Forensic Chemistry

[Nessie]

When exposed to high levels of Zyklon B, only parts of a wall turn PB. How would that affect test results, where samples are later taken from a wall, say Krema II, which has limited access?

[HansHill]

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

This is a very weak argument.

You are suggesting that any positive Prussian Blue detection on the surface would be diluted by unaffected inner material of the sample. This would only hold if there was PB on the surface of the sample. We know that this is not the case, as the sampling sites are still extant and you can see where they were obtained from, for both Leuchter and Rudolf:



Because there is no Prussian Blue on the surface or the interior, there simply is nothing to "dilute", which shatters your argument.

This argument is also weak on many other aspects, i'll just mention them briefly:

- You rebut my Roth-under-oath-quote with a Roth-on-a-TV-Show quote. Why are you suggesting Dr Roth lied under oath? That's a grievous accusation you should not make lightly.

- Callafangers is right in that the interior of the material also contains surface area, and that the permeability (as defined by diffusion, absorption and porosity) will be expected to allow the reactions to occur along any appropriate surface area, whether interior or exterior of the material. There is one technical exception to this rule, and that is brick. Due to the sintering process in the manufacturing of bricks, the interior of red bricks is not conducive to the chemical reaction we are looking for. This is for technical & kinetic reasons, and not chemical reasons. This one exception however, completely breaks down closer to the surface where the kinetics become more and more favourable (btw, while Leuchter didn't indicate his depth profiling, we can infer it was no greater than 3cm based on the extant sampling locations cut-outs).

- I made a thread where I have gathered together the chemical and kinetic aspects of this very argument for each of the building materials involved (brick, concrete, cement mortar, cement plaster and lime plaster) - see here: https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=502
-

[HansHill]

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.

This is the key point that CJ and his AI buddie are missing.

[Fred Ziffel]

Just so everyone understands, the photo Nessie posted is from Majdanek Chamber "A" where Zyklon was used (No ceiling holes) to B2 which was nothing more than a storeroom. I have area in blue color

[Nessie]

...



Because there is no Prussian Blue on the surface or the interior, there simply is nothing to "dilute", which shatters your argument.

How do you know that there is no Prussian blue, on the collapsed walls, that cannot be seen? Photos show that it causes areas of staining and it is not even across the entire surface.

[Nessie]

Just so everyone understands, the photo Nessie posted is from Majdanek Chamber "A" where Zyklon was used (No ceiling holes) to B2 which was nothing more than a storeroom. I have area in blue color

If that chamber was blown up, it would be possible that it would leave visible remains of the interior wall, that does not show any staining.

[HansHill]

How do you know that there is no Prussian blue

The claim from CJ is that the extant Leuchter samples had Prussian Blue on the surface, and this was diluted with unaffected inner material, thereby giving a lower / nil reading. I am showing this is impossible because we know the locations of the extant sampling sites contained no Prussian Blue.

Mods: I am pre-emptively predicting that this poster will fail to understand this point, and will purposely and foolishly shit up the thread with inane babbling, and I will report any of his replies after this post to be removed from this thread

[Nessie]

How do you know that there is no Prussian blue

The claim from CJ is that the extant Leuchter samples had Prussian Blue on the surface, and this was diluted with unaffected inner material, thereby giving a lower / nil reading. I am showing this is impossible because we know the locations of the extant sampling sites contained no Prussian Blue.

Mods: I am pre-emptively predicting that this poster will fail to understand this point, and will purposely and foolishly shit up the thread with inane babbling, and I will report any of his replies after this post to be removed from this thread

I can see that, where the samples were taken, did not display Prussian blue. You are dodging that where the collapse prevents access, there may be Prussian blue on the walls.

[HansHill]

I can see that, where the samples were taken, did not display Prussian blue.

Good. Then you agree with me that CJ's point about PB dilution is moot. Thank you.

Awaiting Confused Jew's rebuttal on this point.

[Archie]

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

That is from a 1999 documentary by Errol Morris. That's more than a decade after the second Zundel trial.

Roth did not say anything like the above at the trial. That seems to have been some damage control answer he came up with years later when he was approached for the documentary. And it is incorrect in any case. At the Zundel trial, he was a reluctant but favorable witness for Zundel.

Roth was shown Exhibit 144, a colour photograph of the blue staining on the wall of Delousing Facility No. 1 at Birkenau from which sample 32 had been removed. He indicated that the blue colour was what was commonly referred to as "Prussian blue." (33-9289) The chemical definition of Prussian blue was ferro-ferri-cyanide. (33-9297) Prussian blue was an iron cyanide produced by a reaction between iron and the hydrogen cyanide. It was a very stable compound which stayed around a long time. If hydrogen cyanide came into contact with bricks or mortar containing iron, it was fully conceivable that a reaction of the iron and hydrogen cyanide would take place, leaving behind the Prussian blue. (33-9290) In porous materials such as brick and mortar, the Prussian blue could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration. If all surface iron was converted to Prussian blue, the reaction would effectively stop for lack of exposed iron. (33 9291)

Roth testified that the iron/cyanide reaction capabilities of samples 9 and 29 were no different from that of sample 32. If samples 9 and 29 had been exposed continually everyday for two years to 300 parts per million of hydrogen cyanide, Roth testified that he would expect to see the formation of the iron cyanide compounds; the so called "Prussian blue" material, in detectable amounts. The reaction of the two substances was an accumulative reaction; the reaction continued with each exposure. One way for this reaction not to occur would be a lack of water. These reactions, in many cases, required water or vapour in order to occur. However, in rooms of normal temperatures and normal humidity, there would be plenty of moisture present for this type of reaction to take place. (33-9293, 9294)

Prussian blue did not normally disappear unless it was physically removed. To be removed from a porous material like a brick it would have to be removed by sandblasting or grinding down the surface or by the application of a strong acid such as high levels of sulphuric, nitric or hydrochloric acid. It would be more difficult to remove from porous surfaces because of the fact that the formation would have taken on depth. (33-9297, 9298)

https://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/34roth.html

[Stubble]

A proposal;

Someone properly credentialed (Germar Rudolf
comes to mind) exposes a sample of concrete, set for some months, to hydrogen cyanide gas for 45 minutes.

They then test how far the cyanide infiltrates the concrete.

I suggest a sample 20cm wide.

I posit the results will be shocking to many people.

I'm going to link a direct pdf download;

https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files ... vka_AJ.pdf

It is not a direct analog, but, it shows very clearly that HcN gas is capable of 100% pass through of material.

[borjastick]

You are dodging that where the collapse prevents access, there may be Prussian blue on the walls.

Hilarious. There are none so blind as those who will not see... Not those who 'cannot see' but those who will not see. Nessie is in this category because he doesn't want the truth. It serves him and his ilk no good whatsoever. It serves israel no good whatsoever. The truth is a disaster to those who have to have the holocaust believed and protected by millions of people and many governments around the world.

So Nessie hides behind obtuse comments and irrelevant statements like the one above. The wall that is missing might have had prussian blue stains on it. Laughable but similar to those sad and buffoonery type statements we hear from lefties like Starmer and Corbyn who want a 'fairer world'. Idiots. Or those woke halfwits who scream out 'refugees welcome' and 'there should be no billionaires'. Nessie's version of this type of junior high argument is you're a nazi if you don't accept that 6m jews were deaded in the holocaust and that just because the evidence is full of hearsay and fifth hand pass me downs it must be true.

I've said this before but the standard they hold for proof is incredibly low yet they expect Moon Landing type scientific evidence and proof from those they disagree with.

And if you want to know why Hitler wanted rid of those pesky big nose bastards look no further than Gaza and the israeli attitude to those they don't like and want out of the way. No wonder very few people like them and levels of anti semitism are rising faster than supermarket prices.

Truth is hate to those who hate truth.

[Nessie]

You are dodging that where the collapse prevents access, there may be Prussian blue on the walls.

Hilarious. There are none so blind as those who will not see... Not those who 'cannot see' but those who will not see. Nessie is in this category because he doesn't want the truth.

The truth is determined by the evidence. I believe in a history that is evidenced. So-called revisionists cannot even produce an evidenced history.

It serves him and his ilk no good whatsoever. It serves israel no good whatsoever. The truth is a disaster to those who have to have the holocaust believed and protected by millions of people and many governments around the world.

So Nessie hides behind obtuse comments and irrelevant statements like the one above. The wall that is missing might have had prussian blue stains on it.

The point I have been making, is that staining is not even across any wall, so surely, any testing will produce a different result, depending on whereabouts on the wall the sample is taken. Then there is the issue of there is so little wall to take samples from. Five of the gas chambers have no wall to test.

Laughable but similar to those sad and buffoonery type statements we hear from lefties like Starmer and Corbyn who want a 'fairer world'. Idiots. Or those woke halfwits who scream out 'refugees welcome' and 'there should be no billionaires'. Nessie's version of this type of junior high argument is you're a nazi if you don't accept that 6m jews were deaded in the holocaust and that just because the evidence is full of hearsay and fifth hand pass me downs it must be true.

You are lying that the evidence I have is full of hearsay. There are over 300 eyewitnesses to the gas chambers, corroborated by evidence from other sources.

I've said this before but the standard they hold for proof is incredibly low yet they expect Moon Landing type scientific evidence and proof from those they disagree with.

Another lie. The standard of proof is the same for you as is it for me.

And if you want to know why Hitler wanted rid of those pesky big nose bastards look no further than Gaza and the israeli attitude to those they don't like and want out of the way. No wonder very few people like them and levels of anti semitism are rising faster than supermarket prices.

Truth is hate to those who hate truth.

That shows your motive to create a lie.

[ConfusedJew]

The claim from CJ is that the extant Leuchter samples had Prussian Blue on the surface, and this was diluted with unaffected inner material, thereby giving a lower / nil reading. I am showing this is impossible because we know the locations of the extant sampling sites contained no Prussian Blue.

Mods: I am pre-emptively predicting that this poster will fail to understand this point, and will purposely and foolishly shit up the thread with inane babbling, and I will report any of his replies after this post to be removed from this thread

I didn't say that. Cyanide exposure often does not result in formation of Prussian Blue. The Prussian Blue is a red herring, and you've almost admitted as much. Detection of cyanide traces would be sufficient but not even necessary.

[Stubble]

ChatGPT 5 has come out which is much better than the predecessor so I figured I'd revive this discussion as it is easier to go deeper with reliable information and arguments now.

You guys cherry pick survivor testimonies to find flaws which you claim discredits the whole source so why not do the same for the Holocaust denial "forensic" studies.

The Leuchter Report found o significant cyanide residues in Auschwitz gas chambers which has been used to argue that no gassings occurred. But the sampling was done inappropriately. Leuchter chipped out chunks of wall and ground entire pieces. Hydrogen cyanide penetrates only the surface millimeters of porous materials like brick. By grinding whole samples into powder, he massively diluted any surface cyanide with unaffected interior material. Can we agree that study should be thrown out entirely because of that?