It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 68
13
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:
six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


O2 is breathable oxygen. It takes two oxygen molecules to form the oxygen in the air you breath. Just as 3 oxygen( O3 ) molecules form ozone. There is such a thing as a oxygen deprived fire. That is where backdrafts come from.




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Could you please show us all those videos of all fires in either tower? The biggest fire I noted, in any videos or photos, was the one on the outside of the north tower. It quickly disappeared leaving massive clouds of oxygen starved carbon smoke making it extremely difficult to view the inside of either tower.


Nope. Not gonna help you out any more, Mr "there's 2 steel walls".

That you believe this and continue to defend it is all that I really need to know about you...



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


I know what O2 is. I know what it become when combined in other gases. However, we are not utilizing O2 in atmospheric air nor is fire. Both utilize O not O2. O2 is not safe to breathe nor is O3 (ozone).


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



1. Please repost because i must have missed the links and sites posted by you.


Here it is again.

Here is a small class on reading smoke.
www.iaff-local2.org...

About half way through read the parts about:

Density- The thicker the smoke the more dangerous it is.

Color of smoke-White is cooler, Black is hotter

Black Fire- High volume, turbulent velocity, super thick black smoke. A sure sign of impending flashover

Nowhere does it say anything about a oxygen starved fire having thick black smoke. Smoke from a oxygen starved fire behaves in a very different manor. EVERY firefighter knows those signs. If he doesnt, it can get him killed.

Edit to add:
Soot is produced at every fire. Smoke is filled with soot, gasses, all products of combustion.
Of course you would not have fire IN the buildings core. The core is hollow. It is a pathway for elevators, power, water, phone etc




2. So either the sites i quoted lied about the smoke meaning oxygen starved fires or not. Which is it?


Here is a classic example of trying to have your cake and eat it too. All the crying about the smoke at Shanksville not being dark enough, jet fuel burns darker than that, and yet when it is burning dark in the WTC it is O2 deprived. You cant have it both ways. Besides you even agree than the fires were not jet fuel fires but structure and contents fires. The smoke that was emanating from the buildings was not from a O2 deprived fire. So if jet fuel emits a dark smoke when O2 deprived, Fine, but this was not a jet fuel fire.


3. It has to do with the fact of oxygen getting to the supposed fires in the debris field.


But has nothing to do with the fires on the upper floors, nor the topic at hand. Prove to me that O2 could not get to those fires. I have given you numerous examples of how O2 could have gotten to the fire. What have you shown? Nothing, nadda...Your turn. Prove to me that it could not have happened that way. Show me what you got.



[edit on 31-12-2007 by six]

[edit on 31-12-2007 by six]

[edit on 31-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Any more?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I know what O2 is.


As the following parapgraph from your missive shows, you kinda don't:


However, we are not utilizing O2 in atmospheric air nor is fire.


Oh really? What is it that you inhale, atomic oxygen? Where do you get it?


Both utilize O not O2. O2 is not safe to breathe nor is O3 (ozone).


The Earth's atmosphere contains O2 in addition to 70%+ of N2. The O2 atmosphere was used onboard Apollo spacecraft.

If you tried to inhale mono atomic oxygen, as you suggest (O), you'd most likely suffer from burns to you lungs



/* vitriol voluntarily deleted */



[edit on 31-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Any more?


Nice 2 word post. I gave you a star. Don't you feel special now? AND, you won't have to log on with your other screen name and give your post a star, like you've obviously been doing.

That's right, I'm not gonna help you any more. Like a horse, I've led to water, but I can't make you drink. i did my research when the NIST came out. I got all the videos I could find and familiarized myself with the different views, etc, until I could tell right off which side of 1 was being shown. I could see exactly what NIST was stating. You'll never believe it, so what's the point of giving any - probably now dead - links to you anyway? None.....


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Your joking right. Please tell me your joking. You see, I am also a paramedic. On ambulances all over the world O2 is carried for patients who need supplemental O2. O2 is delivered to pt in the hospital everyday. O2 is not breathable???? Fire does not use O2????? Please please tell me you are joking.

Here is a simple lesson for you
mistupid.com...

Notice the use of O2 in the composition of air.

BTW I never said anything about breathing O3. Please reread my post.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Is that right? Well, perhaps, some people need anatomy and physiology 101, plus, basic physics and chemistry101 remedial version, based on many of their comments regarding anything related to science.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Is that right? Well, perhaps, some people need anatomy and physiology 101, plus, basic physics and chemistry101 remedial version, based on many of their comments regarding anything related to science.


I dare you to ask me a physics question, basic or not so basic. You may be an ace in anatomy and all that, but stating that humans can safely use monoatomic oxygen but not O2 is beyond ridiculous.


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

Yes some people do.......and I will leave it at that.

mistupid.com...

www.le.ac.uk...

For your review.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


And do they live on it short of having severe bronchial disorders or needing purer doses of oxygen for some emergency situation? Using O2 is done for extraordinary situations or situations such as use of blowtorches. It is not safe under normal conditions - too heavy of a bonded oxygen molecule is not safe under normal conditions.

Now if you wish to discuss breathing in pollution, such as CO and CO2, that is a completely different matter. But breathing in those is certainly not on what we survive under normal conditions. Then there is chemical processing where the blood stream normally handles one molecule of oxygen at a time, unless involved in temporary emergency situations or severe bronchial conditions.

Under normal atmospheric conditions in fire, the heat is unbonding oxygen from other gases in the atmosphere. Think the evaporation process of unbonding two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Then bonding one carbon and one part oxygen in smoke and other parts of the atmosphere. If fire is utilizing O2, in proper mix, there will be blue flame not orange or yellow. Blue flame indicates a fire is not oxygen deprived.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
Under normal atmospheric conditions in fire, the heat is unbonding oxygen from other gases in the atmosphere. Think the evaporation process of unbonding two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.


And you had the gut to tell me I needed a refresher course in basic science!

What is "unbonding oxygen from other gases", huh? Under heat, no less... Seriosuly, demonstrate your expertise once and for all. Unbonding, please. From other gases. Now. Evaporation... It's actually unbonding hydrogen? Explain immediately or rest assured you really do look like an extremely ignorant person.


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

Unsafe in normal conditions? You didnt read any of the above links did you? You comments prove that. That was a very uneducated and under researched comment. The people here deserve better than that.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Why don't you start a new discussion, and I may do that.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You were unaware that molecules not bonded are considered unbonded. Or do you prefer the word unbound instead?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Do you a wear or utilize an O2 mask and tank 24/7? If not, why not? Could it be that under normal atmospheric conditions and 98.6 degree internal heat, that any O2 becomes separated single O, once it normally enters the human body?

Thus, the same happens when O2 from oxygen tanks also enter the human body. Which says it does not take much heat at all to separate molecules of bound oxygen, to be properly synthesized in the bodies of all fauna requiring oxygen to survive.

Just because people breathe in O2 does not mean it remains that way to be internally synthesized for survival.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You were unaware that molecules not bonded are considered unbonded. Or do you prefer the word unbound instead?



Hmm, what you just wrote does NOT make an iota of sense, sir. Molecules of oxygen are "bound"? Bound to what?


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


mistupid.com...

www.le.ac.uk...

www.getbodysmart.com...

en.wikipedia.org...
(Notice the part about valence)

More reading material for your pleasure. Although I dont think you will read it.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Wiki and a physical fitness site are your idea of an educational study of anatomy and physiology, physics (specifically thermodynamic energy), and molecular chemistry? It certainly is not mine.

Now back to the regular scheduled program.




top topics



 
13
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join