bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 7:48 pm
To say that they are non-viable from the contradictions and gaps, you would have to discount every other explanation for why the problems exist - eg
bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 3:39 am
It's possible the methods changed, it's possible the testimonies were confused to some degree leading to improper interpretations, it's possible mechanisms were left out.
Strawman.
Its not non-viable due to a gap in the record. Its non-viable due the positive descriptions that are present in the record. I’m repeating myself now and this is wasting my time but i dont mind for any newcomers:
To give just one example, its non-viable because, it has not been demonstrated or explained how to outpace a US prison execution using less gas, for more victims, in a sub-optimal configuration.
All constants and variables heavily suggest the opposite.
The LC-50 for HCN for half an hour is 300ppm IIRC. Hence half of the condemned, or there about, would be dead in half an hour at the claimed concentration.
I don't think the people claiming 300ppm understand LC-50...
Even with concentrations used in American Homicidal Gas Chambers (execution gas chambers), which are around the same as the fumigation gas chambers, it takes 10 minutes to kill with certainly.
This is quickly and superficially discussed by Herr Rudolf in 'The Chemistry of Auschwitz' video, and more deeply in the Handbook by the same name;
bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 7:48 pm
To say that they are non-viable from the contradictions and gaps, you would have to discount every other explanation for why the problems exist - eg
bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 3:39 am
It's possible the methods changed, it's possible the testimonies were confused to some degree leading to improper interpretations, it's possible mechanisms were left out.
Strawman.
Its not non-viable due to a gap in the record. Its non-viable due the positive descriptions that are present in the record. I’m repeating myself now and this is wasting my time but i dont mind for any newcomers:
To give just one example, its non-viable because, it has not been demonstrated or explained how to outpace a US prison execution using less gas, for more victims, in a sub-optimal configuration.
All constants and variables heavily suggest the opposite.
There's nothing in the descriptions of the columns alone that make it non-viable, this was the point I was arguing, and specifically answering your question about why Kula didn't use a certain terminology.
bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 7:48 pm
To say that they are non-viable from the contradictions and gaps, you would have to discount every other explanation for why the problems exist - eg
Strawman.
Its not non-viable due to a gap in the record. Its non-viable due the positive descriptions that are present in the record. I’m repeating myself now and this is wasting my time but i dont mind for any newcomers:
To give just one example, its non-viable because, it has not been demonstrated or explained how to outpace a US prison execution using less gas, for more victims, in a sub-optimal configuration.
All constants and variables heavily suggest the opposite.
There's nothing in the descriptions of the columns alone that make it non-viable, this was the point I was arguing, and specifically answering your question about why Kula didn't use a certain terminology.
Start here:
bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 2:13 pm
I can't speak to the clumping issue because I this would depend on particular formation of the pellets and we don't have them. The slots could be very large, almost the width of the inner column.
“Would depend on the particular formation of the pellets” - correct and as described by the eyewitnesses as finely compacted within the inner mesh behind the flyscreen
“The slots could be very large, almost the width of the inner column.” - as per the eyewitnesses and the manufacturer of the device there were no slots, however the dimensions of the shafts are indeed known.
Both of these constants make the descriptions as given non-viable, and draw “no comment” in the former case, and deus ex machina in the latter case.
This is why the descriptions as given are non-viable.