German producer gas, ideal for killing, but never used !!

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
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10151
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

German producer gas, ideal for killing, but never used !!

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:44 pm)

The idea that the Germans used a pesticide and diesel fuel to kill people is utterly refuted by science. Had the Germans really wanted to 'kill every Jew they could get their hands on', cheap and efficient producer gas would have done the job.

Read below as Friedrich Paul Berg explains.

- Hannover

The German Alternative Fuel-POISON GAS

As today's fuel prices rise, can anyone imagine using poison gas to
drive their car or truck? Well, in World War 2 the Germans did
precisely that-and so did the people of many other countries, even
long after the war.

Wartime German-occupied Europe was desperately short of liquid fuels
which had to be conserved for combat vehicles of every sort. To deal
with this desperate situation, most non-military automotive transport
used neither gasoline nor Diesel fuel, but used producer gas instead.
The gas was made in generators mounted on the vehicles by burning solid
materials such as wood, coke, or coal. The solid material was first
converted into a mixture of combustible gases by incomplete burning in
the generator, The resulting mixture of gases would then be drawn into
the modified diesel or gasoline (spark ignition) engines at the front
of the vehicles by engine vacuum. The principal ingredient of the gas
was carbon monoxide-18% to 35%-which burned very well. But, it was
also extremely toxic. That gas would have been ideal for mass murder if
the Nazis had ever intended to gas anyone.

The most shocking feature of this technology was that it was used
throughout German-occupied Europe to drive more than 500,000 motor
vehicles. It was everywhere. In addition, all drivers of these vehicles
were especially licensed only after rigorous training in this
dangerous, but necessary, technology. They were all required by law to
know that this fuel contained as much as 35% carbon monoxide and that
as little as 0.1% carbon monoxide was already enough to kill (albeit
only in about ten hours). They all needed to know this for their own
safety and people around them-and even keep written reminders (the
Safety Guidelines) in the glove compartments of their vehicles. And
yet, nowhere have any Nazis ever been even accused of employing this
superb and readily available, deadly gas to kill even one person. How
ironic?

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
The "holocaust" is a racist, anti-German hoax. Nazi Gassings Never
Happened!
Niemand wurde vergast!
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Postby Breker » 1 decade 3 years ago (Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:41 pm)

Yes, so named producer gas would have been a better fit than diesel, but the question actually centers on the non-use of nerve gasses which the Germans certainly had in abundance, tabun and sarin come to mind. We must ask, since the allegations state that the Germans sought efficiency, why would they not use these substances?
Breker

User avatar
Ned Ludd
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:55 pm

Postby Ned Ludd » 1 decade 3 years ago (Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:53 pm)

Breker wrote:Yes, so named producer gas would have been a better fit than diesel, but the question actually centers on the non-use of nerve gasses which the Germans certainly had in abundance, tabun and sarin come to mind. We must ask, since the allegations state that the Germans sought efficiency, why would they not use these substances?
Breker

What advantage would nerve gases have brought? Only a half ton of Sarin was ever made experimentally during the war, and carbon monoxide made on site would be much cheaper and easier to work with in any case.

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 3 years ago (Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:58 pm)

Combat gases are difficult to remove after a gassing. Tney cling to the ground level and would endanger the whole surroundings during the de-gassing procedure.

»In 1996, though, the anti-revisionist Baynac acknowledged in two lengthy articles published in a Swiss daily newspaper that, taking everything into account, one is forced to admit -- even if it is "as painful to say as it is to hear" -- that the well-known "testimonies" are not sufficient proof of wartime homicidal gas chambers, and that it is simply not possible to prove, scientifically, that the homicidal gas chambers actually existed.
Given this lack of any direct proof, he continued, it will now be necessary to seek an indirect proof. Because one cannot prove that Nazi gas chambers existed, he goes on to write, it will instead be necessary to prove that it is impossible that they did not exist! Specifically, he writes: "If scholarly history cannot, because of the lack of documentation, establish the reality of a fact, it can, by means of documentation, establish that the unreality of this fact is itself unreal."«
:?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10151
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:18 am)

What advantage would nerve gases have brought? Only a half ton of Sarin was ever made experimentally during the war, and carbon monoxide made on site would be much cheaper and easier to work with in any case.

