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: 69
13
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:
six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



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



O2 is not safe to breathe


Ok I give....Which is it?????

If you will read in the respiratory link I gave you, No where does it state that O2 becomes O.

Edit to add. We exhale CO2 not CO, where does the O pick ups its second molecule?

[edit on 31-12-2007 by six]




posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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


I can't believe what I just read. It's even worse that I thought. Do you know how much heat is required to dissociate the atoms in the oxygen molecule? Hint: use google and wikipedia.

It's really astonishing how little you know about this and other subjects.


[edit on 31-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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).


I had to double take this post. It dropped what little credibility you had in your arguments to 0.

Fire

I suggest you need to educate yourself.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.


I'm dying to learn what sources you use to advance your knowledge. Especially that you dispute the hard facts such as oxygen molecule bond energy (in the link courteously provided to you by Six).

And you had the gut to recommend that I take science 101... Sheesh...


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Now I KNOW you dont read the links provided. For you information, That is NOT a physical fittness site. LMAO I am discussing A&P with someone who refuses to educate themselves.

www.getbodysmart.com...

Above is NOT a physical fitness site.




[edit on 31-12-2007 by six]

[edit on 31-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Anyone would be led to think that anyone as assertive as yourself, in touting your knowledge, would already be aware of the following bit of basic molecular chemical and physics knowledge:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

"Chemical Bonding

Chemical compounds are formed by the joining of two or more atoms. A stable compound occurs when the total energy of the combination has lower energy than the separated atoms. The bound state implies a net attractive force between the atoms ... a chemical bond. The two extreme cases of chemical bonds are:"



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


You are obviously unaware I know the difference between sites that may appear to laypersons to be informative and scientific but are not. "Get body smart" is hardly the type of information people need to comprehend molecular science.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Anyone would be led to think that anyone as assertive as yourself, in touting your knowledge, would already be aware of the following bit of basic molecular chemical and physics knowledge


You don't need to try and educate me in physics and other subjects because it's unlikely that you will obtain half a percent of what I know in this area, in your lifeteime. I'm only assertive in face of your stubborn unwillingless to digest ready available information and continuing attempts at a particularly laughable practice of armchair physics.

Now, back to the question of what the oxygen molecules are bound to, in the air? And how, according to your interesting theory, the O2 molecule is falling apart when entering human lungs? Make my day.


[edit on 31-12-2007 by buddhasystem]


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 

But I am not a lay person. Your posts on the other hand make me wonder about your "expertise". Since you didnt answer the question before, I will ask it again.

Since we exhale CO2 and not CO, just where did the O pick up the extra molecule?



[edit on 31-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Well, other than learning something about respiration, I've learned something else.

Orionstar has proven that it's possible to own yourself....






posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
Here it is again.

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



Well here are sites that disagree, can you post evidence to prove they lied?

jnocook.net...

A jet fuel fire would produce great quantities of smoke, which would reduce the radiant heat energy entering structural components. According to G. Charles Clifton HERA structural engineer, speaking of the fires in the Towers; In my opinion, based on available evidence, there appears no indication that the fires were as severe as a fully developed multi-story fire in an initially undamaged building would typically be.


911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.

Visible flames diminished greatly over time. Significant emergence of flames from the building is only seen in a region of the North Tower 10 stories above the impact zone.
South Tower: Virtually no flames were visible at the time of its collapse.
North Tower: Flames were visible in several areas at the time of its collapse. A region of flames on the 105th floor is seen after the South Tower collapse.
The smoke darkened over time. While the fires in both towers emitted light gray smoke during the first few minutes following the impacts, the color of the smoke became darker.
South Tower: Smoke from the fires was black by the time it collapsed. At that time it was only a small fraction of the volume of the smoke from the North Tower.
North Tower: Smoke from the fires had become much darker by the time the South Tower was struck, 17 minutes after the fires were ignited. The smoke was nearly black when the South Tower collapsed. Thereafter the smoke appears to have lightened and emerged from the building at an accelerated rate.


911research.wtc7.net...

Jet fuel (kerosene) only burns at a fraction of the temperature needed to melt steel. In any case, the fuel did not last long, as much was consumed in the impact fireballs, and the rest would have evaporated and burned in under 5 minutes. Thereafter the fires were far less severe than other skyscraper fires (such as the 19-hour One Meridian Plaza blaze in 1991). Few flames were visible, and the black smoke indicated the fires were oxygen-starved. Survivors passed through the WTC 2's crash zone, and firefighters who arrived there described "two pockets of fire".


www.globalresearch.ca...

Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F” (Eagar, 2002).






[edit on 31-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]


six

posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


First, I never said anyone lied. So you need to quit putting words into my mouth.

Second, No Ultima I cant, because nothing I say, show you, give as evidence contrary to what you believe, will you listen too. You have already made up your mind. You have shown that. You are not willing to listen. Nothing anyone says, or does will ever change that. You have proven that time and time again.

Since you already have this solved, you need to take your body of evidence, have it peer reviewed, turn it over to the proper authorities so that they may prosecute those involved.

BTW you really need to quit being a hypocrite. You need to quit your job at the Federal government, because remaining in our employee, while knowing that the government committed this crime, is giving tacit approval of their actions.

Edit to add. Thats a pretty biased site you quoted. You cant find anything different?



[edit on 31-12-2007 by six]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by six
First, I never said anyone lied. So you need to quit putting words into my mouth.



Well which is it. If the sites i quoted are wrong about the smoke meaning oxygen startved fires then they lied, correct?

Look whos putting words in my mouth.

I never stated the government actually did it. Although there is enough evidence due the amount of warnings we received that they might have left it happen just like Pearl Harbor.





[edit on 31-12-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by six
First, I never said anyone lied. So you need to quit putting words into my mouth.



Well which is it. If the sites i quoted are wrong about the smoke meaning oxygen startved fires then they lied, correct?

Look whos putting words in my mouth.

I never stated the government actually did it. Although there is enough evidence due the amount of warnings we received that they might have left it happen just like Pearl Harbor.



Your sites are only relevant when they apply to jet fuel fires.

Six's apply to structure fires.

We're talking about structure fires, so your links are weak...

Like he says, you fail to admit the difference. You just don't make the connection there and you never will.

So sad....



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Why would it give the molecular processes going on inside the human body when discussing O2 oxygen tanks for people in need of them?

If you want that information then look up molecular processing of oxygen intake inside the human body.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Look up molecular proccesses in Wiki? Why?

Perhaps you do not understand what you just read, because you do not have enough science education or experience working in the field of science, to understand what you just read?



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Then this should relieve your mind. I learned with time and experience, not to attempt the impossible, when I can clearly determine it is an impossible task before venturing to perform an impossible task.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Are you a molecular scientist? If not, then that makes you a layperson in the field of molecular science.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


If it is the case you are correct, and every scientist and layperson versed in the study of thermodynamics is wrong, we have just entered the 9/11 Twilight Zone - where up is down, and down is up once - again.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


How can there be a structure fire without a source for the fire? The source has to be included when discussing structure fires.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join