- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
Are we talking about Dachau and Belsen? All those eye witnesses?
You are in for a shock mate. NO GAS CHAMBERS WERE USED ON GERMAN SOIL - and that isn't my opinion IT IS OFFICIAL.
Concentration camps
- Thread starter pred
- Start date
- Status
Are we talking about Dachau and Belsen? All those eye witnesses?
You are in for a shock mate. NO GAS CHAMBERS WERE USED ON GERMAN SOIL - and that isn't my opinion IT IS OFFICIAL.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
That is a load of contrived rubbish written after the event mate. But you know that don't you?
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
Perhaps now you see what the issue is?What happened to Anne Frank then and what good would a girl with typhus be in building a road? FFS.
You said earlier Ann Frank died of Typhus but above you said they were keeping people with Typhus alive...
No Poor ann Frank would not have been good for building roads would she..
I don't understand your anger....
You did dee the malnourished condition of the inmates when liberated didn't you...?
Why argue for the side that would do that to other humans?
What is your actual investment in this argument - what do YOU have to gain digging up history on this subject?
Was one of your ancestors executed after the trials?
or are you simply trying to do the impossible and win an argument on the internet?
Every point he claims to be 'the truth' has been shot down.
He contradicts himself.
He introduces new arguments to avoid answering those he's already being challenged on.
Everyone who stands up to him is a hard wired Jewish zealot (hence that's why they have views differing to his)
etc etc.
Not the first time he's shown his neo-nazi traits and been accused of it either
//www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=142683&start=0[/QUOTE]
How many died then Alumni? Can't say? Won't say? Which is it?
Who told you your 'facts'? Mum and Dad?
V
vinty
Diesel exhaust contains very little carbon monoxide the Germans of all people would have known that, petrol engines on the other hand produce a lot of carbon monoxide so why didn't they use a petrol engine? i have read that there is no known case of suicide by diesel engine exhaust is this true or false?
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
What happened to Anne Frank then and what good would a girl with typhus be in building a road? FFS.
You said earlier Ann Frank died of Typhus but above you said they were keeping people with Typhus alive...
No Poor ann Frank would not have been good for building roads would she..
I don't understand your anger....
You did dee the malnourished condition of the inmates when liberated didn't you...?
Why argue for the side that would do that to other humans?
What is your actual investment in this argument - what do YOU have to gain digging up history on this subject?
Was one of your ancestors executed after the trials?
or are you simply trying to do the impossible and win an argument on the internet?
Don't confuse those with typhus for the average camp inmate.
They look in rude health to me eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp
P
peaps2
P
peaps2
What happened to Anne Frank then and what good would a girl with typhus be in building a road? FFS.
You said earlier Ann Frank died of Typhus but above you said they were keeping people with Typhus alive...
No Poor ann Frank would not have been good for building roads would she..
I don't understand your anger....
You did dee the malnourished condition of the inmates when liberated didn't you...?
Why argue for the side that would do that to other humans?
What is your actual investment in this argument - what do YOU have to gain digging up history on this subject?
Was one of your ancestors executed after the trials?
or are you simply trying to do the impossible and win an argument on the internet?
Don't confuse those with typhus for the average camp inmate.
They look in rude health to me eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp[/QUOTE]
P
peaps2
So the country that invented Sarin and Tabun used a tank diesel engine?
Are you for real?
Get a grip man FFS.
Research: Holocaust Research Mailing List
Writer: Michael P. Stein
This article discusses the errors and deceptions contained in Friedrich Berg's "proof" [1] that it would be nearly impossible to use diesel exhaust to kill people as described by the witnesses to the Reinhard death camp gassings. The case is given in nontechnical terms, however, there is an appendix that reproduces the case with full details and references. for those who want to wade through the detailed technical arguments.
People are encouraged to read all the details. One thing "scientific" Holocaust deniers like Berg and Fred Leuchter count on is the fact that many non-scientists can't follow scientific debates, and assume that if it is dressed up in scientific terms, it must be right. But there are many other scientific debates we see today - pollution, cancer, global warming, etc. - which enter into the political arena. Some of these arguments are made to support a hidden ideological agenda, and the science is dishonest. We hope that following the full argument will help people realize that just because something comes dressed up as "science" doesn't mean you should stop thinking critically about what you're being told.
Berg's arguments boil down to the following:
Diesel engines, unlike gasoline engines, do not produce large amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) under normal operation, and it is extremely difficult to get them to produce levels of CO sufficient to cause death within the time reported by the witnesses.
Eyewitnesses described the corpses from a diesel gassing as blue in color - but acute carbon monoxide poisoning victims are red.
Furthermore, the Germans had much better ways to produce carbon monoxide than diesel engines (the "producer gas" trucks and busses), so using diesels makes no sense.
Therefore (reasons Berg), contrary to the assertion of historians, the victims were not killed by carbon monoxide.
Diesel engines normally produce a fairly high proportion of oxygen in the exhaust, so people would not die of asphyxiation in the amount of time claimed by the witnesses.
Even if the above were not true, if execution were to be by asphyxiation, there was no sense in running the engine - it would have been sufficient to seal the victims in an airtight chamber, so pumping in exhaust for asphyxiation made no sense.
Therefore (reasons Berg) they were not killed by asphyxiation either; the whole affair is a hoax.
There is a core of truth to all of the five points. Point (2) above is often true, though not always. However, as Berg failed to mention in his paper, the witness, SS hygienist Dr. Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, explicitly mentioned asphyxiation as the cause of death [2]. Point (1) is not so true as Berg believes, but given point (2), it is quite possibly irrelevant.
Berg relies heavily on "psychological" arguments such as points (3) and (5), the idea that the SS personnel in charge of the death camps would have done things in better ways if they had really wanted to kill people. For example, in Usenet alt.revisionism article [email protected], he wrote: "[Scott] Mullins should try to run a heavily-loaded 150 HP engine, that is still small, with a propeller or fan in a closed loop without making lots and lots of noise."
Is Berg trying to argue that the Nazis wouldn't have committed mass murder with diesels because they would have been too afraid of getting a ticket for violating noise ordinances?
In the same article, Berg also wrote, "Since the load of any fan or propeller varies non-linearly with RPM, it is still quite a trick to choose the right sized fan or propeller. Ivan with the big wrench won't know how."
Here Berg is actually arguing two contradictory things at once. If this had been done, "Ivan," of course, wouldn't have done it. It was the Nazis who created the system, not the Russians or Ukranians.The Russians just built the original engine. The Nazis would have modified it.
Is Berg saying the Nazis wouldn't have known how to do this?
Is Berg saying the Germans had no competent engineers? On the otherhand, arguing that an unsophisticated "Ivan" was responsible for the idea and the modification damages points (3) and (5), that it wouldn't have been done because it wasn't a good idea technically.
An unsophisticated person would probably not realize that there's anything wrong with using a diesel engine to generate carbon monoxide. This sort of self-contradictory argument is one advanced by a defense lawyer, not a scientist.
Did you know... that only one of the 'Operation Reinhard' death camps may have used a diesel engine? (At Belzec and Sobibor, petrol engines were used.)
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/diesel-01.html
Although Berg says it's very difficult to tinker with the engine to produce high CO levels, the same technical papers he quotes in his own paper show that the authors were able to produce CO levels up to 6% by adjusting the fuel system. It may also have been possible to block the air intake to alter the fuel/air mixture. Berg cannot escape the fact that if the authors of his own references were able to produce lethal exhaust from a diesel, so would an SS technician.
In Prattle et al, for instance, we find this simple observation: "Two series of experiments were performed. In each set eight rabbits, 20 guinea-pigs, and 80 mice were placed at random into four batches. Each batch was exposed in the chamber to undiluted diesel fumes for five hours or until all the animals were dead." (Prattle, et al, "The Toxicity of Fumes From a Diesel Engine Under Four Different Running Conditions," British Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1957, 14, 47)
Still, due to the testimony about the blue color of the bodies, the one crucial point on which Berg may very well be correct is that contrary to popular belief, the people who died in chambers fed by diesel engines didn't die of acute CO poisoning. From this he would like people to believe that if they didn't die from that cause, as commonly believed, the whole story must be a hoax.
However, there are many separate pieces of evidence all pointing to the conclusion that hundreds of thousands of people entered the camps of Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec and never emerged alive. There are records of rail shipments of people going in, and large quantities of clothing - but not people - going out. There are reports from the Polish resistance corroborating this. There are large quantities of bones. There are testimonies from the few survivors as well as many guards in the camp. To this day only two of the approximately 600,000 people sent to the camp of Belzec have ever been found alive.
So if Berg is correct that the victims did not die of carbon monoxide if gassed with diesels, how did they die? Unfortunately, since the camps were destroyed before the end of the war, and the gas chambers and engines with them, it is not possible to reconstruct precisely what happened. Nevertheless, it is possible to work out the possibilities and determine the general cause of death, if not the precise combination of causes. Actually, Berg had the answer all along, but refused to see it - or pretended not to. They probably did die of some form of asphyxiation, with other contributing factors.
How can this be, if Berg "proved" that there is too much oxygen in diesel exhaust for this to be possible? There are a number of significant items Berg overlooks. First, diesels also produce fairly high levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) compounds, which are also toxic. Berg only discussed the long-term carcinogenic potential of these chemicals, but in sufficient concentration they have short-term toxic effects as well - 250 to 500 ppm of NO2 or N2O4 is "rapidly fatal" all by itself [3].
While there is no way of telling if the levels were this high in the diesel gas chambers, as there are many variables involved, Berg's own principal source on diesel exhaust composition gives NOx emissions as high as 690 ppm in one test - depending on the precise distribution of compounds, possibly a lethal dose within the allotted time even without the additional considerations given below. [4]
Many test run results from the paper are in the 267-448 ppm range - a significant contributing factor, even if not the sole cause of death. Interestingly, the highest concentrations were achieved at a fuel-air ratio of just under 0.03 and an engine speed of 600 RPM - a significant fact given Berg's insistence that only at higher fuel-air ratios does diesel exhaust become sufficiently toxic to kill in the half hour reported by witnesses.
Second, the people in the chambers would have an elevated respiratory rate due to panic, the exertion of being run into the chambers, and high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), and thus would have consumed the available oxygen more quickly. This aspect cannot be ignored.
Third, and most importantly, the chambers were described by the witnesses as having a low ceiling, and the people were packed into the chambers as tightly as possible. This means that there was not much air per person to start with. As the diesel pumped in exhaust gas relatively poor in oxygen, high in CO2, soot, NOx (and if, unlike the fuel in the Holtz-Elliot paper, the Nazis used high-sulphur diesel fuel, there would also be sulphur dioxide, another toxin), the people would both take in the toxins and use up the available air (and load the chamber with even more carbon dioxide, causing more rapid breathing, a vicious cycle).
This can be done without any tampering with the engine. However, by adjusting the fuel flow, or partially blocking the air intake, an even less oxygenated exhaust can be produced. (Again, it is not certain that this was done, but it was entirely possible.)
Thus it is possible to generate lethal conditions using diesel engines, although there is not much margin for error. And indeed, testimony indicates that sometimes it was discovered that the process did not produce death in everyone, and bullets to the back of the head had to be administered from time to time. Rudolf Höss, commandant of Auschwitz, testified that on a trip to Chelmno, where there were gassing vans, sometimes the exhaust buildup was not sufficient for killing.
What about the argument that this was not efficient? This argument first of all assumes that the people choosing the diesel engines were as technically sophisticated as Berg himself. Few people know that diesels don't produce just as much carbon monoxide as gasoline engines. If they hooked it up and it worked, that was all that mattered.
The producer gas vehicles certainly would have worked better, but there were two problems with them. First, the level of CO was so high that it was potentially explosive (a point Berg made in one of his own Usenet articles cited in the appendix, yet failed to see the significance of). Second, the vehicles had a more important use - as vehicles. The diesel engine came from a captured Soviet tank. There were thousands of them littering the countryside, most of them completely unusable because the Germans didn't have the facilities to repair them. Thus when the economic considerations are examined, not just the technical, the use of the diesels makes more sense.
What about the argument that the people would have died of asphyxiation if just put into an airtight chamber? This argument trades on the myth that all Nazis were sadistic monsters. They were killers, yes, but they did not have a policy of causing maximum suffering. The attempt to use carbon monoxide was in order to have a relatively humane execution. This was important for the morale of the SS men, as their experience with mass shooting in occupied Russia proved.
The use of diesels to run gas chambers was not the best technical means, but it could (and, as the eyewitnesses testified, did) work. Eventually, at Auschwitz, a better method was found, and the diesels were abandoned.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/diesel-02.html
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
Stop spamming mate.
Sarin - over 500 times as toxic as cyanide. One wiff and you are gone.
Diesel engine? Don't make me larf.
Use your brain mate - try to defeat your hard-wiring.
From Wiki.
Even at very low concentrations, sarin can be fatal. Death may follow in one minute after direct ingestion of a lethal dose if antidotes, typically atropine and pralidoxime, are not quickly administered.[4] Atropine, an antagonist to muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, is given to treat the physiological symptoms of poisoning. Since muscular response to acetylcholine is mediated through nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, atropine does not counteract the muscular symptoms. Pralidoxime can regenerate cholinesterases if administered within approximately five hours. Biperiden, a synthetic acetylcholine antagonist, has been suggested as an alternative to atropine due to its better blood–brain barrier penetration and higher efficacy.[13]
Sarin is estimated to be over 500 times more toxic than cyanide.
So you see the Germans had a lot better than an old tank engine or a box of de-lousing granules.
THEY INVENTED SARIN AND TABUN.
Sarin - over 500 times as toxic as cyanide. One wiff and you are gone.
Diesel engine? Don't make me larf.
Use your brain mate - try to defeat your hard-wiring.
From Wiki.
Even at very low concentrations, sarin can be fatal. Death may follow in one minute after direct ingestion of a lethal dose if antidotes, typically atropine and pralidoxime, are not quickly administered.[4] Atropine, an antagonist to muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, is given to treat the physiological symptoms of poisoning. Since muscular response to acetylcholine is mediated through nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, atropine does not counteract the muscular symptoms. Pralidoxime can regenerate cholinesterases if administered within approximately five hours. Biperiden, a synthetic acetylcholine antagonist, has been suggested as an alternative to atropine due to its better blood–brain barrier penetration and higher efficacy.[13]
Sarin is estimated to be over 500 times more toxic than cyanide.
So you see the Germans had a lot better than an old tank engine or a box of de-lousing granules.
THEY INVENTED SARIN AND TABUN.
P
peaps2
time for you to start reading all the Nazi documents old man
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
time for you to start reading all the Nazi documents old man
Time for you to talk to your parents about what they hard-wired into you as a kid.
P
peaps2
In mid-1939, the formula for the agent was passed to the chemical warfare section of the German Army Weapons Office, which ordered that it be brought into mass production for wartime use. A number of pilot plants were built, and a high-production facility was under construction (but was not finished) by the end of World War II. Estimates for total sarin production by Nazi Germany range from 500 kg to 10 tons.[18] Though sarin, tabun and soman were incorporated into artillery shells, Germany ultimately decided not to use nerve agents against Allied targets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
they never used either
clutching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
they never used either
clutching
P
peaps2
time for you to start reading all the Nazi documents old man
Time for you to talk to your parents about what they hard-wired into you as a kid.
Maybe you should go back to fitting chubb alarms ect or is it dead in the Midlands..?
- Status
Sponsored Links