Saturday, November 28, 2015

Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans: Producer Gas

Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans
Part IX: The Just Memo

Lacking sufficient concrete evidence to show the Holocaust did not happen and to build their own narrative, Holocaust deniers are forced to resort to their personal incredulity as a main line of attack: the Germans wouldn't have done it this way, therefore it didn't happen. It's always fascinating to see with what incredible certainty Holocaust denier think to contradict historical facts established by multiple, corroborating sources by just presenting their poorly substantiated incredulity. A prime example is the claim that the Germans would have used the exhaust of producer gas generators instead of engine exhaust for homicidal gassing.

"But not even gasoline engines would have been the choice of a potential mass murder, since Germany had an even cheaper, less complicated, and more efficient method readily at hand: wood gas or producer gas generators." (p. 101)

"Hence, if the Germans had used the Saurer trucks mentioned in the Gaubschat exchange as gas vans – or any other truck – they would have been equipped with wood gas generators, and this very gas – before(!) entering the engine – would have been used to kill the inmates locked up on the cargo box." (p. 272)
(Santiago Alvarez, The Gas Vans)

This argument is also advanced by the Holocaust deniers Friedrich Berg, Jürgen Graf, Thomas Dalton (Debating the Holocaust, p. 84) and Nicholas Kollerstrom (Breaking the Spell, p. 63).

Actually, the choice for gasoline engine exhaust can be well understood. The use of producer gas generators to drive combustion engines with solid fuels was more dirty, dangerous, complicated and inconvenient and hardly anybody would used them for transport if it were not because of political intervention due to the shortage of liquid fuels during the war. The producer gas generators had to be mounted in addition to the combustion engine and were therefore reducing the space/load available and the number of people to be gassed per batch in the cargo box. Last but not least, producer gas is not only toxic but also potentially explosive.

Here is the composition of producer gas according to Imbert, the leading producer gas generator company in Germany at the time (Eckermann, Fahren mit Holz, p. 17): 

Nitrogen: 47%
Carbon monoxide: 23%
Hydrogen: 18%
Carbon dioxide: 10%
Methane: 2%

And here are some lower explosive limits of gases: 

Carbon monoxide: 12.5%
Hydrogen: 4%

Accordingly, this mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen has a lower explosive limit of about 6% in air (Le Chatelier's mixing rule) and makes up about 40% of producer gas. Its safe use for homicidal gassing could have required technical regulation and training not necessary for gasoline engines as its concentration of carbon monoxide is around the lower explosive limit in air. Gasoline engine exhaust contains 10 - 14% carbon monoxide when running idle, which is more than one order of magnitude of what is fatal within 20 minutes, yet with much less risk of ignition than there was with producer gas.

From the choice of gasoline engine exhaust over producer gas one may conclude that the Germans in charge of the gas van development did not consider the higher content of carbon monoxide in producer gas beneficially enough to outweigh the lower effective payload of the trucks, the extra effort for its technical implementation and/or the safety issues and that gasoline engine exhaust was seen as the best compromise between toxicity and safety for this kind of application.

65 comments:

Reactionary said...

Intresting Hans.

Have the revisionists answered the arguments you have here, somewhere ?

There is a lot of Holocaust debate on forums much, but I think it is not possible to try to keep up with the debate since 90% or so of all submissions from both sides is usually about dirty words. How about an open conversation on the subject? Calm and sober conversations, where the premier briefed the representatives on both sides sit down around a table or heard on Skype and talk for hours about this in peace and kindness and respect, where you go through and ask each other, can this really be true, etc. ? Which explore and encounter each other's arguments and sources, in a civilized and respectable manner.

Are you with it his? Roberto perhaps too? Is there a revisionist rival candidate you know about?

People with two different opinions concerning this historic event, but with the calm and moderates who can bring one adult and civilized conversiation the subject. It should not trade about to confront each other or try to make the other person look bad, but just talking to each other and quietly let both sides are heard, until the point, until there is no more to say.

Then we can talk about gas for cars, etc., and what is possible is not possible etc. In the end, everyone should be able to see which side is right.

This can be done via eg Skype. To meet physically. Or to invite to the debate over the internet. in a forum in a thread, with for example two debaters and a moderator who do not take a position but which ensures that rules are followed.

No personal attacks, and nothing that does not have the substance and the substance to get it rewritten. Nor may persons other comment in this thread, have questions write a lot of nonsense and so on. When I try to read discussions on the topics it is like I said a little argument, and most slogans and a lot of nonsense in every other post, is a hassle to have to read hundreds of pages of bullshit and things that do not have the final judgment to make.

Exemple, a thread is started where only you and Alvares tals. Another thread may Roberto towards Berg, in which only two are allowed to write so on.

So they may encounter their arguments and come with their different scientific sources and argue why the other has wrong and why etc.

We start such topics in each subject, with two people from each side of their 'skills areas with different views, so we can probably find out a lot of this.

What do you think of this proposal?

Nathan said...

Deniers don't deserve "open conversations". They've been caught openly lying to support their agenda, here and in several other places. Just look at the exposes on Kollestrom.

Your "proposal" assumes that deniers' views have merit. They don't. It's black and white- Hans, Roberto et al are right. They have all the evidence. They have all the facts. The deniers are objectively wrong, and have nothing but lies and trolling. We don't have two equal "sides" one is right, and the other is wrong. The truth deserves respect, and the liars, in your words, deserve "dirty words".

It's not Hans and the others' job to "talk" to the deniers. It's the Deniers' job to prove their bullshit has merit, and is worth debating. They can do that by actually building an evidence backed case, instead of annoying everyone by repeating the same nitpicking, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Until that happens, and it never will, Deniers are trash. And they always will be.

I speak only for myself and don't claim to represent Hans, Roberto or the others.

Jeff said...

To suggest that producer gas would have been a preferable method implies a degree of ignorance. The goal was to kill those in the back of the van, not the drivers.

Hans said...

Hi Reactionary,

there already had been direct debates between Anti-Revisionists and Revisionists in the past, see

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewforum.php?f=18

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2013/02/radio-debate-re-match.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2012/06/usual-revisionist-victory-dancing.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2010/04/thomas-dalton-responds-to-roberto.html

Personally, I'm not a fan of fast exchange of blows, I do need time to check and develop thorough arguments. The blog is just the right format for me, where I can take whatever time I need to gather sources, develop my point of view and do some cyles of proof-reading anticipating Revisionist critiques until I'm satisfied it will stand any reasonable scrutiny.

Revisionists are free to submit their rebuttal here or on Revisionist blogs or discussion forums or youtube or whatever media they want. But most of my blogs are responded with silence.

Reactionary said...

Hi Hans.

Thanks for the reply.

OK I understand.

But then maybe a thread on a forum, between just you and Alvares would be a good idea? Then he can not back away without the need to respond, if he does not wish to appear as the loser in the debate. Such a debate in such a thread, each would take the time needed, calmly go through sources etc do not they give their answer. No need for fast exchange.

The advantage of taking it in a thread, is that you then have both sides of all the arguments and sources on the same subject, gathered on the same set, so it will be easy to get an overview of all collected materials.

Would you agree to that, if I could arrange it?

Best regards

blake121666 said...

"A prime example is the claim that the Germans would have used the exhaust of producer gas generators instead of engine exhaust for homicidal gassing."

This is a little confused. The claim is not that the "exhaust" of a producer gas rig would be used, it is that the gasifier of a producer gas rig would be used to produce carbon monoxide. One could easily tweak a gasifier to give any amount of CO one wished. One could keep the output below explosion in air limits simply by restricting the amount output by the gasifier with the mixed air. You could run any amount of lean mix you'd like. After all, you are controlling the production of CO with the gasifier. This is NOT the case with a kludge applied to an internal combustion engine whose purpose is NOT to produce CO but rather to move a vehicle. Using exhaust of a full-blown ICE is terribly over-complicating things. A gasifier is more appropriate (not the whole ICE part of wood-gas trucks though of course).

Reactionary said...

Nathan: "They have all the evidence. They have all the facts. The deniers are objectively wrong, and have nothing but lies and trolling. We don't have two equal "sides" one is right, and the other is wrong. The truth deserves respect, and the liars, in your words, deserve "dirty words"."


Hi Nathan. Sure, but this is now clear for all. Quite a few think the revisionists are objectively right, and more it risks becoming. But I think It would became clear to more, if such debates with all the gathered material on both sides at the same place, would make it clear to all. At the end one side must give way and admit that they are wrong, or it becomes this very obvious which side is wrong. For then, all sides meet, at one place and can not escape. I believe Holocaust Controversies are objectively right, and have nothing to loose, just to win in such a debate, the "revisionists" have all to loose. So why not?

blake121666 said...

It just occurred to me that you were referring to gas vans - not the AR camp scenario. There were no gas vans; but if there were, you could more easily get CO from a wood gas ICE. And you could easily adjust exhaust output for any CO concentration you'd like. I seriously doubt the exhaust of a normally running wood gas ICE outputs CO above its LEL. It IS the output of combustion after all you know. It wouldn't be running normally if it were spitting out that much uncombusted fuel! You could adjust it to do that though of course; but who was ever thinking of doing that?

blake121666 said...

Refer to my thread about this at: https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2369&p=69806#p69806 I mentioned my last 2 posts here there so you don't need to particularly post them here. For some reason I was thinking AR camps when you are referring to the mythical "gas vans" of course. You could tweak the exhaust for suitable CO and no explosion danger.

Join and contribute there.

Hans said...

blake121666,

(1) If you start tweaking the gas generator emitting gas below or close to the lower explosive limit, you also reducing the concentration of carbon monoxide and hence you entirely vaporize this advantage over the gasoline engine.

Moreover, the safety issue is not only with carbon monoxide but also with hydrogen. Any safety engineer who wants to fill a cargo box with a gas containing a lot of hydrogen if he can do it without hydrogen as well? Anyone? Unless you can tweak the generator to reduce hydrogen selectively, you may even end up with a lower concentration of carbon monoxide for a tweaked gas generator than for a gasoline engine. If you can tweak it selectively, you need to know how to do it, you may need additional effort and tests, hence making such implementation more complicated and less likely.

The fact is that the gasoline engine was the most easy and most convinient tool to generate relatively clean carbon monoxide for the homicidal gas vans. It already operates in a technically safe and for humans toxic regime. No need for the comparable inconvienent, dirty gas generator that required additional technical regulation and training. You also ignore the lower effective load of a gas van with mounted gas generator and filter cascade, which is a point that cannot be neglected for this mobile application.

Now, even if you believe the gas generator would have been your choice, this is entirely irrelevant. Nobody cares about how you would have done it. The Germans in charge of the gas van development did not consider producer gas as suitable and given the extra effort required this can be well understand.

(2) You claim "There were no gas vans". However, there is overwhelming documentary and testimonial evidence on homicidal gas vans. Could please explain your evidence why there had been no gas vans?

bhigr said...

"From the choice of gasoline engine exhaust over producer gas one may conclude that the Germans in charge of the gas van development did not consider the higher content of carbon monoxide in producer gas beneficially enough to outweigh the lower effective payload of the trucks, the extra effort for its technical implementation and/or the safety issues and that gasoline engine exhaust was seen as the best compromise between toxicity and safety for this kind of application."

Again, you are assuming what you are trying to prove, namely that the nazis chose gasonline engines over Producer gas in order to kill jews. This is circular reasoning.

"lower effective payload of the trucks" The payload of the truck is of no concern, when the function of the truck is not the Transport of heavy payload. Instead the truck was supposedly used for killing People.

"implementation and/or the safety issues" Carbon monoxide is an explosive gas. So you must deal with this Problem, no matter which source for carbon monoxide you use. Producer gas could be easily diluted with air to any concentration you desire.

"the extra effort for its technical implementation..." There was no extra effort, because these trucks were being produced with Producer gas as fuel source. There was an extreme fuel shortage. The fuel was needed for tanks and airplanes in the war. They were fighting to win the war, fighting for their life. Therefore, the use of Producer gas was prefereable, whereever possible.

I find none of your reasons convincing. A Producer gas Generator is far cheaper and simpler than a gasoline or diesel engine. No valuable fuel for the war would have been used. The gas is far more toxic than a gasoline engine. Therefore, any reasonable Person would have Chosen a Producer gas Generator as a source for carbon monoxide for killing jews.

Dass Prussian said...

Blake's evidence that there were no gas vans most probably consists of the contents of the book that you are debunking here, Hans.

Blake may well save himself time and energy by just waiting for you to complete your full debunking, of which this is only part 2, before he decides on supplying you with his 'evidence'. It may save him from another embarrassing episode like the one at Rodoh, where he attempts to produce an argument regarding AR gas chambers before realising he should be addressing a completely different subject !!

Maybe like me he stayed up too late watching the Discovery Channels highly informative documentary on Nazi's being off their faces on crystal meths !!

blake121666 said...

With the respect to the use of gasoline engine exhaust to poison people, I agree that it definitely could be done. The wood gas engine exhaust would give more CO; but I also agree that this is a moot point in this particular application. Diesel is out of the question though. One could not use a diesel for this particular application (in any practical way). Explosion dangers wouldn't come into play with any of these options (or at least that particular issue could be avoided in all). My mind was on the AR camp scenario; the "gas van" scenario is a different matter.

J Kelly said...

I've never understood the argument that the SS would have used better ways to kill people, therefore the SS did not commit mass murder.
German doctors used bottled carbon monoxide gas to kill the disabled during the T-4 program. The vans themselves generated carbon monoxide gas when turned on, there was no need to use bottled carbon monoxide. This was an efficient use of the vans themselves, they operated as the execution device and the transportation vehicle all in one. Revisionists natter on about how "efficient" the Germans were, what's more efficient than that? The only issue that I can see is the problem of overloading the van but the Germans used these vans not only on Jews but Soviet POWs and the disabled so they had experience in using these vans and could gauge weight.
It made sense to continue to use internal combustion engines to generate carbon monoxide at the ORC, it was what the Germans were used to utilizing.
Hoess was right though, Zycon B was a better killing agent. There was no need to burn up valuable gas and there was already large stocks of it available.

Dass Prussian said...

bhigr appears to be suggesting that the Nazis could not have possibly carried out gassings in gas vans using gasoline engines because producer gas was a cheaper and simpler form of carrying out such exterminations.

That's really intelligent thinking isn't it ??????????????????

Or maybe he's just trying to prove that the Nazis were 'unreasonable' people. Considering he reckons that only reasonable people would use producer gas, this must be the point he's making. OK bhigr, you win, the Nazis WERE unreasonable people.

Hans said...

bhigr said:

"Again, you are assuming what you are trying to prove, namely that the nazis chose gasonline engines over Producer gas in order to kill jews. This is circular reasoning."

You have serious comprehension problems, bhigr.

This posting is not about showing that the Nazis used gasoline engines, but explaining why they used them over producer gas.

That the Germans used gasoline engines in their trucks to kill people was shown in the previous posting of this series:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2015/11/rebuttal-of-alvarez-on-gas-vans-why.html

Nameley, because the ratio of testimonies on Gasoline:Diesel:Producer Gas is 8:1:0.

"The payload of the truck is of no concern, when the function of the truck is not the Transport of heavy payload. Instead the truck was supposedly used for killing People."

Incorrect. The gas vans were also used to transport the victims/corpses. The limiting capacity factor of the gas vans were payload and space, both of which were reduced by the use of producer gas generators and the necessary filters and coolers.

"Carbon monoxide is an explosive gas. So you must deal with this Problem, no matter which source for carbon monoxide you use. Producer gas could be easily diluted with air to any concentration you desire."

Repeating what I told blake:

If you start diluting the producer gas exhaust, you end up with the same (or even lower, see below) carbon monoxide content than in gasoline engine exhaust and thus you destroy this technical advantage of the producer gas over gasoline, but which is precisely one of the reasons why the Germans are supposed have used them. This is senseless.

Moreover, the safety issue is not only with carbon monoxide but also with hydrogen. Any safety engineer who wants to fill a cargo box with a gas containing a lot of hydrogen if he can do it without hydrogen as well? Anyone?

Now, if you simply dilute the producer gas exhaust down to levels with little explosive risk, you obtain a concentration of carbon monoxide that is even lower than in gasoline engine exhaust, because of the high proportion of hydrogen in producer gas and its lower explosive limit.

Properly diluted producer gasis actually less toxic than gasoline engine exhaust.

"There was no extra effort, because these trucks were being produced with Producer gas as fuel source."

The trucks were produced with combustion engines, and producer gas generators had to be added to the chassis. Moreover, the "extra effort" actually refers to the implementation for homicidal gassing: developing and installing technical equipment to dilute the gas and its testing as well as its service.

Hans said...

bhigr said:
"I find none of your reasons convincing. A Producer gas Generator is far cheaper and simpler than a gasoline or diesel engine."

In contrary, for those who developed the gas vans, such producer gas vans were more expensive because it required to purchase and install the additional gas generator, filters and coolers. Morerover, it required the development, installation and testing of safety measurements to handle the 40% mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide with a 6% lower explosive limit in air.

The only thing more cheap was the fuel, but which obviously didn't bother those in charge of the gas van development in 1941, who hadn't to pay the bill for the fuel anyway.

"No valuable fuel for the war would have been used."

If the gas vans had been developed in 1944, perhaps they would have come up with a producer gas solution because of liquid fuel shortage. But the Germans had hundred of thousands of liquid fuel driven vehicles on the road in 1941 with the believe to win this war sooner or later, so the RSHA guys have hardly bothered about the few gas van trucks with gasoline engines.

"The gas is far more toxic than a gasoline engine."

The higher toxicity is only bought with the higher danger of explosion. You're not a safety engineer, right?

The gasoline engine is ideal to produce carbon monoxide for murder, because the composition of its exhaust is in a technically rather safe but still highly toxic regime.

If you had been in charge of the gas van development, I would have fired you when you come up with the crazy idea to use producer gas because of its higher toxicity just to tell me you dilute it again to make it as safe as the gasoline engine, when the trucks comes with a combustion engine anyway and your producer gas equipment is reducing the killing capacity of the wagon.

But these Germans were not that ignorant. They knew that gasoline engine exhaust was the first choice carbon monoxide source for homicidal gas vans.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

@J Kelly
«I've never understood the argument that the SS would have used better ways to kill people, therefore the SS did not commit mass murder.»

Neither have I. Assuming that the killers didn't use the "best" method they could have used, this would (especially considering the abundant eyewitness, documentary, physical and demographic evidence to systematic mass murder, plus the utter absence of evidence to an alternative scenario although such evidence could reasonably be expected to be abundant) just mean that the killers didn't strive for the "best" killing method, but were content with using something they knew would work. So what? Picture a defense attorney arguing that his defendant didn't beat or throttle his victim to death because it would have been more practical for him to do the killing with a knife or a gun, or vice-versa, in either case notwithstanding evidence to the killing and the method applied. Who would take such defense argument seriously?

In another blog, a poster commented this line of "Revisionist" argumentation as follows:
"This didn't happen, because I would have done it better."
Yeah, congratulations, you are a total moron. Please kill yourself with your special fuel.

bhigr said...

bhigr said:

"Again, you are assuming what you are trying to prove, namely that the nazis chose gasonline engines over Producer gas in order to kill jews. This is circular reasoning."

You have serious comprehension problems, bhigr.

This posting is not about showing that the Nazis used gasoline engines, but explaining why they used them over producer gas.

That the Germans used gasoline engines in their trucks to kill people was shown in the previous posting of this series:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2015/11/rebuttal-of-alvarez-on-gas-vans-why.html

Frankly, you didn't show this in the previous post. Let me just quote your conclusion:

"The type of engines installed in the homicidal gas vans can be readily deduced from the evidence:

"Most witnesses (including the most competent) described gasoline engines or gasoline fuel.

The chassis of the gas vans identified by the most reliable sources were either probably or quite possibly already factory-made on gasoline.

Gasoline engine exhaust is far more suitable for homicidal gassing than Diesel engine exhaust."

So you are relying on witnesses and admit that the witness accounts are contradictory. Some talk about Diesel engines, some talk about gasoline engines.Some of the supposedly most reliable sources admit that they don't really know what happened, for example:

"I do not know if the gasoline was mixed with chloroform, ether or other substances."

"Some sources said something completely nonsensical, like this:

"Dr. Widmann talked about adjusting the carburetor to obtain a deadly mixture as quickly as possible. As I know, this was achieved by retarded ignition." The output gas of a gasoline engine is lethal, so there is no need to adjust the carburetor in order to obtain a deadly mixture. The carburator cannot be adjusted by retarding the ignition. The ignition is not part of the carburator.

The "most reliably sources" "probably or quite possibly" identified chassis of vans that relate to gasoline engines. Again serious caveats. The last statement of fact, gasoline exhaust is more toxic than Diesel exhaust, is no proof at all. Ergo, you have no sound proof for the use of gasoline engines. This is the thesis you are trying to defend. But, you have failed to prove it.

bhigr said...

""The gas is far more toxic than a gasoline engine."

The higher toxicity is only bought with the higher danger of explosion. You're not a safety engineer, right?"

So you are not a safety engineer either, right? Therefore, you are incompetent to make any statement on this issue, right? Therefore, I should reject everything you say, right?

Let me just repeat the argument you couldn't respond to:

Carbon monoxide is an explosive gas. So you must deal with this Problem, no matter which source for carbon monoxide you use. Producer gas could be easily diluted with air to any concentration you desire.

"If you had been in charge of the gas van development, I would have fired you when you come up with the crazy idea to use producer gas because of its higher toxicity just to tell me you dilute it again to make it as safe as the gasoline engine,... "

That's funny. Just for your memory. The gas is diluted with air as soon as you introduce it into a room filled with air. You would just need less time in order to reach the desired concentration of carbon monoxide. The killing could be performed faster and cleaner.

I find it strange - to say the least - that you imagine yourself to be in the position of someone who fires engineers in charge of developing homicidal gas vans. I wouldn't perform such a job.

J Kelly said...

Someone asked me once if bottled carbon monoxide worked so well for T-4, why didn't the SS use it at the ARC?
My answer was that ordering, purchasing and transporting that amount of CO2 was expensive, not to mention not particularly subtle. The SS was not trying to advertise what they were doing. Someone also asked why didn't the SS build some sort of pipeline from Monowitz to Birkenau to pipe in CO2 instead of using Zyclon B. Again, not particularly subtle, not to mention labor/materials intensive. ZB was easy to transport and just as deadly.
I find the arguments of guys like Berg laughable in this regard. A great deal of the Holocaust was not planned and evolved over time. Sure, maybe there were better ways of mass killing....but why reinvent the wheel if the methods you are using work?

Jeff said...

it is simply illogical to assume that producer gas would have been used. Yes, it could have been tweaked to be slightly less likely to blow the users to hell, but that would essentially defeat the purpose of its use in the first place.

I will repeat that the goal was to kill those in the back of the van, not the drivers.

That's the equivalent of arguing that the Rawandan Hutus didn't kill 900,000 Tutsis with machetes because "assault rifles would have been more efficient".

It makes no sense. Most denier arguments, from my experience, dissolve when subjected to basic logic and reasoning.

J Kelly said...

You are an interesting person, blake121666. You seem to tend to the "revisionist" argument but you and I had a conversation about Leuchter on another blog (I post there as HCW) and you absolutely destroyed Leuchter's credibility regarding his report on the Auschwitz gas chambers. You rightly concluded that Leuchter was full of it regarding the explosive properties of Zyclon B, plus the argument regarding the air circulation between the victims in the gas chambers.
BTW, I post as HCW because people keep accusing me of being Hasbara (whatever that is) so I took it as a nickname, Hasbara Cyber Warrior. Goofy, right? But the people that post there are not so bright so I can't be subtle.

Hans said...

bhigr said:

"So you are not a safety engineer either, right? Therefore, you are incompetent to make any statement on this issue, right? Therefore, I should reject everything you say, right?"

I concluded from your ignorance how to address such risks that you never dealt with safety issues.

The first line of defense against risks is to replace the dangerous element if possible. In this case, it is very easy to get rid of the dangers of the hydrogen-carbon monoxide mixture injected into a cargo box by simply using gasoline engine exhaust instead of producer gas. So if the gas van developers were responsable persons and considered the 10% or whatever CO in the exhaust sufficient for homicidal gassing, they would stick to this.

"Carbon monoxide is an explosive gas. So you must deal with this Problem, no matter which source for carbon monoxide you use. Producer gas could be easily diluted with air to any concentration you desire."

Carbon monoxide is only explosive under certain conditions. It cannot not explode below 12% in air and if their is less than 5% oxygen.

The carbon monoxide concentration of gasoline engine exhaust is around or below the lower explosive limit. Given the low oxygen content in the exhaust and dilution upon mixing with air, it seems safe that it is not possible - or at least extremely unlikely - to get an explosive mixture.

This is way different for producer gas. Here the concentration of carbon monoxide and hydrogen is far above its lower explosive limit and the formation of an explosive mixture is far more likely.

Thus, with producer gas you create a problem, you don't have with a gasoline engine.

You are also ignoring that producer gas contains hydrogen, which is even more problematic to handle than carbon monoxide. It has a lower explosive limit, ignites more easily, is extremly light and may accumulate at the top. It's something you don't want to have in a cargo box, and it's entirely reasonable to avoid it if there is a proper alternative technique, which the gasoline engine clearly was.

"That's funny. Just for your memory. The gas is diluted with air as soon as you introduce it into a room filled with air. You would just need less time in order to reach the desired concentration of carbon monoxide. The killing could be performed faster and cleaner."

And more risky for homicidal gassings in trucks, where drivers have to controll and limit the concentration of hydrogen and carbon monoxide in the cargo box. Which you don't have to worry for the gasoline engine exhaust that can just keep running untill all the victims are dead. Why risking that a gas van driver makes a mistake, which he cannot with a gasoline engine?

The higher CO concentration was not significant anyway, if the carbon monoxide concentration in gasoline engine exhaust was considered sufficient when the gas vans were developed. Then they wouldn't bother about producer gas only creating problems they else wouldn't have.

And you keep ignoring that the producer gas equipment would have reduced the capacity of the gas vans, which is more than outweighing the little time that could have been saved here.

bhigr said...

""So you are not a safety engineer either, right? Therefore, you are incompetent to make any statement on this issue, right? Therefore, I should reject everything you say, right?"

I concluded from your ignorance how to address such risks that you never dealt with safety issues."

I conclude from your evasive remark that you yourself are not a safety engineer. However, you felt to attack me on this ground.

"The carbon monoxide concentration of gasoline engine exhaust is around or below the lower explosive limit." Therefore, you have to deal with this problem no matter which source of carbon monoxide you use, gasoline engine exhaust or producer gas. Thank you for making my point. Or would you oh Hans, great safety engineer, simply ignore that the gasoline exhaust is around the lower explosive limit? Would you have taken this lethal risk, oh great safety engineer Hans?

"Why risking that a gas van driver makes a mistake, which he cannot with a gasoline engine?" Because the same risk exists if he uses gasoline engine exhaust. So it doesn't make any difference. You have to make sure that the gas doesn't explode in any case.

"The higher CO concentration was not significant anyway..." Sure, it's significant if you want to kill people locked up in a room fast. You can reach the lethal gas concentration faster and kill faster.

Last but not least, it would have been a lot cheaper, because gasoline fuel was in extremely short supply, was needed for the army, and hence producer gas would have been cheaper to produce and preferable.

Hans said...

bhigr said:

"So you are relying on witnesses and admit that the witness accounts are contradictory. Some talk about Diesel engines, some talk about gasoline engines."

First of all, since when one can only draw a reasonable conclusion on something if all pieces of evidence are pointing to the same direction? Where did you learn this? Have you ever checked out a book on historiography and realized that contradictionary sources are not only quite common but that historians have the tools to work with them?

Here is what I wrote re: Mattogno on this issue:

"Actually, dealing with contradictory sources is the bread and butter of historians. According to Howell’s text book “From Reliable Sources”, already the “[n]ineteen century historians developed systematic rules for making such comparisons [of sources]” (p. 70). Yet, even as late as 2010 some contradictory testimonies forced Mattogno to throw his hands up in surrender and declare the impossibility of extracting anything constructive from them. Dr. Joachim Neander has fittingly compared this immature behaviour Mattogno displays in his work on the Holocaust to...

'...a child that stands before a heap of puzzle parts, decides after a brief glance that nothing fits together, angrily throws the whole stuff out of the window and tells Mommy, who asks for the puzzle, that there had never been one.'"

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2014/12/rebuttal-of-mattogno-on-auschwitz-part.html

Secondly, it's not that "some talk about Diesel engines", but it's a single source. On the other hand, there are 8 sources on gasoline. This is not a stall of sources, not numerically and even less when it is considered that those 8 include the most competent possible witnesses, the gas van drivers.

Your critique of only 2 out of 8 gasoline witnesses is a joke (and the others you have just flushed down the memory hole?). Bruno Israel did not know if anything was mixed to the gasoline. But this doesn't show that he didn't "really know what happened". He didn't know a detail, quite a difference. But he remembered that gasoline was fuelled, which is exactly what we want to know.

Hoffmann obviously did not properly recall what Widmann told him. But it is very unlikely that he would remember a carburator and ignition, if the gas van trucks came with Diesel engines. Hence, both testimonies corroborate the use of gasoline engines over Diesel.

J Kelly said...

The vans themselves did have problems, I'm trying to remember where I've read this but I believe one of them caught fire or exploded while it was fully loaded. It burned the victims trapped inside.

Hans said...

bhigr said:

"I find it strange - to say the least - that you imagine yourself to be in the position of someone who fires engineers in charge of developing homicidal gas vans. I wouldn't perform such a job."

Strangely so, you already imagined what you would have done as a gas van engineer! You cannot imagine yourself taken a gasoline engine over producer gas. Just who cares?

It does not matter what you can or cannot imagine. It is not historically relevant. What matters is what was going on in the minds of some SS and police officers in 1941/1942. There's one thing we can reconstruct. We know from the fact that the Germans used combustion engines to kill people in homicidal gas vans (which follows from numerous contemporary German documents and testimonies you haven't addressed and explained yet) is that they did not share your view to pick producer gas for gassing.

Their choice for gasoline engines may have had various reasons. For instance, the first tests were done with gasoline engine cars and trucks and because it worked they stayed with that thing. There might have been no motivation and driving force to even consider a source with higher CO content, because their first trial already worked ("never change a winning horse"). Perhaps the gasoline engine exhaust composition was considered suitable already. Or it might have been that the lower capacity of producer gas trucks meant its exclusion. Or that the streaming of a 40% mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen into a cargo box was raising too much safety issues. Perhaps there are some other reasons we haven't looked at yet.

If you still don't understand the decision to use gasoline engines, try harder or you have to live with it. But what it's not doing is to refute the use of homicidal gas vans if demonstrated by numerous concrete pieces of evidence. Personal incredulity does not trump numerous corroborating historical evidence. If you want to debunk homicidal gas vans, it doesn't work via what you cannot imagine, but you need to address and explain this concrete evidence. Go further! (note that addressing and explaining evidence does consist of way more than what Holocaust deniers do, simply claiming some improbalities in sources, as if this would make it go away. It's still there waiting for arguments and evidence how it came there and why it corroborates with the other).

Hans said...

J Kelly said...

"The vans themselves did have problems, I'm trying to remember where I've read this but I believe one of them caught fire or exploded while it was fully loaded. It burned the victims trapped inside."

You probably mean the Chelmno incident. This is briefly mentioned in Just's memo of 5 June 1942:

"Since December 1941, ninety-seven thousand have been processed for example, using three vans, without any defects showing up in the vehicles. The explosion that we know took place at Kulmhof is to be considered an isolated case. The cause can be attributed to improper operation."

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2015/10/contemporary-german-documents-on.html

The explosion was caused by overpressure in the cargo box as one can guess from the following modification planned for the gas vans:

"In order to facilitate the rapid distribution of CO, as well as to avoid a buildup of pressure, two slots, ten by one centimeters, will be bored at the top of the rear wall. The excess pressure would be controlled by an easily adjustable hinged metal valve on the outside of the vents."


J Kelly said...

Thanks, I was trying to remember where I'd read that.
I'd like a review of a book I want to get, Chelmno and the Holocaust by Patrick Montague. It's on topic about what we are discussing. As far as I know it's the only English language book on Chelmno and it looks interesting.
Any thoughts by anyone who's read it?

Hans said...

bhigr said:
"I conclude from your evasive remark that you yourself are not a safety engineer. However, you felt to attack me on this ground."

I'm attacking you on the ground that your lack of safety awareness makes you ignoring that somebody concerned could prefer gasoline engine exhaust over producer gas exhaust already for safety reasons.

bhigr said:
"'The carbon monoxide concentration of gasoline engine exhaust is around or below the lower explosive limit.' Therefore, you have to deal with this problem no matter which source of carbon monoxide you use, gasoline engine exhaust or producer gas. Thank you for making my point. Or would you oh Hans, great safety engineer, simply ignore that the gasoline exhaust is around the lower explosive limit? Would you have taken this lethal risk, oh great safety engineer Hans?"

Gasoline engine exhaust, even in the case the cargo box would have been entirely filled with it and if the concentration of carbon monoxide is slightly above the lower explosive limit, cannot ignite because it is lacking the oxygen. To form an explosive mixture, it has to mix with some air but in which case the concentration of carbon monoxide is necessarily diluted below the lower explosive limit (because it was just slightly above before). It's not possible to get an ignition under these circumstances. I had already explained this just in the very next sentence you have deleted from the quote (quote mining on your side).

However, producer gas comes with such high concentrations of hydrogen and carbon monoxide that it can actually form an explosive composition upon mixing with air.

bhigr said:
"'The higher CO concentration was not significant anyway...' Sure, it's significant if you want to kill people locked up in a room fast. You can reach the lethal gas concentration faster and kill faster."

Again, you have cropped out the essential part of the my statement.

It could be significant or little relevant if the killing with gasoline engine exhaust was already considered fast enough.

bhigr said:
"Last but not least, it would have been a lot cheaper, because gasoline fuel was in extremely short supply, was needed for the army, and hence producer gas would have been cheaper to produce and preferable."

Gasoline consumption was obviously not a critical concern for those who developed the gas vans.

blake121666 said...

I haven't read through all the comments and so I am not sure if this was finally brought up to Hans; but the exhaust of a wood gas ICE would not be an explosion danger. You are confusing the fuel with the exhaust throughout these comments. The fuel is explosive of course because it is meant to explode in the cylinder by a spark. Likewise, there would be no hydrogen in the exhaust. You could tweak the carburetor of either a gasoline or producer gas fueled ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) to give you various levels of lethal exhaust. A wood gas fueled ICE would be able to give you more CO in the exhaust (if you tweaked it that way - in general you would of course wish to minimize CO in the exhaust). So, while a wood gas fueled spark ignition ICE would be able to be configured to give you more CO in the exhaust, one could very easily tweak a gasoline fueled ICE to give you "enough" CO in the exhaust to do the job satisfactorily. That was what I meant above - I don't think you fully got it though. You are confusing the fuel itself with the exhaust of that fuel put through a combustion process. FYI, you can use wood gas in a modified diesel engine as well (a compression-ignition engine - that is one in which the ignition occurs through the heat of compressing the gas until it explodes - as opposed to a spark ignition).

blake121666 said...

And just to make it very clear to you since I get the impression that you are a little confused about these things, a "producer gas" made from wood is gas that is made from a "gasifier". A gasifier is something that burns the wood in a way that creates the gas - hence "producer gas". Think of it as the refinery stage of gasoline. The gasoline equivalent would be if you were able to throw raw petrolium oil into a bucket in your car and that bucket then distilled that petrolium into gasoline which was then used as a fuel for an engine. That is the sort of thing we are talking about here. The gasifier turns the wood into a gas made up of various hydrocarbons and other things (hydrogen and CO among other things). That gas is then fed into an ICE as its fuel. The exhaust of the ICE would be the result of the combustion on the fuel. In general, you are not going to get an explosive exhaust unless you run the ICE so rich that it spits out too much unburnt fuel. But this would be the exact same case whether that fuel were gasoline or wood gas. Your exhaust explosion danger is exactly the same for these 2 cases. Of course the EXACT details of the whole setup would matter on considerations of the makeup of the exhaust, how you ran the ICE, ... etc. But qualitatively we are, more or less, talking about the same situation with either wood gas or gasoline.

blake121666 said...

Re J Kelly's comment:
[quote]
Someone asked me once if bottled carbon monoxide worked so well for T-4, why didn't the SS use it at the ARC?
My answer was that ordering, purchasing and transporting that amount of CO2 was expensive, not to mention not particularly subtle. The SS was not trying to advertise what they were doing. Someone also asked why didn't the SS build some sort of pipeline from Monowitz to Birkenau to pipe in CO2 instead of using Zyclon B. Again, not particularly subtle, not to mention labor/materials intensive. ZB was easy to transport and just as deadly.
I find the arguments of guys like Berg laughable in this regard. A great deal of the Holocaust was not planned and evolved over time. Sure, maybe there were better ways of mass killing....but why reinvent the wheel if the methods you are using work?
[/quote]

The CO T-4 killings are bogus too. T-4 was lethal injection and on a much much smaller scale than the gruelpropaganda you've read.

I think you mean "CO" when you write "CO2". If not, I'm not aware of claims of killing people with CO2.

The methods as described actually do not work in any sensible manner, so your last sentence is false. It is the equivalent of saying, "You could bash someone's head in with a diesel engine. Who would claim you can't kill someone using a diesel engine?"

And this is why revision is necessary.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«The CO T-4 killings are bogus too. T-4 was lethal injection and on a much much smaller scale than the gruelpropaganda you've read.»

Is there any evidence to the "lethal injection" (as opposed to CO gassing) method and the "much smaller scale" (which would be?) of Aktion T4 to support so confident a statement?

And if there is such evidence, why do you consider it more conclusive than the evidence supporting what you call "gruelpropaganda"?

That would be "greuelpropaganda", by the way.

Hans said...

blake121666 said:

"I haven't read through all the comments and so I am not sure if this was finally brought up to Hans; but the exhaust of a wood gas ICE would not be an explosion danger. You are confusing the fuel with the exhaust throughout these comments."

Blake, I don't think we are confusing things. When I talk about "producer gas exhaust" I mean the exhaust from the gas generator (not the exhaust from a combustion engine fuelled with producer gas).



J Kelly said...

The German doctors used starvation and lethal injection initially during the T-4 program, particularly against children. Neither method is efficient, there is no reason to use valuable drugs on people you are going to kill and starvation is a lengthy and painful process. The doctors switched to gas because you can kill larger amounts of people at a time and the only bottleneck is body disposal.
The authors of this blog persuasively argued that none of the ARC used Diesel engines, particularly in the case of Treblinka. I am willing to accept their arguments in this regard but in reality I believe that the argument is moot because Diesel exhaust is
toxic on its own due to the high levels of Carbon Dioxide in its exhaust. If you factor in an air tight room the victims will die regardless due to the drop in oxygen.
What you call "Revision" I call an attempt to minimize the suffering of Jews and other victims of the Nazi regime in order to rehabilitate a warped regime. I see this as nothing more than an attempt to make National Socialism viable again.
I myself don't understand this, after all, Hitler's "genius" resulted in a split and occupied Germany, not to mention the spread of Communism to countries in Eastern Europe that before the war were anti-Communist.
So much for the claim that Hitler was trying to prevent the spread of Communism.

blake121666 said...

"Blake, I don't think we are confusing things. When I talk about "producer gas exhaust" I mean the exhaust from the gas generator (not the exhaust from a combustion engine fuelled with producer gas)."

Well then you are confused. "Exhaust" would be referring to the exhaust of an ICE. You'd need a pump to get the wood gas into the van compartment. One would assume the use of the tweaked ICE (producing a CO heavy exhaust) for this duty.

But if you are indeed talking about the wood gas itself, then one would have to look into the gasifier itself. I suspect your statements are correct for the gasifiers of the time that would have been used - we'd need to look into the details.

With respect to the logistics of having wood gas vehicles in the military: there are a LOT of problems with wood gas vehicles - not least of which is their range (and dirtiness as you mention). I suppose a "gas van" application could possibly fall into a "one off" usage case. But a gasoline engine would probably do, as you say. Heat and pressure in the compartment would be the main technical concerns I would have on the face of it. I haven't really looked into the "gas van" case in any depth.

blake121666 said...

Regarding Roberto's comments: It doesn't take a genius to see that there was much atrocity propaganda against the Germans at the time and a concerted effort to demonize NSDAP-lead Germany before, during, and after the war - and now. False confessions are a proven fact. Idealogically based reasoning is still at work brainwashing people today. The propaganda has fed on itself into a wall of BS that children can see through. Any atrocity propaganda of the period needs to be evaluated in light of these incontrovertible facts. That is how the "evidence" converges - and always did.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Regarding Roberto's comments: It doesn't take a genius to see that there was much atrocity propaganda against the Germans at the time and a concerted effort to demonize NSDAP-lead Germany before, during, and after the war - and now. False confessions are a proven fact. Idealogically based reasoning is still at work brainwashing people today. The propaganda has fed on itself into a wall of BS that children can see through. Any atrocity propaganda of the period needs to be evaluated in light of these incontrovertible facts. That is how the "evidence" converges - and always did.»

Translation: blake121666 has no evidence to support his contentions regarding the killing method and death toll of Aktion T4. All he can offer is the usual hollow blather about "atrocity propaganda" (should I ask him who is supposed to have produced what "atrocity propaganda" regarding T4 at what time?), "Idealogically based reasoning" (look who's talking), etc. As I expected.

J Kelly said...

False confessions are a fact? Really? Even years or decades later? What purpose would they serve?
Eichman is a great example of this. There is no evidence at all that the Isrealis tortured him, in fact they even hired a German lawyer for him after his wife claimed she could not pay for a lawyer. Eichman's defense was not that the Holocaust did not happen. He freely admitted his role but claimed minimal responsibility because the whole thing was Hitler and Himmler's idea (because it is really easy to blame dead people). His lawyer never claimed any wrongdoing on the part of the Isrealis.
So, your claim of false confessions is bogus. I freely admit that some SS members were tortured, Hoess being the primary victim. No one ever claimed that the Poles tortured him and they were the ones that who prosecuted and executed him.

blake121666 said...

It seems I have derailed the gas van discussion with my T4 contentions. Roberto can take it up on RODOH if he wishes to go over the evidence of CO gassings for T4. The propaganda distortions are transparently obvious to a child - unless he is brainwashed by perceived "authorities" on these matters.

Reactionary said...

So, what about this argument from Friedrich Paul Berg, against the gas vans:

"Hans's eight "eyewitnesses" to gassings are ALL easily exposed as LIARS. There are NO exceptions. Did any of them notice any inrense RED coloring of naked corpses that would have certainly been present for everyone to easily see if their gassing claims were true? Of course, not! They simply LIED!" http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2377&start=30

How would Hans and you guys at Holocaust Controversies answer that argument?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«It seems I have derailed the gas van discussion with my T4 contentions. Roberto can take it up on RODOH if he wishes to go over the evidence of CO gassings for T4. The propaganda distortions are transparently obvious to a child - unless he is brainwashed by perceived "authorities" on these matters.»

More of the "propaganda" and "brainwashed" BS, still no evidence. Poor show.

Jeff said...

"Regarding Roberto's comments: It doesn't take a genius to see that there was much atrocity propaganda against the Germans at the time and a concerted effort to demonize NSDAP-lead Germany before, during, and after the war - and now."

That means nothing. There was a heavy information campaign against the USSR waged by Western bloc states during the Cold War and yet all the atrocities described (GULAG's, forced resettlement et all) were 100% true.

"False confessions are a proven fact."
To put it simply: no. Especially not in the T4 related legal processes in West Germany.

"Idealogically based reasoning is still at work brainwashing people today. The propaganda has fed on itself into a wall of BS that children can see through."
You would know this because you yourself are a child who has fialed to read an yserious scholarship on the period.

"Any atrocity propaganda of the period needs to be evaluated in light of these incontrovertible facts. That is how the "evidence" converges - and always did."
Historians have been doing exactly that for seven decades now and they all reach the same conclusion.

I will remind you that Joachiem Pieper, a Waffen-SS Colonel and unrepentant Nazi, witnessed a T4 gassing and described it to his interrogators. Peiper denied knowledge of the holocaust as well, so you cannot allege that he was cohered or tortured in any way.

You are a fucking idiot.

Jeff said...

@Reactionary: The "Cherry red" argument is a myth more or less. There would be lividity that would be obvious only after a period of a few hours. It would form on areas where the blood would collect. For instance, if someone dies on his/her back, the lividity would form on their back. The victims would be dead and buried after a few hours. Also: many (perhaps most) would have suffocated or choked to death rather than die as a result of monoxide poisoning.

Nathan said...

Poor old Berg the cop biter is so senile he can't even spell (Inrense lol). He's been spouting this crap for six years. All that's really needed is to repeat what's been mentioned by Roberto and others countless times before. The Cherry red doesn't always occur, and isn't easily distinguishable from normal skin tone. It also may not have occured if the victims were anemic- which was likely the case since most Holocaust victims were undernourished. It's possible that no one asked witnesses about the victims' skin color, since it's really irrelevant anyway.
Easily answered.
Why does Reactionary assume Berg has any credibility? He's a senile old fool- he bit a policeman who was only guilty of calling him out for not handling his dog properly. He backed a known liar - Eric Rhymes With even after his lies were called out. Berg is worthless. Not even a piece of shit like the Black Dumbass - worse than shit.

blake121666 said...

Roberto thinks he's cute, doesn't he? He was offered to discuss the issue at RODOH and he pulls this shit. Ok Roberto, prove to me that anything that is BS is in fact BS to a brainwashed fool in a comment section of an article about something entirely different?

Do you have some quick sound-bite to PROVE that aliens aren't anal raping people in the Arizona desert? Would it be worth your time to humor me with proving this? Do you even care about silly beliefs of alien anal rape in the Arizona desert?

The T4 gassing claims are quite obviously ways to embellish upon and reinforce Holocaustian gassing claims. Discuss it at RODOH if you like.

J Kelly said...

I've discussed the Holocaust with a denier who likes to fall back on the argument about the unreliability of witnesses by bringing up the fact that people in Iceland report they see elves. You bring up aliens anal probing people.
Deniers are a strange lot.
As for T-4, I can see why it makes deniers squirm. It's well documented and shows the genocidal bent of the National Socialist regime. They do frantically deny that gassings occurred because they don't want people to make the obvious connection between the gassing of the disabled and the gassing of the Jews. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Both are proven historical facts.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Roberto thinks he's cute, doesn't he? He was offered to discuss the issue at RODOH and he pulls this shit. Ok Roberto, prove to me that anything that is BS is in fact BS to a brainwashed fool in a comment section of an article about something entirely different?

Do you have some quick sound-bite to PROVE that aliens aren't anal raping people in the Arizona desert? Would it be worth your time to humor me with proving this? Do you even care about silly beliefs of alien anal rape in the Arizona desert?

The T4 gassing claims are quite obviously ways to embellish upon and reinforce Holocaustian gassing claims. Discuss it at RODOH if you like.»


Freaking out already, blake? Your nerves must be pretty frazzled. How come?

The issue is this:

- Historians, criminal justice authorities and others (just about everyone dealing with the subject except for "Revisionists", actually) have accepted, based on documentary and eyewitness evidence assessed by historians and/or by criminal justice authorities including those of West Germany, that about 70,000 physically or mentally handicapped people were killed in the course of Aktion T4 in various sanatoria in Germany and Austria between October 1939 and August 1941, when the operation was stopped, and that the killing was mainly done by gassing with bottled carbon monoxide.

- Comes blake and claims that the evidence to gassing with bottled carbon monoxide is "bogus", that the killing was actually done by lethal injection and that the death toll was much lower than becomes apparent from what he calls "atrocity propaganda".

- blake is then asked to provide evidence that a) the killing was actually done by lethal injection and b) the death toll was much lower, as he claims. He is further asked to explain why he considers such evidence to be more conclusive than what he calls "Greuelpropaganda".

- blake replies with some hollow rhetoric about the historical record of Aktion T4 being so obviously propaganda that only a child or someone who is "brainwashed" would not see through it (note that in his very first response, blake is already calling his opponent names, insinuating that his opponent is either childishly gullible or has been "brainwashed").

- I point out that, as I expected, blake has no evidence to offer in support of his contentions, only hollow blather about "atrocity propaganda", etc.

- blake responds by offering a discussion on the RODOH forum and reiterating his rhetoric, including the "child" and "brainwashed" name-calling.

- I respond that blake has still produced no evidence in support of his contentions, just further rhetoric ("BS").

- blake freaks out and lets fly with more of the same, only in larger quantity.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

So I suggest we do either of the following, either here or, if that's blake's preference (as he seems to feel uncomfortable without the company of fellow "Revisionist" back-slappers, who of course can come here just like he came here), on the RODOH forum:

First alternative:
a) I present the evidence, or some of the evidence, that has led historians to accept as fact the use of bottled carbon monoxide for homicide and a death toll of about 70,000 in Aktion T4.
b) blake presents evidence whereby the evidence mentioned under a) was fabricated by propagandists, who extorted or otherwise induced false confessions, caused false witnesses to provide false testimonies, fabricated or altered documents and/or engaged in other manipulations. He identifies those propagandists and shows evidence from which it becomes apparent that they did what he claims they did.
c) blake presents his own case for Aktion T4, producing evidence in support of his claims that a) the killing was done by lethal injection and not by carbon monoxide and b) the death toll was far below ca. 70,000.

Second alternative:
a) blake gets the first word and presents evidence showing that the evidence he believes to make out the facts he contests (killing by carbon monoxide, death toll in the order of 70,000) is wholly fabricated, identifying the authors of such fabrication and providing evidence of their activities.
b) I present what I consider to be evidence making out the facts contested by blake, and address his claims of fabrication.
c) blake presents his own case for Aktion T4 as per item c) of the first alternative.
d) I address that evidence presented by blake.

I'm waiting for blake to tell me which alternative he chooses and whether he wishes to discuss here or on the RODOH forum.

If blake should wish the discussion to take place on RODOH and choose the first alternative, I'll open a RODOH thread when I've put my collection of evidence together and inform blake thereof.

If blake should wish the discussion to take place on RODOH and choose the second alternative, I expect blake to open a thread on that forum inform me thereof, either by posting the link in a comment under this blog or by sending it to my e-mail address (cortagravatas@yahoo.com).

bhigr said...

"Gasoline engine exhaust contains 10 - 14% carbon monoxide when running idle, which is more than one order of magnitude of what is fatal within 20 minutes, yet with much less risk of ignition than there was with producer gas."

So here the risk is lower but not non-existent.

"Gasoline engine exhaust, even in the case the cargo box would have been entirely filled with it and if the concentration of carbon monoxide is slightly above the lower explosive limit, cannot ignite because it is lacking the oxygen. To form an explosive mixture, it has to mix with some air but in which case the concentration of carbon monoxide is necessarily diluted below the lower explosive limit (because it was just slightly above before). It's not possible to get an ignition under these circumstances. I had already explained this just in the very next sentence you have deleted from the quote (quote mining on your side)."

Here ignition is not possible. So first gasoline exhaust is explosive, then you claim it isn't explosive. All of this without any kind of evidence. Sorry, but nobody will believe you if you argue in this manner.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

PS: And "and" is missing after "forum" in the last paragraph of my previous post.

J Kelly said...

I love how Berg always makes reasoned, well-thought out arguments when confronted with evidence that contradicts his viewpoint.
Naturally I'm joking.
Berg is so batshit crazy that not even all deniers like him. I read an article on CODOH called "Sledgehammer Revisionism" that talked about Berg's crankiness with other deniers.
Why was I on CODOH's website? I was pointed there by someone who wanted me to learn the "truth."

Jeff said...

THIRD ALTERNATIVE
Blake gets his sorry ass over to SSF and sees if he can hang with the real pros. We have a very lenient moderator and free discussion. Start a thread there if you dare, I assure you that your "thesis" will be sorely tested.

PS: Why is blake randomly talking about alien anal rape in Arizona? Is he speaking from experience perhaps? What do you do on your weekends blake?

Reactionary said...

Good Roberto, can you please do a tread only for you and Blake? With no personal attacks, and no off topics etc, just stick to the subject and show your arguments and facts, nothing more.

See this tread on RODOH forum, can you agree on that?: http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2377#p70006

Do you know the moderators on RODOH forum Roberto? Maybe you could mention this to them?

Reactionary said...

Jeff, what is SSF?

Reactionary said...

Ok Roberto. I can understand that.

By the way, please se your mail.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«Good Roberto, can you please do a tread only for you and Blake? With no personal attacks, and no off topics etc, just stick to the subject and show your arguments and facts, nothing more.

See this tread on RODOH forum, can you agree on that?: http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2377#p70006»

I don't have much interest in forum debates, not only because I've done more than enough of them (a great many of which got deleted when a host pulled the plug on the RODOH forum, by the way), but also and primarily because I don't have much time for this kind of entertainment, which I know from experience to be time-consuming.

Nevertheless, I'm waiting for blake's response to my suggestions.

Dass Prussian said...

There's only two chances of Blake accepting Roberto's challenge :

The first is 'no chance' and the second is 'chance in a million'

Hopefully he does accept though, as it would be good to see Roberto coming back to Rodoh, doing what he does best . The same goes to the other HC members too.

Jeff said...

"Jeff, what is SSF?"
A discussion forum for these types of issues that doesn't have a neo-nazi weirdo as mod.

Reactionary said...

Jeff, a link?

blake121666 said...

I don't wish to get too deeply into this, Roberto; but can you tell me how the bodies were disposed of in these T4 killings? I am assuming that they were cremated. Let's take Hartheim Castle as an example to look at.

This wikipedia page lists monthly deaths at Hartheim:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartheim_Euthanasia_Centre

This USHMM page claims there were 2 crematory ovens:
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/euthan/hartheim.html

I am assuming that these ovens were single muffle. The details of these ovens are most important to my argument here and I admit that I do not know these details. If I assume that they are single muffle ovens and use Mattogno's reasoning at http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html to assume a daily load of 12 corpses per muffle, I figure 24 corpses a day could be handled at Hartheim - or about 750/month. This does not jibe with the figures on that wiki page which go as high as 1740 in the month of August 1940. How were these 1740 corpses in August 1940 handled? Just answer this one question. If you will do that (I'm not saying you can't, btw) then we can move on to other issues with T4.

When I claimed the numbers were much smaller, I wasn't so much referring to the 70,000 figure but the claimed 200,000+ figures that float around. It's probably in the 10s of thousands - maybe as high as 30 or more thousand.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«This wikipedia page lists monthly deaths at Hartheim:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartheim_Euthanasia_Centre

This USHMM page claims there were 2 crematory ovens:
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/euthan/hartheim.html

I am assuming that these ovens were single muffle. The details of these ovens are most important to my argument here and I admit that I do not know these details. If I assume that they are single muffle ovens and use Mattogno's reasoning at http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndcrema.html to assume a daily load of 12 corpses per muffle, I figure 24 corpses a day could be handled at Hartheim - or about 750/month. This does not jibe with the figures on that wiki page which go as high as 1740 in the month of August 1940. How were these 1740 corpses in August 1940 handled?»


The "USHMM page" contains the following information:
«After the Anschluß, the building was confiscated, and between late 1939 and early 1940 the castle was converted into an Aktion T4 euthanasia centre with a gas chamber (5.8m long, 3.8m wide and 2.7m at its highest) and at least two crematoria, one located in a room on the east side of the interior courtyard and one in the courtyard itself.»

So they had "at least" two crematoria at Hartheim. They may have had more.

Supposing they had just two and that every crematorium had one oven, that they kept the ovens going for 20 out of 24 hours and that every oven burned just one corpse every sixty minutes, they could burn 40 corpses per day, not 24. That makes about 1,200 per month. Within 16 months they could thus burn 19,200 corpses, more than the 18,269 in the list.

If they had three ovens instead of two, the number would go up to sixty per day, and the monthly capacity would exceed even the number of deaths recorded in August 1940.

Besides, the number of deaths recorded in one month need not exactly tally with the number actually killed and cremated in that month.

Assuming they killed more than could be cremated in a given period, they could keep the surplus corpses in a morgue until they could be cremated. Or they could bury them.

Either of these hypotheses is more plausible than assuming that the Hartheim staff over-reported their killings.

And that's without even taking a critical look at Mattogno's reasoning, like I did in the post numbered "10" that is copied under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2012/07/reconstructing-message-to-jonnie.html. Mattogno's "one corpse per hour" assumption is essentially based on a self-serving testimony of Kurt Prüfer when interrogated by the Soviets, which is discussed under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.pt/2006/03/carlo-mattogno-and-interrogations-of.html.

As to the "200,000+ figures", they refer not to Aktion T4 (October 1939 to August 1941) alone, but include "unofficial" killings of mental patients in various institutions until the end of the war.

For T4 proper 70,273 deaths are recorded in a document prepared by Dr. Brandt, in which he calculated how much money the state had saved by "disinfecting" these patients. The numbers are rendered in Kogon et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, pp. 61-62.

Jeff said...

Blake also ignores the vast bulk of evidence for gassing as the method of death in the T4 centers. Testimony from just about everyone involved in the actions, most of it given in German legal processes, as well as the testimony given by Peiper that I mentioned earlier.