Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2430
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 5 years 2 months ago (Tue Aug 04, 2015 3:36 pm)

Faurisson is a revisionist pioneer and has made so many contributions to this cause, and he's admirably dedicated his life to exposing the holocaust myth. Having said that, some of his revisionist arguments in this article are poor.

In Inconvenient History Volume 7 number 2, (2015) Robert Faurisson has an article titled "In Seventy Years, No Forensic Study Proving the Existence and Operation of the "Nazi Gas Chambers"!

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/arch ... _years.php

"Supplement 2" is on comparing Auschwitz gas chamber doors with American execution chamber doors. It's a stark contrast, with the American execution chambers looking like submarine doors, some with steering wheel sized spinning handles. There's so many problems with what he's saying I'll just make some points:

1) There doesn't need to be any pressure or initial vacuum at all. HCN is lethal in a parts per million in air. All one would need is a relief valve or vent, to displace a small amount of the air in the execution chamber with HCN. Thus no need for these kind of doors. Because the prisoner to be executed is presumably strapped in, the door could be made of sealed pliable plastic even! The book Auschwitz Lies, by Rudolf and Mattogno page 51, discusses a church being fumigated with HCN. No need for creating a vacuum in the church. When dealing with parts per million, displacement isn't a major factor.

2) Faurisson writes "a vacuum must be created in the chamber. But creating a vacuum can cause a general collapse." Creating a vacuum would be torturous for the inmate inside and not necessary.

3) Faurisson writes in red at bottom "A series of twelve photos showing real execution gas chambers (in the United States) with their doors and, at the bottom, four photos showing the doors of a false gas chamber (at Auschwitz). " Except the last 3 photos are real gas chamber doors, but they are gas chamber doors to fumigate clothing and such. The close-up on these doors which isn't shown, shows paper covering the cracks which is all that's needed to crudely hold in the HCN.

4) Faurisson completely misses the two main points about these doors: that the inmates could break them down by pushing on them. And that the wrought iron medieval style latch is ridiculously rudimentary for a door holding in thousands of people.

5) Faurisson puts forth the idea of how incredibly hard it is to kill someone with gas "It took American engineers seven years (1917-1924) to develop their first homicidal gas chamber. And the first execution, in 1924 in Carson City (Nevada), nearly resulted in disaster from the significant presence of lethal gas in the prison corridors after the death of the condemned man." If it's so hard to kill people with gas (as Friedrich Berg recently pointed out) how were thousands of troops killed with poison gas during WWI, outside in open air? That you have an incompetent prison bureacracy putting a lot of unnecessary energy and spectacle into their structure for rare occurences of killing an inmate, isn't a great comparison-angle for showing that the alleged Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers are a myth.

6) In the body of the article on flammability of HCN "To use it as we are told it was used for the Auschwitz-I “gas chamber”, in proximity to a crematory oven heating up, would have been sheer madness." That's been discussed on other threads, but suffice it to say, that a can of pellets dumped on the floor, is not going to translate into a room full of explosive gas. The HCN quickly dilutes into the air to a poisonous but not flammable mixture. It's flammable an inch or two from the pellets, and after that not flammable, if memory serves.

7) Lots of fumigating with HCN was done at Auschwitz. Hence the blue stains in those rooms. They didn't use air tight sealed doors with steering wheel close-valves to do these fumigations.

8 ) if one were going to *show Faurisson or draw Faurisson a gas chamber* you could show him the rooms where they fumigated clothing at Auschwitz. Beyond that a fortified steel door to prevent breaking down the door, and bars enclosing (to protect) the pellet warmer and some other changes would be a homicidal gas chamber.

9) Faurisson says that a door with a keyhole to enclose HCN is an absurdity because the gas could escape through the keyhole. But because the gas inside the chamber is not pressurized, it's not blowing through the keyhole. A small amount is drafting through, maybe some osmotic pressure drafting it through faster, but when that gas goes through the keyhole it is then in another room where it quickly dilutes to a non lethal level. This is guessing: it's probably like when one feels they've been exposed to too much car exhaust (CO): they feel yucky, or dizzy, so they leave the area to get fresh air. This comparison is because HCN and CO work similarly: attaching to the hemoglobin oxygen receptor much more strongly than oxygen. The gas (in parts per million concentration) going through the keyhole and becoming immediately way more diluted, is not going to immediately kill someone on the other side. Faurisson wants it both ways: it's incredibly hard to kill someone with gas, but gas from one room going through a keyhole is dangerous to the people in that second room.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Faurisson's poor revisionist arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby hermod » 5 years 2 months ago (Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:41 pm)

A vacuum was used in the execution gas chambers of US prisons to prevent poison gas from escaping the gas chambers and so from killing the viewers watching an execution and the guards in the vicinity of the gas chambers. Faurisson didn't say that a vacuum was needed to make hydrogen cyanide lethal. A vacuum was created inside the US gas chambers, so that no poisoned air could escape in case of a leakage. No air can get out of a room under negative pression. Air can only enter a room with such an environment. High security labs manipulating dangerous microbes are also rooms under negative pressure. Fortunately! Whereas aerospace plants are under excess pressure to prevent dust from coming in (what would damage their high-tech products).

But that's an argument quite useless for us because the death of a few Jewish Sonderkommandos wouldn't have worried the administrators of the camps anyway. So no vacuum needed in the alleged Holocaust gas chambers.

And as far as the gas chamber at Carson City is concerned, Faurisson didn't say "it's so hard to kill people with gas". He said it's hard not to kill people you're not supposed to kill when you use poison gas in a building.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby neugierig » 5 years 2 months ago (Tue Aug 04, 2015 6:51 pm)

I also received this article and liked it. Did the Grand Old Man of Revisionism miss something here and there? Of course he did, but not enough to make much of a difference. If one tries hard, fault can be found with any essay.

I printed the article and gave it to someone, as an introduction to Revisionism. Nothing so far.

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby Kingfisher » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:53 am)

Like CCS I'll begin by paying my respects to Faurisson who, I am sure, would be the first to argue that his propositions should be as subject to rigid scrutiny as anyone else's.

Faurisson has made this comparison with the US gas chambers since at least the mid eighties in his video Le probleme des chambres a gaz and therefore, I presume, in his Le Monde article of the same title. The argument struck me when I first viewed it as being of dubious value since, as we all know, there were delousing gas chambers at Auschwitz, Majdanek and elsewhere with relatively primitive doors and no negative pressure. They vented to the open air and, presumably, the gas dispersed safely at non-dangerous levels of concentration. Also, as CCS has remarked, cyanide gas has been widely used for fumigating buildings.

There are many reasons to doubt the conventional story, but this is not one of them. It is effective as an initial attention attractor, sowing doubt, but does not stand up to closer examination.

As for the explosive argument, I agree that the concentrations involved were too low to present a real risk of explosion, but the precautionary principle would argue against using it a room directly linked to a cremation chamber. However, I doubt Health and Safety were quite as strict in those days!

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby Hektor » 5 years 2 months ago (Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:12 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:....
Faurisson has made this comparison with the US gas chambers since at least the mid eighties in his video Le probleme des chambres a gaz and therefore, I presume, in his Le Monde article of the same title. The argument struck me when I first viewed it as being of dubious value since, as we all know, there were delousing gas chambers at Auschwitz, Majdanek and elsewhere with relatively primitive doors and no negative pressure. They vented to the open air and, presumably, the gas dispersed safely at non-dangerous levels of concentration. Also, as CCS has remarked, cyanide gas has been widely used for fumigating buildings.

There are many reasons to doubt the conventional story, but this is not one of them. It is effective as an initial attention attractor, sowing doubt, but does not stand up to closer examination.

As for the explosive argument, I agree that the concentrations involved were too low to present a real risk of explosion, but the precautionary principle would argue against using it a room directly linked to a cremation chamber. However, I doubt Health and Safety were quite as strict in those days!

The delousing gas chambers had the Zyklon B placed INTO it or with some heated circulation instrument attached to it. The homicidal gas chambers had it supposedly tossed into it. Operational times for the delousing chambers stretched over many hours. For gassing the stuff as well as for venting it.

I agree that fire/explosion risk would most likely be low similar to a filling station where you're not allowed to smoke for exactly that risk reason.

So those arguments may not be very strong (such as the residues - or lack thereof, and the missing wholes, etc.), but they aren't invalid neither.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby Werd » 5 years 2 months ago (Fri Aug 07, 2015 1:34 pm)

Well well, it would seem that perhaps myself and Fritz Berg are right in that Faurisson isn't fully technically accurate in some of his statements. I on the other hand perfer to take the Carlo Mattogno approach to stick to the fact and not insult the man as Fritz is sometimes itching to do.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby Werd » 4 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 03, 2015 2:17 am)

On the issue of flammability CCS, I feel I must point out that Mattogno, Graf and even Rudolf agree with Berg on the flammability issue, rude as they think Berg can be sometimes. Faurisson repeated the same old stuff about dangers of flammability in a recent interview he did with Jim Rizzoli.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwl9aUPT0RQ
Approx 30 minute mark.
Despite his good points, Faurisson is a stubborn old man who refuses to see the error of his ways. He must not have taken kindly to Carlo Mattogno trying to set him straight years ago in January 2011. Some of Leuchter's mistakes were just atrocious as seen on pages 155-159 that Faurisson was livid that Mattogno dared to criticize Leuchter. See this translated Olodogma article.
Faurisson had been outraged by the fact that in the book on Majdanek written by me in collaboration with J. Graf had criticized the Leuchter Report:

"In the chapter about the" gas chambers "of the KL Majdanek written by me, we could not pass over in silence the Leuchter Report. The balance of my critical analysis of the arguments of Leuchter is decidedly negative. Faurisson, stirring even here the personal level with that argument, accusing me of having exhibited "reckless personal attacks [sic] an adversary [sic] [...] that we can no longer defend" "
8 .

Overflight of other accusations that they had, those yes, a personal character.


8 Criticism of R. Faurisson's book "KL Majdanek. Eine historische und technische Studie ", in: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/techniques/CMrepRFital.html.

Web translation in English of this Mattogno criticism here.

User avatar
TheBlackRabbitofInlé
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:38 am

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 4 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:59 am)

Here's Mattogno's c.2000 response to Faurisson's attack on his and Graf's Majdanek study:
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/techniques/CMrepRFenga.html


A Lesson in Style

In conclusion, that critique by Robert Faurisson does not have the characteristics of rational argumentation, but is purely emotional.

What is true is that Faurisson has been completely silent about our "attack" on the theses of Germar Rudolf, displayed in the same paragraph as our "attack" on the Leuchter theses. This shows that Faurisson is not interested in the "attacks" of revisionists versus revisionists, but rather he is interested in the "attacks" of revisionists versus Faurisson-Leuchter. And if being "attacked", refers to other revisionists such as Germar Rudolf - well, that doesn't deserve even one word of mention! But, Germar Rudolf has rightly given everyone a good lesson in style: having endured severe criticism on a par with Leuchter, not only has Rudolf willingly accepted it, but he has even published the book in which it is set out! Now that is healthy revisionism.


Conclusion

None with good sense can deny the merits of Robert Faurisson in the development of revisionism from its limited form under Rassinier to its present scientific form, and I myself have been one of Faurisson's earliest supporters since 1979; but this does not mean that Faurisson is the sole custodian of a revisionist truth which would be merely dogmatic - nor that he is the only historiographic measure of all things by which every new contribution to revisionism must be judged. This attitude, which may be called Faurissonism, is extremely damaging for the future development of scientific revisionism because it tends to minimize, to disqualify, to denigrate at will; and so to discourage any new contribution which does not assume Faurissonism as its central core. As opposed to a total view, it can only appear as futile repetition of what has already been said, or worse - as worthless confirmations of others' observations. One purpose of this article is to put on guard those who are open to criticism against the dangers of this personalized distortion of scientific revisionism which threatens to hold back its vital impulse, turning it into a dogmatic and dispirited fossil.



From Mattogno's 2012 response to Butz and Faurisson's *criticism* of his Case for Sanity study:
http://revblog.codoh.com/2012/01/arthur-butz-and-auschwitz-the-case-for-sanity-an-insufficiently-dispassionate-review/


The two best-known revisionists in America and Europe have joined forces against me: I do not know if it is an honor or a disgrace. Is to have carried out in-depth studies on multiple “complicated” issues that Butz and Robert Faurisson have barely mentioned bad for revisionism?

Faurisson’s message seems animated by obvious personal animosity. To someone interested in revisionist issues, personal disagreements are in fact of no interest, so I will not respond on this level. But I must point out that my supposed “terrible complex” is certainly not suggested by the judgments made by Faurisson on me toward the beginning of my revisionist activities. I summarize the most salient ones taken from Écrits révisionnistes (1974-1998):[xviii]

Vol. II, p. 562 (1985): “An Italian revisionist, Carlo Mattogno, the quality of whose work is exceptional…”.

p. 723 (1987): “Carlo Mattogno, who is only 35, is a researcher of exceptional erudition”,

pp. 983-984 (1990): “C. Mattogno shows a type of erudition in the tradition of his ancestors of the Renaissance; he is both meticulous and prolific; in the future he will figure in the first rank among revisionists”.

As for the example cited by Faurisson, if Pressac has devoted “pages and pages” to the question of cremation and crematories at Auschwitz, I do not see how one can refute it without also devoting “pages and pages” to the subject.

I do not think it is up to Faurisson to determine what revisionism needs or does not need. If he believes that his readers need simplification, good for him and good for them. Other readers want instead to go more deeply and to read longer, more articulate works. I hope to satisfy these readers and at the same time pose a few puzzles for holocaust historians.

I do not see why there should be a conflict between these two different approaches, which are simply complementary: do both not contribute to the “cause”?
Nazis tried to create super-soldiers, using steroids ... they sought to reanimate the dead—coffins of famous Germanic warriors were found hidden in a mine, with plans to bring them back to life at the war’s end.
- Prof. Noah Charney

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby Hannover » 4 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:01 am)

On the 'non-explosive qualities of cyanide' argument made against Faurisson I call upon actual facts.
Given the vast quantities that would have been necessary for gassings as alleged the chance of explosions rise significantly.

http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/1.html#1.2.
1.2. Hydrogen Cyanide-a Dangerous Poison

Hydrogen cyanide, is not, of course, utilized solely for the purpose of executions in American gas chambers, but for much more constructive purposes as well. Since approximately the end of WWI, hydrogen cyanide, or HCN, has been used to exterminate vermin such as bedbugs, lice, corn weevils, termites, cockroaches, and other pests. It is, of course, important to be extremely cautious while applying hydrogen cyanide in order to avoid disaster, because it is in many ways a highly dangerous poison.

Fig. 2: How to get rid of termites: Top photo: Before. Bottom photo: After.

Image

exploded house:

Image

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

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

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

But the dangers of this type of poison gas are not merely restricted to persons in the same house in which fumigation is taking place. Large quantities of gas may penetrate the open air and endanger the entire neighborhood, as shown by an accident in the fall of 1995 in a Croatian holiday resort:[18]

"That failed profoundly. Three local residents suffering from symptoms of poisoning and a number of surviving woodworms were the results of the botched action against vermin in a church in the Croatian holiday resort Lovran, close to Rijeka. The exterminator's clumsy work necessitated the evacuation of several hundred residents of the locality.

The exterminators tried to treat the Church of the Holy Juraj for woodworm during the night, using the highly toxic gas. But since they failed to seal off the church appropriately, the gas seeped into surrounding houses in which people were already asleep. 'Fortunately, the people woke up immediately because of sudden attacks of nausea-that's what saved them from certain death,' wrote the newspaper, 'Vecernji List'. Three residents nevertheless suffered severe intoxication. The mayor decided to evacuate the center of the town. The exterminators were arrested. The woodworms survived. dpa"

But that is still not all: on top of this, hydrogen cyanide is also a tenacious poison. It adheres wherever it is utilized, especially in a moist environment. Deadly cyanide gas continues to evaporate slowly from moist objects for hours and days, involving a permanent environmental hazard where sufficient ventilation cannot be assured. .......
and:
Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet - State of New Jersey
nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/1013.pdf
New Jersey
Hydrogen Cyanide is on the Right to Know Hazardous. Substance ... explosion hazards and can polymerize violently, resulting in ..... Molecular Formula: HCN.
==
Hydrogen Cyanide - Centers for Disease Control and ...
http://www.cdc.gov/.../E...
United States Centers for Disease Control and Preve...
Jun 18, 2013 - Exposure to hydrogen cyanide (AC) can be rapidly fatal. .... Run-off to sewers may create an explosion hazard. ..... HCN; Aqueous solubility ...
==
http://utslappisiffror.naturvardsverket ... n-cyanide/
It is strongly flammable and it is a potentially explosive hazard when mixed with air.
==
Prudent Practices for Handling Hazardous Chemicals in ...
books.google.com/books?id=3jcrAAAAYAAJ
Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences (U.S.). Committee on Hazardous Substances in the Laboratory - 1981 - ‎Chemical laboratories
Hazards from Fire, Explosion, or Uncontrolled Polymerization Because of its low flash point and wide range of explosive mixtures, HCN presents a serious fire and exposiosion hazard ...
- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby Werd » 4 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:09 pm)

While you deal with facts that nobody disputes, I will call upon specifics as seen here and here and here. You can cite chapter 1 from Rudolf all you want, but you may want to take a look at what is in chapter 7 as seen here. From The Leuchter Reports 3rd edition.
“With correct application quantities and concentrations, the technical literature indicates that there is practically no danger of explosion.”

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby Hannover » 4 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:40 pm)

Werd, the links you provided are appreciated, they serve my point well.

Graf said:
This argument is indeed unsound, since the danger of an explosion would only have existed if exorbitant quantities of HCN had been used.
Indeed. It's "exhorbitant quantities" that would have been required to gas 2000 Jews per batch, one after the other as alleged.
Pressac said:
The SS used doses of 5g/m³ in delousing and 12-20 g/m³ in killing, well under the 67.2 g/m³ threshold. The gas chambers were not about to explode.” (103)

Oh please, Pressac, who was from the 'holocaust' Industry, references himself:
103) J.-C.Pressac, Les carences et incohérences du "Rapport Leuchter", art.cit., p.VI.

And how does proven shyster Pressac know about "SS doses" that never occurred in the first place?

Your German citation concerns normal pesticide use, hardly the amounts that would have been necessary to gas the alleged 2000 Jews per batch.

And then you ignore the information I have quoted which clearly indicates a serious risk of cyanide. Ignoring the citations will not make them go away. The Germans would not have been so stupid as to 'gas' Jews using the mass quantities of cyanide per batch that would have been required.
Again, see:
vietopic.php?f=2&t=9535&p=72368&hilit=hannover+asmarques#p72368

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby Werd » 4 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:51 pm)

Pressac's argument quoted by me here and seen here from Mattogno's Italian book Dilletanti Allo Sbaraglio come out of this same Mattogno book that has German textbook references which show Berg is right and that Mattogno, Graf and Rudolf are correct to side with him. If your side was correct, then the moderators on this site would not have deleted an entire 2007 thread as my second hyperlink shows.
The basis of my statement was the "Limits of Inflammability" as given in Handbook of Chemistry and Physics Fortieth Edition, 1958, Chemical Rubber Publishing Co., page 1913. There, it is clearly stated that the lower limit of inflammability for hydrocyanic acid is 5.60% and the upper limit is 40%. For carbon monoxide the lower limit of inflammability is 12.50% and the upper limit is 74.20.

-Fritz Berg

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

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby blake121666 » 4 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:24 pm)

Hannover wrote:Werd, the links you provided are appreciated, they serve my point well.

Graf said:
This argument is indeed unsound, since the danger of an explosion would only have existed if exorbitant quantities of HCN had been used.
Indeed. It's "exhorbitant quantities" that would have been required to gas 2000 Jews per batch, one after the other as alleged.
Pressac said:
The SS used doses of 5g/m³ in delousing and 12-20 g/m³ in killing, well under the 67.2 g/m³ threshold. The gas chambers were not about to explode.” (103)

Oh please, Pressac, who was from the 'holocaust' Industry, references himself:
103) J.-C.Pressac, Les carences et incohérences du "Rapport Leuchter", art.cit., p.VI.

And how does proven shyster Pressac know about "SS doses" that never occurred in the first place?

Your German citation concerns normal pesticide use, hardly the amounts that would have been necessary to gas the alleged 2000 Jews per batch.

And then you ignore the information I have quoted which clearly indicates a serious risk of cyanide. Ignoring the citations will not make them go away. The Germans would not have been so stupid as to 'gas' Jews using the mass quantities of cyanide per batch that would have been required.
Again, see:
vietopic.php?f=2&t=9535&p=72368&hilit=hannover+asmarques#p72368

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.


Can you give some evidence for these claims of yours about the quantities required to mass gas people? The technical literature cited by Werd's references makes the opposite case. Do you have some knowledge in this matter that the experts in the field have overlooked? In the spirit of your last statement above, the Germans would not have been so stupid as to gas Jews with the EXORBITANT concentration required for any explosion risk. It is up to you to show that the amount required would be an explosion risk. Get to it, Hannover; you have been challenged. Prove your contention about the concentrations required to mass gas people.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby Hannover » 4 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:25 pm)

Blake121666 said:
Can you give some evidence for these claims of yours about the quantities required to mass gas people? The technical literature cited by Werd's references makes the opposite case. Do you have some knowledge in this matter that the experts in the field have overlooked? In the spirit of your last statement above, the Germans would not have been so stupid as to gas Jews with the EXORBITANT concentration required for any explosion risk. It is up to you to show that the amount required would be an explosion risk. Get to it, Hannover; you have been challenged. Prove your contention about the concentrations required to mass gas people.
It's really basic, but perhaps a bit of a challenge for Blake121666.
It would take much, much more Zyklon-B to kill 2000 Jews per batch then a few lice.

OK Blake121666, get to it:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/7.html
and:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/7.html#7.3.1.3.
excerpt:
7.3.1.3.1. Overview

Opinions differ as to the concentration of poison gas alleged to have been used in the presumed executions (see next chapter). The only indirect source available to us are the alleged execution times reported by the eyewitnesses, which in turn permit a crude estimate of the concentrations used. These reported execution times all allege a gassing time of only a few minutes.[465]

Assuming an execution time approximately corresponding to those in US execution gas chambers (ten minutes and more at 3,200 ppm HCN, see chapter 7.1.), a concentration of at least 3,000 ppm (3.6g/m3) would have had to have reached even the remotest corner of the chamber after only half this time (five minutes). With a free volume of 430 m3 in morgue 1 of crematoria II and III,[466] this corresponds to a quantity of hydrogen cyanide of approximately 1.5 kg released and spread out after five minutes. Since the carrier material only releases approximately 10% of its hydrogen cyanide content after five minutes (see chapter 7.2.), at least ten times that amount would have been required in order to kill in only a few minutes, i.e., this would mean the utilization of at least 15 kg of Zyklon B.[467] This, of course, only applies on the condition that the hydrogen cyanide released reached the victims immediately, which cannot be expected in large, overcrowded cellars. It must therefore be considered established that quantities of at least 20 kg of Zyklon B per gassing (ten 2 kg cans or twenty 1 kg cans) would probably have had to have been used for the gassing procedures described.

Let us state that the scenarios described by the witnesses would require a quick increase in the concentration of hydrogen cyanide everywhere in the chamber. At the same time, logically, there cannot have been a simultaneous drop in the hydrogen cyanide in the chamber-such as through the respiration of the victims. Such a loss in hydrogen cyanide would have had to have been overcompensated for through an even more rapid evaporation of fresh hydrogen cyanide, because the hydrogen cyanide concentration would have had to increase for rapid executions. After the end of respiration due to increasing numbers of dead victims, who died in a matter of minutes, this most important cause of a loss in hydrogen cyanide would have ceased to exist as a factor. But since Zyklon B continues to give off large amounts of hydrogen cyanide for many more minutes, it must be assumed that the hydrogen cyanide content in such chambers would continue to increase constantly, and very rapidly, during the first quarter hour at least. Since deadly concentrations (3,200 ppm) would have had to have been reached even in the remotest corner of the chamber even after a few minutes, this means that the hydrogen cyanide concentration inside the chamber after approximately one quarter hour would have exceeded 10,000 ppm and would have continued to rise thereafter-slowly, of course, but nevertheless constantly at all times.

To assume that the respiration of the victims locked in the chambers would have been capable of perceptibly reducing the concentration of hydrogen cyanide in the air is therefore entirely in contradiction to the eyewitness statements.[468] In particular, this would have to assume that the victims, confined in the chamber, could have acted as quasi-living filters for the greater proportion of the time during which the Zyklon B was releasing hydrogen cyanide (at least one hour). But one thousand people locked in a hermetically sealed cellar would have died in an hour from lack of oxygen alone.

These considerations show that a concentration of hydrogen cyanide in morgue 1 of crematoria II and III during the alleged gassings would have had an effect on the masonry which would have been at least as great as that occurring during disinfestation. High rates of hydrogen cyanide absorption would have to be expected during these periods, particularly on the cool and moist masonry of cellars in crematoria II and III. The duration of the gassing period would have depended above all on the subsequent ventilation, which will be examined below.

That was easy.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

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

Re: Faurisson's poor arguments in Inconvenient History

Postby blake121666 » 4 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:39 pm)

Not at all easy Hannover. Prove that

"at least 3,000 ppm (3.6g/m3) would have had to have reached even the remotest corner of the chamber after only half this time (five minutes)."

And if Kula columns were implemented, the Zyklon-B could be removed at any time after it served its purpose.

Keep in mind that Faurisson and his ilk are trying to make the case that "mass gassings are impossible" with Zyklon-B regardless of any of this bogus eyewitness testimony you are basing your whole argument on. Keep eyewitness testimony out of it and you have no case whatever.

And even with the crazy scenario described above, you still only have 10,000 ppm in a quarter hour. You need approximately 57,000 ppm to even risk explosion (a very very small risk as well at that concentration).

So even in this extreme case you bring up (you know damned well no one thinks they used 20 Kg of Zyklon-B), you still have no risk of explosion.

Try again, Hannover.
Last edited by blake121666 on Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests