Remember me
▼ Content

Is the sun toxic?


Is the sun toxic?18-06-2022 04:45
gussguss
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?
18-06-2022 04:59
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4259)
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


You're kidding? Dehydration, sun stroke, heat exhaustion, sunburn, blindness...
18-06-2022 05:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
HarveyH55 wrote:
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


You're kidding? Dehydration, sun stroke, heat exhaustion, sunburn, blindness...

The sun causes a certain type of insomnia at the poles.

.
18-06-2022 11:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?

HAHAHAHAHAHA! How can the Sun give anyone cancer???!? It doesn't HAVE any to give!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-06-2022 14:23
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases
19-06-2022 15:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Great point.

The sun is similar to oxygen, i.e. you need it and a lack is harmful.

Does that make your roof a poison?
19-06-2022 15:32
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Great point.

The sun is similar to oxygen, i.e. you need it and a lack is harmful.

Does that make your roof a poison?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless
Edited on 19-06-2022 15:35
19-06-2022 19:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Great point.

The sun is similar to oxygen, i.e. you need it and a lack is harmful.

Does that make your roof a poison?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

So, according to you, your roof is poison!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-06-2022 20:19
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Great point.

The sun is similar to oxygen, i.e. you need it and a lack is harmful.

Does that make your roof a poison?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

So, according to you, your roof is poison!


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless
19-06-2022 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Great point.

The sun is similar to oxygen, i.e. you need it and a lack is harmful.

Does that make your roof a poison?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

So, according to you, your roof is poison!


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you think repeating yourself mindlessly makes ANY difference????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-06-2022 21:34
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Great point.

The sun is similar to oxygen, i.e. you need it and a lack is harmful.

Does that make your roof a poison?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

So, according to you, your roof is poison!


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you think repeating yourself mindlessly makes ANY difference????!?


Says the schizzo that designed the space shuttle, in his mind
19-06-2022 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Great point.

The sun is similar to oxygen, i.e. you need it and a lack is harmful.

Does that make your roof a poison?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

So, according to you, your roof is poison!


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you think repeating yourself mindlessly makes ANY difference????!?


Says the schizzo that designed the space shuttle, in his mind

I didn't, dumbass. I never said I did. Do you REALLY think wordstuffing is going to work????!?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-06-2022 22:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

Swan, I like you. I just wish subtle allusions and references wouldn't fly directly over your head.



Nonetheless, carry on ... but take your meds first.
19-06-2022 23:32
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
gussguss wrote:
I have been doing research and yes I know the sun can give people cancer but are there any other health problems the sun produces?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Great point.

The sun is similar to oxygen, i.e. you need it and a lack is harmful.

Does that make your roof a poison?


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

So, according to you, your roof is poison!


Lack of exposure to the sun can result in vitamin D deficiency which can lead to a variety of diseases

Any further attempt at distraction will be fruitless

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Do you think repeating yourself mindlessly makes ANY difference????!?


Says the schizzo that designed the space shuttle, in his mind

I didn't, dumbass. I never said I did. Do you REALLY think wordstuffing is going to work????!?


Actually you said that you designed the space shuttle.

Or was that another one of your schizzo personalities?
20-06-2022 00:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:Actually you said that you designed the space shuttle.

Nope. That's your English deficiency at work again.

He said that he was "involved" in the "project." That does not translate into "I designed the space shuttle."

Into the Night wrote: I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project.


Swan wrote:Or was that another one of your schizzo personalities?

It must have been one of your schizzo personalities.

(take your meds)

.
20-06-2022 01:36
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually you said that you designed the space shuttle.

Nope. That's your English deficiency at work again.

He said that he was "involved" in the "project." That does not translate into "I designed the space shuttle."

Into the Night wrote: I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project.


Swan wrote:Or was that another one of your schizzo personalities?

It must have been one of your schizzo personalities.

(take your meds)

.


Actually someone that was involved in both Apollo and the Space shuttle would be proud of what they did and would also be able to say what they did instead of just babbling that they were involved. Unless they designed faulty sh-t, like the switch that failed cooking two astronuts alive in pure O2


Now that I think of it did NASA hire hot dog caterers, or need people to wrestle alligators off the launch pads, then there was the ass who lit the rockets with a match. That said there were also rumored to be people that cleaned the pee pee out of the space suits from when the 150 IQ geniuses soiled themselves. So there were opportunities I suppose.
Edited on 20-06-2022 01:43
20-06-2022 03:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:Actually someone that was involved in both Apollo and the Space shuttle would be proud of what they did and would also be able to say what they did instead of just babbling that they were involved. Unless they designed faulty sh-t.

This is a teachable moment. We need to touch upon both English grammar and basic logic.

1. When you use the word "someone", you need to use "who," i.e. someone who was involved ...

2. If you are going to use the subjunctive "would be" to argue that Into the Night was not involved in either the Apollo program or the space shuttle program, what follows "would be" must be your argument, not something involving pride which can be had by anyone, involved in the programs or not, or lacking in pride, which can refer to anyone, involved in the programs or not.

3. "Someone" is singular. Once it becomes the antecedent, you cannot switch to the plural pronoun "they."

4. You cannot use the subjunctive "would be able to" without first establishing that the subject cannot. In this case, Into the Night never claimed nor implied that he cannot say what he did, and in fact stated that he builds instrumentation.

5. Same as #3. Into the Night is singular. It is incorrect to refer to him as "they," even if you perceive his intellectual capacity as being that of several people.

Swan wrote:[... raving babble deleted ...] That said there were also rumored to be people that cleaned the pee pee out of the space suits from when the 150 IQ geniuses soiled themselves.

Space suits have piddle packs and absorbent fecal containment undergarments. Yes, someone cleans them.

Swan wrote:I am here to give you an enema. Don't worry, your climate is next.

Attached image:


Edited on 20-06-2022 03:36
20-06-2022 13:45
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually someone that was involved in both Apollo and the Space shuttle would be proud of what they did and would also be able to say what they did instead of just babbling that they were involved. Unless they designed faulty sh-t.

This is a teachable moment. We need to touch upon both English grammar and basic logic.

1. When you use the word "someone", you need to use "who," i.e. someone who was involved ...

2. If you are going to use the subjunctive "would be" to argue that Into the Night was not involved in either the Apollo program or the space shuttle program, what follows "would be" must be your argument, not something involving pride which can be had by anyone, involved in the programs or not, or lacking in pride, which can refer to anyone, involved in the programs or not.

3. "Someone" is singular. Once it becomes the antecedent, you cannot switch to the plural pronoun "they."

4. You cannot use the subjunctive "would be able to" without first establishing that the subject cannot. In this case, Into the Night never claimed nor implied that he cannot say what he did, and in fact stated that he builds instrumentation.

5. Same as #3. Into the Night is singular. It is incorrect to refer to him as "they," even if you perceive his intellectual capacity as being that of several people.

Swan wrote:[... raving babble deleted ...] That said there were also rumored to be people that cleaned the pee pee out of the space suits from when the 150 IQ geniuses soiled themselves.

Space suits have piddle packs and absorbent fecal containment undergarments. Yes, someone cleans them.

Swan wrote:I am here to give you an enema. Don't worry, your climate is next.


Actually someone that was involved in both Apollo and the Space shuttle would be proud of what they did and would also be able to say what they did instead of just babbling that they were involved. Unless they designed faulty sh-t, like the switch that failed cooking two astronuts alive in pure O2


Now that I think of it did NASA hire hot dog caterers, or need people to wrestle alligators off the launch pads, then there was the ass who lit the rockets with a match. That said there were also rumored to be people that cleaned the pee pee out of the space suits from when the 150 IQ geniuses soiled themselves. So there were opportunities I suppose.

Objective achieved

PS. Did you finish wiping the pee and poop out of the space suits yet.
20-06-2022 16:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: [mindless gibber-babble deleted]

This is a teachable moment. We need to touch upon both English grammar and basic logic.
[mindless copy-paste deleted]

I wrote that this is a teachable moment ... as in I would teach by using your errors as examples.

I never implied that it was somehow a learnable moment for you. I don't think you have many of those.
20-06-2022 18:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually you said that you designed the space shuttle.

Nope. That's your English deficiency at work again.

He said that he was "involved" in the "project." That does not translate into "I designed the space shuttle."

Into the Night wrote: I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project.


Swan wrote:Or was that another one of your schizzo personalities?

It must have been one of your schizzo personalities.

(take your meds)

.


Actually someone that was involved in both Apollo and the Space shuttle would be proud of what they did and would also be able to say what they did instead of just babbling that they were involved. Unless they designed faulty sh-t, like the switch that failed cooking two astronuts alive in pure O2

There was no faulty switch.
Swan wrote:
Now that I think of it did NASA hire hot dog caterers,

Now there's a thought! It gets boring in those stands waiting for a delayed launch!
Swan wrote:
or need people to wrestle alligators off the launch pads,

Nah. Just launch it. Any 'gator stupid enough to be out there gets instantly disintegrated.
Swan wrote:
then there was the ass who lit the rockets with a match.

Not even pyrotechnicians bother with that much any more. We use electric matches.
Swan wrote:
That said there were also rumored to be people that cleaned the pee pee out of the space suits from when the 150 IQ geniuses soiled themselves.

Actually, they clean their own spacesuits. They are designed to be peed in. The process is fairly easy, since it basically involves changing cartridges and discarding the used ones.
Swan wrote:
So there were opportunities I suppose.

...and you never had it.

Yes...I am proud to be involved in the various space programs. My instrumentation has worked beautifully. In the Apollo program, that instrumentation was part of the telemetry system for the 2nd stage. Nuthin' secret about that! For the Space Shuttle, that instrumentation helped coordinate the launch sequence for the solid rocket boosters. Nuthin' secret about that either. Those boosters were just giant versions of the same thing that pyrtotechnicians use in smaller rockets they often build. Just a tube filled with ammonium percholorate and rubber. It's reliable and cheap. The igniter for those boosters was in the nose cone. Those nose cones also acted as lightning rods while the shuttle was on the pad.

Replaceable items were of course the main fuel tank, but also the tires, which were replaced after each landing. It used the same tires as the 747. The spacecraft was heavier than a 747, but had only half the tires to land on, and at almost twice the stall speed of a 747. So they replaced them after every flight.

The tiles too were checked and damaged ones replaced after every flight.

I didn't work at NASA, dumbass. I built instrumentation for those rockets. NASA doesn't even build rockets and never did.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 20-06-2022 19:14
20-06-2022 19:21
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: [mindless gibber-babble deleted]

This is a teachable moment. We need to touch upon both English grammar and basic logic.
[mindless copy-paste deleted]

I wrote that this is a teachable moment ... as in I would teach by using your errors as examples.

I never implied that it was somehow a learnable moment for you. I don't think you have many of those.


Ip i spegl everyting wreng i till ownz mere apple sharez dan yu

Sucker
20-06-2022 19:28
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually you said that you designed the space shuttle.

Nope. That's your English deficiency at work again.

He said that he was "involved" in the "project." That does not translate into "I designed the space shuttle."

Into the Night wrote: I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project.


Swan wrote:Or was that another one of your schizzo personalities?

It must have been one of your schizzo personalities.

(take your meds)

.


Actually someone that was involved in both Apollo and the Space shuttle would be proud of what they did and would also be able to say what they did instead of just babbling that they were involved. Unless they designed faulty sh-t, like the switch that failed cooking two astronuts alive in pure O2

There was no faulty switch.
Swan wrote:
Now that I think of it did NASA hire hot dog caterers,

Now there's a thought! It gets boring in those stands waiting for a delayed launch!
Swan wrote:
or need people to wrestle alligators off the launch pads,

Nah. Just launch it. Any 'gator stupid enough to be out there gets instantly disintegrated.
Swan wrote:
then there was the ass who lit the rockets with a match.

Not even pyrotechnicians bother with that much any more. We use electric matches.
Swan wrote:
That said there were also rumored to be people that cleaned the pee pee out of the space suits from when the 150 IQ geniuses soiled themselves.

Actually, they clean their own spacesuits. They are designed to be peed in. The process is fairly easy, since it basically involves changing cartridges and discarding the used ones.
Swan wrote:
So there were opportunities I suppose.

...and you never had it.

Yes...I am proud to be involved in the various space programs. My instrumentation has worked beautifully. In the Apollo program, that instrumentation was part of the telemetry system for the 2nd stage. Nuthin' secret about that! For the Space Shuttle, that instrumentation helped coordinate the launch sequence for the solid rocket boosters. Nuthin' secret about that either. Those boosters were just giant versions of the same thing that pyrtotechnicians use in smaller rockets they often build. Just a tube filled with ammonium percholorate and rubber. It's reliable and cheap. The igniter for those boosters was in the nose cone. Those nose cones also acted as lightning rods while the shuttle was on the pad.

Replaceable items were of course the main fuel tank, but also the tires, which were replaced after each landing. It used the same tires as the 747. The spacecraft was heavier than a 747, but had only half the tires to land on, and at almost twice the stall speed of a 747. So they replaced them after every flight.

The tiles too were checked and damaged ones replaced after every flight.

I didn't work at NASA, dumbass. I built instrumentation for those rockets. NASA doesn't even build rockets and never did.


LOL, what happens when the tiles are damaged on liftoff and can not be replaced in space?

Well Watson that is simple, everyone on the shuttle says goodbye because they all know that they are going to be blown to bits on reentry, but they can choose to die by cyanide capsule to avoid being cooked alive. Yea you sure did a great job with the instruments. Tell us more stupid stories
Edited on 20-06-2022 19:52
21-06-2022 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually you said that you designed the space shuttle.

Nope. That's your English deficiency at work again.

He said that he was "involved" in the "project." That does not translate into "I designed the space shuttle."

Into the Night wrote: I was involved in the Apollo project and the Space Shuttle project.


Swan wrote:Or was that another one of your schizzo personalities?

It must have been one of your schizzo personalities.

(take your meds)

.


Actually someone that was involved in both Apollo and the Space shuttle would be proud of what they did and would also be able to say what they did instead of just babbling that they were involved. Unless they designed faulty sh-t, like the switch that failed cooking two astronuts alive in pure O2

There was no faulty switch.
Swan wrote:
Now that I think of it did NASA hire hot dog caterers,

Now there's a thought! It gets boring in those stands waiting for a delayed launch!
Swan wrote:
or need people to wrestle alligators off the launch pads,

Nah. Just launch it. Any 'gator stupid enough to be out there gets instantly disintegrated.
Swan wrote:
then there was the ass who lit the rockets with a match.

Not even pyrotechnicians bother with that much any more. We use electric matches.
Swan wrote:
That said there were also rumored to be people that cleaned the pee pee out of the space suits from when the 150 IQ geniuses soiled themselves.

Actually, they clean their own spacesuits. They are designed to be peed in. The process is fairly easy, since it basically involves changing cartridges and discarding the used ones.
Swan wrote:
So there were opportunities I suppose.

...and you never had it.

Yes...I am proud to be involved in the various space programs. My instrumentation has worked beautifully. In the Apollo program, that instrumentation was part of the telemetry system for the 2nd stage. Nuthin' secret about that! For the Space Shuttle, that instrumentation helped coordinate the launch sequence for the solid rocket boosters. Nuthin' secret about that either. Those boosters were just giant versions of the same thing that pyrtotechnicians use in smaller rockets they often build. Just a tube filled with ammonium percholorate and rubber. It's reliable and cheap. The igniter for those boosters was in the nose cone. Those nose cones also acted as lightning rods while the shuttle was on the pad.

Replaceable items were of course the main fuel tank, but also the tires, which were replaced after each landing. It used the same tires as the 747. The spacecraft was heavier than a 747, but had only half the tires to land on, and at almost twice the stall speed of a 747. So they replaced them after every flight.

The tiles too were checked and damaged ones replaced after every flight.

I didn't work at NASA, dumbass. I built instrumentation for those rockets. NASA doesn't even build rockets and never did.


LOL, what happens when the tiles are damaged on liftoff and can not be replaced in space?

Well Watson that is simple, everyone on the shuttle says goodbye because they all know that they are going to be blown to bits on reentry, but they can choose to die by cyanide capsule to avoid being cooked alive. Yea you sure did a great job with the instruments. Tell us more stupid stories

Nope. It depends on the tile. Some tiles can be damaged or missing and nothing happens. Some tiles are critical and loss of them can cause catastrophic loss of the spacecraft. And everything in between, of course.

No one was cooked alive. They died the instant the spacecraft became uncontrollable, before it broke up.

Instrumentation has nothing to do with tiles, dumbass.

It's obvious you're jealous. Your miserable life is your own. You never started a business, you don't enough to build parts for spacecraft, you'll never go into space or be part of any space program, you'll never be a pyrotechnician, etc.

All you do is whine and troll.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 21-06-2022 00:22
21-06-2022 02:58
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
The fart that can not deal with reality is you, likely because you must do everything that you are told, like the good little child that you are.

The fact is that three astronuts were cooked alive when a bad switch caught fire in the pure O2 environment that NASA put them in to keep the dopey plan alive. Was this the switch that you designed?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/apollo-1-the-fire-that-shocked-nasa/#:~:text=A%20routine%20prelaunch%20test%20turned,the%20United%20States%20and%20abroad.


The real problem was communication. Static made it impossible for the crew and mission control to hear one another. An increasingly frustrated Grissom began to question how they were expected to get to the Moon if they couldn't talk between a few buildings.



Just after 6:31 that evening, the routine test took a turn. Engineers in mission control saw an increase in oxygen flow and pressure inside the cabin. The telemetry was accompanied by a garbled transmission that sounded like "fire." The official record reflects the communications problem. The transmission was unclear, but the panic was obvious as an astronaut yelled something like "they're fighting a bad fire — let's get out. Open 'er up" or "we've got a bad fire — let's get out. We're burning up." The static made it impossible to hear the exact words or even distinguish who was speaking.

But flames visible through the command module's small porthole window left no doubt about what the crew had said. Engineers in the White Room tried to get the hatch open but couldn't. It was an inward opening design, and neither engineers outside the spacecraft nor the astronauts inside were strong enough to force it open. The men in mission control watched helplessly as the scene played out on the live video feed.

Just three seconds after the crew's garbled report of a fire, the pressure inside the cabin became so great that the hull ruptured. Men wrestling with the hatch were thrown across the room as flames and smoke spilled into the White Room. Many continued to fight their way towards the spacecraft but were forced to retreat as the smoke grew too thick to see through. In mission control, the telemetry and voice communication from Apollo 1 went completely silent.

An hour and a half later, firemen and emergency personnel succeeded in removing the bodies; Ed White was turned around on his couch reaching for the hatch. Over the next two months, the spacecraft was disassembled piece by piece in an attempt to isolate the cause of the fire. The full investigation lasted a year.

Please quote every line as though your delusions mean something

CIAO sucker

Oh as for the shuttle, they all knew they were dead when the missing tiles were found after inspection in space and they likely all killed themselves with cyanide before reentry.

Total failure, like you.

130
Edited on 21-06-2022 03:07
21-06-2022 17:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
The fart that can not deal with reality is you, likely because you must do everything that you are told, like the good little child that you are.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hallucinations again. You've got 'em real bad.
Swan wrote:
The fact is that three astronuts were cooked alive when a bad switch caught fire in the pure O2 environment that NASA put them in to keep the dopey plan alive. Was this the switch that you designed?

There was no faulty switch.
Swan wrote:
The real problem was communication. Static made it impossible for the crew and mission control to hear one another. An increasingly frustrated Grissom began to question how they were expected to get to the Moon if they couldn't talk between a few buildings.

There was no communications issue.
Swan wrote:
Just after 6:31 that evening, the routine test took a turn.

It wasn't a routine test.
Swan wrote:
Engineers in mission control saw an increase in oxygen flow and pressure inside the cabin.

Because engineers caused it that was the test.
Swan wrote:
The telemetry was accompanied by a garbled transmission that sounded like "fire." The official record reflects the communications problem. The transmission was unclear, but the panic was obvious as an astronaut yelled something like "they're fighting a bad fire — let's get out. Open 'er up" or "we've got a bad fire — let's get out. We're burning up." The static made it impossible to hear the exact words or even distinguish who was speaking.

There was very little static.
Swan wrote:
But flames visible through the command module's small porthole window left no doubt about what the crew had said. Engineers in the White Room tried to get the hatch open but couldn't. It was an inward opening design, and neither engineers outside the spacecraft nor the astronauts inside were strong enough to force it open. The men in mission control watched helplessly as the scene played out on the live video feed.

Which is why they redesigned the door.
Swan wrote:
Just three seconds after the crew's garbled report of a fire, the pressure inside the cabin became so great that the hull ruptured.

No. Because the hull weakened due to fire.
Swan wrote:
Men wrestling with the hatch were thrown across the room as flames and smoke spilled into the White Room.

Which is what happens in a fire.
Swan wrote:
Many continued to fight their way towards the spacecraft but were forced to retreat as the smoke grew too thick to see through. In mission control, the telemetry and voice communication from Apollo 1 went completely silent.

Because the system burned.
Swan wrote:
An hour and a half later, firemen and emergency personnel succeeded in removing the bodies; Ed White was turned around on his couch reaching for the hatch. Over the next two months, the spacecraft was disassembled piece by piece in an attempt to isolate the cause of the fire. The full investigation lasted a year.

Which was:
* Redesign the hatch. Bolting the crew in doesn't work.
* Do not perform the pressurization test using oxygen.
* Do not perform the pressurization test with the crew in the capsule.
* Build egress systems into the launch tower.

The solutions worked. There was never a fire in an Apollo capsule again.
Swan wrote:
Please quote every line as though your delusions mean something

CIAO sucker

Your delusions.
Swan wrote:
Oh as for the shuttle, they all knew they were dead when the missing tiles were found after inspection in space and they likely all killed themselves with cyanide before reentry.

Then reentry wouldn't have occurred, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-06-2022 18:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:Ip i spegl everyting wreng i till ownz mere moraines dan yu

Attached image:

21-06-2022 20:13
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
The fart that can not deal with reality is you, likely because you must do everything that you are told, like the good little child that you are.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hallucinations again. You've got 'em real bad.
Swan wrote:
The fact is that three astronuts were cooked alive when a bad switch caught fire in the pure O2 environment that NASA put them in to keep the dopey plan alive. Was this the switch that you designed?

There was no faulty switch.
Swan wrote:
The real problem was communication. Static made it impossible for the crew and mission control to hear one another. An increasingly frustrated Grissom began to question how they were expected to get to the Moon if they couldn't talk between a few buildings.

There was no communications issue.
Swan wrote:
Just after 6:31 that evening, the routine test took a turn.

It wasn't a routine test.
Swan wrote:
Engineers in mission control saw an increase in oxygen flow and pressure inside the cabin.

Because engineers caused it that was the test.
Swan wrote:
The telemetry was accompanied by a garbled transmission that sounded like "fire." The official record reflects the communications problem. The transmission was unclear, but the panic was obvious as an astronaut yelled something like "they're fighting a bad fire — let's get out. Open 'er up" or "we've got a bad fire — let's get out. We're burning up." The static made it impossible to hear the exact words or even distinguish who was speaking.

There was very little static.
Swan wrote:
But flames visible through the command module's small porthole window left no doubt about what the crew had said. Engineers in the White Room tried to get the hatch open but couldn't. It was an inward opening design, and neither engineers outside the spacecraft nor the astronauts inside were strong enough to force it open. The men in mission control watched helplessly as the scene played out on the live video feed.

Which is why they redesigned the door.
Swan wrote:
Just three seconds after the crew's garbled report of a fire, the pressure inside the cabin became so great that the hull ruptured.

No. Because the hull weakened due to fire.
Swan wrote:
Men wrestling with the hatch were thrown across the room as flames and smoke spilled into the White Room.

Which is what happens in a fire.
Swan wrote:
Many continued to fight their way towards the spacecraft but were forced to retreat as the smoke grew too thick to see through. In mission control, the telemetry and voice communication from Apollo 1 went completely silent.

Because the system burned.
Swan wrote:
An hour and a half later, firemen and emergency personnel succeeded in removing the bodies; Ed White was turned around on his couch reaching for the hatch. Over the next two months, the spacecraft was disassembled piece by piece in an attempt to isolate the cause of the fire. The full investigation lasted a year.

Which was:
* Redesign the hatch. Bolting the crew in doesn't work.
* Do not perform the pressurization test using oxygen.
* Do not perform the pressurization test with the crew in the capsule.
* Build egress systems into the launch tower.

The solutions worked. There was never a fire in an Apollo capsule again.
Swan wrote:
Please quote every line as though your delusions mean something

CIAO sucker

Your delusions.
Swan wrote:
Oh as for the shuttle, they all knew they were dead when the missing tiles were found after inspection in space and they likely all killed themselves with cyanide before reentry.

Then reentry wouldn't have occurred, dumbass.


Everyone died on reentry and the damaged tiles were discovered as the piece of insulation foam that caused the damage was filmed on takeoff. The really weird thing about you is that you are arguing with history, not with me as I do not argue with fools.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-aug-14-na-shuttle14-story.html

NASA Blames Application of Foam for Shuttle Disaster
L.A. TIMES ARCHIVES
AUG. 14, 2004 12 AM PT
FROM REUTERS
NEW ORLEANS — The foam that struck the space shuttle Columbia soon after liftoff was improperly applied to the shuttle's external fuel tank, NASA said Friday.
The official investigation into the accident, conducted by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, left the matter open, since none of the foam or the fuel tank could be recovered for study.

A suitcase-sized chunk of foam from an area of the tank known as the left bipod, one of three areas where struts secure the orbiter to the fuel tank during liftoff, broke off 61 seconds into the flight on Jan. 16, 2003. It gouged a large hole in Columbia's left wing.

The damage went undetected during the shuttle's 16-day mission and caused the nation's oldest working spacecraft to break apart under the stress of reentering the Earth's atmosphere on Feb. 1, killing the seven astronauts on board.

"We now believe, with the testing that we've done, that defects certainly played a major part in the loss. We are convinced of that," said Neil Otte, chief engineer for the external tanks project.

So you keep up your arguments that history happened the way you say it did even for stuff that was filmed.

Now what is your security clearance that does not allow you to get into a conversation about my Sons top secret security clearance status. Are you FBI, NSA, DOD, or QVC? or perhaps even stealthier do you hold the formula for KFC

Time to play
Edited on 21-06-2022 21:05
21-06-2022 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18679)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
The fart that can not deal with reality is you, likely because you must do everything that you are told, like the good little child that you are.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hallucinations again. You've got 'em real bad.
Swan wrote:
The fact is that three astronuts were cooked alive when a bad switch caught fire in the pure O2 environment that NASA put them in to keep the dopey plan alive. Was this the switch that you designed?

There was no faulty switch.
Swan wrote:
The real problem was communication. Static made it impossible for the crew and mission control to hear one another. An increasingly frustrated Grissom began to question how they were expected to get to the Moon if they couldn't talk between a few buildings.

There was no communications issue.
Swan wrote:
Just after 6:31 that evening, the routine test took a turn.

It wasn't a routine test.
Swan wrote:
Engineers in mission control saw an increase in oxygen flow and pressure inside the cabin.

Because engineers caused it that was the test.
Swan wrote:
The telemetry was accompanied by a garbled transmission that sounded like "fire." The official record reflects the communications problem. The transmission was unclear, but the panic was obvious as an astronaut yelled something like "they're fighting a bad fire — let's get out. Open 'er up" or "we've got a bad fire — let's get out. We're burning up." The static made it impossible to hear the exact words or even distinguish who was speaking.

There was very little static.
Swan wrote:
But flames visible through the command module's small porthole window left no doubt about what the crew had said. Engineers in the White Room tried to get the hatch open but couldn't. It was an inward opening design, and neither engineers outside the spacecraft nor the astronauts inside were strong enough to force it open. The men in mission control watched helplessly as the scene played out on the live video feed.

Which is why they redesigned the door.
Swan wrote:
Just three seconds after the crew's garbled report of a fire, the pressure inside the cabin became so great that the hull ruptured.

No. Because the hull weakened due to fire.
Swan wrote:
Men wrestling with the hatch were thrown across the room as flames and smoke spilled into the White Room.

Which is what happens in a fire.
Swan wrote:
Many continued to fight their way towards the spacecraft but were forced to retreat as the smoke grew too thick to see through. In mission control, the telemetry and voice communication from Apollo 1 went completely silent.

Because the system burned.
Swan wrote:
An hour and a half later, firemen and emergency personnel succeeded in removing the bodies; Ed White was turned around on his couch reaching for the hatch. Over the next two months, the spacecraft was disassembled piece by piece in an attempt to isolate the cause of the fire. The full investigation lasted a year.

Which was:
* Redesign the hatch. Bolting the crew in doesn't work.
* Do not perform the pressurization test using oxygen.
* Do not perform the pressurization test with the crew in the capsule.
* Build egress systems into the launch tower.

The solutions worked. There was never a fire in an Apollo capsule again.
Swan wrote:
Please quote every line as though your delusions mean something

CIAO sucker

Your delusions.
Swan wrote:
Oh as for the shuttle, they all knew they were dead when the missing tiles were found after inspection in space and they likely all killed themselves with cyanide before reentry.

Then reentry wouldn't have occurred, dumbass.


Everyone died on reentry and the damaged tiles were discovered as the piece of insulation foam that caused the damage was filmed on takeoff.

Correct. The foam caused the damage because of changes by the EPA.
Swan wrote:
The really weird thing about you is that you are arguing with history, not with me as I do not argue with fools.

I am not arguing with history. YOU are. Inversion fallacy.
Swan wrote:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-aug-14-na-shuttle14-story.html

False authority fallacy. The LA Times is not NASA, nor the federal government, nor a film.
Swan wrote:
So you keep up your arguments that history happened the way you say it did even for stuff that was filmed.

I am not arguing with history. YOU are. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-06-2022 23:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11965)
Swan wrote:Are you FBI, NSA, DOD, or QVC? or perhaps even stealthier do you hold the formula for KFC

I have the secret formuler for the Krabby-patty.





21-06-2022 23:22
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1528)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
The fart that can not deal with reality is you, likely because you must do everything that you are told, like the good little child that you are.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hallucinations again. You've got 'em real bad.
Swan wrote:
The fact is that three astronuts were cooked alive when a bad switch caught fire in the pure O2 environment that NASA put them in to keep the dopey plan alive. Was this the switch that you designed?

There was no faulty switch.
Swan wrote:
The real problem was communication. Static made it impossible for the crew and mission control to hear one another. An increasingly frustrated Grissom began to question how they were expected to get to the Moon if they couldn't talk between a few buildings.

There was no communications issue.
Swan wrote:
Just after 6:31 that evening, the routine test took a turn.

It wasn't a routine test.
Swan wrote:
Engineers in mission control saw an increase in oxygen flow and pressure inside the cabin.

Because engineers caused it that was the test.
Swan wrote:
The telemetry was accompanied by a garbled transmission that sounded like "fire." The official record reflects the communications problem. The transmission was unclear, but the panic was obvious as an astronaut yelled something like "they're fighting a bad fire — let's get out. Open 'er up" or "we've got a bad fire — let's get out. We're burning up." The static made it impossible to hear the exact words or even distinguish who was speaking.

There was very little static.
Swan wrote:
But flames visible through the command module's small porthole window left no doubt about what the crew had said. Engineers in the White Room tried to get the hatch open but couldn't. It was an inward opening design, and neither engineers outside the spacecraft nor the astronauts inside were strong enough to force it open. The men in mission control watched helplessly as the scene played out on the live video feed.

Which is why they redesigned the door.
Swan wrote:
Just three seconds after the crew's garbled report of a fire, the pressure inside the cabin became so great that the hull ruptured.

No. Because the hull weakened due to fire.
Swan wrote:
Men wrestling with the hatch were thrown across the room as flames and smoke spilled into the White Room.

Which is what happens in a fire.
Swan wrote:
Many continued to fight their way towards the spacecraft but were forced to retreat as the smoke grew too thick to see through. In mission control, the telemetry and voice communication from Apollo 1 went completely silent.

Because the system burned.
Swan wrote:
An hour and a half later, firemen and emergency personnel succeeded in removing the bodies; Ed White was turned around on his couch reaching for the hatch. Over the next two months, the spacecraft was disassembled piece by piece in an attempt to isolate the cause of the fire. The full investigation lasted a year.

Which was:
* Redesign the hatch. Bolting the crew in doesn't work.
* Do not perform the pressurization test using oxygen.
* Do not perform the pressurization test with the crew in the capsule.
* Build egress systems into the launch tower.

The solutions worked. There was never a fire in an Apollo capsule again.
Swan wrote:
Please quote every line as though your delusions mean something

CIAO sucker

Your delusions.
Swan wrote:
Oh as for the shuttle, they all knew they were dead when the missing tiles were found after inspection in space and they likely all killed themselves with cyanide before reentry.

Then reentry wouldn't have occurred, dumbass.


Everyone died on reentry and the damaged tiles were discovered as the piece of insulation foam that caused the damage was filmed on takeoff.

Correct. The foam caused the damage because of changes by the EPA.
Swan wrote:
The really weird thing about you is that you are arguing with history, not with me as I do not argue with fools.

I am not arguing with history. YOU are. Inversion fallacy.
Swan wrote:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-aug-14-na-shuttle14-story.html

False authority fallacy. The LA Times is not NASA, nor the federal government, nor a film.
Swan wrote:
So you keep up your arguments that history happened the way you say it did even for stuff that was filmed.

I am not arguing with history. YOU are. Inversion fallacy.


So in your deluded mind whatever the government says is exactly what happened.

What else can you say since you are a government OWNED fool

What does the Navy and the government say about not paying the housing allowance to sailors? putting good men with top secret clearances in debt

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/11/19/navy-pay-delays-have-forced-some-sailors-take-out-loans.html

Navy sailors who earned increases in their housing allowances this year because they married or moved to a high-cost area are experiencing months-long delays to their pay boost – a situation that has forced some to take out loans to make ends meet.

Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society Vice President Gillian Gonzalez said her organization has seen an uptick in loan requests from sailors struggling to cover living expenses.

Too bad that no one in the government has the balls to look me in the eye and ask even a simple question.
Edited on 21-06-2022 23:25




Join the debate Is the sun toxic?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is The Moon Toxic?6129-04-2022 23:16
Climate change by how we use the sun?809-05-2021 17:06
Blocking out the Sun, to reduce global warming...427-04-2021 21:24
The Corona Virus NCOV Is Harmless If You Body Is Clean Healthy But Dangerous If Your Body Is Dirty Toxic031-07-2020 12:09
Why did Obama EPA classify CO2 as toxic?128-05-2019 20:24
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact