How did the sonderkommando deal with the settled and condensed cyanide in the homicidal gas chambers?

[HansHill]

...I didn't break from orthodoxy?

....I couldn't care less about "oxygen depletion". Quite small amounts of HCN inhaled in a short time will quickly kill and is by far the bigger factor here.

One step forward, two steps back it seems. You are indeed breaking from mainstream orthodoxy to settle on a 30 minute execution time due to technical reasons.

They eyewitness testimonies range from 2 minutes to 20, with some outliers at their respective end of the distribution curve claiming "instant" or "30 minutes". The convergence neatly falls on ten minutes.

Lest i be accused of "cherrypicking" these execution times, and to show what the mainstream orthodox presentation of these execution times are, to a lay-audience, here is a screenshot from the most mainstream source possible, Wikipedia:



I anticipate Nessie will barge in crying i've "cherrypicked" 10 minutes, which you'll understand is rubbish. in fact, having hopefully understood the corner he (and by extension Orthodoxy) has painted himself into, his retreat to a 30 minute execution time, to be found isolated amongst a minority of outlier accounts and ignoring the majority, is the real cherrypicking!

But enough about Nessie and back to you; If you are having difficulty accepting the mainstream account as presented, then I don't know what else to tell you other than "welcome to Codoh".

Final point:

"I couldn't care less about oxygen depletion".

i'm sorry but this is rubbish. If you genuinely care about finding out what happened inside these 4 walls, then you must care about the biochemical and biomechanical processes in question. Oxygen depletion and in tandem carbon dioxide accumulation are two extremely important factors as, under the circumstances as we agreed upon could be fatal, would be doing much of, if not all of the killing.

Ignoring these factors is a bad look for you.

[blake121666]

Quit basing your opinions on testimony alone. The testimony is flawed as hell.

"Oxygen depletion" is some sort of misunderstanding that YOU and no one else has. It is claimed that people were gassed with toxic gas; your "oxygen depletion" guff is your own misunderstanding coming from who knows where. I sure as hell never said anything about that. I don't even recall anything like that having even been mentioned? If it was, then no, I do not agree with that nonsense.

Different circumstances would result in different times to 100% death. I was referring to the average worst case scenarios. Technically, there could be outliers in even those cases.

I do not and never did say anything about "oxygen depletion" nor do I (or did I) think that to have been particularly noteworthy. While I could imagine a scenario warranting consideration about "oxygen depletion", I do not believe this to be one of those scenarios in any serious way. Show me otherwise if you think you can.

[Nessie]

...

I anticipate Nessie will barge in crying i've "cherrypicked" 10 minutes, which you'll understand is rubbish. in fact, having hopefully understood the corner he (and by extension Orthodoxy) has painted himself into, his retreat to a 30 minute execution time, to be found isolated amongst a minority of outlier accounts and ignoring the majority, is the real cherrypicking!

But enough about Nessie and back to you; If you are having difficulty accepting the mainstream account as presented, then I don't know what else to tell you other than "welcome to Codoh".

Your fallacy is now straw man, making an unfounded accusation against me, of something I have not done. That the convergence of witness estimated time is 10 minutes proves what? Please show me evidence that proves when witnesses estimate a time that is wrong, that proves they lied about what they saw.

[HansHill]

You think you have a victory pending, because 30 minutes is longer than witnesses suggest. There are two issues you need to consider.

1 - you cannot cherry-pick the shortest time a witness claimed a gassing took and declare victory, that means every single witness lied, there were no gassings. You should go through what every single witness said about how long gassings took. I can give you a heads start, Tauber, Kula did not say how long they took.

For God's sake Nessie, here you are quoted earlier in the thread admonishing me for citing quick execution times, and simultaneously claiming that's "cherrypicked".

Not a strawman.

We've derailed Mr Stubble's thread long enough, as this thread is about accumulation of HcN and it's offgassing, not about execution times. If you still wish to defend the quick-execution theory, please start a new thread with all of your best evidence collated in one place.

Alternatively, if you are beginning to see sense and are wiling to settle on a 30-minute execution time, then please start a new thread and explain there why you're willing to dispense with the majority of eyewitnesses and Orthodox narrative.

[HansHill]

Quit basing your opinions on testimony alone. The testimony is flawed as hell.....

.....I do not and never did say anything about "oxygen depletion" nor do I (or did I) think that to have been particularly noteworthy.

It's not my opinion, the passage I presented was a mainstream account of the execution times from Wikipedia, which if it wasn't clear enough, i do not believe in. So your problem isn't with me basing my opinion on "flawed as hell" testimony, it's with the Orthodox mainstream narrative being based on "flawed as hell" testimony.

Once again "welcome to Codoh".

Finally, regarding the oxygen depletion. These people were locked in a confined space underground with 2,000 other people with no fresh air, if you cannot see how oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide accumulation are two relevant variables here, then you must not be arguing in good faith and this discussion regrettably cannot go on any longer.

I'll respond if you bring anything new to the table or address the 3 questions I put to you before.

====

From an LLM (emphasis mine):

Question

I need you to calculate something for me:

In a room of dimensions 30m x 7m x 2m, there are placed 2,000 people. The room is airtight and does not contain any ventilation. Assume the 2,000 people are of average fitness and span all age groups.

Calculate i) the rate of oxygen depletion and ii) carbon dioxide accumulation and iii) the point in time at which this room would be fatal to those inside.

Answer

To calculate the oxygen depletion, carbon dioxide accumulation, and fatal point in an airtight room with 2,000 people, we need to make some assumptions based on the provided information:

1. Room volume: 30m x 7m x 2m = 420 m³
2. Initial oxygen concentration: 20.9% (standard atmospheric level)
3. Initial CO2 concentration: 0.04% (400 ppm, approximate atmospheric level)
4. Average CO2 production rate per person: 0.019 m³/h (0.63 cu ft/hr)[1]
5. Oxygen consumption rate: Approximately equal to CO2 production rate

i) Rate of oxygen depletion:
Total oxygen depletion rate = 2,000 people × 0.019 m³/h = 38 m³/h
Percentage depletion rate = (38 m³/h / 420 m³) × 100 = 9.05% per hour

ii) Carbon dioxide accumulation:
Total CO2 production rate = 2,000 people × 0.019 m³/h = 38 m³/h
Percentage accumulation rate = (38 m³/h / 420 m³) × 100 = 9.05% per hour

iii) Fatal point:

The situation becomes fatal when either:
1. Oxygen levels drop below 6% (severe hypoxia)[4]
2. CO2 levels reach 7-9% (unconsciousness in about 15 minutes)[1]

Given the rapid rate of change, CO2 accumulation will likely be the primary concern:

Time to reach 7% CO2 = (7% - 0.04%) / 9.05% per hour ≈ 0.77 hours or about 46 minutes

At this point, the oxygen level would be approximately:
20.9% - (9.05% × 0.77 hours) ≈ 13.9%

This oxygen level alone is not immediately fatal but would cause severe physiological effects[1].

In conclusion, the room would become fatal to those inside after approximately 46 minutes due to CO2 poisoning, with severe effects occurring even earlier. This situation is extremely dangerous and would require immediate evacuation and ventilation to prevent loss of life.

Citations:
[1] https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/ ... 45662017b0
[2] https://healthybuildings.hsph.harvard.e ... alculator/
[3] https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/doe ... of-oxygen/
[4] https://www.cityofglasgowcollege.ac.uk/ ... Spaces.pdf
[5] https://www.indsci.com/en/blog/acceptab ... ned-spaces
[6] https://www.nfpa.org/news-blogs-and-art ... ned-spaces

[Nessie]

... So your problem isn't with me basing my opinion on "flawed as hell" testimony, it's with the Orthodox mainstream narrative being based on "flawed as hell" testimony...

Testimony is the most flawed evidence, due to issues with memory and recollection. Revisionists think the flaws prove lying, but the studies of witnesses prove that poor memory and issues with recollection, such as estimating the passage of time, explain the flaws, not lying. You cannot prove lying when mistake is also a distinct possibility.

What is "flawed as hell" about this;

https://www.normandy1944.info/holocaust/dario-gabbai

"Once the gas chambers were cleared out they had to be hosed down from all traces of blood and quickly white-washed with quick-dry paint."

https://archive.org/details/three-years ... up?q=walls

"And another thing,’ Voss snapped, ‘when you’ve finished, clean up everything, you know, hosing down, chlorinating, and all that sort of thing. And to finish up, lime-wash the walls! Everything clear? By 8 tomorrow morning everything’s got to be ship-shape! Off you go!’

[HansHill]

Revisionists think the flaws prove lying

Revisionists apply models to test the claims as presented. When those models show conclusively the claims are unsustainable, Exterminationists counter with:

- Fallacy!
- Cherrypicking!
- Credentialism!

The irony here is, if these kinds of critical models were used at (for example) Nuremberg, we wouldn't be here today. Start a new thread proving 10 minute executions and I'll join you there.

[Nessie]

Revisionists think the flaws prove lying

Revisionists apply models to test the claims as presented. When those models show conclusively the claims are unsustainable, Exterminationists counter with:

- Fallacy!
- Cherrypicking!
- Credentialism!

The irony here is, if these kinds of critical models were used at (for example) Nuremberg, we wouldn't be here today. Start a new thread proving 10 minute executions and I'll join you there.

By "models" you mean non experts postulating their biased thoughts to a pre-determined conclusion.

I can prove executions, just not how long they took. Witnesses are not very good at accurately estimating the passage of time. Anyone with the most basic knowledge of witnesses knows that.

[HansHill]

By "models" you mean non experts postulating their biased thoughts to a pre-determined conclusion.

I can prove executions, just not how long they took. Witnesses are not very good at accurately estimating the passage of time. Anyone with the most basic knowledge of witnesses knows that.

The model under discussion in this thread was the Irmscher model as utilised by Prof Green.

If you can't prove the timelines, then why did you get your knickers in a twist over the 10 minute execution? Start a new thread to explain what exactly is wrong with a 10 minute execution.

[Nessie]

By "models" you mean non experts postulating their biased thoughts to a pre-determined conclusion.

I can prove executions, just not how long they took. Witnesses are not very good at accurately estimating the passage of time. Anyone with the most basic knowledge of witnesses knows that.

The model under discussion in this thread was the Irmscher model as utilised by Prof Green.

If you can't prove the timelines, then why did you get your knickers in a twist over the 10 minute execution? Start a new thread to explain what exactly is wrong with a 10 minute execution.

A 10 minute execution is an underestimated time for how long a gassing took. We do not know if Sonderkommando duties meant that their working day dragged, or flew by. Were they able to clock watch? Either way, multiple studies of people estimating time, find that we are not very good at it.

A reported 10 minute execution could be just how long after the gas was introduced, that the witness thought those inside had died. The entire process, of filling the chamber with people, to clearing it, washing it down and even repainting it, would obviously take longer.

This entire thread, starting with the thread title, is an argument from incredulity. Not being able to satisfactorily work out how settled and condensed cyanide was dealt with, especially when you are looking for reasons to disbelieve the evidence, is not in itself of any evidential value. You prove nothing.

[HansHill]

By "models" you mean non experts postulating their biased thoughts to a pre-determined conclusion.

I can prove executions, just not how long they took. Witnesses are not very good at accurately estimating the passage of time. Anyone with the most basic knowledge of witnesses knows that.

Start a new thread to explain what exactly is wrong with a 10 minute execution.

A 10 minute execution is an underestimated time for how long a gassing took. We do not know if Sonderkommando duties meant that their working day dragged, or flew by. Were they able to clock watch? Either way, multiple studies of people estimating time, find that we are not very good at it.

A reported 10 minute execution could be just how long after the gas was introduced, that the witness thought those inside had died. The entire process, of filling the chamber with people, to clearing it, washing it down and even repainting it, would obviously take longer.

Thanks for your response Nessie, i'm done with you as far as execution times go unless you start a new thread, so I'll address my response here to a revisionist audience.

This is a perfect look into the mindset of an exterminationist. To recap what happened here:

- I challenged him to explain why a 10 minute execution is not possible
- His reply (above) centres entirely around the eyewitness testimony and never once cites technical impossibilities.

What's most important thing here is that nowhere did he discuss the actual technical reasons as to why a 10 minute execution is not possible. This thread is full of those technical reasons, for example the Irmscher report citing supressed offgassing under humidity, the need to outpace a US execution time with slower offgassing, or the problems associated with overloading the Kula columns with pellets to compensate for all of the above.

His ultimate reliance on eyewitness testimony, not the hard sciences, is calculated. He knows he is trapped: were he to acknowledge these technical problems, he knows full well that other related technical problems will also apply to the 30 minute scenario (such as Prussian Blue formation, oxygen depletion & CO2 buildup doing all of the killing, and so on and so forth). This is why eyewitness testimony (despite being unreliable according to him, and "flawed as hell" according to his friend) must always be placed firmly above the hard sciences for exterminatinists. It's a house of cards that must not be toppled!

[Nessie]

Start a new thread to explain what exactly is wrong with a 10 minute execution.

A 10 minute execution is an underestimated time for how long a gassing took. We do not know if Sonderkommando duties meant that their working day dragged, or flew by. Were they able to clock watch? Either way, multiple studies of people estimating time, find that we are not very good at it.

A reported 10 minute execution could be just how long after the gas was introduced, that the witness thought those inside had died. The entire process, of filling the chamber with people, to clearing it, washing it down and even repainting it, would obviously take longer.

Thanks for your response Nessie, i'm done with you as far as execution times go unless you start a new thread, so I'll address my response here to a revisionist audience.

This is a perfect look into the mindset of an exterminationist. To recap what happened here:

- I challenged him to explain why a 10 minute execution is not possible
- His reply (above) centres entirely around the eyewitness testimony and never once cites technical impossibilities.

What's most important thing here is that nowhere did he discuss the actual technical reasons as to why a 10 minute execution is not possible. This thread is full of those technical reasons, for example the Irmscher report citing supressed offgassing under humidity, the need to outpace a US execution time with slower offgassing, or the problems associated with overloading the Kula columns with pellets to compensate for all of the above.

As you say, a 10 minute time is not possible, for the entirety of the process. I have suggested 10 minutes may be possible for the time it takes to kill, from the moment gas starts to form in the chamber, to when everyone is dead.

His ultimate reliance on eyewitness testimony, not the hard sciences, is calculated. He knows he is trapped: were he to acknowledge these technical problems, he knows full well that other related technical problems will also apply to the 30 minute scenario (such as Prussian Blue formation, oxygen depletion & CO2 buildup doing all of the killing, and so on and so forth). This is why eyewitness testimony (despite being unreliable according to him, and "flawed as hell" according to his friend) must always be placed firmly above the hard sciences for exterminatinists. It's a house of cards that must not be toppled!

What you think of as technical problems are in fact witness problems. The uncertainty about how long gassings comes from, is because of the witnesses. There is no document, film recording or anything other than witness estimations, as to how long a gassing took place.

Since witnesses are the only source of timings for gassings, we have to consider how reliable people are at estimating duration, in general. If multiple people see an event, will they provide a consistent and reliable timing for how long that event lasted? The answer, from numerous tests and real life experience, is, no. The witnesses will not be consistent or reliable. I googled how good are we at estimating time? The AI response was,

"People are not very good at estimating time, and they tend to underestimate how long tasks will take. This is true for both individuals and groups working on larger projects.
Explanation
A study found that only 17% of people were able to accurately estimate how long they had been sitting quietly."

That means if a witness said a gassing took 10 minutes, that is not proof he lied, it is just that he is poor, like most of us are, at estimating time. Since a gassing of 10 minutes is not physically possible, the witness has underestimated how long the gassing took. The gassing timings are a witness problem.