The homicdal gas chamber at Auschwitz are not gas chambers

Pro is confusing the concentration of cyanide detected in samples of walls with the concentrations of cyanide in air needed to produce fatalities. There is no straightforward way to derive the level of residue in the wall from the concentration in the air, although there are some rough relationships. Let's start with the blue stains. A blue stain results from iron in the wall reacting with cyanide gas. If there is no iron in the wall, there will be no blue stain on the wall, ever; no matter how great the concentration of cyanide gas in the air. That's a simple consequence of the stain being a compound of iron, whereas the air and the cyanide gas has no iron. From the Wikipedia article, " The main invention in Zyklon B consisted of the absorption of liquid hydrocyanic acid into a highly porous adsorbent. Initially, heated diatomite (diatomaceous earth) was used as an adsorbent. Later, high-porosity gypsum pellets called Erco-dice (described by eye witnesses as "crystals") as well as disks made from wood fibre were also used. The adsorbed hydrocyanic acid was very safe in handling and storage when placed in inexpensive airtight cans of various sizes." The photos in the article show that the pellets are not blue, despite the extreme concentration. Note that while some of the walls of delousing chambers were stained blue, not all of walls of the delousing chambers were stained. It turns out that brick is not easily penetrated by cyanide ions, and the iron oxide in brick is not very reactive. How much exposure to HCN does it take to form a visible, or otherwise detectable, blue stain on brick? I know of no data, but we do know that the one gas chamber at Auschwitz that was preserved and reconstructed received less than 1/1500 the exposure of a delousing chamber, and that small amounts of cyanide were detected in the gas chamber. None was detected by Leutner, because his samples included thick chunks of brick. If there is no iron in the wall to capture the cyanide gas, how much cyanide should be expected to be retained in the wall? Pro has not explained any mechanism for cyanide being retained other than as a stain. Perhaps so trace impurities would retain a tiny amount, but its speculative. Pro says all the gas chambers were made of brick, and provides one picture of some gas chamber. However, all the large gas chambers at Auschwitz were destroyed by the Germans at the end of the war. Bunker 1 was in a red building, but "Inside the gas chambers the walls were painted white," The IFR team originally found cyanide in only one of the ruins, which Rudolf proclaims t have confirmed Leutner's results. However, the IFR thereafter returned for a closer inspection. "We tried to take samples -- if at all possible -- from the places best sheltered and least exposed to rainfall, including also as far as possible -- fragments of the upper parts of the chambers (hydrogen cyanide is lighter than air) and also of the concrete floors, with which the gas from the spilled Zyklon B came into contract at rather high concentrations. Samples, about 1-2 g in weight, were taken by chipping pieces from bricks and concrete or scrapping off, particularly in the case of plaster and also mortar. " Note the references to materials other than bricks found in the construction. The IFR samples "unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with them. On the other hand, they do not occur in dwelling accommodations, which was shown by means of control samples. The concentrations of cyanide compounds in the samples collected from one and the same room or building show great differences. This indicates that the conditions that favour the formation of stable compounds as a result of the reaction of hydrogen cyanide with the components of the walls, occur locally. In this connection it takes quite a large number of samples from a given facility to give us a chance to come upon this sort of local accumulation of cyanide compounds." http://www.holocaust-history.org... Rudolf's alleged debunking was debunked by finding samples in the ruins that were better protected, using a large number of samples, and using more sensitive tests. The IFR did not respond directly to Rudolf, but many other experts did. .http://www.holocaust-history.org... Critics force Rudolf to retreat from his previous claims of certainty. "[Critic] Green's second prerequisite is that I have to "demonstrate rigorously" "that the kinetics involved with the formation of such pigments dictate that significant quantities should be formed in all of the homicidal gas chambers". I stated before that this is nearly impossible. Consequently we must conclude that chemistry is not a science with the power to prove or refute human gassings in Auschwitz "rigorously" [ibid] Pro claims that Rudolf must be correct because the IFR didn't respond to him. One good reason for not responding directly to him is that it would be pointless. They ran additional tests, and many qualified chemists responded directly to him, forcing him to back down from his claims of certainty. 1. Large numbers of people were gassed in large rooms holding up to 2500. The residue depends on the gas concentration in contact with the wall, not the size of the room. 2. Usually the gas was dispensed through holes in the ceiling or walls. The mesh container no doubt slowed the process for that chamber. One of the chambers also did not have exhaust fans, requiring even more time. The Nazis improved their methods over time. 3. Zyklon-B was used because it was easier to store and transport, and it was readily available since the primary use (90%) was for delousing. http://www.nizkor.org... Carbon monoxide was inconvenient, being made with a diesel engine. Modern execution gas chambers used cyanide, not carbon monoxide for similar reasons of convenience. I do not understand the point about Treblinka. The ashes and bone fragments from Auschwitz have been identified. http://en.auschwitz.org.pl... 4. the concentrations actually used for delousing and human extermination were known from observation. The Nazis did not care if all the humans were actually dead, so long as they were inanimate. Pro claims that traces of cyanide were found in the gas chamber as a result of routine fumigation. If so, why were no traces found in the living quarters, which were routinely fumigated? Pro claims that Rudolf and Leutner have a right of free speech. Sure they do, but that's irrelevant to our debate. Rudolf had a web site with all his results, and everything is available in the U.S. for discussion. Everything is available for this debate. Pro says that some plaques show changed numbers of claimed victims. The numbers are subject to historical research. One important event, for example, was the opening up of the Russian archives c. 1992. The numbers are irrelevant to our debate. There are many sources confirming the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. They include multiple independent statements from Germans and Poles, as well as victims. There are confessions of Nazi officers, including Hoess. Documents contain discussions of gas chamber details. Pro has refuted noneof the testimony and document evidence. Rudolf tried to get rid of all the Russian archive material solely because it was on micofilm. Can all the evidence be explained away? We shall see.