Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pauld

pauld's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. I'm going to change your member status to banned if you don't start acting in a much more civil manner. That would be an improvement. shove your up your ass, i beat you to it,i ban myself, arsewipe.
  2. Why fix something that wasnt bloody broken in the first pace, fucken hate changes like this, nothing improved, just change for changes sake.
  3. Oh dear stu, looks like the upper house of MF all over this one.
  4. 40 percent is not a majority, just sayin.
  5. Stu Peters -Chief Minister, and eight of his secret text contributors to his Phone -Ins for CoMin. Thereby maintaining the total secrecy of previous times. Sorted. By the way Stu, if I had made the disgusting 'Gaff' you made on Election night when I was employed by Government [and yes you are at least by 50%] then I would have been sacked. How unprofessional. Ever make a mistake in your life? Tosser. That is no-way to speak to a lady woolley, maybe it is where you were brought up, but not here, thanks.
  6. Its a whining thread, about a surly little fat man, best i can make out, not a vendetta, and people like you get on my tits.
  7. What a pathetic pair pricks directly above. So what the mans abit surly, and parked where he shouldnt whilst unloading stock, ffs get a life, maybe even a coffee.
  8. Dunno bees. I do know you are right tho bout good teechers, sea i was good at the subjects i licked, maths, science, gardenin, funny that was the order in whitch i liked the teechers the bestest, i hated english, still not tat fond of em now, no wat eye meen.
  9. Not bad albert, agree with most, buying online for less than 20 quid is rarely cheaper than buying local, with 3 or 4 pound postage added, just saves having to go out and get it.
  10. No problem Pauld, I'd probably feel left out if you hadn't! :rolleyes: I meant it woolley, i respect the truthful opinion, well presented, Englishman or not.
  11. pauld


    No, if you read your latest post, that's just what you're doing. I've just asked you to back up your conclusions, but you can't. It looks like you don't have the in depth knowledge of the subject you claim, but are just capable of cutting and pasting these conclusions from someone else's material and fobbing it off as your own. So, again, in the case of the conspiracy theory you've presented specifically about insider trading: Explain what you think actually happened? As you quoted, Kongard left in 1998. How's he involved in these trades that happened years later? Where's the evidence that Alex Brown made these trades? How many is 'many'? What makes these trades unusual, given the airline had just issued a profits warning? Why hasn't the thorough investigation of this alleged insider trading thrown up any guilty party? Everything is recorded and traceable, if something actually happened why can't you present the facts rather than second hand speculation? There's no personal attacks, no misrepresentation, no rhetoric empty or otherwise, and no misdirection or noise. Just some questions Can you answer them? Full quote is now included, see how you ignored the indefensible, so NOW you want to micro dance with one small link in a very long chain, and bog me down in pages of noise, so go on then lets dance,i will back in a few hours, however we are gonna dance to my tune.
  12. pauld


    You cannot have a meaningful debate with anyone, when only one side has done the research, and frankly you have shown zero to dispute the prominent americans accusations, bob graham is the worlds foremost authority on 911, due to his chair, and clarke the now second world authority, but at the time, the worlds top authority on 911 due to his top position[ or rather he should of been, now he knows secrets were kept from him]. And again you cannot argue the official reports both internal and external, nor the various trial exhibits, so you hand-wave its all just one tragic case of bad management. And that is all you have, there is nothing of substance to debate with you. You need to dispute at a micro level the specific and very public allegations, these people and now some insurance carriers are alleging, they base theirallegations on official documentation, this is why you cannot dispute it in any meaningful way, so dont even attempt to. That only leaves the options you choose, personal attack , attempted misrepresentation of sources, empty rhetoric, and mis-direction, all wrapped in as much noise as possible.
  13. pauld


    What's views got to do with anything? That's like 30 views a day, most of which will be me and you clicking the thread, everyone else seems to have gotten board of taking the piss out of you. I'm not hand waving, I'm asking you to justify your bold claims. If the 'unoquivical' truth is so clear and obvious, that should be easy. Educate myself how? If you've got all the answers, apply some of them to my questions. Just the insider trading one's a good place to start. Thanks.
  14. pauld


    Over 7000 views would suggest people are looking at more than your frantic nothing to see here hand-waving, now like i said educate yourself, because this particular cover-up is unfolding at an ever increasing pace, but that pace is still a slog with an apathetic public, and little political will, thats quoting Pulitzer prize winning author and chair of the select committee on 911 bob graham best i remember. And Graham Levan Clarke and many others will just keep on butting their heads against the wall until they die or the wall crumbles as it is now bit by bit by bit by bit. You would be better of looking into the CIA coverup, on the grounds f trying to turn the terrorists into informers, making them assets, and covering up their failure, than just blind faith it was all just bad management, nothing to see here move along, imo.
  15. pauld


    Slim. last reply to you until you educate yourself in the subject. Start here http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline Theres 7000 entries in this timeline, reading it should take about 2 months if you want it to stick in your brain, then another 6 months going through the timeline again, only this time clicking the hotlinks to the full original source material. Now when you read the trial evidence here http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/ The following web pages link to all 1,202 exhibits admitted into evidence during the trial of U.S. v. Moussaoui, with the exception of seven that are classified or otherwise remain under seal. This is the first criminal case for which a federal court has provided access to all exhibits online. The exhibits were posted on July 31, 2006. And The 911 commission report here http://www.911commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf And OIG Report here http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001499482/DOC_0001499482.pdf You will have a better understanding of reality. Then i suggest you read the various internal inquiry reports that i have posted links to in this thread. After that 18 months or so of reading you will be able judge the various prominent americans public accusations, and the newly involved insurance carriers lawsuits, honestly equipped to do so,, until then adios, your just noise in the background.
  • Create New...