Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Post by Scott »

I may be repeating myself (see the Fritz Berg Meltdown thread ) but I do feel strongly about it.

In short, Revisionists who use technical arguments ignorantly had better get their act together--and especially to say that they are unquestionable, as Mr. Leuchter recently did, is absolutely inexcusable. (And yes, I am the one trying to be nice about this.)

:)

“So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and a part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.
That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself, obviously.
But I also have my med-kit.”

~ "Siege" Kyle Rittenhouse
(Kenosha, WI - 25 AUGUST 2020)

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith (slsm1701@yahoo.com). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9788
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Post by been-there »

neugierig wrote:I have no intention of going into a pissing-match with you Fritz, you have done good work and I respect that. Still, dumping on fellow Revisionists is wrong, you are playing into the hands of the Dogmatists, of those who will accept any nonsense related to “The Holocaust” uncritically, the True Believers. Also, if people like Prof. Faurisson are that wrong, why are they still being persecuted?

Having said all that, Revisionism is not making any headways, regardless of how many new scenarios are being introduced. There are those who claim that the fight is almost won, they should get out more. Whenever I talk to ordinary people, Germans and others, I run up against this wall, all the technical stuff passes right by them. This is why I suggested to used the K.I.S.S. system, ask what investigations have been undertaken, when and by whom. What was determined, where are the graves, etc., etc.? In other words, Revisionism for the little guy, the masses of the unwashed, my people. And unless we gain their support, things will stay the same, ‘scientists’ will never join us, they have a career to think of.

Regards
Wilf
Yes. I concur. Well written!
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg »

Wilf suggested "whatever there is should be discussed in private." OK, Wilf--are you going to reach out (in private?) to Faurisson and Leuchter to try to bring them down to reality? Do you even understand the issues--or why they are important? Do you have the slightest idea as to what you are talking about?

FPBerg

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30189
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Post by Nessie »

Scott wrote:I may be repeating myself (see the Fritz Berg Meltdown thread ) but I do feel strongly about it.

In short, Revisionists who use technical arguments ignorantly had better get their act together--and especially to say that they are unquestionable, as Mr. Leuchter recently did, is absolutely inexcusable. (And yes, I am the one trying to be nice about this.)

:)
Agreed. Check technical arguments and lay off the arrogant abusive attitude.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg »

Please reread the OP of this thread. It now contains some significant NEW material.

Contrary to what some want to believe, the railroad disinfestation gas chambers are NOT merely "slightly better" than the alleged Leichenkeller gas chambers. They would have definitely worked "e-a-s-i-l-y." For one thing, the RDGC's would have had a powerful fan operating the whole time to disperse the cyanide through everything and later to vent everything with fresh air. Even Germar Rudolf now admits, finally, that the RDGC's would have worked e-a-s-i-l-y--but he still balks at the idea that the workers pulling out the corpses could have been eating "cake and bread" as they removed the bodies. So, maybe someone got the cake and bread story wrong--big deal.

When one understands how the Germans and others were building really big gas chambers for cyanide, it is clear that a major absurdity in the holocaust tale is the claim that the fans were o-n-l-y turned on after all the victims were dead. That makes no sense at all--and is a major flaw in the holocaust tale. At least one fan would have been needed to disperse the cyanide throughout the gas chamber so that everyone would have been killed within a few minutes--not just those who were nearest to the Zyklon-B.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything athttp://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
There were NO "limited gassings!" There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

Please visit and support generously:http://www.Gaschamberhoax.com

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg »

Some people may have noticed that another entire thread of mine has been deleted at CODOH by the Mad Moderator there. What follows is a portion that someone saved when he suspected the CODOH moderator was up to more treachery. I post it here on RODOH so that it may be saved somewhere.

NON-explosive Range of Cyanide Gas Concentrations
by Friedrich Paul Berg » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:12 pm
The subject of possible cyanide gas explosions has come up again. This time it popped into the thread on this discussion forum entitled "Railroad Delousing Tunnels and Robert Faurisson." Faurisson and Fred Leuchter have falsely insisted that the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau could not possibly have been used because of the dangers of explosion. In one post on that other thread, I suggested that cyanide in air could only be explosive at concentrations greater than 5.6%. The basis of my statement was the "Limits of Inflammability" as given in Handbook of Chemistry and Physics Fortieth Edition, 1958, Chemical Rubber Publishing Co., page 1913. There, it is clearly stated that the lower limit of inflammability for hydrocyanic acid is 5.60% and the upper limit is 40%. For carbon monoxide the lower limit of inflammability is 12.50% and the upper limit is 74.20.

What these numbers mean is simply that if the concentration of the gas (see page 1912 of the reference) is less than the lower limit, a flame will NOT "propagate in a tube or bomb 2 inches or more in daimeter. Values are on a percentage-by-volume basis." Similarly, if the gas concentrations are above the upper limit, a flame will NOT propagate either. I was actually present with Robert Faurisson when he saw these numbers, perhaps for the first time. His reaction was to immediately misinterpret the numbers and conclude that the numbers said the exact opposite of what they mean. For Faurisson the dangers of explosion were at HCN concentrations from zero to 5.6%. For him the issue was settled and nothing I said to correct him meant anything at all on this subject. That applies to this day.

The German literature makes the dangers of cyanide explosions even less likely than I had imagined. One of the classic pieces of literature about cyanide for fumigation was an official German wartime publication which may even be on the internet somewhere, perhaps Nizkor even has it. The following text is from that work entitled Blausaeuregaskammern zur Fleckfieberabwehr (Sonderveroeffentlichung des Reichsarbeitsblattes) by Puntigam, Breymesser and Bernfus, Berlin 1943. The following text appears on page 19:
Gasfoermige Blausaeure ist nicht brennbar und in den gebraeuchlichen Konzentrationen, wie 0,3--3 Vol.%--d.i. etwa 3--30g pro Kubikmeter Luft, auch nicht explosiv. Erst bei 12.75 Vol %, das waeren etwa 140 g/Kubikmeter einer Konzentration, die in der Praxis bei Entwesungen nicht verwendet wird, besteht Explosionsgefahr.

Gaseous cyanide is not combustible. In the usable concentrations, for example 0.3--3% by volume which equals 3--30 grams per cubic meter in air, it is not explosive either. Only when the concentration exceeds 12.75% by volume, which is not used in disinfection or delousing [Entwesungen], is there a danger of explosion.
Is any of this likely to ever sink in to Faurisson or any of his sycophants--Mark Weber and Arthur Butz and Ernst Zuendel included? I doubt it.

The simple fact is that the danger-of-explosion argument has absolutely no merit. One certainly can commit mass murder with cyanide concentrations that are well within the perfectly safe, non-explosive range of cyanide concentations. Prosecutors have discredited revisionist defendants with the appropriate counter arguments many times over--but, it makes no difference whatsoever to the true believers. What is even worse for me is that when revisionists like myself try to correct the nonsense, they are immediately seen with great suspicion (even my last name becomes an object of concern) and, if possible, simply silenced.

One false counter argument that has been used is a picture from Life magazine from 1947(?) which shows a small house in California that had exploded during a cyanide fumigation. The concentration of HCN that had been involved here is NOT given--but, from the clumsiness of the gassing arrangement with a pressurized steel tank supplying the gas directly to the house, it is more than likely that the person responsible for the fumigation had stepped away for a coffee break as the HCN continued to fill a house with a burning pilot light somewhere in the structure. The concentrations of HCN could have easily been 15% or much more without someone present to shutoff the gas flow. End result: BOOM. That kind of result would have been most unlikely with Zyklon-B and German technicians.

For Faurisson, the fact that there could have been even the slightest danger of explosion was, and I am sure it still is, abolute proof that it would never have been used for mass murder. What nonsenical reasoning! Nearly all of us drive automobiles with an explosive substance also. Does any of this make the slightest difference to Faurisson? Of course, not. Does it make any difference to Faurisson's sycophants and toadies? Not really. It merely confirms their paranoid world views and how even the revisionist community is being infiltrated by troublemakers, such as myself. They refuse to see that false arguments get us nowhere and, in fact, discredit everything of value that at least some of us are doing. For them, Faurisson is fighting the Jews and, therefore, he is a hero who must be protected no matter how dumb his arguments are. Faurisson's technical arguments are a disaster.
y Kiwichap » Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:45 pm
Berg: The simple fact is that the danger-of-explosion argument has absolutely no merit.

Berg parrots the Jews. When the Jews realised their mistake about the explosive nature of HCN, they then suggested only a couple/three cyanide pellets were thrown in, keeping the concentrations below the explosive level. Rudolf showed this was nonsense if the gassing were to proceed at the level their wild lying fables suggested. But Berg makes the Jews argument for them perfectly.

What is more important is the fact; nobody would build anything containing an explosive gas, at any concentration level, adjacent to, and with a doorway, leading to a crematory with an open fire. Ya just gotta laugh. Aparently the Germans did it twice, A1 & A2. The folk that started this fable must think Germans and others are as stupid as they are.
by Sailor » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:01 pm
U.S execution type gas chambers use a HCN gas density of 3000 pm and are equipped with explosion proof electrical fixtures.

Explosion proof means that in case of an explosion inside the fixture this would not spread to the outside.

fge
by ps » Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:08 am
Thats all right. The limit is 5.6%. But in the near of the Zyklon it is possible, that this Limit would reached. You have a gradient of HCN-concentration from Zyklon to far away. If the air is resting (and hot spot or spark), it can be dangerous. If the air is ventilated in the room, no danger.
Postby Hektor » Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:12 am
Kiwichap wrote: ....What is more important is the fact; nobody would build anything containing an explosive gas, at any concentration level, adjacent to, and with a doorway, leading to a crematory with an open fire. Ya just gotta laugh. Aparently the Germans did it twice, A1 & A2. The folk that started this fable must think Germans and others are as stupid as they are.
I consider the explosive HCN weaker then others, since it doesn't exclude possibility. But nevertheless I agree that the nit picking Germans would most probably avoided the usage of a potentially explosive gas in a crematoria.
by Friedrich Paul Berg » Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:37 pm
The posters above should provide some references and evidence for their wild theories. They should also read my answer to Faurisson's foolish nine word challenge at: http://www.nazigassings.com/faurisson.html


The Danger of Explosion with Cyanide

Another false argument Faurisson has repeatedly used is that cyanide gas is explosive and, therefore, could never have been used near crematory ovens. Fred Leuchter was apparently persuaded to fall in line and used the same argument. The fact is that cyanide in air is only explosive in concentrations higher than 5.6%in other words, the concentration of HCN in air must be at least 56 times greater than the 0.1% one is likely to use in a homicidal gas chamber before it can even begin to become explosive! If the cyanide level exceeds 6% in only a small areajust above an opened can of Zyklon B, for examplethe worst that one can get is a flame, but no explosion! For an explosion, an enclosed volume filled with a cyanide concentration far above anything one is likely to use during a fumigation or execution is needed.

Faurisson responded to these facts with some very poor counter arguments. It would be nice if one could totally remove all potentially explosive substances from the world but that is still impractical. We drive automobiles with an explosive substance all the time and yet, generally, automobiles are also equipped with ashtrays and cigarette lighters. In his response, Faurisson cited one source from the American Cyanimid Co. which mentions “heat, sparks, open flame” within a precautionary context but apparently the words “explosion” or “explosive” appear nowhere.

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.”


Friedrich Paul Berg

Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg »

With this post I want to bring extra attention to something which appears above:
The following text is from that work entitled Blausaeuregaskammern zur Fleckfieberabwehr (Sonderveroeffentlichung des Reichsarbeitsblattes) by Puntigam, Breymesser and Bernfus, Berlin 1943. The following text appears on page 19:
Gasfoermige Blausaeure ist nicht brennbar und in den gebraeuchlichen Konzentrationen, wie 0,3--3 Vol.%--d.i. etwa 3--30g pro Kubikmeter Luft, auch nicht explosiv. Erst bei 12.75 Vol %, das waeren etwa 140 g/Kubikmeter einer Konzentration, die in der Praxis bei Entwesungen nicht verwendet wird, besteht Explosionsgefahr.

Gaseous cyanide is not combustible. In the usable concentrations, for example 0.3--3% by volume which equals 3--30 grams per cubic meter in air, it is not explosive either. Only when the concentration exceeds 12.75% by volume, which is not used in disinfection or delousing [Entwesungen], is there a danger of explosion.
Is any of this likely to ever sink in to Faurisson or any of his sycophants--Mark Weber and Arthur Butz and Ernst Zuendel included? I doubt it.
Note that the number 12.75 by volume is more than double the 5.6% that is usually given as the lower flammability limit for HCN. Blausaeuregaskammern zur Fleckfieberabwehr is the major official reference work on this subject written and published in 1943, 120 pages in length, by the greatest experts in the world on the practical uses of cyanide gas. There is nothing even remotely comparable in the English language to this classic work or to many other German works on this subject, many of which are listed in the extensive bibliography. That almost certainly applies to all other languages as well. Could Leuchter have even read this reference without knowing German? Of course, not!

Is any of this likely to ever sink in to Breker or [name] or anyone else in that clique of bigots on CODOH or among the Faurissonites? I doubt it.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything athttp://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
There were NO "limited gassings!" There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

Please visit and support generously:http://www.Gaschamberhoax.com
Last edited by Depth Check on Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: name

Werd
Posts: 10460
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Post by Werd »

So a German source says 12.5% An English source says 5.6%. Germar Rudolf said on page 92 of THE LEUCHTER REPORTS "with correct applicaton quantities and concentrations, the technical literature indicates that there is practically no danger of explosion." Did Faurisson and Leuchter completely miss that part? If Leuchter was/is truly without peer, then why did he need trained chemist Germar Rudolf to expand on his work and correct a few of his minor errors? Why does Germar as well as German and American textbooks diverge from Faurisson and Leuchter who act like cyanide is extremely dangerous and vulnerable to being a catalyst for an explosion at nearly any point? This makes no sense now that the numbers are in!

Edit:
Well it could have sunk in to the rest of the heads at codoh Fritz if they didn't delete your topic that apparently dates back to 2007. Funny how textbooks in German and English apparently aren't good enough for them. Germar Rudolf is an alright German chemist to quote, but not those other German chemists apparently. :lol:

User avatar
Cerdic
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:39 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Post by Cerdic »

Werd, off topic, but welcome to RODOH.

I have some respect for CODOHians who leave that controlled environment and join a forum where genuine open debate is possible.
„(...) Wenn wir irgendetwas beim Nationalsozialismus anerkennen, dann ist es die Anerkennung, daß ihm zum ersten Mal in der deutschen Politik die restlose Mobilisierung der menschlichen Dummheit gelungen ist.“ Kurt Schumacher 23. Februar 1932

Werd
Posts: 10460
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Flammability Limits and the Dangers of Explosion

Post by Werd »

Page 13 of The Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt.

Jurgen Graf writes:

However, one of the authors of Neue Studien, Achim Trunk, deviates
from this strategy of silence by discussing, and attempting to refute,
several revisionist arguments in his article “Die todbringenden Gase”
(The lethal gasses),10 thus conferring upon the “pseudo-scientific deniers”
an undeserved “aura of respectability,” as Morsch and Perz would put it.
Unfortunately for Trunk, his “refutation” fails miserably, because
in his recent response to the collective volume, Schiffbruch (Shipwreck),
Carlo Mattogno demolishes Trunk’s objections with the greatest
ease.11 The only revisionist argument Trunk is able to refute is Fred
Leuchter’s assertion that the explosiveness of hydrogen cyanide would
have prevented the SS from installing gas chambers in the same building
as crematoria ovens. This argument is indeed unsound, since the
danger of an explosion would only have existed if exorbitant quantities
of HCN had been used. But since Carlo Mattogno had pointed out this
fact fully fifteen years before the publication of the collective volume,12
and because Leuchter’s error was corrected in a revised edition of his
report authored together with Germar Rudolf and Robert Faurisson,13
Trunk merely forces an open door.

10 G. Morsch, B. Perz (eds.), op. cit., pp. 23-49.
11 Carlo Mattogno, Schiffbruch. Vom Untergang der Holocaust-Orthodoxie, Castle Hill Publishers,
Uckfield 2011, pp. 28-45. An English translation is forthcoming from The Barnes Review
under the title Confronting Revisionism, 2013.
12 Carlo Mattogno, Olocausto: Dilettanti allo sbaraglio, Padua 1996, pp. 212-215.
13 Fred Leuchter, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports. Critical Edition, Theses
& Dissertations Press, Chicago 2005; 3rd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 29 guests