One of the revisionist induced controversies of the Holocaust story is the presence or non presence of Prussian Blue.
Prussian Blue is a cyanide compound that would be the combination of cyanide, like hydrogen cyanide (HCN) with the element iron. Hydrogen cyanide is the lethal agent said to have been used at two of the camps, Auschwitz and Majdanek. HCN deposited on something that would contain iron atoms could combine with the element and form the compound known as Prussian Blue, a deep azure type of blue.
The questions of why or why not Prussian Blue found here but not there would involve -
Why isn't there any sign of Prussian Blue in the cellar (gas chamber) ruins of Cremas II and III?
The cellar walls were made of three or four courses of brick which can quite often contain significant amounts of iron. The ceiling was cast of concrete reinforced with a grid of iron rods. The support columns were cast around a columnar grid of iron rebar. There were supposed to have been wire mesh introduction columns for the pellets HCN to have been lowered. Blood from the victims splattered against the wall would have been a source for iron.
Prussian Blue is a very resilient compound even being used in artist paints.
On extant fumigation facilities at Auschwitz today there is still Prussian Blue adhered to the bricks on the exterior walls. Much of it is located on the brick right near the exhaust fan. Some of it shows up on brick in other places of the same structure which would show that Prussian Blue did and can form on something that isn't pure iron. The gas chambers would have been built out of the same brick as the fumigation facility.
So why none at the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz? The concentrations weren't as strong for the gassings and the frequency of the gas presence would have been less, say Holocaust defenders. That could all be well and good but it wouldn't explain the problem of there being none or next to none.
Then we could be told by Holocaust defenders that the walls were coated with plaster or white washed with some kind of coating. But as things go typically with Holocaust 'facts' there are always other 'facts' that challenge them. Such as there being large light blue patches on the plastered walls of an alleged gas chamber at the camp Majdanek and claimed to be Prussian Blue.
See photo of this at - http://www.bonder.com/tour/part4.html
Thus, as far as the Prussian Blue story goes, we would have extant fumigation facilities at Auschwitz made of brick which shows considerable formation and deposition of the compound, in the alleged gas chambers made of brick we have none and at Majdanek we have it showing up galore on plastered walls.
Holocaust defenders can't say Prussian Blue can't form on brick.
The only thing they have to explain why none on the walls of Cremas II and III is to say the walls were plastered or white washed which is countered by the claims that there is Prussian Blue on plastered walls at Majdanek.
Thus, there is no legitimate reason for why there wouldn't be any Prussian Blue compound showing up on the walls of the Crema II and III cellars other than there never was any extensive use of HCN.
No Prussian Blue - No Holocaust.
Slam dunk debunk - Prussian Blue
Moderator: Moderator
Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
TMoran wrote: Why isn't there any sign of Prussian Blue in the cellar (gas chamber)
ruins of Cremas II and III?
There is IMO only one explanation: These rooms were never used as mass homicidal gas chambers.
One almost has to be a chemist to debate the formation of Prussian Blue by HCN with the iron in bricks, mortar and concrete.
By looking at these pictures from the Rudolf Report under Section
6.2. Instances of Damages to Buildings
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/6.html#6.2
Fig. 60: Exterior southwest wall of the Zyklon B disinfestation wing of BW 5b in the Birkenau camp
Color Image 11: Blue discoloration of the east exterior wall of the Zyklon B disinfestation installation in the Stutthof camp, section enlargement of Color Image 10/Fig. 66. © C. Mattogno.
I noticed that the discoloring of the bricks and mortar is not uniform. Some areas appear to be solidly blue, others seem to be untouched by the effect of exposure to HCN gas.
An exterminationist could argue that the bricks used in morgue 1 of Krema II are of a type with a high resistance to HCN gas and the formation of Prussian Blue.
Leuchter was the first who inspected physically morgue 1 of Krema II, the alleged gas chamber. He wrote a 192 page report. (The report that can be purchased now, or downloaded from the Zündel site seems to be a condensed version with only 66 pages.)
I always wondered from where Leuchter got the idea of taking samples off the walls and have them analyzed for Prussian Blue.
He says that Faurisson gave him that idea. But Faurisson was a professor for languages, classical Greek and Latin. This is a little hard to believe.
In the bibliography he referred several times to the Dupont Company. Did one of the chemical boys there tip him off?
fge
Sailor said:
Ofcourse, The Believers can/will/have said anything, but they cannot support any possible claim that the mortar and brick in Krema II (alleged gas chamber) is resistant to HCN gas. In fact, I believe the Rudolf samples show that the material would have created Prussian Blue....if exposed as alleged.
- Hannover
An exterminationist could argue that the bricks used in morgue 1 of Krema II are of a type with a high resistance to HCN gas and the formation of Prussian Blue.
Ofcourse, The Believers can/will/have said anything, but they cannot support any possible claim that the mortar and brick in Krema II (alleged gas chamber) is resistant to HCN gas. In fact, I believe the Rudolf samples show that the material would have created Prussian Blue....if exposed as alleged.
- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.
'The cellar walls were made of three or four courses of brick'
I think there is some confusion here.
A course of bricks or blocks is the horizontal run of bricks or blocks at the same given height. An average common brick is (whether imperial or metric) is roughly 65mm/2 5/8' in height. If the walls were only made of four courses of bricks, they would only stand 300mm/ 1" high. Remember every brick sits on a 10mm 'bed' of mortar, which makes the theoretical height of the brick 75mm/3'. Therefore, this cannot be right, as the walls are plainly higher than 1 foot high.
The fact you say three or four courses of brick has made me wonder whether you mean 'skins'. A skin of bricks or blocks is basically, a wall, say for instance 8 feet high. Do you mean there was one skin of bricks then running horizontally parallel to it there was another two or three? If you do then that is what’s known as a 'cavity wall', I presume there were cavities separating these skins of bricks, usually between 1' to 4' wide, can be left as air gaps or filled with insulation.
If this is the case then these walls (If they are four skin walls) are extremely rare and would have been designed and built with one sole purpose and that would be to keep the interior of the building cool at all times and also to stop any water ingress. The cavities between each skin of brickwork act as thermal barriers, and to stop any water that WILL pass through the first skin from finding a path to the second skin and so on until it finds its way to the inside face of the internal skin. At this time the dpc’s (damp proof courses) were very crude, usually slate led along a bed or bitumen poured along a bed. Very often, none was used!
These types of walls (If they are four skin walls) are unique, and would have been designed very carefully to achieve their goal.
I would be interested to know if these bricks were 'Engineering bricks' or commons. Do you know the FGL (finished ground level) outside compared to the finished floor level inside the building?
The type of bond used on a wall has a very big impact on the eventual characteristics of the building.
See you have to think rationally. Take it from me; if those walls were meant to contain, say for instance 600 frantic people about to be, supposedly 'gassed' a single skin of stretcher bond Brickwork held together with a lime mortar would not contain them. The weight of ten men could kick a wall of this type down easily, without question! If these walls were designed to contain heavy loads or impacts from the interior they would have ‘attached piers’ built into them at every twelve feet and would have been built in one brick bond like 'English bond' or 'Flemish bond', 'English Garden wall bond or ‘Facing bond'. A wall of Stretcher bond with no piers and a lime mortar is the weakest type of wall one can build! I cannot see the walls; being built in this manner if they are to support a concrete roof slab. They must have been built in a ‘one brick wall’ construction. Looking at the pictures that Sailor posted, I don't know if these are the same buildings but the walls are 'one brick' walls in English bond (Alternate headers and stretchers). which would give them an overall thickness of around 8 inches. I have to say the quality of workmanship is absolutely appalling. From the poor pictures the bricks look like hand-made bricks bedded on lime mortar.
These bricks would have been bedded on ‘feebly hydraulic lime’' mortar unless they used non-hydraulic lime mixed with sand (course stuff) unless they had decided to use Portland Cement which was probably nearly as common at that time, though it must have been used for the roof’s and is far stronger (In it’s own way). The fact you mention the walls are 'white-washed' tells me they were using lime. That white material on the walls is a lime based render, which is known as a 'rich lime' these limes have impurities of about six percent after a rapid slaking. They are dependent on external agents for setting. This lime absorbs water. The limes that do not erode so readily and set under water (to a certain degree) are 'hydraulic limes'. They need no external agents to set. The proportion of impurities (mostly clay) in these limes determines whether it is eminently, moderately, or only feebly hydraulic. That is why Hydraulic limes are, usually used on very exposed areas of a building or areas expected to be constantly wet. Pure lime mortars built into thick walls never fully harden on the interior. The crystallization of the exterior of the joint when set prevents access of carbon dioxide to the inside of the wall.
The most simple things like the fact the walls were white has an impact on the way the building behaves. Black absorbs heat white repels it. Why did the Germans decide to render the walls, which would make them white and not just leave the faces of the dark brown/red bricks exposed? The only other reason I can think of other than to keep it cool is to make the interior more airy and light.
They said:
‘Then we could be told by Holocaust defenders that the walls were
coated with plaster or white washed with some kind of coating.’
That ‘some kind of coating’ you speak of is ‘Rich lime’, ‘Fat lime, or ‘lime putty’ whoever promotes the idea that lime would not stain is talking absolute rubbish and is a liar. Lime is extremely porous, what are they suggesting? That the lime render would seal the brickwork and stop the passage of HCN to the faces of the bricks. That is an absolute load of nonsense. The very reasons old buildings were lime-washed was because the lime was extremely permeable and breathable, It lets the elements soak in but also lets any moisture evaporate again yet it is these properties that make it a far better material than cement. Although lime soaks up water it also lets the structure breath and dry back out very quickly. Cement is non-porous but is very prone to cracking, so once the moisture gets behind the cement (which it always does) it cannot get back out again. This causes ‘stone rot’ in old buildings; also, the water that is trapped behind the cement causes terrible problems during winter when the frosts come, as it freezes, expands, and can cause severe structural problems in buildings. Lime is very soft unlike cement that is why you see very few old buildings with cracks in them, because the lime allows movement. Cement does not give and is prone to cracking. Cement will crack just through natural climatic changes of expansion and contraction. Lime can also contain many impurities including iron; the types of lime used for interior rendering would have contained impurities. Many of these impurities would be derived from the flare kilns or draw kilns where the limestone (chalk, marble, and shells) was burned over a hearth. In both types of kiln, coal, or charcoal, will always become mixed with the lime and can always be seen when racking out or removing old lime mortar. To presume lime does not contain impurities of any sort, is all very well from the office of theoretical speculation where the academic resides (Never trust the academic, for he speaks not in his tongue, but in the tongue of the government run institutions that bred him.) but in the real world, it could contain anything. It is no exaggeration that lime making was a hand’s on job and in many cases very crudely executed, this led to all manner of rubbish to be added to the lime, a practice which cannot be too strongly condemned. Lime, should not be used in positions exposed to heat as it causes it to deteriorate rapidly. The pictures sailor posted clearly show how the lime joints on the wall face have been heavily stained. So why do they suppose the internal lime rendered walls would not stain. The proof is right in front of their eyes. Whoever the managing director's of the H-Industry are, they certainly don't have a clue of this subject. The only reason they get away with it is because the people it is directed at are even more clueless.
‘The gas chambers would have been built out of the same brick as the fumigation facility.’
This is also not necessarily true; there are many different types of brick used for different purposes. Supply, price, quality, and availability also play a major role in determining what bricks can and cannot be used. Considering the size of Auschwitz, I would say there would have been many varieties of brick employed from various (local usually) manufacturers in its building. (The revisionist’s should have found this out!) The bricks used for the actual ovens would have been ‘fire bricks’ usually a yellow colour. The bricks used for the morgues which were buried underground should have been ‘engineering bricks’ very dense and exceptionally hard. These bricks are used for heavy loading or where long durability under exposed conditions is required. Engineering bricks are virtually impervious, usually a bluish colour.
There must have been cement somewhere as you mention the roof, was laid down as a concrete slab. Do you know whether it; was cast as one unit or did it have expansion joints in it? As you know once concrete has cured (not green) there is no way of joining another unit of concrete to it, there will always be a joint visible. This is, easily proved by looking at any car park. The concrete, will have been laid in bays over a period of days, after the car park is finished, every individual pour is discernable from the next. The gaps where the shuttering sat for each bay are still, to this day filled with bitumen. If any repairs are required to the main slab the repair will never fully unite with the parent material, the repair will always be a separate entity to the main body. The mixes and curing times of concrete are never the same so the individual slab is expanding and contracting at a different rate to its neighbour. In addition, the basic mass of concrete determines the rate of its expansion and contraction.
This is why the need for expansion joints arises. At that time, they would have been made of tar and hemp or lime mixed with linseed oil to form a sort of putty to give a watertight yet flexible joint.
‘I tell this tale, which is strictly true,
Just by way of convincing you
How very little since things were made,
Things have altered in the building trade.’
Kipling
I think there is some confusion here.
A course of bricks or blocks is the horizontal run of bricks or blocks at the same given height. An average common brick is (whether imperial or metric) is roughly 65mm/2 5/8' in height. If the walls were only made of four courses of bricks, they would only stand 300mm/ 1" high. Remember every brick sits on a 10mm 'bed' of mortar, which makes the theoretical height of the brick 75mm/3'. Therefore, this cannot be right, as the walls are plainly higher than 1 foot high.
The fact you say three or four courses of brick has made me wonder whether you mean 'skins'. A skin of bricks or blocks is basically, a wall, say for instance 8 feet high. Do you mean there was one skin of bricks then running horizontally parallel to it there was another two or three? If you do then that is what’s known as a 'cavity wall', I presume there were cavities separating these skins of bricks, usually between 1' to 4' wide, can be left as air gaps or filled with insulation.
If this is the case then these walls (If they are four skin walls) are extremely rare and would have been designed and built with one sole purpose and that would be to keep the interior of the building cool at all times and also to stop any water ingress. The cavities between each skin of brickwork act as thermal barriers, and to stop any water that WILL pass through the first skin from finding a path to the second skin and so on until it finds its way to the inside face of the internal skin. At this time the dpc’s (damp proof courses) were very crude, usually slate led along a bed or bitumen poured along a bed. Very often, none was used!
These types of walls (If they are four skin walls) are unique, and would have been designed very carefully to achieve their goal.
I would be interested to know if these bricks were 'Engineering bricks' or commons. Do you know the FGL (finished ground level) outside compared to the finished floor level inside the building?
The type of bond used on a wall has a very big impact on the eventual characteristics of the building.
See you have to think rationally. Take it from me; if those walls were meant to contain, say for instance 600 frantic people about to be, supposedly 'gassed' a single skin of stretcher bond Brickwork held together with a lime mortar would not contain them. The weight of ten men could kick a wall of this type down easily, without question! If these walls were designed to contain heavy loads or impacts from the interior they would have ‘attached piers’ built into them at every twelve feet and would have been built in one brick bond like 'English bond' or 'Flemish bond', 'English Garden wall bond or ‘Facing bond'. A wall of Stretcher bond with no piers and a lime mortar is the weakest type of wall one can build! I cannot see the walls; being built in this manner if they are to support a concrete roof slab. They must have been built in a ‘one brick wall’ construction. Looking at the pictures that Sailor posted, I don't know if these are the same buildings but the walls are 'one brick' walls in English bond (Alternate headers and stretchers). which would give them an overall thickness of around 8 inches. I have to say the quality of workmanship is absolutely appalling. From the poor pictures the bricks look like hand-made bricks bedded on lime mortar.
These bricks would have been bedded on ‘feebly hydraulic lime’' mortar unless they used non-hydraulic lime mixed with sand (course stuff) unless they had decided to use Portland Cement which was probably nearly as common at that time, though it must have been used for the roof’s and is far stronger (In it’s own way). The fact you mention the walls are 'white-washed' tells me they were using lime. That white material on the walls is a lime based render, which is known as a 'rich lime' these limes have impurities of about six percent after a rapid slaking. They are dependent on external agents for setting. This lime absorbs water. The limes that do not erode so readily and set under water (to a certain degree) are 'hydraulic limes'. They need no external agents to set. The proportion of impurities (mostly clay) in these limes determines whether it is eminently, moderately, or only feebly hydraulic. That is why Hydraulic limes are, usually used on very exposed areas of a building or areas expected to be constantly wet. Pure lime mortars built into thick walls never fully harden on the interior. The crystallization of the exterior of the joint when set prevents access of carbon dioxide to the inside of the wall.
The most simple things like the fact the walls were white has an impact on the way the building behaves. Black absorbs heat white repels it. Why did the Germans decide to render the walls, which would make them white and not just leave the faces of the dark brown/red bricks exposed? The only other reason I can think of other than to keep it cool is to make the interior more airy and light.
They said:
‘Then we could be told by Holocaust defenders that the walls were
coated with plaster or white washed with some kind of coating.’
That ‘some kind of coating’ you speak of is ‘Rich lime’, ‘Fat lime, or ‘lime putty’ whoever promotes the idea that lime would not stain is talking absolute rubbish and is a liar. Lime is extremely porous, what are they suggesting? That the lime render would seal the brickwork and stop the passage of HCN to the faces of the bricks. That is an absolute load of nonsense. The very reasons old buildings were lime-washed was because the lime was extremely permeable and breathable, It lets the elements soak in but also lets any moisture evaporate again yet it is these properties that make it a far better material than cement. Although lime soaks up water it also lets the structure breath and dry back out very quickly. Cement is non-porous but is very prone to cracking, so once the moisture gets behind the cement (which it always does) it cannot get back out again. This causes ‘stone rot’ in old buildings; also, the water that is trapped behind the cement causes terrible problems during winter when the frosts come, as it freezes, expands, and can cause severe structural problems in buildings. Lime is very soft unlike cement that is why you see very few old buildings with cracks in them, because the lime allows movement. Cement does not give and is prone to cracking. Cement will crack just through natural climatic changes of expansion and contraction. Lime can also contain many impurities including iron; the types of lime used for interior rendering would have contained impurities. Many of these impurities would be derived from the flare kilns or draw kilns where the limestone (chalk, marble, and shells) was burned over a hearth. In both types of kiln, coal, or charcoal, will always become mixed with the lime and can always be seen when racking out or removing old lime mortar. To presume lime does not contain impurities of any sort, is all very well from the office of theoretical speculation where the academic resides (Never trust the academic, for he speaks not in his tongue, but in the tongue of the government run institutions that bred him.) but in the real world, it could contain anything. It is no exaggeration that lime making was a hand’s on job and in many cases very crudely executed, this led to all manner of rubbish to be added to the lime, a practice which cannot be too strongly condemned. Lime, should not be used in positions exposed to heat as it causes it to deteriorate rapidly. The pictures sailor posted clearly show how the lime joints on the wall face have been heavily stained. So why do they suppose the internal lime rendered walls would not stain. The proof is right in front of their eyes. Whoever the managing director's of the H-Industry are, they certainly don't have a clue of this subject. The only reason they get away with it is because the people it is directed at are even more clueless.
‘The gas chambers would have been built out of the same brick as the fumigation facility.’
This is also not necessarily true; there are many different types of brick used for different purposes. Supply, price, quality, and availability also play a major role in determining what bricks can and cannot be used. Considering the size of Auschwitz, I would say there would have been many varieties of brick employed from various (local usually) manufacturers in its building. (The revisionist’s should have found this out!) The bricks used for the actual ovens would have been ‘fire bricks’ usually a yellow colour. The bricks used for the morgues which were buried underground should have been ‘engineering bricks’ very dense and exceptionally hard. These bricks are used for heavy loading or where long durability under exposed conditions is required. Engineering bricks are virtually impervious, usually a bluish colour.
There must have been cement somewhere as you mention the roof, was laid down as a concrete slab. Do you know whether it; was cast as one unit or did it have expansion joints in it? As you know once concrete has cured (not green) there is no way of joining another unit of concrete to it, there will always be a joint visible. This is, easily proved by looking at any car park. The concrete, will have been laid in bays over a period of days, after the car park is finished, every individual pour is discernable from the next. The gaps where the shuttering sat for each bay are still, to this day filled with bitumen. If any repairs are required to the main slab the repair will never fully unite with the parent material, the repair will always be a separate entity to the main body. The mixes and curing times of concrete are never the same so the individual slab is expanding and contracting at a different rate to its neighbour. In addition, the basic mass of concrete determines the rate of its expansion and contraction.
This is why the need for expansion joints arises. At that time, they would have been made of tar and hemp or lime mixed with linseed oil to form a sort of putty to give a watertight yet flexible joint.
‘I tell this tale, which is strictly true,
Just by way of convincing you
How very little since things were made,
Things have altered in the building trade.’
Kipling
-
Scott
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: RT 88 - West of the Pecos
- Contact:
Sailor wrote:I always wondered from where Leuchter got the idea of taking samples off the walls and have them analyzed for Prussian Blue.
He says that Faurisson gave him that idea. But Faurisson was a professor for languages, classical Greek and Latin. This is a little hard to believe.
Ditlieb Felderer wondered why the Sauna was heavily stained blue and the Kremas were not. This predates Leuchter and the first Zündel trial, IIRC.
Scott wrote: Ditlieb Felderer wondered why the Sauna was heavily stained blue and the Kremas were not. This predates Leuchter and the first Zündel trial, IIRC.
I did not find this statement by Felderer
Concerning the sauna:
Abbildung 19: Grundriß des Heißluftentlausungstrakts des Bauwerks 5a nach dem Umbau 1943, Probenentnahmestellen BW 5a eingezeichnet[75].
a: Heißluftentlausungskammern; b: Vorräume; c: Brauseraum; d: Sauna; e: Auskleideraum; f: Ankleideraum; 9-15, 18, 20-22: Probenentnahmestellen
Plan of the hot-air fumigation installation of the Bauwerk 5a after its alteration [from gas fumigation chambers to hot air chambers] in 1943. The test samples are indicated. a: Hot air chambers; b: Anterooms; c: Shower room; d: Sauna; e: Undressing room; 9-15,18, 20-22 locations where samples were taken.
For full size see: http://www.vho.org/D/rga2/Image296.gif
Is it possible that Felderer was talking about the fumigation rooms in Bauwerk 5a?
Open Debate is a million-dollar idea--a philosophy that ideological bigots have NO answer to.
You are a troublemaker, Scott.
fge
As to my saying:
'The cellar walls were made of three or four courses of brick'
Turpitz replied:
I think there is some confusion here.
A course of bricks or blocks is the horizontal run of bricks or blocks at the same given height. ....
============================================
I would be referring to the walls being three or four courses of brick thick.
'The cellar walls were made of three or four courses of brick'
Turpitz replied:
I think there is some confusion here.
A course of bricks or blocks is the horizontal run of bricks or blocks at the same given height. ....
============================================
I would be referring to the walls being three or four courses of brick thick.
-
Scott
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: RT 88 - West of the Pecos
- Contact:
Sailor wrote:Scott wrote: Ditlieb Felderer wondered why the Sauna was heavily stained blue and the Kremas were not. This predates Leuchter and the first Zündel trial, IIRC.
I did not find this statement by Felderer. [...]
Is it possible that Felderer was talking about the fumigation rooms in Bauwerk 5a?
As I recall he made this statement at an IHR conference where he showed his slides of Birkenau. I haven't been able to find a reference to that conference yet but I remember it as being before the first Zündel trial.
In any case, he testified for the defense at the 1988 Zündel trial and here is some information on that. Yes, it does refer to the fumigation rooms.
Overall, Felderer took some 30,000 slides of the various camps he visited during the years 1978 to 1980. [...]
Birkenau Delousing Buildings:
Felderer discovered two delousing buildings in Birkenau, which he testified, were probably kept secret and off-limits to the public because they explained the so called "selection" procedure at the ramp by Dr. Mengele and other camp doctors. Males were sent to delouse in a separate building from the women and children. (19-4378 to 4381) The selection procedure also involved a visual determination of the health of incoming prisoners. It was in the interest of the camp authorities not to spread disease. If people were sick and needed to be treated, the camp had hospitals. (20-4765 to 4768)
The Auschwitz Museum today did not deny that incoming prisoners were deloused. Hair was cut off from both males and females because it harboured lice. It was also saved and used for various manufacturing needs during the war. (19-4381) Hair on display at Auschwitz today, however, was depicted as being the hair of gassed victims. (19-4381, 4382)
Felderer showed a slide of an outside wall of the delousing building in the women's camp which indicated a significant blue colour. Felderer was told by Auschwitz officials that the blue staining resulted from the use of Zyklon B. (19-4383) Felderer believed the colour got on the walls when mattresses which had been deloused inside the building were then taken outside for airing, leaned against a wall and beaten for a length of time to get any Zyklon B out of the material. The powder material which was the inert carrier of the Zyklon B would stick to the wall and produce the distinct blue colouration. Felderer noted that this blue colour was not found in the alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz at all. (19-4383, 4384)
The delousing buildings, which were not open to the public, contained autoclaves used to decontaminate materials using steam. (19-4384, 4385) Rooms inside the building also indicated blue staining, which Felderer concluded was authentic and not simply painted on afterwards. Felderer told Zündel that the discovery of the delousing buildings was a tremendous step in their investigation. The blue staining was the Zyklon B mark and it was astonishing that this colour was not found in the buildings where it was claimed people were gassed to death using Zyklon B. (19 4376, 4387, 4388)
Posters on the walls of the delousing building warned inmates that "One Louse Means Your Death" and "To be Clean is Your Duty." Felderer testified the Nazis were very fearful of lice because they brought great epidemics into the camps. (19 4392)
http://64.143.9.197/books/kulaszka/13felderer.html
Sailor wrote:Scott wrote:Open Debate is a million-dollar idea--a philosophy that ideological bigots have NO answer to.
You are a troublemaker, Scott.
I live to serve.
Scott wrote: In any case, he testified for the defense at the 1988 Zündel trial and here is some information on that. Yes, it does refer to the fumigation rooms.
Yes, Felderer testified during the Zündel trial a month after Leuchter took off for Auschwitz, Poland, in order to do his investigation.
Well, no matter.
Concerning the walls of the morgue, I have seen a detail drawing showing two seperate brick walls with bitumen in between. But I can’t find the drawing anymore.
fge
Turpitz wrote: I would be interested to know if these bricks were 'Engineering bricks' or commons.
I had a similar thought. Rudolf indicated in his Report besides the HCN content of the samples also the iron content of the samples, and it appeared to be similar in all cases.
What is needed IMO is to take complete brick samples from the morgue and from the fumigation gas chambers and test them forensically to see whether they are of similar make or not.
Do you know the FGL (finished ground level) outside compared to the finished floor level inside the building?
The FGL of the building inside is higher, probably level with the morgue roof. There are several steps in front of the main entrance to the building, as shown on some pictures in van Pelt’s Auschwitz book.
Looking at the pictures that Sailor posted, I don't know if these are the same buildings but the walls are 'one brick' walls in English bond (Alternate headers and stretchers). which would give them an overall thickness of around 8 inches. I have to say the quality
Those walls are of the fumigation gas chambers. Single brick walls are in Germany frequently used inside the interior as dividing type walls.
Exterior load supporting type walls consist often of multiple brick walls.
The morgues of Krema II are half underground, with a high water table on the outside. At the bottom along the morgue on each side are the brick-built exhaust ducts. On top almost like an aftherthough triangular air intake ducts, also of brick design I think.
. Cement is non-porous but is very prone to cracking, so once the moisture gets behind the cement (which it always does) it cannot get back out again. This causes ‘stone rot’ in old buildings; also, the water that is trapped behind the cement causes terrible problems during winter when the frosts come, as it freezes, expands, and can cause severe structural problems in buildings.
Interesting about that ‘stone rot’, in Germany it is called ‘Mauer Schwamm’ (wall sponge). In old hydro power plant that stuff sometimes develops on outside walls which are below water level.
But I always thought that concrete was porous, soaking up water. We used in industrial plants and power plants the rebars in the foundation as a ground mat, tie them all together with some spot welding and pronto. It worked great and saved us a lot of bare copper cables and cadweld connections down below.
A friend built a ferro-cement boat, and in order to make it water tight he had to use epoxy on the outside. The situation is similar with swimming pools.
fge
-
Scott
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: RT 88 - West of the Pecos
- Contact:
Sailor wrote:Scott wrote: In any case, he testified for the defense at the 1988 Zündel trial and here is some information on that. Yes, it does refer to the fumigation rooms.
Yes, Felderer testified during the Zündel trial a month after Leuchter took off for Auschwitz, Poland, in order to do his investigation.
Yes, but remember that he took his photographs in the late-70's, although I can't find the IHR Conference where he pondered the question about the blue staining.
In his "Auschwitz Notebook," Felderer has a curious comment on Majdanek--and this was printed in the Spring 1980 volume of the Journal of Historical Review.
Ditlieb Felderer wrote:Majdanek
At the Majdanek "gas chamber" we find two sturdy metal doors, each resting on three hinges, fastened onto the metal frame. Both doors have a porthole. There is a bluish color around the door frame, which we shall discuss further below. By comparing pictures of this structure in 76, p48 and 88, p30 it is quite evident that the building has been altered. In both these pictures the roof above the doors is missing.
When we visited Majdanek (Lublin) we discovered that the bluish color around the doorposts had been artificially applied. We discovered this by examining the total area of blue coloration. We found that not only were the walls of the "gas chamber" colored blue, but so too were the legs of a modem signpost adjacent to the doorway. We took a scraping of this coloring for forensic examination in Sweden.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p365_Felderer.html
Spring 1980 Volume 1 number 4
I would be referring to the walls being three or four courses of brick thick.
Yes, and that is my point, you do not measure the thickness of a wall in courses. The height of a wall is measured in courses. The thickness is either measured in a unit of measurement or the amount of building units required to achieve the specified thickness.
Bonds are detemined in building units also. Stretcher bond = half brick thick, Flemish bond = one brick thick, English bond can be one brick thick and also one and a half brick thick.
If you build a new house and propose cavity insulation, the height of the insulation bats are made to the exact height as a set amount of courses in a wall, so as to tie-in with the beds and wall-ties. common is 3'/900mm which is exactly 12 courses of brick on ten mil beds or, exactly 4 block courses which are 225 mil including the beds. Door and window frames are also made to tie-in with a set amount of courses at the reveals. A horizontal run of of bricks on their end is called a 'soldier course.' A DPC is a 'damp-proof course'. That's just the way it is and has always been.
The way they are building in Germany at the moment, they are not using cavity walls but solid walls using honey-combed blocks called poritons ( They use a smaller brick called a Kalkstein and another called a zwei-d-f that is how they are pronounced, cannot remember how they are spelt) laid on ten mil beds of mortar with insulating material mixed with it. The walls are then machine rendered on the exterior. And yes there is a lot of justification of the term 'Jerry building'. Some of the people putting these walls up should not be allowed on a building site, some of the walls are so out of plumb and built on the twist, that they are having to put 4" of render on to straighten them up in some cases.
However the supposed prestigious apartment's in Londons dockland's that some fools paid god-knows how much for are no better. a very large amount of them have what is known as 'a course of pig'. This comes about by different gangs building quoins (corners) and by the time they get to wall-plate height they are out of gauge i.e different heights. So they have to start at the lowest quoin with wedges of brick that get smaller and smaller as they go round the building until they get to the highest quoin, where they will have little slivers of brick teetering on the top of the wall. This is done to try and get the top of the wall back into level, terrible mess! The owner's no doubt do not know about this. Anyway, although all very interesting it has nothing to do with the H-Industry.
Exterior load supporting type walls consist often of multiple brick walls.
What do you mean? Are you talking a cavity wall or a solid wall so many bricks thick?
The morgues of Krema II are half underground, with a high water table on the outside. At the bottom along the morgue on each side are the brick-built exhaust ducts.
If these walls are underground and the water table is high (I would like to add that high water tables are a terrible problem where bulding is concerned) they must have had some sort of water insulation, either engineering bricks,a cavity or some sort of membrane on the exterior faces of the bricks, like bitumen painted on them where they are underground. If they did none of these things the interior faces of the walls would be saturated or at the very least very damp, especially during the winter.
'On top almost like an afterthought triangular air intake ducts, also of brick design I think.'
It would take as decent brickie two minutes to see if these bricks were added at a later date. Are the bricks the same type? Is there a difference in weathering and colour between the bricks? (In the local vicinity) Is the mortar the same colour? Is the mortar the same mix? Where the triangular ducts tie-in to the wall, do they actually tie-in or are they just butted up to the main structure? On the inside of the building if ducts were intended to have been there origionally there will be a 'clean reveal' i.e the opening will show the un-cut edges of bricks (The cut end will be bedded in the wall and the un-cut end will be visible, and the reveal will usually be designed to tie-in with a set amount of bricks. i.e the reveal will start at exactly the end of a brick) If there are cut edges showing then it was added at a later date, end of the story!
Although you said the roof was made of concrete. In that case there will be a shuttered face on the concrete reveals and there should be no steel bone showing at the reveals. If the reveal is rough and the steel shows then the hole has been added at a later date, End of the story!
Interesting about that ‘stone rot’, in Germany it is called ‘Mauer Schwamm’ (wall sponge). In old hydro power plant that stuff sometimes develops on outside walls which are below water level.
That is because the stone is underground and constantly wet and cannot breathe, exactly like old lime built stone walls which have been rendered with a cement based render at a later date by an ignoramous builder and so the walls can no longer breathe so the stone starts to become sodden,sweat and disintegrate. The National Trust in Britain have banned the use of cement based mortars on historic buildings, either for renders or pointing. Cement based mortars should 'NOT' be used on stone structures, period! Many an old building has been damaged beyond repair by the use of cement based mortars. On a lot of the softer stone built buildings which have had their original lime mortars raked out and re-pointed with cement mortars, the damage has been collosal.
In many cases because the stone is now surrounded by hard cement instead of soft lime, when there is a need for expansion instead of the lime moving the cement does not, What happen's? The stone split's sometimes right in two, old stone lintels will crack, snipped arris's (corners of stone break off) Then the water will penetrate these cracks and splits, the frost comes, the water in the wall expand's...Wham. One five-hundred year old building decimated in ten years.
But I always thought that concrete was porous, soaking up water.
Mortar and concrete are two different things,
The mix for concrete is completely different than the mix for mortars for building walls, Even though if concrete is float finished and polished with a steel, it can be made to be almost waterproof without a DPM. In the old days they used to mix ash clinker with it and polish it until it was like a mirror, very rarely would damp come through that, and it was hard as iron. The cement mortars for laying bricks are very strong, frequently 3:1 and use soft sand which is very fine and is almost a cavityless (void area) binder. Concrete is mixed much weaker usually 6 or 7:1 and uses sharp sand and heavy aggregate as a binder which makes it porous and full of cavities. Concrete although it uses cement is a completely different compound than what is required for walling and rendering mixes. Walls that are built with cement mortars are, while the perps and beds are green tooled with a pointing iron which seals them and and makes them watertight. That is why it is imperative to keep a wall well pointed, which is very common work on brick walls, because cement based mortars will remain waterproof if looked after, but as is the problem with cement not being malleable it is liable to cracking and pulling from the joints.
Roughcast and pebble-dash are strong cement mixes used to cover the exterior of buildings and make them watertight especially in exposed areas and sometimes only on gable-ends.
Cement mortars are used extensively on roofs in the form of fillet's at abutment's and also as flaunching to hold chimney pots on. They are also used in inspection chambers and manholes to form the benching for the drains. The exterior of manholes are rendered to make them waterproof.
Maybe I should have said cement mortars rather than cement, but I presumed you knew I was talking of mortars and not concrete. All the same a lot of buildings are made of nothing but pre-fabricated concrete sections bolted together. There are a lot of mixes for concrete using different sands and aggregates, it is also imperative to use an air-vibrator to knock out the air pockets and to make the mix settle.
'An exterminationist could argue that the bricks used in morgue 1 of Krema II are of a type with a high resistance to HCN gas and the formation of Prussian Blue.'
You might like to ask them more about these supposed special bricks, Like what are they made of that makes them so special? or what was the process that took the impurities out of the clay during burning at the kiln? I would like to know more about these supersonic bricks!
The whole episode is a sham, half those buildings are addons and half have been knocked down. Like I mentioned a decent brickie or builder would be able to tell straight away where the additions are and the alterations that have been made, It would wink at you as you walked around.
Don't bother asking an architect because, they don't know nothing, Van Pelt is the perfect example of a supposed Architect, just a waffling bull-shitter, all they can do is draw, and ninety-nine times out of a hundred when the time comes to execute their drawings, there wrong anyway and the builder has to compensate for their mistakes while he is building. Then when the work is finished the Architect will roll-up and say 'There I knew it would work, aren't I clever' Before he trot's off back to mummies so they can go shopping together for a new suite.
Another thing that should be discovered is, How thick is the porous lime plaster on those internal walls and how many coats are there. Considering they are saying that porous permeable lime will stop a gas that is designed to saturate everthing from getting to the brick faces, this is important. The right method of hard plastering using lime is, a scratch coat (max thickness half an inch / 12mm) , a float coat (quarter to a third of an inch thick / 6 to 8mm), then a finish coat ( four sixteenths thick / 3mm). Remembering of course most internal lime plastering was teased with ox or goat hair to 'hold it up' and bind it. Am I right in suggesting, animal hair contains Iron? Anyway I would say those walls have been bodged up with a thin single coat of plaster which is shrunk and split all over the place and would present no problem for the HCN to penetrate. Even if it was plastered with all three coats the gas would get through because of limes very nature. Remember a lot of these mixes also had not only sand mixed in with them (which could contain Iron) but like every lime especially limes of the thirties and early forties, could have all manner of other materials mixed in with them. Is the plaster on the walls even original anyway? How do you know it was not re-plastered by the Poles or the Zions?
Sailor commented:
Concerning the walls of the morgue, I have seen a detail drawing showing two seperate brick walls with bitumen in between. But I can’t find the drawing anymore.
===========================================
I don't know if there was any bitumen (tar) or tar paper set between and courses of brick. It seems like it would have compromised the structure by eliminating the possibility of the courses to adhere to each other. I think they may have coated the exterior side of the walls.
Most likely the reason the crema cellars were built with half the height above ground level is because of the substantial water table being just a few (4 or 5) feet below.
Concerning the walls of the morgue, I have seen a detail drawing showing two seperate brick walls with bitumen in between. But I can’t find the drawing anymore.
===========================================
I don't know if there was any bitumen (tar) or tar paper set between and courses of brick. It seems like it would have compromised the structure by eliminating the possibility of the courses to adhere to each other. I think they may have coated the exterior side of the walls.
Most likely the reason the crema cellars were built with half the height above ground level is because of the substantial water table being just a few (4 or 5) feet below.
TMoran wrote:Most likely the reason the crema cellars were built with half the height above ground level is because of the substantial water table being just a few (4 or 5) feet below.
Also to cut down the forces of buoyancy. When the ground wate table rises the morgue, which is essentially a tub, develops upward forces. This could result in some nasty cracks right where the foundation connects to the rest of the building. The joint there functions like a hinge. And with that high water level and cracks, oh boy, oh boy! Disaster!
fge
Reading what you to have been conversing about (TMoran and Sailor)
a thought has crossed my mind, you might well have already thought this yourselves. But what's now starting to bother me is, if the water table is so high, as you two are both seem to think, (I presume there must be a large River, or lake somewhere near the camp!) Then how the hell does one go about burying people in mass graves?
a thought has crossed my mind, you might well have already thought this yourselves. But what's now starting to bother me is, if the water table is so high, as you two are both seem to think, (I presume there must be a large River, or lake somewhere near the camp!) Then how the hell does one go about burying people in mass graves?
Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
