Zyklone B - Unlikely Agent
tom moran
Paint One Door, Throw the Rest Away". It is now being reposted in
regards to professor Keren's calling Moran a liar in another current
post "Cyanide Traces at Auschwitz Today".
The following post was first initiated by this exchange
between Greg Raven and Professor Keren.
Raven: Because Zyklon B is specifically designed to gas off slowly, it
is obvious a poor choice for a homicidal gassing.
Professor: It's amazing to see that Raven continues with this rubbish,
no matter how many times he is corrected.
Even "revisionist chemist" Germar Rudolph stated that about
40 percent of the HCN is released within half-an-hour. All the
SS had to do was to use, in the gas chambers, a concentration
comparable to that used for delousing. Since humans die
quickly from a far smaller concentration, much less than 40
percent would have to gas off in order to kill them.
Moreover, Dr. Ulrich Roessler did what our "revisionist scholars"
were too lazy to do for the last 20 years: he located the
original patent for Zyklon-B, which states that the rate of release
is even faster than what Rudolph gave.
Raven: To claim that you could scatter same Zyklon B in a huge room
and within a few minutes have murdered the hundreds of people inside
the room, flies in the face of the facts.
Professor: The above clearly refutes this silly statement by Raven,
but have no fear, he will keep repeating it in the future. After
all, he is a "revisionist scholar".
---------------
Lets see. Raven says that Zyclone B is made to gas off slowly
and thus would be a poor choice for the mass extermination of human
beings under the conditions alleged.
Karen responds with some material that he concludes "clearly
refutes" Raven's "rubbish".
The summary of the pertinent refuting information offered by
Keren is:
1. 40% of the HCN escapes the storing medium in the first half hour.
2. Humans die quickly from much less concentration, so much less than
40% would have to gas off.
3. That recently discovered patents to Zyclone B show that the gas off
is even faster.
The points given do not offer sufficient parameters for
demonstrating that Zyclone B is an efficient product for mass
extermination, such as how much is needed, in what volume and for how
long.
Regardless of how fast the HCN evaporates into the existing
air, it has nothing to do with the necessary volume/quantity/air borne
level/time factors, only giving evaporation rate for the first 1/2
hour. You cannot deduce the most critical factors from the information
that Keren has supplied.
As it turns out Kerens refuting material tends to support the
idea that Zyclone B is an inappropriate product for mass human
extermination.
Since no numerical difference is cited between the 40%, and
the "even faster" gassing rate for Zyclone B in the first 1/2 hour, we
are left with an indefinite.
Lets make it 50%, in the first half hour. This would come out
to about 1.6% of 50% per minute being gassed off in this time. We
could recognize that the rate of evaporation would be even quicker
from the time the can was opened in the first few minutes, gradiating
off as time went on. Lets make it 2.5% of 50% is gassed off for every
minute, giving the Holocaust position the benefit of the numerical
increase.
The popular times given for the extermination process are from
5 to 10 minutes. Giving the Holocaust position the benefit of the
numerical numbers, lets make it 10 minutes.
Putting the figures together we come out needing only 33% of
50%, or more precisely, 15% of the readily used product to attain the
goal of mass extermination in the time frame claimed.
Right here we can see that the product is inefficient for
short term application. Only 15% is used for the intended purpose with
the other 85% being useless - wasted - lingering, left over to
complicate the ventilation of the chamber, the unloading of the bodies
and the preparation for the new batch.
This alone shows that Zyclone B would have been a poor choice
for mass extermination and further suggests that the product itself
was not designed for the purpose.
Not giving the Holocaust story any accomodation of numbers in
their favor the amount of Zyclone B that would be used to attain the
goal would be - 8 percent - leaving 92 percent as useless, wasted,
lingering, left over to complicate the ventilation of the chambers,
the removal of bodies and the preparation for the next group.
In a report by the Polish government on studies done to detect
any chemical traces at Auschwitz today, they state that the fumigation
process would take twenty four hours "and even longer". This would
show that Zyklone B was designed for slow extended release in order to
maintain a level of the agent in the chambers atmosphere.
Obviously there has not been any real effort put into
revealing the evaporation rate of the agent from it's pellet format.
All we have is what Professor Keren has put forth here, 40 to 50
percent in the first half hour. It seems that it should be a whole lot
less, considering that the agent was designed to maintain a release
over a 24 hour period. Who knows, maybe it is more like 5, 10 or 15
percent in the first half hour. Certainly the evaporation would be
stronger in the very beginning, but 40 to 50 percent seems be an
excessive estimate. The professor did not include any citation from
formal experimentation. If it was say 20%, this would make the actual
amount used during any 5 minute gassing procedure only .66% every
minute, thus making the total use in 5 minutes 3.3%, leaving 96.4% not
used. Just think if it was only 10% in the first half hour? 1.6% used,
and 98.4% not used. After all, it was designed for slow release to
maintain the agents presence in the atmosphere of the structure and
its contents over a extended period of time, 24 hours or even longer
by Polish government accounts.
This article was first posted a few months ago. I brought
immediate raving response from the professor and others. The professor
immediately came back with:
Professor: And your source for the "15%" figure is? You have already
proved to the readers of this newsgroup that you cannot handle basic
arithmetic; maybe you should check your calculations again?
The professor didn't find it necessary to correct the basic
arithmetic.
He also had this to say:
Professor: It obviously wasn't invented for killing people. It was
invented long before the war to be used for fumigation. It just
happens that it also proved to be useful for other purposes. This is
because it releases the deadly gas HCN, which is still used in
homicidal gas chambers in US prisons.
Actually the process for gassing in chambers of execution is
KCN potassium cyanide, dropped into a container of acid, that releases
the cyanide in the form HCN.
HCN can come in a liquid form. If a liquid was used for any
alleged exterminations, it would have been way more
time/cost/efficiency efficient. But no, "It just happens that it also
proved to be useful for other purposes" says the professor.
But then, it just so happens that it was on the premises for
other purposes. It just so happens it was just laying around. It just
so happens, if it wasn't just laying around, there would have been
nothing around to identify as the agent of mass extermination by
gassing. If the Soviet investigators had found cans of RAID, BLACK
FLAG or boxes of moth balls, this would have been the agent of mass
extermination.
Daniel Keren
You sure can say in 5,000 words what everyone else would say
in a 100 words, Moran.
# Right here we can see that the product is inefficient for
# short term application. Only 15% is used for the intended
# purpose with the other 85% being useless - wasted - lingering,
# left over to complicate the ventilation of the chamber, the
# unloading of the bodies and the preparation for the new batch.
You don't know, of course, that it was 85%. It was probably
far less, more so because of the high temperatures in the
gas chambers, which cause an even faster release of the HCN.
Moreover, the problem of the remaining Zyklon was solved in
Kremas II and III by removing it via the same devices used to
introduce it. In other gas chambers, we have testimonies
of the sonderkommando using gas masks. But, of course, we've
been through this before.
And, the question is, what would *you* have used for mass murder?
The SS wanted something cheap, available, easy to transport
and store. They also wanted something they were familiar with.
Zyklon filled all these requirements.
# All we have is what Professor Keren has put forth here, 40 to 50
# percent in the first half hour. It seems that it should be a whole
# lot less, considering that the agent was designed to maintain
# a release over a 24 hour period.
Says who? Who said it was designed to maintain such a slow release?
Who said it? Raven? Doesn't count. Do you have a technical source?
What you're saying is that even your fellow revisionazis are
lying about the rate of release. So, you must have a hard source.
Where is it?
# HCN can come in a liquid form. If a liquid was used for any
# alleged exterminations, it would have been way more
# time/cost/efficiency efficient.
You base this on your assertions on the rate of release from
Zyklon. But you don't seem to be able to offer any source
for these assertions. Re the liquid: is it easy to manufacture?
To transport? To store? Were there facilities to produce it in
large quantities, as there were for Zyklon?
-Danny Keren.
--
Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.
-Lu Xun.
Richard J. Green
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Green Department of Chemistry, Stanford CA 94303-5080
r...@lyman.Stanford.EDU http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
tom moran
What we have here thus far is Moran's post with some
arithmetic founded on numbers professor Keren himself gave and the
professor's response - sans any mathematical contradiction. During the
first post of this topic professor Keren responded: "And your source
for the '"15%"' figure is? You have already proved to the readers of
this newsgroup that you cannot handle basic arithmatic".
The professor did not take it any further with a mathematical
contradiction.
Moran stands pat. We have Moran's mathematics and professor
Keren's childish reply.
Daniel Keren
You claimed Zyklon gasses off very slowly, over a 24-hour period.
This contradicts not only what I posted, but also what
your fellow revisionazis now claim.
So what is your source? You *do* have a source for your claim,
right?
I don't mean your speculations. I mean hard technical source;
for instance, a manual, a chemistry book, etc.
Keith Morrison
>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>
> What we have here thus far is Moran's post with some
>arithmetic founded on numbers professor Keren himself gave and the
>professor's response - sans any mathematical contradiction. During the
>for the '"15%"' figure is? You have already proved to the readers of
> The professor did not take it any further with a mathematical
>contradiction.
>
> Moran stands pat. We have Moran's mathematics and professor
>Keren's childish reply.
Now *that's* a reliable source. Now, Tom, will you please explain
by what mathematical process 8000 square miles, converted into
square feet, divided by 200 million equals 2 square feet when my
calculator indicates the answer is about 1100 square feet, to whit a
difference of 55 000 %.
I'm sure that the spectators would love to see exactly how MoranMath
works.
--
Keith Morrison
t0...@unb.ca
tom moran
>Sigh. Moran, I asked you a simple question.
>
>You claimed Zyklon gasses off very slowly, over a 24-hour period.
>
>This contradicts not only what I posted, but also what
>your fellow revisionazis now claim.
>
>So what is your source? You *do* have a source for your claim,
>right?
>
>I don't mean your speculations. I mean hard technical source;
>for instance, a manual, a chemistry book, etc.
>
>
>-Danny Keren.
Well there you go again professor. Getting yourself up in a huff. Is
this the statement which you twisted around in your mind?:
"In a report by the Polish government on studies done to
detect any chemical traces at Auschwitz today, they state that the
fumigation process would take twenty four hours "and even longer".
This would show that Zyklone B was designed for slow extended release
in order to maintain a level of the agent in the chambers atmosphere."
Is this the passage that incited you write:
>You claimed Zyklon gasses off very slowly, over a 24-hour period.
Now maybe you can show it all right here.
>Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.
Writing "Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in
blood" at the end of a message does not make the message true. Is
that right professor?
>-Lu Xun.
>D.Keren
Miloslav Bilik
> This is a repost. It was once titled "Open Gallon of Paint,
>Paint One Door, Throw the Rest Away". It is now being reposted in
>regards to professor Keren's calling Moran a liar in another current
>post "Cyanide Traces at Auschwitz Today".
> Since no numerical difference is cited between the 40%, and
>the "even faster" gassing rate for Zyclone B in the first 1/2 hour, we
>are left with an indefinite.
> The popular times given for the extermination process are from
>5 to 10 minutes. Giving the Holocaust position the benefit of the
>numerical numbers, lets make it 10 minutes.
> Putting the figures together we come out needing only 33% of
>50%, or more precisely, 15% of the readily used product to attain the
>goal of mass extermination in the time frame claimed.
With 40% in 30 mn, you could get 15.66 % in 10 mn, instead of your
allegedly, with 50% in 30mn, 15% in 10 mn.
> Right here we can see that the product is inefficient for
>short term application. Only 15% is used for the intended purpose with
>the other 85% being useless - wasted - lingering, left over to
>complicate the ventilation of the chamber, the unloading of the bodies
>and the preparation for the new batch.
Your "inefficient" product will give, with the very underestimate
15.66%, a level of 1.79g/m^3 (940g, 525 m^3). This is more than
1300ppm: 350ppm only is lethal in 10mn.
It's a shame that the Nazis were less boried than you by the waste.
> In a report by the Polish government on studies done to detect
>any chemical traces at Auschwitz today, they state that the fumigation
>process would take twenty four hours "and even longer". This would
>show that Zyklone B was designed for slow extended release in order to
>maintain a level of the agent in the chambers atmosphere.
You put apart the other forms of Zyklon and suppose that human beings
are killed with the same levels and in the same time than lice. That's
false.
>It seems that it should be a whole lot
>less, considering that the agent was designed to maintain a release
>over a 24 hour period. Who knows, maybe it is more like 5, 10 or 15
>percent in the first half hour.
Yes, who knows ? If the revisionnist German Rudolf said 40%, and Moran
5%, who knows ? It was perhaps 0% ?
> The professor didn't find it necessary to correct the basic
>arithmetic.
It sounds natural. You're beyond that.
Daniel Keren
# "In a report by the Polish government on studies done to
# detect any chemical traces at Auschwitz today, they state that the
# fumigation process would take twenty four hours "and even longer".
Yes, they say this.
# This would show that Zyklone B was designed for slow extended release
# in order to maintain a level of the agent in the chambers atmosphere."
These 2 lines above. Are they yours, or theirs?
The fact that fumigation takes a long time doesn't mean that
the release is slow; it means that the clothes have to kept
in the chamber for a long time. If the release was so slow,
it would take a long time before it reached the concentration
necessary to kill the lice, bugs etc.
One more time: do you have a technical source that explicitly
states that the release was slow? Not that fumigation takes a
long time. We know this.
Do you have such a source? Yes or no? It's a very simple
question. Can you finally answer it?
-Danny Keren.
--
Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.
-Lu Xun.
Richard J. Green
> I thought we had been over this all a long time ago. Lets take it
>from the top. Zykon-B is liquid HCN absorbed in kitty litter and
>formed into pellets. It boils around 76 degrees F. Due to its vapor
>pressure when it is kept in a sealed container it remains a liquid.
>
> First off, if the ambient temperature is below the boiling point it is
>going to evaporate slowly much like letting a glass of water sit
>around for a few days.
ERROR ALERT: Mr. Giwer is quite wrong here. The vapor pressure of HCN
is very high. For example at 10 degrees C the vapor pressure is still
400 Torr! That's more than 1/2 of an atmosphere!
> Second if the ambient temperature is above the boiling point the
>pellets are going to outgas more rapidly. However, the evaporation of
>what is near the surface cools the pellets and slows the rate of
>evaporation of what remains.
Mr. Giwer is correct here, but the effect is minimal. One has to get
very cold to reduce the vapor pressure substantially.
Matt Giwer
>tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>Yes, they say this.
I thought we had been over this all a long time ago. Lets take it
from the top. Zykon-B is liquid HCN absorbed in kitty litter and
formed into pellets. It boils around 76 degrees F. Due to its vapor
pressure when it is kept in a sealed container it remains a liquid.
First off, if the ambient temperature is below the boiling point it is
going to evaporate slowly much like letting a glass of water sit
around for a few days.
Second if the ambient temperature is above the boiling point the
pellets are going to outgas more rapidly. However, the evaporation of
what is near the surface cools the pellets and slows the rate of
evaporation of what remains.
Thus the outgassing time depends upon the ambient temperature and how
the pellets are physically distributed as if they are all in volume,
such as in these magic "vents" they will cool each other by
evaporation thus further slowing release and air flow will be
inhibited.
Now just what is it you are questioning? That the outgassing is not
instantaneous? That it is not a function of temperature? Just what
are you unaware of that needs further explanation?
-------------------
6,000,000 are a tragedy, the other 6,000,000 a footnote.
tom moran
>tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>
># "In a report by the Polish government on studies done to
># detect any chemical traces at Auschwitz today, they state that the
># fumigation process would take twenty four hours "and even longer".
>
>Yes, they say this.
>
># This would show that Zyklone B was designed for slow extended release
># in order to maintain a level of the agent in the chambers atmosphere."
>
>These 2 lines above. Are they yours, or theirs?
Yes. Now what?
>The fact that fumigation takes a long time doesn't mean that
>the release is slow; it means that the clothes have to kept
>in the chamber for a long time. If the release was so slow,
>it would take a long time before it reached the concentration
>necessary to kill the lice, bugs etc.
>One more time: do you have a technical source that explicitly
>states that the release was slow? Not that fumigation takes a
>long time. We know this.
My source is reasoning on why they would suspend it in the
pellets. My source is my reasoning it would have to be kept fed into
the atmosphere of the chamber to make sure it didn't all just sink
down and settle on the top of the articles to be fumigated. My source
is reasoning that the air inside any chamber would be still and free
of currents that would tend to evaporate anything on a ready basis. My
source is my reasoning that after a initial time, the air would become
near saturated with the gas and subsequent evaporation would be slowed
down further. Like Latex paint drying either in a hot dry format or a
cooler high humidity format.
On the same order as moth balls, only faster. Mothballs being
designed for release over months, and the Zyklon B being designed for
release over a period of hours. Extended release. Not all at once.
What does the patent say? Wasn't it you that said you were
planning to post the patent?
>Do you have such a source? Yes or no? It's a very simple
>question. Can you finally answer it?
>
>
tom moran
>In article <316d146d...@news.pacificnet.net>,
>tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>
>> This is a repost. It was once titled "Open Gallon of Paint,
>>Paint One Door, Throw the Rest Away". It is now being reposted in
>>regards to professor Keren's calling Moran a liar in another current
>>post "Cyanide Traces at Auschwitz Today".
>
>> Since no numerical difference is cited between the 40%, and
>>the "even faster" gassing rate for Zyclone B in the first 1/2 hour, we
>>are left with an indefinite.
>
>> The popular times given for the extermination process are from
>>5 to 10 minutes. Giving the Holocaust position the benefit of the
>>numerical numbers, lets make it 10 minutes.
>
>> Putting the figures together we come out needing only 33% of
>>50%, or more precisely, 15% of the readily used product to attain the
>>goal of mass extermination in the time frame claimed.
>
>With 40% in 30 mn, you could get 15.66 % in 10 mn, instead of your
>allegedly, with 50% in 30mn, 15% in 10 mn.
>
>> Right here we can see that the product is inefficient for
>>short term application. Only 15% is used for the intended purpose with
>>the other 85% being useless - wasted - lingering, left over to
>>complicate the ventilation of the chamber, the unloading of the bodies
>>and the preparation for the new batch.
>
>Your "inefficient" product will give, with the very underestimate
>15.66%, a level of 1.79g/m^3 (940g, 525 m^3). This is more than
>1300ppm: 350ppm only is lethal in 10mn.
>
>It's a shame that the Nazis were less boried than you by the waste.
>
>> In a report by the Polish government on studies done to detect
>>any chemical traces at Auschwitz today, they state that the fumigation
>>process would take twenty four hours "and even longer". This would
>>show that Zyklone B was designed for slow extended release in order to
>>maintain a level of the agent in the chambers atmosphere.
>
>You put apart the other forms of Zyklon and suppose that human beings
>are killed with the same levels and in the same time than lice. That's
>false.
>
>>It seems that it should be a whole lot
>>less, considering that the agent was designed to maintain a release
>>over a 24 hour period. Who knows, maybe it is more like 5, 10 or 15
>>percent in the first half hour.
>
>Yes, who knows ? If the revisionnist German Rudolf said 40%, and Moran
>5%, who knows ? It was perhaps 0% ?
Show where Moran said 5%, in the first half hour. Failing to
this, it will show that you tell yourself conveniences.
>> The professor didn't find it necessary to correct the basic
>>arithmetic.
>
Daniel Keren
# dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
## Tom Moran writes:
### This would show that Zyklone B was designed for slow extended release
### in order to maintain a level of the agent in the chambers atmosphere."
## These 2 lines above. Are they yours, or theirs?
# Yes. Now what?
Yes what? They are yours? Then why the quotation marks in the end?
## One more time: do you have a technical source that explicitly
## states that the release was slow? Not that fumigation takes a
## long time. We know this.
# My source is reasoning on why they would suspend it in the
# pellets.
Unfortunately for you, your "reasoning" is not a technical
source. It is also totally and completely false, as even
your "revisionist" pals state. Your "reasoning" contradicts
each and every technical source I saw.
# My source is my reasoning it would have to be kept fed into
# the atmosphere of the chamber to make sure it didn't all just
# sink down and settle on the top of the articles to be fumigated.
"Sink down"? That would be quit a feat, as HCN is slightly
lighter than air. Gases mix, Moran. Oxygen doesn't sink to
the floor, for instance.
# What does the patent say? Wasn't it you that said you were
# planning to post the patent?
According to an excerpt from the patent mailed to me (this
is from the original, 1922 patent), most of the HCN is released
within 10 minutes. According to "revisionist" Germar Rudoplh,
in a temperature of 20 degrees, Zyklon-B releases 40 percent
in the first half-hour. He seems to rely on information sent
to him from experts in Germany; I'll try to contact them myself.
There is more information to support the faster release rates;
I'll post it soon.
Matt Giwer
># Yes. Now what?
Contact them quickly. It not clear how there could be any release at
a 20 degrees where HCN is still a liquid. And keep in mind that it
will be an exponential release if it is warm enough. That is, the
second half hour would be another 40% of the remaining 60% and so
forth each half hour.
Daniel Mittleman
>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>
> What we have here thus far is Moran's post with some
>arithmetic founded on numbers professor Keren himself gave and the
>professor's response - sans any mathematical contradiction. During the
>first post of this topic professor Keren responded: "And your source
>for the '"15%"' figure is? You have already proved to the readers of
>this newsgroup that you cannot handle basic arithmatic".
> The professor did not take it any further with a mathematical
>contradiction.
>
> Moran stands pat. We have Moran's mathematics and professor
>Keren's childish reply.
Actually, we have Dr. Keren asking Moran for his source. And we have
Moran calling Dr. Keren childish, rather than providing a source.
daniel david mittleman
===========================================================================
Quoth the Raven: "Never happened."
Richard J. Green
> Contact them quickly. It not clear how there could be any release at
>a 20 degrees where HCN is still a liquid.
SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY ALERT: Liquids evaporate. Liquids with high
vapor pressure evaporate fast.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Green Department of Chemistry, Stanford CA 94303-5080
r...@lyman.Stanford.EDU http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud
Ejup Ganic, Bosnia's acting president, told of an interviewers' recent question.
"Sarajevo's parks are full of graves. Most of that is destroyed. What will be
your revenge to those who did that?" He then related his answer. "We will build
libraries," Ganic said. "We will build schools. And we will be something that
is good."
Richard J. Green
>r...@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <4kpgn2$c...@wi.combase.com>, Matt Giwer <mgi...@combase.com> wrote:
>
>>> I thought we had been over this all a long time ago. Lets take it
>>>from the top. Zykon-B is liquid HCN absorbed in kitty litter and
>>>formed into pellets. It boils around 76 degrees F. Due to its vapor
>>>pressure when it is kept in a sealed container it remains a liquid.
>>>
>>> First off, if the ambient temperature is below the boiling point it is
>>>going to evaporate slowly much like letting a glass of water sit
>>>around for a few days.
>
>>is very high. For example at 10 degrees C the vapor pressure is still
>>400 Torr! That's more than 1/2 of an atmosphere!
>
>around 26 degrees C for the pure form. Impurities would of course
>change the actual boiling point. You can verify that in any library,
>as people here say, that is the big building with all the books.
ERROR ALERT: Liquids evaporate below their boiling points. Liquids have
a vapor pressure. The vapor pressure increase with temperature. A
boiling point is when the vapor pressure is equal to atmospheric
pressure. Giwer is either very confused or tying desperately for a
troll.
> Or are you also going to claim they drew a partial vacuum? Water also
>boils at room temperature in a partial vacuum.
>
> But I almost forgot, you are the "chemist" who will pervert what he
>knows is true to preserve EVERY holocaust story. If you stay in
>academia you have no problem but as I have warned you, should you
>enter the real world integrity is more important the political
>correctness.
>
>>> Second if the ambient temperature is above the boiling point the
>>>pellets are going to outgas more rapidly. However, the evaporation of
>>>what is near the surface cools the pellets and slows the rate of
>>>evaporation of what remains.
>
>>Mr. Giwer is correct here, but the effect is minimal. One has to get
>>very cold to reduce the vapor pressure substantially.
>
> I will be very interested in seeing your P Chem equations with the
>constants filled in to support your contention.
I repost an article I posted ages ago:
<quote>
We know the evaporation rate of HCN is very fast. Even DT has
acknowleged this fact. His worry seems to be that since some
of the HCN freezes that perhaps its rate of evaporation decreases
substantially enough that one would have to add an unrealistically
large amount of HCN to get enough to evaporate fast enough.
(Others have pointed out that the chambers were heated, that large
amounts were used and that the Sondercommando wore gas mask.)
Notwithstanding the fact that even frozen HCN has a significant vapor
pressure I wondered about how much of the HCN could freeze. It turns
out that atleast 25% of the HCN added cannot possibly freeze and that
is an underestimate because I assumed that all the heat required for
vaporization came from liquid HCN initially at 0 C. I leave the
calculation as an exercise for your edification (I can post it if
anyone has doubts).
The heat of vaporization of HCN is 6.03 kcal/mol (at 25 C) [I assume
it's roughly constant over the T range of interest.]
The heat of fusion of HCN is 1.72 kcal/mol (at -13.2 C)
Specific Heat of HCN 16.94 cal/molC (at 16.9 C) [I assume
it's roughly constant.]
So HCN evaporates rapidly. 25% cannot freeze. Even the HCN that
freezes has a significant vapor pressure. The gaseous HCN diffuses
quickly enough that toxic concentrations are reached well before
15 minutes. The Nazis could have used well in excess of what
was necessary without practical problems. All of these facts
underestimate the concentration because the chambers were heated.
> BTW: You suggested and were going to start the burning bodies thing.
>Did you forget? And did you read the eyewitness account that they had
>the job of removing the large parts of bones that were unburned?
>
> I will be awaiting your response.
More likely, you will ignore my response as you have so many times:
Mr. Giwer also seems to be missing this post.
I have not heard back from you. We are calculating the net heat
loss/gain of burning a kilogram of hamburger. If I remember correctly
we agreed to do this calcualtion assuming 70, 85, or 90 % water.
That works out to be 700, 850, or 900 cc of water. Now before we
evaporate the water, we must heat it to 100 C from 25 C.
You have given the number 1 cal per cc per degree C for the heat
capacity of water. I have agreed. I am asking you to get your
calculator out and calculate the energy necessary to raise 700, 850, or
900 cc of water to 100 C from 25 C. When you have done that, if I
agree, we can proceed to calculate the heat necessary to evaporate the
water.
I have gone first by giving you the numbers you need and dumbing down
the calculation for you:
Heat = (Temperature Difference (K))* (Heat Capacity (cal/cc/K)) * (Volume (cc))
Temperature Difference = 75 K
Heat Capacity = 1 cal/cc/K
Volume = 700, 850, or 900 cc.
There's a shortcut: just admit you were wrong. Otherwise, let's continue
the calculation, if you know how to multiply.
Mr. Giwer wrote:
> You were going first and you were going to show that the remaining
>non-water component produced enough heat of burning to continue this
>evaporation. So you need as a minimum to show that the heat from the
>remaining "solids" exceeds the heat from this calculation.
That's exactly what we will prove Mr. Giwer. We are, however, doing it
one step at a time. I am walking you through this calculation, but I am
not doing your homework for you. Get your calcualtor out, do the
calculation and we can move to the next step. Unless you're afraid of
being proved wrong, that is.
Matt Giwer
>In article <4kpgn2$c...@wi.combase.com>, Matt Giwer <mgi...@combase.com> wrote:
>> I thought we had been over this all a long time ago. Lets take it
>>from the top. Zykon-B is liquid HCN absorbed in kitty litter and
>>formed into pellets. It boils around 76 degrees F. Due to its vapor
>>pressure when it is kept in a sealed container it remains a liquid.
>>
>> First off, if the ambient temperature is below the boiling point it is
>>going to evaporate slowly much like letting a glass of water sit
>>around for a few days.
>ERROR ALERT: Mr. Giwer is quite wrong here. The vapor pressure of HCN
>is very high. For example at 10 degrees C the vapor pressure is still
>400 Torr! That's more than 1/2 of an atmosphere!
And at one atmosphere (STP more specifically) the boiling point is
around 26 degrees C for the pure form. Impurities would of course
change the actual boiling point. You can verify that in any library,
as people here say, that is the big building with all the books.
Or are you also going to claim they drew a partial vacuum? Water also
boils at room temperature in a partial vacuum.
But I almost forgot, you are the "chemist" who will pervert what he
knows is true to preserve EVERY holocaust story. If you stay in
academia you have no problem but as I have warned you, should you
enter the real world integrity is more important the political
correctness.
>> Second if the ambient temperature is above the boiling point the
>>pellets are going to outgas more rapidly. However, the evaporation of
>>what is near the surface cools the pellets and slows the rate of
>>evaporation of what remains.
>Mr. Giwer is correct here, but the effect is minimal. One has to get
>very cold to reduce the vapor pressure substantially.
I will be very interested in seeing your P Chem equations with the
constants filled in to support your contention.
BTW: You suggested and were going to start the burning bodies thing.
Did you forget? And did you read the eyewitness account that they had
the job of removing the large parts of bones that were unburned?
I will be awaiting your response.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Live fast, love well, and have a glorious Website.
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/
Commentary from the right side of the curve
Maintaining http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/tech/ (tips and tricks for webs)
http://www2.combase.com/~mgiwer/mgiwer4/ (eye candy, blantant advertising)
http://www2.combase.com/~matt/ (my son)
tom moran
>tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
># dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>## Tom Moran writes:
>
>### This would show that Zyklone B was designed for slow extended release
>### in order to maintain a level of the agent in the chambers atmosphere."
>
>## These 2 lines above. Are they yours, or theirs?
>
># Yes. Now what?
>
>Yes what? They are yours? Then why the quotation marks in the end?
Okay. I noticed the quotation marks at the "end". Are you
saying they were put at the end just to hoodwink someone? In that case
you should have pointed out I didn't put any at the beginning.
I notice you are now claiming that the patent reads the HCN
was released in the first 10 minutes, which you didn't use to refute
the original post about the slow extended release of HCN from the
pellets. Instead you and your brethren mustered up arguments that it
was more lethal to mammals (people) than insects and much less was
needed, and that the rest of it was recovered. Now here you are saying
"most" of the HCN was released in the first ten minutes. How
rediculous.
>-Danny Keren.
>
>--
>Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.
Writting "Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in
blood" at the end of your statements does not make the statements
true, is that right professor?
>-Lu Xun.
Daniel Keren
# Contact them quickly. It not clear how there could be any
# release at a 20 degrees where HCN is still a liquid.
So how come the Degesch manual states that Zyklon can be used
in temperatures far lower than 20 degrees?
-Danny Keren.
--
Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.
-Lu Xun.
Daniel Keren
# dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) writes:
## Yes what? They are yours? Then why the quotation marks in the end?
# Okay. I noticed the quotation marks at the "end". Are you
# saying they were put at the end just to hoodwink someone?
I'm willing to accept it was a mistake.
# I notice you are now claiming that the patent reads the HCN
# was released in the first 10 minutes, which you didn't use to refute
# the original post about the slow extended release of HCN from the
# pellets. Instead you and your brethren mustered up arguments that it
# was more lethal to mammals (people) than insects and much less was
# needed, and that the rest of it was recovered. Now here you are saying
# "most" of the HCN was released in the first ten minutes.
No. I'm saying that even if the slower rate, claimed by
"revisionists" - 40 percent in the first half-hour - is true,
than it would, obviously, still kill people quite quickly.
The 1922 patent may have referred to a different type of
Zyklon; we have to check this out. Germar Rudolph claims
40% in the first half-hour. Again: if one would use the
same concentration as used for delousing, this rate of release
would still result in a rather quick death for the people
in the chamber.
The bottom line, which you must have realized by now, is that
there is not one technical source that supports your conjectures
on the rate of release. You admitted so yourself.
Matt Giwer
>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) writes:
># Contact them quickly. It not clear how there could be any
># release at a 20 degrees where HCN is still a liquid.
>So how come the Degesch manual states that Zyklon can be used
>in temperatures far lower than 20 degrees?
That is a good question. The manual can not change the physical
chemistry of HCN.
Perhaps this is just one more fable of the holocaust like the
liechenkellar story.
They knew the risk of developing space travel.
I say let them be wiped out.
Richard J. Green
>dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
>
>>mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) writes:
>
>># Contact them quickly. It not clear how there could be any
>># release at a 20 degrees where HCN is still a liquid.
>
>>So how come the Degesch manual states that Zyklon can be used
>>in temperatures far lower than 20 degrees?
>
> That is a good question. The manual can not change the physical
>chemistry of HCN.
>
> Perhaps this is just one more fable of the holocaust like the
>liechenkellar story.
SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY ALERT: At 20 C the equilibrium vapor pressure of
HCN is about 600 Torr. That means that the liquid will evaporate until it
reaches that pressure. 600 Torr is 789,000 ppm of HCN. 300 ppm is
lethal.
Regards,
Rich Green
Matt Giwer
>In article <4kru6f$k...@wi.combase.com>, Matt Giwer <mgi...@combase.com> wrote:
>> Contact them quickly. It not clear how there could be any release at
>>a 20 degrees where HCN is still a liquid.
>SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY ALERT: Liquids evaporate. Liquids with high
>vapor pressure evaporate fast.
As I said, I will be interested in seeing your P Chem equations with
the constants filled in.
You do know what I am talking about do you not?
As a member of the Chemistry department you should be able to do that
almost off of the top of your head.
But here you imply but do not demonstrate that HCN has a high vapor
pressure. That was never in question as you know. Therefore it is
not clear why you are again substituting hand waving for facts.
MORRISON KEITH MURRAY
>># Contact them quickly. It not clear how there could be any
>># release at a 20 degrees where HCN is still a liquid.
>>So how come the Degesch manual states that Zyklon can be used
>>in temperatures far lower than 20 degrees?
> That is a good question. The manual can not change the physical
>chemistry of HCN.
> Perhaps this is just one more fable of the holocaust like the
>liechenkellar story.
YET ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC BLUNDER ALERT: Using Mr Giwer's somewhat odd concept
of physical chemistry there cannot possibly be any water vapour in the air
as water boils at 100 degrees centigrade and the average temperature of the
surface of the Earth and athmosphere is far below that.
The concept of "vapour pressure" is left as an exercise for Mr Giwer to
spout more of his ignorance on.
--
Keith Morrison
t0...@unb.ca
Daniel Keren
### Contact them quickly. It not clear how there could be any
### release at a 20 degrees where HCN is still a liquid.
## So how come the Degesch manual states that Zyklon can be used
## in temperatures far lower than 20 degrees?
# That is a good question. The manual can not change the physical
# chemistry of HCN.
Your problem is that you do not understand the chemistry of
HCN. Degesch used to manufacture it. They knew more about
than you.
What, exactly, is your claim? That, below the boiling point (27
degrees), *no HCN at all* will evaporate from the Zyklon? Is
that what you're saying?
tom moran
>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes:
># dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) writes:
>
>## Yes what? They are yours? Then why the quotation marks in the end?
>
># Okay. I noticed the quotation marks at the "end". Are you
># saying they were put at the end just to hoodwink someone?
>
>I'm willing to accept it was a mistake.
I will point out that you did use the "end" word, thus your
admission that you noticed they were at the end only and not at the
beginning, thus further you knew they were a "mistake", that you tried
to get away with the intial insinuation.
># I notice you are now claiming that the patent reads the HCN
># was released in the first 10 minutes, which you didn't use to refute
># the original post about the slow extended release of HCN from the
># pellets. Instead you and your brethren mustered up arguments that it
># was more lethal to mammals (people) than insects and much less was
># needed, and that the rest of it was recovered. Now here you are saying
># "most" of the HCN was released in the first ten minutes.
>
>No. I'm saying that even if the slower rate, claimed by
>"revisionists" - 40 percent in the first half-hour - is true,
>than it would, obviously, still kill people quite quickly.
Nevertheless, you did not include it in your first address to
the intial post, right?
>The 1922 patent may have referred to a different type of
>Zyklon; we have to check this out. Germar Rudolph claims
>40% in the first half-hour. Again: if one would use the
>same concentration as used for delousing, this rate of release
>would still result in a rather quick death for the people
>in the chamber.
Thank you for the clarification that the 1922 patent may have
referred to a different type of Zyklon. I often wonder about the "B"
in the Zyklon B. Do you know of any product that may be called Zyklon
or Zyklon A or Zyklon C?
>The bottom line, which you must have realized by now, is that
>there is not one technical source that supports your conjectures
>on the rate of release. You admitted so yourself.
Thats right, there is no "technical source" if you mean a
statement by manufacturers or experiments done. Thank yourself for
having the capacity to admit your referrence to the 1922 Zyklon
patent may be different from what the Zyklon B of 1943 may have been.
All we are left with at this time is logical conjecture.
The only fact that is accepted is that Zyklon B was designed
for "fumigation". Now when a building is fumigated, say, like being
tented, and the tanks of gas are set up to introduce the fumigating
substance, do they turn on the valves all the way, thus introducing
the material all at once, in the first few minutes, or is it fed in at
a steady rate to maintain a certain presence in the air over a
extended period of time?
My logical conjecture is Zyklon B was designed for slow
extended release. From this I can only theorize on how long. If the
fumigation process is said to have taken 24 hours "or even longer" I
might say the product would be designed to emit over a period of 12
hours at least. The more the air becomes filled with the material the
longer any remaining HCN in pellets would take to emit off.
Personally I would say that product may give up less than the
40%. It could be as low as 10%. I don't know. And then you don't know
either.
tom moran
>In article <316e661d...@news.pacificnet.net>, t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...
>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>
>> What we have here thus far is Moran's post with some
>>arithmetic founded on numbers professor Keren himself gave and the
>>professor's response - sans any mathematical contradiction. During the
>>first post of this topic professor Keren responded: "And your source
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>for the '"15%"' figure is? You have already proved to the readers of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>this newsgroup that you cannot handle basic arithmatic".
>> The professor did not take it any further with a mathematical
>>contradiction.
>>
>> Moran stands pat. We have Moran's mathematics and professor
>>Keren's childish reply.
>
> Actually, we have Dr. Keren asking Moran for his source. And we have
> Moran calling Dr. Keren childish, rather than providing a source.
From the lead article:
Lets see. Raven says that Zyclone B is made to gas off slowly
and thus would be a poor choice for the mass extermination of human
beings under the conditions alleged.
Karen responds with some material that he concludes "clearly
refutes" Raven's "rubbish".
The summary of the pertinent refuting information offered by
Keren is:
1. 40% of the HCN escapes the storing medium in the first half hour.
2. Humans die quickly from much less concentration, so much less than
40% would have to gas off.
3. That recently discovered patents to Zyclone B show that the gas off
is even faster.
The points given do not offer sufficient parameters for
demonstrating that Zyclone B is an efficient product for mass
extermination, such as how much is needed, in what volume and for how
long.
Regardless of how fast the HCN evaporates into the existing
air, it has nothing to do with the necessary volume/quantity/air borne
level/time factors, only giving evaporation rate for the first 1/2
hour. You cannot deduce the most critical factors from the information
that Keren has supplied.
As it turns out Kerens refuting material tends to support the
idea that Zyclone B is an inappropriate product for mass human
extermination.
_____________________________________________________________________
The rest is simple arithmetic. Therein lies the 15% derived
from the professors own posted figures.
Daniel Keren
# Thank you for the clarification that the 1922 patent may have
# referred to a different type of Zyklon.
Yet, this Zyklon was planned to very quickly release the HCN,
right? Which proves that your conjecture "Zyklon was planned
for slow release" is false. Totally, utterly, and completely
false. For, if it was true for Zyklon-B, it would still
hold for this (possibly, somewhat different) type of Zyklon,
which was also planned for the same purpose Zyklon-B was
planned for. Right?
## The bottom line, which you must have realized by now, is that
## there is not one technical source that supports your conjectures
## on the rate of release. You admitted so yourself.
# Thats right, there is no "technical source" if you mean a
# statement by manufacturers or experiments done.
Yes, that's damned right. You have no source. Which, of course,
doesn't stop you from making wild, unsupported, illogical
conjectures.
# The only fact that is accepted is that Zyklon B was designed
# for "fumigation". Now when a building is fumigated, say, like being
# tented, and the tanks of gas are set up to introduce the fumigating
# substance, do they turn on the valves all the way, thus introducing
# the material all at once, in the first few minutes, or is it fed in at
# a steady rate to maintain a certain presence in the air over a
# extended period of time?
Do you know the answer? Do they leave these "tanks of gas"
with the valves open for hours? Don't they come, spray the
stuff in the house, and leave with these tanks of gas?
# My logical conjecture is Zyklon B was designed for slow
# extended release.
Your "logical conclusion" is false. It contradicts all the
technical information we saw, including that presented by your
fellow "revisionists".
# Personally I would say that product may give up less than the
# 40%. It could be as low as 10%. I don't know.
Personally you can also say that 2+2=7. That's your right. And
it's everybody's right to regard you as a moron if you hold
such opinions.
# And then you don't know either.
I did present two technical sources. One, for a certain type
of Zyklon, which releases the HCN in 10 minutes; true, it may have
been different from Zyklon-B, but it does prove that your "logic"
is false, because - if it held for Zyklon-B - it would also
hold for this type of Zyklon.
The second source is from non other but a "leading revisionist",
who gives a 40% release (for Zyklon-B) in the first half-hour; he
quotes German sources for this figure. I'll contact them for
their response.
Both figures will result in a rather quick death for humans if
the same concentration as that used for delousing was used in
the gas chambers.
Harry Katz
One more time: do you have a technical source that explicitly
states that the release was slow? Not that fumigation takes a
long time. We know this.
Do you have such a source? Yes or no? It's a very simple
question. Can you finally answer it?
In article <4kpgn2$c...@wi.combase.com>,
Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) whines:
I thought we had been over this all a long time ago. Lets take
it from the top. Zykon-B is liquid HCN absorbed in kitty litter
and formed into pellets....
It was not so long ago that Mr. Giwer was complaining about people
who jump into a thread to answer a question directed at another.
Yet here he is, hypocritically doing what he condemned in others!
Which only confirms what we already know: that Mr. Giwer has a double
standard -- one for himself and one much more stringent for others.
Which does not mean, by the way, that I condemn him for jumping into
this thread. He is as welcome as anyone else to jump in, as far as I
am concerned, because I do not have a double standard.
6,000,000 are a tragedy, the other 6,000,000 a footnote.
--Matt "I said it, but I will blame you for it!" Giwer
--
Harry Katz
Cold water, morning and evening, is better than all the cosmetics.
-- The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed.
Harry Katz
"In a report by the Polish government on studies done to
detect any chemical traces at Auschwitz today, they state
that the fumigation process would take twenty four hours
"and even longer".
This would show that Zyklone B was designed for slow extended
release in order to maintain a level of the agent in the
chambers atmosphere."
dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) asked:
These 2 lines above. Are they yours, or theirs?
In article <31710747...@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran (t...@pacificnet.net) demonstrates the monumental confusion
that has earned him such notoriety:
Yes.
"Yes," they are Mr. Moran's words, or "yes," they are not? Does even
Mr. Moran know for sure?
Now what?
Yet another post asking Mr. Moran to clarify what he has written above!
--
Harry Katz
Keith Morrison
>>
>>>So how come the Degesch manual states that Zyklon can be used
>>
>>
>> Perhaps this is just one more fable of the holocaust like the
>>liechenkellar story.
>
>HCN is about 600 Torr. That means that the liquid will evaporate until it
>reaches that pressure. 600 Torr is 789,000 ppm of HCN. 300 ppm is
>lethal.
NEW RECORD! NEW RECORD!
The Alt.Revisionism Worst Mistake in Science and Mathematics Award
goes to Matt Giwer, who, in continued trolling and demonstrations of
scientific incompetance has at least briefly surpassed Tom Moran and
his 55 000% error in a math calculation.
--
Keith Morrison
t0...@unb.ca
Richard J. Green
>r...@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <4kru6f$k...@wi.combase.com>, Matt Giwer <mgi...@combase.com> wrote:
>
>>>a 20 degrees where HCN is still a liquid.
>
>>vapor pressure evaporate fast.
>
> As I said, I will be interested in seeing your P Chem equations with
>the constants filled in.
>
> You do know what I am talking about do you not?
>
> As a member of the Chemistry department you should be able to do that
>almost off of the top of your head.
>
> But here you imply but do not demonstrate that HCN has a high vapor
>pressure. That was never in question as you know. Therefore it is
>not clear why you are again substituting hand waving for facts.
DIVERSION ALERT: Mr. Giwer made a very stupid mistake in assuming that
HCN had to reach its boiling point in order to exist in the gas phase at
toxic concentrations. One doesn't need an equation to look up the vapor
pressure of HCN at temperatures below its boiling point and realize they
are well in excess of 300 ppm. Mr. Giwer will continue to pretend he
has missed my post on the topic.
Temperature (C) Vapor Pressure HCN (Torr) (ppm)
-20 100 132,000
-10 165 217,000
0 280 368,000
10 410 539,000
--
----------------------------------------
Rich Green
r...@lyman.Stanford.EDU
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud
Matt Giwer
>dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) asked Tom Moran:
> One more time: do you have a technical source that explicitly
> states that the release was slow? Not that fumigation takes a
> long time. We know this.
> Do you have such a source? Yes or no? It's a very simple
> question. Can you finally answer it?
>In article <4kpgn2$c...@wi.combase.com>,
>Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) whines:
> I thought we had been over this all a long time ago. Lets take
> it from the top. Zykon-B is liquid HCN absorbed in kitty litter
> and formed into pellets....
>It was not so long ago that Mr. Giwer was complaining about people
>who jump into a thread to answer a question directed at another.
>Yet here he is, hypocritically doing what he condemned in others!
Your illiteracy or your deceit is being demonstrated. I said not one
word about jumping. I commented upon people pretending to speak for
others.
>Which only confirms what we already know: that Mr. Giwer has a double
>standard -- one for himself and one much more stringent for others.
It confirms only your deceitful nature. Perhaps Nizkor will hire you.
>Which does not mean, by the way, that I condemn him for jumping into
>this thread. He is as welcome as anyone else to jump in, as far as I
>am concerned, because I do not have a double standard.
Yes, extremely deceitful.
-------------------
Laura Finsten
> Your illiteracy or your deceit is being demonstrated. I said not one
>word about jumping. I commented upon people pretending to speak for
>others.
Since everyone here who "debates" (and I use that term very loosely)
with you posts under their own name, I fail to see how you can
possibly conclude that anyone has "pretended" to speak for anyone
else, Mr. Giwer.
I read your post about the debate concerning The Bell Curve over
on alt.discrimination, Mr. Giwer. I was very interested to note
that it wasn't full of typos, grammatical mistakes, and
unintelligible sentences.
Harry Katz
This would show that Zyklone B was designed for slow extended
release in order to maintain a level of the agent in the
chambers atmosphere."
dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) asked:
These 2 lines above. Are they yours, or theirs?
tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> replied:
Yes. Now what?
Note that Mr. Moran did not answer the question, not because he was
trying to dodge it, but because he cannot read with comprehension.
This forced dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) to ask again:
Yes what? They are yours? Then why the quotation marks in
the end?
In article <3172512e...@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran (t...@pacificnet.net) whines:
Okay. I noticed the quotation marks at the "end". Are you
saying they were put at the end just to hoodwink someone?
In that case you should have pointed out I didn't put any
at the beginning.
One wonders why Mr. Moran becomes so paranoid and combative just
because no one can understand his sloppy writing with its myriad
misspellings and typos. In the words of Shakespeare, he doth protest
too much! And that is suspicious.
--
Harry Katz
Grasp a little and you may secure it; grasp too much and you will
lose everything.
Harry Katz
I notice you are now claiming that the patent reads the HCN
was released in the first 10 minutes, which you didn't use to
refute the original post about the slow extended release of HCN
from the pellets. Instead you and your brethren mustered up
arguments that it was more lethal to mammals (people) than
insects and much less was needed, and that the rest of it was
recovered. Now here you are saying "most" of the HCN was
released in the first ten minutes.
Note that all Mr. Moran is doing here is listing the arguments that
he cannot refute.
When it was pointed out that HCN works more quickly on mammals than
insects, Mr. Moran could bnot refute it.
Now that research has provided the further information that the HCN
was released much faster than previously thought, he still cannot
refute it.
But, in his addled brain, he believes that two corroborating facts
somehow cancel each other. So he merely repeats the two facts
expecting everyone to believe, as he does, that there cannot be more
than one fact introduced per discussion.
How rediculous.
Indeed!
--
Harry Katz
There are some who preach beautifully, but practice not their
beautiful doctrine.
Harry Katz
Yes what? They are yours? Then why the quotation marks in
the end?
t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) responded:
Okay. I noticed the quotation marks at the "end". Are you
saying they were put at the end just to hoodwink someone?
dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) very graciously accepted Mr.
Moran's explanation:
I'm willing to accept it was a mistake.
But, in article <31739bb...@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran (t...@pacificnet.net) is not so very gracious:
I will point out that you did use the "end" word, thus your
admission that you noticed they were at the end only and not
at the beginning,...
Yes, everyone who read the post is quite willing to admit that the
presence of a quotation mark at the end of the sentence, but not at
the beginning, was extremely confusing and required clarification!
...thus further you knew they were a "mistake",...
Yes, but was the mistake the added quotation marks at the end, or the
missing quotation marks at the beginning? That was the real question.
Of course, everyone knew it was a mistake, since after all, it was
posted by Mr. Moran!
...that you tried to get away with the intial insinuation.
Mr. Moran makes a typo -- which is his mistake! -- and it looks like
he is including his own words inside a quote from an official Polish
document. He is asked to explain and his explanation that it was an
innocent error is accepted graciously.
But that is not enough for him! Since he has nothing substantive to
criticize, he seizes on a call for an explanation as an accusation of
lying and begins to castigate those who discovered his error, instead
of apologizing for causing the error in the first place! And he has
the chutzpah to complain of chutzpah in others!
By the way, just because Mr. Moran's explanation has been accepted
here, that does not mean that he never lies. In fact, he has been
caught at it more than once.
--
Harry Katz
Harry Katz
tom moran (t...@pacificnet.net) whines:
Regardless of how fast the HCN evaporates into the existing
air, it has nothing to do with the necessary volume/quantity/air
borne level/time factors, only giving evaporation rate for the
first 1/2 hour.
I suggest Mr. Moran show this astonishing collection of double talk
to his high school chemistry teacher as an example of what he
learned while daydreaming in class.
You cannot deduce the most critical factors from the information
that Keren has supplied.
Correction: Mr. Moran "cannot deduce etc." But then again, Mr. Moran
is not capable of understanding the basics, much less deducing the
details.
--
Harry Katz
Grasp a little and you may secure it; grasp too much and you will
lose everything.
Harry Katz
posted by Laura Finsten (fin...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca)
she quotes mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) as writing:
Your illiteracy or your deceit is being demonstrated. I said
not one word about jumping. I commented upon people pretending
to speak for others.
As I have not seen this post from Giwer yet, I cannot be certain it
is aimed at me, but I did use the word "jump." It seems to me that
I have seen a lot of Giwer's responses to me only as quoted in other
peoples' posts.
As to "illiteracy or deceit," someone who does not understand the
meaning of words like, "and," "or," and "elevate" ought not to go
around accusing anyone else of illiteracy.
As to "deceit," Mr. Giwer is the deceitful one here, pretending to be
so obtuse as to think that the crux of my condemnation lay in the use
of the word, "jump," when it is clearly that Mr. Giwer was "pretending
to speak" for Mr. Moran after condemning the practice in others.
I confess that "jump" was my paraphrase of Mr. Giwer's position, and
it is an accurate paraphrase, which he cannot deny. So, instead he
pretends that I meant to quote him exactly and complains that he did
not use that particular word!
--
Harry Katz
He who humiliates himself will be lifted up; he who raises himself up
will be humiliated.
Greg Raven
>
> dmitt...@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) wrote:
>
> >In article <316e661d...@news.pacificnet.net>, t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...
>
> Lets see. Raven says that Zyclone B is made to gas off slowly
> and thus would be a poor choice for the mass extermination of human
> beings under the conditions alleged.
>
> Karen responds with some material that he concludes "clearly
> refutes" Raven's "rubbish".
>
> The summary of the pertinent refuting information offered by
> Keren is:
>
> 1. 40% of the HCN escapes the storing medium in the first half hour.
>
> 2. Humans die quickly from much less concentration, so much less than
> 40% would have to gas off.
>
> 3. That recently discovered patents to Zyclone B show that the gas off
> is even faster.
Without having seen Keren's original post, I would make these observations:
1) We have been told that the entire gassing procedure took less than 30 minutes,
meaning that only some fraction of the 40% Keren cites (if accurate) would be
available for killing people. It should be noted that in the California gas chamber,
where the HCN-based poison is dropped into a weak acid solution directly beneath the
chair of the condemned man, it takes 8 to 10 minutes for the condemned man to die.
This is in a small, specially-built room, using higher concentrations of HCN than we
are lead to believe were used in the alleged gas chambers at Birkenau.
2) After the 15 to 30 minute "gassing" that is spoken of in "eyewitness" accounts, the
Zyklon B would still be gassing off, so that in addition to residue gas in the air, in
the corpses, and on the surfaces of the room and the victims, there would be more than
half the killing potentiol remaining in the Zyklon B.
3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they needed something with
which to kill people. The claim that they attempted to adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous
as claims that, while they intended to kill millions of Jews using gas, they forgot to
built gas chambers at what is said to have been the largest gassing facility, and thus
had to CONVERT existing rooms and buildings into gas chambers.
--
Greg Raven (ihr...@kaiwan.com)
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg
tom moran
It seems there are many other alternate poisons the Germans
could have used, of which any comparison considerations would put
Zyklon B at the end of the list.
Going by the Treblinka chapter of the Holocaust story, carbon
monoxide was a very efficient, and, going by the Holocaust story
itself, proven method.
After all, the story itself tells us 900,000 to 2,000,000
people were gassed to death by carbon monoxide.
We can't overlook the question of why the Germans wouldn't
have used HCN in a liquid form, which in fact is a form it can come
in. Or, why they wouldn't have used it in another form that it can
come in - gas.
Jamie McCarthy
> 3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they
> needed something with which to kill people. The claim that they
> attempted to adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous as [...]
Landmark!
This is the first time -- the _very_ first -- time that a "revisionist"
has presented a specific product as an alternative to Zyklon which is
not _clearly_ inferior.
Previously, all we've heard is that other gases, unnamed, would be more
deadly or more effective. The rationale is, as Mr. Raven states, that
since other gases would have been more deadly, therefore the Nazis would
not have used less-deadly gases, therefore the Nazis did not use
less-deadly gases.
(This ignores the fact that the killing operations evolved over time.
Hoess decided to replace the less-efficient carbon monoxide engines with
more-efficient Zyklon-B. If revisionists simply want to point out a
particular inefficient gas, let them point to the carbon monoxide
engines -- they were apparently inferior to Zyklon, or else Hoess
wouldn't have made the switch! But this is fatuous reasoning. If the
war had lasted another few years, perhaps Zyklon-B would have been
replaced with something else. This evolution of efficiency does not, of
course, mean that none of it ever happened.)
Greg Raven has previously offered carbon monoxide and the vague term
"nerve gases" as alternatives; these have been dealt with in QAR 29.
(Carbon monoxide is much less deadly than the gas released by Zyklon.)
Walter Lueftl, author of the much-hyped "Lueftl Report," has offered
carbon dioxide (!) as being preferable to Zyklon. Ironically, another
prominent revisionist, Friedrich Berg, has scoffed at the notion of
carbon dioxide being an efficient killer. Perhaps Berg and Lueftl need
to compare notes. In short, no specific alternatives have been
suggested which would be significantly superior to Zyklon.
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/qar/qar29.html
But now Mr. Raven has named another gas or product, and this is one I
have never heard of before.
I'd like to pursue this, Mr. Raven, if I may. Tell me more about Sarin.
Where can I learn more about it?
Posted/emailed.
--
Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
ja...@voyager.net Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
to be in the public domain. I speak only for myself.
Greg Raven
> (snip)
> If revisionists simply want to point out a
> particular inefficient gas, let them point to the carbon monoxide
> engines -- they were apparently inferior to Zyklon, or else Hoess
> wouldn't have made the switch! But this is fatuous reasoning. If the
> war had lasted another few years, perhaps Zyklon-B would have been
> replaced with something else. This evolution of efficiency does not, of
> course, mean that none of it ever happened.)
I find the term "carbon monoxide engines" intriguing. I've never heard the term used before. There are
engines that use carbon monoxide, of course, but they are called "producer gas" engines, and were in used
in Germany during the war. These would have made very good sources for deadly gas -- but no
exterminationist to my knowledge has ever claimed that they were used.
Much more common is the claim that diesel engines were used to produce carbon monoxide gas -- a ridiculous
claim owing to the relatively small amount of CO produced by a diesel engine under virtually any operating
conditions.
To put it another way, if the Nazis had had a plan or policy to murder all the Jews in Europe/the world,
or even a greater percentage of them, they would never have used diesel engine exhaust or a commercial
pesticide as the killing agent. These are things you use in an improvised murder, assuming you don't know
what you are doing. But McCarthy believes that the use of Zyklon B was the result of INCREASED
SOPHISTICATION on the Nazis' part.
It simply doesn't add up.
Mike Curtis
>Greg Raven <ihr...@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>>3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they needed something with
>>which to kill people. The claim that they attempted to adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous
>>as claims that, while they intended to kill millions of Jews using gas, they forgot to
>>built gas chambers at what is said to have been the largest gassing facility, and thus
>>had to CONVERT existing rooms and buildings into gas chambers.
> It seems there are many other alternate poisons the Germans
>could have used, of which any comparison considerations would put
>Zyklon B at the end of the list.
Used for what? the gassing they didn't Mr. Moran? They used the gas
because it was cheap and effective. They used Zyklon-B because it took
very little to kill. They used Zyklon-B because tey already had it to
fumigate and they could get lots of it even without the irritating
agent. Come on, don't post silly stuff that you distortionists have
already been shown to be lying about. The main matter to the stupid
question above is that they DID use it. So I guess your Nazi friends
weren't very wise in their choices but they found the choice to be
effective enough.
Mike Curtis
>But now Mr. Raven has named another gas or product, and this is one I
>have never heard of before.
But why offer anything at all if it didn't happen!!!!!!
Matt Giwer
>ihr...@kaiwan.com wrote:
>> 3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they
>> needed something with which to kill people. The claim that they
>> attempted to adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous as [...]
>Landmark!
>This is the first time -- the _very_ first -- time that a "revisionist"
>has presented a specific product as an alternative to Zyklon which is
>not _clearly_ inferior.
>Previously, all we've heard is that other gases, unnamed, would be more
>deadly or more effective. The rationale is, as Mr. Raven states, that
>since other gases would have been more deadly, therefore the Nazis would
>not have used less-deadly gases, therefore the Nazis did not use
>less-deadly gases.
>(This ignores the fact that the killing operations evolved over time.
>Hoess decided to replace the less-efficient carbon monoxide engines with
>more-efficient Zyklon-B. If revisionists simply want to point out a
>particular inefficient gas, let them point to the carbon monoxide
>engines -- they were apparently inferior to Zyklon, or else Hoess
>wouldn't have made the switch! But this is fatuous reasoning. If the
>war had lasted another few years, perhaps Zyklon-B would have been
>replaced with something else. This evolution of efficiency does not, of
>course, mean that none of it ever happened.)
Where did you get the claim that CO was used at Auschwitz prior to
HCN? The FAQ makes no mention of it.
And yet we know from eyewitness testimony the HCN / CO difference is
only 10-15 / 15-20 minutes. It is unclear, given the huge safety
margin for people working the facilities what value of this slight
time decrease might have been.
>Greg Raven has previously offered carbon monoxide and the vague term
>"nerve gases" as alternatives; these have been dealt with in QAR 29.
>(Carbon monoxide is much less deadly than the gas released by Zyklon.)
Not according to eyewitness accounts of both. In fact the FAQ even
says that more Zyklon-B had to be added the next day to kill them all.
Yet this is the person you claim found it more efficient.
>Walter Lueftl, author of the much-hyped "Lueftl Report," has offered
>carbon dioxide (!) as being preferable to Zyklon. Ironically, another
>prominent revisionist, Friedrich Berg, has scoffed at the notion of
>carbon dioxide being an efficient killer. Perhaps Berg and Lueftl need
>to compare notes. In short, no specific alternatives have been
>suggested which would be significantly superior to Zyklon.
At least they wrote up their reasons rather than using eyewitnesses.
But of course only a "denier" would scoff at eyewitnesses when their
every word is gospel.
>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/qar/qar29.html
>But now Mr. Raven has named another gas or product, and this is one I
>have never heard of before.
>I'd like to pursue this, Mr. Raven, if I may. Tell me more about Sarin.
>Where can I learn more about it?
Never read the papers do you.
-------------------
alt.revisionism
6,000,000 are a tragedy, the other 6,000,000 a footnote.
What kind of truth is it that needs protection?
MORRISON KEITH MURRAY
>> 3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they
>> needed something with which to kill people. The claim that they
>> attempted to adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous as [...]
>Landmark!
>This is the first time -- the _very_ first -- time that a "revisionist"
>has presented a specific product as an alternative to Zyklon which is
>not _clearly_ inferior.
>Previously, all we've heard is that other gases, unnamed, would be more
>deadly or more effective. The rationale is, as Mr. Raven states, that
>since other gases would have been more deadly, therefore the Nazis would
>not have used less-deadly gases, therefore the Nazis did not use
>less-deadly gases.
>(This ignores the fact that the killing operations evolved over time.
>Hoess decided to replace the less-efficient carbon monoxide engines with
>more-efficient Zyklon-B. If revisionists simply want to point out a
>particular inefficient gas, let them point to the carbon monoxide
>engines -- they were apparently inferior to Zyklon, or else Hoess
>wouldn't have made the switch! But this is fatuous reasoning. If the
>war had lasted another few years, perhaps Zyklon-B would have been
>replaced with something else. This evolution of efficiency does not, of
>course, mean that none of it ever happened.)
>Greg Raven has previously offered carbon monoxide and the vague term
>"nerve gases" as alternatives; these have been dealt with in QAR 29.
>(Carbon monoxide is much less deadly than the gas released by Zyklon.)
>Walter Lueftl, author of the much-hyped "Lueftl Report," has offered
>carbon dioxide (!) as being preferable to Zyklon. Ironically, another
>prominent revisionist, Friedrich Berg, has scoffed at the notion of
>carbon dioxide being an efficient killer. Perhaps Berg and Lueftl need
>to compare notes. In short, no specific alternatives have been
>suggested which would be significantly superior to Zyklon.
>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/qar/qar29.html
>But now Mr. Raven has named another gas or product, and this is one I
>have never heard of before.
>I'd like to pursue this, Mr. Raven, if I may. Tell me more about Sarin.
>Where can I learn more about it?
Sarin: One of the German nerve agents, developed just prior to the war and
the only what that was produced in moderately large quantities (about 15
thousand tonnes). The German stock was destroyed chemically just before the
allied capture of the production plant and the Western allies learned about
it from experimental munitions they captured in the Ruhr. Never used in
combat. It was the first dedicated nerve agent, the second, Tabun, only
having been produced in test quantities and the third, Soman, was in
developement when the material was seized by the Soviets who were the first
to actually produce it. Sarin, Tabun and Soman have the NATO codenames
GA, GB and GD. Sarin was NATO's standard nerve agent until the developement
of the V series nerve gasses.
They were developed from insecticides and work by blocking
neurotransmitters, essentially causing the nervous system to simply shut
down and the body to die. Field antidote is usually atropine which causes
neurotransmitter release to increase, hopefully more than the nerve agent
can block.
Sarin has a very low natural detoxification level, thus can build up in the
body to fatal levels. It is persistant in enclosed structures and the
recommended method of decontamination is by chemical treatment or live steam
to accelerate the natural breakdown. Left by itself it may last in
significant concentrations for several days and also is denser than air,
thus may tend to concentrate in low places (like cellars).
Field use requires full protective gear (gas mask and enclosed sealed suit).
Reasons Sarin might be used in a gas chamber:
Deadly as all hell (faster than Zyklon B, less concentration required)
Exposure to skin and inhalation both possibly fatal (Zyklon B usually
only fatal after inhalation)
Reasons Sarin would be impractical in a gas chamber:
Full protective gear required by operators of chamber
-Zyklon B requires gas mask and gloves
Bodies would have to be decontaminated before removal; if not, everyone
in the camp near the bodies would require full protective gear
-Zyklon B dissipates rapidly, is non-persistant, only gas
mask required for protection
Chamber would require sophisticated decontamination system
-Recommended decontamination of rooms with hydrogen cyanide is
simple ventilation
Sarin stored and used in liquid form
-Zyklon B stored and used in solid form
Agent was still Top Secret
-Zyklon B was a commercially available product already in mass
production
Military inexperienced in use of nerve agents
-Zyklon B had been in regular use for some time
Spill of Sarin would be disasterous to unprotected troops and civilians,
no feasible manner to clean up except waiting and possibly chemical
decontamination
-Spill of Zyklon B can be cleaned up with untrained people wearing
gas masks and gloves putting the pellets back into the cans. Highly
reactive nature of hydrogen cyanide would not permit spread very
far beyond accident site except with release of enormous amounts of
the gas.
and finally,
No evidence that personnel who first suggested using Zyklon B were even
aware that Sarin existed. As stated, the agent was Top Secret even at
the end of the war. Once gassing with Zyklon B was proven effective,
higher Nazi officials may not have seen the need to try the new,
unproven nerve agent. This also prevents possible security leaks to the
Allies as the chemical would have to have been shipped out of Germany
proper, where an accident or partisan activity may have caused the
existance of the chemical to become known. Shipping a pest control
agent to a camp would not raise suspicion. Shipping a military chemical
designed specifically to kill people would raise questions and indicate
blatantly what was happening in those camps.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to determine why the Nazis may have
selected Zyklon B over Sarin.
--
Keith Morrison
t0...@unb.ca
Daniel Keren
# Without having seen Keren's original post, I would make these
# observations:
#
# 1) We have been told that the entire gassing procedure took less
# than 30 minutes, meaning that only some fraction of the 40% Keren
# cites (if accurate) would be available for killing people.
The 40% is from a "revisionist" source. As noted, there is technical
information (the original Zyklon patent) which supports a much
faster rate of release. I'm currently trying to get the exact
figure for Zyklon-B.
# It should be noted that in the California gas chamber,
# where the HCN-based poison is dropped into a weak acid solution directly
# beneath the chair of the condemned man, it takes 8 to 10 minutes
# for the condemned man to die.
Just out of curiosity, where is this "8 to 10 minutes" figure from?
# This is in a small, specially-built room, using higher
# concentrations of HCN than we are lead to believe were used in the
# alleged gas chambers at Birkenau.
Not necessarily. The SS used a rather high concentration. But, due
to the difference between Zyklon and methods used today in execution
gas chambers, it may have taken a longer time for everyone to die; but
this wouldn't disturb the SS-men too much.
# 2) After the 15 to 30 minute "gassing" that is spoken of in "eyewitness"
# accounts, the Zyklon B would still be gassing off, so that in
# addition to residue gas in the air, in the corpses, and on the
# surfaces of the room and the victims, there would be more than
# half the killing potentiol remaining in the Zyklon B.
No problem if gas masks were used or, as in Kremas II and III,
the Zyklon was taken out via the wiremesh devices after the victims
died.
# 3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they needed
# something with which to kill people.
20-30 minutes was fast enough; the bottleneck, anyway, was the
cremation, not the killing itself. Now, if Mr. Greg "Hitler was a
great man" Raven wants to convince us that Sarin was as easy
to transport, store, use, and ventilate as Zyklon-B and HCN
were, let him proceed. BTW, why isn't Sarin used in execution
gas chambers in the US? Moreover, what type of gas were the
SS more familiar with: Sarin or HCN? Lastly: since there was
an attempt to keep the murder process secret, wouldn't Zyklon-B
be a much more obvious choice than Sarin?
Richard J. Green
tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> demonstrating his ignorance of liquid/gas
equilibria writes:
> After all, the story itself tells us 900,000 to 2,000,000
>people were gassed to death by carbon monoxide.
> We can't overlook the question of why the Germans wouldn't
>have used HCN in a liquid form, which in fact is a form it can come
>in. Or, why they wouldn't have used it in another form that it can
>come in - gas.
I have answered this one many times for Mr. Moran:
In article <316d146d...@news.pacificnet.net>,
tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
> HCN can come in a liquid form. If a liquid was used for any
>alleged exterminations, it would have been way more
>time/cost/efficiency efficient. But no, "It just happens that it also
>proved to be useful for other purposes" says the professor.
> But then, it just so happens that it was on the premises for
>other purposes. It just so happens it was just laying around. It just
>so happens, if it wasn't just laying around, there would have been
>nothing around to identify as the agent of mass extermination by
>gassing. If the Soviet investigators had found cans of RAID, BLACK
>FLAG or boxes of moth balls, this would have been the agent of mass
>extermination.
I have explained to Mr. Moran before the dangers of liquid HCN.
Perhaps, he can explain why he thinks it's more efficient to transport
such a dangerous compound.
From DuPont's MSDS CAS 74-90-8:
Instability:
Unstable with heat, alkaline materials, and water.
(See Polymerization below.) DO NOT STORE WET HCN.
May react violently with strong mineral acids.
Experience shows that mixtures with about 20%
or more sulfuric acid will explode. Effects with
other acids are not quantified, but strong acids
like hydrochloric or nitric would probably react
similarly (emphasis DuPont's).
Polymerization:
Can occur violently in the presence of heat, alkaline
materials, or moisture. Once initiated, polymerization
becomes uncontrollable since the reaction is autocatalytic
producing heat and alkalinity (NH3). Confined polymerization
can cause a violent explosion. HCN is stabilized with small
amounts of acid to prevent polymerization. HCN SHOULD NOT
BE STORED FOR EXTENDED PERIODS unless routine testing confirms
product quality (emphasis mine).
Regards,
Rich Green
Ken McVay OBC
lie and hope no-one notices" Raven wrote:
"Much more common is the claim that diesel engines were used
to produce carbon monoxide gas -- a ridiculous claim owing to
the relatively small amount of CO produced by a diesel engine
under virtually any operating conditions."
Even Freddie Berg gave up his attempts to peddle that crap on
the net, but Mr. Raven keeps trying...
"It simply doesn't add up."
No, it doesn't, but Mr. Raven continues to try.
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html
addresses Mr. Berg's claptrap, and thus, by association, Mr.
Raven's claptrap. Anyone who would like to see how readily Mssrs.
Berg and Raven have been shredded is encouraged to check the
page noted.
Related information:
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/r/raven.greg
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/faqs/ihr/
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/faqs/reinhard/
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?camps/aktion.reinhard
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?orgs/israeli/yad-vashem
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/b/berg.friedrich
--
The Nizkor Project (Canada) - An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Over 100Megs of data: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?
Europe: ftp://nizkor.iam.uni-bonn.de/pub/nizkor/
Nizkor Web: http://www.almanac.bc.ca/ (Under construction - permanently!)
Matt Giwer
>Instability:
>Polymerization:
>Regards,
You continue to fail to post the P Chem equations for HCN with the
constants filled in, Mr. MS Chemist. Why is that?
You fail to post your combustible human body equations Mr. MS Chemist.
Why is that?
What is your problem with putting your years of education on the line
with clear statements that will establish your position? Excuse me,
is there a problem with the credentials you have posted? If not, why
have you not supported your claims?
You certainly must have validated them before you posted in support of
them.
