Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Reconstructing "A message to Jonnie Hannover Hargis ..." (1)

The extinct RODOH forum's most visited thread, "A message to Jonnie Hannover Hargis ...", was being reconstructed on the RODOH 2 forum.

As that forum was also deleted, a partial reconstruction will be done in several blogs, starting with this one, mostly by inserting the screenshots from the original RODOH thread "A message to Jonnie Hannover Hargis ..." as images, which can be enlarged to a readable size by clicking on them and viewed in slideshow sequence. Where posts considered of interest are available in MS Word format, the text of such posts will also be transcribed in blog format, after some editing to replace German special letters and punctuation marks that got lost in the original RODOH forum's migration to Yuku. Spelling errors will also be corrected, and bare links converted into embedded links, but otherwise the text reproduced will be the same that was posted on the RODOH forum, as can be verified on hand of the corresponding screenshots. Red letters highlight the posts’ sequential numbers on the thread as well as links that were lost when the RODOH forum was deleted.

Posts # 1 to # 7

A message to Jonnie Hannover Hargis ...


... can be read here.

Moderator, please make this thread stick.

# 1

Hannover Hargis response?

The one I expected:

The coward threatens when he is safe.

# 2 [Omitted]

# 3 [Omitted]

# 4 [Omitted]

# 5

Thanks, Andrew.

OK, chickenshit Hannover Hargis didn't follow up the threads mentioned in my blog article "Hannover" Hargis, the coward, threatens when he is safe, but instead opened two new threads in which he takes issue with some parts of my two posts from June 2001, mentioned in that article.

First of all, it should be pointed out that Hargis doesn't mention this article or even the context in which these posts where quoted therein, which was merely to show that they had been retained by the moderator and that this, and not my being debunked or shredded, had ended the discussions on the threads "Claimed cremation patent / 3.5 kg of coke" and "Gassings" of the former CODOH forum.

Second, in my blog article I challenged Hargis to continue discussing the subject matters of these old CODOH threads with me, either on RODOH or on his forum. Needless to say, the fellow will never have enough balls to show up on RODOH, and I don't see any statement in the sense that I will be allowed to confront him directly on his own discussion forum, from which I’m currently banned. Instead he mouths off about me where he thinks I can't reach him, as becomes the gutless creature that he is.

In the following posts we will look at what Hargis has got by way of arguments.

# 6

First, the thread Roberto Muehlenkamp: no fuel required for Auschwitz ovens. There Hargis quotes the following part of the first of the June 2001 posts quoted in my blog article:

The crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau were not typical cremation ovens, but heavy-duty industrial ovens designed to run continuously, using the heat energy produced by the burning of previous bodies to keep the oven hot for the next bodies. After they were fired with coke to their proper operating temperature, they required little or no extra fuel to operate. A considerable but well-documented technical achievement. The cremation unit that one muffle was supposed to handle in a given time was a weight unit, which means that one or several persons adding up to that weight unit could be put into each muffle simultaneously without increasing the cremation time. Unlike in crematoria ovens used for civilian purposes, there was no need to wait for one body to have cremated completely. The practice actually was to put the next body or bodies in the muffle before the cremation process of the previous was complete.

and then rambles about this text. Lets see what hes got:


OK, let's start with facts.

Builder of the Auschwitz/Birkenau typhus abatement crematory ovens, SS Kurt Prufer, told the officers of SMERSCH (according to documents found in the Moscow archives) that only one body at a time could be cremated per muffle and that the cremation time took 60 minutes, and that they tried to cremate 2 bodies at a time; but the temperature inside the muffle went so high that it damaged the oven.

The protocols of Prüfer’s interrogations by Soviet counterintelligence were translated from Russian to German by Revisionist guru Jürgen Graf; the translation is available here. In the interrogation on 5 March 1946, Prüfer gave the following answer to a question about the cremation capacity of his Birkenau ovens:

Frage: Welche Anzahl von Leichen konnte in Auschwitz pro Stunde in einem Krematorium verbrannt werden?

Antwort: In einem Krematorium, das fünf Öfen oder fünfzehn Öffnungen (Muffeln) aufwies, verbrannte man in einer Stunde fünfzehn Leichen.

My translation:

Question: What number of corpses per hour could be burned at Auschwitz in a crematorium?

Answer: In a crematorium that had five ovens of fifteen openings (muffles), fifteen corpse were burned in one hour.

This means one body per muffle per hour, as Hargis says.

However, the reliability of this statement of Prüfer's is rather questionable. Mind that he was under interrogation for complicity in the mass murder committed at Auschwitz-Birkenau, and that it was in his interest to play down the capacity of his ovens in order to make his interrogators believe that he had made no contribution to the killing other than installing normal ovens, for the abnormal use of which he had not been responsible. What Prüfer told his interrogators also stands in stark contrast to the following information that he, according to a file note of his quoted here, had transmitted to a representative of his customers on 8 September 1942:

I told him that at this time 3 double-muffle ovens are in operation, with a capacity of 250 per day. Further, currently under construction are 5 triple muffle ovens with a daily capacity of 800.

800 corpses daily in 15 muffles – assuming that daily meant within 24 hours, Prüfer was thus assuring his client that the ovens under construction would have a throughput of 800 ./. 15 ./. 24 = 2.22 bodies per muffle per hour. The three double-muffle ovens in operation at that time already had a throughput, under the same assumption, of 250 ./. 6 ./. 24 = 1.74 bodies per muffle per hour.

Why would Prüfer exaggerate his ovens' capacity towards the representative of his customer’s who had requested this information? In order to gain a sales advantage over the competition? The contract for further 5 three-muffle ovens for Auschwitz-Birkenau had already been awarded to his company. In response to his customer’s urges, he had further undertaken to obtain another 2 eight-muffle ovens from a shipment bound for Mogilev. And his interlocutor, Obersturmführer Krone, had told him that "this number of muffles is not yet sufficient; we should deliver more ovens as quickly as possible". So Prüfer had nothing to gain by exaggerating the capacity of his ovens and promising a performance that his product would not comply with. On the contrary, it was in his interest to understate his ovens' capacity, so that his customer would feel compelled to buy more. Promising a performance that could not be achieved might also have subjected his company to warranty claims under German civil law.

So Prüfer had no interest in lying to Obersturmführer Krone about the capacity of his ovens. But he had every interest in lying to his Soviet interrogators after the war, for the reasons explained above.

In the course of his interrogation by the Soviets, Prüfer eventually became more honest, however. This was what he told them on 19 March 1946:

Frage: Was berichteten Sie Sander über Ihre Reise nach Auschwitz?

Antwort: Ich berichtete Sander, dass ich bei der Erprobung der Öfen im Krematorium des Konzentrationslagers Auschwitz zugegen gewesen und zum Schluss gelangt sei, die Krematorien könnten eine solche Anzahl von Leichen, wie dort zu verbrennen war, nicht bewältigen, da die Öfen der Krematorien zu wenig leistungsfähig waren. Dabei führte ich gegenüber Sander als Beispiel an, dass in Auschwitz in meiner Gegenwart jeweils zwei Leichname in eine Einführungsöffnung/Muffel eingeschoben wurden statt eines einzigen, und dass die Öfen des Krematoriums dann diese Belastung nicht aushielten, weil es sehr viele Leichen zu verbrennen gab. Damals sagte ich Sander auch, dass die Leichen, die ich gesehen hatte, von Menschen stammten, die man zuvor in Gaskammern ermordet hatte.

My translation:

Question: What did you report to Sander about your trip to Auschwitz?

Answer: I reported to Sander that I had been present at the testing of the ovens in the crematorium of Auschwitz concentration camp and had reached the conclusion that the crematoria could not handle such a number of corpses as had to be burned there because the crematorium ovens had too little capacity. In this I gave Sander the example that in my presence two corpses instead of one had been shoved into a muffle each time, and that then the crematorium ovens could not stand the strain because there were very many corpses to be burned. At that time I also told Sander that the corpses I had seen were of people who had been previously murdered in gas chambers.

This is presumably the statement that Hargis is referring to. Note that there's nothing in that statement about the temperature in the oven having gone so high that it damaged the oven when they tried to burn two bodies at a time, like Hargis claimed. What can be concluded from Prüfer's statement, as translated from Russian to German by Graf and from Graf's German translation to English by myself, is that Prüfer was concerned that burning two bodies at a time would in the long run put too much strain on the ovens because there were very many corpses to be burned. But even that reading is based on a faulty translation of the original Russian document by Mr. Graf, as Sergey Romanov demonstrated in his blog article Carlo Mattogno and interrogations of Topf engineers. The correct translation of the key passage from Russian, by a native speaker of the Russian language who is also fluent in English, is the following:

I gave Sander an example - that in Auschwitz, in my presence, two-three corpses were being pushed into crematoria muffles instead of one, and even then crematorium's ovens did not cope with that load, because there were too many corpses for incineration.

So what was actually said by Prüfer was that there were too many bodies in the camp for furnaces to effectively cope with despite the practice of simultaneously introducing two or three corpses into each muffle, and not that burning several bodies at the same time would damage the ovens. This meaning of Prüfer's statement, as Sergey points out in his article, is confirmed by the following statement of Prüfer's colleague, engineer Sander, during his interrogation on 13 March 1946 (emphases in the following quote are mine):

Pruefer then gave me an example that in his presence two-three corpses were being put into each muffle, and even then they did not cope with the load, because there were too many corpses for incineration in the concentration camp.

It is further confirmed by a recently discovered document also referred to by Sergey, a letter that engineer Sander wrote on 14 September 1942 to the management of the oven manufacturing company Topf & Söhne. My translation of a key passage from this letter, transcribed in Sergey's article, reads as follows:

The high demand of incineration ovens for concentration camps - which lately has shown especially in what concerns Auschwitz, and which according to Mr. Pruefer's report again led to an order of 7 three-muffle ovens - led me to examine the question whether the current oven system with muffle for the above-mentioned entities is the right thing. In my opinion things don't go fast enough in the muffle ovens to remove a huge number of corpses within a desirably short time. Thus one helps out with a multitude of ovens or muffles and by stuffing full the individual muffle with several corpses[my emphasis - RM], without thereby solving the basic source [of the problem], i.e. the deficiencies of the muffle system.

So the problem that Prüfer and Sander were talking about, and that Sander referred to in his letter to the management of Topf & Shne, was not that it was not possible to burn several corpses in one muffle at the same time. On the contrary: as Sander's statements in his letter suggest, stuffing full the individual muffle with several corpses was common practice at Auschwitz-Birkenau already in September 1942, before the 46 Birkenau muffles were constructed. The problem was that, despite the practice of stuffing the muffles full with bodies, it was not possible to burn the many bodies around at the camp in the desired time.

There goes Hargis first claim, then. Completely torn to shreds.



Muehlenkamp' bizarre claim is further complicated that by the fact that adding additional corpses would slow down the cremation times, therefore negating the claims about time lengths.

How does Hargis, the self-appointed cremation expert, know that adding additional corpses would slow down the cremation times? I doubt he can demonstrate that, as I doubt he can demonstrate any of the trash he spouts.

I can imagine that adding bodies would extend the cremation time if the cremation load for which the ovens had been built was exceeded, but even then this would not necessarily mean that cremation time increased by the same factor as the number of corpses, in relation to the time required to burn a single corpse.

But would the cremation load for which the oven had been built be necessarily exceeded when burning several bodies at the same time instead of one?

Hargis obviously forgot to read, or did not understand, my statement that

The cremation unit that one muffle was supposed to handle in a given time was a weight unit, which means that one or several persons adding up to that weight unit could be put into each muffle simultaneously without increasing the cremation time.

This means the following:

If the weight unit for which the oven was built was 70 kg, for instance, this weight unit might be made up of

1 adult man weighing 70 kg, or
1 woman weighing 50 kg plus two small children weighing 10 kg each.

In the latter case, there would be three bodies cremated at once instead of one, without that increasing the cremation load and hence the cremation time.

If the weight unit for which the oven was built was 100 kg, this weight unit might be made up of

1 adult man weighing 70 kg plus an older child or teenager weighing 30 kg (= 2 bodies in the muffle), or
2 adult women weighing 50 kg each (= two bodies in the muffle), or
1 adult woman weighing 50 kg, two bigger children weighing 20 kg each and one smaller child weighing 10 kg (= 4 bodies in the muffle), or
1 adult woman weighing 50 kg and five smaller children weighing 10 kg each (= six bodies in the muffle).

In none of these scenarios would there be an increase of the cremation load. Why the cremation time should increase when the cremation load is the same, and by how much, Mr. Hargis is kindly requested to explain. As most of the corpses burned in the crematoria of Birkenau were of women and children (children were unable to work and thus dispatched upon arrival, and women who had children were dispatched with them), it does not seem improbable that an average throughput of at least three bodies per hour, which would hardly have been achievable if adult males had been burned, was feasible given the specific composition of the Birkenau crematoria's population.



According to the story:

highly acclaimed "eyewitness" Henryk Tauber stated that a body could be cremated in 5-7 minutes

Auschwitz "eyewitness" Dov Paisikovic, stated that the cremation of one body took about 4 minutes!

I dont know Paisikovic's testimony that Hargis is referring to, but Hargis claims he does, so he should show it to his readers so that they may see if Paisikovic really stated what Hargis claims he did.

As to Tauber, lets have a look at what he stated, according to the English translation of his testimony published by Jean-Claude Pressac:

[Later on,] in continuous operation, we could burn two charges per hour. According to the regulations. we were supposed to charge the muffles every half hour. Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, 5 to 7 minutes was allowed to burn one corpse in a muffle. In principle, he did not let us put more than three corpses in one muffle. Because with that quantity we were obliged to work without interruption, for as soon as the last muffle was charged, the contents of the first had been consumed [Tauber describes his work as being to look after ONE furnace, charging the three muffles, the first, second and third, or last, in tum]. In order to be able to take a pause during the work, we would charge 4 or 5 corpses in each muffle. The incineration of such a charge took longer, and after charging the last muffle, we had a few minutes break until the first one was again available. We took advantage of this free time to wash the floor of the boiler room [!], as a result of which the air became a little cooler.

First of all, we see that Tauber was not stating that a single body could be cremated within 5 to 7 minutes; that time was an average per body in the simultaneous cremation of several bodies.

Second, Tauber did not state that he and his fellow inmates managed to achieve this average; he merely stated that this was the goal communicated to them by Ober Capo August.

Third and most important, it is not clear what Tauber means by the time to burn a load of bodies. What he and his fellow prisoner-workers were concerned with, as the above-quoted text clearly shows, was the time after which they would have to introduce the next load of bodies. This was not the time it took for the corpses to be completely cremated, but the time until the previous corpse load had been sufficiently reduced by the oven heat for the following corpse load to fit into the muffle. If the muffles were charged every half hour with a load of three corpses, the time per corpse until the next load was charged would be ten minutes; with a load of four corpses it would be 7.5 minutes, and with a load of five corpses it would be 6 minutes. The previous load would not yet be completely cremated by the time the next load was introduced, but this was not Tauber's concern as a prisoner-worker. So it seems reasonable to refer Taubers statement not to the total cremation time for each load of corpses, but to that part of the cremation time until a load had become sufficiently small for the next load to be introduced. This time, according to a statement by a participant in a conference of the British Cremation Society quoted in John Zimmerman's article Body Disposal at Auschwitz, is about half of the total cremation time in corpse cremation:

After about half an hour, whether the furnace has gotten up to a temperature of 1100C or whether it is 900C, there is a rapid fall away, and I think the investigations should be concerned with the last twenty minutes or so of the cremation cycle. At that time you have in the cremator a very small quantity of body material...roughly the size of a rugby football, about twenty minutes from the end of the cremation, and this is the thing which is most difficult to remove.

If, as seems reasonable to do, we assume that Tauber was referring not to the total cremation time of a load of bodies, but only to that part thereof until the bodies had become roughly the size of a rugby football so that new bodies could be introduced, his above-quoted description is not implausible at all. Sorry, Jonnie, no cigar.

Last but not least:

Question these impossibilities and you'll go to jail in many countries

Oh no, you ignorant prick. Questioning the accuracy of data in eyewitness testimonies cannot get you into trouble anywhere, already because, as every trial judge knows, eyewitnesses can be mistaken about many details (especially the duration of a given event or process, one of the details regarding which human observation and memory are most fallible, according to forensic psychology) and it's the work of historians to cross-check testimonies against each other and against other evidence in order to reconstruct the events under examination. What may get you in trouble in Germany and other countries is proclaiming the imbecile idea that one or the other inaccuracy in an eyewitness account means the eyewitness wholly invented the account, that all other eyewitnesses therefore invented their accounts as well and that the event described by these eyewitness thus did not take place - if you do it in public and in such a way that it may lead to a disturbance of the public order.

So far on this one. Our readers may decide how much is left of Hargis claims, while I take a look at his thread regarding the hosing of the gas chambers.

# 7

On the thread R.Muehlenkamp: 'gas chamber's were hosed down, so no cyanide, our deplorable Jonnie Hargis quotes the following part of the second of my posts of June 2001 quoted in my blog article "Hannover" Hargis, the coward, threatens when he is safe:

The claim that the walls were washed subsequent to gassings comes from eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses are an acknowledged source of forensic evidence. The only other imaginable source would have been statements from perpetrators.

This is what the eyewitnesses stated:

Henry Tauber:
The water tap was in the corridor and a rubber hose was run from it to wash the floor of the gas chamber...

Filip Müller
Normally the concrete floors in the gas chamber as well as in the changing room were damp: today they were carefully dried....

The Sonderkommando squad, outfitted with large rubber boots, lined up around the hill of bodies and flooded it with powerful jets of water. This was necessary because the final act of those who die by drowning or by gas is an involuntary defecation....

Daniel Bennahmias:
Once the gas chamber had been cleared, it must be hosed free of all traces of blood and excrement - but mainly blood - and then it must be whitewashed with a quick drying paint. This step is crucial, and it is done each time the gas chamber is emptied, for the dying have scratched and gouged the walls in their death throes. The walls are embedded with blood and bits of flesh, and none on the next transport must suspect that he is walking into anything other than a shower. This takes two or three hours.

Whether the walls or the ceiling were washed is without importance. What matters is that the hosing of the gas chambers increased the level of humidity in the chambers so much that the equilibrium concentration of CN- ions necessary to the formation of blue staining, if reached at all during the gassings, turned into a concentration too low to allow for the formation of iron blues. According to Alich et al, the formation of Prussian blue from dilutions of iron and iron cyanide took 2 days and addition of as little as 13% water (by volume) caused the complex from which iron blues could form to decompose.

Lets look at the fuss that our friend makes about this text (his introductory bratwurst baloney Ill ignore).

- Imagine, supposedly 2000 Jews at a time crammed into an alleged converted morgue and gassed, using the cyanide carrying insecticide Zyklon-B.

- Then imagine trying to wash down the walls and ceiling quickly before the cyanide penetrated.

- But there is no way to reach the walls and ceiling without removing the alleged 2000 bodies first, via a tiny elevator up to the crematorium.

You didn't read what I wrote, did you, Hargis? I wrote the following:
Whether the walls or the ceiling were washed is without importance. What matters is that the hosing of the gas chambers increased the level of humidity in the chambers so much that the equilibrium concentration of CN- ions necessary to the formation of blue staining, if reached at all during the gassings, turned into a concentration too low to allow for the formation of iron blues.

Humidity could come from the hosing of the bodies before removal, described by Nyiszli. Or from the washing following a previous gassing, unless the walls were dried afterwards before the next load of victims came in. According to Müller, the gas chamber floors were usually damp; drying them was the exception.

- All this while deadly cyanide gas is rushing out the now open door, since the Zyklon-B would still be releasing it's cyanide load, which it will ... for hours. The alleged gassing times were supposedly mere minutes. If the liars try to say that the Zyklon-B was pulled out of the alleged gas chambers after death was accomplished, they must then explain what was done with the still outgassing Zyklon-B, which they cannot.

Funny ideas you got about gassing and outgassing times, Jonnie. Suck the following text and calculations, which are from the Veritas Team’s 3rd Response of the Scholars Debate on the RODOH forum (Where were you when that debate took place, chickenshit? Your fellow true believers of the Negationist Team at least gave it a try.):
The next issue that concerns our opponents is

2. How much Zyklon B was allegedly poured into the morgue?

Faithful defenders of their guru Rudolf that they are, our opponents tell us that

He based his estimate on US execution gas chambers which operated at 3,200 ppm HCN and killed in about 10 minutes. This is a reasonable approach in our opinion.

Rudolf Report
The gas generator in US execution gas chambers consisted of a crockery pot filled with a dilute solution (18%) of sulfuric acid with a mechanical release lever. Some 25 - 13-gram sodium cyanide pellets were used and generated a concentration of 3200 ppm in a 600 cubic foot chamber.

Accurate rendering of data provided, Rudolf's approach could be considered a reasonable, even prudent one if the amount he alleges is used in US prison executions corresponded to the minimum concentration of hydrogen cyanide that must be reached to bring about a condemned convicts death.

Is that so?

The scientific data in this respect are explained in Dr. Richard Green's online article Chemistry is not the Science:
[...]Rudolf implies that 300 ppmv is a limit imposed for safety reasons. Rudolf is correct that limits imposed for safety reasons are much lower than lethal concentrations. We examine here what the safe exposure limit is. DuPont's literature on the topic is enlightening:

Specific HCN air quality standards for the OSHA Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) are 4.7 ppm, 5 mg/m3. The ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV) is 10 ppm, 11 mg/m3, Time Weighted Average (TWA). This is also a ceiling value. The Du Pont Acceptable Exposure Limit (AEL) is 10 ppm-8-hour TWA, 5 ppm-12-hour TWA. [27]

OSHA is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which sets workplace safety guidelines for the U.S. Department of Labor.

DuPont lists furthermore the following safety thresholds:

2-5 ppm Odor threshold

4-7 ppm OSHA exposure limit, 15 minute time weighted average

20-40 ppm Slight symptoms after several hours

45-54 ppm Tolerated for 1/2 to 1 hour without significant immediate or delayed effects

100-200 ppm Fatal within 1/2 to 1 hour

300 ppm Rapidly fatal (if no treatment)[our emphasis - VT]

One does not provide treatment to someone that one intends to kill, so for our purposes 300 ppmv is "rapidly fatal." Rudolf's implication is incorrect. [our emphasis - VT] Additionally, we estimate conservatively below that the victims were exposed to 450-1810 ppmv within 5 to 15 minutes. In all probability the exposure was greater than that (see below).

Rudolf is correct that these values are estimates. Du Pont makes this point explicitly:

These numbers should be considered reasonable estimates, not exact, since effects vary for different people, and data are not exact.[our emphasis - VT] Also, heavy breathing from physical work will increase cyanide intake and reduce the time for symptoms to show. The "rapidly fatal" exposure level of 300 ppm assumes no first aid or medical treatment. Either is very effective if used quickly.

(Emphasis Du Pont's.) How quickly is quickly?

Seconds count, and treatment should be provided within about 200 seconds (3-4 minutes).[our emphasis - VT]

We note that conditions (e.g., temperature, quantity of Zyklon, etc.) undoubtedly varied from gassing to gassing so it is not surprising if there is some variation in the amount of time that witnesses report for a gassing to occur. Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hss described such variation in his memoirs. [28]

Rudolf claims that Dr. Green is unaware of the fact that toxicological data cannot be applied to the strongest people in a group. Rudolf's mind-reading abilities are not very good - of course toxicological data is based on averages - but Rudolf's analysis misses an obvious point. In a given gassing the strongest undoubtedly survived longer than the weakest. This problem could be dealt with by the simple expedient of waiting until all victims are apparently dead. This time might vary from gassing to gassing.[our emphasis - VT] If one gassing took 10 minutes and another 15, a witness to both who reported that it took about 10 minutes would not be lying.[...]

The above shows that while exposure to 20 - 40 ppm can cause slight symptoms after several hours of exposure (which may well have been what the SS man mentioned in camp commandant Höss’s order of 12 August 1942 suffered from), a concentration of 300 ppm (= 0,33g/m = 330 mg/ m] is rapidly fatal, if not treated within 3-4 minutes, in an average human being. While the DuPont scale does not specify what rapidly means, the Merck index, quoted by Dr. Green in his online article The Chemistry of Auschwitz is more specific in this respect:
[...]The Merck index warns, "Exposure to 150 ppm for 1/2 to 1 hr may endanger life. Death may result from a few min exposure to 300 ppm"[...]

The above data show that the concentration of hydrogen cyanide which, according to Rudolf, is applied in US prison executions, corresponds to almost 10 times the concentration that is rapidly fatal to an average human being.

Is this really the concentration of hydrogen cyanide used in US prison executions? Rudolf is hardly a reliable secondary source, so it’s fair to ask, in the first place, where Rudolf got his figures from. Does he give his sources, as a scholar is supposed to? Is it stated in these sources that the concentration of hydrogen cyanide was 3200 ppm, or are these Rudolf's own calculations? In the latter case, does he lay open his calculating method? Reasons to doubt the accuracy of Rudolf’s assertions there are enough. In what concerns US prison gassings, some of these reasons are mentioned on pages 25 and following and in Appendix I of Dr. Richard Greens expert report submitted to the Court of Appeals during the Irving-Lipstadt lawsuit. This report, with a foreword by Dr. Green, can be found online under [link].

But lets assume, for the time being, that Rudolf is right about the concentration of hydrogen cyanide applied in US prison executions, and examine his statement, also quoted by our opponents, that
In order to reach a gas concentration of 3,000 ppm in the farthest corner within five minutes would require for the free volume of 430 m3 in morgue 1, an amount of hydrogen cyanide of app. 1.5 kg spread out over five minutes. Since the carrier material only releases approximately 10% of its hydrogen cyanide content after five minutes, at least ten times that amount would have been required in order to kill in only a few minutes, i.e., this would mean the utilization of at least 15 kg of Zyklon B.
First of all, why five minutes or a few minutes?

Rudolf's argument in this respect seems to be the duration of homicidal gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau reported by witnesses, which he compares to times for a convict to die by hydrogen cyanide in US prison executions. Death as recorded in US prison executions means clinical death, ascertained by a physician on the basis of the applicable criteria for establishing death, which at least require that the convict's heart has stopped beating. This means that the times given by witnesses to gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau would only be comparable to Rudolfs data from US prison executions if the former witnesses had reported clinical death in this sense.

A look at some of the eyewitness testimonies quoted in our 1st response under [link] clearly shows that this was not so:

Commandant Höss: "The process could be observed through the peep hole in the door. Those who were standing next to the air shaft were killed immediately. I can state that about one-third died immediately. The remainder staggered about and began to scream and struggle for air. The screaming, however, soon changed to gasping and in a few moments everyone lay still. After twenty minutes at the most, no movement could be detected. The time required for the gas to take effect varied according to weather conditions and depended on whether it was damp or dry, cold or warm. It also depended on the quality of the gas, which was never exactly the same, and on the composition of the transports, which might contain a high proportion of healthy Jews, or the old and sick, or children. The victims became unconscious after a few minutes, according to the distance from the air shaft. Those who screamed and those who were old, sick, or weak, or the small children died quicker than those who were healthy or young."

Hans Stark: "(...)As the Zyklon B -- as already mentioned -- was in granular form, it trickled down over the people as it was being poured in. They then started to cry out terribly for they now knew what was happening to them. I did not look through the opening because it had to be closed as soon as the Zyklon B had been poured in. After a few minutes there was silence. After some time had passed, it may have been ten to fifteen minutes, the gas chamber was opened. The dead lay higgledy-piggedly all over the place. It was a dreadful sight."

Pery Broad: "(...)As soon as the tin was emptied, the prussic acid escaped from the granules.(...) Some two minutes later the screams became less loud and only an indistinct groaning was heard. The majority of the victims had already lost consciousness. Two minutes more and Grabner stopped looking at his watch. It was over. There was complete silence. (...) Some time later, when the ventilators had extracted the gas, the prisoners working in the crematorium opened the door to the mortuary."

Miklos Nyiszli: "(...)The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead... In order to be certain of their business the two gas-butchers waited another five minutes. Then they lighted cigarettes and drove off in their car. They had just killed 3,000 innocents.... Twenty minutes later the electric ventilators were set going in order to evacuate the gas."

Dr. Andre Lettich: "Then SS-Unterscharfuhrer Moll dropped the gas through a little window. The cries that could be heard were frightening, but after a few moments complete silence reigned. Twenty to twenty-five minutes later the windows and doors were opened to air the room, and the corpses were immediately thrown into ditches, where they were burned."

All emphases in the above are ours - VT.

None of the quoted witnesses got close enough to a single of the victims to establish whether clinical death had occurred. The witnesses described what they saw or heard before the gas chamber doors were opened, and if some of them concluded from their perceptions that the victims were dead, this was only their unconfirmed assumption, for they had no way of telling clinical death from the unconsciousness that, in hydrogen cyanide poisoning, precedes death. This unconsciousness, according to US prison records mentioned in an article quoted by our opponents elsewhere in their submission – Dr. Friedberg’s article under [link] - is reported to occur after less than 2 minutes, long before the convict is actually dead. So if Rudolf compares the times mentioned by witnesses like those quoted above with the time until clinical death is recorded in US prison executions, rather than the time it takes for the convict to lose consciousness, he is comparing apples with oranges. His comparison is invalid also for another reason: after they had lost consciousness, the victims in the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers continued to be exposed to the full concentration of hydrogen cyanide that had developed in the gas chamber until the ventilators had been switched on or - where there were no ventilators - until the doors had been opened to air out the chamber. This time, according to the above-quoted witnesses Nyiszli and Lettich, was twenty to twenty-five minutes after the gassing operation proper had been concluded, i.e. after all movement and noise inside the gas chamber had ceased. The total time between the introduction of the gas and the switching-on of the ventilator (where existing) or the opening of the doors for airing (where there were no ventilators) was about half an hour according to both Nyiszli and Lettich. Assuming that a few minutes in Starks deposition meant three to five minutes, it was 15 to 20 minutes, according to Stark. According to Höss, the first part of that period - the time until no movement could be detected - could take as many as twenty minutes.

So, contrary to what Rudolf tries to make believe, evidence does not suggest that it took five minutes or a few minutes for the victims inside the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers to die. This timing is but a straw-man, conveniently postulated to fit the argument that Rudolf intends to make.

The concentration that Rudolf assumes, on the other hand - 1,500 grams of Zyklon B in 430 cubic meters, a concentration of ca. 3.5 g/m3 - is almost 11 times the concentration that, according to the sources cited by Dr. Green (see above) is rapidly fatal to an average human being. In a gassing at Birkenau Krematorium II on 13 March 1943, described by Pressac as quoted in Dr. Greens article The Chemistry of Auschwitz, the SS used 6 kilograms of Zyklon B to wipe out 1,492 women, children, and old people, selected from a convoy of 2,000 Jews from the Krakow ghetto. Krema II, according to Dr. Greens article Chemistry is not the Science, had a volume of 504 cubic meters, which would mean that on the occasion in question a concentration of 6,000 ./. 504 = 11.9 g/m3 was used. According to Rudolf himself, the free volume - presumably the volume not occupied by the victims' bodies - was 430 m3, so 6,000 grams of Zyklon B would make for 13.95 g/m3 - 42 times the concentration lethal to an average human being.

How fast this concentration would develop depended on the ambient temperature. In another part of their present submission, our opponents refer to a table featured under [link] on Rudolfs website, which corresponds to the right part of Illustration 1 of R. Irmscher’s 1942 article Nochmals: Die Einsatzfähigkeit der Blausure bei tiefen Temperaturen, digitalized on the THHP website under [link] and translated on the same site under [link] This curve, which shows the evaporation of Zyklon B from Erco carrier material at temperatures of 18 C, - 6 C, 0 C and 15 C, makes clear that, even at the lowest of the temperatures considered, about 10% of the Zyklon evaporates within a period of about 5 to 15 minutes, the lower of these periods being roughly where the curve reaches the 10 % mark regarding the highest temperature, i.e. 15 C. This would mean that, at a temperature of 15 C, the concentration of Zyklon B in the gas chamber would after 5 minutes have reached 1.19 g/m3 or 1.395 g/m3, depending on whether it is referred to the gas chamber's total volume or to the free volume calculated by Rudolf - 3.6 to 4.2 times the lethal concentration.

At a temperature of 20 centigrade, evaporation would have occurred much faster, according to a monograph published in 1933 by Gerhard Peters of the Degesh company, translated by Dr. Ulrich Roessler and quoted in Dr. Green's online article The Chemistry of Auschwitz. Peters, as quoted by Green, wrote that the poison began to evaporate "with great vehemence" as soon as the tins were poured out, and that "the greatest part, nearly all" of the Zyklon B evaporated within 30 minutes at an ambient temperature of 20 centigrade. Assuming that the evaporation progressed linearly over time - which is unlikely, if only because the amount subject to vehement evaporation would be higher at the outset and thus more gas would be released at the beginning of the process - this means that roughly one-sixth of the substance would have evaporated after five minutes, making for a concentration of 1.98 g/m or 2.33 g/m - 6 or 7 times the lethal concentration.

However, an ambient temperature of 20 Celsius, still somewhat below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide (25.6 degrees Celsius, according to the Merck Index, quoted by Dr. Green) is also likely to have been a rarity in the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau. For these chambers were full of human bodies and human body temperature is 37C, far above the boiling point of Zyklon B. The temperature inside the gas chamber, as we already pointed out, is likely to have been like in a sauna even at low outside temperatures, and it is thus described by several witnesses, e.g. Henryk Tauber:
[...]It was very hot in the gas chamber and so suffocating as to be unbearable.[...]
Source of quote: [link].

If an increase in temperature from 15 C to 20 C, still somewhat below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide, cut the evaporation time and accordingly increased the gas concentration after 5 minutes evaporation by almost 70 %, it seems reasonable to assume that, at a far higher temperature well above the boiling point, the concentration after 5 minutes would be higher by at least the same factor - 3.31 g/m3 or 3,88 g/m3, 10 to almost 12 times the lethal concentration.

This, in turn, would correspond to roughly 28 % of the concentration after full out-gassing (11.9 g/m3 or 13.95 g/m3), or roughly 1.7 kg of evaporated Zyklon B.

So we can safely say that the amount required to reach the concentration that, according to Rudolf, is applied in US prison executions, was not 15 kg of Zyklon B for 430 cubic meters or roughly 35 g/m3, let alone a higher amount. Less than half of that can be assumed to have been sufficient, at the temperature in the gas chambers produced by the body heat of many frightened people packed together, to bring about a concentration of hydrogen cyanide that would meet both Rudolf's five minutes straw-man and his postulations regarding the gas concentration at US prison executions.

The above-mentioned concentrations at full out-gassing in g/m correspond to roughly 11,000 or 13,000 ppmv, the assumed concentrations after five minutes to ca. 3,000 or 3,500 ppmv.

How long would it take for these concentrations to be reduced to safe levels by the ventilators installed in the gas chambers of Birkenau crematoria II and III?

Well, certainly less than Dr. Green's calculations quoted in our 2nd response, which point to 18 - 23 minutes at an initial concentration of 7,200 ppmv and 26 minutes at an initial concentration of 18,100 ppmv. These calculations show that Rudolf is dead wrong when, as quoted by Dr. Green under [link], he claims that
The eyewitness testimony claiming adequate ventilation after 20 to 30 minutes in Mortuaries I of crematoria II and III are thus not credible.
The above reference to our 2nd response should also make clear that we never said anything about a quick and safe out-gassing of only a few minutes. So our opponents’ conclusion that:
This of course trashes thoroughly the idea of a quick and safe out-gassing of only a few minutes, as our opponents claim.
is utter trash also under the aspect of intellectual honesty.

- Yet the alleged next batch of 2000 more Jews are supposedly waiting in line to enter the alleged gas chamber, which is now releasing gas, exposing them and the entire camp to cyanide. Now remember, the 2000 Jews allegedly waiting were supposed to be unaware of danger, thinking they were just being taken to get showers.

No such scenario outside your wishful thinking, Jonnie, even on the comparatively rare days on which there was more than one gassing cycle in a gas chamber. As Dr. Green demonstrated in his article Chemistry is not the Science, a cyanide concentration of 18,100 ppmv (which is less than the concentration I calculated in the above-quoted excerpt from the Veritas Teams 3rd Response) would take 26 minutes to be reduced to safe levels. No gas released on Jews waiting in line, sorry.

- The addition of water (humidity) actually assists in the formation of cyanide residue ..

Oh, does it? I guess it's a matter of not too little and not too much, as in so many things. A little humidity will help, but too much humidity will bring about too much dilution and thus spoil the reaction. At least this is what a scientific source used by both Dr. Green and Rudolf suggests, according to Green's article Leuchter, Rudolf & the Iron Blues:
Alich et al. show that Prussian Blue does not form in water unless there is an excess of CN- ions compared to Fe(III)[my emphasis RM] or very basic conditions. 14

The dilution of the absolute stock solutions of Fe(III) and Fe(CN)63-with absolute ethanol gave the red complex which persisted for about 1 hour, as compared to the disappearance of the red complex in the aqueous media at a dilution of 3.3 * 10-4 M. The red complex in ethanol darkened within the hour and reduction to Prussian Blue was complete in 2 days (Fig. 3).

Now comes the important part:

It is to be noted that the complex in aqueous solution, under the same conditions, decomposes immediately, the spectrum reverting to that of the Fe(CN)63- ion. Furthermore, addition of as little as 13% water (by volume) caused the red complex to decompose, giving a spectrum of the Fe(CN)63- ion.[my emphasis - RM]

Conditions in the Homicidal Gas chambers at Auschwitz Birkenau.

In other words, Prussian blue only forms with very high concentrations of CN-. The concentrations in the gas chambers were such that ambient water, given time to reach equilibrium, might theoretically have approached concentrations of 0.2 or 0.3 M - but more likely on the order of 0.1 M or below - as shown in Appendix I.

That such an equilibrium concentration could have been reached during the time span of an actual gassing is doubtful.[my emphasis - RM] This concentration is the equilibrium value. Absorption of HCN by water would undoubtedly be kinetically limited, i.e., the concentration would be limited by how fast the absorption process can occur. The equilibrium concentration assumes that the water has been exposed to HCN long enough that the rate of HCN leaving solution into the gas phase is equal to the rate at which HCN from the gas phase is being absorbed by the water.

Most importantly one must recall that the gas chambers were hosed down with water after gassings to clean up blood and excrement.15 Considering that the ambient water would have been quite small, providing 100 times dilution would have been trivial. This effect may actually be the explanation for the presence of Prussian blue in the delousing chambers yet its absence in the homicidal chambers.[my emphasis - RM] Some further research will be necessary to support this supposition conclusively.

- Germar Rudolf demonstrated that it would have taken 10 times the amount of Zyklon-B for the claimed gassings of Jews compared to the routine delousing of clothing etc. That's a lot of cyanide, but we don't cyanide levels to support the lies. -

Did he? That must have been one hell of fraudulent demonstration, then, judging by the calculations and considerations in the above quote from the Veritas Team's 3rd Response. Or can Rudolf’s oh-so-talented pupil Jonnie Hargis explain what's supposed to be wrong with these?

'Filip Mueller / another lying "eyewitness"'

'Acclaimed 'eyewitness' Henryk Tauber / stranger than fiction'

What am I supposed to see there, Jonnie? I don’t feel like going through all that mutual back-slapping among true believers, so just tell me what lies of Müller and Tauber are supposed to have been demonstrated on those threads and how they are supposed to affect what both witnesses said about the moisture in the gas chambers, a detail the significance of which they could have no idea about. Feel free to open another Roberto thread listing those lies and the evidence thereto.

see: '"eyewitness" Daniel Bennahmias paints lies'

Yep, that's right, Bennahmias claimed the Germans painted the alleged gas chamber walls after every absurdly alleged 'gassing' to conceal cyanide. "This takes two or three hours". But supposedly these gassing were night & day with batch after batch waiting patiently to die in rapid succession.

Who told you that, Jonnie? More than one gassing cycle per gas chamber and day was the exception at Auschwitz-Birkenau, not the rule. It essentially happened during the deportations from Hungary and Lodz in the summer of 1944. During normal times there would have been enough time for washing and painting a gas chamber after the day's one gassing. So the plausibility of Bennahmias account would depend on what period of the operation of Auschwitz-Birkenau he was referring to.

We have tales that these alleged gassings took mere minutes per batch.

Do we? Not that the duration of a process is something eyewitnesses can necessarily be trusted to record accurately (actually its one of the most error-prone details in eyewitness testimony), but could you please look at the testimonies quoted in the above excerpt from the VT's 3rd Response and tell me which of these testimonies you are referring to? Mind that no eyewitness had a way of telling if the victims were already dead in a clinical sense when their screaming stopped, or still in the state of unconsciousness that precedes death after a gassing.

Ah, and what matters is not the duration of the gassing and ventilation anyway, but the duration of the bodies' removal from the gas chambers. That took hours.

The story implodes upon itself with it's own lies.

Wishful thinking is also thinking, apparently the only one you're capable of. None of what you wrote in this post demonstrates a single lie.

Nyszili, ah yes, the same communist that gave numbers which suppport the FOUR MILLION at Auschwitz. Lovely.

Eyewitnesses can rarely if ever provide accurate data about the number of victims of a mass killing or murder program, especially one of such magnitude. However, as every historian and trial judge knows, this doesn't exclude their providing accurate information about other details. And communist is a completely meaningless objection. Is that all you got against Nyszli, Jonnie? Piss poor, I would say.

The stupid lies that people like Roberto Muehlenkamp come up with an attempt to cover an obvious fraud is amazing.

What lies, bigmouth? None of your gibberish qualifies as a demonstration of even a single lie, and your offensive bullshit rhetoric doesn’t make up for miserable poverty of your arguments.

For further spanking of the shyster Muehlenkamp

from the Rudolf Report:

Name-calling is also no substitute for arguments, Jonnie. And if the best you can do is bluntly refer to Germar Rudolf's horseshit, then all I have to do for further spanking of poor little Jonnie (and of his admired guru Rudolf, of course), is refer to Dr. Green’s deconstructions of Rudolfs pseudo-scientific manure:

The Chemistry of Auschwitz

Leuchter, Rudolf & the Iron Blues

Chemistry is not the Science

Expert Report, submitted in support of Deborah Lipstadt's defense in David Irving's lawsuit against her (apparently David Irving got cold feet when he read that report and withdrew Rudolfs affidavit as evidence supporting his case, go figure).

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibilities of 'holocaust' stories is the message.

Just a few small changes to make the above an accurate statement:
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibilities of the Revisionist creed are the message.

How's that, Jonnie?

Are the message, by the way, not is the message. Apart from being a dilettante Revisionist true believer, a dumb liar and a coward, you can’t even write correct English, Jonnie.

And you want to spank me?

I’ll open a link to this thread on the Holocaust Controversies blog, so our readers there can enjoy this show as well. I'll call it Watch chickenshit liar Jonnie Hargis get his yellow ass kicked, or something like that.

I’m trusting you to keep the show alive, of course. Don’t disappoint me, Jonnie!



No comments: