Scott Smith wrote: Roberto wrote: Scott Smith wrote: Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto, your stupidity does not become my "dishonesty."
Now isn't it funny to see Smith lose his temper and throw insults around in a vain attempt to disguise the fact that he was lying rather lamely when, after reading my conclusions derived from Miller’s thesis more than once, he tried to make believe that I considered 2.7 % CO2 to be lethal?
Anyone who read my exposition should have understood that I consider a CO2 level above 7 % to be lethal and that, according to my calculations, that level would be reached in the situation under discussion after 30 minutes when the CO2 coming in with the exhaust added to the CO2 produced by the victims themselves. In my post of Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:13 pm on the thread
Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... c&start=30
I even showed my calculations, as follows: [...]
Oh, excuse me.
A little silliness is part of Smith's nature, right?
Scott Smith wrote:You are saying that at test B-13 on the chart (no-load on the engine at 2.7% CO2 and 17.14% oxygen) the gas composition magically accumulates to test B-15 or B-16 which is a CO2 level of around 7% and not quite enough oxygen to safely breathe (about 10.5%), and also over a 50% loading on the motor.
No, that's not what I'm saying, as Smith well knows. I'm saying that part of the CO2 in the chamber (the larger part) would be produced by the victims themselves through exhalation and another part (the smaller part) would come in with the exhaust from the unloaded engine as in experiment B13. Smith continues to deliberately misrepresent my statements
and thus keeps displaying his dishonesty
Scott Smith wrote:[Sorry, but as explaned previously, the engine is forcing in so much exhaust that oncee there has been a circulation or two in a few minutes, the gas composition of the chamber will be the same as the exhaust going in, even though the subjects inside are consuming oxygen and exhaling CO2. They cannot compete with the air pumped by the engine, which has a breatheable quantity of oxygen in the exhaust (unless substantially loaded, as shown).
As he continues to repeat his unsubstantiated theory that the incoming exhaust would completely displace the existing atmosphere in the gas chamber, even though it seems more likely and compatible with the laws of physics that the heavier components of the incoming exhaust, like carbon dioxide, would displace the lighter components of the existing atmosphere, like oxygen, while the heavier ones remained behind and combined with the carbon dioxide of the incoming exhaust to an atmosphere containing an excessive concentration of this toxic substance.
Oh, Roberto! I know you pull out the "dishonesty" bit when you get flustered
Unlike poor Smith, I never get "flustered". I’ve long grown used to the stench coming out of the "Revisionist" sewer. But that doesn’t keep my from calling a lie a lie and a liar a liar.
Scott Smith wrote: --but cool off some.
If I were furious fuming Smith, I’d keep my mouth shut.
Scott Smith wrote: I know what you are saying but I disagree with it.
Then say so but don’t misrepresent my statements.
Scott Smith wrote:CO2 accumulates in the bottom of a grain silo because it is generated slowly from decomposition. It therefore settles to the bottom. We see a similar effect with bottles of Italian salad dressing that have been sitting in the refrigerator. The oil and vinegar/water separate.
Now in a postulated diesel gaschamber that wouldn't be the case because (with an unloaded engine) you are CONTINUOUSLY pumping 17% oxygen in along with 2.7% CO2. There is also oxygen consumed by the victims and CO2 exhaled. Which will be the greater factor?
Who said anything about CO2 cumulating at the bottom, and who said it had to cumulate at the bottom so as not to be displaced by the incoming exhaust?
Scott Smith wrote:Well, I don't know the combined lung capacity of the victims since it is not entirely clear how many there are even to draw an average figure. However, I do know the size of the diesel engine (assuming it is a W-2, which is a safe assumption if it was captured from Soviet equipment). The twelve-lung W-2 has a total displacement of 38 liters. If it were running at a standard 1500 rpm, then the four-stroke engine would displace 28.5 cubic meters per minute. If the gas chamber were 200 cubic meters then it would displace all the air inside in seven minutes. Of course it might take several displacements to force all the initial air out as the new air (exhaust) will mix with the old. But with such rapid exchange I would liken this to shaking the bottle of salad dressing rather vigorously. After fifteen minutes (let alone thirty) the times of a standard gassing according to most Holo-sources (some as short as ten minutes), I don't see how anyone could "reasonably" (I won't say honestly) say that the gas composition of the chamber was not in fact nearly identical to the gas composition of the raw diesel exhaust--which contains 17% oxygen and is in fact breatheable for some period of time measured in HOURS.
Interesting considerations on how fast the exhaust would displace the existing atmosphere, if only because I darkly remember Smith having argued against
the wholesale displacement of the existing atmosphere he now contends when the discussion circled around the oxygen-poor exhaust of a "loaded" engine replacing the air inside the gas chamber with itself and leading the victims to die of suffocation.
But I’m afraid that this argumentative inconsistency doesn't get Smith anywhere nearer disproving the notion that the heavier particles of the incoming exhaust (namely CO2) would displace the lighter particles of the existing atmosphere (namely oxygen) while the heavier particles of that atmosphere remained behind and combined with the heavier particles of the incoming exhaust to create a less breathable atmosphere.
Scott Smith wrote: (Feel free to check my figures as you have found mistakes in the past--unintentional of course.)
Considering my above comments, I think I can leave that for another occasion.
Scott Smith wrote: But the fact is, it is your theory of the rapid separation of gases (leading to CO2 buildup) that is unproved.
So is Smith's, mine having the advantage of being more plausible. The demonstration that diesel gassing would not work and eyewitnesses who spoke of diesel engines must thus have been mistaken about this detail – which is what all this discussion can reasonably amount to – is Smith’s baby, anyway.
Scott Smith wrote: Now, if you want your diesel gaschamber to work.
I couldn’t care less if the gas chamber worked with diesel or gasoline exhaust. If it couldn’t have been one of the two, it would have been the other, big deal. Sceptical as I am, however, I like to question every "Revisionist" herring, however insignificant.
Scott Smith wrote: Simply load the motor to an equivalent shown on the graph of B-16 to B-12. For a 500 bhp diesel like a W-2 that would be about 338-463 mechanical horsepower. And that is one hell of a load! If we convert it into real world electrical values with a dynamo, it is 169-231 kilowatts (approximately), or the power needed to light 1,690 to 2,310 lightbulbs of 100 watts each!
However, I'm certain that this arrangement would leave anyone inside braindead through displacing O2 with CO2 in fifteen minutes or less. If we continue the procedure for thirty minutes we are certain to have reached a LD100 relationship (100% dead), IMHO.
Since this arrangement would require a massive dummy-load, which would be completely superfluous if a gasoline engine were used, and since it would be incompatible with the practical generation of camp power (contrary to what lay "eyewitnesses" might have thought), I conclude for technical reasons that the diesel gaschamber idea is absurd.
There we go with the "load" baloney again. Poor Smith. He knows well that as long as he cannot convincingly demonstrate that and why the load effect couldn’t also been achieved by increasing the fuel supply and/or restricting the air intake, as empirical observation of various experiments and elementary logic suggests, his "load" crap is a fallacy within a fallacy, regardless of whether or not his mechanical horsepower and electrical power calculations are accurate.
Scott Smith wrote: Therefore it didn't happen.
If "it" meant "gassing by diesel exhaust" and Smith’s statement had simply been "they must have used gasoline engines and some witnesses must have confused the two types", I would never have taken issue with Smith’s stance.
That’s not the true believer’s contention, of course.
Smith is trying to sell the utterly imbecile idea that, notwithstanding the conclusive documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence to large-scale mass murder, an inaccuracy in the description of the murder weapon would mean that no mass-murder occured.
And that’s a stance which, apart from being completely idiotic, shows that poor Smith lives in a dream world of pathetic obsessions about the evils of "Zionism" and the virtues of National Socialism, far removed from reality.
Scott Smith wrote: Not even by the Nazis. And not even to our favorite Victims.
Smith’s dreary rhetorical bullshit, of course, does nothing other than underline the sorry figure he keeps cutting whenever he attempts to sell his articles of faith.