Gassing Vans Revisited

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 16:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

#31

Post by Roberto » 25 Apr 2003, 16:36

jeff wrote:good god roberto your soooooooooo boring!
Marcus, I hope you didn't ban the poor soul on account of this remark.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002, 23:35
Location: Europe
Contact:

#32

Post by Marcus » 25 Apr 2003, 16:37

Roberto wrote:
jeff wrote:good god roberto your soooooooooo boring!
Marcus, I hope you didn't ban the poor soul on account of this remark.
Of course not, that was probably the friendliest post he made.

/Marcus


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

#33

Post by Roberto » 25 Apr 2003, 16:39

Marcus Wendel wrote:
Roberto wrote:
jeff wrote:good god roberto your soooooooooo boring!
Marcus, I hope you didn't ban the poor soul on account of this remark.
Of course not, that was probably the friendliest post he made.

/Marcus
That's good to know. :D

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

#34

Post by Scott Smith » 26 Apr 2003, 04:51

Roberto wrote:
Billy Bishop wrote:
Roberto wrote:Just who do you expect to care for this crap of yours, Smith?
I am following this thread. I've read every argument, and it seems that both sides have valid points. Although I am leaning towards Roberto....
Well, then I still have some work to do, for my purpose is not to convince you that a device requiring extreme safety precautions (which Smith kindly volunteered to detail) in order not to be dangerous to the users themselves might not have been the ideal murder weapon Smith claims it to be, but to make you see that Smith's "I don't think they killed them as becomes apparent from the evidence because I would have killed them better" is not a "valid point", but plain idiocy.
Not idiocy but a reasonable consideration. You wouldn't use a wristwatch to pound a nail--although perhaps you could do it; and you wouldn't use a hammer to tell the time--even though that makes perfect Holocaust™ sense.
:)

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

#35

Post by Scott Smith » 26 Apr 2003, 05:12

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Oh darn, I didn't even get to see the offending comment. (Been too busy playing with Corty. He says "cheep cheep" = Hi!)
Let's hope Smith's fantasy creature has more brains than its keeper.
Corty thinks it's funny that you don't believe in him (don't ya, little guy?).

Cheep, Cheep!
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote: Why does keep Smith keep mumbling about load when I used the Holtz & Elliot experiment without load for my calculations based on Richard Miller’s considerations?
Well, in a no-load-condition you are still pumping in 17% fresh oxygen (almost normal) and the CO2 will never rise above 2.7 percent, regardless of how many people are crammed in there, unless you turn off the engine!
If I understood Miller correctly, CO2 is fatal above 7 % regardless of the oxygen content of the atmosphere, i.e. even with an oxygen content that by itself would be more than sufficient to ensure survival, his "CO2 narcosis" would occur. Which means that Smith’s objection is meaningless. And he seems to be aware of it, as his ensuing recourse to staple slogans shows.
Well, assuming this theory is correct, if you look at the graph again, you don't get 7% CO2 until the engine is loaded to about 55-60%. That is roughly test B-16 in the graph.
Which would be no sweat either, whatever Smith means by "55-60 %", apart from the fact that the same effect could be obtained by increasing the fuel supply and/or restricting the air intake.
Blocking off the air-intake does not produce more CO2. The CO2 is waste produced from combustion and that means loading the engine.

Besides, in the worst scenario in the 1957 Pattle & Stretch tests on live animals, with the air-intake blocked the deadly CO was raised to only 0.22%. After one hour's exposure, three mice were still alive and all of the guinea pigs and rabbits were still alive. Not until 3 hours and 20 minutes into the test were all animals dead (of CO poisoning). In tests where the CO was not elevated and the engine was not loaded or restricted, the animal deaths usually took place in the last hour of a five-hour exposure, and many of the animals that died did so days later. The cause of death in those tests was pulmonary edema from inhaling caustic nitrogen oxides.

So basically we have a gaschamber that takes HOURS to kill. And small animals are much more sensitive than humans, like canaries in coal mines.
Roberto wrote:And assuming, of course, that the victims produced no CO2 at all themselves. According to my calculations based on Miller's parameters, most of the CO2 would be produced by the victims themselves, and the additional CO2 contained in the exhaust of an idle 70 bhp diesel engine would merely shorten the time until the 7 % threshold was reached.
No, the CO2 will never rise higher than the exhaust content itself because the chamber is vented and the same ratio of gas is blown-out as is blown-in. Of course, if you decided to stop torturing the victims and shut off the engine then they would have no more source of oxygen and would soon die.
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:If we scale up to an engine the size of the diesel from a Russian tank, it means we have to dump 226 mechanical kilowatts somewhere. That is a hell of a dummy-load!
Which Smith - assuming his above mumbling is not just another load of crap - obviously still hasn't learned where to stick. Given that even if he had a point regarding the load this would only lead us to the conclusion that the gassing engine is more likely to have been a gasoline engine and one or the other witness probably confused it with an electricity generator or some other device, Smith should know better by now than to keep trying to make a mouse into an elephant.
Well, yes, and I made that point years ago when we first started debating this issue. However, I'm not seeing a lot of support for gasoline engines either. This was discussed on this thread:

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic ... sc&start=0
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Btw, my thesis is not that there is a "Hoax." In other words, as far as I'm concerned, just because professional shuckmeisters have pontificated atrocity-propaganda does not mean that nothing bad ever happened.
Any "professional shuckmeister" Smith can show us to have accorded the findings of criminal justice in regard to the killing device more than a perfunctory notice ? It seems to me that "Revisionist" propagandists are bitching about a paper dragon of their own making, as they usually do.
Maybe, but then you don't mind exploring the feasibility of the murder-weapon, right...
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:But surely the truth requires a fair degree of skepticism.
Yeah, sure. "I doubt they killed their victims as becomes apparent from the independent and coincident depositions of defendants and eyewitnesses, because I would have killed them better" - that's what Smith calls "skepticism".
The fact that the defendants made such wild claims is more than cause for skepticism.
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Now, this Holzgas generator would have made an ideal technology for mass-murder; they were cheap, available everywhere, and only required wood scraps for fuel. Yet the Nazis allegedly bottled carbon monoxide and used expensive delousing insecticide. Go figure.
Just like I said above.

Never mind the conclusive and coincident evidence that bottled carbon monoxide was used until the killers realized that engine exhaust would do the job as well, never mind the equally conclusive and coincident evidence that on other occasions they adopted the not exactly unpractical solution of using a few extra cans of their highly lethal (and hardly "expensive") standard insecticide - Smith expects us to believe that the possibility of a "better" killing solution (assuming "his" solution, requiring the strict safety precautions he kindly volunteered to detail, would have been as advantageous as he claims it to be) means not that the killers could have done "better" (which would be the logical conclusion), but that they didn't kill at all (which would correspond to his articles of faith).
And there were no safety precautions with the use of hydrogen cyanide for insecticide? Sure.
:wink:

I can almost believe using cylinders of CO gas on a small scale in a mental hospital, but I can't for the life of me see why the SS would use bottled CO with motor vehicles.
:roll:
Whoever among our readers considers this to be a "valid point", please speak up.
Gotta go now. Corty is scattering cereal all over the kitchen, and I've been finding doodles in unexpected places...
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 26 Apr 2003, 08:57, edited 1 time in total.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#36

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 26 Apr 2003, 06:25

Between Roberto and Scott Smith, I found this "Gas Van" topic,-------

Exhausting! don't pardon the pun :lol:

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

#37

Post by Roberto » 27 Apr 2003, 20:01

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Billy Bishop wrote:
Roberto wrote:Just who do you expect to care for this crap of yours, Smith?
I am following this thread. I've read every argument, and it seems that both sides have valid points. Although I am leaning towards Roberto....
Well, then I still have some work to do, for my purpose is not to convince you that a device requiring extreme safety precautions (which Smith kindly volunteered to detail) in order not to be dangerous to the users themselves might not have been the ideal murder weapon Smith claims it to be, but to make you see that Smith's "I don't think they killed them as becomes apparent from the evidence because I would have killed them better" is not a "valid point", but plain idiocy.
Not idiocy but a reasonable consideration.
Says the idiot. Not an uncommon phenomenon; accomplished morons usually think it's the others who have a screw loose.
Scott Smith wrote:You wouldn't use a wristwatch to pound a nail--although perhaps you could do it; and you wouldn't use a hammer to tell the time--even though that makes perfect Holocaust™ sense.
:)
See, Smith, if the reported murder weapon was completely inadequate, as you would like it to be, you could argue that there's something wrong with eyewitness depositions describing it. But given the conclusive evidence that mass murder did take place - regarding which you keep avoiding my questions - this would get you no further than concluding that one or the other witness must have incurred in an error of observation in regard to the murder weapon. Big deal.

This is not the situation we have here, however. Assuming your fabulous alternative was more adequate than the one that becomes apparent from the evidence, despite the safety inconveniences, where would this logically get us? To the conclusion that the killers might have killed better. Hardly relevant to historiography and criminal research, but certainly the kind of small stuff that worries small people's minds.

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

#38

Post by Roberto » 27 Apr 2003, 21:44

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Oh darn, I didn't even get to see the offending comment. (Been too busy playing with Corty. He says "cheep cheep" = Hi!)
Let's hope Smith's fantasy creature has more brains than its keeper.
Corty thinks it's funny that you don't believe in him (don't ya, little guy?).

Cheep, Cheep!
Looks like the creature does have more brains in its little head than it’s keeper has inside a skull presumably as oversized as his mouth.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote: Well, in a no-load-condition you are still pumping in 17% fresh oxygen (almost normal) and the CO2 will never rise above 2.7 percent, regardless of how many people are crammed in there, unless you turn off the engine!
If I understood Miller correctly, CO2 is fatal above 7 % regardless of the oxygen content of the atmosphere, i.e. even with an oxygen content that by itself would be more than sufficient to ensure survival, his "CO2 narcosis" would occur. Which means that Smith’s objection is meaningless. And he seems to be aware of it, as his ensuing recourse to staple slogans shows.
Well, assuming this theory is correct, if you look at the graph again, you don't get 7% CO2 until the engine is loaded to about 55-60%. That is roughly test B-16 in the graph.
Which would be no sweat either, whatever Smith means by "55-60 %", apart from the fact that the same effect could be obtained by increasing the fuel supply and/or restricting the air intake.
Blocking off the air-intake does not produce more CO2. The CO2 is waste produced from combustion and that means loading the engine.
The less air to burn the fuel, the more products of incomplete combustions such as CO2 or CO there are likely to be. An effect that can be, and has been, brought about by restricting the air intake.
Scott Smith wrote:Besides, in the worst scenario in the 1957 Pattle & Stretch tests on live animals, with the air-intake blocked the deadly CO was raised to only 0.22%. After one hour's exposure, three mice were still alive and all of the guinea pigs and rabbits were still alive. Not until 3 hours and 20 minutes into the test were all animals dead (of CO poisoning). In tests where the CO was not elevated and the engine was not loaded or restricted, the animal deaths usually took place in the last hour of a five-hour exposure, and many of the animals that died did so days later. The cause of death in those tests was pulmonary edema from inhaling caustic nitrogen oxides.
For the umpteenth time, as in our lengthy discussions of old, I remind Smith that Pattle & Stretch used a tiny 6 bhp engine the exhaust of which was even less toxic under full load than in the air intake scenario. A comparison with the experiments of Holtz & Elliot, using a 70 bhp engine, and of Elliot & Davis, with a 150 bhp engine, suggests that the size of the engine has a considerable influence on the toxicity of the exhaust. This in turn means that the exhaust of a 70 bhp engine would be lethal under operating conditions at which the exhaust of a 6 bhp engine would still be tolerable, and that the exhaust of an engine with 150 bhp or bigger would be even more lethal under similar operating conditions.
Scott Smith wrote:So basically we have a gaschamber that takes HOURS to kill. And small animals are much more sensitive than humans, like canaries in coal mines.
A few posts ago it was about an hour without exhaust, now it’s hours with exhaust. Which of them shall we pick, Smith?

Another thing, did Pattle & Stretch pack their mice as tightly as people were stuffed into the Treblinka gas chambers? For if they did not, this may explain why Miller’s "CO2 narcosis" (assuming mice are as susceptible to this condition as human beings) did not kill the mice within a comparatively short time.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:And assuming, of course, that the victims produced no CO2 at all themselves. According to my calculations based on Miller's parameters, most of the CO2 would be produced by the victims themselves, and the additional CO2 contained in the exhaust of an idle 70 bhp diesel engine would merely shorten the time until the 7 % threshold was reached.
No, the CO2 will never rise higher than the exhaust content itself because the chamber is vented and the same ratio of gas is blown-out as is blown-in.
Says Smith, who can thus certainly demonstrate that and why my calculations and those of Miller are wrong. Let’s see.
Scott Smith wrote: Of course, if you decided to stop torturing the victims and shut off the engine then they would have no more source of oxygen and would soon die.
Assuming the room was airtight, which it is unlikely to have been for reasons I remember having explained in one of my last posts.

But this is not about oxygen now, it’s about CO2, which according to your friend Miller produces excessive blood pressure, unconsciousness and death when exceeding a certain level. So let’s have a demonstration that and why these considerations and calculations are wrong, instead of the usual crap.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:If we scale up to an engine the size of the diesel from a Russian tank, it means we have to dump 226 mechanical kilowatts somewhere. That is a hell of a dummy-load!
Which Smith - assuming his above mumbling is not just another load of crap - obviously still hasn't learned where to stick. Given that even if he had a point regarding the load this would only lead us to the conclusion that the gassing engine is more likely to have been a gasoline engine and one or the other witness probably confused it with an electricity generator or some other device, Smith should know better by now than to keep trying to make a mouse into an elephant.
Well, yes, and I made that point years ago when we first started debating this issue. However, I'm not seeing a lot of support for gasoline engines either.
That’s my Smith, once again. Unfortunately for him, most witnesses did not mention the type of engine at all (because they didn’t know or just didn’t consider such a minor detail worth mentioning) or spoke of a gasoline engine. If they had spoken of a diesel engine, their uttering the word “diesel” would have been enough for Smith to feed his fuss. As they inconveniently mentioned gasoline engines, however, no deposition can be detailed enough for Smith’s taste. So much for the “Revisionist” approach to evidence.
Scott Smith wrote: This was discussed on this thread:

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic ... sc&start=0
Why, Hargis’ “Air Photo” sewer under a new name, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Smith’s self-respect were so low as to keep him posting there. As Hargis is running the shop, I presume it’s for true believers only and no opposition is allowed. Am I right?
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Btw, my thesis is not that there is a "Hoax." In other words, as far as I'm concerned, just because professional shuckmeisters have pontificated atrocity-propaganda does not mean that nothing bad ever happened.
Any "professional shuckmeister" Smith can show us to have accorded the findings of criminal justice in regard to the killing device more than a perfunctory notice ? It seems to me that "Revisionist" propagandists are bitching about a paper dragon of their own making, as they usually do.
Maybe, but then you don't mind exploring the feasibility of the murder-weapon, right...
I’m not interested in “exploring the feasibility of murder weapon” because, as I said, the best Smith can hope to demonstrate is a mistake in one or the other eyewitness description of the device. I just like taking apart Smith’s nonsense, which is so much fun that any topic, however irrelevant, will do.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:But surely the truth requires a fair degree of skepticism.
Yeah, sure. "I doubt they killed their victims as becomes apparent from the independent and coincident depositions of defendants and eyewitnesses, because I would have killed them better" - that's what Smith calls "skepticism".
The fact that the defendants made such wild claims is more than cause for skepticism.
Whose “wild claims” are you talking about, and why would they warrant skepticism?

Any major contradictions between independent defendants’ depositions, or between such and the testimonials of eyewitnesses, that you have come across?

Were the specifics of the murder weapon something worth lying about, from the defendants’ point of view?

Would incorrectly describing these devices have benefited them in any way?
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Now, this Holzgas generator would have made an ideal technology for mass-murder; they were cheap, available everywhere, and only required wood scraps for fuel. Yet the Nazis allegedly bottled carbon monoxide and used expensive delousing insecticide. Go figure.
Just like I said above.

Never mind the conclusive and coincident evidence that bottled carbon monoxide was used until the killers realized that engine exhaust would do the job as well, never mind the equally conclusive and coincident evidence that on other occasions they adopted the not exactly unpractical solution of using a few extra cans of their highly lethal (and hardly "expensive") standard insecticide - Smith expects us to believe that the possibility of a "better" killing solution (assuming "his" solution, requiring the strict safety precautions he kindly volunteered to detail, would have been as advantageous as he claims it to be) means not that the killers could have done "better" (which would be the logical conclusion), but that they didn't kill at all (which would correspond to his articles of faith).
And there were no safety precautions with the use of hydrogen cyanide for insecticide? Sure.
Has poor Smith really missed the message contained in my above statement, or is he only playing dumb?
Scott Smith wrote: I can almost believe using cylinders of CO gas on a small scale in a mental hospital, but I can't for the life of me see why the SS would use bottled CO with motor vehicles.
And who is supposed to care about what Smith can see or not, when there is evidence that those oh-so-dumb SS men did use bottled carbon monoxide in the first gas vans, until they decided that the exhaust of the vans’ engines would do the job as well?

I assume Smith would have come up with much "better" solutions, if he had been in charge. But what would this tell us, except that the killers were not as smart as Smith?
Scott Smith wrote:
Whoever among our readers considers this to be a "valid point", please speak up.
Gotta go now. Corty is scattering cereal all over the kitchen, and I've been finding doodles in unexpected places...
:)
Sound like he’s a nice chap. Send him over here on vacation, so he can play with my adorable shit-eating Scotty.

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

#39

Post by Scott Smith » 28 Apr 2003, 06:28

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Oh darn, I didn't even get to see the offending comment. (Been too busy playing with Corty. He says "cheep cheep" = Hi!)
Let's hope Smith's fantasy creature has more brains than its keeper.
Corty thinks it's funny that you don't believe in him (don't ya, little guy?).

Cheep, Cheep!
Looks like the creature does have more brains in its little head than it’s keeper has inside a skull presumably as oversized as his mouth.
You make Corty laugh!
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote: If I understood Miller correctly, CO2 is fatal above 7 % regardless of the oxygen content of the atmosphere, i.e. even with an oxygen content that by itself would be more than sufficient to ensure survival, his "CO2 narcosis" would occur. Which means that Smith’s objection is meaningless. And he seems to be aware of it, as his ensuing recourse to staple slogans shows.
Well, assuming this theory is correct, if you look at the graph again, you don't get 7% CO2 until the engine is loaded to about 55-60%. That is roughly test B-16 in the graph.
Which would be no sweat either, whatever Smith means by "55-60 %", apart from the fact that the same effect could be obtained by increasing the fuel supply and/or restricting the air intake.
Blocking off the air-intake does not produce more CO2. The CO2 is waste produced from combustion and that means loading the engine.
The less air to burn the fuel, the more products of incomplete combustions such as CO2 or CO there are likely to be. An effect that can be, and has been, brought about by restricting the air intake.
Sorry but CO2 is a product of COMPLETE combustion and is directly proportional to load because work is being done. CO is a product of incomplete combustion, but a diesel always operates with an excess of oxygen unless it is overloaded; therefore CO is always negligible.
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Besides, in the worst scenario in the 1957 Pattle & Stretch tests on live animals, with the air-intake blocked the deadly CO was raised to only 0.22%. After one hour's exposure, three mice were still alive and all of the guinea pigs and rabbits were still alive. Not until 3 hours and 20 minutes into the test were all animals dead (of CO poisoning). In tests where the CO was not elevated and the engine was not loaded or restricted, the animal deaths usually took place in the last hour of a five-hour exposure, and many of the animals that died did so days later. The cause of death in those tests was pulmonary edema from inhaling caustic nitrogen oxides.
For the umpteenth time, as in our lengthy discussions of old, I remind Smith that Pattle & Stretch used a tiny 6 bhp engine the exhaust of which was even less toxic under full load than in the air intake scenario. A comparison with the experiments of Holtz & Elliot, using a 70 bhp engine, and of Elliot & Davis, with a 150 bhp engine, suggests that the size of the engine has a considerable influence on the toxicity of the exhaust. This in turn means that the exhaust of a 70 bhp engine would be lethal under operating conditions at which the exhaust of a 6 bhp engine would still be tolerable, and that the exhaust of an engine with 150 bhp or bigger would be even more lethal under similar operating conditions.
Elliott and Davis did a different sort of test than Pattle and Stretch and they said that their engine was loaded, although unlike with the Holtz and Elliott tests they did not tell us what this was nor graph it.

In fact, the reason that blocking the air intake was able to raise the CO output as much as it occurred was because it is much easier to load a smaller engine than a larger one. When they blocked off the air intake it derated the motor so much that they had to unload the fan and water pump to keep it running at all. And they wee only able to raise the carbon monoxide to 0.22% which meant that the animals to up to three-hours and twenty-minutes to die. Furthermore, they could not block off the intake any more because the engine was misfiring.

You see, a diesel engine must inhale a lot of gas to compress. That is how ignition works. If it cannot compress enough gas you get cold misfires and raw fuel blown through. If you wanted to raise the carbon monoxide any more you would have to inject CO2 into the intake so that there is an inert gas to compress and then you would have operation more like a spark-ignition engine which is rich in carbon monoxide. A diesel engine ALWAYS runs with an excess of oxygen so carbon monoxide is always negligible. Naturally all of this would be absurd when a gasoline engine would do the job--or a Holzgas generator.
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:So basically we have a gaschamber that takes HOURS to kill. And small animals are much more sensitive than humans, like canaries in coal mines.
A few posts ago it was about an hour without exhaust, now it’s hours with exhaust. Which of them shall we pick, Smith?
Yes, Roberto, with the diesel gaschamber and the diesel engine switched OFF the people would probably die in about an hour (hard to say for certain not knowing exactly how many were crammed into the space). And they would die from oxygen deprivation and the buildup of CO2 from their own respiration. That is with the engine OFF--just to reiterate for the cognitively challenged.

Now, with the diesel engine switched ON, it might take FIVE HOURS hours for them to die based on the Pattle and Stretch tests on mice, guinea pigs, and rabbits, all of whose lungs are more sensitive than humans. The cause of death in this case would be pulmonary edema from nitrogen oxides in the caustic diesel exhaust.

For the sake of argument, if blocking the air-intake on a larger motor was somehow able to raise the carbon monoxide to 0.22%, as in some of the Pattle tests with a small engine, then the people would likely survive at least as long as the animals--and the last one would not be dead for over three hours! The cause of death in this case would be primarily carbon monoxide inhalation, aided with pulmjonary edema and higher CO2 with lower oxygen levels, just as in the Pattle tests.

The reason it would take longer to kill than switching the engine off outright is that there is still some oxygen in the exhaust and the level cannot fall below that as long as the motor is pumping more into the chamber.
Roberto wrote:Another thing, did Pattle & Stretch pack their mice as tightly as people were stuffed into the Treblinka gas chambers? For if they did not, this may explain why Miller’s "CO2 narcosis" (assuming mice are as susceptible to this condition as human beings) did not kill the mice within a comparatively short time.
In the more lethal of the tests "D," where the CO was raised, the CO2 would have been raised somewhat too because the motor was loaded a little. They didn't give us that figure because it was irrelevant compared to the CO, which was 0.22% at a dangerous level.

In the case of the other Pattle tests, the oxygen would have been high, and whether the mice were packed tightly or not the CO2 could never rise to a value greater than the exhaust itself, which was continually pumping into the chamber and pumping out gas at the same component ratio.

Now, if the engine was switched OFF the CO2 level would begin to rise and the animals would eventually die as they used up all the oxygen. I don't know how long because I don't know the dimensions of the chamber or any other variables to make any kind of guess. In any case, the cause of death with the engine unloaded or marginally-loaded was not from CO but from NOx, the acrid component of acid rain, which damaged the lungs of the animals and in some cases caused death weeks after the exposure.
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:And assuming, of course, that the victims produced no CO2 at all themselves. According to my calculations based on Miller's parameters, most of the CO2 would be produced by the victims themselves, and the additional CO2 contained in the exhaust of an idle 70 bhp diesel engine would merely shorten the time until the 7 % threshold was reached.
No, the CO2 will never rise higher than the exhaust content itself because the chamber is vented and the same ratio of gas is blown-out as is blown-in.
Says Smith, who can thus certainly demonstrate that and why my calculations and those of Miller are wrong. Let’s see.
Because the same component-ratio of gas is blown OUT of the chamber as is blown in. So once the chamber has exchanged its contents with the exhaust a time or two the gas content of the chamber will be identical to the content of the exhaust itself as long as the engine is running. And it is easy to look at my Holtz & Elliott graphs to see what the component of the exhaust is for various load-lines.
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote: Of course, if you decided to stop torturing the victims and shut off the engine then they would have no more source of oxygen and would soon die.
Assuming the room was airtight, which it is unlikely to have been for reasons I remember having explained in one of my last posts.
Airtight enough not to allow enough air to leak in. Gerstein claims that the victims waited in there for hours until the Ukrainian mechanic fixed the diesel engine and then they all died by thirty-minutes.

The only way for this to work is if the diesel was heavily loaded so that the exhaust component contained too little oxygen (and conversely high CO2). This might be possible if the diesel was only used to pump water from a well into say a watertower or something like that. But that is one hell of a pump at hundreds of horsepower. That would be the load-lines to the right of Test B-16 in the Holtz chart.

CLICK image for detail! Image
Roberto wrote:But this is not about oxygen now, it’s about CO2, which according to your friend Miller produces excessive blood pressure, unconsciousness and death when exceeding a certain level. So let’s have a demonstration that and why these considerations and calculations are wrong, instead of the usual crap.
Just look at the graph. The O2 line is inversely proportional to the CO2 line until the CO begins to rise. What is happening here is called combustion. Work is being done (measured in horsepower or watts) and oxygen is being consumed for carbon dioxide as long as complete combustion can occur, after which case carbon monoxide (combustible in its own right) becomes a factor.

To make a diesel gaschamber work you would need to use a dummy-load to enable work to be performed; this will consume the surplus oxygen in the exhaust and replace it with carbon dioxide.

One possibility for a dummy-load is a gargantuan water pump. Another is an electric generator. The load must be at least equal to 250 horsepower if the engine is 500 horsepower fully-loaded. This would be about 187 mechanical kilowatts. If you are using an electric generator you will need to convert to electrical kilowatts and have something like enormous electrical heating coils or lots and lots of klieg lighting as a dummy-load for these values. Three or more 200 centimeter Luftwaffe arclights might suffice.

Image
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:If we scale up to an engine the size of the diesel from a Russian tank, it means we have to dump 226 mechanical kilowatts somewhere. That is a hell of a dummy-load!
Which Smith - assuming his above mumbling is not just another load of crap - obviously still hasn't learned where to stick. Given that even if he had a point regarding the load this would only lead us to the conclusion that the gassing engine is more likely to have been a gasoline engine and one or the other witness probably confused it with an electricity generator or some other device, Smith should know better by now than to keep trying to make a mouse into an elephant.
Well, yes, and I made that point years ago when we first started debating this issue. However, I'm not seeing a lot of support for gasoline engines either.
That’s my Smith, once again. Unfortunately for him, most witnesses did not mention the type of engine at all (because they didn’t know or just didn’t consider such a minor detail worth mentioning) or spoke of a gasoline engine. If they had spoken of a diesel engine, their uttering the word “diesel” would have been enough for Smith to feed his fuss. As they inconveniently mentioned gasoline engines, however, no deposition can be detailed enough for Smith’s taste. So much for the “Revisionist” approach to evidence.
A telling revelation. We have murder by Death Rays or flying-saucer abductions but no interest whatever in the efficacy of the murder-weapon. It beggars the imagination and casts doubt upon the whole story. If some can lie about monocles and human smoke they can lie about a lot more...
:idea:

Jean-François Steiner's Bodyguard of Lies

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote: This was discussed on this thread:

http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic ... sc&start=0
Why, Hargis’ “Air Photo” sewer under a new name, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Smith’s self-respect were so low as to keep him posting there. As Hargis is running the shop, I presume it’s for true believers only and no opposition is allowed. Am I right?
Yes, I offered to moderate a reborn Codoh forum myself and I would have allowed the opposition to post, but they thought differently. Now they are calling Hannover's forum Codoh.

Well, Hannover to Open Debate is like Hamburgers and Freedom Fries to to Health Food. So unless and until I start my own forum, which is not going to be any time soon, there will be no Open Debate for Revisionists, Believers, and Skeptics alike. Sorry, I tried.
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Btw, my thesis is not that there is a "Hoax." In other words, as far as I'm concerned, just because professional shuckmeisters have pontificated atrocity-propaganda does not mean that nothing bad ever happened.
Any "professional shuckmeister" Smith can show us to have accorded the findings of criminal justice in regard to the killing device more than a perfunctory notice ? It seems to me that "Revisionist" propagandists are bitching about a paper dragon of their own making, as they usually do.
Maybe, but then you don't mind exploring the feasibility of the murder-weapon, right...
I’m not interested in “exploring the feasibility of murder weapon” because, as I said, the best Smith can hope to demonstrate is a mistake in one or the other eyewitness description of the device. I just like taking apart Smith’s nonsense, which is so much fun that any topic, however irrelevant, will do.
Sorry, but you haven't taken anything apart. And how do you know what Smith "hopes" to do?
:roll:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:But surely the truth requires a fair degree of skepticism.
Yeah, sure. "I doubt they killed their victims as becomes apparent from the independent and coincident depositions of defendants and eyewitnesses, because I would have killed them better" - that's what Smith calls "skepticism".
The fact that the defendants made such wild claims is more than cause for skepticism.
Whose “wild claims” are you talking about, and why would they warrant skepticism?
Oh you know, "spontaneous human combustion," al la Rachel Auerbach and then there are Gerstein's lies. Here is more info about another tall-tale teller:

A Fake Eyewitness to Mass Murder at Belzec
Roberto wrote:Any major contradictions between independent defendants’ depositions, or between such and the testimonials of eyewitnesses, that you have come across?
Yes, Pfannenstiel. His blue bodies are wholly inconsistent with death by carbon monoxide, which would leave the bodies cherry-red. Maybe the good pathologist was trying to tell us something.
:idea:
Roberto wrote:Were the specifics of the murder weapon something worth lying about, from the defendants’ point of view?
Who knows what motivated Gerstein's tall tales but Death-by-Diesel sounds pretty bad to the layman. This is what is called implausible embellishment. Yet Holo-purists are loath to drop the diesel-murder claim even today, shown to be absurd by tests on live animals.
Roberto wrote:Would incorrectly describing these devices have benefited them in any way?
Yes, there probably were diesel engines at the camps for use generating normal electrical power and they just embellished a little thinking that if gasoline engines can kill then diesel engines must kill more!
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Now, this Holzgas generator would have made an ideal technology for mass-murder; they were cheap, available everywhere, and only required wood scraps for fuel. Yet the Nazis allegedly bottled carbon monoxide and used expensive delousing insecticide. Go figure.
Just like I said above.
When you build a bridge there is a reason that it looks like a bridge--and these engineering considerations are univerally applicable. Even pie-in-the-sky architects are limited by similar engineering considerations. Yet we are asked to believe that Nazi mass-murderers were aesthetes and not in any way practical. Absurd!
Roberto wrote:Never mind the conclusive and coincident evidence that bottled carbon monoxide was used until the killers realized that engine exhaust would do the job as well, never mind the equally conclusive and coincident evidence that on other occasions they adopted the not exactly unpractical solution of using a few extra cans of their highly lethal (and hardly "expensive") standard insecticide - Smith expects us to believe that the possibility of a "better" killing solution (assuming "his" solution, requiring the strict safety precautions he kindly volunteered to detail, would have been as advantageous as he claims it to be) means not that the killers could have done "better" (which would be the logical conclusion), but that they didn't kill at all (which would correspond to his articles of faith).
Like it or not, Roberto. Everyone knew that gasoline engine exhaust kills people and indeed kills people to this day. And every driver knew about the particulars of Holzgas. But storytellers are not limited by practical considerations, only their own imaginations and what seems scarier in the telling. That is one way to tell Greuelpropaganda from standard reports of atrocities.
:idea:
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:And there were no safety precautions with the use of hydrogen cyanide for insecticide? Sure.
Has poor Smith really missed the message contained in my above statement, or is he only playing dumb?
Well, my dear Roberto. You are trying to say that Holzgas would be too dangerous for the SS to use, in spite of it being used by millions of civilians for ordinary transportation. Yet fumigation, which would be much more dangerous and would need to be done by skilled technicians, presents no safety problem for those wily SS.
:roll:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:I can almost believe using cylinders of CO gas on a small scale in a mental hospital, but I can't for the life of me see why the SS would use bottled CO with motor vehicles.
And who is supposed to care about what Smith can see or not, when there is evidence that those oh-so-dumb SS men did use bottled carbon monoxide in the first gas vans, until they decided that the exhaust of the vans’ engines would do the job as well?
Which makes the story implausible from a practical perspective. Obviously the eyewitnesses/liars were merely confabulating delousing vans as has been amply shown by me, the Sonderkraftfahrzeug 92 and 93 delousing and decontamination vans, for example. There is even one from the interwar period courtesy of Dan (below) with the words Zyklon written right on it! And here is a wartime German Volkswagen that used bottled-gas for fuel:

Image
Roberto wrote:I assume Smith would have come up with much "better" solutions, if he had been in charge. But what would this tell us, except that the killers were not as smart as Smith?
I'm sure the SS weren't all as smart as me but were they all as dumb as most Holocaust historians?
:wink:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Whoever among our readers considers this to be a "valid point", please speak up.
Gotta go now. Corty is scattering cereal all over the kitchen, and I've been finding doodles in unexpected places...
:)
Sound like he’s a nice chap. Send him over here on vacation, so he can play with my adorable shit-eating Scotty.
Corty knows better. He could have been mad at me, or probably just testing his limits.
:D
Attachments
Zyklon Wagon 1922.JPG
Zyklon Wagon 1922.JPG (163.4 KiB) Viewed 1277 times

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

#40

Post by Roberto » 28 Apr 2003, 15:13

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Oh darn, I didn't even get to see the offending comment. (Been too busy playing with Corty. He says "cheep cheep" = Hi!)
Let's hope Smith's fantasy creature has more brains than its keeper.
Corty thinks it's funny that you don't believe in him (don't ya, little guy?).

Cheep, Cheep!
Looks like the creature does have more brains in its little head than it’s keeper has inside a skull presumably as oversized as his mouth.
You make Corty laugh!
Smith’s quips are becoming more lame, as he insists in boring our esteemed audience despite written manifestations that the subject matter of the discussion is not exactly considered interesting by the readership.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote: Well, assuming this theory is correct, if you look at the graph again, you don't get 7% CO2 until the engine is loaded to about 55-60%. That is roughly test B-16 in the graph.
Which would be no sweat either, whatever Smith means by "55-60 %", apart from the fact that the same effect could be obtained by increasing the fuel supply and/or restricting the air intake.
Blocking off the air-intake does not produce more CO2. The CO2 is waste produced from combustion and that means loading the engine.
The less air to burn the fuel, the more products of incomplete combustions such as CO2 or CO there are likely to be. An effect that can be, and has been, brought about by restricting the air intake.
Sorry but CO2 is a product of COMPLETE combustion and is directly proportional to load because work is being done.
Maybe so. I’m no technician like Mr. Sorry, who I would trust to tell you that light bulbs carry electricity inside if he thought he could get away with it. At any rate the CO2 level doesn’t go down but up as the fuel-air ratio progresses in the direction of higher concentrations of fuel, see our famous table:

Experiment #; Power (load hp); Rpm; Fuel; volume gas; Fuel-Air ratio; CO2%; O2%; CO%; NOx (ppm); H2%:

B13; 00.0hp; 1400rpm; 04.56lbs/hr; 4500cf/hr; 0.013 (77:1); 02.7%; 17.14%; 0.041% (410ppm); 167ppm; 0.0%
B14; 08.8hp; 1410rpm; 06.89lbs/hr; 4460cf/hr; 0.020 (50:1); 04.2%; 15.13%; 0.028% (280ppm); 267ppm; 0.0%
B15; 17.5hp; 1400rpm; 09.56lbs/hr; 4180cf/hr; 0.029 (35:1); 06.2%; 12.20%; 0.024% (240ppm); 378ppm; 0.0%
B16; 24.6hp; 1410rpm; 12.45lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.039 (26:1); 08.4%; 09.26%; 0.027% (270ppm); 448ppm; 0.0%
B12; 37.8hp; 1400rpm; 18.12lbs/hr; 3950cf/hr; 0.056 (18:1); 12.4%; 03.44%; 0.058% (580ppm); 364ppm; 0.0%
B70; 40.2hp; 1400rpm; 21.29lbs/hr; 3700cf/hr; 0.070 (14:1); 13.8%; 00.80%; 0.700% (07kppm); 346ppm; 0.1%
B72; 41.0hp; 1400rpm; 24.41lbs/hr; 3650cf/hr; 0.084 (12:1); 12.1%; 00.30%; 3.500% (35kppm); 277ppm; 1.3%
B69; 40.6hp; 1400rpm; 29.63lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.094 (11:1); 10.2%; 00.30%; 6.000% (60kppm); 186ppm; 0.4%

Scott Smith wrote:CO is a product of incomplete combustion, but a diesel always operates with an excess of oxygen unless it is overloaded; therefore CO is always negligible.
I would qualify on that "always" in all cases where the fuel-air ratio is influenced, be it by loading, restriction of the air intake and/or considerable increase of the fuel supply. Miller's scenario works without CO and with the engine running on idle, however.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Besides, in the worst scenario in the 1957 Pattle & Stretch tests on live animals, with the air-intake blocked the deadly CO was raised to only 0.22%. After one hour's exposure, three mice were still alive and all of the guinea pigs and rabbits were still alive. Not until 3 hours and 20 minutes into the test were all animals dead (of CO poisoning). In tests where the CO was not elevated and the engine was not loaded or restricted, the animal deaths usually took place in the last hour of a five-hour exposure, and many of the animals that died did so days later. The cause of death in those tests was pulmonary edema from inhaling caustic nitrogen oxides.
For the umpteenth time, as in our lengthy discussions of old, I remind Smith that Pattle & Stretch used a tiny 6 bhp engine the exhaust of which was even less toxic under full load than in the air intake scenario. A comparison with the experiments of Holtz & Elliot, using a 70 bhp engine, and of Elliot & Davis, with a 150 bhp engine, suggests that the size of the engine has a considerable influence on the toxicity of the exhaust. This in turn means that the exhaust of a 70 bhp engine would be lethal under operating conditions at which the exhaust of a 6 bhp engine would still be tolerable, and that the exhaust of an engine with 150 bhp or bigger would be even more lethal under similar operating conditions.
Elliott and Davis did a different sort of test than Pattle and Stretch and they said that their engine was loaded, although unlike with the Holtz and Elliott tests they did not tell us what this was nor graph it.
When loaded at 5.5 bhp out of a maximum rated 6 bhp, the engine of Pattle & Stretch produced exhaust with only 0,038 % CO. At a proportionally much lower load, e.g. experiment B12, Holtz & Elliot’s 70 bhp engine "B" already had a concentration of 0.58 % CO in its exhaust. At a fuel-air ratio corresponding to that of Holtz & Elliot’s experiment B12, the exhaust of the 150 bhp engine used by Elliot & Davis already had a CO concentration of 0.4 %, generally considered lethal. So it looks as if the bigger the engine is, the more toxic its exhaust will be. Pattle & Stretch achieved their most toxic exhaust at a load described in their paper as "low", by restricting the air intake. The exhaust was not yet lethal, but the above comparison makes it reasonable to assume that it would have been lethal if a bigger engine had been used for the experiment.
Scott Smith wrote:In fact, the reason that blocking the air intake was able to raise the CO output as much as it occurred was because it is much easier to load a smaller engine than a larger one.
The load in the experiment with the restricted air intake is described as "low", as I said, and the restriction of the air intake had a much greater effect on the toxicity of the exhaust than pushing up the load to almost 100 % of the engine’s rated bhp in another experiment.
Scott Smith wrote:When they blocked off the air intake it derated the motor so much that they had to unload the fan and water pump to keep it running at all. And they wee only able to raise the carbon monoxide to 0.22% which meant that the animals to up to three-hours and twenty-minutes to die. Furthermore, they could not block off the intake any more because the engine was misfiring.

You see, a diesel engine must inhale a lot of gas to compress. That is how ignition works. If it cannot compress enough gas you get cold misfires and raw fuel blown through. If you wanted to raise the carbon monoxide any more you would have to inject CO2 into the intake so that there is an inert gas to compress and then you would have operation more like a spark-ignition engine which is rich in carbon monoxide. A diesel engine ALWAYS runs with an excess of oxygen so carbon monoxide is always negligible.
Unless you restrict the air intake, which according to Smith would lead the engine to misfire after a while. How long would it take for an engine above 150 bhp to misfire if the air intake was blocked to the extent it was in the Pattle & Stretch experiment? How long if it was only partially blocked and the fuel supply simultaneously increased to produce the same fuel-air – ratio effect? I’m asking because an average gassing at Treblinka is reported to have taken 30 – 45 minutes. If the engine didn’t misfire until then, no sweat.
Scott Smith wrote:Naturally all of this would be absurd when a gasoline engine would do the job--or a Holzgas generator.
Great, this would make it seem likely that it was the former, for while most people may not be able to tell one type of engine from the other I’m sure everyone can tell an engine from a producer gas generator. If all of Smith’s contentions hold water, the obvious conclusion is that one or the other witness must have confounded the gassing engine, which was a gasoline engine, with an electricity generator or some other diesel engine. Which in turn makes you wonder why poor Smith persists in discussing the sex of the angels.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:So basically we have a gaschamber that takes HOURS to kill. And small animals are much more sensitive than humans, like canaries in coal mines.
A few posts ago it was about an hour without exhaust, now it’s hours with exhaust. Which of them shall we pick, Smith?
Yes, Roberto, with the diesel gaschamber and the diesel engine switched OFF the people would probably die in about an hour (hard to say for certain not knowing exactly how many were crammed into the space). And they would die from oxygen deprivation and the buildup of CO2 from their own respiration. That is with the engine OFF--just to reiterate for the cognitively challenged.
Assuming the gas chamber was sealed airtight, which it is not likely to have been, and better be careful with calling me stupid, because I’ve seen more than one fellow poster questioning your intelligence, buddy. Calling anyone who doesn’t fall for your crap stupid is not likely to get you any friends either. Just a piece of friendly advice.
Scott Smith wrote:Now, with the diesel engine switched ON, it might take FIVE HOURS hours for them to die based on the Pattle and Stretch tests on mice, guinea pigs, and rabbits, all of whose lungs are more sensitive than humans. The cause of death in this case would be pulmonary edema from nitrogen oxides in the caustic diesel exhaust.
Yeah, sure. Assuming the people in the gas chambers had as much room available as the guinea pigs of Pattle & Stretch and it thus took many hours for their breathing and the incoming exhaust to bring the CO2 to levels producing fatal "CO2 narcosis", instead of the ca. 30 minutes it would take for this to occur at a concentration of 8 people per square meter and with an additional 2.74 % of CO2 coming in through the exhaust, according to my calculations based on Miller’s considerations. If the CO2 content of the exhaust is as dependent on the size of the engine as the CO and oxygen contents, we might expect the exhaust of an engine with 150 bhp or bigger to contain more CO2 than that, and the level at which "CO2 narcosis" occurred to be accordingly reached earlier.
Scott Smith wrote:For the sake of argument, if blocking the air-intake on a larger motor was somehow able to raise the carbon monoxide to 0.22%, as in some of the Pattle tests with a small engine, then the people would likely survive at least as long as the animals--and the last one would not be dead for over three hours! The cause of death in this case would be primarily carbon monoxide inhalation, aided with pulmjonary edema and higher CO2 with lower oxygen levels, just as in the Pattle tests.

The reason it would take longer to kill than switching the engine off outright is that there is still some oxygen in the exhaust and the level cannot fall below that as long as the motor is pumping more into the chamber.
All very nice, assuming of course that the exhaust does not hasten the "CO2 narcosis" independently of the oxygen it pumps in, or that a huge engine with its air intake restricted will pump in exhaust with only 0.22 % of CO and not, as the above comparisons suggest, exhaust with lethal levels of CO. Restricting the air intake would also affect the oxygen content of the exhaust, which like the CO content is a function of the fuel-air ratio. Just how much restriction of the air intake would it have taken for the oxygen content to reach near zero levels, which once the exhaust had filled the chamber would kill people by suffocation independently of other factors? And how much less restriction if the fuel supply was considerably increased at the same time?
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Another thing, did Pattle & Stretch pack their mice as tightly as people were stuffed into the Treblinka gas chambers? For if they did not, this may explain why Miller’s "CO2 narcosis" (assuming mice are as susceptible to this condition as human beings) did not kill the mice within a comparatively short time.
In the more lethal of the tests "D," where the CO was raised, the CO2 would have been raised somewhat too because the motor was loaded a little. They didn't give us that figure because it was irrelevant compared to the CO, which was 0.22% at a dangerous level.

In the case of the other Pattle tests, the oxygen would have been high, and whether the mice were packed tightly or not the CO2 could never rise to a value greater than the exhaust itself, which was continually pumping into the chamber and pumping out gas at the same component ratio.

Now, if the engine was switched OFF the CO2 level would begin to rise and the animals would eventually die as they used up all the oxygen. I don't know how long because I don't know the dimensions of the chamber or any other variables to make any kind of guess. In any case, the cause of death with the engine unloaded or marginally-loaded was not from CO but from NOx, the acrid component of acid rain, which damaged the lungs of the animals and in some cases caused death weeks after the exposure.
Stop beating around the bush with irrelevant mumbling and pretending you don’t understand my statements, Smith. The degree to which people (or mice, for that matter) were concentrated is an essential factor in what concerns the production and effects of CO2. According to your friend Miller, one person in a room of ca. 9 square meters will bring up the CO2 concentration by 1 % every 24 hours if inactive, or by 1 % every 8 hours if active. The concentration of people in the Treblinka gas chambers (who were under great stress and thus active), 8 per square meter, was 70 times higher than this and would thus produce the same effect in one-seventieth of the time, i.e. after 7 minutes. At this rate, the lethal level of 7 % would be reached after 48 minutes without exterior influence, and after ca. 30 minutes if engine exhaust with an additional 2.74 % of CO2 was pumped in and filled the chamber within 20 minutes. The evolution would be something like this:

CO2 ambient air; Minute; CO2 exhaust; CO2 ambient air + exhaust

3,06%; 21; 2,74%; 5,80%
3,21%; 22; 2,74%; 5,95%
3,35%; 23; 2,74%; 6,09%
3,50%; 24; 2,74%; 6,24%
3,65%; 25; 2,74%; 6,39%
3,79%; 26; 2,74%; 6,53%
3,94%; 27; 2,74%; 6,68%
4,08%; 28; 2,74%; 6,82%
4,23%; 29; 2,74%; 6,97%
4,38%; 30; 2,74%; 7,12%
4,52%; 31; 2,74%; 7,26%
4,67%; 32; 2,74%; 7,41%
4,81%; 33; 2,74%; 7,55%
4,96%; 34; 2,74%; 7,70%
5,10%; 35; 2,74%; 7,84%
5,25%; 36; 2,74%; 7,99%
5,40%; 37; 2,74%; 8,14%
5,54%; 38; 2,74%; 8,28%
5,69%; 39; 2,74%; 8,43%
5,83%; 40; 2,74%; 8,57%
5,98%; 41; 2,74%; 8,72%
6,13%; 42; 2,74%; 8,87%
6,27%; 43; 2,74%; 9,01%
6,42%; 44; 2,74%; 9,16%
6,56%; 45; 2,74%; 9,30%
6,71%; 46; 2,74%; 9,45%
6,85%; 47; 2,74%; 9,59%
7,00%; 48; 2,74%; 9,74%
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:And assuming, of course, that the victims produced no CO2 at all themselves. According to my calculations based on Miller's parameters, most of the CO2 would be produced by the victims themselves, and the additional CO2 contained in the exhaust of an idle 70 bhp diesel engine would merely shorten the time until the 7 % threshold was reached.
No, the CO2 will never rise higher than the exhaust content itself because the chamber is vented and the same ratio of gas is blown-out as is blown-in.
Says Smith, who can thus certainly demonstrate that and why my calculations and those of Miller are wrong. Let’s see.
Because the same component-ratio of gas is blown OUT of the chamber as is blown in.
Yeah, sure. Assuming that the outlets are such as to allow air to be displaced to the outside at the same rate as exhaust comes in (How does Smith know this was so? Did Corty tell him?), the air not blown OUT of the chamber would still have the CO2 of the exhaust added to its own CO2.
Scott Smith wrote: So once the chamber has exchanged its contents with the exhaust a time or two the gas content of the chamber will be identical to the content of the exhaust itself as long as the engine is running.
No, my dear boy. What is displaced are the lighter, not the heavier components of the air. CO2 is of the latter and will thus stay behind while the oxygen of the ambient air is displaced by the incoming CO2. Which in turn means that the oxygen content will go down while the CO2 level will be the sum of the CO2 contained in the exhaust and the CO2 produced by the victims themselves.
Scott Smith wrote: And it is easy to look at my Holtz & Elliott graphs to see what the component of the exhaust is for various load-lines.
Why the funny graph now? We only need B13 for Miller’s scenario.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote: Of course, if you decided to stop torturing the victims and shut off the engine then they would have no more source of oxygen and would soon die.
Assuming the room was airtight, which it is unlikely to have been for reasons I remember having explained in one of my last posts.
Airtight enough not to allow enough air to leak in.
Or to go out, which in case of exhaust being pumped in would lead to overpressure, a concern that led to outlets being installed in the gas vans, as I explained.
Scott Smith wrote: Gerstein claims that the victims waited in there for hours until the Ukrainian mechanic fixed the diesel engine and then they all died by thirty-minutes.
Gerstein was a fantasy-prone character, and he probably was at Belzec at a time when they were still doing the gassing in wooden barracks. Why Gerstein, now?
Scott Smith wrote: The only way for this to work is if the diesel was heavily loaded so that the exhaust component contained too little oxygen (and conversely high CO2). This might be possible if the diesel was only used to pump water from a well into say a watertower or something like that. But that is one hell of a pump at hundreds of horsepower. That would be the load-lines to the right of Test B-16 in the Holtz chart.
Yep, or then the engine’s air intake was restricted, eventually in combination with an increase of the fuel supply, or then the engine, which Gerstein doesn’t seem to have seen himself, was not a diesel engine but a gasoline engine running on diesel fuel or gasoline.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:But this is not about oxygen now, it’s about CO2, which according to your friend Miller produces excessive blood pressure, unconsciousness and death when exceeding a certain level. So let’s have a demonstration that and why these considerations and calculations are wrong, instead of the usual crap.
Just look at the graph. The O2 line is inversely proportional to the CO2 line until the CO begins to rise. What is happening here is called combustion. Work is being done (measured in horsepower or watts) and oxygen is being consumed for carbon dioxide as long as complete combustion can occur, after which case carbon monoxide (combustible in its own right) becomes a factor.

To make a diesel gaschamber work you would need to use a dummy-load to enable work to be performed; this will consume the surplus oxygen in the exhaust and replace it with carbon dioxide.

One possibility for a dummy-load is a gargantuan water pump. Another is an electric generator. The load must be at least equal to 250 horsepower if the engine is 500 horsepower fully-loaded. This would be about 187 mechanical kilowatts. If you are using an electric generator you will need to convert to electrical kilowatts and have something like enormous electrical heating coils or lots and lots of klieg lighting as a dummy-load for these values. Three or more 200 centimeter Luftwaffe arclights might suffice.

Image
Given that for Miller’s scenario we need no load at all and you haven’t convincingly excluded the possibility of achieving the effect of loading by restricting the air intake and/or increasing the fuel supply, I think I don’t have to tell you where you can stick that load baloney, old pal. Far away are the times when I thought it necessary to address your not exactly convincing kilowatt calculations.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:If we scale up to an engine the size of the diesel from a Russian tank, it means we have to dump 226 mechanical kilowatts somewhere. That is a hell of a dummy-load!
Which Smith - assuming his above mumbling is not just another load of crap - obviously still hasn't learned where to stick. Given that even if he had a point regarding the load this would only lead us to the conclusion that the gassing engine is more likely to have been a gasoline engine and one or the other witness probably confused it with an electricity generator or some other device, Smith should know better by now than to keep trying to make a mouse into an elephant.
Well, yes, and I made that point years ago when we first started debating this issue. However, I'm not seeing a lot of support for gasoline engines either.
That’s my Smith, once again. Unfortunately for him, most witnesses did not mention the type of engine at all (because they didn’t know or just didn’t consider such a minor detail worth mentioning) or spoke of a gasoline engine. If they had spoken of a diesel engine, their uttering the word “diesel” would have been enough for Smith to feed his fuss. As they inconveniently mentioned gasoline engines, however, no deposition can be detailed enough for Smith’s taste. So much for the “Revisionist” approach to evidence.
A telling revelation. We have murder by Death Rays or flying-saucer abductions but no interest whatever in the efficacy of the murder-weapon.
No, my dear chum. We have murder by diesel or gasoline exhaust and need not bother which of the two exactly it was. Given the conclusive evidence that mass murder took place and that it was possible to identify the killers and establish their deeds beyond a reasonable doubt without looking at the murder weapon, any "interest whatever in the efficacy of the murder-weapon" is for morbid fans of murder technology or propagandistic fuss-makers like Smith, not for criminal justice authorities or those interested in historical facts.
Scott Smith wrote:It beggars the imagination and casts doubt upon the whole story.
Yeah, sure. Assuming Smith can provide a convincing and evidence-backed "Revisionist" answer to my questions regarding the evidence to "the whole story". Yet he doesn’t even try because he doesn’t want to look even more foolish than he already does, right?
Scott Smith wrote: If some can lie about monocles and human smoke they can lie about a lot more...
I presume the above is an allusion to Elie Wiesel’s Night, which is categorized as a novel. If Smith wants to identify lies by eyewitnesses, he’ll have to do a lot better. And when he has found one or the other witness who recanted a tale on the stand, he will still have to explain why this would mean that other witnesses, plus the defendants at a number of trials, lied as well. And if he succeeds in doing so, he will still have to answer my seven questions, among others related to the evidence to large-scale mass murder at Treblinka and the other "Aktion Reinhard(t)" camps. I wish the true believer good luck in this undertaking.
Steiner’s book is considered a novel as well, for all I know. You might as well dispute the occurrence of the French Revolution on account of Charles Dickens’ "lies" in A Tale of Two Cities. Poor jerks.
Scott Smith wrote:Well, Hannover to Open Debate is like Hamburgers and Freedom Fries to to Health Food. So unless and until I start my own forum, which is not going to be any time soon, there will be no Open Debate for Revisionists, Believers, and Skeptics alike.
What’s the difference between "Revisionists", Believers and "Skeptics", Smith? From what I’ve seen, they’re all one and the same, lying Nazi-apologetic propagandists like yourself.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Btw, my thesis is not that there is a "Hoax." In other words, as far as I'm concerned, just because professional shuckmeisters have pontificated atrocity-propaganda does not mean that nothing bad ever happened.
Any "professional shuckmeister" Smith can show us to have accorded the findings of criminal justice in regard to the killing device more than a perfunctory notice ? It seems to me that "Revisionist" propagandists are bitching about a paper dragon of their own making, as they usually do.
Maybe, but then you don't mind exploring the feasibility of the murder-weapon, right...
I’m not interested in “exploring the feasibility of murder weapon” because, as I said, the best Smith can hope to demonstrate is a mistake in one or the other eyewitness description of the device. I just like taking apart Smith’s nonsense, which is so much fun that any topic, however irrelevant, will do.
Sorry, but you haven't taken anything apart.
Or so Mr. Sorry would like to believe. Can you hear some of our readers :lol:, my dear friend of wishful thinking?
Scott Smith wrote: And how do you know what Smith "hopes" to do?
It’s not what he does hope to do, but what he reasonably can hope to do. I reckon the fellow has some fantastic dreams, like all true believers.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:But surely the truth requires a fair degree of skepticism.
Yeah, sure. "I doubt they killed their victims as becomes apparent from the independent and coincident depositions of defendants and eyewitnesses, because I would have killed them better" - that's what Smith calls "skepticism".
The fact that the defendants made such wild claims is more than cause for skepticism.
Whose “wild claims” are you talking about, and why would they warrant skepticism?
Oh you know, "spontaneous human combustion," al la Rachel Auerbach and then there are Gerstein's lies.
We was talking about defendants, Smith, now about eventual inaccuracies in Auerbach’s descriptions and the "lies" of a witness who, like Gerstein, is known to be unreliable.
Scott Smith wrote: Here is more info about another tall-tale teller:

A Fake Eyewitness to Mass Murder at Belzec
Yeah, he lied all the way, the liars would have their gullible readers believe. Still no answer to my questions, buddy.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Any major contradictions between independent defendants’ depositions, or between such and the testimonials of eyewitnesses, that you have come across?
Yes, Pfannenstiel. His blue bodies are wholly inconsistent with death by carbon monoxide, which would leave the bodies cherry-red.
Why, did Pfannenstiel speak of carbon monoxide poisoning? He expressly stated that the victims had died of suffocation, if I remember correctly.
Scott Smith wrote:Maybe the good pathologist was trying to tell us something.
As I said, Smith has some fantastic dreams, like every true believer.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Were the specifics of the murder weapon something worth lying about, from the defendants’ point of view?
Who knows what motivated Gerstein's tall tales but Death-by-Diesel sounds pretty bad to the layman. This is what is called implausible embellishment. Yet Holo-purists are loath to drop the diesel-murder claim even today, shown to be absurd by tests on live animals.
Blah, blah, blah, good old Gerstein (a witness known to be unreliable, not a defendant) and no answer to my question. Poor show, Smith.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Would incorrectly describing these devices have benefited them in any way?
Yes, there probably were diesel engines at the camps for use generating normal electrical power and they just embellished a little thinking that if gasoline engines can kill then diesel engines must kill more!
Again no answer to my question. Instead we get the wholly unsupported and absurd contention that defendants may have "embellished" gasoline gassing engines into diesel gassing engines. What on earth would have done that for? As I said, Smith has some fantastic dreams, like every true believer.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Now, this Holzgas generator would have made an ideal technology for mass-murder; they were cheap, available everywhere, and only required wood scraps for fuel. Yet the Nazis allegedly bottled carbon monoxide and used expensive delousing insecticide. Go figure.
Just like I said above.
When you build a bridge there is a reason that it looks like a bridge--and these engineering considerations are univerally applicable. Even pie-in-the-sky architects are limited by similar engineering considerations. Yet we are asked to believe that Nazi mass-murderers were aesthetes and not in any way practical. Absurd!
Well, they were practical enough to kill on a large scale, and whether or not their methods fit Smith’s claimed sense of what would have been technically sound, there’s enough evidence that those supposedly "unpractical" methods (the disadvantages of which were pointed out by some of the perpetrators themselves, by the way) were applied to make Smith’s considerations meaningless. If it wasn’t for that evidence, Smith might shoot the bull. As it is, he would do himself a favor by keeping it to himself.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Never mind the conclusive and coincident evidence that bottled carbon monoxide was used until the killers realized that engine exhaust would do the job as well, never mind the equally conclusive and coincident evidence that on other occasions they adopted the not exactly unpractical solution of using a few extra cans of their highly lethal (and hardly "expensive") standard insecticide - Smith expects us to believe that the possibility of a "better" killing solution (assuming "his" solution, requiring the strict safety precautions he kindly volunteered to detail, would have been as advantageous as he claims it to be) means not that the killers could have done "better" (which would be the logical conclusion), but that they didn't kill at all (which would correspond to his articles of faith).
Like it or not, Roberto. Everyone knew that gasoline engine exhaust kills people and indeed kills people to this day. And every driver knew about the particulars of Holzgas. But storytellers are not limited by practical considerations, only their own imaginations and what seems scarier in the telling. That is one way to tell Greuelpropaganda from standard reports of atrocities.
Whether Smith likes it or not, he hasn’t yet identified a single "storyteller" or "Greuelpropagandist" let alone explained why and how such a character would have induced numerous witnesses and defendants at various criminal trials over a period of decades to provide coincident and sometimes quite detailed descriptions of the application of those oh-so-unpractical methods in practice. He should be careful with mentioning gasoline exhaust next to producer gas as a "practical" killing method according to his standards, by the way. There are more witnesses who mentioned gasoline engines than such who spoke of diesel engines, as we know.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:And there were no safety precautions with the use of hydrogen cyanide for insecticide? Sure.
Has poor Smith really missed the message contained in my above statement, or is he only playing dumb?
Well, my dear Roberto. You are trying to say that Holzgas would be too dangerous for the SS to use, in spite of it being used by millions of civilians for ordinary transportation. Yet fumigation, which would be much more dangerous and would need to be done by skilled technicians, presents no safety problem for those wily SS.
No, I’m trying to say that the existence of a presumably "better" method does not speak against the method documented by evidence having been used, except in the mind of a true believer like Smith. The secondary danger argument referred to the choice between producer gas generators and engines, the latter of which would certainly be a safer choice from a user’s point of view. As to Zyklon B, why should Hoess have bothered to obtain producer gas generators when he could use something that was already abundant and copiously used at the camp for other purposes? And even if there were no reasons why Zyklon B was more advantageous to him than producer gas, what would this mean, except that Höß did not choose the best solution he could have chosen?
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:I can almost believe using cylinders of CO gas on a small scale in a mental hospital, but I can't for the life of me see why the SS would use bottled CO with motor vehicles.
And who is supposed to care about what Smith can see or not, when there is evidence that those oh-so-dumb SS men did use bottled carbon monoxide in the first gas vans, until they decided that the exhaust of the vans’ engines would do the job as well?
Which makes the story implausible from a practical perspective.
See, buddy, a "story" is "implausible from a practical perspective" when it could not have occurred, which in this case would still leave the possibility of an error of observation on the part of the witnesses in regard to a certain detail, not necessarily invalidating their depositions as a whole. The fact that there would have been a more practical way to do things doesn’t make any "story" implausible, whether Smith likes it or not.
Scott Smith wrote:Obviously the eyewitnesses/liars were merely confabulating delousing vans as has been amply shown by me, the Sonderkraftfahrzeug 92 and 93 delousing and decontamination vans, for example.
A liar calling eyewitnesses liars, even though he can neither demonstrate that they lied (his "obviously" crap is hardly an argument) nor explain why their "lies" coincided with those of other witnesses and the defendants at West German trials, survived the cross-examination to which prosecutors and defendants are entitled under German procedural law and were considered by West German courts as sufficient proof of the defendants’ individual deeds. What a sorry sight.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:I assume Smith would have come up with much "better" solutions, if he had been in charge. But what would this tell us, except that the killers were not as smart as Smith?
I'm sure the SS weren't all as smart as me but were they all as dumb as most Holocaust historians?
Smith’s standards of what is "dumb" are obviously as irrelevant and fraught with faith and imbecility as his standards of what is "smart".
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Whoever among our readers considers this to be a "valid point", please speak up.
Gotta go now. Corty is scattering cereal all over the kitchen, and I've been finding doodles in unexpected places...
:)
Sound like he’s a nice chap. Send him over here on vacation, so he can play with my adorable shit-eating Scotty.
Corty knows better. He could have been mad at me, or probably just testing his limits.
:D
Well, I know who’s mad at me. At least that’s the only reason I can find for Smith having produced yet another lengthy collection of his intellectual and moral refuse, unless I want to assume that the fellow is indeed dumb as a door and/or in need of psychiatric assistance.

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

#41

Post by Scott Smith » 29 Apr 2003, 08:34

Corty read Roberto's post with interest and now he is playing happily with pieces of yarn. He's worried that his namesake might be upset with his keeper. Aside from whispering chirps in my ear, someday I hope I can teach him to properly say cockadoodledoo!
:D

Anyway, Roberto seems to be placing a lot of faith on "Miller's scenario" and thinks that the unloaded diesel engine at Test Point B-13 in the 1941 Holtz & Elliott data (where oxygen is over 17% and CO2 is at 2.7%) will cause death in 10-30 minutes for everyone inside the chamber. Roberto further thinks that the CO2 will collect at the bottom of the chamber in this time and that the CO2 concentration will rise instead of remain thoroughly mixed to the component-ratio of the exhaust itself, which refreshes the chamber at a rate of about 38 liters @ 1500 revolutions-per-minute.

One wonders then at how submarine crews can survive with even greater levels of CO2 as long as the oxygen holds out. Since Roberto obviously will not be convinced otherwise, I guess I'll have to see if I can find a technical paper or something regarding aerospace, naval, or mining medicine to see what levels of CO2 can be tolerated if the oxygen is near normal. I'll see what I can find. This will no doubt require some searching of microfilm and Interlibrary Loan materials but it will be worth it since my arguments will benefit from the exercise.

In the hundreds of papers I've already reviewed on diesel exhaust so far they nearly universally concerned long-term health effects such as cancer--and the exposure to a citizen in California was epidemiologically compared to breathing ambient levels of diesel exhaust for decades as being the same in mutagenic properties as smoking one cigarette. The only thing that could be safer is hydrogen fuel-cells (assuming the technology used to produce the combustible hydrogen was economical, clean and safe).

An additional point is that I don't understand why we are discussing whether the gaschamber was sealed tight or not. Obviously it was tight enough not to allow air to freely come in but not so much as to prevent it from venting 38 liters @ 1500 rpm, otherwise the pressure on the seals of the gaschamber would become enormous in short order and it would just blow a leak. It would require a special design to contain even an overpressure of one-atmosphere. I discussed this extensively with Xanthro. We agreed, I believe, that the chamber was NOT hermetically sealed.

My question remains then that all the Nazis would have had to do was shut off the motor and let the people suffocate in a tight room.
:idea:

Yet they chose engines, or diesel engines. Something is wrong with the story. And the importance of the mass-murder weapon is clear whether Roberto wants to believe that or not.

Of course, death-by-diesel-smoke sounds very impressive to anyone who has no real knowledge of engines. That is why ordinary diesel generators used for camp power were confused with mass-murder weapons in the minds of witnesses. Some of them didn't even appreciate the diesel-smoke subtlety, but everyone knows nonetheless that engine exhaust kills (i.e., gasoline engine exhaust) so not everyone actually called them diesels.

Furthermore, the political courts seem not to have been interested in the plausibility of the story itself, otherwise they would have investigated the murder-weapon. If they did I stand willing to hear that evidence--but I have seen very little so far.

I make no claims over whether mass-murder occurred at the Reinhardt camps or not. I'm sure that there was death-by-gunshot and some degree of body-disposal there. But the devil is in the details. I'm not convinced that gaschambers were used there, however. That will require some evidence regarding the mass-murder weapon, or some forensic archaeology supporting the disposal of hundreds of thousands of bodies.

One other quick point: When the air-intake is sufficiently blocked on a diesel engine, misfiring will not occur "after a period of time" but instead immediately. The reason this is so is not because of a lack of oxygen but because of the lack of volume of gas to compress in order to generate heat for ignition.

A diesel engine ALWAYS operates at an excess of air because of its compression-ignition design, whether it is burning diesel oil or some other combustible like gaseous fuel (e.g., Holzgas) or even gasoline (as is the case with some multifuel Army diesel engines). The way to enrichen the fuel-air ratio is to give the engine a load to work against. This makes a diesel engine difficult to fashion into a mass-murder weapon unless you can control the load precisely.

Until later...
:)

demonio
Member
Posts: 908
Joined: 27 Apr 2003, 04:54
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

I believe that there were gas vans in operation

#42

Post by demonio » 29 Apr 2003, 15:02

I believe that there were gas vans in operation. I am refering to the vehicles that poisoned the unfortunates that were locked in them.

I am not trying to win anyone over on their views on the subject, i am just presenting my knowledge and opinion formed based on that.

Victims were largely jews, but also poles and ukranians.

I believe in there existence because there are many depositions by/on

-The operators of the vehicles
-The method of "processing" by the participants, etc
-Testimony of polish police assigned to help at chelmo. Testifies to signing document swearing him to secrecy at chelmo and states that either hans bothmann or herbert lange (commondants told him that "at this camp the plaque boils of humanity, the jews are exterminated", he then goes on to detail the "work"
-Accounts of locals who at the time new the purpose of the vehicles (apparently it was common knowledge).
-There is a mechanics account of the hugh engine and strange piping connections
-A nurse's testimony who had to empty the children out of the hospital under nazi orders when the van rocked up to "take them away".
-Hoess refers to them in testimonies.
-Eichmann refers to them in his court case in jerusalemin the 60s
-Testimony of a survivor of the gassing process that urinated on his clothing and covered his face with it. (he went unconscious presumed dead when they tipped him out /pulled him out with the others (this was before standard cremation in the period when they were only burying in the woods. He emerged from a mass grave after regaining consciousness some time later.
-A worker testimony that escaped who was forced to assist in the disposal of the bodies.
-Einsatz complaints about the vans not making there job easier but more traumatic as they were getting headaches when they opened the doors after a "processing". and the piss and shit strewn around the victims (usually females and children) in this instance was making them sick, at this stage they were happy to go back to shooting the women and children.
-Various technical and requisition records between reich departments
-Otto Ohlendorf testimony at einsatz trial.
-Operators testimony and various documents re dispatch of van to Jasenovac camp in serbia to "liquidate" 5000 odd jews.
-Franz Stangl of treblinka also is quoted as saying that Christian Wirth aka The savage christian, or "stukka" .made sure the group had a gas van for there jewish actions and anti partizan activities in trieste when they were assigned to san sabba at the conclusion of operation reinhardt

Lets assume that half of these evidences are rubbish, it still leaves a very strong case that these vehicles were used for homicidal purposes as different people of different nationalies at different times under different circumstances have attested to the existence of these vehicles, their purpose. Are they lying. mmmnn i dont think so.

The only questions that i ask are diesel or petrol or both ? and how many victims as they were dispatched all over the occupied territorries to liquidate hospitals, orphanages, jails, camps, whole villages etc the most notable being to chelmo.

.


All of this and various other reich records are hard to ignore. Does anyone have any rare photos of gas vans other than the usual "Sauer wreck" photo ?

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

#43

Post by Roberto » 29 Apr 2003, 15:37

Scott Smith wrote:Corty read Roberto's post with interest and now he is playing happily with pieces of yarn. He's worried that his namesake might be upset with his keeper. Aside from whispering chirps in my ear, someday I hope I can teach him to properly say cockadoodledoo!
We know that true believers like yourself are immature characters, buddy. No need to display their infantile tendencies in every post.
Scott Smith wrote:Anyway, Roberto seems to be placing a lot of faith on "Miller's scenario" and thinks that the unloaded diesel engine at Test Point B-13 in the 1941 Holtz & Elliott data (where oxygen is over 17% and CO2 is at 2.7%) will cause death in 10-30 minutes for everyone inside the chamber.
I don’t know if Miller is right or not, but his considerations sound plausible enough, and Smith’s inability so far to tell us what is supposed to be wrong about them reinforces this notion.
Scott Smith wrote:Roberto further thinks that the CO2 will collect at the bottom of the chamber in this time and that the CO2 concentration will rise instead of remain thoroughly mixed to the component-ratio of the exhaust itself, which refreshes the chamber at a rate of about 38 liters @ 1500 revolutions-per-minute.
Roberto thinks that CO2 is heavier than oxygen and will thus, unlike oxygen, not be displaced out of the chamber by more incoming CO2. And Smith’s puerile bull fails to explain what is supposed to be wrong with this assumption.
Scott Smith wrote:One wonders then at how submarine crews can survive with even greater levels of CO2 as long as the oxygen holds out.
Assuming they do. Can Smith demonstrate that submarine crews are/were exposed to levels of CO2 above 7 % for a certain period of time without succumbing to "CO2 narcosis"?
Scott Smith wrote:Since Roberto obviously will not be convinced otherwise, I guess I'll have to see if I can find a technical paper or something regarding aerospace, naval, or mining medicine to see what levels of CO2 can be tolerated if the oxygen is near normal. I'll see what I can find. This will no doubt require some searching of microfilm and Interlibrary Loan materials but it will be worth it since my arguments will benefit from the exercise.
Yeah, Smith’s ability to discuss the sex of the angels is sure to benefit from a little research. At least he seems to have understood by now that he has lost credibility to such an extent that no one in his right mind will trust even his "technical" arguments without some substantial backup.
Scott Smith wrote:In the hundreds of papers I've already reviewed on diesel exhaust so far they nearly universally concerned long-term health effects such as cancer--and the exposure to a citizen in California was epidemiologically compared to breathing ambient levels of diesel exhaust for decades as being the same in mutagenic properties as smoking one cigarette. The only thing that could be safer is hydrogen fuel-cells (assuming the technology used to produce the combustible hydrogen was economical, clean and safe).
I presume Smith is again mumbling about the safety of diesel exhaust under normal operating conditions, which of course contributes nothing to his ruling out the possibility of enhancing the exhaust’s toxicity up to lethal levels by restricting the air intake, considerably increasing the fuel supply or doing both.
Scott Smith wrote:An additional point is that I don't understand why we are discussing whether the gaschamber was sealed tight or not.
Why, I’d say that’s the basic requirement for Smith’s "natural choking within one hour or so" – scenario to work.
Scott Smith wrote:Obviously it was tight enough not to allow air to freely come in but not so much as to prevent it from venting 38 liters @ 1500 rpm, otherwise the pressure on the seals of the gaschamber would become enormous in short order and it would just blow a leak. It would require a special design to contain even an overpressure of one-atmosphere. I discussed this extensively with Xanthro. We agreed, I believe, that the chamber was NOT hermetically sealed.
My question remains then that all the Nazis would have had to do was shut off the motor and let the people suffocate in a tight room.[/quote]

Some say there are no dumb questions, but I would make an exception for this one. Apart from being irrelevant (for the best answer Smith could expect to demonstrate would be that the Nazis were not as "smart" as he would have been), the question fails to take into account that, apart from eventual considerations of killing their victims in a "humane" way, time was a key factor for his beloved Nazis, who at Treblinka had to handle up to 15,000 arrivals a day, according to the depositions of defendants at the West German Treblinka trials. Any 10 minutes per contingent saved would thus be precious to them.
Scott Smith wrote:Yet they chose engines, or diesel engines. Something is wrong with the story.
Given the evidence to large-scale mass murder and Smith’s obstinate refusal to address my question related thereto, I’d say something is wrong with Smith’s mind.
Scott Smith wrote:And the importance of the mass-murder weapon is clear whether Roberto wants to believe that or not.
Of course Smith can tell us of the relevance attributed by historiography to the murder weapon in regard to other events, or explain what investigating the details of this particular murder weapon in a criminal trial would have contributed to establishing the identity of the killers, their deeds and their individual guilt. :lol:
Scott Smith wrote:Of course, death-by-diesel-smoke sounds very impressive to anyone who has no real knowledge of engines. That is why ordinary diesel generators used for camp power were confused with mass-murder weapons in the minds of witnesses. Some of them didn't even appreciate the diesel-smoke subtlety, but everyone knows nonetheless that engine exhaust kills (i.e., gasoline engine exhaust) so not everyone actually called them diesels.
Thanks for providing a fairly plausible explanation as to why some witnesses (not all, and not even a majority, for most witnesses spoke of gasoline engines or didn’t mention the type of engine at all) may have confounded the gassing engine, a gasoline engine running on diesel or gasoline, with a diesel engine used for power generation or another non-homicidal purpose at the respective camp.
Scott Smith wrote:Furthermore, the political courts
What courts, and what exactly was so "political" about them?
Scott Smith wrote:seem not to have been interested in the plausibility of the story itself, otherwise they would have investigated the murder-weapon.
I’d say they cared little about the details of the murder weapon for the simple reason that the evidence to large-scale mass murder was so conclusive and overwhelming that an eventual inaccuracy in the description of the murder weapon by one of the other witness could be considered irrelevant (if it could not have been diesel, then it was gasoline, what the heck). Unless Smith can explain what investigating the murder-weapon – to the extent that this was possible at all – would have contributed to the courts' essential findings of fact, he is well advised to shut his trap.
Scott Smith wrote:If they did I stand willing to hear that evidence
Evidence to what? To historians and criminal investigators having wasted their precious time trying to figure out what type of engine exactly was used and what type of fuel it burned?
Scott Smith wrote:--but I have seen very little so far.
And you will see little in the future, buddy. Small things only worry the minds of small people like yourself.
Scott Smith wrote:I make no claims over whether mass-murder occurred at the Reinhardt camps or not.
A hypocritical and self-contradictory statement.
Scott Smith wrote: I'm sure that there was death-by-gunshot and some degree of body-disposal there.
Careful with that shit, Smith. It leads back to my seven questions.
Scott Smith wrote: But the devil is in the details.
In some details, namely those you’d rather not address. Not in how many cylinders the gassing engine had or whether it was a diesel or a gasoline engine.
Scott Smith wrote: I'm not convinced that gaschambers were used there, however.
What makes you think that anyone here is out to convince a true believer like yourself, Smith?
Scott Smith wrote: That will require some evidence regarding the mass-murder weapon,
To the fact that is was the engine of a huge motor vehicle there’s evidence enough. For the purposes of criminal justice and historiography, that’s more than sufficient under the circumstances of this case. For true believers out to deny events inconvenient to their articles of faith it may not be, but it’s not those freaks who establish the standards.
Scott Smith wrote: or some forensic archaeology supporting the disposal of hundreds of thousands of bodies.
There has been, as Smith well knows, and the results tally with the documentary evidence. I guess I’ll repeat my questions once again at the end of this post, see if the bigmouth makes up his mind to either address them or cut out the crap.
Scott Smith wrote: One other quick point: When the air-intake is sufficiently blocked on a diesel engine, misfiring will not occur "after a period of time" but instead immediately. The reason this is so is not because of a lack of oxygen but because of the lack of volume of gas to compress in order to generate heat for ignition.

A diesel engine ALWAYS operates at an excess of air because of its compression-ignition design, whether it is burning diesel oil or some other combustible like gaseous fuel (e.g., Holzgas) or even gasoline (as is the case with some multifuel Army diesel engines). The way to enrichen the fuel-air ratio is to give the engine a load to work against. This makes a diesel engine difficult to fashion into a mass-murder weapon unless you can control the load precisely.
I suggest Smith goes to the library and gets us a technical paper supporting the above (i.e. ruling out the possibility of enriching an engine’s exhaust by wholly or partially restricting the air intake and/or increasing the fuel supply because the engine would then misfire "immediately". He seems to have understood by now that I may not be the only one who sees him as the kind of fellow who would try to sell you the idea that light bulbs carry electricity inside if he thought he could get away with it. Much a do about nothing, as far as I’m concerned (the best Smith can hope to achieve is a demonstration that the gassing engines can only have been gasoline engines, as I have often explained), but it seems to be important to a true believer with a propensity for discussing the sex of the angels.

My questions, once again:

1. Court experts and historians who have assessed the documentary evidence concluded that all pertinent documents – correspondence among officials as well as train schedules, timetables and other transportation documents – clearly point to Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka as the final destinations. There is not a single document, however detailed, that even hints at the Jews taken to these camps going any further. Why would this be so if the camps were “transit camps” en route to the occupied territories of the Soviet Union?

2. The rail line leading to Treblinka was a sidetrack of the line going from Warsaw to Bialystok in Northeast Poland. Bialystok was the closest point to the Soviet Union, anyone from Treblinka being resettled in the Soviet occupied territory had to pass through there. Yet a German railroad table for Bialystok shows Jews being taken from there to Treblinka, with the empty cars returning to Bialystok. In other words, they were being moved away from the Soviet territories by being sent to Treblinka. Why was this so?

3. The resettlement of ca. 1.5 million people in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union would have been a complex operation, requiring hundreds if not thousands of German officials to carry it out and at least as many people involved in building projects. Yet no one has ever come forward to testify about such a resettlement, even though this would have made an ideal defense at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and subsequent trials. Former high-ranking transportation specialists in Germany during the war did not offer Soviet resettlement as a defense in post-war trials, even though they denied having known the real purpose of the train transport. No war crimes defendant actually offered resettlement as a defense, even those who denied knowledge of the genocide. Why was this so?

4. As becomes apparent from a number of documents regarding the “economic aspects” of “Operation Reinhard” (alternatively spelled “Reinhardt” or “Reinhart”, I’ll use the “Reinhard” spelling for convenience in the following), the Jews taken to Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka were stripped of all their belongings there, including their clothing. Why would that have been done if they were going to be resettled – unless “resettlement” was to be to a place where they would need no clothing anymore?

5. Why would the Nazis, concerned as they were about preserving their own resources and robbing the Jews of everything they had, have invested large sums of money – far more than the costs of the killing operation, which are exactly known from Globocnik’s correspondence with Himmler – into a resettlement project? Or are the Jews supposed to have been simply shoved across the border and left there to die of starvation, exposure and disease? If so, wouldn’t that be similar to the way Stalin got rid of the “kulaks” and no less a crime than the mass killing at the extermination camps?

6. Why were there so many dead bodies at Treblinka in October of 1942 that they could not be sufficiently buried, thus creating a stench that befouled the air as far as Ostrow, 20 kilometers away, which led the local Wehrmacht commander to raise an official complaint about that stench?

7. How many whole bodies, and how many bodies reduced to ashes and other partial remains, fit into pits 7.5 meters deep in the burial area more than 20,000 square meters long and wide that was found after the war by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland? Was there room enough for, say, the 713,555 Jews from the General Government taken to Treblinka until 31.12.1942, according to the Höfle memorandum, or was there not?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#44

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 01 May 2003, 04:36

Cough, Cough, still an exhausting topic! :lol:

Made you look!!!

I really admire yall's throughness, makes my generally, off the cuff, research off the top of my head, replies, seem pretty bad!!!!!!

Have a good day!

Krasnaya Zvezda
Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 27 Dec 2002, 18:45
Location: Moscow

#45

Post by Krasnaya Zvezda » 01 May 2003, 12:57

Roberto wrote:Assuming Miller?s arithmetic is correct, let?s apply it to the gas chambers of Treblinka. Miller tells us that one person in a room 10 ft x 10 ft (roughly 3 x 3 meters or 9 square meters) will increase the CO2 level by about 1 % over a period of 24 hours if resting and over a period of a little as 8 hours if active. The people crammed into the Treblinka gas chambers were in the latter rather than in the former situation, so the latter value seems more appropriate than the former.

The Treblinka gas chambers newly constructed after the initial phase of extermination, according to the findings of the Düsseldorf County Court at the first Treblinka trial that ended in 1965, were at most 4 meters long by 8 wide and could take in 250 people each - a concentration of roughly 8 people per square meter. Now if, according to our above assumption, a concentration of 0.11 people (one-ninth) active people per square meter would increase the CO2 content by 1 % within 8 hours, a concentration of people more than 70 times higher can be expected to have achieved the same effect in one-seventieth of the time, i.e. the CO2 concentration would increase by 1 % every seven minutes. At this rate, a fatal concentration of 7 % would be reached after 7 * 7 = 49 minutes.

Now comes the gas. Let?s assume that it would take twenty minutes to fill the chamber and contain only 2.74 % CO2, as in experiment B-13 above. Thus from minute 21 onward the effect of the CO2 in the exhaust would add to the ?natural? CO2 increase, leaving the people breathing air with 5,8 % CO2 in minute 21 and 7.12 % in minute thirty. After this, as mentioned by Miller, they would black out, quite hyperventilating, then quit breathing entirely.

The calculated time of death in the above scenario is compatible with the time it took the people to die in the Treblinka gas chambers according to some eyewitness testimonials - 30 to 45 minutes. No load or enhancement of exhaust toxicity by restriction of air intake and/or increase of fuel supply required.

The only thing the exhaust did, according to this theory, was to speed up the dying process. Which was important to the killers, however. With up to 15,000 people to dispatch within 24 hours, according to their depositions before West German courts, every minute counted.
Hi Roberto. As always I gladly read your posts. One addition to this post if I may add here in this calculations, nothing new:

First, I am really surpirised that Miller is talking about gas in rooms expressed in square footage!! Where is the height of the room? This is required as to calculate the volume of the gas otherwise we are talking non-sense here. The taller the building the more air and more time to reach the 7% CO2, the shorter brings the opposite. May we agree on 3 m height than?

OK, now on the calculus. It really does not take a scientist to find out what would the deadly concentration of CO2 be to kill a man. Or any experiments. Of critical importance is for us to remmeber that we produce at rest constant amount of CO2 as our metabolism is constant and that value is on average 200 ml/minute at rest and can go up 6 times with exercise. We are able to excrete this CO2 only of course because the concentration of the CO2 around us is practically 0% so there is pressure difference between our lungs and surrounding air so the CO2 can flow in one direction only - out of our bodies. The mortal value in surrounding air would be the one that would equal the CO2 content in our exhaled air! Easy, very easy. So, I opened the books and found out that the percentage of CO2 in exhaled breath is 5.6% to 6%, very close to 7% that we will take and you are advoquating. At the same time we consume 200 ml/minute Oxygen so basically for the purposes of your calculation we are asuming a closed hermetically system (room) and the process of breathing just resulsts in erplacing oxygen with CO2 therefore maintining the same pressure in the room (not exactely true but very close to it).


Now, if we take the room in Teblinka 8X4 and if I may add X3 meters that would make 96 cubic meters or 96 000 liter of air. 7% of it would be 6720 liters. If we take the most conservative assesment 200 ml/min of CO2 production for person at rest 250 persons would produce 50 liters/minute or 3000 liters per hour. 7% would be reached in 134 minutes, assuming 3 meters height. The callulation changes to 89 minutes for a room tall 2 meters. I believe people were agitated and not at rest, this calculation is the most conservative and it could easily be halved depending on metabolism rate.

Now as far as the injected gas goes in the chamber, it first must be pressurized as we are talking about closed systems but this is not important. Second it is again not the percentage of injected gas we are talking about but the volume, how many ml of CO2 were added a minute? Than we just add that to the peoples CO2 production and we can easy calculate the minutes to death, it sounds morbid though a lot. The critical part is what is the volume of gas injected per minute? Anyone have that info? All the best to you.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”