The Leuchter Report Vindicated

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: DIESEL MAINTENANCE 101

#91

Post by Scott Smith » 04 May 2002, 23:26

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:Smaller engines are dirtier than larger ones.
Not necessarily. How well maintained they are could easily affect that
Not with respect to diesel engines and CO, except that a highly-derated engine would be easier to overload
Yes, with respect to any engine.

If you're comparing one well tuned and maintained engine to one which is not, that fact can control which one is dirtier, regardless of size.
Not with respect to CO and diesel engines. There is nothing to tune. And injector timing will have no effect. A diesel doesn't work that way.

Some newer diesels use electronic-fuel-injection to reduce environmental emissions--particulates not CO--and that can certainly be "mistuned." But this will not raise CO, which for a diesel ALWAYS operates with excess air to compress and thus ignite the fuel. Only with a heavy-load can you raise the CO, as the Holtz data shows.
:)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: DIESEL MAINTENANCE 101

#92

Post by Scott Smith » 04 May 2002, 23:30

Removed double post.
Last edited by Scott Smith on 05 May 2002, 04:44, edited 1 time in total.


Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#93

Post by Charles Bunch » 05 May 2002, 03:26

Scott Smith wrote:(Snip, Chuck's impotent rant against the nonbelievers he despises.)

Here's what the mindless denier snipped so he wouldn't have to reply.

I don't care a whit whether I have civil discourse with you. I have no trouble respecting people who make honest mistakes. But people who spout nonsense in ignorance over and over again in support of a lie about established history are not deserving of respect. You are the ideologue, willing to assert anything that comes into your head, even when you admit you know nothing about the subject. And the objective of your efforts is always the same, to cast doubt on anything which points to the homicidal gassing of Jews by Nazis. The truly objective pursuit you lamely claim would hardly come down on the same side of the facts over and over and over again. Mindless denial, even when dressed up a little, is just denial.

>I already said that engineering-consultant Leuchter raised the issue of why the homicidal gaschambers do not show any staining or only traces of cyanide like the fumigation cubicles. You have offered theories about the HCN concentration but little solid proof.

A lie. I've countered every point you've made and offered support for it.

Leuchter raising the issue of the lack of Prussian Blue staining is proof of his lack of knowledge of the subject. It is totally irrelevant whether Prussian Blue staining appears on the gas chamber walls. What is relevant is the presence of cyanide compound residues. The latter must result from any frequent exposure to HCN, the former need not.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... stry/blue/

I guess we know who's arguments are impotent.
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:If you block the air-intake on a large diesel engine it will derate as for altitude until it cannot get enough air to compress for ignition, and then it will misfire--but not for lack of oxygen, as there is still excess, and thus no carbon monoxide.
Partially block, not block. And what period of time does it take for your scenario to occur under a partially blocked intake? Please refer to some of your famous experimentation.
>As has been explained and cited in detail many times before, Pattle and Stretch did this blocking as much as possible and still keep the engine running. (Op Cit p. 48.)

>They were able to elevate the CO as high as 0.22% in one test and could kill most of the mice in one hour, but "all of the rabbits and guinea-pigs were alive." After three-hours and twenty-minutes all animals were dead and the experiment was stopped. A second experiment had only 0.12% CO and "after 3 hr. 20 min. 19 mice and one guinea-pig were dead, but both rabbits were still alive. After 3 hr. 35 min. all the animals were dead." (Op Cit, p. 49.)

So they elevated the CO without creating the problem you cited. And with a larger engine than a 6 bhp engine we could expect more CO, as Roberto's table above indicates. You have not supported your claim.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#94

Post by Charles Bunch » 05 May 2002, 03:36

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:Smaller engines are dirtier than larger ones.
Not necessarily. How well maintained they are could easily affect that
Not with respect to diesel engines and CO, except that a highly-derated engine would be easier to overload
Yes, with respect to any engine.

If you're comparing one well tuned and maintained engine to one which is not, that fact can control which one is dirtier, regardless of size.
>Not with respect to CO and diesel engines. There is nothing to tune. And injector timing will have no effect. A diesel doesn't work that way.

http://www.ae.iastate.edu/aen206.htm

Is carbon monoxide a problem with diesel engines? Usually not, although any engine, including diesel, produces CO when combustion is incomplete. Diesel (compression ignition) engines run with an excess of air and often produce less than 1200 ppm CO. When diesel fuel is burned incompletely or when overloaded and over-fueled (rich mixture), diesel engines will produce high concentrations of CO. Diesels usually pollute the air with particulates and nitrogen oxides, not CO.


http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TOOLBOX/DTBFINAL.PDF

Diesel Engine Maintenance

"It has been definitely proven, that when engine maintenance is neglected, [especially if it involves regulating the fuel and air handling systems of engines] the particulate, and carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons, all skyrocket."

Robert Weytulonis
Center for Diesel Research
University of Minnesota

[...]

The locks and seals on the fuel pump and governor must not be tampered with or removed. Faulty adjustment can result in overfueling and engine damage. Overfueling can increase emissions, especially black smoke, carbon monoxide, and particulates.

[...]

Because a diesel engine operates over a wide range of duty cycles, the most accurate way to assess the content of exhaust emissions during actual mining conditions is to take tailpipe samples while the engine is under load. As of November 25, 1997, weekly tests for CO in the undiluted exhaust are required for certain types of diesel powered equipment in underground coal mines.

A gas monitor can be used to measure the carbon monoxide level in the raw exhaust. A large increase in the carbon monoxide concentration is an indication that the engine has a maintanence problem that needs to be addressed.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: DIESEL MAINTENANCE 101

#95

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2002, 04:59

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles wrote: Not necessarily. How well maintained they are could easily affect that
Not with respect to diesel engines and CO, except that a highly-derated engine would be easier to overload.
Yes, with respect to any engine.

If you're comparing one well tuned and maintained engine to one which is not, that fact can control which one is dirtier, regardless of size.
Not with respect to CO and diesel engines. There is nothing to tune. And injector timing will have no effect. A diesel doesn't work that way.
http://www.ae.iastate.edu/aen206.htm

"Is carbon monoxide a problem with diesel engines? Usually not, although any engine, including diesel, produces CO when combustion is incomplete. Diesel (compression ignition) engines run with an excess of air and often produce less than 1200 ppm CO. When diesel fuel is burned incompletely or when overloaded and over-fueled (rich mixture), diesel engines will produce high concentrations of CO. Diesels usually pollute the air with particulates and nitrogen oxides, not CO."
That's true, although perhaps you should have used quotation marks (added above). I was beginning to think that Charles was being reasonable. The only thing I would add is that to get the overrich mixture you must have a stiff load on the motor, especially if is is big, as is shown in the Holtz table. The 1200 ppm value is 0.12% CO and it took over three hours to kill all the animals in the Pattle tests.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 13 May 2002, 11:05, edited 1 time in total.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#96

Post by Charles Bunch » 05 May 2002, 05:09

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote: Not with respect to diesel engines and CO, except that a highly-derated engine would be easier to overload
Yes, with respect to any engine.

If you're comparing one well tuned and maintained engine to one which is not, that fact can control which one is dirtier, regardless of size.
Not with respect to CO and diesel engines. There is nothing to tune. And injector timing will have no effect. A diesel doesn't work that way.
http://www.ae.iastate.edu/aen206.htm

"Is carbon monoxide a problem with diesel engines? Usually not, although any engine, including diesel, produces CO when combustion is incomplete. Diesel (compression ignition) engines run with an excess of air and often produce less than 1200 ppm CO. When diesel fuel is burned incompletely or when overloaded and over-fueled (rich mixture), diesel engines will produce high concentrations of CO. Diesels usually pollute the air with particulates and nitrogen oxides, not CO."
>That's true, although perhaps you should have used quotation marks (added above).

You are ignorant of usenet attribution as well I see.

The URL preceding the body indicates it is quoted from that source.

>I was beginning to think that Charles was being reasonable.

The day you begin to think, instead of spouting ignorant denial, will probably only come as you near the end of your life.

>The only thing I would add is that to get the overrich mixture you must have a stiff load on the motor, especially if is is big, as is shown in the Holtz table. The 1200 ppm value is 0.12% CO and it took over three hours to kill all the animals in the Pattle tests.

Mr. Smith runs from his assertion that diesel engines, unmaintained, will not produce more CO.

Here's another reference I added to my prior post.

http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TOOLBOX/DTBFINAL.PDF

Diesel Engine Maintenance

"It has been definitely proven, that when engine maintenance is neglected, [especially if it involves regulating the fuel and air handling systems of engines] the particulate, and carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons, all skyrocket."

Robert Weytulonis
Center for Diesel Research
University of Minnesota

[...]

The locks and seals on the fuel pump and governor must not be tampered with or removed. Faulty adjustment can result in overfueling and engine damage. Overfueling can increase emissions, especially black smoke, carbon monoxide, and particulates.

[...]

Because a diesel engine operates over a wide range of duty cycles, the most accurate way to assess the content of exhaust emissions during actual mining conditions is to take tailpipe samples while the engine is under load. As of November 25, 1997, weekly tests for CO in the undiluted exhaust are required for certain types of diesel powered equipment in underground coal mines.

A gas monitor can be used to measure the carbon monoxide level in the raw exhaust. A large increase in the carbon monoxide concentration is an indication that the engine has a maintanence problem that needs to be addressed.

=========

No major load there!

So as I said, a poorly maintained diesel engine will emit increased CO. And adjustments to the air intake and fuel supply produce dangerous CO levels.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:06
Location: California

#97

Post by Dan » 05 May 2002, 05:17

The day you begin to think, instead of spouting ignorant denial, will probably only come as you near the end of your life.
Charles, if you wouldn't act like such a prick, you may end up having an influence.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

CIVIL DISCOURSE...

#98

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2002, 11:50

Dan wrote:
Charles wrote:The day you begin to think, instead of spouting ignorant denial, will probably only come as you near the end of your life.
Charles, if you wouldn't act like such a prick, you may end up having an influence.
Hi Chuck!

I'm afraid Dan is right. If you were a WWII veteran or a Holocaust survivor then I could give you a little slack, but as it stands you have established no credibility with me whatsoever. I'm afraid that further discussion is useless unless English is your second language or something, in which case my diplomatic inclinations prompt me to give you a second chance. More on that later...
Chuck wrote: I don't care a whit whether I have civil discourse with you.
You see, that is where I stopped. Why should I discuss anything with a blockhead?
Chuck wrote:I have no trouble respecting people who make honest mistakes.
Yes, Chuck has all the answers. But if thou dost not agree with Chuck, ye have no promise.
Chuck wrote:But people who spout nonsense in ignorance over and over again in support of a lie about established history are not deserving of respect.
I said I did not know exactly what happened and that I was not a chemist. I do not buy the atrocity stories and the murder-factory hypothesis. I have no trouble with the idea that Höß used some crude methods with insecticide to get rid of surplus political prisoners or to alleviate camp overcrowding.
Chuck wrote:You are the ideologue, willing to assert anything that comes into your head, even when you admit you know nothing about the subject.
No, merely asking inconvenient questions. You make assumptions based on inane atrocity stories and then try to shoehorn the facts into that thesis. When I try to look at how well your hypothesis holds-up beyond merely "Survivors Bearing Witness," then I am the bad guy. Oh, ain't I sorry...

The scientific method is more open-minded, Chuck, which is not something that applies to you. You don't have much in the way of experimental data, and you would have none at all if it weren't for the Revisionists. For you, the obscene Moral Certainties are the Be-All/End-All. But, guess what--some of them just aren't believable--and the world despises liars. Don't cry foul, Chucky.
Chuck wrote:And the objective of your efforts is always the same, to cast doubt on anything which points to the homicidal gassing of Jews by Nazis.
No, but my time is limited, see. I have tried to keep my comments on the Leuchter Report reasonable. It is you who have tried to obfuscate the threads meaninglessly. That is why I have focused on the diesel issue; it is a subject that interests me. This does not mean that I will not comment or ask questions about other things like the L.R.
Chuck wrote:The truly objective pursuit you lamely claim would hardly come down on the same side of the facts over and over and over again. Mindless denial, even when dressed up a little, is just denial.
Maybe your tribal-God will give you another Devil to find. And good luck with that, Caped Crusader! Chuck will never persuade me with an unquestioning sanctimonious attitude which purports to have all the answers.
"It has been definitely proven, that when engine maintenance is neglected, [especially if it involves regulating the fuel and air handling systems of engines] the particulate, and carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons, all skyrocket."

Robert Weytulonis
Center for Diesel Research
University of Minnesota

http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TOOLBOX/DTBFINAL.PDF
Mr. Weytulonis is incorrect regarding carbon monoxide, and there is no meaningful data shown to backup his testimonial and show quantity. This is the kind of thing that allows marketers to argue that cigarette smoking is healthy, for example. "Seven out of ten doctors surveyed..."
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:That's true, although perhaps you should have used quotation marks (added above).
You are ignorant of usenet attribution as well I see.
For someone who has yet to master this BBS protocol, that's a pretty assinine charge, LOL! I doubt there is any post that you have made here which has been edited correctly. I do take care to dumb it down for you, however.
Chuck wrote:The URL preceding the body indicates it is quoted from that source.
And I have seen it before and checked it again. Tough break for you.
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:I was beginning to think that Charles was being reasonable.
The day you begin to think, instead of spouting ignorant denial, will probably only come as you near the end of your life.
I'l let another one of your gems stand for itself.
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:The only thing I would add is that to get the overrich mixture you must have a stiff load on the motor, especially if is is big, as is shown in the Holtz table. The 1200 ppm value is 0.12% CO and it took over three hours to kill all the animals in the Pattle tests.

Mr. Smith runs from his assertion that diesel engines, unmaintained, will not produce more CO.
Well Chuck, an unmaintained engine must be derated, see; that can make it overload for its normal load. This can elevate the CO some. And the thing with carbon monoxide, Chuck, is that ANY amount is too much. But 0.22% took some time, several HOURS, to kill small mammals, as the 1957 Pattle data shows. No practical execution! Better luck next, time Old Boy.
"The locks and seals on the fuel pump and governor must not be tampered with or removed. Faulty adjustment can result in overfueling and engine damage. Overfueling can increase emissions, especially black smoke, carbon monoxide, and particulates."

http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TOOLBOX/DTBFINAL.PDF
You see, Chuck, diesel engines normally have a set-load, which is substantial. No reason to run a big engine if you are not going to keep it loaded. As shown in the 1941 Holtz tests where the CO rises above baseline, if there is a limiter you cannot put the engine into the overloaded state. The motor will just quit. Thus, the fuel-stop is a passive safety mechanism. As Holtz and Elliott explained, they had to go out of their way to do this. In the tests with high CO, THE ENGINE WAS IN AN OVERLOADED STATE and lugging with an open throttle.
"Because a diesel engine operates over a wide range of duty cycles, the most accurate way to assess the content of exhaust emissions during actual mining conditions is to take tailpipe samples while the engine is under load." (Ibid.)
That's what I've been saying, Chuck.
"As of November 25, 1997, weekly tests for CO in the undiluted exhaust are required for certain types of diesel powered equipment in underground coal mines." (Ibid.)
Good idea. Perhaps you have a data-table for me, Sunshine. That is exactly what all the other researchers have done, beginning with Holtz and Elliott.
"A gas monitor can be used to measure the carbon monoxide level in the raw exhaust. A large increase in the carbon monoxide concentration is an indication that the engine has a maintanence problem that needs to be addressed."
Any amount of CO is too much. Where's your data-table for the definition of the words "substantial" and "skyrocket"?
Chuck wrote: No major load there!
Sorry, Chuck, they just said the gas-testing is done at load. So stop puffing and show me your data.
Chuck wrote:So as I said, a poorly maintained diesel engine will emit increased CO. And adjustments to the air intake and fuel supply produce dangerous CO levels.
Not without a load, Chief.
:mrgreen:

Now, Mr. Bunch. If English is your second language or you are a WWII veteran or a Holocaust Survivor, I shall apologize to you and give us a second chance at civil discourse.

BUT, if you really do have no interest in civil discourse, then you can take your Holo-Cult elsewhere and keep yourself cozy and comfortable in your sanguine delusions.

I, of course, will continue probing awkwardly for answers, knowing that I will never possess them all.
8)

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#99

Post by Charles Bunch » 05 May 2002, 16:38

Dan wrote:
The day you begin to think, instead of spouting ignorant denial, will probably only come as you near the end of your life.
Charles, if you wouldn't act like such a prick, you may end up having an influence.
There is no way to influence mindless deniers of fact who are motivated by other factors. Pointing out their mindlessness is sufficient.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:03
Location: USA

#100

Post by Charles Bunch » 05 May 2002, 17:47

Scott Smith wrote:
Dan wrote:
Charles wrote:The day you begin to think, instead of spouting ignorant denial, will probably only come as you near the end of your life.
Charles, if you wouldn't act like such a prick, you may end up having an influence.
Hi Chuck!

>I'm afraid Dan is right. If you were a WWII veteran or a Holocaust survivor then I could give you a little slack, but as it stands you have established no credibility with me whatsoever.

And what makes you think establishing credebility with the likes of you ought to be the goal of any decent human being? You come here day after day posting the same nonsense over and over again. You blather on about subjects you even admit you know nothing about, all in the interest of denying history. It is your credibility we are working over here.

Chuck wrote: I don't care a whit whether I have civil discourse with you.
>You see, that is where I stopped. Why should I discuss anything with a blockhead?

Says the man who thinks calling people believers constitutes discussion!!

Chuck wrote:I have no trouble respecting people who make honest mistakes.
>Yes, Chuck has all the answers. But if thou dost not agree with Chuck, ye have no promise.

That's not what it says at all, but your compulsive need to comment on virtually every sentence someone posts, usually with sophomoric mischaracterization, tells us a lot about you.
Chuck wrote:But people who spout nonsense in ignorance over and over again in support of a lie about established history are not deserving of respect.
>I said I did not know exactly what happened and that I was not a chemist. I do not buy the atrocity stories and the murder-factory hypothesis. I have no trouble with the idea that Höß used some crude methods with insecticide to get rid of surplus political prisoners or to alleviate camp overcrowding.

You don't buy it because you don't want to. The evidence is more than compelling, and the only argument you ever make against it, outside of the ridiculous "diesel can't work" argument is to deny all the evidence. Look at your very last comment. Tell us about the state of the evidence, as you know it, which permits some gassing of some political prisoners and others to alleviate overcrowding, but not the gassing of large numbers of Jews? What is the evidentiary basis for that comment?

Chuck wrote:You are the ideologue, willing to assert anything that comes into your head, even when you admit you know nothing about the subject.
>No, merely asking inconvenient questions.

Your stock reply. There is nothing inconvenient about your questions. But there purpose is rather transparent.

>You make assumptions based on inane atrocity stories and then try to shohorn the facts into that thesis. When I try to look at how well your hypothesis holds-up beyond merely "Survivors Bearing Witness," then I am the bad guy. Oh, ain't I sorry...

The massive testimonial evidence of Nazis, Sonderkommandos and others of gassing at Auschwitz are not atrocity stories, but powerful evidence. Here again you adopt mindless argumentation. This testimonial evidence is corroborated by documentary and forensic evidence. There is no shoehorning. Just an overwhelming convergence toward a conclusive finding.


>The scientific method is more open-minded, Chuck, which is not something that applies to you. You don't have much in the way of experimental data, and you would have none at all if it weren't for the Revisionists. For you, the obscene Moral Certainties are the Be-All/End-All. But, guess what--some of them just aren't believable--and the world despises liars. Don't cry foul, Chucky.

Another typical brainless denier rant. Even if history were written by the scientific method, there is nothing in your method which is open minded. No matter what the discussion on this board, one can expect old Scott Smith to drag into the discussion some hoary old canard deniers have been using on usenet for up to a decade. Searching for reasons to deny the known facts of history is not being open minded, it is a manifestation of a proven agenda.

History is written on the basis of the totality of the evidence. The Holocaust is no different. You don't seem to have much of a grasp of what that evidentiary base is. And yet you come out doubting and being skeptical about the few pieces you seem to know about, rather than acquainting yourself with it's full dimension. That further indicates your agenda.

All the experimental data necessary to augment the testimonial, documentary and forensic evidence of gassing at Auschwitz exists. Trying to hide behind the term "Scientific Method" is more grandstanding in lieu of argument.
Chuck wrote:And the objective of your efforts is always the same, to cast doubt on anything which points to the homicidal gassing of Jews by Nazis.
.No, but my time is limited, see. I have tried to keep my comments on the Leuchter Report reasonable.

But you didn't. And your time is not so limited that you can't make almost 9 posts per day on this board. It is clear that your energies are devoted to casting doubt about evidence you are not even clear on, rather than reading the history of the Holocaust.

.It is you who have tried to obfuscate the threads meaninglessly. That is why I have focused on the diesel issue; it is a subject that interests me. This does not mean that I will not comment or ask questions about other things like the L.R.

You focus on diesel because that's all you have any knowledge of. You're a puppet of F. Berg. I'll leave my comments in threads to speak for themselves. Perhaps you'd like them better if I posted childish images.

Chuck wrote:The truly objective pursuit you lamely claim would hardly come down on the same side of the facts over and over and over again. Mindless denial, even when dressed up a little, is just denial.
.Maybe your tribal-God will give you another Devil to find. And good luck with that, Caped Crusader! Chuck will never persuade me with an unquestioning sanctimonious attitude which purports to have all the answers.

And that serves as a useful excuse for your denial, eh Smith. But I note you have no reason to offer as to why your openminded pursuit of the holy scientific method _always_ brings you down on the side of denial. I guess the hundreds of historians who have studied this issue over the last half century have somehow come to their conclusions without a single shred of evidence!!!!

"It has been definitely proven, that when engine maintenance is neglected, [especially if it involves regulating the fuel and air handling systems of engines] the particulate, and carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons, all skyrocket."

Robert Weytulonis
Center for Diesel Research
University of Minnesota

http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TOOLBOX/DTBFINAL.PDF
>Mr. Weytulonis is incorrect regarding carbon monoxide, and there is no meaningful data shown to backup his testimonial and show quantity. This is the kind of thing that allows marketers to argue that cigarette smoking is healthy, for example. "Seven out of ten doctors surveyed..."

The denier method at work!
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:That's true, although perhaps you should have used quotation marks (added above).
You are ignorant of usenet attribution as well I see.
>For someone who has yet to master this BBS protocol, that's a pretty assinine charge, LOL!

It's not assinine at all, you've just shown you know nothing about usenet attribution. BBS protocol is not usenet attibution. One is a mechanical activity, apparently more appropriate to your skills. Perhaps you'd do better worrying about the content of your posts, rather than whether they demonstrate your mastery of a BBS interface. In any event you've learned something you didn't know before, even if you couldn't just acknowledge that your attempt to correct me was wrong.

Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:The only thing I would add is that to get the overrich mixture you must have a stiff load on the motor, especially if is is big, as is shown in the Holtz table. The 1200 ppm value is 0.12% CO and it took over three hours to kill all the animals in the Pattle tests.

Mr. Smith runs from his assertion that diesel engines, unmaintained, will not produce more CO.
>Well Chuck, an unmaintained engine must be derated, see; that can make it overload for its normal load. This can elevate the CO some. And the thing with carbon monoxide, Chuck, is that ANY amount is too much. But 0.22% took some time, several HOURS, to kill small mammals, as the 1957 Pattle data shows. No practical execution! Better luck next, time Old Boy.

The Pattle data is not the only data, old boy, and the references provided show that your assertion that an unmaintained diesel engine would not affect the CO level has been shown to be wrong.
"The locks and seals on the fuel pump and governor must not be tampered with or removed. Faulty adjustment can result in overfueling and engine damage. Overfueling can increase emissions, especially black smoke, carbon monoxide, and particulates."

http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TOOLBOX/DTBFINAL.PDF
>You see, Chuck, diesel engines normally have a set-load, which is substantial. No reason to run a big engine if you are not going to keep it loaded. As shown in the 1941 Holtz tests where the CO rises above baseline, if there is a limiter you cannot put the engine into the overloaded state. The motor will just quit. Thus, the fuel-stop is a passive safety mechanism. As Holtz and Elliott explained, they had to go out of their way to do this. In the tests with high CO, THE ENGINE WAS IN AN OVERLOADED STATE and lugging with an open throttle.

You see Scott, you're not addressing the point. An unmaintained diesel engine, in this case a faulty adjustment on the fuel pump and governor, produces an increase in CO. For some reason the government doesn't find your belief that the motor will just quit to be a suitable safety procedure.
"Because a diesel engine operates over a wide range of duty cycles, the most accurate way to assess the content of exhaust emissions during actual mining conditions is to take tailpipe samples while the engine is under load." (Ibid.)
>That's what I've been saying, Chuck.

Oh, is that all you've been saying?
"As of November 25, 1997, weekly tests for CO in the undiluted exhaust are required for certain types of diesel powered equipment in underground coal mines." (Ibid.)
>Good idea. Perhaps you have a data-table for me, Sunshine. That is exactly what all the other researchers have done, beginning with Holtz and Elliott.

Poor Smith is reduced to denying all evidence which interferes with his diesel denial unless there's a table!! But it provides him a much needed excuse to deny more evidence.
"A gas monitor can be used to measure the carbon monoxide level in the raw exhaust. A large increase in the carbon monoxide concentration is an indication that the engine has a maintanence problem that needs to be addressed."
>Any amount of CO is too much. Where's your data-table for the definition of the words "substantial" and "skyrocket"?

"I will plug my ears and ask the government for a data-table, what else can I do".

Let's remember that Smith claimed lack of maintainance on a diesel engine would not increase the CO.
Chuck wrote: No major load there!
>Sorry, Chuck, they just said the gas-testing is done at load. So stop puffing and show me your data.

Major load Scott, major load.
Chuck wrote:So as I said, a poorly maintained diesel engine will emit increased CO. And adjustments to the air intake and fuel supply produce dangerous CO levels.
>Not without a load, Chief.

And there is no problem creating a load.

>Now, Mr. Bunch. If English is your second language or you are a WWII veteran or a Holocaust Survivor, I shall apologize to you and give us a second chance at civil discourse.

BUT, if you really do have no interest in civil discourse, then you can take your Holo-Cult elsewhere and keep yourself cozy and comfortable in your sanguine delusions.

I, of course, will continue probing awkwardly for answers, knowing that I will never possess them all.
8)
And I will continue to point out that you're a one trick pony who knows little about the subject matter, and who, far from practicing an open minded approach, comes here to deny, deny, deny every piece of evidence, even though he's taken no time to acquaint himself with what the evidence is. Strange for someone who claims to be "probing awkwardly for answers", eh!

If that's not to your liking, tough shit.

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 01:34
Location: FL, USA

Chemical Warfare Agents

#101

Post by Tarpon27 » 05 May 2002, 18:38

Scott wrote:


I disagree in that HCN is NOT useful as a chemical weapon, but precisely because it is not persistent enough; it is lighter than air.

Mark wrote:

Just going back some posts that I didn't have time to reply too.

Gas entering a gas, i.e., the atmosphere, does not separate; we don't have, for example, stratas of nitrogen, oxygen, or carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.


Scott wrote:

I'm not really sure that I see your point, Mark. HCN is lighter-than-air; that means it will disperse quickly in the open. It is not useful for chemical warfare for this reason.

Chlorine, on the other hand, is heavier-than-air and hangs around in trenches. It takes longer to dissipate but if cold it takes too long to disperse. For a war-gas, you want an ideal concentration to spread and mix ideally, and to perist long enough to have an effect. That was my (tangential) point.

--------

I believe there is some confusion here, on several levels.

The Kinetic Model for Gasses assumes that gas molecules are extremely small for the volume of space they are contained in at STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure), i.e., not compressed in a container.

Again, all gases mix openly when dispersed in a "space" (volume) when released, regardless of molecular weight. Factors that affect such dispersal are temperature, pressure, air movement, etc., but all will disperse, even diffuse (a gas exiting a balloon over time, for example).

If this were not true, our atmosphere would be "layered" of the heaviest molecular weight gases towards the surface, with the lighter up higher, and clearly this is not true. The atmosphere is roughly 3 parts nitrogen to 1 part diatomic oxygen (O2, or a molecule of two oxygen atoms which is ~twice the weight of atomic nitrogen atoms).

I also know that Scott is aware of this.

Standard Chemical Warfare ("CW") agents are NOT gases, though the early use of them in WWI battlefields was indicative that the earliest technologies of the French, Germans, and British were fairly primitive. IOW, the earliest gassings were relatively ineffective, except that the use was on soldiers who had no protection so the death rate was much higher than later; the Germans had a better chemical industry, charged that the French were the first to use gas weapons, and retailated in like kind.

As time went on, all of the WWI combatants got better at producing offensive CW weapons and defensive countermeasures; however, it also appears in my limited reading, that it was not nearly as effective as a cursory look at the history of WWI CW implies. As an example, the Germans had to wait a full month prior to launching a major CW assault on a French position, and with estimates of 300,000 to 900,000 dead from CW weapons in WWI, this is hardly the epic slaughter by gas as compared to the deaths by conventional weapons.

I am not brushing aside the horror of WWI gas attacks.

Gas was a weapon which definitely altered the WWI battlefield but was limited as a force multiplier. The majority of CW deaths took place early in the war; less later. An article on WWI CW history can be found at:

http://members.tripod.com/Brian_Blodgett/Chemical.htm

There one will find a discussion on the limited efficacy of the early use of chlorine gas due to weather, delivery technology, wind shifts, and dispersal due to the fact it was a gas. Later, artillery shells using liquids were available, making for more effective CW. Early attempts were even carried out by placing cylinders near opposing front lines.

Mustard gas was called "The King of Gases" (it is a blistering agent) and phosgene, with a death time 1/4th of chlorine (41 seconds as opposed to 240 seconds); mustard, chlorine, phosgene, and chlorine-phosgene combination were all used in WWI.



On modern CW weapons:

----------------
[...]

"War Gases" are Seldom Gases

CW agents are frequently called war gases and a war where CW agents are used is usually called a gas war. These incorrect terms are a result of history. During the First World War use was made of chlorine and phosgene which are gases at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure. The CW agents used today are only exceptionally gases. Normally they are liquids or solids. However, a certain amount of the substance is always in volatile form (the amount depending on how rapidly the substance evaporates) and the gas concentration may become poisonous. Both solid substances and liquids can also be dispersed in the air in atomized form, so-called aerosols. An aerosol can penetrate the body through the respiratory organs in the same way as a gas.

Some CW agents can also penetrate the skin. This mainly concerns liquids but in some cases also gases and aerosols. Solid substances penetrate the skin slowly unless they happen to be mixed with a suitable solvent.

[...]

In order to achieve good ground coverage when dispersed from a high altitude with persistent CW agents the dispersed droplets must be sufficiently large to ensure that they fall within the target area and do not get transported elsewhere by the wind. This can be achieved by dissolving polymers (e.g., polystyrene or rubber products) in the CW agent to make the product highly-viscous or thickened. The result will be that the persistence time and adhesive ability increase which thus complicates decontamination.

[...]

http://www.opcw.org/chemhaz/cwagents.htm
------------

Zyklon B is an obvious example of a solid being a CW agent, as HCN is recognized as (see the above article). To term Zyklon B as "bug spray" or to imply that using an insecticide as a CW agent to kill people is more than a bit disingenuous. Frankly, it seems the perfect agent to use...readily available, easily obtainable, inexpensive, widely used, low concentrations needed to kill humans, easy to use, no requirements for specialized equipment to disperse it, fast acting, easy to ventilate, etc.

Zyklon B may be an insecticide, but the insecticide itself is a lethal CW agent, and listed as such, with supposed use in the Iran-Iraq conflict, along with other CW weapons.

Germany had used it for years, and its technology was widely understood. Per use at Auscwitz, it would be simple: a kilo tin dumped down a roof vent would offgas rapidly, and if one were dumped in each of four vents (when Kremas 2 and 3 were 200 sq m prior to making them 100 sq m), the 4 kilos would produce approximately, I am guessing, 30 to 50% of the ppm level needed to kill insects and arachnids...and 10 to 30 times the ppm levels needed to kill humans.

In a relatively airtight chamber packed with 1000--2000 humans, death would occur in minutes. In this scenario, the need for heating or even circulating the air is relatively moot. Even at lower temperatures, the vapor pressure is high enough to effectively produce the gas, and I would imagine that those inside the chamber were breathing heavily in a state of terror.

The point to all this is simple: I assumed Scott was trying to make the assertation that HCN, being lighter than air, would somehow be ineffective in a gas chamber, and I may have interpreted his reply wrong.


Quote:

Mark wrote:

The volume of space in which gas molecules are in is huge compared to their size; they all mingle about. In my business, it was often erroneously argued that generating ozone in structures required putting generators in high places it was heavier than air and therefore "sunk".

Scott wrote:

Although the molecular weight of HCN and CO is lighter than air, there will be mixing, and I haven't said any different. But why do you suppose the fire department wants you to crawl in a house-fire to avoid smoke-inhalation? Because, some dangerous gases rise and some sink to the floor.

So, is this just the luck of the draw, per crawling? IOW, better hope no toxic, heavier than air gases are produced in the fire?

The leading cause of death in fires is smoke inhalation. Smoke is soot which is the product of incomplete combustion of materials.

One crawls for several reasons, including that the "best" air will be down low...visibility will be clearer, it will be cooler, and the heated air makes the smoke rise which is then displaced by cooler air. At least for a few minutes, at best. The point is, your odds increase by crawling on a preplanned egress route during the initial minutes of a fire, and if you don't get out, you will not survive, at least in a major fire.

Again, I think this, if I may put it this way, "contention" that gases of different densities form separate stratas in a space is of little, if any use, as a reason for the lack of effectiveness of a toxic gas released in, say, an Auschwitz gas chamber.

And per the use of chlorine gas on a battlefield as having an ability to linger, being heavier than air, that is the luck of the draw per wind and weather when launched or released as a gas in its earliest use in WWI. Today, the mechanism of dispersal is what makes CW agents truly weapons of threat. Anthrax vs. weapons grade anthrax are two different animals.

Regards,

Mark[/quote]

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#102

Post by Roberto » 05 May 2002, 22:07

medorjurgen wrote:
Quote:
Hi Rob, are you making a point with your quotation? I've already dealt with these considerations before. Don't pretend that I haven't.

I don’t. And the points made in the quotations are still standing, despite the Reverend’s valiant efforts at “refuting” them.

Perhaps you'll have to enlighten me because I don't see your point with the quotation.
The ostrich approach again, Reverend? Readers of my three previous posts on this forum are likely to have understood my point, so better take your head out of the sand lest you want to look even more sorry than you do already.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:
A diesel "execution" would be a fiasco.

If so, big deal – it would only mean that the gassing engine was a gasoline engine. But the only fiasco I see is the Reverend’s persistent failure to make his point and, what is worse, explain the relevance of what he’s trying to demonstrate.

Yeah, big deal if one has an apriori and unshakeable belief in gassings.
Nay, Mister. One has to nothing else than to follow the evidence where is leads. Ever tried that?
Then he needs no evidence for any method: gasoline, steam or otherwise.
The primary and essential fact is that hundreds of thousands of people were killed. The secondary detail is what devices brought about their deaths. In this respect, all perpetrators’ depositions and survivors testimonials coincide in the main device having been the exhaust of a huge engine.
With the exception of the Fuchs testimony regarding Sobibor, I can see no evidence at all for anything besides diesel engines--and I have found several references regarding gas-vans that we know were diesels.
The evidence, my dear blockhead, lies in the fact that all eyewitnesses mentioned engines as the killing device. Whether or not they described the type thereof correctly is irrelevant. If it couldn’t have been one, then it could only have been the other. Big deal.
But this does not compute--could it be wrong?

Only to those unable to think outside the box of their IHR/Codoh creed, whose Faith is obviously so strong that even their woeful inability to explain away the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence and to account for the fate of those they contend were not killed at a place that was obviously their final destination does not detract them from it.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:
On the diesel issue I have answered all of these questions before. Were you not paying attention? Xanthro wanted me to try the exhaust gas on myself for a half-hour. I suggested he experiment with stray dogs and cats from the pound instead. But I said I would for a cool million--as long as the engine wasn't loaded. Why don't you get your Believer buddies to raise the money instead of sending it to Israel tax-free to blow-up Palestinian homes?

I have another suggestion: Why doesn’t the Reverend get his fellow True Believers from the IHR and Codoh together so that we may lock them tightly in a garage and experiment Ovidius’ 500 bhp diesel engine on them under various conditions, including restriction of the air intake, increase of the fuel supply or both? Will we get pink or blue bodies at the end, I wonder?

It would be nice to have some scientific loading and gas data on the T-34 engine itself. Ovidius' results were inconclusive because he was not able to keep a load on the motor, but the CO never rose.
Where are Ovidius’ results? Never saw them. Anyway, why would there have to be a load?
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:
If you block the air-intake on a large diesel engine it will derate as for altitude until it cannot get enough air to compress for ignition, and then it will misfire--but not for lack of oxygen, as there is still excess, and thus no carbon monoxide.

Your volunteers better pray that this misfiring will occur within less then half an hour, while they still have something other than exhaust to breathe.

This will not increase the CO and the people will suffocate fast enough with the engine OFF.
Yeah, replacing the existing atmosphere with oxygen-poor exhaust fumes will not hasten suffocation. In the Reverend’s silly dream world, perhaps. As to CO, is the Reverend ignoring the empirical observations suggesting that what did not result in a lethal CO content with Pattle & Stretch’s engine might very well lead to a lethal concentration of CO with a huge engine?
If the engine is not loaded it will contain (and add) more oxygen than there will be in a packed gaschamber with people breathing.
Hollow humbug. The less air there is to burn the fuel, the more CO and the less oxygen the exhaust will contain, and the fuel-air ratio can be influenced by restricting the air intake, increasing the fuel supply or doing both.
The misfiring is cause by cold ignition, not lack of oxygen.
How about putting the restriction into place after the engine is running? And how long would it take for the engine to misfire, assuming that this is not just another of the Reverend’s hoaxes? More or less than half an hour, Reverend? If more, no sweat.
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:
The only way you can raise the fuel-air ratio sufficiently for carbon monoxide is with a heavy LOAD (see chart).

Which shows nothing at all. The table below is far more illustrative.

It's the same data. Not until the load maxes-out does the CO increase. You cannot have high fuel-air ratios without a load to work against.
Says the Reverend, who hasn’t yet been able to demonstrate what would have happened if the amount of fuel used in Holtz & Elliot’s experiment B69 (29.63lbs/hr) had been used at level B13 instead of the amount of fuel actually used (04.56lbs/hr). The fuel-air ration wouldn’t be 6.5 times higher because the engine would also turn much faster and take in more air. But is there anything wrong with assuming that it would be 3 times higher, the equivalent of experiment B16, with O2 at 09.26%, i.e. approaching the survival minimum of 8 %? And what if then the air intake were restricted? Just how much would it have to be restricted for O2 going below 8 %? How much more for O2 reaching near zero level and CO going above 0.4 %, the concentration lethal for human beings?
Quote:
On what basis, I wonder, considering that the quack has never been able to explain why restriction of the air intake, increase of the fuel supply or a combination of both (with less than the full measure of each) would not have resulted in sufficiently toxic exhaust with a huge engine.

Well, Marshall and Hurn did do some experiments along the line of exhaust-gas-recirculation for the U.S. Bureau of Mines. But blocking the intake will basically make the motor quit before you can elevate the CO.
Again the “motor quit” – crap. The question again is: If so, how long would it take?
Medojurgen has not been able to show differently.
It is not for Medorjurgen to show anything. It is for the great technician to show what, if anything, is wrong with Medorjurgen’s reasoning (which happens to coincide with that of Stein, McCarthy, Berg’s engineer colleague and our fellow poster Michael Mills). The “diesel-would-not-work” contention is Smith's baby. So let’s see what he’s got to show for it.
The Pattle experiments clearly showed the limitations of this technique, with only marginal results.
The Pattle experiments showed that this technique led to far more toxic exhaust than any loading, the limitations in terms of toxicity being related to the specific characteristics of the engine, especially its size.
To then say that results would be better in getting higher CO with a bigger engine is pure fantasy.
No, Mr. Ostrich. It results from empirical observation, comparison of the toxicity of Pattle & Stretch’s 6 bhp engine, Holtz & Elliot’s 40 bhp and 70 bhp engines and Elliot & Davis’ 150 bhp engine under similar loads and fuel-air ratios. The picture that emerges is that the bigger the engine is, the dirtier the exhaust can be expected to be. Dismissing such empirical observation as “pure fantasy” without an explanation is a highly unscientific approach on the part of someone who prides himself on being a scientist.
Gas-data and load has already been shown to illustrate this from Holtz and Elliott, and it required a heavy load.
Dead wrong. The fact that Holtz & Elliot happened to make their fuel increase experiments under load doesn’t mean that load is a must in order to bring up the fuel-air ratio and hence the toxicity of the exhaust. Holtz & Elliot’s own statements suggest that the increase of the fuel supply was the key factor in this respect:
Although Fig. 2 presents data on exhaust-gas composition at fuel-air ratios on the rich side, such conditions of operation are not normal and were obtained in these tests by changing the adjustment on the stop limiting the travel of the rack on the fuel pump of engine B. After this change the fuel injected at full throttle was increased by approximately 60 per cent.
Emphasis is mine.
Elliott and Davis used a bigger engine but they unfortunately do not show us the loading data. In their tests they do mention that the engine is loaded.
The interesting feature of Elliot & Davis’ experiments in comparison to those of Holtz & Elliot is that their 150 bhp engine produces far more toxic exhaust than Holtz & Elliot’s 70 bhp “B” engine at the same fuel-air ratio. How that fuel-air ratio was achieved in Elliot & Davis’ experiments – whether by loading or by restriction of the air intake / increase of the fuel supply or by a combination of methods – is not the subject of my contention.
Perhaps Medorjurgen can demonstrate for us his special technique of getting a large diesel engine to crank-out sufficient CO without a load. Ovidius couldn't do it.
Ovidius apparently didn’t even try, and Medorjurgen is doing nothing other than observing and putting his common sense to work. Empirical observation and elementary logic tell him that if the composition of the exhaust is a function of how much fuel goes into the engine and how much air it takes in to burn the fuel, influencing either or both of these parameters will have an effect on the fuel-air ratio and thus the toxicity of the exhaust. And the great technician has not yet been able to explain what is wrong with this thinking. Poor show.
Quote:
Assuming that you were 100 % right about the diesels, what would that most probably mean?

First, it means almost zero proof about gassings at Treblinka and probably Belzec.
Apart from the depositions of dozens of perpetrators, survivors and outsiders, a vast array of documentary evidence and, especially in the case of Belzec, also very conclusive physical evidence corroborating the eyewitness and documentary evidence. Keep dreaming, Reverend.
No murder-weapon no murders.
This statement is so imbecile that is hurts. To understand the utter absurdity thereof, we must only figure what the situation would be like if none of the witnesses had said anything about the type of the engine. An big engine, period. Type? I don’t know, I’m no technician. Would we then have evidence to the murder weapon, Reverend, or would we not? Answer: Of course we would, even though we might not know the details about it. The situation would be no different if the murder weapon had been described with an inaccuracy in regard to one of its characteristics, assuming that using a diesel rather than a gasoline engine for gassing would really be problematic. So the best that the Reverend can hope to demonstrate is that there are unresolved uncertainties in regard to certain details of the murder weapon. Which is not exactly the same as “no murder weapon”, is it, Reverend?
Secondly, it shows that the courts did not care about the murder-weapon at all because they had an apriori belief in the murders and proof was not necessary.
Blah, blah, blah. The task of the courts was to establish whether a crime had been committed, the extent thereof and the identity of the criminals as well as their participation therein and their guilt. Could the Reverend please explain for which of these essential findings of fact it would have been of interest for the court to know the exact nature and specifics of the murder weapon?

An often asked but never answered question, and yet the Reverend keeps firing away his beaten articles of faith. There are times when I really feel sorry for the fellow, and this is one of them.
Revisionists like Fritz Berg have raised good questions
Rather silly questions that are of no relevance whatsoever to the essential findings of fact, I would say. That’s how criminal justice authorities and historians obviously see it as well. Only propaganda hoaxers apparently see it differently, or at least they pretend to.
and thus the assumptions are seriously disputed.
A statement of wishful thinking that sounds rather desperate. Even if Berg et al were 100 % right in their technical considerations, this would only mean that the notion of certain details of the murder weapon are wrong. It would not mean that there was no murder weapon, let alone that the mass murder that becomes apparent from conclusive and coincident documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence did not occur. Better get used to the idea, Reverend.
Third, that many of these stories are simply lies and atrocity propaganda.
What’s that, Reverend? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, once again? Your squealing is getting notably weaker, my friend.
Quote:
That the 713,555 Jews who, according to the Höfle memorandum, disappeared from the face of the earth behind the gates of Treblinka until 31.12.1942, were not killed there, even though these is no evidence to their having been taken anywhere else from that place, dozens of survivors, perpetrators and outsiders described the killing process in great and coincident detail, a Wehrmacht officer raised an official complaint about the unbearable stench of corpses emanating from the camp and the area and volume of the camp’s burial zone corresponds to hundreds of thousands of dead bodies?

This is alleged but not supported by any physical evidence, and with no meaningful quantification.
More hollow mumbling. Why “alleged”, Reverend? Can you explain what became of those 713,555 people? Do you have any indication that the confessing perpetrators and testifying survivors and outsiders, whose independent statements coincided with each other in all essential details, were for some reason cooking up some fantasy? Or that the document referring to the complaint of the Wehrmacht commander of Ostrow about the unbearable stench of corpses emanating from Treblinka and befouling the air for miles around is a forgery?

As to the physical evidence and the alleged absence of “meaninful quantification”, whatever it is that the Reverend would accept as “meaningful”: Have you already calculated how many whole dead bodies could be buried in pits 7.5 meters deep in a burial area more then 20,000 square meters long and wide? And how many would fit into the respective burial space as ashes and other partial remains?
I'm not disputing some body-disposal at the venue and even murder. How much I do not know.
How silly that sounds, considering that the documentary evidence alone provides a clear indication of the order of magnitude and even the exact number of Jews transported to Treblinka from the General Government until 31.12.1942.
I don't carry apriori beliefs to the problem--that so many historians have shows their ideological blinders.
Why, Reverend, are we expected to belief that your nonsensical dismissal of all evidence is not a clear indication of apriori beliefs and ideological blinders? Just how stupid do you expect this forum’s audience to be?
Quote:
Or that the gassing engine which killed most of them may have been inaccurately described or understood as having been a diesel engine and was actually a gasoline engine burning diesel fuel or gasoline?

That gives us no more detail than any of the other claims: town-gas, carbon monoxide, steam, chlorine, high-pressure, low-pressure, electrocution, Death Rays, insecticide.
Who needs detail, Reverend? All we need to know is that is was an engine. An engine, at least if it’s a gasoline engine running on diesel fuel or gasoline, is a highly plausible murder weapon, isn’t it? And something obviously killed those hundreds of thousands whom dozens of people saw being killed, who disappeared from the face of the earth without there being another accounting for their fate than their having been killed, whose dead bodies stank to high heaven while the camp was in operation and whose remains were found all over an area of more than 20,000 square meters buried to a depth of 7.5 meters, don’t you think so, my friend? What exactly that something was is not so important to know. For historiography and criminal justice, it is sufficient to know that it was gunfire and the exhaust of a huge engine. Better get used to the idea, Reverend.
Quote:
Try thinking outside the box of your quackery, Reverend. Just once.

Where's the mass-grave at Treblinka, Roberto? Not even an attempt to pound stakes in and call it a modern forensic investigation, like at the other Reinhardt camps.
You know where it is, Reverend:

There are also other traces. For example, in the north-eastern part, over a surface covering about 2 ha. (5 acres),
there are large quantities of ashes mixed with sand, among which are numerous human bones, often with the remains of decomposing tissues.

As a result of an examination made by an expert it was found that ashes were the remains of burnt human bones. The examination of numerous human skulls found in the camp has shown that they bear no traces of external injuries. Within a radius of several hundred yards from the camp site an unpleasant smell of burnt ash and decay is noticeable, growing stronger as one approaches.


From the report by the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland. Warsaw, 1946

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpoltreb1.htm

In the area where the gas chambers were supposed to have been located, the commission's team of 30 excavation workers reportedly found human remains, partially in the process of decay, and an unspecified amount of ash. Untouched sandy soil was reached at 7.5 meters, at which point the digging was halted. An accompanying photograph of an excavated pit reveals some large bones. (note 63)

Poland's Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes
reported that large quantities of ashes mixed with sand, among which are numerous human bones, often with the remains of decomposing tissues, were found in the five acre (two hectare) burial area during an examination of the site shortly after the end of the war. (note 64)


The investigations by the Central Commission as referred to in an article by "Revionists" Mark Weber and Andrew Allen.

Source:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... linka.9605

So better cut out the crap, old pal. The audience of this forum is mostly composed of neither suckers nor True Believers like yourself, I dare say.

As to the other Reinhardt camps: At Belzec they found 33 mass graves in 1997/98, with a total volume of more than 30,000 cubic meters and containing ashes, burnt bone fragments, thick layers of burnt human fat and even a considerable amount of whole dead bodies underneath those layers. How many whole dead bodies could fit into a burial space this large before they went over to incinerating them, Reverend?

Last but not least, I would appreciate an honest answer to the following questions:

We have been through this countless times before, haven’t we? So often that you know beforehand that I will thoroughly take your humbug apart and (as you present always the same arguments) can also more or less predict the arguments by which I will do so, right?

That being so, why do you keep writing these repetitive sermons (which I frankly have trouble accepting that you are dumb enough to believe in yourself)?

Do your fellow True Believers prod you into putting up a fight, however hopeless you know it to be from the very start, just for the sake of “showing the flag”?

Or are you so full of hatred and frustration that you want to waste my time out of sheer spite, no matter how much you make a bloody fool out of yourself in the process?

In the latter case, I suggest you find a better way of venting your hatred, buddy. I not only enjoy taking a few shots at the quack’s medicine bottles, but am grateful for every chance you give me to expose the utter imbecility of “Revisionism”.

Image

See you later, quack. And be careful not to cut yourself with the broken glass.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Chemical Warfare Agents

#103

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2002, 22:48

Hi Mark,

I agree with most of your points. I remember in Boy Scouts for First Aid preparation the fireman told us that toxic gases pooled both at the floor and above where they were hotter and that one should crawl but not expect good air down below or something like that. Anyway, this subject came up before when I was debating Roberto. In grain elevators CO2 pools at the bottom from organic decomposition. I said that was because the gas was trapped as it was being generated and that in a gaschamber it would be more mixed, even though I agreed that the CO2 might tend to collect at the bottom and the CO at the top. I was essentially making your point, I think, in that with gas being pumped in from an engine there would be pretty-thorough mixing.

Regarding the war gases, you are correct, chlorine was awkward and not very effective and could be protected against with simple gas masks or even a urine-soaked rag. HCN was tried by the French without any success; it just dispersed too quickly in the open. Carbon monoxide would be even less effective, except that it is the leading cause of death in bombardments from burning materials. Often CO victims in bunkers look peaceful, as if they were gassed, when poison gas was not used, thus accounting for a lot of rumors. One combination of chlorine and phosgene called Whitestar was fairly effective for a non-persistent gas. Generally, however, chemical agents are best if persistent (or made persistent) because the tactic is not to shock the enemy, who recover surprisingly quickly but to contaminate key locations like troop-staging-areas, bases and depots, especially if a lot of equipment has to be decontaminated. Mustard gas, introduced in 1918, is an example of a persistent blister-agent that attacks mucous membrane. Nerve-agents like Tabun, Sarin, and Soman, developed by the Germans in WWII (but not used) are non-persistent and very deadly but are usually made more strategically useful with the addition of a thickener to become persistent.

About the Zyklon-B gaschamber, I am guilty of referring it as “bug spray” but I agree with your points. I do think that Zyklon-B could have been ideal for execution with its recirculation and warming apparatus, much better than the gas-generation method with pellets and acid used in American prisons. But I am still not convinced that 500 thousand were killed in a basement. Even if technically possible, we have a handful of postwar testimony developed from such things as the War Refugee Report and so on. I think the use of Zyklon, available for delousing and fumigation but without any engineering shows an ad hoc nature of gassings and not a centrally-directed exterminationist program. And I’m not convinced that there should not at least be some localized staining and hot-spots considering the crude methods employed.

I insist on keeping an open mind about the issue.

Best Regards,
Scott

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

MINDLESS...

#104

Post by Scott Smith » 05 May 2002, 22:50

Charles Bunch wrote:
Dan wrote:
The day you begin to think, instead of spouting ignorant denial, will probably only come as you near the end of your life.
Charles, if you wouldn't act like such a prick, you may end up having an influence.
There is no way to influence mindless deniers of fact who are motivated by other factors. Pointing out their mindlessness is sufficient.
The more you talk the more your opponents don't need to talk, Chuck.
:monkee:

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

MINDLESS DENIAL...

#105

Post by Scott Smith » 06 May 2002, 01:17

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:I'm afraid Dan is right. If you were a WWII veteran or a Holocaust survivor then I could give you a little slack, but as it stands you have established no credibility with me whatsoever.
And what makes you think establishing credebility with the likes of you ought to be the goal of any decent human being? You come here day after day posting the same nonsense over and over again. You blather on about subjects you even admit you know nothing about, all in the interest of denying history. It is your credibility we are working over here.
There you have it! People who disagree with Chuck are not decent human beings. I never said I was anything but an amateur. If you don't like it, tough. But if you wish to converse with me you will have to be civil; otherwise, you can Is-Too/Is-Not your way back into the Memory Hole or wherever you came from. This is the Third Reich forum, after all.
Charles wrote:But people who spout nonsense in ignorance over and over again in support of a lie about established history are not deserving of respect.
The first thing I learned in Historiography 101 is that there is no such thing as "established history" because historians disagree. Better get used-to it. Of course, there are such things as Court Histories and dogmas. But nobody OWNS History. Better wake-up and smell the pork cooking.
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:I said I did not know exactly what happened and that I was not a chemist. I do not buy the atrocity stories and the murder-factory hypothesis. I have no trouble with the idea that Höß used some crude methods with insecticide to get rid of surplus political prisoners or to alleviate camp overcrowding.
You don't buy it because you don't want to.
After all the shrunken heads and Human Soap and lampshades and six-million gassed in camps all conveniently located behind the Iron Curtain, and all of the Holo-memoirs, now regarded as harmless Holo-novels, I'd have to say that yes, I am a wee bit skeptical!
Charles wrote:The evidence is more than compelling,
It's only compelling if one views Survivor stories as a trump over reason held as an apriori Belief, that goes along the lines of the Bible saying that Moses parted the Red Sea so therefore it had to be possible somehow. That is not science but superstition. You Believe because you WANT to believe.
Charles wrote:and the only argument you ever make against it, outside of the ridiculous "diesel can't work" argument is to deny all the evidence. Look at your very last comment. Tell us about the state of the evidence, as you know it, which permits some gassing of some political prisoners and others to alleviate overcrowding, but not the gassing of large numbers of Jews? What is the evidentiary basis for that comment?
The diesel issue is a hobby because, based on my experience, I questioned that a long time ago, and apart from Revisionists, no one else HAS. I did not say that large numbers of Jews were not killed, including (maybe) with poison gas, but I do not buy "the Nazis tried to kill every Jew theory" that I was spoonfed as a boy like a bowl of hot cereal. Not even the Nazis were that incompetent. But from the theocentric point-of-view, the death or persecution of ONE is the death or persecution of ALL the Elect. I don't care if the Jews have Israel or not as long as America is neutral (and my country is NOT neutral). But Jews are safe in my country and always will be as long as I have a say in the matter.
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:
Charles wrote:You are the ideologue, willing to assert anything that comes into your head, even when you admit you know nothing about the subject.
No, merely asking inconvenient questions.
Your stock reply. There is nothing inconvenient about your questions. But there purpose is rather transparent.
Says a True Believer! Perpetrators, Victims, and Bystanders, TESTIFY! Amen, Brother! In short, you have FAITH. I have been willing to concede many points on the basis of real evidence or compelling argument. Persecution and exploitation, including hardship and murder, does not automatically equate with a blueprint for extermination using exotic or inexotic weaponry.
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:You make assumptions based on inane atrocity stories and then try to shohorn the facts into that thesis. When I try to look at how well your hypothesis holds-up beyond merely "Survivors Bearing Witness," then I am the bad guy. Oh, ain't I sorry...
The massive testimonial evidence of Nazis, Sonderkommandos and others of gassing at Auschwitz are not atrocity stories, but powerful evidence. Here again you adopt mindless argumentation. This testimonial evidence is corroborated by documentary and forensic evidence. There is no shoehorning. Just an overwhelming convergence toward a conclusive finding.
No genuine convergence. All the information was developed by Allied propagandists and later Victor jurists, including Jewish-American "experts" of recent extraction. The methods are reminiscent of Inquisitions in the Middle Ages where the existence of Demons was real and incontestable, or like the perfunctory and political Soviet show-trials. It is farcical! I have been looking closely at only one claim, the diesel gaschambers, and it is BOGUS.

Furthermore, today there is a complete Holocaust Industry, and Zionist interests promoting the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the founding myth of modern Israel, or do you deny that? A homeland for the Jews of the world means Apartheid for an underclass of Gentiles in the Holy Land. The Holocaust has become its own quasi-religion with its own symbols, art, and True Believers, and not all its practitioners are Jews by any means. Evangelicals waiting for Armageddon in the Holy Land are well-represented.

No Sir, not convergence-of-evidence; convergence-of-interest.
Charles wrote:History is written on the basis of the totality of the evidence.
No, there are many interests involved. Historiography is the study of how History is written by Historians.
Charles wrote:The Holocaust is no different. You don't seem to have much of a grasp of what that evidentiary base is.
I can sum it up as SLIM with lots and lots of media saturation--like a big, red balloon. Even to DEFINE the Holocaust is not easy.
Charles wrote:And yet you come out doubting and being skeptical about the few pieces you seem to know about, rather than acquainting yourself with it's full dimension. That further indicates your agenda.
That's how you look at the microcosm, carefully, at the details. One has to be careful with generalities if one doesn't have a commanding and sweeping grasp of the dimension, but I'm not a Professor of Big-H History. Which doesn't mean that I can't be a critic if I want to.
Charles wrote:All the experimental data necessary to augment the testimonial, documentary and forensic evidence of gassing at Auschwitz exists. Trying to hide behind the term "Scientific Method" is more grandstanding in lieu of argument.
It might be if I made sweeping claims like "the Holocaust never happened," and so on--which I don't, as you well-know.
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:
Charles wrote:And the objective of your efforts is always the same, to cast doubt on anything which points to the homicidal gassing of Jews by Nazis.
No, but my time is limited, see. I have tried to keep my comments on the Leuchter Report reasonable.
But you didn't. And your time is not so limited that you can't make almost 9 posts per day on this board. It is clear that your energies are devoted to casting doubt about evidence you are not even clear on, rather than reading the history of the Holocaust.
I'm doing my best to keep up with correspondence and the quality has suffered. When not being harangued I tend to drift over to other forums and talk about strategy or weapons, or other things that interest me. You seem to be a one-trick pony regarding the Holo-Cult. Damage Control, Matey!
Charles wrote:Perhaps you'd like them better if I posted childish images.
Please do! If Is-Too/Is-Not is the level that civil and reasonable discourse has taken...
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:
"It has been definitely proven, that when engine maintenance is neglected, [especially if it involves regulating the fuel and air handling systems of engines] the particulate, and carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons, all skyrocket."

Robert Weytulonis
Center for Diesel Research
University of Minnesota

http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TOOLBOX/DTBFINAL.PDF
Mr. Weytulonis is incorrect regarding carbon monoxide, and there is no meaningful data shown to backup his testimonial and show quantity. This is the kind of thing that allows marketers to argue that cigarette smoking is healthy, for example. "Seven out of ten doctors surveyed..."
The denier method at work!
Then let's see your data, wise guy! Words like "skyrocket" and "three years in the gas chambers" is a True Believer's "scientific method" at work.
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:That's true, although perhaps you should have used quotation marks (added above).
You are ignorant of usenet attribution as well I see.
For someone who has yet to master this BBS protocol, that's a pretty asinine charge, LOL!
It's not assinine at all, you've just shown you know nothing about usenet attribution. BBS protocol is not usenet attibution. One is a mechanical activity, apparently more appropriate to your skills. Perhaps you'd do better worrying about the content of your posts, rather than whether they demonstrate your mastery of a BBS interface. In any event you've learned something you didn't know before, even if you couldn't just acknowledge that your attempt to correct me was wrong.
So what, Chuck? I don't debate anywhere but here (and sometimes Codoh if any opposition shows-up) but everyone finds your posts confusing. Get with the program, big guy. If you're the only one driving on the wrong side of the street! Anyway, I don't care how you do it but if I (and others) find it confusing at times then don't whine.
Charles wrote:And there is no problem creating a load.
There is if the engine used is 500 horsepower!

And the idea of overloading a diesel engine to generate carbon monoxide when a gasoline engine generates CO abundantly is so cuckoo as to demonstrate the extent that Believers will go to Believe.
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:BUT, if you really do have no interest in civil discourse, then you can take your Holo-Cult elsewhere and keep yourself cozy and comfortable in your sanguine delusions.

I, of course, will continue probing awkwardly for answers, knowing that I will never possess them all.
And I will continue to point out that you're a one trick pony who knows little about the subject matter, and who, far from practicing an open minded approach, comes here to deny, deny, deny every piece of evidence, even though he's taken no time to acquaint himself with what the evidence is. Strange for someone who claims to be "probing awkwardly for answers", eh!
You need to stop huffing and produce a gas-data-and-loading table better than the one used by Holtz & Elliott, and an experiment with diesel exhaust on live animals better than the one done by Pattle & Stretch. Until you do, toodleoo.
Charles wrote:If that's not to your liking, tough shit.
I'll just ignore the scatological reference, a common theme in Holo-Culture, it seems.
:aliengray
Last edited by Scott Smith on 13 May 2002, 11:36, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”