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!
Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 765
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 2:10 am)

Werd wrote:
"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!

Yes, and it's called an accident, which I mentioned. Accidents do happen and the Germans would have known they do. Hence they would never have engaged in such risky, accident potential endeavors. Joke's on you. :D
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 2:22 am)

So now that you admit there are non flammable ranges of cyanide, you have no excuses for previously acting like Fritz either did not know about this distinction or chose to omit it for whatever reason. Again:
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.

Next.
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.

Of course Germans knew about the 6% to 41% range of flammability. And they also would have known that in a chamber with a proper fan going to push the gas around to all parts of the chamber, a chamber with a proper kreslauf principle, there would have been no need to put enough Zyklon B into the chamber that they would enter the range of flammability. That is Berg's point.

So consider these flammability ranges, and the LACK of a proper kreslauf system. A system if in place would negate adding extra Zyklon B to ensure the killing of every Jew; and extra would surely put them in the flammability range of danger). Due to all of this, we KNOW the holocaust gassings are a lie!

My favourite part of the video is 26:35 onwards.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 765
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 2:44 am)

We note that you avoid the possibility of accidents that Germans or anyone would have taken into account, if there was such a ridiculous plan to murder Jews in the first place.
Accident potential is always factored in when deciding to embark on an alleged high priority action, especially when using a demonstrated dangerous chemical like cyanide, fan or no fan.
Image

Also you avoid Mr. Rudolf's point in his video, which I mentioned previously, about the massive amounts of Zyklon-B that would have been necessary to kill all in the alleged "gas chambers", hence increasing the danger, fan or no fan.
B.
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 2:55 am)

So in other words, Rudolf can back up Berg on the 6% to 41% range of flammability all he wants, but your position is that even with a fan and the kreslauf principle in place, the amount of Zyklon B needed to kill hundreds of Jews in one room would still put them in the range of flammability? The Nazis could take all the careful time they needed, use a fan, use the kreslauf principle, put just enough Zyklon B into the room that when the gas evaporates, they would be out of the range of flammability/explosion...and it would not be enough to gas hundreds of Jews successfully?

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 765
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 1:12 pm)

Mr.Werd:
So in other words, Rudolf can back up Berg on the 6% to 41% range of flammability all he wants, but your position is that even with a fan and the kreslauf principle in place, the amount of Zyklon B needed to kill hundreds of Jews in one room would still put them in the range of flammability? The Nazis could take all the careful time they needed, use a fan, use the kreslauf principle, put just enough Zyklon B into the room that when the gas evaporates, they would be out of the range of flammability/explosion...and it would not be enough to gas hundreds of Jews successfully?

My position, which I have stated and shown repeatedly, is that here is a definite risk, be it low or high, of explosion when using cyanide, especially with the massive quantities that would have been necessary, as confirmed by Mr. Rudolf, if the claims were true. Hence the Germans would not have considered using if for the alleged "mass extermination".

We see you continue to avoid, or "dodge" as it's described at this forum:
Accident potential is always factored in when deciding to embark on an alleged high priority action, especially when using a demonstrated dangerous chemical like cyanide, fan or no fan.

1947 accident: cyanide exploded house.
Image
Also you avoid Mr. Rudolf's point in his video, which I mentioned previously, about the massive amounts of Zyklon-B that would have been necessary to kill all in the alleged "gas chambers", hence increasing the danger, fan or no fan.

Also you avoid Rudolf's acknowledgement that the risks were actually INCREASED at Auschwitz I.

The otherwise esteemed Mr. Berg is chasing his tail on this one.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3386
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Hektor » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:19 pm)

Werd wrote:So in other words, Rudolf can back up Berg on the 6% to 41% range of flammability all he wants, but your position is that even with a fan and the kreslauf principle in place, the amount of Zyklon B needed to kill hundreds of Jews in one room would still put them in the range of flammability? The Nazis could take all the careful time they needed, use a fan, use the kreslauf principle, put just enough Zyklon B into the room that when the gas evaporates, they would be out of the range of flammability/explosion...and it would not be enough to gas hundreds of Jews successfully?

"Would", "Could" .... The question is: What is claimed by the orthodox narrative and what is plausible.

To suggest, the evil Nazis would just have dodged away and take a chance to damage their own facilities is simply absurd.


Again: I'm fully with Germar Rudolf on this one. Depending on what parameters one accepts (especially time wise), there would be a realistic risk of explosions.

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

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:46 pm)

When Rudolf refers to possible risks of explosion he is assuming the usage of at least 160-200 kg of Zyklon-B. Holocaustians are of the opinion that about 12 kg was used - maximum. There was practically no risk of explosion under about 160 kg in the big kremas (II - IV) in the same way that there was practically no risk of explosion for any of the very many fumigations the Germans did in arbitrary rooms/buildings at the time and place of interest with Zyklon. The largest can of Zyklon was 2 kg. Germar is claiming that he thinks it might have been necessary to use over 80 cans of the largest Zyklon cans and that THAT amount would risk explosion. He is basing that on having to kill all within 3 minutes in a 500 cubic meter room.

Proposing that the Germans used more than 160 kg for these alleged homicidal gassings brings up more obvious contentions than that THAT would possibly risk explosion.

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

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:17 pm)

I made a mistake in that last post and given my limited posting abilities I'm unable to edit my posts.

The LEL for HCN is about 56,000 ppm = 67 g/m^3. The big kremas at Auschwitz were about 500 m^3. So if the Zyklon pellets were to outgas such as to build up to the LEL for the whole space, that would be 67 g/m^3 * 500 m^3 = 33.5 kg. So if 33.5 kg were to outgas into the 500 m^3 room, there might be a possibility of explosion. Zyklon outgasses relatively slowly compared to its dissipation rate and so this can vbe viewed as the minimum amount to outgas into the room to risk explosion.

This is about 3 times what the Holocaustians claim was the most used at any one time (they say about 12 kg might have been occasionally used). But it takes awhile to outgas, and given Rudolf's estimate that it takes 5-15 minutes to outgas 10% of whatever Zyklon was laid down, we're talking about laying down in the neighborhood of 10 times more than 33.5 kg to risk explosion. So my 160-200 kg posted above is in the general area of what Rudolf is claiming.

I wish I had editing capabilities on this board; I would have cleared it up right after hitting the "Submit" button.

[See my PM to you about this. M1]

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 765
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 10:15 pm)

blake121666 wrote:When Rudolf refers to possible risks of explosion he is assuming the usage of at least 160-200 kg of Zyklon-B. Holocaustians are of the opinion that about 12 kg was used - maximum. There was practically no risk of explosion under about 160 kg in the big kremas (II - IV) in the same way that there was practically no risk of explosion for any of the very many fumigations the Germans did in arbitrary rooms/buildings at the time and place of interest with Zyklon. The largest can of Zyklon was 2 kg. Germar is claiming that he thinks it might have been necessary to use over 80 cans of the largest Zyklon cans and that THAT amount would risk explosion. He is basing that on having to kill all within 3 minutes in a 500 cubic meter room.

Proposing that the Germans used more than 160 kg for these alleged homicidal gassings brings up more obvious contentions than that THAT would possibly risk explosion.

Referencing "Holocaustians", proven to be untruthful in almost all matters "Holocaustian", is certainly a useless exercise.

The claim of "practically no risk of explosion" means there was some risk of explosions. Risks that the Germans would never have taken if they wanted to "exterminate Jews".

"Germar is claiming that he thinks it might have been necessary to use over 80 cans of the largest Zyklon cans and that THAT amount would risk explosion."
Yes, thank you, Blake. So much for the claimed exoneration of the shaky Mr. Berg.

And again, Rudolf said that Auschwitz I presented increased risks.
Risks that manifest themselves in accidents such as shown here.

1947 accident: house exploded because of cyanide
Image

Accidents happen and the Germans would have been quite aware of that fact if they were thinking about using Zyklon-B to "exterminate Jews", which they certainly were not as revisionist have proven over and over again.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

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

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:21 pm)

Breker wrote:Referencing "Holocaustians", proven to be untruthful in almost all matters "Holocaustian", is certainly a useless exercise.

The claim of "practically no risk of explosion" means there was some risk of explosions. Risks that the Germans would never have taken if they wanted to "exterminate Jews".

"Germar is claiming that he thinks it might have been necessary to use over 80 cans of the largest Zyklon cans and that THAT amount would risk explosion."
Yes, thank you, Blake. So much for the claimed exoneration of the shaky Mr. Berg.

And again, Rudolf said that Auschwitz I presented increased risks.
Risks that manifest themselves in accidents such as shown here.

1947 accident: house exploded because of cyanide
Image

Accidents happen and the Germans would have been quite aware of that fact if they were thinking about using Zyklon-B to "exterminate Jews", which they certainly were not as revisionist have proven over and over again.
B.


The Germans fumigated an awful lot of times with Zyklon BECAUSE of the "practically no risk of explosion". As Rudolf mentioned in his video, any explosion risks he is referring to would only be a footnote to the fact that he is claiming a ridiculously large amount of Zyklon would be needed to ensure a 3 minute death of each person in a very large room. The possible explosion risk is ONLY because you'd need to use 100s of times more Zyklon than would be necessary in a smaller room outgassing longer (or of course setting up conditions for larger outgassing rate and/or quicker mixing of the evaporated HCN in the room's air - as with a fan).

The ridiculous amount of Zyklon is the pertinent thing being claimed. Any explosion risk from this is just a footnote barely even worth mentioning. Focusing on the explosion risk is completely missing the point. It's as if I told you that I could run 10,000 mph for 10 seconds and you focused on what that would do to my shoes! Claiming I can run 10,000 mph is the extraordinary claim. It's just silly what you are saying.

Leuchter was off by a factor of 20 in what he thought the LEL of HCN to be (.32% vs 6%).

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 765
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 (Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:32 am)

Mr. Blake posted:
The Germans fumigated an awful lot of times with Zyklon BECAUSE of the "practically no risk of explosion". As Rudolf mentioned in his video, any explosion risks he is referring to would only be a footnote to the fact that he is claiming a ridiculously large amount of Zyklon would be needed to ensure a 3 minute death of each person in a very large room. The possible explosion risk is ONLY because you'd need to use 100s of times more Zyklon than would be necessary in a smaller room outgassing longer (or of course setting up conditions for larger outgassing rate and/or quicker mixing of the evaporated HCN in the room's air - as with a fan).

The ridiculous amount of Zyklon is the pertinent thing being claimed. Any explosion risk from this is just a footnote barely even worth mentioning. Focusing on the explosion risk is completely missing the point. It's as if I told you that I could run 10,000 mph for 10 seconds and you focused on what that would do to my shoes! Claiming I can run 10,000 mph is the extraordinary claim. It's just silly what you are saying.

Leuchter was off by a factor of 20 in what he thought the LEL of HCN to be (.32% vs 6%).

Again, your "practically no risk of explosion" means there was some risk of explosion. A risk that would have been increased at Auschwitz I, per Mr. Rudolf.
Indeed, the Germans did fumigate a lot, but under much less dangerous conditions and not with the huge quantities that would have been necessary under the extermination fraud.
Mr. Leuchter and Dr. Faurisson were quite aware of different conditions and the vast quantities that would have been in play had the "extermination" claim been factual. They rightly realized that the Germans would never have risked such a foolish endeavor.

Yes, we know that explosion is generally only a risk when using large amounts, but as shown again & again accidents do happen.
In fact, Murphy's Law says they will happen if there's even a possibility.
I also refer to my previous references on the dangers of cyanide explosions even when simply fumigating.

You said that "focusing on the explosion risk is completely missing the point."

Really? Ask the owners of this house about that. :lol:
Image

What you are saying is simply in denial of logic and risk aversion strategies. To think that the risk of accidents would not logically be considered when dealing with massive amounts of cyanide under dangerous conditions is rather more than "silly".

Mr. Berg blew it on this, he must learn to get over it.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

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

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:34 am)

Breker wrote:Again, your "practically no risk of explosion" means there was some risk of explosion. A risk that would have been increased at Auschwitz I, per Mr. Rudolf.

There is NO risk of explosion (or even flammability) without a concentration of about 6% in air of HCN. None whatsoever. By "practically no risk of explosion", I mean that the odds of any build-up of any area of significance to have over 6% concentration HCN in air is exceedingly small given that the amount of HCN put into the area is 2 orders of magnitude smaller than would be needed to reach any 6% concentration. The rate at which it is put into the space by evaporation is relatively small compared to its dissipation. Many thousands of fumigations were done with Zyklon-B. You can't find ONE that has ever resulted in any explosion. The picture you keep tossing around has a big tank of HCN that filled the house, and the dummies put a quantity of HCN into the house which filled 8% of the air volume in the house. If they had started with a tank that didn't even contain 0.06% of the air volume of the house in it and filled the house slowly, there would have been "practically no risk of any explosion" unless that 0.06% happened to have all gotten stuck in 1/100th the volume of the house somehow and was lit.

Breker wrote:Indeed, the Germans did fumigate a lot, but under much less dangerous conditions and not with the huge quantities that would have been necessary under the extermination fraud.
Mr. Leuchter and Dr. Faurisson were quite aware of different conditions and the vast quantities that would have been in play had the "extermination" claim been factual. They rightly realized that the Germans would never have risked such a foolish endeavor.

The Germans DID NOT fumigate under "much less dangerous conditions". They fumigated under MUCH MORE dangerous conditions. The only reason Rudolf is saying it is would be a much more dangerous condition is because he is saying that they would have had to have put 100s of times more Zyklon in the room to make sure that a quickly lethal (sub-1 minute) amount would reach a very large room in under 3 minutes. Leucter thought that LEL would be reached even with standard delousing concentrations. He was utterly wrong. They were not "quite aware" of any of these things Rudolf is saying. Rudolf marked-up Leuchter's report saying that there was no risk of explosion with what he was writing about in footnotes.

Breker wrote:Yes, we know that explosion is generally only a risk when using large amounts, but as shown again & again accidents do happen.
In fact, Murphy's Law says they will happen if there's even a possibility.
I also refer to my previous references on the dangers of cyanide explosions even when simply fumigating.


There is no "generally only a risk using large amounts". HCN will not light if its concentration in air is below 6%. That is a fact of chemistry. There is no "accident" which will change this fact of chemistry.

Breker wrote:
You said that "focusing on the explosion risk is completely missing the point."

Really? Ask the owners of this house about that. :lol:
Image

What you are saying is simply in denial of logic and risk aversion strategies. To think that the risk of accidents would not logically be considered when dealing with massive amounts of cyanide under dangerous conditions is rather more than "silly".

Mr. Berg blew it on this, he must learn to get over it.
B.


You HAVE completely missed the point. Rudolf is saying that he thinks over 20 times the amount of Zyklon Leuchter thought would have been used (even much more than that, but lets just say 20 times) was necessary and it might therefore have possibly been explosive. What Leuchter thought was explosive WAS NOT explosive. What Leuchter thought was explosive was no more explosive than the thousands of fumigations performed with Zyklon-B. If the Germans had used the delousing tunnels Berg keeps referencing, there would have been no explosion danger (although I think it probably would've taken about 10 minutes and not 3 minutes to kill everyone - I don't think it could ever be done in 3 minutes).

That's it, Breker. I'm giving up. I hope there is no one else out there that has your strange interpretation of these things.

Review
Member
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Review » 3 years 5 months ago (Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:30 am)

blake121666 wrote:
Breker wrote:Again, your "practically no risk of explosion" means there was some risk of explosion. A risk that would have been increased at Auschwitz I, per Mr. Rudolf.

There is NO risk of explosion (or even flammability) without a concentration of about 6% in air of HCN. None whatsoever....." unless that 0.06% happened to have all gotten stuck in 1/100th the volume of the house somehow and was lit.
.....


The lower flammability level is 5.6 %, according to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health...

Anyway, explosions would have been a real risk, if we take into account the orthodox storyline of (truck loads of - see Steve F) Zyklon-B pellets thrown on the floor randomly and smoking sonderkommandos going into the gas chamber after 10 minutes, would they not ?


CDC/National institute for Occupational Safety.. wrote:
    Hydrogen cyanide (AC) gas mixes well with air, and explosive mixtures are easily formed.
    Confined polymerization can cause container failure and a violent explosion.
    Hydrogen cyanide (AC) can decompose explosively on contact with alkaline materials.
    Explosive potential is severe when hydrogen cyanide (AC) is exposed to heat or flame or to alkaline agents.
    Lower explosive (flammable) limit in air (LEL), 5.6%; upper explosive (flammable) limit in air (UEL), 40%.
    The agent or its vapors present a vapor explosion and poison (toxic) hazard indoors, outdoors, or in sewers.
    Run-off to sewers may create an explosion hazard.
    Containers may explode when heated.
    Ruptured cylinders may rocket.

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

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby blake121666 » 3 years 5 months ago (Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:25 am)

Review wrote:
blake121666 wrote:
Breker wrote:Again, your "practically no risk of explosion" means there was some risk of explosion. A risk that would have been increased at Auschwitz I, per Mr. Rudolf.

There is NO risk of explosion (or even flammability) without a concentration of about 6% in air of HCN. None whatsoever....." unless that 0.06% happened to have all gotten stuck in 1/100th the volume of the house somehow and was lit.
.....


The lower flammability level is 5.6 %, according to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health...

Anyway, explosions would have been a real risk, if we take into account the orthodox storyline of (truck loads of - see Steve F) Zyklon-B pellets thrown on the floor randomly and smoking sonderkommandos going into the gas chamber after 10 minutes, would they not ?

5.6% is "about 6%". You wish to quibble about 4 grams in a kilogram?

The orthodox storyline does not have truck loads (figuratively) of Zyklon and neither was Leuchter writing about truck loads. Rudolf brought up that he thinks truck loads would've been necessary. Leuchter was writing about non-explosive concentrations (not truck loads).

I fail to see what your sonderkommandos point is? But if someone lit a non-flammable mixture of gas it would not ignite (it is non-flammable mixture). So if someone were smoking around a non-explosive (non-flammable) mixture of gas it would not explode.

Review wrote:
CDC/National institute for Occupational Safety.. wrote:
    Hydrogen cyanide (AC) gas mixes well with air, and explosive mixtures are easily formed.
    Confined polymerization can cause container failure and a violent explosion.
    Hydrogen cyanide (AC) can decompose explosively on contact with alkaline materials.
    Explosive potential is severe when hydrogen cyanide (AC) is exposed to heat or flame or to alkaline agents.
    Lower explosive (flammable) limit in air (LEL), 5.6%; upper explosive (flammable) limit in air (UEL), 40%.
    The agent or its vapors present a vapor explosion and poison (toxic) hazard indoors, outdoors, or in sewers.
    Run-off to sewers may create an explosion hazard.
    Containers may explode when heated.
    Ruptured cylinders may rocket.


I was going to take each in your list in turn; but I don't really have to. Thousands of Zyklon fumigations were performed at concentrations below LEL. No explosions ever occurred. What difference is there in the alleged HGC scenario that Leuchter modeled and these standard fumigations that anything on your list applies to?

If people were in any of the rooms that were fumigated, they would have been dead by the end of that fumigation cycle. The difference between a standard Zyklon room fumigation and the alleged HGCs is that the alleged HGCs claim to have had everyone in the room killed in a much shorter period of time than a standard fumigation. Hence the need for much larger quantities of Zyklon. Leuchter did not consider significantly larger quantities of Zyklon to be necessary (such that LEL concentration would be exceeded). Rudolf claims that very significantly larger quantities of Zyklon would have been necessary and therefore LEL concentrations probably would have been reached. But the quantities Rudolf is talking about are unreasonably large, so that any explosive implications are beside the point. No sensible person would consider those very large quantities to have been used in such a way.

Review
Member
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:53 pm

Re: Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

Postby Review » 3 years 5 months ago (Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:59 am)

blake121666 wrote:
Review wrote:
blake121666 wrote:There is NO risk of explosion (or even flammability) without a concentration of about 6% in air of HCN. None whatsoever....." unless that 0.06% happened to have all gotten stuck in 1/100th the volume of the house somehow and was lit.
.....


The lower flammability level is 5.6 %, according to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health...

Anyway, explosions would have been a real risk, if we take into account the orthodox storyline of (truck loads of - see Steve F) Zyklon-B pellets thrown on the floor randomly and smoking sonderkommandos going into the gas chamber after 10 minutes, would they not ?

5.6% is "about 6%". You wish to quibble about 4 grams in a kilogram?

The orthodox storyline does not have truck loads (figuratively) of Zyklon and neither was Leuchter writing about truck loads. Rudolf brought up that he thinks truck loads would've been necessary. Leuchter was writing about non-explosive concentrations (not truck loads).

I fail to see what your sonderkommandos point is? But if someone lit a non-flammable mixture of gas it would not ignite (it is non-flammable mixture). So if someone were smoking around a non-explosive (non-flammable) mixture of gas it would not explode.

....


It's still 5.6 %, not 6 %. I'd imagine the difference might matter, if you were to build a gas chamber system with safety margins ?

If someone is smoking around gasoline fumes, how would he know if the local concentration is 1.3 % (below flammability point ), or 1.6 (above lower flammability point ) ? It's about safety margins, no ?

Anyway, we don't necessarily disagree, I'm just commenting on the flammability treshold.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 6 guests