Forensic Chemistry

[TlsMS93]

Excellent post - I think Wetzelrad has his on something important here. Many absurd, contradictory, or outright false claims have been uncritically reproduced here, all under the topic of "forensic chemistry at Auschwitz".

To be fair, Confused Jew is not the only one. From this thread alone, Nessie has stated that Krema II is not able to be examined (!) and Bombsaway has offered his theory of the bleached walls. These all represent data points which will fuel further hallucinations. I shudder to think my AI generations in other areas of life contain any "Nessie-isms". God.

For this i have a mod suggestion - if we (revisionists) were to flag a post which makes an absurd claim (such as the Kremas are no longer able to be examined) - the author is given one chance to offer a citation, and if this is not produced, the post is moved to a quarantine, or removed entirely.

This will not only help keep threads lean, but will over time incentivise these people to start hedging their words like "its possible that X is the case".

Even the “bunker farms” say they have photos that show Prussian Blue, I was shocked when I read this about them, like what?

[HansHill]

I didn't say anything like that and you are not understanding what I actually did say. I will reserve my responses for HansHill.

But to be clear, chemically reactive iron (necessary for the formation of PB) is not generic iron.

Forensic studies showed that the plaster in LK1 had very low permeability. The concrete/mortar used in the gas chambers likely had lower free iron content compared to the old red bricks used in delousing chambers. The materials in gas chambers were similar, but not identical, to those used elsewhere in the camp.

I have provided you reference material on the permeability (rates of absorption, diffusion and porosity), all cited and linked earlier and above. If you are challenging this, then kindly produce these "forensic studies" from LK1. I've already given you the Markiewicz study which omitted such basic measurements as iron content, so I will await this forensic study with bated breath.

Iron in materials typically exists as iron oxides (Fe₂O₃, Fe₃O₄, FeO) – stable, oxidized forms (like rust), bound in silicates (within sand or aggregate), traces of Fe in cement clinker minerals. These aren’t very reactive with cyanide under normal conditions. What’s needed to form Prussian blue is free Fe³⁺ ions — that is, iron soluble in water and capable of bonding with cyanide ions.

This is simply not true. The Schwarz and Deckert study i posted earlier from 1929 exposed various building materials to HcN and produced the following results:




Per Rudolf:

A very interesting set of data was gained by Schwarz and Deckert as pub-
lished in 1929 (p. 203), which I list in Table 9. They had exposed different
masonry materials to a nominal concentration of 22.5 g/m3 HCN for 24 hours,
and then measured the amount of HCN contained in their samples right after
the gassing and again after several hours of ventilation. For one thing, the
results show the durability of very high concentrations of hydrogen cyanide
over longer periods of time even in dry, chemically bound cement (see Chart
11). Concentrations did not fall below 1⁄4 of the initial values even after three
days. With daily fumigation lasting several hours, this would result, in this
example, in an average HCN concentration in the wall swinging around ap-
proximately 100 to 200 mg hydrogen cyanide per m2 of masonry.
The second result we can obtain from this is that fresh concretes and ce-
ment mortars absorb much more HCN in comparison to samples that are
chemically set (here by a factor 26), and that their HCN content doesn’t seem
to drop anymore at all after some 3 days. It seems to have been chemically
bound. In any case, the difference between the somewhat fresh sample and the
set sample increases with time.

So your speculation is simply not supported in the literature.

Most iron in concrete or plaster is tightly bound in mineral lattices, does not dissolve in water easily, is not available in ionic form (Fe³⁺ or Fe²⁺). In other words it was there, just chemically unavailable for forming Prussian blue.

I am very familiar with this material, including all studies from both sides and I have never seen this argument being made. In fact, Markiewicz neglects to comment on the properties of the Iron entirely (!) and Green agrees with Rudolf's proposed explanation that the PB formed in the delousing chambers (across all materials - plaster, cement and brick) using the perfectly available iron in the building materials, so you are arguing something here that is not supported either by the literature, or your own experts on this debate.

In Leichenkeller 1, the surfaces were plastered and smoothed, sometimes whitewashed. Whitewashing adds lime (Ca(OH)₂), increasing pH even more. The gas chambers were cold, damp, and not continuously exposed.

These factors combine to seal the surface, prevent deep penetration of HCN, and minimize moisture + air exchange, which is needed to generate soluble iron ions.

The permeability of plaster along with all the other materials has been addressed and this is redundant.

**Edit**

You seem to be arguing for Schroedinger's Plaster and Schroedinger's Cement. Sometimes the reaction will be supported (eg Delousing chambers in Birkenau and Majdanek) and sometimes it won't.

The problem here is that the parameters across both are measured and are comparable for each parameter (including iron content, iron properties, permeability, diffusion, porosity and any other metric you wish to investigate)

[ConfusedJew]

Allow me to demonstrate once again that ConfusedJew is relying on AI hallucinations to write his posts.

An AI hallucination is functionally no different than a human error. I'm not admitting or denying that there's a mistake in there yet, I'm just saying it shouldn't matter. If you are here to pursue truth, rather than push a stupid narrative or false point of view, an inaccuracy is just another opportunity to find a deeper truth.

I'll look at all of this later today but even if you are right about nitpicking an error, it certainly does not mean that you are right about anything else.

[HansHill]

It could be ammonia, bleach, slaked lime. All of these can raise alkalinity in a room, greatly inhibiting HCN absorption, staining. You assume none of these were used, the most common cleaning products in Germany at the time https://chatgpt.com/share/687cd1d3-4cbc ... 4befc5ae22

I'm not trying to say I know WHY there wasn't staining, I'm saying you are not accounting for many expected/possible variables.

In re-visiting the Green Rudolf debate for this thread (as i do every few months, and you lot should too), i have found this from Dr Green. He is discounting your proposed mechanism of pH interference due to Lime or Whitewashing.

We therefore discount without further ado the possibility that lime from plaster or whitewash is a reason for an alkaline pH.

Dr Green - Chemistry is Not The Science

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/

He is however, unusually silent on bleach

[ConfusedJew]

SS engineer Karl Bischoff’s correspondence provides very clear details on the ventilation and referred to Auschwitz as an extermination camp on 2 September 1942.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/do ... -auschwitz

Anyone who takes a moment to check this link will see that the only details provided on "ventilation" concern the heating of the morgue mentioned above. It specifically describes how hot air is to be routed from the furnaces down into the morgue, not how air is to be removed from the morgue. Beside that, it is quite devoid of detail, and it wasn't sent by Bischoff but by Jahrling.

Bischoff most certainly did not refer to Auschwitz as an "extermination camp". This is a very obvious failure in reading comprehension. Did you check any of this before clicking post?

Congratulations, you are correct. I misspoke and it was notes from the diary of SS-Doctor Kremer, not Bischoff. I accidentally switched out the name, but who cares? As a warning, I will not tolerate this kind of condescending (and stupid) nitpicking for future reference, but we will be OK as long as you acknowledge what you are doing and modify your attitude.

Notes From Diary of SS-Doctor Kremer, while in Auschwitz.
'The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988, p. 256-268:

2 September 1942

3.00 a.m. attended my first Sonderaktion. Dante's Inferno seems to me almost a comedy compared to this. They don't call Auschwitz the extermination camp for nothing!

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/do ... -auschwitz

If this is inaccurate, just point that out and show where that might be leading to other false conclusions. Believe me, the overwhelming majority of information that I see on this forum is either entirely false or very distorted.

[ConfusedJew]

For this i have a mod suggestion - if we (revisionists) were to flag a post which makes an absurd claim (such as the Kremas are no longer able to be examined) - the author is given one chance to offer a citation, and if this is not produced, the post is moved to a quarantine, or removed entirely.

This will not only help keep threads lean, but will over time incentivise these people to start hedging their words like "its possible that X is the case".

I agree that the ability to request and examine sources will help us get to the bottom of this disagreement much more quickly and efficiently.

Personally, I am totally fine being challenged if somebody believes that something that I said isn't true.

[ConfusedJew]

Why are you legitimising their argument from incredulity, by arguing with them, as if their argument is logical?

This is a discussion on forensic chemistry, something you know nothing about so best to say naught.

Any argument will be based on some kind of logic, even if it's not well reasoned. As long as anybody is willing to defend their reasoning or substantiate their facts, I'm OK going down that kind of rabbit hole.

I think it is safe to assume that nobody here is a credentialed forensic chemist but I don't have a problem with that as long as they are serious about figuring things out in an intellectually honest way. There are plenty of times where credentialed experts, even supposed masters of their field, can be dangerously wrong about things.

[ConfusedJew]

I have provided you reference material on the permeability (rates of absorption, diffusion and porosity), all cited and linked earlier and above. If you are challenging this, then kindly produce these "forensic studies" from LK1. I've already given you the Markiewicz study which omitted such basic measurements as iron content, so I will await this forensic study with bated breath.

I'll go through this at some point, but I think it is probably too far out for where we are right now. I have to research these different aspects and I'm still investigating more fundamental chemistry right now.

From what I see right now, the "non delousing" chambers lacked the right kind of iron, at least did not have enough chemically reactive iron, in order to form Prussian Blue. Once we figure out whether or not that is true, I can move to material permeability.

There is fuzziness in science too even in controlled laboratory settings. Forensic analysis is scientific, but it is in many ways the opposite of analyzing lab experiments.

If you disagree with the idea that the non delousing chambers had enough chemically reactive iron, will you elaborate on why?

[HansHill]

I have provided you reference material on the permeability (rates of absorption, diffusion and porosity), all cited and linked earlier and above. If you are challenging this, then kindly produce these "forensic studies" from LK1. I've already given you the Markiewicz study which omitted such basic measurements as iron content, so I will await this forensic study with bated breath.

I'll go through this at some point, but I think it is probably too far out for where we are right now. I have to research these different aspects and I'm still investigating more fundamental chemistry right now.

That's fine. TBF this topic isn't usually given this much attention, the iron content and properties are for the most part taken as given. The key aspects to this debate usually center on two other areas, well two and half, with the "half" being related inextricably to the first. These are:

- Concentrations used
- pH
- With the third being exposure time, extricably linked to concentrations

From my vantage point, the debate hinges on these variables, rather than properties of iron.

From what I see right now, the "non delousing" chambers lacked the right kind of iron, at least did not have enough chemically reactive iron, in order to form Prussian Blue. Once we figure out whether or not that is true, I can move to material permeability.

There is fuzziness in science too even in controlled laboratory settings. Forensic analysis is scientific, but it is in many ways the opposite of analyzing lab experiments.

If you disagree with the idea that the non delousing chambers had enough chemically reactive iron, will you elaborate on why?

I will summarise my belief in this, by quoting Germar Rudolf himself:

Green is the first exterminationist author who accepts my suggestions of
how Iron Blue can be formed from hydrogen cyanide and iron oxides, the lat-
ter being a common component of all sorts of mortar, plaster, and concrete....
Green criticizes my thesis about the chemical
mechanism involved, but finally, after some forth and back, forces himself to
admit,
“that Rudolf is correct or nearly correct regarding the formation of blue
staining in the delousing chambers.”

In other words, because it is simply not what the experts have sharpened their rhetorical swords over. They foundationally agree that HCN + Iron = PB, and they foundationally agree that Iron is present in concrete, mortar and plaster.

[Wahrheitssucher]

I will stop there. By my count you have posted at least 11 AI hallucinations, that is, factual errors, in this thread. This is in line with what you, ConfusedJew, have done in previous threads. For example see here:
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=10690#p10690

You absolutely cannot argue this way. Because you continue to do it, it's the functional equivalent of lying*. Now these lies are filling up the forum, which will in turn fuel future AI errors and confuse future researchers.

* If it is against the rules for me to say this, so be it. It is true.

Excellent post - I think Wetzelrad has hit on something important here.
Many absurd, contradictory, or outright false claims have been uncritically reproduced here, all under the topic of "forensic chemistry at Auschwitz".

…These all represent data points which will fuel further hallucinations. I shudder to think my Ai generations in other areas of life contain any "Nessie-isms".

For this i have a mod suggestion:
if we (revisionists) were to flag a post which makes an absurd claim (such as the Kremas are no longer able to be examined) - the author is given one chance to offer a citation, and if this is not produced, the post is moved to a quarantine, or removed entirely.

This will not only help keep threads lean, but will over time incentivise these people to start hedging their words like "its possible that X is the case".

Excellent suggestion.

[Wahrheitssucher]

SS engineer Karl Bischoff’s correspondence provides very clear details on the ventilation and referred to Auschwitz as an extermination camp on 2 September 1942.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/do ... -auschwitz

Anyone who takes a moment to check this link will see that the only details provided on "ventilation" concern the heating of the morgue mentioned above. It specifically describes how hot air is to be routed from the furnaces down into the morgue, not how air is to be removed from the morgue. Beside that, it is quite devoid of detail, and it wasn't sent by Bischoff but by Jahrling.

Bischoff most certainly did not refer to Auschwitz as an "extermination camp". This is a very obvious failure in reading comprehension. Did you check any of this before clicking post?

Congratulations, you are correct. I misspoke and it was notes from the diary of SS-Doctor Kremer, not Bischoff. I accidentally switched out the name, but who cares?
As a warning, I will not tolerate this kind of condescending (and stupid) nitpicking…,
but we will be OK as long as you …modify your attitude.

…Believe me, the overwhelming majority of information that I see on this forum is either entirely false or very distorted.

Wow!
So… This is how CJ reacts to being shown to irrefutably be in error?!

[Wahrheitssucher]

Personally, I am totally fine being challenged if somebody believes that something that I said isn't true.

Wow!

[Stubble]

In re-visiting the Green Rudolf debate for this thread (as i do every few months, and you lot should too)...

Linky, linky

Never mind, you provided it.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/

[bombsaway]

whoops

[bombsaway]

It could be ammonia, bleach, slaked lime. All of these can raise alkalinity in a room, greatly inhibiting HCN absorption, staining. You assume none of these were used, the most common cleaning products in Germany at the time https://chatgpt.com/share/687cd1d3-4cbc ... 4befc5ae22

I'm not trying to say I know WHY there wasn't staining, I'm saying you are not accounting for many expected/possible variables.

In re-visiting the Green Rudolf debate for this thread (as i do every few months, and you lot should too), i have found this from Dr Green. He is discounting your proposed mechanism of pH interference due to Lime or Whitewashing.

We therefore discount without further ado the possibility that lime from plaster or whitewash is a reason for an alkaline pH.

Dr Green - Chemistry is Not The Science

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/

He is however, unusually silent on bleach

The AI, without prompting by me said the high pH would inhibit. I'm not a chemist so I would probably defer to Green here. The lack of iron seems to me to be a core argument by Green, how much iron is in a coat of whitewash?