The CODOH Revisionist Forum

"Zyklon B is not suitable for mass killing."

The American gas chambers used cyanide pellets, so I think cyanide would be a reasonable choice for a gas chamber. But I would expect some thought in the design so that the gas would sublimate, circulate, and ventilate efficiently. In the American procedure they would drop the pellets in sulfuric acid to accelerate the sublimation. And upon death they would use ammonia to help halt further release of gas.

The usual story had been that they just threw the pellets into the room (this is still alleged for Krema IV/V and elsewhere). Then in the late 80s they started saying they used special columns to remove the pellets. They say this to deal with the ventilation problem. But these Rube Goldberg-like Kula columns present a different problem. With Zyklon B, you are supposed to spread the pellets evenly throughout the room you are fumigating. If you have all the pellets clumped up in these columns at only four entry points in a 210 square meter room, the gas would not sublimate very well or circulate evenly. Keep in my as well that the "eyewitnesses" generally claim the gassings were very fast, even faster than the typical 10 minutes achieved in the American gas chambers. How is it that the Germans had such an inferior gas chamber design, yet were getting more effective results than the Americans? All while supposedly using very little gas so as not to leave any Prussian blue!

You can read more about the American gas chambers below. There's no reason the Germans would have had to have done everything the exact same way, but this should give you an idea of what a real gas chamber would be like and help you appreciate some of the design considerations.
https://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/31armontrout.html

And here is a thread on the ventilation.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=162

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 7:35 pm
There's always going to be some uncertainty in scientific analysis. No study or measurement will ever be completely reliable.

You are referencing somebody else's argument without explaining it to me in self evident terms so I need you to be more clear and thorough in your arguments. I'm not dismissing any study as wholly reliable or unreliable, that was merely a quote from one of the experts in the Irving litigation. It is not important and we pass on that.

Please clarify your argument and we can go from there.

I wasn't making a specific argument other than asking you to agree to accept the reliability of the analyses as presented. Yes yes yes, we all know that in the philosophy of science or Socratic sense, we can't be sure of anything. However in the Aristotlean sense A = A and I will be observing reality and the world around me in those terms and asking you to do the same.

The reason I don't appreciate Dr Roth's assertion is that he is asking us to disregard the results as presented. Your subsequent sentence that Markiewicz' study was reliable was particularly tone deaf.

I think you are getting hung up on the Prussian Blue though. It is a red herring argument. If you recreated extermination gas chambers from scratch in the same conditions that the Nazis created, you would not expect to find Prussian Blue. The absence isn't relevant.

You are arguing that either:

A - Prussian Blue formation is not a predictable reaction in nature, or
B - Prussian Blue formation is a predictable reaction in nature but there was some factor preventing it's formation in the homicidal gas chambers

Please indicate are you arguing for A or B. I dont feel there is an option C, however if i have missed it, please clarify.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:22 pm
I wasn't making a specific argument other than asking you to agree to accept the reliability of the analyses as presented. Yes yes yes, we all know that in the philosophy of science or Socratic sense, we can't be sure of anything. However in the Aristotlean sense A = A and I will be observing reality and the world around me in those terms and asking you to do the same.

The reason I don't appreciate Dr Roth's assertion is that he is asking us to disregard the results as presented. Your subsequent sentence that Markiewicz' study was reliable was particularly tone deaf.

You are arguing that either:

A - Prussian Blue formation is not a predictable reaction in nature, or
B - Prussian Blue formation is a predictable reaction in nature but there was some factor preventing it's formation in the homicidal gas chambers

Please indicate are you arguing for A or B. I dont feel there is an option C, however if i have missed it, please clarify.

I would rather not defer to individuals as "experts" and stick to the logic themselves but I think it can be helpful to reference where arguments came from in case it is easier to understand things that way.

To me, it is as obvious as day that the Holocaust was very real but it apparently is not to you.

In controlled laboratory settings or industrial processes (like dye-making), the reaction that forms Prussian Blue from HCN is predictable and reproducible.

Outside of a laboratory, environments and processes are messier and we will have to discuss that with more nuance. Another complication is that the Nazis actively sought to destroy evidence (Aktion 1005) so if we are to be intellectually honest, we have to take those complications into account as well.

But the key issues here that we have to acknowledge are two-fold:

1. Not all use cases for HCN result in the formation of Prussian Blue
2. Special conditions are required to form Prussian Blue which not present in the gas chambers

Do you disagree with either of those points?

I would rather just debate this out with HansHill because he is the best communication and the most clear thinker on here. Half the time, I don't know what the rest of you are even trying to say.

To be clear, the formation of Prussian Blue was not "prevented". The formation of Prussian Blue from an HCN reaction is the exception rather than the norm.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:33 pm
But the key issues here that we have to acknowledge are two-fold:

1. Not all use cases for HCN result in the formation of Prussian Blue
2. Special conditions are required to form Prussian Blue which not present in the gas chambers

Do you disagree with either of those points?

1 - Agree
2 - Disagree

I would rather just debate this out with HansHill because he is the best communication and the most clear thinker on here. Half the time, I don't know what the rest of you are even trying to say.

This is very strange - I've read both Wetzelrad and Archie's responses in this thread and kicked myself for missing such insightful remarks. I appreciate the compliment but I absolutely defer to other knowledgeable posters here on certain issues.

To be clear, the formation of Prussian Blue was not "prevented". The formation of Prussian Blue from an HCN reaction is the exception rather than the norm.

This is also strange. We can point to 1,000s of instances of PB formation at City Gas plants across continental Europe and USA. We can also point to PB formation at fumigation chambers at Birkenau. It's a case of special pleading to insist that this is exceptional behaviour.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:33 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:22 pm You are arguing that either:

A - Prussian Blue formation is not a predictable reaction in nature, or
B - Prussian Blue formation is a predictable reaction in nature but there was some factor preventing it's formation in the homicidal gas chambers

In controlled laboratory settings or industrial processes (like dye-making), the reaction that forms Prussian Blue from HCN is predictable and reproducible.

Outside of a laboratory, environments and processes are messier and we will have to discuss that with more nuance. Another complication is that the Nazis actively sought to destroy evidence (Aktion 1005) so if we are to be intellectually honest, we have to take those complications into account as well.

The reason Prussian Blue forms predictably in any controlled setting is because the conditions make it possible. Saying it is 'messier' when convenient for you is obfuscation.

Take the court/trial standard: would a reasonable person concede that these conditions were present (at least more likely than not)? The debate has moved past this point precisely because, yes, any reasonable person must concede this. FeCN should and would have necessarily formed under the documented conditions as alleged. This is why attempts have been made to change the alleged conditions ("they scrubbed and painted the walls after each gassing!"), decades later.

Your reaching into other narratives ('Aktion 1005') which you also lack evidence for is a red herring, another false premise for you to throw into the mix to bolster your failed conclusions. Even by your own preferred narrative, you have zero (0) evidence of any relevance of 'Aktion 1005' to the 'chambers', so it's certainly moot. You'd need to explain the process by which FeCN was removed from walls and ceilings at all of your alleged crime scenes.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:53 pm The reason Prussian Blue forms predictably in any controlled setting is because the conditions make it possible. Saying it is 'messier' when convenient for you is obfuscation.

This is rude and false. I'm not going to respond.

Take the court/trial standard: would a reasonable person concede that these conditions were present (at least more likely than not)? The debate has moved past this point precisely because, yes, any reasonable person must concede this. FeCN should and would have necessarily formed under the documented conditions as alleged. This is why attempts have been made to change the alleged conditions ("they scrubbed and painted the walls after each gassing!"), decades later.

A reasonable person would not take your side. I have to look at the specific set up for the Irving litigation as it was in the UK but this has already been formally litigated and the courts found that Irving was not just mistaken but intentionally spreading false and misleading information.

Your reaching into other narratives ('Aktion 1005') which you also lack evidence for is a red herring, another false premise for you to throw into the mix to bolster your failed conclusions. Even by your own preferred narrative, you have zero (0) evidence of any relevance of 'Aktion 1005' to the 'chambers', so it's certainly moot. You'd need to explain the process by which FeCN was removed from walls and ceilings at all of your alleged crime scenes.

I'm just going to respond to HansHill. If he finds any of your arguments worth bringing up, then I'll let him bring attention to them. This is really off topic.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:42 pm

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:33 pm
But the key issues here that we have to acknowledge are two-fold:

1. Not all use cases for HCN result in the formation of Prussian Blue
2. Special conditions are required to form Prussian Blue which not present in the gas chambers

Do you disagree with either of those points?

1 - Agree
2 - Disagree

I would rather just debate this out with HansHill because he is the best communication and the most clear thinker on here. Half the time, I don't know what the rest of you are even trying to say.

This is very strange - I've read both Wetzelrad and Archie's responses in this thread and kicked myself for missing such insightful remarks. I appreciate the compliment but I absolutely defer to other knowledgeable posters here on certain issues.

To be clear, the formation of Prussian Blue was not "prevented". The formation of Prussian Blue from an HCN reaction is the exception rather than the norm.

This is also strange. We can point to 1,000s of instances of PB formation at City Gas plants across continental Europe and USA. We can also point to PB formation at fumigation chambers at Birkenau. It's a case of special pleading to insist that this is exceptional behaviour.

If you disagree with 2, please explain why you think that conditions were right for Prussian Blue formation to occur in the context of a murderous gas chamber.

If they were not used to murder people, what do you think that they were used for exactly?

If you like any of the points that have been made by other participants, please definitely point them out and I will be happy to address them. It's just less frustrating to communicate with you.

Will you provide more specifics about the formation of PB at City Gas plants in Europe and the USA? My expectation is those environmental conditions will have been very different from a extermination gas chamber but I want to have specifics to make more precise arguments and to make sure that I am accurate.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 9:16 pm

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:53 pm The reason Prussian Blue forms predictably in any controlled setting is because the conditions make it possible. Saying it is 'messier' when convenient for you is obfuscation.

This is rude and false. I'm not going to respond.

ConfusedJew wrote:

Take the court/trial standard: would a reasonable person concede that these conditions were present (at least more likely than not)? The debate has moved past this point precisely because, yes, any reasonable person must concede this. FeCN should and would have necessarily formed under the documented conditions as alleged. This is why attempts have been made to change the alleged conditions ("they scrubbed and painted the walls after each gassing!"), decades later.

A reasonable person would not take your side. I have to look at the specific set up for the Irving litigation as it was in the UK but this has already been formally litigated and the courts found that Irving was not just mistaken but intentionally spreading false and misleading information.

Stop replying to me, ConfusedJew. You've said repeatedly this is what you will be doing, so stick to it, otherwise members here might get the impression you are not a man of your word.

ConfusedJew wrote:

Your reaching into other narratives ('Aktion 1005') which you also lack evidence for is a red herring, another false premise for you to throw into the mix to bolster your failed conclusions. Even by your own preferred narrative, you have zero (0) evidence of any relevance of 'Aktion 1005' to the 'chambers', so it's certainly moot. You'd need to explain the process by which FeCN was removed from walls and ceilings at all of your alleged crime scenes.

I'm just going to respond to HansHill. If he finds any of your arguments worth bringing up, then I'll let him bring attention to them. This is really off topic.

This is weak and feminine, par for the course, ConfusedJew. Please do not respond further to my replies to you. I enjoy debunking your steaming garbage without having to engage with your pansy attitude and personality directly.

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 9:19 pm
If you disagree with 2, please explain why you think that conditions were right for Prussian Blue formation to occur in the context of a murderous gas chamber.

Sure. We can divide the parameters into two categories - I'll call them Constants and Variables.

Constants: Iron + HcN

Both of these ingredients are required for the formation. We agree that both constants were present, so we can move on

Variables: These are the various factors that influence the formation of PB and there are approx half a dozen relevant factors. Moisture is by far the most important of these variables, others are temperature, pH, iron reactivity and so on.

All of these variables require separate discussion, but because moisture is the most important, this needs to be discussed first. We know that the homicidal gas chambers were damp and cold, being subterranean in what was practically a swamp. So speaking just in terms of environmental water content, we can consider this as a favourable factor for PB formation. However we can progress this further, by examining additional water content by what the eye-witnesses alleged, that the walls were washed between gassings. This would only add additional water to the walls meaning the walls could not be described in any other terms as being high in water content.

The other variables are not quite as important as water content so I'll wait for you to respond to the above.

If they were not used to murder people, what do you think that they were used for exactly?

These rooms were morgues.

If you like any of the points that have been made by other participants, please definitely point them out and I will be happy to address them. It's just less frustrating to communicate with you.

Will you provide more specifics about the formation of PB at City Gas plants in Europe and the USA? My expectation is those environmental conditions will have been very different from a extermination gas chamber but I want to have specifics to make more precise arguments and to make sure that I am accurate.

Sure:

https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ... 300040024x

Hydrogen cyanide contained within coke gas as a byproduct of the industrial process was reacted with iron hydroxide to be dispersed "safely" on the grounds of the gas plants. While the method of reaction is a bit different due to its industrial processing, the point to be made is that the reaction is predictable and the residues will remain stable for decades (or in this instance, centuries). The residues will not go anywhere or deteriorate or disintegrate.

I am aware of two separate studies analysing these Prussian Blue deposits. The Meusen paper above references 200 sites in the Netherlands alone. There is a separate paper I am less familiar with (Mansfeld)

https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ... j2004.0471

The abstract from this second paper:

Soils in the vicinity of manufactured gas plants and coal coking plants are often highly contaminated with cyanides in the form of the compound Prussian blue, FeIII4FeIICN63

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:33 pm

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 8:22 pm I wasn't making a specific argument other than asking you to agree to accept the reliability of the analyses as presented. Yes yes yes, we all know that in the philosophy of science or Socratic sense, we can't be sure of anything. However in the Aristotlean sense A = A and I will be observing reality and the world around me in those terms and asking you to do the same.

To me, it is as obvious as day that the Holocaust was very real but it apparently is not to you.

… Half the time, I don't know what the rest of you are even trying to say.

This person is still failing to understand the VERY BASICS of revisionist argument.
After… what is it now… two or three months!!!

What kind of stupid writes vaguely and imprecisely “the Holocaust was very real” in a discussion on precise details of the ‘forensic chemistry’ of the alleged homicidal gas-chambers and then admits he doesn’t understand half of everyone’s explanations and arguments?

Good luck to those endeavouring to explain things to this one.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 9:57 pm

ConfusedJew wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 9:19 pm
If you disagree with 2, please explain why you think that conditions were right for Prussian Blue formation to occur in the context of a murderous gas chamber.

Sure. We can divide the parameters into two categories - I'll call them Constants and Variables.

Constants: Iron + HcN

Both of these ingredients are required for the formation. We agree that both constants were present, so we can move on

Variables: These are the various factors that influence the formation of PB and there are approx half a dozen relevant factors. Moisture is by far the most important of these variables, others are temperature, pH, iron reactivity and so on.

All of these variables require separate discussion, but because moisture is the most important, this needs to be discussed first. We know that the homicidal gas chambers were damp and cold, being subterranean in what was practically a swamp. So speaking just in terms of environmental water content, we can consider this as a favourable factor for PB formation. However we can progress this further, by examining additional water content by what the eye-witnesses alleged, that the walls were washed between gassings. This would only add additional water to the walls meaning the walls could not be described in any other terms as being high in water content.

The other variables are not quite as important as water content so I'll wait for you to respond to the above.

Regarding the moisture, you are right that it is necessary but not sufficient to produce PB. Eyewitnesses reported that in between gassings, the walls were allegedly washed with water or limewater to clean blood, feces, vomit, etc. Lack of moisture is not the reason why PB did not formed.

Here I will lay out some logic. Please point out anything from which you disagree.

To form Prussian blue (Fe₄[Fe(CN)₆]₃) from hydrogen cyanide in the environment, several specific chemical conditions all must be present:

1. Long and repeated exposure to hydrogen cyanide gas
2. Alkaline (basic) environment
3. Presence of reactive iron compounds (e.g., Fe³⁺ or Fe²⁺ salts)
4. Moisture (water is required for cyanide hydrolysis and for Prussian blue to precipitate)
5. Time — the reaction is slow; formation takes hours to days

What was not present in the homicidal chambers:

1. Prolonged exposure to HCN - The gassings were short (often <30 minutes) which was too little time for wall absorption.
2. Repeated exposure over time - Gas chambers were cleaned and ventilated.
3. Alkaline conditions - Prussian blue forms best in basic conditions; gas chamber walls were often neutral or acidic, which inhibits the reaction.
4. Iron availability - Not all building materials (e.g. plaster) contain reactive iron compounds.
5. Moisture and humidity - This doesn't seem to have been a major issue.

I agree with you that you do need moisture, iron and HCN but they alone are not sufficient. You need the iron to be accessible and chemically reactive. The delousing chambers had exposed red clay brick walls which often contain hematite (Fe2O3) which can release iron ions that become chemically reactive over time. This is necessary but still insufficient to produce Prussian Blue.

In contrast, the extermination chambers were built with concrete or cement based plaster which have iron bound in silicates, but they are not chemically reactive. Because the extermination chambers lacked reactive iron, they did not have the necessary conditions to produce Prussian Blue.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Jul 19, 2025 9:57 pm
https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ... 300040024x

This isn't a relevant comparison because you are describing cyanide reactions in soil. Soils can contain chemically available (reactive) iron, favorable pH conditions, and microbial or redox activity — all of which can lead to cyanide–iron complex formation. In contrast, gas chamber walls lacked reactive iron.

Hydrogen cyanide contained within coke gas as a byproduct of the industrial process was reacted with iron hydroxide to be dispersed "safely" on the grounds of the gas plants. While the method of reaction is a bit different due to its industrial processing, the point to be made is that the reaction is predictable and the residues will remain stable for decades (or in this instance, centuries). The residues will not go anywhere or deteriorate or disintegrate.

What you are saying here is technically right but not relevant. Prussian blue is stable and if it had formed in the gas chambers, it would still be there today. But the homicidal gas chambers do not show any signs of PB because they were lacking the necessary reactive iron so it never formed in the first place.

I am aware of two separate studies analysing these Prussian Blue deposits. The Meusen paper above references 200 sites in the Netherlands alone. There is a separate paper I am less familiar with (Mansfeld)

https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ ... j2004.0471

The abstract from this second paper:

Soils in the vicinity of manufactured gas plants and coal coking plants are often highly contaminated with cyanides in the form of the compound Prussian blue, FeIII4FeIICN63

This is the same issue. At gas plants, the soil contained abundant, chemically reactive iron — especially iron oxides, iron hydroxides, corroded iron, and industrial waste products — all of which readily release Fe³⁺ or Fe²⁺ ions in moist, mildly acidic environments. In contrast, the gas chamber walls were made of concrete and cement-based plaster, where any iron present was chemically bound in stable, non-reactive mineral forms like iron silicates — not available for reaction with cyanide.

I think we've identified the main point of disagreement so let me ask you clarifying questions.

1. Do you agree that the availability of chemically reactive iron is necessary to form Prussian Blue?
2. Do you agree that the soil at the gas plants had chemically reactive iron?
3. Do you agree that the extermination chambers did not have chemically reactive iron?

Thanks.

To make this simple, chemically reactive iron is iron that can dissolve in water and take part in chemical reactions — especially by forming iron ions (charged particles like Fe³⁺ or Fe²⁺). Those iron ions are what react with other substances — like cyanide — to form compounds like Prussian blue.

Red clay brick contains iron oxides (like Fe₂O₃) as natural pigments or impurities. Bricks are porous, and over time, moisture and acidic gases (like HCN) can cause small amounts of iron to dissolve into Fe³⁺ ions. Once iron is in solution as Fe³⁺, it can react with cyanide (CN⁻) to form Prussian blue.

The contaminated soil at the plants contain rust, iron oxides, iron hydroxides, and sometimes metal debris. Soils are wet, with fluctuating pH and oxygen — which mobilizes iron. These forms of iron readily dissolve in water and can react with cyanide to form stable ferrocyanide complexes (and eventually Prussian blue).

In contrast, the walls in the homicidal chambers were made out of concrete, plaster, and limewash which contain cement and only small amounts of iron. Even when present, it’s chemically locked in silicate or aluminate minerals which do not dissolve into water. So even with moisture and cyanide exposure, there was no free Fe³⁺ to start the chemical chain that leads to Prussian blue.

Neither Leuchter nor Rudolf meaningfully addressed the specific chemistry of iron reactivity, even though it is central to the formation—or absence—of Prussian blue. Green prepared an expert witness report for the Irving v. Lipstadt trial (2000) and emphasized that without reactive (soluble) iron, cyanide exposure alone would not produce Prussian blue, regardless of gas dose. His analysis was foundational in affirming that Leuchter and Rudolf’s conclusions were based on poor chemistry.

CJ, did you get this argument from AI?

Because, unless I'm misreading you here you are trying to say iron blue won't form on

1) red brick;

2) concrete;

Or 3) plaster;


And that's just demonstrably false. What makes the LK's the odd man out here, specifically, is that this reaction occurred on contemporary buildings of the same construction but did not occur on them.

Where I would direct your attention specifically would be to the brick air extraction channels near floor level, as there is no way anyone 'scrubbed them', and, assuming the ventilation system was used to attempt to extract the gas, they obviously came in to direct contact with it.

The lack of iron blue in the LK is problematic for the orthodox story, because it should be there.

I didn't say that. I did say that they can form on red clay brick because there is an adequate amount of reactive iron in the brick.

Where are those pictures from? Will you provide me with the original source so that I can look at the details on those more closely?

What I'm being told from AI summary of the Richard Green rebuttal is that the alkaline nature of the wall surfaces in the extermination chambers was the biggest limiting factor in the formation of PB.

Prussian blue (ferric ferrocyanide) forms only under neutral to mildly acidic conditions. The reaction requires ferric ions (Fe³⁺) and cyanide ions (CN⁻) to form a stable complex. In alkaline environments, this reaction is chemically suppressed or cannot occur at all. Green said that, “the walls were plastered with lime, which is highly alkaline. This basicity inhibits the formation of Prussian blue. Cyanide reacts to form other compounds instead, which are not intensely colored or stable.”

We know the gas chamber surfaces were alkaline primarily because of the materials used — specifically lime-based plaster and whitewash, which are chemically strongly alkaline (high pH, typically 11–13). This is also supported by forensic analysis conducted on wall samples from Auschwitz.

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.