Perché per gli USA una camera a gas dev'essere a tenuta stagna e in Germania no?

SuB_RiccAr ha scritto:

E poi ha fatto la geniale scoperta che non ci sono tracce (a favore del negazionismo secondo lui).....eccerto...dopo 40 anni cosa vuoi trovare?

sitchinite ha scritto:
Citazione:

...

Ti risponde lo stesso Leuchter:

"in virtù del legame tra lo ione Cn- con gli atomi di ferro del calcestruzzo il cianuro permane nella calcina e nei mattoni per secoli sotto forma di insolubile ferrocianuro. "

interessante anche come Germar Rudolf faccia notare che: "In una fattoria della Baviera sono stati rilevati residui di cianuro più abbondanti che nelle pretese camere a gas di Birkenau (G. Rudolf, Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den «Gaskammern» von Auschwitz , pp. 85 e 93)."

Ma:

What decisive point of the [Leuchter] report leads the deniers [Holocaust Revisionists] to think they have "won" [the debate about the existence of extermination "gas chambers"]? They compared the quantity of cyanide residue in the Birkenau BW 5a delousing building gas chamber (sample No. 32) yielding 1,050 mg/kg...and those varying from 0 to 7.9 mg/kg in samples from the Auschwitz-Birkenau homicidal gas chambers. The result triggers the following line of questioning. How can it be believed that the areas supposedly used to asphixiate thousands daily by means of hydrocyanic acid over the course of a year or two retain only minute traces of cyanide while other places, used for delousing with the same gas over the same time period, yield traces one hundred and fifty to a thousand times greater? (p. 35)

As Pressac indicates, Leuchter did indeed conclude:

One would have expected higher cyanide detection in the samples taken from the alleged gas chambers (because of the greater amount of gas allegedly utilized there) than that found in the control sample. Since the contrary is true, one must conclude that these facilities were not execution gas chambers, when coupled with all the other evidence gained on inspection. ^17

In an effort to discredit this conclusion, three explanations have been offered in response:

Explanation 1. After 45 years, virtually all of the cyanide residue in the alleged extermination gas chambers has "weathered away." Poland's Institute of Forensic Research, for example, expressed the view that

...one can hardly assume that traces of cyanic compounds could still be detected in construction materials (plaster, brick) after 45 years, after being subjected to the weather and the elements (rain, acid oxides, especially sulfuric oxides). More reliable would be the analysis of wall plaster [samples] from closed rooms which were not subject to weather and the elements (including acid rain). ^18

Writing in Truth Prevails, Pressac expresses a similar opinion: "As a general rule, the more a sample's locale was exposed to the elements, the lower--indeed, nil--the cyanide content." He also wrote: "The ruins of Crematorium II and III and the restored walls of IV and V have been exposed to the elements for over forty years. It's practically a miracle that any measurable hydrocyanic compound traces still remain." (pp. 71, 44)

However, in his 1989 book, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, Pressac says something rather different. In this detailed work, he published a picture of the OUTSIDE wall of a delousing chamber. Referring to this structure, he wrote: "...from ground level to just below the chimney, bluish stains can be seen on the bricks of the wall, showing that hydrocyanic acid was used there (in 1942-1944), for delousing purposes." ^19 He thus confirms that even though this wall has been exposed to the elements since the Second World War, a significant amount of Prussian blue is nevertheless still visible. Pressac himself thus discredits the claim that all or even most of the Prussian blue (ferric ferrocyanide) would have "weathered away."

If Pressac's view on this is correct, the OUTSIDE wall of this delousing facility would have a LOWER Prussian blue content than the INSIDE walls of the "gas chamber" of Krema I. In fact, though, visible Prussian blue stains can be seen on the OUTSIDE wall of the delousing facility, which has been exposed to the elements since the Second World War. By contrast, there are only invisible and barely detectable amounts of Prussian blue in samples taken from the INSIDE wall of the supposed homicidal "gas chamber" of Krema I, which is inside an intact structure and has thus been protected from the elements since the Second World War. ^20 As Pressac himself notes: "Its [Krema I] morgue/ gas chamber inside walls have never been exposed to sun, rain, or snow (factors which contribute to cyanide content diminishing) as the other crematoriums were and are." (p. 44)

Referring to the absence of cyanide/Prussian blue traces in the samples taken from Birkenau's Krema II, Pressac writes in Truth Prevails: "Cyanide's solubility in rain water and the water layer accumulated underground from infiltrating rain accounts for its absence from the samples." (p. 41)

This view is simply not correct. Dr. James Roth, the chemistry expert who analyzed Leuchter's samples, pointed out that Prussian blue cannot be washed out of brick, mortar or cement by water. The ferric ferrocyanide compounds produced by the interaction of hydrogen cyanide with the iron elements in brick (and such) are very stable, and remain in such substances for a very long time. As Roth testified under oath, the compounds can be removed only by sand-blasting or the application of strong acid. ^21 Nobel Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling similarly confirms that Prussian blue is insoluble in water. ^22 Finally, the authoritative Handbook of Chemistry and Physics notes that ferric ferrocyanide--or iron (III) ferrocyanide--is insoluble in hot or cold water. ^23

It should be stressed here that whereas the Institute of Forensic Research (Krakow) measured the amount of POTASSIUM CYANIDE, ^24 Leuchter was mainly concerned with PRUSSIAN BLUE (or ferric ferrocyanide). ^25 As previously noted, while Potassium cyanide is indeed water soluble, ^26 ferric ferrocyanide is not. Prussian blue is a very stable compound that simply could not have been washed away by rain.

Explanation 2. Pressac suggests that when camp officials dynamited crematory buildings (Kremas) II, III and V, this contributed to the removal of cyanide residue. (pp. 40, 42, 43) This explanation will also not hold up. While it is true that dynamiting breaks up the bricks of a structure, it does not remove chemical stains on or within such bricks. Nor, for the most part, would it abrade Prussian blue on their surfaces. Pressac himself points out that a support pillar in Krema II's "gas chamber" withstood the effects of explosion. (p. 65) Any Prussian blue on the surface of or within the pillar's pores would have remained.

Explanation 3. This is Pressac's principal explanation. Even though the delousing facility was exposed to a lesser amount of HCN than the "gas chambers," the walls of the delousing facility were impregnated with warm HCN for at least twelve hours a day. He writes:

This cyanide saturation of 12 to 18 hours a day was strengthened by the heat the stoves in the room emitted, providing a temperature of 30 degrees Celcius [86 degrees Fahrenheit]. The walls were impregnated with hot HCN for at least 12 hours a day, which would induce the formation of of a stain: Prussian blue, or potassioferric ferrocyanide [SIC]... (p. 37). ^27

As for the "gas chambers," Pressac alleges the HCN was in physical contact with their walls "for no more than ten minutes a day," at a temperature of about 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit). Without additional heat, the brief contact of high concentrations of HCN with the walls of the homicidal installations was not able to induce the reaction which led to the formation of significant amounts of cyanide residue. Hence, the amount of ferric ferrocyanide in the "gas chamber" samples is nil or nonexistent. (pp. 36-38)

If Pressac had made an objective study of the chemistry of hydrogen cyanide and Prussian blue, he would have learned how inaccurate this theory is.

The walls of the alleged gas chambers contain a large amount of iron. ^28 And, as Dr. James Roth pointed out: "If iron is present with hydrogen cyanide around, then you are going to get a reaction between the hydrogen cyanide and iron." ^29 Hydrogen cyanide dissolves very readily in water, becoming hydrocyanic acid. ^30 As Pressac and Leuchter have both noted, the alleged gas chambers were very damp. ^31 Enough moisture would have been on the walls, floors and ceilings to dissolve at least some of the HCN supposed to have been used during an alleged gassing.

In the presence of water, iron in the walls and cyanide from the hydrogen cyanide would readily combine to form an iron cyanide complex. Aqueous solutions of hydrogen cyanide are weak acids. ^32 As Dr. Pauling notes: "Iron is an active metal, which displaces hydrogen easily from dilute acids." ^33 Consequently, the iron from the walls would easily have displaced the hydrogen [H+] in the hydrocyanic acid, bonded with the cyanide [CN-], and formed an iron-cyanide complex, ferrocyanide ion [Fe(CN6)] ^4-. ^34 This is what Dr. Pauling meant when he wrote that cyanide ion [CN-] added to a solution of ferrous ion [iron (II) ion] forms precipitates which dissolve in excess cyanide to produce complex ions. ^35

Finally, according to Dr. Pauling, the pigment Prussian blue is made by the addition of ferric [iron (III)] ion to a ferrocyanide solution. ^36 According to chemist James Brady: "The deep color Prussian blue is formed when a drop of dilute solution containing Fe3+ [iron (III) ion] is added to a dilute solution containing ferrocyanide ion, Fe(CN)6 ^4-. After a few moments, the blue precipitate, Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3.16H2O, settles to the bottom of the test tube." ^37 In plain language, the iron-cyanide complex, ferrocyanide, combines with more iron to form ferric ferrocyanide (or Prussian blue).

What this whole reaction mechanism shows is that even if the HCN were in contact with the "gas chamber" walls for less than ten minutes every day or two for two years, significant quantities of Prussian blue still would have formed. (By a "significant amount" is meant an amount slightly less or equal to that found in the delousing facility samples.) At least some of the HCN, upon contact with the diffuse wetness, would have dissolved immediately. ^38 This dissolved HCN, upon contact with the iron, would have formed some ferrocyanide immediately. ^39 The ferrocyanide, upon contact with more iron, would have formed some Prussian blue almost immediately. ^40

But just as important, the application of heat to the walls and gas is not at all necessary to form significant amounts of Prussian blue. Relevant to this issue is the informative verbal exchange between attorney Dougles Christie and Dr. James Roth during the 1988 trial in Toronto of Ernst Zundel. Referring to the reaction between hydrogen cyanide and the iron in the walls of the alleged gas chambers, Christie asked Roth: "And could you explain any way by which this would not happen or no such reaction would occur?" The chemist replied:

ROTH: Well, one is the lack of water. These reactions to--in a lot of cases have to take place in water or with some vapor around. Now, chances are great [that with] NORMAL TEMPERATURES and rooms of normal humidity, there would be plenty of moisture present for this type of reaction to take place. [Emphasis added]

CHRISTIE: So in a normal room with normal humidity these quantities of iron in the wall, hydrogen cyanide in quantities of 300 parts per million [.36 g/m^3] or more, on a daily basis for two years or even two weeks, you would expect to see the formation of Prussian blue. Is that correct?

ROTH: I would expect to see detectable amounts of Prussian blue. [If not visibly detectable, at least chemically detectable.] That type of reaction is an accumulative reaction. In other words, as it reacts it doesn't go away. It stays... ^41

Pressac's theory that without additional heat the brief contact of high concentrations of HCN with the walls of the gas chambers was not sufficient to form significant amounts of Prussian blue is therefore false. ^42 The whole ensemble of physical and chemical conditions would have ensured that significant amounts of Prussian blue residue would have been detectable in Leuchter's samples if they had been exposed to the amount of gas Pressac claims.

Buona vita

Guglielmo