Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

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
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:39 am

Regarding the dangers of explosion, Germar Rudolf has been less than honest in order to avoid upsetting Robert Faurisson--or that francophile money bagman, Willis Carto, now dead--good riddance. Shame on Germar Rudolf! His face has become so twisted that his teeth are falling out. He has made a total jackass of himself.

FPBerg

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2679
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

Post by blake121666 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:48 am

The explosion argument blunder that Leuchter and Faurisson made was that Zyklon is not explosive in most practical usages of it - meaning starting with a reasonable dose. HCN is very explosive though. Everyone thinks that because it is true.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2085
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

Post by Scott » Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:15 am

Blake, a gas stove in anybody's kitchen has explosive gas in it too, but that is rarely an explosive risk. Perhaps we need to put Fred Leuchter onto the problem or go with electric appliances only.

:mrgreen:

Come to think of it, maybe get the National Electrical Code changed to use only Thomas Edison's "safe" Direct Current. To demonstrate this, there is a famous film clip of the great inventor "Westinghousing" a live elephant (not for the squeamish).

:shock:

Edison overstated the case to the point of absurdity and so did Leuchter and Faurisson, et al.

Simplistic "slam dunk" arguments will not help break Holocaust orthodoxy and we have to be VERY careful about this. Revisionists must not suffer from our own orthodoxy.

:)




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.




Please show fellow posters some due respect. None of us are going to benefit if Admins or Moderators have to crack the whip. Let's try to keep this a free and open forum. We are given lots of latitude to express ourselves here.




Image

“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
~ Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
historian – England

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2679
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

Post by blake121666 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 3:11 pm

Fritz' claiming of 1.5% as a concentration that would kill persons is problematic in a number of ways. But on its face he is criticizing Leuchter for doing the same sort of thing that he does in his critique.

The uninformed Holocaustian way of looking at the killing concentration is that 300 ppm (0.03%) is fatal and therefore well below the 6% LEL. But Germar thinks the scenario would not play out in such a way. Germar might not even think the alleged procedure is practically possible at all.

For Berg's information, 1.5% concentration would be almost as difficult to achieve in the alleged scenario with Zyklon as 6%. The argument is not and would never be 1.5% vs 6%. Neither sensibly corresponds to any allegations and would require unreasonable amounts of Zyklon.

The pot method is an entirely different thing. That is the problem: Leuchter was treating the 2 as the same with respect to explosive risk. Berg is treating the 2 the same as well - just saying that explosive concentrations wouldn't be reached - which is just as absurd. The pot method has one high concentration cloud that dissipates. The Zyklon case has it being difficult to concentrate to begin with.

The apples and oranges comparison of the 2 methods IS the problem. Both Leuchter and Berg are equally wrong in their loopy reasonings.

The WAY in which Berg thinks he is defeating Leuchter would lead one to ACCEPT the Holocaustian narrative more so than seeing the matter for what it is. The 1.5% claim is just as much crap as the 6% claim - in the way Berg is putting it across.

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:59 pm

What re you talking about, Blake? Your post above is a total muddle. Slow down and reread your own crap--and then rewrite it, but carefully.

FPB

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2679
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

Post by blake121666 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 7:30 pm

Yes, that last post wasn't the clearest thing I've ever written, was it?

Both Leuchter and you are comparing apples and oranges with the comparison of the pot method with Zyklon. The pot method undeniably has an explosion risk since in that case one has a highly concentrated mass of HCN which dissipates. The HCN gas that has dissipated to between UEL and LEL clearly has an explosion risk. Saying otherwise is just silly. Zyklon, on the other hand, has the HCN evaporating off the substrate at a slower rate than it disperses through the air and therefore does not build up to LEL concentration in practical usages of it (the alleged homicidal gassings being one of those practical uses). Apples and oranges w.r.t. the explosiveness issue.

You implying that a 1.5% concentration of HCN would be necessary to kill people is a very complicated matter that no one could say with any authority. The question arises in the listener's mind, "Where did this 1.5% come from?" Most people who naively look into the matter are told that 300 ppm (0.03%) is fatal and probably just write you off as a crank for these 2 possible reasons:

1. He thinks 300 ppm is all that is needed for the alleged gassings - and you are claiming 15,000 ppm.
2. He looks into the matter a little further and sees no basis for your arbitrary 1.5% statement. He might even find that the 1-minute LC50 of HCN is claimed to be 2000 ppm nowadays (0.2%) and see no sensible basis for this arbitrary 1.5%.

In both instances, you are simply a crank who has said bogus information to anyone's understanding of the matter. In the first instance he thinks you are a downright liar - granted, it is because he is confused about things; but still. In the second he sees you as a BSer pretending to know what it would take in some exact way - when obviously you do not and could not.

In the first instance, you've created a more firm believer in the Holocaust dogma. His ignorant understanding of the matter is reinforced. He is looking at the matter like you seem to be doing - just thinking it is 0.03% not 1.5% concentration. Which we all know is bogus; but he doesn't.

EDIT: That 1.5% you glibly throw around has a HELL of alot of assumptions wrapped within it. You can't just throw that around as you do. The 1-minute LC50 of HCN is 2000 ppm. That one needs to figure in dispersion rate, time of dispersion, size of room, ... etc. is quite hidden in your strange usage of that 1.5%. You don't come off looking good. In fact, you come off looking like an ignorant quack.

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:14 pm

I don't need "to figure in dispersion rate, time of dispersion, size of room, ... etc" at all. If the intended victims are exposed to 1.5% HCN in air, they will be dead in a few minutes. How can any sane person deny that? Obvioiusly, you are NOT sane.

Learn to walk before you try to run!

FPBerg

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2679
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

Post by blake121666 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:03 pm

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:14 pm
I don't need "to figure in dispersion rate, time of dispersion, size of room, ... etc" at all. If the intended victims are exposed to 1.5% HCN in air, they will be dead in a few minutes. How can any sane person deny that? Obvioiusly, you are NOT sane.

Learn to walk before you try to run!

FPBerg
http://www.cyanidecode.org/cyanide-fact ... th-effects
Inhalation of 2,000 parts per million hydrogen cyanide causes death within one minute
At least 50% of persons will be dead in under a minute if exposed to an atmosphere of 2000 ppm HCN (0.2%). So where is your 1.5% coming from? Why say 1.5%? Obviously YOU need to do weird figuring to come up with 1.5%. I said that to justify YOUR weird claim. To have YOU save face. Your 1.5% claim is from the moon.

U.S. gas execution chambers figure in the 3200 ppm range (0.32%). So what in the hell justifies your 1.5% claim? Of course the US gas chamber has the initially very large concentration that diffuses out. But they design for a steady-state concentration of 3200 ppm (what used to be the 1-minute LC50 until a few years ago).

Why did you throw out the 1.5% number, Berg?

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3085
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:26 pm

Because 1.5% is still more than enough to kill lots of people--but,--(pay close attention here) that is STILL far below the "explosion limit" of 6%. In other words, even with that 1.5% LEVEL, there is NO risk of explosion.

Of course, you understand none of that--and I have no more time for you.

FPB

User avatar
blake121666
Posts: 2679
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:26 am
Contact:

Re: Fritz Berg interviewed by V. K. Clark 9/10/2017 about AUTOPSIES and much more

Post by blake121666 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:30 pm

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:
Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:26 pm
Because 1.5% is still more than enough to kill lots of people--but,--(pay close attention here) that is STILL far below the "explosion limit" of 6%. In other words, even with that 1.5% LEVEL, there is NO risk of explosion.

Of course, you understand none of that--and I have no more time for you.

FPB
That's not the way you said it in the interview. And that is not what you said earlier (bullshitting that Rudolf said such). Even typical delousings achieve less than 1% after full outgassing. 1.5% is ABSURD. In a large room such as Krema II that would require an initial dosage of 10s of kg of Zyklon! Why bring up this absurd 1.5%?

You put on strange airs in the interview that you knew better than Leuchter and then tossed out absurd nonsense about US gas executions not having an explosion risk and seem to think the absurd 1.5% concentration has some sort of significance - other than being a smaller number than 6%.

Do better next time.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests