F.P. Berg PRESS RELEASE 12/30/2004

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

F.P. Berg PRESS RELEASE 12/30/2004

Postby Scott » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:29 am)

BEGINNING OF PRESS RELEASE
12/30/2004

"Nazi Gassings Never Happened!" Those four words summarize decades of revisionist writing and research into the so-called Holocaust. The same four words are also the basis of Friedrich Paul Berg's daring new website: http://www.nazigassings.com That website will always be a work in progress. The intent is not merely to publish important essays--mostly by Mr. Berg himself--but to do so as dramatically as Internet technology will allow, and with a clear message. Pictures with in-depth captions are enormously important. They help illustrate the superb technology which Germany had at its disposal and, by contrast, how absurd and unbelievable the anti-German Holocaust tales, especially the gassing tales, truly are.

The really bad guys in World War 2 were the western allies, and especially the Americans. The monumental blindness, stupidity and unmatched barbarism of America and Britain nearly brought a new Dark Age upon a world dominated, not by them, but by the Soviet Union and communism. Although the Nazis and fascists lost the war--their heroic struggle with hardly any resources and against overwhelming odds allowed western civilization to survive. After 1945, it was the atomic bomb, far above and beyond everything else, which allowed the west to survive, even to this day--but before that, it was Adolf Hitler who saved us. For that he deserves our eternal gratitude and admiration. It was Hitler who built and led the small coalition of the willing to fight the good war against communism with only conventional weapons. Hitler, and Germany, and Germany's allies, postponed a complete Soviet victory long enough for the US and Britain to finally come to their senses and take up essentially the same struggle with nuclear weapons--or, at least the threat of nuclear weapons, even when that meant possible destruction of all life on the planet. As to the Jews, they condemn themselves with their interminable lies--and vindicate those who tried unsuccessfully to expel them from Europe forever.

END OF PRESS RELEASE

Friedrich Berg
[email protected]
:D
Last edited by Scott on Fri Dec 31, 2004 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:12 pm)

I liked the sight. Pictures are important, but the following doesn't make sense to me:

They burned wood chips with a restricted air supply. The result was a highly-combustible gas,


If I put wood chips in a closed barbecue and restricted airflow, would I get a combustible gas? I don't think so. If I put a bunch of wood chips in a container and restricted air flow, I'd somehow have a fuel to drive a vehicle? Or would I just have some smouldering chips?

Also, on the diesel exhaust section, it should make a key point which I don't think it makes: that diesel exhaust is in the form of little black particles. Diesel exhaust is dusty particulate (meaning particles) smog, that's why there's little CO in it.

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 Dec 30, 2004 7:55 pm)

Put some wood chips into a pot and heat the whole thing up. This will produce a highly combustible gas in the pot.

This is as far as I know the principal of a wood gas generator.

Wood gas was used extensively in Germany during the war to fuel the engines of automobiles.

fge

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:10 pm)

I must be missing something, because it seems to me that if I heated up some wood chips, I'd either have "hot wood chips" or I'd have smouldering wood chips, and the smouldering wood chips would give off smoke and CO. CO isn't combustible. Maybe there's something I'm not getting here.

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 Dec 30, 2004 8:27 pm)

If I remember my high school chemistry correctly, the heated wood chips will also give off methyl gas, which is highly flammable.

But what is a press release, and why go through something like that?

I completely agree with F. Berg that the idea of homicidal gas chambers of millions of people is nonsense.

And the communist danger was also a real one for the whole world at that time.

fge

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:41 pm)

I completely agree with F. Berg that the idea of homicidal gas chambers of millions of people is nonsense.

And the communist danger was also a real one for the whole world at that time.


I agree with that too, but this "wood chips" thing is something that seems preposterous to me.

O.k: there's a fuel shortage and thus no liquid fuel is used except in military vehicles, then how would you heat these wood chips to get them hot to release this methyl something gas? With more wood chips? One set of wood chips heat another set of wood chips which in the space of a container mounted on a vehicle, gives off enough fuel to propel a vehicle? uh, o.k.

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 Dec 30, 2004 9:12 pm)

There is a site:

Wood gas generator construction details
http://www.windward.org/notes/notes63/wal63_b.htm

They explain the workings of such an equipment better than I can.

fge

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:49 pm)

Wow, I did some research, and I guess it is possible. "producer gas" on google got 24000 hits. It appears that coke or coal are usually used, and yes, Berg's idea shows true also: this simple generating method produces a gas very high in CO. Hmmm. Thanks for the info Sailor!

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Dec 31, 2004 1:21 am)

Carbon monoxide (CO) is indeed a highly combustible gas. It is an excellent fuel that was once used in heating and lighting of homes but was of course highly dangerous because of its toxicity. Methane or propane are the only kind of gases used for this purpose today.

CO is formed by the partial combustion of a hydrocarbon with insufficient oxygen. If you have a furnace or water heater that needs maintenance it can easily produce large quantities of highly poisonous carbon monoxide. Complete combustion produces CO2 which is not combustible, which is not toxic but can displace oxygen in tight confined areas like a grain silo. In that case the CO2 is generated by bacterial decomposition.

The principle of the wood-gas generator is to restrict the availability of oxygen for the bed of coals inside the kettle and then draw air through the coals. That hot gas will be rich in CO. It is then cooled and sent to a special carburetor where the gas is mixed with air and fed to the engine cylinders.

It is extremely easy to construct a wood-gas generator, also called a producer-gas generator, or in German: Holzgas. The only disadvantage is that you have to keep a fire going in the generator and when you are done driving you cannot pull the car or truck into a garage because the generator will still be producing gas until the fire is cold.

Every licensed driver had to be made aware of cautions in dealing with Holzgas powered equipment. The German Army had about 12 percent of it vehicles operating on Holzgas as early as 1937, but of course liquid fuels like diesel and gasoline are much more convenient for tactical use. So mainly support vehicles and civilian transports used Holzgas during the war until the fuel situation became a crisis in 1944 and even tanks were using them. Hundreds of thousands of these Holzgas generators were made during the war and they can power both diesel and gasoline engines with the proper simple adaptations. A diesel engine with a Holzgas adaptation gets a lot better diesel mileage because some of the fuel is delivered by the CO entering the intake along with air through a special carburetor added to the engine. A gasoline motor can run entirely on gaseous fuel (namely CO) because a spark plug provides the ignition source, whereas the diesel uses an oil injector.

A conventional diesel engine provides more complete than a gasoline engine because of its design. A diesel must swallow excess air to compress to generate the heat for the ignition of the oil injected into the cylinder. A Holzgas modification would have some CO added to the intake air which would be heated by high compression inside the cylinder and then when the diesel oil was injected the mixtures inside would explode. So a diesel with Holzgas might only use as much fuel as though it were idling instead of hauling freight because the Holzgas would add gaseous fuel in the form of carbon monoxide.

A conventional diesel engine has as much as 17 percent oxygen in the exhaust at normal operating speed without any load. Normal air is 21 percent oxygen. So a human could breathe pure diesel exhaust for some time before being overcome by heat, dehydration, and edema caused by the acrid nature of the exhaust and it high carbon particulate content.

In thousands of medical journals I have only found one case of a man who was killed by diesel exhaust, an 85 year old who was overcome not by carbon monoxide but by emphasema from the smoke. For a homicidal gaschamber this would be a fiasco because it would take too long. Experiments with live animals showed that under varying loads and less than ideal engine operation conditions many animals survived a five hour exposure of fumes so thick that they cause pain to human eye.

These scientific papers (Holtz) from 1941 and (Pattle) 1957 are online and completely refute the diesel story. I have a lot more data, including colored charts of gas compositions under various loads to make the science more straightforward.

Btw, producer gas is primarily CO but it also contains some hydrogen. that is why in Germany you could fill a child's balloon with town-gas and it would float. Nowadays that would be unthinkable because nontoxic and noncombustible helium is available. Hydrogen generated in such a way is called "water gas" because water molecules are disintegrated by the high heat in the generator coal bed, and if a small spray is fed into the firebox there will be a fair amount of hydrogen liberated. The hydrogen is of course combustible along with the CO. Hydrogen produced in this way is useful for various chemical processes, including the production of synthetic oil and gasoline, which involves the "hydrogenation" of carbon from coal to produce different hydrocarbon structures than the ones originally going into the process, including fertilizers, munitions and synthetic dyes. Coal, oil, gasoline, methane, etc. are all hydrocarbons. The German chemical industry has been called "an empire of coal, air, and water" and it was the best in the world. Auschwitz was a massive industrial operation.

To think that the Nazis used Rube Goldberg murder schemes when they were so technically skilled in any other matter speaks volumes about the veracity of the Holocaust stories that have been told and accepted without much skeptical thought.

:D

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Dec 31, 2004 2:32 am)

Well written! You've convinced me. Thanks.

If the air is sent from the bottom, and then goes through the coals, to then react and create CO and some hydrogen, what keeps the coals from taking the oxygen in the air? I.e what keeps the coals from using that air? Is it a suction? So that that a certain amount of air passes from below to above quickly?

I liked this statement:
To think that the Nazis used Rube Goldberg murder schemes when they were so technically skilled in any other matter speaks volumes about the veracity of the Holocaust stories that have been told and accepted without much skeptical thought.

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 5 years ago (Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:14 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:If the air is sent from the bottom, and then goes through the coals, to then react and create CO and some hydrogen, what keeps the coals from taking the oxygen in the air? I.e what keeps the coals from using that air? Is it a suction? So that that a certain amount of air passes from below to above quickly?

The physical conditions are such that the fuel cannot burn completely due to a shortage of oxygen and thus the gases drawn through are chemically CO rather than the usual CO2. Once you add more air to the CO gas, the mixture will burn, and that is what causes the explosion in the engine's cylinders.

The important point is that regardless of whether a diesel or a gasoline engine is used, the CO fuel itself is far more deadly than the exhaust from the engine. So to pipe exhaust gas into the back of a van when all that would be needed is for the Holzgas generator to blow CO directly into a compartment is crazy. Propagandists don't always do their technical homework.

:D

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 (Tue Jan 04, 2005 7:53 pm)

To me this whole concept of killing millions of people with the exhaust fumes from combustion engines, whether diesel, gasoline or Holzgas, seems to be ridiculous.

Of course we all know that people can commit suicide by staying inside their automobile with the engine running and the garage door closed.

But the establishment historians are talking here of millions of victims!

And let us not forget: The killing method allegedly used in the extermination camps went through quite an evolution: Based on eyewitness reports , people were steamed to death in Treblinka, and electrocuted in underground installations in Belzec.

Was it not Reitlinger who thought that people would not believe the steam story? So it was changed to death from diesel exhaust fumes. What a bunch of crap!

Scott wrote: So to pipe exhaust gas into the back of a van when all that would be needed is for the Holzgas generator to blow CO directly into a compartment is crazy. Propagandists don't always do their technical homework.

Be careful, Scott. The hoaxers may just change their story again!

fge

PS: By the way, a new book is out:
Carlo Mattogno, The Bunkers of Auschwitz. Black Propaganda versus History

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2363
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:04 am)

It's interesting that on the Nizkor "shofar" archives, Jamie McCarthy says that producer gas wouldn't work. He writes "think Bic Lighter." As if piping in high concentration of CO gas wouldn't mix with the rest of the air in the "gas chamber" to dilute it considerably. Or as if a simple Y-joint with valve couldn't be attached to the pipe to dilute the CO concentration with air.

McCarthy's response:
So, what would be the result of pumping this flammable gas into a
building?

Think "Bic lighter."

I submit that torching the building would have been an unpleasant
side effect of using the producer-gas vehicles.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/z/ ... science.01

Another strong argument from McCarthy:
Furthermore, the diesel engines were stripped from captured Soviet
tanks, spoils of war -- net loss of equipment to the Reich, zero.
Ibid

Soviet Tank engine: no manual, no spare parts. 2000 lbs?. It breaks down. Creates a really low amount of CO, so that the corrosive, caustic effect of the particulate emissions leads to a slow, painful death. And yet McCarthy makes it seem like it's an "equipment cost to the Reich" issue! Sweden had converted something like 70% of their vehicles to producer gas during the war. These "producer gas generators" were not hard to obtain.

Let's face it: the people that made up the lie didn't know that diesel engines don't put out a lot of carbon monoxide, and they also figured that combustible engines are the best way to make carbon monoxide.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests