Moussaoui's Claims
Are covered here:
Moussaoui also says that he was to be the 20th hijacker, which does not appear to be true. He was arrested in Minnesota on August 16, 2001, at which point all the hijacking teams had all gotten together. According to KSM, Moussaoui was intended as a pilot in a second wave of the attacks.Zacarias Moussaoui, 46, says an unnamed Saudi Prince paid for flying lessons for him and the 19 terrorists who hijacked planes in the September 11 attacks in the run-up to the atrocities.The incredible claims were made in documents filed to a federal court in Oklahoma, in which Moussaoui says a prince 'was assisting me in my Islamic terrorist activities... and was doing so knowingly for Osama bin Laden'.He also said that bin Laden assistance from Saudi leaders in planning the attacks, and that he was involved in a plot to shoot down Air Force One with President Bill Clinton on board
The claim that a Saudi prince financed him is more interesting, as it apparently comes in depositions as some of the 9-11 families are suing Saudi Arabia. There are some obvious red flags, though. First, as the article notes, Moussaoui does not have terrific credibility; his story has changed many times. Second, his funds were sent by 9-11 paymaster Ramzi Bin al-Shibh; how would he have knowledge of the ultimate source of the funds?
There may have been at some point a plot to shoot down Air Force One, but Moussaoui wasn't even in America during Bill Clinton's term. He arrived in February 2001, after George W. Bush had been inaugurated.
posted by Pat @ 1:16 AM
62 comments
62 Comments:
Moussaoui is just looking for a revived moment of fame.
Nothing more, nothing less.
All he has to to is produce the receipts and witnesses.
Yup but he can't even name the prince that financed him.
And that makes it an easy shot, as there are many Saoudi princes. Just blame some Saoudi royalty to stir up the relationship between the US and SA and to give his own life some purpose...
th, how do you know he can't name the Prince? Have you still not learned the difference between "does not" and "can not"?
What he said to the lawyers remains a secret.
It's interesting that the UK version of the story has no qualms about offering the opinion that the claims in the court filings were "incredible". The American version of the AP story eschews unjournalistic adjectives.
Stewie, thermite does not react with water. You pulled up nothing that said that iron-based thermite is very flammable with moisture.
http://www.hms-beagle.com/MSDS/Thermit.pdf
Fire Hazards in Presence of Various Substances:
Highly flammable in presence of moisture.
You love to lie don't you Brian?
Your incompetent efforts to prove how smart you are must be a source of great frustration to you. You kick your own ass and think it's mine.
Smart enough to look outside of YouTube videos for information. You haven't refuted the link I provided saying that thermite reacts to moisture. So you still got your ass kicked!
Lying Ianinny, there is evidence. The widows' 273 unanswered questions and the 10 unanswered essential mysteries are evidence. You are a liar.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Brian, given that you lack the mental capacity to mop floors, and have no job and live with your parents because of it, maybe you should leave this stuff to adults like us. We understand what "evidence" means. Go back to the "Barney the Dinosaur" videos your mom put on for you.
I never said the WTC was destroyed by thermite and explosives, let alone by magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives, let alone planted by elves, let alone on orders from the Bush administration. You are a liar.
False. You're babbling about how thermite blew up the WTC with Stewie right now.
Architects and engineers are relevant to MF's ignorant claim that "no credible experts in the field of demolition or structural engineering are 9-11 Truthers."
You can't name a single one.
You are not pointing out any facts about me. You are telling libelous lies about me. That's a crime for a reason: it's an abuse of free speech.
Yup, Brian is a good ol' Bushcist. I've humiliated him by pointing out well known facts about him, so he starts squealing and crying about "abuse of free speech".
Brian, if you can't handle that I've pwn3d you again, go somewhere else to post your spam. How about the Northern California Truth Alliance? Oh right, you were banned for stalking Carol Brouillet. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!
What makes you think I'm confused about 9/11? I'm clearer about 9/11 than the whole bunch of you. I know what I know and I know what I don't know. Unlike you clowns here, who don't know what you don't know, and think you know things and don't know they're not true.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because after 13 years, he still can't accept that the truth movement is finished.
http://www.meetup.com/SF911truthaction-org/photos/all_photos/?photoAlbumId=714888
Hey Brian, remember the above "rally"? Yeah, it's been 5 years since literally tens of people marched in favor of truth. I'm guessing the majority of them, young and stupid, have moved on to normal interests by now. That leaves you and the lunatic in women's underwear.
Sorry Brian. 9/11 truth is dead. Accept reality.
Wait, wait, I just can't help myself:
http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/1/a/5/d/highres_10746749.jpeg
Just LOOK at that hideous haircut! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!
Well, that sign says he had explosive evidence.
But as it turns out, all he has is a bunch of unanswered questions and some myths that he has made up...
Nobody says a report must answer every question of every person to be complete.
So you admit that your list of 273 so called unanswered questions is bogus.
It does not prove anything.
What unanswered questions on the list are "unrelated" and what do you mean by "unrelated"?
We already discussed that. Questions like why company X is present in the middle east, why company y wants to build a pipeline and when person Z became aware of the opinion of a think thank..
Unrelated to what?
Unrelated to the scope of the 911 commission: investigating how the attacks of 911 could have happened the way they did and what measures the us govt should take to prevent such attack in the future.
I didn't show any videos at all.
So you now deny linking to a video showing burning thermite in a lab glass..
typical..
The videos were Stewie's.
Nope, that wasn't a video of stewie.
He may have linked to that video too, but that doesn't make it his video.
Try to learn how to read English, brian...
That thermite does not react with water is relevant to Stewie's claim that water increases its flammability.
As shown in the video you now deny to have linked on this blog..
Quite funny, as earlier you knew exactly which video i meant. But apparently, you have now seen the reaction between the burning thermite and water, so all you can do now is deny having ever linked to it.
We can presume that licensed structural engineers are credible experts on structural engineering.
Well that is not what you stated on previous occasions. You then came with all kinds of additional conditions a structural engineer should comply to before you accepted his/her expertise.
But now just coming up with a figure of unnamed engineers is enough?
You are so funny, Brian...
If you think they are not, it is up to you to show why.
Nope, you are the one citing the engineers, so you should prove that they have the proper credentials.
And you can't.
What makes you think I'm confused about 9/11? I'm clearer about 9/11 than the whole bunch of you.
Well, tell in a very clear way how 911 happened according to you.
We both know that you will not comply.
I know what I know and I know what I don't know.
But you can't name it.
Stewie, I did not lie about anything. Your source's statement that thermite is "highly flammable in presence of moisture" does not mean that thermite reacts with water. Iron-based thermite does not react with water. Thermite is flammable in the presence of moisture, and it's flammable in the absence of moisture. Its flammability is not a matter of reacting with water.
You don't know the difference between your own confusion and lies on my part.
The source states several other things, like:
Large Spill:
Flammable solid that, in contact with water, emits flammable gases.
But of course, that is not what you want to read, Brian...
And this:
The product
reacts violently with water to emit
flammable but non toxic gases
Please identify the flammable gas that you believe is emitted when you believe thermite reacts with water.
Please note the following disclaimer on the data sheet:
"H.M.S. Beagle and/or Rainbow House Alchemists, LLC, provides the information contained
herein in good faith but makes no representation as to its comprehensiveness or accuracy."
Please identify the flammable gas that you believe is emitted
You really have no idea?
Are you that thick?
You can see the flammable gas being emitted in the video that you now deny to have posted.
No, I don't see any flammable gas being emitted, and you have not identified any flammable gas. Aluminum oxide is not a flammable gas.
Correct, but of course, you forgot about H2O.
Lets see how tick you really are, Brian...
Stewie, I did not lie about anything. Your source's statement that thermite is "highly flammable in presence of moisture" does not mean that thermite reacts with water. Iron-based thermite does not react with water. Thermite is flammable in the presence of moisture, and it's flammable in the absence of moisture. Its flammability is not a matter of reacting with water.
Moisture makes it more flammable you retard. Why didn't the fires on the 78th floor erupt into a fireball when 2 firefighters were battling the blaze? You tell me asshole!
You don't know the difference between your own confusion and lies on my part.
Again you got your ass kicked and handed to you by me. Suck it up buttercup!
Please identify the flammable gas that you believe is emitted when you believe thermite reacts with water.
Thermite isn't oil where you can convert it to a gas retard.
th, when did H2O become a flammable gas?
Stewie, what makes you thihk moisture makes thermite more flammable? What is the chemical mechanism for that?
I didn't say thermite was oil. You are very confused.
You guys are both pretending to knowledge you do not have.
You don't know how to create a flammable gas from H2o?
That is sooo funny :)
You don't know the basics of chemistry.
And as predicted, you are unable to tell what you know and don't know about 911.
Al so clear to you, but you can't speak it out
th, hydrogen and oxygen can be cracked out of water by electrolysis. Have you any evidence that thermite in water has electrolytic properties?
You not only don't know what I know, you don't recognize what you don't know.
Where do you get the idea that I can't say what I know and don't know about 9/11? You make stuff up.
It's surely no secret to you that you're not the brightest candle in the chandelier.
hydrogen and oxygen can be cracked out of water by electrolysis.
Not only by electrolysis, also with heat. Water decomposes at temperatures above 3600F, thermite burns at temperatures above 4000F.
You not only don't know what I know, you don't recognize what you don't know.
Its a bad imitation of Rumsfeld, Brian.
Never expected that you would imitate him...
You can make a joke out of it, fact remains that you are unable to say what you know about 911 and what you don't know.
Where do you get the idea
From you.
You try to impose that you actually care about 911 and want the truth to come out.
But as you have shown on this blog and elsewhere, that is the least of your interest.
It's surely no secret to you that you're not the brightest candle in the chandelier.
Mirrortalk again.
Apparently a hobby of yours, talking to the man in the mirror..
th, I gave you a clue for free: you still have not learned the difference between "does not" and "can not".
And you still don't get it. You're not in my mirror, and you never will be.
I gave you a clue for free: you still have not learned the difference between "does not" and "can not".
I am fully aware that you are using that lame excuse, Brian..
Nice try, but no cigar.
You're not in my mirror,
Indeed.
But you are.
Stewie, what makes you thihk moisture makes thermite more flammable? What is the chemical mechanism for that?
Huh? You mean the experts who actually know what thermite can and can't do since you're not an expert on it? Iron oxide and aluminum powder, everyone knows Brian.
I didn't say thermite was oil. You are very confused.
No but you insist it turns into a gas from its non-reactive state. And you're 1 dumb mogtherfucker.
"Motherfucker", sorry for the typo. I was tired from WORKING a 10 hour shift.
Brian doesn't know what the meaning of the words "WORK" and "JOB".
And we've reached another point where Brian is splitting hairs into sub-atomic particles and completely missing the point.
Let me sum it up for you, Brian. There is no evidence of thermite at the WTC. There is no evidence of explosives. Nobody cares about your "widows". Nobody cares about what you find to be "essential mysteries". Nobody cares about AE911Truth fruitcakes. And nobody cares about your homosexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez.
All we care about his taunting and humiliating you. Speaking of that, remember when you were babbling about "nomadic fires" and I asked if your nomadic fires ride camels? You squealed and squealed and called me "it", but it didn't change anything. I pwn3d you again. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
Brian also used to babble about how the collapse of the WTC was a volcanic eruption (of course he did, Richard Gage said so, and Brian just repeats whatever Gage says).
He eventually stopped because the ridicule became too merciless.
Stewie, what makes your source H.M.S. Beagle and/or Rainbow House Alchemists, LLC expert in thermite? Because they tell you something that confirms your bias?
Did you not note their disclaimer:
"H.M.S. Beagle and/or Rainbow House Alchemists, LLC, provides the information contained
herein in good faith but makes no representation as to its comprehensiveness or accuracy."
You provide no evidence to support your claim that iron thermite is more flammable in the presence of water than it is in the absence of water.
You can not identify any chemical mechanism to support this claim.
I didn't say thermite turns into a gas from its non-reactive state. I said aluminum oxide in its gaseous form was emitted from the reaction. How can non-reactive thermite have a reaction to emit gas? You are very confused.
Lying Ianinny, there is plenty of evidence of thermite and plenty of evidence of explosives at Ground Zero. You obviously have not performed even the most cursory of investigations.
I care about the widows, and I am not nobody. I care about the ten essential mysteries of Ground Zero that NIST did not explain, and I am not nobody.
There are also 2.300 architects and engineers for truth who care about the mysteries, and who have the integrity to put their professional reputations on the line and demand new investigations. Meanwhile, you can not name even one independent engineer with the courage to stick his neck out and express confidence in NIST's collapse sequence.
I never babbled about nomadic fires. You did. You claimed that nomadic fires needed tents and camels.
I never babbled that the WTC was a volcanic eruption. I simply pointed out that a professor of geology at Cambridge and the Columbia University geology department used the language of vulcanism to describe what happened at Ground Zero.
For ridicule to succeed as an argument, its practitioner needs to have some credibility and wit. Lyin Ian, you have neither.
, there is plenty of evidence of thermite and plenty of evidence of explosives at Ground Zero.
and:
I never said the WTC was destroyed by thermite and explosives
Plenty of evidence of thermite and explosives, but Brian does not dare to say that they destroyed the towers..
Also, earlier you claimed that your evidence consists of unanswered questions and some myths
You are just making things up as you go, Brian...
There are also 2.300 architects and engineers for truth who care about the mysteries, and who have the integrity to put their professional reputations on the line and demand new investigations.
You keep on claiming that, but you can't even name one who has the proper credentials that makes him or her an expert on the fields involved.
You can babble al you want about reputations and such, but that is totally irrelevant.
I care about the ten essential mysteries of Ground Zero that NIST did not explain
No you don't, you haven't done anything to solve them.
You just made them up and want them to continue to exist.
and I am not nobody.
That is not for you to decide.
I simply pointed out that a professor of geology at Cambridge and the Columbia University geology department used the language of vulcanism to describe what happened at Ground Zero.
Totally irrelevant, Brian..
And we've reached another point where Brian is splitting hairs into sub-atomic particles and completely missing the point.
Yup, he should have his own comedy show :o)
Lying Ianinny, there is plenty of evidence of thermite and plenty of evidence of explosives at Ground Zero.
And yet in 6 years, you have not provided any evidence of either. However, there is plenty of evidence that you're a paranoid lunatic.
I care about the widows, and I am not nobody. I care about the ten essential mysteries of Ground Zero that NIST did not explain, and I am not nobody.
You're the definition of nobody. You're a failed janitor who lives with his parents. No person who matters cares what you think about "widows" or what you think are mysteries.
There are also 2.300 architects and engineers for truth who care about the mysteries, and who have the integrity to put their professional reputations on the line and demand new investigations.
Nobody cares.
Meanwhile, you can not name even one independent engineer with the courage to stick his neck out and express confidence in NIST's collapse sequence.
Uncle Steve.
I never babbled about nomadic fires. You did. You claimed that nomadic fires needed tents and camels.
I never babbled that the WTC was a volcanic eruption. I simply pointed out that a professor of geology at Cambridge and the Columbia University geology department used the language of vulcanism to describe what happened at Ground Zero.
False.
For ridicule to succeed as an argument, its practitioner needs to have some credibility and wit. Lyin Ian, you have neither.
Poor Brian. I've pwn3d him again.
Also, Brian still doesn't know how to pronounce my name. He thinks it rhymes with "lyin". It doesn't. He just pwn3d himself again.
Brian, your haircut is all you need to pwn yourself.
th, you invent contradictions that are not there. Obviously reasoning is not your strong suit--which is why you are so confused about 9/11 and find it so easy to bullshit yourself about it.
PhD structural engineers are experts in structural engineering. Highrise architects are experts in the design of highrise buildings. These are experts. They want new investigations of 9/11.
It is not my job to solve the mysteries of 9/11. That is a job for official investigators.
A professor of geology at Cambridge and the Columbia University geology department used the language of vulcanism to describe what happened at Ground Zero. That is relevant to refuting Ian's ridicule of the use of the language of vulcanism to describe what happened at Ground Zero.
I know how to pronounce your name, Ian. It's pronounced "libelous liar".
th, you invent contradictions that are not there.
Nope, i merely point out that in 2014, 13 years after the events, you still don't know what happened to the towers, despite all the evidence you claim to have that indicate the use of explosives and thermite.
Obviously reasoning is not your strong suit--which is why you are so confused about 9/11 and find it so easy to bullshit yourself about it.
Mirrortalk, Brian.
You are the one being confused..
PhD structural engineers are experts in structural engineering. Highrise architects are experts in the design of highrise buildings. These are experts. They want new investigations of 9/11.
Still, you haven't named even one Phd structural engineer, Brian.
You also use the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
It is not my job to solve the mysteries of 9/11.
We all know that you don't have a job, Brian.
That is a job for official investigators.
Nope, they don't have to solve the mysteries that you invented, Brian.
A professor of geology at Cambridge and the Columbia University geology department used the language of vulcanism to describe what happened at Ground Zero.
Totally irrelevant..
That is relevant to refuting Ian's ridicule of the use of the language of vulcanism to describe what happened at Ground Zero.
He ridiculed you for distorting what the professor said about 911, Brian.
It is not my job to solve the mysteries of 9/11. That is a job for official investigators.
It's not the job of official investigators to make a confused, unemployed lunatic understand 9/11. None of them care if you believe in magic thermite elves.
Stewie, what makes your source H.M.S. Beagle and/or Rainbow House Alchemists, LLC expert in thermite? Because they tell you something that confirms your bias?
Nothing bias from an expert, which you are not.
Did you not note their disclaimer:
"H.M.S. Beagle and/or Rainbow House Alchemists, LLC, provides the information contained
herein in good faith but makes no representation as to its comprehensiveness or accuracy."
You completely ignored this Brian:
provides the information contained herein in good faith
You provide zero information and you have no good faith following your standards.
You provide no evidence to support your claim that iron thermite is more flammable in the presence of water than it is in the absence of water.
I've provided something, you provided nothing. All you can do is bitch at me and expect me to conform you your reason and thinking. Not happening asshole.
You can not identify any chemical mechanism to support this claim.
You can't even identify that the thermite issue is dead, like your brain.
I didn't say thermite turns into a gas from its non-reactive state. I said aluminum oxide in its gaseous form was emitted from the reaction. How can non-reactive thermite have a reaction to emit gas? You are very confused.
You're the one that brought up the word "gas", remember retard?
This is what Brian does on a daily basis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjoMQJf5vKI
Here's a song just for Brian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc
The name "Ian"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian
Also Brian could learn how to pronounce "Ian" from this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH6KwlHeb5c
Ian sounds like "E-AN". So Brian is LYIN about the rhyming. Dumbass!
I just made a rhyme:
Brian is LYIN! Just call him "Lyin Brian"
"PhD structural engineers are experts in structural engineering. Highrise architects are experts in the design of highrise buildings. These are experts. They want new investigations of 9/11. "
No they don't.
See, a real qualified professional who has joined forces with other qualified professionals would DO THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION. If biologists can scrape together money to investigate Loch Ness, if retired aviation experts and historians could spend decades searching for Emilia Eirhart's plane then a bunch of highly paid engineers could put together a quality investigation of 9/11.
Why do you think they have not? How are A&ETruth experts the only ones to not investigate something they feel is a mystery?
You can't make claims that the US government has lied, and covered up the truth about the attacks of 9/11, and then demand that the SAME GOVERNMENT do another investigation. This is the definition of stupidity.
Like i said earlier, a local engineer couldn't believe wtc7 could collapse the way it did and wanted to look into it.
He contacted ae911truth and at first they appeared interested. He got the Frankel Steel blueprints of the building from them for example.
But when he concluded that wtc7 actually could collapse the way it did, based on those blueprints, all of the sudden, all contact with ae911truth was lost.
ae911 isn't about the truth at all. They aren't interested in doing investigations themself, as they would only reveal what they don't want to hear. They want to keep a mist of mystery over 911 in order to stay relevant.
That is what we can notice with brian too.
He didn't want to discuss the lies and distortions present on ae911truth.org because they weren't printed on a leaflet (never heard such a lame excuse. In reality, he simply needs them in order to stay relevant (and he is doing a very bad job staying relevant). Same with the so called widow questions: he clings on to them as smeagal to his precious.
th, how is it my fault that I don't know what happened on 9/11 when there hasn't been a proper scientific investigation?
I am not the least bit confused. Unlike you I know what I know, I know what I don't know, I know what I need to know, and I know of the need for new investigations to find out what happened.
I don't have to name the PhD structural engineers who want new 9/11 investigations. They're listed on the ae911truth petition.
Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if it is incorrect. You haven't shown that it's incorrect.
You don't know anything about my employment status, and your belief that you do is loony tunes.
I didn't invent the mysteries of 9/11. They exist indisputably. I merely demonstrated and cataloged them.
I didn't distort what the professor said. You invent lies out of whole cloth.
Members of ae911truth have actually done many investigations, as you would know if you would bother to check their writings. You invent ignorant arguments from ignorance based on nothing more than your own lazy refusal to investigate the facts.
Your belief that you can fortune-tell the results of investigations that have not been done shows your irrational nature. The many extremely dishonest steps NIST had to take to make their WTC7 report seem plausible suggest that their collapse theory is completely illegitimate.
Of the widows' 300 questions top the 9/11 Commission, only 27 were answered. Nothing you can say can change that.
Ian, I never expressed any belief in magic or elves. You are a libelous liar. Cease and desist.
th, how is it my fault that I don't know what happened on 9/11 when there hasn't been a proper scientific investigation?
It is your fault that you come with lame excuses.
There has never been a proper scientific investigation on where my care is at this moment, yet i know for a fact that it is parked right outside my house.
That whole scientific bladiebla strategy that the truther movement nowadays is using as a substitute for the fact they haven't been able to prove even one of their allegations about 911 is pathetic.
I am not the least bit confused.
Yes you are, that is why you use the word 'confused' so often in your replys.
Unlike you I know what I know, I know what I don't know, I know what I need to know, and I know of the need for new investigations to find out what happened.
Again a poor Rumsfeld imitation.
You are still unable to tell what you know and don't know.
I don't have to name the PhD structural engineers who want new 9/11 investigations.
Indeed you don't.
But that sweeps your appeal to authority using those nameless engineers off the table.
They're listed on the ae911truth petition.
You claim that, but you can't provide even one.
Appeal to authority is only a logical fallacy if it is incorrect. You haven't shown that it's incorrect.
Yes i have, but you complained that it wasn't on a leaflet.
You also haven't proven in any way that those engineers are correct and simply assume that they are correct because to you, they are an authority.
Hence the logical fallacy.
I didn't invent the mysteries of 9/11.
Yes you did.
I merely demonstrated and cataloged them.
A poetic way of saying that you invented them.
I didn't distort what the professor said.
Yes you did.
His terminology for the tower destruction is completely irrelevant. You tried to make it relevant by distorting what he meant by these words.
Members of ae911truth have actually done many investigations
Well, go on and show them to us.
You make all kinds of statements, but you never back them up, Brian.
Your belief that you can fortune-tell the results of investigations that have not been done
Quite funny, Brian. First you claim that ae911truth did many investigation, now you admit that they have not been done..
The many extremely dishonest steps NIST had to take to make their WTC7 report seem plausible suggest that their collapse theory is completely illegitimate.
NIST is a classical example of your confusement.
On one hand you say that they took extremely dishonest steps and on the other hand, you argue that NIST isn't dishonest.
Of the widows' 300 questions top the 9/11 Commission, only 27 were answered. Nothing you can say can change that.
Totally irrelevant, Brian.
As proven before, that list contains questions unrelated to 911 and the scope of the commission was to determine what caused the attacks to happen the way they did and how to prevent that better in the future.
The report delivered on that.
The fun with you is that you don't dare to take a stand. You don't dare to say that thermite was actually used, you don't dare to say who placed the thermite if it was used, you don't dare to say what you know about 911 and what you still want to know. You just babble about new investigations without giving a good argument about what is missing from the previous reports and needs to be addressed.
You just come with lame fantasies about multi ton steel members being ejected hundreds of feet from the collapse, without pointing out why that is relevant and what you believe was de cause of that.
Because you know perfectly well that thermite nor explosives could do such a thing in the way it happened on 911
I never expressed any belief in magic or elve
He never said you did.
Learn how to read for once..
th, you can not possibly be as dumb as you pretend to be when yo make your efforts to pretend that you ghave apoint.
Ian said "None of them care if you believe in magic thermite elves."
If that is not a pretense on his part that I believe in magic thermite elves, then he has no more point than you do.
You are both a waste of time.
Ian said "None of them care if you believe in magic thermite elves."
indeed, that is what ian said.
But since you have a reading problem, you don't understand what exactly he has written.
Hint: he doesn't say in that quote that you believe in magic thermite elves.
You are playing dumb, pretending you have a point, because you can not support your claims.
if you believe
read that aloud ten times, Brian.
Perhaps that will solve your reading problem...
I don't have a reading problem, fool. Lyin Ianinny has been stating quite emphatically for years that I believe in magic thermite elves and wear women's underwear. No ifs ands or buts.
The ONLY person who seems confused about 9/11 is ONLY Brian.
Dodging, weaving, misquoting eyewitnesses, adding and editing statements, calling people "liars", childish rants, etc. etc. etc.
If Brian had any brains he'd stop with the bullshit. But apparently he loves the attention. What an attention whore he is.
I didn't misquote anyone, fool.
Multiple people noticed it, brian.
There is no denying it...
I didn't misquote anyone, fool.
Post a Comment
<< Home