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 NoLiesRadio.org.
Anthony writes:
Hello,
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?
Labels: 9/11 truth, anthony lawson, false-flag, Gordon Duff, inside job, James Fetzer, Kevin Barrett Show, no planes theory, Veterans Today, video fakery, Zionism
