Ventilation Capacities - Birkenau Kremas

[Stubble]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in a memorandum, it is stated that the 3 15hp inducer motors were ripped out and the whole plant was switched over to natural draft, was it not? Krema III, unless I am mistaken, abandoned forced air all together before completion after the debacle at Krema II.

The memo;

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0230.shtml

So, now, where is the fan to extract the gas? At this point the exhaust from lk#1 is piped directly into the chimney stack for the flue.

/shrug

Odd, ain't it?

[Nessie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in a memorandum, it is stated that the 3 15hp inducer motors were ripped out and the whole plant was switched over to natural draft, was it not? Krema III, unless I am mistaken, abandoned forced air all together before completion after the debacle at Krema II.

The memo;

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0230.shtml

So, now, where is the fan to extract the gas? At this point the exhaust from lk#1 is piped directly into the chimney stack for the flue.

/shrug

Odd, ain't it?

No idea, I am not a ventilation engineer. Is you thinking it is odd, evidence to prove no gas chamber in the Kremas?

[Stubble]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in a memorandum, it is stated that the 3 15hp inducer motors were ripped out and the whole plant was switched over to natural draft, was it not? Krema III, unless I am mistaken, abandoned forced air all together before completion after the debacle at Krema II.

The memo;

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0230.shtml

So, now, where is the fan to extract the gas? At this point the exhaust from lk#1 is piped directly into the chimney stack for the flue.

/shrug

Odd, ain't it?

No idea, I am not a ventilation engineer. Is you thinking it is odd, evidence to prove no gas chamber in the Kremas?

No idea, I need the corresponding revised prints to look at fan placement. In my professional opinion, these corpse cellars referred to generally as lk#1 situated at Kremas II and III are not suitable for such an application. I'm not so sure where the fans were placed would change that, but, I suppose it could.

[Nessie]

...

No idea, I am not a ventilation engineer. Is you thinking it is odd, evidence to prove no gas chamber in the Kremas?

No idea, I need the corresponding revised prints to look at fan placement. In my professional opinion, these corpse cellars referred to generally as lk#1 situated at Kremas II and III are not suitable for such an application. I'm not so sure where the fans were placed would change that, but, I suppose it could.

What evidential value does your professional opinion have? Do you think that you, not believing the ventilation system would work, prove the gas chambers did not exist? Yes or no.

[Stubble]

...

No idea, I am not a ventilation engineer. Is you thinking it is odd, evidence to prove no gas chamber in the Kremas?

No idea, I need the corresponding revised prints to look at fan placement. In my professional opinion, these corpse cellars referred to generally as lk#1 situated at Kremas II and III are not suitable for such an application. I'm not so sure where the fans were placed would change that, but, I suppose it could.

What evidential value does your professional opinion have? Do you think that you, not believing the ventilation system would work, prove the gas chambers did not exist? Yes or no.

I'm going to start using your retort here when you talk about witnesses.

No, my opinion alone does not prove anything. My opinion also does not exist in a vacuum. I am also not alone in this opinion.

Does your opinion about the eyewitnesses prove that it is physically possible for the gassing process to have been carried out as described?

Because the facts are, even if homicidal gassings occurred in the corpse cellar, it would be physically impossible for them to have been carried out as stated in the official narrative. Point blank.

People could have been gassed in Kremas II and III in their corpse storage 1 basements, sure. Not 2,000 or 3,000 at a time, not in a period of under an hour, and not without a 24 hour ventilation afterward.

[Nessie]

No idea, I need the corresponding revised prints to look at fan placement. In my professional opinion, these corpse cellars referred to generally as lk#1 situated at Kremas II and III are not suitable for such an application. I'm not so sure where the fans were placed would change that, but, I suppose it could.

What evidential value does your professional opinion have? Do you think that you, not believing the ventilation system would work, prove the gas chambers did not exist? Yes or no.

I'm going to start using your retort here when you talk about witnesses.

No, my opinion alone does not prove anything. My opinion also does not exist in a vacuum. I am also not alone in this opinion.

Just because others agree with your opinion, does not then make that opinion proof. Opinion on technical feasibility is not evidence, when what is being discussed is technically feasible. A ventilation system inside the Kremas is technically feasible. That it likely did not work as well as the designer thought it should, since witnesses report having to wear gas masks to enter the chambers and in your opinion it did not have the power to properly vent the chambers, is part of the narrative. It explains how the evidence fits and what happened. It does not disprove gassings.

Does your opinion about the eyewitnesses prove that it is physically possible for the gassing process to have been carried out as described?

I do not use opinion, I use evidence. The test I use, which is the test historians, journalists and the courts commonly use, is corroboration. I put my opinion on the witness aside and look to see if that witness is corroborated. That is a fair and unbiased test, making it more accurate than your opinion driven assessment of the witnesses.

Because the facts are, even if homicidal gassings occurred in the corpse cellar, it would be physically impossible for them to have been carried out as stated in the official narrative. Point blank.

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa...This way of thinking is fallacious, since someone’s inability to believe that something could be true, does not mean that it must be false...From a formal perspective, the basic structure of an argument from incredulity can be described as follows:
Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true.
Premise 2: if I can’t explain or imagine how a certain proposition could be true, then it must be false.
Conclusions: proposition X is false."

People could have been gassed in Kremas II and III in their corpse storage 1 basements, sure. Not 2,000 or 3,000 at a time, not in a period of under an hour, and not without a 24 hour ventilation afterward.

Exactly, people could have been gassed in the Kremas, that basic claim is not physically impossible. Just because you cannot work out, from the details we have, how it could have worked, does not therefore mean gassings is false.

[Stubble]

Nessie, the ventilation capacity is insufficient for a gas chamber. It is fully in line with, a morgue.

I'm not going to delve into your 'evidence' here. It is a diversion.

Nessie, you argue from ignorance, I do not argue from incredulity. I could really do without your constant derision.

[Nessie]

Nessie, the ventilation capacity is insufficient for a gas chamber. It is fully in line with, a morgue.

I know. Witnesses said they had to wear gas masks to empty the gas chambers, as they were not ventilated enough to remove all the gas.

I'm not going to delve into your 'evidence' here. It is a diversion.

Nessie, you argue from ignorance, I do not argue from incredulity. I could really do without your constant derision.

Evidence is not a diversion, it is how we determine what happened.

[bombsaway]

The air exchange is another decisive difference between the delousing chambers and alleged gas chambers.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69079fc052b0819 ... 6c1fb169c2

LLM says 5 exchanges would clear 99% in a perfectly mixed room, and with poor mixing, 10 exchanges would be sufficient to make a room safe.

[Stubble]

The air exchange is another decisive difference between the delousing chambers and alleged gas chambers.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69079fc052b0819 ... 6c1fb169c2

LLM says 5 exchanges would clear 99% in a perfectly mixed room, and with poor mixing, 10 exchanges would be sufficient to make a room safe.

This is where your statement, such as it is, belongs.

Notice, this is previously addressed.


Expanded rebuttal
------------------------------------------------------


https://eldridgeusa.com/blog/ventilatio ... n-factors/

In this case, the ventilation system needed to provide 60 air changes per hour to minimize exposure to the hazardous gas.

Spoiler

the gas being referenced is ammonia

This link is not for highly toxic hydrogen cyanide gas, but instead simply for harmful or explosive vapors Bombsaway. Now, I want you and your language model to consider something, it says 60 air exchanges. For hydrogen cyanide gas, DEGESCH used 72 for simple fumigation. American homicidal gas chambers used, significantly more. These numbers are dependent on a few things, basically toxicity, ventilation time, and I'd be remissed if I didn't mention ventilation efficiency.

If you want to walk in to a room that was just full of hydrogen cyanide gas and has been partially ventilated for around 10 minutes at a rate of around 10 air exchanges per hour, that's on you.

I would strongly advise against it.

Even with 72 men were injured working with the fumigation chambers.

Also, from your model;

Spoiler

Ah, thank you — that makes perfect sense now.

If we’re continuing from a discussion about air exchanges per hour (ACH) for ventilating gases, and you’re now asking whether 7 ACH would be sufficient for hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas, then:

No — 7 air changes per hour would not be considered sufficient for hydrogen cyanide.

Here’s why:

Hydrogen cyanide is extremely toxic and volatile. The OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) is 10 ppm as an 8-hour time-weighted average — and concentrations above that are acutely dangerous.

Standard ventilation rates like 6–12 ACH are typically used for general lab or industrial chemical ventilation, but highly toxic gases (like HCN, chlorine, phosgene, arsine, etc.) require dedicated exhaust systems, local capture (fume hoods, gas cabinets, scrubbers), and negative-pressure containment — not just air changes.

The goal for such gases is complete capture and removal at the source, not dilution through room ventilation.

So, while 7 ACH is fine for general lab air quality, it’s nowhere near sufficient for safe control of hydrogen cyanide gas.

Would you like me to outline what is considered proper ventilation or containment for HCN in a lab or industrial setting?

[Nessie]

The air exchange is another decisive difference between the delousing chambers and alleged gas chambers.

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_69079fc052b0819 ... 6c1fb169c2

LLM says 5 exchanges would clear 99% in a perfectly mixed room, and with poor mixing, 10 exchanges would be sufficient to make a room safe.

This is where your statement, such as it is, belongs.

Notice, this is previously addressed.


Expanded rebuttal
------------------------------------------------------


https://eldridgeusa.com/blog/ventilatio ... n-factors/

In this case, the ventilation system needed to provide 60 air changes per hour to minimize exposure to the hazardous gas.

Spoiler

the gas being referenced is ammonia

This link is not for highly toxic hydrogen cyanide gas, but instead simply for harmful or explosive vapors Bombsaway. Now, I want you and your language model to consider something, it says 60 air exchanges. For hydrogen cyanide gas, DEGESCH used 72 for simple fumigation. American homicidal gas chambers used, significantly more. These numbers are dependent on a few things, basically toxicity, ventilation time, and I'd be remissed if I didn't mention ventilation efficiency.

If you want to walk in to a room that was just full of hydrogen cyanide gas and has been partially ventilated for around 10 minutes at a rate of around 10 air exchanges per hour, that's on you.

I would strongly advise against it.

Even with 72 men were injured working with the fumigation chambers.

Also, from your model;

Spoiler

Ah, thank you — that makes perfect sense now.

If we’re continuing from a discussion about air exchanges per hour (ACH) for ventilating gases, and you’re now asking whether 7 ACH would be sufficient for hydrogen cyanide (HCN) gas, then:

No — 7 air changes per hour would not be considered sufficient for hydrogen cyanide.

Here’s why:

Hydrogen cyanide is extremely toxic and volatile. The OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) is 10 ppm as an 8-hour time-weighted average — and concentrations above that are acutely dangerous.

Standard ventilation rates like 6–12 ACH are typically used for general lab or industrial chemical ventilation, but highly toxic gases (like HCN, chlorine, phosgene, arsine, etc.) require dedicated exhaust systems, local capture (fume hoods, gas cabinets, scrubbers), and negative-pressure containment — not just air changes.

The goal for such gases is complete capture and removal at the source, not dilution through room ventilation.

So, while 7 ACH is fine for general lab air quality, it’s nowhere near sufficient for safe control of hydrogen cyanide gas.

Would you like me to outline what is considered proper ventilation or containment for HCN in a lab or industrial setting?

You agree with the eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas, 10 times air changes was not enough.