You are here

Anthony Lawson blasts Jim Fetzer, Veterans Today

Anthony Lawson, maker of the greatest 9/11 short film ever, This Is an Orange, is on the warpath!

In a brand-new article What Has Happened to Veterans Today? Lawson blasts Veterans Today for publishing Jim Fetzer. Lawson and Fetzer, email friends for a time, had a falling-out over Fetzer’s support for claims that videos showing planes hitting the World Trade Center towers cannot be authentic. (Read about Jim Fetzer’s August 1st appearance on my radio show here, and listen to it here.)

Anthony Lawson will discuss the controversy, as well as his latest text-video assault on the “no planes theory,” on The Kevin Barrett Show this coming Tuesday, August 16th, 11-noon Central on

Anthony writes:


I hope that this text & video combination might be of interest.

9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New York Theory, also at Rense as a PDF file and Vimeo. Each can be accessed from the other,  but it may be better to start with the text.

What it’s about: 

The 10th anniversary of this horrendous event is almost upon us, and it is important that we all stay focussed on one thing: Getting a new inquiry launched,  and the more the 9/11 Truth Movement, is distracted from this aim,  the less likely that we shall succeed.

Although the no-planes-in-New York theorists have been recognised as either fools or monumental liars—by those who can think for themselves—they have given many a mainstream-media lackey an excuse to bundle all of those who are genuinely seeking the truth into one single category: Foil-hatted nutters who don’t even think that real planes hit the Twin Towers…

This nonsense really has to stop.

Take care,

Anthony Lawson

* * *

My own view: Lawson with his excellent films, Fetzer with his reasoning and speaking skills, and Veterans Today (led by Gordon Duff) with its framing of 9/11 truth and Zionism as veterans’ issues, are all powerful forces in the movement for truth and justice. While I tend to agree with Lawson’s critique of Fetzer’s video fakery argument, I don’t agree with Lawson that Fetzer’s being wrong about this will make 9/11 truth a target of ridicule. To the uninitiated, controlled demolition seems every bit as ridiculous as video fakery; and mainstream TV hosts and other anti-truth propagandists ridicule controlled demolition far more than they ridicule video fakery, simply because controlled demolition is (rightly) more prominent in the truth movement.

From a PR perspective, controlled demolition has a lot of disadvantages. The average uninitiated person asks, “If they smashed a plane into the building, why bother blowing it up too?” It sounds completely crazy – at least as crazy as video fakery. Worse, the assertion that the World Trade Center was taken down by controlled demolition does not directly contradict the Islamophobic core of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT): The big lie that “extremist Muslim hijackers” brutally commandeered passenger planes and crashed them into buildings. The overwhelming evidence against this ridiculous, racist notion is far more important, from a public outreach perspective, than any other aspect of 9/11 truth. Anybody who tries to defend the possibility of “Muslim hijackers” in the face of the overwhelming evidence that there were none – for instance, by insisting in the teeth of the evidence that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon, or by attacking David Ray Griffin’s case that the “cell phone calls” were faked – is somebody I would suspect of sowing “beneficial cognitive diversity.”

Remember, the purpose of 9/11 was, in a word, Islamophobia. As long as there is enough Islamophobia out there to spark wars for Israel, the 9/11 perps are happy. Destroying the myth of Muslim involvement in 9/11, and showing that the Zionist enemies of Islam were the real criminals, is the only game in town. Any “9/11 truth” person who isn’t contributing to that effort, or who is distracting us from it, is consciously or unconsciously helping the other side.

A whole lot of people seem to overestimate the importance of being right in arcane arguments about how 9/11 was done. I think we already know enough about that to move on to the who and the why. Gordon Duff and Veterans Today, Anthony Lawson, and Jim Fetzer all agree that Zionist fanatics in and around Cheney’s office – the Project for a New American Century and their sponsor, Netanyahu – are the prime suspects, in conjunction with the Israeli Mossad.

So what are we fighting about?

