Comments on Attack on Jim Fetzer

Email from Nick Kollerstrom – August 17, 2011

Dear Rixon,

It does seem a pity that ‘The Truthseeker’ has published an article slagging off Jim Fetzer (‘the notorious Jim Fezer’), as if he were some kind of fruitcake. (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=32191 ) He’s a retired emeritus professor of philosophy of science, has published loads of books about logic, founded scholars for 911 truth, and edited books about 911 – none of which Anthony Lawson has done.

A couple of years ago, Jim got converted to the ‘no-planes’ theory of 911, on account I believe of the ‘September Clues’ video, also Judy Wood’s work. Frankly I don’t know what the truth is here, but the point is that people of integrity do defend this position.

For example, leading UK paranormal researcher Richard Hall proposed his theory about what went into the Towers, two years ago, which was not a plane, and he accepted that that the plane images were somehow fabricated. http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=298&Itemid=60

(I think that people should be aware that the ‘no-planes’ theory does not mean that the “virtual planes” necessarily only impacted on peoples’ TV screens. These planes are asserted (as a possibility) to have been real in space and time but having existed as ‘holograms’ (using some as-not-yet-released technology) that surrounded missiles that passed (in one case at least) right through the building.)

Whether or not its true, the image of the plane hitting the second tower and ‘melting’ into the building has yet to be satisfactorily explained.

The point is not whether this is necessarily true, but that the people offering it as a theory to explain anomalies in the existing news footage are not (I believe, knowing Jim Fetzer) ‘shills’ or agents but real researchers and thinkers doing their best to understand an extremely strange event.

Anthony Lawson’s ‘real-planes’ video is to be welcomed, but I suggest it is way too brief to cover the relevant material. The point, is more or less all of the images of both planes going into the towers that morning, look very suspicious. If he thinks he has a long shot of the plane that really went into the South tower, flying low, then he needs to tell us very clearly where it came from.

The problem of how a Boeing jet could apparently go right through the building and emerge on the other side is a weighty one, which most experts I’ve heard would say is impossible. Most people say, that only some solidly-constructed missile would be able to do that (David Shayler’s view!) He needs (I suggest) to cover this material with a bit more care – which I’m sure we would all appreciate – if he is going to re-establish the real-planes theory.

We’d like to hear a bit more detail from Mr Lawson – if he’s going to make a video of this subject – about the witnesses who testified to seeing the planes, but also (he may not like this) about the witnesses who were surprised and puzzled that they did not see any  planes, before impact. In the meantime, slagging off Veterans Today because they have featured Jim Fetzer is just a cheap jibe. Saying that the ‘media’ will be grateful for any no-planes theory, may or may not be true, but its a cheap way to try and smear Jim Fetzer.

Jim Fetzer’s work on the JFK assassination is seen by many as definitive. I work a lot with Jim (see his ‘real deal’ interviews) but also have the highest regard for Anthony Lawson, equally his political insights and his film-making skills.

So this is a difficult letter, but if it stimulates Mr Lawson to make a more thorough real-planes ‘in plane sight’ video, it will have been worthwhile!

With deep appreciation for your wonderful work,

Nic Kollerstrom

Nick Kollerstrom

Nick Kollerstrom academic, researcher and author of such varied titles as ‘Gardening and Planting by the Moon 2007: Higher Yields in Vegetables and Flowers’ and ‘Terror on the Tube: Behind the Veil of 7/7, an Investigation’.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.