Forensic Chemistry

[HansHill]

If we are taking another of Bombsaway's hypotheses seriously (the Whitewash-as-inhibitor hypothesis), then the key variable in determining the permeability of the Whitewash will be its diffusion coefficient.



We don't have a direct measure of this Whitewash coefficient from the DIN 4108 building standards - This is a German building standard and i was quoted 72 eurobucks for a copy and I don't feel the hypothesis is worth the cost of admission (no offense BA) But - we are still in luck. Rudolf provides us the coefficient for Lime Plaster (or rather he provides us the range) as being between 10-35 units of measurement. It's commonly understood as Mr Stubble has been bending over backwards to explain, that Whitewash is a very thin and light Lime based product similar to Lime plaster, only much more thin and watery in consistency compared to actual Lime plaster.

Therefore we will place "Whitewash" on the lower end of the diffusion coefficient, somewhere close to 10 units. This means that Whitewash will not be expected to inhibit the diffusion of gaseous matter any more than the building material itself. Any HCN present that interfaces with BA's Whitewash will be expected to effectively diffuse right through it to the underlying plaster.

**Edit**

Granting 10 is very generous as it won't have the consistency of actual plaster, so in reality it will be <10. But it still doesn't affect anything in any significant way.

[ConfusedJew]

Allow me to demonstrate once again that ConfusedJew is relying on AI hallucinations to write his posts. Summary at bottom.

I will stop there. By my count you have posted at least 11 AI hallucinations, that is, factual errors, in this thread. This is in line with what you, ConfusedJew, have done in previous threads. For example see here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10690#p10690

You absolutely cannot argue this way. Because you continue to do it, it's the functional equivalent of lying*. Now these lies are filling up the forum, which will in turn fuel future AI errors and confuse future researchers.

* If it is against the rules for me to say this, so be it. It is true.

Most of what you count as "hallucinations" is exaggerated or completely wrong. When you are right, they are not really about material facts.

I'm honest about my methods here and that they are prone to error. It is not the functional equivalent of lying. Now if you feel like directly disagreeing with material facts or arguments, I will respond to that, otherwise I will stick to discussing the key points with HansHill.

[ConfusedJew]

OK, I am caught up here. I'm trying to figure out why Prussian Blue didn't appear in the non-delousing / homicidal chambers. To summarize, from what I gather, you need a handful of things to occur for the formation of PB.

I initially thought that the building material was different between the chambers but that seems to be a wrong path of investigation.

Rudolf sampled masonry from the ruins of the Auschwitz‑Birkenau crematoria (which historians identify as homicidal gas chambers) and from intact delousing chambers. He found milligram‑per‑kilogram levels of total cyanide in the delousing rooms but only traces or non‑detects in most homicidal chambers.

In order for PB to form, you need (1) high, prolonged HCN concentrations, (2) alkaline pH, (3) abundant reducible iron, (4) moisture and (5) time.

I am using a better AI model (o3 instead of 4o) but this is how it explains the difference to me.

The delousing cycles (20‑24 h, ~16 000 ppm, warm, wet laundry) supply those conditions; homicidal gassings (~20 min, a few hundred ppm, cooler, mostly brick and concrete) do not.

While prussian blue is exceptionally stable, other cyanide residues wash out quickly. After five decades of rain, the only long‑lived chemical footprint likely to remain in exterior brickwork is Prussian blue.

So here are my questions that I need answered

1. The homicidal chambers / morgues clearly did not using cyanide to delouse but they still found cyanide traces in the building. How did they get there and what was the cyanide used for?

Hitting 1–7 mg/kg in a random cubic‑centimetre of 50‑year‑old plaster is not expected without prior HCN exposure.
The reading is consistent with short, repeated gassing cycles (tens of minutes) followed by decades of erosion but no single measurement can prove anything.

2. Why do you think that using the rooms as gas chambers would necessarily lead to the formation of Prussian Blue when that does not seem to be remotely necessary?

Here are examples:

3. To get appreciable Prussian blue you need a dose‑time (C × t) scale that is at least a few × 10³ ppm·h under moist, mildly alkaline conditions. Delousing cycles overshoot that by two orders of magnitude; a homicidal gassing undershoots by roughly the same factor. Why would you expect Prussian Blue under these conditions?

4. The critical control for forming Prussian-blue is having liquid‐water films on, or inside, the masonry; that demands RH in the high‑60 % range or wetter. Once those films exist, kinetics become temperature‑dependent but are still appreciable down to a few degrees above freezing. Below 0 °C or much below 60 % RH, Prussian‑blue formation effectively shuts down regardless of how much cyanide is in the air.

In the delousing chambers, piles of damp clothing and steam heaters raised relative humidity close to 100 % and kept the air 25‑30 °C. Water dissolves HCN, carries it into pores, and supplies the electrons needed to convert ferric to ferrous iron.

In contrast, Morgue 1 of Krema II was semi‑underground, often only a few degrees above 15 °C; the floor and walls were dry at the start of each gassing and the room was forcibly ventilated straight afterwards. Low moisture and lower temperature slow both diffusion and the red‑ox step that creates Prussian blue.

In principle, the walls of Krema I could have reached the physical‐chemistry “sweet‑spot” for Prussian‑blue (PB) nucleation on a few warm, clammy days—but during the short period the room was actually used for gassing (autumn 1941–spring 1942) the indoor climate was usually well below the optimum.

How do you explain how PB could have formed under those conditions?

[Stubble]

So, we have moved beyond the 'special materials' hypothesis and are on to the exposure time hypothesis.

I'm a simple man, when I consider the introduction of 1,000,000 joules of heat for a gassing cycle, and the rise in RH from respiration, and I treat the exposure cumulatively, and I consider that no iron blue was found, I consider that to be proof of next to no exposure and certainly no homicidal use.

Regarding the detected levels, when you have control samples that meet or exceed content of the supposed homicidal gas chambers, that tells me 2 things, 1) you are working with native cyanids, literal background traces, and 2) that you are near the limit of detection.

Now, if someone wanted to prove me wrong, they would need only run a small scale simulation. That however has not been done. At 1/20th, I'd recommend bunnies as the analog, although, they are not as resistant to HCN as humans, and thus would expire more quickly.

I can understand that a 1/20th scale Krema II for a bunny holocaust is not something that instantly comes to mind when considering a way to test all the various ins and outs surrounding the possiblity of LK1 being a makeshift homicidal gas chamber. I can also understand that the idea is horrifying. None the less, it should yield the requisite data and put whichever side is wrong squarely to rest.

I have hedged my chips in the 'no homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms' camp, and my tent is firmly staked there. This isn't because I've missed something, it is because something is missing...

For the record, the lack of iron blue, in my opinion, isn't even the biggest problem here. There are so many more. It is a hobby horse however, in the collection of various hobby horses.

I don't know if you saw it, but, I shared a crass video from Dean Irebodd that breaks most of the problems down in a very short run time. It is by no means expansive, it is however broad in depth for its run time and very concise in its nature. I present to you, for your consideration, 'Auschwitz, the Comedy'.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=452

[Wetzelrad]

Most of what you count as "hallucinations" is exaggerated or completely wrong. When you are right, they are not really about material facts.

I'm honest about my methods here and that they are prone to error. It is not the functional equivalent of lying. Now if you feel like directly disagreeing with material facts or arguments, I will respond to that, otherwise I will stick to discussing the key points with HansHill.

I listed out eleven of your hallucinations, things that you declared to be true in the course of argument, but which were actually false, in some cases even the opposite of reality. So far you have responded to only one of them, and that only to quibble over part of it. Obviously I am correct. You posted eleven of these total falsehoods, probably because you got them from your AI, to say nothing of the various other errors and contradictions you've made in this thread, and now you carry on as if the next bout of AI slop might improve the situation.

I am in shock that anyone is still responding to you in good faith. How do you have a debate with someone who claims, in the absence of any evidence, that Zyklon was pre-heated, that there are blueprints which show how Zyklon was introduced, that the swinging door was sealed with rubber, that the ventilation system used filters which somehow sped up air exchange, that a plastered room was actually exposed brick, and that there were court proceedings which never happened, with experts who never existed?

How do you debate with someone who insists that the reason there are no blue stains in one building is because of factors which are the same in a building where there are blue stains?

How do you debate with someone who claims everything he sees is false, with nothing to back it up?

Believe me, the overwhelming majority of information that I see on this forum is either entirely false or very distorted.

[Stubble]

Most of what you count as "hallucinations" is exaggerated or completely wrong. When you are right, they are not really about material facts.

I'm honest about my methods here and that they are prone to error. It is not the functional equivalent of lying. Now if you feel like directly disagreeing with material facts or arguments, I will respond to that, otherwise I will stick to discussing the key points with HansHill.

I listed out eleven of your hallucinations, things that you declared to be true in the course of argument, but which were actually false, in some cases even the opposite of reality. So far you have responded to only one of them, and that only to quibble over part of it. Obviously I am correct. You posted eleven of these total falsehoods, probably because you got them from your AI, to say nothing of the various other errors and contradictions you've made in this thread, and now you carry on as if the next bout of AI slop might improve the situation.

I am in shock that anyone is still responding to you in good faith. How do you have a debate with someone who claims, in the absence of any evidence, that Zyklon was pre-heated, that there are blueprints which show how Zyklon was introduced, that the swinging door was sealed with rubber, that the ventilation system used filters which somehow sped up air exchange, that a plastered room was actually exposed brick, and that there were court proceedings which never happened, with experts who never existed?

How do you debate with someone who insists that the reason there are no blue stains in one building is because of factors which are the same in a building where there are blue stains?

How do you debate with someone who claims everything he sees is false, with nothing to back it up?

Believe me, the overwhelming majority of information that I see on this forum is either entirely false or very distorted.

Ultimately, it's not for him that horns are locked. While it would be great to 'break the spell' on him, I have virtually given up hope for that. It is more about confronting his arguments for posterity.

For me anyhow.

Also, you put together a great post Wetzelrad and all of you points in the previous post, and in this one are quite valid. I'm glad that your words stand forever as a monument here to be viewed by posterity.

[ConfusedJew]

I listed out eleven of your hallucinations, things that you declared to be true in the course of argument, but which were actually false, in some cases even the opposite of reality. So far you have responded to only one of them, and that only to quibble over part of it. Obviously I am correct. You posted eleven of these total falsehoods, probably because you got them from your AI, to say nothing of the various other errors and contradictions you've made in this thread, and now you carry on as if the next bout of AI slop might improve the situation.

That's fine, you are going on my ignore list. For the record, you were correct about a few, maybe 3-4 errors, but none were significant. Within that error list, a couple of them were just due to my own mistake like referencing the wrong person's name. You complained about that which was totally trivial, and then you completely ignored the substance of the diary entry.

You are welcome to watch how this plays out, but I will only respond if HansHill brings up a specific point that you have made that is worthwhile.

[ConfusedJew]

So, we have moved beyond the 'special materials' hypothesis and are on to the exposure time hypothesis.

For the record, it is very difficult for me to understand you the way that you communicate. It's not personal, just a comment that makes this more frustrating for me.

I'm a simple man, when I consider the introduction of 1,000,000 joules of heat for a gassing cycle, and the rise in RH from respiration, and I treat the exposure cumulatively, and I consider that no iron blue was found, I consider that to be proof of next to no exposure and certainly no homicidal use.

You argue from thermodynamics and respiration-induced humidity that lethal HCN levels could not be reached. Zyklon B releases HCN as a function of temperature and ventilation, not just RH. At human body temp (~37°C), it vaporizes rapidly. Thermal and humidity factors do not prevent lethal gassing. In fact, design analysis supports that the conditions would efficiently distribute lethal doses rapidly.

Regarding the detected levels, when you have control samples that meet or exceed content of the supposed homicidal gas chambers, that tells me 2 things, 1) you are working with native cyanids, literal background traces, and 2) that you are near the limit of detection.

These were not mere background levels.

Cyanide is mobile and can be absorbed differently based on material porosity, surface coatings (plaster blocks absorption), age and weather exposure.

The Krakow study corrected for this by measuring multiple depths and comparing internal vs. exposed surfaces and sampling both exterior walls and internal structures.

The detection limit was ~1 mg/kg and the homicidal chamber samples were above this (up to ~7 mg/kg). "Controls" typically ≤1 mg/kg, unless from fumigated spaces. I think this addresses both of your arguments.

Now, if someone wanted to prove me wrong, they would need only run a small scale simulation. That however has not been done. At 1/20th, I'd recommend bunnies as the analog, although, they are not as resistant to HCN as humans, and thus would expire more quickly.

I can understand that a 1/20th scale Krema II for a bunny holocaust is not something that instantly comes to mind when considering a way to test all the various ins and outs surrounding the possiblity of LK1 being a makeshift homicidal gas chamber. I can also understand that the idea is horrifying. None the less, it should yield the requisite data and put whichever side is wrong squarely to rest.

You don't need to run a simulation because the chemistry and gas dispersion models are well-known and industrial fumigation studies using Zyklon B have documented the required exposure times and concentrations.

In a sealed space, 300 ppm HCN is easily achieved with 1–2 cans of Zyklon B. Lethality occurs within 10–15 minutes at that level. There is no engineering inconsistency between the known use of Zyklon B and the claimed function of the chambers.

I have hedged my chips in the 'no homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms' camp, and my tent is firmly staked there. This isn't because I've missed something, it is because something is missing...

I don't even know what that means.

For the record, the lack of iron blue, in my opinion, isn't even the biggest problem here. There are so many more. It is a hobby horse however, in the collection of various hobby horses.

I don't know if you saw it, but, I shared a crass video from Dean Irebodd that breaks most of the problems down in a very short run time. It is by no means expansive, it is however broad in depth for its run time and very concise in its nature. I present to you, for your consideration, 'Auschwitz, the Comedy'.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=452

He gets the math wrong. Logistically, the Nazis were able to be multiple bodies at once and sometimes burned up to 5 in a single furnace to speed up the process. At some point, they ran out of space in the furnaces and used open-air pyres to deal with the rest.

[ConfusedJew]

Here is an astute response from ChatGPT:

You believe something critical is absent from the forensic or physical evidence.

Let’s review what’s present in the evidence:

Architectural Blueprints for gas-tight doors, ventilation shafts, gas introduction columns
Chemical Cyanide residues in ventilation ducts, walls
Engineering Chamber volume, Zyklon B dosage, lethal ppm math consistent
Logistics Crematoria throughput matches victim numbers
Material Ruins of gas chambers match original plans
Recovered Objects Gas-tight doors with peepholes, hair, Zyklon B canisters, cremation equipment

Nothing is missing — unless the bar is set unrealistically high or circularly defined.


My own thoughts - What you might think is reasonable may be very different from another, but I want to identify the exact point where I see exactly how unreasonable you are from a scientific framework. I think it's shocking that everybody here disregards thousands of witness reports but I am maybe just perversely curious as to how you try to justify this scientifically. My guess is that most of the people here don't understand the science which makes it difficult to discuss but HansHill seems to be intellectually honest and scientifically curious.

[Stubble]

Here is an astute response from ChatGPT:

You believe something critical is absent from the forensic or physical evidence.

Let’s review what’s present in the evidence:

Architectural Blueprints for gas-tight doors, ventilation shafts,

The ventilation is backwards for HCN.

gas introduction columns

Nope, that's a lie.

Chemical Cyanide residues in ventilation ducts, walls

Literal background trace.

Engineering Chamber volume, Zyklon B dosage, lethal ppm math consistent

According to you. In the American homicidal gas chambers they used many times 300ppm, and death still took up to 18 minutes.

Logistics Crematoria throughput matches victim numbers

What? No. The only way you can say that is if you ignore the facts regarding cremation.

Material Ruins of gas chambers match original plans
Recovered Objects Gas-tight doors with peepholes, hair, Zyklon B canisters, cremation equipment

Nothing is missing — unless the bar is set unrealistically high or circularly defined.


My own thoughts - What you might think is reasonable may be very different from another, but I want to identify the exact point where I see exactly how unreasonable you are from a scientific framework. I think it's shocking that everybody here disregards thousands of witness reports but I am maybe just perversely curious as to how you try to justify this scientifically. My guess is that most of the people here don't understand the science which makes it difficult to discuss but HansHill seems to be intellectually honest and scientifically curious.

Mr Hill is a good dude, and a patient, patient man.

You, are wet behind the ears and assert the orthodox narrative as fact. I have no doubt, you actually believe it, because you don't look at it critically.

To understand why I don't believe that people were gassed in homicidal gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, you need to look at what are supposed to be those gas chambers, such as they are.

Now, there are various other threads for our meanderings here, and, I don't want to derail your thread, so, I'm not going to respond to anything but chemistry here. Rest assured, I am open to talking about these various other issues in threads where the discussion is appropriate.

To be fair, you have been generally speaking a good sport, while I may disagree with some of your calls on balls and strikes, you do keep stepping up to the plate and taking a swing, and that's something.

Others are right however, you do not have a firm grasp of the subject we are talking to, and you make a litany of mistakes, here for example, you made a string of demonstrably false claims. One particularly glaring example is saying that zyklon introduction holes are in the blueprints, not only are they not in the blueprints, they aren't in the aerial reconnaissance photographs from when they facilities were in operation. There also aren't any outdoor pyres anywhere near Kremas II and III in any of the reconnaissance photographs either. You have 1 shoot from 1 day by a South African sortie that shows 1 pyre behind Krema V. This is after the revolt in Krema IV, and I assume they are handling overflow presented by the destruction of Krema IV, as all of the Kremas were required to deal with natural deaths at the time.

[Fred Ziffel]

a little off topic but here is the claimed kill process of IV and V. Make sense?

and a simple solution/

[bombsaway]

If we are taking another of Bombsaway's hypotheses seriously (the Whitewash-as-inhibitor hypothesis), then the key variable in determining the permeability of the Whitewash will be its diffusion coefficient.



We don't have a direct measure of this Whitewash coefficient from the DIN 4108 building standards - This is a German building standard and i was quoted 72 eurobucks for a copy and I don't feel the hypothesis is worth the cost of admission (no offense BA) But - we are still in luck. Rudolf provides us the coefficient for Lime Plaster (or rather he provides us the range) as being between 10-35 units of measurement. It's commonly understood as Mr Stubble has been bending over backwards to explain, that Whitewash is a very thin and light Lime based product similar to Lime plaster, only much more thin and watery in consistency compared to actual Lime plaster.

Therefore we will place "Whitewash" on the lower end of the diffusion coefficient, somewhere close to 10 units. This means that Whitewash will not be expected to inhibit the diffusion of gaseous matter any more than the building material itself. Any HCN present that interfaces with BA's Whitewash will be expected to effectively diffuse right through it to the underlying plaster.

**Edit**

Granting 10 is very generous as it won't have the consistency of actual plaster, so in reality it will be <10. But it still doesn't affect anything in any significant way.

the description given to me about whitewash

Surface-level resistance: Once dry, whitewash can resist light moisture and occasional splashes, but it is not waterproof like modern paints or sealants.

Indoors: In dry environments, it can last for years, but it will be vulnerable to wiping, scrubbing, or high humidity.

Chalkiness: Whitewash remains slightly powdery to the touch and may come off when rubbed, especially if not fixed with an additive (like casein or glue).

Whitewash is mildly water-resistant but not waterproof. It is suitable for dry or mildly humid conditions but not ideal for areas exposed to heavy water or scrubbing unless modified.

Would suggest it would have to be used with an additional sealant, or reapplied constantly which doesn't make sense. There is going to be bodily fluids on the walls that need to be heavily scrubbed

Why Whitewash Stains Easily
Porous Surface:
Whitewash (made from lime and water) creates a chalky, matte, and porous surface that readily absorbs liquids.

No Waterproof Barrier:
Unlike modern paints, whitewash lacks sealing agents, so anything with color, acidity, or enzymes can penetrate and stain it.

Alkalinity:
While lime is highly alkaline and has mild disinfectant properties, this doesn't prevent staining. Some acidic substances (like stomach acid in vomit) can even chemically react with the lime and cause discoloration.

No Scrub Resistance:
Dried whitewash is not scrubbable. Cleaning attempts often remove the coating along with the stain, requiring reapplication.

I have seen descriptions of these rooms being "painted" "whitewashed" etc, this is an additional factor not present in the delousing chambers, so you have to account for that difference

[Stubble]

And, reenter 'special materials'...

Bombsaway, what, pray tell, would have been used as a sealer? Lucite? And regardless, you got an invoice? A work order? Anything?

First it was 'whitewash', now that that fell apart, it is 'sealer'. Regardless, it is special pleading...

They didn't use sealer they didn't have to prevent the walls from being exposed to gas that wasn't there.

For example, none of this special pleading applies to Krema I, and yet, no iron blue was formed there either.

The solution is two things, 1) simple and 2) uncomfortable. The gas chambers disguised as shower rooms myth is a lie.

[HansHill]

path of investigation

Great. And I like this phrase, I will use it below myself as you will see, quoting it back to you.

So, we are slowly making our way through the various factors of the chemistry involved. I also appreciate that you are willing to say some of the previous topics were wrong paths of investigation, which is admirable for a Jew to log onto a holocaust denial forum and own up to that. I'm White, and it would be like me walking into the hood and yelling the gamer word so, credit where it is due.

I want to take this momentary "pivot" in direction to mark the thread with one very specific detail. And I will be holding you account CJ against your own words. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the chemistry, and to consider all the variables and arguments at play in explaining the absence of Prussian Blue.

You said you wanted to do this, in the vein of having a good, honest, open debate, with no underhanded motives, or no per-conceived notions - all in the name of truth-seeking, I don't think I am misquoting you here. And I do believe you, if for no other reason than your sizable post count and your volume and rapidity of output. You do seem to be invested here, as am I.

We have just spent the last 9 pages having a robust back and forth, primarily on the chemistry, where the format was something like this:

CJ - Makes claim, makes assertion, asks for clarity and rebuttal from Revisionist side
HH - Offers rebuttal, offers evidence to the contrary, citing reference material, and answering questions in good faith

I also don't think that is a mischaracterization of everything so far. You also seem to be satisfied that the answers you've been given are of high quality, and satisfactory enough to re-orient your arguments into other areas. Which is good, and we will get to them, I promise.

However, we are on page 9 of this thread. And you are here about 3 months. There comes a point (and I believe we are well past it) that if you are asking this:

I'm trying to figure out why Prussian Blue didn't appear in the non-delousing / homicidal chambers.

...and if you are indeed asking it in good faith, like you say, in the spirit of truth-seeking and in the spirit of debate: then a really really really good path of investigation from a chemical perspective, is to ask "was HcN absent from this environment?"

Once you are comfortable with the question, as Revisionists are, you can begin to make a model of what this path of investigation actually looks like. The model looks something like:

Absence of HcN perfectly explains why there is no Prussian Blue - Tick

What else does it mean?

- The introduction mechanism is a contrivance - I will now investigate the "contrivance" of the introduction mechanism to see does this hold - also tick
- The contrivance of the introduction mechanism in turn means the holes were not present - I will investigate these holes and see does this hold - also tick
- The absence of the holes means I don't need to dispose of 1,100,000 bodies in the method described - i will investigate these disposal methods and see does this hold - also tick

- Assuming you are logically consistent in your model up until this point, I trust you are capable to make these investigations in good faith. The material is all there..... But the next one will be a doozey for you, because you are Jewish (no offense)
- In this model, absent of all the above, this must mean the eye-witnesses are inaccurate in their claims or have presented fabrications - I will now investigate these eyewitness claims to see did they indeed make fabrications and inaccurate claims - also tick

This model I have presented above, is a perfectly valid path of investigation, and it is one that all of us present here as Revisionists have been comfortable to do. There is no reason why this path of investigation is any less credible than say, your "wrong type of iron" path. Or Bombsaways path of "they painted the walls with Whitewash then painted over the Whitewash with a sealant".

It is also patently not what you have been doing. You have been bending over backwards to avoid this path of investigation and it is I suspect what has annoyed both Callafangers and Wetzelrad to the point that you have blocked them. I don't want to speak for these guys, but I am familiar with their postings, and they are both very experienced in this regard, much much much moreso than I. Do you think Wetzelrad doesn't know what the temperature was in Krema II? He knows. Do you think Callafangers doesn't know the pH of the walls? He knows. Do you think Archie doesn't know the concentrations claimed? He knows.

Wetzelrad for what it's worth, was right - you haven't actually been debating, since you (till now) have outright rejected the above model a priori. And he's right. You haven't been truth seeking at all. If you were actually being as honest as you said you were, you would have investigated this as a path of investigation as a possibility (not even a possibility actually, but taken it as your next logical step).

Finally, you have given me a few compliments throughout your time here which I appreciated, and I have given you some in return, primarily about your IQ which I feel is warranted and you demonstrate every time you post. Stubble has also called you a good sport, which I in fact also agree with.

The extent to which you decide which paths of investigation are open, and which paths of investigation are closed will really be the determining factor in how accurate it is to say you are in pursuit of raw, uncomfortable truth.

Anyway, i have all the revisionist material open in front of me with regards to:

- concentrations used
- exposure times
- pH
- temperatures

And I'll respond to whatever qs you have once you get time to read this.

- HansHill

[bombsaway]

And, reenter 'special materials'...

Bombsaway, what, pray tell, would have been used as a sealer? Lucite? And regardless, you got an invoice? A work order? Anything?

First it was 'whitewash', now that that fell apart, it is 'sealer'. Regardless, it is special pleading...

They didn't use sealer they didn't have to prevent the walls from being exposed to gas that wasn't there.

For example, none of this special pleading applies to Krema I, and yet, no iron blue was formed there either.

The solution is two things, 1) simple and 2) uncomfortable. The gas chambers disguised as shower rooms myth is a lie.

I don't know whatever was used here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... acchau.jpg

I don't know very much about Krema I except that far less gassings were conducted there.