the lethality that it would be able to reach. And don't forget that the Poles found eye-witness statements to support 6 kg to 12 kg of Zyklon-B used in the gassings, which could double your numbers. What importance this would have we will discuss later. R.M. *Quote:* So we can safely say that the amount required to reach the concentration that, according to Rudolf, is applied in US prison executions, was just 6 kg of Zyklon B for 430 cubic meters. The above-mentioned concentrations at full out-gassing in g/m correspond to roughly 11,000 or 13,000 ppmv, the assumed concentrations after five minutes to ca. 3,000 or 3,500 ppmv. Under ideal conditions for HCN evaporation, which did not exist for the alleged homicidal gas chambers (high humidity, little Zyklon-B exposed no room air circulation, wire-mesh columns, etc...), and we still remain uncertain on the temperature. Also, according to Pressac, your 6 kg is three times more than what the camp could allow for murderous gassings, assuming an average of 1000 people per gas chamber. Page 15 *Quote:* By far the greater part (over 95 percent) was destined for delousing (effects and buildings) while only a very small part (less than 5 percent) had been used for homicidal gassings And Page 188 *Quote:* As we know the quantity of Zyklon B delivered, the dose necessary to kill one thousand people (according to Camp Commandant Hoess) and the number of people gassed during this period (obtained from the Calendar) it is easy to determine the percentage used for each purpose over the period of 22nd July to 26th August: 2 to 3% for homicidal gassing and 97 to 98% for disinfestation purposes. As Rudolf has shown, for the 40 tons of Zyklon-B delivered, approx. 800 to 2,000 kg of Zyklon-B according to Pressac was for homicidal gassings. 1000 people per gassing means 0.8 kg to 2 kg of Zyklon-B each killing. R.M. *Quote:* As you probably know, Dr. Green has demonstrated in his expert report for the Irving/Lipstadt trial how fast the ventilation system installed in the gas chambers of Birkenau crematoria II and III would be able to reduce even a concentration much higher than the full out-gassing concentrations mentioned above (not to mention the assumed concentrations after five minutes). Green seriously overestimates the capacity of the chamber's ventilation capacity for several reasons. First, the setup for the gas chamber's ventilation was outtake vent on bottom, intake vent on top. This is the exact reverse that the Germans would have put in place had the room been exposed to poisonous gas, as can be seen by their ventilation of the delousing chambers (intake on bottom, outtake on top). This is so because Hydrogen Cyanide is lighter than air, and therefore was likely to remain in the upper reaches of the room. Green's ignorance of this reverse setup invalidates his report's assumption that: *Quote:* Ventilation systems are designed to have an air flow such that the expelled air has a higher concentration of poison, so this equation might seem conservative. The victims bodies themselves would also pose a serious obstacle in the out blowing of the lighter-than-air poisonous gas. With bodies sprawled out on the floor, little gas would be able to exit through the blocked vents. Green himself recognizes this problem in his expert report. *Quote:* Blockages caused by the same corpses might work in the other direction. Yet Green goes on to ignore this problem in the remainder of his work. Even Pressac recognizes the problem that the victim's bodies would have had on the exiting of poisonous gas. He refers to it as one of the more "valid" revisionist arguments in his book. To fix the problem posed by the bodies on the chamber's ventilation, Pressac arbitrarily creates a scenario whereby the Sonderkommando would remove some of the corpses blocking the vents, and then reseal the room to allow for the ventilation. Unfortunately, Pressac's reasoning is based on no evidence (no eye-witness testimonies to support it either) except for his own assumptions. We also remain unsure on just how the SS would be aware that the bodies were blocking the vents until the Sonderkommando were to start dropping like flies. R.M. *Quote:* Even with an concentration of 20,000 ppm before out-gassing, which is twice of what Rudolf assumed, the concentration would be down to 139 ppm after 30 minutes. Yet Rudolf assumes 1 g/m3 for two hours, which is about 900 ppm. Thats far too much. It makes one wonder why, if the gas chambers really did have such efficient ventilation instruments, despite all the problems that they would have run up against assuming a killing-scenario with HCN, including being involved in a short-circuit type ventilation aeration (where some fresh air would be evacuated out thanks to proximity of outtake vent), the Germans would install a 72-air exchanges per hour ventilation system for the delousing chambers. Thats almost 8 times more the what existed in the homicidal gas chambers!! And it's setup was directed for HCN gas to be used inside (intake on bottom, outtake on top). R.M. *Quote:* Time is important insofar as the probability of Prussian Blue formation depended on the concentration of CN- ions that could develop while a high gas concentration was available, among other factors. If the possible concentration wasnt high enough independently of dilution, we need not even talk about the other factors. Agreed, but the concentrations were high enough. Even Pressac's March 13, 1943 gassing provided enough concentration according to you as we shall see. R.M. *Quote:* Lets assume that the above 6 kg of Zyklon B were allowed to outgas completely, until they reached about 13,000 ppm (they certainly were not, as there was the possibility of withdrawing the wire-mesh baskets containing the Zyklon B through the introduction columns and it would make sense to do so in order to streamline the process), and that the temperature was 30 Celsius, (which is probably an underestimate for most gassings considering what I wrote above about the temperature in the gas chamber). In this case, according to the graph shown on page 47 of Dr. Greens expert report, the liquid phase concentration of HCN (only liquid HCN can form Prussian Blue) would be 0.1 mole/liter at best. Which would be more than enough of a concentration. R.M. *Quote:* Assuming a pH of 6-7 as measured by Markiewicz et al (see expert report, page 50 As you are probably aware, this pH was measured nearly 50 years after the gassings were alleged to have occurred. The pH level of walls would be much different now than what they were back than. Rudolf is correct to compare the walls to a pizza. He shows literature and points showing that the pizza would be hot after being taking out of the oven, while Markiewicz et al measure the pizza a week later to find out its actually cold. In essence, Markiewicz' pH findings are useless. Rudolf has shown that the cement walls of the gas chambers were likely to be relatively alkaline. Emphasis mine. *Quote:* The rust content (Fe2O3) of Portland cement, of particular interest to us here, the cement most frequently used for concrete and cement mortars, is usually between 1 and 5%.[396] The sand added to the mortar can also exhibit a high iron content (up to 4%). As mentioned in chapter 6.5.3., a large surface area at the solid-liquid phase limit (iron oxide-cyanide solution) is favorable to the formation of Iron Blue. This is extraordinarily large in cement and concrete mortars (microscopic interior surfaces of approximately 200 m2 per gram).[397] Fresh concrete and cement mortars-which are identical from a chemical point of view-are relatively strongly alkaline (pH approximately 12.5). It later falls, however, due to the binding of carbon dioxide from the air. Depending on the special chemistry of the cement mortar, this process proceeds very slowly in the depth of the material. According to the composition of the cement mortar, this may last from a few months to many decades, until the pH value of such a mortar or concrete becomes neutral, even in the deepest layers.[396]-[398] This chemical behavior explains the entire secret of the stability of reinforced concrete, which prevents the embedded steel from rusting further in the environment within the concrete, which remains alkaline for lengthy periods of time.[399] The water content of concrete and cement mortars depends on the temperature and relative humidity of the air and fluctuates between 1% and less at 20C and 60% relative humidity up to 10% in air saturated with humidity.[395] In case of permanently high humidity, penetrating wetness from outside, a huge part of the pore system can be filled with water.[400] [396] W.H. Duda, Cement-Data-Book, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1976, pp. 4ff., as well as my own analysis. [397] W. Czernin, Zementchemie fr Bauingenieure, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 49f. [398] N.V. Waubke, Transportphnomene in Betonporen, Dissertation, Braunschweig 1966. [399] In the strongly alkaline environment, iron is passivated by a passive layer of Fe(OH)3. 'Botch work' on building sites, i.e., rusting reinforcement rods and cracking concrete after only a few years or decades, due to overly low pH value in the vicinity of the embedded reinforcement rods, is caused by a) an incorrect composition of the concrete (too little cement-it's cheaper this way-and/or too much or too little water-incompetence), or b) by installing the reinforcement rods too close to the surface of the concrete, where the pH value falls strongly after a few years or decades; see notes 396f. [400] K. Wesche, Baustoffe fr tragende Bauteile, volume 2, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1981, pp. 51f. R.M. *Quote:* the CO2 exhaled by the victims means that the pH was, if anything, even lower than that, see the end of footnote 61 on page 54 of the report), The studies done so far on CO2 and HCN exposure have yet to produce results fully understood by either side. For instance, why does CO2 greatly enhance HCN absorption on some material, but not on others. R.M. *Quote:* this would lead to a concentration of CN- ions in the order of 10-3 (0.001) moles/liter, 1 % of the HCN concentration. Still 3 times the concentration needed to form Prussian Blue, and this is with only 1% of the HCN being absorbed. In actuality, with the pH likely being above neutral (pH: 7), this percentage increases dramatically, as Green's pH chart also shows. R.M. *Quote:* A mere tenfold dilution by ambient water would bring this concentration below the minimum level required, according to Alich et al, for formation of Prussian Blue to be possible. This concentration is 3.3 x 10-4 (0.00033) moles/liter (expert report, page 45, last paragraph and footnote 56). Where does the "mere tenfold dilution" come from? Certainly not from gas chamber hosings, as nowhere in the Pressac narrative of the March gassing (p.232 of Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp) are post-killing washings or sprayings mentioned. The high humidity in the room, again, is likely to enhance the chances of Prussian Blue formation, as all experiments so far known have shown. R.M. *Quote:* The concentration would thus be lower than the concentration required for Prussian Blue formation, independently of any dilution, i.e. we dont need to talk about how much humidity there was in the gas chamber. Your calculations hang entirely on a pH range of 6-7, a number the gas chambers were likely far beyond. Even the slightest increase in your pH range would provide sufficient enough CN concentrations to form Prussian Blue. Check the graph, similar to Green's. R.M. *Quote:* Concentrations of CN- ions would be significantly higher with the basic pH of about 10 assumed (but not substantiated) by Rudolf. However, this would mean that, while there might be sufficient CN- ions under certain humidity conditions to allow for this step in the formation of Prussian Blue, the basic pH would inhibit a next step of that process A highly basic PH would, not a slightly one. R.M. *Quote:* OK, lets assume for the time being (i.e. until I have arguments to counter the above) that the walls of the homicidal gas chamber absorbed more HCN than those of the delousing chambers. This would mean that conditions for formation of Prussian Blue were facilitated in the former if the necessary concentration of CN- ions was a) present at the outset and b) not diluted to a level insufficient for Prussian Blue formation by the ambient humidity. High concentrations of Cyanide were likely to be present, and the ambient humidity and moisture would be highly unlikely to cause much damage to the Prussian Blue formation process. R.M. *Quote:* That may be so in fumigations, where the time during which high amounts of gaseous HCN are in contact with the walls allowed for a concentration of liquid HCN significantly higher than what can be expected to have formed in the homicidal gas chambers before the gas was ventilated out. (...) It does if the concentration of CN- ions is high enough. If the concentration is so low that dilution through moisture leads to an insufficient concentration, moisture hinders the process instead of facilitating it. Interesting that 30% relative humidity at similar temperatures was unable to form Prussian Blue, while a 90-95% relative humidity room could, isn't it? Especially since both had equally high concentrations of HCN present for 72 hours. One would expect that less moisture would mean higher concentrations in the existent moisture, yet this did not cause Prussian Blue formation. R.M. *Quote:* Shaul Chasan, Page 313 of Gideon Greif, "Wir weinten trnenlos ", my translation: R.M. *Quote:* Your claim is taken note of, now please substantiate it. I would especially like to see evidence that a) The pH-level was more favorable in the walls of the homicidal gas chambers, Green himself has already demonstrated how a more alkaline wall level would increase the percentage of cyanide dissociating from its compounds, and according to Green's own source (M.A. Alich et al), a slightly alkaline environment (pH of 9-10) is favorable in the reduction of iron(III) to iron(II), both very key steps in the Prussian Blue formation process. More on this can be found here and here. R.M. *Quote:* b) Any however low concentration of cyanide could have started a Prussia Blue reaction under the conditions you claim. According to a source used by both Rudolf and Dr. Green (Alich et al), a certain minimum concentration of CN- ions is a must for Prussian Blue to form. Yes, but that "certain minimum concentration" would easily have been reached in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, as Pressac's scenario shows. R.M. *Quote:* Even with gaseous cyanide concentrations that high, which are unlikely, the concentrations of liquid HCN and hence of CN- ions would have been so low that even minimal dilution by the humidity present would have pushed them below the minimum threshold required for Prussian Blue formation, see above. There is no evidence that a "high absorbitive capacity" of the building material can make up for a too low concentration of CN- ions. The building material can only absorb as much liquid HCN as has condensed from the gaseous phase. According to Green's graph on p47 of his expert report, gas concentrations of 10-12 g/m^3 would leave likely between 0.07-0.085 moles/liter in liquid concentration. Even assuming your low 6-7 pH range for the gas chamber walls, thats 0.007-0.0085 moles/liter remaining. Thats double the minimal concentration that Alich states Prussian Blue needs to form. And the open pores of the building would better protect the cyanide residues once in the liquid phase, as it would transport some through the walls. R.M. *Quote:* I dont think you can demonstrate that cyanide victims are necessarily pink I believe it's fairly easy to do so. (Emphasis mine) Arista Tek states: *Quote:* Bright red skin and the absence of cyanosis (bluish or purple skin) have been described in patients with cyanide poisoning. Caution is indicated because cherry red skin may also be seen in some severe carbon monoxide poisoning cases So says U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine *Quote:* AC poisoning causes a deceptively healthy pink to red skin color. However, if physical injury or lack of oxygen is involved, the skin color may be bluish. A Potassium Cyanide Material Data Safety Sheetsimilarly states: *Quote:* In most cases, cyanide poisoning causes a deceptively healthy pink to red skin color. However, if a physical injury or lack of oxygen is involved, the skin color may be bluish R.M. I would attribute the blueness and bloating to the effects of decomposition According to this site, the blueness would be gone within a day, and would become either green, black, or gray by the timeframe Bennahmias speaks of. R.M. *Quote:* There is nothing to indicate that the ventilation was only switched on when the door was finally opened this would be a detail likely to deserve mention by the witness, as it would also be contrary to standard operating procedure. If ventilation was doubled (likely for bigger portion), smaller portion of gas chamber would go without ventilation. No reason to redo changes they already performed on ventilation system. R.M. *Quote:* The humidity in Bachmanns churches or basements was also lower, for two factors packing with sweating human bodies, regular hosing/shedding of water/washing of walls were missing. And if I understood your Bachmann quote correctly, he didnt say that formation of Prussian Blue under his high humidity conditions was a must. Dr. Bachmann noted that humid HCN in all his samples except one affected the material more than dry HCN. And he considered his suggestions to "reduce or prevent" cyanide layer formation after fumigation. R.M. *Quote:* You claimed that cold water would not greatly impact humidity, so if you cannot demonstrate that for a scenario resembling conditions in the Birkenau gas chambers as closely as possible, your claim is unsubstantiated and can therefore be dismissed. It's simply anecdotal data which goes to support my position. I am not trying to scientifically verify whether such is or isn't the case, neither Rudolf nor Green havent done that. That anecdotal data shows that cold shower water into a warm room (~72 deg F) failed to cause any moisture buildup upon glass, wall, or ceiling. Similarly, as cold water would be entering into warm rooms (gas chamber). R.M. *Quote:* Try my above 30 Celsius scenario. Which did not appear to look into the physics of just how warm the room would become thanks to the BTUs emitted from each person in the time they are alleged to have been "specially treated." My efforts for calculations on this subject are seriously flawed. R.M. *Quote:* The question here is how much humidity regular hosing/washing of floor and walls in the entire gas chamber (and not in an area relatively corresponding to that taken up by the shower in your bathroom) would add. Since the water did not remain in the gas chambers long (as your own eye-witness Shaul Chasan continued to add water), and the gassings themselves were not immediately replicated (one a day if that at times), it is a wonderment, but unlikely to be very much. *Quote:* R.M. Cold water entering a hot room might not cause a vapor pressure as high as hot water, but the vapor pressure and thus the contribution to humidity is likely to be higher than when cold water enters a cold room. Yes, and as the cold water warms, it would have a greater vapor pressure. Again though, the water was not in the chambers very long, and once the gassing was complete, the ventilation process would cool the room, as would the opening of the door for the corpse-removing. R.M. *Quote:* So it makes no difference to the humidity level whether you shed a single bucket of hot water on the floor or spray walls and floor with many gallons of water? Come on. It is not mentioned anywhere in the literature I have accessed, but I also understand the challenge. I have emailed several experts. Hopefully they will reply, as well as in a timely manner. R.M. *Quote:* By the way, Im becoming increasingly interested in what Dr. Bachmann writes about this 90-95% humidity in his cellars or basements and the implications thereof. So could you please provide a comprehensive quote? All you have quoted so far is this: That is Dr. Bachmann's most comprehensive point on humidity in his article. Here are a few more statements of his on humidity. From the Abstract: *Quote:* To reduce or prevent layer formation on metals during fumigation with HCN, the relative humidity inside rooms or buildings should be reduced prior to fumigation by drying agents or heaters. The conditions of his two rooms: *Quote:* Dry Concentration: 20 g HCN/m^3 Duration of treatment: 72 h Temperature: 18-22 deg Celsius Relative Humidity: 30% Humid Concentration: 20 g HCN/m^3 Duration of treatment: 72 h Temperature: 22-22.5 deg Celsius Relative Humidity: 90-95% And from "Investigation Methods and Results": *Quote:* With the exception of sample No.8 (electroplated silver layer), all the samples were more affected by humid than by dry HCN; however, the differences between the individual samples are pronounced. In detail, the observations and interpretations are as follows." R.M. *Quote:* Another thing, can I find Bachmanns "Prevention of Biodeterioration of Wooden Objects of Art: Influence of Fumigation with Hydrocyanic Acid on Metals" anywhere online? I found the article through JSTOR, where I also found Barcroft's. Unfortunately, JSTOR has a limited allowance of readers, and one must either be part of an organization with JSTOR, or individually becoem a member. I am lucky to have university with it. R.M. *Quote:* No, my friend, its not that easy. You have to demonstrate that there would be Prussian Blue if they didnt use ammonia, otherwise the use of that substance (which may be related to safety considerations or whatever) is without relevance to your argument. You recognized that the ammonium was used to remove cyanide (therefore ridding the chance of Prussian Blue to form) in your post 7220. *Quote:* Fun aside, we have seen in my previous post on this thread that the ammonium is not for making the washing water safe, but to reduce the cyanide gas to crystals in order to help clean out the gas chamber, together with the ventilation. R.M. *Quote:* No, it doesnt necessarily suggest that water is "not able to do the job". It may just be that reducing the cyanide to crystals with ammonium is an easier and safer way to remove all cyanide from the gas chamber than rinsing with water, which may leave or transport cyanide residues sufficient to cause a slight poisoning. Despite the complete full-body chemical safety suits that state employees working near and in the execution chambers would dress in? As Missouri State Penitentiary Warden Bill Armontrout stated: *Quote:* This ammonia was released after the execution to help reduce the cyanide gas to crystals which could be washed away R.M. *Quote:* No US employer wants lawsuits from employees arguing that their health suffered from any exposure to cyanide, so a method excluding any possibility of such lawsuits is chosen. The speculation that the method may have something to do with keeping the gas chamber walls (which I expect to be tiled anyway) from getting blue spots seems to be rather far-fetched. Given that the ammonia crystallizes the cyanide to ensure it's washing out of the chamber by H2O, it nips any Prussian Blue chance before it can start. But the point wasn't to show how Prussian Blue could form in the US gas chambers. It was to show that water was ineffective in removing the cyanide, which is significant for our considerations of the homicidal gas chambers, given how much you rely upon the "dilution" of cyanide concentrations.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Hobbes b1588	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#67	[url]	[-]
Posts: 548 15-Nov-2007 22:48 Lord Moderator SCOTT Smith	Roberto, I can copy this thread over to the Reference section and there you can delete the irrelevant posts for your debate with Wahrheitseeker. That way you won't have to start a new debate thread and copy old posts. I can then move the thread from Reference over to the Holocaust Debate section and you can debate properly over there. I can also put a cross-link from this thread in the Memory Hole subforum over to the new one in the Holocaust Debate subform. Just let me know. But if you are going to debate Mr. Wahrheitseeker on the Holocaust it is best done in the Holocaust subforum. I'll copy this thread as-is over to the Reference section for now. Books like Orwells are powerful warnings, and it would be most unfortunate if the reader smugly interpreted 1984 as another description of Stalinist barbarism, and if he does not see that it means us, too. ~ Erich Fromm
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#68	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 16-Nov-2007 01:51	Hobbes *Quote:* Just let me know. But if you are going to debate Mr. Wahrheitseeker on the Holocaust it is best done in the Holocaust subforum. I'll copy this thread as-is over to the Reference section for now. Thanks for the offer, but this is Memory Hole territory and also cold coffee. Ill respond on this thread tomorrow. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#69	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 16-Nov-2007 01:54	... or later today. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#70	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 16-Nov-2007 15:31	W. *Quote:* A delayed response to Muehlenkamp, but here it is: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, let's leave it here, so the CODOH folks don't lose the link. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not see the big problem, since a link to RODOH still exists on CODOH, in addition to links to your holocaustcontroversies blog. In this discussion we have to scroll down for a good amount before finding the relevant posts. I also doubt very many readers of CODOH will travel over here. They know the game by now. CODOH for largely deniers/revisionists, RODOH for largely believers. No, CODOH is for true believers who falsely call themselves "Revisionists" and like to exchange crap among themselves without opposition, whereas RODOH is for everyone. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You call that reasonable? The fellow claims that "quantities of at least 20 kg of Zyklon B per gassing (ten 2 kg cans or twenty 1 kg cans) would probably have had to have been used for the gassing procedures described" in order to reach "a quantity of hydrogen cyanide of approximately 1.5 kg released and spread out after five minutes" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rudolf has explained his own reasons that he supports such a large figure in his report, He baselessly postulated exaggerated out-gassing times, I presume. W. *Quote:* but let us focus on your statements for now. R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (the "five minutes" requirement is a red herring, but thats another story). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is the "five minutes requirement" such a red herring? Because theres a great variation in gassing times testified to by eyewitnesses. Examples (all emphases mine): Commandant Hss: "The process could be observed through the peep hole in the door. Those who were standing next to the air shaft were killed immediately. I can state that about one-third died immediately. The remainder staggered about and began to scream and struggle for air. The screaming, however, soon changed to gasping and in a few moments everyone lay still. After twenty minutes at the most, no movement could be detected. The time required for the gas to take effect varied according to weather conditions and depended on whether it was damp or dry, cold or warm. It also depended on the quality of the gas, which was never exactly the same, and on the composition of the transports, which might contain a high proportion of healthy Jews, or the old and sick, or children. The victims became unconscious after a few minutes, according to the distance from the air shaft. Those who screamed and those who were old, sick, or weak, or the small children died quicker than those who were healthy or young." Hans Stark: "()As the Zyklon B -- as already mentioned -- was in granular form, it trickled down over the people as it was being poured in. They then started to cry out terribly for they now knew what was happening to them. I did not look through the opening because it had to be closed as soon as the Zyklon B had been poured in. After a few minutes there was silence. After some time had passed, it may have been ten to fifteen minutes, the gas chamber was opened. The dead lay higgledy-piggedly all over the place. It was a dreadful sight." Pery Broad: "()As soon as the tin was emptied, the prussic acid escaped from the granules.()Some two minutes later the screams became less loud and only an indistinct groaning was heard. The majority of the victims had already lost consciousness. Two minutes more and Grabner stopped looking at his watch. It was over. There was complete silence.() Some time later, when the ventilators had extracted the gas, the prisoners working in the crematorium opened the door to the mortuary." Miklos Nyiszli: "()The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead... In order to be certain of their business the two gas-butchers waited another five minutes. Then they lighted cigarettes and drove off in their car. They had just killed 3,000 innocents.... Twenty minutes later the electric ventilators were set going in order to evacuate the gas." Dr. Andre Lettich: "Then SS-Unterscharfuhrer Moll dropped the gas through a little window. The cries that could be heard were frightening, but after a few moments complete silence reigned. Twenty to twenty-five minutes later the windows and doors were opened to air the room, and the corpses were immediately thrown into ditches, where they were burned." W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The concentration that Rudolf assumes 1,500 grams of Zyklon B in 430 cubic meters, a concentration of ca. 3.5 g/m is almost 11 times the concentration that, according to the sources cited in Dr. Greens articles Chemistry is not the Science and The Chemistry of Auschwitz, is "rapidly fatal" to an average human being. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rudolf's assumptions use data on cyanide amounts from U.S. execution chambers, which also use similarly lethal concentrations, as you note. Green is skeptical of both Rudolfs US execution chambers claim and whether amounts as high as claimed by Rudolf would be necessary to kill everyone in the Birkenau gas chambers within the reported time frames. But thats irrelevant for now insofar as my calculations match Rudolfs requirements. W. *Quote:* A question also comes up over just how fast is "rapidly fatal". Remember that the Occupational Safety regulation sources that Dr. Green uses in his works put their figures out for safety reasons. As you point out later in your post, US employers do their best to ensure safety of their workers, which includes the weakest of the weak. The sources Green cites are aimed at such cautionary measures, and can be seen as the amount fatal to those most susceptible to cyanide poisoning (weak, small, heavy breathing, etc...). Whence do you conclude that? Bar any other indication, "rapidly fatal" means "rapidly fatal to an average human being". Or, more precisely, to an average worker covered by OSHA regulations. In his article Chemistry is not the Science, Dr. Green is very precise as to what "rapidly fatal" means. HM *Quote:* Realistic experiments have shown that the figure for cyanide tolerance is much higher. A while ago I found an interesting article published in January, 1931 in the Journal of Hygiene called "The Toxicity of Atmospheres Containing Hydrocyanid Acid Gas" by Joseph Barcroft, a member of the Experimental Station of the US War Department at the time. I printed the article off the internet, but have been unable to find the article since, just references to it. If needed I shall copy the relevant sections of it for you to verify. Barcroft's articles studied the effects and time-duration those effects took upon various animals, as well as humans. For the article, something which would be illegal to do so now, he exposed a 45 yr old, 70 kg male and a 12 kg dog to a room containing a HCN concentration between 1/1600 and 1/2000, or between 0.8mg/litre and 0.6mg/litre, almost double the "rapidly fatal" concentration stated by modern governmental-employer safety regulations. The male remained in the chamber for 1.5 minutes, only exiting to try to save the dog, which was convulsing on the floor and crying. The dog passed away almost immediately after exiting the chamber. The male, on the other hand, only experienced light symptoms of cyanide poisoning. Feeling nausea after 5 minutes, and then having some difficulty focusing in close conversation. In his Chemistry is Not the Science, Dr. Green cites DuPont's Material Safety Data Sheet which states: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't overreact. While prompt treatment is essential where poisoning has occurred, treatment of a lucid, conscious patient would rarely be necessary. The effects of cyanide poisoning are immediate, not delayed, and a conscious person that can communicate does not have significant cyanide poisoning. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that the subject in Barcroft's experiment could communicate, albeit maybe loosely in close conversation, we can see that even though exposed to double the "rapidly fatal" amount for almost 2 minutes, he still did "not have significant cyanide poisoning." Interesting, but none of this excludes the possibility that the male in Barcrofts experiment was simply an exceptionally resistant fellow. He also stayed in the chamber for only 1.5 minutes, which was probably lower than the exposure time required for his catching a dose of HCN that might be fatal to him. What if he had been exposed to the dose you mentioned as long as the victims in the Birkenau gas chambers were? W. *Quote:* Barcroft also cites scientific literature at the time on the Hydrogen cyanide toxicity to humans. Here is the relevant paragraph (emphasis mine): Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A report by S.H. Katz and E.S. Longfellow from the American Bureau of Mines issued in July 1923 states: "Men employed in fumigation with HCN have been tested while at rest in 250 parts per million of air for 2 minutes and in 350 parts per million for 1 1/2 minutes, but felt no dizziness, although possible on exertion they might have done so. In experiments during the war (WWI) men have been exposed to 500 parts per million for about a minute without injury. Hydrocyanic acid gas was formerly considered one of the deadliest gases in minute concentrations, but later experience, especially in the war, has shown that man is more resistant than some other forms of life-whereas recently Kohn-Abrest determined that 1000 parts per million are impossible to breathe for many minutes." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note the very short exposure times in the experiments mentioned by Barcroft, much shorter than the times during which the people in the Birkenau gas chambers were exposed to the poison. W. *Quote:* 1000 parts per million, 3 times the "rapidly fatal" amount given by Dr. Green's sources, are impossible to breath "for many minutes", suggesting that it could be inhaled for some minutes. Well, the people in the gas chambers would be breathing higher concentrations of cyanide until ventilation had cleared out the gas (by which time they were dead or at least unconscious and dying, of course), and we dont know how and especially with what specimen(s), if any, Kohn-Abrest reached his results. He certainly didnt wait for whatever Barcroft means by "many" minutes until his test persons, if he used any, died or suffered significant health damage. Besides, a statement that a certain concentration is "impossible to breathe" for a certain time suggests that at such concentration and within such time death is a certainty for any however strong specimen, which doesnt mean that exposure to a lower concentration for a lower time is safe. On the contrary, it might still be dangerous or even fatal for less strong specimens, especially for women and children (who made up the greater part of the victims in the Birkenau gas chambers and who, according to these Directives for the Use of Prussic Acid, are more susceptible to the poison than men). So its wrong to conclude from the above source that the mentioned concentration of hydrogen cyanide could be generally inhaled for "some minutes" without risk of death. As were at it, consider the following excerpts from Dr. Greens expert report, page 28 f. (emphases are mine): *Quote:* This same article describes a case so remarkable that it was worth publishing an article about an industrial accident in which a worker survived a 6-minute exposure to 500 mg/m3 (450 ppm). The article states: This case is unusual in that survival without sequelae occurred despite exposure to HCN in the order of 500 mg/m3 for a 6 min exposure; especially as treatment was initiated until 1 h after exposure. Even if the initial exposure was lower than 500 mg/m3, experiments carried out subsequently have indicated that the build up of HCN in the circumstances described is rapid. In this case, the patient collapsed unconscious within 3 minutes. Upon removal from the tank in which he was exposed his breathing was imperceptible and he was comatose upon arrival at the hospital 40 minutes later. Given the above, it is not unreasonable to assume that the claim that 300 ppm is "rapidly fatal" would apply to times of 10 minutes at most. [] A lethal concentration requires a time associated with it. One source gives the following values for LC50:44 [44Timothy C. Marrs, Robert Maynard and Frederick R. Sidell, Chemical Warfare Agents: Toxicology and Treatment, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (Chichester, West Sussex, England), 1996 ISBN 0-471-95994. Chapter 9: Cyanides, pp. 203-219] Precise figures for the acute toxicity of HCN to humans are unknown. The acute lethality is, by analogy with animals and on theoretical grounds, likely to be time dependent and some guideline figures are available in table 2. Time LC50 LCt50 (mg m-3) (mg min m-3) 15s 2400 660 1 min 1000 1000 10 min 200 2000 15 min 133 4000 However it should be stated that these figures are extremely uncertain, and a higher figure of 4400 mg m -3 was given by MacNamara based on an estimate of Moore and Gates.... MacNamara's own estimates for the toxicity of inhaled HCN in humans is based on the similarity in responses to HCN of humans and goats, and he gives a 1-min LC50 of 3404 mg m-3. The value given for 10 minutes is equivalent to 181 ppm. Regardless of the absolute accuracy of these numbers, it would be ridiculous to suggest that 300 ppm is LC1 for ten minutes. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to Rudolf himself, the "free volume" presumably the volume not occupied by the victims bodies was 430 m, so 6,000 grams of Zyklon B would make for 13.95 g/m -42 times the concentration lethal to an average human being -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Upon a full outgassing, which no one alleges took place on either side of this debate, as I am allowing for the Zyklon-B introduction columns to exist, despite my doubts otherwise. R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How fast this concentration would develop depended on the ambient temperature. There is this table featured on Rudolfs website, which corresponds to the right part of "Illustration 1" of R. Irmschers 1942 article Nochmals: Die Einsatzfhigkeit der Blausure bei tiefen Temperaturen and translated on the same site. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting that Irmscher also notes that humidity poses serious problems in maintaining such advanced outgassing rates (emphasis mine). Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In any event the calculation of relationships could not be made using this procedure in cases in which the humidity in the room is high thereby depositing upon the evaporating surfaces water or snow (depending upon the temperature) which significantly diminish the rate of evaporation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As we both agree that humidity would be very high in the gas chambers, this throws a wrench into the works of the gas chambers. Whether it does or not would strongly depend on when the diminution of the evaporation rate takes effect, whether at the beginning of the evaporation process or later on (at the beginning the pellets would not yet have caught so much humidity, so that a faster initial evaporation seems plausible). It would also depend on whether the diminution is as significant at higher temperatures, closer to the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide, as it is at the colder temperatures measured by Irmscher. W. *Quote:* While Irmscher did not quantify this "significantly diminishing rate of evaporation" for the Zyklon-B, one way to correct and makeup for this problem (as noted by Rudolf) would be to upgrade the amounts of Zyklon-B used. Assuming that was necessary at the temperatures at which Zyklon B was usually employed, see above. And also assuming that the SS couldnt wait a little longer than five minutes to do the killing, which according to the witnesses I quoted above (especially Hss) they seem to have had no problem with. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This would mean that, at a temperature of 15 C, the concentration of Zyklon B in the gas chamber would after 5 minutes have reached 1.19 g/m or 1.395 g/m, depending on whether it is referred to the gas chambers total volume or to the free volume calculated by Rudolf 3.6 to 4.2 times the lethal concentration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you can guess. Unfortunately, too many factors are at play to be certain on specifics. A few problems posed: 1. What effect would the high humidity, which "significantly diminish evaporation rates", have on the figure? 2. What effect would the Zyklon-B introduction columns themselves have on the outgassing? 3-wire mesh columns would undoubtedly limit the air flow to and from the gas carriers, especially with no air circulation units in the gas chamber. 3. Would the humidity and wire-mesh columns work in tandem against evaporation? As the basket carriers of the Zyklon-B would only expose some of the material, what would the outgassing rates be once condensation appears on the exposed material? There may be factors the effects of which I haven't considered, but then, thats a problem Rudolf has as well. Now, he is the one who has undertaken to demonstrate that gassing as testified to by numerous eyewitnesses would have been impossible or inexpedient, and without being able to quantify certain specifics any claim of his in this direction is a mere guess. As to the absence of circulation units in the gas chamber: thats a rather pointless objection as the victims were not standing still and waiting until they sniffed a lethal dose of HCN. They panicked, screamed, tried to get away from the gas, trampled each other down, climbed over each other. Apart from the fact that all this exercise probably caused many of them to suffocate, and that the physical exertion is likely to have enhanced the effects of the poison, the action inside the chamber is also certain to have provided for a lot of air circulation. W. *Quote:* And we have seen that scientific literature state that HCN atmospheres of 1000 parts per million (close to your above calculated lethal concentration) could be withstood for some minutes. No, we havent seen that, as explained above. Thats just a convenient and overhasty conclusion you have drawn from a source that need not suggest this at all. W. *Quote:* Pressac states the gassing event described above was over in 5 minutes, when the ventilation instruments were kicked on. It's unclear whether the killing could occur so quickly, as the HCN would not immediately reach that concentration, but shortly thereafter, meaning longer time for victims to survive. According to my calculations, the "US gas chamber" concentration could be reached within five minutes at the hot temperatures that are likely to have reigned in the gas chambers during most gassings. And if this were not so, such would only mean that eyewitness testimonies mentioning longer times were more realistic than those relied on by Pressac. In assessing the plausibility of times mentioned by eyewitnesses one also has to take into account that these people had no way of checking if death in a clinical sense had occurred. For them "death" meant that the victims fell silent, and that may in many cases have meant that they were still in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assuming that the evaporation progressed linearly over time which is unlikely, if only because the amount subject to "vehement" evaporation would be higher at the outset and thus more gas would be released at the beginning of the process this means that roughly one-sixth of the substance would have evaporated after five minutes, making for a concentration of 1.98 g/m or 2.33 g/m - 6 or 7 times the lethal concentration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See above for the problems that the outgassing rates would have run into. Those "problems" are mere assumptions, the effects of which you cannot quantify. Until you can, my scenario can be considered as plausible as any. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, an ambient temperature of 20 Celsius, still somewhat below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide (25.6 degrees Celsius, according to the Merck Index, quoted by Dr. Green) is also likely to have been a rarity in the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau. For these chambers were full of human bodies and human body temperature is 37C, far above the boiling point of Zyklon B. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am interested in what work and studies you have done on the amount of BTUs emitted from humans in the time they were to be in the gas chamber, and the heating effects that they would have had on the gas chambers? What heat loss would be suffered by the room? Also, curious as to what was your base morgue temperature (prior to heating by future victims)? Who needs such studies when there are testimonies according to which the inside of a homicidal gas chamber after a gassing was like a sauna, which can be safely assumed to mean a temperature well above the boiling point of HCN? You do, if you want to discredit the eyewitness testimonies and demonstrate that the gas chambers cannot have been as hot as they described them. Feel free to give it a try. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The temperature inside the gas chamber is likely to have been like in a sauna, due to pre-heating with coke braziers plus the victims cumulated body heat in colder weather and due to the latter factor alone in warmer periods of the year, when most of the homicidal gassings took place. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would much like to see the eye-witness statements on the pre-heating with coke-braziers if you have the source at ready. Heres one: Shlomo Dragon in Gideon Greif, Wir weinten trnenlos , page 152: *Quote:* Vor dem Eintreffen eines Transports wurde die Gaskammer aufgeheizt, damit das Gas effektiver und schneller wirken konnte. Dazu benutzte man einen Koksofen, der keinen Geruch verbreitete. Bei Eintreffen des Transports holte man die fen aus der Gaskammer. Man hatte die Gaskammern nicht hher gebaut, damit sie wrmer wurden und das Gas konzentrierter wirken konnte. My translation: *Quote:* Before arrival of a transport the gas chamber was heated up so that the gas could work more efficiently and quickly. For this they used a coke brazier, which spread no odor. When the transports arrived the ovens were taken out of the chamber. They had built the gas chambers no higher so that they became warmer and the gas could work in a more concentrated manner. Heres another: Leon Cohen, same book, page 345: *Quote:* Im Winter was es dort sicherlich furchtbar kalt. Im Winter stellte man grosse Eisenfen in die Gaskammer, so dass die Menschen nicht froren, wenn sie in den Raum kamen. My translation: *Quote:* In winter it must have been terribly cold there. In winter they placed huge iron ovens in the gas chamber so that the people did not freeze when they entered the room. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If an increase in temperature from 15 C to 20 C, still somewhat below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide, cut the evaporation time and accordingly increased the gas concentration after 5 minutes evaporation by almost 70 %, it seems reasonable to assume that, at a far higher temperature well above the boiling point, the concentration after 5 minutes would be higher by at least the same factor 3.31 g/m or 3,88 g/m, 10 to almost 12 times the lethal concentration. This, in turn, would correspond to roughly 28 % of the concentration after full out-gassing (11.9 g/m or 13.95 g/m), or roughly 1.7 kg of evaporated Zyklon B. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, there would be obstacles for the Zyklon-B's outgassing process, and the lethality that it would be able to reach. It is not correct that there would be such obstacles. There might be such obstacles, or there might not be. Your assumptions in this direction are mere conjectures. W. *Quote:* And don't forget that the Poles found eye-witness statements to support 6 kg to 12 kg of Zyklon-B used in the gassings, which could double your numbers. What importance this would have we will discuss later. Show me the testimonies with the 12 kg, please. The 6 kg are based on Taubers testimony (emphasis mine): *Quote:* As there were four similar chimneys, Scheimetz poured into each the contents of one of the smallest cans of Cyklon [Zyklon-B] , which had yellow labels pasted right round them [see Docunents 32, 33 and 34]. Pressac writes: *Quote:* Documents 32 and 33: Two photographs of the same can of Zyklon-B, kept in the PMO "Reserve stocks" in block 25, with a content of 1600 g. corrected to 1500 g of hydrocyanic acid, delivered by Tesch & Stalabenow, main distributor for the East Reich. Four of these cans or 6 kilograms of HCN, were used to kill 1000 to 1500 people in the Leichenkeller 1 / gas chambers of Krematorien II and III. As 6 kg would be perfectly sufficient (unless, of course, you can demonstrate that your "obstacles" would require a much higher amount), whoever said 12 kg must have been exaggerating. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So we can safely say that the amount required to reach the concentration that, according to Rudolf, is applied in US prison executions, was just 6 kg of Zyklon B for 430 cubic meters. The above-mentioned concentrations at full out-gassing in g/m correspond to roughly 11,000 or 13,000 ppmv, the assumed concentrations after five minutes to ca. 3,000 or 3,500 ppmv. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under ideal conditions for HCN evaporation, which did not exist for the alleged homicidal gas chambers (high humidity, little Zyklon-B exposed no room air circulation, wire-mesh columns, etc...), and we still remain uncertain on the temperature. Under non-ideal conditions (and remember that we dont know what effect humidity would have in warmer temperatures and whether it would much hamper evaporation at the beginning, which seems unlikely, and that the no room air circulation objection is not exactly a relevant one, see above) the time for the necessary concentration to develop might be a longer than five minutes. So what? As to the temperature, eyewitness testimonies clearly suggest that is was very high, well beyond the boiling point of HCN. If you claim the eyewitnesses were wrong in this respect, the burden of proof is on you. W. *Quote:* Also, according to Pressac, your 6 kg is three times more than what the camp could allow for murderous gassings, assuming an average of 1000 people per gas chamber. Page 15 Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By far the greater part (over 95 percent) was destined for delousing (effects and buildings) while only a very small part (less than 5 percent) had been used for homicidal gassings -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And Page 188 Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As we know the quantity of Zyklon B delivered, the dose necessary to kill one thousand people (according to Camp Commandant Hoess) and the number of people gassed during this period (obtained from the Calendar) it is easy to determine the percentage used for each purpose over the period of 22nd July to 26th August: 2 to 3% for homicidal gassing and 97 to 98% for disinfestation purposes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As Rudolf has shown, for the 40 tons of Zyklon-B delivered, approx. 800 to 2,000 kg of Zyklon-B according to Pressac was for homicidal gassings. 1000 people per gassing means 0.8 kg to 2 kg of Zyklon-B each killing. 2 % to 3 % of 40,000 kg is 800 to 1,200 kg. At 6 kg per gassing, that would mean 133 to 200 gassing operations in the period from 22 July to 26 August, which is improbable. Assuming that there were was one gassing per day during those 35 days, we would have 23 to 34 kg per gassing. Assuming two gassings per day, the amount would be half of that. But Pressac doesnt say anything about 40 tons of Zyklon B being brought to the camp during that period. Here is what he wrote about shipments of Zyklon B: *Quote:* In order to combat the typhus epidemic that was raging through the camp in August 1942, it was necessary to eliminate the vector of the disease, lice. The most effective delousing agent was Zyklon B, and without this product it would he impossible to eradicate the disease. On the eve of the Lagersperre order, authorization was received by radio to send a 5 ton truck [officially classified as 4.5 tons and capable of carrying a payload of 4950 kg on the road and 4100 kg off-road, and with a cubic capacity of approximately 20m] to Dessau, to the Zyklon-B production plant in order to collect gas intended for gassing the camp against the epidemic that has broken out. On 29th July, authorization was received for another truck to go to Dessau to load gas urgently required for disinfection. These two trucks would have brought back a maximum of 4,000 to 5,000 one kilogram cans of Zyklon B, if this was the size chosen. On 26th August, Zyklon B was running out or lacking, and a Renault truck (probably a 3.5-ton AHN) was sent to Dessau, this time for material for special treatment. On 2nd October, while the epidemic was still present, having reached a peak in September, the camp required material for the resettlement of Jews. Finally, on 7th January 1943, to keep control of the now endemic typhus, another truck was sent to Dessau for disinfection material. These five movement authorizations are the only ones in existence that mention this type of transport. So for the period in question I see two trucks (the one on the eve of the Lagersperre, 22 July, and the one dispatched on 29 July the one dispatched on 26 August would bring material used after that period) carrying a maximum of 2 x 5,000 = 10,000 kg of Zyklon B. Please show me how Rudolf managed to quadruple this amount. With 10,000 kg of Zyklon B, we would have 200 to 300 used for homicidal gassing, if Pressacs percentages are correct. At 6 kg per gassing, this would mean 33 to 50 homicidal gassings within that period of 35 days. Given that this was a period of peak influx and both Birkenau "bunkers" were in operation, these figures dont seem to be high. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you probably know, Dr. Green has demonstrated in his expert report for the Irving/Lipstadt trial how fast the ventilation system installed in the gas chambers of Birkenau crematoria II and III would be able to reduce even a concentration much higher than the full out-gassing concentrations mentioned above (not to mention the assumed concentrations after five minutes). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Green seriously overestimates the capacity of the chamber's ventilation capacity for several reasons. First, the setup for the gas chamber's ventilation was outtake vent on bottom, intake vent on top. This is the exact reverse that the Germans would have put in place had the room been exposed to poisonous gas, as can be seen by their ventilation of the delousing chambers (intake on bottom, outtake on top). This is so because Hydrogen Cyanide is lighter than air, and therefore was likely to remain in the upper reaches of the room. The "reverse" arrangement was probably related to the fact that the homicidal gas chambers were originally meant to be morgues and there was no time to change the design when it was decided to carry out the homicidal gassings there. W. *Quote:* Green's ignorance of this reverse setup invalidates his report's assumption that: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ventilation systems are designed to have an air flow such that the expelled air has a higher concentration of poison, so this equation might seem conservative. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You should quote in context. This is what Dr. Green writes in Chemistry is not the Science: *Quote:* It is impossible, of course, to get an exact figure for how long it actually took to clear the air in the gas chamber. But we can obtain approximations through mathematical modeling. The equation used is a simple one: the concentration in the gas chamber is cut to 1/e, or about 37%, for each room replacement of air. Where C(t) is the concentration of HCN at time t in hours, C(t) = C(0) (1/e)15.8t This equation supposes that the fresh air mixes with the air in the chamber immediately and completely. In reality it does not do so. Ventilation systems are designed to have an air flow such that the expelled air has a higher concentration of poison, so this equation might seem conservative. In addition, the victims' corpses take up space which has not been figured into any of the below calculations; this would reduce the volume and increase the replacement rate, again indicating that this figure is conservative. But blockages caused by the same corpses, and the possibility of laminar airflow, might work in the other direction. All in all, this estimate will suffice. So whether or not Dr. Green is wrong in assuming that his equation might be conservative, he applies his conservative equation and no other, which means that your objection is moot. And isnt the possibility of laminar air flow, which Green also takes into consideration, related to that reverse arrangement you mentioned? W. *Quote:* The victims bodies themselves would also pose a serious obstacle in the out blowing of the lighter-than-air poisonous gas. With bodies sprawled out on the floor, little gas would be able to exit through the blocked vents. Green himself recognizes this problem in his expert report. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blockages caused by the same corpses might work in the other direction. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yet Green goes on to ignore this problem in the remainder of his work. As becomes apparent from the above quote, Green considers that this problem would be compensated by the fact that the victims' corpses take up space which has not been figured into any of the below calculations and this would reduce the volume and increase the replacement rate, again indicating that this figure is conservative. If this reasoning is correct, blockages would merely mean that Greens calculations are not as conservative as he thinks they are. Anyway, blockage of air vents would only be an issue if the gas chamber was filled to the brim, and that was not necessarily so. Heres how Tauber described the inside of a gas chamber following a gassing (emphasis mine): *Quote:* We found heaps of naked bodies, doubled up. They were pinkish, and in places red. Some were covered with greenish marks and saliva ran from their mouths. Others were bleeding from the nose. There was excrement on many of them. I remember that a great number had their eyes open and were hanging on to one another. The bodies were most crushed together round the door. By contrast, there were less around the wire mesh columns. The bodies in this gassing obviously had enough space for certain parts of the chamber to have little or no bodies lying there, and the greatest concentration of bodies was near the door, where there were no ventilation vents. But even if the gas chamber was fuller, this would not necessarily mean that bodies squeezed against the vents blocked the same. For if the people were packed in too tightly to run anywhere from the incoming gas, they would (as described by Nyiszli, for instance) climb over each other to reach higher places where the gas would take longer to reach them. The resulting displacement of body mass in the vertical direction might well have created free space in the horizontal direction, and that free space may have largely or mostly been at or near the vents. W. *Quote:* Even Pressac recognizes the problem that the victim's bodies would have had on the exiting of poisonous gas. He refers to it as one of the more "valid" revisionist arguments in his book. Could you please provide a linked quote to Pressacs statement? I dont feel like searching for it. W. *Quote:* To fix the problem posed by the bodies on the chamber's ventilation, Pressac arbitrarily creates a scenario whereby the Sonderkommando would remove some of the corpses blocking the vents, and then reseal the room to allow for the ventilation. Unfortunately, Pressac's reasoning is based on no evidence (no eye-witness testimonies to support it either) except for his own assumptions. So what? This is one of those cases where one can safely say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. W. *Quote:* We also remain unsure on just how the SS would be aware that the bodies were blocking the vents until the Sonderkommando were to start dropping like flies. Why, all they had to do was look through the peephole and see how the bodies were positioned. If bodies were squeezed against the corners in such a way that they might cause blockages, they could send in Sonderkommando men with gas masks to remove the bodies and free the vents. Would this have been such a big deal? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even with an concentration of 20,000 ppm before out-gassing, which is twice of what Rudolf assumed, the concentration would be down to 139 ppm after 30 minutes. Yet Rudolf assumes 1 g/m3 for two hours, which is about 900 ppm. Thats far too much. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It makes one wonder why, if the gas chambers really did have such efficient ventilation instruments, despite all the problems that they would have run up against assuming a killing-scenario with HCN, including being involved in a short-circuit type ventilation aeration (where some fresh air would be evacuated out thanks to proximity of outtake vent), the Germans would install a 72-air exchanges per hour ventilation system for the delousing chambers. Thats almost 8 times more the what existed in the homicidal gas chambers!! And it's setup was directed for HCN gas to be used inside (intake on bottom, outtake on top). All very interesting if accurate, but equally irrelevant unless you cant demonstrate that the ventilation system of the homicidal gas chambers could not have cleared out the gas within the times calculated by Dr. Green. The larger ventilation capacity in the delousing chambers may have been related to the fact that these chambers were much smaller than the homicidal gas chambers and so the standard ventilation motors available on the market were able to ventilate them accordingly faster (a fan capable of cycling 8000 m3 through the room each hour would make for 15.8 air exchanges per hour in a room of 504 cubic meters but five times as much in a room five times smaller). And the fact that the homicidal gas chambers had originally been designed as morgues, and the design could not be changed to a larger ventilation system when it was decided to use the rooms for homicidal gassing, may also have been a factor. Where did you get your "72-air exchanges per hour ventilation system" from, by the way? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time is important insofar as the probability of Prussian Blue formation depended on the concentration of CN- ions that could develop while a high gas concentration was available, among other factors. If the possible concentration wasnt high enough independently of dilution, we need not even talk about the other factors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed, but the concentrations were high enough. Even Pressac's March 13, 1943 gassing provided enough concentration according to you as we shall see. I dont think we shall see that, but lets see. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lets assume that the above 6 kg of Zyklon B were allowed to outgas completely, until they reached about 13,000 ppm (they certainly were not, as there was the possibility of withdrawing the wire-mesh baskets containing the Zyklon B through the introduction columns and it would make sense to do so in order to streamline the process), and that the temperature was 30 Celsius, (which is probably an underestimate for most gassings considering what I wrote above about the temperature in the gas chamber). In this case, according to the graph shown on page 47 of Dr. Greens expert report, the liquid phase concentration of HCN (only liquid HCN can form Prussian Blue) would be 0.1 mole/liter at best. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which would be more than enough of a concentration. The concentration that matters is that of CN- ions and not that of liquid HCN, but OK. At the concentration mentioned above one precondition for the formation of Prussian Blue is likely to have been fulfilled, bar factors annulling it. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assuming a pH of 6-7 as measured by Markiewicz et al (see expert report, page 50 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you are probably aware, this pH was measured nearly 50 years after the gassings were alleged to have occurred. The pH level of walls would be much different now than what they were back than. It may be different, but it need not be different. And if it was different back then, chances are that it was even lower during homicidal gassing times due to the CO2 exhaled by the victims. Wahrheit *Quote:* Rudolf is correct to compare the walls to a pizza. He shows literature and points showing that the pizza would be hot after being taking out of the oven, while Markiewicz et al measure the pizza a week later to find out its actually cold. What Rudolf writes is absolute nonsense, and Im surprised that you consider it a good argument. The present-day pH in a certain building might be different from what it was in 1943/44, but it might just as well be similar. W. *Quote:* In essence, Markiewicz' pH findings are useless. No, they refer to the same building and are therefore not useless. If Rudolf wants to refute them, he should demonstrate contemporary conditions different from present-day ones that are likely to have brought up the pH. Instead he babbles about pizza. W. *Quote:* Rudolf has shown that the cement walls of the gas chambers were likely to be relatively alkaline. Emphasis mine. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The rust content (Fe2O3) of Portland cement, of particular interest to us here, the cement most frequently used for concrete and cement mortars, is usually between 1 and 5%.[396] The sand added to the mortar can also exhibit a high iron content (up to 4%). As mentioned in chapter 6.5.3., a large surface area at the solid-liquid phase limit (iron oxide-cyanide solution) is favorable to the formation of Iron Blue. This is extraordinarily large in cement and concrete mortars (microscopic interior surfaces of approximately 200 m2 per gram).[397] Fresh concrete and cement mortars-which are identical from a chemical point of view-are relatively strongly alkaline (pH approximately 12.5). It later falls, however, due to the binding of carbon dioxide from the air. Depending on the special chemistry of the cement mortar, this process proceeds very slowly in the depth of the material. According to the composition of the cement mortar, this may last from a few months to many decades, until the pH value of such a mortar or concrete becomes neutral, even in the deepest layers.[396]-[398] This chemical behavior explains the entire secret of the stability of reinforced concrete, which prevents the embedded steel from rusting further in the environment within the concrete, which remains alkaline for lengthy periods of time.[399] The water content of concrete and cement mortars depends on the temperature and relative humidity of the air and fluctuates between 1% and less at 20C and 60% relative humidity up to 10% in air saturated with humidity.[395] In case of permanently high humidity, penetrating wetness from outside, a huge part of the pore system can be filled with water.[400] [396] W.H. Duda, Cement-Data-Book, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1976, pp. 4ff., as well as my own analysis. [397] W. Czernin, Zementchemie fr Bauingenieure, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 49f. [398] N.V. Waubke, Transportphnomene in Betonporen, Dissertation, Braunschweig 1966. [399] In the strongly alkaline environment, iron is passivated by a passive layer of Fe(OH)3. 'Botch work' on building sites, i.e., rusting reinforcement rods and cracking concrete after only a few years or decades, due to overly low pH value in the vicinity of the embedded reinforcement rods, is caused by a) an incorrect composition of the concrete (too little cement-it's cheaper this way-and/or too much or too little water-incompetence), or b) by installing the reinforcement rods too close to the surface of the concrete, where the pH value falls strongly after a few years or decades; see notes 396f. [400] K. Wesche, Baustoffe fr tragende Bauteile, volume 2, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1981, pp. 51f. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All very interesting, but the material that the gas chamber walls or their ruins consist of is the same today as it was in 1943/44, and yet Markiewicz et al measured a pH of 6-7. If Rudolf is right in that the alkaline value of concrete or mortar "may last from a few months to many decades, until the pH value of such a mortar or concrete becomes neutral, even in the deepest layers", this may mean that neutralization occurred at some time between the pouring of the concrete and the measurements made by Markiewicz et al. This may have happened a few months after the concrete of the walls had been poured (which probably happened two or three months prior to the first homicidal gassing in Crematorium II) and therefore contributed little if anything to an alkaline environment throughout the operation of the facilities. Note that for our purpose the deepest layers of concrete would hardly matter, only those close to the surface would. Rudolf further waters down his argument by referring, in foot note 399, to cases in the building industry where an overly low pH value in the vicinity of the embedded reinforcement rods negatively affects the stability of concrete constructions. Thus one of the factors influencing his previous assumptions is whether or not the civil works constructor hired to build the walls of the Birkenau gas chambers did a proper job. Botching by civil workers in this respect seems to be frequent enough to deserve mention in Rudolfs source. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the CO2 exhaled by the victims means that the pH was, if anything, even lower than that, see the end of footnote 61 on page 54 of the report), -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The studies done so far on CO2 and HCN exposure have yet to produce results fully understood by either side. For instance, why does CO2 greatly enhance HCN absorption on some material, but not on others. I think the key issue here is that CO2 increases the environments acidity and this hampers the liberation of CN- ions. As to the results of studies done so far on CO2 and HCN exposure", consider footnote 61 of Greens expert report, starting on page 52 (emphases are mine): *Quote:* 61 A word on Rudolf's footnote 487, Rudolf writes: A word on the HCN-CO2 mixture used by the Poles for their fumigation experiments. In their view, CO2 has a negative influence on the absorption of HCN in masonry. Their own test results are, however, in contradiction to this view... Perhaps, Rudolf did not read their argument closely enough. He is correct that initially they measure more cyanide in the sample fumigated with HCN-CO2, however Markiewicz et. al. (Op. Cit.) point out that the decrease of HCN content over time in such samples is much faster than the decrease of HCN content in samples not exposed to CO2: After an interval of a month the mean decrease of hydrogen cyanide content in this material was 3% and so it was markedly greater than in the run with hydrogen cyanide only. In as many as four samples that loss ranged from 97% to 100% and then airing was nearly complete. This statement is significant in as much as in their reasoning the revisionists did not take into consideration certain circumstances, namely, the simultaneous action ofcyanides and carbon dioxide on the chamber walls. In the air exhaled by man carbon dioxide constitutes 3.5% by volume. Breathing for 1 minute, he takes in and next exhales 15-20 dm3 of air, comprising on the average 950 cm3 CO2; consequently, 1000 people breathe out about 950 dm3 of carbon dioxide. And so it can be estimated that, if the victims stayed in the chamber for 5 minutes before they died, they exhaled 4.75 m3 of carbon dioxide during that period. This is at least about 1% of the capacity, e.g. of the gas chamber of Crematorium II at Birkenau, the capacity of which was about 500 m3, whereas the concentration of hydrogen cyanide virtually did not exceed 0.1% by volume (death occurs soon at as low HCN concentrations as 0.03% by volume). Therefore, the conditions for the preservation of HCN in the gas chambers were not better than in the delousing chambers, despite what the revisionists claim. Besides, as has already been mentioned, the chamber ruins have been thoroughly washed by rainfall. In the sample not exposed to CO2 they found "the concentration of hydrogen cyanide and its combinations in the materials examined decreased on the average by 56% (from 28% to 86%)." Note that their estimate of CO2 exposure is conservative. They underestimate the number of people by a factor of two, and they assume a short time to death (5 minutes). Rudolf states furthermore that: ... they are also incorrect in assuming that CO2 could have a negative influence on the absorption of HCN; the influence is probably based on the fact that the carbonic acid (H2CO3, pKA=6,37) displaces the cyanide ion (CN-) from the equilibrium: 1. CO2 +H2O <=>H2CO3; 2. CN- + H2CO3 <=>HCN + HCO3- The process can be broken down into two parts. The effect of CO2 on the pH of the solution, i.e., the concentration of hydronium ions (H+), and the equilibrium: H+ + CN- <=> HCN Rudolf argues qualitatively that CO2 has a low solubility and that the equilibrium in equation 1 lies to the left. These two claims are more or less equivalent. The equilibrium is more complicated thanRudolf acknowleges. At low concentrations of CO2, the equilibrium in his equation 1 is determined by the Henry's Law constant of CO2. However, because H2CO3 partially dissociates to H+ and HCO3-, and HCO3-, subsequently partially dissociates to H+ and CO32-, at equilibrium one has to treat all of those reactions and derive an effective Henry's Law constant. The net effect is to acidify the water. It is a well known fact that ideal pure rain water has a pH of 5.6 because the atmosphere has a concentration of CO2 of 360 ppm. During World War II, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were closer to 330 ppm, but that is not an important difference for the purposes addressed here. One can think of the process as having three steps all of which involve a chemical equilibrium. The first step is the dissolution of CO2 in water; its equilibrium constant is the Henry's Law constant of CO2, Khc: CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3 The second step is the acid base reaction between carbonic acid and water; its equilibrium constant is denoted here as Kc1: H2CO3 + H2O <=> H3O+ + HCO3- The third step is reaction between the bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) and water whose equilibrium constant is here denoted as Kc2: HCO3- + H2O <=> H3O+ + CO32- Also, one needs to consider the autoprotolysis of water: 2H2O <=> H3O+ + OH- In aqueous solution, one can treat the concentration of water as a constant and derive a constant for the equilibrium, Kw. These constants are reported in John H. Seinfeld, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986, pp. 198-204. The pH of a solution is defined as -log[H+] where [H+] is the concentration of hyronium ions in moles/liter. From the information given it is possible to derive a cubic equation expressing the relationship between [H+] and the partial pressure of CO2, PCO2. This equation is also presented in Seinfeld: [H+]3 - (Kw+KhcKc1 PCO2)[H+]-2+KhcKc1 Kc2PCO2=0 At 1% CO2, one can expect a pH of less than 5.0; at 4%, one can expect a pH of 4.6 or less. The effect may be mitigated by other factors that could increase the pH, but the IFFR were not wrong to consider such effects. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- this would lead to a concentration of CN- ions in the order of 10-3 (0.001) moles/liter, 1 % of the HCN concentration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still 3 times the concentration needed to form Prussian Blue, and this is with only 1% of the HCN being absorbed. In actuality, with the pH likely being above neutral (pH: 7), this percentage increases dramatically, as Green's pH chart also shows. True, but assuming an alkaline environment is based on pure speculation, whereas assuming an acid one is based on measurements and on the above calculations of the probable impact of CO2 exhalation. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A mere tenfold dilution by ambient water would bring this concentration below the minimum level required, according to Alich et al, for formation of Prussian Blue to be possible. This concentration is 3.3 x 10-4 (0.00033) moles/liter (expert report, page 45, last paragraph and footnote 56). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where does the "mere tenfold dilution" come from? Abundant ambient water from regular hosing/washing before and after the emptying of the gas chamber, most probably. W. *Quote:* Certainly not from gas chamber hosings, Why not? W. *Quote:* as nowhere in the Pressac narrative of the March gassing (p.232 of Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp) are post-killing washings or sprayings mentioned. Yet such post-killing washings or sprayings are mentioned by Nyiszli and Chasan, and other witnesses mention the constant wetness of the gas chamber. So one cannot exclude this possibility. W. *Quote:* The high humidity in the room, again, is likely to enhance the chances of Prussian Blue formation, as all experiments so far known have shown. Not if it provided for an at least tenfold dissolution in the above scenario. Layman that I am in these matters (so please correct me if Im wrong), I figure that tenfold dilution is like when you dilute one teaspoon of sugar or salt in ten teaspoons of water, i.e. not a big deal. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The concentration would thus be lower than the concentration required for Prussian Blue formation, independently of any dilution, i.e. we dont need to talk about how much humidity there was in the gas chamber. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your calculations hang entirely on a pH range of 6-7, a number the gas chambers were likely far beyond. Neither you nor Rudolf have demonstrated such likeliness, whereas there are good reasons to assume that the gas chambers environment was acidic, especially during the gassings. W. *Quote:* Even the slightest increase in your pH range would provide sufficient enough CN concentrations to form Prussian Blue. If so, that would be counterfactually assuming that there was no dilution. W. *Quote:* Check the graph, similar to Green's. Thanks, but I see no reason to use another graph than Greens on page 49 of the expert report. This shows a dissociation of roughly 45 % at the pKa of HCN, which is 9.31. From my previous post: *Quote:* Now, lets assume that only the amount required to killed within five minutes was allowed to outgas (3.31 g/m or 3,88 g/m, according to my above calculations). Make that 4 g/m to simplify finding a value in Dr. Greens table on page 47. The value of the liquid phase concentration is about 0.025 moles/liter, and the concentration of CN- ions at a pH of 6-7 is 1 % of that or 0.00025 = 2.5 x 10-4 moles/liter. The concentration would thus be lower than the concentration required for Prussian Blue formation, independently of any dilution, i.e. we dont need to talk about how much humidity there was in the gas chamber. At 45 % the concentration of CN- ions would be 0.01125, whereas the minimum required for Prussian Blue formation is 0.00033. A 35-fold dilution by ambient water would be enough to mess up the preconditions for a Prussian Blue reaction. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concentrations of CN- ions would be significantly higher with the basic pH of about 10 assumed (but not substantiated) by Rudolf. However, this would mean that, while there might be sufficient CN- ions under certain humidity conditions to allow for this step in the formation of Prussian Blue, the basic pH would inhibit a next step of that process -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A highly basic PH would, not a slightly one. What is highly basic, and how do you know it would take such pH to hamper the reaction? In Chemistry is not the Science, Dr. Green writes the following (emphasis mine): *Quote:* Rudolf notes correctly that basic environments inhibit this process. An oversimplified way of considering this reaction is the following reaction: Fe(OH)3 + 6CN- <=> 3OH- + Fe(CN)63- in which we have omitted the complexing of water molecules for simplicity. Lechatelier's well-known principle predicts that a higher concentration of hydroxide ions (OH-) should drive this reaction to the left. The basicity that Rudolf needs to have even a snowball's chance in hell of producing Prussian blue by his proposed mechanism (under the conditions in the gas chambers) inhibits the formation of a necessary precursor! Rudolf claims that the pH must reach 11 to hinder the process, but offers no support for this assertion. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, lets assume for the time being (i.e. until I have arguments to counter the above) that the walls of the homicidal gas chamber absorbed more HCN than those of the delousing chambers. This would mean that conditions for formation of Prussian Blue were facilitated in the former if the necessary concentration of CN- ions was a) present at the outset and b) not diluted to a level insufficient for Prussian Blue formation by the ambient humidity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- High concentrations of Cyanide were likely to be present, Thats highly disputable, for the reasons explained above. W. *Quote:* and the ambient humidity and moisture would be highly unlikely to cause much damage to the Prussian Blue formation process. How do you know that? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That may be so in fumigations, where the time during which high amounts of gaseous HCN are in contact with the walls allowed for a concentration of liquid HCN significantly higher than what can be expected to have formed in the homicidal gas chambers before the gas was ventilated out. (...) It does if the concentration of CN- ions is high enough. If the concentration is so low that dilution through moisture leads to an insufficient concentration, moisture hinders the process instead of facilitating it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting that 30% relative humidity at similar temperatures was unable to form Prussian Blue, while a 90-95% relative humidity room could, isn't it? Especially since both had equally high concentrations of HCN present for 72 hours. One would expect that less moisture would mean higher concentrations in the existent moisture, yet this did not cause Prussian Blue formation. Your statement only means that humidity for some reason (maybe because it enhances absorption) favors the formation of Prussian Blue with high concentrations of CN- ions. Our scenario is one of low concentrations. I note the could regarding the 90-95% relative humidity, by the way. Does this mean that Prussian Blue formed in some cases and did not form in others with this humidity? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your claim is taken note of, now please substantiate it. I would especially like to see evidence that a) The pH-level was more favorable in the walls of the homicidal gas chambers, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Green himself has already demonstrated how a more alkaline wall level would increase the percentage of cyanide dissociating from its compounds, and according to Green's own source (M.A. Alich et al), a slightly alkaline environment (pH of 9-10) is favorable in the reduction of iron(III) to iron(II), both very key steps in the Prussian Blue formation process. What is favorable to iron reductions seems to be unfavorable to another step in the process, if I understood all this chemistry correctly. But the question here is if there was a slightly alkaline environment at all. W. *Quote:* More on this can be found here and here. Thanks, Ill check that out later. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- b) Any however low concentration of cyanide could have started a Prussia Blue reaction under the conditions you claim. According to a source used by both Rudolf and Dr. Green (Alich et al), a certain minimum concentration of CN- ions is a must for Prussian Blue to form. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but that "certain minimum concentration" would easily have been reached in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, as Pressac's scenario shows. What you call Pressacs scenario is actually Pressacs scenario with Zyklon B shipments as claimed by Rudolf, see above. Pressacs actual scenario corresponds to my own, which would arguably not provide even for a pre-dilution minimum concentration. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even with gaseous cyanide concentrations that high, which are unlikely, the concentrations of liquid HCN and hence of CN- ions would have been so low that even minimal dilution by the humidity present would have pushed them below the minimum threshold required for Prussian Blue formation, see above. There is no evidence that a "high absorbitive capacity" of the building material can make up for a too low concentration of CN- ions. The building material can only absorb as much liquid HCN as has condensed from the gaseous phase. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to Green's graph on p47 of his expert report, gas concentrations of 10-12 g/m^3 would leave likely between 0.07-0.085 moles/liter in liquid concentration. Even assuming your low 6-7 pH range for the gas chamber walls, thats 0.007-0.0085 moles/liter remaining. Thats double the minimal concentration that Alich states Prussian Blue needs to form. Meaning that a mere 2.2-fold to 2.6-fold dilution would ruin the concentration preconditions for a Prussian Blue reaction. W. *Quote:* And the open pores of the building would better protect the cyanide residues once in the liquid phase, as it would transport some through the walls. Enough to avoid 2.2-fold to 2.6-fold dilution? How do you know? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I dont think you can demonstrate that cyanide victims are necessarily pink -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe it's fairly easy to do so. (Emphasis mine) Arista Tek states: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bright red skin and the absence of cyanosis (bluish or purple skin) have been described in patients with cyanide poisoning. Caution is indicated because cherry red skin may also be seen in some severe carbon monoxide poisoning cases -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So says U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AC poisoning causes a deceptively healthy pink to red skin color. However, if physical injury or lack of oxygen is involved, the skin color may be bluish. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Potassium Cyanide Material Data Safety Sheetsimilarly states: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In most cases, cyanide poisoning causes a deceptively healthy pink to red skin color. However, if a physical injury or lack of oxygen is involved, the skin color may be bluish -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And so does Henry Tauber: *Quote:* We found heaps of naked bodies, doubled up. They were pinkish, and in places red. But thanks for the quotes, they may come in handy on a later occasion. Especially the one stating that a physical injury or lack of oxygen is involved, the skin color may be bluish. Looks like the coloring would strongly depend on the filling of the gas chamber and the extent to which the people crushed and trampled each other in death panic. W. *Quote:* R.M. I would attribute the blueness and bloating to the effects of decomposition According to this site, the blueness would be gone within a day, and would become either green, black, or gray by the timeframe Bennahmias speaks of. The speed of decomposition is subject to a number of variables and may be slower in a closed space like the gas chamber than in the open. There doesnt seem to be a clear limit between the light blue or almost green discoloration when it becomes "quite pronounced" and the "characteristic dark green (almost black) discoloration" following thereafter, and even if this were so, such would only mean that certain factors (lighting, for instance) caused Bennahmias to wrongly perceive the color or that he wrongly recollected either the color or the time during which the victims lay in the chamber. No big deal. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is nothing to indicate that the ventilation was only switched on when the door was finally opened this would be a detail likely to deserve mention by the witness, as it would also be contrary to standard operating procedure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If ventilation was doubled (likely for bigger portion), smaller portion of gas chamber would go without ventilation. No reason to redo changes they already performed on ventilation system. Redoing such changes wouldnt be a big deal, just remove the blocking when youre using the "smaller" portion. The alternative would be to hamper the efficacy of gassing when bigger transports came in on a regular basis and the luxury of leaving bodies in the gas chamber for days (which I expect to have been a rare occurrence anyway) could not be afforded. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The humidity in Bachmanns churches or basements was also lower, for two factors packing with sweating human bodies, regular hosing/shedding of water/washing of walls were missing. And if I understood your Bachmann quote correctly, he didnt say that formation of Prussian Blue under his high humidity conditions was a must. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Bachmann noted that humid HCN in all his samples except one affected the material more than dry HCN. And he considered his suggestions to "reduce or prevent" cyanide layer formation after fumigation. All very nice, but did Bachmann state anywhere that Prussian Blue formation from fumigating humid cellars or basements was a must unless the room was preheated? All I read from this: *Quote:* "Fumigation of rooms and buildings with HCN should preferably be carried out under relatively low humidity. Our experiments have shown that with relative humidities up to 30%, formation of corrosion layers on metals is either absent or negligible. Prior to fumigation, the humidity should be measured with a calibrated hygrometer. Rooms likely to be inherently humid (churches, vaults, basements, etc.) should be heated and/or ventilated before fumigation, either with already existing heating installations or with portable heaters, until the relative humidity has been sufficiently lowered. Drying agents, such as burnt lime or silica gel in open dishes, will further reduce humidity. These precautions and provisions require little effort compared with the troublesome removal of discolorations and layers after fumigation." is that he considered the possibility of "corrosion layers on metals" (mind that he was not talking about discoloration of walls here) to be remote with relative humidities up to 30 %, while "discolorations and layers" were likelier to occur in more humid environments. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You claimed that cold water would not greatly impact humidity, so if you cannot demonstrate that for a scenario resembling conditions in the Birkenau gas chambers as closely as possible, your claim is unsubstantiated and can therefore be dismissed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's simply anecdotal data which goes to support my position. I am not trying to scientifically verify whether such is or isn't the case, neither Rudolf nor Green havent done that. That anecdotal data shows that cold shower water into a warm room (~72 deg F) failed to cause any moisture buildup upon glass, wall, or ceiling. Similarly, as cold water would be entering into warm rooms (gas chamber). A cold shower running in some corner of a warm room and cold water covering all of a warm rooms floor and sprinkling on its walls (during the hosing of the bodies described by Nyiszli) are two different pairs of boots, if you ask me. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Try my above 30 Celsius scenario. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which did not appear to look into the physics of just how warm the room would become thanks to the BTUs emitted from each person in the time they are alleged to have been "specially treated." It doesnt have to, as I mentioned above. With eyewitness descriptions of heating and of unbearable heat inside the chamber after a gassing, the one who has to "look into the physics" is you. W. *Quote:* My efforts for calculations on this subject are seriously flawed. Which means that you have no means of discrediting eyewitness testimonies that at first sight seem plausible. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question here is how much humidity regular hosing/washing of floor and walls in the entire gas chamber (and not in an area relatively corresponding to that taken up by the shower in your bathroom) would add. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the water did not remain in the gas chambers long (as your own eye-witness Shaul Chasan continued to add water), and the gassings themselves were not immediately replicated (one a day if that at times), it is a wonderment, but unlikely to be very much. "Unlikely to be very much" doesnt get us anywhere, does it? If the water left the chamber through a drain, the floor would still be wet thereafter, if not wet enough to facilitate the pulling of the corpses, which is why the SK kept adding water. But what matters is that they did so while removing the bodies from the gas chamber, which means that the same must have been quite humid during that time. And afterwards, not only according to Bennahmias IIRC), the walls and the floor were washed. Before the cleanup started, on the other hand, there may have been the hosing of the bodies mentioned by Nyiszli. So at least from the opening of the gas chambers to the completion of the cleanup there was much water in the gas chamber, in addition to the humidity present anyway and that coming from the dead bodies. W. *Quote:* Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R.M. Cold water entering a hot room might not cause a vapor pressure as high as hot water, but the vapor pressure and thus the contribution to humidity is likely to be higher than when cold water enters a cold room. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, and as the cold water warms, it would have a greater vapor pressure. Again though, the water was not in the chambers very long, There was a lot of water around for a long time even if the water quickly left the chamber through some drain, see above. W. *Quote:* and once the gassing was complete, the ventilation process would cool the room, as would the opening of the door for the corpse-removing. Still, heres how Tauber described the room after all that: *Quote:* It was very hot in the gas chamber and so suffocating as to be unbearable. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So it makes no difference to the humidity level whether you shed a single bucket of hot water on the floor or spray walls and floor with many gallons of water? Come on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is not mentioned anywhere in the literature I have accessed, but I also understand the challenge. I have emailed several experts. Hopefully they will reply, as well as in a timely manner. Good luck! W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, Im becoming increasingly interested in what Dr. Bachmann writes about this 90-95% humidity in his cellars or basements and the implications thereof. So could you please provide a comprehensive quote? All you have quoted so far is this: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is Dr. Bachmann's most comprehensive point on humidity in his article. Here are a few more statements of his on humidity. From the Abstract: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To reduce or prevent layer formation on metals during fumigation with HCN, the relative humidity inside rooms or buildings should be reduced prior to fumigation by drying agents or heaters. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The conditions of his two rooms: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dry Concentration: 20 g HCN/m^3 Duration of treatment: 72 h Temperature: 18-22 deg Celsius Relative Humidity: 30% Humid Concentration: 20 g HCN/m^3 Duration of treatment: 72 h Temperature: 22-22.5 deg Celsius Relative Humidity: 90-95% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And from "Investigation Methods and Results": Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With the exception of sample No.8 (electroplated silver layer), all the samples were more affected by humid than by dry HCN; however, the differences between the individual samples are pronounced. In detail, the observations and interpretations are as follows." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks. Nothing that would allow for concluding that Prussian Blue formation is a necessary (and not only a probable) consequence of fumigation in a room with high relative humidity. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, my friend, its not that easy. You have to demonstrate that there would be Prussian Blue if they didnt use ammonia, otherwise the use of that substance (which may be related to safety considerations or whatever) is without relevance to your argument. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You recognized that the ammonium was used to remove cyanide (therefore ridding the chance of Prussian Blue to form) in your post 7220. Sure, but this doesnt mean that ammonium was used to prevent Prussian Blue formation or that only ammonium can avoid that. Just how humid are those execution gas chambers, by the way? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, it doesnt necessarily suggest that water is "not able to do the job". It may just be that reducing the cyanide to crystals with ammonium is an easier and safer way to remove all cyanide from the gas chamber than rinsing with water, which may leave or transport cyanide residues sufficient to cause a slight poisoning. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Despite the complete full-body chemical safety suits that state employees working near and in the execution chambers would dress in? Theres would always be the factor of human negligence in cleanup operations, which might cause persons unprotected or not sufficiently protected to come in contact with liquid cyanide. State employees working near and in the execution chambers dont wear full-body chemical safety suits all the time, do they? W. *Quote:* As Missouri State Penitentiary Warden Bill Armontrout stated: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This ammonia was released after the execution to help reduce the cyanide gas to crystals which could be washed away -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No US employer wants lawsuits from employees arguing that their health suffered from any exposure to cyanide, so a method excluding any possibility of such lawsuits is chosen. The speculation that the method may have something to do with keeping the gas chamber walls (which I expect to be tiled anyway) from getting blue spots seems to be rather far-fetched. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that the ammonia crystallizes the cyanide to ensure it's washing out of the chamber by H2O, it nips any Prussian Blue chance before it can start. This would certainly be a side effect of the procedure, but theres nothing to indicate that it is the intended effect. W. *Quote:* But the point wasn't to show how Prussian Blue could form in the US gas chambers. It was to show that water was ineffective in removing the cyanide, which is significant for our considerations of the homicidal gas chambers, given how much you rely upon the "dilution" of cyanide concentrations. Whether or not water is ineffective depends on what it is supposed to do. For the purpose of avoiding any chance that an unprotected or insufficiently protected person may come in contact with HCN and suffer some health damage, it may not be 100 % effective. But that doesnt mean it cant effectively dilute concentrations of CN- - ions barely sufficient to start a Prussian Blue reaction into concentrations no longer allowing for such reaction. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Wahrheitseeker	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#71	[url]	[-]
Posts: 486 17-Nov-2007 01:40	R.M. *Quote:* He baselessly postulated exaggerated out-gassing times, I presume. If I could suggest it, I would encourage you to read Rudolf's report, or at least Chapters 5, 6, and 7. Not necessarily to "enlighten" your view of the Holocaust by any means, but to get a better grasp of the more current state of revisionist research, instead of your "presumptions." I noticed throughout your article that you ask questions and challenges posed by Dr. Green (which he states Rudolf ignored), while in later editions of his work Rudolf has answered those points, and covered many of those areas. It's a problem that arises when using Dr. Green's 2000 work (which he has since apparently left as is for the discussion), versus Rudolf's more recent 2003 work. R.M. *Quote:* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is the "five minutes requirement" such a red herring? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because theres a great variation in gassing times testified to by eyewitnesses. I do not believe that this variation is as great as you think, and certainly not a red herring of Rudolf's. Let us focus on the time it took, according to the witnesses you list, for the victims (or the large majority thereof) to succomb to the poisonous gas. We will ignore the time the gas was allowed to continue outgassing as irrelevant for our purposes to determine how soon the victims are alleged to have died. Commandant Hss: "The process could be observed through the peep hole in the door. Those who were standing next to the air shaft were killed immediately. I can state that about one-third died immediately. The remainder staggered about and began to scream and struggle for air. The screaming, however, soon changed to gasping and in a few moments everyone lay still." Hss suggests a quick killing (or what appeared to be so) process of "a few moments", that occured "soon" after the gas entered, although the gas was allowed to remain evaporating for some time longer. Hss went on: "The victims became unconscious after a few minutes, according to the distance from the air shaft. Those who screamed and those who were old, sick, or weak, or the small children died quicker than those who were healthy or young." Hans Stark: "()As the Zyklon B -- as already mentioned -- was in granular form, it trickled down over the people as it was being poured in. They then started to cry out terribly for they now knew what was happening to them. I did not look through the opening because it had to be closed as soon as the Zyklon B had been poured in. After a few minutes there was silence. After some time had passed, it may have been ten to fifteen minutes, the gas chamber was opened. The dead lay higgledy-piggedly all over the place. It was a dreadful sight." So "a few minutes" is all it took before the victims fell silent, which was "some time" before the clearing process started. Interestingly, does Stark mention anything about ventilation? Pery Broad: "()As soon as the tin was emptied, the prussic acid escaped from the granules.()Some two minutes later the screams became less loud and only an indistinct groaning was heard. The majority of the victims had already lost consciousness. Two minutes more and Grabner stopped looking at his watch. It was over. There was complete silence" A total of four minutes alleged by Broad before the killing was complete. Miklos Nyiszli: "()The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead..." Within five minutes after the gas entered, Nyiszli states "everybody was dead." Dr. Andre Lettich: "Then SS-Unterscharfuhrer Moll dropped the gas through a little window. The cries that could be heard were frightening, but after a few moments complete silence reigned." So "a few moments" alleged by Lettich. In sum we have: Hoess: "Few moments/Few minutes" Stark: "Few minutes" Broad: Four minutes (two minutes for groaning, two more for silence) Nyiszli: Within five minutes Lettich: "Few moments" None of these show a "great variation" in the gassing times alleged. Rudolf also has shown many more of the times alleged by eyewitnesses. As a footnote to his statement on p.208that, "These reported execution times all allege a gassing time of only a few minutes" he provides this extensive gatherment of times for killing alleged by eyewitnesses. The times are all shown within parantheses. It looks more daunting and complicated than it really is. *Quote:* With relation to the killing times, see in, for example: Schwurgericht Hagen, verdict from July 24, 1970, ref. 11 Ks 1/70, p. 97 (5 min.); Final Trial Brief of the Prosecution, quoted acc. to U. Walendy, Auschwitz im IG-Farben-Proze, op. cit. (note 157), pp. 47-50 (3 to 15 minutes in extreme cases); E. Kogon et al., op. cit. (note 42), ubiquitous (immediately up to 10 min., more rarely, up to 20 min.); J. Buszko (ed.), Auschwitz, Nazi Extermination Camp, Interpress Publishers, Warschau 21985, in cooperation with the Auschwitz State Museum, pp. 114 + 118 (a few minutes); H.G. Adler, H. Langbein, E. Lingens-Reiner (ed.), Auschwitz, Europische Verlagsanstalt, Cologne 31984, pp. 66, 80 + 200 (a few minutes, up to 10 minutes); Hamburger Institut fr Sozialforschung (ed.), Die Auschwitz-Hefte, vol. 1, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim 1987, pp. 261ff. +294 (instantly, up to 10 min.); C. Vaillant-Couturier, in: Der Proze gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Miltrgerichtshof Nrnberg (IMT), vol. VI, p. 242 (5 to 7 min.); M. Nyiszli in: G. Schoenberner (ed.), Wir haben es gesehen, Fourier, Wiesbaden 1981, p. 250 (5 min.); C.P. Bendel in: H. Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitz, Europaverlag, Vienna 1987, p. 221 (end of screaming of victims after 2 min.); P. Broad in: B. Naumann, Auschwitz, Athenum, Frankfurt/Main 1968, p. 217 (4 min.), opening of doors after 10-15 minutes: A. Rckerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht, C.F. Mller, Heidelberg, 21984, pp. 58f.; K. Hlbinger in: H. Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Proze, Europische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt/Main 1965, p. 73 (1 min.): R. Bck, ibid., p. 74 (screaming victims for 10 minutes following closure of doors, followed by opening of doors, cf. note 297); H. Stark, ibid., p. 439 (screaming victims for 10-15 minutes); F. Mller, ibid., p. 463 (8-10 min.); E. Py, ibid., p. 748 (ventilators switched on after only a few minutes); K. Lill, ibid., p. 750 (a scream a few seconds after the introduction of Zyklon B, pall of thick smoke exiting the chimney a few minutes later); transcript of the expert opinion of Prof. Dr. G. Jagschitz, 3rd-5th hearing days of criminal proceedings against Gerd Honsik, April 4., April 30, May 4, 1992, ref. 20e Vr 14184 and Hv 5720/90, District Court Vienna, p. 443 (2-3 min); Dokument 3868-PS, IMT volume 33, pp. 275ff., quoted according to L. Rosenthal, "Endlsung der Judenfrage", Massenmord oder "Gaskammerlge"?, Verlag Darmstdter Bltter, Darmstadt 1979 (2 to 15 minutes in exceptional cases); R. H, op. cit. (note 295: 30 minutes for the entire procedure, including ventilation); Hans Mnch, in G. Rudolf, "Auschwitz-Kronzeuge Dr. Hans Mnch im Gesprch", VffG, 1(3) (1997), pp. 139-190 (2 to 5 min. in winter) (online: www.vho.org/VffG/1997/3/RudMue3.html); Salmen Lewenthal, Hefte von Auschwitz, Sonderheft 1, Handschriften von Mitgliedern des Sonderkommandos, Verlag Staatliches Museum Auschwitz, 1972, p. 155 (sudden silence); Dov Paisikovic, in: Lon Poliakov, Auschwitz, Ren Julliard, 1964, pp. 159ff. (3-4 minute), Franke-Gricksch Report, in: J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 238 (one minute to kill the victims, another until the doors were opened); Rudolf Vrba alias Walter Rosenberg, Alfred Wetzler, ref. M 20/153, Yad Vashem (acc. to War Refugee Board, "German Extermination Camps-Auschwitz and Birkenau", in David S. Wyman (ed.), America and the Holocaust, volume 12, Garland, New York/London 1990, p. 20 (everyone in the room was dead after three minutes); Jerzy Tabeau, in: The Extermination Camps of Auschwitz (Oswiecim) and Birkenau in Upper Silesia (10 minutes, quoted according to Enrique Aynat, Los protocolos de Auschwitz. i Una fuente historica? Verlag Garcia Hispan, Alicante 1990); Andr Lettich, Trente-quatre mois dans les Camps de Concentration, Imprimerie Union Cooprative, Tours, 1946 (a few moments). Janda Weiss, in David E. Hackett, (ed.), The Buchenwald Report, Beck, Munich 1997, p. 394 (3 min.). If longer killing times appear in the eyewitness testimonies, they refer, not to crematoria II and III, but, rather, to crematoria IV/V, bunkers 1-2, or crematorium I in the Main Camp. The killings in crematoria II and III are therefore alleged to have been committed very quickly. R.M. *Quote:* Whence do you conclude that? Bar any other indication, "rapidly fatal" means "rapidly fatal to an average human being". Or, more precisely, to an average worker covered by OSHA regulations. In his article Chemistry is not the Science, Dr. Green is very precise as to what "rapidly fatal" means. In that same article, Dr. Green agrees with Rudolf's point that the OSHA regulations for cyanide toxicity are "imposed for safety reasons" and "are much lower than lethal concentrations." R.M. *Quote:* Interesting, but none of this excludes the possibility that the male in Barcrofts experiment was simply an exceptionally resistant fellow. Being 45 years old and 70 kg (154 lbs), while not excluding the possibility of beign resistant, make it unlikely. He would almost certainly make a candidate for those Jews eligible for "special treatment", as he was too old for manual labor. Economic concerns were dropped to accomodate the Final Solution anyway, according to Holocaust literature. R.M. *Quote:* He also stayed in the chamber for only 1.5 minutes, which was probably lower than the exposure time required for his catching a dose of HCN that might be fatal to him. What if he had been exposed to the dose you mentioned as long as the victims in the Birkenau gas chambers were? He likely would have died, but it shows that even a level much higher than that regulated by OSHA as "rapidly fatal" can be experienced for well over a minute with only very slight symptoms. Although Barcroft shows some interesting data on goats and their durations with cyanide, which they seem to suffer similarly as do humans to the substance. Goats require high concentrations for fatality to occur within minutes. R.M. *Quote:* Note the very short exposure times in the experiments mentioned by Barcroft, much shorter than the times during which the people in the Birkenau gas chambers were exposed to the poison But the key is to question just how "rapid" is "rapidly fatal". Obviously, its more than 1-3 minutes, and thats at the full sought concentration during the entire time. The gas chambers cyanide concentration level would start low but increase. R.M. *Quote:* Well, the people in the gas chambers would be breathing higher concentrations of cyanide until ventilation had cleared out the gas (by which time they were dead or at least unconscious and dying, of course), and we dont know how and especially with what specimen(s), if any, Kohn-Abrest reached his results. He certainly didnt wait for whatever Barcroft means by "many" minutes until his test persons, if he used any, died or suffered significant health damage. But Kohn-Abrest do suggest that such high concentration levels (1000 ppm) could be experienced for some time without life-threatening effects. And again, the 1000ppm concentration would be present the entire time, not start low and then after some time passed reach it, as would happen in the A-B gas chambers. R.M. *Quote:* Besides, a statement that a certain concentration is "impossible to breathe" for a certain time suggests that at such concentration and within such time death is a certainty for any however strong specimen, which doesnt mean that exposure to a lower concentration for a lower time is safe. No, not "safe", but likely not fatal (nor very close to it) for the same amount of time. R.M. *Quote:* On the contrary, it might still be dangerous or even fatal for less strong specimens, especially for women and children (who made up the greater part of the victims in the Birkenau gas chambers and who, according to these Directives for the Use of Prussic Acid, are more susceptible to the poison than men). So its wrong to conclude from the above source that the mentioned concentration of hydrogen cyanide could be generally inhaled for "some minutes" without risk of death. Of course theres risk of death, but at a lower concentration, the time for living (for all humans) is likely to be at least "some minutes", if not more. The OSHA data for "rapidly fatal" may very well represent a small female (as they are part of workforce too). R.M. *Quote:* As were at it, consider the following excerpts from Dr. Greens expert report, page 28 f. Dr. Green focuses on 10 minutes of exposure, while the eyewitnesses (as seen above) allege death of victims around or within 5 minutes. R.M. *Quote:* Whether it does or not would strongly depend on when the diminution of the evaporation rate takes effect, whether at the beginning of the evaporation process or later on (at the beginning the pellets would not yet have caught so much humidity, so that a faster initial evaporation seems plausible). Condensation would likely appear shortly after the gas entered (I believe as the exposed gas began warming to such a temperature causing vehement outgassing). If the gas chambers were as warm as you state (similar to a sauna) and as humid as they were, anything entering the chamber would very quickly condense with water vapor. Take a nicely chilled beer bottle out into a hot summer day and witness how quick condensation occurs. R.M. *Quote:* It would also depend on whether the diminution is as significant at higher temperatures, closer to the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide, as it is at the colder temperatures measured by Irmscher. Well, at colder temperatures there would be far less humidity in Irmscher's experiments (far less than to cause condensation). The problem of humidity would grow with heat, as there would be a much higher amount of moisture in the air. Warm air holds much more water compared to cold air. R.M. *Quote:* And also assuming that the SS couldnt wait a little longer than five minutes to do the killing, which according to the witnesses I quoted above (especially Hss) they seem to have had no problem with. Yes, the insurance time was allegedly allowed for, but the killings are alleged to have been within a "five minutes", which means the insurance time was likely for the more resistant victims (see Hoess on variations among victims), or those who at first escaped it's presence (child described by Nysizle, IIRC). Not for the entire chamber to be killed. R.M. *Quote:* There may be factors the effects of which I haven't considered, but then, thats a problem Rudolf has as well. Such as? R.M. *Quote:* Now, he is the one who has undertaken to demonstrate that gassing as testified to by numerous eyewitnesses would have been impossible or inexpedient, and without being able to quantify certain specifics any claim of his in this direction is a mere guess. Yes, although Rudolf for his part never alleges that humidity would have slowed evaporation by such and such percent, but just notes the problems that the alleged gassings would have. R.M. *Quote:* As to the absence of circulation units in the gas chamber: thats a rather pointless objection as the victims were not standing still and waiting until they sniffed a lethal dose of HCN. They panicked, screamed, tried to get away from the gas, trampled each other down, climbed over each other. 1000 people in a sealed 7 m by 30 m room were not going to go very far among each other. Much like standing concerts would not cause much air breeze among the audience. Also, any slight wind would at leats be partially blocked by the three layers of wire-mesh columns surrounding the Zyklon-B gas. I don't claim to know all the answers, but Houston has a problem. R.M. *Quote:* Apart from the fact that all this exercise probably caused many of them to suffocate, How? Not even Rudolf alleges that suffocation would have occurred among the victims inside the alleged gassing timeframe. R.M. *Quote:* and that the physical exertion is likely to have enhanced the effects of the poison, By heavier breathing, possibly. The panic of gas entering a sealed room would likely cause as much. Certainly not from sweat, which would not occur at such high humidty levels. R.M. *Quote:* the action inside the chamber is also certain to have provided for a lot of air circulation. How so? They were not runnign marathons, and could only cause as much air disruption as their bodies would allow. R.M. *Quote:* According to my calculations, the "US gas chamber" concentration could be reached within five minutes at the hot temperatures that are likely to have reigned in the gas chambers during most gassings. Assuming ideal conditions. No effect from humidity, good air circulation, heavy breathing and vulnerable victims, etc... R.M. *Quote:* In assessing the plausibility of times mentioned by eyewitnesses one also has to take into account that these people had no way of checking if death in a clinical sense had occurred. For them "death" meant that the victims fell silent, and that may in many cases have meant that they were still in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning. Agreed. R.M. *Quote:* Those "problems" are mere assumptions, the effects of which you cannot quantify. Until you can, my scenario can be considered as plausible as any. The problems I present are well recognized by the Zyklon-B employees themselves. While I may not be able to quantify what problem they pose is there any doubt that Irmscher recognized it to be an important problem for quick evaporation(a "significantly diminishing rate of evaporation")? On the quantification of what air-circulation would have done, here is a graph from work on HCN in rooms with Kreislaufverfahren and without. It is Graph 12, immediately to the right of the top of the link. It shows how non-air circulation HCN would take significantly longer time to outgas than its air-circulating counterpart. R.M. *Quote:* Who needs such studies when there are testimonies according to which the inside of a homicidal gas chamber after a gassing was like a sauna, which can be safely assumed to mean a temperature well above the boiling point of HCN? Possibly, although we are unsure of what room temperature Tauber's body was exposed to prior to entering the body-littered gas chamber. Had it been chilly, as many basements are, entering even a slightly warm room would feel warm. Humidity can account for the stuffiness of the room. R.M. *Quote:* You do, if you want to discredit the eyewitness testimonies and demonstrate that the gas chambers cannot have been as hot as they described them. Feel free to give it a try. Such might be my next endeavor for us to discuss. R.M. *Quote:* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would much like to see the eye-witness statements on the pre-heating with coke-braziers if you have the source at ready. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heres one Thanks. I will look into that more when I get an extra chance. R.M. *Quote:* It is not correct that there would be such obstacles. There might be such obstacles, or there might not be. Your assumptions in this direction are mere conjectures. Well, we know there was no room-installed air-circulation system (that I am aware of at least). We also can come to pretty reasonable conclusions regarding humidity (which would increase with temperature). I assume it only wouldn't be a problem if the temperature of the room and the temperature of the Zyklon-B did not differ, which would mean much cooler Zyklon-B. I would say these are more than conjectures on my part. I would call it conjecture that these conditions were not present. R.M. *Quote:* Show me the testimonies with the 12 kg, please. I do not have a specific testimony for 12 kg as I believed I had. Rudolf does state that Jozef Buszko relies on such a range (6-12 kg). I again accept my mistake, and will heretofore use the 6 kg average. R.M. *Quote:* Under non-ideal conditions (...) the time for the necessary concentration to develop might be a longer than five minutes. So what? Such is the norm alleged by the eye-witnesses to the event. R.M. *Quote:* At 6 kg per gassing, that would mean 133 to 200 gassing operations in the period from 22 July to 26 August, which is improbable. Assuming that there were was one gassing per day during those 35 days, we would have 23 to 34 kg per gassing. Assuming two gassings per day, the amount would be half of that. I apologize for the confusion Muehlenkamp. I did not mean the 22-7 to 26-8 period, but rather the total shipments of Zyklon-B to the camp. Sorry for lack of proper explaining. R.M. *Quote:* The "reverse" arrangement was probably related to the fact that the homicidal gas chambers were originally meant to be morgues and there was no time to change the design when it was decided to carry out the homicidal gassings there. Even so, the important point that the ventilation system for the gas chambers was not designed for, and would not be efficient in removing hydrogen cyanide remains. And how hard would it be to reverse the air-flow? R.M. *Quote:* So whether or not Dr. Green is wrong in assuming that his equation might be conservative, he applies his conservative equation and no other, which means that your objection is moot. Ignorance of the flaw does not solve the problem, as the Columbia shuttle disastershowed. R.M. *Quote:* As becomes apparent from the above quote, Green considers that this problem would be compensated by the fact that the victims' corpses take up space which has not been figured into any of the below calculations and this would reduce the volume and increase the replacement rate, again indicating that this figure is conservative. I will note that Rudolf's ventilation calculations provide room for the alleged victims' bodies, and are therefore taken into account. R.M. *Quote:* Anyway, blockage of air vents would only be an issue if the gas chamber was filled to the brim, and that was not necessarily so. The chamber does not have to be "filled to the brim" to pose a ventilation problem. As for Tauber, note that he states: *Quote:* The bodies were most crushed together round the door. By contrast, there were less around the wire mesh columns. Tauber does not state that parts of the floor were body-less, rather just that there were not many around the supposed wire mesh columns, and that many were by the door. By the door could easily have blocked the vents located among the wall nearest the door. The victims were most likely to push to the outside rim of the room (hoping for escape), all along the walls, right where the outtake vents were. R.M. *Quote:* The bodies in this gassing obviously had enough space for certain parts of the chamber to have little or no bodies lying there Yes, the center of the room, although Tauber never says "no bodies", just "less around the wire mesh columns." R.M. *Quote:* Could you please provide a linked quote to Pressacs statement? I dont feel like searching for it. Sure. Here ya go. *Quote:* ANNEX GAS 3000 PEOPLE IN LEICHENKELLER I OF KREMATORIUM II? IMPOSSIBLE, THE BODIES WOULD HAVE BLOCKED THE LOWER AIR EXTRACTION ORIFICES (Reply to the argument in a letter from a revisionist) Following the exchange of letters and telephone calls with a correspondent who doubts the reality of the gas chambers, I have extracted two of his arguments that appear to me valid. Describing the ventilation system of Leichenkeller I [of the future Krematorium II as per the cross-section on drawing 933], he pointed out to me that the air entered through the upper orifices, then was extracted through the lower ones, and concluded: This arrangement is perfectly suitable if the room is used as a morgue: the air entering cools, becomes denser, and is extracted from the lower part. He then asked me to imagine: the situation in the LK 1 after the gassing of a large number of people: the corpses are heaped on top of one another; they block most of the air extraction orifices; the room is full of warm toxic gas; how can there be rapid and efficient mechanical ventilation? I would say that it is nor possible... These remarks mean that Leichenkeller I used as a gas chamber had a poorly designed ventilation system and in the case of large-scale gassings [3000 people in 210 m according to Nyiszli, or 13.3 per square meter], the lower orifices being blocked ventilation would become impossible [a model visible at the Museum illustrates this maximum case, though there are probably no more than one thousand victims depicted]. The figure of 3000 is theoretical and exaggerated, but if we take it as correct, then so is my correspondent's hypothesis and the ventilation is blocked and cannot work. What would the SS have done in the case of such an incident? They would have proceeded in two stages: 1. Open wide the doors giving basement access through the north yard and those of the undressing room, whose ventilation system working at full power would prevent the basement being contaminated: Before putting on their gas masks, the SS would have then ordered two to four members of the Sonderkommando to put on masks, open the gas chamber door and drag bodies out into the vestibule until several of the air extraction orifices had been cleared. Then the gas-tight door would have been closed again, the ventilation restarted, and to improve its efficiency all that was required was to open the Zyklon-B introduction covers, but not until that moment. After verifying by means of a gas detector that there was no longer any danger of hydrocyanic acid intoxication outside the gas chamber, operations would have resumed their normal course. 2. Once the gas chamber had been emptied, a squad of fitters or bricklayers would have fixed at the end of the chamber, in the southeast corner a steel duct of about 20 cm diameter and 2 meters high or built a brick chimney of about the same dimensions connecting with or protecting one of the lower air extraction orifices and enabling it to take in warm contaminated air from above. The time taken for the repair would not have been longer than an afternoon. Such an incident would not have interrupted the operation of the Krematorium. As the documents we possess at present make no mention of such work we can assume for the moment that the case of the 3000 never occurred, the number of victims from a convoy always being less than this. The initial ventilation system of Leichenkeller I, which was designed for a basement morgue, is not a definitive obstacle to using the room as a gas chamber. So it goes it be solved for Pressac. R.M. *Quote:* This is one of those cases where one can safely say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. True, yet it remains to be corroborated by anything besides Pressac's reasoning, which is a problem. R.M. *Quote:* Why, all they had to do was look through the peephole and see how the bodies were positioned. If bodies were squeezed against the corners in such a way that they might cause blockages, they could send in Sonderkommando men with gas masks to remove the bodies and free the vents. Would this have been such a big deal? Could the peepholes provide enough visibility to allow for verification on the free vents inside the room? Also, how would they know if they were really blocked, or a body was simply close? I imagine a more realistic scenario would be going on with the routine (gassing + allowance of time + ventilation kicked on + see room's toxicity if SDK begin collapsing). R.M. *Quote:* The larger ventilation capacity in the delousing chambers may have been related to the fact that these chambers were much smaller than the homicidal gas chambers and so the standard ventilation motors available on the market were able to ventilate them accordingly faster (a fan capable of cycling 8000 m3 through the room each hour would make for 15.8 air exchanges per hour in a room of 504 cubic meters but five times as much in a room five times smaller). The quick ventilation of these rooms was what was wanted by DEGESCH, which initiated the 72 air-exchanges ventilation system. R.M. *Quote:* Where did you get your "72-air exchanges per hour ventilation system" from, by the way? From Mattogno. In his Auschwitz: The End of a Legendhe states: "As a means of comparison, seventy-two air exchanges per hour were foreseen [74] for the disinfestation gas chambers with the Kreislauf system, the plans of which Pressac publishes in documents 16 and 17. " His footnote 74 reads as follows: *Quote:* This follows, among other things, from the article by G. Peters and E. Wstiger mentioned by Pressac on pages 41 and 103, from which he also draws Documents 16-17. The title indicated by J.C. Pressac: "Entlausung mit Zyklon Blausure in Kreislauf-Begasungskammern", (Zeitschrift fr hygienische Zoologie und Schdlingsbekmpfung, Heft 10/11, 1940) (note 134 on p. 103) is wrong; the exact title is: "Sach-Entlausung in Blausure-Kammern" (Zeitschrift fr hygienische Zoologie und Schdlingsbekmpfung, 1940, pp. 191-196). On page 195 one reads: Ventilator mit Motor. Fr diesen ist eine Leistung von 12 cbm je Minute bei einem stat. Druck von 80 mm WS ausreichend, um sowohl eine usserst rasche Gasentwicklung als auch eine gengend rasche Luftung (72-facher Luftwechsel je Stunde) des begasten Kammerinhalts zu bewirken. [Ventilator with motor. For this a capacity of 12 m3 per minute with a static pressure of 80 mm of water column is sufficient to produce a very rapid development of the gas as well as a sufficiently rapid ventilation (72 air exchanges per hour) of the contents of the gassed chamber.] (See appendix, Documents No. 5 and 6.) Here are the documents: Document No. 5: G. Peters, E. Wstiger, "Sach-Entlausung in Blausure-Kammern", Zeitschrift fr hygienische Zoologie und Schdlingsbekmpfung, Heft 10/11, 1940, p. 195. Document No. 6: P. Puntigam, H. Breymesser, E. Bernfus, Blausurekammern zur Fleckfieberabwehr. Sonderverffentlichung des Reicharbeitsblattes (Berlin, 1943), p. 50. Well that is it for today. Saturday or Sunday I will respond to the latter half of your post, covering Prussian Blues, CN concentrations, cement wall alkalinity, etc... BTW, is it possible to at leass get a new page for our discussion, instead of being buried under a mountain of former posts in page 3 of this thread?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Wahrheitseeker	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#72	[url]	[-]
Posts: 486 17-Nov-2007 18:05	While I have some free time, I will take a few more jabs at Roberto's post. R.M. *Quote:* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you are probably aware, this pH was measured nearly 50 years after the gassings were alleged to have occurred. The pH level of walls would be much different now than what they were back than. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It may be different, but it need not be different. And if it was different back then, chances are that it was even lower during homicidal gassing times due to the CO2 exhaled by the victims. It would be almost impossible for a cement wall, whcih would have an almost immediate falling pH anyway, and then be exposed to the elements for many decades, have a similar pH level as it did shortly after it was poured. And chances are that the walls would still be alkaline for the "gassings", but we will examine the CO2 point below. R.M. *Quote:* What Rudolf writes is absolute nonsense, and Im surprised that you consider it a good argument. The present-day pH in a certain building might be different from what it was in 1943/44, but it might just as well be similar. As shown, the air's carbonation upon the cement walls would begin to lower the pH immediately after pouring. A recent article by Concrete Construction states quiet clearly that (emphasis mine) *Quote:* The pH of concrete is related to the portland cement and pozzolans used in the mix. On the surface, the pH is highest shortly after it's placed and decreases with time as the surface carbonates. The pH is also related to the moisture content of a slab--concrete with higher moisture levels tends to have a higher surface pH. Cured concrete can go from neutral (pH 7) to highly alkaline (pH 12 or 13). Notice that a higher moisture content, which the morgue would certainly have had, would increase and maintain the walls alkalinity. R.M. *Quote:* No, they refer to the same building and are therefore not useless. The features of a little girl would be much different than the features of the same girl, but 30 years older. Too much would effect the walls for a modern pH test to have any use to indicate pH level fifty years ago. R.M. *Quote:* All very interesting, but the material that the gas chamber walls or their ruins consist of is the same today as it was in 1943/44, and yet Markiewicz et al measured a pH of 6-7. But the chemical compounds likely do not have the same features as they did once poured. Acid rainw ould reach the walls, as would carbonated air, which has an effect on cement's pH. R.M. *Quote:* This may have happened a few months after the concrete of the walls had been poured (which probably happened two or three months prior to the first homicidal gassing in Crematorium II) and therefore contributed little if anything to an alkaline environment throughout the operation of the facilities. The moist basement walls are likely to have prolonged the alkalinity of the cement, helping keep the cement "fresh", adn therefore basic. R.M. *Quote:* Botching by civil workers in this respect seems to be frequent enough to deserve mention in Rudolfs source. As a "Cement Data Book" likely made for professional use (recreational studies in cement laying?), it would be neglectful not to include an occuring mistake by some constructors. Does not mean that it's widespread. R.M. *Quote:* I think the key issue here is that CO2 increases the environments acidity and this hampers the liberation of CN- ions. As to the results of studies done so far on CO2 and HCN exposure", consider footnote 61 of Greens expert report, starting on page 52 (emphases are mine): One must wonder how much effect CO2 would really have had on the gas chamber walls. Let us first cover what Rudolf himself states in his report: *Quote:* These high concentrations prove the extreme solubility of hydrogen cyanide in water.[320] It decreases by approximately half every 20C. It is therefore approximately 10,000 times more soluble in water than oxygen (O2) and approximately 250 times more soluble than carbon dioxide (CO2). The latter is not without importance, since the opinion is sometimes expressed in the literature that the carbon dioxide content of air could have an influence on the amount of hydrogen cyanide soluble in water.[57] But since hydrogen cyanide is considerably more soluble in water than CO2, and since CO2, furthermore, is hardly converted into carbonic acid in water at all, this influence may be disregarded.[349] Rudolf's footnote 57 references Markiewicz et. al's work, while note 349 goes more into the CO2 problem. *Quote:* The influence is supposed to be based on the fact that carbonic acid (H2CO3, pKA= 6.37) displaces the cyanide ion (CN-) from the equilibrium: 1. CO2 + H2O H2CO3; 2. CN- + H2CO3 HCN + HCO3-. Since, however, CO2 is only soluble in water with difficulty and since, in addition, the equilibrium of the reaction CO2 + H2O H2CO3 (carbonic acid) lies almost completely on the left side, the concentration of carbonic acid in the moisture of masonry itself is several orders of magnitude lower than that of the hydrogen cyanide, even if the content of carbon dioxide in the room under consideration, exposed to hydrogen cyanide, is similar to the hydrogen cyanide content. HCO3-(pKA=10.25), finally, is a weaker acid than HCN (pKA=9.31) and would therefore be displaced by the latter: HCN + HCO3- CN- + CO2 + H2O. Therefore, even a higher carbon dioxide content in air can hardly influence the absorption of hydrogen cyanide in masonry. So carbonic acid, even if formed, would do little to the HCN. A quick glance at other scientific websites seem to support Rudolf's assertions. Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D. Assistant Director of PG Research Foundation, Darien, Illinois, states in relation to CO2: *Quote:* Carbonic acid by itself is actually a fairly stable molecule. In the past few years, several chemists have managed to prepare carbonic acid that does not also contain present, and found that it doesn't immediately break down. However, if water is present, it will greatly accelerate the decomposition of carbonic acid. Since water is also a product of the decomposition, even miniscule traces of water will rapidly destroy a sample of carbonic acid. In most cases, carbonic acid is produced in water solution (the common baking soda + vinegar reaction, for example), so the decomposition is a foregone conclusion. Very recently, a group in Austria has reported quantum chemical calculations of possible pathways for the decomposition reaction (T. Loerting, C. Tautermann, R. T. Kroemer, I. Kohl, A. Hallbrucker, E. Mayer, K. R. Liedl, Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, v. 39, no. 5, pp 892-894 (2000)). They calculate that two water molecules together can increase the rate of decomposition of carbonic acid by a factor of 50 billion. There would be many more than just two water molecules in the homicidal gas chambers, so any CO2 would likely decompose very quickly when forming an acid, not coutning it's engagement with the stronger HCN acid. Yet would the CO2 even have had a chance to really form the acid in the walls? Accordign to Tauber, the temperature of the gas chambers was equivalent to a sauna. Had the room really been that hot, the CO2 would have little chance in forming such an acid, as warmer temperatures kill carbonic acid from forming. Warm water would be present in the walls. Here is another higher level education scientific website. *Quote:* Gases like CO2 are less soluble in warm solutions than they are in cold solutions. Therefore, if the system is at equilibrium, warming the water will result in a reduction in the amount of the gas, equation [2] will shift so as to produce more CO2 which results in a decrease in the amount of carbonic acid. Equation [1] will shift to the left to produce more carbonic acid and calcite will precipitate. Calcium carbonate, for example, is often found precipitating in proximity to hot springs. In contrast, carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water than in warm. In the deep ocean basins (water depths greater than about 11,000 meters), equation [2] is shifted so as to produce more carbonic acid which results in a shift to the right in equation [1] resulting in the solution of calcite. Calcite is not found in sediments in the deep marine environment. Would the higher pH of the gas chamber walls have had any effect on carbonic acid formation? You bet it would. The site goes on to write: *Quote:* As pH decreases, the amount of the hydrogen ion increases. Thus, low pH values are acidic and high pH values are basic. The world's oceans have a pH of about 8 - a weak base. Rainfall has a pH of about 6 - a weak acid. In general, carbonates go into solution in an acid solution and precipitate in a basic solution. From equation [2], an increase in the acidity of the solution causes the system to shift to the right and calcite dissolves. So you allege that carbonic acid formed from exhaled CO2 from the victims would lower the pH of the walls, but the above quote states that higher pH would reduce the likelihood of the acid from ever forming in the first place. Wikipedia's article on Carbonic Acid seems to agree that carbonic acid would have a hard time forming. *Quote:* Carbon dioxide dissolved in water is in equilibrium with carbonic acid: CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3 The equilibrium constant at 25C is Kh= 1.7010−3: hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid and stays as CO2 molecules. In the absence of a catalyst, the equilibrium is reached quite slowly. So the majority of CO2 does not even convert to carbonic acid anyway, and when it does, it only forms slowly without a catalysts' help. In contrast, HCN does not take long to penetrate into a wall's surface and gain a foothold, especially in a moist environment. Time has run out for this excercise. Will be back later for a few more.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#73	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 17-Nov-2007 18:24	W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: He baselessly postulated exaggerated out-gassing times, I presume. If I could suggest it, I would encourage you to read Rudolf's report, or at least Chapters 5, 6, and 7. Not necessarily to "enlighten" your view of the Holocaust by any means, but to get a better grasp of the more current state of revisionist research, instead of your "presumptions." I noticed throughout your article that you ask questions and challenges posed by Dr. Green (which he states Rudolf ignored), while in later editions of his work Rudolf has answered those points, and covered many of those areas. It's a problem that arises when using Dr. Green's 2000 work (which he has since apparently left as is for the discussion), versus Rudolf's more recent 2003 work. OK, Ill have a look at Rudolfs trash for trash it is, independently of what new "scientific" arguments he has produced to back it up, for the simple reason that his "no homicidal gassings" theory is a flagrant violation of the logical principle of Occams Razor one of these days. Meanwhile, if you think there are arguments in Rudolfs new productions to which Dr. Greens statement quoted hereafter does not apply, feel free to point them out. In the Postscript to Chemistry is not the Science, Dr. Green wrote the following: *Quote:* A common strategy of Holocaust deniers is to engage in a war of attrition. In the war of attrition, it does not matter whose argument is better or who has refuted whom. It matters only who has written the most recent "refutation." Thus in a recent work on the internet Rudolf has responded to our work without addressing any of the major refutation of his own work. We respond here in order to make it clear that Rudolf has not refuted our work. Lack of a response in the future should not be construed to mean that Rudolf has suddenly come up with a good argument. Rather it should be understood as a belief that the major conclusions of Chemistry is not the Science are still valid. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is the "five minutes requirement" such a red herring? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because theres a great variation in gassing times testified to by eyewitnesses. I do not believe that this variation is as great as you think, and certainly not a red herring of Rudolf's. This is not about what any of us believes, but about what either can demonstrate. W *Quote:* Let us focus on the time it took, according to the witnesses you list, for the victims (or the large majority thereof) to succomb to the poisonous gas. Succumb. W. *Quote:* We will ignore the time the gas was allowed to continue outgassing as irrelevant for our purposes Assuming the gas was allowed to continue out-gassing, that is. And the time following silence in the homicidal gas chambers is not irrelevant at all for our purposes, as will be explained below. W. *Quote:* to determine how soon the victims are alleged to have died. We may determine how long it took for the victims in the gas chamber to fall silent according to various eyewitness testimonies. For that was all that could be observed by eyewitnesses who had no way of determining whether clinical death had occurred. W. *Quote:* Commandant Hss: "The process could be observed through the peep hole in the door. Those who were standing next to the air shaft were killed immediately. I can state that about one-third died immediately. The remainder staggered about and began to scream and struggle for air. The screaming, however, soon changed to gasping and in a few moments everyone lay still." Hss suggests a quick killing (or what appeared to be so) process of "a few moments", that occured "soon" after the gas entered, although the gas was allowed to remain evaporating for some time longer. Hss went on: "The victims became unconscious after a few minutes, according to the distance from the air shaft. Those who screamed and those who were old, sick, or weak, or the small children died quicker than those who were healthy or young." You left out the interesting part, my friend. This one: *Quote:* After twenty minutes at the most, no movement could be detected. All that Hss could observe from outside the gas chamber was that and how long it took for the victims to drop down and fall silent. That occurred immediately in regard to those who were standing near the introduction shaft, and later in regard to those who were further removed from it. It took up to twenty minutes until all victims had dropped down and fallen silent. But this doesnt mean that all victims were dead by that time, even though Hss surmised that they were. Some may have been dead in a clinical sense, others may still have been in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning. Of course they were dead for all practical purposes as there was no intention to revive them with a breathing apparatus, but the marker for death in US gas chambers is clinical death as ascertained by a physician, and the victims fall unconscious long before that. So if Rudolf compares the time until death in US gas chambers with the time until the people in the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers fell silent according to eyewitness testimonies, he is comparing apples with oranges. W. *Quote:* Hans Stark: "()As the Zyklon B -- as already mentioned -- was in granular form, it trickled down over the people as it was being poured in. They then started to cry out terribly for they now knew what was happening to them. I did not look through the opening because it had to be closed as soon as the Zyklon B had been poured in. After a few minutes there was silence. After some time had passed, it may have been ten to fifteen minutes, the gas chamber was opened. The dead lay higgledy-piggedly all over the place. It was a dreadful sight." So "a few minutes" is all it took before the victims fell silent, which was "some time" before the clearing process started. "Some time" was ten to fifteen minutes, during which the victims still alive would be breathing what Zyklon B was not yet ventilated out. The "silence" didnt necessarily mean that the victims were dead already, as pointed out above. W. *Quote:* Interestingly, does Stark mention anything about ventilation? Not in this testimony, maybe in another. Ill check. An absence of such mention wouldnt necessarily mean that no ventilation occurred, of course. It might just as well mean that Stark was not sufficiently interested in the particulars to record it, or that he didnt consider it worth mentioning. W. *Quote:* Pery Broad: "()As soon as the tin was emptied, the prussic acid escaped from the granules.()Some two minutes later the screams became less loud and only an indistinct groaning was heard. The majority of the victims had already lost consciousness. Two minutes more and Grabner stopped looking at his watch. It was over. There was complete silence" A total of four minutes alleged by Broad before the killing was complete. Again, you left out the interesting part: *Quote:* Some time later, when the ventilators had extracted the gas, the prisoners working in the crematorium opened the door to the mortuary." We dont how long that "some time later" was, but the victims not yet dead would still be breathing some HCN during that time. The four minutes until there was "complete silence" were not necessarily the time it took for the victims to die. Many of them may have been in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning, which then became death while the air was being ventilated out. By the way, Broad was describing gassing in the same facility as Stark in his statements quoted before, IIRC (the morgue of Crematorium I at the Auschwitz main camp). If so (Ill check), there you have a mention of ventilation after gassing in that facility. W. *Quote:* Miklos Nyiszli: "()The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead..." Within five minutes after the gas entered, Nyiszli states "everybody was dead." How about reading on? *Quote:* Within five minutes everybody was dead... In order to be certain of their business the two gas-butchers waited another five minutes. Then they lighted cigarettes and drove off in their car. They had just killed 3,000 innocents.... Twenty minutes later the electric ventilators were set going in order to evacuate the gas." (Emphases are mine.) So during five + five = ten minutes the victims were exposed to the full concentration of HCN, according to Nyiszli. Like any other eyewitness, he couldnt possibly tell if the victims were dead in a clinical sense. All he could observe was that they stopped screaming, from which he surmised that they had died incorrectly so, as some or even a large part of the victims might still be in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning. Some of these unconscious victims may have died during the "supplementary" five minutes before ventilation started. Others may still have been alive after those five minutes and died only during the twenty minutes of the ventilation process. So the time for all victims to be dead was 5 + 5 + 20 = 30 minutes, according to Nyiszlis testimony. W. *Quote:* Dr. Andre Lettich: "Then SS-Unterscharfuhrer Moll dropped the gas through a little window. The cries that could be heard were frightening, but after a few moments complete silence reigned." So "a few moments" alleged by Lettich. Another incomplete quote. Read the rest: *Quote:* Twenty to twenty-five minutes later the windows and doors were opened to air the room, and the corpses were immediately thrown into ditches, where they were burned." So in this gas chamber, which seems to have been one of the above-ground ones ventilated into the open air, the gas remained inside for twenty to twenty-five minutes after "complete silence reigned". The victims not yet dead but still "merely" unconscious would be exposed to the full dose of HCN during that time and have those twenty to twenty-five minutes to die. So if the "few moments" were two minutes, the dying time would be twenty-two to twenty-five minutes. Of course all this is something of a silly exercise, as none of the witnesses carried a stop watch and each of them merely estimated the relevant times. The duration of a process or event is a detail that the memory of eyewitnesses is generally held to be very unreliable about in legal practice. W. *Quote:* Twenty to twenty-five minutes later the windows and doors were opened to air the room, and the corpses were immediately thrown into ditches, where they were burned." So you read the rest, after all. You just didn't consider what it means. W. *Quote:* In sum we have: Hoess: "Few moments/Few minutes" Stark: "Few minutes" Broad: Four minutes (two minutes for groaning, two more for silence) Nyiszli: Within five minutes Lettich: "Few moments" None of these show a "great variation" in the gassing times alleged. The times until death we actually have if we avoid cherry-picking and consider the relevant factors (i.e. that the eyewitnesses could not ascertain clinical death but only the victims falling silent, that the victims silence need not have meant they were dead already and that there was some time between silence and the opening of the gas chambers for the victims not yet dead to continue breathing HCN and for unconsciousness to become death) is the following: Hoess: Up to twenty minutes plus ventilation time. Stark: A few minutes (lets say three) plus ten to fifteen minutes = thirteen to eighteen minutes. Broad: Four minutes plus "some time later", lets say ten minutes = fourteen minutes Nyiszli: Five plus five plus twenty = thirty minutes Lettich: "A few moments", lets say two minutes, plus twenty to twenty-five minutes = twenty-two to twenty-seven minutes. W. *Quote:* Rudolf also has shown many more of the times alleged by eyewitnesses. As a footnote to his statement on p.208that, "These reported execution times all allege a gassing time of only a few minutes" he provides this extensive gatherment of times for killing alleged by eyewitnesses. The times are all shown within parantheses. It looks more daunting and complicated than it really is. Quote: With relation to the killing times, see in, for example: Schwurgericht Hagen, verdict from July 24, 1970, ref. 11 Ks 1/70, p. 97 (5 min.); Final Trial Brief of the Prosecution, quoted acc. to U. Walendy, Auschwitz im IG-Farben-Proze, op. cit. (note 157), pp. 47-50 (3 to 15 minutes in extreme cases); E. Kogon et al., op. cit. (note 42), ubiquitous (immediately up to 10 min., more rarely, up to 20 min.); J. Buszko (ed.), Auschwitz, Nazi Extermination Camp, Interpress Publishers, Warschau 21985, in cooperation with the Auschwitz State Museum, pp. 114 + 118 (a few minutes); H.G. Adler, H. Langbein, E. Lingens-Reiner (ed.), Auschwitz, Europische Verlagsanstalt, Cologne 31984, pp. 66, 80 + 200 (a few minutes, up to 10 minutes); Hamburger Institut fr Sozialforschung (ed.), Die Auschwitz-Hefte, vol. 1, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim 1987, pp. 261ff. +294 (instantly, up to 10 min.); C. Vaillant-Couturier, in: Der Proze gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Miltrgerichtshof Nrnberg (IMT), vol. VI, p. 242 (5 to 7 min.); M. Nyiszli in: G. Schoenberner (ed.), Wir haben es gesehen, Fourier, Wiesbaden 1981, p. 250 (5 min.); C.P. Bendel in: H. Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitz, Europaverlag, Vienna 1987, p. 221 (end of screaming of victims after 2 min.); P. Broad in: B. Naumann, Auschwitz, Athenum, Frankfurt/Main 1968, p. 217 (4 min.), opening of doors after 10-15 minutes: A. Rckerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht, C.F. Mller, Heidelberg, 21984, pp. 58f.; K. Hlbinger in: H. Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Proze, Europische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt/Main 1965, p. 73 (1 min.): R. Bck, ibid., p. 74 (screaming victims for 10 minutes following closure of doors, followed by opening of doors, cf. note 297); H. Stark, ibid., p. 439 (screaming victims for 10-15 minutes); F. Mller, ibid., p. 463 (8-10 min.); E. Py, ibid., p. 748 (ventilators switched on after only a few minutes); K. Lill, ibid., p. 750 (a scream a few seconds after the introduction of Zyklon B, pall of thick smoke exiting the chimney a few minutes later); transcript of the expert opinion of Prof. Dr. G. Jagschitz, 3rd-5th hearing days of criminal proceedings against Gerd Honsik, April 4., April 30, May 4, 1992, ref. 20e Vr 14184 and Hv 5720/90, District Court Vienna, p. 443 (2-3 min); Dokument 3868-PS, IMT volume 33, pp. 275ff., quoted according to L. Rosenthal, "Endlsung der Judenfrage", Massenmord oder "Gaskammerlge"?, Verlag Darmstdter Bltter, Darmstadt 1979 (2 to 15 minutes in exceptional cases); R. H, op. cit. (note 295: 30 minutes for the entire procedure, including ventilation); Hans Mnch, in G. Rudolf, "Auschwitz-Kronzeuge Dr. Hans Mnch im Gesprch", VffG, 1(3) (1997), pp. 139-190 (2 to 5 min. in winter) (online: www.vho.org/VffG/1997/3/RudMue3.html); Salmen Lewenthal, Hefte von Auschwitz, Sonderheft 1, Handschriften von Mitgliedern des Sonderkommandos, Verlag Staatliches Museum Auschwitz, 1972, p. 155 (sudden silence); Dov Paisikovic, in: Lon Poliakov, Auschwitz, Ren Julliard, 1964, pp. 159ff. (3-4 minute), Franke-Gricksch Report, in: J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 238 (one minute to kill the victims, another until the doors were opened); Rudolf Vrba alias Walter Rosenberg, Alfred Wetzler, ref. M 20/153, Yad Vashem (acc. to War Refugee Board, "German Extermination Camps-Auschwitz and Birkenau", in David S. Wyman (ed.), America and the Holocaust, volume 12, Garland, New York/London 1990, p. 20 (everyone in the room was dead after three minutes); Jerzy Tabeau, in: The Extermination Camps of Auschwitz (Oswiecim) and Birkenau in Upper Silesia (10 minutes, quoted according to Enrique Aynat, Los protocolos de Auschwitz. i Una fuente historica? Verlag Garcia Hispan, Alicante 1990); Andr Lettich, Trente-quatre mois dans les Camps de Concentration, Imprimerie Union Cooprative, Tours, 1946 (a few moments). Janda Weiss, in David E. Hackett, (ed.), The Buchenwald Report, Beck, Munich 1997, p. 394 (3 min.). If longer killing times appear in the eyewitness testimonies, they refer, not to crematoria II and III, but, rather, to crematoria IV/V, bunkers 1-2, or crematorium I in the Main Camp. The killings in crematoria II and III are therefore alleged to have been committed very quickly. Why, looks like we have quite a few eyewitnesses independent of each other describing homicidal gassings here. Otherwise, what is supposed to be impressive about the above list? If Rudolf indulged in the cherry-picking and ignoring of relevant factors demonstrated above, his conclusions are worthless. And some of the examples he adduced even speak against these conclusions (emphases are mine): *Quote:* Final Trial Brief of the Prosecution, quoted acc. to U. Walendy, Auschwitz im IG-Farben-Proze, op. cit. (note 157), pp. 47-50 (3 to 15 minutes in extreme cases); E. Kogon et al., op. cit. (note 42), ubiquitous (immediately up to 10 min., more rarely, up to 20 min.) *Quote:* H.G. Adler, H. Langbein, E. Lingens-Reiner (ed.), Auschwitz, Europische Verlagsanstalt, Cologne 31984, pp. 66, 80 + 200 (a few minutes, up to 10 minutes); Hamburger Institut fr Sozialforschung (ed.), Die Auschwitz-Hefte, vol. 1, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim 1987, pp. 261ff. +294 (instantly, up to 10 min.); *Quote:* P. Broad in: B. Naumann, Auschwitz, Athenum, Frankfurt/Main 1968, p. 217 (4 min.), opening of doors after 10-15 minutes: A. Rckerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht, C.F. Mller, Heidelberg, 21984, pp. 58f.; K. Hlbinger in: H. Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Proze, Europische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt/Main 1965, p. 73 (1 min.): R. Bck, ibid., p. 74 (screaming victims for 10 minutes following closure of doors, followed by opening of doors, cf. note 297); H. Stark, ibid., p. 439 (screaming victims for 10-15 minutes); *Quote:* Dokument 3868-PS, IMT volume 33, pp. 275ff., quoted according to L. Rosenthal, "Endlsung der Judenfrage", Massenmord oder "Gaskammerlge"?, Verlag Darmstdter Bltter, Darmstadt 1979 (2 to 15 minutes in exceptional cases); R. H, op. cit. (note 295: 30 minutes for the entire procedure, including ventilation); *Quote:* Jerzy Tabeau, in: The Extermination Camps of Auschwitz (Oswiecim) and Birkenau in Upper Silesia (10 minutes, quoted according to Enrique Aynat, Los protocolos de Auschwitz. i Una fuente historica? Verlag Garcia Hispan, Alicante 1990); This looks like Rudolf hoped that readers would be too dumbfounded by his long footnote to actually read it. And in case someone might bother to do so and be surprised at the abundant mention of longer gassing times, he added the following at the end: *Quote:* If longer killing times appear in the eyewitness testimonies, they refer, not to crematoria II and III, but, rather, to crematoria IV/V, bunkers 1-2, or crematorium I in the Main Camp. The killings in crematoria II and III are therefore alleged to have been committed very quickly. which is a false statement in what concerns at least two eyewitnesses that immediately come to mind, Hss and Nyiszli. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Whence do you conclude that? Bar any other indication, "rapidly fatal" means "rapidly fatal to an average human being". Or, more precisely, to an average worker covered by OSHA regulations. In his article Chemistry is not the Science, Dr. Green is very precise as to what "rapidly fatal" means. In that same article, Dr. Green agrees with Rudolf's point that the OSHA regulations for cyanide toxicity are "imposed for safety reasons" and "are much lower than lethal concentrations." Please show me the part of Chemistry is not the Science where he so does: *Quote:* Since 300 ppmv is rapidly fatal, the first question is already answered, but let us examine this question in more depth. Rudolf implies that 300 ppmv is a limit imposed for safety reasons. Rudolf is correct that limits imposed for safety reasons are much lower than lethal concentrations. We examine here what the safe exposure limit is. DuPont's literature on the topic is enlightening: Specific HCN air quality standards for the OSHA Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) are 4.7 ppm, 5 mg/m3. The ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV) is 10 ppm, 11 mg/m3, Time Weighted Average (TWA). This is also a ceiling value. The Du Pont Acceptable Exposure Limit (AEL) is 10 ppm-8-hour TWA, 5 ppm-12-hour TWA. [27] OSHA is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which sets workplace safety guidelines for the U.S. Department of Labor. DuPont lists furthermore the following safety thresholds: 2-5 ppm Odor threshold 4-7 ppm OSHA exposure limit, 15 minute time weighted average 20-40 ppm Slight symptoms after several hours 45-54 ppm Tolerated for 1/2 to 1 hour without significant immediate or delayed effects 100-200 ppm Fatal within 1/2 to 1 hour 300 ppm Rapidly fatal (if no treatment) One does not provide treatment to someone that one intends to kill, so for our purposes 300 ppmv is "rapidly fatal." Rudolf's implication is incorrect. Should you mean the statement "Rudolf is correct that limits imposed for safety reasons are much lower than lethal concentrations", I shall generously assume in your benefit that you just forgot to read what follows. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Interesting, but none of this excludes the possibility that the male in Barcrofts experiment was simply an exceptionally resistant fellow. Being 45 years old and 70 kg (154 lbs), while not excluding the possibility of beign resistant, make it unlikely. How does resistance to HCN depend on age and weight? W. *Quote:* He would almost certainly make a candidate for those Jews eligible for "special treatment", as he was too old for manual labor. Economic concerns were dropped to accomodate the Final Solution anyway, according to Holocaust literature. You should inform yourself a little better. On page 291 of Das letzte Kapitel, Gerlach & Aly write the following in regard to the selection procedure during the Hungarian operation in 1944 (my translation): *Quote:* The selection was always carried out by SS-physicians still at the so-called ramp of Birkenau according to certain changing criteria: on the one hand according to the age stated by the arrivals youths from 14 to 16 years on, women up to 40 and men up to 45 or 50 years were considered able to work. So unless Barcrofts guinea pig became a "Muselmann" due to malnutrition after having been taken as an inmate into the camp, he had a good chance to be spared from seeing the inside of a homicidal gas chamber. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: He also stayed in the chamber for only 1.5 minutes, which was probably lower than the exposure time required for his catching a dose of HCN that might be fatal to him. What if he had been exposed to the dose you mentioned as long as the victims in the Birkenau gas chambers were? He likely would have died, but it shows that even a level much higher than that regulated by OSHA as "rapidly fatal" can be experienced for well over a minute with only very slight symptoms. "Can be" doesnt mean "need be", especially in a population consisting of women, children and elderly people, who furthermore are likely to not have been in the best of conditions as concerns nourishment and general health. And their exposure time, as we have seen above, was more than long enough to make sure that they would die. W. *Quote:* Although Barcroft shows some interesting data on goats and their durations with cyanide, which they seem to suffer similarly as do humans to the substance. Goats require high concentrations for fatality to occur within minutes. How high, and whence does Barcroft conclude that goats react to HCN similarly to the way humans do? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Note the very short exposure times in the experiments mentioned by Barcroft, much shorter than the times during which the people in the Birkenau gas chambers were exposed to the poison But the key is to question just how "rapid" is "rapidly fatal". Obviously, its more than 1-3 minutes, and thats at the full sought concentration during the entire time. That may have been so with the test groups mentioned by Barcroft, which were hardly representative of the population of the Birkenau gas chambers. W. *Quote:* The gas chambers cyanide concentration level would start low but increase. Yep, and after five minutes it would be ten times or so the concentration that DuPont considers "rapidly fatal", according to my calculations. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Well, the people in the gas chambers would be breathing higher concentrations of cyanide until ventilation had cleared out the gas (by which time they were dead or at least unconscious and dying, of course), and we dont know how and especially with what specimen(s), if any, Kohn-Abrest reached his results. He certainly didnt wait for whatever Barcroft means by "many" minutes until his test persons, if he used any, died or suffered significant health damage. But Kohn-Abrest do suggest that such high concentration levels (1000 ppm) could be experienced for some time without life-threatening effects. Where exactly are they supposed to suggest that? Please quote a statement by Kohn-Abrest, or a comprehensive reference to such statement, from which this becomes apparent. W. *Quote:* And again, the 1000ppm concentration would be present the entire time, not start low and then after some time passed reach it, as would happen in the A-B gas chambers. If it took five minutes in the Birkenau gas chambers for a concentration of 3,000 ppm or so to come about (my scenario), how long would it take until 1,000 ppm were present? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Besides, a statement that a certain concentration is "impossible to breathe" for a certain time suggests that at such concentration and within such time death is a certainty for any however strong specimen, which doesnt mean that exposure to a lower concentration for a lower time is safe. No, not "safe", but likely not fatal (nor very close to it) for the same amount of time. Whence do you conclude that? All we know so far about Kohn-Abrest is this reference by Barcroft (emphasis is mine): *Quote:* Hydrocyanic acid gas was formerly considered one of the deadliest gases in minute concentrations, but later experience, especially in the war, has shown that man is more resistant than some other forms of life-whereas recently Kohn-Abrest determined that 1000 parts per million are impossible to breathe for many minutes." "Impossible to breathe for many minutes", for all we know, may mean that after "many minutes" even a resistant specimen will die, i.e. that no one can survive exposure to 1000 ppm of HCN for "many minutes". It follows that not-so-resistant specimens may or will die after a not-so-long exposure time and/or with not-so-high quantities. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: On the contrary, it might still be dangerous or even fatal for less strong specimens, especially for women and children (who made up the greater part of the victims in the Birkenau gas chambers and who, according to these Directives for the Use of Prussic Acid, are more susceptible to the poison than men). So its wrong to conclude from the above source that the mentioned concentration of hydrogen cyanide could be generally inhaled for "some minutes" without risk of death. Of course theres risk of death, but at a lower concentration, the time for living (for all humans) is likely to be at least "some minutes", if not more. Thats also a mere guess not supported by what Barcroft says about Kohn-Abrests findings. Kohn-Abrest may have concluded that even strong specimens die after "many minutes" exposure to 1000 ppm and not so strong ones die after a shorter time, for all we know. W. *Quote:* The OSHA data for "rapidly fatal" may very well represent a small female (as they are part of workforce too). Actually the OSHA will declare a workplace unsafe long before the threshold of rapid death has been reached, and the data they use for their guidelines are DuPonts: *Quote:* 2-5 ppm Odor threshold 4-7 ppm OSHA exposure limit, 15 minute time weighted average 20-40 ppm Slight symptoms after several hours 45-54 ppm Tolerated for 1/2 to 1 hour without significant immediate or delayed effects 100-200 ppm Fatal within 1/2 to 1 hour 300 ppm Rapidly fatal (if no treatment) in regard to which we dont know if the "rapidly fatal" value contemplates only weaker specimens or not. If this were so, I would expect a range rather than an absolute value to be stated, say "300 to 500 ppm", as in all other safety thresholds. But for the "rapidly fatal" threshold theres no range, theres only one value. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: As were at it, consider the following excerpts from Dr. Greens expert report, page 28 f. Dr. Green focuses on 10 minutes of exposure, while the eyewitnesses (as seen above) allege death of victims around or within 5 minutes. Actually the exposure time that becomes apparent from the eyewitness testimonies we have looked at is way above five minutes, see above. And its the exposure time that matters here, not how long it took for the victims to fall silent according to the witnesses recollections let alone whether or not the witnesses incorrectly interpreted the silence as meaning that everyone in the chamber was dead already. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Whether it does or not would strongly depend on when the diminution of the evaporation rate takes effect, whether at the beginning of the evaporation process or later on (at the beginning the pellets would not yet have caught so much humidity, so that a faster initial evaporation seems plausible). Condensation would likely appear shortly after the gas entered (I believe as the exposed gas began warming to such a temperature causing vehement outgassing). Why so? W. *Quote:* If the gas chambers were as warm as you state (similar to a sauna) and as humid as they were, anything entering the chamber would very quickly condense with water vapor. Just how very quickly, and how do you establish the speed of condensation? W. *Quote:* Take a nicely chilled beer bottle out into a hot summer day and witness how quick condensation occurs. Why, were the Zyklon B pellets as cold as a nicely chilled beer bottle? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: It would also depend on whether the diminution is as significant at higher temperatures, closer to the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide, as it is at the colder temperatures measured by Irmscher. Well, at colder temperatures there would be far less humidity in Irmscher's experiments (far less than to cause condensation). The problem of humidity would grow with heat, as there would be a much higher amount of moisture in the air. Warm air holds much more water compared to cold air. If that is so, I wonder why Bachmann recommends the following: *Quote:* Rooms likely to be inherently humid (churches, vaults, basements, etc.) should be heated and/or ventilated before fumigation, either with already existing heating installations or with portable heaters, until the relative humidity has been sufficiently lowered. And even if humidity increased, the "problem" might be sufficiently counterbalanced at hotter temperatures by the fact that the HCN was at or above its boiling point. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: And also assuming that the SS couldnt wait a little longer than five minutes to do the killing, which according to the witnesses I quoted above (especially Hss) they seem to have had no problem with. Yes, the insurance time was allegedly allowed for, but the killings are alleged to have been within a "five minutes", which means the insurance time was likely for the more resistant victims (see Hoess on variations among victims), or those who at first escaped it's presence (child described by Nysizle, IIRC). Not for the entire chamber to be killed. What matters here is the total time between the introduction of the gas into the gas chambers and the opening thereof following ventilation or in order to ventilate. All victims, independently of how resistant they were, had all this time to die (actually even longer, as there was no provision to revive them with a breathing apparatus), independently of when the witnesses recalled their having fallen silent. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: There may be factors the effects of which I haven't considered, but then, thats a problem Rudolf has as well. Such as? You mean factors that Rudolf didnt consider? The air circulation produced by the panicking victims is one example. The fact that unconsciousness precedes death in carbon monoxide poisoning and that the eyewitnesses could impossibly tell whether the victims were already dead in a clinical sense or "merely" unconscious is another. Then there is the temperature in the gas chambers, which due to factors I have mentioned is likely to have been much higher than assumed by Rudolf, especially in the warmer months of the year when most of the gassings were carried out. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Now, he is the one who has undertaken to demonstrate that gassing as testified to by numerous eyewitnesses would have been impossible or inexpedient, and without being able to quantify certain specifics any claim of his in this direction is a mere guess. Yes, although Rudolf for his part never alleges that humidity would have slowed evaporation by such and such percent, but just notes the problems that the alleged gassings would have. Without quantification and consideration of factors that might work against such "problems", Rudolfs conjectures dont tell us much. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: As to the absence of circulation units in the gas chamber: thats a rather pointless objection as the victims were not standing still and waiting until they sniffed a lethal dose of HCN. They panicked, screamed, tried to get away from the gas, trampled each other down, climbed over each other. 1000 people in a sealed 7 m by 30 m room were not going to go very far among each other. Much like standing concerts would not cause much air breeze among the audience. I didnt know people in standing concerts trample each other down and climb on top of each other in death panic. What concert was that? W. *Quote:* Also, any slight wind would at leats be partially blocked by the three layers of wire-mesh columns surrounding the Zyklon-B gas. Id say the "slight wind" (why "slight"?) would help distribute the gas that made it past those three layers. And the extent to which open mire mesh can "block" a gas I expect to be negligible. W. *Quote:* I don't claim to know all the answers, but Houston has a problem. What problem? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Apart from the fact that all this exercise probably caused many of them to suffocate, How? The same way that people panicking in a room they cant get out of can be expected to suffocate. W. *Quote:* Not even Rudolf alleges that suffocation would have occurred among the victims inside the alleged gassing timeframe. Who cares about Rudolf here? Eyewitness Tauber stated that he and his fellow Sonderkommando workers assumed that the victims they saw, or a significant part of them, had died of suffocation. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: and that the physical exertion is likely to have enhanced the effects of the poison, By heavier breathing, possibly. The panic of gas entering a sealed room would likely cause as much. Exactly. And the heavier breathing would also enhance absorption of the gas by the victims lungs. W. *Quote:* Certainly not from sweat, which would not occur at such high humidty levels. Not that it matters, but why not? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: the action inside the chamber is also certain to have provided for a lot of air circulation. How so? They were not runnign marathons They may not have been running, but they frantically climbed on top of each other in a vain effort to get away from the gas (causing those below to be crushed or suffocated, of course). W. *Quote:* , and could only cause as much air disruption as their bodies would allow. How much would that be? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: According to my calculations, the "US gas chamber" concentration could be reached within five minutes at the hot temperatures that are likely to have reigned in the gas chambers during most gassings. Assuming ideal conditions. No effect from humidity, good air circulation, heavy breathing and vulnerable victims, etc... Please explain how the concentration buildup I calculated hinges on "good air circulation, heavy breathing and vulnerable victims". As to the humidity factor, see above. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: In assessing the plausibility of times mentioned by eyewitnesses one also has to take into account that these people had no way of checking if death in a clinical sense had occurred. For them "death" meant that the victims fell silent, and that may in many cases have meant that they were still in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning. Agreed. Unfortunately you did not draw the necessary conclusions from the above in what concerns the times exposure and dying times that become apparent from eyewitness testimonies. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Those "problems" are mere assumptions, the effects of which you cannot quantify. Until you can, my scenario can be considered as plausible as any. The problems I present are well recognized by the Zyklon-B employees themselves. While I may not be able to quantify what problem they pose is there any doubt that Irmscher recognized it to be an important problem for quick evaporation(a "significantly diminishing rate of evaporation")? No, but the question is to what extent his concerns would apply in a homicidal gassing in warm temperature where the speed of initial out-gassing, and not the speed of out-gassing to the end, was what mattered. W. *Quote:* On the quantification of what air-circulation would have done, here is a graph from work on HCN in rooms with Kreislaufverfahren and without. It is Graph 12, immediately to the right of the top of the link. It shows how non-air circulation HCN would take significantly longer time to outgas than its air-circulating counterpart. Thats a graph made by Rudolf on the basis of a source that "neither gives measures and loading of the chamber, nor the type of carrier material and its distribution, nor the temperature". Without such information, especially without data about the amount of hydrogen cyanide in relation to the volume of the chamber and the temperature, such graph is rather meaningless. I also wonder how you one makes such a graph when "different measuring points show different concentrations peaks". What measuring points were considered for either curve? The ones with the lowest concentration for the "without circulation" curve vs. the ones with the highest concentration for the "with circulation" curve, perhaps? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Who needs such studies when there are testimonies according to which the inside of a homicidal gas chamber after a gassing was like a sauna, which can be safely assumed to mean a temperature well above the boiling point of HCN? Possibly, although we are unsure of what room temperature Tauber's body was exposed to prior to entering the body-littered gas chamber. Had it been chilly, as many basements are, entering even a slightly warm room would feel warm. Humidity can account for the stuffiness of the room. Well, Tauber didnt say that the room was warm. He said that it was *Quote:* It was very hot in the gas chamber and so suffocating as to be unbearable. This doesnt suggest a warmth that someone coming from a colder environment would have experienced as pleasant. It suggests an unpleasant level of heat. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: You do, if you want to discredit the eyewitness testimonies and demonstrate that the gas chambers cannot have been as hot as they described them. Feel free to give it a try. Such might be my next endeavor for us to discuss. Whatever makes you happy. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: It is not correct that there would be such obstacles. There might be such obstacles, or there might not be. Your assumptions in this direction are mere conjectures. Well, we know there was no room-installed air-circulation system (that I am aware of at least). Which doesnt mean no air circulation, as we have seen. W. *Quote:* We also can come to pretty reasonable conclusions regarding humidity (which would increase with temperature). See above, and so would the pressure of gas leaving the pellets. W. *Quote:* I assume it only wouldn't be a problem if the temperature of the room and the temperature of the Zyklon-B did not differ, which would mean much cooler Zyklon-B. Im not sure if I understand this. How would an equal temperature of room and Zyklon B require "much cooler Zyklon B" if the room had sauna temperature? W. *Quote:* I would say these are more than conjectures on my part. I would call it conjecture that these conditions were not present. Lets call your objections "considerations about possible but unquantifiable hindrances", then. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Show me the testimonies with the 12 kg, please. I do not have a specific testimony for 12 kg as I believed I had. Rudolf does state that Jozef Buszko relies on such a range (6-12 kg). I again accept my mistake, and will heretofore use the 6 kg average. OK. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Under non-ideal conditions (...) the time for the necessary concentration to develop might be a longer than five minutes. So what? Such is the norm alleged by the eye-witnesses to the event. That is not so, as we have seen above. And if it were, the reasonable conclusion to be derived from this would be that the eye-witnesses underestimated the duration. So what? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: At 6 kg per gassing, that would mean 133 to 200 gassing operations in the period from 22 July to 26 August, which is improbable. Assuming that there were was one gassing per day during those 35 days, we would have 23 to 34 kg per gassing. Assuming two gassings per day, the amount would be half of that. I apologize for the confusion Muehlenkamp. I did not mean the 22-7 to 26-8 period, but rather the total shipments of Zyklon-B to the camp. Sorry for lack of proper explaining. No problem. Total shipments of Zyklon B to the camp would have to be set against total delousings and homicidal gassings at the camp, of course. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: The "reverse" arrangement was probably related to the fact that the homicidal gas chambers were originally meant to be morgues and there was no time to change the design when it was decided to carry out the homicidal gassings there. Even so, the important point that the ventilation system for the gas chambers was not designed for, How is that important? It only shows that the AB Construction Office was in to much of a hurry to make design changes in the ventilation system when someone had the brilliant idea of using the "morgues" for homicidal gassing instead of continuing to do the gassing in the "bunkers" and using the crematoria buildings only for incineration. W. *Quote:* and would not be efficient in removing hydrogen cyanide remains. That claim has not been proven and actually been refuted by Dr. Green, who demonstrated that the ventilation was sufficient to meet the killers operational requirements. W. *Quote:* And how hard would it be to reverse the air-flow? I have no idea, but it would certainly be harder than making do with what they had, if that proved to be sufficient as it seems to have. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: So whether or not Dr. Green is wrong in assuming that his equation might be conservative, he applies his conservative equation and no other, which means that your objection is moot. Ignorance of the flaw does not solve the problem, as the Columbia shuttle disastershowed. Ignorance of a "flaw" that means an equation is not as "conservative" as assumed doesnt mean the equation is not correct or not applied correctly. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: As becomes apparent from the above quote, Green considers that this problem would be compensated by the fact that the victims' corpses take up space which has not been figured into any of the below calculations and this would reduce the volume and increase the replacement rate, again indicating that this figure is conservative. I will note that Rudolf's ventilation calculations provide room for the alleged victims' bodies, and are therefore taken into account. This suggests that they are even more unrealistic in other respects, unless he can refute Greens calculations of ventilation times. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Anyway, blockage of air vents would only be an issue if the gas chamber was filled to the brim, and that was not necessarily so. The chamber does not have to be "filled to the brim" to pose a ventilation problem. Why not? The less full it is, the less likely are corpses squeezed into corner in such a way as to block ventilation vents. W. *Quote:* As for Tauber, note that he states: Quote: The bodies were most crushed together round the door. By contrast, there were less around the wire mesh columns. Tauber does not state that parts of the floor were body-less, rather just that there were not many around the supposed wire mesh columns, and that many were by the door. Tauber mentions only the door and the wire mesh columns as places where there were bodies. This means that the chamber wasnt full and that there may well have been parts of the chamber where there were no bodies. W. *Quote:* By the door could easily have blocked the vents located among the wall nearest the door. Could have, but need not have. How many vents did the gas chamber have, and how many of those were by the door? W. *Quote:* The victims were most likely to push to the outside rim of the room (hoping for escape), all along the walls, right where the outtake vents were. Actually they seem to have tried for the door, and upon realizing that there was no way out they climbed over each other to higher layers of air, instead of squeezing themselves against the walls. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: The bodies in this gassing obviously had enough space for certain parts of the chamber to have little or no bodies lying there Yes, the center of the room, although Tauber never says "no bodies", just "less around the wire mesh columns." See above. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Could you please provide a linked quote to Pressacs statement? I dont feel like searching for it. Sure. Here ya go. Quote: ANNEX GAS 3000 PEOPLE IN LEICHENKELLER I OF KREMATORIUM II? IMPOSSIBLE, THE BODIES WOULD HAVE BLOCKED THE LOWER AIR EXTRACTION ORIFICES (Reply to the argument in a letter from a revisionist) Following the exchange of letters and telephone calls with a correspondent who doubts the reality of the gas chambers, I have extracted two of his arguments that appear to me valid. Describing the ventilation system of Leichenkeller I [of the future Krematorium II as per the cross-section on drawing 933], he pointed out to me that the air entered through the upper orifices, then was extracted through the lower ones, and concluded: This arrangement is perfectly suitable if the room is used as a morgue: the air entering cools, becomes denser, and is extracted from the lower part. He then asked me to imagine: the situation in the LK 1 after the gassing of a large number of people: the corpses are heaped on top of one another; they block most of the air extraction orifices; the room is full of warm toxic gas; how can there be rapid and efficient mechanical ventilation? I would say that it is nor possible... These remarks mean that Leichenkeller I used as a gas chamber had a poorly designed ventilation system and in the case of large-scale gassings [3000 people in 210 m according to Nyiszli, or 13.3 per square meter], the lower orifices being blocked ventilation would become impossible [a model visible at the Museum illustrates this maximum case, though there are probably no more than one thousand victims depicted]. The figure of 3000 is theoretical and exaggerated, but if we take it as correct, then so is my correspondent's hypothesis and the ventilation is blocked and cannot work. What would the SS have done in the case of such an incident? They would have proceeded in two stages: 1. Open wide the doors giving basement access through the north yard and those of the undressing room, whose ventilation system working at full power would prevent the basement being contaminated: Before putting on their gas masks, the SS would have then ordered two to four members of the Sonderkommando to put on masks, open the gas chamber door and drag bodies out into the vestibule until several of the air extraction orifices had been cleared. Then the gas-tight door would have been closed again, the ventilation restarted, and to improve its efficiency all that was required was to open the Zyklon-B introduction covers, but not until that moment. After verifying by means of a gas detector that there was no longer any danger of hydrocyanic acid intoxication outside the gas chamber, operations would have resumed their normal course. 2. Once the gas chamber had been emptied, a squad of fitters or bricklayers would have fixed at the end of the chamber, in the southeast corner a steel duct of about 20 cm diameter and 2 meters high or built a brick chimney of about the same dimensions connecting with or protecting one of the lower air extraction orifices and enabling it to take in warm contaminated air from above. The time taken for the repair would not have been longer than an afternoon. Such an incident would not have interrupted the operation of the Krematorium. As the documents we possess at present make no mention of such work we can assume for the moment that the case of the 3000 never occurred, the number of victims from a convoy always being less than this. The initial ventilation system of Leichenkeller I, which was designed for a basement morgue, is not a definitive obstacle to using the room as a gas chamber. So it goes it be solved for Pressac. Theres nothing wrong with his reasoning, and he seems to agree with me in that blocking of the vents could only have been a problem in gassings where the chamber was filled to the brim. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: This is one of those cases where one can safely say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. True, yet it remains to be corroborated by anything besides Pressac's reasoning, which is a problem. The problem lies with who has to demonstrate that blocking of the vents was a likely scenario and there would have been no way to solve such situation, which is you. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Why, all they had to do was look through the peephole and see how the bodies were positioned. If bodies were squeezed against the corners in such a way that they might cause blockages, they could send in Sonderkommando men with gas masks to remove the bodies and free the vents. Would this have been such a big deal? Could the peepholes provide enough visibility to allow for verification on the free vents inside the room? Again, it is for you to demonstrate this would not have been so. I also figure that the blocking of an extraction vent is as noticeable as the blocking of a vacuum cleaners tube, by the muffling of the suction noise. W. *Quote:* Also, how would they know if they were really blocked, or a body was simply close? If they saw bodies squeezed into the corners where the ventilation vents were located, that would have been enough to predict that there might be a problem with the ventilation and take corresponding measures. W. *Quote:* I imagine a more realistic scenario would be going on with the routine (gassing + allowance of time + ventilation kicked on + see room's toxicity if SDK begin collapsing). On the one hand the SS didnt give a damn about the SDKs lives, but on the other trained slave laborers were an asset to the operation, so Pressacs scenario seems more plausible to me. Anyway, theres no evidence that the SS was ever faced with this problem, and the reasonable conclusion to be derived from this is Pressacs. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: The larger ventilation capacity in the delousing chambers may have been related to the fact that these chambers were much smaller than the homicidal gas chambers and so the standard ventilation motors available on the market were able to ventilate them accordingly faster (a fan capable of cycling 8000 m3 through the room each hour would make for 15.8 air exchanges per hour in a room of 504 cubic meters but five times as much in a room five times smaller). The quick ventilation of these rooms was what was wanted by DEGESCH, which initiated the 72 air-exchanges ventilation system. We thus may wonder if the underground homicidal gas chambers would have had the same ventilation capacity (which would have required bigger fans as the gas chambers were larger than the delousing chambers) if they had not initially been designed as morgues. But thats an academic exercise. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: Where did you get your "72-air exchanges per hour ventilation system" from, by the way? From Mattogno. Old friend of mine. W. *Quote:* In his Auschwitz: The End of a Legendhe states: "As a means of comparison, seventy-two air exchanges per hour were foreseen [74] for the disinfestation gas chambers with the Kreislauf system, the plans of which Pressac publishes in documents 16 and 17. " His footnote 74 reads as follows: Quote: This follows, among other things, from the article by G. Peters and E. Wstiger mentioned by Pressac on pages 41 and 103, from which he also draws Documents 16-17. The title indicated by J.C. Pressac: "Entlausung mit Zyklon Blausure in Kreislauf-Begasungskammern", (Zeitschrift fr hygienische Zoologie und Schdlingsbekmpfung, Heft 10/11, 1940) (note 134 on p. 103) is wrong; the exact title is: "Sach-Entlausung in Blausure-Kammern" (Zeitschrift fr hygienische Zoologie und Schdlingsbekmpfung, 1940, pp. 191-196). On page 195 one reads: Ventilator mit Motor. Fr diesen ist eine Leistung von 12 cbm je Minute bei einem stat. Druck von 80 mm WS ausreichend, um sowohl eine usserst rasche Gasentwicklung als auch eine gengend rasche Luftung (72-facher Luftwechsel je Stunde) des begasten Kammerinhalts zu bewirken. [Ventilator with motor. For this a capacity of 12 m3 per minute with a static pressure of 80 mm of water column is sufficient to produce a very rapid development of the gas as well as a sufficiently rapid ventilation (72 air exchanges per hour) of the contents of the gassed chamber.] (See appendix, Documents No. 5 and 6.) Here are the documents: Document No. 5: G. Peters, E. Wstiger, "Sach-Entlausung in Blausure-Kammern", Zeitschrift fr hygienische Zoologie und Schdlingsbekmpfung, Heft 10/11, 1940, p. 195. Document No. 6: P. Puntigam, H. Breymesser, E. Bernfus, Blausurekammern zur Fleckfieberabwehr. Sonderverffentlichung des Reicharbeitsblattes (Berlin, 1943), p. 50. Thanks, Ill look at these documents later. W. *Quote:* Well that is it for today. Saturday or Sunday I will respond to the latter half of your post, covering Prussian Blues, CN concentrations, cement wall alkalinity, etc... BTW, is it possible to at leass get a new page for our discussion, instead of being buried under a mountain of former posts in page 3 of this thread? Ask our webmaster, for hes the one with the tools to move our posts to a new thread. I wont object provided that you create a link to this new thread on the CODOH forum. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#74	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 17-Nov-2007 20:33	W. *Quote:* While I have some free time, I will take a few more jabs at Roberto's post. R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you are probably aware, this pH was measured nearly 50 years after the gassings were alleged to have occurred. The pH level of walls would be much different now than what they were back than. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It may be different, but it need not be different. And if it was different back then, chances are that it was even lower during homicidal gassing times due to the CO2 exhaled by the victims. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be almost impossible for a cement wall, whcih would have an almost immediate falling pH anyway, and then be exposed to the elements for many decades, have a similar pH level as it did shortly after it was poured. Just how quickly the pH level may fall is pointed out by Rudolf himself (emphases are mine): *Quote:* Fresh concrete and cement mortars-which are identical from a chemical point of view-are relatively strongly alkaline (pH approximately 12.5). It later falls, however, due to the binding of carbon dioxide from the air. Depending on the special chemistry of the cement mortar, this process proceeds very slowly in the depth of the material. According to the composition of the cement mortar, this may last from a few months to many decades, until the pH value of such a mortar or concrete becomes neutral, even in the deepest layers.[396]-[398] One may conclude from the above that a) the lowering of the pH level is not so slow on the outer parts of the material (which are the ones that interest us), and b) even the inner parts of the material may have become neutral after "a few months", which in our case might correspond to the time between the pouring of the walls cement and the first gassing operations in Birkenau Crematorium 2. W. *Quote:* And chances are that the walls would still be alkaline for the "gassings", but we will examine the CO2 point below. Chances are that the walls were already neutral by the time of the gassings, as explained above. On the other hand, it is also possible that the walls were still too alkaline for the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-), even according to Rudolf's limits. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What Rudolf writes is absolute nonsense, and Im surprised that you consider it a good argument. The present-day pH in a certain building might be different from what it was in 1943/44, but it might just as well be similar. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As shown, the air's carbonation upon the cement walls would begin to lower the pH immediately after pouring. Thats not an argument in your favor. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that by the time these facilities were used for gassing the pH of the walls would necessarily have gone down below the level that inhibits the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-) without becoming neutral or acidic. W. *Quote:* A recent article by Concrete Construction states quiet clearly that (emphasis mine) Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The pH of concrete is related to the portland cement and pozzolans used in the mix. On the surface, the pH is highest shortly after it's placed and decreases with time as the surface carbonates. The pH is also related to the moisture content of a slab--concrete with higher moisture levels tends to have a higher surface pH. Cured concrete can go from neutral (pH 7) to highly alkaline (pH 12 or 13). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice that a higher moisture content, which the morgue would certainly have had, would increase and maintain the walls alkalinity. What I notice is that the above refers to particular kinds of cement, which were not necessarily those used to construct the Birkenau gas chambers. What I also notice is that either limit given by the source is unfavorable to your argument. The lower limit, pH7, would mean too few CN- ions. The higher limit, pH 12 or 13, would mean too much alkalinity, even according to Rudolfs claim, for the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-). Either way there would be no Prussian Blue. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, they refer to the same building and are therefore not useless. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The features of a little girl would be much different than the features of the same girl, but 30 years older. Thats another of those pizza parallels. Try to be serious. W. *Quote:* Too much would effect the walls for a modern pH test to have any use to indicate pH level fifty years ago. Too much like what? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All very interesting, but the material that the gas chamber walls or their ruins consist of is the same today as it was in 1943/44, and yet Markiewicz et al measured a pH of 6-7. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the chemical compounds likely do not have the same features as they did once poured. Acid rainw ould reach the walls, as would carbonated air, which has an effect on cement's pH. That would depend on the expectable quantitative impacts of such effects. And didn't Markiewicz et al take their samples from parts of the ruins that were sheltered from the elements? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This may have happened a few months after the concrete of the walls had been poured (which probably happened two or three months prior to the first homicidal gassing in Crematorium II) and therefore contributed little if anything to an alkaline environment throughout the operation of the facilities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The moist basement walls are likely to have prolonged the alkalinity of the cement, helping keep the cement "fresh", adn therefore basic. They might even have kept it too basic, see above. And whether and how long alkalinity would have been maintained would depend on the composition of the cement mortar, according to Rudolf. Your source stating that "a concrete with higher moisture levels tends to have a higher surface pH" (which means that there are also cases where concrete with a higher moisture level does not have a higher surface pH) refers to particular types of cement. How do you know that what applies to concrete based on portland cement and pozzolans applies to all kinds of concrete, present and past? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Botching by civil workers in this respect seems to be frequent enough to deserve mention in Rudolfs source. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a "Cement Data Book" likely made for professional use (recreational studies in cement laying?), it would be neglectful not to include an occuring mistake by some constructors. Does not mean that it's widespread. Nor does it exclude this possibility, let alone the possibility that some botching occurred in the building of the Birkenau crematoria, which seem to have been a rush job. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the key issue here is that CO2 increases the environments acidity and this hampers the liberation of CN- ions. As to the results of studies done so far on CO2 and HCN exposure", consider footnote 61 of Greens expert report, starting on page 52 (emphases are mine): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One must wonder how much effect CO2 would really have had on the gas chamber walls. Let us first cover what Rudolf himself states in his report: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These high concentrations prove the extreme solubility of hydrogen cyanide in water.[320] It decreases by approximately half every 20C. It is therefore approximately 10,000 times more soluble in water than oxygen (O2) and approximately 250 times more soluble than carbon dioxide (CO2). The latter is not without importance, since the opinion is sometimes expressed in the literature that the carbon dioxide content of air could have an influence on the amount of hydrogen cyanide soluble in water.[57] But since hydrogen cyanide is considerably more soluble in water than CO2, and since CO2, furthermore, is hardly converted into carbonic acid in water at all, this influence may be disregarded.[349] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rudolf's footnote 57 references Markiewicz et. al's work, while note 349 goes more into the CO2 problem. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The influence is supposed to be based on the fact that carbonic acid (H2CO3, pKA= 6.37) displaces the cyanide ion (CN-) from the equilibrium: 1. CO2 + H2O H2CO3; 2. CN- + H2CO3 HCN + HCO3-. Since, however, CO2 is only soluble in water with difficulty and since, in addition, the equilibrium of the reaction CO2 + H2O H2CO3 (carbonic acid) lies almost completely on the left side, the concentration of carbonic acid in the moisture of masonry itself is several orders of magnitude lower than that of the hydrogen cyanide, even if the content of carbon dioxide in the room under consideration, exposed to hydrogen cyanide, is similar to the hydrogen cyanide content. HCO3-(pKA=10.25), finally, is a weaker acid than HCN (pKA=9.31) and would therefore be displaced by the latter: HCN + HCO3- CN- + CO2 + H2O. Therefore, even a higher carbon dioxide content in air can hardly influence the absorption of hydrogen cyanide in masonry. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So carbonic acid, even if formed, would do little to the HCN. If the effect of CO2 on the HCN is negligible, as Rudolf claims, how come that Markiewicz et. al. detected a much higher decrease of HCN over time in material exposed to CO2 than in material not exposed to CO2, as pointed out in footnote 61 on page 52 of Greens expert opinion? Rudolfs argument regarding the low solubility of CO2 in water seems to have been dealt with in the continuation of that footnote (my emphases): *Quote:* Rudolf states furthermore that: ... they are also incorrect in assuming that CO2 could have a negative influence on the absorption of HCN; the influence is probably based on the fact that the carbonic acid (H2CO3, pKA=6,37) displaces the cyanide ion (CN-) from the equilibrium: 1. CO2 +H2O<=>H2CO3; 2. CN- + H2CO3<=>HCN + HCO3- The process can be broken down into two parts. The effect of CO2 on the pH of the solution, i.e., the concentration of hydronium ions (H+), and the equilibrium: H+ + CN- <=> HCN Rudolf argues qualitatively that CO2 has a low solubility and that the equilibrium in equation 1 lies to the left. These two claims are more or less equivalent. The equilibrium is more complicated than Rudolf acknowleges. At low concentrations of CO2, the equilibrium in his equation 1 is determined by the Henry's Law constant of CO2. However, because H2CO3 partially dissociates to H+ and HCO3-, and HCO3-, subsequently partially dissociates to H+ and CO32-, at equilibrium one has to treat all of those reactions and derive an effective Henry's Law constant. The net effect is to acidify the water. It is a well known fact that ideal pure rain water has a pH of 5.6 because the atmosphere has a concentration of CO2 of 360 ppm. During World War II, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were closer to 330 ppm, but that is not an important difference for the purposes addressed here. One can think of the process as having three steps all of which involve a chemical equilibrium. The first step is the dissolution of CO2 in water; its equilibrium constant is the Henry's Law constant of CO2, Khc: CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3 The second step is the acid base reaction between carbonic acid and water; its equilibrium constant is denoted here as Kc1: H2CO3 + H2O <=> H3O+ + HCO3 The third step is reaction between the bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) and water whose equilibrium constant is here denoted as Kc2: HCO3- + H2O <=> H3O+ + CO32- Also, one needs to consider the autoprotolysis of water: 2H2O <=> H3O+ + OH- In aqueous solution, one can treat the concentration of water as a constant and derive a constant for the equilibrium, Kw. These constants are reported in John H. Seinfeld, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986, pp. 198-204. The pH of a solution is defined as -log[H+] where [H+] is the concentration of hyronium ions in moles/liter. From the information given it is possible to derive a cubic equation expressing the relationship between [H+] and the partial pressure of CO2, PCO2. This equation is also presented in Seinfeld: [H+]3 - (Kw+KhcKc1 PCO2)[H+]-2+KhcKc1 Kc2PCO2=0 At 1% CO2, one can expect a pH of less than 5.0; at 4%, one can expect a pH of 4.6 or less. The effect may be mitigated by other factors that could increase the pH, but the IFFR were not wrong to consider such effects. If I correctly understood the above, what matters is not the extent to which carbonic acid (H2CO3) displaces the cyanide ion (CN-) from the equilibrium and thereby leaves less ions available to start a Prussian Blue reaction. What matters is the effect that CO2 has on the environment pH by lowering the same. A lower pH, in turn, means less dissociation of CN- ions, with the consequence that the concentration of such ions is too low, before dilution or after a little dilution, to start a Prussian Blue reaction. W. *Quote:* A quick glance at other scientific websites seem to support Rudolf's assertions. Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D. Assistant Director of PG Research Foundation, Darien, Illinois, states in relation to CO2: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbonic acid by itself is actually a fairly stable molecule. In the past few years, several chemists have managed to prepare carbonic acid that does not also contain present, and found that it doesn't immediately break down. However, if water is present, it will greatly accelerate the decomposition of carbonic acid. Since water is also a product of the decomposition, even miniscule traces of water will rapidly destroy a sample of carbonic acid. In most cases, carbonic acid is produced in water solution (the common baking soda + vinegar reaction, for example), so the decomposition is a foregone conclusion. Very recently, a group in Austria has reported quantum chemical calculations of possible pathways for the decomposition reaction (T. Loerting, C. Tautermann, R. T. Kroemer, I. Kohl, A. Hallbrucker, E. Mayer, K. R. Liedl, Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, v. 39, no. 5, pp 892-894 (2000)). They calculate that two water molecules together can increase the rate of decomposition of carbonic acid by a factor of 50 billion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There would be many more than just two water molecules in the homicidal gas chambers, so any CO2 would likely decompose very quickly when forming an acid, not counting it's engagement with the stronger HCN acid. The decomposition of carbonic acid mentioned by this source would only affect the direct reaction between carbonic acid and HCN, not the lowering of the environment pH due to the reactions described in the above quote from Dr. Greens expert report. W. *Quote:* Yet would the CO2 even have had a chance to really form the acid in the walls? Accordign to Tauber, the temperature of the gas chambers was equivalent to a sauna. Had the room really been that hot, the CO2 would have little chance in forming such an acid, as warmer temperatures kill carbonic acid from forming. Warm water would be present in the walls. Here is another higher level education scientific website. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gases like CO2 are less soluble in warm solutions than they are in cold solutions. Therefore, if the system is at equilibrium, warming the water will result in a reduction in the amount of the gas, equation [2] will shift so as to produce more CO2 which results in a decrease in the amount of carbonic acid. Equation [1] will shift to the left to produce more carbonic acid and calcite will precipitate. Calcium carbonate, for example, is often found precipitating in proximity to hot springs. In contrast, carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water than in warm. In the deep ocean basins (water depths greater than about 11,000 meters), equation [2] is shifted so as to produce more carbonic acid which results in a shift to the right in equation [1] resulting in the solution of calcite. Calcite is not found in sediments in the deep marine environment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This doesnt state that carbonic acid will not form in warm solutions, only that less carbonic acid will form than in cold solutions. Just how warm would the water in the usually cold walls of a basement be if the air inside the basement was sauna-like due to artificial heating and/or cumulated body heat following a gassing? How long would it take for this warming to significantly change the temperature of the water in the walls? And one should also not forget that, soon after the gassing, cold water came into the room as the bodies were hosed (Nyiszli) and water was poured on the floor to facilitate the dragging of the bodies (Chasan). So I expect the hindrance of carbonic acid formation due to water warming to have been negligible. W. *Quote:* Would the higher pH of the gas chamber walls have had any effect on carbonic acid formation? You bet it would. What higher pH of the gas chamber walls? The gas chamber walls need not have had a high pH, as we have seen above. W. *Quote:* The site goes on to write: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As pH decreases, the amount of the hydrogen ion increases. Thus, low pH values are acidic and high pH values are basic. The world's oceans have a pH of about 8 - a weak base. Rainfall has a pH of about 6 - a weak acid. In general, carbonates go into solution in an acid solution and precipitate in a basic solution. From equation [2], an increase in the acidity of the solution causes the system to shift to the right and calcite dissolves. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you allege that carbonic acid formed from exhaled CO2 from the victims would lower the pH of the walls, but the above quote states that higher pH would reduce the likelihood of the acid from ever forming in the first place. Assuming that there was such "higher pH". Atmospheric CO2 seems to be able to turn a neutral or slightly basic solution like evaporating ocean water into a slightly acidic solution like rain water, so a slightly alkaline environment might not greatly hamper the formation of carbonic acid. A highly alkaline environment, on the other hand, would mess up the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-) no Prussian Blue. W. *Quote:* Wikipedia's article on Carbonic Acid seems to agree that carbonic acid would have a hard time forming. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbon dioxide dissolved in water is in equilibrium with carbonic acid: CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3 The equilibrium constant at 25C is Kh= 1.7010−3: hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid and stays as CO2 molecules. In the absence of a catalyst, the equilibrium is reached quite slowly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the majority of CO2 does not even convert to carbonic acid anyway, and when it does, it only forms slowly without a catalysts' help. 1% CO2 in contact with an aqueous solution seems to be sufficient to reduce that solutions pH to 5.0, which in turn would lead to a lower dissociation of CN- ions from liquid HCN than with the pH value measured by Markiewicz et al. Your source states that the formation of carbonic acid occurs "quite slowly". The question now is what "quite slowly" means. 5 minutes, 10, 20, more than that? And the next question would be if there might have been a catalyst around in the Birkenau homicidal gas chambers. W. *Quote:* In contrast, HCN does not take long to penetrate into a wall's surface and gain a foothold, especially in a moist environment. Before HCN can penetrate into a walls surface, it must become liquid. The liquid amount of HCN that could form within the time-span of a gassing was very low, according to Dr. Greens calculations, and theres a good chance that it would have to deal with an acidic environment independently of CO2 exhalation after it had formed, hampering the dissociation of the CN- ions required for Prussian Blue formation. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Wahrheitseeker	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#75	[url]	[-]
Posts: 486 21-Nov-2007 21:50	Several days later than I expected, but with a break in school I should have more time for the next few days. Here I am finishing up the last part of my response to Muehlenkamp. R.M. *Quote:* True, but assuming an alkaline environment is based on pure speculation, whereas assuming an acid one is based on measurements and on the above calculations of the probable impact of CO2 exhalation. No, an alkaline environment is based on concrete literature, and the observations by concrete experts that fresh and moist concrete remains alkaline for significant amounts of time (and would remain so between the short time of pouring of concrete for Krema II, and the alleged gassings). The hopes for carbonic acid in destroying cyanide simply doesn't hold weight, but we will cover that topic later. R.M. *Quote:* Where does the "mere tenfold dilution" come from? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abundant ambient water from regular hosing/washing before and after the emptying of the gas chamber, most probably. Speaking of speculation, here is a prime example. The cold water would add little moisture to the rooms environment, and only upon direct hit would likely be able to provide the diluting effect you speak of. Unfortunately, there is no evidence behind such a scenario besides 50-yr quarterbacking. R.M. *Quote:* Certainly not from gas chamber hosings, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why not? See above. Cold water adds little moisture to surrounding environments, and it would take sometime before the water were to heat up enough where it would provide significant amounts of moisture. However, the water quickly exitied the room through a drainage system. W. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R.M. *Quote:* Your calculations hang entirely on a pH range of 6-7, a number the gas chambers were likely far beyond. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neither you nor Rudolf have demonstrated such likeliness, whereas there are good reasons to assume that the gas chambers environment was acidic, especially during the gassings. I believe that the relevant concrete literature in fact does show that the walls were almost assuredly alkaline. And the carbonic acid issue will be brought about later, but would have little effect on the room's pH. R.M. *Quote:* Even the slightest increase in your pH range would provide sufficient enough CN concentrations to form Prussian Blue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If so, that would be counterfactually assuming that there was no dilution. We can assume dilution, but likely dilution totals (no more than several times) wouldn't wash away enough CN concentrations. R.M. *Quote:* At 45 % the concentration of CN- ions would be 0.01125, whereas the minimum required for Prussian Blue formation is 0.00033. A 35-fold dilution by ambient water would be enough to mess up the preconditions for a Prussian Blue reaction. 35-fold dilution? Do you seriously believe such a number would have occurred? R.M. *Quote:* What is highly basic, pH level of 10 is probably the border line. Anything above there would be unlikely to allow Prussian Blue to form. R.M. *Quote:* and how do you know it would take such pH to hamper the reaction? From the chemistry sources cited by Rudolf (including Alich et al), and my understanding on the formation stages of Prussian Blue. R.M. *Quote:* and the ambient humidity and moisture would be highly unlikely to cause much damage to the Prussian Blue formation process. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How do you know that? Because in Dr. Bachmann's experiment, a highly humid room, and in the bounds of Green and McCarthy's gas-chamber temperature range, facilitated the formation of Prussian Blues R.M. *Quote:* Your statement only means that humidity for some reason (maybe because it enhances absorption) favors the formation of Prussian Blue with high concentrations of CN- ions. Our scenario is one of low concentrations. I note the could regarding the 90-95% relative humidity, by the way. Does this mean that Prussian Blue formed in some cases and did not form in others with this humidity? It formed in 7 out of 8 experiments in humid environments, or some 88% of the time. The one it did not form on was considerably different, IIRC. I will go back and check the article. R.M. *Quote:* What is favorable to iron reductions seems to be unfavorable to another step in the process, if I understood all this chemistry correctly. I believe both sources agree that relatively alkaline environments are the most helpful in the creation of Prussian Blues. R.M. *Quote:* Pressacs actual scenario corresponds to my own, which would arguably not provide even for a pre-dilution minimum concentration. Based upon a low pH level of the room, which is arguable to say the least, especially since the building would be freshly built, and was put into operation in early spring (moisture). R.M. *Quote:* And the open pores of the building would better protect the cyanide residues once in the liquid phase, as it would transport some through the walls. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enough to avoid 2.2-fold to 2.6-fold dilution? How do you know? The same way that you know of a 2.2-2.6 fold post-gassing dilution of the cyanide concentrations. R.M. *Quote:* A cold shower running in some corner of a warm room and cold water covering all of a warm rooms floor and sprinkling on its walls (during the hosing of the bodies described by Nyiszli) are two different pairs of boots, if you ask me. But not even the shower walls (less than 1 foot away from water) exhibited any moisture beyond initiation spraying. R.M. *Quote:* With eyewitness descriptions of heating and of unbearable heat inside the chamber after a gassing, the one who has to "look into the physics" is you. Agreed, but its also at the foundation of your gas-chamber temperature assumptions. R.M. *Quote:* So at least from the opening of the gas chambers to the completion of the cleanup there was much water in the gas chamber, in addition to the humidity present anyway and that coming from the dead bodies. Much water doesn't mean that that the cyanide concentratiosn would be diluted. The added-water appears to have been almost entirely on the floor (to ease the transporting of bodies), with little on the walls or roof (where the cyanide would be). As the water would exit the room quickly, it would not have enough time to heat, and therefor would add little to the humidity of the room (where any dilution fo the cyanide concentrations would arise from). R.M. *Quote:* There was a lot of water around for a long time even if the water quickly left the chamber through some drain, see above. Even if there was 50 gallons of water, if it quickly exited and drained out of the room, prior to any worthy rise of its temeprature, it would add little moisture to the environment. R.M. *Quote:* and once the gassing was complete, the ventilation process would cool the room, as would the opening of the door for the corpse-removing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still, heres how Tauber described the room after all that: No Tauber is after the ventilation, but not the 8 hour body clean-up (Bennahmias) which he took part in. R.M. *Quote:* Thanks. Nothing that would allow for concluding that Prussian Blue formation is a necessary (and not only a probable) consequence of fumigation in a room with high relative humidity. A very likely consequence of humid fumigations, yes, but not a necessary consequent. R.M. *Quote:* You recognized that the ammonium was used to remove cyanide (therefore ridding the chance of Prussian Blue to form) in your post 7220. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sure, but this doesnt mean that ammonium was used to prevent Prussian Blue formation or that only ammonium can avoid that. Just how humid are those execution gas chambers, by the way? Ammonium doesn't have to be used to prevent Prussian Blue formation for our purposes. Rather, it merely has to be used to remove cyanide concentrations, which you agreed in a prior post that it was. This shows that water (which is used following ammonium) is ineffective in ridding a room of its cyanide concentrations, and needs the help the ammonium to crystalize it before such will easily be removed. That is all we need to know, for it throws an obstacle into your major premise that a simple several-fold dilution by water would wash away enough cyanide concentrations to prevent Prussian Blue formation, though it turns out its ineffective at washing away such concentrations. BTW, aren't gas chamber walls tiled anyway, and therefore unable to be hosts of Prussian Blue? R.M. *Quote:* State employees working near and in the execution chambers dont wear full-body chemical safety suits all the time, do they? I see no reason to suggest otherwise. Common sense woudl tell someone to always wear such a safety unit, especially under the strict regulations the US government would operae in such a procedure. R.M. *Quote:* This would certainly be a side effect of the procedure, but theres nothing to indicate that it is the intended effect. Doesn't have to be for our purposes. Merely has to be demonstrated that water is ineffective at cyanide removal, and that is the reason why ammonium is used before rinsing the chamber with water. And it has been, IMHO. R.M. *Quote:* Whether or not water is ineffective depends on what it is supposed to do. For the purpose of avoiding any chance that an unprotected or insufficiently protected person may come in contact with HCN and suffer some health damage, it may not be 100 % effective. But that doesnt mean it cant effectively dilute concentrations of CN- - ions barely sufficient to start a Prussian Blue reaction into concentrations no longer allowing for such reaction. But it does mean that more dilutions will be required to take out the cyanide concentrations than you originally estimated.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Wahrheitseeker	Gassing Times and what Eyewitnesses Say	#76	[url]	[-]
Posts: 486 21-Nov-2007 22:43	R.M. *Quote:* OK, Ill have a look at Rudolfs trash for trash it is, independently of what new "scientific" arguments he has produced to back it up, for the simple reason that his "no homicidal gassings" theory is a flagrant violation of the logical principle of Occams Razor one of these days. Curioisity has me here. May I ask why you are such a follower of Occam's Razor? Care much for Crabtree's Bludgeon? R.M. *Quote:* Meanwhile, if you think there are arguments in Rudolfs new productions to which Dr. Greens statement quoted hereafter does not apply, feel free to point them out. If I stumble across any examples as I go, I will post them. R.M. *Quote:* This is not about what any of us believes, but about what either can demonstrate. Agreed. R.M. *Quote:* We will ignore the time the gas was allowed to continue outgassing as irrelevant for our purposes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (...)And the time following silence in the homicidal gas chambers is not irrelevant at all for our purposes, as will be explained below. Ok, we shall examine the argument more closely below, but until then, I will merely state that high concentrations of cyanide would immediately needed to be reached to account for the very quick times of "death" (or unconsciousness, a few rungs lower than death) attested to by witnesses. R.M. *Quote:* We may determine how long it took for the victims in the gas chamber to fall silent according to various eyewitness testimonies. For that was all that could be observed by eyewitnesses who had no way of determining whether clinical death had occurred. Agreed, but the "silence" of the victims (unconsciousness) would still have required very high levels of cyanide to cause such an effect. Given that most allege times in the "few minutes" range, the high cyanide concentration thesis is still valid. R.M. *Quote:* You left out the interesting part, my friend. This one: *Quote:* After twenty minutes at the most, no movement could be detected.< hr> Yes, which appears to be the extreme upper limit that victims were able to withstand the cyanide. This likely applied for those beings predisposed to being resistant to the effects of cyanide. But the major remarks of Hoss on times of death/unconsciousness are still valid: *Quote:* Those who were standing next to the air shaft were killed immediately. I can state that about one-third died immediately. The remainder staggered about and began to scream and struggle for air. The screaming, however, soon changed to gasping and in a few moments everyone lay still. . And then we have: *Quote:* "The victims became unconscious after a few minutes, according to the distance from the air shaft. Those who screamed and those who were old, sick, or weak, or the small children died quicker than those who were healthy or young." And let's keep in mind that as time went on, the witnesses would be less accurate in determing the timing of the gassing operation. So the twenty minutes alleged by Hoss could have been much sooner. R.M. *Quote:* It took up to twenty minutes until all victims had dropped down and fallen silent. This is not what Hoess alleges. Hoess stated ,"no movement could be detected" after, at the most, twenty minutes. Silence in the room came about much sooner, according to Hoess, as the screamers were soem of the first to die. R.M. *Quote:* But this doesnt mean that all victims were dead by that time, even though Hss surmised that they were. Some may have been dead in a clinical sense, others may still have been in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning. Yes, but both still would require high doses of cyanide to accomplish either fate. R.M. *Quote:* "Some time" was ten to fifteen minutes, during which the victims still alive would be breathing what Zyklon B was not yet ventilated out. Stark does not specific a time,a nd he could easily have been referencing the time for ventilation, as following this "some time", the doors were opened and the corpses were removed. R.M. *Quote:* The "silence" didnt necessarily mean that the victims were dead already, as pointed out above. Agreed, but such near-death effects would only be accomplished so quickly by significantly high levels of cyanide at the outset of the gassign operation. R.M. *Quote:* We dont how long that "some time later" was, but the victims not yet dead would still be breathing some HCN during that time. The lack of any forthcoming aid for their cyanide intake already ensured their death. R.M. *Quote:* The four minutes until there was "complete silence" were not necessarily the time it took for the victims to die. Many of them may have been in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning, which then became death while the air was being ventilated out. See my point on unconsciousness-death and cyanide concentrations above. Note that Broad states 2 minutes until most fell unconscious, and 2 more until all the rets were (at least) as well. R.M. *Quote:* So during five + five = ten minutes the victims were exposed to the full concentration of HCN, according to Nyiszli. Like any other eyewitness, he couldnt possibly tell if the victims were dead in a clinical sense. All he could observe was that they stopped screaming, from which he surmised that they had died incorrectly so, as some or even a large part of the victims might still be in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning. Yes, but assuming such unconsciousness within a time-span of five minutes would only be caused by very significant and immediate levels of cyanide poisonining, which would also take time to circulate around to all the victims within that time frame. The insurance of an extra five minutes might have ensured death in the chamber (though likely already going to die with no medical aid forthcoming), but its irrelevant to the testimony of witnesses that the chamber victims were unconscious (near death) within five minutes, and which require high cyanide concentrations. R.M. *Quote:* Some of these unconscious victims may have died during the "supplementary" five minutes before ventilation started. Others may still have been alive after those five minutes and died only during the twenty minutes of the ventilation process. So the time for all victims to be dead was 5 + 5 + 20 = 30 minutes, according to Nyiszlis testimony. Again, for the time of "unconsciousness" to be met, significant cyanide concentrations would still have to be quickly spread around the room. R.M. *Quote:* Of course all this is something of a silly exercise, as none of the witnesses carried a stop watch and each of them merely estimated the relevant times. The duration of a process or event is a detail that the memory of eyewitnesses is generally held to be very unreliable about in legal practice. I remember reading a psychology paper which referred to this phenomena. It found that people have a much more accurate estimate of quick durations as opposed to long ones. For instance, imagine walking to your mailbox, from your porch and back. One can guess that such a walk took 2-3 minutes, and be reasonably well accurate. However, watch a movie with no instruments of time, and the viewers will continually error on how far the movie has progressed. I will look for that paper to add to the argument. R.M. *Quote:* So you read the rest, after all. You just didn't consider what it means. Becuase I don't believe the "insurance time" is relevant to the high cyanide concentrations that would be immediately needed in the room, and then spread out to all corners of that room, to cause unconsciousness among the victims in a "few minutes". R.M. *Quote:* The times until death we actually have if we avoid cherry-picking and consider the relevant factors Even the "time until unconscious" would still require heavy concentrations of cyanide, enough to significantly reach all corners of the room within a few minutes. R.M. *Quote:* If Rudolf indulged in the cherry-picking and ignoring of relevant factors demonstrated above, his conclusions are worthless. And some of the examples he adduced even speak against these conclusions (emphases are mine): it appears you did some cherry-picking on your own though Herr Muehlenkamp. *Quote:* Final Trial Brief of the Prosecution, quoted acc. to U. Walendy, Auschwitz im IG-Farben-Proze, op. cit. (note 157), pp. 47-50 (3 to 15 minutes in extreme cases); E. Kogon et al., op. cit. (note 42), ubiquitous (immediately up to 10 min., more rarely, up to 20 min.) So majority of the times were around "immediatley" (Kogon) and "3 minutes" (IG Farben Prosecution Trial Brief), although "in extreme cases" hit ranges of 10-15 minutes, and "more rarely", up to 20. Both still necessitate immediate and high cyanide concentrations throughout the room. *Quote:* H.G. Adler, H. Langbein, E. Lingens-Reiner (ed.), Auschwitz, Europische Verlagsanstalt, Cologne 31984, pp. 66, 80 + 200 (a few minutes, up to 10 minutes); Hamburger Institut fr Sozialforschung (ed.), Die Auschwitz-Hefte, vol. 1, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim 1987, pp. 261ff. +294 (instantly, up to 10 min.); So both stated "up to 10 minutes", but also stated that killings were done between "instantly" and "a few minutes", again, requiring high cyanide amounts in the room and spread out within such a time to even cause unconsciousness. *Quote:* Dokument 3868-PS, IMT volume 33, pp. 275ff., quoted according to L. Rosenthal, "Endlsung der Judenfrage", Massenmord oder "Gaskammerlge"?, Verlag Darmstdter Bltter, Darmstadt 1979 (2 to 15 minutes in exceptional cases); R. H, op. cit. (note 295: 30 minutes for the entire procedure, including ventilation); So Blatter alleges around 2 minutes, up to 15 in "exceptional cases", while Hoess says half hour for whole procedure. Nothing contrary to my points, as the longer times likely represent the "insurance time" mentioned before.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Gassing Times and what Eyewitnesses Say	#77	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 22-Nov-2007 00:06	W. *Quote:* Several days later than I expected, but with a break in school I should have more time for the next few days. Are you a schoolteacher, Wahrheitseeker? W. *Quote:* Here I am finishing up the last part of my response to Muehlenkamp. Make that "Roberto" or "Mr. Muehlenkamp". Last name alone is impolite. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- True, but assuming an alkaline environment is based on pure speculation, whereas assuming an acid one is based on measurements and on the above calculations of the probable impact of CO2 exhalation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, an alkaline environment is based on concrete literature, and the observations by concrete experts that fresh and moist concrete remains alkaline for significant amounts of time (and would remain so between the short time of pouring of concrete for Krema II, and the alleged gassings). The hopes for carbonic acid in destroying cyanide simply doesn't hold weight, but we will cover that topic later. IIRC you tried to cover that in your previous post not very successfully. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where does the "mere tenfold dilution" come from? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abundant ambient water from regular hosing/washing before and after the emptying of the gas chamber, most probably. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speaking of speculation, here is a prime example. The cold water would add little moisture to the rooms environment, and only upon direct hit would likely be able to provide the diluting effect you speak of. Your claim is taken note of. What have you got to show for it? Im asking because its incumbent upon you to rule out any homicidal gassing scenario that would not necessarily lead to the formation of Prussian Blue. W. *Quote:* Unfortunately, there is no evidence behind such a scenario besides 50-yr quarterbacking. Whether or not theres evidence behind such a scenario becomes relevant only after your have demonstrated that only a "direct hit" would provide a tenfold dilution assuming that dilution was necessary at all, that is. Besides, I dont think a "direct hit" would be such a remote possibility if the bodies were hosed in the manner described by Nyizli. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certainly not from gas chamber hosings, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why not? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See above. Cold water adds little moisture to surrounding environments, and it would take sometime before the water were to heat up enough where it would provide significant amounts of moisture. Sorry, but youll have to demonstrate that the addition to the ambient humidity (assuming that was not sufficiently high already to keep small concentrations of HCN from starting a Prussian Blue reaction) would be negligible. W. *Quote:* However, the water quickly exitied the room through a drainage system. and was just as quickly added again on a constant basis, according to Chasan. There was water around all the time during the emptying of the gas chambers. W. *Quote:* W. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your calculations hang entirely on a pH range of 6-7, a number the gas chambers were likely far beyond. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neither you nor Rudolf have demonstrated such likeliness, whereas there are good reasons to assume that the gas chambers environment was acidic, especially during the gassings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that the relevant concrete literature in fact does show that the walls were almost assuredly alkaline. According to Rudolf and another source you have quoted, the walls may have been either a) too alkaline to allow for the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-), or b) neutral to acid and thus inhibiting the dissociation of CN- ions, with the consequence that too little of these were available to start a Prussian Blue reaction, independently of dilution or after little dilution. Either way there would be no Prussian Blue. And unless you can exclude either scenario and demonstrate that the walls would have just the right level of alkalinity not to inhibit the formation of Hexacyanoferrate and to enhance the dissociation of CN- ions from the HCN, you wont be getting anywhere. W. *Quote:* And the carbonic acid issue will be brought about later, but would have little effect on the room's pH. The carbonic acid issue was addressed in my previous post on this thread. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even the slightest increase in your pH range would provide sufficient enough CN concentrations to form Prussian Blue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If so, that would be counterfactually assuming that there was no dilution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We can assume dilution, but likely dilution totals (no more than several times) wouldn't wash away enough CN concentrations. Your claim is taken note of. Now try to demonstrate why likely dilution totals would be "no more than several times" (which might well be enough to lower an already reduced concentration of CN- ions so much that formation of Prussian Blue would be out of the question). W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 45 % the concentration of CN- ions would be 0.01125, whereas the minimum required for Prussian Blue formation is 0.00033. A 35-fold dilution by ambient water would be enough to mess up the preconditions for a Prussian Blue reaction. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35-fold dilution? Do you seriously believe such a number would have occurred? Why not? In Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues, Dr. Green writes that *Quote:* Considering that the ambient water would have been quite small, providing 100 times dilution would have been trivial. If you disagree, please demonstrate the degree of dilution that you consider likely taking into account the eyewitness testimonies about the hosing of the corpses, the constant shedding of water on the gas chamber floor to drag the corpses, and the washing of the walls prior to the next batch of deportees to be gassed. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is highly basic, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- pH level of 10 is probably the border line. Anything above there would be unlikely to allow Prussian Blue to form. Well, this source tells us the following (emphasis is mine): *Quote:* Emory explains that concrete, due to aging and other factors, loses its pH, or acidity value. Poured concrete has a high pH value of 11, 12, or 13. That high value can inhibit corrosion. The aging of the concrete is a natural process in which the pH starts to drop. When the pH value dips into the 8 to 9 range, there is potential for corrosion of the reinforcing bars, he points out. The concrete in the underground gas chambers was relatively fresh, only a few months old when the gassings started, and one of your sources suggests that humidity helps maintain the pH level, if I understood it correctly. So unless you can demonstrate that the pH of these walls is likely to have dropped to only slightly above the value at which "there is a potential for corrosion of the reinforcing bars", but not so low that the walls became neutral (which, according to Rudolf, may happen after a few months, even if no botch-work was involved), I dont see how you hope to make a case for Prussian Blue. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and how do you know it would take such pH to hamper the reaction? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the chemistry sources cited by Rudolf (including Alich et al), and my understanding on the formation stages of Prussian Blue. Please quote the sources cited by Rudolf. Dr. Green seems to have a different understanding about the pH level required to inhibit the Hexacyanoferrate reaction. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and the ambient humidity and moisture would be highly unlikely to cause much damage to the Prussian Blue formation process. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How do you know that? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because in Dr. Bachmann's experiment, a highly humid room, and in the bounds of Green and McCarthy's gas-chamber temperature range, facilitated the formation of Prussian Blues The walls were exposed to high concentrations of HCN for a much longer time in Dr. Bachmanns experiments (wasnt it 72 hours or so?), so there was plenty of time for high concentrations of liquid HCN to form. These experiments tell us little if anything about what damage humidity would cause to the Prussian Blue formation process with the much lower concentrations of liquid HCN that can be expected to have formed in the homicidal gas chambers. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your statement only means that humidity for some reason (maybe because it enhances absorption) favors the formation of Prussian Blue with high concentrations of CN- ions. Our scenario is one of low concentrations. I note the could regarding the 90-95% relative humidity, by the way. Does this mean that Prussian Blue formed in some cases and did not form in others with this humidity? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It formed in 7 out of 8 experiments in humid environments, or some 88% of the time. The one it did not form on was considerably different, IIRC. I will go back and check the article. So in 1 out of 8 cases Prussian Blue did not form even though the walls were exposed to high concentrations of HCN for much longer times than the walls of the homicidal gas chambers. That being so, I wonder how anyone can in all seriousness claim that the latter would necessarily have shown formations of Prussian Blue. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is favorable to iron reductions seems to be unfavorable to another step in the process, if I understood all this chemistry correctly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe both sources agree that relatively alkaline environments are the most helpful in the creation of Prussian Blues. Yeah, relatively alkaline environments. But the environment in the homicidal gas chambers may have been highly alkaline. On the other hand, it is also possible that it was neutral or slightly acidic. As long as you cannot demonstrate that it would have been "relatively alkaline", youre not getting anywhere. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pressacs actual scenario corresponds to my own, which would arguably not provide even for a pre-dilution minimum concentration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based upon a low pH level of the room, which is arguable to say the least, especially since the building would be freshly built, and was put into operation in early spring (moisture). Remember what Rudolf wrote: concrete walls may become neutral within a few months, or then it may take decades for that to happen. In the latter case, I would expect the freshly built wall subject to moisture to have had more or less the pH it had when the concrete was poured, i.e. a high one. No Hexacyanoferrate, no Prussian Blue. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And the open pores of the building would better protect the cyanide residues once in the liquid phase, as it would transport some through the walls. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enough to avoid 2.2-fold to 2.6-fold dilution? How do you know? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The same way that you know of a 2.2-2.6 fold post-gassing dilution of the cyanide concentrations. The difference being that you are the one who must exclude a scenario of sufficient dilution in order to demonstrate the likeliness of Prussian Blue formation under "relatively alkaline" conditions, which you also have to demonstrate. And didnt you write before that you considered a dilution of "no more than several times" to be likely? A 2.2-fold to 2.6-fold dilution certainly is "no more than several times". W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A cold shower running in some corner of a warm room and cold water covering all of a warm rooms floor and sprinkling on its walls (during the hosing of the bodies described by Nyiszli) are two different pairs of boots, if you ask me. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But not even the shower walls (less than 1 foot away from water) exhibited any moisture beyond initiation spraying. If so, then lets consider the "initiation spraying". A strong jet of water (as described by Nyiszli) hitting the corpses and the floor would probably provide for a considerable amount of "initiation spraying" against walls that might furthermore still be wet from the washing of the walls that had preceded this gassing. Would that not make for an at least tenfold dilution of whatever amounts of liquid HCN had managed to form during the period of gassing and ventilation? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With eyewitness descriptions of heating and of unbearable heat inside the chamber after a gassing, the one who has to "look into the physics" is you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed, but its also at the foundation of your gas-chamber temperature assumptions. The foundation of my gas-chamber temperature assumptions is evidence. It is up to you to disprove this evidence by demonstrating that it is incompatible with "the physics". W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So at least from the opening of the gas chambers to the completion of the cleanup there was much water in the gas chamber, in addition to the humidity present anyway and that coming from the dead bodies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Much water doesn't mean that that the cyanide concentratiosn would be diluted. The added-water appears to have been almost entirely on the floor (to ease the transporting of bodies), with little on the walls or roof (where the cyanide would be). How do you know that what "little" hit the walls or roof would not be enough, alone or on top of the ambient humidity, to dilute low CN- ion concentrations to concentrations too low for starting a Prussian Blue reaction? W. *Quote:* As the water would exit the room quickly, it would not have enough time to heat, and therefor would add little to the humidity of the room So you say, but I still have to see you demonstrate that. W. *Quote:* (where any dilution fo the cyanide concentrations would arise from) Why, and what about the incidental or deliberate spraying of the walls during post-gassing hosing of the bodies, watering of the floor to better drag the bodies and overall washing after the removal of the bodies and prior to the next gassing? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There was a lot of water around for a long time even if the water quickly left the chamber through some drain, see above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even if there was 50 gallons of water, if it quickly exited and drained out of the room, prior to any worthy rise of its temeprature, it would add little moisture to the environment. So you way, but I still have to see you demonstrate that. And dont forget the incidental or deliberate spraying of the walls mentioned before. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and once the gassing was complete, the ventilation process would cool the room, as would the opening of the door for the corpse-removing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still, heres how Tauber described the room after all that: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Tauber is after the ventilation, So? You said that ventilation and opening the door would cool the room. W. *Quote:* but not the 8 hour body clean-up (Bennahmias) which he took part in. OK, but we dont know how long it would take for the room to cool sufficiently for there no longer being a marked temperature difference between the water and the ambient temperature. During that time, the humidification effect would be higher than when cold water is used in a cold room. And dont forget the incidental sprinkling during the body removal process, and the washing thereafter. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks. Nothing that would allow for concluding that Prussian Blue formation is a necessary (and not only a probable) consequence of fumigation in a room with high relative humidity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A very likely consequence of humid fumigations, yes, ... when walls are exposed to high concentrations of HCN for a long time. W. *Quote:* but not a necessary consequent. Then what are we still talking about, if Prussian Blue formation is not a necessary consequence of HCN exposure even under fumigation conditions? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You recognized that the ammonium was used to remove cyanide (therefore ridding the chance of Prussian Blue to form) in your post 7220. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sure, but this doesnt mean that ammonium was used to prevent Prussian Blue formation or that only ammonium can avoid that. Just how humid are those execution gas chambers, by the way? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ammonium doesn't have to be used to prevent Prussian Blue formation for our purposes. Rather, it merely has to be used to remove cyanide concentrations, which you agreed in a prior post that it was. This shows that water (which is used following ammonium) is ineffective in ridding a room of its cyanide concentrations, and needs the help the ammonium to crystalize it before such will easily be removed. As I said before, whether water is "ineffective" in ridding a room of its cyanide concentrations depends on what effect you want. If you want foolproof safety, excluding even the slightest risk of slight poisoning and ruling out the possibility of human error, ammonium may be the better solution. But for what was considered tolerable for slave workers who were condemned men anyway, water would nevertheless be sufficient. W. *Quote:* That is all we need to know, for it throws an obstacle into your major premise that a simple several-fold dilution by water would wash away enough cyanide concentrations to prevent Prussian Blue formation, though it turns out its ineffective at washing away such concentrations. Actually "it" has nothing to do with my premise of several-fold dilution, which you apparently consider plausible yourself and which corresponds to the high solubility of HCN in water. But hydrogen cyanide the CN- ions of which are too diluted to start a Prussian Blue reaction may still be a certain health hazard if accidentally breathed, touched or ingested, though probably not a serious one. However, even such slight hazard might well be something that a US employer is interested in protecting his employees against. Lawsuits on account of accidental poisoning can be expensive. W. *Quote:* BTW, aren't gas chamber walls tiled anyway, and therefore unable to be hosts of Prussian Blue? Thanks for confirming my supposition that formation of Prussian Blue is none of a US gas chamber operators concerns anyway and therefore unrelated to the use of ammonium to remove cyanide residues. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State employees working near and in the execution chambers dont wear full-body chemical safety suits all the time, do they? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see no reason to suggest otherwise. The reason is that it might be a bit unpractical to have the cleaning lady don a full-body chemical suit every time she sweeps or washes the floor or wipes off the dust in or near an execution gas chamber. W. *Quote:* Common sense woudl tell someone to always wear such a safety unit, especially under the strict regulations the US government would operae in such a procedure. Always during gassing operations, maybe. But the room may be entered during other occasions, like for the cleaning mentioned above, or in order to be shown to visitors. Imagine cyanide from a not properly hosed and then hermetically closed gas chamber that remained in some niche and that an unprotected person comes in contact with. Better take no chances. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This would certainly be a side effect of the procedure, but theres nothing to indicate that it is the intended effect. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doesn't have to be for our purposes. Merely has to be demonstrated that water is ineffective at cyanide removal, and that is the reason why ammonium is used before rinsing the chamber with water. And it has been, IMHO. As I said before, whether water is "ineffective at cyanide removal" depends on what effect you want, foolproof safety according to US standards or the somewhat unhealthier conditions that the Nazis would probably not mind exposing their condemned slave-workers to. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether or not water is ineffective depends on what it is supposed to do. For the purpose of avoiding any chance that an unprotected or insufficiently protected person may come in contact with HCN and suffer some health damage, it may not be 100 % effective. But that doesnt mean it cant effectively dilute concentrations of CN- - ions barely sufficient to start a Prussian Blue reaction into concentrations no longer allowing for such reaction. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But it does mean that more dilutions will be required to take out the cyanide concentrations than you originally estimated. No, it doesnt mean that at all. A dilution sufficient to hinder the start of a Prussian Blue formation process may still leave a concentration that could under certain circumstances be unhealthy. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Gassing Times and what Eyewitnesses Say	#78	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 22-Nov-2007 02:10	W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, Ill have a look at Rudolfs trash for trash it is, independently of what new "scientific" arguments he has produced to back it up, for the simple reason that his "no homicidal gassings" theory is a flagrant violation of the logical principle of Occams Razor one of these days. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Curioisity has me here. May I ask why you are such a follower of Occam's Razor? Im not a follower of anything, but I consider Occams Razor a sound logical principle. Evidence before speculation. W. *Quote:* Care much for Crabtree's Bludgeon? Never heard of it, and what I just saw doesnt look like I missed anything. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We will ignore the time the gas was allowed to continue outgassing as irrelevant for our purposes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (...)And the time following silence in the homicidal gas chambers is not irrelevant at all for our purposes, as will be explained below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, we shall examine the argument more closely below, but until then, I will merely state that high concentrations of cyanide would immediately needed to be reached to account for the very quick times of "death" (or unconsciousness, a few rungs lower than death) attested to by witnesses. "High concentrations" is vague, and so is "quick times". Please specify what concentrations and what times exactly you have in mind. And in what concerns the times, also consider that the witnesses may well have been wrong about this detail (as eyewitnesses often are when it comes to the duration of an event), without such meaning that they were wrong about everything they described. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We may determine how long it took for the victims in the gas chamber to fall silent according to various eyewitness testimonies. For that was all that could be observed by eyewitnesses who had no way of determining whether clinical death had occurred. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed, but the "silence" of the victims (unconsciousness) would still have required very high levels of cyanide to cause such an effect. See above. W. *Quote:* Given that most allege times in the "few minutes" range, the high cyanide concentration thesis is still valid. Which "high cyanide concentration thesis" exactly? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You left out the interesting part, my friend. This one: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After twenty minutes at the most, no movement could be detected.< -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, which appears to be the extreme upper limit that victims were able to withstand the cyanide. This likely applied for those beings predisposed to being resistant to the effects of cyanide. Not necessarily. It may also have been related to temperature and humidity and to the composition of the gas, which according to Hoess was not always equal. Actually Hoess continued as follows: *Quote:* Je nach Witterung, feucht oder trocken, kalt oder warm, weiter je nach Beschaffenheit des Gases, das nicht immer gleich war, nach Zusammensetzung des Transportes, viele Gesunde, Alte oder Kranke, Kinder, dauerte die Wirkung des Gases fnf bis zehn Minuten. Die Bewutlosigkeit trat schon nach wenigen Minuten ein, je nach Entfernung von dem Einwurfschacht. Schreiende, ltere, Kranke, Schwchliche und Kinder fielen schneller als Gesunde und Jngere. Eine halbe Stunde nach dem Einwurf des Gases wurde die Tr geffnet und die Entlftungsanlage eingeschaltet. My translation: *Quote:* Depending on the weather, moist or dry, cold or warm, furthermore on the composition of the gas, which was not always equal, and the composition of the transport, whether it contained many healthy, old or sick, children, the effect of the gas took five to ten minutes. The victims became unconscious after a few minutes, according to the distance from the air shaft. Those who screamed and those who were old, sick, or weak, or the children died quicker than those who were healthy or young. Half an hour after the introduction of the gas the door was opened and the ventilation system was switched on. W. *Quote:* But the major remarks of Hoss on times of death/unconsciousness are still valid: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Those who were standing next to the air shaft were killed immediately. I can state that about one-third died immediately. The remainder staggered about and began to scream and struggle for air. The screaming, however, soon changed to gasping and in a few moments everyone lay still. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And then we have: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The victims became unconscious after a few minutes, according to the distance from the air shaft. Those who screamed and those who were old, sick, or weak, or the small children died quicker than those who were healthy or young." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And let's keep in mind that as time went on, the witnesses would be less accurate in determing the timing of the gassing operation. So the twenty minutes alleged by Hoss could have been much sooner. What does all this matter? The time until there was no longer any movement in the gas chamber varied according to the composition of the transport and other circumstances, and it was five to ten minutes on average but could be up to 20 minutes, according to Hss. And a gassing would last as long as there was no longer any movement in the gas chamber, whatever the reasons for that happening more quickly or more slowly on a given occasion. So it is simply false to bluntly state that Hss gave five minutes as the gassing time. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It took up to twenty minutes until all victims had dropped down and fallen silent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is not what Hoess alleges. Hoess stated ,"no movement could be detected" after, at the most, twenty minutes. Silence in the room came about much sooner, according to Hoess, as the screamers were soem of the first to die. So some victims might be silent but still moving before those twenty minutes were over? This would mean that the time for everyone to be motionless was up to twenty minutes, according to Hss. Not five minutes. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But this doesnt mean that all victims were dead by that time, even though Hss surmised that they were. Some may have been dead in a clinical sense, others may still have been in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but both still would require high doses of cyanide to accomplish either fate. How high? According to my calculations 6 kg of Zyklon B would do it within five minutes in warm temperature, assuming the dose required was equivalent to that which is used in US homicidal gas chambers. Actually there is at least one reason to assume that this was not so. Convicts in US gas chambers sit still and breathe quietly, while the people in the homicidal gas chambers screamed and trampled each other and climbed on top of each other, leading those below to be crushed or suffocated and those above to breathe much more intensively and thus inhale the HCN more quickly than the convict in a US gas chamber, apart from the probable enhancement of the poisons effect by physical exertion. So it is probable that the concentration to kill these people was lower than the concentration required to killed a condemned convict in a US gas chamber. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Some time" was ten to fifteen minutes, during which the victims still alive would be breathing what Zyklon B was not yet ventilated out. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stark does not specific a time,a nd he could easily have been referencing the time for ventilation, as following this "some time", the doors were opened and the corpses were removed. So what? The victims would be exposed to certain concentrations of HCN all this time and have at least all this time to die. So the duration of a gassing according to Stark was all this time plus the few minutes before he detected silence. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The "silence" didnt necessarily mean that the victims were dead already, as pointed out above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agreed, but such near-death effects would only be accomplished so quickly by significantly high levels of cyanide at the outset of the gassign operation. Again, how high? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We dont how long that "some time later" was, but the victims not yet dead would still be breathing some HCN during that time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The lack of any forthcoming aid for their cyanide intake already ensured their death. Exactly, and that might occur during the "some time later", so that "some time later" also counts as part of the gassing period, at least for the purpose of comparison with the time it takes for a convict in a US gas chamber to be dead in a clinical sense. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The four minutes until there was "complete silence" were not necessarily the time it took for the victims to die. Many of them may have been in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning, which then became death while the air was being ventilated out. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See my point on unconsciousness-death and cyanide concentrations above. Note that Broad states 2 minutes until most fell unconscious, and 2 more until all the rets were (at least) as well. And so? The total gassing time includes the unspecified "some time" thereafter. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So during five + five = ten minutes the victims were exposed to the full concentration of HCN, according to Nyiszli. Like any other eyewitness, he couldnt possibly tell if the victims were dead in a clinical sense. All he could observe was that they stopped screaming, from which he surmised that they had died incorrectly so, as some or even a large part of the victims might still be in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death in cyanide poisoning. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but assuming such unconsciousness within a time-span of five minutes would only be caused by very significant and immediate levels of cyanide poisonining, which would also take time to circulate around to all the victims within that time frame. The insurance of an extra five minutes might have ensured death in the chamber (though likely already going to die with no medical aid forthcoming), but its irrelevant to the testimony of witnesses that the chamber victims were unconscious (near death) within five minutes, and which require high cyanide concentrations. It is relevant insofar as lower concentrations would only have reduced the safety margin, on top of which there was still the ventilation time. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of these unconscious victims may have died during the "supplementary" five minutes before ventilation started. Others may still have been alive after those five minutes and died only during the twenty minutes of the ventilation process. So the time for all victims to be dead was 5 + 5 + 20 = 30 minutes, according to Nyiszlis testimony. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, for the time of "unconsciousness" to be met, significant cyanide concentrations would still have to be quickly spread around the room. Maybe so, but why need unconsciousness have occurred within the time frame described by Nyiszli for his testimony to be essentially credible? And how does the plausibility of homicidal gassing depend on whether unconsciousness occurred after the time the witness mentioned or five, ten or more minutes thereafter? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course all this is something of a silly exercise, as none of the witnesses carried a stop watch and each of them merely estimated the relevant times. The duration of a process or event is a detail that the memory of eyewitnesses is generally held to be very unreliable about in legal practice. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I remember reading a psychology paper which referred to this phenomena. It found that people have a much more accurate estimate of quick durations as opposed to long ones. For instance, imagine walking to your mailbox, from your porch and back. One can guess that such a walk took 2-3 minutes, and be reasonably well accurate. However, watch a movie with no instruments of time, and the viewers will continually error on how far the movie has progressed. I will look for that paper to add to the argument. People may record shorter durations more accurately than longer ones, but the problem is how accurately they can recollect these durations if interrogated about them after some time. What follows is my translation from to Bender/Nack, Tatsachenfeststellung vor Gericht Band I Glaubwrdigkeits- und Beweislehre, RN 137: *Quote:* [...]The reliability of recollection also depends on the type of object that the informing person is to remember. The sequence is the following (recollection increasingly weakening): (1) Persons and their actions, especially on or with the informing person (2) The(mere) presence of things, especially such that play a central role in the course of the action (3) The number of persons involved, if smaller than 7 (4) Room and space conditions, especially insofar as they are important for how actions are linked together (5) The state of things, especially insofar as it is important for how actions are linked together (6) The sequence of events (7) Colors (8) Sizes and quantities (9) Sounds (10) Duration [from n 6 on the reliability of recollection is especially reduced][...] The duration of an event is n 10 on the scale of reliability. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you read the rest, after all. You just didn't consider what it means. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Becuase I don't believe the "insurance time" is relevant to the high cyanide concentrations that would be immediately needed in the room, and then spread out to all corners of that room, to cause unconsciousness among the victims in a "few minutes". Actually the time to bring about unconsciousness according to eyewitness testimonies would only be relevant if it could be assumed that a) this time frame was always the same and b) eyewitnesses would necessarily recollect this time frame accurately, neither of which is the case. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The times until death we actually have if we avoid cherry-picking and consider the relevant factors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even the "time until unconscious" would still require heavy concentrations of cyanide, enough to significantly reach all corners of the room within a few minutes. Yeah, I know that by heart now. So please put some figures on the "heavy concentrations", not for death but for unconsciousness, assuming against the teachings of forensic psychology that witnesses could not simply have had a mistaken recollection of that time frame. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Rudolf indulged in the cherry-picking and ignoring of relevant factors demonstrated above, his conclusions are worthless. And some of the examples he adduced even speak against these conclusions (emphases are mine): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- it appears you did some cherry-picking on your own though Herr Muehlenkamp. What I did was to point out that some of Rudolfs own sources dont support his conclusion. How is that cherry-picking? W. *Quote:* Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Final Trial Brief of the Prosecution, quoted acc. to U. Walendy, Auschwitz im IG-Farben-Proze, op. cit. (note 157), pp. 47-50 (3 to 15 minutes in extreme cases); E. Kogon et al., op. cit. (note 42), ubiquitous (immediately up to 10 min., more rarely, up to 20 min.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So majority of the times were around "immediatley" (Kogon) and "3 minutes" (IG Farben Prosecution Trial Brief), although "in extreme cases" hit ranges of 10-15 minutes, and "more rarely", up to 20. Do you realize that you are conflating two different sources here? You should keep them separate: Walendy: "3 to 15 minutes in extreme cases" Kogon et al: "immediately up to 10 min., more rarely, up to 20 min". Quite a range in both cases. And you think this supports Rudolf's statement that "These reported execution times all allege a gassing time of only a few minutes"? Come on. W. *Quote:* Both still necessitate immediate and high cyanide concentrations throughout the room. Im beginning to feel , and its not only because of the late hour. W. *Quote:* Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H.G. Adler, H. Langbein, E. Lingens-Reiner (ed.), Auschwitz, Europische Verlagsanstalt, Cologne 31984, pp. 66, 80 + 200 (a few minutes, up to 10 minutes); Hamburger Institut fr Sozialforschung (ed.), Die Auschwitz-Hefte, vol. 1, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim 1987, pp. 261ff. +294 (instantly, up to 10 min.); -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So both stated "up to 10 minutes", but also stated that killings were done between "instantly" and "a few minutes", again, requiring high cyanide amounts in the room and spread out within such a time to even cause unconsciousness. I look forward to your calculation of what "high cyanide amounts" would have been required, but for the time being the issue is whether the ranges given here justify Rudolfs statement that "These reported execution times all allege a gassing time of only a few minutes". Do you really think they do? W. *Quote:* Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dokument 3868-PS, IMT volume 33, pp. 275ff., quoted according to L. Rosenthal, "Endlsung der Judenfrage", Massenmord oder "Gaskammerlge"?, Verlag Darmstdter Bltter, Darmstadt 1979 (2 to 15 minutes in exceptional cases); R. H, op. cit. (note 295: 30 minutes for the entire procedure, including ventilation); -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So Blatter alleges around 2 minutes, up to 15 in "exceptional cases", while Hoess says half hour for whole procedure. Nothing contrary to my points, as the longer times likely represent the "insurance time" mentioned before. The "insurance time" means that if a lower amount was used the whole procedure would still have the same duration, as I said before. The total duration, with or without insurance time, is more relevant to the feasibility of the procedure described and should therefore be the basis for calculating the required concentrations, instead of the duration of a part of the procedure. And again, do you understand how this last quote supports Rudolfs statement that "These reported execution times all allege a gassing time of only a few minutes"? I dont. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Wahrheitseeker	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#79	[url]	[-]
Posts: 486 22-Nov-2007 18:17	R.M. *Quote:* It would be almost impossible for a cement wall, whcih would have an almost immediate falling pH anyway, and then be exposed to the elements for many decades, to have a similar pH level as it did shortly after it was poured. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just how quickly the pH level may fall is pointed out by Rudolf himself (emphases are mine): So do you agree, Roberto, that the pH level as taken during the 1990s by Markiewicz et al would not be the same as that which existed during the early 1940s? If so, what relevancy does his test really have to this issue? R.M. *Quote:* One may conclude from the above that a) the lowering of the pH level is not so slow on the outer parts of the material (which are the ones that interest us), and But the question appears to be just how quickly it's pH would become neutral. Sooner than "a few months to many decades" is too imprecise for our purposes, but it would be safe to suggest that the pH would be lowerered to below it's pH upon pouring. R.M. *Quote:* b) even the inner parts of the material may have become neutral after "a few months", which in our case might correspond to the time between the pouring of the walls cement and the first gassing operations in Birkenau Crematorium 2. But the moisture that would exist in the underground and uninsulated walls would certainly have an effect on the pH level. As this sourcestated: *Quote:* On the surface, the pH is highest shortly after it's placed and decreases with time as the surface carbonates. The pH is also related to the moisture content of a slab--concrete with higher moisture levels tends to have a higher surface pH. So while the surface could become neutral, we'll say within 2 months, the moisture permeating through the walls would spread the inner alkalinity of the walls towards the outside, raising the pH slightly. R.M. *Quote:* On the other hand, it is also possible that the walls were still too alkaline for the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-), even according to Rudolf's limits. Possible doesn't equate to likely. All the relevant literature we have seen states that the pH would immediately begin falling upon completion of the wall itself. R.M. *Quote:* Thats not an argument in your favor. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that by the time these facilities were used for gassing the pH of the walls would necessarily have gone down below the level that inhibits the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-) without becoming neutral or acidic. While the walls would be too alkaline for Prussian Blue to likely form (measuring some 12 and above), it appears that the walls would immediately begin dropping into a more Prussian Blue favorable pH level (slightly basic). A Floorcovering Bulletinstates on the alkalinity of concrete: *Quote:* Fresh, wet concrete is high in alka l i n i t y, with a pH measuring between 12 and 13. It is not uncommon for a l kali to rise with water to the green concrete surface and remain as a white residue after the water evaporates. Th i s can be cleaned with clear water, and may even disappear as the concrete dries. Do not use low pH acids to neutralize the concrete, as they may dissolve concrete aggregate or leave a residue that is as harmful to flooring installations as the alkali . If alkali comes back, or the pH continues to measure 9 or above, the excessive residue can be very harmful to the concrete, adhesives and floor covering. It can leave unsightly deposits and, if not removed, can actually corrode the floorcovering. So we can see from this source that a constant alkalinity above 9 is not natural, suggesting that other concretes would be slightly less alkaline ( >7 but <9 ). R.M. *Quote:* Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A recent article by Concrete Construction states quiet clearly that (emphasis mine) Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The pH of concrete is related to the portland cement and pozzolans used in the mix. On the surface, the pH is highest shortly after it's placed and decreases with time as the surface carbonates. The pH is also related to the moisture content of a slab--concrete with higher moisture levels tends to have a higher surface pH. Cured concrete can go from neutral (pH 7) to highly alkaline (pH 12 or 13). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice that a higher moisture content, which the morgue would certainly have had, would increase and maintain the walls alkalinity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What I notice is that the above refers to particular kinds of cement, which were not necessarily those used to construct the Birkenau gas chambers. In 1878, the German government standardized Portland cement for cementing, as on Wikpedia, and I noticed on a few other sites. R.M. *Quote:* What I also notice is that either limit given by the source is unfavorable to your argument. The lower limit, pH7, would mean too few CN- ions. The higher limit, pH 12 or 13, would mean too much alkalinity, even according to Rudolfs claim, for the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-). Either way there would be no Prussian Blue. At the limits it would be unlikely, but the probabilities greatly increase inside of those limits. R.M. *Quote:* That would depend on the expectable quantitative impacts of such effects. And didn't Markiewicz et al take their samples from parts of the ruins that were sheltered from the elements? Possibly (I can't find the specific article at this second), but I don't consdier a collapsed building in the rough outside Polish weather to be very "sheltered from the elecments" int he sense that it could remain preserved as it was during the alleged homicidal gassings. R.M. *Quote:* And whether and how long alkalinity would have been maintained would depend on the composition of the cement mortar, according to Rudolf. Yes, but given the relative ease of the materials to produce concrete, I don't believe much is going to radically change, especially since the crematoria's walls would also have Portland cement. R.M. *Quote:* Your source stating that "a concrete with higher moisture levels tends to have a higher surface pH" (which means that there are also cases where concrete with a higher moisture level does not have a higher surface pH) refers to particular types of cement. How do you know that what applies to concrete based on portland cement and pozzolans applies to all kinds of concrete, present and past? In the late 19th century, the German government standardized the use of Portland cement for it's cementing works. I have found no evidence that they changed this during the war. R.M. *Quote:* Nor does it exclude this possibility, let alone the possibility that some botching occurred in the building of the Birkenau crematoria, which seem to have been a rush job. Why do you call it a rush job? R.M. *Quote:* If the effect of CO2 on the HCN is negligible, as Rudolf claims, how come that Markiewicz et. al. detected a much higher decrease of HCN over time in material exposed to CO2 than in material not exposed to CO2, as pointed out in footnote 61 on page 52 of Greens expert opinion? An issue that certainly does need more study; however, no one alleges that CO2 in the gas chambers would have been as high as the amount used by Markiewicz (some 10% of volume). R.M. *Quote:* Rudolfs argument regarding the low solubility of CO2 in water seems to have been dealt with in the continuation of that footnote (my emphases): Interesting, although he doesn't seem to deal at all with the problem that little of CO2 would become carbonic acid. Also, I'd be interested to see his starting pH, before his CO2 levels brought them down. R.M. *Quote:* What matters is the effect that CO2 has on the environment pH by lowering the same. A lower pH, in turn, means less dissociation of CN- ions, with the consequence that the concentration of such ions is too low, before dilution or after a little dilution, to start a Prussian Blue reaction. Again though, we must wonder on the starting pH of the walls in Dr. Green's calculations. Carbonic acid precipitates in basic solutions, which would exist in the moisture of the walls. Indeed, according to this site, from what I gather at least, a pH of 6.3 and above inhibits the carbonic acid molecules, and it falls apart. *Quote:* The pK of carbonic acid is 6.3 (making it a weaker acid than acetic acid). So a pH of 6.3 represents the middle of the first "buffer range" of this acid. If we continue to add strong base after all of the carbonic acid has been converted to bicarbonate ion, (at f = 1), the HCO3- reacts with the hydroxide to form water and carbonate ion, CO3=. R.M. *Quote:* This doesnt state that carbonic acid will not form in warm solutions, only that less carbonic acid will form than in cold solutions. It appears that considerably less would have formed. *Quote:* Therefore, if the system is at equilibrium, warming the water will result in a reduction in the amount of the gas, equation [2] will shift so as to produce more CO2 which results in a decrease in the amount of carbonic acid. Equation [1] will shift to the left to produce more carbonic acid and calcite will precipitate. Calcium carbonate, for example, is often found precipitating in proximity to hot springs. R.M. *Quote:* What higher pH of the gas chamber walls? The gas chamber walls need not have had a high pH, as we have seen above. With the moisture, and the relatively "fresh" concrete itself, the pH would certainly have been above neutral. R.M. *Quote:* Atmospheric CO2 seems to be able to turn a neutral or slightly basic solution like evaporating ocean water into a slightly acidic solution like rain water, so a slightly alkaline environment might not greatly hamper the formation of carbonic acid. The acidity of rain water is greatly enhanced by other acidic players, and the amounts of CO2 and carbonic acid in the atmosphere would be many times greater than what existed in the homicidal gas chambers, and have much more time to do their work. R.M. *Quote:* 1% CO2 in contact with an aqueous solution seems to be sufficient to reduce that solutions pH to 5.0, which in turn would lead to a lower dissociation of CN- ions from liquid HCN than with the pH value measured by Markiewicz et al. Yet it must overcome the CN ions in an aqueous solution, which is a stronger acid to cause such. Also, given the stronger acidity of HCN compared with CO2, which would displace the CO2 molecures, wouldn't that raise the pH level (as it is a weaker acid) than its CN counterpart? R.M. *Quote:* Before HCN can penetrate into a walls surface, it must become liquid. The liquid amount of HCN that could form within the time-span of a gassing was very low, according to Dr. Greens calculations, And as Rudolf has shown, HCN goes into liquid at a much faster rate than CO2 does. It's a race that carbonic acid simply cannot win. And Happy Turkey Day, Roberto.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Roberto	Re: Response to Muehlenkamp	#80	[url]	[-]
Posts: 11621 22-Nov-2007 22:28	W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would be almost impossible for a cement wall, whcih would have an almost immediate falling pH anyway, and then be exposed to the elements for many decades, to have a similar pH level as it did shortly after it was poured. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just how quickly the pH level may fall is pointed out by Rudolf himself (emphases are mine): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So do you agree, Roberto, that the pH level as taken during the 1990s by Markiewicz et al would not be the same as that which existed during the early 1940s? Im not excluding the possibility that the pH dropped to neutral within the first months after pouring and then stayed at more or less that level. Of course it is also possible that it dropped from highly alkaline to its present state over a period of decades. W. *Quote:* If so, what relevancy does his test really have to this issue? It remains relevant as long as you cannot exclude the former of the scenarios I mentioned above. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One may conclude from the above that a) the lowering of the pH level is not so slow on the outer parts of the material (which are the ones that interest us), and -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the question appears to be just how quickly it's pH would become neutral. Sooner than "a few months to many decades" is too imprecise for our purposes, but it would be safe to suggest that the pH would be lowerered to below it's pH upon pouring. Imprecision is your problem here. I can limit myself to recording that a few months are a possibility according to Rudolf and would correspond to the time between the pouring of the concrete and the start of the gassings in Krema II. On the other hand, it is also possible that there was no significant lowering of pH during the time while the gas chambers were in operation and it remained at a level of alkalinity too high to allow for the formation of Prussian Blue. Mind that the Portland cement-based concrete mentioned in one of your quotes may have a pH as high as 12 in a cured state. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- b) even the inner parts of the material may have become neutral after "a few months", which in our case might correspond to the time between the pouring of the walls cement and the first gassing operations in Birkenau Crematorium 2. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But the moisture that would exist in the underground and uninsulated walls would certainly have an effect on the pH level. Remember what Rudolf wrote (emphasis is mine): *Quote:* Fresh concrete and cement mortars-which are identical from a chemical point of view-are relatively strongly alkaline (pH approximately 12.5). It later falls, however, due to the binding of carbon dioxide from the air. Depending on the special chemistry of the cement mortar, this process proceeds very slowly in the depth of the material. According to the composition of the cement mortar, this may last from a few months to many decades, until the pH value of such a mortar or concrete becomes neutral, even in the deepest layers.[396]-[398] W. *Quote:* As this source stated: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the surface, the pH is highest shortly after it's placed and decreases with time as the surface carbonates. The pH is also related to the moisture content of a slab--concrete with higher moisture levels tends to have a higher surface pH. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So while the surface could become neutral, we'll say within 2 months, the moisture permeating through the walls would spread the inner alkalinity of the walls towards the outside, raising the pH slightly. That may be so, but Rudolfs statement is that the concrete may become neutral "even in the deepest layers" after a few months. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the other hand, it is also possible that the walls were still too alkaline for the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-), even according to Rudolf's limits. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possible doesn't equate to likely. All the relevant literature we have seen states that the pH would immediately begin falling upon completion of the wall itself. I must have missed the "immediately begin falling upon completion of the wall itself" part, and the question would also be how fast the pH falls. According to one of your sources, Portland cement based concrete may have a pH of 12 in a "cured" state. The same source suggests that moisture makes for a higher pH, IIRC. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thats not an argument in your favor. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that by the time these facilities were used for gassing the pH of the walls would necessarily have gone down below the level that inhibits the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-) without becoming neutral or acidic. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- While the walls would be too alkaline for Prussian Blue to likely form (measuring some 12 and above), it appears that the walls would immediately begin dropping into a more Prussian Blue favorable pH level (slightly basic). The source mentioned in my previous comment suggests that the pH can remain at level 12 for quite a while. And so does this source, which further suggests that a high pH value is in the interest of the structures stability and a pH lower than 10 can affect that stability by leading to corrosion of the reinforcing bars: *Quote:* Emory explains that concrete, due to aging and other factors, loses its pH, or acidity value. Poured concrete has a high pH value of 11, 12, or 13. That high value can inhibit corrosion. The aging of the concrete is a natural process in which the pH starts to drop. When the pH value dips into the 8 to 9 range, there is potential for corrosion of the reinforcing bars, he points out. W. *Quote:* A Floorcovering Bulletinstates on the alkalinity of concrete: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fresh, wet concrete is high in alka l i n i t y, with a pH measuring between 12 and 13. It is not uncommon for a l kali to rise with water to the green concrete surface and remain as a white residue after the water evaporates. Th i s can be cleaned with clear water, and may even disappear as the concrete dries. Do not use low pH acids to neutralize the concrete, as they may dissolve concrete aggregate or leave a residue that is as harmful to flooring installations as the alkali . If alkali comes back, or the pH continues to measure 9 or above, the excessive residue can be very harmful to the concrete, adhesives and floor covering. It can leave unsightly deposits and, if not removed, can actually corrode the floorcovering. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So we can see from this source that a constant alkalinity above 9 is not natural, suggesting that other concretes would be slightly less alkaline ( >7 but <9 ). Im missing the step from the initial alkalinity to pH 9 here, and pH 9, according to Emory (see above) is critical to the structures stability. The question is also how long the concrete referred to by this source took to reach a pH level of 9. All sources I have seen suggest that this usually takes a while. Here is another, emphases are mine: *Quote:* A chemical property of masonry that has a great effect on its coatability is alkalinity. Most masonry is highly alkaline and although stones or bricks are normally neutral, the mortars in which they are set are quite basic. Fresh concrete is very alkaline because of the original constituents and because of the release of calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime) during the curing process. With time this chemical reactivity may be reduced through carbonation by the carbon dioxide in air although this seldom occurs in more than a thin surface layer. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A recent article by Concrete Construction states quiet clearly that (emphasis mine) Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The pH of concrete is related to the portland cement and pozzolans used in the mix. On the surface, the pH is highest shortly after it's placed and decreases with time as the surface carbonates. The pH is also related to the moisture content of a slab--concrete with higher moisture levels tends to have a higher surface pH. Cured concrete can go from neutral (pH 7) to highly alkaline (pH 12 or 13). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notice that a higher moisture content, which the morgue would certainly have had, would increase and maintain the walls alkalinity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What I notice is that the above refers to particular kinds of cement, which were not necessarily those used to construct the Birkenau gas chambers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1878, the German government standardized Portland cement for cementing, as on Wikpedia, and I noticed on a few other sites. OK, but wouldnt the pH depend on the relative amounts of Portland cement and other elements in the mix? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What I also notice is that either limit given by the source is unfavorable to your argument. The lower limit, pH7, would mean too few CN- ions. The higher limit, pH 12 or 13, would mean too much alkalinity, even according to Rudolfs claim, for the formation of Hexacyanoferrate (Fe(CN)63-). Either way there would be no Prussian Blue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the limits it would be unlikely, but the probabilities greatly increase inside of those limits. The problem is that you dont know when the pH would be "inside of these limits". It might as well have remained at a highly alkaline level for the first two years before dropping significantly towards neutral. Consider just how alkaline fresh concrete can be (emphasis is mine): *Quote:* On a scale of 0 to 14 (as given in many chemistry texts), the pH of concrete can be 15. Well, maybe not quite, but its pore solutions can be so extremely high that it is close to that. Many articles report that concrete quickly attains a pH of about 12.4 or 12.5 due to the development of a saturated solution of calcium hydroxide. True, but then the calcium hydroxide precipitates, forming portlandite, and the pH rises due to the influence of the hydroxyl ions from sodium and potassium hydroxide. If the "pore water" of recently hardened concrete is "squeezed out" and measured, the pH is over 13, and can be over 14. Even the pH of alkaline drain cleaners and oven cleaners is not this high. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That would depend on the expectable quantitative impacts of such effects. And didn't Markiewicz et al take their samples from parts of the ruins that were sheltered from the elements? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Possibly (I can't find the specific article at this second), but I don't consdier a collapsed building in the rough outside Polish weather to be very "sheltered from the elecments" int he sense that it could remain preserved as it was during the alleged homicidal gassings. No, it was probably not preserved to that extent, nor did I claim it was. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And whether and how long alkalinity would have been maintained would depend on the composition of the cement mortar, according to Rudolf. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but given the relative ease of the materials to produce concrete, I don't believe much is going to radically change, especially since the crematoria's walls would also have Portland cement. You dont believe "much is going to radically change" in relation to what? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your source stating that "a concrete with higher moisture levels tends to have a higher surface pH" (which means that there are also cases where concrete with a higher moisture level does not have a higher surface pH) refers to particular types of cement. How do you know that what applies to concrete based on portland cement and pozzolans applies to all kinds of concrete, present and past? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the late 19th century, the German government standardized the use of Portland cement for it's cementing works. I have found no evidence that they changed this during the war. OK, but wouldnt the other elements in the mix also have an influence? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nor does it exclude this possibility, let alone the possibility that some botching occurred in the building of the Birkenau crematoria, which seem to have been a rush job. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do you call it a rush job? Because theres evidence suggesting that the head of the Auschwitz-Birkenau construction office was in a hurry to get the crematoria finished. From the Van Pelt Report, emphases are mine: *Quote:* Considering the context, it was obvious that the AEG document came into existence when it became clear there would be a delay in the completion of the crematoria, partly caused by the slow arrival of rationed electrical equipment, and when it also became clear that this delay would be in conflict with Eichmann's schedule of deportations. Our understanding of this context is based on other evidencein the case of the problems the Germans had in completing the crematoria this evidence consists of the correspondence between the Auschwitz Central Construction Office and Berlin--an exchange of letters that generated among other things the notorious letter dated January 29, 1943 in which Bischoff reported to the Chief Amtsgruppe C, SS-Brigadefhrer and General-Major of the Waffen-SS, Dr. Ing. Kammler, on the progress of construction of crematorium 2. In an earlier letter, Bischoff had promised that the crematorium would be completed on January 31. Now he had to break the news gently to his boss that he had not been able to do so. The crematorium has been completed--save for minor constructional work by the use of all the forces available, in spite of unspeakable difficulties, the severe cold, and in 24 hour shifts. The fires were started in the ovens in the presence of Senior Engineer Prfer, representative of the contractors of the firm of Topf and Sons, Erfurt, and they are working most satisfactorily. The planks from the concrete ceiling of the cellar used as a mortuary could not yet be removed on account of the frost. This is, however, not very important, as the gassing cellar (Vergasungskeller) can be used for that purpose. The firm of Topf and Sons was not able to start deliveries of the installation in time for aeration and ventilation as had been requested by the Central Building Management because of restrictions in the use of railroad cars. As soon as the installation for aeration and ventilation arrive, the installing will start so that the complete installation may be expected to be ready for use 20 February 1943.520 As Bischoff bought himself three more weeks, his aides desperately tried to resolve all the outstanding difficulties. The same day that Bischoff wrote his letter, SS-Unterscharfhrer Swoboda met with Engineer Tomitschek, and both drafted and signed the following minute of their meeting, which was countersigned by Bischoff. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the effect of CO2 on the HCN is negligible, as Rudolf claims, how come that Markiewicz et. al. detected a much higher decrease of HCN over time in material exposed to CO2 than in material not exposed to CO2, as pointed out in footnote 61 on page 52 of Greens expert opinion? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An issue that certainly does need more study; however, no one alleges that CO2 in the gas chambers would have been as high as the amount used by Markiewicz (some 10% of volume). What Markiewicz et al wrote, according to footnote 61 on page 52 of Dr. Greens expert opinion, was the following (emphasis is mine): *Quote:* After an interval of a month the mean decrease of hydrogen cyanide content in this material was 3% and so it was markedly greater than in the run with hydrogen cyanide only. In as many as four samples that loss ranged from 97% to 100% and then airing was nearly complete. This statement is significant in as much as in their reasoning the revisionists did not take into consideration certain circumstances, namely, the simultaneous action of cyanides and carbon dioxide on the chamber walls. In the air exhaled by man carbon dioxide constitutes 3.5% by volume. Breathing for 1 minute, he takes in and next exhales 15-20 dm3 of air, comprising on the average 950 cm3 CO2; consequently, 1000 people breathe out about 950 dm3 of carbon dioxide. And so it can be estimated that, if the victims stayed in the chamber for 5 minutes before they died, they exhaled 4.75 m3 of carbon dioxide during that period. This is at least about 1% of the capacity, e.g. of the gas chamber of Crematorium II at Birkenau, the capacity of which was about 500 m3, whereas the concentration of hydrogen cyanide virtually did not exceed 0.1% by volume (death occurs soon at as low HCN concentrations as 0.03% by volume). Therefore, the conditions for the preservation of HCN in the gas chambers were not better than in the delousing chambers, despite what the revisionists claim. Besides, as has already been mentioned, the chamber ruins have been thoroughly washed by rainfall. According to Dr. Green, they actually underestimated: *Quote:* Note that their estimate of CO2 exposure is conservative. They underestimate the number of people by a factor of two, and they assume a short time to death (5 minutes). W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rudolfs argument regarding the low solubility of CO2 in water seems to have been dealt with in the continuation of that footnote (my emphases): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting, although he doesn't seem to deal at all with the problem that little of CO2 would become carbonic acid. Assuming that was a problem. W. *Quote:* Also, I'd be interested to see his starting pH, before his CO2 levels brought them down. How about asking him? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What matters is the effect that CO2 has on the environment pH by lowering the same. A lower pH, in turn, means less dissociation of CN- ions, with the consequence that the concentration of such ions is too low, before dilution or after a little dilution, to start a Prussian Blue reaction. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again though, we must wonder on the starting pH of the walls in Dr. Green's calculations. See above. W. *Quote:* Carbonic acid precipitates in basic solutions, which would exist in the moisture of the walls. Indeed, according to this site, from what I gather at least, a pH of 6.3 and above inhibits the carbonic acid molecules, and it falls apart. Your source tells us the following: *Quote:* This last example is of a dibasic acid, carbonic acid, H2CO3. This is the acid which forms when carbon dioxide gas, CO2, dissolves in and reacts with water, H2O. As strong base is added, it reacts with the H2CO3 to form water and HCO3-, which is called bicarbonate ion. The pK of carbonic acid is 6.3 (making it a weaker acid than acetic acid). So a pH of 6.3 represents the middle of the first "buffer range" of this acid. If we continue to add strong base after all of the carbonic acid has been converted to bicarbonate ion, (at f = 1), the HCO3- reacts with the hydroxide to form water and carbonate ion, CO3=. Please correct me if Im wrong, but there seems to be a certain similarity with the reaction described by Dr. Green on page 53: *Quote:* CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3 The second step is the acid base reaction between carbonic acid and water; its equilibrium constant is denoted here as Kc1: H2CO3 + H2O <=> H3O+ + HCO3- The third step is reaction between the bicarbonate ion (HCO3-) and water whose equilibrium constant is here denoted as Kc2: HCO3- + H2O <=> H3O+ + CO32- Also, one needs to consider the autoprotolysis of water: 2H2O <=> H3O+ + OH- except that in the latter the HCO3- reacts with water and not with hydroxide. I understand you claim that the HCO3- would react not with water but with a basic solution that forms from the moisture in the wall. Why do you think this would be so? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This doesnt state that carbonic acid will not form in warm solutions, only that less carbonic acid will form than in cold solutions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It appears that considerably less would have formed. Still enough to provide for the reaction described by Dr. Green, or no longer sufficient for that? Consider that the water in the walls pores would not necessarily be as hot as a hot spring. W *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What higher pH of the gas chamber walls? The gas chamber walls need not have had a high pH, as we have seen above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- With the moisture, and the relatively "fresh" concrete itself, the pH would certainly have been above neutral. That is not a certainty at all, as it is not a certainty that the pH would not have been so much above neutral as to hamper the Hexacyanoferrate reaction. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atmospheric CO2 seems to be able to turn a neutral or slightly basic solution like evaporating ocean water into a slightly acidic solution like rain water, so a slightly alkaline environment might not greatly hamper the formation of carbonic acid. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The acidity of rain water is greatly enhanced by other acidic players, Such as? W. *Quote:* and the amounts of CO2 and carbonic acid in the atmosphere would be many times greater than what existed in the homicidal gas chambers, and have much more time to do their work. How many times greater, if we assume that Markiewicz et al are right about their 1 % concentration (which Dr. Green considers an underestimate)? W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1% CO2 in contact with an aqueous solution seems to be sufficient to reduce that solutions pH to 5.0, which in turn would lead to a lower dissociation of CN- ions from liquid HCN than with the pH value measured by Markiewicz et al. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yet it must overcome the CN ions in an aqueous solution, which is a stronger acid to cause such. Also, given the stronger acidity of HCN compared with CO2, which would displace the CO2 molecures, wouldn't that raise the pH level (as it is a weaker acid) than its CN counterpart? Maybe thats why Dr. Green wrote on page 54 that *Quote:* The effect may be mitigated by other factors that could increase the pH, but the IFFR were not wrong to consider such effects. W. *Quote:* R.M. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before HCN can penetrate into a walls surface, it must become liquid. The liquid amount of HCN that could form within the time-span of a gassing was very low, according to Dr. Greens calculations, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And as Rudolf has shown, HCN goes into liquid at a much faster rate than CO2 does. It's a race that carbonic acid simply cannot win. You mean that HCN goes into liquid faster than CO2 can influence the walls pH? That may be so. But the walls pH may have been unfavorable to the dissociation of CN- ions independently of the influence of CO2. Or it may have been favorable to that dissociation but too high for forming Hexacyanoferrate. Either way you lose. The essential issues in our discussion, as I see it, are that the pH of the gas chamber walls may have been a) "just right" for the formation of Hexacyanoferrate, or b) too high for that, meaning that no Prussian Blue would form, or c) so low as to inhibit the dissociation of CN ions from the little amount of liquid HCN that could have formed in the gas chamber during the period of a homicidal gassing with the concentrations of HCN gas most likely to have been used, which in turn would lead to a concentration of such ions too low, already before or after some minimal dilution, to start a Prussian Blue reaction. In order to come anywhere close to making your case, you would have to completely exclude scenarios b) and c) and prove that scenario a) must have occurred. I dont think theres any way you can do this. And in the absence of proof that homicidal gassings would necessarily have led to the formation of Prussian Blue on the gas chamber walls, theres no reason to assume that the absence of Prussian Blue is an indication against the reliability of the eyewitness and documentary evidence proving those homicidal gassings. W. *Quote:* And Happy Turkey Day, Roberto. I wish you the same. Custom Signature *Quote:* Allgemein bekannte geschichtliche Tatsachen zu leugnen kann keine Strafe verdienen. Wer etwa behauptet, Deutschland habe am 1. Weltkrieg nicht teilgenommen, oder Adenauer habe 333 bei Issus mitgewirkt, ist durch seine Dummheit genug bestraft. Gleiches muss fr die Leugnung der Scheusslichkeiten und Verbrechen der jngsten deutschen Vergangenheit gelten. ~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261. Translation: *Quote:* Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past. .
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

Yuku free message boards

Quick Reply