Search results

Need links? Let's start. For the beginning, please, read: This article in *The New York Times* http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html (reg required) indicates that a likely cause of that fire was the approximately 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel (6K gallons on the seventh...

2 x 2 = ? Is it too complicated? I understand that people cannot keep in mind too much information to analyze it. Therefore I simplified the issue. Two facts are enough to make a right decision: First input - G.W. Bush and CIA knew that on 9/11 terrorists will use planes for terracts...

<i><b>kmguru wrote:</b> You are welcome. I am glad, I was some help. I hope you get better.</i> With your entertainment ... I really feel better. Thanks again (or try again).

The summary of your comments: Thanks. That's what I need ...

kmguru wrote: Just one self standing post containing your new theory and your claims. Imagine you are writing a patent application. First. Can you tell me, please, (couple sentences) what I am talking about (the goal)? Second. How are you going to use it? With regards.

Nasor wrote: You think that saccharin and aspartame is the same thing as artificial fructose, and you expect us to believe that you were 'testing' us? You don't even understand basic chemistry terms. The same was the word "artificial" but not chemical formulas. As I told you - nobody got the...

<i><b>On Radioactive Waves wrote:</b> you elucidate in one reply without refering to web sites, other posts, other anchors, or questioning peoples capabilities etc</i> First - I am not a public teacher ... Second - I tested all of you ... Third - I do not care what you think about me...

I do not need fanatics-believers to talk ... I do not need fanatics-believers. I prefer to speak to who is able to think beyond "stamps". If you will force your brain to work properly - you will see enough proof you need for (for the beginning). But you are speaking as Stalin. He...

Guys, you want to show how “smart” you are. Unfortunately, you cannot see beyond school knowledge. Everything that is going on further – you cannot understand at all (like soulless computers cannot do work beyond a program). You even cannot remember points in the posts that you read. Therefore...

<i><b>Frencheneesz wrote:</b> Your theory sucks ass and you do a very good job of showing your stupidity. If you "don't care" then just stop posting here, its that simple.</i> I glad we had everything what we need. You got a "proof" that I am stupid (without even checking the references...

<i><b>Nasor wrote:</b> if you stated in your own words a defense to your theory, without simple cut and paste explanation, i would take you more seriously.</i> I gave you a clue … You would prove it if you wish for … and everything you cannot explain will have a necessary explanation … and...

<i><b>Frencheneesz wrote:</b> That is in no way a fact. Only thinking things can use memory, therefore, even if photons did posses some kind of "memory", life at the DNA level has no intelligence.</i> First - read the references; than - talk about. No knowledge is not a proof of non-existence.

Guys, I am not a social teacher to teach you things you do not know. This was an experiment. If you really want to know the truth - you have info where to start. But if you are just curious - forget about. Want to prove me wrong? I can talk with you if you know the basics of the issue (the...

Do not worry, please. Everything that you will read below is related to the subject (artificial/natural chemicals and aging, etc.). Fact is - photons have memory. Therefore, there are methods to change photons' behavior using … just special so called "information". In this way, a message...

<i><b>chroot wrote:</i> You've provided pages upon pages of interesting reading, but nothing that actually supports your claim.</i> Please, just wait. I am waiting for other comments then I will continue.

First, you need to collect enough data (a pretty long list). Then we will analyze it. If it is too long for you - I can accelerate it. <b>Organic vs. Commercial Food (think about genetically engineered food)</b> "The organic pears, apples, potatoes and wheat had, on an average, over 90%...

So, guys - you know nothing about the subject, but you are still arguing. You have to be educated from the beginning (at the end I will tell you the difference between natural and artificial fructose if you would be able to analyze preliminary data). Of course, you are free to talk about grammar...

It is a matter where they come from. <i><b>chroot wrote:</b> So the question is in your opinion what is the difference between "natural" and artificial fructose???</i> <b>The question was:</b> why naturally derived chemicals (as food or treatment) are OK (for the body), but the same...

<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> The answer is: I have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide something more specific than "naturally derived chemicals."</i> Only too a smart person can have no clue what I am talking about. OK. Natural and artificial fructose. It is not a too complicated...

OK, chroot. If a couple questions are too much for you - let's start one by one. chroot, you claimed that you are smarter more educated than me. Why you still did not answer the question: why the naturally derived chemicals are OK (for the body), but the same artificially created copies are...