12 Thoughts to “Anthony Lawson blasts Jim Fetzer, Veterans Today”

  1. Lawson: "Although the no-planes-in-New York theorists have been recognised as either fools… Foil-hatted nutters who don't even think that real planes hit the Twin Towers"

    That's pretty rich coming from someone who thinks what hit the Towers were planes specially lined with Depleted Uranium and fitted with explosive charges.

  2. well interesting debate… like nanthermite and thermonukes below the WTC… I guess powerfull people are trying to split people before the 10th aniversary … fake obl operation was the primary goal… make sure that the 10 th year won't be used against the perpetrators… but here is the second wave coming a new 911 in the preparation… norway, london…. are only the symptoms… israel can't win this war… they will launch their second 911 very soon

  3. Thanks for posting this. I don't think that we need thought police in the movement, but we do need to be aware of and cautious about efforts to divide and conquer us. Whether ill intended or not, the divides among good people in the movement have been and continue to be damaging, and it's very discouraging and sad. With so much at stake, and so much in common, you'd think that people could put much more aside and work together much more harmoniously, or at least leave each other alone… Not a great statement on humanity that so many fail to do so… I've not looked into the video fakery at all, and won't because it's so silly, but, as I told Steven Jones, faked video and actual planes are not mutually exclusive. Both could exist at the same time. Given the Machiavellian nature of the whole operation, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising if they were paired, to aid in the confusion and division. But, regardless, I'm running out of patience with those who passionately argue obvious nonsense and/or trivial matters that make no difference at all, perpetuate the infighting, and help to discredit all the excellent work that's gone on.

  4. Anthony spent most of this show insisting that Jim Fetzer lied by claiming that "Joe Keith…actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight." Anthony repeatedly insisted that no such shaker system exists.

    It turns out that Anthony misconstrued Jim's words as meaning that the "shaker system" was an overspeed alarm that operates during flight. In fact, as Jim made clear in context, the shaker system is a ground-based machine that shakes planes in order to determine when they are going to come apart in flight.

    So it turns out that Anthony was wrong, and Jim right, about the main issue that Anthony repeatedly harped on during the interview. Below are the email exchanges that followed broadcast of the show.

  5. Jim Fetzer wrote: "Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart IN FLIGHT." (emphasis added by Anthony Lawson)


    "This is the issue which prompted my article published by Salem News and What has Happened to Veterans Today? because I had informed Dr. Fetzer and the editorial board that this was manifestly not true but nothing was done about it.

    The problem is that the system he claims that Joe Keith developed for Boeing does not exist. There is no such in-flight system, at all, and I have been telling Dr. Fetzer this ever since the article first appeared on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011. What Joe Keith worked on, at Boeing—he did not develop it—was a ground-based system used for stress testing aircraft and aircraft sections. It never leaves the ground."

    But Jim Fetzer NEVER SAID IT LEAVES THE GROUND! Lawson is falsely construing Fetzer's words, which in context clearly describe the shaker system as ground-based.

  6. My response to Anthony Lawson:


    You undermine your own credibility, and your own cause, when you obsessively repeat what turn out to be a completely false arguments.

    Jim never said the "shaker system" was an in-flight alarm. Read what he said again! The ground-based shaker system shakes the plane till it starts to come apart, and is thus "used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight."

    You have simply chosen to parse the sentence to reflect a meaning different from the one Jim intended.

    You harped on your egregiously false and deceptive interpretation of Jim's words about a dozen times in our radio interview.

    You should admit you were wrong about this point, and apologize to Jim for calling him a liar based on your either intentional, or stunningly ignorant, misinterpretation of his words.

    You have some legitimate points, but you obscure them by including BS like this.


  7. Lawson responded:

    "The Dynamic Duo is back! Now Kevin Barrett joins in the Fetzer lie fest…The words 'when a plane is going to come apart in flight' are unequivocal, I have interpreted them the only way they can be interpreted; I have not 'parsed' anything. Nothing ground-based, during a manufacturing process, could possibly tell 'when a plane is going to come apart in flight'. Shakers are ground-based stress-testing machinery and are used to ensure that the design of prototype planes is such that the final flying versions are unlikely to COME APART IN FLIGHT

    they cannot possibly calculate or determine, in any other way, WHEN a plane is going to come apart in flight. Of course over-speed warnings are common in all aircraft, they are aural and the behaviour of the plane, buffeting and shaking, would be an additional warning for pilots to proceed with caution.

    Even were you able to convince anyone else that I have misinterpreted James Fetzer's words, not I might add, the way you have re-written them, Joseph Keith did NOT design any ground-based shaker system, either for Boeing or anyone else, he worked on the software associated with the machinery that shakes and oscillates planes and aircraft parts at varying frequencies.

    Joe Keith did not design any kind of shaker. Got it?

    From a very disgusted Anthony Lawson

  8. My response to Anthony:


    Why do you think the shaker system shakes the planes and parts, if not to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight? To determine when a plane sitting in a hangar is going to come apart during an earthquake? To make a jetliner martini cocktail out of aluminum and jet fuel?!

    You write:

    "Even were you able to convince anyone else that I have misinterpreted James Fetzer's words, not I might add, the way you have re-written them, Joseph Keith did NOT design any ground-based shaker system, either for Boeing or anyone else, he worked on the software associated with the machinery that shakes and oscillates planes and aircraft parts at varying frequencies."

    Joe's own words:

    "And, in 1971 Ling Electronics got a contract to build a big shaker automated vibration testing system. It was actually called the 'Big Shaker'. The big shaker had existed for a number of years but the vibration testing was a very long and laborious job. So, Ling got a contract to build a big shaker system.
    On this project I did one hundred percent of the implementation of the FAT and the Shock Spectrum Analysis System…"

    It sounds to me like he DID help design a "big shaker" used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight.

    So you have been wasting everybody's time, including about 45 minutes of the hour you spent on the radio with me.

    You are doing exactly what you accused Jim Fetzer of doing: refusing to admit you are wrong.


  9. Kevin I'm an admirer of yours and I agree with Michael Cook's concerns about the truth movement becoming divided. But, I think you're both wrong about the "tv fakery" aspect; it is neither arcane or silly. It is central to understanding the hoax and it is extremely important that people understand the magnitude of the media lies. I've heard liberal pacifists cheering what is happening in Libya because they believe the media deception. The bottom line for me with the 9/11 planes issue is simple physics: Aluminum airplanes don't just glide right through steel and concrete buildings, they smash upon impact.

  10. With something as vitally important politically as the 9/11 false flag, how can anyone doubt that the "truth movement" would be rife with disinformation?!

    How then can people argue to "put aside differences" and accept everyone and every viewpoint so as not to "divide the movement." Those who are disinformationalists must be identified, exposed and shunned (or at least confronted by a united front). I realize this is disruptive, but what else can be done? There should be a list of characteristics of disinformation that everyone should consult and apply. If someone keeps lying, should we say, 'Well, this truther just has a problem with truth.'

    If someone keeps getting their facts wrong, should we say, 'This person just writes too much and doesn't have time to check his facts?'

    This is what Kevin seems to be saying in his interview with Anthony Lawson.

  11. Hillel S.

    "I've not looked into the video fakery at all, and won't because it's so silly"

    Not exactly a scientific attitude.

    The most useful scientific attitudes are open mindedness, critical mindedness, respect for evidence, suspended judgment, intellectual honesty, willingness to change opinion, search for truth, curiosity, rational thinking, etc.

  12. I side with Jim Fetzer. Say what you want about his personality, he has done more for the truth movement than anyone I know. The details aren't as important as is convincing the masses what a false flag is and its ramifications. Truthers should spend their time educating the 99% who dont even know the big picture let alone the details.

Leave a Comment