The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
“Who Did 9/11?”—and Why Did Amazon Ban Nick Kollerstrom’s Book?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


Why would Amazon ban a book called Who Did 9/11?

Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom, a history of science Ph.D. with a specialty in chemistry, is the author of many books, including:

*The best book on the 7/7 London bombings, Terror on the Tube. (Watch the 7/7 video Kollerstrom and Farrell Are Dead.)

*Breaking the Spell, which builds on Dr. Kollerstrom’s research into cyanide residues discovered in German concentration camps—research that got him summarily fired from University College London.

*Chronicles of False Flag Terror critiquing official versions of the Bologna railway station bombing (August 1980), the Israeli London Embassy bombing (July 1994), four trains detonated in Madrid (March 2004), four explosions in London (July 2005), the Heathrow Airport “terror plot” (August 2006), the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol crotch bomber (December 2009), the Oslo “Breivik” terror attack (July 2011), the London Drummer Lee Rigby (May 2013), the Ukraine MH17 shoot-down (July 2014), Charlie Hebdo (January 2015), Bataclan theater (November 2015), Brussels Airport (March 2016), Nice and Munich (July 2016).

*How Britain Initiated both World Wars —an important contribution to the rising tide of World War II revisionism summarized in Ron Unz’s recent “American Pravda: Understanding World War II.”

*The Dark Side of Isaac Newton: Science’s Greatest Fraud? (Don’t worry, this one won’t be banned any time soon, since Isaac Newton revisionism somehow slips under the censors’ radar.)

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: 9/11, Censorship 
Hide 28 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Saggy says: • Website

    *The Dark Side of Isaac Newton: Science’s Greatest Fraud?

    Books like this show that Kellerstrom is unhinged. Kellerstrom also thinks that Paul McCartney is dead ….
    https://www.bokus.com/bok/9781517283131/the-life-and-death-of-paul-mccartney-1942-1966-a-very-english-mystery/

    • LOL: Alfred
    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Wally
    , @Robjil
    , @BlackDragon
  2. Iris says:
    @Saggy

    Books like this show that Kellerstrom is unhinged. Kellerstrom also thinks that Paul McCartney is dead ….

    You have obvious comprehension problems and therefore should may be consider curbing your arrogance.

    It is not Kollerman’s thinking expressed in his book: he has merely documented a very popular English urban legend of the time.

    • Replies: @Anon
  3. Wally says:
    @Saggy

    So what specifically is in his books listed in the article that you find problematic, “unhinged”?

    BTW, it’s Kollerstrom

    • Replies: @Saggy
  4. Robjil says:
    @Saggy

    I read the book. It is quite interesting. He lays out the evidence. The Beatles promoted the idea themselves.

    It is possible. In the 1960s, TV shows often changed characters without saying that they did. Bewitched is one of them. Darrens changed without any mention of it in the script.

    Beatles was like a show. They did not want to interrupt the show. So, it is not “sinful” to look at the evidence of it.

    The biggest piece of evidence that is quite compelling is a study by two Italian women.

    https://plasticmacca.blogspot.com/2010/01/forensic-science-proves-paul-was.html

    Forensic science has proven that Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966. A scientific team in Italy consisting of Francesco Gavazzeni and Gabriella Carlesi conducted a biometrical analysis of Paul pre and post 1966. The scientists saw discrepancies in the facial features that could not be accounted for by error or plastic surgery.

    The Holocaust and nine eleven have plenty of evidence to be not the way our “free” Zion press says it happened.

    In the case of both, evidence of what really happened would save this planet and humanity. Kollerstrom is doing a good deed for humanity by writing his book about questioning the details of the big H.

    • Replies: @Robjil
    , @Iris
  5. Robjil says:
    @Robjil

    I forgot to add nine eleven to the last line of the post. Questioning both the Big H and nine eleven are good deeds for humanity and this planet. Kollerstrom has done both.

    Why is it a good deed to question both?

    Both have not been used for good ends at all for humanity and this planet.

    Both are used as hammers. In the big 6 world, everything is OK . Since the big 6 was so “bad”. Firebombing and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Axis nations in WWII was OK. 500000 Iraqi children dying from Zion US sanctions was OK. The destruction of Iraq and Libya was OK. The support for Jihadis to destroy Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Somalia was OK.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @Anon
  6. Iris says:
    @Robjil

    Beatles was like a show. They did not want to interrupt the show.

    British pop music dominated the world in the 1960’s: it was one of the countries important sources of revenue, and the Beatles were the best selling band that ever existed.

    Paul McCartney allegedly dying (??) accidentally in a car accident would have been an economic catastrophe.
    There is nothing “unhinged” or irrational in thinking that he would have been swiftly replaced by a double: greed drives the world.

    • Agree: Robjil
  7. Saggy says: • Website
    @Wally

    You don’t need to read further than the title to learn that Newton is a fraud, this is the one that irks me, Kollerstrom must be an idiot who knows absolutely nothing about science (me: PhD engineer). J.L. Lagrange, famous mathematician, summed it up in reply to the king of France who asked him why no Frenchman was more famous than Newton …

    Newton was the greatest genius that ever existed, and the most fortunate, for we cannot find more than once a system of the world to establish.

    Modern math and science starts with Newtons discoveries. Sometime you hear that Leibnitz invented calculus at the same time, but calculus is easy. Newton invented calculus and then effectively solved the two-body problem, which even today takes pages of advanced calculus, thus explaining the motion of the planets and solving the longest standing mystery in human history. Saying that Newton is a fraud identifies the speaker as a complete idiot.

    The other book claiming that McCartney is dead is just good for laughs.

    Btw, I have read his book on the German decrypts and think he was in his right mind when he wrote it. And I’ve read his book on who started the wars and it’s OK but not revelatory given that I’d already read a bit on the subject.

    • Agree: BlackDragon
  8. Kevin, Have a 911 truth conference instead of BRICS, with the SCO countries. Have it in Shanghai!!! See what they could do about that.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  9. @Saggy

    Not really unhinged. There were issues with Newton and Leibniz DID invent calculus. Maybe fraud was a bit strong. You can still find Newtons writings in the archives.
    One other thing, also in physics which is not widely known because of god like status of Einstein, he didnt invent/discover relativity. Lorentz/Fitgerald did, already had in 1890’s! The formulation of SR was already done by Lorentz and Einstein just published it with some modifications around the invariance of the speed of light in all reference frames.

    • Replies: @Saggy
    , @Anon
  10. Saggy says: • Website
    @BlackDragon

    There were issues with Newton and Leibniz DID invent calculus.

    Calculus was a huge conceptual breakthrough, as was the law of gravity and the laws of motion. But all are pretty simple, for example the formula for the law of gravity could have been a lucky guess, ditto for the 2nd law of motion. Likewise, the basic ideas of calculus are simple, I could explain them to you in 30 minutes, including a proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus. But, Newton didn’t stop there, he solved the two body problem. Even now this is too much for physics students in the university, it’s only covered in upper division courses in classical mechanics and there it’s only given a glancing blow and not fully developed. Newton went from essentially zero to material that is advanced today. Thus, there is no comparison between the contributions of Newton and Leibnitz.

  11. I wish Kevin Barrett would recognize how tiresome his academic lectures are during an interview. He brings a guest on to interview but then KB dominates the time trying to impress his guest with everything HE HIMSELF thinks he knows. I want to hear your guest’s ideas Kevin, not you citing the bibliography from your latest ‘bright idea.’ Such a shame because Kevin could be a great interviewer if he focused on his guest’s ideas and not his own academic drivel.

    • Replies: @dimples
  12. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:

    Anti-universal-monotheism ideologies, which might be termed the ideologies of Antichrist, include atheism, Satanism, humanism, materialism, and at least some varieties of Judaism. Extremist believers in these ideologies have long colluded to wage covert war against Christianity and Islam under the banner of freemasonry.

    Any of us, based on their knowledge and experience of humankind, can imagine what, and how, someone who can wrote the above would ban, and, contingently, decide how much weight to give to same someone’s complaints about book-banning (certainly not as extensive as the book-banning they would do if they had the chance).

    Same as to the legal lynching of “truth seekers” (seeking in the way they like the truths they like, arguably. They’d legally classify the truth seekings not to their tastes as Antichristisms, and outlaw all of them if they had the chance; or not?).

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  13. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @Iris

    As if arrogance and self-assurance didn’t go hand in hand with ignorance feeding each other, lol.

    • Replies: @Iris
  14. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:
    @BlackDragon

    I would exercise caution in assuming the wild promotional elevation of Einstein above his actually deserved rank has been done with Newton too.

  15. eah says:

    (Watch the 7/7 video Kollerstrom and Farrell Are Dead.)

    Your link is broken (YouTube account deleted) — the video can be seen here –> link.

  16. @Anon

    Wrong. Prophetic truth, the message of universal monotheism, is generally upheld by persecuted minorities, sometimes minorities of one, who neither wish nor have the power to ban anything. It is the Grand Inquisitors (whatever their nominal ideology) not the Christ who ban books.

  17. dimples says:
    @Chris in Cackalacky

    I don’t think what KB says is always necessarily drivel but this ‘interview’ is surely the worst I have ever heard. Kollerstrom is not a good speaker and needs time to say anything at all, but KB just hammers away doing his own thing for most of the interview while Kollerstrom just goes ‘uh, uh’.

  18. dimples says:

    I have Kollerstrom’s book Terror on the Tube about the 7/7/2005 London Underground bombings which I would not call a masterpiece but is nevertheless in my opinion a shining light in the world of the brain-dead. The interesting issue in the 7/7 bombings which sticks out like a sore thumb is that the official ‘narrative’, yes its actually called the ‘narrative’, lies about the supposed explosives used.

    Officially, the explosive was a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and pepper, ie oxidizer and carbon fuel, pre-mixed by the alleged bombers. This mixture is explosive only if the hydrogen peroxide is ‘high test’, ie > 70% H2O2 in water. This is not for sale for good reasons, but it can be made from ordinary low-test peroxide purchased in stores by concentrating the peroxide/water mixture. In the alleged bomb making apartment rented by the alleged bombers, no equipment was found that could be used to make the necessary high-test peroxide. Instead, the narrative sold to the public was that the bombers used saucepans to boil down the low-test peroxide to make high-test peroxide. The problem is that boiling down peroxide in a saucepan will only yield 30% proof peroxide and no greater. Thus the narrative was an obvious lie and the bombing could not have been carried out in the way the authorities stated.

    What is surprising to me is that every chemistry tutor in Great Britain who heard this narrative would have known instantly that it was fraudulent, but nobody made a peep. Everybody just accepted the official lie. Only Kollerstrom in his bumbling way had the courage and perspicacity to write a book about the bombing and discuss this particular issue.

  19. Anon[338] • Disclaimer says:

    [Ifollow-up to comment #12]

    You owe me no answer, Barrett. Ask yourself, if you want, whether someone who sees everyone with a worldview different from his own as “pro-evil”, if he had the chance, would ban less or more cultural content than is being banned in these years by our rulers.
    I think, more. In fact, where monotheistic religions folks have the power to do it, don’t they ban much more?

    You may examine the issue, and come to your own conclusions about it.

    I am posting this, mainly, to apologize for the confrontational tone of my previous comment. I don’t believe in confrontation.
    Just it is a bit dizzying to be an average moral person with an interest in understanding reality (it could be a humanist, an atheist, and so on) and being accused that way. I can easily imagine that, for many who do not believe in the divine origin and mission of Christ, he was still a heroic, or at least very likeable, person; I know plenty of atheists or materialists who admire Christ while believing he was not more than a human.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  20. @BlackDragon

    That’s a great idea. Do you know any Chinese truther billionaires who could sponsor a 9/11 conference there?

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  21. @Anon

    When I listed the constellation of related ideologies that I consider mistaken, singling out extremist believers in those ideologies, I certainly wasn’t suggesting that any such believers, moderate or extremist, should be censored.

    Whereas there seems to be widespread agreement among much of the atheist-humanist managerial class in the West, and perhaps in Russia, India, and China as well, that “radical Muslims” and other “religious extremists” do need to be censored, and their views suppressed.

    Many of my best friends, not to mention family members, are humanists, atheists, agnostics, etc. Like everyone else they are struggling with various good and evil impulses. There is a connection between a person’s worldview and the state of their soul, but it isn’t straightforward and simple. The best depiction of that connection is in Dostoevsky’s later novels.

  22. Iris says:
    @Anon

    As if arrogance and self-assurance didn’t go hand in hand with ignorance feeding each other, lol.

    I agree.

    The Paul McCartney possible conspiracy theory arose before our time, but that does not stop us from first educating ourselves before expressing an opinion.

    As it happens, this conspiracy theory was actually triggered by clues left by the Beatles themselves in their records, and was very big at the time.
    It first blew up in America, Michigan, in October 1969, during a WKNR radio show when a member of the public phoned and mentioned the clues left in the records about Paul McCartney having died.

    Some of the arguments brought in by the sceptics are disturbing to say the least: the real Paul had brown eyes, the Fake Paul (Faul) green eyes.

    It is the first time ever I hear of this conspiracy theory, but it would not surprise me in the least. For people able to pull out 9/11 , as I have witnessed in my lifetime, this would be a walk in the park.

    More generally, it is true that some unhinged, ludicrous conspiracy theories are thrown at us by the PTB as a decoy, to ridicule any effort to uncover the real conspiracies. Flat Earth, 9/11 DEW’s and Royal lizards are examples of these deliberately discrediting theories.

    But there are also people who refuse to admit to a conspiracy simply because they never realised it was one !!!
    It sort of insults the view they have of their own intelligence; so they refuse to question their long-held belief out of misplaced pride.

    Personally, despite a scientific background, I have long been fooled into believing that planes crashed into the Twin Towers, and that Apollo landed on the Moon. I have since taken salutary lessons in modesty from people less educated than I am, LOL.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    , @Anon
  23. @Iris

    But there are also people who refuse to admit to a conspiracy simply because they never realised it was one !!!
    It sort of insults the view they have of their own intelligence; so they refuse to question their long-held belief out of misplaced pride.

    Part of what is missing in our educational system is training people how to reasonably react to new claims (like conspiracy theories).

    Rule #1: Remain calm. The information is new. Don’t immediately start name-calling and finger-pointing or using guilt by association.
    Rule #2: Decide if you care or not. Personally I don’t care if Paul was alive or dead, so that ends that discussion.
    Rule #3: If you don’t care, admit you don’t care, and more importantly, admit you don’t know.
    Rule #4: If you do care, then you have to do some real research. Read (or view) everything you can find. Read every view on the issue. Get familiar with the data and the arguments.
    Rule #5: Withhold judgement while doing research. Err on the side of withholding judgement.
    Rule #6: When you reach a conclusion test it. Post your view to forums like this and hope it is attacked. See what the “other side” has to say and make sure you understand their criticism. You are allowed to change your mind.

    That is what serious people should be doing. There are not that many serious people out there.

    • Agree: Iris
  24. @Kevin Barrett

    Oh, yeah. There must be dozens of Chinese truther billionaires milling around. 😉

  25. Anon[811] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robjil

    “In the big 6 world, everything is OK . Since the big 6 was so “bad”.

    An important point, not made often enough. In particular, it lets Israel off the hook for anything, not just in terms of “two wrongs make a right,” but as an absolute logical point: if “the” Holocaust is the worst thing ever, then nothing else is all that bad. You might say, well, how about almost as bad, that sounds pretty bad, right? Wrong! Notice how they have laws against “minimizing” or “relativizing” the H, which means suggesting any comparison with another event (slavery, Native Americans, etc.). I believe some German historians, like Nolte, got in trouble over that.

    It’s the same old projection method. They’ve spend 70 years writing books about “how can anyone be moral in a world that allows Auschwitz to happen?”) while escalating their own predations at an astronomical rate.

  26. Anon[811] • Disclaimer says:
    @Iris

    ” America, Michigan, in October 1969, during a WKNR radio show”

    That is, Detroit, my old hometown. That was “Uncle Russ” Gibb’s show, who, as the promoter of the Grande Ballroom, (like Bill whatshisname of the Filmores) pulled a lot of water in teenage rock n roll circles. I remember calling in myself with some ideas about it, setting me on a lifetime of eccentric thinking without drugs.

    Has the caller ever been identified? It’s easy to imagine Gibb arranging some kind of promotional stunt. But could he have been played (as it were) by Intell, setting up the first of the deliberately ridiculous “conspiracy theories” (a term then recently coined by the CIA), as a dry run for more significant psyops.

    • Replies: @Iris
  27. Iris says:
    @Anon

    That is, Detroit, my old hometown.

    Hello Anon;
    Wow, this is really cool, so you are from the place where this urban legend was born?
    The radio broadcaster was indeed Russ Gibb, and the caller was a auditor called Tom Zarsky, both interviewed in the little documentary I posted.

    Indeed, many have suspected a promotion stunt, but by the Beatles, not by Russ Gibb. The band really left secret messages that could be heard and understood only when playing the record backwards, which makes the whole thing mysterious and intriguing.

    You are correct, it is possible that the Paul MacCartney rumours had been spread to divert attention from real conspiracies, namely the murders of JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X. It is well known that US campuses were political contestation hotbeds, were the banned Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination was secretly circulated for years.

    Mr Kollerstrom’s book is rated 4 out of 5 over 23 ratings on Amazon, which is significant and indicates a work of good quality.

    I also quickly scrolled through the “evidence” of faked Paul.
    Apart from the eyes having changed colour, the face’s anthropometric differences are quite visible too. As a young man, the Fake Paul (Faul) definitely had a more elongated, less oval face. It is so pronounced that I can straightaway say which one is the fake, LOL !!!

  28. How many would notice that all the furniture in your friends house was changed and how long would it take them to notice it?

    The more stressed out you are the less you would notice anything. This dont even include your perception because things that are out of your domain are not visible to you anyway. But things that you interact with often only disappear from your coinceness when you have other things on your mind.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS