Feasibility of Producer Gas

[fireofice]

One argument put forward is that since producer gas is more poisonous, it would make more sense to use that instead of gasoline and especially diesel. Here is an article arguing this:

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/techn ... r-gas/776/

However, there are some objections to this position. You can read about them here:

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/d ... s-engines/

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... -vans.html

One objection I found really silly was that it wouldn't be good to use them in enclosed spaces. Well obviously if producer gas was used, the method used to administer it would be different. Another objection is that it is more explosive. This is Friedrich Berg's response:

As I have explained again and again, gasoline engine exhaust, in the good old days before catatytic converters, contained about 7% carbon monoxide. That percentage could be easily increased to 12% by misadjusting the carburetor.

Producer gas contained from 18% to as much as 35% carbon monoxide. If all one wanted to do was kill people, one need never actually fill a chamber completely with 35% CO--just let enough of the CO-rich producer gas blow into the chamber to achieve a level of about 10% average CO and then shutoff the flow from the generator. So long as the level of CO is below 12% (which is still extremely lethal) there will be NO danger of explosion.

https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... 442#p38442

I am not an expert on producer gas, but since Berg was knowledgeable on this, I figured his view may carry some weight. Hans in his article appears to agree with this as he cited a source claiming about the same thing. It may be objected that gasoline has around a 10-14% CO concentration, so there may be no difference between them after all if they did want to go below the explosion range. However, according to the Encyclopedia:

Therefore, when the so-called “Final Solution” was reaching its peak in 1942 and 1943, Germany had tens of thousands of engineers and mechanics familiar with this lethal-gas technology, hundreds of thousands of drivers capable of operating these devices, and an equal number of these poison-gas devices present literally everywhere, with no limitation on fuel.

So regardless of how much "safe CO" they would have used to avoid explosion, it would have made more sense to go with the method which they had more fuel for regardless. Also they could still reach the "safe non-explosive limit" faster than gasoline anyway.

Finally, there is the argument that it would be too long to start up, therefore it wouldn't be efficient to use. One objection to this is that they used it to a significant extent on the battlefield because of liquid fuel storage. On the battle field, you may need to react quickly. So it doesn't make any sense to say the slow startup is bad for extermination but just fine for the battlefield. Second, from what I have been able to see, it takes about 2-3 minutes to start up. That's what is said here on this forum post:

http://forum.driveonwood.com/t/how-fast ... art/5504/3

Here are videos of him starting up his wood gas car:




So yes, I'll concede it does take a little bit longer to start up than a gasoline engine, but it doesn't appear to be that much dramatically longer.

In conclusion, while the opposition has pointed out some legitimate drawbacks to producer gas, I don't think these drawbacks are nearly strong enough to outweigh how useful they would have been. The fact that producer gas was never claimed to be used despite its likely efficient use and significant amount of use elsewhere is evidence (although not 100% certain evidence) against the extermination claims.

[Stubble]

At majdanek it is said that carbon monoxide was used as an instrument of death in one of the 6, I mean, how many gas chambers are there at majdanek now? I forget.

This carbon monoxide was used from industrial gas canisters. As a display, 2 carbon dioxide canisters are mounted to the wall and tourists are told there is no blue staining in this gas chamber because carbon monoxide was used.

Now, I've read that 'all of the camp commanders were from the t4 program'

'The overwhelming majority of German camp personnel deployed at the Operation Reinhard camps came from Operation T4 (the Euthanasia Program). Operation T4 was the Nazis’ first secret program of mass murder in which institutionalized persons with disabilities were killed.'

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... z-reinhard

So one of the many questions, for me, that come to mind is, why use an engine? Just pop a couple of cylinders of carbon monoxide on to the train and use the 'established' method of execution you are familiar with. Why reinvent the wheel? If we are to believe the story of the chamber at majdanek, the cylinders of carbon monoxide were already being delivered to the east, and being used for homicidal purposes. It's not a problem with documentation creating a paper trail or anything. If I believe the orthodox narrative, it was already being done in the east.

You don't have to bother with producer gas (although, that would be a cheap, efficient and difficult to establish instrument of death). Just use chemically pure carbon monoxide, delivered to the camp by the train load.

Of course, if we are talking about a cheap, efficient and effective instrument of mass murder, a guillotine come to mind. So does the gun, but, apparently a bullet wasn't cost effective. A hammer or bat to kill with blunt force would work. It doesn't have to be steam chambers or electric floors that open up to a roller coaster that uses buried tunnels to move bodies around between the camps so that they can be burned here or there.

If I need to cite source for the electric floors that open up and dump bodies into carts that run on rails in tunnels between the camps, I'll dig and find the 'eye witness' statements that say this. Currently I can't remember the names of the individuals, and looking it up on Google isn't exactly easy (or brave, or duck duck go, or bing or whatever).

The point I'm driving at is, if the 'nazis' were experienced genocidal scientists, I don't think a diesel submarine engine would be the first instrument to come to mind. I also don't think it would be accepted as the best instrument available.

If the 'nazis' were evil monsters, why didn't they just bash everyone to death with blunt instruments?

If they didn't want anybody to 'feel bad' about execution of these people, why didn't they just park the train cars on a spur and just leave them locked?

Is the question of why not producer gas valid? Sure. The orthodoxy will say 'we know that they used engines as the instrument of death because of the evidence'.

Personally, I'd like to see the evidence. I think the evidence is stronger for steam chambers, because that evidence was used to hang people by the neck until they were dead.

[Nessie]

How does the argument that there was supposedly a more effective and efficient method to gas people, than the methods evidenced to have been used, work? The argument does not evidence anything, it is just an argument.

[Hektor]

How does the argument that there was supposedly a more effective and efficient method to gas people, than the methods evidenced to have been used, work? The argument does not evidence anything, it is just an argument.

It's a plausibility argument. When you can transport something cheaper, faster and with higher certainty, you will rather chose this mode of transportation than others. Not really difficult, I'd say.

[Nessie]

How does the argument that there was supposedly a more effective and efficient method to gas people, than the methods evidenced to have been used, work? The argument does not evidence anything, it is just an argument.

It's a plausibility argument. When you can transport something cheaper, faster and with higher certainty, you will rather chose this mode of transportation than others. Not really difficult, I'd say.

I see, it is an argument used as a substitute for evidence, to reinforce revisionist doubts about what is evidenced to have happened. The Nazis used Soviet engines to produce poisonous gas, revisionists think producer gas would be more plausible, therefore the claims about the use of the engines must be lies.

[Stubble]

Since the rooms were hermetic, why not remove the roof, replace it with a mesh cage 4" or something below the top edge of the wall, and fill it with water?

Why not just hog tie the victims and cover them with earth?

Why not bash their heads in with stones?

We are told these were savage barbarians, cruel and absolutely devilish that would spend no end of time devising new ways to torture the condemned.

However, they settled on killing everyone in 'a few minute'

Bomba interview

Using exhaust from 'a motor', or being suffocated because the motor pumped the air out of the room, or the motor may have been used to deliver an exotic gas, or to produce electricity. Because all we have is eye witnesses and since we have counted out steam chamber witnesses and witnesses to ths various other methods, we are left with only witnesses for 'a motor', which is vague enough that it actually covers quite a bit.

Now, we can't argue about any of that because men were hung from the neck until they were dead, so, that's an established fact, because the court system, especially one as fair as what the allies put on, is not foulable.

Oh wait, that's the steam chambers. The motors are a fact though, the witnesses say so.

The orthodoxy says we can't argue an established fact. I think we'd have better luck arguing that 1,000,000 jews were killed in steam chambers than saying anything else. It is the only scenario that meets the same established burden of proof as 'a motor'.