Jump to content
The Education Forum

Brian Smith

Members
  • Content Count

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Brian Smith

  • Rank
    Experienced Member
  1. 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 m
  2. 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 wit
  3. 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 ne
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 speak
  8. 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.
  9. 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 structur
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. "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 lo
  15. 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 gunm
×
×
  • Create New...