Matt Giwer
>In article <3178E1...@kaiwan.com>, Greg "Repeat the same
>lie and hope no-one notices" Raven wrote:
> "Much more common is the claim that diesel engines were used
> to produce carbon monoxide gas -- a ridiculous claim owing to
> the relatively small amount of CO produced by a diesel engine
> under virtually any operating conditions."
>Even Freddie Berg gave up his attempts to peddle that crap on
>the net, but Mr. Raven keeps trying...
You posted the eyewitness testimony proving that engine exhaust and
cyanide are equally deadly. Just who is peddling ridiculous claims
here?
Why would you post a patently ridiculous claim like that and then
challenge any other claim as on the matter?
The claim is very simple. CO is no where near as lethal as HCN but
you have proven it is by posting the eyewitness claim. What in the
hell do you think people are talking about but false eyewitness claims
such as you post?
Mark Van Alstine
[snip]
> Without having seen Keren's original post, I would make these observations:
>
> 1) We have been told that the entire gassing procedure took less than 30
> minutes, meaning that only some fraction of the 40% Keren cites
> (if accurate) would be available for killing people....
Mr. Raven, others have discussed this as well and have cited that the
vaporization of HCN from Zyklon B is far more complete than just 40%, and
ws accomplished in a shorter period of time than 30 minutes:
In Message-ID: <4aclps$9...@gwdu19.gwdg.de>, Ulrich Roessler wrote:
"However, in the same article he [Rudolph] admits the following:
"The original patent for Zyklon-B specifies that nearly ALL HCN
(more than 90% apparently) will be emitted within 10min, at normal
temperatures (20 degree C)! Rudolf tries to dismiss this with the lame
comment that everyone exaggerates technical data in patent applications....
Source:
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/rudolf-report
[Irrelevent reference to the California gas chamber snipped]
> 2) After the 15 to 30 minute "gassing" that is spoken of in "eyewitness"
> accounts, the Zyklon B would still be gassing off, so that in addition to
> residue gas in the air, in the corpses, and on the surfaces of the room
> and the victims, there would be more than half the killing potentiol
> remaining in the Zyklon B.
Mr. Raven, as noted above, 90% of the HCN in the Zyklon B was vaporized in
about 10 minutes. It is therefore unlikely than any significant amount of
HCN remained unvaporized after 15 minutes, and probably none after 20,
when the deaeration system was turned on in Kremas II and III (and later
Krema V) to remove the HCN-laden air; or when the outside opening doors of
bunkers 1 and 2 and Kremas IV and V were opened to vent their gas
chambers.
In addition, to assert that any significant amount of HCN would stick, for
instance, to the corpses ignores the simple fact that HCN _boils_ at 26C,
which is significantly lower than the average body temperature of 36C.
Also, given that HCN is a volotile substance, it would have remained in
the gas chambers in its gaseous state and would have therefore been
flushed out when the gas chambers were ventilated.
> 3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they needed
> something with which to kill people.
Mr. Raven, the production of Sarin by the Nazis was low, being produced in
a pilot plant, with only about half a tonne beings made by 1945. There are
no known records of Sarin being used in quantity, in combat or otherwise,
by the Nazis. In addition, Sarin is basically a contact nerve agent (it is
dispensed as vapor droplets and is either inhaled or absorbed through the
skin) which is highly contamminating and very persistant, requiring
significant decontamination efforts and self-protection measures, such as
detergent washes, and protective clothing and gas masks wich must be
changed frequently.
Furthermore, Mr. Raven, I find your ignorance regarding nerve agents quite
stunning. To suggest that a persistant nerve agent, such as Sarin, was a
viable option to using Zyklon B, given the above, is completely ludicrous
as it would have contaminated not only the gas chambers, but the the rest
of the Krema structure as well. It would have adhered to the victims (as
well as the Sonderkommado who handled the victims), which were removed
from the gas chamber and brought to the furnace hall for incineration.
This would have required an extensive decontamination of the _entire_
Krema, not just the gas chamber and Sonderkommandos, for _each_ gassing.
All of which would have made for a far more time-consuming, expensive, and
risky operation than simply deaerating HCN from the gas chambers.
In addition, the accidental poisoning risks of using such nerve agents is
far higher, and more deletrious, than that of HCN. Nerve agents, such as
Sarin, and unlike HCN which can be metabolized, have cummulative effects.
This means than repeated accidental exposure to such nerve agents
increases the risks of fatality and irreversible health hazards.
> The claim that they attempted to adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous as claims
> that, while they intended to kill millions of Jews using gas, they forgot
> to built gas chambers at what is said to have been the largest gassing
> facility, and thus had to CONVERT existing rooms and buildings into gas
> chambers.
Mr. Raven, Auschwitz was pressed into service as an extermination camp in
June of 1942. Initially, for the sake of expediancey, the gassings took
place in bunkers 1 and 2, which were converted to gas chambers. It was
also intially expected that the gassings would take place at the bunkers,
which they did, but during the winter of 1942 problems arose due to the
cold winter temperatures. This interferred with the proper vaporization of
the HCN from the Zyklon B and it was then that the Zentralbauleitung
decided to move the gassings to Kremas II and III, necessitating the
conversions of their L.Keller 1 into homicidal gas chambers. It is worth
noting, in addition, that Kremas IV and V were _designed_ from the start
with above ground homicidal gas chambers.
Such events, of course, had nothing to do whatsoever with the decision to
use Zyklon B as a homicidal gassing agent. In fact, the opposite was true.
The homicidal gassing experiment in Block 11, had _everything_ to do with
the decision to carry out homicidal gassings at Auscwhitz using Zyklon B.
Mark
posted/e-mailed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie McCarthy
> I find the term "carbon monoxide engines" intriguing. I've never heard
> the term used before.
I knew I should have explained the term more thoroughly. Darnit.
I simply meant the diesel engines, which were used to produce carbon
monoxide. The relevant fact was that they produced CO, not that they
were diesels, so I chose to call them "carbon monoxide engines."
I was trying to force Mr. Raven to focus on the subject at hand, namely
the new gas which he has suggested, Sarin. I made it very plain that
this was my aim. My article ended with me writing:
I'd like to pursue this, Mr. Raven, if I may. Tell me more about
Sarin. Where can I learn more about it?
Unfortunately, Mr. Raven replaced that, and the rest of my article, with
the word "snip," and he replied only to a parenthetical comment that
happened to catch his eye. I suppose I should know better than to try
to get Mr. Raven to stick to the topic. Oh well.
Mr. Raven quoted only this section of what I wrote:
> (snip)
> If revisionists simply want to point out a
> particular inefficient gas, let them point to the carbon monoxide
> engines -- they were apparently inferior to Zyklon, or else Hoess
> wouldn't have made the switch! But this is fatuous reasoning. If the
> war had lasted another few years, perhaps Zyklon-B would have been
> replaced with something else. This evolution of efficiency does not, of
> course, mean that none of it ever happened.)
> (snip)
He then went on to write:
> There are engines that use carbon monoxide, of
> course, but they are called "producer gas" engines, and were in used
> in Germany during the war. These would have made very good sources for
> deadly gas --
False. See below.
> but no exterminationist to my knowledge has ever claimed
> that they were used.
That is because they were _not_ used. Historians, or as you say,
"exterminationists," make claims based on facts and evidence. I realize
that you are used to claiming whatever is most convenient for you at the
time, but please try to understand that historians do not work that way.
So, would the producer-gas vehicles have indeed made a good source of
carbon monoxide?
Well, one need only learn how they work, to answer that question. The
producer-gas engine at the rear of the vehicle burns wood in an
oxygen-poor environment, and generates CO at such high concentrations
that it is flammable. The CO is then piped to the front of the vehicle,
where it is burned in an internal combustion engine, essentially the
same way that natural gas is burned in special modern cars.
What Mr. Raven is suggesting is that the Nazis would have hooked up the
wood-burning engine to the gas chambers, and pumped such high
concentrations of CO directly into those rooms. CO has a very large
range of flammable concentrations: from 12 to 75 percent, according to
the Merck Index. Holocaust-denier Friedrich Berg says that the
emissions of the wood-burning engines "always contained between 18% and
35% carbon monoxide." (This from the JHR, Spring 1984, p. 38 -- an
article which Mr. Berg was kind enough to photocopy and personally mail
to me.)
So, what would be the result of pumping this flammable gas into a building?
Think "Bic lighter."
I submit that torching the building would have been an unpleasant side
effect of using the producer-gas vehicles. Especially unpleasant for
the victims in the gas chambers, of course, if they happened to still be
alive. But also annoying and rather dangerous for the Nazis overseeing
the operation. It's not very smart to build a gas chamber that's just
going to burn down every time it gets used.
> Much more common is the claim that diesel engines were used to produce
> carbon monoxide gas -- a ridiculous claim owing to the relatively
> small amount of CO produced by a diesel engine under virtually any
> operating conditions.
This falsehood has been refuted here on alt.revisionism many times.
In a nutshell, if you rev up a diesel engine and partially block the air
intake with a piece of cardboard, its exhaust is exceptionally toxic.
Levels of CO sufficient to kill in a half-hour are produced, and, just
as importantly, very little oxygen is emitted.
All the details are available at Nizkor in draft version:
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/denial-of-science/diesel-1.html
Note that Mr. Raven ignores these facts and merely repeats denier claims
as if they have never been refuted.
Speaking of Mr. Raven ignoring facts, perhaps he'd like to address the
thorough discussion of Sarin posted by Keith Morrison in the article
<t08o.931...@unb.ca>. Mr. Morrison has demonstrated that Sarin
would pose many difficulties in use, and would certainly be more
problematic than Zyklon-B for a number of reasons. Perhaps Mr. Raven
would like to address Mr. Morrison's article, instead of changing the
subject again.
Perhaps.
Matt Giwer
>Greg Raven (ihr...@kaiwan.com) wrote:
>> I find the term "carbon monoxide engines" intriguing. I've never heard
>> the term used before.
>I knew I should have explained the term more thoroughly. Darnit.
>I simply meant the diesel engines, which were used to produce carbon
>monoxide. The relevant fact was that they produced CO, not that they
>were diesels, so I chose to call them "carbon monoxide engines."
Excuse me, but despite all knowledge of CO and HCN you agree that CO
and HCN are equally lethal based upon eyewitness testimony. Or you
will denonounce the eyewitness that said it was.
>I was trying to force Mr. Raven to focus on the subject at hand, namely
>the new gas which he has suggested, Sarin. I made it very plain that
>this was my aim. My article ended with me writing:
Sorry about that. You agree that engine exhaust and cyanide are
equally deadly.
>> There are engines that use carbon monoxide, of
>> course, but they are called "producer gas" engines, and were in used
>> in Germany during the war. These would have made very good sources for
>> deadly gas --
>False. See below.
Actually you believe it is as deadly as cyanide as you never posted
one word to contradict that idiot claim.
>> but no exterminationist to my knowledge has ever claimed
>> that they were used.
>That is because they were _not_ used. Historians, or as you say,
>"exterminationists," make claims based on facts and evidence. I realize
>that you are used to claiming whatever is most convenient for you at the
>time, but please try to understand that historians do not work that way.
>So, would the producer-gas vehicles have indeed made a good source of
>carbon monoxide?
That does not make it as deadly as cyanide as you believe it is.
>Well, one need only learn how they work, to answer that question. The
>producer-gas engine at the rear of the vehicle burns wood in an
>oxygen-poor environment, and generates CO at such high concentrations
>that it is flammable. The CO is then piped to the front of the vehicle,
>where it is burned in an internal combustion engine, essentially the
>same way that natural gas is burned in special modern cars.
Amazing! This room with an engine outside burns wood. Do you really
believe everyone is as stupid as you are?
>What Mr. Raven is suggesting is that the Nazis would have hooked up the
>wood-burning engine to the gas chambers, and pumped such high
>concentrations of CO directly into those rooms. CO has a very large
>range of flammable concentrations: from 12 to 75 percent, according to
>the Merck Index. Holocaust-denier Friedrich Berg says that the
>emissions of the wood-burning engines "always contained between 18% and
>35% carbon monoxide." (This from the JHR, Spring 1984, p. 38 -- an
>article which Mr. Berg was kind enough to photocopy and personally mail
>to me.)
Golly cheez whiz Batman, now we have a wood burning internal
combustion engine to replace the diesel engine from a Russian tank.
What in the hell do you think you are making up as you go along that
anyone but a fellow holohugger will believe? Only a holohugger would
be stupid enough to believe your crap.
Daniel Keren
[To Jamie McCarthy]
# Golly cheez whiz Batman, now we have a wood burning internal
# combustion engine to replace the diesel engine from a Russian tank.
No, you crazy old drunkard. Learn to read. Jamie McCarthy is *not*
the one suggesting that these wood-burning engines were used. It
was "revisionist" Greg Raven who offered they would have been
more efficient than internal combustion engines.
# What in the hell do you think you are making up as you go
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
# along that
It's not him, dopey. It's Greg "Hitler was a great man" Raven,
a "leading revisionist scholar", who suggested that these engines
would have been used.
# anyone but a fellow holohugger will believe? Only a holohugger
# would be stupid enough to believe your crap.
Only one of your fellow Nazihuggers could misread a text like you
did. Only a fellow Nazihugger.
tom moran
>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>
>>Greg Raven <ihr...@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>
>>>tom moran wrote:
>>>>
>>>> dmitt...@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <316e661d...@news.pacificnet.net>, t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...
>>>> >> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> Lets see. Raven says that Zyclone B is made to gas off slowly
>>>> and thus would be a poor choice for the mass extermination of human
>>>> beings under the conditions alleged.
>>>>
>>>> Karen responds with some material that he concludes "clearly
>>>> refutes" Raven's "rubbish".
>>>>
>>>> The summary of the pertinent refuting information offered by
>>>> Keren is:
>>>>
>>>> 1. 40% of the HCN escapes the storing medium in the first half hour.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Humans die quickly from much less concentration, so much less than
>>>> 40% would have to gas off.
>>>>
>>>> 3. That recently discovered patents to Zyclone B show that the gas off
>>>> is even faster.
>>>
>>>Without having seen Keren's original post, I would make these observations:
>>>
>>>1) We have been told that the entire gassing procedure took less than 30 minutes,
>>>meaning that only some fraction of the 40% Keren cites (if accurate) would be
>>>available for killing people. It should be noted that in the California gas chamber,
>>>where the HCN-based poison is dropped into a weak acid solution directly beneath the
>>>chair of the condemned man, it takes 8 to 10 minutes for the condemned man to die.
>>>This is in a small, specially-built room, using higher concentrations of HCN than we
>>>are lead to believe were used in the alleged gas chambers at Birkenau.
>>>
>>>2) After the 15 to 30 minute "gassing" that is spoken of in "eyewitness" accounts, the
>>>Zyklon B would still be gassing off, so that in addition to residue gas in the air, in
>>>the corpses, and on the surfaces of the room and the victims, there would be more than
>>>half the killing potentiol remaining in the Zyklon B.
>>>
>>>3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they needed something with
>>>which to kill people. The claim that they attempted to adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous
>>>as claims that, while they intended to kill millions of Jews using gas, they forgot to
>>>built gas chambers at what is said to have been the largest gassing facility, and thus
>>>had to CONVERT existing rooms and buildings into gas chambers.
>
>> It seems there are many other alternate poisons the Germans
>>could have used, of which any comparison considerations would put
>>Zyklon B at the end of the list.
>
>Used for what? the gassing they didn't Mr. Moran? They used the gas
>because it was cheap and effective. They used Zyklon-B because it took
>very little to kill. They used Zyklon-B because tey already had it to
>fumigate and they could get lots of it even without the irritating
>agent. Come on, don't post silly stuff that you distortionists have
>already been shown to be lying about. The main matter to the stupid
>question above is that they DID use it. So I guess your Nazi friends
>weren't very wise in their choices but they found the choice to be
>effective enough.
What do you know about how much it took to kill?
If there were no lice in the world there would be no gas
chamber story, or Holocasut story. If there were no lice in the world
there wouldn't have been any old cans of Zyklon B laying around, or
fumigation rooms to get some mind working that they were used for
people. If there were cans of RAID or BLACK FLAG laying around, this
would have been the agent of mass murder.
The term "distortionist" or "Nazi" doesn't do anything for am
argument. It is only inferior emotional outburst. When you say someone
is lying, you have to show proof.
Capitalizing "DID" doesn['t make your statement true does it?
tom moran
>ihr...@kaiwan.com wrote:
>
>> 3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they
>> needed something with which to kill people. The claim that they
>> attempted to adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous as [...]
>
>Landmark!
>
>This is the first time -- the _very_ first -- time that a "revisionist"
>has presented a specific product as an alternative to Zyklon which is
>not _clearly_ inferior.
>
>Previously, all we've heard is that other gases, unnamed, would be more
>deadly or more effective. The rationale is, as Mr. Raven states, that
>since other gases would have been more deadly, therefore the Nazis would
>not have used less-deadly gases, therefore the Nazis did not use
>less-deadly gases.
>
>(This ignores the fact that the killing operations evolved over time.
>Hoess decided to replace the less-efficient carbon monoxide engines with
>more-efficient Zyklon-B. If revisionists simply want to point out a
>particular inefficient gas, let them point to the carbon monoxide
>engines -- they were apparently inferior to Zyklon, or else Hoess
>wouldn't have made the switch!
Jamie, would you like to show where you got the idea that Hoess was
the one who decided to use Zyklon B? Usually I don't even bother
reading your stuff, but it was right here amidst the talk of gas. Now
where did you get this idea it was Hoess, when many versions of hte
story have his second in command doing it for the first time while
Hoess was away. This I believe is taken from his own testimony.
I wonder if the Hebrew congregation that is said to be
sponsoring Nizkor put an ad in the paper for a staff.
WANTED: People to man website. Must be idiots and willing to blurt out
anything. Willingness to crawl a must. $1.00 an hour. Call Hebrew
congregation.
> But this is fatuous reasoning. If the
>war had lasted another few years, perhaps Zyklon-B would have been
>replaced with something else. This evolution of efficiency does not, of
>course, mean that none of it ever happened.)
>
>Greg Raven has previously offered carbon monoxide and the vague term
>"nerve gases" as alternatives; these have been dealt with in QAR 29.
>(Carbon monoxide is much less deadly than the gas released by Zyklon.)
>Walter Lueftl, author of the much-hyped "Lueftl Report," has offered
>carbon dioxide (!) as being preferable to Zyklon. Ironically, another
>prominent revisionist, Friedrich Berg, has scoffed at the notion of
>carbon dioxide being an efficient killer. Perhaps Berg and Lueftl need
>to compare notes. In short, no specific alternatives have been
>suggested which would be significantly superior to Zyklon.
>
>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/qar/qar29.html
>
>But now Mr. Raven has named another gas or product, and this is one I
>have never heard of before.
>
>I'd like to pursue this, Mr. Raven, if I may. Tell me more about Sarin.
>Where can I learn more about it?
>
tom moran
>In article <3178E1...@kaiwan.com>, Greg "Repeat the same
>lie and hope no-one notices" Raven wrote:
>
> "Much more common is the claim that diesel engines were used
> to produce carbon monoxide gas -- a ridiculous claim owing to
> the relatively small amount of CO produced by a diesel engine
> under virtually any operating conditions."
>
>Even Freddie Berg gave up his attempts to peddle that crap on
>the net, but Mr. Raven keeps trying...
>
> "It simply doesn't add up."
>
>No, it doesn't, but Mr. Raven continues to try.
>
Poor McVay. He does the best he can.
tom moran
Poor professor. Worse yet, poor poor, the professors students.
tom moran
Many hazardous substances are transported over public roads.
Green talks about the explosive nature under certain conditions, such
as being mixed with certain acids. Of course that is easy to guard
against, by simply not opening up any containers and not throwing in a
catalyst for explosion. "Stablizers" can also be added.
"Heat"? This can be over come. Did Green mention any
temperatures? No.
What does Green have to say about it being shipped in the form
it was, Zyklon B, as to explosive nature? We can wait for his reply
and then I will suggest a continuation.
Green; does "emphasis" do anything for the validity of a
statement?
tom moran
>Greg Raven <ihr...@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>
># Without having seen Keren's original post, I would make these
># observations:
>#
># 1) We have been told that the entire gassing procedure took less
># than 30 minutes, meaning that only some fraction of the 40% Keren
># cites (if accurate) would be available for killing people.
>
>The 40% is from a "revisionist" source. As noted, there is technical
>information (the original Zyklon patent) which supports a much
>faster rate of release. I'm currently trying to get the exact
>figure for Zyklon-B.
This would be Dr. Roeseller (spelling uncertain). This is the
figure Keren used as a conponent for arguing his side in a prior post.
"Even revisionist Dr. Roeseller ...40% ..."
># It should be noted that in the California gas chamber,
># where the HCN-based poison is dropped into a weak acid solution directly
># beneath the chair of the condemned man, it takes 8 to 10 minutes
># for the condemned man to die.
>
>Just out of curiosity, where is this "8 to 10 minutes" figure from?
>
># This is in a small, specially-built room, using higher
># concentrations of HCN than we are lead to believe were used in the
># alleged gas chambers at Birkenau.
>
>Not necessarily. The SS used a rather high concentration. But, due
>to the difference between Zyklon and methods used today in execution
>gas chambers, it may have taken a longer time for everyone to die; but
>this wouldn't disturb the SS-men too much.
Is the professor now saying that the Zyklon B used was
especially potent in relation to its usual content?
>
># 2) After the 15 to 30 minute "gassing" that is spoken of in "eyewitness"
># accounts, the Zyklon B would still be gassing off, so that in
># addition to residue gas in the air, in the corpses, and on the
># surfaces of the room and the victims, there would be more than
># half the killing potentiol remaining in the Zyklon B.
>
>No problem if gas masks were used or, as in Kremas II and III,
>the Zyklon was taken out via the wiremesh devices after the victims
>died.
>
># 3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they needed
># something with which to kill people.
>
>20-30 minutes was fast enough; the bottleneck, anyway, was the
>cremation, not the killing itself. Now, if Mr. Greg "Hitler was a
>great man" Raven wants to convince us that Sarin was as easy
>to transport, store, use, and ventilate as Zyklon-B and HCN
>were, let him proceed. BTW, why isn't Sarin used in execution
>gas chambers in the US? Moreover, what type of gas were the
>SS more familiar with: Sarin or HCN? Lastly: since there was
>an attempt to keep the murder process secret, wouldn't Zyklon-B
>be a much more obvious choice than Sarin?
>
>
Daniel Keren
# Much more common is the claim that diesel engines were used to produce
# carbon monoxide gas -- a ridiculous claim owing to the relatively
# small amount of CO produced by a diesel engine under virtually any
# operating conditions.
Rubbish. In the series of experiments reported in the oft-quoted
paper by Pattle et. al., the exhaust of a tiny (6 BHP) diesel engine
proved lethal enough to kill animals locked in a closed chamber.
Under some running conditions (as low air/fuel ratio), CO was
determined to be the main cause of death; NOx is also lethal,
and diesel exhaust contains NOx.
# To put it another way, if the Nazis had had a plan or policy to
# murder all the Jews in Europe/the world, or even a greater
# percentage of them, they would never have used diesel engine exhaust
False. See above.
# or a commercial pesticide as the killing agent.
You can keep calling it "a commercial pesticide" until your face turns
Prussian Blue, but this won't hide the fact that this "commercial
pesticide", Zyklon-B, releases exactly the same gas used to execute
people in US gas chambers today - which alone proves it was a rather
natural choice for killing people.
Wasn't the Federal building in OK blown up with a mixture of some
fertilzers, BTW? Hell, you can see these revisionazis, a few
years from now, saying "if this-and-that would want to blow
up a building, he woudn't have used a commercial fertilizer
to get the job done".
Using Zyklon-B and the exhaust of large engines were two hardly
elegant, but rather simple, effective, and cheap methods of
mass murder.
Daniel Keren
# This would be Dr. Roeseller (spelling uncertain). This is the
# figure Keren used as a conponent for arguing his side in a
# prior post. "Even revisionist Dr. Roeseller ...40% ..."
You're senile. Dr. Roessler, who has a Ph.D in physics,
is *not* a "revisionist", and he didn't give the 40% figure. It
was given by "revisionist" Germar Rudolph, who, BTW, does not
hold a Ph.D to the best of my knowledge.
# Is the professor now saying that the Zyklon B used was
# especially potent in relation to its usual content?
No, it was just Zyklon-B. Ordinary Zyklon-B.
MORRISON KEITH MURRAY
>Mr. Raven, the production of Sarin by the Nazis was low, being produced in
>a pilot plant, with only about half a tonne beings made by 1945. There are
>no known records of Sarin being used in quantity, in combat or otherwise,
>by the Nazis.
Minor correction. About 15 000 tonnes of Sarin were produced. The second
of the German nerve gasses, Tabun, was the one produced in experimental
quantities.
Sarin stocks at the factory were broken down chemically and dumped into the
Ober river in 1944-45 to prevent their capture by the Allies.
--
Keith Morrison
t0...@unb.ca
Jamie McCarthy
# >If revisionists simply want to point out a
# >particular inefficient gas, let them point to the carbon monoxide
# >engines -- they were apparently inferior to Zyklon, or else Hoess
# >wouldn't have made the switch!
#
# Jamie, would you like to show where you got the idea that Hoess was
# the one who decided to use Zyklon B? Usually I don't even bother
# reading your stuff, but it was right here amidst the talk of gas. Now
# where did you get this idea it was Hoess, when many versions of hte
# story have his second in command doing it for the first time while
# Hoess was away. This I believe is taken from his own testimony.
This may be so; I have forgotten the details, and I can't say for
sure whether it was Hoess or one of his staff.
# I wonder if the Hebrew congregation that is said to be
# sponsoring Nizkor put an ad in the paper for a staff.
#
# WANTED: People to man website. Must be idiots and willing to blurt out
# anything. Willingness to crawl a must. $1.00 an hour. Call Hebrew
# congregation.
Mike Curtis
>ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>>ihr...@kaiwan.com wrote:
>>> 3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they
>>> needed something with which to kill people. The claim that they
>>> attempted to adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous as [...]
>>Landmark!
>>This is the first time -- the _very_ first -- time that a "revisionist"
>>has presented a specific product as an alternative to Zyklon which is
>>not _clearly_ inferior.
>>Previously, all we've heard is that other gases, unnamed, would be more
>>deadly or more effective. The rationale is, as Mr. Raven states, that
>>since other gases would have been more deadly, therefore the Nazis would
>>not have used less-deadly gases, therefore the Nazis did not use
>>less-deadly gases.
>>(This ignores the fact that the killing operations evolved over time.
>>Hoess decided to replace the less-efficient carbon monoxide engines with
>>more-efficient Zyklon-B. If revisionists simply want to point out a
>>particular inefficient gas, let them point to the carbon monoxide
>>engines -- they were apparently inferior to Zyklon, or else Hoess
>>wouldn't have made the switch! But this is fatuous reasoning. If the
>>war had lasted another few years, perhaps Zyklon-B would have been
>>replaced with something else. This evolution of efficiency does not, of
>>course, mean that none of it ever happened.)
> Where did you get the claim that CO was used at Auschwitz prior to
>HCN? The FAQ makes no mention of it.
>
> And yet we know from eyewitness testimony the HCN / CO difference is
>only 10-15 / 15-20 minutes. It is unclear, given the huge safety
>margin for people working the facilities what value of this slight
>time decrease might have been.
I thought eywitness testimony was no good? So what testimony is good
and what isn't. Is SS testimony good testimony? Is the testimony of
German businessmen good testimony? Is the testimony of survivers good
testimony? What testimony is best, Mr. Giwer?
>>Greg Raven has previously offered carbon monoxide and the vague term
>>"nerve gases" as alternatives; these have been dealt with in QAR 29.
>>(Carbon monoxide is much less deadly than the gas released by Zyklon.)
> Not according to eyewitness accounts of both. In fact the FAQ even
>says that more Zyklon-B had to be added the next day to kill them all.
>Yet this is the person you claim found it more efficient.
Testimony? Amazing. But why offer an alternate method to do something
"better" that supposedly didn't happen at all!?
Jamie McCarthy
consider Mr. Giwer to be not a serious contributor to this newsgroup but
rather a troll. It is simply impossible that his voluminous ravings are
serious. Rather, his aim appears to be to sabotage any useful
discussion on this group by angering people and drowning them out with
sheer volume.
And his volume is impressive. For comparison, Mike Stein has 9 articles
on my news server at the moment, in alt.revisionism. Al Baron has 20.
Huber has 57. Ken McVay has 54. Danny Keren has 71. The prolific
Tom Moran has 111.
Matt Giwer is far and away the winner with 261.
Matt Giwer's Usenet archives have set _records_ at Nizkor for largest
single files. A few months ago, it was rare to see a month's worth of
Usenet for any particular person exceed 800K or so. Giwer's output for
February is over a megabyte. For March, 2.4 megabytes. So far in
April, he's accumulated well over two megabytes of postings, and the
month is barely two-thirds over!
So far this calendar year, Matt Giwer has posted himself larger archives
than Milton Kleim did for 1993, 1994, and 1995 put together.
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt
Furthermore, his articles contribute, as far as I can tell, nothing. He
knows essentially nothing about the Holocaust. Even his attempts to be
a pro-denial troll often fail, because he doesn't have the background
required to know what to challenge.
And his attempts to enter the discussion are frequently like this
article, in which he challenges me:
mgi...@combase.com (Matt Giwer) wrote:
> ...despite all knowledge of CO and HCN you agree that CO
> and HCN are equally lethal based upon eyewitness testimony.
In earlier discussions, I made it clear that this was the exact opposite
of my viewpoint. I did not "agree" to this; I argued against it. HCN
is significantly more lethal than CO.
This is just one example.
In my view, Matt Giwer has less credibility than anyone else I've ever
encountered on Usenet. And that's saying a lot. I believe that readers
will know he's a fool and a troll whether I spend time countering him or
not.
Therefore, I choose not to waste my time. I am simply killing all of
Giwer's posts unread.
I have not done this for anyone since Serdar Argic, by the way.
If anyone thinks this troll's trollings are significant enough to merit
my seeing them, feel free to forward them to me in email, but frankly,
at this point, I don't care if he calls me a child molester. His
credibility is so low we need to invent new ways of measuring it. He's
not good for anything but verbal target practice, which I don't have
time for.
Richard J. Green
tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
Yes, Mr. Moran is quite correct that most of the obstacles to using liquid HCN
could in principle be overcome. It is up to Mr. Moran to show that
doing so would have been cheaper than transporting Zyklon-B.
> "Heat"? This can be over come. Did Green mention any
>temperatures? No.
> What does Green have to say about it being shipped in the form
>it was, Zyklon B, as to explosive nature? We can wait for his reply
>and then I will suggest a continuation.
Clearly, any such problem was solved, or does Mr. Moran deny that Zyklon-B was
shipped regularly for delousing? Perhaps, someone with access to the
patents can comment on whether acid was added.
> Green; does "emphasis" do anything for the validity of a
>statement?
I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Could someone be so kind as
to translate it into English.
Richard J. Green
> You continue to fail to post the P Chem equations for HCN with the
>constants filled in, Mr. MS Chemist. Why is that?
I am assuming Mr. Giwer is referring to me although I am not an "MS
Chemist." What does he think "the P Chem equations for HCN with the
constants filled in" means? Does Mr. Giwer care to see the Schrodinger
Equation? Perhaps, he is referring to his ignorance regarding the vapor
pressure of HCN? Perhaps he is referring to the solution to Fick's
second law of diffusion?
> You fail to post your combustible human body equations Mr. MS Chemist.
>Why is that?
LYING- TROLL ALERT: I have posted the attached material many times.
> What is your problem with putting your years of education on the line
>with clear statements that will establish your position? Excuse me,
>is there a problem with the credentials you have posted? If not, why
>have you not supported your claims?
>
> You certainly must have validated them before you posted in support of
>them.
Mr. Giwer is quite correct here. I still won't do his homework for
him.
Mr. Giwer also seems to be missing this post.
I have not heard back from you. We are calculating the net heat
loss/gain of burning a kilogram of hamburger. If I remember correctly
we agreed to do this calculation assuming 70, 85, or 90 % water.
That works out to be 700, 850, or 900 cc of water. Now before we
evaporate the water, we must heat it to 100 C from 25 C.
You have given the number 1 cal per cc per degree C for the heat
capacity of water. I have agreed. I am asking you to get your
calculator out and calculate the energy necessary to raise 700, 850, or
900 cc of water to 100 C from 25 C. When you have done that, if I
agree, we can proceed to calculate the heat necessary to evaporate the
water.
I have gone first by giving you the numbers you need and dumbing down
the calculation for you:
Heat = (Temperature Difference (K))* (Heat Capacity (cal/cc/K)) * (Volume (cc))
Temperature Difference = 75 K
Heat Capacity = 1 cal/cc/K
Volume = 700, 850, or 900 cc.
There's a shortcut: just admit you were wrong. Otherwise, let's continue
the calculation, if you know how to multiply.
Mr. Giwer wrote:
> You were going first and you were going to show that the remaining
>non-water component produced enough heat of burning to continue this
>evaporation. So you need as a minimum to show that the heat from the
>remaining "solids" exceeds the heat from this calculation.
That's exactly what we will prove Mr. Giwer. We are, however, doing it
one step at a time. I am walking you through this calculation, but I am
not doing your homework for you. Get your calculator out, do the
calculation and we can move to the next step. Unless you're afraid of
being proved wrong, that is.
Daniel Mittleman
>I should probably point out to the readers of alt.revisionism that I
>consider Mr. Giwer to be not a serious contributor to this newsgroup but
>rather a troll. It is simply impossible that his voluminous ravings are
>serious. Rather, his aim appears to be to sabotage any useful
>discussion on this group by angering people and drowning them out with
>sheer volume.
>encountered on Usenet. And that's saying a lot. I believe that readers
>will know he's a fool and a troll whether I spend time countering him or
>not.
>
>Therefore, I choose not to waste my time. I am simply killing all of
>Giwer's posts unread.
>
>I have not done this for anyone since Serdar Argic, by the way.
>
>If anyone thinks this troll's trollings are significant enough to merit
>my seeing them, feel free to forward them to me in email, but frankly,
>at this point, I don't care if he calls me a child molester. His
>credibility is so low we need to invent new ways of measuring it. He's
>not good for anything but verbal target practice, which I don't have
>time for.
Hear hear! This is the sanest post I've read in a.r in a long time.
I'll follow suit too. I hope others consider this as well.
daniel david mittleman
===========================================================================
Quoth the Raven: "Never happened."
Greg Raven
> Mr. Raven, others have discussed this as well and have cited that the
> vaporization of HCN from Zyklon B is far more complete than just 40%, and
> ws accomplished in a shorter period of time than 30 minutes:
>
> In Message-ID: <4aclps$9...@gwdu19.gwdg.de>, Ulrich Roessler wrote:
>
> "However, in the same article he [Rudolph] admits the following:
>
> "The original patent for Zyklon-B specifies that nearly ALL HCN
> (more than 90% apparently) will be emitted within 10min, at normal
> temperatures (20 degree C)! Rudolf tries to dismiss this with the lame
> comment that everyone exaggerates technical data in patent applications....
>
>
> Mr. Raven, as noted above, 90% of the HCN in the Zyklon B was vaporized in
> about 10 minutes. It is therefore unlikely than any significant amount of
> HCN remained unvaporized after 15 minutes, and probably none after 20,
> when the deaeration system was turned on in Kremas II and III (and later
> Krema V) to remove the HCN-laden air; or when the outside opening doors of
> bunkers 1 and 2 and Kremas IV and V were opened to vent their gas
> chambers.
The Degesch manual on Zyklon B, page 20 (found on page 155 of The Leuchter Report), reads:
"The chief operator must so arrange everyone's part in the operation {of distributing the Zyklon B in the
area to be fumigated} that it will not take more than 30 minutes in all. This applies especially to very warm
climates...."
This, in conjunction with the earlier statements (in the Degesch manual) of the lengthy times required for
fumigation and ventilation, would seem to indicate that under the worst conditions (warm, dry weather) the
HCN concentrations from Zyklon B begin to reach dangerous levels at the 30-minute mark, even for operators
with proper clothing and gas masks. No matter what the patent says, the manual -- which would be used by
operators, not the patent papers -- shows the real-world application of Zyklon B.
--
Greg Raven (ihr...@kaiwan.com)
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg
John Morris
wrote:
> Amazing! This room with an engine outside burns wood. Do you really
>believe everyone is as stupid as you are?
I know you are not so stupid, Mr. Giwer, that you believe that Mr.
McCarthy makes this claim. You know as well as I do that Mr. McCarthy
is giving reasons why producer gas engines were not used.
Taking it as given that you are not stupid, the question becomes why
you do this. What is it that you find so amusing?
--
John Morris <jmo...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
at University of Alberta <Scripture veteris capiunt exempla futuri>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nizkor Project: An Electronic Holocaust Resource
File archives - ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca
Web page - http://nizkor.almanac.bc.ca
John Morris
wrote:
[in response to the valid and documented claims of Richard Green]
> You continue to fail to post the P Chem equations for HCN with the
>constants filled in, Mr. MS Chemist. Why is that?
You continue to fail to respond to repeated invitations to do the
same? Why is that? Is it because you are a troll who has no interest
in anything but amusing yourself at the expense of others?
>
> You fail to post your combustible human body equations Mr. MS Chemist.
>Why is that?
You continue to fail to respond to repeated invitations to do the
same? Why is that? Is it because you are a troll who has no interest
in anything but amusing yourself at the expense of others?
> What is your problem with putting your years of education on the line
>with clear statements that will establish your position? Excuse me,
>is there a problem with the credentials you have posted? If not, why
>have you not supported your claims?
You give the appearance of believing that Mr. Green is wrong. What is
the problem for you with making clear statements that will debunk his
position? You have a BS from U of Cincinnati. Is there some problem
withthe credentials you have posted? Why don't you support your
counter claims?
> You certainly must have validated them before you posted in support of
>them.
It is apparent ythat you have no counter claims to validate and merely
make unsupported claims in order to amuse yourself. What is it about
mass murder that you find so amusing?
tom moran
>> Many hazardous substances are transported over public roads.
>>Green talks about the explosive nature under certain conditions, such
>>as being mixed with certain acids. Of course that is easy to guard
>>against, by simply not opening up any containers and not throwing in a
>>catalyst for explosion. "Stablizers" can also be added.
>
>Yes, Mr. Moran is quite correct that most of the obstacles to using liquid HCN
>could in principle be overcome. It is up to Mr. Moran to show that
>doing so would have been cheaper than transporting Zyklon-B.
Who said anything about "cheaper"? Efficient. Faster. More
condensed. This probably would all add to up to "cheaper". It would
have not have left a bunch of pellets with 1/2 of the product still in
them laying around after the all the people were killed.
>
>> "Heat"? This can be over come. Did Green mention any
>>temperatures? No.
>> What does Green have to say about it being shipped in the form
>>it was, Zyklon B, as to explosive nature? We can wait for his reply
>>and then I will suggest a continuation.
>
>Clearly, any such problem was solved, or does Mr. Moran deny that Zyklon-B was
>shipped regularly for delousing? Perhaps, someone with access to the
>patents can comment on whether acid was added.
I'll answer my own question. Nitro Glycren in liquid form,
sloshing around in any containers is truely hazardous, but in the
dynamite form, packed in saw dust it is a bit more stable. Green
should have used this one himself.
>> Green; does "emphasis" do anything for the validity of a
>>statement?
>
>I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Could someone be so kind as
>to translate it into English.
You know emphasising a word.
tom moran
>In article <mvanalst-210...@rbi148.rbi.com> mvan...@rbi.com (Mark Van Alstine) writes:
>
>>Mr. Raven, the production of Sarin by the Nazis was low, being produced in
>>a pilot plant, with only about half a tonne beings made by 1945. There are
>>no known records of Sarin being used in quantity, in combat or otherwise,
>>by the Nazis.
>
>Minor correction. About 15 000 tonnes of Sarin were produced. The second
>of the German nerve gasses, Tabun, was the one produced in experimental
>quantities.
>
>Sarin stocks at the factory were broken down chemically and dumped into the
>Ober river in 1944-45 to prevent their capture by the Allies.
>
>--
>Keith Morrison
>t0...@unb.ca
One could imagine the Holocaust story has some documents
around to show the Germans did away with poisonous chemical weapons
which would be the reason they didn't have any alternatives to Zyklon
B.
"Fears Rise Over Nazi Weapons Leaking at Bottom of the Baltic"
Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1992
"Tons of chemical weapons dumped by
the Allies after World War II,
have nudged the sea to the brink of
catastrophe, scientists say."
"By tossing 300,000 tons of ready - to - fire weapons - enough
to to kill the entire population of Europe ... The 300,000 tons of
chemical weapons now submerged in the Baltic Sea's greenish brown
waters contain enough active gases to kill 800 million people ..."
A more recent follow up that appears says the containers are
due to be eroded through within the next few years. Boy, Europe is
just going to love us.
tom moran
"If revisionists simply want to point out a
particular inefficient gas, let them point to the carbon monoxide
engines -- they were apparently inferior to Zyklon, or else Hoess
wouldn't have made the switch!"
Moran wrote:
"Jamie, would you like to show where you got the idea that Hoess was
the one who decided to use Zyklon B? Usually I don't even bother
reading your stuff, but it was right here amidst the talk of gas. Now
where did you get this idea it was Hoess, when many versions of hte
story have his second in command doing it for the first time while
Hoess was away. This I believe is taken from his own testimony."
Jamie wrote:
"This may be so; I have forgotten the details, and I can't say for
sure whether it was Hoess or one of his staff."
Moran writes:
You mean you forgot something, but then went on to write something
about the forgotten stuff anyway?
Mike Curtis
>In article <jamie-21049...@clmx42.dial.voyager.net>, ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) writes...
>>I should probably point out to the readers of alt.revisionism that I
>>consider Mr. Giwer to be not a serious contributor to this newsgroup but
>>rather a troll. It is simply impossible that his voluminous ravings are
>>serious. Rather, his aim appears to be to sabotage any useful
>>discussion on this group by angering people and drowning them out with
>>sheer volume.
>>...
>>In my view, Matt Giwer has less credibility than anyone else I've ever
>>encountered on Usenet. And that's saying a lot. I believe that readers
>>will know he's a fool and a troll whether I spend time countering him or
>>not.
>>
>>Therefore, I choose not to waste my time. I am simply killing all of
>>Giwer's posts unread.
I'm coming to this conclusion also. He doesn't offer much beyond
personal opinion and we all have opinions. His are baseless and sadly
a waste of time to read.
Mike Curtis
>mcu...@eden.com (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:
>>
>>>Greg Raven <ihr...@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>tom moran wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> dmitt...@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Daniel Mittleman) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >In article <316e661d...@news.pacificnet.net>, t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran) writes...
>>>>> >> (snip)
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets see. Raven says that Zyclone B is made to gas off slowly
>>>>> and thus would be a poor choice for the mass extermination of human
>>>>> beings under the conditions alleged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen responds with some material that he concludes "clearly
>>>>> refutes" Raven's "rubbish".
>>>>>
>>>>> The summary of the pertinent refuting information offered by
>>>>> Keren is:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. 40% of the HCN escapes the storing medium in the first half hour.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Humans die quickly from much less concentration, so much less than
>>>>> 40% would have to gas off.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. That recently discovered patents to Zyclone B show that the gas off
>>>>> is even faster.
>>>>
>>>>Without having seen Keren's original post, I would make these observations:
>>>>
>>>>1) We have been told that the entire gassing procedure took less than 30 minutes,
>>>>meaning that only some fraction of the 40% Keren cites (if accurate) would be
>>>>available for killing people. It should be noted that in the California gas chamber,
>>>>where the HCN-based poison is dropped into a weak acid solution directly beneath the
>>>>chair of the condemned man, it takes 8 to 10 minutes for the condemned man to die.
>>>>This is in a small, specially-built room, using higher concentrations of HCN than we
>>>>are lead to believe were used in the alleged gas chambers at Birkenau.
>>>>
>>>>2) After the 15 to 30 minute "gassing" that is spoken of in "eyewitness" accounts, the
>>>>Zyklon B would still be gassing off, so that in addition to residue gas in the air, in
>>>>the corpses, and on the surfaces of the room and the victims, there would be more than
>>>>half the killing potentiol remaining in the Zyklon B.
>>>>
>>>>3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they needed something with
>>>>which to kill people. The claim that they attempted to adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous
>>>>as claims that, while they intended to kill millions of Jews using gas, they forgot to
>>>>built gas chambers at what is said to have been the largest gassing facility, and thus
>>>>had to CONVERT existing rooms and buildings into gas chambers.
>>
>>> It seems there are many other alternate poisons the Germans
>>>could have used, of which any comparison considerations would put
>>>Zyklon B at the end of the list.
>>
>>Used for what? the gassing they didn't Mr. Moran? They used the gas
>>because it was cheap and effective. They used Zyklon-B because it took
>>very little to kill. They used Zyklon-B because tey already had it to
>>fumigate and they could get lots of it even without the irritating
>>agent. Come on, don't post silly stuff that you distortionists have
>>already been shown to be lying about. The main matter to the stupid
>>question above is that they DID use it. So I guess your Nazi friends
>>weren't very wise in their choices but they found the choice to be
>>effective enough.
> What do you know about how much it took to kill?
I must rely on the written word and the testimony of those who used
it. The fact that it was used and very effectively is more to the fact
than arguing scientific semantics. I find it hilarious that the
argument is made at all since the claim by distortionists is that
there was no holocuast.
> If there were no lice in the world there would be no gas
>chamber story, or Holocasut story.
LOL! There wouldn't be any lice if there were no badly run
concentration camps that came to be mission death camps there wouldn't
be a necessity to use the product in the first place. So to suggest
there was a better method is ludicrous.
> The term "distortionist" or "Nazi" doesn't do anything for am
>argument. It is only inferior emotional outburst. When you say someone
>is lying, you have to show proof.
This is what I've seen and you and yourr gang have been caught
distorting history and convincingly so. Revisionists are best
described as historians who take something like tha Alamo and rather
than say it didn't happen, they clarify an aspect of it. Such as David
Crockett getting shot by firing squad rather than going down in a hail
of bullets. These are historians who have to present a cogent argument
with supporting documentation in line with the historical method. This
is something you do not do. You dismiss accounts and testimony with no
backing citations that support your contentions. I think the term is
apt and respectful to honest historians who do not waht to be lumped
in with people like you and your minions.
> Capitalizing "DID" doesn['t make your statement true does it?
Where's my statement. I believe I capitalize for emphasis.
Jamie McCarthy
> ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>
> " [...] or else Hoess wouldn't have made the switch!"
>
> Jamie wrote:
> "This may be so; I have forgotten the details, and I can't say for
> sure whether it was Hoess or one of his staff."
>
> Moran writes:
> You mean you forgot something, but then went on to write something
> about the forgotten stuff anyway?
Oh for God's sake. In a former life you must have been a rabid dog
with a bone.
I don't remember whether Hoess himself decided to switch to Zyklon,
or Hoess authorized the switch after it was suggested by one of his
underlings. Either way it could be described as Hoess making the
switch, so I still covered my ass pretty well with my phrasing.
Since the point was that the switch was made, not who made it, this
is _totally_ irrelevant. The fact that this is the worst err that
Moran can catch me in says something, I suppose. But _jeez_! Just
_drop_it_already_!
Posted/emailed.
MORRISON KEITH MURRAY
>From: t...@pacificnet.net (tom moran)
>Subject: Re: Zyklone B - Unlikely Agent
>Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:01:43 GMT
Please note that most of the *Sarin* stock was destroyed. I said nothing
about other chemical weapons such as the mustards, chlorines, etc etc.
Thus this article is completely irrelevant.
--
Keith Morrison
t0...@unb.ca
Richard J. Green
tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>r...@d31rz0.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>
>>> Many hazardous substances are transported over public roads.
>>>Green talks about the explosive nature under certain conditions, such
>>>as being mixed with certain acids. Of course that is easy to guard
>>>against, by simply not opening up any containers and not throwing in a
>>>catalyst for explosion. "Stablizers" can also be added.
>>
>>Yes, Mr. Moran is quite correct that most of the obstacles to using liquid HCN
>>could in principle be overcome. It is up to Mr. Moran to show that
>>doing so would have been cheaper than transporting Zyklon-B.
>
> Who said anything about "cheaper"? Efficient. Faster. More
>condensed. This probably would all add to up to "cheaper".
Mr. Moran needs to prove that it would add up to being cheaper.
Probably isn't good enough. He has asserted that liquid
HCN would have been a better agent to use than Zyklon-B. Issues of
transportation and storage must be included in his analysis.
>It would
>have not have left a bunch of pellets with 1/2 of the product still in
>them laying around after the all the people were killed.
It has been demonstrated that the Nazis were able to deal with any such
difficulties; Mr. Moran has not demonstrated that it would be easier to deal
with the difficulties involved in the storage and transportation of
liquid HCN.
>>> "Heat"? This can be over come. Did Green mention any
>>>temperatures? No.
>>> What does Green have to say about it being shipped in the form
>>>it was, Zyklon B, as to explosive nature? We can wait for his reply
>>>and then I will suggest a continuation.
>>
>>Clearly, any such problem was solved, or does Mr. Moran deny that Zyklon-B was
>>shipped regularly for delousing? Perhaps, someone with access to the
>>patents can comment on whether acid was added.
>
> I'll answer my own question. Nitro Glycren in liquid form,
>sloshing around in any containers is truely hazardous, but in the
>dynamite form, packed in saw dust it is a bit more stable. Green
>should have used this one himself.
Mr. Moran might be correct. His argument, however, is only an analogy and
he has no evidence that it is a valid analogy. I prefer not to make
claims until I have better information.
>>> Green; does "emphasis" do anything for the validity of a
>>>statement?
>>
>>I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Could someone be so kind as
>>to translate it into English.
>
> You know emphasising a word.
Another translation needed, I'm afraid.
Regards,
Rich Green
Kevin Filan
>Without having seen Keren's original post, I would make these observations:
>
>1) We have been told that the entire gassing procedure took less than 30
minutes, >meaning that only some fraction of the 40% Keren cites (if
accurate) would be >available for killing people. It should be noted that
in the California gas chamber, >where the HCN-based poison is dropped into
a weak acid solution directly beneath the >chair of the condemned man, it
takes 8 to 10 minutes for the condemned man to die. >This is in a small,
specially-built room, using higher concentrations of HCN than we >are lead
to believe were used in the alleged gas chambers at Birkenau.
A couple of little observations here:
1) It's been shown here on several occasions that Zyklon-B
dropped into a crowded room would produce a lethal concentration of HCN
within the time frame alloted.
2) Re. the "California gas chamber" example Mr. Raven gives.
This is probably true (that the condemned man takes 8-10 minutes to be
declared legally dead). However, he has been _exposed_ to a lethal dose
of HCN long before those 8-10 minutes are up. I would wager a guess that
the condemned man could be removed from the gas chambers within a minute
or two of the pellets being dropped and that, without medical attention,
he would die anyway.
Remember, there _are_ eyewitness reports of people "surviving"
gassings -- that is, of being alive after the gas chamber doors were
opened. Also remember that unconscious = dead, for all intents and
purposes, when the Sonderkommando were cleaning out a gassing cellar.
(And rightly so: I don't know what the antidote for HCN poisoning is, but
I would hazard a guess that there wasn't a large supply of it in
Auschwitz, and that whatever supply there was wasn't available to the
people working in the kremas.
>2) After the 15 to 30 minute "gassing" that is spoken of in "eyewitness"
accounts, the >Zyklon B would still be gassing off, so that in addition to
residue gas in the air, in >the corpses, and on the surfaces of the room
and the victims, there would be more than >half the killing potentiol
remaining in the Zyklon B.
>
And that's why the Sonderkommandos wore gas masks when clearing
out gassing cellars. (Note to other readers: we've gone over this ground
before -- several times, in fact. Were there any substance to Mr.
Raven's objection here, it would mean that Zyklon-B would be useless as a
delousing agent).
>3) Germany had faster-acting substances (such as Sarin) if they needed
something with >which to kill people. The claim that they attempted to
adapt Zyklon B is as ludicrous >as claims that, while they intended to
kill millions of Jews using gas, they forgot to >built gas chambers at
what is said to have been the largest gassing facility, and thus >had to
CONVERT existing rooms and buildings into gas chambers.
A few points need to be addressed here:
1) Gas masks would provide adequate protection for
sonderkommandos working in a Zyklon-B environment. They would _not_ be
sufficient for dealing with Sarin, an early "nerve gas" which could kill
with only skin contact. While Sarin is indeed more lethal than HCN, it's
also far more difficult to work with.
2) The original plans for the "Endlosung" did not, it appears,
involve gassing. The time-honored method of mass shootings was used for
a time, until it became clear that this took a heavy psychological toll
on the soldiers who were responsible for the mass exterminations.
Peace
Kevin Filan
--
Kevin Filan Home Page: http://www.necronomi.com/u/kfilan/home.html
______________________________________________________________________
Satan Wants YOU .... to browse http://www.necronomi.com/p/bbs/home.html
Mark Van Alstine
wrote:
> tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>
> # This would be Dr. Roeseller (spelling uncertain). This is the
> # figure Keren used as a conponent for arguing his side in a
> # prior post. "Even revisionist Dr. Roeseller ...40% ..."
>
> You're senile. Dr. Roessler, who has a Ph.D in physics,
> is *not* a "revisionist", and he didn't give the 40% figure. It
> was given by "revisionist" Germar Rudolph, who, BTW, does not
> hold a Ph.D to the best of my knowledge.
Perhaps Tommy should get a clue and point his rigi at:
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/rudolf-report
In it he will see, among many other things, that Dr. Roessler wrote in
Message-ID <4aclps$9...@gwdu19.gwdg.de>:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original patent for Zyklon-B specifies that nearly ALL HCN
(more than 90% apparently) will be emitted within 10min, at normal
temperatures (20 degree C)! Rudolf tries to dismiss this with the lame
comment that everyone exaggerates technical data in patent applications.
Then he notes that in a publication by the DEGESCH chief researcher,
and later _Generaldirektor_, Dr.G.Peters, the amount of HCN evaporated
within half an hour is given as roughly 50% only.
However, his reference, a book about the use of HCN to control
infestations, reads as follows:
[ Dr. Gerhard Peters: _Blaus"aure zur Sch"adlingbek"ampfung_
(=Sammlung chem. und chem.-techn. Vortr"age; N.F. 20)
Verlag von Ferdinand Enke, Stuttgart 1933, p.64f ]
#Die Gasentwicklung aus dem Zyklon setzt unmittelbar nach dem
#Ausstreuen mit gro"ser Heftigkeit ein. Je d"unner die Schicht
#des ausgestreuten Tr"agermaterials ist, um so rapider ist die
#Gasentwicklung. Je nach Eigenart der zu bek"ampfenden Sch"adlinge
#und der zu begasenden R"aume hat man es durch Wahl der Streuungs-
#schicht in der Hand, das Maximum der Gaskonzentration sehr rasch
#oder allm"ahlich entstehen zu lassen. In der Regel wird das Material
#in einer Schichtdicke von 1/2 bis 1 cm ausgestreut, wonach der
#gr"o"ste Teil der Blaus"aure bei Zimmertemperatur bereits nach einer
#halben Stunde entwickelt ist.
(The development of the gas from the Zyklon sets in with great
(vehemence immediately following the pouring out of it. The thinner
(the layer of the disseminated support material the faster will
(be the development of the gas. Depending on the species of the
(pests to be controlled, and on the characteristic of the rooms
(to be gassed, one may choose to reach the maximum of the gas
(concentration to arise very quickly or more slowly by the thickness
(of the disseminated layer. Usually, the material will be disseminated
(in a layer of 1/2 to 1cm thickness, then the greatest part of the
(HCN will have developped already after half an hour at normal temperature.
[i.e. 20 degree C].
[End quote]
Now, _der gr"o"ste Teil der Blaus"aure_ is by no means only 50% -
it means rather NEARLY ALL of the HCN. Rudolf refutates not only
his own assumptions about the rate of evaporation of Zyklon-B
by these original technical data, he, moreover, misquotes them also.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> # Is the professor now saying that the Zyklon B used was
> # especially potent in relation to its usual content?
>
> No, it was just Zyklon-B. Ordinary Zyklon-B.
Indeed. Just ordinary, highly lethal and quickly vaporizing, Zyklon-B.
Mark
posted/e-mailed to Dr. Keren and Moran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Van Alstine
moran) wrote:
[snip]
> What do you know about how much it took to kill?
Obviously, more than YOU do, Tommy.
Relationship between concentration and effects when inhaling hydrogen cyanide
Concentration (mg/m3) Effect
300 Immediately lethal
200 Lethal after 10 minutes
150 Lethal after 30 minutes
120-150 Highly dangerous (fatal) after 30-60 min.
50-60 Endurable for 20 min. - 1 h without effect
20-40 Light symptoms after several hours
Source:
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/chemical-weapons.cyanide
In addition, Pressac notes that "only 4 kg of prussic acid was enough to
kill a transport of 1,000 persons." (_Anatomy_, p.215.)
> If there were no lice in the world there would be no gas
> chamber story, or Holocasut story. If there were no lice in the world
> there wouldn't have been any old cans of Zyklon B laying around, or
> fumigation rooms to get some mind working that they were used for
> people. If there were cans of RAID or BLACK FLAG laying around, this
> would have been the agent of mass murder.
Rather, if there were no lice in the world, you, Tommy, wouldn't fit the
definition of "louse." What a thought.
> The term "distortionist" or "Nazi" doesn't do anything for am
> argument.
It certainly does when it is shown that deniers distort history and
evidence to promulgate their Nazi apologia. Like you do above, for
instance, with your senile innuendo about lice and Zyklon B.
> It is only inferior emotional outburst. When you say someone
> is lying, you have to show proof.
Tommy, proof that you have lied has been shown many times. Proof that
other deniers have lied has also been shown many times.
> Capitalizing "DID" doesn['t make your statement true does it?
When such things DID happen it simply underscores the truth, unlike, in
contrast, to your "inferior emotional outburst[s]" about lice and Zyklon
B.
Mark
Mark Van Alstine
moran) wrote:
> ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
[snip]
> >(This ignores the fact that the killing operations evolved over time.
> >Hoess decided to replace the less-efficient carbon monoxide engines with
> >more-efficient Zyklon-B. If revisionists simply want to point out a
> >particular inefficient gas, let them point to the carbon monoxide
> >engines -- they were apparently inferior to Zyklon, or else Hoess
> >wouldn't have made the switch!
>
> Jamie, would you like to show where you got the idea that Hoess was
> the one who decided to use Zyklon B? Usually I don't even bother
> reading your stuff, but it was right here amidst the talk of gas. Now
> where did you get this idea it was Hoess, when many versions of hte
> story have his second in command doing it for the first time while
> Hoess was away. This I believe is taken from his own testimony.
From Ho"ss's memoirs:
"...While I was away on camp-related business, Captain Fritzsch, on his
own initiative, employed a gas for the killing of these Russian POWs. He
crammed the Russians into individual cells in the basement [of Block 11]
and while using gas masks he thre the Cyclon B gas into the cells, thereby
causing their immediate deaths. The gas called Cyclon B was supplied by
the firm of Tesch and Stabenow and was used constantly for insect and
rodent control. We always had a large supply of gas canisters available.
At first only employees of the firm Tesch and Stabenow handled this poison
gas, a prussic acid preparation, under the strictest safety measures. Later
on some members of the Medical Coprs were trained at the firm to carry out
disinfection procedures, and it was these medics who then carried out
disinfection and pest control. During Eichmann's next visit I reported all
this to him, about how the Cyclon B was used, and we decided that for the
future mass annihilations we would use this gas." (_Death Dealer_, pp.29-30.)
Sounds like Ho"ss and Eichmann, based on the results of Fritzsch's
"experiment," decided that homicidal gassing with Zyklon B would be used
as the method of mass murder at Auschwitz.
[snip]
Mark
posted/e-mailed to Mr. McCarthy and Moran
Mark Van Alstine
(Richard J. Green) wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, Mr. Moran is quite correct that most of the obstacles to using liquid HCN
> could in principle be overcome. It is up to Mr. Moran to show that
> doing so would have been cheaper than transporting Zyklon-B.
Indeed. The obstacles to to using liquid HCN _were_ overcome. The result
was Zyklon B, which consisted of a diatomite carrier in which liquid HCN
was absorbed, and which also had a stabilizer added to increase its shelf
life. (The lachrymal was omitted by the manufacturer for Zyklon B intended
for homicidal gassings.) Even then Zyklon B was perishable, having to be
used within three months of manufacture, and therefore could not be
stockpiled.
_Nazi Mass Murder_, p.206; _The Destruction of the European Jews_, p.567.
[snip]
Mark
posted/e-mailed
Mark Van Alstine
MURRAY) wrote:
> In article <mvanalst-210...@rbi148.rbi.com> mvan...@rbi.com
(Mark Van Alstine) writes:
>
> >Mr. Raven, the production of Sarin by the Nazis was low, being produced in
> >a pilot plant, with only about half a tonne beings made by 1945. There are
> >no known records of Sarin being used in quantity, in combat or otherwise,
> >by the Nazis.
>
> Minor correction. About 15 000 tonnes of Sarin were produced. The second
> of the German nerve gasses, Tabun, was the one produced in experimental
> quantities.
>
> Sarin stocks at the factory were broken down chemically and dumped into the
> Ober river in 1944-45 to prevent their capture by the Allies.
Hmmm. This may be, however, the source I referenced, who's source was "A
FOA Briefing Book on Chemical Weapons," stated otherwise:
"A factory for production of the new CW agent was built and a total of 12
000 tonnes of tabun were produced during the years 1942-1945. At the end
of the war the Allies seized large quantities of this nerve agent. Up to
the end of the war, Schrader and his co-workers synthesized about 2 000
new organo-phosphorus compounds, including sarin (1938). The third of the
"classic" nerve agents, soman, was first produced in 1944. These three
nerve agents are known as G agents in the American nomenclature. The
manufacture of sarin never started properly and up to 1945 only about 0.5
tonne of this nerve agent was produced in a pilot plant."
http://www.opcw.nl/chemhaz/nerve.htm
Richard J. Green
> Indeed. The obstacles to to using liquid HCN _were_ overcome. The result
> was Zyklon B, which consisted of a diatomite carrier in which liquid HCN
> was absorbed, and which also had a stabilizer added to increase its shelf
> life. (The lachrymal was omitted by the manufacturer for Zyklon B intended
> for homicidal gassings.) Even then Zyklon B was perishable, having to be
> used within three months of manufacture, and therefore could not be
> stockpiled.
>
> _Nazi Mass Murder_, p.206; _The Destruction of the European Jews_, p.567.
Touche!
Richard J. Green
> The 20 degrees C is your addition I presume but that does not change
>its boiling point from 26.? C.
Mr. Giwer knows the boiling point of HCN, but he seems unable to state
its significance. As I have posted many times, the vapor pressure of
HCN is well in excess of its toxic concentrations even at -10 C.
Mr. Giwer is apparently ignorant of what a vapor pressure is.
--
Matt Giwer
Another example of posting anything without thinking.
>In article <Dq7u2...@world.std.com>, dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren)
>wrote:
>> tom moran <t...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> # This would be Dr. Roeseller (spelling uncertain). This is the
>> # figure Keren used as a conponent for arguing his side in a
>> # prior post. "Even revisionist Dr. Roeseller ...40% ..."
>>
>> You're senile. Dr. Roessler, who has a Ph.D in physics,
>> is *not* a "revisionist", and he didn't give the 40% figure. It
>> was given by "revisionist" Germar Rudolph, who, BTW, does not
>> hold a Ph.D to the best of my knowledge.
>Perhaps Tommy should get a clue and point his rigi at:
>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/rudolf-report
>In it he will see, among many other things, that Dr. Roessler wrote in
>Message-ID <4aclps$9...@gwdu19.gwdg.de>:
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The original patent for Zyklon-B specifies that nearly ALL HCN
>(more than 90% apparently) will be emitted within 10min, at normal
>temperatures (20 degree C)! Rudolf tries to dismiss this with the lame
>comment that everyone exaggerates technical data in patent applications.
First off a patent is only required to describe the invention, not to
give scientifically accurate information.
If you believe otherwise you will have to explain the US patent office
issuing a patent in WW I for a huge horseshoe electromagnet to be
mounted on surface ships to catch submarines.
The 20 degrees C is your addition I presume but that does not change
its boiling point from 26.? C.
In other words, finding something in a patent does not make it true.
But there are plenty of patents out there for antigravity devices.
You could buy the rights to one of them and get rich.
>[End quote]
A very strange choice of words in translation.
>Now, _der gr"o"ste Teil der Blaus"aure_ is by no means only 50% -
>it means rather NEARLY ALL of the HCN. Rudolf refutates not only
>his own assumptions about the rate of evaporation of Zyklon-B
>by these original technical data, he, moreover, misquotes them also.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> # Is the professor now saying that the Zyklon B used was
>> # especially potent in relation to its usual content?
>>
>> No, it was just Zyklon-B. Ordinary Zyklon-B.
>Indeed. Just ordinary, highly lethal and quickly vaporizing, Zyklon-B.
Real soon now our resident chemist is going to post the P Chem
equations to substantiate your claim. Until then learn not to expect
to find accurate information in patents.
-------------------
alt.revisionism
6,000,000 are a tragedy, the other 6,000,000 a footnote.
What kind of truth is it that needs protection?
Matt Giwer
>In article <317a32f...@news.pacificnet.net>, t...@pacificnet.net (tom
>moran) wrote:
>[snip]
>> What do you know about how much it took to kill?
>Obviously, more than YOU do, Tommy.
>Relationship between concentration and effects when inhaling hydrogen cyanide
> Concentration (mg/m3) Effect
> 300 Immediately lethal
> 200 Lethal after 10 minutes
> 150 Lethal after 30 minutes
> 120-150 Highly dangerous (fatal) after 30-60 min.
> 50-60 Endurable for 20 min. - 1 h without effect
> 20-40 Light symptoms after several hours
>Source:
>http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?camps/auschwitz/cyanide/chemical-weapons.cyanide
>In addition, Pressac notes that "only 4 kg of prussic acid was enough to
>kill a transport of 1,000 persons." (_Anatomy_, p.215.)
Does he address how that quantity would translate into Zyklon-B? Does
he account for the wastage from the Zyklon-B form?
MORRISON KEITH MURRAY
with tabun. My mistake in confusing the two. Sarin was indeed the second
nerve gas produced by the Germans and, as stated, was only present in
experimental quantities. Production was set to begin at Falkenberg outside
Berlin in 1945 but the plant was seized by the Red Army and shipped back to
the USSR before start up.
And before anyone starts making any comments about the mix up I would point
out this fact, previously alluded to: as sarin was in the experimental stage
they hardly could have used it to kill prisoners before they started
producing it. Add that to the list why Zyklon B would be selected over
sarin.
--
Keith Morrison
t0...@unb.ca
Mark Van Alstine
moran) wrote:
> kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>
> >In article <3178E1...@kaiwan.com>, Greg "Repeat the same
> >lie and hope no-one notices" Raven wrote:
> >
> > "Much more common is the claim that diesel engines were used
> > to produce carbon monoxide gas -- a ridiculous claim owing to
> > the relatively small amount of CO produced by a diesel engine
> > under virtually any operating conditions."
> >
> >Even Freddie Berg gave up his attempts to peddle that crap on
> >the net, but Mr. Raven keeps trying...
> >
> > "It simply doesn't add up."
> >
> >No, it doesn't, but Mr. Raven continues to try.
> >
> Poor McVay. He does the best he can.
With a thread title like "Greg Raven - Unlikely Agent" I'd say Mr.McVay is
more than holding his own!
"Greg Raven - Unlikely Agent...." ROTFL!
Mark
Daniel Keren
# The Degesch manual on Zyklon B, page 20 (found on page 155 of The
# Leuchter Report), reads:
#
# "The chief operator must so arrange everyone's part in the
# operation {of distributing the Zyklon B in the area to be
# fumigated} that it will not take more than 30 minutes in all.
# This applies especially to very warm climates...."
#
# This, in conjunction with the earlier statements (in the Degesch
# manual) of the lengthy times required for fumigation and
# ventilation, would seem to indicate that under the worst conditions
# (warm, dry weather) the HCN concentrations from Zyklon B begin to
# reach dangerous levels at the 30-minute mark, even for operators
# with proper clothing and gas masks.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Incredible. It may be a danger after 30 minutes for someone
*with a gas mask*. To someone without a gas mask, it will be
lethal within a few minutes, even if one accepts "revisionist"
claims for 40% rate of release in the first half-hour as accurate;
this, because a much smaller concentration is lethal to humans
than the concentration usually used for delousing.
# No matter what the patent says, the manual -- which would be
# used by operators, not the patent papers -- shows the real-world
# application of Zyklon B.
But the manual, obviously, does not support your claim. It talks
about people who are *protected by a gas mask*. Do you understand
this? What is relevant here is how fast did it become lethal
to people *without a gas mask*.
BTW, the information about the rate of release also appears
in Dr. Peter's book. Not only the patent application.
I guess revisionazis now claim to know more than the people
who invented Zyklon, and more than the leading scientist
of the company that manufactured it!
-Danny Keren.
--
Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.
-Lu Xun.
Richard Schultz
: The 20 degrees C is your addition I presume but that does not change
: its [HCN] boiling point from 26.? C
as a means of "proving" that Zyklon-B would not be able to outgas
sufficiently quickly to kill people. I hope that no one believes that
Giwer seriously believes that HCN has a vapor pressure of zero below its
boiling point. What has happened is that as more and more people recognize
him for what he is and refuse to play his game, he is trying one last
desperate maneuver: he is parroting the IHR party line. Apparently he
does not realize that most people are able to figure out the difference in
the reasons that he tells lies from the reasons that Greg Raven tells lies.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
Matt Giwer
>Matt Giwer (mgi...@combase.com) wrote:
>: The 20 degrees C is your addition I presume but that does not change
>: its [HCN] boiling point from 26.? C
>as a means of "proving" that Zyklon-B would not be able to outgas
>sufficiently quickly to kill people.
I have attempted to "prove" nothing as any honest person will agree.
I hope that no one believes that
>Giwer seriously believes that HCN has a vapor pressure of zero below its
>boiling point.
As any competent chemist could not only post the vapor pressure but
the P Chem equations showing the outgassing rate one has to question
what you think you are accomplishing by a mere statement that the
vapor pressure is non-zero.
What has happened is that as more and more people recognize
>him for what he is and refuse to play his game, he is trying one last
>desperate maneuver: he is parroting the IHR party line.
And I would think it equally obvious that "it is not zero" is mere
handwaving where someone with your implied credentials could obviously
do so much better.
Apparently he
>does not realize that most people are able to figure out the difference in
>the reasons that he tells lies from the reasons that Greg Raven tells lies.
Are you saying I lied in stating the boiling point?
Are you saying others have lied when the posted stories about problems
with it outgassing in cold weather? (Those were with regard to
needing to heat the Kremas and were pro-gassing stories.)
>-----
>Richard Schultz sch...@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
>Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
>Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
One would think a scholar such as yourself would know by now that the
20 degree comes from a patent someone has dug up. You certainly would
not go to a patent for scientific information yet it is being given
such credibility here.
Harry Katz
tom moran (t...@pacificnet.net) whines:
You mean you forgot something, but then went on to write
something about the forgotten stuff anyway?
Anyone who reads Mr. Moran's posts knows the correct procedure is to
make something up and write about it!
--
Harry Katz
On the soul's appearance before the Divine Tribunal, the first question
will be, "Hast thou been honest and faithful in all thy dealings?"
-- The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud, Madison C. Peters, ed.