Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Aaron Richards » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:06 pm

Currently arguing with a moron on youtube. He cannot see the forest for the trees and tries to cover his weaknesses by spamming jargon. Here are some of his tidbits, kudos if you make it through.

On gassing:

Also, a delousing cycle is about 2 hours. We know this from people who had their cloths deloused and by how long it took to get them back. We also know that Zyklon B out gasses slowly and takes at least an hour to reach near maximum, after which it would outgas for another hour. This, of course, makes the testimony of Somderkommado who claim that people were killed in 5 to 10 minutes absurd. Even in prison gas chambers where massive amounts of hydrogen cyanide are released using sulfuric acid and directly releasing it under the prisoner, it has still taken as long as 17 minutes to achieve death. Washing down the gas chamber walls is a later day invention to help explain the absence of Ferric cyanide. There is no evidence for it. But the HCN is in the air. And the wet walls would only help to facilitate turning HCN into ferric cyanide. Once it turns into ferric cyanide it is like trying to wash off an oil based paint with water. So the wetter they kept those walls, the more ferric cyanide should be there. You failed again. Getting tired of looking stupid yet?



On the formation of Prussian Blue:

There is scientific evidence that cooler wetter temperatures leave behind more hydrogen cyanide than warmer dryer ones. And since the supposed gas chambers were actually mortuaries which were below ground in a cooler wetter environment, they would be more likely to form ferric cyanide on the walls than the delousing chambers. Rudolf gives an example of a church in the US that was freshly plastered and then fumigated with hydrogen cyanide. It produced the Prussian blue color after a single fumigation. The ratio of HCN in the walls of delousing chambers and in the walls of the supposed gas chambers was 1500 to 1.

What school did you take Chemistry in? The Auschwitz school of imaginary chemical reactions? Water does not, as you say, "destroy things". Water is a polar solvent. Polar solvents react with other polar chemicals. Polar solvents do not react with non poplar chemicals. Ferric cyanide is a non polar chemical, therefore it is not effected by water. That is why we can still see the Prussian blue on the outside of the delousing chambers today, because the rain has had no effect on it. The reason why cool and wet helps to form ferric cyanide is because HCN is a gas and cooling gasses helps them condense. And HCN is polar and when it dissolves in water the water serves as a vehicle for enabling the reaction of forming ferric cyanide. But once ferric cyanide is formed, it will no longer dissolve in water. Sorry Bozo, you lose another. Oh, I also read the Green report long ago. Nothing there but handwaving in an effort to try to cast doubt on the chemical work by Rudolf, Leuchter, and Ball. For example, he questions the difference in materials used in gas chamber wall construction and delousing wall construction. But the fact is that all concrete compounds have enough ferric oxide to provide the iron for ferric cyanide.

Carbonic acid will not dissolve ferric-cyanide. And ferric cyanide is not the same thing as HCN. The amount of Carbonic acid that is produced by breathing people is infinitesimal. The equilibrium constant for the reaction of Carbon dioxide with water to form carbonic acid is .0017. The hydration equilibrium constant at 25 °C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] ≈ 1.7×10−3 in pure water[5] and ≈ 1.2×10−3 in seawater.[6] Hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid, remaining as CO2 molecules. In the absence of a catalyst, the equilibrium is reached quite slowly. The rate constants are 0.039 s−1 for the forward reaction (CO2 + H2O → H2CO3) and 23 s−1 for the reverse reaction (H2CO3 → CO2 + H2O). The addition of two molecules of water to CO2 would give orthocarbonic acid, C(OH)4, which exists only in minute amounts in aqueous solution."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acidB.


On cremation:

In fact, there are no aerial photos of coke stored at Auschwitz. There are, however, aerial photos of piles of coke at the Monowitz industrial site - so we know exactly what they should look like. Furthermore, taking a picture and adding smoke is so simple that even a cretin like you can do it. It would have taken months and months to burn any significant amount of people at Auschwitz and at some point we would have gotten aerial pictures of actual open pits with flames coming from those pits, but they don't exist. So you and your photos are as fake as all of the physical evidence you claim to have.

For the period of time that the coke deliveries are covered with documentation they show that only one twentieth of what would be needed was delivered. Your sophistic, Jewish, Alinsky trick of calling it "a scrap of paper" only proves what a desperate liar you are. Regarding my math about the energy required to burn bodies, microbrain, human bodies are almost 70% water. And the amount of energy needed to vaporize water is exactly proportional to the amount of water being vaporized. In fact the amount of energy needed to effect any state change in matter - raising it's temperature, changing it's state from solid to vapor, etc. has as part of the equation the mass of the matter for which you are changing state. Any moron with a beginning chemistry course has had to solve those kinds of equations. So, if you are constantly burning bodies, and once the temperature of the ovens have reached near equalibrium state, yes the amount of fuel is extremely close to the mass you are burning. So two prisoners will take twice as much fuel as one and three will take three times as much. But the fact that only one twentieth of the fuel needed was delivered proves that both you and the argument you are trying to make are total frauds.

One kilo of water takes a certain amount of joules to evaporate. Two kilos take twice as many joules. It doesn't matter if it is Jew water or Pole water or big guy water or little guy water or fat guy water or skinny guy water. Even stupid guy water like yours takes the same number of Jules per kilogram. If a guy has fat that "feeds the flames" then that energy goes into the combustion of his body only if he is the only one being burned. If there are two guys, then the fat of each of them is distributed to the combustion of two bodies. The end result is that you add all the fat for all the number of bodies and divide by the number of bodies to see roughly how much each of them gets in energy. And that average is roughly the amount of fat that a single person has is the amount of fat that contributes to his combustion. The computation for the amount of fuel it takes to burn a body is for an average body with an average amount of fat. So, if you throw a fat Jew and a skinny Jew in the same oven, the amount of fuel needed to cremate them is still the same as if you threw in two average Jews.

And we know how much fuel it takes to cremate a person without any reference to any other camp. We have our own cremation ovens and we know both the energy requirements and the energy that is contained in a kilo of coke. From there you only need to know the efficiency of the oven and you have you answer.

The amount of coke delivered to Auschwitz was low by a factor of 20. So any difference in wheelbarrow amount or average amount per person is in the noise when you only have one twentieth of the fuel that is needed. Besides, I doubt that those skinny starving Jews were delivering large wheelbarrow loads. If anything they would have had small ones.


I've responded to all the key weaknesses embedded within that crap, but I'll keep updating this thread if he adds more horseshyte.
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Oozy_Substance » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:15 pm

Can you link to the comments in Youtube?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20954
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:18 pm

This - "technical gibberish" - makes up a large part of what Rodoh regulars are throwing at Nessie these days.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Aaron Richards » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:20 pm

Oozy_Substance wrote:Can you link to the comments in Youtube?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZYgzW2 ... 9939828311
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Oozy_Substance » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:28 pm

Aaron Richards wrote:
Oozy_Substance wrote:Can you link to the comments in Youtube?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZYgzW2 ... 9939828311


That's one hard truther. They always give me a huge headache. He also spams.

Reaktori
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 12:17 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Reaktori » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:29 pm

It only took me a couple seconds to realize that the guy you are arguing with is an utter cretin. I don't think its worth it to waste any more time with deniers like him.

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Oozy_Substance » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:35 pm

Aharon, may I ask, is your (excellent) blog available somewhere outside imgur? Imgur is not a comfortable platform as you need to scroll down each time anew and it's hard to locate specific texts.

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Aaron Richards » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:40 pm

thanks and sorry, but no. You could use this alternate link that splits the blog up into subsections which can save you time: https://siraaronrichards.imgur.com

I have to get around to setting up a website one day that has a similar layout with pictures accompanied by text, but one that also allows for a quick keyword search function, but the cost factor of maintaining one has this idea currently put on hold. If you know of any good alternatives, let me know.
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Oozy_Substance » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:43 pm

Aharon's denier wrote:The angles at the top of the fence are too square. The Auschwitz fence angle is very round at the top.


This is not the first time I hear it from a denier. Is there a denier-factory somewhere that produces false arguments for deniers? I guess it's CODOH?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20954
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:59 pm

Aaron Richards wrote:thanks and sorry, but no. You could use this alternate link that splits the blog up into subsections which can save you time: https://siraaronrichards.imgur.com

thanks for this option, Aaron, I have each section now bookmarked in its appropriate folder :)
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Oozy_Substance » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:10 pm

Can someone shed some light on the "1/12 of the coke required was delivered to Auschwitz" by Aharon's denier? What is the exact argument and what is the refutation?

Reaktori
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 12:17 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Reaktori » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:19 pm

I think it relates to the "there wasn't enough coke to burn the corpses" canard Irving invoked at the Lipstadt trial, with the deniers own calculations added, which ignores the fact that the records for the amount of Coke delivered to Auschwitz are incomplete (as well as mass cremation in pits.)

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Aaron Richards » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:25 pm

Well first of all the surviving coke records for Auschwitz-Birkenau are incomplete. The denier claim is that of the coke records that have survived, for the period they document, they are only 1/20th of "what is required" to cremate bodies at the rate we know from surviving documents.

The "what is required" part is the deniers' achilles heel, since it's an arbitrary and made up calculation with no basis in reality.

So while we have 1) (partial) coke delivery records and 2) cremation records, we do not have a "coke required per cremation cycle" record at Auschwitz.

This is why it is important to bring up Mauthausen-Gusen's cremation records, which shed a better light on the coke required for a Topf & Sons furnace that is in continuous operation:

imgur.com/TEX7lBh
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20954
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:53 pm

Reaktori wrote:. . . which ignores . . . mass cremation in pits

Which is a bit of sleight of hand in another way: they try taking the mass cremation pits out of the equation by saying that "Outdoor pyres are also consistent with trying to dispose of bodies by natural mortality" (Werd). Which is true, out of context, but doesn't speak to capacity to dispose of corpses from mass murder and can be dealt with in a different part of the discussion.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Regular Poster
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Darren Wilshak » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:20 pm

AAron your denier manages to be in parts equally obnoxious and arrogant.

