Brian Smith

I make no apologies for my association with GG. I organized several of his tours.You can conjecture he was possed by the develor some other similar rubbish but he certainly didn't worship the devil, he only worshipped himself. I take back what I said about Allin. He was not a Satanic freak. He was a self absorbed piece of garbage acting as an agent of social degeneration. I wonder what entities and organizations are really behind this agenda to overthrow the norms and mores of civilized society. Call me a wild eyed conspiracy theorist, but it looks for all the world to be of the devil to me, and I am an agnostic when it comes to religion.

The obvious difference is Bevel was raping his daughter while he was running with LaRouche and had been doing so for several years but there is no evidence he did this sort of thing during his association with King who was assassinated 24 years earlier. A normal person would shy from choosing someone who lived in a secluded compound as his running mate but since LaRouche did himself this didn't set off any warning bells. You obviously started this thread to try to “slander” me because I live in the same country (Pop: 170 million and larger than the 48 states) as a US diplomat who had sex with teenage girls. He was hardly my guru, when I thought he was full of $#!t or himself or that one of his records or shows sucked I had no qualms about telling him so. Not everything he said was to be taken seriously, he also said he’d kill himself on stage on Halloween but as his brother and I noted he always managed to be in jail or prison in late October. I don’t know of him ever forcing himself on anyone on or offstage, obviously if he’d raped someone during a show (all of which were videotaped) he would have been arrested. People who came to his shows especially those who stayed close to the stage knew what to expect and often baited him. C'mon Len, GG Allin promoted rape and perversion as a matter of "lifestyle". Now you're saying that he was just full of Sh#t? That you were only kidding? Have you ever eaten any of GG Allin's s#it? Look at the video I posted, this is entertainment for you? You should be jailed just for your role in this GG Allin operation. And it is an operation. It's funny you can condemn Lyndon LaRouche by association but you're own actions (and pleasures) in spreading the perversion of the Punk Rock "suicide" culture is to be dismissed out of hand? I dont know any of the specifics regarding James Bevel and his recent conviction. I do know that political opponents are often targeted in this country by their enemies. You'll notice that they prosecuted Bevel in Virginia where there is no time limitations for the crime of rape. This could be another case of "venue" shopping by political opponents in a rigged criminal trial. These alleged rapes took place 15 years ago? Certainly it took quite a while to bring James Bevel to trial. LaRouche was in federal prison in Rochester MN during his 1992 campaign with James Bevel. Bevel was not the only former MLK civil rights leader to support Lyndon LaRouche. Amelia Boyton Robinson(sp) who first brought Martin Luther King to Selma Alabama in the 1950's had been a long time collaborator of LaRouche. It is likely her influence with Bevel that resulted in his meeting Lyndon LaRouche, along with his decision to run on the 1992 ticket. But you should know all this Len. The ADL still brief their agents don't they? Still Nazi hunting in Brazil? I'm not sure if I missed something, but are you saying that Len Colby had some kind of connection to this Satanic freak Allin? I wouldn't want my name even associated with such a piece of trash.

Being in disagreement with conspiracy theories etc. is, in and of itself, not problematic for many, if not all, members. I would suggest it is the semantic battles which take the place of reasoned debate. The unnecessary compulsion to make others dot i's, cross t's and jump through a singular, peer reviewed hoop, before acceptance of a piece of data - usually not particularly relevant to the core sentiment of the original post, anyway. Of course that is my sideways look at the problems - for which there will be no citations forthcoming. In far too many topics reasonable speculation is necessary - certain Government reports throughout the years have undoubtedly created their own facts and removed all traces of actual truths. Therefore anything presented to contradict this view of events is naturally and to varying degrees speculative. Len's signature has a statement from some senator or other, that he believes "[our] government was partly at fault by engaging in polices that inspired it," with respect to 911. Now if this signature posts reflects Len's opinion, which it does - compare and contrast with his (to paraphrase) Russia started the Georgian conflict, view. This is precisely the duplicitous policy that both inspired attacks on both 911 and Len I've been following this thread since it's inception and would now like to chime in with my two cents. I don't want to say that I am totally convinced of the assertions against "Colby", but I have had the same suspicions about a debunker poster on another forum related to the JFK assassination. This poster would respond to any post critical of the lone gunman fiction literally within a few minutes with long, detailed responses. I started to wonder if this "poster" was not actually several people using the same internet persona. "He" would make these long and elaborate posts at all hours of the day and night. As to the reason for creating a fictional internet forum persona, employing the input of several people, it would be to create the impression in lurkers minds that this "poster" is at the top of the game and that he has all the facts at his fingertips and can cite them within moments. This will lead many to marvel at his research skills and seemingly wide range of knowledge. I am not saying that I am completely convinced that this is the case with "Colby", but I wouldn't be shocked if it were. A few years ago Monsanto got caught hiring a public relations firm (Bivings Group) to insert posters posing as ordinary citizens into internet forums where Monsanto was being discussed in a negative light. The purpose was to counter criticism of the company. Unwary forum members thought they were just conversing with disinterested parties, not knowing that they were planted there by a public relations firm. That these kinds of things do happen is my point.

If you are correct in your analysis, then what was in building six that was so important for the plotters to destroy? Could the goal have been to create chaos in the securities and financial markets by destroying tons of files and documents relating to, or having bearing with, covert activities? Building 7 also housed thousands of financial records. It gets stranger, the more you think about it. Strange isn't even an adequate word.

Building 6 was adjacent to the North Tower. In fact, it looks like it was blocked from the South Tower by it - Could the collapse of the South Tower have thrown enough debris to cause the damage to Building 6 in Mr White's photo? It looks like you are correct that the photo was taken before the North Tower collapse, as there doesn't seem to be antwhere near enough debris lying around.

Perhaps because that was the side closest to the ignition source. If the fires were mostly on that one side than why did the building come straight down? Why was the collapse symetrical? It should have been a lot more messy, with the structure toppling more to the side. Don't buy it.

I guess you're right about the breeze. It was strong enough to blow the smoke away from the towers. I didn't know that there was a main chimney for drawing smoke out of the building on the south face. I still find it very difficult to believe the official story of collapse, given the manner of the collapse, Silverstein's "pull it" statement, and last but not least, the BBC reporting the collapse twenty minutes before it happened. I also find it funny that the live feed from New York, with WTC 7 still standing behind BBC reporter Jane Standley, was suddenly interupted by static as she was speaking. Just another coincidence, I'm sure. ps Your book "Six Seconds In Dallas" is one of the first books I read dealing with the JFK case (amazing that O.P. Wright recalled a pointed tip bullet). My mother was and is an inveterate JFK assassination book reader, and it rubbed off on me. It is one of the books that got me interested in the case. As far asbuilding 7 and 9/11 go, I must respectfully disagree. There are just too many strange and suspicious things to be accounted for by chance.

I have always thought it a little odd that one side of the building was covered with smoke, while the other side only had a few floors emitting visible flames with accompanying smoke. How do you explain all the smoke on one side and only a relatively small amount on the other, if it was all emanating from inside the same building? It was a windless day, with what was at most a gentle breeze.

I did a web study of the use of the term “to pull” a couple of years ago. Without going back and digging up the references and links, the following is a summation of what I found. The term “to pull” has been used even by experts in conjunction with controlled demolition, even though it is not technically correct. In almost all cases, demolitions people quoted as using “pull” are referring to pulling down buildings with cables (or possibly other means). But in the Pacific Palisades description the term “to pull” is expressly used in describing controlled demolition: “The weight of the structure will begin to pull the building down in a controlled direction.” There is also a “pull” quote about cables being used inside during a controlled demolition (“to pull the structure in on itself in the implosion”). This shows that the term can be loosely used (incorrectly used, if you will) in reference to controlled demolition even within the demolition industry. IMO this reinforces the likelihood that Silverstein loosely or “incorrectly” used the term in reference to controlled demolition. Silverstein is a real estate mogul, not a demolitions man, but given his line of work I'm sure he may have heard the term "pull" used in demolishing buildings. So Silverstein may have used the term incorrectly, but the indisputable fact is that he used it. And he did not use it as in "pull them," "pull them out," or "pull them from the building," if that was his intent, but he said "pull IT." His statement also gives the impression that the building came down right after the decision was made to "pull it." We know from the witness statements that the firefighters were pulled (oops, I said pulled!) from the building hours before it collapsed. But regardless of the time frame, the meaning of Silverstein's statement seems clear to me. He quoted himself as saying, “We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” Then he said, “And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” To me that can clearly be translated as "They made that decision to pull and then we watched the result of that decision" (i.e. they made the building collapse). I couldn't have said it better. If Silverstein intended to say that he thought it would be best to remove the firefighters, then he would have said - "Maybe the smartest thing to do would be pull them" or - "...pull them out". And he certainly seems to be saying that the building collapsed as a direct result of their decision to "pull it". Why would Silverstein or officials of the NYFD expect (correctly, if the official explanation is true) the building to collapse due to removing the firefighters? I have heard that the building was "creaking" or otherwise showing signs of having it's structural integrity severely compromised. I can recall only one or two witnesses making this claim. If this was in fact the case, it is incumbent on the NIST and FEMA teams to provide adequate verification. It all looks extremely suspicious to me. I also can't shake the impression that Silverstein was deliberately ambiguous in his video statement. It's almost as if he wants to admit that they intentionally brought the building down, while leaving it open to interpretation that the building fell because they pulled the fire fighters out. If he only mean't to say that they made the decision to remove the fire fighters, then why use such a vague term as "pull it", and why use that term in such a way that suggests that the building collapsed as a result of the decision to "pull it"? It's all very odd to say the least.

I will check it out more thoroughly this weekend when I have more time. From my initial perusal, it looks like a lot of intentional framing of debate through distortion and omission. Quite a bit of ad hominem too.

How did they correctly guess that Building 7 would collapse when other buildings sustained more damage and had more intense fires and didn't collapse? What are the odds that the BBC would announce that the building had already fallen, twenty minutes before it did, if it really did fall due to random events? And, it is hard to believe that the building was designed to collapse just like a demolition if one of it's collumn's load bearing capacity was compromised. Why did it take the NIST team almost seven years to make this astonishing discovery if it were so self evident? I am no engineer, but it sounds like bull to me.

In previous posts it has been suggested that he could be some type of mole who was planted in the CT research community, but, on second thought, without really knowing the man myself, and without proof to substantiate such a claim, I think it is best to give him the benefit of the doubt. To someone like me who has not read much of his work and is not acquainted with him personally, his sudden change of opinion just seemed a little suspect. These things do happen occasionally. Maybe he will see the light once again and realize his recent error in judgement.

I am hesitant to say it but I have a hunch this is in fact the case. Can't prove it, but it does seem to add up.

"Bugliosi's book is EXTREMELY long on arguments, and incredibly short on facts." That seems to be the style of almost all the Lone-Nutters I have seen on internet forums. They go on and on about how logical their position is, all the while completely ignoring glaring inconsistencies in the evidence. Arguments without sound factual foundation are weak, and only waste ones time. I still wonder what facts caused Palamara to change over to the lone gunman side. Probably what you said - slick arguments that sound persuasive but are skinny on actual facts. A good lawyer could make Mother Theresa look like a villain while making Jeffrey Dahmer look like a misunderstood genius.

Money? Threats? Brain Tumor? Alzheimers? 'Sleeper' Mockingbird Traitor?.....no logic of the case would change any-one's mind from against the official mythology, to for it! I don't want to cast aspersions on the man, but it does seem a bit fishy to be completely honest. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but I think it is necessary to back up those beliefs with some substance. Nowhere in his You Tube video does he state what specific facts caused him to change his mind. Maybe Bugliosi does indeed offer some revelatory information that was previously unknown to doubters of the lone gunman theory. If so, what are these facts?