Sorry, but with the massive fuel shortage that the Germans had, the idea of wasting it on alleged gassings flies in the face of military necessity.

If carbon monoxide was so ideal, then why is it that the insecticide Zyklon-B was supposedly the agent of choice at Auschwitz and other labor sites?

12,000 tons of tabun were found after the war by the allies.

1/2 ton of sarin could easily have killed the alleged number of gassed Jews and 'others'. 0.01 milligram per kilogram of body weight is enough to cause death.

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

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10151
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:19 am)

Combat gases are difficult to remove after a gassing. Tney cling to the ground level and would endanger the whole surroundings during the de-gassing procedure.

As does Zyklon-B.

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

User avatar
Ned Ludd
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:55 pm

Postby Ned Ludd » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:00 pm)

Hannover wrote:
Ned Ludd wrote:What advantage would nerve gases have brought? Only a half ton of Sarin was ever made experimentally during the war, and carbon monoxide made on site would be much cheaper and easier to work with in any case.


Sorry, but with the massive fuel shortage that the Germans had, the idea of wasting it on alleged gassings flies in the face of military necessity.

Well, carbon monoxide would be made on-site from producer gas generators using burning wood waste or trash. It also was produced at nearby Monowitz as part of the industrial processes going on there, and in fact, much of it was simply vented to the atmosphere or burned off at the top of the smokestacks because more was produced than could be used or was practical to bottle and ship over great distances for other purposes. CO would have been much cheaper than HCN and was already available cheaply just a few miles away.

Hannover wrote:If carbon monoxide was so ideal, then why is it that the insecticide Zyklon-B was supposedly the agent of choice at Auschwitz and other labor sites?


CO is not used for fumigation except possibly for rodents under certain circumstances.

Hannover wrote:
Bergmann wrote:Combat gases are difficult to remove after a gassing. Tney cling to the ground level and would endanger the whole surroundings during the de-gassing procedure.


As does Zyklon-B.

CO would require no decontamination whatsoever, unlike HCN without special heating and ventilation, and especially unlike nerve agents like Tabun or Sarin.

The only caveat for CO would be a venturi so that explosive concentrations greater than 12 percent in air could not occur, which is about twenty times what would be needed for homicidal gassings.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10151
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:19 pm)

Well, carbon monoxide would be made on-site from producer gas generators using burning wood waste or trash. It also was produced at nearby Monowitz as part of the industrial processes going on there, and in fact, much of it was simply vented to the atmosphere or burned off at the top of the smokestacks because more was produced than could be used or was practical to bottle and ship over great distances for other purposes. CO would have been much cheaper than HCN and was already available cheaply just a few miles away.

CO is not used for fumigation except possibly for rodents under certain circumstances.

But that is not what the story alleges, it says nothing of producer gas, it claims diesel fuel. That also avoids the fact Zyklon-B was said to the agent for gassing of Jews at Auschwitz and other labor camps.

Given the ridiculous story, German nerve gasses would have much more efficient than what is claimed.

I think Breker is right, I think Berg is right. IF the Germans had wanted to gas millions, then the methods alleged are laughable.

There were no Nazi gassings and there is no evidence for them.

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

Mannstein
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:50 pm

Postby Mannstein » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:21 am)

Actually the best choice would have been carbon dioxide CO2 innstead of CO. Carbon dioxide is not flamable and also inexpensive to produce.

Monowitz was the place were Germany produced synthetic fuel and lubricants, as well as Buna, synthetic rubber from coal.

Production of synthetic fuel from coal is based on the Fisher Tropsch process developed in Germany in the 1920s The starting materials are coal and steam from which hydrogen H2 and carbon monoxide CO are produced. These feedstocks are then synthesized into liquid hydrocarbons using approriate catalysts. For those interested Google Fisher Tropsh.

After the Allies bombed Monwitz, my father had to inspect the damage so his company could start repair work. While he was on site he met a number of inmates from Auschwitz. He was able to gain the confidence of some. No one mentioned anything about gas chambers.

User avatar
Ned Ludd
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:55 pm

Postby Ned Ludd » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:49 am)

Hannover wrote:
Ned Ludd wrote:
Well, carbon monoxide would be made on-site from producer gas generators using burning wood waste or trash. It also was produced at nearby Monowitz as part of the industrial processes going on there, and in fact, much of it was simply vented to the atmosphere or burned off at the top of the smokestacks because more was produced than could be used or was practical to bottle and ship over great distances for other purposes. CO would have been much cheaper than HCN and was already available cheaply just a few miles away.

CO is not used for fumigation except possibly for rodents under certain circumstances.


But that is not what the story alleges, it says nothing of producer gas, it claims diesel fuel. That also avoids the fact Zyklon-B was said to the agent for gassing of Jews at Auschwitz and other labor camps.

Given the ridiculous story, German nerve gasses would have much more efficient than what is claimed.

I think Breker is right, I think Berg is right. IF the Germans had wanted to gas millions, then the methods alleged are laughable.

There were no Nazi gassings and there is no evidence for them.

I agree with the above--except that war gases, at least vessicants like mustard, and nerve agents like Tabun or Sarin, would not be too practical. Liquid chlorine from cylinders would be fairly cheap and effective, and possibly phosgene, but for the most part war gases would involve difficult engineering problems.

Remember that the point of Berg's missive is that historians are technologically ignorant as a social class and have overlooked something important:

F.P. Berg wrote:The diesel exhaust gassing claims are too absurd to be believed, but only if one understands what was actually happening technologically in German-occupied Europe. Unfortunately, historians as a rule are technologically ignorant. One can read a thousand books on the history of World War 2 without finding even one word about the German producer gas technology. So how much can historians as a rule really understand about the war? How seriously should they be taken when they accuse Germans of mass gassings for which not even one corpse has ever been found?

The general ignorance of historians as a social class was brought home to me when I had tried to convince an historian, and a prominent revisionist editor as well, that producer gas in German-occupied Europe was enormously important.

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3775


Mannstein wrote:Actually the best choice would have been carbon dioxide CO2 innstead of CO. Carbon dioxide is not flamable and also inexpensive to produce.


This is true if the gas needs to be bottled and shipped somewhere, because carbon dioxide can be easily stored in liquid form at room temperature as in ordinary fire extinguishers.

However, much more of the gas would be needed than CO. Submarine crews, for example, can survive under conditions of very high concentrations of CO2, unlike CO.

Also, CO2 would be harder to generate on-site than CO from standard, cheap and ubiquitous producer gas generators already in use for vehicles. Already by 1937 a high proportion of Wehrmacht motor vehicles used generator gas such as the one being shown to Hitler below. A half-million producer gas generators were made during the war to partially deal with the shortages of liquid synthetic and natural fuels.

Image

One other thing about CO2, it is also not generally considered for execution purposes because of the distress that it may cause the victims. When the carbon dioxide level rises, the respiratory rate is stimultated to compensate in order to increase oxygen in the blood. This is not true of nitrogen, which is odorless and colorless, nor of carbon monoxide. But CO not only displaces oxygen like CO2 or N2 but is also extremely toxic. With a high but sub-explosive concentration of CO, the victims would likely not even know what is happening until they passed out.

On the other hand, CO2 is naturally generated by people trapped in a small enclosure who are breathing oxygen and exhaling CO2, so the external introduction of a modest amount of CO2 would certainly accelerate this natural suffocation process considerably in an airtight room.

However, from a practical engineering viewpoint, I do not see a simpler solution besides carbon monoxide--if mass gassings had actually been intended by the Germans, that is.

And if the carbon monoxide gas were not generated on-site at Birkenau from burning trash, it could have been bottled from off-gas produced and used at Monowitz nearby.

Kobus
Member
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 5:29 am

Postby Kobus » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:00 pm)

Mannstein wrote:Actually the best choice would have been carbon dioxide CO2 innstead of CO. .


The best choice is no gas at all.
When people are closely packed in an airtight room, as was done in the gas chambers, they will die after say 1-4 hours by simple asphyxiation. The use of gas is expensive, dangerous and complicated. It makes sense only when the murderer wants his victim to expire quickly. The nazis had no such motive. Probably, they 'gassed' their victims without any gas at all.

User avatar
Ned Ludd
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:55 pm

Postby Ned Ludd » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:31 pm)

Kobus wrote:
Mannstein wrote:Actually the best choice would have been carbon dioxide CO2 innstead of CO.


The best choice is no gas at all.
When people are closely packed in an airtight room, as was done in the gas chambers, they will die after say 1-4 hours by simple asphyxiation. The use of gas is expensive, dangerous and complicated. It makes sense only when the murderer wants his victim to expire quickly. The nazis had no such motive. Probably, they 'gassed' their victims without any gas at all.


Right, but nobody has ever claimed simple asphyxiation--even though the bottleneck in the extermination process was supposedly the cremation ovens and not the gassing part, so time would not be of the essence anyway until the cremation.

What happens instead is that people like Hoess claim that "carbon monoxide from engines" didn't work too well, and so he (with Eichmann's amateur advice) resorted to using Zyklon insecticide just kicking about the camp. No engineering whatever, even though we have engineering teams at the camps working on things like sewage and drainage, clothing fumigation and crematories.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2432
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:36 pm)

Great! Some new people on this board with intelligent comments.

Wow, Mannstein. Are you for real? That is a major account you just gave. I was wondering if people like you were ever going to come to this board. Welcome. I think you should start a separate thread on this. Mentioning everything you remember your Dad saying.

Hi Ned and Kobus, great points.

One thing to mention though: Ned wrote,
even though the bottleneck in the extermination process was supposedly the cremation ovens and not the gassing part, so time would not be of the essence anyway until the cremation.


Except at Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, according to the story, cremation wasn't a bottleneck since they allegedly threw them in a giant pit. (Later digging them up and cremating them.)
Last edited by Carto's Cutlass Supreme on Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10151
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:44 pm)

Ned Ludd:
Right, but nobody has ever claimed simple asphyxiation--even though the bottleneck in the extermination process was supposedly the cremation ovens and not the gassing part, so time would not be of the essence anyway until the cremation.

Time was indeed of the essence in order to fit the times alleged for the fictitious gassings.

The outgassing of Zyklon-B takes at least 2-3 hours, we have an alleged gas chamber that contained ever increasing amounts of cyanide gas for 2-3 hours, the gas then would remain active for many additional hours, yet gassings are claimed to have been mere minutes.

We then have the alleged gas chambers with the urgent necessity to move 2,000 bodies in mere minutes, up a hand drawn elevator that was no larger than 9 ft. X 4 ft., while cyanide gas is exiting the alleged gas chambers, thereby endangering the entire camp area, and alerting the next 2000 Jews supposedly lined up and awaiting their death.

The absurd story says that thousands upon thousands were gassed daily.
Utterly impossible.

What a joke.

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

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2432
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 3 years ago (Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:55 pm)

At Auschwitz, it's not so much that they used zyklon B. Hydrogen cyanide is an effective death gas, used in American executions up until the 1990's I believe.

It's that, according to Hilberg, they'd drop it on a cold basement floor, where it would outgas slowly.

Placing it in front of a hot air blower. That would have worked.

This leads us to the excellent point on this thread: All these chemists in the vicinity and they're supposedly using zyklon B in this ridiculous way.

World At War episode 20, I believe. An eyewitness account, where he even mentions how cold it was outside, and how the gassing worked. It's an account that doesn't fit with chemistry. It's here on codoh forum and I can't emphasize watching it enough.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests