Forensic Chemistry

[Callafangers]

From the following transcript:

"I don't think the Leuchter results have any meaning. There's nothing in any of our data that says those surfaces were exposed or not."

"You have to look at what happens to cyanide when it reacts with a wall. Where does it go? How far does it go? Cyanide is a surface reaction. It's probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns in diameter. Crush this sample up, I have just diluted that sample 10,000; 100,000 times. If you're going to go look for it, you're going to look on the surface only. There's no reason to go deep, because it's not going to be there. Which was the exposed surface? I didn't even have any idea. That's like analyzing paint on a wall by analyzing the timber that's behind it. If they go in with blinders on, they will see what they want to see. What was he really trying to do? What was he trying to prove?"

https://www.errolmorris.com/film/mrd_transcript.html

I think that pretty much destroys the Leuchter report so we can move on.

No, you are lame.

Roth objecting based on his incorrect assumption that CN would not penetrate the wall is blown to smithereens by this photograph (and also the specific facts of the chemistry which Rudolf establishes in-detail in The Chemistry of Auschwitz, esp. Ch. 6:

disinfestation.jpg (128.2 KiB) Viewed 209 times

https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... 2-tcoa.pdf

[ConfusedJew]

No, you are lame.

Roth objecting based on his incorrect assumption that CN would not penetrate the wall is blown to smithereens by this photograph (and also the specific facts of the chemistry which Rudolf establishes in-detail in The Chemistry of Auschwitz, esp. Ch. 6:

disinfestation.jpg

A blue surface stain on BW 5b’s exterior doesn’t show “deep cyanide penetration,” it shows surface chemistry. Hydrogen cyanide reacts only at or near the surface of masonry. The visible blue is Prussian blue formed in a thin film. Films only tens of microns thick can look fully opaque. Think about paint for an example.

The outside face is blue because moisture transports soluble cyanide/iron species by capillary action to evaporation fronts (e.g., the outer wall). There they convert to insoluble Prussian blue and lock in at the surface. That doesn’t require centimeter-scale penetration of CN⁻ through the wall. It’s standard salt migration/efflorescence behavior in porous brick.

The homicidal chambers didn't turn blue because Prussian blue formation is highly sensitive to pH, iron state, water, and CN⁻ concentration/time. Delousing used hours-long, high-ppm exposures (ideal for pigment formation); homicidal gassings were minutes at much lower ppm and the rooms were washed/ventilated, so conditions weren’t favorable for PB to form or persist.

That photo is perfectly consistent with surface-limited cyanide chemistry, moisture transport, and the very different operating conditions of delousing vs homicidal gassings. It doesn’t contradict surface-only penetration, it illustrates it.

[Callafangers]

No, you are lame.

Roth objecting based on his incorrect assumption that CN would not penetrate the wall is blown to smithereens by this photograph (and also the specific facts of the chemistry which Rudolf establishes in-detail in The Chemistry of Auschwitz, esp. Ch. 6:

disinfestation.jpg

A blue surface stain on BW 5b’s exterior doesn’t show “deep cyanide penetration,” it shows surface chemistry. Hydrogen cyanide reacts only at or near the surface of masonry. The visible blue is Prussian blue formed in a thin film. Films only tens of microns thick can look fully opaque. Think about paint for an example.

The outside face is blue because moisture transports soluble cyanide/iron species by capillary action to evaporation fronts (e.g., the outer wall). There they convert to insoluble Prussian blue and lock in at the surface. That doesn’t require centimeter-scale penetration of CN⁻ through the wall. It’s standard salt migration/efflorescence behavior in porous brick.

The homicidal chambers didn't turn blue because Prussian blue formation is highly sensitive to pH, iron state, water, and CN⁻ concentration/time. Delousing used hours-long, high-ppm exposures (ideal for pigment formation); homicidal gassings were minutes at much lower ppm and the rooms were washed/ventilated, so conditions weren’t favorable for PB to form or persist.

That photo is perfectly consistent with surface-limited cyanide chemistry, moisture transport, and the very different operating conditions of delousing vs homicidal gassings. It doesn’t contradict surface-only penetration, it illustrates it.

WOW. CJ has reached new levels of AI-hallucination-copy-paste. It may be time for another 2-week-suspension. Ridiculous.

The 'capillary action' and 'transporting' your AI slop mentions is precisely the penetration you simultaneously deny.

Thank you for confirming 100% that the FeCN formation is not only surface-level.

[Callafangers]

I will also add to the above that the 'capillaries' within the bricks are necessarily diffuse, extensive, and complex. Think of an extremely dense sponge-like consistency, with huge microscopic networks of surface area upon which the same 'evaporation' (or direct moisture-assisted reaction) leading to FeCN would have occurred, well-before it reached the exterior surface.

And remember: samples taken at alleged 'chambers' were scraped/chiseled from the interior surface, where the penetration would have been especially concentrated and diffuse, ensuring the highest probability of FeCN detection, assuming homicidal 'gassings' occurred...

But they didn't.

[Stubble]

I thought CJ said he was going to rebut Rudolf?

Why is he still on about Leuchter?

I get that the guy at the lab did a complete 180° after he found out where the samples came from, that doesn't really have any bearing on the various other tests though, now does it.

So far as the 'only on the surface' bit and 'the samples were diluted' and 'it's like trying to sample paint by looking at the 2x4 in the wall' garbage, that's just garbage.

For future readers, Mr Death;



I still can't believe this is supposed to be a 'hit piece'.

Lastly, what a >forbidden expletive<.

[ConfusedJew]

WOW. CJ has reached new levels of AI-hallucination-copy-paste. It may be time for another 2-week-suspension. Ridiculous.

The 'capillary action' and 'transporting' your AI slop mentions is precisely the penetration you simultaneously deny.

No it's not. You are hallucinating.

Capillary transport is not proof of deep fixation. In porous brick, thin moisture films can dissolve small amounts of soluble species and carry them toward the drying side (usually the exterior). When water evaporates, the ions concentrate and precipitate in a very thin zone at/just beneath the surface (typical efflorescence/sub-florescence). That is still “surface-limited,” even though liquid moved inside the pores on the way there.

Thank you for confirming 100% that the FeCN formation is not only surface-level.

Wrong. “Surface-level” here means confined to a shallow zone (tens to hundreds of micrometers, sometimes a millimeter or two) near the evaporation front. Paint films that thin look opaque blue—so a vivid surface color tells you nothing about centimeter-deep penetration.

FeCN would have only formed well before it reached the exterior surface if the chemistry cooperated. Pore solutions in new mortars are strongly alkaline (bad for PB formation and stability). Without drying/oxidation, ferro/ferricyanide complexes tend to stay dissolved rather than precipitate as the solid blue pigment.

The capillary-transport explanation was correct. Moisture can move cyanide/iron species through near-surface pores yet still yield a surface-confined blue film.

[ConfusedJew]

I will also add to the above that the 'capillaries' within the bricks are necessarily diffuse, extensive, and complex. Think of an extremely dense sponge-like consistency, with huge microscopic networks of surface area upon which the same 'evaporation' (or direct moisture-assisted reaction) leading to FeCN would have occurred, well-before it reached the exterior surface.

You're mixing up a technical point and misusing it.

Think of a brick like a paper towel full of tiny straws. When the brick is damp, water carries dissolved stuff (including cyanide/iron) toward the side that’s drying. At the surface, the water evaporates and leaves the solids behind—so color or crust builds up right at/near the face, not deep inside.

Capillaries are just the highway while the drop-off point is the drying surface. That’s where the blue piles up—so a blue façade shows a surface film, not deep penetration.

And remember: samples taken at alleged 'chambers' were scraped/chiseled from the interior surface, where the penetration would have been especially concentrated and diffuse, ensuring the highest probability of FeCN detection, assuming homicidal 'gassings' occurred...

But they didn't.

You keep repeating the same falsehood again. FeCN detection was absolutely not required to show that homicidal gassings occurred. Even HansHill has clearly admitted that much. That response shows to me that you have no comprehension of what you're actually saying.

Do you understand why homicidal gassings could have occurred without the formation of Prussian blue? It was in fact likely. This is not a response to anything that I actually said.

[ConfusedJew]

I thought CJ said he was going to rebut Rudolf?

Why is he still on about Leuchter?

I get that the guy at the lab did a complete 180° after he found out where the samples came from, that doesn't really have any bearing on the various other tests though, now does it.

So far as the 'only on the surface' bit and 'the samples were diluted' and 'it's like trying to sample paint by looking at the 2x4 in the wall' garbage, that's just garbage.

I want to make sure that there's agreement that Leuchter has been totally debunked. Then I will move onto Rudolf. ChatGPT 5 is significantly better in the past 2 weeks that it can sort through your pseudoscience and show where it's wrong.

[Stubble]

I'd start a Leuchter thread then and then a Rudolf thread I guess.

Core is forensic chemistry, but, core isn't what was used to attack the Leuchter report. Instead, some conjecture and minutiae was 'deboonked'.

You are probably going to just continue to go in circles here though and spin your wheel going back to the starting block over and over again and declaring yourself 'winner' and 'deboonker' of 'deniers'.

/shrug

[ConfusedJew]

I'd start a Leuchter thread then and then a Rudolf thread I guess.

Core is forensic chemistry, but, core isn't what was used to attack the Leuchter report. Instead, some conjecture and minutiae was 'deboonked'.

What I'm pointing out is not "minutiae". If you don't recognize how important that is for debunking the entire study, I'm not sure we will be able to have an intelligent conversation about this.

[Stubble]

I'd start a Leuchter thread then and then a Rudolf thread I guess.

Core is forensic chemistry, but, core isn't what was used to attack the Leuchter report. Instead, some conjecture and minutiae was 'deboonked'.

What I'm pointing out is not "minutiae". If you don't recognize how important that is for debunking the entire study, I'm not sure we will be able to have an intelligent conversation about this.

Ok, then, what is this 'earth shattering' thing you are saying that I missed?

You talking about your baseless assertion that HcN is not 'mobile' in a porous materials like 'brick' 'mortar' and 'plaster'? There's actually tables, in this thread, dealing with the porosity of these materials. There is a picture of iron blue ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL at Majdanek. There are also the pictures of iron blue on the outside of the delousing facilities at Auschwitz Birkenau.

I told you, that baseless assertion that it's a surface reaction is garbage. Absolute garbage.

Picture courtesy of Fred;



Corresponding post found here;

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... &start=150

[ConfusedJew]

You're not responding to what I said but I'll address that anyway.

A photo of staining does not prove gas penetration. Blue staining can result from local chemical reactions, contamination, or later environmental effects (e.g. moisture carrying soluble compounds through the wall). The mere presence of discoloration does not demonstrate HCN “mobility” across walls.

The problem with the Leuchter report was that he didn't find HCN but the samples he collected were very diluted.

If you look for things where they're not supposed to be, you won't find them. If you look for things that aren't supposed to be there, you also will find nothing.

[Stubble]

You're not responding to what I said but I'll address that anyway.

A photo of staining does not prove gas penetration. Blue staining can result from local chemical reactions, contamination, or later environmental effects (e.g. moisture carrying soluble compounds through the wall). The mere presence of discoloration does not demonstrate HCN “mobility” across walls.

The problem with the Leuchter report was that he didn't find HCN but the samples he collected were very diluted.

If you look for things where they're not supposed to be, you won't find them. If you look for things that aren't supposed to be there, you also will find nothing.

I'm sorry, what? How, exactly, do you think that iron blue formed on the other side of the wall?

I also need to ask, what, exactly, is the retardant that prevents formation of iron blue below some unspecified depth of 'surface'?

For clarity and continuity, can you tell me what exactly is going to prevent hydrogen cyanide gas from permeating concrete, brick, mortar or plaster?

𝕭𝖊 𝕻𝖗𝖊𝖈𝖎𝖘𝖊.

[Callafangers]

No it's not. You are hallucinating.

CJ, do not say shit like this as a way of pretending you are making your own arguments -- you are copy-pasting ChatGPT only -- none of what you say or do here has been your own.

Capillary transport is not proof of deep fixation. In porous brick, thin moisture films can dissolve small amounts of soluble species and carry them toward the drying side (usually the exterior). When water evaporates, the ions concentrate and precipitate in a very thin zone at/just beneath the surface (typical efflorescence/sub-florescence). That is still “surface-limited,” even though liquid moved inside the pores on the way there.

More AI slop, you utter moron. The 'thin moisture films' also lead to residue along the surface of the diffuse/porous capillaries. These capillaries have surface area of their own, where evaporation occurs and where reactions leading to FeCN occur even without evaporation. All of the concentration/precipitation/etc your AI is rambling on about applies also to the interior of the brick.

Wrong. “Surface-level” here means confined to a shallow zone (tens to hundreds of micrometers, sometimes a millimeter or two) near the evaporation front. Paint films that thin look opaque blue—so a vivid surface color tells you nothing about centimeter-deep penetration.

CJ, again you don't get to put out the sassy "Wrong." comments -- you are not making your own arguments here. All you get to say is, "here is what my ChatGPT output said:". You don't get to say, "Wrong." or make any sassy comebacks, since you're simply a liar copy-pasting AI output.

You're making up crap about an 'evaporation front' being exclusively on the exterior surface of bricks. You have no evidence to support this, just more lies and confused AI output. All of the formation processes for FeCN applicable to brick surfaces is also applicable to the porous channels within.

FeCN would have only formed well before it reached the exterior surface if the chemistry cooperated. Pore solutions in new mortars are strongly alkaline (bad for PB formation and stability).

Here you go again. Unbelievable. Alkalinity is good for formation of FeCN when in the range found in every place where 'chamber' samples were taken, being at most *weakly* alkaline and Rudolf showing in Chapter 6 of TCOA that mild alkalinity promotes the reduction of iron(III) to iron(II) cyanide and its precipitation as FeCN.

Without drying/oxidation, ferro/ferricyanide complexes tend to stay dissolved rather than precipitate as the solid blue pigment.

The capillary-transport explanation was correct. Moisture can move cyanide/iron species through near-surface pores yet still yield a surface-confined blue film.

You have no clue what the fuck you are talking about.

You're on your last leg, CJ. Start making clear that you are simply an ignorant copy-paste spammer of AI output (e.g. use quotes for AI output, labeled as such -- no more pretending it is your own), or your membership here will be (and remain) in jeopardy.

[Callafangers]

You're not responding to what I said but I'll address that anyway.

A photo of staining does not prove gas penetration. Blue staining can result from local chemical reactions, contamination, or later environmental effects (e.g. moisture carrying soluble compounds through the wall). The mere presence of discoloration does not demonstrate HCN “mobility” across walls.

The problem with the Leuchter report was that he didn't find HCN but the samples he collected were very diluted.

If you look for things where they're not supposed to be, you won't find them. If you look for things that aren't supposed to be there, you also will find nothing.

I'm sorry, what? How, exactly, do you think that iron blue formed on the other side of the wall?

I also need to ask, what, exactly, is the retardant that prevents formation of iron blue below some unspecified depth of 'surface'?

For clarity and continuity, can you tell me what exactly is going to prevent hydrogen cyanide gas from permeating concrete, brick, mortar or plaster?

𝕭𝖊 𝕻𝖗𝖊𝖈𝖎𝖘𝖊.

His latest ChatGPT theory is that the free-form cyanide hopped on a "moisture bus" through the walls, reacting minimally or not at all the entire way through, and then forming in considerable amounts as visible-blue FeCN on the exterior surface, leaving the cement/brick/mortar interior free of FeCN and the exterior covered in it.