Dr. Green's Claim Of Zyklon-B Pellet Withdrawal

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Dr. Green's Claim Of Zyklon-B Pellet Withdrawal

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 10, 2004 2:33 pm)

I've spent several hours examining Dr Green's statement to the Queen's Court in the Irving Trial. I've come away with some questions that gas chamber advocates refuse to answer on another site.

While Green poses himself as a thorough debunker of Rudolf, I find that he makes some glaring forensic mistakes that, so far, nobody I've spoken with dares answer.


If you read Green's 65 page document you'll find indirect references to Zyklon-B pellets being removed from the gas chambers on pages 23, 32, and 56. Page 32 is especially interesting because the 2 graphs Green presents show a physical indication of the pellet's removal. If you look at these graphs with a sharp eye you'll realize that the spikes at the highest concentration are caused by large amounts of Zyklon being introduced and then withdrawn quickly. That explains the sharp rise followed by a sharp drop in the gas level indicator line.

Therein is my problem with so-called 'credible expert' (vs Rudolf, of course) Green. First off, let us preface that the removal of still-outgassing Zyklon pellets would be forensically impossible under several of the alleged eye-witness scenarios. 2 of these scenarios involve the eye-witness accounts of Zyklon being poured in through side openings in the walls, and being poured in through portals in the roof. The only possible device that could remove pellets from the gas chamber would be the alleged sheet metal tubes with mesh screens at the bottom. Removal in this case would require extracting the pellets back up the tube in a bucket attached to a string. How they handled the lethal outgassing cyanide when they got it back to the roof is unknown. (Of course, how they put metal tubes through the exposed re-bar lattice presently existing on some of the gas chamber roofs is also unknown) Green doesn't cover this.

Hence, Dr Green leaves himself wide open, yet remains unchallenged. When these ridiculous contentions are compared to contemporary eye-witness accounts, one finds there is no mention whatsoever of any pellet removal by the Sonderkommados. Nor is there any mention of the necessary protective gear needed to do so.

Why this claim is ridiculous on its face is because documented eye-witness tales tell of Zyklon being poured in through the roof openings and "onto the floor under the victims". If we follow this through, according to eye-witness accounts, we find that the result would be piles of gassed corpses laying on top of the still-outgassing pellets. It would therefore be physically impossible for Sonderkommandos to move in and remove the pellets as Green asserts. This would also include the messy excretions covering the pellets.

I have yet to see one single gas chamber advocate answer this...

I also believe I've seen other factual gaps in Green that would be best for another post.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9890
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:45 pm)

Excellent points.

This dovetails nicely with the thread:

'Zyklon-B wire mesh insertion devices debunked'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=309

We're looking forward to other threads/posts about this Dr. Green.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:09 pm)

To my knowledge, there is no eye witness testimony that testifies to the removal of the Zyklon B pellets prior to their complete HCN discharge.

Dr. Green as well as the authors of the "new hole report": Keren/McCarthy/Mazal are simply wrong on this.

On page 2 of the "new hole report":
"This container, or as we call it below , "inner core", allowed the removal of the Zyklon pellets after the victims had died." [5]

To allow something and to do something is not necessarily the same.

Footnote 5 refers to Fleming's "Hitler and the final Solution" p. 187-188, a letter from SS-man Erber. But former SS-man Erber did not say a word about early Zyklon-B removal.

There is actually quite a bit more about the technical absurdity of the alleged gas chambers in Birkenau: The duration of the HCN discharge, the time for distribution of the gas inside the morgue without forced air circulation, and the time required to exhaust the gas.
And one wonders what the eyewitnesses, survivors and perpetrators, really saw!

fge

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:06 pm)

From my limited reading of revisionism and gas chamber supporters, the conclusions from this can only entail an alteration of Green's theory. Objective observers can conclude that the impossibility of pellet removal would only serve to change Green's calculations. Cynical observers would say that Green was fully aware of the ramifications of not removing the pellets, so he fabricated this maneuver to account for his figures.

It's clear that if Green's theory excluded this event that it then becomes closer to Rudolf. Green agrees to a 6-12 kilogram amount of Zyklon in his calculations. That is why the lethal concentration line on the graph shoots up so sharply. The reason it peaks and drops equally as sharply is because he removes the pellets. It's obvious from Green's own graph that if this removal does not occur that the lethal concentration would skyrocket and come closer to Rudolf's theory. Well, what a coincidence! I wonder why, then, Green needs this preposterous pellet removal to make his numbers work?


Having no formal qualifications myself, I can only speculate that even with the wall washing and low duration period of Zyklon exposure to the structure, this large infusion of cyanide concentration would have bucked Green's theory and met the required PH and iron ion thresholds. This of course, is the giant elephant Green needs to hide. I further submit that if these pursuant high cyanide concentrations in the morgue ceiling occured according to legend, that inevitable Prussian blue staining would have resulted in cracks and patches away from and above the washed areas. It defies physical logic and practical laws of probability that such areas would not have survived the room washing Green depends on to float his deception. I would safely submit that if the exterminationist legend happened according to their accounts it is almost certain that high residual concentrations required by such an extensive gassing schedule would have invariably lead to Prussian blue patterning. This is scientifically reasonable.

Another unbelievable attempt by Green is his short dismissal of the delousing chamber staining. His 10 micron claim is simply shown-up by the obvious seepage saturation of Prussian blue on the outside wall. Green attempts another absurdity by trying to claim that liquid cyanide-soaked materials leaned up against the wall could have been responsible for the stains. Any person who has even glanced at revisionism would laugh at this claim. There's no record of any liquid cyanide on camp inventories. Nor is there any eyewitness account. This is outside the fact that the use of lethal liquid cyanide in the open air of the camp is ridiculous. Green becomes bizarre at this point, in my opinion.

Another inconsistency is his simultaneous claim that "gassings were intermittent and for short periods" while at the same time claiming that 2 trains a day arrived at Auschwitz from which 1000 were selected for work and 3000 gassed...

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:17 pm)

I continue to be perplexed by the obvious decrepitude of Green's testimony to the court. You see, if seen properly, the pellet removal theory is self-contradicting to those with any knowledge of the issue.

Even if revisionists were to grant full allowance of these cylindrical shafts, the theory would still crash when compared to gassing accounts where the pellets were poured onto the floor. Holocaust history has several well-documented testimonies of Zyklon-B being poured into the roof hatches and onto the people below. They were even specific that the pellets ended up on the floor. Hence, even if we grant Green this previously unknown version of gassing, he still can't account for how they would have removed the pellets in the cases where the pellets ended up all over the floor.

Here we have found the the crack that shatters Green...

User avatar
Moderator3
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:01 am

Postby Moderator3 » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:48 pm)

Temporary on hold:
Where can our readers find Green's offering to the court?
Thanks.
M3

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:58 pm)


Fugazi
Member
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 6:12 am

Postby Fugazi » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:31 am)

This thing about removal of the Zyklon B carrier material seems to me to be where the whole gas chamber story falls down. If they didn't remove the Zyklon B, then you have Lueftl's argument that the gas production would only just be getting into top gear when they're trying to ventilate the place and send in the sonderkommando. So for the story to be even remotely plausible it needs these wire mesh columns with the "inner core" that can be removed, so that the Zyklon B disappears out of the "gas chamber" when its job's done.

But that "inner core" just moves the location of the problem from inside the morgue to outside on its roof. Just imagine the scene - the roof is at ground level, and you bring up 10 kg or so of Zyklon B that's just hitting its maximum release rate, to be blown around in the breeze. I guess you stand there trying to tip it back into a tin, presumably dressed in your full chem warfare suit because you're bound to spill it all over the place and you sure don't want it on your skin, while everyone else in the surrounding neighbourhood shuts themselves inside and hopes they're not downwind. The phrase Yeah, right springs to mind.

Fugazi

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:20 pm)

Gas chamber advocates have a simple answer for that - they say cyanide is lighter than air. They say it in a chiding way as if revisionists were stupid enough to not realize it.

You'll find the typical gas chamber legend supporter to be satisfied by these kind of silly, simple answers. The whole time not realizing any competent judge would agree that, whether lighter than air or not, cyanide gas just can't be released anywhere.

What defies common sense is that none of the famous eye-witness accounts specify this process. You have to realize that these accounts are very specific about the gassings. However, these same detailed accounts completely fail to mention any of these things. Gas chamber advocates avoid this like anything. When viewed objectively, it doesn't pass the smell test for everything agreeing. To me, what does become obvious is a pattern of trying to make the gas chamber evidence work.

For instance, as I mentioned above, the preposterous notion that liquid cyanide-soaked materials leaning against the outside of the delousing chamber wall were responsible for the Prussian blue there is an indication of this pattern. What is obviously being avoided is the penetration power of the cyanide through the structure. I assume morgue I was constructed of similar materials, therefore, without this ridiculous pellet removal theory, we can assume its walls were exposed to dense concentrations of cyanide for certain periods shorter than that in the delousing chamber. With the seeping penetration seen in the delousing chamber wall, we can assume a proportional penetration would happen in the morgue. I think it is obvious that Green realizes this and needs to invent the pellet removal theory in order to keep him from having to confront this. My unscientific sense would be that cyanide would penetrate in the same way it did in the delousing chamber. I doubt every single bit of surface was washed down as claimed. There would have to have been places (like around the cylinder entry) where such constantly penetrating residue would have accumulated. Being unwashed, this residue would start to accumulate Prussian blue precipitating amounts in the material.


It's too bad someone can't rebuild these simple structures and run some monitored tests. Several would have to be built to accomodate the many versions we see for the same structure...

Juan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:11 am
Location: Chile

Postby Juan » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:25 pm)

I read partly Dr. Green's article. I still don't understand why Irving retreated from using Rudolf's report. Even, I understand, the Judge stated that producing this report would make a big progress for Irving's case.

Still I think that the suit was a stupid mistake. At least Mr. Irving could sue for libel concerning only his alleged links "with Hamas and Hizbollah". Since when insults like "Holocaust denier" and "antisemite" can be treated seriously? :roll:

Thank you

Juan

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:40 pm)

Temporary on hold wrote:Gas chamber advocates have a simple answer for that - they say cyanide is lighter than air. They say it in a chiding way as if revisionists were stupid enough to not realize it.

The air we are breathing consist of a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen.

Since nitrogen is lighter than oxygen, does this mean that the nitogen is way up in the atmosphere and that we are sitting in and breathing pure oxygen?

I don't think so.

fge

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:47 pm)

The next transparent dodge Green makes is when he detours around state gas chamber forensics. He deals with Rudolf's pertinent comparisons to state gas chambers by saying they aren't relevant because the amount of cyanide is never the same and isn't recorded.

Again, like most of these evasions, you have to have a sharp eye to catch them. I would gamble that the solid balls of cyanide used by state executioners are some of the most accurately-measured and recorded cyanide delivery methods known. In fact, I would almost guarantee that anyone who asked a state executioner about those balls would find that their exact cyanide amount is known and never varies. I assume several balls of X-grams are manufactured for a definite and calculated killing dose. Green probably never bothered to check because it didn't work for his deception.

He ridicules Rudolf for comparing apples to oranges between nazi and state gas chambers. Why he does this is because state gas chambers provide credible, calibrated knowledge of cyanide gas effects on humans. Green needs to get away from this because it helps show expected killing properties for cyanide.

Specifically, what Rudolf managed to show is that the extremely high concentrations of cyanide in the state gas chamber didn't necessarily kill right away. In cases where the victim was sitting right on top of a profusely fuming vat, there were some who lasted over 15 minutes. This creates a problem for Green because he needs to kill persons in the corners of the morgue chamber in 15 minutes.

Green is walking a tightrope because he needs to keep the cyanide concentrations low in order to avoid Prussian blue, but at the same time needs to get them high enough to kill in the 5-15 minute time period told by witnesses. He argues that the bodies would have absored a high quantity of cyanide, therefore the residual amount would be low, BUT, there still has to be enough to get to the corners and kill quickly. The odd varible then, and the one that just doesn't fit, is the removal of the still-outgassing Zyklon-B pellets after 10 minutes.

I would bet that if you went to an honest state executioner and asked him how much cyanide was in each ball he would respond that we use "X" grams and it never varies. Sounds like somebody's lawyer didn't do his homework...

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:21 am)

Where can I find a copy of Rudolf's affidavit?

fge

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Jun 12, 2004 11:33 am)

I find Green's comment that throughout the US a uniform usage of the amount of gas is questionable a little silly. He should at least say why he thinks so. This is sheer speculation.

I am sure that in the US the choice of the amount of cyanide pellets is not left to the execution gas chamber operator. That would be the task of a toxicologist and chemist.

About the HCN concentration:
Rudolf refers in his "Gutachten" to statements by Leuchter and according to Green in his affidavit to a report in "The News & Observer". He probably got this reference from Leuchter also.

[F. A. Leuchter, Boston, FAX to H. Herrmann dated April, 20, 1992, as well as private communication from Mr. Leuchter.]

From the Leuchter Report:

"The gas generator consisted of a crockery pot filled with a dilute solution (18%) of sulfuric acid with a mechanical release lever. The chamber had to be scrubbed with ammonia after the execution, as did the executee. Some 25 - 13-gram sodium cyanide pellets were used and generated a concentration of 3200 ppm in a 600 cubic foot chamber.
In the years that followed, other states adopted the HCN gas chamber as a mode of execution and design techniques changed. Eaton Metal Products designed, built and improved most of the chambers. Most had two chairs and were fitted with a vacuum system to guarantee a negative pressure and only inward leakage. All systems employed the gas generator technique because it was the most effective and simplest procedure available up until the late 1960's. No system ever was designed to use, or ever used, Zyklon B.
The reason for this is quite simple. Zyklon B takes too long to evaporate (or boil off) the HCN from the inert carrier and requires heated air and a temperature controlled system."


It would be interesting to know Dr. Green's recommendation for the HCN concentration in US execution gas chambers. If he thinks it is much less then 3200 ppm then he should explain why and give a source. But he forgot to do so.

fge

Temporary on hold
Member
Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 8:31 pm

Postby Temporary on hold » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sun Jun 13, 2004 12:08 am)

I was just referring to Green's allusions to Rudolf located in his statement. It was Green's translation of Rudolf.


You have to understand exactly why Green's rejection of Rudolf's state gas chamber reference is bogus. Green claims that the cyanide amounts used in state executions is not determinable. I question this directly.

If viewed correctly, state executions are exactly the opposite of what Green claims. As quoted in your excerpt, they say they used 25 13 gram pellets of sodium cyanide. That is a precise amount. If other states used different amounts, that would only improve Rudolf's comparison! Why? Because those other executions would also have recorded their dosages and death circumstances. State executions are not fly by night, they are some of the most tightly-controlled and recorded of such events. Hence, Rudolf would then have a broader and more meaningful collection of precise cyanide dosages and their affect. Therefore, Green's assertion that differing dosages would hurt accuracy is exactly backwards. This spread would only help gauge exact results.

This means that Rudolf would have a variety of dosages and their effects from an unquestionable source. Whether Rudolf is resourcing Leuchter I don't know, but it doesn't matter because Green is bypassing it anyway. Like I said above, Green needs to dismiss the state gas chamber data not because it is too unreliable, but because it is too reliable! He knows that this example of death by cyanide gas is the only existing documentation for the gassing of humans.

Specifically, Green needs to avoid recognizing that many state gas chamber victims endured heavy dosages in closer proximity than those in the corners of the morgue. We know that Green's claim that the Birkenau gassing victims absorbed large amounts of gas, combined with the low amounts used, makes it more difficult to kill those in the corners. Especially with a 2000 person gassing! I'm sure the motivation for his dismissing the state example is his awareness that even huge concentrations didn't necessarily kill quickly. Thinking persons would then be lead to ask how the lesser amounts claimed by exterminationists could have possibly done the job in less than 15 minutes?

He deals with this conflict by saying the morgue victims had experienced lethal doses that would continue killing them after the pellets were withdrawn and the exhaust system was activated. I suppose you could speculate this, but why hide from the state gas chamber data? Green directly attacks Rudolf for not using the full spectrum of information available - yet he himself ducks away from a huge, credible cyanide gassing data source. Why?


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests