Flaws and Limitations in Chemistry of Auschwitz

[ConfusedJew]

Just to be clear, are you claiming that the Prussian blue in the fumigation chambers (below for example) is NOT due to Zyklon B usage?

If the above is due to Zyklon B usage, then how would this not be "relevant"?

If they tested "all" of the cyanide as you claim and did not exclude anything, then can you explain why Rudolf and Leuchter got readings over 1,000 ppm while the Poles got reading below 1.0 ppm even when testing fumigation chamber samples with visible blue staining?

No, I am not saying that the Prussian Blue was not caused by Zyklon B usage.

Can you be more specific here with what was measured. What exactly was measured at 1,000 ppm while Poles got below 1.0 ppm?

[ConfusedJew]

I will reiterate, I will never see Prussian Blue where they said it would be.

Who said there would be Prussian Blue in homicidal gas chambers? That was never the expectation from what I understand.

[Stubble]

CJ, what is the point of excluding long term stable cyanide residues when testing for cyanide 40+ years after the fact?

This don't strike you as odd?

What specifically should exist is inexplicably absent. Long term stable iron blue.

No. Iron blue was not expected to form and it obviously didn't because you would be able to see it. Why should they have tested for it.

J. Bailer (1) writes in the collective work "Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit" that the formation of Prussian blue in bricks is simply improbable; however, he takes into consideration the possibility that the walls of the delousing room were coated with this dye as a paint. It should be added that this blue coloration does not appear on the walls of all the delousing rooms.

If the blue coloration didn't even appear in all of delousing rooms, why would you expect it in homicidal chambers where the gas exposure would have been much less and the special conditions were much less likely to exist?

Read page 336 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz' by Germar Rudolf

Further suggested reading from 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz' by Germar Rudolf

Formation and Stability of Iron Blue p181-226

Zyklon B for the Killing of Human Beings p227-298

(Special attention to 227-236, 241-269)

With regard to explaining the inexplicable, feel free, why would one not expect Prussian Blue to form in the various homicidal gas chambers, furthermore, if it is indeed absent, why was it detected by various labs? The issue isn't that there isn't Iron Blue, it is that the levels are not compatible with the claim.

500 people per day for an entire year
were apparently gassed, without leaving any trace above background? (This is completely leaving out The Hungarian Aktion, roughly half of the claimed dead) Color me skeptical.

It seems like we have been over part of this before;

Picture 1, Auschwitz Birkenau delousing facility.

Picture 2, Majdanek delousing facility, formerly claimed to be a homicidal gas chamber (that one actually may still be claimed, although, I think they have moved to the room next to it and now claim CO from cylinders as the instrument of death. I'd have to check.)

Picture 3, delousing room in Bath and Disinfection 1 Majdanek.

Let me grab you links.

All three of these places are covered in 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz', along with a few others I did not mention.

Book 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz';
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... auschwitz/

Film >same name<;
https://holocausthandbooks.com/video/th ... auschwitz/

Embed;


I also want to be sure to note, if you weren't saying iron blue can't from on red brick, concrete, or plaster, I have no idea what the hell you were trying to say, because, the implication from your post is that iron blue could not have formed at the liken keller of Auschwitz Birkenau Kremas II and III, because they were made of 1) red brick, 2) concrete and 3) plaster.

[Archie]

Just to be clear, are you claiming that the Prussian blue in the fumigation chambers (below for example) is NOT due to Zyklon B usage?

If the above is due to Zyklon B usage, then how would this not be "relevant"?

If they tested "all" of the cyanide as you claim and did not exclude anything, then can you explain why Rudolf and Leuchter got readings over 1,000 ppm while the Poles got reading below 1.0 ppm even when testing fumigation chamber samples with visible blue staining?

No, I am not saying that the Prussian Blue was not caused by Zyklon B usage.

Can you be more specific here with what was measured. What exactly was measured at 1,000 ppm while Poles got below 1.0 ppm?

Ok, so now you are conceding that the Prussian blue is a consequence of Zyklon. But then why did you say Prussian blue was a "red herring" and imply that it wasn't relevant? If the PB is a consequence of Zyklon, then it seems pretty damn relevant.

And then I like how you are asking me about the numbers when I was responding to your post where "you" were commenting on the exact thing I'm talking about. Oh, silly me, assuming you had familiarity with tables "you" were posting about earlier in the thread.

This obviously isn't true. The Krakow study proved the Holocaust but Rudolf dismissed it without even giving a reason.

This seems like hallucination. What "Krakow study" are you talking about, exactly, for which it is claimed that Rudolf "dismissed it without even giving a reason"?

This never happened, so either you can explain why you interpreted it or made it up this way or we can chalk this up as CJ being up to his usual ChatGPT copy-pasta, which means you're back on the fast-track for another ban.

Rudolf ignores the question they were actually testing. Markiewicz et al. weren’t studying the pigment. They tested whether cyanide residues of any kind remained in the walls. Their method was valid for that purpose — and they did find residues. Rudolf simply redefines the goal of the study to make it “wrong.”

He does include a table with their data but misrepresents the labeling. While the Kraków team presented “total cyanide” data, Rudolf presented it as “cyanide without Iron Blue,” which falsely suggests they deliberately excluded relevant data, when in fact they used a standard forensic method designed to measure all chemically available cyanide relevant to Zyklon B exposure.

Here is a direct quote from Rudolf that is pseudoscience and deflects from the actual data, whether it was intentional or not.

In actual fact, however, the homicidal gas chambers contain such low cyanide concentrations that they are neither capable of reproducible detection nor of adequate interpretation: The actual detected values are in any case at least
some 150 to 10,000 times lower than those detectable in the walls of the disinfestation chambers, or, if using the values established in Subsection 8.3.6, there is a two-thousandfold differential between the two. It seems unlikely that
CO2 could be the reason for such drastic differences.

Rudolf admits cyanide but fallaciously disregards it as ‘not reproducible'. In science, inconsistent data mean the test or sampling was inadequate — not that the substance never existed.

Saying residues are “not reproducibly detectable” means his own sampling was inconsistent — not that cyanide was never there. Because his sampling differs from Markiewicz' results, he just ignores the difference and assumes that his own sampling is right.

Above "you" are directly commenting on the very results I was referring to. Yet when I reply you have no idea what I'm talking about. Because your post above is a dishonest copy-paste job.



The Poles chose a method that can't detect iron cyanides (which is >99.9% of the cyanide). That's why their numbers are super low across the board, including in the fumigation chambers.

[Nessie]

...Most of the HCN did evaporate and disperse, but a tiny portion chemically bound itself to minerals and metals in the masonry before it escaped. That’s why trace residues could still be detected decades later.

After the gassing stopped and the space was ventilated, nearly all of that HCN escaped into the atmosphere and decomposed (within hours to days).

...

The forced ventilation, described by Karl Schultze;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61650

"The ventilation installation provided for a ten-times air exchange; it served to suck out the gas that had collected and pump in fresh air. The pipes of the ventilation, which I personally constructed for the gas chamber, were immured in the walls of the chamber."

Meant that there was limited exposure to the walls of the chambers, so there was little chance for any bonding in the walls. The gassing process, did not leave time to leave much residue.

Debunked repeatedly.
viewtopic.php?t=162

Ten air exchanges per hour was standard for a morgue.

That air exchange number assumes perfect mixing of old and fresh air. You would never achieve that in a room full of bodies with the intake and outtake the way they had it.

https://beamcentralsystems.com/mechanic ... entilation

"Purge ventilation is the rapid removal of stale, moist air, and pollutants from a room...A Purge Ventilation system from Beam is equivalent to 4 air changes per hour, meeting regulations."

https://www.envirovent.com/help-and-adv ... gulations/

"A system for purge should be provided for each habitable room and should be capable of achieving 4 ACH directly to outside.

If a wet room (kitchen/utility/bathroom/WC/ensuite) has no external walls and an intermittent extract fan is being used, the fan should extract at 4ACH (Air Changes per Hour) to provide purge ventilation."

[Nessie]

...



Everyone agrees that these rooms had frequent and extensive exposure to Zyklon B. If you measure total cyanide, which is correct procedure, you will get over 1,000 ppm in these fumigation rooms. Markiewicz's tests give you <1.0 ppm. Do you not realize how little that is? The Poles were doing damage control and picked a method intended to obscure the massive observable difference between the fumigation chambers and the fake gas chambers. This was done for political reasons, not for any legitimate scientific considerations.

Why do the 7 samples from block 3 vary so much?
Why has Krema II only had one sample result?
Why has Krema II got a question mark next to plaster?
Has block 3 got the same type of wall as the Kremas?
How much exposure is needed on the wall at block 3, before Prussian Blue starts to form?
How much exposure is needed on the wall at Krema II, before Prussian Blue starts to form?

I know that is a lot of questions, but you present as an expert on the subject, who should easily answer my questions.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Embed;

Oskar Gröning was NOT “imprisoned for HolyH TRUTH”.
That is not ‘true’!
So… He doesn’t deserve to be included amongst those other brave, principled heroes of ‘truth’.

Oskar tried to gain some sort of pretence of virtue and decency by posing with virtuous regret as someone opposing ‘holyh denial’. He did that by contradicting on tiny details Thies Christoferson’s courageous eye-witness rebuttal of the Auschwitz myth. He did that first in 1986, and in more detail in 1991.
Oskar Gröning was thus used by the HolyH promoters BECAUSE he also was stationed at Auschwitz and had worked there.

So… His betrayal was very welcome initially by those wanting to have a response to the courageous revelations from Christofersson and Wilhelm Stäglich, both of whom had worked at Auschwitz.
Consequently Oskar Gröning was interviewed and shown on a HolyH promotion film (‘documentary’); though to do that effectively his comments in German had to be added to in the captioned translations. I.e. they invented false statements in English that weren’t in his comments in German. [These false, additional, invented statements in English are even today claimed to be his actual words. See the wikipedia page on him].

His betrayal and willing participation in spreading falsities backfired on him spectacularly when a decade or two later (2014) when he was in his nineties, vengeful ‘jews’ who had no further use for portraying him as an ‘honest nazi’, decided to use him again for their retribution, fake-justice circus in Germany. They put him on trial, accusing him of having been an “accessory to murder”.

[HansHill]

...



Everyone agrees that these rooms had frequent and extensive exposure to Zyklon B. If you measure total cyanide, which is correct procedure, you will get over 1,000 ppm in these fumigation rooms. Markiewicz's tests give you <1.0 ppm. Do you not realize how little that is? The Poles were doing damage control and picked a method intended to obscure the massive observable difference between the fumigation chambers and the fake gas chambers. This was done for political reasons, not for any legitimate scientific considerations.

Why do the 7 samples from block 3 vary so much?
Why has Krema II only had one sample result?
Why has Krema II got a question mark next to plaster?
Has block 3 got the same type of wall as the Kremas?
How much exposure is needed on the wall at block 3, before Prussian Blue starts to form?
How much exposure is needed on the wall at Krema II, before Prussian Blue starts to form?

I know that is a lot of questions, but you present as an expert on the subject, who should easily answer my questions.

I didn't have this on my bingo card for today.

1) You realize you are probing and critiquing the 1990 Markiewicz report, yes? The one that Revisionists also probe and critique?

2) Why did you chop the start of Archie's post where he writes:

Nonsense. All these miniscule trace readings from Markiewicz merely underscore the absurdity of his method which struggles to detect cyanide even in the disinfestation chambers.

3) That part of the quote taken in context (which I have emphasized) means that your probing and critiquing the methodology means that you share the same critiques about this report that Revisionists hold.

4) Revisoinists have discussed this report and it's failings ad nauseam, in fact I opened my account here on CODOH critiquing this exact report, and the absurd results and methodologies here: viewtopic.php?p=1837#p1837

5) It is your buddie Confused Jew who insists this report stands on merit, and has cited it many times including in this very thread. Perhaps you should drop the snark towards Archie, and address your questions towards Confused Jew who leans heavily on this report (and its followup) as central to his position?

[Nessie]

....

I didn't have this on my bingo card for today.

1) You realize you are probing and critiquing the 1990 Markiewicz report, yes? The one that Revisionists also probe and critique?

I am asking questions to get a better understanding.

2) Why did you chop the start of Archie's post where he writes:

Nonsense. All these miniscule trace readings from Markiewicz merely underscore the absurdity of his method which struggles to detect cyanide even in the disinfestation chambers.

Because I was already asking a lot of questions, just about the table.

3) That part of the quote taken in context (which I have emphasized) means that your probing and critiquing the methodology means that you share the same critiques about this report that Revisionists hold.

That suggests you do not understand it, which is something I have suspected for a while. I see overconfident so-called revisionists positioning themselves as if they are experts, when they are clearly not.

4) Revisoinists have discussed this report and it's failings ad nauseam, in fact I opened my account here on CODOH critiquing this exact report, and the absurd results and methodologies here: viewtopic.php?p=1837#p1837

He gets low readings, like Rudolf got low readings and Leuchter got no readings at all. No one disputes that the readings for the various remains of the Kremas and the two farmhouse/bunkers are lower than in delousing chambers. That he gets low readings, when that is what you believe, makes your claim of absurdity rather odd. He produces results you accept!

5) It is your buddie Confused Jew who insists this report stands on merit, and has cited it many times including in this very thread. Perhaps you should drop the snark towards Archie, and address your questions towards Confused Jew who leans heavily on this report (and its followup) as central to his position?

This is where it gets difficult, especially with Archie removing some of my responses. There are two parts to the chemistry. The result of the testing and the conclusion to be reached from the conclusion. The result is agreed, the residue level is low. The conclusion is where there is disagreement.

Can we conclude, based on the chemistry alone, that the Kremas were not used as gas chambers? So-called revisionists argue yes, others argue no. That is where evidence of usage comes into play, except that you, Archie and others do not want to discuss that.

CJ explained that issue, when he said, "Rudolf assumes that the amount of cyanide found in a wall sample can directly tell us whether mass gassings happened." "Rudolf never establishes an expected signal, only an asserted one. Without that, “lower than expected” becomes “lower than something I assumed,” which isn’t a scientific inference."

Rudolf, Archie and you are scientifically and evidentially wrong, to end the investigation with only the test results and make a conclusion from that.

[Archie]

The forced ventilation, described by Karl Schultze;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61650

"The ventilation installation provided for a ten-times air exchange; it served to suck out the gas that had collected and pump in fresh air. The pipes of the ventilation, which I personally constructed for the gas chamber, were immured in the walls of the chamber."

Meant that there was limited exposure to the walls of the chambers, so there was little chance for any bonding in the walls. The gassing process, did not leave time to leave much residue.

Debunked repeatedly.
viewtopic.php?t=162

Ten air exchanges per hour was standard for a morgue.

That air exchange number assumes perfect mixing of old and fresh air. You would never achieve that in a room full of bodies with the intake and outtake the way they had it.

https://beamcentralsystems.com/mechanic ... entilation

"Purge ventilation is the rapid removal of stale, moist air, and pollutants from a room...A Purge Ventilation system from Beam is equivalent to 4 air changes per hour, meeting regulations."

https://www.envirovent.com/help-and-adv ... gulations/

"A system for purge should be provided for each habitable room and should be capable of achieving 4 ACH directly to outside.

If a wet room (kitchen/utility/bathroom/WC/ensuite) has no external walls and an intermittent extract fan is being used, the fan should extract at 4ACH (Air Changes per Hour) to provide purge ventilation."

What do those links have to do with what we are talking about? I'm not interested in your random Google results.

In LK1, the extraction vent was near the floor. After a hypothetical gassing, it would be obscured by dead bodies. Moreover, since HCN is lighter than air and rises, having the extraction fan near the floor would be less effective.

The fresh air intake was at the top and was near the extraction point. Since the two vents were close to each other, this means the air would not mix perfectly (i.e., you would never achieve 10 air exchanges per hour). And having the room full of bodies would further impede the mixture of the new and old air.

Your little links do not address any of these points in any way whatsoever.

[Archie]

This is where it gets difficult, especially with Archie removing some of my responses. There are two parts to the chemistry. The result of the testing and the conclusion to be reached from the conclusion. The result is agreed, the residue level is low. The conclusion is where there is disagreement.

People can go to the junk folder and view exactly what was removed and can see that you said nothing of value. You have never made a worthwhile comment on the chemistry-related topics. Despite your total lack of knowledge and insight, you have decided to make HUNDREDS of posts on these topics, none of which have been worth reading.

You are even worse on the technical topics than you are on the history.

[Nessie]

Debunked repeatedly.
viewtopic.php?t=162

Ten air exchanges per hour was standard for a morgue.

That air exchange number assumes perfect mixing of old and fresh air. You would never achieve that in a room full of bodies with the intake and outtake the way they had it.

https://beamcentralsystems.com/mechanic ... entilation

"Purge ventilation is the rapid removal of stale, moist air, and pollutants from a room...A Purge Ventilation system from Beam is equivalent to 4 air changes per hour, meeting regulations."

https://www.envirovent.com/help-and-adv ... gulations/

"A system for purge should be provided for each habitable room and should be capable of achieving 4 ACH directly to outside.

If a wet room (kitchen/utility/bathroom/WC/ensuite) has no external walls and an intermittent extract fan is being used, the fan should extract at 4ACH (Air Changes per Hour) to provide purge ventilation."

What do those links have to do with what we are talking about? I'm not interested in your random Google results.

In LK1, the extraction vent was near the floor. After a hypothetical gassing, it would be obscured by dead bodies. Moreover, since HCN is lighter than air and rises, having the extraction fan near the floor would be less effective.

The fresh air intake was at the top and was near the extraction point. Since the two vents were close to each other, this means the air would not mix perfectly (i.e., you would never achieve 10 air exchanges per hour). And having the room full of bodies would further impede the mixture of the new and old air.

Your little links do not address any of these points in any way whatsoever.

The Topf & Sons engineer, who designed the ventilation system, said that it worked to remove the gas with a 10 times exchange, sucking out the gas and pump in air. I have checked that claim, to see it is possible. The answer is, yes. I have two sources that say a 4 times exchange is enough to purge a space of poisonous gas, using a fan or other method, to get rapid removal of the gas.

You raise the issue of the vents and I know that you hate it when I start to introduce evidence of usage, but, the eyewitnesses do report that the system did not work to completely remove all the gas. Bodies trapped pockets of gas and they had to wear gas masks.

Clearly, because of the spacing of the vents and the corpses trapping gas, Schultze's ventilation system did not work as well as he believed. But, it would work well enough, for gassings to take place.

[HansHill]

I see overconfident so-called revisionists positioning themselves as if they are experts, when they are clearly not.

Reported for lying, ad hom, and deflecting. In the link I provided which is my very first CODOH post, I introduce myself to the board as a layman.

[Nessie]

This is where it gets difficult, especially with Archie removing some of my responses. There are two parts to the chemistry. The result of the testing and the conclusion to be reached from the conclusion. The result is agreed, the residue level is low. The conclusion is where there is disagreement.

People can go to the junk folder and view exactly what was removed and can see that you said nothing of value. You have never made a worthwhile comment on the chemistry-related topics. Despite your total lack of knowledge and insight, you have decided to make HUNDREDS of posts on these topics, none of which have been worth reading.

You are even worse on the technical topics than you are on the history.

As CJ pointed out on page 1 of this thread, you cannot come to a definitive conclusion, based on the chemistry alone.

As for worthwhile commentary on the chemistry, none of you here are chemists suitably qualified to review what the actual chemists are arguing about. You are rank amateurs, who confidently assert you know better.

[Nessie]

I see overconfident so-called revisionists positioning themselves as if they are experts, when they are clearly not.

Reported for lying, ad hom, and deflecting. In the link I provided which is my very first CODOH post, I introduce myself to the board as a layman.

But then you go on to assert that you can come to a conclusion purely based on the results of tests, that are agreed are lower than in delousing chambers!