Is Zyklon B explosive ? New Germar Rudolf Video

[borjastick]

Explosive or non explosive is sort of irrelevant if it was never used because there were no homicidal gas chambers.

This debate thread is technically and sparkily interesting, and reading all the ping pong 'you said he said' stuff is entertaining but it is entirely academic to the reality of what really happened there.

[Breker]

You HAVE completely missed the point. Rudolf is saying that he thinks over 20 times the amount of Zyklon Leuchter thought would have been used (even much more than that, but lets just say 20 times) was necessary and it might therefore have possibly been explosive. What Leuchter thought was explosive WAS NOT explosive. What Leuchter thought was explosive was no more explosive than the thousands of fumigations performed with Zyklon-B. If the Germans had used the delousing tunnels Berg keeps referencing, there would have been no explosion danger (although I think it probably would've taken about 10 minutes and not 3 minutes to kill everyone - I don't think it could ever be done in 3 minutes).

That's it, Breker. I'm giving up. I hope there is no one else out there that has your strange interpretation of these things.

It is you who has actually missed the point. The point being that both Mr. Leuchter and Dr. Faurisson both stated that the alleged use of cyanide was ridiculous due to it's risk of explosion, period.
You wish to argue over various numbers that are meaningless since statistically speaking, regardless of numbers being tossed around, accidents would happen, necessarily so. Known as Murphy's Law.
Please note that I have repeatedly said "on the whole", not ping-ponging various irrelevant percentages. Irelevant because there was no guarantee that those who would have been administering the cyanide were impervious to mistakes, accidents. Mistakes, accidents which I visually demonstrated had occurred, dramatically so.
Accidents and mistake potential which the Germans would have quickly recognized if they wanted to use cyanide to "exterminate" Jews. They would have never considered such a problematic substance., which is what Dr. Faurisson and Mr. Leuchter have said.

It's back, proof of cyanide dangers.


Then again, there's the even higher risk at Auschwitz I, as noted by Mr. Rudolf.

Mr. Berg really needs to stick to what he knows rather than engaging in childish rants against men who were on the whole quite correct.
His childish personal issues with Dr. Faurisson & Mr. Leuchter are making him look like a bitter fool. Which is too bad, Mr. Berg has contributed so much, until now.
Gee wiz Blake, you seem much too much invested in carrying water for Mr. Berg, take it easy, sir. Indeed, we're glad you're finally "giving up". Truly a waste of time for all involved.
B.

[Free Speech]

If a mess hall is equipped with gas, blower-type heaters, these may be used for heating prior to fumigation, but they should be extinguished (including the pilot light) just before applying the fumigant. All pilot lights in boilers, ranges, etc., should be extinguished. Coal fires in cooking ranges should be banked so there will be no live flame during the fumigation.

Source: MILITARY FUMIGATION MANUAL 1. ZYKLON DISCOIDS For Fumigating Barracks, Mess Halls and other Military Structures

Not sure if the link will work: https://play.google.com/books/reader?pr ... pg=GBS.PA1

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

One foolish line of argument from a person who calls himself "FREE SPEECH" is based on a total misread of The Military Fumigation Manual from American Cyanimid. Here is what I wrote about that many years ago in response to Faurisson's absurd nine-word "Challenge:" http://www.nazigassings.com/faurisson.html

In the “Military Fumigation Manual” from the American Cyanimid Co. from 1943 which Faurisson also cited, there is indeed a brief discussion on page 12 as follows:

“If a mess hall is equipped with gas, blower-type heaters, these may be used for heating prior to fumigation, but they should be extinguished (including the pilot light) just before applying the fumigant. All pilot lights in boilers, ranges, etc., should be extinguished. Coal fires in cooking ranges should be banked so there will be no live flame during the fumigation.”

That text may look at first glance as if it is some evidence for a danger of explosion but note that there still is no mention of "explosion" or anything "explosive." In fact, nowhere within the entire manual is there any mention of any danger of explosion. Although the word "boiler" appears, that is probably a typo and the word should probably be "broiler" since the paragraph is about a mess hall. Pilot lights would have consumed some of the cyanide by ordinary combustion (just as they would consume oxygen) and would have reduced the amount of cyanide remaining in the air to kill infestation.

Faurisson chose to ignore some extremely important text which appears just prior to the above and which reads as follows:

“When outdoor conditions cause the indoor temperature to fall below 65 degrees F., it is desirable to heat the building for two or three hours before the Discoids are applied and during the fumigation so the insects will be warmed and therefore more susceptible to the gas.

Furnace rooms should not be sealed but the door should be locked and barred to prevent entry... The furnace (if coal) should be stoked so that heat will be satisfactorily maintained for the short period of exposure required, if possible. If not possible, the furnace tender should wear a gas mask when tending the fire.”

The reader should note that according to the above text, whenever the outdoor temperature is below 65 degrees Fahrenheit, the building should be heated “during the fumigation” to keep the building and insects warm. Also, if the furnace is in a room adjoining the room to be fumigated, ventilator openings above the furnace room door should be sealed but not the door itself; it should simply be closed and locked but not sealed. The furnace may continue to operate to maintain room temperature "provided that the furnace tender wear a gas mask when tending the fire." That key phrase totally refutes one of Faurisson's most often used arguments against the use of crematory furnaces near alleged gas chambers. Obviously, the danger that the furnace tenders might also bring about their own destruction in an explosion is not significant at all.

From other references it is quite obvious that one wanted to shut pilot lights, etc., in order to NOT consume any of the precious cyanide gas which was needed to kill the disinfestation--whatever it was.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at: http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
There were NO “limited gassings!” There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!
http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html
The REAL Mass Murderers were the Anglo-Americans and the Jews themselves!

[Cozz88]

Guys is Zyklon B explosive or not ? Be specific.

[Breker]

Mr. Berg stated:

That text may look at first glance as if it is some evidence for a danger of explosion but note that there still is no mention of "explosion" or anything "explosive." In fact, nowhere within the entire manual is there any mention of any danger of explosion. Although the word "boiler" appears, that is probably a typo and the word should probably be "broiler" since the paragraph is about a mess hall. Pilot lights would have consumed some of the cyanide by ordinary combustion (just as they would consume oxygen) and would have reduced the amount of cyanide remaining in the air to kill infestation.

Which is irrelevant since the alleged "gas chambers" were in fact very close to high heat emitting crematorium. Turning off a pilot light or not, the high heat emitting crematorium would still have been there. The Germans would have obviously & immediately realized what a dangerous arrangement that was and would not have even considered using Zyklon-B (cyanide) in that situation, using massive amounts that would have been required, If they had wanted to gas Jews.

And note that Mr. Rudolf states in the video that risks would have been even greater at the alleged Auschwitz I "gassing" site due to lack of substantial physical barriers.

Cyanide has been proven to be a volatile chemical, especially when factoring large amounts and the accidents which would have eventually occurred in what is ridiculously claimed to have been very, very frequent, almost non-stop operations often involving an alleged two thousand Jews per session.

Dr. Faurisson is right, it would not, could not have happened.

Proof of accidents, proof of cyanide danger, 1947.


I humbly suggest a reading of my previous points in this thread.
B.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

By Breker's logic and Faurisson's logic, the automobile "could not have happened" either.

FPBerg

[Zulu]

Guys is Zyklon B explosive or not ? Be specific.

Do you mean the HCN gas which is embedded in its liquid phasis into adsorbents such as diatomaceous earth in a granulate commercial presentation named Zyklon B?
Hydrogen cyanide or Prussic acid gas (HCN) is actually EXPLOSIVE and, in the industry, when you perform any handling or any industrial processing involving the use of such dangerous gaz, all precautions are required whatever is its concentration. No potential risk must be allowed, that's all.
For instance, in the case of KII and KIII, all electrical components like interrupters should have been appropriated to such dangerous conditions and "incandescent" lamps would have been prohibited. AFAIK, There is no evidence of use of specific electrical appliances in the "homicidal gas chambers" of Birkenau.

LEL (Lower Explosive Limit) of Hydrogen cyanide gas is 5.6% (10% LEL, 5,600 ppm)
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/74908.html

[Breker]

By Breker's logic and Faurisson's logic, the automobile "could not have happened" either.

FPBerg

That faulty comparison holds no water. It is the classic example of comparing apples & oranges. And an admission by Mr. Berg has no answer to my critique of his invalid attack on Dr. Faurisson. Touche'.

Guys is Zyklon B explosive or not ? Be specific.

It is, and in the industry when you perform some handling or some industrial processing involving the use of such dangerous gaz, all precautions are required whatever is its explosive concentration. No potential risk is allowed, that's all.
For instance, in the case of KII and KIII, all electrical components like interrupters should have been appropriated to such dangerous conditions and "incandescent" lamps would have been prohibited. AFAIK, There is no evidence of use of specific electrical appliances in the "homicidal gas chambers" of Birkenau.

Which means the Germans would never have considered such usage had they wanted to 'kill Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, martians, and others' that have now been thrown into the silly narrative.
It's time for Mr. Berg to leave the field of battle. He has lost.
B.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

"In industry" and "in ordinary use," potentially dangerous and even explosive substances are used ALL THE TIME. Isn't gasoline potentially "explosive?" Isn't lighter fluid for igniting cigaretes "explosive?" Isn't natural gas for cooking in millions of ordinary kitchens potentially "explosive" as well.

What kind of make-believe world are you living in, Breker, or Zulu, or Faurisson, or Leuchter, etc.?

FPBerg

[Breker]

"In industry" and "in ordinary use," potentially dangerous and even explosive substances are used ALL THE TIME. Isn't gasoline potentially "explosive?" Isn't lighter fluid for igniting cigaretes "explosive?" Isn't natural gas for cooking in millions of ordinary kitchens potentially "explosive" as well.
What kind of make-believe world are you living in, Breker, or Zulu, or Faurisson, or Leuchter, etc.?
FPBerg

But those substances would obviously not be used near separate, independent sources of high heat such as would have been the case at Auschwitz-Birkenau where massive amounts of volatile cyanide would have been required, as I described previously.
Boom!!

B.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

They are "used near sources of high heat" often enough, if not all the time. So there is some potential for explosions with ALL of those ordinary things that I have mentioned--to which I could add many, many more. That is the world we live in. The gasoline tanks, for example, of nearly all cars are generally located in the rear near to, and above, the exhaust pipes and mufflers which do get extremely hot--and sometimes they do go BOOM! Wake up to reality.

In wartime, people take even greater risks to achieve "great" goals. Life is risky! Get used to it.

FPBerg

[Breker]

They are "used near sources of high heat" often enough, if not all the time. So there is some potential for explosions with ALL of those ordinary things that I have mentioned--to which I could add many, many more. That is the world we live in. The gasoline tanks, for example, of nearly all cars are generally located in the rear near to, and above, the exhaust pipes and mufflers which do get extremely hot--and sometimes they do go BOOM! Wake up to reality.
In wartime, people take even greater risks to achieve "great" goals. Life is risky! Get used to it.
FPBerg

Once again Mr. Berg compares apples & oranges.

A highly regulated, safety precaution enhanced stove in a home is certainly not the same as dumping massive amounts of explosive cyanide near high heat emitting sources such as crematoriums.

Not to mention the poisoning factor when opening the doors of the alleged gas chambers, allowing the poisonous cyanide to threaten all the Jews supposedly waiting outside & allegedly being tricked that they were about to get a shower, some trickery that would have been. Plus the dangers to German staff in the area.
Mr. Berg's offering is bizarre, illogical no mater how it's spun.

In war time the goal and necessity is to avoid dangers to personnel and equipment, the highest priority. Generally referred to as 'force protection', no.1, top of the list. The Germans would never have used such a dangerous Rube Goldberg solution if they wanted to kill Jews.

Dr. Faurisson is right, this would have happened sooner or later.


I sense a certain degree of desperation from the esteemed Mr. Berg, witnessed by his ungentlemanly language.
B.

[blake121666]

Guys is Zyklon B explosive or not ? Be specific.

HCN evaporates off of a carrier material with Zyklon when exposed to air. HCN is explosive in concentrations of about 5.6% to 41% in air. This would correspond to about 67 g/m^3 (LEL) to about 500 g/m^3 (UEL). When fumigating with Zyklon, the rate at which the HCN evaporates and the speed with which it dissipates makes any explosive build-up very unlikely. The amount of Zyklon used in a typical fumigation would achieve about 8-10 g/m^3 after full outgassing. Or about 7-8 times below LEL (67 g/m^3). So if one were to use 7-8 times the amount of Zyklon used in a typical fumigation and let it fully outgas, there would be an explosion risk.

Leuchter thought that the LEL of HCN was 0.32% or about 4 g/m^3 - which is about 1/2 the concentration typically achieved in a fumigation. So Leuchter believed fumigations to be very very dangerously explosive because he thought the LEL of HCN to be about 20 times less than it actually is. Leuchter was completely and utterly wrong about that.

The alleged HGCs were just room fumigations with people in the room. Rudolf models the alleged HGC scenario as having the Zyklon outgassing for about 5-15 minutes before ventilation and figures the amount outgassed in that period to be about 10% of whatever was laid down. And that 10% of whatever was initially laid down was ostensibly enough to ensure death of all in the room in that period of time (5-15 minutes). If one had laid down the amount to fumigate the room and it outgassed for this amount of time, it would have been 70-80 times below LEL. Rudolf thinks that over 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount of Zyklon would have had to been laid for the alleged HGC scenario and that that ridiculously large amount might have risked explosion.

Leuchter never claimed that 70-80 times the typical fumigation amount had to have been used. He thought the LEL of HCN was 20 times less than what it is.

That is Rudolf's video in a nutshell.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

Breker wrote: "In war time the goal and necessity is to avoid dangers to personnel and equipment, the highest priority. " I don't think so. Which war movies has Breker been watching?

It seems to me that "the highest priority" in wartime is to inflict more pain on the enemy than any pain you might suffer. Why else, for example, would any sane leader send men charging through enemy machine gun fire? Or, enemy artillery fire? Or, out to sea in waters infested by enemy submarines? Or, into disease infested jungles? Or, on and on?

If you wnat no pain or risk at all--don't go to war. The fact is, however, that almost everyone loves going to war. It is so much fun!. Hardly anyone let's the possible pain stop them. Heroes take risks.

FPBerg