Jump to content

syntax252

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About syntax252

  • Rank
    Suspended
  • Birthday 02/01/1937

Profile Information

  • Location
    USA-Michigan-SW
  • Occupation
    Retired
  1. In other words, you cannot provide any evidence that the administration was complicit in the 9/11 event--correct?
  2. Those 2 muscle types are slow twitch and fast twitch. As yt says, the fast twitch is for weight lifters and it tires quickly, and the slow twitch is for endurance. The secret to distance running is to build up your base of endurance. If you are not having trouble with your oxygen intake, then you are not trying to run too fast but you need to keep pushing your limits. Go as far as you can on one day, then the next day go about 1/2 that far. That is your recovery day. On the third daym run about 3/4 as far as you did on day one, then on day 4 go as far as you can again and keep repeating that cycle. Stay within your comfort zone and relax. Don't expect to see results the first week or two, but over the summer, you will have your endurance base built up to perhaps twice what it is now. Oh, another thing, if your feer or legs start hurting, buy better shoes.
  3. OK, call it whatever you want. The point is that it would be a salacious allegation that was not backed up by anything except "unanswered questions" just like the allegations about the President being complicit in the events of 9/11. Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander?
  4. That was the whole point. I queried Sayo about whether or not he would be comfortable with such a post, since he had said that it mattered not what one posted, the name of the game was to refute the theory that was floated and to not be personally abusive in doing so. It now appears that when the right ox is being gored, that indeed, a post can be offensive enough that it engenders an angry response, as witness phi for all's above post to me.
  5. I really don't see this as a waste of money because the amount of money spent is relitively small. I would rather see a Mars colony established and even a study to see if terra forming is feasable on Mars. In the Solar system, Mars is our best shot. But in the overall sense of how government money is spent, the exploration of space is a minor expense.
  6. Earlier I posted a question to Sayo as to whether or not he would be comportable with someone trying to float the idea that the Queen of England was making regular trips to Rome to perform felletio on the pope. I posed the question to illustrate that there are things that are so very disgusting in nature that they are offensive to the whole of a people. Someone removed that post. Sayo says that he didn't, and I believe him, but the fact remains that someone removed it and I think because it was offensive. Now what I want to know is who is sensitive enough to find that idea offensive, you is insensitive enough that he doesn't think it is offensive to suggest that the President of the United States is a mass murderer. Who?
  7. Subjective Tell it to the families of the people killed at Pearl Harbor. Should we investigate that? But as yet, you have not presented any evidence that the administration was complicit in the events of 9/11. All you have presented are your suspicions. You have even said that, when I pointed out that it is wrong to say that the President did these things and demanded an opology, you came back and said that you only "thought" that the president "might have been complicit." So, if there is real evidence that the president orchastrated the events of 9/11, by all means present it. But suspicions won't do it, any more that the fact that someone can think of another question will do it. Present the facts, or fold your tent and go home.....
  8. I don't see why not. It is the paradox that rules it out, just as you discribed in your above illustration about killing one's grandfather. The only error I could see in that illustration was that you said that since you would cease to exist, his death would be unaccountable. In fact, since you would cease to exist, he would not die because you would not have been there to kill him. Sort of a paradox of paradoxes?
  9. When you have read it all, then you can compare it to Ruppert's book and judge which testimony you find the most convincing.
  10. I do not think that time travel is possible without changing reality. The present reality is that I was born in 1937 and if someone went back and prevented that from happening, then today's reality would be different. I do not accept that as a possibility.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.