Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
CODOH Video
Member
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:50 am

Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby CODOH Video » 3 years 5 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:40 am)

Is Zyklon B explosive ?


Mirror: https://archive.org/details/youtube-zA-okSHItIQ

Germar Rudolf gives what he hopes is his final word on the debate about the explosivity of Zyklon B.

Email questions about Holocaust Revisionism or Revisionist topics to Germar.

Subscribe to CODOH on Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/codoh/

http://codoh.com - Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
http://holocausthandbooks.com - Free PDF and Kindle Downloads or order paperback hard copies
http://germarrudolf.com - Germar Rudolf's Personal Website
Last edited by Webmaster on Fri Oct 25, 2019 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed dead youtube link

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3357
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Hektor » 3 years 5 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:39 pm)

Excellent work by Germar Rudolf - and quite discerning on the subject. It's a bit more of a tricky question then some of the Holocaustians try to paint it.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Dresden » 3 years 5 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 10:36 pm)

This from Fritz Berg, on Germar Rudolf's video:

"What follows is a link to a superb American essay from 1931 which gives great insights into the practical applications of Zyklon-B and HCN at that time. Note the absence of any concern about the dangers of explosions except due to instability of the liquid in the Zyklon can. Faurisson and Leuchter really are "full-of-crap" and Germar Rudolf has not been very helpful at all"

What Fritz Berg seems to miss is that the Rube Goldberg "Nazi gas chambers" were never alleged to have operated on a "practical" basis.

It was claimed that the "victims" died within minutes.

To kill all 2,000 people in 15 minutes in an underground morgue in a Polish winter, would take a dump truck full of Zyklon B, and it would keep out-gassing for several hours; it would soon reach the 6% explosive level.

Germar Rudolf says @ 33:40 in the video:

"You would need extreme amounts of Hydrogen Cyanide to kill all the people, and then you get into the area where you have the danger of explosion"

Of course, Rudolf is only talking about the "gas chamber" in the Main Camp Auschwitz where the crematorium is right next to the "gas chamber".
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Breker » 3 years 5 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:28 pm)

Yes, Rudolf does a good job in refuting the otherwise esteemed F.P. Berg.
Given the massive amounts of Zyklon-B that would have been required combined with closeness of the purported "gas chamber" and the heat emitting crematorium at Auschwitz I a significant risk of explosion would have been created.
Therefore, on the whole, both Leuchter & Faurisson are right, cyanide (Zyklon-B) did pose a risk of explosion. The meticulous Germans would never have risked such an explosion by using a potentially dangerous substance in the manner that is alleged.
At Auschwitz I the purported gassing area and crematorium were separated by a measly single door, as Rudolf demonstrates.
As for the other "gas chambers" at the other alleged Auschwitz sites, which Rudolf says did not pose a significant risk, there still would have been a theoretical risk which the Germans would never have allowed. That is if the advertised mass gassing really took place.
Mr. Berg bites the dust on this issue.

Exploded house due to high amounts of cyanide that Rudolf presents in the video.

Image
Kaboom!
Image
We suggest http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/1.html#1.2
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]

[16] "How to get rid of termites", Life, Dec. 22, 1947, p. 31; see also Liberty Bell, 12/1994, pp. 36f.
B.
Last edited by Breker on Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

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

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby TheBlackRabbitofInlé » 3 years 5 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:34 pm)

Steve F wrote:Germar Rudolf says @ 33:40 in the video:

"You would need extreme amounts of Hydrogen Cyanide to kill all the people, and then you get into the area where you have the danger of explosion"


I generally stay well clear of this debate, but I must say that no witnesses or perp. claimed extreme amounts were used, the opposite in fact.

Following is a relevant extract from the British-run Tesch trial I posted elsewhere recently in regard to a different argument.

Here Dr. Stumme the defence counsel of Tesch & Stabenow director Karl Weinbacher lays out the vast difference in the quantity of Zyklon B needed to kill humans compared to that needed to delouse clothing.


The Black Rabbit of Inlé wrote:
michael mills wrote:That shows that the Judge Advocate ignored the reality of the relative quantities of Zyklon-B required to carry out the delousing of clothing and buildings, relative to the quantities required to kill humans, possibly because he lacked the relevant knowledge of the lethality of hydrogen cyanide to different life-forms. It is obvious that he believed that the large quantities of Zyklon-B delivered to Auschwitz were far in excess of what was needed for delousing purposes, and hence the suppliers must have realised that the excess amounts were being used homicidally.


The JAG had little excuse for his failure to mention this in his Summing Up. Dr. Stumme [Weinbacher's defence counsel] spent a considerable amount of time in his Closing Address detailing the different quantities needed to poison humans compared to delousing clothing:


STUMME: The killing of prisoners at Auschwitz in the years 1942 to 1944 required a thousand kilogrammes for each year. How I come to those figures I shall now point out. 1000 kgs. cost 8400 RM. Therefore, the commission Weinbacher got on 1000 kgs. was 84 RM a year. It cannot be assumed that Weinbacher would have any financial interest in such a transaction for a profit of 84 RM a year, a business transaction which dealt with a horrible crime. The firm of Tesch & Stabenow made about three times as much money on the gassings they carried out, three times more than they made on the supplies to the army and the concentration camps. Owing to the increasing supplies to Auschwitz, the firm had not enough Zyklon to carry out the gassings which were much more valuable to them. Had the Zyklon been used in the gassings of ships, mills, etc., Weinbacher would have made three times as much money. I should like now to assume the unfavourable and say that perhaps Weinbacher wrote out the same consolidated balance sheets for himself as Zaun wrote out for the court here.

I should like to stress here that in the balance which Zaun prepared, only the years 1942 and 1943 figure, whereas according to the witnesses Broad and Bendel, the year 1944 was the one in which most killings took place. According to the evidence of Bendel and Broad, the following people were killed in Auschwitz: from May to June 1944, 400,000; and from July to September 1944, 800 000.

Since autumn 1943 all orders of the SS were collected at the Main Medical Stores at Berlin and distributed by those stores to the various units of the SS. The committee for the distribution of disinfectants decided where the supplies were to go. The firm of Tesch & Stabenow did not even know to which camps this Zyklon B was going. It is the case therefore that we have no figures for 1944 as to what quantities of Zyklon went to individual camps. First of all, it is of importance that the witness Bendel states that in 1944 it was started to do [sic] delousing not only by Zyklon but also by the use of Lisoform. Clothes uniforms and barracks were only very seldom deloused. If more Zyklon was needed in these camps, it was clear also for the first time for delousing purposes not only Zyklon B but also Lisoform was needed and used. As a witness Dr. Bendel states that in 1944 only infrequently delousing took place, but the firm of Tesche & Stabenow could not and did not know this; neither did Weinbacher. It seems important for the guilt or innocence of Weinbacher to know that a larger amount of Zyklon is needed for the destruction of vermin than for the killing of human beings, because human beings are dead after a very few moments of this influx of gas, whereas vermin have to be gassed sometimes for twenty-four hours.

The witnesses Broad and Bendel told the court that for the killing mostly two tins were used. Both witnesses said that in the crematoria cos. 1 and 2 there wore two big gas chambers available, and in the crematoria Nos. 3 and 4, two smaller chambers and one bunker. Both witnesses, when asked which size of tins were used for this purpose, indicated the 1000gms. tin, that is, a 1 kg. tin, Both witnesses stated that two such tins were needed and used for the bigger chambers and one for each of the smaller ones, and also for the bunker. In the bigger rooms this gas was infiltrated through two holes, and in the smaller gas chambers through a side insertion. The witness Bendel stated that for the bigger chambers in Crematoria Nos. 1 and 2, 2000 people could be gassed at the same time, and in Nos. 3 and 4, and also in the bunker, 1000 people. In all, the five chambers could provide for the gassing of 7000 people simultaneously, if one believes Dr. Bendel's evidence.

Dr. Zippel thinks that Bendel's statement is wrong or exaggerated, but in the interests of my client Weinbacher I have to assume that the witness Dr. Bendel is right in his evidence and is not exaggerating. For the simultaneous killing of 7000 people in these five gas chambers, seven tins were necessary according to the evidence of the witness Dr. Bendel. Seven tins means seven kilos of Zyklon. It is clear that 7 kilo served for 7000 people and 1 kilo for one thousand people. If we follow the argument of Dr. Bendel, who says that in the year 1944 one million people were killed in Auschwitz, that would mean that, if you would kill one thousand people with one kilo of Zyklon, then for one million you needed 1000 kilos of the same material. On the other hand, you must consider the evidence of the Gassing foreman Koch, who said that 500 gms of Zyklon were necessary for a standard gassing chamber of 10 cubic metres, and the effect was that you could delouse 100 sets of clothing at the same time. So that to kill 1000 people you needed 1 kilo of Zyklon, and to clean or delouse 200 sets of clothing you needed the same amount. So that with the amount of 1000 kilos which would kill a million people, only 200,000 uniforms could be disinfected. If this calculation is made for the duration of a whole year, there were about 100,000 inmates in Auschwitz.....

MAJOR DRAPER [prosecutor]: We have had no evidence as to that.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE: We have had evidence that it is a large camp.

MAJOR DRAPER: Yes; with respect, there is evidence that it is a large camp, but, if my learned friend is going into detailed figures, then he is drawing on his imagination.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE: The picture I got was that of a large number of Jews coming into the camp and being executed, and then others came and took their place. It is obvious there were not four million in there, but I think we are entitled to assume that there is a very large population in Auschwitz. I do not say any particular figure, but I think counsel can submit a fairly large figure.

MAJOR DRAPER: I think that is right, with respect, but detailed figures are not supported by the evidence.

THE JUDGE ADVOCATE: It is correct that we have not any definite figures for Auschwitz.

STUMME: One thousand kgs. would be sufficient to kill one million people or disinfect 200,000 uniforms, and therefore one would not have by far enough to disinfect the clothing at Auschwitz. The figures to which I have just referred, based on the evidence of the witnesses Bendel and Broad, apply to 1944, but they would apply equally to 1942 and 1943, for which years we have the balance sheets.

In order to come to the figure of people killed in 1942 and 1943 we can only look at the evidence of Broad, as Bendel only got to Birkenau in 1944. Broad states that the first time he heard about the gassings in Auschwitz was in May 1942. The first time he saw a gassing was in July or August 1942, when there were perhaps 300, 400 or 500 people being gassed. Later on he knew about the gassings through the concentration of the guards, and that happened about once or twice monthly. Only after March or April 1944 about 10,000 people per day were being killed. Therefore, it is right to say that in accordance with the balance sheets prepared by Zaun for 1942 and 1943, far less people must have been gassed than in 1944, that is, less than one million. If I assume that in the years 1942 and 1943 half a million each year were being killed, then, according to the calculation we have just had, 500 kgs. of Zyklon B would be required each year. With these 500 kgs. of Zyklon only 100,000 sets of uniform could have been disinfected during the whole year.

It can be seen from the figures and from the turnover of Zyklon B, that went to Auschwitz, no [one] outside, including also Weinbacher, could have got any suspicion as to what happened with the Zyklon B in Auschwitz. The quantities of Zyklon B wanted for the killing of humans is much smaller than that required for the killing of insects, as I have shown. The quantities of Zyklon B needed for killing half a million or even a million human beings stands in such small proportion to the quantities needed for the killing of insects that it would not have been noticed at all. Therefore, there was no need for Weinbacher to become suspicion [sic], as he knew that Auschwitz was one of the biggest camps and a sort of transit camp. I do not think, therefore, that it is correct to assume that the large quantity of Zyklon going to Auschwitz is any indication of the fact that human beings were being killed there.

- transcript pp.375-377
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2018961#p2018961
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: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Hannover » 3 years 5 months ago (Tue Jun 07, 2016 11:52 pm)

TheBlackRabbitofInlé quoted:
It can be seen from the figures and from the turnover of Zyklon B, that went to Auschwitz, no [one] outside, including also Weinbacher, could have got any suspicion as to what happened with the Zyklon B in Auschwitz. The quantities of Zyklon B wanted for the killing of humans is much smaller than that required for the killing of insects, as I have shown. The quantities of Zyklon B needed for killing half a million or even a million human beings stands in such small proportion to the quantities needed for the killing of insects that it would not have been noticed at all. Therefore, there was no need for Weinbacher to become suspicion [sic], as he knew that Auschwitz was one of the biggest camps and a sort of transit camp. I do not think, therefore, that it is correct to assume that the large quantity of Zyklon going to Auschwitz is any indication of the fact that human beings were being killed there.

However, here is some clarity:
Hannover wrote:The insects cyanide sensitivity vs. that of humans is an easily refuted canard.
see:
'7. Zyklon B for the Killing of Human Beings'
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/7.html
specifics about "eyewitnesses" are here plus much more:
7.3.1.3.2. Excursus 1: Poisoning or Suffocation?

and:
'the lack of cyanide residue in the alleged 'gas chambers'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=392
more:
'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 1&start=90

and:
TRANSLATION OF DOC. NO. NI-9912
Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes
DIRECTIVES FOR THE USE OF PRUSSIC ACID (ZYKLON) FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF VERMIN (DISINFESTATION)
http://www.ihr.org/books/leuchter/appendix03.html

- 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 denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.


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

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Dresden » 3 years 5 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 12:19 am)

The Rabbit said:

".....no witnesses or perp. claimed extreme amounts were used, the opposite in fact"

That's right, Rabbit, but that only proves that the "killing within 15 minutes" is nonsense.

If it was true that 2,000 people were killed in 15 minutes in an underground, unheated morgue with no circulation device in a Polish winter, then they would have to use a dump-truck full of Zyklon B, whether anyone said they used it or not.

The whole Zyklon B gassing allegation is absolutely impossible.....as alleged.
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3357
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Hektor » 3 years 5 months ago (Wed Jun 08, 2016 7:44 am)

Steve sums it up neatly. The claims don't harmonize with the facts. Germar just disseminates the whole thing. To summarize that again:
- With small amounts of Zyklon B the process can't be done within the short amount of time claimed.
- If you complete killing with 15 or even 30 minutes, you need far bigger amounts of Zyklon B. Then the explosive risk does increase again.

Of course there is a pile of other problems with the orthodox narrative as well, but we leave that aside for the time being.

My take on this: Some of the "witnesses" may have seen hygienic gassings (e.g. for delousing) and then jumped on the conclusion that a homicidal gassing would have worked the same way. It wouldn't. Given the sociological environment of the time the "witnessing" happened, nobody bothered. I mean, they had the photos of emaciated corpses as proof didn't they? And then they had strong ulterior motives to frame the Germans with something gruesome. Didn't "justice" (and the self-image of the prevailing side) demand that?

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Werd » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:06 am)

It is impossible to kill people quickly the way the witnesses claim about the Auschwitz gas chambers. Rudolf is clear on that. He is also clear that Faurisson and Leuchter have been getting it wrong for years about what the lower explosion limits and the higher explosion limits are. What the range of flammability is. Early in the video, Rudolf shows himself correcting Leuchter on at least two occasions. So years ago when Fritz said that the explosive range is about 6% to 41%, he was correct. Rudolf was also careful to point out that clearly that house mentioned in LIFE magazine blew up because...obviously the explosive range was met because too much cyanide was applied to fumigate the house. This shows the flammability of cyanide...ONLY IN CERTAIN PERCENTAGES. Rudolf is also careful to point about that the krieslauf principle or roughly the principle of purposely circulated air is important for equal distribution of the gas throughout the room/chamber. This is one of the things Fritz Berg has talked about for years. You need proper circulation DURING the gassing; of which no supposed eyewitnesses mention. Thus the whole story begins falling apart.

To return to the flammability issue, one can't just say "cyanide is explosive" and walk away thinking they have said anything of scientific value and that the debate is over. :lol: There are nuances, subtleties and specifics that have to be taken into account. There are many points in this video that vindicate Fritz Berg's points from the past. Anyone who ignores these kind of important details (like some here on codoh) aren't fit to be taken seriously in a rational debate.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Breker » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:59 am)

Mr. Werd stated:
To return to the flammability issue, one can't just say "cyanide is explosive" and walk away thinking they have said anything of scientific value and that the debate is over. There are nuances, subtleties and specifics that have to be taken into account. There are many points in this video that vindicate Fritz Berg's points from the past. Anyone who ignores these kind of important details (like some here on codoh) aren't fit to be taken seriously in a rational debate.

Yes they can easily walk away, cyanide can be explosive, the Germans would have known this and therefore would have never taken any risks, that is if the allegations about it's homicidal use were factual.
As we have already said, dangers of HCN were and certainly are common knowledge.
And we do find it most odd that the following, which I specifically cited, are in distinct disagreement about your non-explosive HCN silliness. Once again here they are.

The Chemical Engineering Department at Edinburgh University

The Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet from the State of New Jersey

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Preve...

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Committee on Hazardous Substances in the Laboratory

Nuance and subtleties just don't matter in risk avoidance. It would be foolish to take any risk whatsoever regardless of how distant it may seem, accidents do happen, see blown-up house photo. :lol:
One can argue the minutiae about %, etc. all day; but on the whole Mr. Leuchter & Dr. Faurisson were correct and Mr. Berg was quite wrong. While he has done some courageous work, he has embarrassed himself on this issue. "Pride goeth before a fall."
Nothing in the Germar Rudolf video saves the day for Mr. Berg since it was Mr. Berg who said there was absolutely no risk of explosion when in fact it is quite obvious there was, see blown-up house photo, see above references. :lol:
According to Mr. Werd we are all idiots, except himself of course, yes he is rude. However I do suggest to Mr. Werd that he stop being Mr. Berg's errand boy.
B.

encore, the cyanide exploded house:
Image
We suggest http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/1.html#1.2
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]

[16] "How to get rid of termites", Life, Dec. 22, 1947, p. 31; see also Liberty Bell, 12/1994, pp. 36f.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Werd » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:17 am)

Nothing in the Germar Rudolf video saves the day for Mr. Berg since it was Mr. Berg who said there was absolutely no risk of explosion

Berg never said there was never a risk of explosion ever at any time no matter the concentration. Stop making it seem like he did. He has been very clear about the RANGES OF FLAMMABILITY, which would logically imply there are RANGES OF NON-FLAMMABILITY. Please do him justice by quoting his words in proper context.
Nuance and subtleties just don't matter in risk avoidance.

According to Germar Rudolf they do. He was very clear about the range of flammability in the corrected edition of the Leuchter reports being 6% to 41%. He said many times if you do this and that or that and this, there is VIRTUALLY NO DANGER OF EXPLOSION. Your own source just said cyanide "can be highly explosive under certain circumstances" which logically implies there are circumstances when it is not the case.

Did we even watch the same video? :lol:

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Dresden » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:31 am)

Werd said:

"There are many points in this video that vindicate Fritz Berg's points from the past. Anyone who ignores these kind of important details (like some here on codoh) aren't fit to be taken seriously in a rational debate"

Really?

Let's hear it from the horse's mouth:

"Essentially, Germar says that I am right but in such an obtuse way--and deliberately so. I think-- that hardly anyone will catch on" --- Fritz Berg, yesterday, June 7, 2016

So, according to Fritz Berg, Rudolf's "vindication" of him is so deliberately obtuse that hardly anyone will catch on, and I'm sure Fritz Berg was including the people on CODOH in that "hardly anyone", yet according to Werd, Rudolf's "vindication" of Berg is so glaringly obvious and crystal clear that anyone who doesn't "catch on" is not "fit to be taken seriously in a rational debate"

What's wrong with this picture?

Either you have to be an irrational fool to miss it, or "I think-- that hardly anyone will catch on"

Who's right.....Werd or Berg?

I say Fritz Berg is right, and that Rudolf's supposed "vindication" of Berg is so wishy-washy that "hardly anyone" can spot it.
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Dresden » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:39 am)

Werd said:

"Did we even watch the same video?" :lol:

You took the words right out of my keyboard, Werd.....with the laughing smiley and all! :lol: :bounce: :D
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Breker » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:42 am)

Werd wrote:
Nothing in the Germar Rudolf video saves the day for Mr. Berg since it was Mr. Berg who said there was absolutely no risk of explosion

Berg never said there was never a risk of explosion ever at any time no matter the concentration. Stop making it seem like he did. He has been very clear about the RANGES OF FLAMMABILITY, which would logically imply there are RANGES OF NON-FLAMMABILITY. Please do him justice by quoting his words in proper context.
Nuance and subtleties just don't matter in risk avoidance.

According to Germar Rudolf they do. He was very clear about the range of flammability in the corrected edition of the Leuchter reports being 6% to 41%. He said many times if you do this and that or that and this, there is VIRTUALLY NO DANGER OF EXPLOSION. Did we even watch the same video?

We feel you are rather missing the point. Which is that there is a risk of explosion that the Germans would clearly have known about and applied if they were going to attempt an "extermination of Jews", which they didn't. IOW, they would have never considered cyanide as a means for the alleged "extermination of Jews" with the alleged gassing areas being close to heat emitting crematorium.
Yes we realize it was a small risk, but a risk nonetheless, see the house, it does not lie. :lol:

And do recall my previously mentioned acknowledgement by Rudolf in his video of the, ahem, increased risk at the alleged "extermination" facilities at Auschwitz I.
Indeed, did you see the same video as myself? :lol:

Mr. Berg is being an envious, grumpy old man in refusing to give credit to Mr. Leuchter and Dr. Faurisson for raising the valid issue of the risk of explosions, the house is not going away.

"If you do this and that" the house should never have exploded.
But it did. :lol:
B.
Image
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1093
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Werd » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:04 am)

"If you do this and that" the house should never have exploded.

But it did.

Because they didn't do "This and That", which was stay out of the flammability range. Duh.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests