People turning to holocaust doubt

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

People turning to holocaust doubt

Postby Pia Kahn » 1 week 20 hours ago (Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:37 am)

Christopher Bollyn and Adam Green turn to holocaust revisionism. Starts at around minute 40:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ploQWSdHyno

Nicholas Terry is taken behind the woodshed on the controversies blog comment section:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... enier.html


If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: People turning to holocaust doubt

Postby Werd » 1 week 12 hours ago (Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:25 am)

bhigr said...

He also promotes Rudolf, fraudulently calling him a "Dr." despite him not having a PhD (his chemical nonsense is debunked here, among other places).

Let me quote from the paper:

"Rudolf would like to claim a pH of around 10. Note that at such a pH, the concentration of cyanide ions would be about 80% of the initial HCN concentration. If the pH is 6-7 as measured by Markiewicz et al., it is about 1% of the initial hydrogen cyanide concentration. Above, I show that assuming Rudolf's overestimate of the gas phase concentration the concentration of aqueous HCN before washing with the walls with water is on the order of 0.1 M:"

Unfortunately, Green has committed a huge blunder here. Green actually admitted this mistake here:

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... ript.shtml

"Rudolf's claim that a measurement of the pH many years later may not be indicative of the pH at the time is valid."

Thus, the measurement results, on which he bases his assumption is wrong.

"Finally, he tells the reader the gist of his arguments:

Most importantly, Rudolf ignores the central points of our argument. Either he has not read our article carefully, did not understand it, or he is intentionally misrepresenting its findings. We find that the aqueous concentration of cyanide ions in the gas chambers was reduced by 1) the short gassing time, and 2) the washing of the walls with water after gassings,..."

The washing had no effect on the cyanide concentration, since there is no increase in the measured cyanide concentration on the ceilings of the morgues, which did not have to be washed. The short gassing times cannot be true for the gas chambers, which did not have any means of retreiving the cyclon-B pellets from the gas chambers. Thus, this argument has no relevance for morgues 1, 4 and 5. Finally, the shorter gassing time cannot explain that no increase in cyanide whatsoever could be measured since gassings occurred thousands of times.

The orthodox historians have not solved this problem.
Friday, September 07, 2018 3:41:00 pm



bhigr said...

Can expect any response from you guys or are you checkmate?
Sunday, September 09, 2018 4:41:00 pm



Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "Can expect any response from you guys or are you checkmate?"

You snipped the point made in Green's responses to Rudolf:

"Rudolf makes a minor point. Rudolf's claim that a measurement of the pH many years later may not be indicative of the pH at the time is valid. Unfortunately we cannot go back in time and measure the pH. Notwithstanding that fact, our conclusions about Prussian blue formation simply do not hinge on the pH. Rudolf has argued for a high pH because it makes the possibility of reduction more likely. On the other hand a high pH makes the formation of a necessary precursor to Prussian blue less likely. In the end, even granting Rudolf his high pH, our conclusions are valid, and we point this fact out in the article."

So, not a major blunder, contrary to your claim.

Rest of your comment is random snippets. Not interested - others might be, but I know that most of the HC bloggers are busy and several are away right now or going away. Our silence doesn't equal a concession to bullshit denier arguments.
Sunday, September 09, 2018 6:08:00 pm




bhigr said...

Sure, Green calls his major blunder a "minor point". However, his calculation is based on this false assumption.

"Unfortunately we cannot go back in time and measure the pH."

True, but we know the pH value for concrete shortly after its creation. Thus, we know the correct value.

"Rudolf has argued for a high pH because it makes the possibility of reduction more likely. On the other hand a high pH makes the formation of a necessary precursor to Prussian blue less likely."

Since the PH value drops gradually with time the high pH value at the onset is responsible for dissociation of HCN whereas the somewhat lower pH value that eventually occurs takes care of the change in the oxidation state of Iron. This is explained meticulously by Rudolf. Green even agrees that the measured cyanide values in the disinfectation chambers were due to HCN exposure and that the Rudolf's chemical explanation is essentially correct.

"..even granting Rudolf his high pH, our conclusions are valid, and we point this fact out in the article."

No, he does not point this out in the original article. He points this out in this final response. He explains his main points, which I cited and refuted in my post above.

So dear Nicholas, is that all you've got?
Sunday, September 09, 2018 6:20:00 pm




Nicholas Terry said...

I'll repeat from Green: "Notwithstanding that fact, our conclusions about Prussian blue formation simply do not hinge on the pH." It's pretty clear that PB formation is a complex mechanism which can be upset by a variety of factors.

Therefore tests conducted between 40-50 years after the fact simply are not a 'gunshot residue test' analogous to the tests that can rule out someone firing a pistol if conducted soon afterwards.

The more important point is this: if the chemical argument is correct, then there would be historical evidence to support an alternative explanation of the fate of Jews who were indisputably deported to Auschwitz, but vanished on arrival. Since there is no such evidence, either we have to hypothesise a massive cover-up that destroyed this historical evidence, or the chemical argument is flawed in some way. Since there is no evidence of a massive cover-up, the chemical argument is wrong.

False reports of west European or other Jews supposedly deported to places other than Auschwitz, which don't mention Auschwitz, do not, by the way, constitute historical evidence supporting an alternative explanation.
Sunday, September 09, 2018 9:33:00 pm




bhigr said...

I'll repeat from Green: "Notwithstanding that fact, our conclusions about Prussian blue formation simply do not hinge on the pH." It's pretty clear that PB formation is a complex mechanism which can be upset by a variety of factors.

Sure, you can repeat as often as you want. But, I addressed the substance of Green's arguments, the basis for his conclusions in his own words and refuted them.

"The more important point is this: if the chemical argument is correct, then there would be historical evidence "

No, if the chemical argument is correct, then there were no mass killings using HCN in the purported gas chambers. No piece of paper can refute the laws of nature.

Sure, you do not understand the Chemistry. So why don't you get an expert who can identify the imaginary "factors"? Green hasn't identified them.
Sunday, September 09, 2018 10:58:00 pm




Nicholas Terry said...

Uh, no you haven't refuted Green, since his argument is clearly based on more than pH levels.

Babbling about 'laws of nature' is no good if you cannot actually spell out those laws; since your hero Rudolf has failed to present a law of Prussian Blue formation, you fail.
Monday, September 10, 2018 12:03:00 am



Nicholas Terry said...

I don't think you realise just how heavily reliant Rudolf's argument is on getting the historical data right in the first place; if he makes incorrect assumptions regarding the conventional account by ignoring historical evidence for the gassings, *especially* regarding the number and frequency of gassings, then his model falls victim to the GIGO rule - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

And indeed, Rudolf did just that, relying on a raw estimate by Pressac in his 1989 book to state that the conventional account says 400,000 gassed in Krema II and 350,000 in Krema III. The problem is the conventional account also consists of the Kalendarium as well as work by Piper and others, which show that nowhere this many could have been gassed in these two Kremas; since the death toll is now down to 1 million or slightly less (due to better data re the Hungarian action), and since there were substantial numbers of non-gas chamber deaths plus hundreds of thousands killed in the Bunkers; indeed, all four Birkenau crematoria killed less than the 750,000 claimed by Pressac, which was then cited by Rudolf.

In order to refute the conventional account, it must be presented correctly and not misrepresented.

Fewer gassings with less frequency/longer gaps between, compared to continuous fumigation in delousing chambers = blatantly obvious difference between gassing and delousing, even before other factors are considered.
Monday, September 10, 2018 12:24:00 am

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: People turning to holocaust doubt

Postby Werd » 1 week 12 hours ago (Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:28 am)

bhigr said...

"Fewer gassings with less frequency/longer gaps between, compared to continuous fumigation in delousing chambers = blatantly obvious difference between gassing and delousing, even before other factors are considered."

So now you are beginning to revise the historical account by suggesting that fewer gassings occured. How ironic.
Monday, September 10, 2018 4:57:00 am




bhigr said...

So how much are you going to reduce the number of gassings given that a single fumigation leads to visible stains, i.e. considerable amounts of Prussian blue, in similar circumstances?

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

Read pages 27 to 30 and as well as table 40 on page 355.

No elevation of the measured cyanide concentration relative to normal buildings was measured
Monday, September 10, 2018 6:53:00 am



papasha408 said...

Nicholas Terry, If the amount of homicidal gassing took place which is purported by eyewitnesses there would be even at least some staining in the walls of the supposed homicidal gas chambers. In Auschwitz, this is the building with a wooden door and a window not to mention a door which opened inward making it very hard if not impossible to open it to remove the bodies. You asked me to fuck off and learn how to read properly. Maybe, you should do the same and get professional help which would allow you to distinguish between fantasy and reality.
Monday, September 10, 2018 9:25:00 am




bhigr said...

O.K. So let me give you guys the math:

The pH-value is important because HCN hardly disassociate in water into H+ and CN- Ions, if the pH is around 6 to 7. However, this is the first step in the creation of stable cyanides.This is where Green caves in. The pH value continuously drops to around 6 due to a process called carbonatation, which is epxlained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatation

But, this process takes several months or even years. The gas chambers in cremas 2 and 3 were put to use right after their construction. Wikipedia informs us that “the water in the pores of Portland cement concrete is normally alkaline with a pH in the range of 12.5 to 13.5.”

“Most importantly, Rudolf ignores the central points of our argument. Either he has not read our article carefully, did not understand it, or he is intentionally misrepresenting its findings. We find that the aqueous concentration of cyanide ions in the gas chambers was reduced by 1) the short gassing time, and 2) the washing of the walls with water after gassings, and that these processes would have reduced that concetration below the threshold identified by Alich et. al. to make Prussian blue formation in the gas chambers exceedingly unlikely relative to the delousing chambers.”

http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... ript.shtml

So the threshold of CN- concentration in water was not reached due to the short gassing times and washing of the walls. This treshold must be reached for the formation of stable iron cyanides as proved by Alich et. al That’s his basic argument. We can find it explained in greater detail in the previous paper.

“Rudolf would like to claim a pH of around 10 (a claim that we shall examine in further detail). Note that if Rudolf were correct that the concentration of cyanide ions would be about 80% of the initial HCN concentration. If the pH is 6-7 as measured by Markiewicz et al., it is about 1% of the initial hydrogen cyanide concentration. Appendix 1 of “Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues” shows that the concentration of aqueous HCN before washing with water is on the order of 0.1 M: 1% of this concentration is on the order of 10-3 M.

Alich et al. found that concentrations of cyanide ions that were less than about 3.3 x 10-4 M did not form Prussian blue even though an excess of CN- was still present (dilution with 13% water by volume). [56] Considering that the gas chambers were washed with water, it is no wonder that very little if any Prussian blue formed there. Even if Rudolf is correct that the pH was about 10, that would lead to concentrations of cyanide ions on the order of 0.1 M. A mere thousandfold dilution by washing with water would reduce this concentration to the same level.”

http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... ndex.shtml

Markiewicz et al. measured the pH value in the 1990s, thus decades after the supposed events. Therefore, these measurements are not indicative of the PH value in 1943 and 1944, when the gassing is supposed to have occured. That’s Green’s blunder.
Monday, September 10, 2018 10:31:00 am




bhigr said...

So the threshold is 3.3 x 10-4 M CN- Ions in one litre of water (M stands for moles per litre, 1 mole = 6.022 * 10^23). Green calculated that around 0.1 M are reached in water after exposure to HCN in the homicidal gas chambers. He admitted that pH 6 to 7 is wrong and Rudolf is right, so we have pH 10. According to Green, this means that 80% of HCN dissolved into H+ and CN- Ions. This leaves us with a concentration of 0.08 M well above the threshold of 0.0033 M. Then, Green assumes that the concentration was further diluted under the threshold due to washing the chamber with water. However, the blood and feces were not cleaned from the ceiling of the homicidal gas chamber. Gravity tells us that they dropp to the floor and do not rise to the ceiling.

The measured concentration in the ceiling is the same is on the floor. Thus, the washing had no measurable effect on the creation of stable cyanides. The washing theory must be discarded. We are left with the fact that the CN- concentration of 0.08 M was well above the threshold of 0.0033 M making the formation of iron cyanides exceedingly likely. However, they cannot be measured. Presently, the only explanation for the lack of cyanides is. “The homicidal gas chambers were not exposed to hydrogen cyanides in the manner described by the eye witnesses.”
Monday, September 10, 2018 10:32:00 am




Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "So now you are beginning to revise the historical account by suggesting that fewer gassings occured. How ironic."

No, that's normal historical revision, not your brand of 'revisionism'.

The overall Auschwitz death toll was calculated to be 1.1 million, by all methods and all groups, in 1991 by Franciszek Piper. This was after Hilberg estimated 1 million Jews dying there in 1961 and again in 1985.

We have better data from the early 2000s on the 1944 transports and their transfers to other concentration camps - it was already known that such transfers of unregistered inmates occurred, but the data allowed for a more precise quantification.

Also, Waclaw Dlugoborski, who like Piper worked for the Auschwitz museum, doubted Piper's calculation of 300,000 Polish Jews deported to Auschwitz, arguing it was lower by some tens of thousands.

Therefore the death toll is likely around 1 million, and there were indeed fewer gassings, not to mention fewer than 1 million Jews dying there from whatever means.

We also now have better data *increasing* deaths in other regions, but the probable death toll is likely still around 5.1 million, which was Hilberg's calculation/estimate already in 1961; the new information broken down by countries, regions and by camps through different calculations produce similar results, in the low end of the 5 million range.
Monday, September 10, 2018 12:38:00 pm





Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "So how much are you going to reduce the number of gassings given that a single fumigation leads to visible stains, i.e. considerable amounts of Prussian blue, in similar circumstances?"

No, a single fumigation of a church led to visible stains, whereas many other buildings known to have been fumigated with Zyklon don't show any visible stains at all. The church case was known to be exceptional and unusual, and Rudolf admits this. If Zyklon automatically stained buildings after a single fumigation, it would not have been a commercial success already before WWII and would not have been used for fumigation, or available for homicidal gassing, in WWII.

All we know for sure is that rooms fumigated continuously and over prolonged periods of time - many months - with Zyklon frequently display Prussian Blue staining, as seen in the delousing chambers at Auschwitz, Majdanek and Stutthof.

Therefore the question which remains unanswered by Rudolf as well as yourself is establishing the threshold in between a single fumigation, which clearly does not produce Prussian Blue staining, whether overnight or after many years, except in unusual, possibly unique, circumstances, and the continuous fumigation over many months seen in delousing chambers.

Since everyone detected at least some cyanide traces in Kremas I-V, then clearly Zyklon was used. There are no witness statements nor any other historical evidence suggesting the morgues of Kremas I-V were deloused.

The historical evidence regarding gassings at Krema I suggests that there were very few gassings there; the standard estimate for the number of victims is 10,000, and this would mean not more than 20 gassings spread out over a period of a year or so. It could actually be half that number and a quarter of the number of actions - the evidence is not firm for this. Therefore, the number of gassings in Krema I is not critical to the overall death toll.

If you wish to debunk gassings in Krema I using Rudolf's arguments, then you are in effect arguing that maybe as few as 3-5 fumigations must *necessarily* lead to Prussian Blue formation. But this would be rather difficult for you to prove, either experimentally or by referring to historical evidence.

Indeed, neither you nor Rudolf have presented any arguments or models that demonstrate the threshold at which PB formation becomes inevitable, nor have you specified the probability that any one fumigation would cause overnight PB formation.
Monday, September 10, 2018 1:30:00 pm




bhigr said...

" The church case was known to be exceptional and unusual, and Rudolf admits this.
No, a single fumigation of a church led to visible stains, whereas many other buildings known to have been fumigated with Zyklon don't show any visible stains at all. "

The church case is exceptional, because usually only old buildings are fumigated. Thus, the pH-Value has already dropped in these old buildings to levels which hardly permit the splitting of HCN into H+ and CN- ions.

In case of the church, new concrete and plaster had been used for reconstruction and repair. Shortly thereafter, the Church was fumigated and the new concrete turned blue. Therefore, it was exceptional.

The exact same situation for cremas 2 and 3 in Birkenau. Gassing occured right after construction.

Rudolf has explained this over and over again.

"Therefore the question which remains unanswered by Rudolf as well as yourself is establishing the threshold in between a single fumigation, which clearly does not produce Prussian Blue staining, whether overnight or after many years, except in unusual, possibly unique, circumstances, and the continuous fumigation over many months seen in delousing chambers. "

The answer is in the post above. Fumigations must occur shortly after the construction of the building. Then, a single fumigation suffices to create the blue staining.

Checkmate!
Monday, September 10, 2018 1:47:00 pm




bhigr said...

"Since everyone detected at least some cyanide traces in Kremas I-V, then clearly Zyklon was used."

What a lame argument. The detected levels did not differ from the levels detected in regular buildings, which weren't fumigated at all. Thus, these levels have no significance and cannot prove any gassing.

Then, let me remind you of Mr. Green's calculations and arguments, which show that the pH threshold for the creation of prussian blue had been reached. Of course, no reaction from your side.

"So the threshold is 3.3 x 10-4 M CN- Ions in one litre of water (M stands for moles per litre, 1 mole = 6.022 * 10^23). Green calculated that around 0.1 M are reached in water after exposure to HCN in the homicidal gas chambers. He admitted that pH 6 to 7 is wrong and Rudolf is right, so we have pH 10. According to Green, this means that 80% of HCN dissolved into H+ and CN- Ions. This leaves us with a concentration of 0.08 M well above the threshold of 0.0033 M. Then, Green assumes that the concentration was further diluted under the threshold due to washing the chamber with water. However, the blood and feces were not cleaned from the ceiling of the homicidal gas chamber. Gravity tells us that they dropp to the floor and do not rise to the ceiling.

The measured concentration in the ceiling is the same is on the floor. Thus, the washing had no measurable effect on the creation of stable cyanides. The washing theory must be discarded. We are left with the fact that the CN- concentration of 0.08 M was well above the threshold of 0.0033 M making the formation of iron cyanides exceedingly likely. However, they cannot be measured. Presently, the only explanation for the lack of cyanides is. “The homicidal gas chambers were not exposed to hydrogen cyanides in the manner described by the eye witnesses."


"Therefore the question which remains unanswered by Rudolf as well as yourself is establishing the threshold in between a single fumigation, which clearly does not produce Prussian Blue staining,..." See, I actually used the threshold supplied by your advocate Dr. Green. But, you didn't even notice it.
Monday, September 10, 2018 1:53:00 pm




Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "But, this process takes several months or even years. The gas chambers in cremas 2 and 3 were put to use right after their construction. Wikipedia informs us that “the water in the pores of Portland cement concrete is normally alkaline with a pH in the range of 12.5 to 13.5.”."

No, the basement cellars of Kremas II and III were constructed several months before the completion of the entire building.

The ceiling was concrete, but the walls were not only plastered but whitewashed; and whitewashing was repeated several more times during clean-ups after gassing. Rudolf's own tests make clear that the walls were plastered, as do photos in his report.
Monday, September 10, 2018 2:25:00 pm




bhigr said...

A few months does not suffice in order to reduce the pH value in the concrete to 6 or lower. The evidence is here:

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

Thank you for this discussion. You have strengthened my scepticism in the holocaust narrative. I think anyone with an open mind who reads this exchange will agree with me.
Monday, September 10, 2018 2:33:00 pm




bhigr said...

Let's see whether the claim that the cellar was constructed several months prior to the completion of Crema II is true:

"Concerning Auschwitz, on January 11, 1943, Kammler realized that
it was impossible for the construction of the crematoria to be terminated
on schedule66 and hence ordered Bischoff to keep him informed of the
progress by weekly telex reports.67 The first report was drawn up by
Bischoff and sent to Kammler on January 23. With respect to Crematorium
II it states"


66 Crematorium II started up on January 31st

“Cellar I. Plastering finished. Aeration and de-aeration channels
set into brickwork. Machinery parts from Messrs. Topf not yet arrived.”

"All later reports have been lost. As can be seen from its Bezug (reference),
Bischoff’s letter of January 29, 1943, was the reply to a telex no.
2648 from Kammler of the day before, which has also been lost."

Bericht Nr. 1 of Zentralbauleitung of January 23, 1943. RGVA, 502-1-313, p. 54.

So cellar I of crema II - the supposed gas chamber was completed on January 23, 1943. Crema II was started up on January 31, 1943. That's 8 days not months.

Oh well,...

http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/22-trcfa.pdf

Read pages 55 ff.
Monday, September 10, 2018 2:58:00 pm




Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: "Gassing occured right after construction."

No, it didn't. It certainly didn't in Krema I, which was built decades beforehand.

The construction history of Kremas II-V is clearly spelled out in the ZBL correspondence; Pressac presents this clearly enough to say for sure that the interiors had dried out long before.

Construction of the cellars in Krema II began in October 1942 once damp-proofing arrived; this is confirmed in the Baubericht for that month (RGVA 502-1-24, p.86). By November 1942, the 'Isolierungsmauerwerk' in cellar 1 (i.e. the gas chamber) had been completed and 'verputzt', i.e. already plastered. (RGVA 502-1-24, p.47)

Krema II's interior was definitely completed before 29 January 1943, including the roof of the gas chamber, only the roof of the undressing room remained incomplete at that time:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0212.shtml

So the interior of the gas chamber was complete in Krema II 2-4 months before the first gassing in mid-March 1943.

Since Krema III was being worked on at the same time, as were Kremas IV-V, but those came into operation later due to a variety of delays with different parts of the building, the same picture emerges: none of these buildings was 'freshly built' and thus liable to instant staining from a single fumigation.
Monday, September 10, 2018 3:09:00 pm




Nicholas Terry said...

bhigr: " Crema II was started up on January 31, 1943. That's 8 days not months."

Um, nope. The first gassing was on March 14, 1943, so two and a half months later than the final moment for plastering in Krema II.

You're muddling this date up with details of the construction of the ovens upstairs.
Monday, September 10, 2018 3:13:00 pm




bhigr said...

"Um, nope. The first gassing was on March 14, 1943, so two and a half months later than the final moment for plastering in Krema II. "

Great, perfect circumstances for prussian blue creation!

"You're muddling this date up with details of the construction of the ovens upstairs."

Not at all. I quoted from a brief report.

"The first report was drawn up by Bischoff and sent to Kammler on January 23. With respect to Crematorium II it states"


“Cellar I. Plastering finished. Aeration and de-aeration channels
set into brickwork. Machinery parts from Messrs. Topf not yet arrived.”"

However, you stated. "No, the basement cellars of Kremas II and III were constructed several months before the completion of the entire building."

I proved you wrong. But, I assume that this was not "intentional".

Bye bye believer. Thanks for making me doubt! ;-)
Monday, September 10, 2018 3:17:00 pm




bhigr said...

So let's do the Math, January 23 to March 14, 1943. How many months?

January 23 to January 31 = 8 days
February 1 to February 28 = 28 days
March 1 to March 14 = 14 days

If you add that up, you get 40 days, not two and a half months. Two and a half months equals about 75 days, assuming 30 days per month.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018 9:09:00 am

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: People turning to holocaust doubt

Postby Pia Kahn » 1 week 10 hours ago (Tue Sep 11, 2018 9:55 am)

This looks like a slam dunk, doesn't it?
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: People turning to holocaust doubt

Postby Werd » 1 week 8 hours ago (Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:10 pm)

Just another astute revisionist reminding the liars not to take quotes out of context. :lol:

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1525
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: People turning to holocaust doubt

Postby Moderator » 1 week 6 hours ago (Tue Sep 11, 2018 2:14 pm)

Werd:
That post of yours is longer than War and Peace.
It's good to have all the details for confirmation, but could you please summarize it for our readers?
Thanks, M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: People turning to holocaust doubt

Postby Pia Kahn » 6 days 17 hours ago (Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:12 am)

Moderator wrote:Werd:
That post of yours is longer than War and Peace.
It's good to have all the details for confirmation, but could you please summarize it for our readers?
Thanks, M1


Let me try. They are arguing whether the lack of an increased cyanide concentration in the homicidal gas chambers is indicative of the fact that no gassings with hydrogen cyanide occured.

Richard Green has proposed the following explanation for the lack of cyanides:

“Most importantly, Rudolf ignores the central points of our argument. Either he has not read our article carefully, did not understand it, or he is intentionally misrepresenting its findings. We find that the aqueous concentration of cyanide ions in the gas chambers was reduced by

1) the short gassing time, and

2) the washing of the walls with water after gassings, and

that these processes would have reduced that concentration below the threshold identified by Alich et. al. to make Prussian blue formation in the gas chambers exceedingly unlikely relative to the delousing chambers.” (postscript to Chemistry is not the science by Richard Green)



This argument is explained in more detail in a previous paper:

“Rudolf would like to claim a pH of around 10 (a claim that we shall examine in further detail). Note that if Rudolf were correct that the concentration of cyanide ions would be about 80% of the initial HCN concentration. If the pH is 6-7 as measured by Markiewicz et al., it is about 1% of the initial hydrogen cyanide concentration. Appendix 1 of “Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues” shows that the concentration of aqueous HCN before washing with water is on the order of 0.1 M: 1% of this concentration is on the order of 10-3 M.

Alich et al. found that concentrations of cyanide ions that were less than about 3.3 x 10-4 M did not form Prussian blue even though an excess of CN- was still present (dilution with 13% water by volume). [56] Considering that the gas chambers were washed with water, it is no wonder that very little if any Prussian blue formed there. Even if Rudolf is correct that the pH was about 10, that would lead to concentrations of cyanide ions on the order of 0.1 M. A mere thousandfold dilution by washing with water would reduce this concentration to the same level.” (Chemistry is not the Science by Richard Green)

So the threshold is 3.3 x 10-4 M CN- Ions in one litre of water (M stands for moles per litre, 1 mole = 6.022 * 10^23).

Green calculated that around 0.1 M are reached in water after exposure to HCN in the homicidal gas chambers. He admitted that pH 6 to 7 is wrong and Rudolf is right, so we have pH 10. According to Green, this means that 80% of HCN dissolved into H+ and CN- Ions. This leaves us with a concentration of 0.08 M well above the threshold of 0.00033 M. Then, Green assumes that the concentration was further diluted under the threshold due to washing the chamber with water. However, the blood and feces were not cleaned from the ceiling of the homicidal gas chamber. Gravity tells us that they dropp to the floor and do not rise to the ceiling.

The measured concentration in the ceiling is the same is on the floor. Thus, the washing had no measurable effect on the creation of stable cyanides. The washing theory must be discarded.

We are left with the fact that the CN- concentration of 0.08 M was well above the threshold of 0.00033 M making the formation of iron cyanides exceedingly likely. However, they cannot be measured. Presently, the only explanation for the lack of cyanides is. “The homicidal gas chambers were not exposed to hydrogen cyanides in the manner described by the eye witnesses.”

The holocaust controversies bloggers were asked to provide a response.

Bhigr pointed out:

The pH-value is important because HCN hardly disassociate in water into H+ and CN- Ions, if the pH is around 6 to 7. However, this is the first step in the creation of stable cyanides.This is where Green caves in. The pH value continuously drops to around 6 due to a process called carbonatation, which is epxlained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatation

Terry suggested that the gassing in Crema 2 occured many months after the building was completed. Therefore, the pH value decreased so much that HCN could not disassociate to H+ and CN- ions. Bhigr evenually proved that the first gassing occured 50 days after the homicidal gas chamber had been built and that this time period was insufficient for neutralizing the water in the concrete of the homicidal gas chamber.

That was the end of the discussion.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

User avatar
Deitrich
Member
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:34 am

Re: People turning to holocaust doubt

Postby Deitrich » 6 days 14 hours ago (Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:21 am)

Moderator wrote:Werd:
That post of yours is longer than War and Peace.
It's good to have all the details for confirmation, but could you please summarize it for our readers?
Thanks, M1


I agree, and no offense to this Werd chap who I can tell "knows much" citing a garbled rambling debate over finer points or reproducing it does nothing for clarity.

I find it extremely difficult to follow let alone make out the points.

avatar
Pia Kahn
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:57 am

Re: People turning to holocaust doubt

Postby Pia Kahn » 6 days 13 hours ago (Wed Sep 12, 2018 7:14 am)

Deitrich wrote:
Moderator wrote:Werd:
That post of yours is longer than War and Peace.
It's good to have all the details for confirmation, but could you please summarize it for our readers?
Thanks, M1


I agree, and no offense to this Werd chap who I can tell "knows much" citing a garbled rambling debate over finer points or reproducing it does nothing for clarity.

I find it extremely difficult to follow let alone make out the points.


You can read my summary. The debate is not difficult to understand. It is just long.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

User avatar
Deitrich
Member
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:34 am

Re: People turning to holocaust doubt

Postby Deitrich » 6 days 4 hours ago (Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:52 pm)

Pia Kahn wrote:
Moderator wrote:Werd:
That post of yours is longer than War and Peace.
It's good to have all the details for confirmation, but could you please summarize it for our readers?
Thanks, M1


Let me try. They are arguing whether the lack of an increased cyanide concentration in the homicidal gas chambers is indicative of the fact that no gassings with hydrogen cyanide occured.

Richard Green has proposed the following explanation for the lack of cyanides:

“Most importantly, Rudolf ignores the central points of our argument. Either he has not read our article carefully, did not understand it, or he is intentionally misrepresenting its findings. We find that the aqueous concentration of cyanide ions in the gas chambers was reduced by

1) the short gassing time, and

2) the washing of the walls with water after gassings, and

that these processes would have reduced that concentration below the threshold identified by Alich et. al. to make Prussian blue formation in the gas chambers exceedingly unlikely relative to the delousing chambers.” (postscript to Chemistry is not the science by Richard Green)



This argument is explained in more detail in a previous paper:

“Rudolf would like to claim a pH of around 10 (a claim that we shall examine in further detail). Note that if Rudolf were correct that the concentration of cyanide ions would be about 80% of the initial HCN concentration. If the pH is 6-7 as measured by Markiewicz et al., it is about 1% of the initial hydrogen cyanide concentration. Appendix 1 of “Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues” shows that the concentration of aqueous HCN before washing with water is on the order of 0.1 M: 1% of this concentration is on the order of 10-3 M.

Alich et al. found that concentrations of cyanide ions that were less than about 3.3 x 10-4 M did not form Prussian blue even though an excess of CN- was still present (dilution with 13% water by volume). [56] Considering that the gas chambers were washed with water, it is no wonder that very little if any Prussian blue formed there. Even if Rudolf is correct that the pH was about 10, that would lead to concentrations of cyanide ions on the order of 0.1 M. A mere thousandfold dilution by washing with water would reduce this concentration to the same level.” (Chemistry is not the Science by Richard Green)

So the threshold is 3.3 x 10-4 M CN- Ions in one litre of water (M stands for moles per litre, 1 mole = 6.022 * 10^23).

Green calculated that around 0.1 M are reached in water after exposure to HCN in the homicidal gas chambers. He admitted that pH 6 to 7 is wrong and Rudolf is right, so we have pH 10. According to Green, this means that 80% of HCN dissolved into H+ and CN- Ions. This leaves us with a concentration of 0.08 M well above the threshold of 0.00033 M. Then, Green assumes that the concentration was further diluted under the threshold due to washing the chamber with water. However, the blood and feces were not cleaned from the ceiling of the homicidal gas chamber. Gravity tells us that they dropp to the floor and do not rise to the ceiling.

The measured concentration in the ceiling is the same is on the floor. Thus, the washing had no measurable effect on the creation of stable cyanides. The washing theory must be discarded.

We are left with the fact that the CN- concentration of 0.08 M was well above the threshold of 0.00033 M making the formation of iron cyanides exceedingly likely. However, they cannot be measured. Presently, the only explanation for the lack of cyanides is. “The homicidal gas chambers were not exposed to hydrogen cyanides in the manner described by the eye witnesses.”

The holocaust controversies bloggers were asked to provide a response.

Bhigr pointed out:

The pH-value is important because HCN hardly disassociate in water into H+ and CN- Ions, if the pH is around 6 to 7. However, this is the first step in the creation of stable cyanides.This is where Green caves in. The pH value continuously drops to around 6 due to a process called carbonatation, which is epxlained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatation

Terry suggested that the gassing in Crema 2 occured many months after the building was completed. Therefore, the pH value decreased so much that HCN could not disassociate to H+ and CN- ions. Bhigr evenually proved that the first gassing occured 50 days after the homicidal gas chamber had been built and that this time period was insufficient for neutralizing the water in the concrete of the homicidal gas chamber.

That was the end of the discussion.


Thankyou Pia that was much appreciated :) very clear burying of Green and his internet defenders on the chemical issue.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests