By Anthony Lawson
Carbon dioxide, chemical name: CO2 is very much in the news, these days, because some people are trying to convince us that it is building up in the Earth's atmosphere and causing what they describe as "global warming", and if this trend is not stopped then the outlook for our home planet is very bleak. I don't think that this case has been made, mainly because there appears to be abundant evidence that atmospheric CO2 has reached far higher levels, in the past, and what could be more provable than the fact that we are all still here?
While the Earth's atmosphere has been evolving for billions of years, the roots of our knowledge of carbon dioxide only reach back as far as a Flemish chemist: Jan Baptist van Helmont, who died in 1644, but before doing so he introduced a very important word into the scientific vocabulary. Having burned some charcoal in an enclosed vessel and then noted that the remaining ash was much lighter than what he'd started out with, he figured that the rest of the charcoal had been transmuted into an invisible substance which he called "gas". It was, of course, the result of the heat-induced chemical reaction which fused one atom of carbon, in the charcoal, to two atoms of oxygen, in the air, to produce CO2.
A little over a century later, a Scottish physician, Joseph Black, found other methods for making CO2 , which he called "fixed air". He also discovered that it was denser than "normal" air and did not support combustion. Another of Black's discoveries was that animals exhale carbon dioxide in greater quantities than what was in the "normal" air which they had just inhaled, which he may have felt to have been somewhat of a paradox, because he also found that it tended to kill any animals that were forced to breathe elevated concentrations of CO2, even for short period of times.
Therefore, the historical record shows that the death-dealing properties of CO2 have been known since the mid-1750s—about 250 years: a quarter of a millennium—along with the fact that animals exhale this gas, which can be lethal, even at quite low levels of concentration in the air-mixtures which they all breathe. This is not, as is widely believed, because it is replacing the oxygen necessary to sustain life, although this can certainly become an additional hazard.
The normal concentration of CO2 in air is between 0.036% and 0.039%. However, at concentrations of only 1%, which can easily occur in crowded and poorly ventilated rooms, people will become drowsy. At 2% it will induce mild narcosis, increased blood pressure and a higher pulse rate. At concentrations above this level, the consequences become far more serious: At around 5%, the respiratory centre becomes over stimulated, causing breathing difficulties, dizziness and general confusion. When exposed to concentrations of 8%, or above, for periods of between five and ten minutes, blurring and dimming of vision occurs, along with tremors, loss of consciousness, then, ultimately: death.
An average person produces approximately one kilogram (2.2 lb) of carbon dioxide per day—the amount will vary, depending on muscular activity as well as stress levels—and, in normal circumstances, this is dissipated into the atmosphere, causing no harm. But if a large number of people were to be forced into a low-volume, airtight space, and have an airtight door closed behind them, the consequences would be disastrous. Disastrous, that is, for the people who had been forced into the room, but quite the opposite for those who were doing the forcing, because they could only have one motive for doing this to other human beings:
To kill them.
It is possible for 10 average-sized people to stand upright in an area of one-square meter.1 This means that 90 people could stand in an enclosed area 3 meters by 3 meters: 9 square meters. In an uninhabited space measuring 3 X 3 X 2 meters, the volume of normal air would be 18 cubic meters, but this would be reduced by as much as 50% due to the air displaced by the combined bodily volume of 90 people, if they were forced into such a space. Which would mean that the breathable air would be reduced to a volume of about 9 cubic meters.
The Specific Volume of CO2 , at 21º Celsius (70º F) and 1 atmosphere, is 0.42 cubic meters per kilogram. If one person breathes out one kilogram of this gas in 24 hours, that corresponds to a volume of 0.42 cubic meters. So 90 people would breathe out 37.2 cubic meters of CO2 in 24 hours; in one hour 90 people would exhale a total of 1.55 cubic meters of CO2 which would bring its concentration in the 9-cubic-meter-gas volume of the room up to 17%. But this is based purely on a mathematical calculation; the reality would be somewhat different.
Ignoring other factors, the critical level of 8% would be reached after a period of about one-half hour. However, such stressful conditions would cause an increase in the occupants' breathing rates, very early on, so it is more likely that it would take much less than 30 minutes for the concentration of CO2 to reach the point where the occupants of such a room would begin dying.
Long before the dawn of the 20th century, the German nation was well known for its technological and scientific achievements, with a long list of firsts in the fields of engineering, physics and chemistry to its credit. Add to that the circumstances surrounding the deaths of so many of its submariners, in both world wars—due to suffocation, after their U-Boats had sunk, and before rescuers could reach them—it is inconceivable that, had there been a state-sanctioned, human-extermination programme in the forced-labour or concentration camps, that the killing method outlined above would have been overlooked.
What Wikipedia and many other so-called encyclopaedic websites fail to mention, in their off-handed repetitions regarding the use of Zyklon-B as a mass-exterminator of people, is the fact that the infamous "pellets" would not have released very much gas, had they been merely popped into delivery holes in the roof of a room, or a "gas chamber". While some hydrogen cyanide (HCN) fumes would have been emitted, the deadly gas would not have been released in mass-human-killing quantities unless the air surrounding them was either at or above the boiling point of HCN, which is 25.7º C (78.3º F)2, or had the pellets been dropped into sulphuric acid. Such an "oversight" on the part of these "historians" is akin to failing to mention that water needs to be boiled, in order to make a decent cup of tea. Notwithstanding this scientific fact—and ignoring the reality of what the average, yearly ambient temperatures are in the latitudes in which most of the labour camps were situated—the entry in the Wikipedia for Zyklon-B includes the underlined lie:
"Zyklon B was stored in airtight containers; when exposed to air, the material released gaseous hydrogen cyanide (HCN)."3
As does this one, from the New World Encyclopedia, which indicates that its true title should be New World Order Encyclopedia.
"Zyklon B was an insecticide that releases gaseous hydrogen cyanide upon exposure to air. It gained notoriety for its use by the Nazi regime in the mid-twentieth century as a method of mass murder, in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek during the Holocaust".4
Despite this continuously-repeated scientific falsehood, to the inconvenience of having to heat (or otherwise treat) the Zyklon-B pellets before they would release their deadly gas, in sufficient quantities, can be added the time-consuming reality that—following such a method of killing people—no one else would have been safe from death or injury until most of the highly toxic gas that remained had been completely removed from the room, or chamber, in question. This would extend such a killing cycle—from getting people into the enclosed space; dropping in the pellets and causing them to release the hydrogen cyanide gas, to finally ventilating the space, so that it would be safe for other people to remove the bodies—to a period at least approaching, if not exceeding the time required for a similar cycle where the CO2 exhaled by the chamber's occupants would have achieved the desired result: to kill the people who had been forced into the sealed room.
Such a method would have been safer, cheaper and far more efficient than any other gas-related method, including the use of diesel or petrol (gasoline) combustion products, which contain proportions of carbon monoxide, a gas which animals do not exhale. The awful irony of this method is that the only gas-producing "agents" which could possibly go wrong would be the people who were being killed.
On the other hand, although insects do exhale carbon dioxide, using a similar method to kill lice and fleas would not have been a viable option, because it requires up to six days, in an atmosphere having less than 0.3% of oxygen, for all commonly found insects to suffocate and die,5 and the volume of air, with a normal oxygen content of around 21% that would have been trapped in infested clothes and bedding, would have been considerable. Which makes a rather strong case that the Zyklon-B "gas chambers" in the German prison camps were, in fact, for killing disease-carrying lice, fleas and other insects. Not people.
It has been well documented that typhus was the major cause of a large number of deaths among the camps' inmates, a factor which was hampering the work that many of the prisoners were being forced to do, so it is not fanciful to consider that keeping this work force alive and healthy would have been a priority, for those responsible for producing important war-related materials.
Summary and Conclusions
All of the accounts of murderous gassings, in the prison camps which were controlled by the Germans in various parts of Europe during WW II, involve either the alleged use of Zyklon-B, which only produces useful quantities of cyanide gas when heated, or various methods of producing carbon monoxide: CO; badly-tuned diesel or petrol engines, for example.
There are no accounts of the gas carbon dioxide—which would have been produced by the victims, themselves—being used as a killing agent.
Research also indicates that no machinery has ever been recovered, or even mentioned, which would have been able to blow vast quantities of hot air into a room, or chamber, to raise the ambient temperature to a point substantially above 25.7º C (78.3º F), in order to suitably activate the Zyklon-B pellets, which are alleged to have been simply thrown into these "human extermination chambers" through holes in their roofs, or, in some accounts, even through their windows.
Most, if not all of these "gas chambers" are alleged to have been situated in latitudes where temperatures would rarely have risen much above 25º C (77º F) for most of the year, and would have been either approaching, or below freezing, during the late-autumn and winter months.
It is totally illogical to consider that Germans would have ignored the possibilities of suffocating their victims—using the carbon dioxide their victims exhaled—in favour of a far more complicated and hazardous method of mass extermination, which would have required the use of a substance:
a) which had to be purchased;
b) which was potentially dangerous, to those handling it;
c) which required a means of heating it and the surrounding air to a relatively high temperature; a process requiring the use of precious fuels, and
d) which had to be safely evacuated from the "gas chamber", using up even more energy, before the dead victims could be safely disposed of.
General Comments and an Apology
None of the above is meant to deny that hundreds of thousands of people did die, in appalling conditions, through no fault of their own, in German prison camps. But why so many Jews came to be in these camps, when various offers to allow them to leave Germany—but not so that they could go to Palestine and upset Germany's relationships in the oil-rich Middle East—had been made by Hitler, but turned down by certain Zionists who were not in any danger themselves, is certainly a question that needs answering.
Even though what I have written has either been common knowledge for hundreds of years, or has only involved the use of basic common sense in order to "join up the dots", I do not feel that it would be prudent for me to reveal my name, because anything, including immutable scientific facts, which goes against the official "Holocaust" story could expose me to the kinds of harassments and judicial punishments which people like Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel, Dr. Frederick Töbin, and even those who have attempted to defend them, Sylvia Stolz, for example, have suffered and been criminalised for.
Why should I give such satisfaction to those dark and mean-minded individuals who would not come out from behind their piles of dusty, unsubstantiated horror stories and "case files" into the revealing light of a properly-constituted court of law, to even attempt to refute the veracity of what I have described, or to try and explain away the other scientific evidence which has been in the public domain for so long, but which they seek to suppress through political and judicial pressures?
These pressures have reached such an absurd level that not even proof of speaking the truth is a defence, as the following indicates.
On May 25, 1998, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a written decision that "Truth is not a defense" - in other words, that the truth of any material on the Zundelsite is "irrelevant" to CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission) proceedings! 6
That this stage, in the suppression of free speech, was reached as early as 1998—even before the "war on terror" was triggered by the events of September 11, 2001—in a so-called "first-world" country, and has, apparently, been taken as a precedent by certain German and Austrian judges, confirms my fears that my right to express myself, using only the truths of science in my defence, has already been taken from me.
Anthony Lawson (known professionally as Tony Lawson) is a retired international-prize-winning commercials director, cameraman, ad agency creative director and voice over. He used to be known for shooting humorous commercials, but doesn’t find much to laugh about, with the way the world is going, these days.
Please note: Some of the following may not be the same references which the author relied on, but they do confirm his data.
|< Prev||Next >|
Most Read News
Who Is Your Choice for President?