Demjanjuk and Sobibor

[Colpy]

Sorry Colpy I found it-here it is since you were not kind enough--
The Years of Extermination
nothing about anyone being killed with Diesel exhaust Colpy, nothing on Sobibor--

What ARE you talking about?????

From the index of my book........

gas vans, 234, 286, 358, 363-64

Sobibor extermination camp, 356, 357, 395, 440, 486, 533, 559

and I already quoted to you some of the facts about gassing with diesel.

:roll:

 

[weaselwords]

Again I ask the question why is it so hard to believe that there was a systematic attempt to slaughter those that didn't meet genetic, religous, cultural, race or sexual goals of those in power in Germany between the years 1933 to 1945.

 

[CDNBear]

gasoline is also a second cousin to diesel and agreed gasoline engine exhaust kills and furnace oil exhaust kills but because a second cousin kills does not mean that diesel exhaust kills--

The burning of any fossil fuel creates carbon monoxide. Period. This is absolute fact. Given the studdies I've read, just today at such sites as "Stormfront", I can see why you would believe otherwise. They use references to attempted gasoline engine suicides, from modern cars. They used modern diesels to acquire CO concentration data.

Ya, I would come to the same erroneous conclusions if I used misleading, and inappriate data models to.

Yes, I know that Google is my friend. But it hasn't helped you refute the material that I cut and pasted. I'll paste it in red below just for you!!!
Both of us know that the combustion that takes place in a furnace and a diesel engine are not the same--nor are the concentrations in the exhaust gasses.

"The Nazis did not manufacture soap from human fat, and did not kill their victims with Diesel exhaust. All these rumors were circulated in 1942, but we have the duty to thoroughly separate these rumors and fabrications from the facts and truth. Little lies provide fodder for the deniers and act against us."

Illustration 10:New Russian Word admits frankly: The Revisionists have the "air superiority"; Diesel exhaust is unsuitable for mass murder! Here the issue of February 28, 1995: "Ideology Holocaust" (Проверка Катастрофой.

Wow, that was a 180. Trying to change the topic, isn't going to save you. Your claim is, diesel exhaust will not kill. As an absolute.

This is an outright lie.

Sorry Colpy I found it-here it is since you were not kind enough--
The Years of Extermination
nothing about anyone being killed with Diesel exhaust Colpy, nothing on Sobibor--

I suggest you go back and reread that, I found page 234 in a matter of seconds and what Colpy has claimed is there, is there.

 

[einmensch]

Diesel exhaust was said to have been used at Sobibor-Interesting clip

Video: Audi TDI good at a lot of things, but suicide apparently isn't one of them — Autoblog

 

[CDNBear]

Diesel exhaust was said to have been used at Sobibor-Interesting clip

Video: Audi TDI good at a lot of things, but suicide apparently isn't one of them — Autoblog

That would be awesome if the buses had the A5's diesel engine in them.

Of course they didn't. Not only that, but they lacked the scrubber/purifiers of today's diesel exhaust system. Only a complete moron would believe these engines are even remotely similar, beyond the fact that they both burn diesel.

You are in effect, comparing apples to elephants. Nice try though.

 

[einmensch]

The POINT CDNBEAR-you can not provide one single suicide using apples or elephants. By the way the Diesel engine said to be used at Sobibor by witnesses was from a Tank or a Sub-not a bus. Comparing Diesel and Gasoline Exhaust is like comparing apples and elephants. Any gasoline cars that emit non deadly fumes? Only diesel.

 

[CDNBear]

The POINT CDNBEAR-you can not provide one single suicide using apples or elephants. By the way the Diesel engine said to be used at Sobibor by witnesses was from a Tank or a Sub-not a bus. Comparing Diesel and Gasoline Exhaust is like comparing apples and elephants. Any gasoline cars that emit non deadly fumes? Only diesel.

Again, you can not provide anything but anecdotal opinion as to the lethality of diesel exhaust.

While I have already submitted the facts of the matter. It is as lethal as the fumes from a gasoline combustion engine. The only difference is in the parts per million. To which the same result will be met, it will only take longer.

I can but lead a horse to water, I can't make you smart. The choice to live in ignorance is yours.

 

[lone wolf]

The POINT CDNBEAR-you can not provide one single suicide using apples or elephants. By the way the Diesel engine said to be used at Sobibor by witnesses was from a Tank or a Sub-not a bus. Comparing Diesel and Gasoline Exhaust is like comparing apples and elephants. Any gasoline cars that emit non deadly fumes? Only diesel.

They all emit non-deadly fumes. It's only the deadly ones that kill you. What is the killer with smoke inhalation?

 

[einmensch]

I feel the same way CDNBEAR-> I can't make you smart. The choice to live in ignorance is yours

I assume that you can read but I don't know if your comprehension is up to par.
What do you think of this below.
http://www.nazigassings.com/dieselgaschambera.html

 

[CDNBear]

I feel the same way CDNBEAR-> I can't make you smart. The choice to live in ignorance is yours

I'm glad you agree with me. That is clearly the first step in changing, good for you.

I assume that you can read but I don't know if your comprehension is up to par.

Obviously it surpasses yours, especially when you examine the paper completely.

What do you think of this below.

I think it's pretty funny actually. Once you ignore the obviously blatant stupidity.

http://www.nazigassings.com/dieselgaschambera.html

First, you paper doesn't actually supply any supporting evidence in it's foot noted links. So I had to research (That's something you should learn to do) Walter Luftl and his "expert" testimony.

Lets examine his testimony, shall we...

(1)It is true that carbon monoxide is a dangerous poison.

True, and obviously why it kills people.

(2)The many unemployed people in Vienna who, during the 1930s, used illumination [coal] gas (which contained carbon monoxide) to commit suicide were very well aware of that. [On the toxicity of carbon monoxide, see, for example: Allgemeine und spezielle Pharmakologie und Toxikologie (Dr. W. Forth, et al., eds.), Mannheim, 4th ed., pp. 643-645.]

Excellent proof of the matter, I'm glad he doesn't try and deny the facts of CO.

(3)The toxicity of carbon monoxide is undisputed.

Then he confirms it for us, that's awesome.

(4)As always, though, the question remains: How could this dangerous poison have been applied to the victims in a quasi-industrial manner?

Good question.

(5)First, permit me to digress:

Isn't that how most of the people of your ilk operate?

(6)According to the Holocaust literature, submarine motors and tank diesel engines are supposed to have been used. These details are intended to enhance the credibility of the claims. It is nevertheless worth noting that submarine motors, or any other kind of ship's diesel engines, were not readily available, and that German tanks -- incomprehensibly, due to the greater fuel consumption and considerably greater danger of fire in the event of a direct hit -- were exclusively equipped with spark-ignition (gasoline) engines. The only diesel motors available would have been those from captured tanks after the beginning of the Russian campaign. However, their use would hardly have been advisable due to the difficulty of obtaining spare parts. But that is beside the point, only a noteworthy detail.

I'm going to agree with this, but add that it is not beyond the pail of reason.

(7)What the Holocaust writers have obviously overlooked is the fact that diesel motors are particularly unsuited for the efficient production of carbon monoxide (CO).

This is also true, which is why they are used in mines and closed quarters industrial settings. But that does not negate the toxicity of the exhaust.

(8)The SS would have gone over to spark-ignition [gasoline] engines immediately after the first alleged attempts to kill the victims with diesel exhaust gases.

Given the fact that the author just sited that the German tanks ran on gasoline, I highly doubt that the allocation of precious gas would be deverted from the front lines.

(9)Spark-ignition engines can certainly produce eight-percent carbon monoxide by volume with poor idle adjustment, but diesels are practically CO free.

Here is where he starts to fall off the map. Although diesel exhaust has a far lessor toxicity then that of gasoline engines. Using the term "particularly CO free" is misleading and disingenuous.

(10)... Spark-ignition [gasoline] engines deliver up to 120 times as much carbon monoxide (CO) [as diesel en-gines], and diesel exhaust gases cannot produce enough CO.

It most certainly can. And I will site the fact that both Canadian MSDS and workplace standards require extensive ventilation in diesel shops and mines to counter act the build up of diesel exhaust. To protect employees from exposure.

(11)And something else is interesting here:... If the reader compares these figures [Führer]with those of diesel exhaust gases, he will quickly notice that this [diesel exhaust] is less toxic.

Oh, now I see, it "less toxic". It's not that it isn't toxic, like he just stated, it is actually less toxic. And I concur, it truly is, as I already stated.

(12)The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is also poisonous gas,

Woe there big fella!!! Although in certain quantities or concentrations, it must be listed as a poisonous gas. It is inert and poses no toxic threat to life. It is in the nature of the substance as an oxygen displacer, that it is dangerous.


Other then that, you can find high quantities of CO2 in everything from poprocks to soda pop. People consume CO2 daily, without toxic affect.

(13)The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is also poisonous gas, is less, the amount of carbon monoxide (CO) is negligible, and the amounts of oxygen and nitrogen are nearly the same. Just what does this mean in plain language?

Nothing. The concentration is of lessor parts/million, but that would only translate into a less efficient means to exact the same result from prolonged exposure, death.

(14)It means that nobody can be gassed with diesel exhaust.

Complete and utter BS, even by Luftl's own standards. See quotation 3, "The toxicity of CO is undisputed". This is an absolute. Therefore to say that any engine that produces CO is can not kill is completely fallacious. This speaks volumes about the author, Luftl and his motives to use double speak and try and obfuscate his true intent.

(15)Instead, victims would more readily suffocate from using up the oxygen in the "gas tight" chambers. In fact, if diesel exhaust gas is introduced into the chamber, the people inside would actually receive more oxygen than they would from breathing the air in the closed chamber after it passed twice through their lungs!

Really? Lets read on and see how this fallacy plays out...

(16)This [twice-breathed] air would have only ten percent oxygen left in it, but would already contain eight percent carbon dioxide. The oxygen content would continue to drop as the people [in the chamber] continue breathing, and the carbon dioxide (CO2) content would continue to rise. Anoxia (oxygen deprivation) would occur very quickly, and five minutes after that, the end will come quickly through brain death.

So in fact it will kill, I'm glad he isn't so contemptible to deny that.

(17)The victims -- who would otherwise die quickly -- would easily live longer as a result of "gassing" with diesel exhaust, because of its high oxygen content.

But he just said that they would in fact die. So my assertion that it would on take longer using a diesel engine, is supported by your own expert einny!

(18)This means that the diesel engine is not suited for quick killing, assuming this could be done at all.

:lol: More double speak. He just said it would kill.

(19)On the other hand, if the victims were gassed with exhaust from spark-ignition engines, death would come much more quickly as a result of oxygen deprivation and the high carbon dioxide (CO2) content than death by carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning.

Here Luftl doesn't deny that death would come, he states that death would come more quickly with a gasoline engine, then it would with a diesel. Double speak einny, double speak. You should learn to disseminate fact from fiction and identify BS when you read. You would be better for it.

(20)Any executioner would have chosen spark-ignition [gasoline] engines to suffocate victims in the gas chamber: the first time he tried a diesel motor, it would quickly become obvious that he had chosen the wrong method of execution.
Furthermore, a diesel motor with a five liter displacement running at 1000 revolutions per minute would create an overpressure of one (1) atmosphere after ten minutes in a 50-cubic meter (m3) large air-tight chamber, and two (2) atmospheres after 20 minutes. That's more than the air pressure inside an automobile tire. This means that after ten minutes, there would be twelve tons of pressure against the "gas chamber door," and 24 tons after 20 minutes. (The measurements of the door at Mauthausen are 72 x 166 cm.) How long would it take to blow open the door?

Although I highly doubt that the chambers used to exterminate the prisoners were completely air tight, he makes a point. Which of course means very little.

Given the fact that he states the pressure in which the exhaust would be delivered, you would not need a completely airtight room for this method to be effective. It would take no time at all for the pressure of the exhaust to to force any air out of any opening and stop the circulation of fresh air completely.

This is determined by his own pressure measurements. And confirmed by the design of modern dust free environments. The use of positive pressure to keep contaminants out of work spaces, is very much the same principal.

Transversely, the design of chemical and biolabs, work under a similar process, known as negative pressure. In which the process is reversed.

This proves that the testimonies about mass killings with diesel exhaust gas (such as given in the Gerstein Report) are objectively untrue.

No it doesn't, it proves that with any amount of BS and double speak, even the truth can be obfuscate by someone with an agenda.

They do not stand up to scientific examination.

But of course they do, which is why he had to contradict himself, and use double speak to make his argument true.

Only a moron would believe his BS.

 

[Colpy]

Back to the name calling I see. It is a sign of how low on the intellectual scale you fall. I want the sources. I can't access your source. Colpy you still have not provided a source any source anywhere in the world where Diesel exhaust killed a person so go crawl under your rock and keep croaking. Raul stated that diesel exhaust was not used to kill so now you go onto an effective method that was not used at Sobibor.

The book I cited is the definitive historical work on the Holocaust.....available on-line at Amazon, in any decent bookstore, or at any good university library.........

Go for it.