Forensic Chemistry

[Wetzelrad]

It's probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns.
[...]
Rudolf's depth profiling still doesn’t address the basic scientific reality that cyanide doesn’t penetrate masonry deeply, so sampling in depth will always give “low” results. Since cyanide doesn’t penetrate more than a few microns, every layer below the surface will show nothing.

You haven't read Germar Rudolf. You don't know what you're talking about. Rudolf discusses sample depth in depth. Here is a table he put together. It shows that cyanide did penetrate not just to 10 microns but to 4,000 and beyond, all the way to the external side of some walls, and at relatively high concentrations.



You've taken this "10 microns" claim from Dr. James Roth. Are you aware that Rudolf extensively debunked him in his book? Not just with the samples but with his own words, as Archie quoted above. Why not read it before embrassing yourself further?

[Wetzelrad]

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.

No one is actually dodging this, it just doesn't warrant a serious reply since it's an argument from ignorance, and a particularly small gap of ignorance at that. The Jews who control the site of Birkenau today have every opportunity to prove your argument by entering the rubble, as they have done in the past. But since in the past they never found any trace of blue, they will probably not find any today. Still, they have my full endorsement and encouragement to try.

Take a look again at Majdanek, chamber III. Notice how even on the cleanish parts of the wall you can still see traces of blue? It's all over. It goes all the way up to the ceiling, and then it's on the ceiling too. It looks like it's also on the floor. Do you think that, when Markiewicz and whoever else went down into the Birkenau Crematoria, they didn't have their eyes out for traces like these? If it was there we would know about it by now.



Still, I appreciate you approaching the discussion from this angle since it implicitly verifies and vindicates everything revisionists have been saying for decades.

[ConfusedJew]

You haven't read Germar Rudolf. You don't know what you're talking about. Rudolf discusses sample depth in depth. Here is a table he put together. It shows that cyanide did penetrate not just to 10 microns but to 4,000 and beyond, all the way to the external side of some walls, and at relatively high concentrations.

This is from ChatGPT 5:

Rudolf claimed that cyanide residues were found deep inside walls.
The problem: the chemical reaction that forms Prussian Blue happens at the point of first contact (surface + moisture + iron). Once it forms, it’s insoluble and doesn’t keep moving inward.
If blue pigment is found deeper in rubble or cracked samples, it usually means the material was weathered, cracked, or contaminated after decades of exposure — not that cyanide gas originally soaked in that far.
Deeper “results” are not evidence of gas diffusion; they are artifacts of poor sampling or later environmental effects.

Rudolf tried to "debunk" Roth by misrepresenting what counts as meaningful penetration. Even if traces exist deeper, it does not change the fact that the bulk of residues remain at or near surfaces.
Courts have examined Rudolf’s rebuttals and ruled them not credible (e.g., in the 2000 Irving v. Lipstadt trial, where similar arguments were rejected).

You've taken this "10 microns" claim from Dr. James Roth. Are you aware that Rudolf extensively debunked him in his book? Not just with the samples but with his own words, as Archie quoted above. Why not read it before embrassing yourself further?

From GPT:

Roth’s point is basic chemistry:
Hydrogen cyanide gas reacts with iron compounds in damp masonry at the surface, forming stable Prussian Blue. That’s why penetration is shallow (microns). Once the pigment forms, it doesn’t keep moving inward.

Rudolf’s “deep penetration” claims are misleading. He based them on rubble and ruins that had been exposed to decades of rain, frost, and groundwater. Those conditions can wash or carry soluble cyanide traces deeper into cracks and pores over time. That’s not the same as cyanide gas penetrating during wartime.

If you find traces deeper in a wall, it doesn’t mean the gas diffused that far — it often means later weathering moved them. Roth was describing what happens during the actual gassing process, not what happens 50 years later to a ruin exposed to the elements.

Experts agree with Roth, not Rudolf. Independent chemists (like Dr. Richard Green) and forensic studies (like the Kraków Institute’s 1990 report) confirm Roth’s basic point: cyanide binds at the surface. Rudolf’s interpretation was rejected as pseudoscience, including in court during the Irving v. Lipstadt trial.

So no, Rudolf didn’t debunk Roth. He misrepresented how chemistry works, used flawed sampling, and ignored environmental contamination. Roth’s statement about shallow penetration is still the correct scientific position.

Why don't any recognized chemistry experts agree with Rudolf while many have reviewed his work and rejected it?

[ConfusedJew]

No one is actually dodging this, it just doesn't warrant a serious reply since it's an argument from ignorance, and a particularly small gap of ignorance at that. The Jews who control the site of Birkenau today have every opportunity to prove your argument by entering the rubble, as they have done in the past. But since in the past they never found any trace of blue, they will probably not find any today. Still, they have my full endorsement and encouragement to try.

Take a look again at Majdanek, chamber III. Notice how even on the cleanish parts of the wall you can still see traces of blue? It's all over. It goes all the way up to the ceiling, and then it's on the ceiling too. It looks like it's also on the floor. Do you think that, when Markiewicz and whoever else went down into the Birkenau Crematoria, they didn't have their eyes out for traces like these? If it was there we would know about it by now.

This argument keeps getting repeated but it is flawed. Do you not realize that it is possible, even likely, that HCN gas could have been administered without the formation of Prussian Blue? HansHill has acknowledged this which was respectable in my opinion but people keep repeating the same flawed arguments.

The Polish government controls the Auschwitz state museum, not Jewish people.

[Stubble]

You haven't read Germar Rudolf. You don't know what you're talking about. Rudolf discusses sample depth in depth. Here is a table he put together. It shows that cyanide did penetrate not just to 10 microns but to 4,000 and beyond, all the way to the external side of some walls, and at relatively high concentrations.

This is from ChatGPT 5:

Rudolf claimed that cyanide residues were found deep inside walls.
The problem: the chemical reaction that forms Prussian Blue happens at the point of first contact (surface + moisture + iron). Once it forms, it’s insoluble and doesn’t keep moving inward.
If blue pigment is found deeper in rubble or cracked samples, it usually means the material was weathered, cracked, or contaminated after decades of exposure — not that cyanide gas originally soaked in that far.
Deeper “results” are not evidence of gas diffusion; they are artifacts of poor sampling or later environmental effects.

Rudolf tried to "debunk" Roth by misrepresenting what counts as meaningful penetration. Even if traces exist deeper, it does not change the fact that the bulk of residues remain at or near surfaces.
Courts have examined Rudolf’s rebuttals and ruled them not credible (e.g., in the 2000 Irving v. Lipstadt trial, where similar arguments were rejected).

You've taken this "10 microns" claim from Dr. James Roth. Are you aware that Rudolf extensively debunked him in his book? Not just with the samples but with his own words, as Archie quoted above. Why not read it before embrassing yourself further?

From GPT:

Roth’s point is basic chemistry:
Hydrogen cyanide gas reacts with iron compounds in damp masonry at the surface, forming stable Prussian Blue. That’s why penetration is shallow (microns). Once the pigment forms, it doesn’t keep moving inward.

Rudolf’s “deep penetration” claims are misleading. He based them on rubble and ruins that had been exposed to decades of rain, frost, and groundwater. Those conditions can wash or carry soluble cyanide traces deeper into cracks and pores over time. That’s not the same as cyanide gas penetrating during wartime.

If you find traces deeper in a wall, it doesn’t mean the gas diffused that far — it often means later weathering moved them. Roth was describing what happens during the actual gassing process, not what happens 50 years later to a ruin exposed to the elements.

Experts agree with Roth, not Rudolf. Independent chemists (like Dr. Richard Green) and forensic studies (like the Kraków Institute’s 1990 report) confirm Roth’s basic point: cyanide binds at the surface. Rudolf’s interpretation was rejected as pseudoscience, including in court during the Irving v. Lipstadt trial.

So no, Rudolf didn’t debunk Roth. He misrepresented how chemistry works, used flawed sampling, and ignored environmental contamination. Roth’s statement about shallow penetration is still the correct scientific position.

Why don't any recognized chemistry experts agree with Rudolf while many have reviewed his work and rejected it?

It seems obvious to me that you missed this post.

I know you don't read, so, I won't even ask you to. This is instead for people that aren't a retarded and semi lobotomized LLM or a Confused jew.

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.

Basically, you are dead wrong and your argument is uninformed.

I also challenged you earlier, and got no reply. This is of course because you're 'above such questions', I'm sure. If I were less charitable, I might consider it bad faith rather than arrogance however.

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.

[Wetzelrad]

Why don't any recognized chemistry experts agree with Rudolf while many have reviewed his work and rejected it?

Why indeed. Perhaps it might have something to do with the last 80 years of overt censorship and suppression of contrary views? Perhaps it might have to do with making his conclusions socially and legally verboten? Not that you can actually back up your second claim, anyway. Who are your "many" chemistry experts that reviewed his work?

Let me turn your question back upon you. Why is it that the arguments you're using all fit into these two categories?
1) Arguments which were long-ago debunked.
2) Arguments which are novel and not used by any of your "recognized chemistry experts".

My answer is that you are wrong. Your argument quoted here will serve to make the point:

If blue pigment is found deeper in rubble or cracked samples, it usually means the material was weathered, cracked, or contaminated after decades of exposure — not that cyanide gas originally soaked in that far.
Deeper “results” are not evidence of gas diffusion; they are artifacts of poor sampling or later environmental effects.

If the reason that deeper samples come back high in cyanide is because the walls are cracked or eroded, your "many recognized chemistry experts" would already have pointed that out. They don't point it out because you just made it up!

At a certain point you just have to admit you're arguing nonsense that no one believes. You wouldn't need to go to ChatGPT to invent new arguments if the ones put forward by experts were correct.

Also you are insane and self-defeating to suggest that environmental contamination is the reason cyanide can be found deep inside masonry. If that were true, then every trace of cyanide found in a gas chamber should be disregarded as non-incriminating!

[ConfusedJew]

It seems obvious to me that you missed this post.

I know you don't read, so, I won't even ask you to. This is instead for people that aren't a retarded and semi lobotomized LLM or a Confused jew.

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.

Basically, you are dead wrong and your argument is uninformed.

From ChatGPT:

This study does show deep penetration of HCN gas into wood under its specific conditions, but it doesn’t support the stronger, generalized claim “100% pass through of material”.

The tested material is wood (pine, spruce). The results say nothing about other materials (e.g. metals, plastics, fabrics, dense polymers).

The exposure was for 41 hours at about 2.18 vol % HCN, under controlled humidity and temperature. Under different concentration, pressure, or time, the behavior might differ.

Some of the HCN is likely adsorbed or chemically bound inside the wood, not freely diffusing gas. So “penetration” in the sense of detectability does not imply “free unobstructed passage” in the same way as open gas flow.

HCN is a small, volatile, polar molecule (molecular weight ~27, boiling point ~26 °C). Whether it can pass through a material depends on the structure and chemistry of that material.

Wood is porous, hydrophilic, and chemically interactive, so HCN can diffuse and adsorb inside. Engineered materials (filters, coatings, composites) can either block diffusion physically or destroy HCN chemically.

Within an hour or so, HCN may penetrate a few millimeters into brick or plaster but full penetration of an entire thick wall would take years, not minutes.

I also challenged you earlier, and got no reply. This is of course because you're 'above such questions', I'm sure. If I were less charitable, I might consider it bad faith rather than arrogance however.

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.

Most of you guys aren't clear in the points that you are making so it's hard to understand what you are even arguing. Can you show me a link to the photo of the brick with PB so that I can see the context for it?

[ConfusedJew]

Why indeed. Perhaps it might have something to do with the last 80 years of overt censorship and suppression of contrary views? Perhaps it might have to do with making his conclusions socially and legally verboten? Not that you can actually back up your second claim, anyway. Who are your "many" chemistry experts that reviewed his work?

Let me turn your question back upon you. Why is it that the arguments you're using all fit into these two categories?
1) Arguments which were long-ago debunked.
2) Arguments which are novel and not used by any of your "recognized chemistry experts".

Those arguments have not been widely censored and have been reviewed many times by different chemists.

This response doesn't make much sense so I don't even know how to respond to you.

Actual chemical experts have debunked the pseudoscientific claims of Holocaust deniers. Some of you guys have tried to add arguments against those but they are mostly incoherent because none of you are educated in chemistry. It is hard for ChatGPT to make sense of pseudoscience.

The Krakow Institute study put a lot of nonsense to rest but then you seem to have fixated on the fact that they study didn't test for Prussian Blue which is totally irrelevant.

[ConfusedJew]

At a certain point you just have to admit you're arguing nonsense that no one believes. You wouldn't need to go to ChatGPT to invent new arguments if the ones put forward by experts were correct.

Also you are insane and self-defeating to suggest that environmental contamination is the reason cyanide can be found deep inside masonry. If that were true, then every trace of cyanide found in a gas chamber should be disregarded as non-incriminating!

The expert arguments were correct. I haven't seen anybody coherently even argue against Robert Green's research or the Krakow Institute's forensic study.

You guys are grasping for straws.

https://www.nizkor.org/the-techniques-o ... c-reports/

I am also trying to figure out whether you guys actually believe your arguments or you are just trolling.

"Perhaps, the only remaining question is whether deniers who are aware of the evidence against their claims actually believe their own arguments or whether they are perfectly aware of the insufficiency of their own claims."

[Wetzelrad]

You claim there are "many recognized chemistry experts" that reviewed Rudolf's work "many times" and rejected it. Who are they?

Yesterday you brought up James Roth to make the laughable claim that cyanide would not penetrate beyond 10 microns. You continue to believe this even after being shown that Roth himself had previously admitted cyanide penetrates "fairly deep". Moreover, it's been proven in an abundance of different ways that cyanide left traces deep in certain walls at Auschwitz.

Today you link to Richard Green. Some of Green's errors have aleady been addressed upthread, and as with Roth, his attempts to refute revisionist chemical arguments are thoroughly disposed of in The Chemistry of Auschwitz.

You also raise Jan Markiewicz again. The guy who didn't know how cyanide stains formed. After you already had this twelve page thread about his work. That wasn't embarassing enough for you?

Are these your "many experts"? Since all of your "many experts" are factually wrong, how is your appeal to authority performing for you?

[Nessie]

You claim there are "many recognized chemistry experts" that reviewed Rudolf's work "many times" and rejected it. Who are they?

Yesterday you brought up James Roth to make the laughable claim that cyanide would not penetrate beyond 10 microns. You continue to believe this even after being shown that Roth himself had previously admitted cyanide penetrates "fairly deep". Moreover, it's been proven in an abundance of different ways that cyanide left traces deep in certain walls at Auschwitz.

Today you link to Richard Green. Some of Green's errors have aleady been addressed upthread, and as with Roth, his attempts to refute revisionist chemical arguments are thoroughly disposed of in The Chemistry of Auschwitz.

You also raise Jan Markiewicz again. The guy who didn't know how cyanide stains formed. After you already had this twelve page thread about his work. That wasn't embarassing enough for you?

Are these your "many experts"? Since all of your "many experts" are factually wrong, how is your appeal to authority performing for you?

The best way to determine which expert is correct, is to look for evidence of the usage of the Kremas.

[HansHill]

Sometimes I stood there Thunderstruck.

[Stubble]

Given the last dumb responses from CJ, I'm going to call it, he's brain dead.

I'm sorry guys, we all did our best, but we just couldn't save him.

Also, I reiterate the need for a test along the lines of my proposal earlier. This 'microns and millimeters' argumentation, even in the face of diffusion charts and a penetration study on wood will continue, unabated, until it is settled.

I again recommend a 20cm thick concrete sample and an exposure time of 45 minutes.

For the record, I asked 3 clear and direct questions which were roundly ignored as I was told I was being unclear. That's, in my opinion, the definition of bad faith from CJ.

[ConfusedJew]

You claim there are "many recognized chemistry experts" that reviewed Rudolf's work "many times" and rejected it. Who are they?

Yesterday you brought up James Roth to make the laughable claim that cyanide would not penetrate beyond 10 microns. You continue to believe this even after being shown that Roth himself had previously admitted cyanide penetrates "fairly deep". Moreover, it's been proven in an abundance of different ways that cyanide left traces deep in certain walls at Auschwitz.

Today you link to Richard Green. Some of Green's errors have aleady been addressed upthread, and as with Roth, his attempts to refute revisionist chemical arguments are thoroughly disposed of in The Chemistry of Auschwitz.

You also raise Jan Markiewicz again. The guy who didn't know how cyanide stains formed. After you already had this twelve page thread about his work. That wasn't embarassing enough for you?

Are these your "many experts"? Since all of your "many experts" are factually wrong, how is your appeal to authority performing for you?

Do you guys know what cherry picking is or why this applies to what you are doing?

Maybe you found some errors or mistakes or ambiguities or gaps in what people like Dr. Roth, Dr. Green, Dr. Markiewicz, Dr. George Wellers, and Dr. Jamie McCarthy have said, as they are human, but it might not be material to their overall arguments.

Robert Jan van Pelt and Jean-Claude Pressac have both criticized Rudolf's methodology and conclusions.

• While they aren't credentialed chemists, like Rudolf, their methods were credible as they didn't rely on a single line of evidence (as did Rudolf) and integrated chemistry, engineering, architecture, documents, and testimony.

• Both published detailed, referenced works that historians and scientists could critique in contrast to Rudolf’s work which is largely circulated in revisionist channels and avoids peer-review venues.

• Both of their arguments align with mainstream chemistry, not exceptionalist interpretations. Instead of acknowledging the convergence of historical, architectural, and testimonial evidence, Rudolf claimed chemistry alone should carry an extraordinary evidentiary weight. He carved chemistry out as an “exceptional arbiter,” ignoring how science normally works (multiple converging methods, not one test ruling all).

Beyond that, several courts reviewed the scientific evidence and determined that his approaches were not legitimate. While courts don’t do original science themselves, they do evaluate whether scientific claims are credible, methodologically sound, and relevant. How did several court processes fail? I'm not saying that it's impossible, because courts make mistakes all the time, but you should have a good explanation of that if you want to be taken seriously by the mainstream.

[ConfusedJew]

Yesterday you brought up James Roth to make the laughable claim that cyanide would not penetrate beyond 10 microns. You continue to believe this even after being shown that Roth himself had previously admitted cyanide penetrates "fairly deep". Moreover, it's been proven in an abundance of different ways that cyanide left traces deep in certain walls at Auschwitz.

You guys are making basic reading comprehension mistakes.

From GPT:

Roth was describing how Prussian blue pigment, once formed, can bind within pores and layers of brick or plaster. He was not making a blanket statement that all cyanide compounds always penetrate deeply.

The “depth” of Prussian blue isn’t because cyanide itself penetrates unusually far — it’s because under the right conditions, it precipitates as a stable crystalline pigment that can grow into and lock within the porous structure of the material.

Most cyanide residues are soluble, unstable, and weather out quickly. Prussian blue residues are insoluble, stable, and can embed in pores to penetrate more deeply and persist for decades.

Cyanide ions do enter pores when the gas diffuses into porous brick or mortar, but because they remain soluble and unstable, they don’t “embed” — they either evaporate or leach out.