Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Zyklon B / Carbon monoxide comparison

4 views
Skip to first unread message

tom moran

unread,
Jan 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/2/97
to

The Holocaust story has it that some camps switched over to the
fumigant product 'Zyklon B' after successfully using carbon monoxide
to kill millions of Jews. This is probably due to trying to balance
out the various conflicting testimonies.

Below is a comparison of the two agents for Holocaust
exterminations according to the 'facts' of the Holocaust story itself.


The components for consideration are based on those used by a
Mr.Keren, associate contributor to Holocaust websites, to say Zyklon B
was better suited for mass extermination and this is why the story has
it that the product was come to be used in preferences to carbon
monoxide from engine exhaust after it (carbon monoxide) had already
been successfully used to kill millions of people, according to the
Holocaust story.

Handling;
Zyklon B.
=========
Need gas masks.
Gloves suggested.
Special levers to take off lids.
Special training.
Awkward introduction systems.
Need to heat the chambers in order to accelerate emission.
Ventilation systems.
Doctors.
Washing out the chambers after each gassing.
Protective clothing for Sonderkommando workers.
Need to sweep up pellets which still held considerable agent.

Handling;
Carbon monoxide
===============
Pipes into chambers
Engine exhaust connected to pipes
Start engine

-----------------------------------------------------------
Availability;
Zyklon B
========
Has to be ordered and shipped from manufacturer.

Availability;
Carbon monoxide
===============
Any motor vehicle engine. Basically, everywhere, anytime.
The same stuff that can be gotten from any car or truck.

------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency;
Zyklon B
========

From 4 to 6 kilos needed.
Less than 50% of the product is used for the goals, meaning more
than half the agent was still in the pellets after the gassing and was
discarded.

Efficiency;
Carbon monoxide
===============

"Truck", "tank" or "submarine" engine running for 15 minutes.
All exhausted output used excepting that which would still be
suspended in the chamber after gassing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs (theoretical);
Zyklon B
=========
Twelve dollars per gassing


Costs (theoretical);
Carbon monoxide
===============
Three cents per gassing.
At least 50 times cheaper than Zyklon B.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Man power/Labor charges;
Zyklon B
========

German doctors, and SS cadre


Man power/Labor charges;
Carbon monoxide
===============

One Ukrainian prisoner ("motorman")

Jamie McCarthy

unread,
Jan 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/2/97
to

t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:

> Costs (theoretical);
> Carbon monoxide
> ===============
> Three cents per gassing.
> At least 50 times cheaper than Zyklon B.

Astounding.

Mr. Moran, we've been told by Fritz Berg and a handful of other
Holocaust-deniers, in this forum, that gassing with engine exhaust
was incredibly wasteful -- that there was a fuel shortage, that
it took precious oil to keep the engines running. They say why on
earth would precious diesel fuel be used to kill people when
German trucks were parked on the streets for lack of gas?

Therefore, they say, the Holocaust never happened.

Now you come and say gassing with engine exhaust was so very cheap,
it was the perfect means of killing, and it wouldn't make sense to
switch to Zyklon-B.

Therefore, you say, the Holocaust never happened.

Who are we supposed to believe?

Posted/emailed.
--
Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
ja...@voyager.net Co-Webmaster of http://www.nizkor.org/

DvdThomas

unread,
Jan 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/2/97
to

Jamie wrote:

>Mr. Moran, we've been told by Fritz Berg and a handful of other
>Holocaust-deniers, in this forum, that gassing with engine exhaust
>was incredibly wasteful -- that there was a fuel shortage, that
>it took precious oil to keep the engines running. They say why on
>earth would precious diesel fuel be used to kill people when
>German trucks were parked on the streets for lack of gas?
>
>Therefore, they say, the Holocaust never happened.

I'll take your word that Berg said that (and also take exception to your
description of him as a "Holocaust-denier"), but it isn't and never was a
factor in the main points he makes. Diesel engines are an extremely
inefficient way to generate carbon monoxide. Their normal operating
characteristics just aren't conducive to its formation at lethal levels.
A diesel engine would have to be operated at such a rich air/fuel ratio
that there would be rapid buildup of solids in the cylinders which would
ruin the engine. It isn't a lengthy process, it would occur within hours,
or at most, days. In addition, the engine would have to be run at 80% to
100% of full load, rather a difficult thing to do for a stationary mounted
unit. A dynamometer type loading device would have to be installed.
There is again no record or mention of the presence of this large,
expensive, and highly specialized item in any supply records, statements
or testimonies.

Gasoline engines, on the other hand, are excellent sources of carbon
monoxide, as evidenced by the frequency of suicides using automobile
exhaust. Gasoline was also in short supply in wartime Germany, a fact
that caused them to invent and build a half-million or more "producer gas
generators" which were small add-on modules that could be mounted on
vehicles to provide fuel for their modified engines. This was done in
great numbers to solve the problem of petroleum shortages. Producer gas
powered vans, trucks and buses were a standard mode of transportation
throughout Germany and occupied Europe and Russia.

Wood chips were burned in a converter chamber whose output was a flammable
mix of gases that contained high levels of carbon monoxide, 25% on the
average (carbon monoxide is also flammable). This gas mix was lethal in
its produced state and found limited use as a fumigant, probably for rats,
not insects. The drawback of course is that it's also highly flammable,
and in quantity, explosive. However, it is a simple matter to set such an
engine so that its exhaust emits carbon monoxide in reduced but still
deadly levels that would kill quickly without the risk of explosion.

Given the ready availability of the producer gas vehicles and the fact
that their operation required only ordinary wood chips, they would have
been an obviously more practical choice than either of the other two types
of engines or, for that matter, Zyklon-B. Yet, aside from stories of
field use of "killing vans" in which the alleged victims were placed in
the back of such trucks for gassing in a limited area of the Eastern Front
and one or two other locations, there is absolutely no mention of their
use in camps for this purpose in the historical record. No mention in
German records, and no claims by purported witnesses. (The former, by the
way, would naturally be the case if there were no gassing chambers.) All
you have is the diesel claim, which I understand is beginning to be
revised to gasoline by some of the sanctioned historians, no doubt in
quiet reaction to the improbability of a diesel being able to do what has
been claimed.

And, yes, I know of the report from a British medical journal in the
fifties in which several animals were killed with diesel exhaust in a
scantily documented experiment. All that proves is that it is, as stated
earlier here and elsewhere by Berg, marginally possible to push a diesel
to its limits and achieve lethal levels of CO in its exhaust *FOR A VERY
SHORT PERIOD OF TIME*, something I do not recall the report addressing.

Regards,
David Thomas
_________________________________________________________

"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me."
-in those who harbor such thoughts hatred will never cease.
"He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me."
-in those who do not harbor such thoughts hatred will cease.
For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.

From the Twin Verses of the Dhammapada

David Thomas
CODOH (http://www.codoh.com/)

Ken McVay OBC

unread,
Jan 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/2/97
to

Friedrich Berg's UseNet articles are available via the Nizkor
Project, via URL

http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/b/berg.friedrich/ ...
anyone doubting the man's rabid antisemitism, or the companion
Holocaust denial, is welcome to consider his words for themselves.

As to his paper, the URL above is highly recommended:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html

I trust you will find it useful. (Berg didn't seem to enjoy it all
that much.)


--
Nizkor Canada | http://www.nizkor.org
kmc...@nizkor.org |---------------------------------------------
--------------------| An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Search Nizkor: http://www.nizkor.org/search.html

Daniel Keren

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:

# Below is a comparison of the two agents for Holocaust
# exterminations according to the 'facts' of the Holocaust
# story itself.

# Handling;
# Zyklon B.
# =========
# Need gas masks.

They had them anyway, as the Zyklon was used for fumigation.

# Gloves suggested.

Now that's a real difficulty. Moran, Moran. You are a lost case.

# Special levers to take off lids.

Really big problem there.

# Special training.

They had the trained people anyway, as the Zyklon was used for
fumigation.

# Awkward introduction systems.

"Awkward"? No more "awkward" than in the gas chambers that used
engine exhaust.

# Need to heat the chambers in order to accelerate emission.

It turned out that this was hardly necessary.

# Ventilation systems.

Really big problem for a nation that built jet planes, submarines,
and rockets that flew all the way to London.

# Doctors.

Doctors also supervied the gassings with CO in the "euthanasia"
centers. Anyway, what's the big deal? Why do you think it was
such a big problem?

# Washing out the chambers after each gassing.

But this also had to be done in the gas chambers that used engine
exhaust.

# Protective clothing for Sonderkommando workers.

What was this "protective clothing"?

# Need to sweep up pellets which still held considerable agent.

No big deal, especially since this was the job of the sonderkommando;
moreover, this was no problem in the Krema II & III gas chambers, as
the Zyklon was taken out via the same deviced used to introduce it.

# Handling;
# Carbon monoxide
# ===============
# Pipes into chambers

This wasn't easier than constructing the insertion devices for
Zyklon-B.

# Engine exhaust connected to pipes
# Start engine

So you have to get the engines. They may break down. You have
no idea how many engines you would need, as the Auschwitz-Birkenau
gas chambers were much larger than those in Treblinka and Belzec.

# Availability;
# Zyklon B
# ========
# Has to be ordered and shipped from manufacturer.

But they already had tons of the stuff, which was being used for
fumigation. With a few little cans of Zyklon, they killed 2,000
people. Surely that was no problem.

# Availability;
# Carbon monoxide
# ===============
# Any motor vehicle engine. Basically, everywhere, anytime.
# The same stuff that can be gotten from any car or truck.

Assuming it would work with such large gas chambers. And you would
need rather large engines.

# Costs (theoretical);
# Zyklon B
# =========
# Twelve dollars per gassing

And that would be a problem? $12 to kill 2,000 people? They
couldn't afford it?

# Costs (theoretical);
# Carbon monoxide
# ===============
# Three cents per gassing.
# At least 50 times cheaper than Zyklon B.

How did you derive the three cents figure?


-Danny Keren.


Daniel Keren

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) writes:

"DvdThomas" repeats Fritz Berg's infantile claims about the
"difficulties" in using the exhaust of large diesel engines
to kill people, who are exposed to this exhaust in a closed
chamber.

Two key points:

1) A scientific paper proves that it is very easy to tune a diesel
so that its exhaust contains hardly any oxygen, and up to 6
percent CO. This is much higher than the lethal concentration.

("The Significance of Diesel-Exhaust-Gas Analysis", by
J.C. Holtz and M.A. Elliot, Transactions of the ASME,
Vol. 63, 1941, p. 97-105).

2) Another scientific paper proves that when animals were exposed
to the exhaust of a tiny diesel engine (6 BHP) in a closed
chamber, they died.

("The Toxicity of Fumes from a Diesel Engine Under Four Different
Running Conditions", by Pattle et al., British Journal of
Industrial Medicine, 1957, Vol 14, p. 47-55).

Also, the animals died when no load at all was put on the
engine - it was enough to increase the fuel-air ratio in
order to achieve enough CO in the output. "DvdThomas" lies
when he says that the engine would have to be run under
high load.

He also provides no evidence to his claim that the engines
would break down after a few hours of being run under such
conditions.

Lastly, CO is not the only factor in causing death; lack of
oxygen in the exhaust is another one, and so are other poisonous
gases present in the exhaust, such as NO2.


-Danny Keren.


tom moran

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

>Mr. Moran, we've been told by Fritz Berg and a handful of other
>Holocaust-deniers, in this forum, that gassing with engine exhaust
>was incredibly wasteful -- that there was a fuel shortage, that
>it took precious oil to keep the engines running. They say why on
>earth would precious diesel fuel be used to kill people when
>German trucks were parked on the streets for lack of gas?

Okay you've been told by a Fritz Berg. Who is Fritz Berg?

You say the others. Who are the others?

>Therefore, they say, the Holocaust never happened.

>Now you come and say gassing with engine exhaust was so very cheap,


>it was the perfect means of killing, and it wouldn't make sense to
>switch to Zyklon-B.

>Therefore, you say, the Holocaust never happened.
>
>Who are we supposed to believe?

> Jamie McCarthy

There is nothing to believe. Only theory. If I had to present
what I thought was evidence or questions against the truth of the
Holocaust, saying there wasn't enough gas to do it with would be the
last thing I would say. The amounts involved would be just too
miniscule to think about in relation to the over all. A engine of
undetermined cc displacement running at 15 minutes per load. That is
the basic Holocaust 'facts'. Even revved above idle for the 15
minutes it would not use that much since it wouldn't be under load
(doing external work) like moving a truck chassis, wheels, tires and
cargo. I would say an average sized truck engine would use maybe a
pint to a quart per fifteen minutes.


And, while you and Mr.Berg are straining over that, don't
overlook the fact that it would take fuel to make the Zyklon B product
and it would take fuel to move it from Germany to Poland. It would
also take fuel to ventilate the chambers, a Holocaust 'fact' for
Zyklon B and not carbon monoxide. So we could see that it might take
just as much fuel if not more to use Zyklon B than for its direct use
for carbon monoxide. If you want I could run through what it might
take in fuel to make the product Zyklon B; the HCN, the carrier and
the containers.

Now if you go back to the original post, you will notice you have
omitted commentary on the other 90%. I would be interested in seeing
some of your special logic applied to the remainder.


J u d a o o t. (code prediction)


Sammy Li

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

On 2 Jan 1997 20:48:57 GMT, dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote in
alt.revisionism:

>Jamie wrote:
>
>>Mr. Moran, we've been told by Fritz Berg and a handful of other
>>Holocaust-deniers, in this forum, that gassing with engine exhaust
>>was incredibly wasteful -- that there was a fuel shortage, that
>>it took precious oil to keep the engines running. They say why on
>>earth would precious diesel fuel be used to kill people when
>>German trucks were parked on the streets for lack of gas?
>>

>>Therefore, they say, the Holocaust never happened.
>

>I'll take your word that Berg said that (and also take exception to your
>description of him as a "Holocaust-denier"), but it isn't and never was a
>factor in the main points he makes. Diesel engines are an extremely
>inefficient way to generate carbon monoxide. Their normal operating
>characteristics just aren't conducive to its formation at lethal levels.
>A diesel engine would have to be operated at such a rich air/fuel ratio
>that there would be rapid buildup of solids in the cylinders which would
>ruin the engine. It isn't a lengthy process, it would occur within hours,
>or at most, days. In addition, the engine would have to be run at 80% to
>100% of full load, rather a difficult thing to do for a stationary mounted
>unit. A dynamometer type loading device would have to be installed.
>There is again no record or mention of the presence of this large,
>expensive, and highly specialized item in any supply records, statements
>or testimonies.
>
>Gasoline engines, on the other hand, are excellent sources of carbon
>monoxide, as evidenced by the frequency of suicides using automobile
>exhaust.

However ... these suicides are ordinarily in a closed garage
where the exhaust in recycled leading to an increase in CO
concentration that would not otherwise be possible. And even then the
time required is on the order of an hour or more and the number of
people saved from such a death is quite high. Compare this to the
reports of 10 to 60 minutes without any such increase in CO as there
is no recycling of the exhaust. Of course this is beyond the use of a
diesel engine.

>And, yes, I know of the report from a British medical journal in the
>fifties in which several animals were killed with diesel exhaust in a
>scantily documented experiment. All that proves is that it is, as stated
>earlier here and elsewhere by Berg, marginally possible to push a diesel
>to its limits and achieve lethal levels of CO in its exhaust *FOR A VERY
>SHORT PERIOD OF TIME*, something I do not recall the report addressing.

The report is documented enough that would lead to the carbon
buildup in the cylinders that you indicate. As an additional matter
spraying oil on a hot manifold would be a better means of creating the
same thing that the Keren wishes to impose upon the matter to salvage
his claim that it was confused with steam. He of course refused ot
acknowledge that there are close up reports of the operation of this
engine of his making such confusion impossible.


tom moran

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

>Friedrich Berg's UseNet articles are available via the Nizkor
>Project, via URL
>
>http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/b/berg.friedrich/ ...
>anyone doubting the man's rabid antisemitism, or the companion
>Holocaust denial, is welcome to consider his words for themselves.
>
>As to his paper, the URL above is highly recommended:
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html
>
>I trust you will find it useful. (Berg didn't seem to enjoy it all
>that much.)

Anything this Berg said, is what Berg said and is about him only,
having nothing to do with anyone or anything else.

Jamie McCarthy

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:

> Other necessities and problems that arose, according to the
> Holocaust story, would be the need for ladders to get to side windows
> on Cremas IV and V, to pour in the Zyklon B pellets.

Omigosh, _ladders_, they had to get _ladders_.

Well, clearly they would never do such a thing. That requires a level
of technical expertise which the Nazis were (Autobahn, V2, U-boat)
clearly not capable of. The Holocaust must never have happened.

> Then too, going by the suggestions of major defenders of
> Holocuast truth, the Germans built the gas chambers of Crema II and
> III underground so they could get on the roof, Brian Harmon, and/or to
> keep the victims from knocking the walls down, Jamie McCarthy, and
> thus require carrying all the bodies up stairs.

Which stairs would those be? The ones next to the corpse-lift elevator?

tom moran

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>
>> Other necessities and problems that arose, according to the
>> Holocaust story, would be the need for ladders to get to side windows
>> on Cremas IV and V, to pour in the Zyklon B pellets.
>
>Omigosh, _ladders_, they had to get _ladders_.
>
>Well, clearly they would never do such a thing. That requires a level
>of technical expertise which the Nazis were (Autobahn, V2, U-boat)
>clearly not capable of. The Holocaust must never have happened.

Of course no where was it implied the ladders were some
technological innovation. Just having top use them was the topic.

>> Then too, going by the suggestions of major defenders of
>> Holocuast truth, the Germans built the gas chambers of Crema II and
>> III underground so they could get on the roof, Brian Harmon, and/or to
>> keep the victims from knocking the walls down, Jamie McCarthy, and
>> thus require carrying all the bodies up stairs.
>
>Which stairs would those be? The ones next to the corpse-lift elevator?

The stairs in Cremas II and III. If there was a elevator in one
of them, okay. Then we can see that elevators were needed to
accomodate the use of Zyklon B. So what we have now is, elevators and
ladders. Not needed for carbon monoxide, according to Holocaust
'facts'.

Sammy Li

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

On Fri, 03 Jan 1997 12:17:36 -0500, ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
wrote in alt.revisionism:

>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>
>> Other necessities and problems that arose, according to the
>> Holocaust story, would be the need for ladders to get to side windows
>> on Cremas IV and V, to pour in the Zyklon B pellets.
>
>Omigosh, _ladders_, they had to get _ladders_.
>
>Well, clearly they would never do such a thing. That requires a level
>of technical expertise which the Nazis were (Autobahn, V2, U-boat)
>clearly not capable of. The Holocaust must never have happened.

You should have stuck around. You missed a lot. For example
you missed that the aerial photos show NO such buildings at IV and V
in the first place. Other than that, review DejuNews so you won't
have to be playing catch up so much.

>> Then too, going by the suggestions of major defenders of
>> Holocuast truth, the Germans built the gas chambers of Crema II and
>> III underground so they could get on the roof, Brian Harmon, and/or to
>> keep the victims from knocking the walls down, Jamie McCarthy, and
>> thus require carrying all the bodies up stairs.
>
>Which stairs would those be? The ones next to the corpse-lift elevator?

Is this a Star Trek elevator that goes sideways? Considering
that there is no physical connection between the LKs and the KRs that
is.


tom moran

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to


The following are from a report on various carbon monoxide
poisonings. We can see from the particulars that small engines from 4
to 13 horse power could deliver enough CO to a room of 3,420 cubic
feet, and not intentionally hermetically sealed as is the case for
Holocaust testimonies, and still be able to put someone to the brink
of death in 30 minutes.


STUDY 2

Center for Disease Control. Unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning
from indoor use of pressure washers - Iowa, January 1992 - 1993. JAMA,
270:2034-35, 1993

Case 1 : A 33 year old farm owner was using an 11 HP gasoline pressure
washer to clean a swine birthing area inside a barn. He was working
alone in this 3420 ft3 area with the door closed on this cold (-7 to
20?F) day. Based on the amount of work he had finished when he was
found dead, he had been overcome in about 30 minutes. His COHb was
75.6%.

[So here we can see that a person was killed from exposure to CO
delivered from a small engine into an area of 3,420 cubic feet in 30
minutes. Holocaust gas chambers were basically 12 X 12 X 7 feet, about
1000 cubic feet, intentionally designed to be hermetically sealed. The
CO is said to have been introduced from large "truck", "tank" or
"submarine" engines. The people are said to have died in 15 minutes.

So what is all the talk about CO not being sufficient and being
replaced by Zyklon B? Well it's the testimony of Ho'ss that caused
the whole confusing necessity to devise other testimonies about
switching over to Zyklon B.

One of the basic alibis is given as because the engines kept
breaking down. Of course all over Europe and the world, these engines
were lugging cargo, propelling tanks and submarines and yet when it
comes to them being used just to recover their exhaust, not under the
stress of load, they were always breaking down.

How idiotic. ]


[Check this one out. 4480 cubic feet, doors open, 4 HP engine,
intermittenly used over a 7 hour period with a exhaust fan, and yet
enough to put her to the brink.]

Case 3 : A 35 year old farm owner was found by her husband to have
slurred speech, weakness and confusion. Over a 7 hour period, she had
been intermittently using a 4 HP gasoline pressure washer to clean a
calf raising area (4480 cubic feet). Outdoor temperatures were about
32?F, so she had set the washer inside the building about 5 feet from
an open doorway. The other 2 doors in the room were also open, and an
exhaust fan was running.


Case 2 : A 12 year old boy was found unconscious near the door of a
4480 cubic foot swine birthing area that he had been cleaning with a
rented 11 HP gasoline pressure washer for about 30 minutes. Again, due
to cold temperatures, the washer had been placed inside the building
(about 5 feet from the door.)

He was taken to the hospital, where his COHb was determined to be 50%.
He received hyperbaric oxygen therapy and was discharged after 8 days
of hospitalization.

[Check this one, 5148 cubic feet, 13 HP engine, in another room,
3 exhaust fans.]

Case 4 : A 32 year old farm owner was found by her husband to be
confused, dizzy, nauseated, weak and experiencing a headache and
muscle pain. She had been cleaning a 5148 cubic foot swine birthing
area with a 13 HP gasoline pressure washer intermittently for 6.5
hours. The washer was located in an adjacent room, and 3 exhaust fans
were operating in the room being cleaned. It was suspected that the
door leading to the adjacent room blew open sometime during the final
hour of work, allowing CO to enter the room being cleaned.

Her COHb was 9.2% 5 hours post-exposure and after receiving oxygen
therapy for 30 minutes.


Case 5 : A 37 year old farm owner was found by his wife to be
extremely weak, dizzy and confused. He had been using a 9 HP gasoline
pressure washer to clean a 6480 cubic foot unventilated swine birthing
area for about 30 minutes. His symptoms appeared when he began to
refuel the washer, located inside the building. He crawled into the
house, where his wife found him and took him to the hospital.


Jamie McCarthy

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:

> >Which stairs would those be? The ones next to the corpse-lift elevator?
>

> The stairs in Cremas II and III. If there was a elevator in one
> of them, okay. Then we can see that elevators were needed to
> accomodate the use of Zyklon B. So what we have now is, elevators and
> ladders. Not needed for carbon monoxide, according to Holocaust
> 'facts'.

Indeed, there were corpse-lift elevators in Krema II and III. They were
used to carry the bodies from the gassing chamber to the ovens.

You are now arguing that these elevators were a waste of time and money.
(And therefore never were built?)

Meanwhile, every other Holocaust-denier argues that the gas chambers in
II and III were not gas chambers but morgues, or delousing chambers. If
they were just morgues, of course, then the corpse-lift elevators would
still be present, and would be used to carry the bodies from the
_morgue_ to the ovens. Which I think you're say is a waste of money and
therefore never was built.

Or, the corpse-lift elevators were used to carry dead lice from the
delousing chamber to the ovens. Which is not only a waste of money but
a little silly.

At this point we must ask, would you please get to the point, Mr. Moran?
If you're arguing that the Holocaust cost money and therefore never
occurred, I wish you'd just say so.

Gord McFee

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

tom moran wrote:
>
> >Friedrich Berg's UseNet articles are available via the Nizkor
> >Project, via URL
> >
> >http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/b/berg.friedrich/ ...
> >anyone doubting the man's rabid antisemitism, or the companion
> >Holocaust denial, is welcome to consider his words for themselves.
> >
> >As to his paper, the URL above is highly recommended:
> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html
> >
> >I trust you will find it useful. (Berg didn't seem to enjoy it all
> >that much.)
>
> Anything this Berg said, is what Berg said and is about him only,
> having nothing to do with anyone or anything else.

You ought to try reading it, zeyde, before you comment. Berg is one of
your "revisionist" "scholars".


--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time

tom moran

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

Other necessities and problems that arose, according to the
Holocaust story, would be the need for ladders to get to side windows
on Cremas IV and V, to pour in the Zyklon B pellets.

Then too, going by the suggestions of major defenders of

tom moran

unread,
Jan 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/3/97
to

Webcrawler > "carbon monoxide poisoning" will bring you to a
number of sites on the subject.

What would the Germans have known about CO poisoning and who
would have needed engines to extract carbon monoxide to exterminate
people? Consider this.

"What is the history of carbon monoxide?

Historical Highlights of Carbon Monoxide Toxicology:

"Coal fumes lead to heavy head and death." --- Aristotle, 3rd c. B.C.,
Greece

Coal fumes were used for suicide and execution ---- Cicero, 106-43
BC), Rome

First clinical description of coal gas poisoning ----- Harmant (1775),
France

Identified CO as the toxic substance in coal gas ---- LeBlanc (1842),
France"

tom moran

unread,
Jan 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/4/97
to

>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:

># Below is a comparison of the two agents for Holocaust
># exterminations according to the 'facts' of the Holocaust
># story itself.
>
># Handling;
># Zyklon B.
># =========
># Need gas masks.
>
>They had them anyway, as the Zyklon was used for fumigation.

Not needed for CO extermination.

># Gloves suggested.
>
>Now that's a real difficulty. Moran, Moran. You are a lost case.

Not needed for CO extermination.

># Special levers to take off lids.

>Really big problem there.
Not needed for CO extermination.


># Special training.
>
>They had the trained people anyway, as the Zyklon was used for
>fumigation.

Not needed for CO extermination.



># Awkward introduction systems.
>
>"Awkward"? No more "awkward" than in the gas chambers that used
>engine exhaust.

Vents on roofs, holes in sides, wire mesh columns. One account
has "The first gassing in crematorium IV did not go well. An SS man,
wearing a face mask, had to climb a little ladder to get to a
'window,' then open it with one hand and pour in the Zyklon B with the
other. This acrobatic routine had to be repeated six times." [2]
Definitly not needed for CO exterminations.

># Need to heat the chambers in order to accelerate emission.
>
>It turned out that this was hardly necessary.

As it was they did it. (Not needed for CO extermination.) There
were also heaters used to increase the activity for Zyklon B use in
fumigation chambers.) (Not needed for CO extermination.)


># Ventilation systems.
>
>Really big problem for a nation that built jet planes, submarines,
>and rockets that flew all the way to London.

Who said anything about technological difficulties? Not needed
for CO extermination.


># Doctors.
>
>Doctors also supervied the gassings with CO in the "euthanasia"
>centers. Anyway, what's the big deal? Why do you think it was
>such a big problem?

Not needed for CO extermination.


># Washing out the chambers after each gassing.
>
>But this also had to be done in the gas chambers that used engine
>exhaust.

How many eyewitness accounts have it so? One? Evidently there
wasn't a problem, accordingly. Not needed for CO extermination.


># Protective clothing for Sonderkommando workers.
>
>What was this "protective clothing"?

Rubber suits? Boots? Does Mr.Keren ask because he denies the
story has that component, or is it a quiz question? Either way; Not
needed for CO extermination.


># Need to sweep up pellets which still held considerable agent.
>
>No big deal, especially since this was the job of the sonderkommando;
>moreover, this was no problem in the Krema II & III gas chambers, as
>the Zyklon was taken out via the same deviced used to introduce it.

Not needed for CO extermination.


># Handling;
># Carbon monoxide
># ===============

># Pipes into chambers

>
>This wasn't easier than constructing the insertion devices for
>Zyklon-B.

"Insertion devises" to mean concrete, pourous, wire mesh and/or
sheet metal columns? Not needed for CO extermination.

># Engine exhaust connected to pipes
># Start engine
>
>So you have to get the engines. They may break down. You have
>no idea how many engines you would need, as the Auschwitz-Birkenau
>gas chambers were much larger than those in Treblinka and Belzec.

For a "nation that built jet planes, submarines, and rockets that
flew all the way to London" it doesn't seem like such a hard thing.
Simple mathematics - amount of exhaust from a specified displacement,
the contents of CO in the amount, the volume of the chamber, the
number of people. How did they come to figure the chambers needs that
are said to have been used? Mr.Keren?


># Availability;
># Zyklon B
># ========
># Has to be ordered and shipped from manufacturer.
>
>But they already had tons of the stuff, which was being used for
>fumigation. With a few little cans of Zyklon, they killed 2,000
>people. Surely that was no problem.

Now it's a "few little cans"? A "few". Does he say how many a few
is? Seems not. Anyway, this is the second time Mr.Keren says they
already had the stuff around, and this is correct, for fumigation
purposes. When it came time at the end of the war to identify the
agent of mass gassings, they grasp at anything that was available,
and the only thing around was - Zyklon B.


># Availability;
># Carbon monoxide
># ===============
># Any motor vehicle engine. Basically, everywhere, anytime.
># The same stuff that can be gotten from any car or truck.
>
>Assuming it would work with such large gas chambers. And you would
>need rather large engines.

Really? Now suddenly Mr.Keren knows what it would take. We can
wait to see what he has to say about the other information in the
thread where it shows a small 4 Horse Power engine can produce enough
gas to kill someone in a non-hemetically sealed room of over 4,000


cubic feet in 30 minutes.

># Costs (theoretical);


># Zyklon B
># =========
># Twelve dollars per gassing
>
>And that would be a problem? $12 to kill 2,000 people? They
>couldn't afford it?

The record shows Mr.Keren is the one who raised the cost saving
theory for using Zyklon B over CO.

># Costs (theoretical);
># Carbon monoxide
># ===============
># Three cents per gassing.
># At least 50 times cheaper than Zyklon B.
>
>How did you derive the three cents figure?

Okay, we can make it 6 cents, even a dollar, whatever.
>
>-Danny Keren.
>
Did Mr.Keren post this just for Moran, or was it intended to for
anyone who reads it?

Brian Harmon

unread,
Jan 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/4/97
to

In article <32d5b58c...@199.0.216.204>,
tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
> ???? (i don'tknow) wrote:

[ I've no idea who the middle attribution belongs to, tommy
deleted it.]

>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
>
>># Below is a comparison of the two agents for Holocaust
>># exterminations according to the 'facts' of the Holocaust
>># story itself.
>>
>># Handling;
>># Zyklon B.
>># =========
>># Need gas masks.
>>
>>They had them anyway, as the Zyklon was used for fumigation.
> Not needed for CO extermination.

And yet, they had all the equipment necessary for
handling Zyklon B in the camps simply because Zyklon
was routinely used to fumigate clothing even before
homicidal gassing operations began.

Since Zyklon-B was in common use as a fumigant before
the gassings started, the camps already posessed all
the equipment they needed to handle it safely.

>># Special training.
>>
>>They had the trained people anyway, as the Zyklon was used for
>>fumigation.
> Not needed for CO extermination.

Not true. Who will maintain these large engines and make
sure that they are running the proper way so as to kill
with some efficiency? You can't just let anyone do it.


>># Washing out the chambers after each gassing.
>>
>>But this also had to be done in the gas chambers that used engine
>>exhaust.
> How many eyewitness accounts have it so? One?

I thought you claimed that eyewitness accounts are
meaningless? If so, why are you invoking them to
make your point? Is this double-standards day?


>># Costs (theoretical);
>># Carbon monoxide
>># ===============
>># Three cents per gassing.
>># At least 50 times cheaper than Zyklon B.
>>
>>How did you derive the three cents figure?
> Okay, we can make it 6 cents, even a dollar, whatever.

So you admit that you simply made the three cents figure up?

Your point seems to be that gassing with exhaust would
have been much for efficient than using zyklon-b. Who Cares?
the fact of the matter is that the people who were there
used it, said they used it, and wrote about it at the time.
Which was more efficient isn't all that important, paritcularly
since people do not automatically choose the most efficient
means for doing anything.

The nazis used exhaust at other camps with varying degrees
of sucess. That Hoess decided on using Zyklon was just that,
a decision.


Brian Harmon <bra...@itsa.ucsf.edu>
------
Human memory is the glue that bonds the massive
physical evidence into a coherent and unified history.
<mbas...@lehman.com>


Mark Van Alstine

unread,
Jan 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/4/97
to

In article <32d5b58c...@199.0.216.204>, t...@pacificnet.net (tom
moran) wrote:

> >t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
>
> ># Below is a comparison of the two agents for Holocaust
> ># exterminations according to the 'facts' of the Holocaust
> ># story itself.
> >
> ># Handling;
> ># Zyklon B.
> ># =========
> ># Need gas masks.
> >
> >They had them anyway, as the Zyklon was used for fumigation.
> Not needed for CO extermination.

Nope, they didn't need them for C0 extermination. The SS at Auschwitz
didn't need to constantly shoot the numerous gassing victims who survived
either, as there was only two instance, to my knowledge, of a victim
"surviving" a gassing with Zyklon B. One was a Russian POW in the gassing
of 900 Russian POWs and Polish prisoners in Block 11. The Nazis simply
tossed in more Zyklon B and closed the door again. He died. The other was
Nyzisli writing in his memoirs that a young girl somehow (barely) survived
a gassing. The Nazis took her up to the furnace hall and shot her dead.
(cf. Czech, _Auschwitz Chronicle_, p.86; Nyiszli, _Auschwitz: a doctor's
eyewitness account_, pp.114-120.)

> ># Gloves suggested.
> >
> >Now that's a real difficulty. Moran, Moran. You are a lost case.
> Not needed for CO extermination.

Not _required_ for applying of Zyklon B either. A photo (Photo 8) of
fumigators applying Zyklon discs clearly shows them _not_ wearing gloves.
(Pressac, _Technique_, p.17.) Furthermore, Auschwitz prisoner Andrzeje
Rablin (No.1410), who worked in the (clothing) delousing chambers of Block
3, described handling the Zyklon B pellets: "Sometimes at the moment when
the gas evaporated, I tried to feel it by handling the crystals. They felt
like velvet and were cool and damp." (cf. Ibid. p.25.)

>
> ># Special levers to take off lids.
>
> >Really big problem there.
> Not needed for CO extermination.

But tools _were_ needed to maintain the engines used to produce the CO.

> ># Special training.
> >
> >They had the trained people anyway, as the Zyklon was used for
> >fumigation.
> Not needed for CO extermination.

But mechanics _were_ needed to constantly maintain the engines (which
broke down rather frequently) that produced the CO.

> ># Awkward introduction systems.
> >
> >"Awkward"? No more "awkward" than in the gas chambers that used
> >engine exhaust.

> Vents on roofs...

Piping system to introduce CO generated by the engines. Engines that broke
down. The need to (rather frequently) shoot victims who didn't die from
gassing with CO....

...holes in sides...

Piping system to introduce CO generated by the engines. Engines that broke
down. The need to (rather frequently) shoot victims who didn't die from
gassing with CO....

...wire mesh columns....

Like wire mesh columns were difficult to make? They were built in the
metalshop at Auschwitz by prisoner labor. Not to mention a piping system
to introduce CO generated by the engines. Engines that broke down. The
need to (rather frequently) shoot victims who didn't die from gassing with
CO....

> ...One account has "The first gassing in crematorium IV did not go well.
> An SS man wearing a face mask, had to climb a little ladder to get to a

> 'window,' then open it with one hand and pour in the Zyklon B with the
other. > This acrobatic routine had to be repeated six times." [2]
> Definitly not needed for CO exterminations.

Gerstein's account of a homicidal gassing at Treblinka relates that the
diesel engine used to generate the CO piped to the gas chambers wouldn't
start; and that it took SS Unterscharfu"rer Heckenholt 2 hours and 49
minmutes to finally get it running. (cf. Roques, _The 'Confessions' of
Kurt Gerstein_, p.23.)

Ho"ss, also, in his memoirs, wrote that: "The performance of the engines
was not always consistent, so that the exhaust gases were not often strong
enough to kill everyone in the chambers. Many of them were only
unconscious and had to be finished off by shooting them. I had heard the
same story at Chelmno, and I was told by Eichmann that these problems had
occurred in other places." (Ho"ss, _Death Dealer_, p.43.)

Using "CO extermination" sounds pretty "awkward" to me....

> ># Need to heat the chambers in order to accelerate emission.
> >
> >It turned out that this was hardly necessary.
> As it was they did it. (Not needed for CO extermination.) There
> were also heaters used to increase the activity for Zyklon B use in
> fumigation chambers.) (Not needed for CO extermination.)

The pre-heating of the homicidal B gas chambers of Krema II and III at
Auschwitz, for example, were trivial in that during winter "iron baskets
filled with red hot coke" were brought in. (cf. Gutman, _Anatomy_, p.
170.) In Kremas IV and V the gas chambers were equiped with coke-fired
stoves. (cf. Pressac, _Technique_, p.392.)

Hardly a technical challenge.

> ># Ventilation systems.
> >
> >Really big problem for a nation that built jet planes, submarines,
> >and rockets that flew all the way to London.
> Who said anything about technological difficulties? Not needed
> for CO extermination.

Not needed for bunkers 1 and 2 at Auschwitz either. Nor were ventilation
system initially provided for Kremas IV and V at Auschwitz. (A deaeration
system was installed in Krema V in May of 1944 for aktion Ho"ss. [cf.
Gutman, _Anatomy_, p.237.]) Ventilation system were needed for L.Kellers 1
of Kremas II and III because the L.Kellers were underground and could not
use natural drafts to deaerate them.

> ># Doctors.
> >
> >Doctors also supervied the gassings with CO in the "euthanasia"
> >centers. Anyway, what's the big deal? Why do you think it was
> >such a big problem?
> Not needed for CO extermination.

Nope, they didn't need them for C0 extermination. They were only primarily
present at homicidal gassings in case an SS man was accidentally poisoned
by Zyklon B.

Does the Moran(tm) know of a case of accidental poisoning of an SS man
during a homicidal gassing? I don't recall one....

> ># Washing out the chambers after each gassing.
> >
> >But this also had to be done in the gas chambers that used engine
> >exhaust.
> How many eyewitness accounts have it so? One? Evidently there
> wasn't a problem, accordingly. Not needed for CO extermination.

Not true. Prisoner kommandos were specifically detailed to clean the gas
chambers at the Reinhard death camps. These kommandos "cleaned the blood
and excrement off the floors and walls of the gas chambers, as the gas
chambers had to be cleaned before introducing a new group of victims. This
group also cleaned the 'tube' and scattered fresh sand on the ground."
(cf. Arad, _Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka_, p.111.) The cleaning of the gas
chambers was also done in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. (cf. Pressac,
_Technique_. pp.171,484,489; Nyislzi, _Auschwitz: a doctor's ewyewitness
account_, p.52.)

An important point to make about this is that the gas chambers at
Auschwitz were cleaned for the same reason the gas chambers of the
Reinhard death camps were cleaned: To remove the blood and excrement of
the victims so as to help maintain the fiction that the victims were being
ushered into a "delousing" facility.

> ># Protective clothing for Sonderkommando workers.
> >
> >What was this "protective clothing"?
> Rubber suits? Boots? Does Mr.Keren ask because he denies the
> story has that component, or is it a quiz question? Either way; Not
> needed for CO extermination.

To my knowledge there was no use of "protective clothing" by the
Sonderkommando in regard to HCN whatsoever. I have found no accounts of
any such thing. Sketches by Sonderkommando David Olere, who survived, for
example, show the Sonderkommandos in prison clothes pulling the teeth of
the murdered victims in L.Keller 1 as well as Sonderkommandos stripped to
the waist while hauling corpses from the elevator. (cf. Pressac,
_Technique_, p.493.)

Rubber boots, however, _were_ used during the hosing down of the gas
chamber by the Sonderkommados when removing the blood and excrement of the
victims. (cf. Nyislzi, _Auschwitz: a doctors' ewyewitness account_, p.52.)
They were _not_ used as "protective clothing" against the spent Zyklon B
pellets, which were inert. Nor were they used as "protection" against any
allegedly "pasting" of HCN gas onto the walls, floors, or victims.

Furthermore, Auschwitz prisoner Andrzeje Rablin (No.1410), who worked in
the (clothing) delousing chambers of Block 3, stated that he went into the
delousing chamber "naked or wearing underpants" (because of the lice) to
apply the Zyklon B crystals. (cf. Pressac, _Technique_, p.25.)

> ># Need to sweep up pellets which still held considerable agent.
> >
> >No big deal, especially since this was the job of the sonderkommando;
> >moreover, this was no problem in the Krema II & III gas chambers, as
> >the Zyklon was taken out via the same deviced used to introduce it.
> Not needed for CO extermination.

It should be noted, according to Dr. Peters of DEGESCH, that the HCN
evaporated from Zyklon B "without any residues." See:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/zyklon/evaporation-data

> ># Handling;
> ># Carbon monoxide
> ># ===============
> ># Pipes into chambers
> >
> >This wasn't easier than constructing the insertion devices for
> >Zyklon-B.
> "Insertion devises" to mean concrete, pourous, wire mesh and/or
> sheet metal columns? Not needed for CO extermination.

The Zyklon B introduction columns in Kremas II and III were not contructed
of "porous concrete." The were contructed of metal and heavy gauge wire
mesh:

In Kremas II and III "Zyklon B was distributed in the gas chamber[s]
through four introduction columns custom-made in the metalwork shops of
the camp. They were shaped like pillars and made of two wire grids with a
moveable core. Cross sections of the pillars, 3m high, formed a square,
each side measuring 70cm. Fastened to the floor, they passed through
openings in the ceiling, ending outside as little chimneys closed with a
concrete cover equiped with two handles. The external grid (made of wire 3
mm thick) formed interstices measuring 45 mm x 45 mm, and was fastened to
cube-shaped metal scantlings (cross section 50 mm x 10 mm). Interstices of
the external grid--150 mm apart from the internal grid and similarly
fastened--were smaller (25 mm x 25 mm). The two grids served as a screen
for the moveable core that could be introduced through the opening in the
ceiling. The core consisted of a tin prism measuring 150mm x 150 mm at the
cross section. The bottom of the core was flat, and the top was a cone. A
wire mesh with interstices of one sq mm extended from the base of the core
to the base of the cone, and was fastened to a post 25 mm away. The entire
length of the core was covered with tin. When Zyklon B pellets fell onto
the cone, they spread uniformly throughout the core and stopped at its
lower part. After the gas evaporated, the entire core was removed from the
gas chamber and the used peelts of diatomite were poured out." (Gutman,
_Anatomy_, p.167.)

See also:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/zyklon/images/intro-device-1.gif
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/zyklon/images/intro-device-1.ref

>
> ># Engine exhaust connected to pipes
> ># Start engine
> >
> >So you have to get the engines. They may break down. You have
> >no idea how many engines you would need, as the Auschwitz-Birkenau
> >gas chambers were much larger than those in Treblinka and Belzec.
> For a "nation that built jet planes, submarines, and rockets that
> flew all the way to London" it doesn't seem like such a hard thing.
> Simple mathematics - amount of exhaust from a specified displacement,
> the contents of CO in the amount, the volume of the chamber, the
> number of people. How did they come to figure the chambers needs that
> are said to have been used? Mr.Keren?

How? Evidently with a certain amount of trial and error. The first gas
chambers at Treblinka were relatively small, 4 x 4 meters and 2.6 meters
high, with a capacity of 200-250 victims. These were replaced with larger
gas chambers measuring 4 x 8 meters. The height of the new gas chambers
were reduced to 2 meters because in the old gas chambers there had been
instances in which little children had not been asphyxiated because the
gas rose to the ceiling. The lowering of the ceiling from 2.6 meters to 2
meters also reduced volume of the gas chambers, and the amount of gas
required to kill the victims, thus shortening the asphyxiation time. See:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/aktion.reinhard/treblinka/treblinka.gas
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/aktion.reinhard/treblinka/treblinka.gas2
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/aktion.reinhard/treblinka/treblinka.gas4

> ># Availability;
> ># Zyklon B
> ># ========
> ># Has to be ordered and shipped from manufacturer.
> >
> >But they already had tons of the stuff, which was being used for
> >fumigation. With a few little cans of Zyklon, they killed 2,000
> >people. Surely that was no problem.
> Now it's a "few little cans"? A "few". Does he say how many a few

> is? Seems not....

Not true. Six kilos of Zyklon B was enough to kill 1,500 people. (cf.
Gutman, _Anatomy_, p.232.) That, for instance, would be six 1000g or four
1500g cans of Zyklon B. (cf. Pressac, _Technique_, pp.16,21.)

> ...Anyway, this is the second time Mr.Keren says they


> already had the stuff around, and this is correct, for fumigation
> purposes. When it came time at the end of the war to identify the
> agent of mass gassings, they grasp at anything that was available,
> and the only thing around was - Zyklon B.

Perhaps the Moran(tm) would care to then explain _why_ the Nazis used
Zyklon B _without_ the lachrymal at Auschwitz? In April of 1944 2800 kg of
Zyklon B _without_ the lachrymal was shipped to Auschwitz. (cf. Hilberg,
_Destruction_, p. 571.) And two invoices (February 14, 1944, and May 31,
1944) from DEGESCH to Gerstein indicate that 390 kg of Zyklon B _without_
the lachrymal was sent to Auschwitz. (Roques, _The 'Confession' of Kurt
Gerstein_, pp.93-94.)

It should be noted that SS ordered that the Zyklon B have the lachrymal
removed contrary to German law, which required the warning agent to help
prevent accidental poisoning. (cf. Gutman, _The Enyclopedia of the
Holocaust_, p.1750.)

> ># Availability;
> ># Carbon monoxide
> ># ===============
> ># Any motor vehicle engine. Basically, everywhere, anytime.
> ># The same stuff that can be gotten from any car or truck.
> >
> >Assuming it would work with such large gas chambers. And you would
> >need rather large engines.
> Really? Now suddenly Mr.Keren knows what it would take. We can
> wait to see what he has to say about the other information in the
> thread where it shows a small 4 Horse Power engine can produce enough
> gas to kill someone in a non-hemetically sealed room of over 4,000
> cubic feet in 30 minutes.

At Belzec, for example, a "250-horsepower amoured vehicle" engine was used
to provide the CO for the gas chambers there. At Sobibor it "was a heavy
Russian gasoline engine (probably tank or train engine) of at lest 200
horsepower (V-engine, eight cylinders, water cooled)." Given that the
first gas chambers at Treblinka were modeled after those at Belzec and
Sobibor, the engine rating was likely similar though it was evidently a
deisel engine. (cf. Kogon, _Nazi Mass Murder_, pp.109,112,115; Roques,
_The 'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein_, p.23.)

> ># Costs (theoretical);
> ># Zyklon B
> ># =========
> ># Twelve dollars per gassing
> >
> >And that would be a problem? $12 to kill 2,000 people? They
> >couldn't afford it?
> The record shows Mr.Keren is the one who raised the cost saving
> theory for using Zyklon B over CO.

According to the two invoices from DEGESCH to Gerstein, dated February 14,
1944, and May 31, 1944, 195 kg of Zyklon B _without_ the lachrymal cost
975 reichsmarks, or 5 reichsmarks per kg. (cf. Roques, _The 'Confessions'
of Kurt Gerstein_, pp.93-94. That's $2.27* per kg. Given that 6 kg of
Zyklon B was used to kill about 1500 people in L.Keller 1 of Krema II on
March 13, 1943, that would mean about a penny per victim.

* Based on an exhange rate of 0.45 reichsmarks per $1. (cf. Gutman,
_Anatomy_, p.262.)

>
>
> ># Costs (theoretical);
> ># Carbon monoxide
> ># ===============
> ># Three cents per gassing.
> ># At least 50 times cheaper than Zyklon B.
> >
> >How did you derive the three cents figure?
> Okay, we can make it 6 cents, even a dollar, whatever.

Assuming the diesel engine used at Treblinka had an equivalent rating as
the "250-horsepower amoured vehicle" engine used at Belzec and that it was
operated at full load; and assuming that the fuel use rate was equivalent
to that of a modern deisel power unit (i.e. diesel engine) operated at
full load (0.0678 gal/hp-hr) [1], the fuel use rate for the diesel engine
at Treblinka would have been 16.95 gal (64.16 liters) per hour.

Assuming a price for No. 2 diesel fuel of $205 per tonne [2], and an
exchange rate of 0.45 reichsmarks per $1, the (bulk) price of diesel fuel
can be guesstimated at 455 reichsmarks per tonne, or 0.455 reichsmarks per
kg. Given that No. 2 diesel fuel has density of 834 kg cu m [3] (0.834 kg
per liter) that would mean one liter of No. 2 diesel fuel cost about 0.38
reichsmarks.

Now, given that a homicidal gassing at Treblinka took about 30 minutes
(cf. Roques, _The 'Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein_, p.23) and killed (in
the old gas chambers) 600 victims [4], that would imply a fuel use of
about 32 liters of diesel fuel for a cost of 12.19 reichsmarks.

That's 0.02 reichsmarks, or about 9 cents per victim. That would make
using CO (from diesel fuel) 9 times _more_ expensive a homicidal agent
than Zyklon B.

Hardly "at least 50 times cheaper than Zyklon B."

Additionally, not only was the homicidal gas chambers cheaper (homicidal
agent-wise) but they could kill more people in a shorter time: Kremas II,
III, V, and bunker 2 could theoretically kill over 8,000 victims in less
than 30 minutes. However, due to the bottleneck of incinerating the
corpses of the victims, the _daily_ capacity of Kremas II-V would have
been, at most, between 7,000 and 8,000 victims. Maybe as low as 6,000 due
to the "regularization" of the gas chambers of Kremas II and III. (Each
L.Keller 1 was divided into two smaller gas chambers, each with a capacity
of about 1,000 victims). The exception to this would have been during
Aktion Ho"ss, when incineration pits were used to dramatically increase
the output of bunker 2 and Krema V. Because of this (and the continuous
operation _and_ overloading of the incineration furnaces of the Kremas)
the output of Kremas II, III, V, and bunker 2 during the summer of 1944
could well have reached over 10,000 victims per day and, according to Dr.
Piper, even as much as the "staggering number of 20,000 victims" per day.
(cf. Gutman, _Anatomy_, pp. 162, 167, 173-174, 224; Pressac, _Technique_,
p. 384.)

1. http://hammock.ifas.ufl.edu:80/txt/fairs/22161
2. http://www.cci-oise.fr:80/douglas/sat/fuel.html
3. http://www.age.uiuc.edu:80/classes/age221/englect/lect1/sld007.htm
4. http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/aktion.reinhard/treblinka/treblinka.gas4

[snip]

The Moran (tm) is, as far as I can determine, an anti-Semite engaged in
blatant and offensive anti-Semitism, Nazi apologia, and Holocaust denial.
The Moran (tm) generally conducted himself with such a complete lack of
intellectual and factual integrity that there seems to be no point in
taking the time to read and respond. For detailed and documented evidence
of this, please refer to:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom

But what else should one expect from a lying anti-Semite who holds wacko
beliefs, is intellectually depraved, hasn't the slightest clue regarding
Supreme Court decisions, or what constitutes a dud at the box-office? For
evidence of this please see:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/lies
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/1996/what-moran-believes.9607
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/lies/hilberg-out-of-context
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/moran-menorah-faq
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom/moran-schindler-faq


Mark

posted/e-mailed to Dr. Keren.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts."

-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doc Marten

unread,
Jan 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/4/97
to

On Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:30:21 GMT, dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
wrote in alt.revisionism:

>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
>
># Below is a comparison of the two agents for Holocaust
># exterminations according to the 'facts' of the Holocaust
># story itself.
>
># Handling;
># Zyklon B.
># =========
># Need gas masks.
>
>They had them anyway, as the Zyklon was used for fumigation.
>

># Gloves suggested.
>
>Now that's a real difficulty. Moran, Moran. You are a lost case.
>

># Special levers to take off lids.
>
>Really big problem there.
>

># Special training.
>
>They had the trained people anyway, as the Zyklon was used for
>fumigation.

Excuse me but another "mistake" is in evidence here. The
Auschwitz FAQ carried by Nizkook Kentral says that

thought of an
expedient new
method based on the
camp's own
experience. The
buildings, many of
them former Polish
army barracks, were
full of insects, and the
camp administration
had previously
brought in the
Hamburg pesticide
firm of Tesch and
Stabenow to get rid
of them.
Two experts
had fumigated
particular buildings
with a patented
insecticide, Zyklon B,

So your claim that the locals were doing it is completley
bogus. It was done by paid professionals. You should pay attention
to the FAQs.

Why can't you folks keep one FAQ straight?


Doc Marten

unread,
Jan 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/4/97
to

On 4 Jan 1997 04:09:15 GMT, bra...@itsa.ucsf.edu (Brian Harmon) wrote
in alt.revisionism:

>In article <32d5b58c...@199.0.216.204>,
>tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>> ???? (i don'tknow) wrote:
>
> [ I've no idea who the middle attribution belongs to, tommy
> deleted it.]
>

>>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
>>
>>># Below is a comparison of the two agents for Holocaust
>>># exterminations according to the 'facts' of the Holocaust
>>># story itself.
>>>
>>># Handling;
>>># Zyklon B.
>>># =========
>>># Need gas masks.
>>>
>>>They had them anyway, as the Zyklon was used for fumigation.
>> Not needed for CO extermination.
>

>And yet, they had all the equipment necessary for
>handling Zyklon B in the camps simply because Zyklon
>was routinely used to fumigate clothing even before
>homicidal gassing operations began.
>
>Since Zyklon-B was in common use as a fumigant before
>the gassings started, the camps already posessed all
>the equipment they needed to handle it safely.

You too??

thought of an
expedient new
method based on the
camp's own
experience. The
buildings, many of
them former Polish
army barracks, were
full of insects, and the
camp administration
had previously
brought in the
Hamburg pesticide
firm of Tesch and
Stabenow to get rid
of them.
Two experts
had fumigated
particular buildings
with a patented
insecticide, Zyklon B,

Fumigation was done by hired professionals. Don't you ever
read the FAQ on Auschwitz prepared by Nizkook Kentral? Of course, the
Nizkooks are lying but then you will have to call them that if you
want your claim to be accepted.


Doc Marten

unread,
Jan 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/4/97
to

On Sat, 04 Jan 1997 17:57:30 -0700, mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van
Alstine) wrote in alt.revisionism:

>In article <32d5b58c...@199.0.216.204>, t...@pacificnet.net (tom
>moran) wrote:
>
>> >t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
>>
>> ># Below is a comparison of the two agents for Holocaust
>> ># exterminations according to the 'facts' of the Holocaust
>> ># story itself.
>> >
>> ># Handling;
>> ># Zyklon B.
>> ># =========
>> ># Need gas masks.
>> >
>> >They had them anyway, as the Zyklon was used for fumigation.
>> Not needed for CO extermination.
>
>Nope, they didn't need them for C0 extermination. The SS at Auschwitz
>didn't need to constantly shoot the numerous gassing victims who survived
>either, as there was only two instance, to my knowledge, of a victim
>"surviving" a gassing with Zyklon B. One was a Russian POW in the gassing
>of 900 Russian POWs and Polish prisoners in Block 11. The Nazis simply
>tossed in more Zyklon B and closed the door again. He died. The other was
>Nyzisli writing in his memoirs that a young girl somehow (barely) survived
>a gassing. The Nazis took her up to the furnace hall and shot her dead.
>(cf. Czech, _Auschwitz Chronicle_, p.86; Nyiszli, _Auschwitz: a doctor's
>eyewitness account_, pp.114-120.)

There are six other cases of survival. They all occurred to
the same man. You should at least post what the nizkooks swear to.


Daniel Keren

unread,
Jan 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/4/97
to

t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:

# Holocaust gas chambers were basically 12 X 12 X 7
# feet, about 1000 cubic feet,

The large ones in Birkenau (in Kremas II and III), which
are the ones we're talking about, were 30 X 7 X 2 meters,
that is, about 100 X 23 X 7 feet, or about 16,000 cubic feet.
Well, Moran, you've only erred by a factor of 16 this time.
You're still better than other "revisionist scholars", as
Giwer, Stele, etc.

The question is, how long would it take for the
exhaust of one single engine to fill this volume
with a high enough ratio of CO to kill? Now, I guess
it would have worked, eventually. I agree that, had
Hoess decided to use engine exhaust to kill the victims,
it would have, eventually, worked.

However, he decided not to use it. He decided to use a
different method. He visited Chelmno, and was told
that using engine exhaust often took a long time. He
heard the same in Treblinka. So he decided to stick with
using Zyklon-B, which had already proved itself to kill
rather quickly, in Auschwitz.

You're saying he was wrong? Heck, maybe he was wrong. But
that's what he decided to do. End of story.


-Danny Keren.


Mark Van Alstine

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

In article <32da452e...@199.0.216.204>, t...@pacificnet.net (tom
moran) wrote:

[snip]

> >> Then too, going by the suggestions of major defenders of
> >> Holocuast truth, the Germans built the gas chambers of Crema II and
> >> III underground so they could get on the roof, Brian Harmon, and/or to
> >> keep the victims from knocking the walls down, Jamie McCarthy, and
> >> thus require carrying all the bodies up stairs.
> >

> >Which stairs would those be? The ones next to the corpse-lift elevator?
>
> The stairs in Cremas II and III.

Again, _which_ stairs? There were several.

> If there was a elevator in one of them, okay.

There were corpse lifts in _both_ of them.

> Then we can see that elevators were needed to
> accomodate the use of Zyklon B. So what we have now is, elevators and
> ladders. Not needed for carbon monoxide, according to Holocaust
> 'facts'.

And an "excavator" (a very large- and expensive -"scoop shovel" tractor)
was used at Treblinka to dig up the dead bodies for incineration. Not
needed for Zyklon B extermination at Auschwitz.

See:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/aktion.reinhard/treblinka/images/treblinka-grave-02.jpg
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/aktion.reinhard/treblinka/images/treblinka-grave-02.ref

The Moran (tm) is, as far as I can determine, an anti-Semite engaged in
blatant and offensive anti-Semitism, Nazi apologia, and Holocaust denial.
The Moran (tm) generally conducted himself with such a complete lack of
intellectual and factual integrity that there seems to be no point in
taking the time to read and respond. For detailed and documented evidence
of this, please refer to:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/m/moran.tom

But what else should one expect from a lying anti-Semite who holds wacko
beliefs, is intellectually depraved, hasn't the slightest clue regarding
Supreme Court decisions, or what constitutes a dud at the box-office? For
evidence of this please see:

Mark

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doc Marten

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

On Sat, 4 Jan 1997 18:34:56 GMT, dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
wrote in alt.revisionism:

>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:


>
># Holocaust gas chambers were basically 12 X 12 X 7
># feet, about 1000 cubic feet,
>
>The large ones in Birkenau (in Kremas II and III), which
>are the ones we're talking about, were 30 X 7 X 2 meters,
>that is, about 100 X 23 X 7 feet, or about 16,000 cubic feet.
>Well, Moran, you've only erred by a factor of 16 this time.
>You're still better than other "revisionist scholars", as
>Giwer, Stele, etc.

Your holohugging buddies all came down on you explaining to you
it was only one room inside that building the last time I got you to
post a calculation. Do you really pretend to forget so soon?

But if you really struck
one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience,
he
couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had at least
taken
you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day.
The
Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled
off
his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if
indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a
thing,
except that he had proven the correctness of his assertions the
previous
day."

You folks are the same as the day Adolph pegged you.


Daniel Keren

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

hil...@sie.mir (Doc Marten) writes:

# Your holohugging buddies all came down on you explaining
# to you it was only one room inside that building the last
# time I got you to post a calculation.

Yes, it was a room inside a building. And that room, before
it was partitioned, was 7 X 30 X 2 meters.

# Do you really pretend to forget so soon?

Are you really so stupid?

# You folks are the same as the day Adolph pegged you.

Grow up, punk.


-Danny Keren.


DvdThomas

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

Lastly, CO is not the only factor in causing death; lack of
oxygen in the exhaust is another one, and so are other poisonous
gases present in the exhaust, such as NO2.

-Danny Keren.

Lack of oxygen in diesel exhaust??? Daniel, you know as much about
engines as you do about other technical matters you attempt to address.
The limit approaches zero. And in your ignorance you persist in braying
out "liar" like a mantra. Jeez, get a clue guy.

David

DvdThomas

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

Mark Van Alstine wrote:

>The SS at Auschwitz
>didn't need to constantly shoot the numerous gassing victims who
survived
>either, as there was only two instance, to my knowledge, of a victim
>"surviving" a gassing with Zyklon B. One was a Russian POW in the gassing
>of 900 Russian POWs and Polish prisoners in Block 11. The Nazis simply
>tossed in more Zyklon B and closed the door again. He died.

Mark, this makes as much sense as did your rationalization of the jagged
holes in the steel reinforced concrete roof of the extensions on the
crematoriums at Auschwitz which were obviously punched through the
finished roof rather than building them in to begin with. You argued then
that lumber was scarce and building forms took time, therefore it may have
been more efficient to simply cast the (foot thick) slab roof and put the
holes in afterward. With that degree of knowledge of how hard it is to do
what you suggest, you couldn't get a job on a construction site carrying a
water bucket around. Ask someone who works with concrete and watch for
the incredulous look in their eyes.

Your suggestion above that the 15+ minute procedure would be repeated and
the process held up instead of delivering a coup de grace with pistol for
one person makes just as much sense as the concrete explanation.

Both are not just erroneous, and they are too far out to be called lies.
They're dumb, that's all.

Regards,
David Thomas

Daniel Keren

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) writes:

## Lastly, CO is not the only factor in causing death; lack
## of oxygen in the exhaust is another one, and so are other
## poisonous gases present in the exhaust, such as NO2.
##
## -Danny Keren.

# Lack of oxygen in diesel exhaust???

Yes, lack of oxygen in diesel exhaust. I will post the
figures from the Holtz-Elliot ASME paper tomorrow (I don't
have it at home). Then, we'll see what a smart fellow you are.

Greping through some of my earlier responses on this thread,
I found the following:

"The same graph and table in the Holtz-Elliot paper show
he's [Giwer] totally wrong about this too. In high fuel-air
ratios, there is practically no oxygen in the exhaust; in
lower ratios (say, 0.056) there's only 3.4 percent of
oxygen in the exhaust".

3.4 percent. You're claiming a person can survive with such
a ratio of oxygen?

I'll post more figures tomorrow.

# Daniel, you know as much about engines as you do about other
# technical matters you attempt to address.

Let's see the figures from the Holtz-Elliot paper.

# The limit approaches zero.

Let's see the figures from the Holtz-Elliot paper.

# Jeez, get a clue guy.

Jeez... learn to read, guy.


-Danny Keren.


Brian Harmon

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

In article <32cd1e4...@199.0.216.204>,

tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>
> Other necessities and problems that arose, according to the
>Holocaust story, would be the need for ladders to get to side windows
>on Cremas IV and V, to pour in the Zyklon B pellets.

Why is this a problem? The nazis spend years building the Birkenau
complex and you expect people to believe that they wouldn't have
a few ladders around?


> Then too, going by the suggestions of major defenders of
>Holocuast truth, the Germans built the gas chambers of Crema II and
>III underground so they could get on the roof, Brian Harmon, and/or to
>keep the victims from knocking the walls down, Jamie McCarthy, and
>thus require carrying all the bodies up stairs.

I said no such thing. If you would re-read the file in question
you would realize that I was writing hypothetically. I even
titled the section 'A Hypothetical Gassing'.

Do you know what 'Hypothetical' means?

the original file is in:

http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/cyanide.001

Mike Curtis

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote:

>Mark Van Alstine wrote:
>
>>The SS at Auschwitz
>>didn't need to constantly shoot the numerous gassing victims who
>survived
>>either, as there was only two instance, to my knowledge, of a victim
>>"surviving" a gassing with Zyklon B. One was a Russian POW in the gassing
>>of 900 Russian POWs and Polish prisoners in Block 11. The Nazis simply
>>tossed in more Zyklon B and closed the door again. He died.
>

>Mark, this makes as much sense as did your rationalization of the jagged
>holes in the steel reinforced concrete roof of the extensions on the
>crematoriums at Auschwitz which were obviously punched through the
>finished roof rather than building them in to begin with. You argued then
>that lumber was scarce and building forms took time, therefore it may have
>been more efficient to simply cast the (foot thick) slab roof and put the
>holes in afterward. With that degree of knowledge of how hard it is to do
>what you suggest, you couldn't get a job on a construction site carrying a
>water bucket around. Ask someone who works with concrete and watch for
>the incredulous look in their eyes.

Whether Mark could get job wiping up your drool is unimportant to the
discussion and this hardly promotes debate, Mr. Thomas. What see here
are arguments on assumptions not based on the available evidence. This
is what happens when someone postulates fiction into an historical
event. The arguments border on the absurd. It would be nice if a case
were made from the beginning and pulled out of past conversations that
are not present on the board. So what people have claimed prior has
not been placed into evidence, so to speak. With this refutation of
Mark, which has NOTHING to do with the paragraph you quote, you offer
nothing substantial to refute him other than a personal attack. Less
than brilliant, but with what CODOH has offered so far, No one should
be surprised.

>
>Your suggestion above that the 15+ minute procedure would be repeated and

I do not see this above. (?) But where did this 15 minutes come from?

Let's look on page 33 of Hoess' interrogation at Nuremberg as he is
being questioned by Lt. Harris. Incidently, Whitney Harris wrote a
book called _Tyranny on Trial_ which is about the evidence offered at
the IMT.

Q: From where did you recieve these crystals?

A: Originally, this Cyclone B was used in order to gas rooms and to
exterminate insects. Since it was very poinsonous and had to be
treated with great care we assumed that it was the proper thing to use
against humans.

Q: Was it long before the human beings were killed by this gas?

A: It depended upon weather, humidity, time of day, and the number of
people present in the chamber. Also, the gas was not always composed
the same way and was not as effective every time.

QUESTIONS BY MR. JAARI TO THE WITNESS THROUGH THE INTERPRETER:

Q: In general, how long did it take?

A: I saw it happen often enough. Generally it took from three to 15
minutes. The effect varied. Wherever the gas was thrown into the
chamber, the people standing right next to it were immediately
anaesthetized. It gradually spread out to the far corners of the room
and generally after five minutes one could no longer discern the human
forms in the chamber. Everybody was dead after fifteen minutes, and
the chambers were opened after a half an hour and not once was anybody
alive at that time.


>the process held up instead of delivering a coup de grace with pistol for
>one person makes just as much sense as the concrete explanation.
>
>Both are not just erroneous, and they are too far out to be called lies.
>They're dumb, that's all.
>

Sure, Mr. Thomas, that the way to debate. Debate with baseless
opinions and personal attacks. That should impress your audience.

>David Thomas
>CODOH (http://www.codoh.com/)


Mike Curtis
E-mail mcu...@inetport.com
Nizkor Web: http://www.nizkor.org/

tom moran

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
>
># Holocaust gas chambers were basically 12 X 12 X 7
># feet, about 1000 cubic feet,
>
>The large ones in Birkenau (in Kremas II and III), which
>are the ones we're talking about,

"...the ones we're talking about ..."? Really? Where does he get
that idea? No where in this post does it say anything about Auschwitz,
or "Cremas II and III", but instead actually discusses the existing
stories of CO gassings. It is only Mr.Keren's way of avoiding what the
post addresses. It doesn't matter anyway, we can just go on and toy
around with what he has opted to focus on.

> were 30 X 7 X 2 meters,
>that is, about 100 X 23 X 7 feet, or about 16,000 cubic feet.
>Well, Moran, you've only erred by a factor of 16 this time.
>You're still better than other "revisionist scholars", as
>Giwer, Stele, etc.

>The question is, how long would it take for the


>exhaust of one single engine to fill this volume
>with a high enough ratio of CO to kill? Now, I guess
>it would have worked, eventually. I agree that, had
>Hoess decided to use engine exhaust to kill the victims,
>it would have, eventually, worked.

Lets use what information we have from the report and what
Mr.Keren has supplied.

The average size of the areas by volume were about 4500 cubic
feet.

The average size of the engines that were responsible for the CO
poisoning is 9.25 HP.

The average conditions for the cases would be at least one
exhaust fan and a open door. Only one case was unventilated in some
way, which was the fatality.

The average time for people to succumb to the CO fumes seems to
be around 30 minutes.

So now here we have Mr.Keren saying he wants to know what it
would take to deliver enough gas to a toxic level in a volume of
16,000 cubic feet in Cremas II and III. The Holocaust conditions would
be a chamber intentionally designed to be air tight (hermetically
sealed). The Holocaust engines would be something that would be
suitable to drive a "truck", "tank" or even a "submarine".

Being more than fair, we can say 250 HP.

Now if a 9 HP engine can deliver enough gas into an area of 4500
cubic feet in 30 minutes to cause effect we could figure a 250 HP
engine delivers 25 times the CO than a 9.25 HP engine in any
particular time. Thus we have a 250 HP engine that could deliver
enough gas to a 4500 cf area in about one minute to meet the toxicity
level. Since we're talking about Mr.Keren's 16,000 cf, we can divide
the 4500 cf into the 16,000 and come up with 3.5. 3.5 times one minute
equals 3.5 minutes.

Three and a half minutes for a 250 HP engine to deliver enough CO
to the toxic level for an area volume of 16,000 cubic feet. Of course
if we put two of these engines into the act, we would have less than 2
minutes.

Of course since we don't have exact information such as the
volume of gas per minute coming out a engine we can't really figure it
all too exact. We can think the delivery is proportional the same
between the two sized engines, so the figures are sufficient for the
purpose.

The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. It is only a response to a
ridiculous evasion. Mr.Keren has expressed previously in this thread
the Germans wouldn't have known how to arrive at any figures in order
to determine what sized engine would be suitable for exterminating
people in the Crema II and III chambers and this is why they didn't
use the well proven CO method in the first place, going by Holocaust
'facts'.

"So you have to get the engines. They may break down. You have
no idea how many engines you would need, as the Auschwitz-Birkenau
gas chambers were much larger than those in Treblinka and Belzec."

Its obvious Mr.Keren doesn't have the knowledge of physics to
know the Germans or anyone else could have figured it all out
mathematically after they had determined certain values. A very simple
procedure here. The ratio of CO in a quantity of exhaust, the toxic
fatal level, the volume per minute of any exhaust, and the volume of
the space into which it would be introduced. We could also know what
the parts per million would be that would constitute lethal levels.

Why, it didn't even cross Mr.Keren's 'mind' to just think the
Germans could have just figured out the ratio in respect to the other
chambers used at "Belzec" and "Treblinka".

Mr.Keren didn't even bother to ponder whether or not the Germans
could have, would have just built the chambers smaller to conform with
those he believes already were in existence.

Moran would like to add this one more little surprise ending.
Since the chambers in Cremas II and III would be filled with people,
we could say the volume of 16,000 was decreased by half, that one
single 250 HP engine could deliver enough gas to the toxic level to
the 8,000 cf in 2 minutes instead of the 4 minutes for 16,000 cubic
feet, and that for two engines of the same size it would be one
minute.

Okay, there's your answer Mr.Keren. One engine could deliver
enough gas to the chambers in Cremas II and III, if they had really
existed, in two minutes.

But wait, this is considering a 250 HP engine and it would be
more likely that any engine capable of propelling a multi ton tank,
and even one that could propel a submarine, it might be way bigger.
Lets say 400 HP. In this case we can reduce the two minutes to about 1
1/2 minutes.

But wait. If we used two 400 HP engines to introduce the required
CO, it would be about 45 seconds.

This is a good example of why Moran revels when he sees that
Mr.Keren has responded to one of his posts.

Thank you Mr.Keren.


But wait a minute. What the hell is this?

>However, he decided not to use it. He decided to use a
>different method. He visited Chelmno, and was told
>that using engine exhaust often took a long time. He
>heard the same in Treblinka. So he decided to stick with
>using Zyklon-B, which had already proved itself to kill
>rather quickly, in Auschwitz.

Well the topic of the post had nothing to do with this. In fact
the whole thing with Ho'ss was to get other camps to use Zyklon B, not
whether or not he was going to try carbon monoxide. And as the story
has it, other camps did come to use it.


Mr.Keren's interesting final statement:

>"You're saying he was wrong? Heck, maybe he was wrong. But
>that's what he decided to do. End of story."

"End of (Mr.Keren's) story", that is.

Daniel Keren

unread,
Jan 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/5/97
to

t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
# dke...@world.std.com writes:

## The large ones in Birkenau (in Kremas II and III), which
## are the ones we're talking about,

# "...the ones we're talking about ..."? Really? Where does
# he get that idea?

I get it from Moran, who asked why Hoess didn't use engine
exhaust for the Auschwitz gas chambers. Hence, these are the
chambers we are talking about.

# Now if a 9 HP engine can deliver enough gas into an area
# of 4500 cubic feet in 30 minutes to cause effect we could
# figure a 250 HP engine delivers 25 times the CO than a
# 9.25 HP engine

Do you know for a fact that there is a linear relation between
HP output and CO output? Or are you just guessing?

# Three and a half minutes for a 250 HP engine to deliver
# enough CO to the toxic level for an area volume of 16,000
# cubic feet. Of course if we put two of these engines into
# the act, we would have less than 2 minutes.

It would probably be far more than 2 minutes. There's the
circulation, which may be a problem in such large chambers
as in Birkenau. Also, I think that in the examples you gave
(of accidental poisoning with engine exhaust), the engine
was inside the space where the people were, and thus it not only
pumped its exhaust into that space, it also used up the oxygen
in the space. That was not the method in Treblinka etc; the
engine was outside, so the victims will not destroy it, or
the connections to it, and so that it could be started from
the outside. This probably slowed the process.

I would also check, in those cases of accidental poisoning,
how far the people were from the engine.

Your point is moot. I said that I agree that, if Hoess would
have decided to use engine exhaust, it would probably have
worked. He would hook up a few big engines to each chamber,
run them for enough time, and kill the people. He decided
against it. One obvious reason is that Zyklon-B was being
used in Auschwitz to kill people since 1941; it worked,
and people usually like to stick with methods that work.
Another reason, which he mentions in his memoirs, is the
fact that he heard about problems that occurred while using
engine exhaust for gassing in Chelmno and Treblinka.

There was also a well-known case of one of the gas-vans,
which used engine exhaust, exploding in Chelmno (see the
Just to Rauff letter). True, it seems to have happened
only once, but maybe Hoess didn't want to take the chance
of his beloved crematorium exploding.

When you have method A that works, you don't change it to
method B which you heard is problematic.

# Mr.Keren has expressed previously in this thread the
# Germans wouldn't have known how to arrive at any figures
# in order to determine what sized engine would be suitable
# for exterminating people in the Crema II and III chambers
# and this is why they didn't use the well proven CO method
# in the first place, going by Holocaust 'facts'.

I never said this. You should really stop lying so much.

# Okay, there's your answer Mr.Keren. One engine could deliver
# enough gas to the chambers in Cremas II and III, if they
# had really existed, in two minutes.

Would you kindly tell us what the volume of that engine would
have been, and at how many RPM's you would have to run it,
in order to kill people in a 400 cubic meter gas chamber
in two minutes? Consider the fact that CO is a much slower
acting poison than the cyanide gas which Zyklon-B releases.


-Danny Keren.


tom moran

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
># dke...@world.std.com writes:
>
>## The large ones in Birkenau (in Kremas II and III), which
>## are the ones we're talking about,
>
># "...the ones we're talking about ..."? Really? Where does
># he get that idea?
>
>I get it from Moran, who asked why Hoess didn't use engine
>exhaust for the Auschwitz gas chambers. Hence, these are the
>chambers we are talking about.

Really? Where was that?


>
># Now if a 9 HP engine can deliver enough gas into an area
># of 4500 cubic feet in 30 minutes to cause effect we could
># figure a 250 HP engine delivers 25 times the CO than a
># 9.25 HP engine
>
>Do you know for a fact that there is a linear relation between
>HP output and CO output? Or are you just guessing?

Really? Where does it say that?

># Three and a half minutes for a 250 HP engine to deliver
># enough CO to the toxic level for an area volume of 16,000
># cubic feet. Of course if we put two of these engines into
># the act, we would have less than 2 minutes.
>
>It would probably be far more than 2 minutes. There's the
>circulation, which may be a problem in such large chambers
>as in Birkenau. Also, I think that in the examples you gave
>(of accidental poisoning with engine exhaust), the engine
>was inside the space where the people were, and thus it not only
>pumped its exhaust into that space, it also used up the oxygen
>in the space. That was not the method in Treblinka etc; the
>engine was outside, so the victims will not destroy it, or
>the connections to it, and so that it could be started from
>the outside. This probably slowed the process.

Okay, got it. The Germans put the engine outside so the victims
couldn't mess with it. And here I thought the Germans were stupid.

And starting the engine on the outside slowed the process. Okay
got that one too.

>I would also check, in those cases of accidental poisoning,
>how far the people were from the engine.

Well one of the engines was in the next room, as is stated for
any eyes to see. One person was found by the door. Or we could think
that all the people were right next to the engines - steam cleaners.
Maybe they disconnected the hoses that usually come with such a rigus
and just picked it up and sprayed direct from the pump. Who knows,
maybe the rigii only came with a 2 foot hose. I think you may be on to
something here.

>Your point is moot. I said that I agree that, if Hoess would
>have decided to use engine exhaust, it would probably have
>worked. He would hook up a few big engines to each chamber,
>run them for enough time, and kill the people. He decided
>against it. One obvious reason is that Zyklon-B was being
>used in Auschwitz to kill people since 1941; it worked,
>and people usually like to stick with methods that work.
>Another reason, which he mentions in his memoirs, is the
>fact that he heard about problems that occurred while using
>engine exhaust for gassing in Chelmno and Treblinka.

Okay. Ho'ss' testimony. Isn't he the one who said there were 3
million people killed at the camp. Could he be the one Francizek
Piper, curator of the Auschwitz Museum said wasn't trust worthy. Could
you explain what Ms.Levin meant in her book "THE HOLOCAUST" where she
says "Hoss became a prime figure in the exterminations. At Nuremberg
he testified freely--even exaggeratedly-- ..." Basically I'd be
interested in hearing what you think she means by "exggeratedly".

>There was also a well-known case of one of the gas-vans,
>which used engine exhaust, exploding in Chelmno (see the
>Just to Rauff letter). True, it seems to have happened
>only once, but maybe Hoess didn't want to take the chance
>of his beloved crematorium exploding.

Everything in the Holocaust story "happens only once". I take it
you think CO is safer than HCN. LOOK INTO YOUR SCREEN Mr.Keren. You
are getting sleepy. Sleepy. Now go to browser. Enter "Hydrogen
Cyanide". Check out sites. See where explosive nature of HCN is given
much attention. After you do that, enter "carbon monoxide" See if it
gives any CO explosiveness the same attention. When find answer, come
back and clue all in.

>When you have method A that works, you don't change it to
>method B which you heard is problematic.

You may have another point here. He called up the guys at
Treblinka and said he had some good stuff. He told them all about it.
The guys at Treblinka said, 'Hey, wait a minute, we don't need all
that gas mask, ladder, openers, rubber suits, hoses, buckets of coal,
Doctors, SS orderlies, special training and such, all we need to do is
start engine.

># Mr.Keren has expressed previously in this thread the
># Germans wouldn't have known how to arrive at any figures
># in order to determine what sized engine would be suitable
># for exterminating people in the Crema II and III chambers
># and this is why they didn't use the well proven CO method
># in the first place, going by Holocaust 'facts'.
>
>I never said this. You should really stop lying so much.

I see you have omitted, "snipped" as some say, your exact quote
which was included right after this passage. Here lets have another
look. Don't go anywhere now. Be right back. Just going to go over to
'copy' it and bring it back here for a pasting.

Mr.Keren:


"So you have to get the engines. They may break down. You have
no idea how many engines you would need, as the Auschwitz-Birkenau
gas chambers were much larger than those in Treblinka and Belzec."

Okay, there it is. When you said "You have no idea ..." this
would mean no one would have any idea. Or maybe you meant, you,
personally had no idea.

># Okay, there's your answer Mr.Keren. One engine could deliver
># enough gas to the chambers in Cremas II and III, if they
># had really existed, in two minutes.
>
>Would you kindly tell us what the volume of that engine would
>have been, and at how many RPM's you would have to run it,
>in order to kill people in a 400 cubic meter gas chamber
>in two minutes? Consider the fact that CO is a much slower
>acting poison than the cyanide gas which Zyklon-B releases.

Now could you point out along the way where it said anything
about a killing anyone in two minutes. You ask how long it would take
to fill the alleged chamber. The answer was two minutes. It would
probably take another 7 to ten minutes to kill the people.

Oh you say CO works "much" slower than HCN? But doesn't the HCN
have to disengage itself from the pellet carrier material? Now if it
was introduced directly you may have something there. When you say CO
is "much" slower, how much slower would that be? There are reports of
it working in fifteen to twenty minutes like HCN. Was it Leleko who
said it took only ten minutes?

Keep up the good work Mr.Keren. Your on the side of revisionism,
in an abstract sort of way. You just don't know it.

>-Danny Keren.
>


Daniel Keren

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:

# I take it you think CO is safer than HCN.

No. Yet again, you prove that you cannot read plain
English. I said that one of the "gas-vans" exploded
in Chelmno. Using bottled CO would probably not result
in an explosion, but that was an expensive method,
which would require transporting these large, heavy
CO containers over long distances.

# You may have another point here. He called up the guys at
# Treblinka and said he had some good stuff. He told them all
# about it. The guys at Treblinka said, 'Hey, wait a minute,
# we don't need all that gas mask, ladder, openers, rubber suits,
# hoses, buckets of coal, Doctors, SS orderlies, special training
# and such, all we need to do is start engine.

The gas masks and specially trained staff were there anyway,
as they were using the Zyklon for fumigation. Are you senile
or something? We've been over this. The ladders? Wow, big
problem there. Openers? To open the Zyklon-B cans? They were
there anyway. Probably cost 50 cents each. Have you lost your
wits completely? These are the arguments you can present?

Hoses? They had to wash the gas chambers anyway, regardless
of the gas being used. Doctors? Whether they were present or
not did not depend on the gas being used; they were present
in the "euthanasia" killings, when CO was used. Orderlies?
What does that have to do with the type of gas being used?

# Now could you point out along the way where it said anything
# about a killing anyone in two minutes. You ask how long it
# would take to fill the alleged chamber. The answer was
# two minutes.

I have the Holtz-Elliot paper with me. A relatively large engine
(226 cu. in) releases about 4,000 cu. feet of exhaust in an
hour. So, it would take 4 hours to fill the large gas chambers.

# Oh you say CO works "much" slower than HCN?

Yes. For it to kill as fast as HCN, you need a rather high
concentration.


-Danny Keren.

Daniel Keren

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

In his typically ignorant and arrogant fashion,
"dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas)" wrote:

# Lack of oxygen in diesel exhaust??? Daniel, you know
# as much about engines as you do about other technical
# matters you attempt to address.

I am quoting from

"The Significance of Diesel-Exhaust-Gas Analysis", by
J.C. Holtz and M.A. Elliot, Transactions of the ASME,
Vol. 63, 1941, p. 97-105), table and graph on page 98-9:

When the fuel-air ratio is 0.04, there are 9 percent oxygen
in the exhaust.

When the fuel-air ratio is 0.05, there are 5.8 percent oxygen
in the exhaust.

When the fuel-air ratio is 0.06, there are 2.8 percent oxygen
in the exhaust.

When the fuel-air ratio is 0.07, there is 1 percent oxygen
in the exhaust.

An apology from "DvdThomas" is due, but I don't expect it.


-Danny Keren.


Mad Max

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997 19:22:43 GMT, dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
wrote in alt.revisionism:

>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
>
># I take it you think CO is safer than HCN.
>
>No. Yet again, you prove that you cannot read plain
>English. I said that one of the "gas-vans" exploded
>in Chelmno.

IF there is such a story that still does not excuse you for
believing it.

>Using bottled CO would probably not result
>in an explosion, but that was an expensive method,
>which would require transporting these large, heavy
>CO containers over long distances.

First you believe a ridiculous story and then you prattle on
like you know what you are talking about.

So in one case we have exhaust which results in a fixed
concentration of CO that you believe exploded and in the other case
where the concentration would have no limit you believe would not
explode.

Do they really let CS types graduate without taking any science
courses?

># You may have another point here. He called up the guys at
># Treblinka and said he had some good stuff. He told them all
># about it. The guys at Treblinka said, 'Hey, wait a minute,
># we don't need all that gas mask, ladder, openers, rubber suits,
># hoses, buckets of coal, Doctors, SS orderlies, special training
># and such, all we need to do is start engine.
>
>The gas masks and specially trained staff were there anyway,
>as they were using the Zyklon for fumigation. Are you senile
>or something?

Nizkor says the fumigation was done by hired professional. Why
are you spreading this false story?

We've been over this. The ladders? Wow, big
>problem there. Openers? To open the Zyklon-B cans? They were
>there anyway. Probably cost 50 cents each. Have you lost your
>wits completely? These are the arguments you can present?

On the other hand you take this two foot length of hose ...

>Hoses? They had to wash the gas chambers anyway, regardless
>of the gas being used. Doctors? Whether they were present or
>not did not depend on the gas being used; they were present
>in the "euthanasia" killings, when CO was used. Orderlies?
>What does that have to do with the type of gas being used?

Doctors and orderlies are reported for HCN gassing but not for
CO gassing. But you know that.

># Now could you point out along the way where it said anything
># about a killing anyone in two minutes. You ask how long it
># would take to fill the alleged chamber. The answer was
># two minutes.
>
>I have the Holtz-Elliot paper with me. A relatively large engine
>(226 cu. in) releases about 4,000 cu. feet of exhaust in an
>hour. So, it would take 4 hours to fill the large gas chambers.

5000 cu ft/hr at 600 rpm. But you know that has nothing to do
with dying of it.

># Oh you say CO works "much" slower than HCN?
>
>Yes. For it to kill as fast as HCN, you need a rather high
>concentration.

That is not what the witnesses report. How could you doubt
them?


Michael P. Stein

unread,
Jan 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/6/97
to

In article <32cd4d91....@news.gte.net>,
Matt Giwer (mgi...@gte.net) under the name
Sammy Li <kava...@hong.kong> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jan 1997 12:17:36 -0500, ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
>wrote in alt.revisionism:

>
>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>
>>> Other necessities and problems that arose, according to the
>>> Holocaust story, would be the need for ladders to get to side windows
>>> on Cremas IV and V, to pour in the Zyklon B pellets.
>>
>>Omigosh, _ladders_, they had to get _ladders_.
>>
>>Well, clearly they would never do such a thing. That requires a level
>>of technical expertise which the Nazis were (Autobahn, V2, U-boat)
>>clearly not capable of. The Holocaust must never have happened.
>
> You should have stuck around. You missed a lot. For example
>you missed that the aerial photos show NO such buildings at IV and V
>in the first place.

Kremas IV and V _were_ the buildings. One year after he arrived here,
and Matt Giwer still doesn't understand the layout of the camp or the
individual buildings. I remember him posting an aerial photo which shows
he thought that IV and V were in the middle of the women's camp. (IV and
V were not in that picture at all, actually.)

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/lies/lie-openly-admitted.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/index-lies.html
--
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.

Mark Van Alstine

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

In article <jamie-03019...@clmx35.dial.voyager.net>,
ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:

[snip]

> At this point we must ask, would you please get to the point, Mr. Moran?
> If you're arguing that the Holocaust cost money and therefore never
> occurred, I wish you'd just say so.

Here! Here! I second the motion. If the Moran(tm) _is_ really trying to
suggest that the Holocaust cost money and therefore couldn't happen, one
need only point out the ENOURMOUS PROFIT the SS reaped from the Reinhard
death camps and Auschwitz. The value of the Nazi plunder far exceeded the
costs of building, staffing, and maintaining, and finally erasing these
camps. (In the case of Birkenau, _partly_ erasing it.)

tom moran

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

>tom moran wrote:
>>
>> >Friedrich Berg's UseNet articles are available via the Nizkor
>> >Project, via URL

Moran:
>> Anything this Berg said, is what Berg said and is about him only,
>> having nothing to do with anyone or anything else.

"McFee":
>You ought to try reading it, zeyde, before you comment. Berg is one of
>your "revisionist" "scholars".

Zeyde:
Zeyde very seldom reads revisionist stuff. In fact Zeyde has
never read a revisionist book. Zeyde has enough sense not believe
everything that may come from someone who holds to the same general
position as himself. Zeyde gets the facts against the Holocaust story
right from the works of the Holocaust promotional network itself. A
good many of the facts against the Holocaust story come right off of
Nizkor. In fact Zeyde finds Nizkor a very good source for facts
against the story. Zeyde finds the best facts against the facts of
the Holocaust story are it's own facts.
>--
>Gord McFee
>I'll write no line before its time


Hilary Ostrov

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 01:59:12 GMT, in
<32e8ab9b...@199.0.216.204>, t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran aka

the denier in search of a persona) wrote:

>>tom moran wrote:
>>>
>>> >Friedrich Berg's UseNet articles are available via the Nizkor
>>> >Project, via URL
>
>Moran:
>>> Anything this Berg said, is what Berg said and is about him only,
>>> having nothing to do with anyone or anything else.
>
>"McFee":
>>You ought to try reading it, zeyde, before you comment. Berg is one of
>>your "revisionist" "scholars".
>
>Zeyde:
> Zeyde very seldom reads revisionist stuff. In fact Zeyde has
>never read a revisionist book.

And from Moran's posts one might well wonder if Zeyde has ever read
_any_ book (except those with PHOTOS, of course!)

>[...]. A


>good many of the facts against the Holocaust story come right off of
>Nizkor. In fact Zeyde finds Nizkor a very good source for facts
>against the story. Zeyde finds the best facts against the facts of
>the Holocaust story are it's own facts.

What's this I see?! Two bursts of honesty from Moran in less than a
week?! What is this world coming to?! Indeed, Moran is quite correct
in that this so-called "Holocaust story" is an invention of the
so-called "revisionists."

For the Holocaust is _not_ a story. Rather it is the name by which a
series of events has come to be known. These events, the Holocaust,
resulted in the deaths of over 12 million innocent people (of whom
approximately 50% were Jewish), at the hands of Hitler and the Nazi
regime.

And indeed Nizkor is an excellent source for those who seek the
_facts_ - as well as for those who seek the "stories" that the
"revisionists" would have their dwindling audience believe.

hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@uniserve.com
WWW: http://users.uniserve.com/~hostrov/
Co-Webmaster - The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/

tom moran

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

>tom moran wrote:
>>
>> >Friedrich Berg's UseNet articles are available via the Nizkor
>> >Project, via URL

Moran:
>> Anything this Berg said, is what Berg said and is about him only,
>> having nothing to do with anyone or anything else.

"McFee":
>You ought to try reading it, zeyde, before you comment. Berg is one of
>your "revisionist" "scholars".

Zeyde:
Zeyde very seldom reads revisionist stuff. In fact Zeyde has

never read a revisionist book. Zeyde has enough sense not believe
everything that may come from someone who holds to the same general
position as himself. Zeyde gets the facts against the Holocaust story

right from the works of the Holocaust promotional network itself. A


good many of the facts against the Holocaust story come right off of
Nizkor. In fact Zeyde finds Nizkor a very good source for facts
against the story. Zeyde finds the best facts against the facts of
the Holocaust story are it's own facts.

>--

Mgiwer

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

In article <32cd4d91....@news.gte.net>,
Matt Giwer (mgi...@gte.net) under the name
Sammy Li <kava...@hong.kong> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Jan 1997 12:17:36 -0500, ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
>wrote in alt.revisionism:
>
>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>
>>> Other necessities and problems that arose, according to the
>>> Holocaust story, would be the need for ladders to get to side windows
>>> on Cremas IV and V, to pour in the Zyklon B pellets.
>>
>>Omigosh, _ladders_, they had to get _ladders_.
>>
>>Well, clearly they would never do such a thing. That requires a level
>>of technical expertise which the Nazis were (Autobahn, V2, U-boat)
>>clearly not capable of. The Holocaust must never have happened.
>
> You should have stuck around. You missed a lot. For example
>you missed that the aerial photos show NO such buildings at IV and V
>in the first place.

Kremas IV and V _were_ the buildings. One year after he arrived here,
and Matt Giwer still doesn't understand the layout of the camp or the
individual buildings. I remember him posting an aerial photo which shows
he thought that IV and V were in the middle of the women's camp. (IV and
V were not in that picture at all, actually.)

=====

And you will remember, nizkook kentral expressed gratitude for me
pointing out the error in the captioning that I copied directly from their
files. Other than that, take a look at the pictures and see for yourself
there are no such buildings. Do you still refuse to look and see for
yourself? Why?
Is it better to revel in your ignornace than to deal with facts as
they are?


=====
http://home1.gte.net/mgiwer/index.html

Mgiwer

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

Fre...@Speech.FORREAL (Mad Max) writes:
# dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:

## I said that one of the "gas-vans" exploded
## in Chelmno.

# IF there is such a story that still does not excuse you for
# believing it.

This is mentioned in post-war testimony and in the June 5, 1942,
letter from Just to Rauff.

That does not excuse you for believing it. Engine exhaust,
exploding. What a beleiver! Obviously CS types are not required to take
any real science courses.

# Doctors and orderlies are reported for HCN gassing but not for
# CO gassing. But you know that.

Doctors supervised the gassings with CO in the "euthanasia" centers.

The subject is not euthanasia but rather places like Treblinka that
did not have any such orderlies, a note that russians forgot to include in
their stories.

As for orderlies, their job was to watch over, help in getting
the victims into the gas chambers, etc. What difference does it
make if CO or HCN was used?

I mean, for God's sake, how stupid can you be?

And you are really under the impression that game playing like this
is going to impress any but the already committed?

Why don't you do yourself a favor and take a few science courses so
you have some idea what you are talking about before you attempt to defend
these idiot claims? You might be able to appear to look a bit like you
know what you are talking about if you do.

=====
http://home1.gte.net/mgiwer/index.html

Daniel Keren

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

Fre...@Speech.FORREAL (Mad Max) writes:
# dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:

## I said that one of the "gas-vans" exploded
## in Chelmno.

# IF there is such a story that still does not excuse you for
# believing it.

This is mentioned in post-war testimony and in the June 5, 1942,
letter from Just to Rauff.

# Doctors and orderlies are reported for HCN gassing but not for


# CO gassing. But you know that.

Doctors supervised the gassings with CO in the "euthanasia" centers.

As for orderlies, their job was to watch over, help in getting


the victims into the gas chambers, etc. What difference does it
make if CO or HCN was used?

I mean, for God's sake, how stupid can you be?


-Danny Keren.


Daniel Keren

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

mgi...@aol.com (Mgiwer) writes:

# Why don't you do yourself a favor and take a few science
# courses so you have some idea what you are talking about
# before you attempt to defend these idiot claims?

That's pretty funny, coming from someone who proves here,
day after day, that he cannot handle highschool math.

Matt, the following was posted by a "revisionist" friend
of yours. Is it correct or not? It's highschool math, Matt.

# In particular, the probability that five out of eleven
# observed statistics will be multiples of six is
# 1/6^(11/(11/5)) = 1 in 7,776.

Spare us your lame evasions "it's impossible to prove
anything this way", bla-bla. Is his calculation of the
probability correct or not? YES OR NO? I have been
asking you this for about two weeks now.


-Danny Keren.


tom moran

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

>dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) writes:
>
>Two key points:

I agree, these are two "key" points.

>1) A scientific paper proves that it is very easy to tune a diesel
> so that its exhaust contains hardly any oxygen, and up to 6
> percent CO. This is much higher than the lethal concentration.
>
>("The Significance of Diesel-Exhaust-Gas Analysis", by


>J.C. Holtz and M.A. Elliot, Transactions of the ASME,

>Vol. 63, 1941, p. 97-105).

We could take the word of it saying the "lethal concentration" is
6%. You wouldn't know what percentage of CO is produced by a gasoline
engine is, would you Mr.Keren? I mean if it is higher, we are going to
have to ask some questions about why the Germans wouldn't have used
gasoline engines instead, which I think they did somewhere, sometime,
as the story has it.


>2) Another scientific paper proves that when animals were exposed
> to the exhaust of a tiny diesel engine (6 BHP) in a closed
> chamber, they died.
>
> ("The Toxicity of Fumes from a Diesel Engine Under Four Different
> Running Conditions", by Pattle et al., British Journal of
> Industrial Medicine, 1957, Vol 14, p. 47-55).

You wouldn't know how long they were subjected to the gas would
you Mr.Keren? And the size of the chamber? Two critical factors.

> Lastly, CO is not the only factor in causing death; lack of
> oxygen in the exhaust is another one, and so are other poisonous


> gases present in the exhaust, such as NO2.

This I have seen before, among more reliable non-Holocaust
sources. This NO2 and other dangerous compounds. This would be an
additional bonus thought for using CO over any Zyklon B pellets. The
multi whammy.

>
>-Danny Keren.
>


tom moran

unread,
Jan 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/7/97
to

>You ought to try reading it, zeyde, before you comment. Berg is one of
>your "revisionist" "scholars".

Zeyde doesn't fall all over the place when he hears or sees the
word "scholar". Zeyde has learned from Socrates that the word scholar
is but a word and would be prone to much discussion as to its ultimate
authority.

tom moran

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
>
># I take it you think CO is safer than HCN.
>
>No. Yet again, you prove that you cannot read plain
>English. I said that one of the "gas-vans" exploded
>in Chelmno. Using bottled CO would probably not result

>in an explosion, but that was an expensive method,
>which would require transporting these large, heavy
>CO containers over long distances.

Now he's on to a "exploded" thing. I believe the record would
show it is clear that we were talking about toxicity to humans.

># You may have another point here. He called up the guys at
># Treblinka and said he had some good stuff. He told them all
># about it. The guys at Treblinka said, 'Hey, wait a minute,
># we don't need all that gas mask, ladder, openers, rubber suits,
># hoses, buckets of coal, Doctors, SS orderlies, special training
># and such, all we need to do is start engine.
>
>The gas masks and specially trained staff were there anyway,
>as they were using the Zyklon for fumigation. Are you senile

>or something? We've been over this. The ladders? Wow, big


>problem there. Openers? To open the Zyklon-B cans? They were
>there anyway. Probably cost 50 cents each. Have you lost your
>wits completely? These are the arguments you can present?
>

>Hoses? They had to wash the gas chambers anyway, regardless
>of the gas being used. Doctors? Whether they were present or
>not did not depend on the gas being used; they were present
>in the "euthanasia" killings, when CO was used. Orderlies?
>What does that have to do with the type of gas being used?

With CO - start engine.

># Now could you point out along the way where it said anything
># about a killing anyone in two minutes. You ask how long it
># would take to fill the alleged chamber. The answer was
># two minutes.
>
>I have the Holtz-Elliot paper with me. A relatively large engine
>(226 cu. in) releases about 4,000 cu. feet of exhaust in an
>hour. So, it would take 4 hours to fill the large gas chambers.

How is it the victims in the report on CO poisonings came to be
overcome within 30 minutes, with such things as open doors and exhaust
fans running and a little few cubic inch engines?

># Oh you say CO works "much" slower than HCN?
>
>Yes. For it to kill as fast as HCN, you need a rather high
>concentration.
>

What are your figures?


>-Danny Keren.


Gord McFee

unread,
Jan 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/8/97
to

tom moran wrote:
>
> >You ought to try reading it, zeyde, before you comment. Berg is one of
> >your "revisionist" "scholars".
>
> Zeyde doesn't fall all over the place when he hears or sees the
> word "scholar". Zeyde has learned from Socrates that the word scholar
> is but a word and would be prone to much discussion as to its ultimate
> authority.

From Socrates?!! Zeyde, you're too much.

Michael P. Stein

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

In article <32d32094...@news.gte.net>,

Matt Giwer (mgi...@gte.net) under the name
Mad Max <Fre...@Speech.FORREAL> wrote:
>On 6 Jan 1997 19:36:51 -0500, mst...@access5.digex.net (Michael P.
>Stein) wrote in alt.revisionism:

>
>>In article <32cd4d91....@news.gte.net>,
>>Matt Giwer (mgi...@gte.net) under the name
>>Sammy Li <kava...@hong.kong> wrote:
>>> You should have stuck around. You missed a lot. For example
>>>you missed that the aerial photos show NO such buildings at IV and V
>>>in the first place.
>>
>> Kremas IV and V _were_ the buildings. One year after he arrived here,
>>and Matt Giwer still doesn't understand the layout of the camp or the
>>individual buildings. I remember him posting an aerial photo which shows
>>he thought that IV and V were in the middle of the women's camp. (IV and
>>V were not in that picture at all, actually.)
>
> You need to buy a program to keep up. LK III and IV said to be
>associated with KR IV and V do not exists on the aerial photos.

LK III and IV? As far as I know, the only person who has said that
they are associated with Kremas IV and V is the self-confessed liar Matt
Giwer. Perhaps he would care to produce a quote which shows otherwise?
But of course I know that I have a far greater chance of living to see the
heat death of the universe than living to see Matt Giwer provide
documentation to back up this claim about what other people have said.


> I reallly wish you folks would keep up wiht the conference.
>This constant correction of old misunderstandings does get tiring.

If Mr. Giwer is getting tired of having his old misunderstandings
corrected, he could stop posting until he learns to read and understand
what is posted. Of course that would mean he would never post again in
his life.

Michael P. Stein

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

In article <32cdf8fd....@news.gte.net>,

Matt Giwer (mgi...@gte.net) under the name
Doc Marten <hil...@sie.mir> wrote:
>On 4 Jan 1997 04:09:15 GMT, bra...@itsa.ucsf.edu (Brian Harmon) wrote
>in alt.revisionism:
>>Since Zyklon-B was in common use as a fumigant before
>>the gassings started, the camps already posessed all
>>the equipment they needed to handle it safely.
>
> You too??
>
> thought of an
> expedient new
> method based on the
> camp's own
> experience. The
> buildings, many of
> them former Polish
> army barracks, were
> full of insects, and the
> camp administration
> had previously
> brought in the
> Hamburg pesticide
> firm of Tesch and
> Stabenow to get rid
> of them.
> Two experts
> had fumigated
> particular buildings
> with a patented
> insecticide, Zyklon B,
>
> Fumigation was done by hired professionals. Don't you ever
>read the FAQ on Auschwitz prepared by Nizkook Kentral? Of course, the
>Nizkooks are lying but then you will have to call them that if you
>want your claim to be accepted.

Matt Giwer wears diapers.

How do I know this?

He wore diapers when he was an infant.

And it is a Giwer Rule that anyone who does something a certain way at
a particular time MUST continue to do it that way forever after.

Mark Van Alstine

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

In article <E3Mqo...@world.std.com>, dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
wrote:

Wait. It'll get worse, I'm sure....

Jamie McCarthy

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

DThomas,

It appears this must be one of the "matters in which [you] have both
interest and knowledge," which you told us on Dec. 11 that you would
consider debating.

I do hope you stick with this and see it through. I would hate to get
involved in a civil debate with you, and then have to watch the response
be silence, or changing the subject. That's very frustrating for me.

I'll go through your article point-by-point. Allow me to outline your
claims and my reply as follows:

* CAN DIESEL ENGINES KILL?
+ Is high carbon monoxide necessary?
+ Is a high fuel-air ratio possible?
- Would particulate exhaust ruin the engine?
- Would a load be required?
* WAS THERE ANYTHING BETTER?
+ Were gasoline engines better?
+ Was producer gas better?
* MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS
* SUMMARY

dvdt...@aol.com (DvdThomas) wrote:

> Jamie wrote:
>
> >Mr. Moran, we've been told by Fritz Berg and a handful of other
> >Holocaust-deniers, in this forum, that gassing with engine exhaust
> >was incredibly wasteful -- that there was a fuel shortage, that
> >it took precious oil to keep the engines running. They say why on
> >earth would precious diesel fuel be used to kill people when
> >German trucks were parked on the streets for lack of gas?
> >
> >Therefore, they say, the Holocaust never happened.
>
> I'll take your word that Berg said that

Thanks, it saves time :-)

> (and also take exception to your
> description of him as a "Holocaust-denier"),

Well, since you bring it up, I'll ask you the same question I
recently asked your colleague Richard Widmann.

Bradley Smith tells us, at <http://www.codoh.com/believe.html>:

For half a century the gas chambers have been at the heart of the
holocaust story. The two are absolutely inseperable. No gas
chambers, no holocaust. That's the equation.

My interpretation of "the two are absolutely inseparable; no gas
chambers, no Holocaust" is that to deny one is to deny the other. Thus,
strictly speaking, according to Smith -- since Berg denies the gas
chambers, he denies the Holocaust. Do you agree with my reasoning,
and if not why not?

> but it isn't and never was a
> factor in the main points he makes. Diesel engines are an extremely
> inefficient way to generate carbon monoxide.

Splendid! I'm pleased that you're taking an interest in the subject.

Now, let's take a look at the arguments you present.

CAN DIESEL ENGINES KILL?
========================

> Their normal operating
> characteristics just aren't conducive to its formation at lethal levels.

There's the first argument: the diesel engine must be run at a rich
fuel-air ratio, which was impossible.

The problem is that it's just not true.


Is high carbon monoxide necessary?
----------------------------------

Yes, running at a rich fuel-air ratio does indeed produce very toxic
exhaust. True, gasoline engines (as opposed to diesel engines) can
produce more carbon monoxide (CO). But, a diesel's oxygen output can
easily be reduced under 10%, which is rapidly fatal.

Furthermore, there are NxOx compounds that are very dangerous as well --
250 to 500 ppm of NO2 or N2O4 will do you in quickly. The specific NxOx
compounds weren't individually broken out and quantified in the sources
Berg cited for his paper, so he is not justified in ruling them out.
Also, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide have a synergistic effect;
while CO2 is not poisonous by itself, it exacerbates the effect of CO.
Berg does not take this into account. And, finally, the blistering heat
and choking smoke of the exhaust being pumped into the gas chambers
would not do the victims any good.

In fact, as Berg himself points out, some testimonies do indicate that
the victims were blue. This points toward suffocation from lack of
oxygen. It's also much easier to make a diesel produce low O2 than high
CO, so the whole argument about CO is largely a red herring.

Here's what Berg says on that:

If the Jews were not murdered with carbon monoxide from Diesel
exhaust, could they have died instead from the effects of reduced
oxygen in Diesel exhaust? Such a theory would at least be
consistent with the claim that the corpses were "blue." A bluish
coloring to certain parts of a corpse is indeed a symptom of death
from lack of oxygen.

If you keep reading, Berg goes further than merely saying that the
oxygen-deprivation theory is "consistent" with the blue color -- he says
that it is the _only_ possible theory:

[...] any possible death from Diesel exhaust would have been
due to lack of oxygen, which would in turn have caused a bluish
appearance of the corpse [...]

Since some witnesses' reports indicate a pink color, which in turn tends
to indicate CO poisoning, I'm not sure I'd state the case as strongly as
Berg does. But, for argument's sake, I'll grant that oxygen deprivation
is what we need to look most closely at, though it is surely not the
_only_ causative factor.

Thus granted, the question is: what fuel-air ratio must have been
achieved by the Nazis to kill by lack of oxygen? Again, the answer is
in Berg's own paper:

At full load, which corresponds to a fuel/air ratio of 0.055, the
oxygen concentration in the exhaust of any Diesel is 4%.

Berg also says that, below concentrations of about 6%, the victims
stop breathing, which, let's assume, means death. There's our answer --
a ratio of 0.055 or more is more than sufficient. Four percent oxygen
will kill quite effectively, by itself, with some room to spare.


Is a high fuel-air ratio possible?
----------------------------------

And achieving that high ratio is very easy. One simply has to rev the
engine up fairly high, so it doesn't stall, and block the air intake
with a piece of cardboard. (This was the method used by Pattle et al.
in their paper for the British Journal of Industrial Medicine.) Or
unscrew the fuel pump plunger a few turns, so it injects more fuel.
(This was the method used in the experiments cited in the Holtz-Elliot
paper which Berg himself used.)

It's not rocket science. We'll see more on this below.

But, you and Berg give two reasons why this simple method could not
have been used. Let's examine them.


Would particulate exhaust ruin the engine?
------------------------------------------

The first reason given is that particulates (solids) would ruin the
engine:

> A diesel engine would have to be operated at such a rich air/fuel ratio
> that there would be rapid buildup of solids in the cylinders which would
> ruin the engine. It isn't a lengthy process, it would occur within hours,
> or at most, days.

Well, no one will argue with you that running a very rich fuel-air
mixture is not _good_ for the engine.

But then, the Nazis didn't really care whether their engines broke down,
since they were scavenged (by most accounts) from Russian tanks.

The question is, how long would it take for this buildup of solids to
make the engine unusable?

Quantification is absolutely necessary here because we are dealing with
tiny amounts. According to Berg's own sources (Elliott-Davis, p. 345),
solid material is measured in grams per hour. And nearly all of that is
flowing right out the tailpipe. "...the quantities of material sticking
in an engine in the form of deposits amounts to possibly 0.0001% or
0.01% of the fuel burned. The 0.0001% figure corresponds to an engine
with a normal life while the 0.01% figure means short engine life due to
heavy deposits."

Their graph shows solid exhaust rising from a normal amount of around
1 gm/hr to somewhat under 20. Does this mean the engine life is reduced
by a factor of twenty? If the normal engine life expectancy is twenty
years, then did the Treblinka engines last...one year? That wouldn't
conflict with any of the information we have -- after all, "short engine
life" in the real world would mean a motor that breaks down after only
five years.

And, would routine maintenance on the engines -- simple cleaning --
improve the life expectancy? We don't know.

But! You say that engine breakdown "would occur within hours, or at
most, days." So presumably you have some quantification of how solid
buildup destroys an engine, and how this relates to the fuel-air ratio
used. This is exciting news, because I have yet to see any mention of
"hours, or at most, days" in any of the articles which I've read on the
subject over the past three years.

So I'd appreciate it if you could present this evidence. Thanks.


Would a load be required?
-------------------------

Your (and Berg's) second reason why the simple method of blocking the
air intake could not have been used is that the engine would have to be
loaded:

> In addition, the engine would have to be run at 80% to
> 100% of full load, rather a difficult thing to do for a stationary mounted
> unit. A dynamometer type loading device would have to be installed.
> There is again no record or mention of the presence of this large,
> expensive, and highly specialized item in any supply records, statements
> or testimonies.

There are several erroneous assumptions in this, the main one being that
a dynamometer would be required to brake an engine. Any mechanical
device which does work would suffice, of course, such as an electric
generator. No "expensive and highly specialized item" is required.
Berg, in fact, says this.

But the main error is simply that Berg is wrong. The engine need not be
run at full load if one wishes to tweak the fuel-air ratio by blocking
the air intake.

Let me repeat myself: Berg is wrong.

Now, if you would like to contact Berg and have him defend his thesis,
you are welcome to do so. Berg has already left alt.revisionism after
making some nasty comments about how ugly Jews were, so he might not be
happy to take your call. Then again, he might. Who can say?

How do I know Berg is wrong? I asked some questions of an acquaintance
who was involved for a time with the design and development of engines at
a British diesel engine manufacturing company. (I have been meaning to
make this available on the web earlier, and I shall do so as soon as I
find the time. I'll share his name and full qualifications as soon as I
obtain permission from him.)

I wrote to him. Among my questions was this comment, on page 5:

Berg makes the further claim that fuel/air ratio is directly
related to the load placed on the engine, and that diesel engines
canot be "tweaked" the same way gasoline engines can.

I then quoted Berg:

Please explain to me if you think you can, how you can run a
Diesel "rich" at part-load as well as at full-load? What do you
mean? I think you are simply confusing Diesel engines with
gasoline engines.

My source commented:

The claim on page 5 that fuel/air ratios cannot be altered is
incorrect. The fuel injected is under governor control, so is
linked to speed. Thus a small drop in engine speed, as load is
applied, will result in more fuel being injected to provide the
additional energy required.

However, it would be possible to alter the governor/fuel pump
relationship to produce an excess of fuel. The volume of fuel
injected for each engine power stroke is controlled by rotating
the fuel pump plunger which has a helical spill groove. This
controls the effective fuel pump stroke hence the volume of fuel
injected. The result of overfuelling would be an excess of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
exhaust smoke, i.e. high hydrocarbon emissions, together with
an increase in CO.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Berg is, quite simply, "incorrect."
Furthermore, Berg offers no credentials for himself as an engine
designer or technician. Nor does he have footnotes for his claim to me,
quoted above, nor for his assertion that loading the engine is the only
way to increase fuel/air ratios.

My source continues:

The injectors would soot up quite quickly. But for an engine
which is being run to the death (and for the death) the period
required to stop and clean injectors would not be a problem.
Neither would the internal condition of the engine give cause for
concern.

Here is one more thing which Berg has failed to take into account:
simply cleaning the injectors will alleviate his concern (and yours)
about excess smoke rendering the engine useless.

We have just seen that the two objections raised by you and Berg are
both invalid. The first is unquantified when quantification is
absolutely necessary. The second is based on an assertion by Berg which
is both unreferenced and false.

As my source says:

In short I do not believe that the engines were loaded -- let
alone overloaded. They could be overfuelled in the full speed -
no load state.

And, as Berg says:

At [...] a fuel/air ratio of 0.055, the oxygen concentration in
the exhaust of any Diesel is 4%.

Berg says that this corresponds to "full load," but as we have
seen, this is false. High fuel/air ratios can be attained at
"full speed - no load." Berg is wrong.

At this point I must ask you to reexamine your claim that there was
no lack of oxygen. You seem to disagree with these conclusions, but
you failed to present any evidence. What you did present was:

Lack of oxygen in diesel exhaust??? Daniel, you know as much about
engines as you do about other technical matters you attempt to
address. The limit approaches zero. And in your ignorance you
persist in braying out "liar" like a mantra. Jeez, get a clue guy.

Do you stand by these assertions, and if so, why?

WAS THERE ANYTHING BETTER?
==========================

So, now that we have shown that diesel engines are quite capable of
extinguishing human life, what arguments remain? Well, not much.
The only arguments left are that diesel would have been inefficient,
and that the ever-efficient Germans would have chosen something
better to kill people with.

This argument is very weak on its face. If something happened, it
happened, and there is no need for it to make sense. The Nazis did many
things which did not make sense. The slaughter of the Jews itself was
absurd. To claim that because some details were absurd, they therefore
did not happen, is ridiculous.

Even if one were to pretend for the sake of argument that not a single
Jew was deliberately murdered, just the mere roundup, transportation,
and incarceration of children and old people was senseless and highly
wasteful of resources. Yet even the revisionists admit this happened.

Furthermore, this argument is especially weak because the gas chambers
of Treblinka and the other Reinhard camps were _not_ the zenith of this
supposed German efficiency. Auschwitz holds that distinction, and at
Auschwitz, the more powerful poison in Zyklon-B was used. Diesel gas
chambers could have been improved upon -- and, tragically, were.


Were gasoline engines better?
-----------------------------

DThomas continues:

> Gasoline engines, on the other hand, are excellent sources of carbon
> monoxide, as evidenced by the frequency of suicides using automobile
> exhaust. Gasoline was also in short supply in wartime Germany,

An excellent reason, then, for not using gasoline engines!

Also, I understand that gasoline itself is more highly refined than
diesel fuel, so it would be cheaper and easier to use diesel engines
for that reason.


Was producer gas better?
------------------------

> a fact
> that caused them to invent and build a half-million or more "producer gas
> generators" which were small add-on modules that could be mounted on
> vehicles to provide fuel for their modified engines. This was done in
> great numbers to solve the problem of petroleum shortages. Producer gas
> powered vans, trucks and buses were a standard mode of transportation
> throughout Germany and occupied Europe and Russia.
>
> Wood chips were burned in a converter chamber whose output was a flammable
> mix of gases that contained high levels of carbon monoxide, 25% on the
> average (carbon monoxide is also flammable). This gas mix was lethal in
> its produced state and found limited use as a fumigant, probably for rats,
> not insects. The drawback of course is that it's also highly flammable,
> and in quantity, explosive.

Highly flammable, yes -- a fact which Berg mentions but does not
emphasize, because he also suggests that the producer-gas vehicles would
have been used to kill:

The gaswagons [...] would have been far superior for mass murder
to any conventionally powered vehicles [...]

The fact is that pumping producer gas into a room would turn it into a
giant Bic lighter. Carbon monoxide has an extremely large flammability
range: anywhere from 12 to 75%. And as Berg says:

The combustible gas produced in this way always contained between
18% and 35% carbon monoxide.

Why on earth would the Nazis have wanted something so flammable? And,
given that we've already shown that diesel engines would suffice, why
would they replace a solution that worked with one so dangerous?

> However, it is a simple matter to set such an
> engine so that its exhaust emits carbon monoxide in reduced but still
> deadly levels that would kill quickly without the risk of explosion.

You don't give references, and I'd like to hear how this gas could have
been used "without risk."

Ironically, one of the claims made in the Leuchter Report -- to which
your own web site offers a link! -- was that HCN was explosive and
therefore would have been too dangerous to use in the Kremas, near the
cremation furnaces:

The building is too damp and cold to utilize Zyklon B gas
effectively. The gas would have reached the ovens, and after
killing all the technicians, would have caused an explosion and
destroyed the building.

Leuchter says this about hydrocyanic gas, whose minimum explosive
concentration is TWO HUNDRED times greater than the toxic concentration.
By contrast, carbon monoxide is flammable at TWICE the same toxicity
level. (HCN: 56000/300 ppm for "a few minutes" by the Merck Index;
CO: 12/6.4 percent for "less than" 3.75 minutes by Berg's math.)

We needn't even mention how it's more dangerous to handle a gas which is
continually produced under pressure, as opposed to one that comes in
measured quantities from a can.

So, DThomas, may I ask what your reference was for the claim that this
gas "would kill quickly without the risk of explosion"?

> Given the ready availability of the producer gas vehicles and the fact
> that their operation required only ordinary wood chips, they would have
> been an obviously more practical choice than either of the other two types
> of engines or, for that matter, Zyklon-B.

True. Except for that little problem with turning buildings (and the
victims inside) into torches.

But since you raise the argument of practicality, you must remember that
the producer gas vehicles had an alternative use, as vehicles.
Meanwhile, there were hundreds of functional engines sitting in Soviet
tanks -- and foreign engines were not "plug-and-play" with any German
vehicles or machines, so they could serve little other use.

> Yet, aside from stories of
> field use of "killing vans" in which the alleged victims were placed in
> the back of such trucks for gassing in a limited area of the Eastern Front
> and one or two other locations, there is absolutely no mention of their
> use in camps for this purpose in the historical record. No mention in
> German records, and no claims by purported witnesses. (The former, by the
> way, would naturally be the case if there were no gassing chambers.)

If there were such testimonies, I suspect Leuchter and Berg would be the
first to criticize them because of the severe danger of explosion. (And
they'd be right to do so. Except no such impossible testimonies exist.
Too bad for the revisionists, I suppose.)

MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS
========================

> All
> you have is the diesel claim, which I understand is beginning to be
> revised to gasoline by some of the sanctioned historians, no doubt in
> quiet reaction to the improbability of a diesel being able to do what has
> been claimed.

Thank you for bringing this up.

You "understand" this to be true because Berg has told you so. But, as
Holocaust-deniers often do, Berg is hiding important facts in an attempt
to distort the historical record. It is vital that we look at exactly
how Berg distorts the truth, because I believe it casts his credibility
into serious question.

Berg claims that "several leading holocaust proponents" -- and he gives
six of them by name -- are trying to pull a fast one on their readers.
He says they are "taking great pains to drop the Diesel claim and
replace it with the view that the engines were not Diesels but
conventional gasoline engines which simply burned Diesel fuel."

Berg's sole evidence for this is a few pages in their book
_Nationalsozialistiche Massentoetungen durch Giftgas_, 1983, which was
translated into English as _Nazi Mass Murder_ in 1993.

In those pages, the editors quote part of the Gerstein statement. Just
as is done elsewhere in the book, they use only the parts they find
relevant and omit the rest. This is because the book is not just a
collection of documents: it is an edited work, and it attempts to
present somewhat of a narrative flow.

The editors used portions of, by my reckoning, the first half of the
statement -- about five hundred words -- where Gerstein describes his
arrival, then the Jews' arrival, at the Belzec camp. They omitted the
second half, in which Gerstein mostly described the murder operation
itself. Instead, they chose to use Professor Pfannenstiel's affidavit
to describe that, presumably for reasons of flow and so that the reader
would not suspect there was only one testimony concerning the gassing.

Now, it just so happens that the second half of Gerstein's statement
contained two references to the diesel engine, and one reference to
diesel oil being poured over the bodies. And, part of what was omitted
in the first half happened to mention the diesel engine as well.

Coincidence? Not to Berg. He is convinced that this 1983 book contains
the seeds of a great conspiracy to remove the "inconvenient" diesel
engines from history and substitute gasoline engines instead!

Now, keep in mind that the editors never state what type of engine was
used -- because, to most people, this is an insignificant detail. And
also note that Pfannenstiel's testimony, which rounds out the account of
the gassings, specifically says:

Der Motor selbst befand sich nicht in einem besonderen Raum,
sondern stand offen etwas erhoeht auf einem Podium. Er wurde mit
Dieselkraftstoff betrieben.

Or, in the English translation (_Nazi Mass Murder_, Kogon et al., 1993,
p. 130):

The engine itself was not in a separate room but stood in the open,
raised on a platform. It was a diesel engine.

It is true that Pfannenstiel's description, "Er wurde mit
Dieselkraftstoff betrieben," means literally "it ran on diesel fuel."
This is obviously just a way of saying "it was a diesel engine."
Suppose I told you, "I once had a Volvo that ran on diesel" -- would it
ever cross your mind that I was trying to fool you into thinking I
really put diesel fuel into a regular gasoline engine!?

Of course not. And if the editors really were trying to pull a fast one
on the world -- if they were taking great pains to start a massive
campaign to "revise" history and replace diesel by gasoline, they
obviously would not have allowed that sentence to be translated:
"it was a diesel engine"!

Not to mention the other places in the book where diesel engines are
mentioned quite explicitly. See p. 163 in the German edition.

But, now that you know the whole story, read Berg's description of this
supposed conspiracy:

Several leading holocaust proponents are now taking great pains to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
drop the Diesel claim and replace it with the view that the
engines were not Diesels but conventional gasoline engines which
simply burned Diesel fuel, presumably to make the engines more
deadly than if they had only burned regular gasoline. This
amazing transformation has appeared in a recent book in Germany
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
entitled Nationalsozialistiche Massentoetungen durch Giftgas. ^34
The book was a joint project of 24 of the most eminent scholars on
the subject, including such notables as Eugen Kogon, Hermann
Langbeing, Adalbert Rueckerl, Gideon Hausner, Germaine Tillion and
Georges Wellers. The book represents the current state of the art
of holocaust mythomania and has already been recommended by the
World Jewish Congress in London. ^35 The new, "revised" version
of the holocaust says, in effect, that Gerstein and the others
were mistaken when they had claimed that Diesels were used to kill
Jews at Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. The claim now is that
gasoline engines were used. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This last sentence is an invention. This "claim" is simply not made.

Berg continues:

The clumsy juggling of evidence which characterizes this book is
exemplified by the fact that although the Gerstein statement
refers to diesel engines four times, the portion of the Gerstein
statement which is quoted in this supposedly definitive rebuttal
of the revisionists does not mention Diesels at all, nor does it
even describe the alleged killing process. ^36 For a description
of the killing process that Gerstein supposedly witnessed, the
book gives a piece of postwar testimony by Dr. Pfannenstiel in
which there is also no mention of the use of Diesels, but only of
the use of Diesel fuel in the engine. How one could possibly have
operated a gasoline engine with Diesel fuel is, of course, left to
the imagination.

Whose imagination? No one was asked to imagine this, because the book
never said any such thing.

The impact on Berg's credibility is, I think, obvious.

> And, yes, I know of the report from a British medical journal in the
> fifties in which several animals were killed with diesel exhaust in a
> scantily documented experiment. All that proves is that it is, as stated
> earlier here and elsewhere by Berg, marginally possible to push a diesel
> to its limits and achieve lethal levels of CO in its exhaust *FOR A VERY
> SHORT PERIOD OF TIME*, something I do not recall the report addressing.

Again, a total lack of quantification, where quantification is
desperately needed. The report fails to support your point that the
engines self-destructed after "hours, or at most, days."

Because this effect was not mentioned, DThomas, you assert again that it
must be "*A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME*." I don't believe a nonmention
of something is evidence that it must be true.

CONCLUSION
==========

I should point out that, because historians have already established
the facts about the killing at the Reinhard camps, the burden of proof
is on Berg (and you) to demonstrate that they could not have occurred.
To be proper skeptics, we must carefully consider the issues which Berg
raises -- but we must also insist that this heavy burden be met. That
means quantification of his claims. Berg has done an admirable job of
providing numbers in his original article, but unfortunately, he was
wrong on several key assumptions, rendering his work useless. Now, if
he (and you) intend to continue to defend his claim, which I assume is
the case, we must still insist that quantification be given wherever
necessary.

This article will be HTML'ized with footnotes to sources and URLs,
hopefully within the next week or two. I'll post a followup to this
thread when that's done.

Meanwhile, DThomas, I would like to see your evidence for your claim
that running very rich would render an engine useless in "hours, or at
most, days." Ideally it would consider the case of the injectors being
cleaned, perhaps on a regular basis.

I'd also like you to expound on what you mean by this:

it is a simple matter to set [a producer gas] engine so that its
exhaust emits carbon monoxide in reduced but still deadly levels
that would kill quickly without the risk of explosion.

What's that simple technique?

Finally, if you see fit, a comment on the term "Holocaust-denier," in
the context of what Smith said, would be appreciated. I know it's off
topic; I apologize and promise never to do it again. ;-)

Posted; not emailed by DThomas's previous request.
--
Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
ja...@voyager.net Co-Webmaster of http://www.nizkor.org/

Richard J. Green

unread,
Jan 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/9/97
to

In article <32d3597...@199.0.216.204>,
tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:

> We could take the word of it saying the "lethal concentration" is
>6%.

Dr. Keren said that 6% is much more than the lethal concentration.


M A T E R I A L S A F E T Y D A T A S H E E T
CARBON MONOXIDE (SGP)

================================================================================
SECTION I - Product Identification
================================================================================
PRODUCT NAME: CARBON MONOXIDE (SGP)
FORMULA: N/A
FORMULA WT: N/A
COMMON SYNONYMS: N/A

================================================================================
SECTION II - Hazardous Components
================================================================================
NONE LISTED
================================================================================
SECTION III - Physical Data
================================================================================
BOILING POINT: -312.7F VAPOR PRESSURE(MM HG): N/A
MELTING POINT: N/A VAPOR DENSITY(AIR=1): 0.97
SPECIFIC GRAVITY: N/A EVAPORATION RATE: NA
(H20=1) (BUTYL ACETATE=1)
SOLUBILITY(H20): N/A % VOLATILES BY VOLUME: 100
APPEARANCE & ODOR: COLORLESS GAS W/NO ODOR.
================================================================================
SECTION IV - Fire and Explosion Hazard Data
================================================================================
FLAMMABILITY CLASSIFICATION: UNKN
FLASH POINT: FLAM
FLAMMABLE LIMITS: UPPER - 74.0 % LOWER - 12.5 %
FIRE EXTINGUISHING MEDIA
CO2/DRY CHEMICAL/WATER SPRAY
SPECIAL FIRE-FIGHTING PROCEDURES
SELF CONTAIN BREATH APP W/FULL FACEPIECE OPER IN PRESS DEMAND/OTHER POSIT
PRESS MODE;COOL CONTAINER W/WATER SPRAY AT MAX DISTANCE
UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS:
MAY FORM EXPLOSIVE MIX W/AIR/OXYGEN/ALL OXIDIZING AGENTS;ELIMINATE SOURCES
OF IGNITION;DON'T EXTING FLAMES;ALLOW FIRE TO BURN UNDER CONTROL
================================================================================
SECTION V - Health Hazard Data
================================================================================
EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE:
TOXIC & FATAL IN CONCENTRATIONS OF 0.4% IN AIR IN LESS THAN ONE HR EXPOSURE
MEDICAL CONDITIONS PRONE TO AGGRAVATION BY EXPOSURE:
NONE
PRIMARY ROUTE(S) OF ENTRY: INHALE
EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURES:
INHALE/FRESH AIR STAT/THEN ADMIN PURE OXY W/7-10% CARBON DIOXIDE-CALL DR STAT
================================================================================
SECTION VI - Reactivity Data
================================================================================
STABILITY: STABLE HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: WILL NOT OCCUR
CONDITIONS TO AVOID: NA
INCOMPATIBLES: NONE
DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: NONE
================================================================================
SECTION VII - Spill and Disposal Procedures
================================================================================
DISPOSAL PROCEDURE:
CONTACT SUPPLIER FOR INSTRUCTIONS
OTHER PRECAUTIONS:
EMPTY CONTAINER MAY BE HAZARDOUS;OBSERVE ALL PRECAUTIONS
================================================================================
SECTION VIII - Protective Equipment
================================================================================
VENTILATION:
GENERAL MECHANICAL/LOCAL EXHAUST
RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: NIOSH/MSHA APPROV AIR RESP IF NEC
EYE PROTECTION: CHEMICAL SPLASH GOGGLES/SAFETY GLASSES
SKIN PROTECTION: RESISTANT
OTHER EQUIPMENT: SAFETY SHOES
HYGIENIC PRACTICES: NONE
================================================================================
SECTION IX - Storage and Handling Precautions
================================================================================
SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS:
AWAY FROM IGNIT SOURCES;USE CARBON MONOXIDE MONITOR AT ALL TIMES
================================================================================
SECTION X - Transportation Data and Additional Information
================================================================================
N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(TM) and (R) : Registered Trademarks
N/A = Not Applicable OR Not Available
The information published in this Material Safety Data Sheet has been compiled
from our experience and data presented in various technical publications. It is
the user's responsibility to determine the suitability of this information for
adoption of necessary safety precautions. We reserve the right to revise
Material Safety Data Sheets periodically as new information becomes available.
Copyright by Manufacturer
LICENSE GRANTED TO MAKE UNLIMITED COPIES FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
r...@lyman.Stanford.EDU Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080

Gord McFee

unread,
Jan 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/10/97
to

DvdThomas wrote:
>
> Jamie McCarthy writes:

[deleted]

>
> (2) A stylized version of (1) which includes as much emotional content as
> it does factual, and attempts to focus on the mystery and evil of events
> in a near mystic way. It has become a quasi-religious body of fact and
> conjecture which was dubbed The Holocaust in fairly recent times. I
> believe that "holocaust" is a word used to distinguish between ordinary
> burnt offerings to G-d which are only partly consumed by the fire (and
> presumably utilized for food afterward) and those offered for more
> important occasions, which are consumed entirely by the fire. The
> connection appears to be the bodies of gassing victims being consumed
> completely by the fires of the Krema, this equating to a holocaust
> offering to G-d. (I am intending my spelling of that last word to be
> respectful of common useage by religious adherents. If I err, correction
> would be appreciated. Knowledge of religious practices isn't one of my
> long suits either.)

A correction would be appreciated. To write it G-d implies that the
usage in this newsgroup follows some Jewish convention. That is wrong
and ill-advised for a multitude of reasons. You and I both know that
the huge majority of believers in a supreme being refer to him as God,
and not as G-d.

DvdThomas

unread,
Jan 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/10/97
to

Jamie McCarthy writes:

>DThomas,
>
>It appears this must be one of the "matters in which [you] have both
>interest and knowledge," which you told us on Dec. 11 that you would
>consider debating.

That's a too large first mouthful, let me clarify it a bit. I have an
interest in the subject of gassings, some knowledge of the chemistry and
mechanics involved, but no depth of knowledge about diesels. As you
clearly note in your response to my comments to Dan Keren, I relied
largely on information from writings by Fritz Berg. You present lengthy
refutations to those which I will try to address, but not in the same
scope as your large post. Some points I'm going to be able to reply to
quickly, others will require some research, and this will determine the
order of address.

>I do hope you stick with this and see it through. I would hate to get
>involved in a civil debate with you, and then have to watch the response
>be silence, or changing the subject. That's very frustrating for me.

Well that's mighty white of you, and I'll see what I can do to not let you
down, given the sacrifice involved in being civil. :-) Which you are, by
the way, except for the comment noted. I respect your effort in this
regard and will respond accordingly.

>> (and also take exception to your
>> description of him as a "Holocaust-denier"),
>
>Well, since you bring it up, I'll ask you the same question I
>recently asked your colleague Richard Widmann.
>
>Bradley Smith tells us, at <http://www.codoh.com/believe.html>:
>
> For half a century the gas chambers have been at the heart of the
> holocaust story. The two are absolutely inseperable. No gas
> chambers, no holocaust. That's the equation.
>
>My interpretation of "the two are absolutely inseparable; no gas
>chambers, no Holocaust" is that to deny one is to deny the other. Thus,
>strictly speaking, according to Smith -- since Berg denies the gas
>chambers, he denies the Holocaust. Do you agree with my reasoning,
>and if not why not?

This area is a semantic game. Here are some of the elements involved:

(1) The facts and reasonable conclusions based on them which describe
what we know and can know regarding the treatment of Jewish captives by
the government of the Third Reich. By this I mean the historical record,
which is incomplete in many areas.

(2) A stylized version of (1) which includes as much emotional content as
it does factual, and attempts to focus on the mystery and evil of events
in a near mystic way. It has become a quasi-religious body of fact and
conjecture which was dubbed The Holocaust in fairly recent times. I
believe that "holocaust" is a word used to distinguish between ordinary
burnt offerings to G-d which are only partly consumed by the fire (and
presumably utilized for food afterward) and those offered for more
important occasions, which are consumed entirely by the fire. The
connection appears to be the bodies of gassing victims being consumed
completely by the fires of the Krema, this equating to a holocaust
offering to G-d. (I am intending my spelling of that last word to be
respectful of common useage by religious adherents. If I err, correction
would be appreciated. Knowledge of religious practices isn't one of my
long suits either.)

Attempted discussions of the historical record as described in (1), which
contain no degree of controversy for most other topics, are almost always
immediately characterized by detractors as involving (2), and a great deal
of controversy enters the picture. This is because the context of a valid
discussion of facts, their accuracy and interpretations, is converted to
an issue of challenging elements of a religious belief. Logic and faith
are not resolvable, by definition, and endless argument and emotional
reactions are the inevitable outcome of attempts to do so.

(Just hit the size limit, have to continue this as a Part 2)

Sincerely,
David

Elothem

unread,
Jan 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/11/97
to

On 9 Jan 1997 16:04:47 -0800, r...@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J.
Green) wrote in alt.revisionism:

>In article <32d3597...@199.0.216.204>,
>tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>
>> We could take the word of it saying the "lethal concentration" is
>>6%.
>
>Dr. Keren said that 6% is much more than the lethal concentration.
>
>

> M A T E R I A L S A F E T Y D A T A S H E E T

> CARBON MONOXIDE (SGP)

>Material Safety Data Sheets periodically as new information becomes available.

>Copyright by Manufacturer

>LICENSE GRANTED TO MAKE UNLIMITED COPIES FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

>by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

Usenet is not internal use. Please cancel all copies of this
immediately.

=====

The URL, the mail drop, and the synagogue phone numbers

Miloslav Bilik

unread,
Jan 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/11/97
to

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 07:10:36 GMT, g...@hyphenated.com (Elothem) wrote:

>On 9 Jan 1997 16:04:47 -0800, r...@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J.
>Green) wrote in alt.revisionism:
>

>>Material Safety Data Sheets periodically as new information becomes available.
>
>>Copyright by Manufacturer
>
>>LICENSE GRANTED TO MAKE UNLIMITED COPIES FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
>
>>by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
>

> Usenet is not internal use. Please cancel all copies of this
>immediately.

Well. Another source, quotable for external use (Rose & Rose):

With an exposure of 50 mn:

%CO %HbCO
0.02% 5%
0.05% 13%
0.10% 22%
0.20% 38%

(66% HbCO is commonly considered as lethal).


Richard J. Green

unread,
Jan 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/11/97
to

In article <32d7eef1...@news.sprynet.com>,
Miloslav Bilik <10064...@compuserve.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jan 1997 07:10:36 GMT, g...@hyphenated.com (Elothem) wrote:

>>>Copyright by Manufacturer
>>
>>>LICENSE GRANTED TO MAKE UNLIMITED COPIES FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
>>
>>>by OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
>>

>> Usenet is not internal use. Please cancel all copies of this
>>immediately.

The individual quoted by Mr. Bilik is correct for once. I have
cancelled the article.

Regards,

Rich Green

DvdThomas

unread,
Jan 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/11/97
to

Gord McFee wrote:

>A correction would be appreciated. To write it G-d implies that the
>usage in this newsgroup follows some Jewish convention. That is wrong
>and ill-advised for a multitude of reasons. You and I both know that
>the huge majority of believers in a supreme being refer to him as God,
>and not as G-d.

Thanks for the comments, I thought maybe it was between unnecessary and
silly at the time, but I don't write much about religious practices of any
sort and figured I'd err on the side of courtesy. Don't know what
correction could be done other than to acknowledge inputs such as yours
and go with a consensus, if there is one. Minor matter anyway, I suppose
(was that flash outside lightning? on a clear night??).

David

Jamie McCarthy

unread,
Jan 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/14/97
to

r...@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:

> tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>
> >We could take the word of it saying the "lethal concentration" is 6%.
>
> Dr. Keren said that 6% is much more than the lethal concentration.

[quoting from Material Safety Data Sheet]

> EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE:
>
> TOXIC & FATAL IN CONCENTRATIONS OF 0.4% IN AIR IN LESS THAN
> ONE HR EXPOSURE

Friedrich Berg claims (dubiously in my opinion) that as concentration of
a toxic gas doubles, lethality time is halved. By Berg's math, then,

0.4% - fatal in less than one hour
0.8% - fatal in less than 30 minutes
1.6% - fatal in less than 15 minutes
3.2% - fatal in less than 7.5 minutes
6.4% - fatal in less than 3.75 minutes

Since a commonly-referred-to concentration of HCN, the gas released from
Zyklon-B, is the 300 ppm level, at which it is fatal in "a few minutes"
according to the Merck Index, it may be useful to know how concentrated
CO would have to be to kill as quickly.

As I say, I doubt Berg's claim that the relationship is linear -- I
think it's obviously folly to take it too far. But that's how the
numbers come out in this case. I used the above reasoning in my article
headed "DThomas's comments on diesel -- analysis," but I didn't show my
work, preferring to just call it "Berg's math." :-)

Posted/emailed.

Allen Quatermain

unread,
Jan 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/14/97
to

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 03:59:32 -0500, ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
wrote in alt.revisionism:

>r...@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>> tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >We could take the word of it saying the "lethal concentration" is 6%.
>>
>> Dr. Keren said that 6% is much more than the lethal concentration.
>

>[quoting from Material Safety Data Sheet]
>

>> EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE:
>>
>> TOXIC & FATAL IN CONCENTRATIONS OF 0.4% IN AIR IN LESS THAN
>> ONE HR EXPOSURE
>

>Friedrich Berg claims (dubiously in my opinion) that as concentration of
>a toxic gas doubles, lethality time is halved. By Berg's math, then,
>
>0.4% - fatal in less than one hour
>0.8% - fatal in less than 30 minutes
>1.6% - fatal in less than 15 minutes
>3.2% - fatal in less than 7.5 minutes
>6.4% - fatal in less than 3.75 minutes
>
>Since a commonly-referred-to concentration of HCN, the gas released from
>Zyklon-B, is the 300 ppm level, at which it is fatal in "a few minutes"
>according to the Merck Index, it may be useful to know how concentrated
>CO would have to be to kill as quickly.

When are you folks going to admit to reality and accept that
the concentration, when it comes from exhaust NEVER increases beyond
what is in the exhaust? When are you folks going to admit that a room
would only rise to the amount of the exhaust exponentially but never
get any higher?
=====
"Greed is good." -- Ivan Boesky, but is sounds better in
the original Yiddish.

Richard J. Green

unread,
Jan 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/14/97
to Jamie McCarthy, Richard J. Green, dke...@cs.brown.edu

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Jamie McCarthy wrote:

Friedrich Berg claims (dubiously in my opinion) that as concentration of
a toxic gas doubles, lethality time is halved. By Berg's math, then,

0.4% - fatal in less than one hour
0.8% - fatal in less than 30 minutes
1.6% - fatal in less than 15 minutes
3.2% - fatal in less than 7.5 minutes
6.4% - fatal in less than 3.75 minutes

I have another source that may shed some light if anyone can decode the
abbreviations (Dr. Bilik?). Since my tax dollars helped write this one,
I'll assume I can repost it.

Posted/e-mailed.

Rich Green

OSHA Chemicals>> Carbon Monoxide

NM Carbon Monoxide
SYN CO; Diesel Exhaust Component
IMIS 0560
CAS 630-08-0
NIOSH RTECS FG3500000
DOT 1016 18
DESC Colorless, odorless gas.
MW: 28 BP: -313 F VP: >1 atm MP: -326
F
INCOM Strong oxidizers
OSHA 50 ppm, 55 mg/m3
TLV 25 ppm, 29 mg/m3 TWA
REL 35 ppm 8 hr TWA; 200 ppm Ceiling
SYMP T Headaches; tachypnea; nausea; weakness, dizziness, confusion,
halucinations; cyanosis; depressed, ST segment of electrocardiogram;
angina; syncope
HLTH Asphyxiation, Chemical anoxia (HE17)
ORG CVS, lungs, blood, CNS
SLC1 MEDIA: Direct Reading Passive Monitor (Draeger Datalogger, 0-999ppm)
MAX T: 480 minutes
ANL 1: Direct Reading
. REF: 2 (OSHA ID-209) SAE: 0.07 CLASS: Fully Validated
MEDIA: Five Layer Aluminized Gas Sampling Bag (5 Liter)
MAX V: 5.0 Liters MAX F: 0.05 L/Min (TWA)
ANL 1: Gas Chromatography; GC/DID
REF: 2 (OSHA ID-210) SAE: 0.04 CLASS: Fully Validated
SAM2 DET. TUBE Available from OSHA Cincinnati Lab: Carbon
. Monoxide 4-1La
DET. TUBE (low): Kitagawa, 106S, 10-250 ppm
. Sensidyne, 1La, 8-1000 ppm
. Kitagawa, 100, 5-1000 ppm
. Kitagawa, 106SA, 5-1000 ppm
DET. TUBE (high):Draeger, CH20601, 10-3000 ppm
. MSA, 487334, 10-3000 ppm
. Sensidyne, 1L, 5-2000 ppm
. Kitagawa, 106SH, 0.1-0.2%
MIRAN 1A &and; 1B: MIN. Det. Con. 2.1 ppm at 4.7 um
MIRAN 103: Range 100 ppm at 4.61 um
WIPE No
DIV I
BRANCH SE
.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
r...@lyman.Stanford.EDU Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080

"We was making trouble for the VFD (That's the volunteer fire
department)." -Michelle Shocked


Michael P. Stein

unread,
Jan 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/23/97
to

In article <32dbde0b...@news.gte.net>,
Matt Giwer (mgi...@gte.net) under then name

Allen Quatermain <a...@miskatonic.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jan 1997 03:59:32 -0500, ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
>wrote in alt.revisionism:
[snip]

>>Friedrich Berg claims (dubiously in my opinion) that as concentration of
>>a toxic gas doubles, lethality time is halved. By Berg's math, then,
>>
>>0.4% - fatal in less than one hour
>>0.8% - fatal in less than 30 minutes
>>1.6% - fatal in less than 15 minutes
>>3.2% - fatal in less than 7.5 minutes
>>6.4% - fatal in less than 3.75 minutes
>>

>>Since a commonly-referred-to concentration of HCN, the gas released from
>>Zyklon-B, is the 300 ppm level, at which it is fatal in "a few minutes"
>>according to the Merck Index, it may be useful to know how concentrated
>>CO would have to be to kill as quickly.
>
> When are you folks going to admit to reality and accept that
>the concentration, when it comes from exhaust NEVER increases beyond
>what is in the exhaust?

When are you going to learn to read, Matt? Jamie never said anything
different.

0 new messages