Gas and the holocaust narrative

This is the place for your questions, propositions, formal debate topics, etc. but they do have to be approved by the Moderator before they will be published visibly, and must not address opponents disrespectfully, if at all. The subjects have to be simple or straightforward and kept on topic.

Moderator: been-there

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 10772
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Gas and the holocaust narrative

Post by been-there »

Q: What sort of gas is claimed to have been used in 'holocaust' gas chambers in the alleged ‘Final Solution’ genocide of ALL Jews?
Why were they chosen above all other alternatives?

The choice of available and suitable gas for a policy of collossal mass murder is a very salient one for a proper appraisal of the ‘holocaust’ narrative. The gases which according to the ‘holocaust’ eye-witnesses are said to have been used, raise certain problematical issues.

The choice of gas would be a crucial component for an authorised and organised policy to mass-murder hundreds of thousands of people in specially designed and built ‘extermination’ camps, using purposefully designed and built homicidal gas chambers. Yet the gases claimed to have been used do not accord with the allegation/narrative that has been accepted for the last eight decades.

There are three gases that are claimed to have been used:

carbon monoxide (CO) via diesel engine exhaust fumes (Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Majdanek)

carbon monoxide (CO) via petrol engine exhaust (Chelmno);

hydrogen cyanide (HCN) via Zyklon B pesticide pellets (Auschwitz).

See here at the USHMM website: Gassing Operations
. . . . . . . . .

HCNHydrogen cyanide.
This is an invisible, fatally-toxic gas so would have to be used extremely carefully and under tightly controlled proceedures to avoid unintended deaths of administrators and passers-by during and after an execution.

The narrative is that Zyklon B pellets were used to administer the poison gas to the victims. Zyklon B is a pesticide that was designed to minimise the possibility of accidental deaths, by making the pellets only release Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) very slowly and only at certain warm temperatures.
Therefore the narrative that these pellets were simply dropped into cold morgues (krema) from the roof during winter in sub-zero temperatures, thereby killing thousands of people within three to thirty minutes, does not accord with empirical reality. Not enough gas would have been released in such a short time to affect more than the few closest to the pellets and even then not fatally in the time claimed.
Likewise the pellets would go on releasing HCN for a period up to six hours, yet the ‘eye-witness’ testimony claims that corpses were removed after 30 to 45 minutes without the chambers being properly ventilated, and without the pellets being collected, and by people without gas masks. This also is not credible and defies basic physics.

Krema 1 in Auschwitz is a building directly adjacent to the SS hospital. The danger of regular ventilation of invisible poisonous gas so close to a hospital is so acute that this again makes the narrative of mass-gassings at krema 1 also not credible.

. . . . . . . .

CO — Carbon monoxide.
There are similar problem with the narrative alleging gas was administered at other ‘extermination camps’ from captured soviet tank and submarine diesel engines. Diesel exhaust is rich in oxygen so would not be a suitable or appropriate choice for mass murder by poisonous gas.

Diesel engines would also be the least effective choice for creating carbon monoxide. Petrol engines are more effective. There is contradiction among the eyewitness testimony, some specifying that diesel engines and others petrol engines were used. But an even more effective method for producing high concentrations of Carbon monoxide gas would have been the ‘gasifier’ from wood-burning engines which were in use by the Wehrmacht during WW2 because of petrol shortages. These vehicles were called Generatorgaswagen, or Holzgaswagen in German (literally meaning "wood-gas-wagons"). In English, these vehicles were called "producer gas vehicles".

There were 150,000 producer gas vehicles in use in axis-occupied Europe in the autumn of 1941. By 1945 more than 500,000 producer gas vehicles were in use. The primary combustible fuel-gas produced during gasification is carbon monoxide. (Producer Gas is a mixture of mainly Nitrogen (N2) and Carbon Monoxide (CO) with a ratio of 2:1).

As the engines run on CO, using such a vehicle would have been a much more effective, practical and cheaper method of producing toxic levels of CO than any other type of available engine.

See more here: ... 939-45.pdf

Conclusion: The idea that ineffective diesel engines from captured soviet tanks and/or a submarine were used for a systematic and daily huge process of mass murder by exhaust fumes in four different camps defies logic. Even discounting such eye-witness testimony and assuming the exhaust used was from petrol engines, the point argued by revisionists remains a valid one that there were far more efficient, cheaper, easier and more practical alternatives (e.g. carbon monoxide from ‘producer gas vehicle’ gasifiers) available.

Add to this the problems with Zyklon B as an effective methodology and it must be admitted by honest observers that the currently accepted ‘holocaust’ narrative is problematical and does not easily support the claim of a centrally planned, organised, and designed policy of genocide in specifically designed and built extermination camps.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Posts: 10772
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Gas and the holocaust narrative

Post by been-there »

Below are some of the eye-witness/lie-witness claims for types of gas used in the alleged 'extermination’ camps.

SS-man Hubert Gomerski, stated in a trial in 1965:
The gassing was done with engine exhaust. The engine room was built right next to the gas chamber. This was a diesel engine that stood on a solid platform... Near the motor were working 2 or 3 Ukrainians who serviced it. Toni Getzinger and later Hödl were there to supervise... I remember only that it was a diesel engine. Diesel fuel was often brought to it. I had little knowledge about engines. I suppose it was a diesel.

SS-man Alfred Ittner, a book-keeper of inmate property at Sobibor:
During the time of my activity in camp III the gassing engine – it was a captured Russian diesel engine – was serviced by Erich Bauer.
. . . . . . . . . . .

In 1959 Professor Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, director of the Hygienic Institute at the University of Marburg/Lahn stated:
The engine itself was not in a separate room, rather, it stood freely on a podium. It was operated with diesel fuel.

SS-Scharführer Heinrich Gley, stated:
After the doors of the gas chambers had been closed, a large engine — I don’t know whether it was a diesel or an Otto (gasoline) engine — was started up by a mechanic from the Hiwi section. The exhaust fumes of this engine were fed into the chambers and caused the death of the Jews.

Ukrainian guard Aleksandr Semigodov:
The people doomed to death were driven into these gas chambers or “dushegubki”, as they were also known, where they were killed with exhaust gas from a diesel motor (found in the same building) or some other motor.

SS-Scharführer Werner Dubois’ statement:
“it was said to be a Russian tank engine (diesel).”

Kurt Gerstein (who had a graduate degree in engineering) in his posthumously produced confession (in French) stated that the engine he witnessed at Belzec was also a diesel engine.

Adolf Eichmann at his illegal show-trial in 1961 stated that the engine at Belzec was from a Soviet submarine. A submarine engine would be a diesel engine.

. . . . . . . . . . .

Yankiel Wiernik’s A Year in Treblinka, describes the engine thus:
A motor taken from a dismantled Soviet tank stood in the power plant. This motor was used to pump the gas, which was let into the chambers by connecting the motor with the inflow pipes.

Eli Rosenberg in a 1947 court deposition stated that the mass gassings at Treblinka were
"exhaust fumes of a single diesel engine".
Two Ukrainian guards Leleko and Malagon confirmed that.

Erich Fuchs who ‘confessed’ to operating it also said that his engine was from a Soviet tank.

Etc., etc., etc.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Posts: 10772
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Gas and the holocaust narrative

Post by been-there »


Walter Lüftl (President of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Engineers) and Friedrich Berg another working engineer, were scientific-minded men who courageously pointed out publically the physical impracticalities of a mass-gassing programme that supposedly used diesel engine exhaust as the murder gas.
— ‘Holocaust: belief and facts’ reviewed and translated by Lüftl here
— ‘Diesel gas chambers: ideal for torture — absurd for murder’ Part 3 (12. Scholarly evasion and metamorphosis) by Berg here
— ‘The diesel gas chambers: myth within a myth’ by Berg at

As a consequence of their writings, the 'diesel engine exhaust' claim by so-called 'holocaust' eye-witnesses came to be seen as a problem for the credibility of the accepted narrative. This anomaly was explained away by many holocaust defenders as a simple mistake of engine identification by witnesses who were not experts in engines.

In furtherance of that explanation, the testimony of an expert engine mechanic who confessed to operating the alleged gassing engine at Sobibor is given.

He was Erich Fuchs and his 1963 interrogation testimony — used against him in court while on trial in 1964-65 — was that the engine he operated at Sobibor was a benzine or petrol engine. This was good news for defenders of the holocaust mass-gassing narrative, as exhaust from a petrol engine IS lethal and therefore would have been a feasible method of extermination.

In this particular examination of the gas details of the holocaust narrative, the focus is on a different aspect than the diesel versus petrol debate. Instead the analysis focuses on the credibility of the main 'petrol engine' witness.

Let us lay aside temporarily the argument that it strains credibility to imagine that the Germans who were excellent engineers, were so incompetent as to believe that in order to produce CO the best means would have been an internal combustion engine.

Let us also lay aside temporarily the excellent point that engineer Fritz Berg has made that it would have been more practical, simpler and less expensive to have simply burned charcoal in a container with restricted oxygen to produce CO and introduced it into the "gas chambers" to kill people. It would have produced greater quantities of CO than any engine, plus the Germans had already developed the means of making "wood gas" to a high level.

SS-Scharführer Erich Fuchs

SS-Scharführer (Sergeant) Erich Fuchs in a trial ‘confession’ stated that Jews were gassed at Sobibor with exhaust fumes from a Russian tank or tractor petrol engine (benzine engine) that he himself confessed to having installed.

Erich Fuchs wrote:On Wirth’s orders, I drove a truck to Lemberg and picked up a carburetor engine which I took to Sobibór. On my arrival at Sobibór I could see near the station an area with a concrete structure and several solid houses. The local Sonderkommando was headed by Thomalla. Other SS men present were Floss, Bauer, Stangl, Schwarz, Barbl as well as some more.
We unloaded the engine. It was a heavy Russian petrol engine. Probably a tank or tractor engine of at least 200 HP, V-engine, 8 cylinders, water-cooled.
We placed the motor on a concrete foundation and installed a connection between the exhaust and the piping. I then tested the engine. Initially, it did not work. I repaired the ignition and the valves and the engine finally started.

Yet this ‘confession’ is contradicted by known reality, by common sense and by the testimony of other accused 'perpetrators' and by 'survivors'.

The use of a captured Soviet engine is contradicted by common sense, because if Sobibor really was an extermination centre designed for mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews, why use an engine that will require the valuable and increasingly scare commodity of petrol when the more practical, cheaper and more deadly Holzgas or wood-gas (CO) generators were more easily avialable?
And why use an engine for which spare parts would not be easily attainable in case of malfunction?

It is contradicted by known reality because what type of "Soviet tank or tractor" exactly had the specified engine? Has such a "Soviet" benzine engine" ever been confirmed? Or are such details unworthy of a true-believer's 'faith' in the Holocaust religion?

Another arrested camp guard and engine expert Erich Bauer, 'confessed' during the same trial, that it was a French Renault engine.
Yet Fuchs stated, at the very same trial, that it was a Soviet tank or tractor engine with precise specifications that fits no known vehicle.
THAT is a significant "mistake".
Get your "eye-witness confessions" straight, boys. It couldn't have been both, and you were both expert mechanics!

Question: How to explain this contradiction?
Answer: Fuchs described an imaginary engine.
(Read more on this in a RODOH discussion here)

To make the trial 'confession' of Erich Fuchs credible, the requirement is to identify a Russian tractor or tank that had the specific engine details described by him.
Its obviously not enough to describe an almost 'equivalent' engine built in Russia, or imported into Russia.
The Russians — as far as we currently know — were not taking orders from the SS and delivering unusual engines to Sobibor, Treblinka and Belzec during 1942. ;)

And then to make the 'confession' credible, we need to explain how everybody else who were supposedly "eye-witnesses" had been specifying that the engines were diesel until the mid 1960's.

The narrative that Fuchs and other German captives "confessed" to was that they were designing extermination centres with cannabalised Soviet tanks, submarines and military tractors. That seems an extremely impractical and ill-considered 'design' for a people as excellent in engineering and design as the Germans. Anyone who is honestly and impartially looking at the Holocaust genocidal 'extermination' allegation, has to look at the big picture, not obsess about minute details and try and fudge a fit.

So to make the 'confession' credible, we need to provide the name of a Soviet engine that had the exact specifications of a TANK or military TRACTOR that fits the "confession" of Erich Fuchs, the expert who confessed he had fixed and installed the engine.

And if such an engine is found not to exist, it is further evidence that the post-war statements by arrested soldiers were coerced confessions and false.

And then the engine is just one aspect that doesn't fit. What about the building these exhaust fumes were supposedly pumped into? You really think convicted perpetrators like Bauer, Stangl and Fuchs couldn't tell whether a building was built of wood, brick or concrete? :o

Fuchs stated in a 1963 "confession" at the Sobibor trial, that the building into which he helped set-up the Russian engine's exhaust to be pumped into was a "concrete structure".
Yet Erich Bauer in his "confession" for the same trial stated it was a wooden building.
And Franz Stangl, testified that the first gas chambers at Sobibor were housed in a brick building.
Try and get your "eye-witness confessions" less mutually contradicting, jungs.

And then you need to explain how there are no mass-graves with the necessary quarter of a million people that have ever been located at Sobibor.

And then you need to explain why Fuchs received a tiny sentence if the court really believed he had mass-murdered so many Jews at Sobibor.
Erich Fuchs the SS driver and vehicle mechanic was accused of participating in the mass murder of approximately 3,600 Jews and was found guilty of participation in the murder of at least 79,000 Jews.
Yet on the 20th December 1966 he received a sentence of FOUR years imprisonment.
Only four years for complicity in the alleged mass-murder of 79,000 people? Seriously? :roll:
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2574
Joined: 15 May 2012, 02:43
Location: USA, West of the Pecos

Re: Gas and the holocaust narrative

Post by Scott »

We have no evidence that the Germans engineered fumigation chambers for mass-murder when they EASILY could have done so--and actually DID do so right at the same camps for fumigating laundry and bedding. That is a hugely important point.

Furthermore, some of the original gassing claims at six German state hospitals like Hartheim Castle and Hadamar and so on were that municipal gas lines were used to pipe poison gas into rooms to euthanize "incurables." In this time period the public was quite aware of head-in-the-oven suicides such as Sylvia Plath (1963). CO poisoning was then quite common, not from badly-maintained gas burners but from just the combustible town-gas itself.

Prior to the 1960s in Europe and the United States, municipal gas was comprised mostly of carbon monoxide, with a little bit of other combustibles like hydrogen and methane.

The hydrogen component in gas mains is why in the classic 1931 Fritz Lang movie M starring Peter Lorre, it shows that a blind street vendor is selling balloons to children that are filled with town-gas for buoyancy and realizes that the serial child murderer was whistling the same tune earlier, and this is how Peter Lorre eventually gets caught. This alludes to the idea that pedophiles notice things that attract and fascinate children, I guess. Anyway, instead of filling children's balloons with helium, as would be done today, you just turned the spigot on some deadly CO town-gas, and its partial hydrogen content happily made the inflated balloons buoyant.


After the 1960s, combustible municipal gas was changed from being primarily deadly carbon monoxide to relatively-pure methane (a non-toxic asphyxiant) but with an odoriferous warning agent added to further improve safety. The end result--which has been heavily studied in industrial medicine--is that accidental and deliberate gassing deaths from kitchen stoves supplied from municipal gas mains and so on have become very rare simply because the combustible gas is no longer carbon monoxide.

We also have the problem in our gassing scenario in that the municipal gas is explosive. But those who made the narrative at the six German state hospitals where homicidal or euthanasia gassings were alleged to have been done, don't seem to have elaborated at all about how the Germans kept these improvised gaschambers with piped in town-gas from blowing up or catching fire.

Beginning with Fritz Berg, Revisionists have shown that the Germans and others were using gas-generator technology to produce combustible gas (primarily carbon monoxide) for motor fuel to make up for the wartime non-availability of liquid motorfuels by burning wood-chips or coal that could be obtained in a system of strict rationing--and that it would have been quite easy to adapt such CO gas producers for generating poison gas for mass-murder if that is what the German government had actually wanted to do.

I witnessed so-called Rabbit Drives or "Bunny Bashes" in Eastern Idaho in the Winter of 1981-82 when I was going to school. There was a lot of talk about trying to cull these overpopulated jackrabbits more humanely than by herding them into a corral and then hitting them on the head with a piece of iron pipe. (Shooting wasn't allowed for safety reasons because of the number of persons needed everywhere to help herd the rabbits.)

Some enterprising farmers tried to use diesel tractors and gasoline engines to generate exhaust in order to gas the critters "more humanely," but they had no great success from what was said. It was a fiasco according the the intrepid Idaho farm mechanics that were talking about it in hushed tones, and mainly meant to appease animal rights activists.

Pretty much any trucker or mechanic knows that diesel engine exhaust does not cause a carbon monoxide hazard, which is why they run engines overnight in sleeper cabs for heating and cooling. I have demonstrated this by searching forensic reports over several decades now, and in spite of CO killing people running generators every hurricane season and with motor vehicles in garages, there are only a couple of freak cases documented where fatal gassing could have possibly happened with diesel engine exhaust, and they both relate to octogenarians in very bad health.

Unfortunately, I have no further information about this internal combustion engine rabbit gassing experiment in Idaho almost forty years ago beyond hearsay and memory--but it was one of the reasons that Fritz Berg's first essay (1984) on the problem of the diesel gaschambers--published in the Journal of Historical Review, which I was subscribed to at the time--resonated so strongly for me.

Idaho is not unique in periodically having to cull agricultural pests. The 1971 cult-film Wake in Fright graphically shows a kangaroo-culling in the Australian Outback using professional hunters. The film's director, Ted Kotcheff is a professed vegetarian who wanted to make a statement about animal cruelty--and eating kangaroo meat is one of the lesser deviant indulgences that the dodgy Outback physician, played by Donald Pleasance, engages in.

1980s Rabbit Drive near Mud Lake, Idaho.

In fact, jackrabbits are pests and don't make good eating, so culling these varmints is exclusively for protecting other crops that herbivores do eat. In any case, we have found examples in Australian farm almanacs (1947) of agricultural pests like rodents or rabbits being culled by using simple wood-chip carbon monoxide gas producers. Mr. Berg's producer gas fumigation thesis is thereby vindicated with an historical example!

Contemporary real-world technology is very important to understand for the forensic historian. Whether of crimes or events, what liars and any other people can IMAGINE as happening, versus what actually happened or happens, are often very different things.

Rabbit Drive near Mud Lake, IdahoImage

It would not have been difficult to blow CO gas from a gas-generator like this into a room with a venturi nozzle to ensure that the mixed gas-air concentration remained below the lower threshold of explosivity--with the air-gas mixture exhausted continuously out of a short vent pipe on the roof.

In this way, the gassing chamber would get a uniformly-mixed flow of gas and not need to be "hermetically sealed" any more than your automobile interior is when you pressurize the cabin with air drawn from the outside that is then pushed through the car's heater core and blown inside.

As one mechanic explained it to me, it is better to draw in air from the outside to externally pressurize an automotive interior slightly--because the warmed pressurized air leaks out of the cabin in many places all over and thereby keeps any leaky cold air from getting in.

So most gas generators already had a blower fitted to send a gaseous fuel and air mixture through a mixer and into the intake manifold of an internal combustion engine. The Australian gas producer used for fumigating jackrabbit warrens in the photo above came with an option of a simple hand crank to operate the blower.

Consider also that the Germans tended to convert structures that could be improvised into bomb and poison gas shelters when possible. This has been well-documented. Sometimes simply by using gas-tight doors to keep out poison gases and carbon monoxide from fires during bombardments was all that it took to keep an improvised bomb shelter from becoming a death trap. Other times you needed more hardening, of course.

The photo below illustrates a bottled oxygen station on the left, and on the right, a poison gas filter and fresh air blower for a WWII German air-raid shelter (and it would also work for a postwar fallout shelter). Note that the ventilator has a provision for hand-cranking if the electrical power fails!


Using an engine salvaged from a captured tank to generate the lethal gas for the Reinhardt "Pure Extermination" Camps narrative does not make a lot of sense to me.

This "Rube Goldberg" thesis is believable no more so than the early documented claims that people were steamed like lobsters at Treblinka--undoubtedly a reference to the common practice of fumigating clothing at laundries and border control points in steam autoclaves to prevent the spread of insect-borne disease vectors.

Presumably you had engines for generating electricity and pumping water at the "Reinhardt Camps" already--and unless you just need to pump drainage water out of your garden occasionally, you don't just cobble together powerplants or pumping stations for potable water towers with junk hardware.

We have all probably heard my bit about the "Corporals With Chisels" who cut holes into the roofs of morgues to drop in Zyklon-B insecticide for mass-murder, such as the postwar captivity testimony of SS-Rottenführer Pery Broad, who was stationed at Auschwitz.

Well, with the testimony of SS-Scharführer Erich Fuchs at later political trials, at the Reinhardt Camps we seem to have had "Sergeants With Salvage" to make all of our Genocidal dreams come true.


User avatar
Posts: 10772
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Gas and the holocaust narrative

Post by been-there »

Scott wrote: 27 Jan 2020, 01:34 I was checking the link on the Zyklon Discoids booklet, and in skimming through it ...

I noticed that this source directly contradicts Pressac's notion that removing the warning agent for the Zyklon-B that was sold to the SS in wartime was a "criminal trace" for Nazi mass-murder because normal fumigation would never neglect this "important safety feature" (not even by the military during the war).

Here is what American Cyanamid (1938) says about "Warning Gases" on pages 26-27 in their fumigation literature:

American Cyanamid wrote:

It is readily admitted by all authorities that a perfect warning gas, that is, a gas which would warn under any and all conditions, would be highly desirable. However, the subject has been very thoroughly investigated by a number of industries and no warning gas has yet been used or proposed which does not introduce greater hazards, and unless a warning gas is wholly satisfactory it is not satisfactory at all.

One of the many difficulties in connection with warning gases is that they may air out either long before or long after the parent gas. If the former occurs, a false sense of security is created; if the latter, the process of aeration and time of turning the premises over to the tenants, is greatly delayed. [...]

The foregoing are, of course, unusual instances but they forcefully illustrate the unreliability of warning gases. [...]

Until the ideal warning gas is found, city regulations should not attempt to enforce the use of a warning gas but should be so drawn that the ordinary safety precautions which are necessary in all fumigating work, will be strictly observed.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated, that when sensible regulations are enacted and thereafter sensibly administered, fumigating work on a large scale can be carried on without accident.

Discoids do not contain a warning gas, but if specifically requested, will be supplied with a tear gas at an increase in price.

[Emphases mine.]
User avatar
Posts: 10772
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Gas and the holocaust narrative

Post by been-there »

an irrational believer wrote: Fuchs possibly misidentified an engine, when giving testimony in 1963 at the Sobibor trial, about a camp he was at in 1942.
Erich Fuchs was a mechanic who SUPPOSEDLY installed, repaired and then operated an engine over a long period of time at Sobibor, supposedly to MASS-MURDER hundreds of thousands of civilians. Therefore a reasonable assumption is that he would DEFINITELY know and remember what type of engine it was and how many cylinders it had, even decades later. It is not a casual, everyday thing he was admitting to, the mass-murder of crores of people using an engine he supposedly installed, repaired and operated over a considerable time.

Only a person who is suffering from Dunnings-Kruger syndrome and who knows nothing about engines would think for a second that Erich Fuchs wouldn’t remember correctly the specific details that he ‘confessed’ to of the strangely very SPECIFIC yet non-existent Soviet engine that he FALSELY ‘confessed’ he installed, fixed and operated at Sobibor.
If he could be forgiven for not remembering what engine he installed and operated and maintained, then he only had to say “sorry, I don’t remember”.

But any honest person knows that would NOT have been accepted. THAT response would NOT have been believed. How could anyone seriously believe he could forget something extrordinary like that?
He supposedly installed a weapon of mass-murder and he doesn’t remember what it was exactly? :?
He claimed he remembered certain very specific details that were incorrect?? :lol:
Pfuhhhh! C’mon. Don’t be ridiculous.

So... let us apply some critical, reasonable, rational analysis:
why would a man in captivity, facing trial for mass-murder, confess to the crime but invent very specific details that — being an expert — he presumably KNEW didn’t match any Soviet engine?
Hmmmm? Could it have been part of a plea bargain?
Could he have been offered the following alternative: ‘Lie for us. Confess to the crime and get a reduced sentence.
OR, tell the truth, deny you were involved in any mass-murder and definitely get a death sentence plus your family will suffer consequences and repercussions’.

Was that the choice?
We know he did get a very light sentence for allegedly mass murdering so many alleged people.

Did he choose to lie, but gave specifics that he hoped posterity would discover were bogus?
Just like Eichmann did, when he ‘confessed’ to the ludicrous, non-existent, captured Soviet U-boat diesel engine being the murder weapon at an unidentifiable, vague description of an ‘extermination camp’ ?

an irrational believer wrote:Most of the surviving Jewish witnesses worked elsewhere in the camp and not at the gas chambers, so they could not know for certain how they worked.
Then those Jews were not “eye-witnesses”. (Duh! :roll: )
They are instead lie-witnesses.
Which is the premise that holocaust revision has been successful in exposing and detailing.
So thanks for further proving and supporting this premise.

an irrational believer wrote: You are happy with the witnesses who say they left TII to work at other camps.
Yes. Because that witness testimony does NOT deny the realms of physical possibility. It does not require us to believe nonsense. It does not require a suspension of normal critical faculties.

If a witness says they walked 100 metres to a small corner shop and bought a loaf of bread with a credit card, we all know that is within the realms of human and physical possibility. So we have no reason to doubt their testimony.
But... if the same witness said they were teleported into a hovering, gigantic, invisible space-ship and given a loaf of bread by aliens, we are permitted to express some doubt.

Posts: 11890
Joined: 17 Jun 2014, 23:44

Re: Gas and the holocaust narrative

Post by Turnagain »

I remember all of the engines that were used in the trucks I've driven over the past 50 years.
First truck was powered by a Detroit 6-71. The next a turbo charged NH220 or "262", the next a Detroit (also called a "Jimmy") 8V-71 or "318" and so on through Caterpillar 1693's, 3408's 3406's and C-15's. The latter for being 15 liters in displacement. The 3408 was 1099 cubic inches. Throw in a couple of 12V-71 and several 8V92's and more Cummins NT855C's than I can count. Note that I was a driver, not a mechanic.

The claim that Fuchs simply didn't remember the make of engine that he worked on 20 years ago is complete, unmitigated bullshit. If he didn't know what kind of an engine it was, how the hell would he set the points or adjust the valves?
User avatar
Posts: 10772
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Gas and the holocaust narrative

Post by been-there »

Scott wrote: 17 Jul 2021, 22:25 The wood gasifier generates COPIOUS amounts of carbon monoxide from oxygen in the air and carbon (from wood chips or coal). That is what it does!

It supplies gaseous fuel in the form of CO for the constant demands of the motor vehicle engine under load. That is what a gen-gas unit does. It does NOT store combustible gas.

Also, gas producers are VERY cheap to make compared to an internal combustion motor because they do not require any precision milling and machining. I concede that the bar is set pretty low for an ICE engine scrapped from the junkyard. We don't need a high-performance engine from a tank or aircraft here.

The gas producers for generating combustible CO gas were nearly ideal for replacing scarce liquid fuels needed for the military in wartime. Even the Swedish vacuum cleaner manufacturer, Electrolux made CO gas generator units for motorfuel purposes in the 1940s, as the Australian advertisement attests below.


CO motorfuel gas producers were used commercially in just about every motorized country in the 1940s except (rarely) in the United States. In fact, my Great-Grandfather, who had gold and uranium mining claims in Utah and Colorado, built a producer gas generator mounted to his truck during the Depression because he could fuel it with discarded coal, bitumen or Gilsonite tailings. (Unfortunately, I have never been able to find a photograph of his CO gas producer, which was entirely homemade.)

The bottom line is that generator gas for an internal combustion engine does have to be generated on a CONTINUOUS BASIS in an awkward fire cauldron, so gas generation for motor fuel is a far less convenient method than just getting a tank of gasoline or diesel fuel topped off using the normal fuel distribution infrastructure.

Note that there were some schemes to store municipal gas (CO, methane, and hydrogen in that order) from the local gas works in rubber bags or balloons mounted on the tops of buses and delivery vehicles and so forth ─ and photos of such are not hard to find, but that is NOT what we are talking about here.

The common German Imbert Holzgas CO generator unit also had a 12 Volt electric blower which was used to get the woodchip fire cauldron going and then for the driver to test the combustible gas output from a jet nozzle on the side of the cab with a match or a flame. I have a photograph of a German technician doing just that in the photo below, but the diagrams below these show the electric blower on the right side of the page and its important role (Gebläse in German at the bottom-left side in the next diagram).


So all you have to do to make this work for homicidal gassing is to connect the output of the blower to a pipe leading to the room for the condemned prisoners in question, seal the cracks or the doors of the chamber (not absolutely necessary), and attach a gas outlet or low-pressure vent on the roof, and you continually pressure the chamber from the output of the blower (a device otherwise not normally used for running the motor vehicle because the intake suction from the internal combustion engine suffices once the engine is successfully started and the firebox is hot).

A Holzgas unit can produce as much as 40 percent CO, which is explosive, so you would probably use a simple venturi at the nozzle to keep the CO concentration within limits. This means that gas and air from outside the room is pumped in under pressure by the gas blower and continuously vents out of the chamber.

The room quickly becomes saturated with gas and air that will never exceed the lower explosive limit of about 12 percent carbon monoxide. If your CO gas concentration is even just a partial percentage point in air by volume, your victims will be dead rather quickly. Maybe not ten minutes because you have to kill everybody and be thorough about it, but certainly less than thirty minutes.

If you don't like the 12 Volt blower that comes standard on the Imbert Holzgas vehicular models, your fixed installation can have a blower that operates on the AC mains, the same as the blowers used to bring fresh filtered air into a standard Luftwaffe bomb shelter.

And these bomb shelter ventilation blowers (see below) were made to be hand-cranked if necessary during a bombardment or a poison gas attack if the AC power or a bunker electrical generator quit working.

Below, on the left is bottled oxygen to hunker down in smaller Luftwaffe Air Shelters, and on the right is a hand or electrically-cranked blower to bring filtered fresh air from the outside into the bunker.

Basically we are asked to believe that the Germans could build air-raid shelters and submarines but when they built homicidal gaschambers they used "Corporals with Chisels and Sergeants with Salvage."

More later ─ I will tell you what Fuchs was probably really doing with a salvaged Ford or Renault V-8 motor, assuming that he was doing anything at all.

But first, here is the smoking-gun!

Below is an advertisement for a real world example of a CO generator used by farmers in 1940s Australia for killing predatory jackrabbits. The "Langvarwil" models came in different sizes, with one version mounted on a horse cart with a battery-powered blower, and a Midget Model on a hand-cart with a hand-cranked blower fan.


"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
User avatar
Posts: 10772
Joined: 30 Apr 2013, 08:59

Re: Gas and the holocaust narrative

Post by been-there »

Scott wrote: Yesterday, 06:21 A gasoline engine uses a precise spark-ignition system to operate.

The reason that diesel engines produce miniscule amounts of Carbon Monoxide is because of the compression-ignition principle unique to a diesel engine.

It has nothing to do, for example, with the type of fuel used. Some diesel engines, in fact, are "multifuel" and can burn either diesel fuel or gasoline if necessary.

So a compression-ignition engine works by compressing a large volume of air in the cylinder(s) to generate heat. Then a carefully-metered and timed jet of oil or other compatible fuel is injected into that hot, compressed cylinder gas which detonates and consumes most (but not all) of the oxygen in the cylinder.

This means that a diesel engine always operates with an EXCESS of air and hence nearly always has far too much oxygen in the exhaust for incomplete combustion to occur.

By definition, Carbon Monoxide is the INCOMPLETE combustion of carbon and oxygen.

2C + O2 = 2CO

Carbon Monoxide is still combustible and can be burned further in oxygen to yield Carbon Dioxide, which is no longer combustible, i.e., complete combustion.

2CO + O2 = 2CO2

Carbon Dioxide is a simple suffocating gas, but Carbon Monoxide is even worse because it is extremely toxic since the chemical binds with supernumerary affinity to the hemoglobin in blood cells and prevents them from carrying oxygen to the tissues of the body. In chemical warfare terms, CO is called a "blood gas," as opposed to other types of poison gases like nerve gas or choking gases.

CO accounts for scores of deaths and injuries because it is completely odorless and colorless yet extremely commonplace, and can be expected to occur anywhere there is combustion.

However, as common as CO hazards are ─ with numerous injuries and fatalities ─ coroner reports actually show this just does NOT happen in the real world with DIESEL engines. There are only a small handful of possible examples ─ real world experience ─ and I have been looking in the forensic science literature for over two decades now.

Btw, I found the report below when it came out in 1998 of the suicidal octogenarian with severe heart disease and alcoholism that is now commonly cited whenever it is claimed that diesel engines can kill people. (They "can" but effectively they don't. It RARELY ever happens.) I even corresponded with Dr. Sivaloganathan, the medical examiner, and asked him some followup questions about the case.

And, contrary to Provan, et al, you can't just mistune or misadjust a diesel engine somehow and make it produce Carbon Monoxide sufficient to turn it into a murder weapon. There is a big difference between air emission criteria or efficiency and actual mortal hazards.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous
Post Reply