The homicdal gas chamber at Auschwitz are not gas chambers

Analysis of Blue Stains The blue stain from hydrogen cyanide is called Prussian blue, Fe7(CN)18⋅14H2O. [1] Hydrogen cyanide (with the historical common name of Prussic acid) is achemical compound with chemical formula HCN. [2] Zykon B was made by absorbing pure hydrogen cyanide in wood chips, so when the chip were exposed to air the gas would diffuse out the chips into the air. To get a blue stain, there must be iron or a reactive iron compound in the environment to react with the gas. The photos of the delousing chambers show blue stains on brick. Brick is red because it contains iron oxide. There are also some paints that contain iron compounds. Plaster, cement, and stucco, however, are compounds of lime (CaO) and sand (SiO2), [3] sometimes with other calcium compounds. Its possible that there might be some trace impurities of iron, but that is to my knowledge never claimed. So why would anyone expect to find any staining on plaster or cement regardless of the concentrations of HCN present? Tiny traces of cyanide were found in some plaster samples, but not in others. From this we can conclude that some samples of plaster had some iron impurities, but not having any cyanide is not disproof of cyanide ever being present. The norm would be to expect to find nothing. Concentration of HCN Pro argues that 300 PPM is sufficient to kill one human, but not many humans. That argument is obviously wrong, because the concentration is a fraction of the air that is cyanide gas. The physical quantity of cyanide needed to reach 300 PPM depends upon the quantity of air, but the concentration is not affected. For example, a room 5 m x 10 m x 3 m (150 cu m) contains roughly 150 kg of air, and would require (150,000 grams x 300)/ 1,000,000 = 45 grams (1.6 oz) of hydrogen cyanide to achieve a lethal concentration. Staining of surface only depends upon the concentration at the surface and the time of exposure, not on the size of the room. For example, if salt water corrodes a boat hull, another surface effect, the rate of corrosion only depends upon the concentration of salt and the length of time in the salt water, not the size of he ocean. In the case of cyanide, greater time provides greater diffusion into a rough surface. Pro's source claims diffusion to a depth of one-tenth the diameter of a human hair. Staining would require a significant amount of iron within that depth. Delousing is used to kill lice and lice eggs deep within fur and padded clothing. The long exposure time at high concentrations allows the gas to diffuse into the porous material being deloused. It is 22 times the concentration, according to Pro, for 72 times as long, per extermination cycle. The walls therefore have 1584 times the staining exposure. Lethal Dose Pro notes execution chambers used in the U.S. employed ten times the lethal concentration, and goes on to claim that the high dose is required for quick lethality. Cyanide kills by binding hemoglobin so the hemoglobin will not carry oxygen. There is a finite amount of hemoglobin, so it will take only that amount of cyanide and any excess will have no effect. A person instantly totally deprived of oxygen takes about eight minutes to die. Pro offers no evidence that the death rate is significantly affected by the cyanide concentration. We would expect there to be no significant effect. A person does not drown any faster in deep water than in shallow. Nazis would seek to conserve the Zyklon B material and to minimize the time needed to clear the gas from the chamber. Pro asks why there was blue staining on the walls of a chamber at a different site. I suspect that's because the pain there had iron in it. Notice that the floor has no blue stain. Why is that? I would explain that as a consequence of there being no iron in the floor cement, and perhaps also some additional affect of cleaning akin to weathering. Prussian blue does not dissolve in water, but it enters into a colloidal suspension that can be washed away. [1] Chimney Pro asks why a chimney was constructed at Auschwitz when it was not part of the original gas chamber that was preserved. The answer is that the Auschwitz site is primarily a memorial site, not a historical reconstruction. The purpose is to evoke the emotions, and the chimney s an unrelated symbol of Auschwitz. [7] It is not claimed to be part of the Block 11 reconstruction. Pro errs in assuming that if a reconstruction is imperfect that it has no validity at all. Rudolf Claims Pro claims that Germar Rudolf "debunked" the Institute for Forensic Research report. Rudolf says that not finding stains in every claimed gas chamber site is convincing proof there was no cyanide. However, the IFR did find cyanide traces in some gas chamber sites, including the Block 11 site Pro held as certainly not a gas chamber, and no traces of cyanide in any of the living quarters. Rudolf makes no mention of the absolute requirement for iron to cause staining, and no mention of the effects of weathering in washing away minute quantities that might have been there. In other words, Rudolf convinces himself that lack of evidence is convincing evidence. Pressac is dismissed entirely by Pro with the discovery of two mistakes in a book of five hundred pages having many hundreds of references. The first mistake was at one point implying that HCN was heavier than air rather than lighter than air. The source that Rudolf claims to be valid, Leutner, makes the same mistake. Also, Pressac is claimed to have misidentified a photograph. That's it. The bulk of Pressac comprises references to documents. He found the plans for gas-tight doors fitted to "shower rooms" that has no plumbing connected to the showers. He found S correspondence referring to "gassing chambers." He found construction time sheets, documents, and plans referencing gas chamber construction. There is a telegram to a construction firm asking for ten gas detectors to check the efficiency of the ventilation system in a the gas chambers. There is long list. [4]. Rudolf disposes of the document evidence by claiming, without an proof, that they are all forgeries. He cites a couple examples of conflicting signature styles by the same person on different documents, but none forensically examined, Nearly all documents are discounted because they were referenced on microfilm. Pressac had searched Russian archives that were microfilmed. Also discounted is the redundant testimony from German officers and soldiers, and concentration camp survivors. He claims a vast conspiracy that included Cold War enemies of the Soviets cooperating with the Soviets. Eye Witness Accounts Among the many accounts, a German doctor, Johann Kremer, wrote in his diary of witnessing a mass gassing at Auschwitz, "After driving all of them into the gas chamber, the door was closed and an SS man in gas-mask threw contents of Cyclon tin through an opening in the side wall. The shouting and screaming of the victims could be heard through the opening ... The shouts were hear for a very short while. I would say some minutes..." [5] Other first person non-Jewish accounts of gas chamber use, two by Germans and two by Poles, are cited in [6]. -------------------- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. page references to Pressac are given in "Denying the Holocaust" by Deborah Libstadt, p. 226-8. 5. Martin Gilbert, "The Holocaust" p. 438 6 Ibid, p 439 7. http://books.google.com...