Talk:Airbending/@comment-76.24.189.176-20120121100340/@comment-76.24.189.176-20120213065536

You say you've proved several of my theories wrong. We probably both got lost in the details, so let me simplify it. I was just giving examples of how poison firebending is possible. To be honest, I don't care how many "methods" you say you disproved, there is still a possible path for poison firebending, as well as smokebending (but due to space I wont get into the ladder). So as far as we know, they both could be possible. Period. You misinterpreted a few things as well, so now I see where at least a bit of the confusion is coming from. I'll try to be very clear, and explain my valid points off of the misunderstandings and see if that helps. I fear I said too much to avoid further misunderstanding, but I'll hope for the best.

1. First of all, I need to get this little thing straightened out. You see, I remember reading how you said that breath control could not effect the fire chemically (with carbon or oxygen), and how a normal exhale couldn't either as the breath would be to small to proportionately effect the flames (which would obviously be to large in comparison). We'll call this the first thing you said for future reference (paraphrased). So anyways, I followed up by stating about how my small scale example of a normal exhale could get carbon directly into the flame. Carbon gets to the flame on some level (and we can discuss what happens after that later but you can't deny some gets there). Then in the next post that you reply to me, you contradicted us both multiple times. I won't give you a flow chart as I gave up on it because it was too convoluted. Let me explain:

In your next reply, you gave the example of waterbenders exhaling to freeze water into ice. ummm... Well for starters, you missed my original point (and I'll get to that misunderstanding after I address this). You are right in that waterbenders can do that, but that's not a normal breath! That contradicts the first thing you said in that breathing wouldn't be able to affect the flame chemically, even just with the oxygen that the flame needs to burn. If anything, it proves my point that firebenders should be able to affect the oxygen levels in the fire they bend with there breath, and as a result contradicts the previous argument you made against it. Since fire needs oxygen to exist, a firebender controls oxygen on some level just by bending the flame itself. If the breath did not increase the oxygen levels fed to the flame in some matter, it would not intensify at all. But later in that same post, you contradicted that by saying how a normal exhale couldn't effect a flame so therefore it was impossible for any breath to do so. And yet while previously using that point about a waterbender's freezing breath to hammer me on a misunderstanding, you proved that bending other than airbending CAN directly effect a bender's element in some way. Once you state that other bending has breath related techniques, that proves it is possible for firebending. As a result, it changes all the rules.

Speaking of breath firebending, Iro could breath fire from his mouth. That was an exhale, and it proves you don't even have to get the breath to the flame because it's already there if you breath fire out of your mouth. Iro's technique makes it even more likely. Now we haven't seen a breath ability comparable to the waterbending freezing breath for firebenders yet (Iro's is a little different). But if all we've seen is possible, then there is a good chance that this is too. Anyways, I hope I didn't misunderstand any misunderstandings there as it was a bit confusing.

2. And now for the second misunderstanding: I never said breathing wasn't important for water and earth. Breathing is important to all the elements, as well as other things like the martial arts that the bending styles are based off of. Earth and water certainly also have breath related moves. What I was trying to say is that they wouldn't be described as coming "from the breath" like fire because the properties of fire when relating to said breath are rather unique.

But breath itself seems to give firebending more intensity. That relationship means they must be fueling the fire with more fuel (Probably Chi or spiritual energy or whatever source they use to burn fire) and oxygen. They can somehow feed the flame more oxygen and fuel (whatever they use) by putting breath behind there attacks, much the same way a martial artist shouts to put emphasis behind their strikes. That emphasis brings focus and power to the strikes, and it would do the same for the fire.

But for any fire to get more intense, it would need to burn more oxygen and fuel proportionately or it would not grow. This is just basic chemistry. Then when you combine breathing with firebending, you get a relationship that no other element has like it. This is because both humans AND fire need to use up oxygen, and could not exist without it. So when humans breath it involves oxygen intake. When fire burns it involves oxygen intake. The methods are different, but when combined the firebender somehow effects the levels of oxygen the fire consumes. Otherwise it would not be able to get more intense. And when breath increases that intensity, well let's just say that is a trend that points to oxygen manipulation by breath. Again, fire can't exist without consuming oxygen. So on some level, firebenders have control of oxygen levels in the flame simply by controlling it's intensity, how long it lasts, etc. It's debatable as to whether or not breathing is directly or indirectly responsible for this, but I certainly see evidence linking it.

3. You are adamant that firebenders can't hold anything in a flame, but you can't prove that. What would happen if a firebender bended an already existing fire that was burning on something nasty like sulfur? I'll tell you what is most likely: That pre-existing flame would not suddenly lose it's properties as a sulfur flame just because the firebender moved it. The flame already has it's properties and would stay that way until the firebender was done manipulating it. They wouldn't suddenly be able to create fire with the properties of burning sulfur for their bending, so don't misunderstand me there please. But while they were bending that pre-existing flame it still retains it's original properties from before, thus proving that the fire can retain some of the sulfur. This scenario proves that a firebender can keep the properties of a flame even if it is different from their natural fire. So if they could change the properties of their own fire themselves by say adding carbon, they could likely keep the properties of that now changed fire and still bend this. You can not factually prove that this can't be done with what we know.

Bringing up Azula seemed to have made some headway as you went off in great detail on the colors of flames. It really didn't disprove anything there. I also cook using a gas stove, and the blue flames are a different shade than Azula's fire for whatever that is worth. Color wise, stars follow the same temperature based system for fire colors that you stated, but without being connected any air molecules as space is a vacuum. White fire would be after blue, which I personally have only seen in stars and hydrogen fires. There is also a difference between flame color change from physical reactions based on temperature, and color changes based on chemical reactions (beyond the basic fire one) based on what it burns, such as the green fire in your example that burns copper. While color itself isn't necessarily important, that green copper flame has properties that would probably be retained if a firebender decided to bend it as existing flame. I doubt its color would change from green just because a firebender manipulated it. Once the properties of a fire can be bended, firebenders should be able to keep it's properties.

4. All these various methods of poison firebending I have been listed come down to two things. The first thing is carbon reaching the flame. They could do this, whether it is by breath control enhanced firebending, an normal exhale, an enhanced exhale similar to the freeze breath but with firebending, a fire breath combined with exhaling large amounts of CO2 in the body, resourcefulness with burning things from smoke and manipulating the fire over where the carbon gas is, ect. Even you can't deny that a firebender could quite easily get enough carbon into the area that their flames are burning through some method. That right there is all I need to start proving the second thing.

That second thing is carbon dioxide (or even just carbon added to the fire to react with the oxygen the fire is naturally burning) going through a process within the fire to become carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is the poison gas, and if that ends up in a fire that a firebender can bend without changing it's properties (by bending it) then I am correct. I figured if the oxygen levels in the flame can be controlled even indirectly (and due to fire's nature that has to be true), a firebender should also be able to carbon levels. They don't even have to bend that carbon gas itself (which gets taken along for a ride within the bended flame) to create carbon monoxide from carbon dioxide. All the firebender would have to do is burn more of the oxygen off from within the flame while drawing less from the outside, at the same as keeping carbon levels within the flame even to oxygen levels. The molecules kept inside the flame would change and react themselves. However the firebender does this, it would be a difficult technique to master and obviously would need to be discovered/created. But if carbon monoxide or any other poisonous gas is seeping out from the fire, then it is a poisonous fire.