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

At an absolut minimum engine would have had 200 horse powers

#46

Post by demonio » 02 May 2003, 02:12

of Treblinka. At an absolute minimum engine would have had 200 horse powers.

I have heard testimonies saying submarine engine or tank enine. As there was one reference to submarine and about 20 to a captured russian tank engine, we'll go with tank said to have 500 horse power.

Lets do a conservative estimate ie 200 hp and estimates on the 500hp to see what we come up with. I do not know how to calculate output from the engine so somone else will have to do.

Also this stuff about people blacking out is and is not right in the sense that the death came much more violently than that. The majority are said to have choked and suffocated to death on the fumes, not so very peacefully. (some ss liked to think it was humane).

Perhaps one of most overlooked aspects of the holocaust is that the experience and reality of it were much worse than most dare to think. Im not talking about numbers, im talking about the human experience of it.

It wasn't like someone suiciding putting a hose in the car from the exhaust and peacefully "falling to sleep never to wake up.

These engines produce thick smoggy toxins and the victims were no doubt in a state of terror, autism, shock, revulsion etc and possibly half dead already from the journey (actually maybe not as most victims came from warsaw 3 hours away), lets just say that they were probably worn down a bit or alot . If they were intended to have fallen asleep never to wake up again the process would have taken longer,(too nice for the efficient and majority cruel staff). the engine would have to be revved slower and have some type of emission management/control system so as not to produce masses of such thick black smoke that makes people choke straight away but rather lose consciousness and finally expire.

it is conclusive that some or many would have blacked out at some stage of the process, but the question is peacefully or in the throws of a death rattle, screaming, suffocating, trampling defecating, urinating, and breaking fingernails trying to scratch through walls. According to witnesses that is what happend. Many literally choked to death. The longest 15 minutes of their life i bet.

Look forward to calculations, etc
Last edited by demonio on 04 May 2003, 05:25, edited 5 times in total.

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

#47

Post by Scott Smith » 02 May 2003, 09:35

I had a long post with a lot of calculations but it took a while to type and I forgot to save and when I hit Send I got "Invalid Session" and lost the whole works! So here is a brief analysis:

Saint Gerstein gives us the size of the gaschambers at Belzec as 45 cubic meters with 750 people stuffed inside (quite an accomplishment). He says that the diesel engine wouldn't start and it took 2 hours and 49 minutes to get it going, with Dr. Pfannenstiel watching them through the peephole and listening to them wail "as in a synagogue."

Obviously the chamber leaked plenty of fresh air to the inside or they would have suffocated in short order. (Why not just seal the chamber and use a standard airtight Luftwaffe bombshelter door like the one pictured at Dachau?)

Image

When the diesel engine started all the people were dead in 32 minutes according to Gerstein. This would only have been possible if the diesel engine were loaded to a high degree so that the exhaust would not contain sufficient oxygen and thus replace it with CO2. Carbon monoxide is out of the question unless the engine is overloaded somehow (forget it).

The model W-2 Soviet diesel engine has a displacement of about 38 liters and would be running at 1500 revolutions/minute to run a German electrical generator. At this speed the engine is rated at 500 brake-horsepower or 373 mechanical kilowatts. This would fill a chamber of 45 cubic meters in less than a minute and the chamber would need to vent almost one cubic meter per second, a very high refresh rate. The oxygen level would never fall below the level of the exhaust and the carbon dioxide would never rise above it. If we want to raise the CO2 or lower the O2 we will have to load the diesel motor.

A load of 300 horsepower should give us results comparable to B-16 in the Holtz table, about a 60% load, what I say is what would be required for reliable mass-murder.

http://www.skalman.nu/upload/hetestchart.gif

But let's "lowball" our figures and say that we only need gas values that are close to B-14 (about 12% oxygen and 6% CO2), or a 40% load on the diesel motor. With the W-2 diesel engine, rated for 500 brake-horsepower at 1500 rpm, that would be about 200 horsepower (or 149 mechanical kilowatts) and will give us a yield of about 100 electrical kilowatts with a standard German electrical generator. So putting a load of 100 electrical kilowatts on the diesel will require an equivalent of about a thousand 100 watt lightbulbs.

Yitzhak Arad gives us better figures for the size of the Treblinka gaschambers but the numbers stuffed inside are still questionable and difficult to determine for sure, which affects the respiration calculations. I can't see how they can last longer than an hour inside with the chamber airtight and the engine switched OFF.

So why do we even need an engine?

If we use a diesel engine we have to ensure that it is sufficiently loaded to replace the ample oxygen in the exhaust with carbon dioxide. Again, if we want poisonous carbon monoxide it will be even more difficult because the engine will have to be overloaded (so forget it).

If the diesel was not loaded it would take HOURS to kill the people from pulmonary edema from inhaling caustic nitrous oxides in the diesel exhaust, as the 1957 Pattle tests on live animals showed.

What if we use a gasoline engine? A gasoline engine puts out about 5% carbon monoxide with or without a load and has very little oxygen in the exhaust. This would work well for mass-murder but would require fuel and a working engine. It would speed things up however.

If we used a wood-gas generator of the kind that generated combustible gas for wartime German motorfuel we could produce as much deadly CO as we wanted and we could regulate the concentration of gas with a carburetor so that any danger of explosion is eliminated. A gaseous carburetor connected to a gas main would work too because a major component of the town-gas of the period that was made from coal was CO. Yet the SS were using bottled carbon monoxide cylinders in their T4 lunatic asylums and even their vans. It makes no sense.

A Holzgas-powered Saurer diesel truck. The carbon monoxide fuel would actually be more toxic than the exhaust.
:)

Image


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

Thanks for your input Scott

#48

Post by demonio » 02 May 2003, 10:10

Thanks for your input Scott

Can anyone add to this or have any other ideas ?

Witch-King of Angmar
Member
Posts: 915
Joined: 28 Feb 2003, 21:40
Location: Europe

#49

Post by Witch-King of Angmar » 02 May 2003, 16:25

Scott Smith wrote:The model W-2 Soviet diesel engine has a displacement of about 38 liters and would be running at 1500 revolutions/minute to run a German electrical generator. At this speed the engine is rated at 500 brake-horsepower or 373 mechanical kilowatts.
Impossible. If you force any engine in this world to run at maximum rpm, it goes damaged beyond repair in a few hours. Motor vehicle engines are put to run at a fraction of maximum rpm in a normal trip (2000-4000rpm for an engine whose maximum is at 5500-6000rpm).
Scott Smith wrote:What if we use a gasoline engine? A gasoline engine puts out about 5% carbon monoxide with or without a load and has very little oxygen in the exhaust. This would work well for mass-murder but would require fuel and a working engine. It would speed things up however.
Actually it's about 3.0-4.5% CO, and it's enough to kill you in a few tens of minutes if you don't have a fresh air source nearby - a few weeks ago there was a newsreel about a guy who got killed in his own garage by running the 1.4 litre gasoline engine of his car with the doors shut tight.

~The Witch King of Angmar

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002, 21:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

#50

Post by chalutzim » 02 May 2003, 16:48

Witch-King of Angmar wrote: (...) a few weeks ago there was a newsreel about a guy who got killed in his own garage by running the 1.4 litre gasoline engine of his car with the doors shut tight.

~The Witch King of Angmar
It's a rather instructive post, Witch-King of Angmar. Welcome to the Forum.

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

#51

Post by Roberto » 02 May 2003, 19:11

Krasnaya Zvezda wrote: Hi Roberto. As always I gladly read your posts.
I’m glad to know that, even though discussing whether or not diesel engines could have been the murder weapon when a negative conclusion would only mean that gasoline engines were used I don’t exactly consider interesting.
Krasnaya Zvezda wrote: One addition to this post if I may add here in this calculations, nothing new:
You haven’t been here for long, otherwise you would know that the topic of this thread itself is nothing new. The sex of the angels was already discussed to death when the forum was still running on ezboard.
Krasnaya Zvezda wrote: May we agree on 3 m height than?
According to the judgement of the Düsseldorf County Court at the first Treblinka trial that ended in 1965, the original three gas chambers of Treblinka were three 4 x 4 meters long and wide and 2.6 meters high, while the gas chambers built after the initial phase of operation are likely to have been 8 meters long, 4 meters wide and only 2 meters high each. So if you’re really interested in calculating how long CO2 would have taken to kill the people without gas and how long it took with gas (assuming the engine was a diesel and not a gasoline engine and its exhaust contained no more CO2 than that of Holtz & Elliot’s 70 bhp experimental engine, the latter assumption being rather unlikely considering the reported size of the gassing engine), you should use these data as a basis.
Krasnaya Zvezda wrote: 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.
I see you’ve already considered the possibility that the room was only two meters high and arrived at 89 minutes with the people at rest. As they were certainly everything other than this, you suggest halving the value, which would lead us to slightly less than 45 minutes with no external gas. That's more or less the time I calculated using Miller's area data alone.
Krasnaya Zvezda wrote: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.
How soon the chamber would be filled with exhaust depends on the volume of the engine. Let’s assume it was 40 liters of 40,000 cubic centimeters, meaning that it would pump about 20,000 cubic centimeters in one cycle. Assuming 1,000 RPM, that's 20 cubic meters a minute. There were at most ten chambers with 64 cubic meters each, the volume of the bodies taking up about half of this, which leaves us with 32 cubic meters per chamber to be filled with gas. If each chamber got 20 ./. 10 = 2 cubic meters per minute, it would take 32 ./. 2 = 16 minutes until each chamber was filled completely filled with exhaust – I assumed 20 minutes in my calculations. After this the CO2 concentration would correspond at least to the sum of the CO2 in the exhaust and the CO2 produced by the victims themselves. I say "at least" because the lighter oxygen would be displaced out of the chamber by the heavier CO2, leading to proportionally less oxygen and more CO2 in the air that the victims were breathing.

Best regards,

Roberto

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

#52

Post by Scott Smith » 02 May 2003, 19:39

Witch-King of Angmar wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:The model W-2 Soviet diesel engine has a displacement of about 38 liters and would be running at 1500 revolutions/minute to run a German electrical generator. At this speed the engine is rated at 500 brake-horsepower or 373 mechanical kilowatts.
Impossible. If you force any engine in this world to run at maximum rpm, it goes damaged beyond repair in a few hours. Motor vehicle engines are put to run at a fraction of maximum rpm in a normal trip (2000-4000rpm for an engine whose maximum is at 5500-6000rpm).
This is normal for that diesel engine. The rating for 2000 rpm is 600 brake-horsepower. If I were using this engine to install an electrical generator in the United States the same setup would need to run at 1800 rpm for 60 hertz power instead of 1500 rpm for 50 Hz.

You want to size your powerplant and load so that the motor is never loaded above maximum (500 bhp @ 1500 rpm; maybe a little more @ 1800 rpm) but normally runs at from 30% to 80% load. That would be a normal loading range from 150-400 bhp. Of course, you will need to figure only about 67% efficiency in conversion of mechanical to electrical horsepower using such equipment.


You could run the engine unloaded or at less than 30% load but it is a little hard on it and not very efficient to be burning fuel for such a large engine for so little power. If that is all the load you have then you need to get a smaller engine so that it will be loaded more. An engine from a German Einheits diesel is about 90 bhp but I forgot the speed this rating is for (probably 2500 rpm or maybe more). Essentially the only Soviet diesel mass-produced during the war was the W-2 used in the KV-1 and T-34, and IS-2 tanks. About 600 KV-1s had been produced by June, 1941.

Of course you couldn't run your engine at 100% load for long periods of time if you wanted it to last very long. That would be 500 bhp @ 1500 rpm or 600 bhp @ 2000 rpm max. If the engine is for generating electrical power it cannot run at anything under 1500 or 1800 rpm (50-60 Hz), although you could use a gear-ratio perhaps.

For example, a standard heavy-duty electrical generator would be a four-pole model (1500 or 1800 rpm). Lightweight genset equipment is two-pole and made for either 3000 or 3600 rpm.
Witch-King of Angmar wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:What if we use a gasoline engine? A gasoline engine puts out about 5% carbon monoxide with or without a load and has very little oxygen in the exhaust. This would work well for mass-murder but would require fuel and a working engine. It would speed things up however.
Actually it's about 3.0-4.5% CO, and it's enough to kill you in a few tens of minutes if you don't have a fresh air source nearby - a few weeks ago there was a newsreel about a guy who got killed in his own garage by running the 1.4 litre gasoline engine of his car with the doors shut tight.
I just chose a conservative ballpark figure. Even 1% would do the job, but by tweaking the carburetor you could easily get 6% CO. Ten to thirty minutes would suffice easily in such conditions as a gaschamber. Animals have sometimes been euthanized with this method too--but not with diesel engines, of course.

Best Regards,
Scott
Last edited by Scott Smith on 03 May 2003, 10:07, edited 1 time in total.

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

#53

Post by Roberto » 02 May 2003, 19:43

Scott Smith wrote:I had a long post with a lot of calculations but it took a while to type and I forgot to save and when I hit Send I got "Invalid Session" and lost the whole works! So here is a brief analysis:

Saint Gerstein gives us the size of the gaschambers at Belzec as 45 cubic meters with 750 people stuffed inside (quite an accomplishment). He says that the diesel engine wouldn't start and it took 2 hours and 49 minutes to get it going, with Dr. Pfannenstiel watching them through the peephole and listening to them wail "as in a synagogue."


Why do true believers like Smith keep playing around with Gerstein's obvious exaggerations when far more realistic figures resulted from the West German Treblinka trials? As I mentioned in my last post, in the Treblinka gas chambers there were probably 250 people stuffed into 64 cubic meters in each chamber during a gassing.
Scott Smith wrote:Obviously the chamber leaked plenty of fresh air to the inside or they would have suffocated in short order.
The first gassings at Belzec were carried out in wooden barracks, before chambers of brick and concrete were built. Gerstein's visit may have occurred at the time of the wooden barracks. Miller's and Kraznaya's considerations about "CO2 narcosis" would nevertheless make Gerstein's time data look as exaggerated as other claims this rather unreliable witness made.
Scott Smith wrote: (Why not just seal the chamber and use a standard airtight Luftwaffe bombshelter door like the one pictured at Dachau?)
Probably because gassing was faster than "natural" suffocation and time was a factor of importance of the killers. The pertinence of such "why did they do it this way when I would have done it that way" - questions I leave to the consideration of our audience.
Scott Smith wrote: When the diesel engine started all the people were dead in 32 minutes according to Gerstein. This would only have been possible if the diesel engine were loaded to a high degree so that the exhaust would not contain sufficient oxygen and thus replace it with CO2. Carbon monoxide is out of the question unless the engine is overloaded somehow (forget it).

The model W-2 Soviet diesel engine has a displacement of about 38 liters and would be running at 1500 revolutions/minute to run a German electrical generator. At this speed the engine is rated at 500 brake-horsepower or 373 mechanical kilowatts. This would fill a chamber of 45 cubic meters in less than a minute and the chamber would need to vent almost one cubic meter per second, a very high refresh rate. The oxygen level would never fall below the level of the exhaust and the carbon dioxide would never rise above it. If we want to raise the CO2 or lower the O2 we will have to load the diesel motor.

A load of 300 horsepower should give us results comparable to B-16 in the Holtz table, about a 60% load, what I say is what would be required for reliable mass-murder.

But let's "lowball" our figures and say that we only need gas values that are close to B-14 (about 12% oxygen and 6% CO2), or a 40% load on the diesel motor. With the W-2 diesel engine, rated for 500 brake-horsepower at 1500 rpm, that would be about 200 horsepower (or 149 mechanical kilowatts) and will give us a yield of about 100 electrical kilowatts with a standard German electrical generator. So putting a load of 100 electrical kilowatts on the diesel will require an equivalent of about a thousand 100 watt lightbulbs.
As I said in one of my last posts, the times when I bothered to check Smith's load and kilowatt calculations are far away, because even if he were right about loading the engine being a problem this would only mean that either the toxicity of the exhaust was enhanced in another way, i.e. by restricting the air intake and/or considerably increasing the fuel supply (a scenario Smith has not been able to rule out), or that what killed the people was the CO2 produced by their own breathing added to the CO2 that even an unloaded 70 bhp engine, much smaller than the gassing engine, would have had in its exhaust (Smith has also been unable so far to rule out this possibility), or that the engine was a gasoline engine and whatever witnesses spoke of a diesel engine (there were more who spoke of a gasoline engine or didn't mention the type of engine at all, as I demonstrated) were simply and quite understandably mistaken about this detail.
Scott Smith wrote:Yitzhak Arad gives us better figures for the size of the Treblinka gaschambers but the numbers stuffed inside are still questionable and difficult to determine for sure, which affects the respiration calculations.
About 250 people in 32 square or 64 cubic meters, see my last posts. Roughly 8 persons per square meter.
Scott Smith wrote:I can't see how they can last longer than an hour inside with the chamber airtight and the engine switched OFF.
Assuming Smith calculated right and the chamber was airtight, which it is not likely to have been in order to avoid overpressure when the exhaust was led in, as explained.
Scott Smith wrote: So why do we even need an engine?
Maybe due to considerations of "humanity" and certainly because the killing would go faster and with up to three incoming transports per day at Treblinka, the killers didn't exactly have all the time in the world. A question as silly, especially considering the intention behind it, as "why do we need an electric chair when we could use a poison injection", or "why use a poison injection when we could shoot the convict in the back of the head" or "why shoot the fellow when we could just bash his head in with a hammer" would be. If Smith's considerations were to speak against the actual application of a given killing method notwithstanding the evidence, as he would like to believe, he might as well argue that no one was ever executed on the electric chair in a US prison.
Scott Smith wrote: If we use a diesel engine we have to ensure that it is sufficiently loaded to replace the ample oxygen in the exhaust with carbon dioxide. Again, if we want poisonous carbon monoxide it will be even more difficult because the engine will have to be overloaded (so forget it).
Again the "load" baloney (see above).
Scott Smith wrote: If the diesel was not loaded it would take HOURS to kill the people from pulmonary edema from inhaling caustic nitrous oxides in the diesel exhaust, as the 1957 Pattle tests on live animals showed.
And again the apples and oranges comparison between the tiny 6 bhp engine used by Pattle & Stretch, despite the indications I mentioned that an engine up to 80 times larger would produce a much more toxic exhaust, not to mention the fact that the experimental mice were hardly packed together as tightly as the people in the gas chambers, i.e. one on top of the other so that they could hardly move. See my last posts.
Scott Smith wrote: What if we use a gasoline engine? A gasoline engine puts out about 5% carbon monoxide with or without a load and has very little oxygen in the exhaust. This would work well for mass-murder but would require fuel and a working engine. It would speed things up however.
As I said, maybe they did use a gasoline engine and one or the other witness confounded the gassing engine with a diesel engine used for power generation or other non-homicidal purposes that stood in the same engine room. Which is the best Smith can hope to demonstrate, which in turn is the reason why his discussions are discussions about the sex of the angels, as I often pointed out. Thanks for mentioning that a gasoline engine with or without a load has very little oxygen in the exhaust, by the way. This means that the descriptions of the dead by Becker, Pfannenstiel and Schluch, which suggest death by suffocation, are perfectly compatible with the use of a gasoline engine.
Scott Smith wrote:If we used a wood-gas generator of the kind that generated combustible gas for wartime German motorfuel we could produce as much deadly CO as we wanted and we could regulate the concentration of gas with a carburetor so that any danger of explosion is eliminated. A gaseous carburetor connected to a gas main would work too because a major component of the town-gas of the period that was made from coal was CO. Yet the SS were using bottled carbon monoxide cylinders in their T4 lunatic asylums and even their vans. It makes no sense.
Given the evidence that bottle carbon monoxide and engine exhaust were what they used, all the possibility of Smith's "better" method would tell us is that the SS were not as "smart" as Smith would have been in their place. Drawing any other conclusion from the alleged availability of superior killing techniques (namely the one Smith would like to draw, i.e. that no killing occurred at all) is at least as imbecile as arguing that no one was ever executed on the electric chair because it's a cumbersome and unpractical method and it would be easier to shoot the convict, club him to death, poison him, strangle him, drown him, guillotine him, etc.
Scott Smith wrote:A Holzgas-powered Saurer diesel truck. The carbon monoxide fuel would actually be more toxic than the exhaust.
Yeah, so much more toxic as to be a hazard to the killers themselves. But even if, as Smith will hasten to add, they would have been able to properly handle this inconvenience, the only comment remarks like the above deserve would still be:

So what ?

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

#54

Post by Scott Smith » 03 May 2003, 00:04

Roberto wrote:Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:

Hi Roberto. As always I gladly read your posts.

I’m glad to know that, even though discussing whether or not diesel engines could have been the murder weapon when a negative conclusion would only mean that gasoline engines were used I don’t exactly consider interesting.
A point that I made years ago. I wonder why it wasn't conceded by Roberto then...
Roberto wrote:Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:

One addition to this post if I may add here in this calculations, nothing new:

You haven’t been here for long, otherwise you would know that the topic of this thread itself is nothing new. The sex of the angels was already discussed to death when the forum was still running on ezboard.
Translation: It is Moral Certainty. You must not ask why, Grasshopper. It is enough that you believe. Only then will all understanding follow.
Roberto wrote:Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:

May we agree on 3 m height than?

According to the judgement of the Düsseldorf County Court at the first Treblinka trial that ended in 1965, the original three gas chambers of Treblinka were three 4 x 4 meters long and wide and 2.6 meters high, while the gas chambers built after the initial phase of operation are likely to have been 8 meters long, 4 meters wide and only 2 meters high each. So if you’re really interested in calculating how long CO2 would have taken to kill the people without gas and how long it took with gas (assuming the engine was a diesel and not a gasoline engine and its exhaust contained no more CO2 than that of Holtz & Elliot’s 70 bhp experimental engine, the latter assumption being rather unlikely considering the reported size of the gassing engine), you should use these data as a basis.
Yes, as I explained in my post which was lost to cyberspace. However, there is no indication beyond wishful thinking that the Holtz & Elliott data are not representative. All diesel engines work in like fashion and these were not hi-tech.
Roberto wrote:Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:

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.

I see you’ve already considered the possibility that the room was only two meters high and arrived at 89 minutes with the people at rest. As they were certainly everything other than this, you suggest halving the value, which would lead us to slightly less than 45 minutes with no external gas. That's more or less the time I calculated using Miller's area data alone.
How about saying that oxygen consumption is 200 ml per person? With 64 cubic meters, of which assume the bodies take up half the space for 32 cubic meters. At 21% oxygen in normal air that is 6.7 cubic meters of oxygen.

At a basal metabolic rate of 15 respirations/minute, each person removing 200 mL of oxygen, that is 3 cubic liters of oxygen used per minute (out of 32) or about ten or eleven minutes. Then no more oxygen. Of course the victims would not be able to remove all of the oxygen from their environment before they died. If we double or triple the time before the Sonderkommando clear out the chamber we will certainly ensure the brain-death of everyone.
Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:
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.

How soon the chamber would be filled with exhaust depends on the volume of the engine. Let’s assume it was 40 liters of 40,000 cubic centimeters, meaning that it would pump about 20,000 cubic centimeters in one cycle. Assuming 1,000 RPM, that's 20 cubic meters a minute. There were at most ten chambers with 64 cubic meters each, the volume of the bodies taking up about half of this, which leaves us with 32 cubic meters per chamber to be filled with gas. If each chamber got 20 ./. 10 = 2 cubic meters per minute, it would take 32 ./. 2 = 16 minutes until each chamber was filled completely filled with exhaust – I assumed 20 minutes in my calculations. After this the CO2 concentration would correspond at least to the sum of the CO2 in the exhaust and the CO2 produced by the victims themselves. I say "at least" because the lighter oxygen would be displaced out of the chamber by the heavier CO2, leading to proportionally less oxygen and more CO2 in the air that the victims were breathing.
The engine would fill the chamber completely with gas quickly, at which point if there was no ventilation the pressure would double to two atmospheres. A diesel engine will easily handle the backpressure from a turbocharger of one-half atmosphere overpressure. I'm not sure how much more you can go before the exhaust pipes break or the sealing fails. If the door is 1.5 square-meters, at one atmosphere overpressure you will have over 15 metric tons of force on it!

What is more, if your engine was not loaded and ran only until it filled the chamber once to two atmospheres, it would have added only its 2.7% volume of CO2, now half this with dilution of the existing air (assuming we start with a zero baseline). Your engine has done very little since the humans will generate CO2 on their own rather quickly in the time it takes to fill the chamber--or consume oxygen as I have shown. Furthermore, you will have added 17% oxygen to an equal volume of the 21% oxygen/78% nitrogen baseline air.

Carbon dioxide has a higher molecular weight than oxygen or nitrogen. If you generated the CO2 slowly it would collect in the bottom of its container, but you are pumping in huge amounts of mixed gas, and at a higher temperature than what is already present. It is in a pretty good solution. I would hate to use a steamroom built by Roberto because I might drown on the water vapor piped in. (Water collects at the bottom too because of its higher molecular weight.)

Interestingly, Arad claims that the reason the ten newer gaschambers at Treblinka were built with lower ceilings was because children were stuck at the bottom and not gassed good enough since the carbon monoxide rose to the top. One would think the children would be gassed better regardless of chamber height with the carbon dioxide sinking to the bottom.

Of course, Arad being a layman doesn't know that a diesel engine used to generate electrical power is not exceptionally well suited for generating poison gas and assumes that CO is the killing agent.

One doesn't quite know where to separate evidence from fantasy when it comes to Holocaust details.

Best Regards,
Scott
Last edited by Scott Smith on 03 May 2003, 10:57, edited 3 times in total.

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

#55

Post by Roberto » 03 May 2003, 01:47

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:

Hi Roberto. As always I gladly read your posts.

I’m glad to know that, even though discussing whether or not diesel engines could have been the murder weapon when a negative conclusion would only mean that gasoline engines were used I don’t exactly consider interesting.
A point that I made years ago. I wonder why it wasn't conceded by Roberto then...
Considering how often Smith has come up with this irrelevant discussion during all those years since he supposedly made the point that (as I pointed out to him on many occasions) the issue is irrelevant, the above statement is the ultimate in hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Smith at his best, in other words.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:

One addition to this post if I may add here in this calculations, nothing new:

You haven’t been here for long, otherwise you would know that the topic of this thread itself is nothing new. The sex of the angels was already discussed to death when the forum was still running on ezboard.
Translation: It is Moral Certainty. You must not ask why, grasshopper. It is enough that you believe. Then will all understanding follow.
Poor Smith is pissed, and as he has no arguments he starts bitching and throwing his empty catchwords around. Nothing new, really.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:

May we agree on 3 m height than?

According to the judgement of the Düsseldorf County Court at the first Treblinka trial that ended in 1965, the original three gas chambers of Treblinka were three 4 x 4 meters long and wide and 2.6 meters high, while the gas chambers built after the initial phase of operation are likely to have been 8 meters long, 4 meters wide and only 2 meters high each. So if you’re really interested in calculating how long CO2 would have taken to kill the people without gas and how long it took with gas (assuming the engine was a diesel and not a gasoline engine and its exhaust contained no more CO2 than that of Holtz & Elliot’s 70 bhp experimental engine, the latter assumption being rather unlikely considering the reported size of the gassing engine), you should use these data as a basis.
Yes, as I explained in my post which was lost to cyberspace. However, there is no indication beyond wishful thinking that the Holtz & Elliott data are not representative. All diesel engines work in like fashion and these were not hi-tech.
Even if that were so Smith's argument wouldn't improve, because my calculations work with Holtz & Elliot’s "B" engine as in experiment B13. This means that we don’t even need empirical observation (what Smith, prone to wishful thinking like few people I have met, calls "wishful thinking" when it doesn’t fit into his bubble) about the influence of factors like an engine's size on the composition of its exhaust to conclude that Smith's "load" mumbling stands a good chance of addressing a non-issue.
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:

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.

I see you’ve already considered the possibility that the room was only two meters high and arrived at 89 minutes with the people at rest. As they were certainly everything other than this, you suggest halving the value, which would lead us to slightly less than 45 minutes with no external gas. That's more or less the time I calculated using Miller's area data alone.
How about saying that oxygen consumption is 200 ml per person with 64 cubic meters, of which assume the bodies take up half the space for 32 cubic meters.
32 cubic meters = 32,000 liters.
Scott Smith wrote: At 21% oxygen in normal air that is 6.7 cubic meters of oxygen.
6.7 cubic meters = 6,700 liters.
Scott Smith wrote: At a basal metabolic rate of 15 respirations/minute, each person removing 200 mL of oxygen, that is 3 cubic meters of oxygen used per minute (out of 32) or about ten or eleven minutes. Then no more oxygen.
If each of the 250 person in the gas chamber took 200 ml of oxygen out of the atmosphere every minute when inhaling and gave nothing back when exhaling, the oxygen volume would be reduced by 250 * 200 ml = 50,000 ml = 50 liters every minute. To take all oxygen out of the atmosphere, it would thus take 6,700 / 50 = 134 minutes. As an oxygen concentration of less than 8 % would no longer be enough for a human being to survive on, however, death would occur when the volume of oxygen was below 2,500 liters, i.e. after roughly 80 minutes or one hour and twenty minutes. This would tally with Smith’s previous contention that it would take an hour or so for everyone to suffocate. All assuming that the chamber was airtight, of course, which for the reasons explained it is not likely to have been.
Scott Smith wrote:
Krasnaya Zvezda wrote:
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.

How soon the chamber would be filled with exhaust depends on the volume of the engine. Let’s assume it was 40 liters of 40,000 cubic centimeters, meaning that it would pump about 20,000 cubic centimeters in one cycle. Assuming 1,000 RPM, that's 20 cubic meters a minute. There were at most ten chambers with 64 cubic meters each, the volume of the bodies taking up about half of this, which leaves us with 32 cubic meters per chamber to be filled with gas. If each chamber got 20 ./. 10 = 2 cubic meters per minute, it would take 32 ./. 2 = 16 minutes until each chamber was filled completely filled with exhaust – I assumed 20 minutes in my calculations. After this the CO2 concentration would correspond at least to the sum of the CO2 in the exhaust and the CO2 produced by the victims themselves. I say "at least" because the lighter oxygen would be displaced out of the chamber by the heavier CO2, leading to proportionally less oxygen and more CO2 in the air that the victims were breathing.
The engine would fill the chamber completely with gas quickly,
16 minutes (my calculation) = "quickly", right ?
Scott Smith wrote:at which point if there was no ventilation the pressure would double to two atmospheres. A diesel engine will easily handle the backpressure from a turbocharger of one-half atmosphere. I'm not sure how much more you can go before the exhaust pipes break or the sealing fails. If the door is 1.5 square-meters, at one atmosphere overpressure you will have over 15 metric tons of force on it!
That’s why the chamber was probably not made airtight, but had outlets like the gas vans had. In the online translation of Just’s letter to Rauff of 5 June 1942, these outlets are described as follows:
[…]In order to facilitate the rapid distribution of CO, as well as to avoid a buildup of pressure, two slots, ten by one centimeters, will be bored at the top of the rear wall. The excess pressure would be controlled by an easily adjustable hinged metal valve on the outside of the vents.[…]
Source of quote:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/194206 ... zialwagen/
Scott Smith wrote:What is more, if your engine was not loaded and ran only until it filled the chamber once to one atmosphere, it would have added only its 2.7% volume of CO2, now half this with dilution of the existing air (assuming we start with a zero baseline). Your engine has done very little since the humans will generate CO2 on their own rather quickly in the time it takes to fill the chamber--or consume oxygen as I have shown. Furthermore you will have added 17% oxygen to an equal volume of the 21% oxygen/78% nitrogen baseline air.
If I understood Miller correctly, CO2 kills by producing excess blood pressure and resulting "C02 narcosis" once it has reached a certain concentration. As the heavier CO2 of the incoming exhaust displaced the lighter oxygen outside the chamber, the CO2 produced by the victims and the CO2 coming in would add up to at least the following proportions of the air the victims were breathing:

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%

Miller’s "CO2 narcosis" – level after half an hour with exhaust and after 48 minutes without it, according to my calculations which assumed that the chamber would be filled with exhaust after 20 minutes. If filling the chamber took only 16 minutes, this level would be reached four minutes earlier in each case.
Scott Smith wrote:Carbon dioxide has a higher molecular weight that oxygen or nitrogen. If you generated the CO2 slowly it would collect in the bottom of its container, but you are pumping in huge amounts of mixed gas, and at a higher temperature than what is already present. It is in a pretty good solution. I would hate to use a steamroom built by Roberto because I might drown on the water vapor piped in. Water collects at the bottom too.
I don’t remember having said anything about CO2 collecting at the bottom of the chamber. The point is that, being heavier than oxygen, it is not likely to be displaced out of the chamber by the incoming CO2, as the oxygen is. Instead of shooting the bull, Smith should try demonstrating that and why the CO2 inside the chamber is supposed to be displaced by the equally heavy CO2 coming in from outside the chamber, despite there being lighter substances like oxygen to displace.
Scott Smith wrote:Interestingly, Arad claims that the reason the ten newer gaschambers at Treblinka were built with lower ceilings was because children were stuck at the bottom and not gassed good enough since the carbon monoxide rose to the top. One would think the children would be gassed better regardless of chamber height with the carbon dioxide sinking to the bottom.


The issue is not its sinking to the bottom, but its remaining inside the chamber and being breathed along with a lower amount of oxygen as the lighter oxygen was displaced out of the chamber. What passage of Arad’s book exactly is Smith referring to, by the way? A verbatim quote would be appreciated.
Scott Smith wrote:Of course, Arad being a layman doesn't know that a diesel engine used to generate electrical power is not exceptionally well suited for generating poison gas and assumes that CO is the killing agent.
If so, he or his sources must have got something wrong in regard to the agent of death – "CO2 narcosis" or suffocation instead of carbon monoxide poisoning – or the type of engine used – gasoline engine instead of diesel engine – or both.

If any of our readers thinks it makes a difference whether a diesel or a gasoline engine was used, or whether the victims died of carbon monoxide poisoning, "CO2 narcosis", suffocation or a combination of one or more of these causes, he or she is invited to speak up.
Scott Smith wrote:One doesn't quite know where to separate evidence from fantasy when it comes to Holocaust details.
I see mistaken assumptions or conclusions about a minor detail at worst, but no "fantasy". I guess it takes a fantasy-prone mind like Smith's to see any.

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

#56

Post by Scott Smith » 03 May 2003, 11:22

Oops! I was in a hurry and said 3 cubic meters of oxygen instead of liters. Also, I used 150 persons instead of 250 for some reason and 15 x 200 ml/minute instead of just 200 ml per minute. I should have read Krasnaya's post closer. I thought he meant 200 ml for each breath.

In any case, this is the calculation that Arnulf Neumaier uses. An oxygen consumption of 666 ml/minute and 600 persons.
Arnulf Neumaier wrote: According to technical specifications for engineers, the oxygen requirement for people performing even non-strenuous work is 2/3 liters per minute. Under the conditions given - being crowded together in a small room - this is the least amount required. This means that 600 persons under the specified conditions use up some 400 liters of oxygen per minute, so that as long as consumption remained steady, the available oxygen would already have been completely used up within 40 minutes; dead bodies would have been all that was left in the chamber, long before the start of any gassing. In fact, oxygen consumption decreases with the onset of death, so that it would have taken the victims about one hour to suffocate.

The Treblinka Holocaust
Let me consult with Arad so that we can at least agree on the variables. I said before that the number of persons in the chamber was a bit of a wild card.

As far as your theory of CO2 buildup, even if you are saying that the CO2 is not pooling at the bottom, that is only another way of saying that the O2 is rising to go out of the vent. You can't have one without the other. Oxygen and nitrogen have different molecular weights but they don't separate out of solution. So CO2 would have to pool at the bottom (assuming that it has time to separate) and displace the air out of the vent at the top.

More later...
:)

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

#57

Post by Roberto » 05 May 2003, 13:03

Scott Smith wrote:Oops! I was in a hurry and said 3 cubic meters of oxygen instead of liters. Also, I used 150 persons instead of 250 for some reason and 15 x 200 ml/minute instead of just 200 ml per minute. I should have read Krasnaya's post closer. I thought he meant 200 ml for each breath.

In any case, this is the calculation that Arnulf Neumaier uses
Another guru, or just another of Germar Rudolf’s many preudonyms?
Scott Smith wrote:An oxygen consumption of 666 ml/minute and 600 persons.
Arnulf Neumaier wrote: According to technical specifications for engineers, the oxygen requirement for people performing even non-strenuous work is 2/3 liters per minute. Under the conditions given - being crowded together in a small room - this is the least amount required. This means that 600 persons under the specified conditions use up some 400 liters of oxygen per minute, so that as long as consumption remained steady, the available oxygen would already have been completely used up within 40 minutes; dead bodies would have been all that was left in the chamber, long before the start of any gassing. In fact, oxygen consumption decreases with the onset of death, so that it would have taken the victims about one hour to suffocate.

The Treblinka Holocaust
Smith’s guru makes it an hour. My calculation is eighty minutes. The assumption underlying both is that the chamber was airtight, which is unlikely to have been the case, as explained. Even by the calculations of Mr. "Neumaier" gassing would be considerably faster, and this alone would make it the preferable option for the killers.
Scott Smith wrote: Let me consult with Arad so that we can at least agree on the variables. I said before that the number of persons in the chamber was a bit of a wild card.
Arad’s data, which are based on the findings of West German courts at the Treblinka trials (and not on the wartime publication "The Black Book of Polish Jewry" that "Neumaier" makes a fuss about) were the ones I used in my posts. 32 square meters, 64 cubic meters, 250 people in each of the "new" gas chambers of Treblinka.
Scott Smith wrote:As far as your theory of CO2 buildup, even if you are saying that the CO2 is not pooling at the bottom, that is only another way of saying that the O2 is rising to go out of the vent. You can't have one without the other. Oxygen and nitrogen have different molecular weights but they don't separate out of solution. So CO2 would have to pool at the bottom (assuming that it has time to separate) and displace the air out of the vent at the top.
A separation of oxygen and CO2 and the displacement of the former by the latter, whether or not the latter would "pool at the bottom", seems to be the assumption underlying the considerations of Smith’s "Revisionist" peer Richard Miller, who contended that the CO2 produced by the victims themselves and the CO2 contained even in the exhaust of an unloaded and comparatively small engine would add up to a concentration inducing "CO2 narcosis". I don’t know if he’s right about this, but it makes sense to me, and I presume that a "Revisionist" will make sure he knows what he’s talking about when speaking against the movement’s articles of faith, even if he doesn’t mind producing utter nonsense otherwise. As Smith recognized in one of his last posts, it will take some backup to his objections to convince me that Miller’s "CO2 narcosis" must be ruled out as a cause of death in this case. If he can provide such backup and also convincingly rule out that the toxicity of a huge diesel engine’s exhaust could be enhanced to lethal levels by restricting the air intake and/or considerably increasing the fuel supply, he will have demonstrated that the gassing engine can only have been a gasoline engine and that witnesses who spoke of a diesel engine, or those who understood eyewitness testimonies in this sense, were mistaken. If this minor detail is worth a great deal of research effort to Smith, I wish him a pleasant time in the library.

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

#58

Post by Scott Smith » 12 May 2003, 02:02

Hebden asks:

On Gas Vans

Hebden wrote:This is directed principally to Mr. Scott Smith:

In all the evidence adduced for the existence of gas vans in the book Nazi Mass Murder the only two names for the vehicles which crop up are Saurer and Diamond.

Excuse our ignorance, but do such designations refer to maunfacturers of vans or trucks or more specifically to the make of engine?

Perhaps dependent on the answer to the first question, are Saurer and Diamond vehicles always diesel-powered?
I have never found an example of a Saurer that was not diesel powered, although one cannot rule out the possibility. Sometimes the word Saurer was a euphemism for a diesel engine, however.

Here is a Saurer bus...

Image

And a Saurer moving van...

Image

Here is a Borgward Diamond-Diesel...

Image

And here are some other interesting German diesels...

Here is a Büssing-NAG 4.5 ton, which is a service vehicle for a V-2 rocket battery. It is called a "gas generator van," which I think means an air-compressor, although I don't have the German text. John Milsom calls it a "mobile oxygen-nitrogen generator" and lists it as a Kfz 44.

Image

Here's another Büssing diesel. I don't know what the use was--probably killing people!
:wink:

Image

In the case of Diamond, this brand was well-known for its diesel trucks, Diamond-Diesel. However, to answer Hebden's question, I have found numerous examples of Diamond trucks used by the Germans which were NOT diesel.

Below is a picture of a Borgward Diamond-Diesel, and the one below that runs on Benzin (gasoline).

It is scanned from page 29 of Trucks of the Wehrmacht, by Reinhard Frank. Schiffer (1994). ISBN: 0887406866, available from Amazon to support this very site ONLY by CLICKING HERE!

Hope this helps.
:)
Attachments
Diamond.jpg
Diamond.jpg (116.84 KiB) Viewed 3021 times

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

#59

Post by Roberto » 12 May 2003, 12:39

Scott Smith wrote:Hebden asks:

On Gas Vans

Hebden wrote:This is directed principally to Mr. Scott Smith:

In all the evidence adduced for the existence of gas vans in the book Nazi Mass Murder the only two names for the vehicles which crop up are Saurer and Diamond.

Excuse our ignorance, but do such designations refer to maunfacturers of vans or trucks or more specifically to the make of engine?

Perhaps dependent on the answer to the first question, are Saurer and Diamond vehicles always diesel-powered?
I have never found an example of a Saurer that was not diesel powered, although one cannot rule out the possibility. Sometimes the word Saurer was a euphemism for a diesel engine, however.

Here is a Saurer bus...

Image

And a Saurer moving van...

Image

Here is a Borgward Diamond-Diesel...

Image

And here are some other interesting German diesels...

Here is a Büssing-NAG 4.5 ton, which is a service vehicle for a V-2 rocket battery. It is called a "gas generator van," which I think means an air-compressor, although I don't have the German text. John Milsom calls it a "mobile oxygen-nitrogen generator" and lists it as a Kfz 44.

Image

Here's another Büssing diesel. I don't know what the use was--probably killing people!
:wink:

Image

In the case of Diamond, this brand was well-known for its diesel trucks, Diamond-Diesel. However, to answer Hebden's question, I have found numerous examples of Diamond trucks used by the Germans which were NOT diesel.

Below is a picture of a Borgward Diamond-Diesel, and the one below that runs on Benzin (gasoline).

It is scanned from page 29 of Trucks of the Wehrmacht, by Reinhard Frank. Schiffer (1994). ISBN: 0887406866, available from Amazon to support this very site ONLY by CLICKING HERE!

Hope this helps.
:)
And yet, to Smith's great discomfort, witnesses to gas van killings who mentioned the type of engine at all (most either didn't know or didn't consider this minor detail worth mentioning) spoke of a gasoline engine.

Dr. Widmann: No mention of type of engine (Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, pages 81 and following)

Rauff: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 82)

Pradel: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 82)

Wentritt: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 83)

Leidig: Doesn’t mention type of engine. (Kogon et al, as above, pages 83 and following)

Just (letter to Rauff of 5 June 1942): No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 84 and following)

Gniewuch: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 87, 90, 91)

Trühe: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 87)

Mendel Vulfovich: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 88 )

Adolf Rübe: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 89)

Zalman Levinbuck: Gasoline engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 91)

Unter den Lastwagen gibt es riesige mit hermetisch verschließbaren Türen … Diese luftdicht geschlossenen Wagen werden ‘dushegubky’ genannt, was auf russisch ‘Seelentöter’ heißt. Sie bringen bereits tote Menschen heran, die man nicht mehr erschießen muß. Die Menschen werden unterwegs vergiftet durch Gase und Abgasdämpfe, die durch das Verbrennen von Benzin im Motor entstanden sind. Denn diese Abgase werden durch ein spezielles Rohr ins Wageninnere geleitet, anstatt, wie normalerweise, frei an die Luft zu entweichen; und so werden die Menschen durch das Kohlenmonoxyd getötet.


My translation:

Among the trucks there were giant one with doors that closed hermetically.... These hermetically closed vans are called ‘dushegubky’, which in Russian means ‘soul killer’. They already bring along dead people who don’t have to be shot anymore. The people are poisoned during the drive by gases and exhaust fumes that are created by the combustion of gasoline in the motor.[my emphasis] This because the exhaust is led through a special valve into the inside of the van instead of freely vanishing into the air as it normally would, and thus the people are killed by the carbon monoxide.


Chugunov: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 91)

Boris Dobin: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 91 and following)

Lauer: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 93)

Bauer: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 93)

Willi Friedrich: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 94 and following)

Wilhelm Findeisen: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 95)

Robert Mohr: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 96)

Ljudmila Nazarevskaya: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 97)

Kotov: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 101 and following)

Paul Zapp: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 104 and following)

Johannes Schlupper: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 105 and following)

Eugenia Ostrovec: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 106 and following)

2. Gas vans used in Yugoslavia and Eastern Poland

Dr. Harald Turner (letter to Wolff of 11 April 1942): No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 107 and following)

Hedwig Schönfein: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 108)

Benno Goldbrand: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, page 109)

3. Gas vans used at Chelmno

Walter Burmeister: Gasoline engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 115, 123 and following, 125 and following, 129 and following)

[…]Die Wagen waren mittelschwere Renault-Lastwagen mit Ottomotor. Sie ließen sich schlecht fahren, weil sie nicht einen so großen Wendekreis hatten. Der zeitweise hinzugekommene dritte Wagen war wohl ein schwerer. Die Wagen hatten Kastenaufbau mit einer großen Zweiflügeltür an der Rückseite, ähnlich wie Möbelwagen.[…]


My translation:

[...]The vans were medium size Renault trucks with Otto engines.[my emphasis] They were hard to drive because they didn’t have so big a turning circle. The temporarily added third van must have been a heavy one. The vans had a box-like buildup with a big two-wing door at the back side, similar to furniture vans.[...]


Johann H. and Johann P. before the Vienna County: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 116 and following)

Kurt Möbius: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 122 and following)

Wilfried Heukelbach: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 124 and following)

Gustav Laabs: No mention of type of engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 126 and following)

Walter Piller: Gasoline engine (Kogon et al, as above, pages 138 and following)

[...]Während der Fahrt wurde durch den Kraftfahrer Laabs ein Ventil geöffnet, durch welches Gas einströmte, welches die Insassen in 2-3 Minuten tötete. Hierbei handelte es sich um Gase, die durch den Benzinmotor erzeugt wurden.[...]
.

My translation:

[...]During the drive the driver Laabs opened a valve, through which gas streamed in, which killed those inside within 2-3 minutes. These were gases that had been created by the gasoline motor.[my emphasis][...]
.

Whether this was because the vans were models custom-built by Gaubschat (the company specially hired for the purpose) with a Saurer or Diamond chassis, or because they were custom-built Saurer or Diamond models with gasoline engines, or because they came from other manufacturers (like the Renault trucks at Chelmno mentioned by Burmeister) is a matter of speculation for those who like to concern themselves with the sex of the angels.

I wonder why Smith responded on this forum to a post by Hebden on Hargis' "Revisionist" sewer, by the way. It should be rather difficult to mix up a highly active historical forum like this one with a sleepy "Revisionist" corner for "discussions" among a handful of true believers.
Last edited by Roberto on 13 May 2003, 11:06, edited 1 time in total.

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

#60

Post by Scott Smith » 13 May 2003, 04:21

Hi Roberto,

Without sufficient details your accounts of magical mystery murder-vans might as well be called Sightings.

Image
Roberto wrote:Whether this was because the vans were models custom-built by Gaubschat (the company specially hired for the purpose) with a Saurer or Diamond chassis, or because they were custom-built Saurer or Diamond models with gasoline engines, or because they came from other manufacturers (like the Renault trucks at Chelmno mentioned by Burmeister) is a matter of speculation for those who like to concern themselves with the sex of the angels.
It might be of interest to the angels themselves, and to those who have congress with them.

Image

The only way the murder-weapon would NOT be of interest is if the crime were a Moral Certainty and was therefore beyond the pale of forensic science.
Roberto wrote:I wonder why Smith responded on this forum to a post by Hebden on Hargis' "Revisionist" sewer, by the way. It should be rather difficult to mix up a highly active historical forum like this one with a sleepy "Revisionist" corner for "discussions" among a handful of true believers.
Why, to allow you and anyone else who cannot post over there to comment if you want to, of course! After all, Hebden and Sailor cannot come over here.

I also posted it at the site below, where the twain can meet if they see something they don't like on another forum and can't post there.

It's Real Open Debate On the Holocaust, moderated by Calvin & Hobbes and Hans. No more excuses.

Image
Last edited by Scott Smith on 13 May 2003, 04:50, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”