Are these both major clues that he doesn't know what the Bejesus he is talking about?

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Oozy_Substance » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:41 pm

Deniers like to question anything, so allow me to the the denier's role here - how do we know that the coke records are partial?

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5283
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Monster » Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:44 pm

Aaron Richards wrote:
douchenozzle wrote:
Your sophistic, Jewish, Alinsky trick of calling it "a scrap of paper" only proves what a desperate liar you are.



If someone wants a reasoned discussion of why he denies the Holocaust, I think it's fine. When that person starts using "Jewish" as a derogatory term, that person has instantly shat away all possible reasoned discussion.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Aaron Richards » Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:00 pm

Oozy_Substance wrote:Deniers like to question anything, so allow me to the the denier's role here - how do we know that the coke records are partial?


The available records of coke delivered to Auschwitz only run from February 16, 1942, to October 1943, with a significant gap in the middle. These records show that 497 tons of coke were delivered in 240 deliveries.

source: John C. Zimmerman, “Body Disposal at Auschwitz: The End of Holocaust Denial” (“Fuel Consumption”).

Sonderkommando Henryk Tauber testified:

“…we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty bodies burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat. On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the body began to burn the other bodies would catch light themselves.”

source: Robert Jan van Pelt, The Van Pelt Report (“IV Attestations, 1945-46”)

There is proof that the ovens were designed to reduce fuel usage if continuously operating. A critical piece of evidence comes from a Topf & Sons memo, dated March 11, 1943. The memo, headed “Estimation of coke usage for Crematorium II K L,” suggested that the coke usage could be “reduced by one third” if the ovens were operating on a continuous basis

source: check Jean Claude Pressac's Technique and Operation, page 224 for the document
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Aaron Richards » Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:38 pm

Here is the document in question:

Image

This document is proof that the ovens were designed to reduce fuel usage if continuously operating. This critical piece of evidence is a memo of the oven builders Topf & Sons issued to the Bauleitung, dated March 17, 1943. The memo, headed “Estimation of coke usage for Crematorium II K L, according to data from Topf and Sons from March 11, 1943.” suggests that the coke usage could be “reduced to 2/3rds of the amount otherwise needed” if the ovens were operating on a continuous basis,

...read what the memo says in German: "Bei Dauerbetrieb vermindert sich diese Menge wesentlich, sodass mit 2/3 der Menge gerechnet werden kann."

...which meant that each crematorium would use 2800 kilograms of coke in a 12 hour period. In the eight muffle furnaces of Kremas IV and V the fuel savings were even greater. When those ovens were worked continuously they would burn 1120 kilograms of coke in a 12 hour period. This means that all four crematoria (II, III, IV, V) could operate on 7840 kilograms of coke in a 12 hour period (2800 each for Kremas II and III and 1120 each for Kremas IV and V). The Bauleitung concludes: "These are top achievements. It is not possible to give a number for usage for the year because it is not known how many hours or days it will be needed to heat it."

You can read the cremation debate in its entirety, refuting all claims made by holocaust deniers at: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... -disposal/
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: http://imgur.com/a/725A7

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Oozy_Substance » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:12 pm

Aharon's denier wrote:Aaron Richards If it hasn't occurred to you yet, your record of covering each of your debunked lies by pulling an even bigger lie straight out of your (((ass))) has ended our conversation. You are no longer being read.


Good job, Aharon. He realized he can no longer take this further. Also the use of ((())) exposes his blatant racism against Jews.

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:40 pm

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... caust.html

"It is hereby confirmed that Mr. chief engineer Klettner carried out the planned conversion of the cremation furnace in 2 1/2 weeks, taking into account improvements according to your latest experiences.
Mr. Klettner demonstrated the furnace in operation and handed it over after three days of trial operation with a total of 16 cremations to our complete satisfaction today.
The performance of the oven, especially in terms of fuel consumption, exceeded all expectations. On the third day after the commissioning, cremation times of 40 minutes were already being achieved without any fuel consumption except for the required heating up [of the oven].
You are free to show the oven to the interested parties after a prior notification.
Publication of the above letter without prior permission on this side is not permitted."

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Fri Jul 06, 2018 2:32 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2018/04/a-not-so-short-debunking-of-holocaust.html

"It is hereby confirmed that Mr. chief engineer Klettner carried out the planned conversion of the cremation furnace in 2 1/2 weeks, taking into account improvements according to your latest experiences.
Mr. Klettner demonstrated the furnace in operation and handed it over after three days of trial operation with a total of 16 cremations to our complete satisfaction today.
The performance of the oven, especially in terms of fuel consumption, exceeded all expectations. On the third day after the commissioning, cremation times of 40 minutes were already being achieved without any fuel consumption except for the required heating up [of the oven].
You are free to show the oven to the interested parties after a prior notification.
Publication of the above letter without prior permission on this side is not permitted."


Do you have any more info about this? Your citation of this references it as:

"Thus, the magistrate of Wiesbaden wrote to the firm Topf & Söhne (who had constructed the Auschwitz ovens) on 19.12.1949 (ThHStAW, Bestand Topf u. Söhne, 231, Bl. 35)"

How would one go about looking at this reference?

BTW, Klettner patented a process that he said freed hydrocarbons from their binding with nitrogen in the proteins of corpses in patent 861713 such that the energy gotten from burning that along with the other combustibles of the corpse would be enough energy to incinerate the corpse. This must be what you are referring to here. I have a post about this patent at rodoh here:

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 29#p123329

I have no idea why Van Pelt doesn't see how this patent is more interesting than the other one he fawns over (patent 659405 - Continually operating corpse combustion furnace for large-scale operation).

I myself have never seen the coke consumption argument as a particularly good one because we simply don't know how much coke was available. But it's certainly possible that it could have been the case that whatever procedure was used for the Birkenau ovens could have been much more efficient than what was done at other ovens. Something such as claimed by Klettner could possibly have been realized - at least to some extent.

I don't think you on the anti-Revisionist side have a good enough understanding of cremation and consistently reveal your misconceptions about it. While the claims you make about cremation capacity and such are documented, probably were attainable, and probably in fact occurred, your conceptions about what is entailed in those claims are incorrect and physically impossible. Hence you give bad counter-arguments. That Zimmerman link above is filled with incorrect understandings of innumerable things - most importantly what he is even arguing against with Mattogno. It's sadly ridiculous that those 2 simply talk past each other. I've been thinking about writing a post at rodoh just to specifically clear up Zimmerman's errors of understanding at that link. It's not that he doesn't make some valid points; it's that he misunderstands his own references, and misunderstands that Mattogno is arguing practically the same thing as he without Zimmerman even knowing that! That's how confused Zimmerman is!

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8244
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:39 am

That’s the thing. I’m pretty careful about qualifying any documentation I post about cremation capacity because it is theoretical. It’s possible that at some point the numbers were reached but the crematorium themselves had technical problems that is discussed in “Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp.”

I’ll have to pull it back up and post something about it.
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent

User avatar
Denying-History
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1898
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Denying-History » Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:41 am

The matter of "how much coke" kinda looses track that the Nazis used other materials to cremate corpses, such as the burn pits used near the bunkers or behind crematorium 5. It really isn't a misconception ether, considering from what we know it wouldn't require as much as deniers think it would demand or as Fritjof Meyers thinks it would based on the evidence we currently have.

As for Zimmerman his study has its flaws, but itself contains important aspects that show Mattogno's selectivity on this matter, not that Blake will mention this.
« Yes, that may surprise some people, including my colleagues. But have no illusions. I never compelled anybody to work for me, just as we didn't compel the German people. They themselves gave us the job to do. Why did you work with me? Now, you'll have your little throat cut...but the earth will shake when we leave the scene... »
- Joseph Goebbels

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:20 am

Blake, the letter is also published by Mattogno in his thick ovens book, so you can read it there too. But, to answer your question: when an archival reference is specified, one goes to the archive ;)

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Oozy_Substance » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:50 am

lol, I just noticed I called Aaron "Aharon" the whole time. :oops:
Sorry, I am just used to how it is spelled in Hebrew.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20954
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:51 am

blake121666 wrote:Your citation of this references it as:

"Thus, the magistrate of Wiesbaden wrote to the firm Topf & Söhne (who had constructed the Auschwitz ovens) on 19.12.1949 (ThHStAW, Bestand Topf u. Söhne, 231, Bl. 35)"

How would one go about looking at this reference?

Sergey will clarify but one would go to the Landesarchiv Thüringen to find an archival reference to the Landesarchiv Thüringen. If I am reading ThHStAW correctly.
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20954
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:09 pm

LOL Sergey already did!
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:04 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
blake121666 wrote:Your citation of this references it as:

"Thus, the magistrate of Wiesbaden wrote to the firm Topf & Söhne (who had constructed the Auschwitz ovens) on 19.12.1949 (ThHStAW, Bestand Topf u. Söhne, 231, Bl. 35)"

How would one go about looking at this reference?

Sergey will clarify but one would go to the Landesarchiv Thüringen to find an archival reference to the Landesarchiv Thüringen. If I am reading ThHStAW correctly.

Thüringisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Weimar.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20954
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:39 pm

Thanks Sergey oh well I got Thuringia right :)
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:42 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Thanks Sergey oh well I got Thuringia right :)

ThHStAW is a part of the LaTh, so it's all good.

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:19 am

No, let me quickly explain your misconceptions. What is claimed at AB is that the ovens were stoked with corpses - not that corpses were sequentially cremated start to finish. The cremation process would have to entail the following: evaporation of water, ignition, combustion, incineration.

So, just to focus on my first sentence there: stoking. Mattogno is aware that the Gusen oven manuals refer to the process of stoking done there. That was:

1. One corpse inserted into a muffle until combustion
2. After combustion, the remnants of that combustion fall through the grating separating the muffle volume from the ash chamber volume and a new corpse is entered into the muffle
3. The ash chamber fully cremates the remnants in there - which takes about 20 minutes while the newly added corpse goes through the phases up to combustion.

This is all stated in the manual for the Gusen oven. And this is the "stoking" that Mattogno assumes for most of the ovens - icluding those at AB. So everywhere that Zimmerman keeps foolishly saying that Mattogno doesn't consider a stoking procedure (in different words - I'd have to re-look at his writing) he is incorrect. Mattogno assumes the above stoking procedure. Now I consider alternate stoking procedures for AB which I will come to later. But let's just continue with this particular Gusen (and most of the rest) stoking procedure.

Obviously, the time for any corpse to fully cremate with this procedure is the time spent in the muffle volume plus the time spent in the ash chamber - where it fully cremates. But the AVERAGE cremation time would be the interval between entering a corpse into the muffle. The time the earlier corpse spends in the ash chamber it spends with the newly added corpse. Over a process of many corpses, the AVERAGE corpse cremation time is simply this combustion time spent in the muffle - because the ash chamber times overlap. So if you placed a corpse into the muffle an average of every 35 minutes, then the time to cremate N corpses would be 35N minutes plus the time in the ash chamber of the last corpse (call it Ta). And so the average cremation time for the N corpses would be 35 minutes + Ta/N. Ta is about 20 minutes and N is about 100 let's say. So Ta/N is negligible to 35 minutes. So the average cremation time is the average combustion time (time spent in the muffle). IT IS NOT THE AVERAGE TIME IT TAKES TO CREMATE ANY PARTICULAR CORPSE. In caps is what you people need to get into your brains.

So when Mattogno speculates about the average cremation time, he is talking about the average combustion time - not any full cremation time. That Zimmerman never GETS this trivially simple point in his writings gives a person a headache when reading them.

Now Mattogno assumes this same process at AB. The process is indeed more or less the same at all the German cremation facilities; but it is claimed to be different for the AB ovens. And THAT is your difference with Mattogno.

For Birkenau, it is claimed that the ovens were designed to cremate 2-3 corpses at a time per muffle. On a tangential aside, keep in mind that when I say 2-3 corpses I mean the general density there. If you put, say, 8 infant corpses in there that took up about the weight and volume of 3 adults, we're talking about the same thing. Back on topic, the AB ovens averaged 2-3 corpses at a time in each muffle, and are claimed to have had the capability to combust those in about 30 minutes. COMBUST THEM - NOT INCINERATE THEM - get this into your heads. So 2-3 corpses combust in about 30 minutes time and their remnants of that combustion transfer to the ash chamber and 2-3 more corpses are then added to the muffle. The remnants in the ash chamber take as much time as it takes to be fully incinerated (probably about 40-60 minutes more) with the remnants of the ensuing interim corpses that have been added. The AVERAGE as I explained above is about 4 corpses per hour - but that is merely the average time between muffle stoking. And this EQUALS the average cremation time over many corpses.

If and when you start confusing these facts, you get into the area of saying physically impossible things. There's only so much energy one of these cremation ovens can possibly put out as heat to run through the full incineration process. While it is the case that you are fully cremating on Mattogno's schedule (more or less), you are stoking the oven and getting a different AVERAGE.

So the process is this:

1. One or more corpses are added into the muffle volume
2. These particular ovens are designed such that high temperature direct flames are directed at these corpses to evaporate their water, ignite, and combust them as quickly as possible.
3. Some way or other muffle space is freed up - most likely by transferring the combustion remnants to the ash chamber - and more corpses are added.

So if an average 2-3 corpses are added to the muffle in an average 30 minutes time, the average cremation rate for that would be 4-6 corpses per hour. But the average incineration rate for any particular corpse would be much longer. That would be about 40 minutes per corpse. This is because of energy considerations - you don't have an order of magnitude more energy than the standard case - and you CAN'T have that or you would melt the oven.

Such are the flaws in your typical logic - as found throughout the Zimmerman link there.
Last edited by blake121666 on Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Balmoral95
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1766
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Balmoral95 » Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:41 am

blake121666 wrote:No, let me quickly explain your misconceptions. What is claimed at AB is that the ovens were stoked with corpses - not that corpses were sequentially cremated start to finish. The cremation process would have to entail the following: evaporation of water, ignition, combustion, incineration.

So, just to focus on my first sentence there: stoking. Mattogno is aware that the Gusen oven manuals refer to the process of stoking done there. That was:

1. One corpse inserted into a muffle until combustion
2. After combustion, the remnants of that combustion fall through the grating separating the muffle volume from the ash chamber volume and a new corpse is entered into the muffle
3. The ash chamber fully cremates the remnants in there - which takes about 20 minutes while the newly added corpse goes through the phases up to combustion.

This is all stated in the manual for the Gusen oven. And this is the "stoking" that Mattogno assumes for most of the ovens - icluding those at AB. So everywhere that Zimmerman keeps foolishly saying that Mattogno doesn't consider a stoking procedure (in different words - I'd have to re-look at his writing) he is incorrect. Mattogno assumes the above stoking procedure. Now I consider alternate stoking procedures for AB which I will come to later. But let's just continue with this particular Gusen (and most of the rest) stoking procedure.

