Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Breker » 3 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:45 pm)

Mr. Blake tells us:
Rudolf thinks that over 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount of Zyklon would have had to been laid for the alleged HGC scenario and that that ridiculously large amount might have risked explosion.

Leuchter never claimed that 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount had to have been used. He thought the LEL of HCN was 20 times less than what it is.

Mr. Blake cannot see the forest for the trees.
As I have repeatedly said, "on the whole", the fact is that both Dr. Faurisson & Mr. Leuchter have correctly stated that there was real danger of explosion caused by massive use of cyanide, as shown below, and now confirmed by Mr. Rudolf. That is the essential argument. Not to mention the poisoning threat I previously stated and has been ignored.

"Might have risked an explosion" as in did cause an explosion. And necessarily so.
Image
See my previous points.

Then Mr. Berg says while avoiding my other points:
Breker wrote: "In war time the goal and necessity is to avoid dangers to personnel and equipment, the highest priority. " I don't think so. Which war movies has Breker been watching?

It seems to me that "the highest priority" in wartime is to inflict more pain on the enemy than any pain you might suffer. Why else, for example, would any sane leader send men charging through enemy machine gun fire? Or, enemy artillery fire? Or, out to sea in waters infested by enemy submarines? Or, into disease inested jungles? Or, on and on?

If you wnat no pain or risk at all--don't go to war. The fact is, however, that almost everyone loves going to war. It is so much fun!. Hardly anyone let's the possible pain stop them.

FPBerg
Being antiwar I certainly agree that war is painful & ugly.
That does not not change the fact all sides in warfare seek to minimize the dangers to their people and equipment. Nothing mentioned by Mr. Berg has anything to with Dr. Faurisson's correct claims that the Germans would have never engaged in such Rube Goldberg methods if they wanted to kill Jews.
There it is.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
blake121666
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:04 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:02 pm)

It is you that is not seeing the forest for the trees, Breker.

If you calculated a conclusion that I must have run 10,000 mph to do something, you wouldn't then focus on what running 10,000 mph would have done to my shoes! You would know that I obviously didn't run 10,000 mph and not worry about any ramifications of my having run 10,000 mph.

If your conclusion is that the Germans would have used 100s of times more Zyklon than a typical fumigation, who cares about the explosive implications of that? No reasonable person would concede that 100s of times more Zyklon than a fumigation would have been used.

In order to even risk explosion would require one to use 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount.

For reference, Holocaustians believe there to have been used about 6-12 kg for an alleged gassing in one of the big kremas - which are about 500 m^3. A typical delousing of one of those rooms would have used about 4 kg and lasted from 6 to 16 hours (32 hours if it was below 5C). Claiming that the gassings must have taken 300 kg is the point of contention. NOT that using 300 kg would risk explosion. That is a ridiculously silly argument showing that the person making it doesn't know what he is talking about.

Leuchter thought HCN was more dangerous than it is. THAT is the conclusion. Shut up about explosiveness.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 3 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:15 pm)

Faurisson and Breker believe they can mind-read the Germans--or Nazis. Supposedly, "Germans would have never engaged in such Rube Goldberg methods if they wanted to kill Jews." Well, all that would have been involved would have been to suff Jews into places where insects had been killed previously. No Rube Goldberg leap into new technology at all--and, it would have worked!! So, why not do it?

The risks of explosion were no greater than when anyone drives their car with a lit cigarette. It happens.

FPBerg
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Breker » 3 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:27 pm)

blake121666 wrote:It is you that is not seeing the forest for the trees, Breker.

If you calculated a conclusion that I must have run 10,000 mph to do something, you wouldn't then focus on what running 10,000 mph would have done to my shoes! You would know that I obviously didn't run 10,000 mph and not worry about any ramifications of my having run 10,000 mph.

If your conclusion is that the Germans would have used 100s of times more Zyklon than a typical fumigation, who cares about the explosive implications of that? No reasonable person would concede that 100s of times more Zyklon than a fumigation would have been used.

In order to even risk explosion would require one to use 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount.

For reference, Holocaustians believe there to have been used about 6-12 kg for an alleged gassing in one of the big kremas - which are about 500 m^3. A typical delousing of one of those rooms would have used about 4 kg and lasted from 6 to 16 hours (32 hours if it was below 5C). Claiming that the gassings must have taken 300 kg is the point of contention. NOT that using 300 kg would risk explosion. That is a ridiculously silly argument showing that the person making it doesn't know what he is talking about.

It is you who stated previously:
Rudolf thinks that over 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount of Zyklon would have had to been laid for the alleged HGC scenario and that that ridiculously large amount might have risked explosion.

I never said "100s", please stop that silliness.

Blake, you said:
In order to even risk explosion would require one to use 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount.

Which is precisely what Mr. Rudolf said. :lol: After all, sir, his opinion is the topic of this thread.
Not to mention the increased risk that would have occurred at Auschwitz I, per Mr. Rudolf.
Please review.

Blake:
Holocaustians believe there to have been used about 6-12 kg for an alleged gassing in one of the big kremas - which are about 500 m^3.

As I said previously:
"Referencing "Holocaustians", proven to be untruthful in almost all matters "Holocaustian", is certainly a useless exercise."

We realize that this upsets your wagon, but here it is again, proof of the dangers of cyanide, the house that Berg blew up.

Image

Mr. Berg and yourself are barking up the wrong tree.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 3 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:51 pm)

Does Breker concede that Leuchter was seriously "WRONG" when he claimed the LEL for cyanide was o-n-l-y O.32%?

FPBerg
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

User avatar
blake121666
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:04 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 5:56 pm)

The numbers are pretty loose, but let's just go over this:

LEL = 67 g/m^3
Volume of room = 500 m^3
Amount outgassed in period of time between laying the Zyklon and ventilation = 10% (1/10th)

Amount needed to risk explosion:
67 g/m^3 * 500 m^3 * 10 = 335 kg

That's, more or less, the amount needed to risk explosion in a big krema in this scenario. The Zyklon weighs more than twice the amount of the HCN in it. So you are saying that people hopped on the roof with over 670 kg (about 1500 lbs) and dropped it through holes in the roof. And the fact that doing this would risk explosion is the important thing in this scenario?

Do you not see the silliness in this line of argument? You wish to focus on the explosion risk with this scenario? Isn't the claim that you are saying 3/4 ton of material must have been dropped through the roof a bit silly to you? Shouldn't THAT silliness take precedence over any explosive implication of this silliness? Get real, Breker.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 3 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:01 pm)

Blake has a powerful and persuasive argument with that unbelievable image of 1500kg of Zyklon-B being carried onto the roof just to kill that little Jew lying down in the far corner of the gas chamber. It seems too stupid--and so dangerous when they could have simply installed a Kreislauf system instead.

FPBerg
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Breker » 3 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:23 pm)

Blake, you never seem to miss an opportunity to miss the point.
So allow me to repeat my previous post. And remember, the house blew up because of cyanide, that's right, cyanide.
Breker wrote:
blake121666 wrote:It is you that is not seeing the forest for the trees, Breker.

If you calculated a conclusion that I must have run 10,000 mph to do something, you wouldn't then focus on what running 10,000 mph would have done to my shoes! You would know that I obviously didn't run 10,000 mph and not worry about any ramifications of my having run 10,000 mph.

If your conclusion is that the Germans would have used 100s of times more Zyklon than a typical fumigation, who cares about the explosive implications of that? No reasonable person would concede that 100s of times more Zyklon than a fumigation would have been used.

In order to even risk explosion would require one to use 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount.

For reference, Holocaustians believe there to have been used about 6-12 kg for an alleged gassing in one of the big kremas - which are about 500 m^3. A typical delousing of one of those rooms would have used about 4 kg and lasted from 6 to 16 hours (32 hours if it was below 5C). Claiming that the gassings must have taken 300 kg is the point of contention. NOT that using 300 kg would risk explosion. That is a ridiculously silly argument showing that the person making it doesn't know what he is talking about.

It is you who stated previously:
Rudolf thinks that over 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount of Zyklon would have had to been laid for the alleged HGC scenario and that that ridiculously large amount might have risked explosion.

I never said "100s", please stop that silliness.

Blake, you said:
In order to even risk explosion would require one to use 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount.

Which is precisely what Mr. Rudolf said. :lol: After all, sir, his opinion is the topic of this thread.
Not to mention the increased risk that would have occurred at Auschwitz I, per Mr. Rudolf.
Please review.

Blake:
Holocaustians believe there to have been used about 6-12 kg for an alleged gassing in one of the big kremas - which are about 500 m^3.

As I said previously:
"Referencing "Holocaustians", proven to be untruthful in almost all matters "Holocaustian", is certainly a useless exercise."

We realize that this upsets your wagon, but here it is again, proof of the dangers of cyanide, the house that Berg blew up.

Image

Mr. Berg and yourself are barking up the wrong tree.
B.

Mr. Berg now asks:
Does Breker concede that Leuchter was seriously "WRONG" when he claimed the LEL for cyanide was o-n-l-y O.32%?

The LEL is insignificant and irrelevant since Mr. Rudolf talked of (please view video), and the rest of the world recognizes, the dangers of cyanide, especially in massive amounts near high heat, especially if dumped out into the open. Mr. Rudolf also says that the dangers would have increased at Auschwitz I, please review video.
If the explosions didn't get them then the alleged venting of massive amounts of cyanide poison into the open would have.
Clearly both of your adversaries realize that. And that is the point.

This house is not going away, though I'm sure you wish it would.

House explosion due to cyanide, 1947.
Image

Mr. Berg, you also have said:
Blake has a powerful and persuasive argument with that unbelievable image of 1500kg of Zyklon-B being carried onto the roof just to kill that little Jew lying down in the far corner of the gas chamber. It seems too stupid--and so dangerous when they could have simply installed a Kreislauf system instead.

Hellooo, Mr. Berg, are you there? There was no attempt to gas Jews.

And remember, the house blew up because of cyanide, that's right, cyanide.

Dr. Faurisson & Mr. Leuchter were right in their overall assessment.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
blake121666
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:04 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 9:54 pm)

Breker wrote:If the explosions didn't get them then the alleged venting of massive amounts of cyanide poison into the open would have.
Clearly both of your adversaries realize that. And that is the point.


This is my last post about this, for anyone other than Breker's benefit because Breker isn't interested in reality. This "massive amounts" you speak of is not the point of course. Flammability has to do with concentrations of gas. HCN mixes readily and disperses rapidly in air. That is why there generally isn't much danger of explosion with it (in the scenario we're talking about here) unless you try to shove too much of it into too little a space. Breker does not get this concept. He seems to think that total amount is dangerous and not concentration.

BTW, regarding Fritz' post upstream: I claimed 1500 pounds, not 1500 kg. It's actually more than 2000 pounds with all the can weights added in; but I figured I'd just cite material weight.

Zyklon is proven not to be explosive from its many thousands of fumigations without a single explosion ever (when used properly). The only explosion danger we're talking about here would be from a build-up of about 6% or more in any space. HCN's rapid dispersion in air means that you need to put too much of into the space to begin with to risk explosion. It is not going to naturally build-up anywhere irregularly. The picture Breker keeps pointing to was from a house that was filled with 8% HCN in air.

Claiming Germans used so much Zyklon as to fill the space with an explosive concentration in so short a time is a refutation of the gassing claim all by itself since that would require a ridiculous amount of Zyklon. The explosive concentration would only be a side-note to this.

Now Breker has been told at least 3 times the cause of the explosion in that picture he keeps posting (8% HCN in air by volume). The equivalent to that picture would be the Germans putting tons of Zyklon (by Zyklon weight, with cans - 1/3 of this in HCN weight) into one of the big kremas to outgas for about 15 minutes. Claiming that the Germans put tons of material into the krema, four 13-pound cans at a time, IS the ridiculous claim. NOT THAT THAT AMOUNT WOULD RISK EXPLOSION! It is ridiculous to claim that the Germans would do that; and it is ridiculous to mention that it would risk explosion if they HAD done that silly, ridiculous thing.

Citing explosion concerns just shows the ignorance about the scenario of the person claiming this explosion concern.

EDIT: BTW, FYI, if the LEL of HCN were 20 times lower than it is, then everything you are saying, or Leuchter, or Faurisson, ... etc would be a lot more reasonable. Alas, the LEL of HCN is NOT 20 times lower than it is.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Breker » 3 years 5 months ago (Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:47 pm)

Blake you said:
Zyklon is proven not to be explosive from its many thousands of fumigations without a single explosion ever (when used properly).

True enough, but those never involved use of massive quantities being used close to high heat emitting crematorium. Those never involved use of massive quantities being released into the open where Jews were supposedly standing around awaiting their turn for "showers.
Those never involved use of massive quantities being allegedly released in the open air thereby endangering German personnel.

you said:
This "massive amounts" you speak of is not the point of course. Flammability has to do with concentrations of gas. HCN mixes readily and disperses rapidly in air. That is why there generally isn't much danger of explosion with it (in the scenario we're talking about here) unless you try to shove too much of it into too little a space. Breker does not get this concept. He seems to think that total amount is dangerous and not concentration.

The massive amounts are exactly the point. Yes Zyklon-B releases cyanide gas, which in massive amounts creates the high concentrations which then disperse much more slowly then the amounts used in normal pesticide procedures of lower concentrations. That's just basic logic.

Using massive amounts in order to kill the numbers of Jews alleged per session and given the size of the alleged "gas chambers" would create a perfect storm of "too much into too little a space". Thanks for the quote.
So Mr. Blake, I just demonstrated the facts which you are in denial of.

you said:
Now Breker has been told at least 3 times the cause of the explosion in that picture he keeps posting (8% HCN in air by volume). The equivalent to that picture would be the Germans putting tons of Zyklon (by Zyklon weight, with cans - 1/3 to 1/2 of this in HCN weight) into one of the big kremas to outgas for about 15 minutes. Claiming that the Germans put tons of material into the krema, one 13-pound can at a time, IS the ridiculous claim. NOT THAT THAT AMOUNT WOULD RISK EXPLOSION! It is ridiculous to claim that the Germans would do that; and it is ridiculous to mention that it would risk explosion if they HAD done that silly, ridiculous thing.

Again, the cause of the house explosion was cyanide, no doubt about it.

As Mr. Rudolf has said here:
The residents of a house in Los Angeles, California, had to learn this in a quite painful way shortly before Christmas 1947. They had hired the Guarantee Fumigation Company to destroy the termites which threatened to eat up the wooden structure. The pest controllers, however, were apparently not very competent, because when using a container of pressurized HCN to fill the house, which had been wrapped up like a Christmas present, they exceeded safe limits and pumped in too much gas. (Fig. 2).[15] Due to unknown reasons, the mixture of air and HCN, which can be highly explosive under certain circumstances, ignited during the fumigation. The resulting explosion destroyed the entire dwelling.[16]

Image

However, hydrogen cyanide has yet another insidious characteristic: it is highly mobile. This mobility is highly welcome when it comes to killing vermin: Wherever fleas and bugs try to hide, the gas will still reach them! Unfortunately, hydrogen cyanide does not restrict itself to attack vermin. Rather, it indiscriminately seeps into the smallest cracks and even penetrates porous substances such as felt sealing materials and thin walls, thereby leaking into areas where it is not welcome. The failure on the part of disinfestors to ensure that all places to be fumigated are adequately sealed off have been described in toxicological literature:[17]

"Example: J.M., a 21 year old female home decorator, was working in the cellar of the house, the second floor of which was being treated for vermin with cyanide gas. Due to insufficient sealing during fumigation, the gas penetrated the corridors, where it poisoned the disinfestor, and reached the cellar through air shafts. Mrs. M. suddenly experienced an intense itching sensation in her throat followed by headache and dizziness. Her two fellow workers noticed the same symptoms and they all left the cellar. After half an hour, Mrs. M. returned to the cellar whereupon she suddenly collapsed and fell unconscious. Mrs. M. was taken to a hospital together with the unconscious exterminator. Mrs. M. recovered and was released. The exterminator, by contrast, was pronounced dead on arrival."
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/1.html#ftnref15

I see nothing about your "tons" being used at that house site.
In fact to think of such an absurdity implies that those who caused the problem were literally pumping the stuff into the house from a container as big as the Hindenburg. Very humorous, Mr. Blake. Very costly for the pesticide company. :lol:

In fact you yourself said:
Rudolf thinks that over 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount of Zyklon would have had to been laid for the alleged HGC scenario and that that ridiculously large amount might have risked explosion.

And Rudolf also said that the dangers would have been even greater at the alleged site at Auschwitz I. Please review video under discussion.
Again, we are talking about the views of Mr. Rudolf.

And yet again: all of this fails to address the extreme danger of releasing high concentrations of cyanide gas into the air around the alleged sites.

IOW, Dr. Faurisson and Mr. Leuchter are quite correct in saying that the Germans would never have used cyanide in the alleged "gas chambers" at Auschwitz-Birkenau, it's just too dangerous. Also refer to my many previous citations from other sources about the known and widely accepted dangers of cyanide use.

If that was your last post on this then all I can say is thank God. My repeating the same basic facts has become tedious to say the least.
Touche'.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
blake121666
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:04 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Sun Jun 12, 2016 1:21 am)

The "massive amounts" you are referring to can be rejected out of hand. They would require way more Zyklon than any reasonable person would agree would be used. How do you not get that?

Breker wrote:I see nothing about your "tons" being used at that house site.
In fact to think of such an absurdity implies that those who caused the problem were literally pumping the stuff into the house from a container as big as the Hindenburg. Very humorous, Mr. Blake. Very costly for the pesticide company. :lol:


I am referring to the equivalent in the scenario we are talking about here: fumigating a room for 15 minutes with Zyklon-B. NOT pumping a large quantity of HCN from a tank into a house for hours. Is it registering in your head yet? The equivalent to our scenario of that house having an 8% concentration of HCN in air in it is a big krema having 8% HCN concentration in air in it after 10% outgassing. Do you see what that means? I didn't actually do the calculation of course; but here it is:

8% = 80,000 ppm = 96 g/m^3.

96 g/m^3 * 500 m^3 * 10 = 480 kg.

A 2 kg can of Zyklon weighs about 6 kg (2 kg HCN + about 2.25 kg material + about 1.75 kg can). So 480 kg HCN from Zyklon would require 1440 kg (3175 lbs) of material (240 2-kg cans - each can weighing 6 kg). The largest Zyklon can was 2 kg, that is why I am referring to things this way.

3175 lbs is not technically "tons" it is only 1.6 tons. Does it make any difference? If it were only 1/2 ton would you think THAT was reasonable? These 240 cans spread over 4 holes would be 4 persons each opening 60 cans at each hole and dumping the zyklon down them. Talking about the fact that this would result in an explosion risk is arguing how many angels dance on pinheads. NO ONE would accept this scenario as having occurred. These "massive quantities" that would risk explosion would never ever in anyone's imagination ever be done this way. So why pretend that it would?

User avatar
blake121666
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:04 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Sun Jun 12, 2016 1:41 am)

Breker wrote:The massive amounts are exactly the point. Yes Zyklon-B releases cyanide gas, which in massive amounts creates the high concentrations which then disperse much more slowly then the amounts used in normal pesticide procedures of lower concentrations. That's just basic logic.


This is gibberish, Breker. In the scenario we are talking about here (Zyklon pellets tossed on the floor or in Kula columns), HCN evaporates off the pellets according to the temperature, exposed surface area, and any air currents. That's pretty much the 3 things determining the rate of evaporation in the scenario we are talking about here.

THERE ARE NO MASSIVE AMOUNTS we are talking about here because the only thing that could create these "massive amounts" is a scenario that we can dismiss altogether due to its ridiculous silliness. What is it with you and this "massive amounts" nonsense? It would take about a TON of 2-kg Zyklon cans (weighing 6 kg each) to give any danger of explosion. That can be dismissed altogether as having ever possibly been done. NO MASSIVE AMOUNTS like you are referring to.

Breker wrote:If that was your last post on this then all I can say is thank God. My repeating the same basic facts has become tedious to say the least.


You keep repeating ridiculous NONSENSE. THOSE are the "facts" you are repeating.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Breker » 3 years 5 months ago (Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:00 am)

Mr. Blake, you, in a confused moment, said:
The "massive amounts" you are referring to can be rejected out of hand. They would require way more Zyklon than any reasonable person would agree would be used. How do you not get that?

Simple, I get it from Mr. Rudolf, in the video under discussion.

As you said:
Rudolf thinks that over 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount of Zyklon would have had to been laid for the alleged HGC scenario and that that ridiculously large amount might have risked explosion.
Ahh.

As for your unimpressive numbers, I remind you that the house did blow up because of cyanide. And you did say "tons" of cyanide.

The same house, still blown up because of cyanide.
Image

As for your 'number of cans' argument; what you have done is merely demonstrate yet another problem with using massive amounts of cyanide, the costs.
Recall the Germans had tons of tabun & sarin readily available, where mere drops what have sufficed. But you guys think dangerous cyanide would have been the choice, IF .... That is just not logical thinking.

You tried this:
These "massive quantities" that would risk explosion would never ever in anyone's imagination ever be done this way. So why pretend that it would?

Of course not, that's why the German would have never engaged in such foolish activity at any time. Thank you.
I did say that massive amounts would have been necessary, as did Mr. Rudolf, IF the alleged gassing narrative was factual. Please review the video.

We note again your avoidance of the alleged release of high concentrations of cyanide gas into the area right next to alleged sites and all the dangers that would have been created.
We note your avoidance of Mr. Rudolf's statements about Auschwitz I's increased dangers.
We note your continued avoidance of the many sources I have cited.

So now we have:

explosion potential
poisoned air potential
extreme costs
the denial of the much more efficient and readily available sarin & tabun

Please review my posts.

Best and good night, B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
blake121666
Member
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:04 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:23 am)

Breker wrote:And you did say "tons" of cyanide


I said tons of material and in parentheses said (1/3 that weight in HCN). The calculation gave 480 kg HCN = 1058 lbs. (2 tons)/3 = 1333 lbs. I was off by 26%.

So on my Mach-10 sneakers example. You think that the reason that should be stressed for whatever lead you to conclude that I must have ran 10,000 mph is that my shoes would've melted. Don't even mention that you calculated that I must have run 10,000 mph. Just go around saying that my shoes would've melted, eh? The ridiculously silly impossible thing in the middle (I must have run 10,000 mph), just leave that out and go around spouting that my shoes would have melted.

Oh the explosion danger! THAT'S the thing to stress. NOT that it would require 10s of the largest Zyklon cans being dropped through the roof at each of the 4 holes to risk any explosion. You are a bright one, Breker. You really see the crux of this argument with that explosiveness claim. I wish I were as insightful as you.

This is a challenge to you which you must answer or leave the thread by CODOH rules. Do you agree that the scenario of opening up 10s of the largest Zyklon cans at each of the 4 holes (about a ton of material weight altogether) in the roof is a ridiculous scenario that would never have been done by the Germans? You must answer this question or leave the thread. If you think it is, then your explosiveness claim is bogus. If you think this WOULD have been done, you need your head examined.

Review
Member
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Review » 3 years 5 months ago (Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:48 am)

blake121666 wrote:The "massive amounts" you are referring to can be rejected out of hand. They would require way more Zyklon than any reasonable person would agree would be used. How do you not get that?

Breker wrote:I see nothing about your "tons" being used at that house site.
In fact to think of such an absurdity implies that those who caused the problem were literally pumping the stuff into the house from a container as big as the Hindenburg. Very humorous, Mr. Blake. Very costly for the pesticide company. :lol:


I am referring to the equivalent in the scenario we are talking about here: fumigating a room for 15 minutes with Zyklon-B. NOT pumping a large quantity of HCN from a tank into a house for hours. Is it registering in your head yet? The equivalent to our scenario of that house having an 8% concentration of HCN in air in it is a big krema having 8% HCN concentration in air in it after 10% outgassing. Do you see what that means? I didn't actually do the calculation of course; but here it is:

8% = 80,000 ppm = 96 g/m^3.

96 g/m^3 * 500 m^3 * 10 = 480 kg.

A 2 kg can of Zyklon weighs about 6 kg (2 kg HCN + about 2.25 kg material + about 1.75 kg can). So 480 kg HCN from Zyklon would require 1440 kg (3175 lbs) of material (240 2-kg cans - each can weighing 6 kg). The largest Zyklon can was 2 kg, that is why I am referring to things this way.

3175 lbs is not technically "tons" it is only 1.6 tons. Does it make any difference? If it were only 1/2 ton would you think THAT was reasonable? These 240 cans spread over 4 holes would be 4 persons each opening 60 cans at each hole and dumping the zyklon down them. Talking about the fact that this would result in an explosion risk is arguing how many angels dance on pinheads. NO ONE would accept this scenario as having occurred. These "massive quantities" that would risk explosion would never ever in anyone's imagination ever be done this way. So why pretend that it would?


This calculation is based on the assumption that the HCN is evenly distributed within the space. Rudolf points out in the video, that the "explosion limit would have been exceeded close to the carrier material, without some form of air circulation". Especially assuming that the Sonderkommando went in a few minutes after the gassings.

He says the same thing in the Rudolf report:

...In another affidavit made on April 30, 1993, Körber asserted falsely that Rudolf supported

“the Leuchter thesis that there was a danger of explosion throughout the Auschwitz compound, at least for structures, whenever gassing operations with Zyklon B were going on.”

Rudolf had in fact stated that the use of high concentrations of Zy-klon B to reduce execution periods to minutes or seconds, as the wit-
nesses had reported, would mean that there would be safety problems due to explosive concentrations of hydrogen cyanide (see chapter 6.3.). He had never spoken nor written of a general danger of explosion. The busy witness Körber was at it again on May 26, 1993...


http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-trr.pdf


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 6 guests