Obviously, the time for any corpse to fully cremate with this procedure is the time spent in the muffle volume plus the time spent in the ash chamber - where it fully cremates. But the AVERAGE cremation time would be the interval between entering a corpse into the muffle. The time the earlier corpse spends in the ash chamber it spends with the newly added corpse. Over a process of many corpses, the AVERAGE corpse cremation time is simply this combustion time spent in the muffle - because the ash chamber times overlap. So if you placed a corpse into the muffle an average of every 35 minutes, then the time to cremate N corpses would be 35N minutes plus the time in the ash chamber of the last corpse (call it Ta). And so the average cremation time for the N corpses would be 35 minutes + Ta/N. Ta is about 20 minutes and N is about 100 let's say. So Ta/N is negligible to 35 minutes. So the average cremation time is the average combustion time (time spent in the muffle). IT IS NOT THE AVERAGE TIME IT TAKES TO CREMATE ANY PARTICULAR CORPSE. In caps is what you people need to get into your brains.

So when Mattogno speculates about the average cremation time, he is talking about the average combustion time - not any full cremation time. That Zimmerman never GETS this trivially simple point in his writings gives a person a headache when reading them.

Now Mattogno assumes this same process at AB. The process is indeed more or less the same at all the German cremation facilities; but it is claimed to be different for the AB ovens. And THAT is your difference with Mattogno.

For Birkenau, it is claimed that the ovens were designed to cremate 2-3 corpses at a time per muffle. On a tangential aside, keep in mind that when I say 2-3 corpses I mean the general density there. If you put, say, 8 infant corpses in there that took up about the weight and volume of 3 adults, we're talking about the same thing. Back on topic, the AB ovens averaged 2-3 corpses at a time in each muffle, and are claimed to have had the capability to combust those in about 30 minutes. COMBUST THEM - NOT INCINERATE THEM - get this into your heads. So 2-3 corpses combust in about 30 minutes time and their remnants of that combustion transfer to the ash chamber and 2-3 more corpses are then added to the muffle. The remnants in the ash chamber take as much time as it takes to be fully incinerated (probably about 40-60 minutes more) with the remnant of the ensuing corpses that have been added. The AVERAGE as I explained above is about 4 corpses per hour - but that is merely the average time between muffle stoking. And this EQUALS the average cremation time over many corpses.

If and when you start confusing these facts, you get into the area of saying physically impossible things. There's only so much energy one of these cremation ovens can possibly put out as heat to run through the full incineration process. While it is the case that you are fully cremating on Mattogno's schedule (more or less), you are stoking the oven and getting a different AVERAGE.

So the process is this:

1. One or more corpses are added into the muffle volume
2. These particular ovens are designed such that high temperature direct flames are directed at these corpses to evaporate their water, ignite, and combust them as quickly as possible.
3. Some way or other muffle space is freed up - most likely by transferring the combustion remnants to the ash chamber - and more corpses are added.

So if an average 2-3 corpses are added to the muffle in an average 30 minutes time, the average cremation rate for that would be 4-6 corpses per hour. But the average incineration rate for any particular corpse would be much longer. That would be about 40 minutes per corpse. This is because of energy considerations - you don't have an order of magnitude more energy than the standard case - and you CAN'T have that or you would melt the oven.

Such are the flaws in your typical logic - as found throughout the Zimmerman link there.


I like this explanation.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Hans » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:42 am

Blake,

you should not generalize on "anti-Revisionists" when you only talk about the (outdated) work of Zimmerman and those who cite him.

Take a look on a more recent treatement of the topic (and feel free to point out any misconceptions):

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 1: Indoor Cremation

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 20954
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:05 pm

good reminder, Hans, frankly HC is where I start to find out about any topic for which I have not done my own reading/study
You know, my dear Colonel General, I don't really believe that the Russians will attack at all. It's all an enormous bluff. - Heinrich Himmler to Heinz Guderian, December 1944

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8244
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:14 pm

I do the same. I also rely on D-H as my gas chamber expert... :D
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent

blake121666
Poster
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:51 pm

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby blake121666 » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:15 pm

Aaron Richards wrote:Currently arguing with a moron on youtube. He cannot see the forest for the trees and tries to cover his weaknesses by spamming jargon. Here are some of his tidbits, kudos if you make it through.

On gassing:

Also, a delousing cycle is about 2 hours. We know this from people who had their cloths deloused and by how long it took to get them back. We also know that Zyklon B out gasses slowly and takes at least an hour to reach near maximum, after which it would outgas for another hour. This, of course, makes the testimony of Somderkommado who claim that people were killed in 5 to 10 minutes absurd. Even in prison gas chambers where massive amounts of hydrogen cyanide are released using sulfuric acid and directly releasing it under the prisoner, it has still taken as long as 17 minutes to achieve death. Washing down the gas chamber walls is a later day invention to help explain the absence of Ferric cyanide. There is no evidence for it. But the HCN is in the air. And the wet walls would only help to facilitate turning HCN into ferric cyanide. Once it turns into ferric cyanide it is like trying to wash off an oil based paint with water. So the wetter they kept those walls, the more ferric cyanide should be there. You failed again. Getting tired of looking stupid yet?



On the formation of Prussian Blue:

There is scientific evidence that cooler wetter temperatures leave behind more hydrogen cyanide than warmer dryer ones. And since the supposed gas chambers were actually mortuaries which were below ground in a cooler wetter environment, they would be more likely to form ferric cyanide on the walls than the delousing chambers. Rudolf gives an example of a church in the US that was freshly plastered and then fumigated with hydrogen cyanide. It produced the Prussian blue color after a single fumigation. The ratio of HCN in the walls of delousing chambers and in the walls of the supposed gas chambers was 1500 to 1.

What school did you take Chemistry in? The Auschwitz school of imaginary chemical reactions? Water does not, as you say, "destroy things". Water is a polar solvent. Polar solvents react with other polar chemicals. Polar solvents do not react with non poplar chemicals. Ferric cyanide is a non polar chemical, therefore it is not effected by water. That is why we can still see the Prussian blue on the outside of the delousing chambers today, because the rain has had no effect on it. The reason why cool and wet helps to form ferric cyanide is because HCN is a gas and cooling gasses helps them condense. And HCN is polar and when it dissolves in water the water serves as a vehicle for enabling the reaction of forming ferric cyanide. But once ferric cyanide is formed, it will no longer dissolve in water. Sorry Bozo, you lose another. Oh, I also read the Green report long ago. Nothing there but handwaving in an effort to try to cast doubt on the chemical work by Rudolf, Leuchter, and Ball. For example, he questions the difference in materials used in gas chamber wall construction and delousing wall construction. But the fact is that all concrete compounds have enough ferric oxide to provide the iron for ferric cyanide.

Carbonic acid will not dissolve ferric-cyanide. And ferric cyanide is not the same thing as HCN. The amount of Carbonic acid that is produced by breathing people is infinitesimal. The equilibrium constant for the reaction of Carbon dioxide with water to form carbonic acid is .0017. The hydration equilibrium constant at 25 °C is called Kh, which in the case of carbonic acid is [H2CO3]/[CO2] ≈ 1.7×10−3 in pure water[5] and ≈ 1.2×10−3 in seawater.[6] Hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid, remaining as CO2 molecules. In the absence of a catalyst, the equilibrium is reached quite slowly. The rate constants are 0.039 s−1 for the forward reaction (CO2 + H2O → H2CO3) and 23 s−1 for the reverse reaction (H2CO3 → CO2 + H2O). The addition of two molecules of water to CO2 would give orthocarbonic acid, C(OH)4, which exists only in minute amounts in aqueous solution."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acidB.


On cremation:

In fact, there are no aerial photos of coke stored at Auschwitz. There are, however, aerial photos of piles of coke at the Monowitz industrial site - so we know exactly what they should look like. Furthermore, taking a picture and adding smoke is so simple that even a cretin like you can do it. It would have taken months and months to burn any significant amount of people at Auschwitz and at some point we would have gotten aerial pictures of actual open pits with flames coming from those pits, but they don't exist. So you and your photos are as fake as all of the physical evidence you claim to have.

For the period of time that the coke deliveries are covered with documentation they show that only one twentieth of what would be needed was delivered. Your sophistic, Jewish, Alinsky trick of calling it "a scrap of paper" only proves what a desperate liar you are. Regarding my math about the energy required to burn bodies, microbrain, human bodies are almost 70% water. And the amount of energy needed to vaporize water is exactly proportional to the amount of water being vaporized. In fact the amount of energy needed to effect any state change in matter - raising it's temperature, changing it's state from solid to vapor, etc. has as part of the equation the mass of the matter for which you are changing state. Any moron with a beginning chemistry course has had to solve those kinds of equations. So, if you are constantly burning bodies, and once the temperature of the ovens have reached near equalibrium state, yes the amount of fuel is extremely close to the mass you are burning. So two prisoners will take twice as much fuel as one and three will take three times as much. But the fact that only one twentieth of the fuel needed was delivered proves that both you and the argument you are trying to make are total frauds.

One kilo of water takes a certain amount of joules to evaporate. Two kilos take twice as many joules. It doesn't matter if it is Jew water or Pole water or big guy water or little guy water or fat guy water or skinny guy water. Even stupid guy water like yours takes the same number of Jules per kilogram. If a guy has fat that "feeds the flames" then that energy goes into the combustion of his body only if he is the only one being burned. If there are two guys, then the fat of each of them is distributed to the combustion of two bodies. The end result is that you add all the fat for all the number of bodies and divide by the number of bodies to see roughly how much each of them gets in energy. And that average is roughly the amount of fat that a single person has is the amount of fat that contributes to his combustion. The computation for the amount of fuel it takes to burn a body is for an average body with an average amount of fat. So, if you throw a fat Jew and a skinny Jew in the same oven, the amount of fuel needed to cremate them is still the same as if you threw in two average Jews.

And we know how much fuel it takes to cremate a person without any reference to any other camp. We have our own cremation ovens and we know both the energy requirements and the energy that is contained in a kilo of coke. From there you only need to know the efficiency of the oven and you have you answer.

The amount of coke delivered to Auschwitz was low by a factor of 20. So any difference in wheelbarrow amount or average amount per person is in the noise when you only have one twentieth of the fuel that is needed. Besides, I doubt that those skinny starving Jews were delivering large wheelbarrow loads. If anything they would have had small ones.


I've responded to all the key weaknesses embedded within that crap, but I'll keep updating this thread if he adds more horseshyte.


I actually didn't read your OP until now; but there are alot of technical details being thrown around there and I'm not sure what exactly is being addressed throughout.

The "2 hour" delousing cycle he is referring to would be a different procedure than alleged for the homicidal gassings - involving forced circulation in a small, warm, and packed room. A delousing in the large rooms alleged at Auschwitz w/o forced circulation would take much longer. But this is due to the requirement to ensure that each nook and cranny receives enough gas pressure to penetrate and kill lice eggs. With the alleged homicidal gassing of persons, one need only ensure that each person inhales a lethal amount of HCN to kill him in a reasonable amount of time. 5 to 10 minutes is absurd as he says to ensure that each person in the room has been subjected to and inhaled a lethal dose resulting in a quick death. But the outgassing and propagation of the gas is exponential and something like 30 minutes would probably ensure this.

On the Prussian Blue issues: It's too complicated an issue for anyone to claim that prussian blue would necessarily form in the walls of the alleged gas chambers. It is rarer for prussian blue to form than to not form. He cannot guarantee that all conditions required for the formation of prussian blue were necessarily met in the alleged gassing scenario.

On cremation: The AB cremations are said to have been industrialized to optimize the number of corpses that could be cremated in the long times it would take to cremate the very large numbers alleged to have been cremated. It is not known how much coke was available. And the fuel requirements could very well have been lower for the industrialized process employed than for non-industrialized cremation processes. He is looking at the energy balance incorrectly with his descriptions. The beginning process of cremating a corpse is an energy sink - requiring energy to evaporate water from the corpse to ignite and combust the corpse. The water evaporation requires external energy applied to the corpse but then the combustibles of the corpse become a heat energy source. So there is some play in the heat balance possible. The important consideration for the industrialized cremation process is freeing up space in the oven to be able insert more corpses in the shortest time.

It looks to me that this person has probably bested you in his arguments - even though I haven't seen your arguments. There are no soundbite replies that you have available for these arguments of his.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8244
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:35 pm

blake121666 wrote:
I actually didn't read your OP until now; but there are alot of technical details being thrown around there and I'm not sure what exactly is being addressed throughout.

The "2 hour" delousing cycle he is referring to would be a different procedure than alleged for the homicidal gassings - involving forced circulation in a small, warm, and packed room. A delousing in the large rooms alleged at Auschwitz w/o forced circulation would take much longer. But this is due to the requirement to ensure that each nook and cranny receives enough gas pressure to penetrate and kill lice eggs.


It’s been some time since I looked up the technical details but I thought the timetable was 2-6 hours. This is something I thought of and brought up before, not only do you need to insure that the lice die but that their eggs are destroyed. Otherwise you just get another infestation.



With the alleged homicidal gassing of persons, one need only ensure that each person inhales a lethal amount of HCN to kill him in a reasonable amount of time. 5 to 10 minutes is absurd as he says to ensure that each person in the room has been subjected to and inhaled a lethal dose resulting in a quick death. But the outgassing and propagation of the gas is exponential and something like 30 minutes would probably ensure this.


The mesh columns in the gas chambers helped spread the gas equally so that helped. As I’ve noted before not only are the victims dealing with cyanide poisoning but their own carbon dioxide. You also have people trampling one another to get away from the source of gas so you have trauma involved.
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Sergey_Romanov » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:49 pm

> Washing down the gas chamber walls is a later day invention to help explain the absence of Ferric cyanide.

That's a direct lie. Anyway, he seems to repeat the Rudolf arguments debunked by Green. E.g. on time of death.

In addition to Green's arguments, there's also this to consider: https://www.argunners.com/lack-prussian ... -chambers/

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8244
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Technical gibberish spewed by deniers

Postby Jeffk 1970 » Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:24 pm

blake121666 wrote:
It looks to me that this person has probably bested you in his arguments - even though I haven't seen your arguments. There are no soundbite replies that you have available for these arguments of his.



Actually no. Aaron is doing well. This person is just parroting HH crap.
When my son had his barmitzvah, and his wedding, there was no family whatsoever -that’s the way the second and third generation feel the Holocaust, they miss their family. My son hasn’t experienced a family life –having uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers. There is just that hole.
Edith Baneth
Savage Continent


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest