บาคาร่าพารวย pantip_แจกเครดิตให้คนเล่นสล็อต_สูตรบาคาร่ารวยรวยรวย_อยากเล่นสล็อตฟรี_รับโบนัสเพิ่มเกมส์สล็อต

real conclusion with phony evidence
pods, dust clouds, flashes, no planes, no windows

related pages:

"there's a lot of 9/11 speculation that’s out there that is based on video footage - in some cases altered photographs - we have no way of knowing what the chain of custody was of that evidence to prove that it has not been tampered with"
-- Michael Ruppert
, February 14, 2005, interview on KZYX, “The Party’s Over”

Watching the "In Plane Site" video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially -- until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.
-- Steven Jones, Ph.D.

In Plane Site, released a few months before the 2004 Presidential Election, is a compilation of most of the hoaxes infesting the 9/11 truth movement. Nearly every piece of "evidence" in it is wrong, even if the conclusion ("inside job") is correct. "Plane Site" includes misinterpreted evidence, logical leaps unsupported by evidence, and some footage that is almost certainly fraudulent.

In Plane Site only promotes the "Letsroll911" website (the loudest promoter of the "pod" claim), which means that "In Plane Site" is probably a "Webfairy" production (a video operation still churning out "new" video footage of 9/11 years after the fact).

The most revealing aspect of this fake film is that the cover graphic shows the same photo of a Boeing 757 that was posted to the "911truthalliance" list in May 2004 pointing out that the "pod" was merely an illusion. In other words, the manufacturers of "Plane Site" put a photo showing the "pod" is a fake claim on the cover of the DVD -- a bad joke "hidden in plain sight."

In the summer of 2007, the people behind In Plane Site released a new movie "Ripple Effect," but this repackaging will remain unreviewed at casino ฟรี เครดิต www.blogofthelivingdead.com (there are more important things in life than seeing their new revision of this nonsense).

 

detailed debunking

is "Plane Site" the most incompetent documentary ever produced,
deliberate disinformation to discredit the 9/11 truth movement,
or are the producers gullible, used by covert operators
to cover the real evidence behind a smoke screen of hoaxes?

"I guess it is painfully clear that I am a film director, not a private investigator."
-- William Lewis, director, "In Plane Sight," July 17, 2004, admitting one of the many mistakes after threatening to sue casino ฟรี เครดิต www.blogofthelivingdead.com for pointing out some flaws

This film claims it will change the way people think about September 11 (that it was an "inside job"). However, the biggest impact is that it further polarizes people -- some will buy into the hoaxes and promote them, while most others will think that 9/11 skeptics are hallucinating.

This film can be used as a teaching opportunity to see how efforts are made to hide provable evidence of official complicity behind a smoke screen of bogus material that most people find difficult to unravel.

The main criticism of this review by the "Power Hour" is that the original analysis was performed a few weeks before the video was released, and therefore the film could not have been viewed (and therefore the review was disinformation to shut down distribution of their wonderful production).

However, while this is a clever retort that contains a piece of truth, it is easily exposed upon scrutiny. The original review on this website was posted AFTER the "Power Hour" posted summaries of the main claims in their film, and many of these alleged claims had long since been debunked as hoaxes (the "pod" claim, the "giant explosion at the base of the towers" and "no plane hit the Pentagon"). Upon seeing the full film, the original criticisms of the promotional material were verified as accurate, and many more details were added to the analysis -- none were addressed in a substantive manner.

In mid-August 2004, several weeks after the film had been released, someone posted information about the fake claims in "Plane Site" to the 9/11 discussions hosted at the Portland "indymedia" website, rebutting a posting that claimed the film had been shown to a shocked (and impressed) audience in Sacramento, California. One of the supporters of this film replied that one could not have possibly reviewed the film, since it had just had its premier showing a few days before (in Calfornia) and therefore the rebuttal was inaccurate. The "your analysis is wrong because you can't have seen it yet" argument is compelling -- so good, the film maker's fans kept using it even after it has been shown to be a distraction and yet another error in itself.

One example of this is from a fan of theirs at newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd56.htm -- and other fans have posted this "rebuttal" to various bulletin boards on the web. This story started with this website pointed out that the claims the Power Hour were making on its website were not true, and the Power Hour extrapolated from this that one could not rebut them without having seen their DVD (even though these red herrings have been floated on the web for some time, they are not original to these scam artists).

A few weeks after this, the film makers realized that the response to their "film" was not positive from much of the 9/11 truth movement, and that a number of reviews exposed some blatant frauds in the movie. The Power Hour then admitted that ONE error had been made in the film (the misrepresentation of an image of the South Tower collapse dust cloud as evidence of a giant explosion at the base of both towers) and promised to correct it in a "Director's Cut" of the film. This feint was then used by its fans to claim that the error (singular) in the film had been acknowledged and the rest of the film should be seen as legitimate.

However, Mr. Von Kleist (the narrator of the film) was invited onto "Majority Report" on Air America Radio in November 2004, and proceded to repeat this "error" as truth. Fortunately, one of the show's hosts realized that his "evidence" of complicity missed some of the most important information, and tried to steer the conversation toward the issues of the 9/11 war games (a topic totally ignored by In Plane Site).

The accurate parts of "In Plane Site" are copied from other films:

If the "Power Hour" ever admits the rest of the easily disproved claims are incorrect, they would have to refund the $20 that people have spent to purchase their film.

 

it's hard to believe an "incompetence theory"

the "pod" exposed as fake on the DVD's front cover!

The photo on the cover of "Plane Site" used the exact same photo of a 757 below, showing the normal "fairing" structure on the underside of the fuselage. This photo was posted in early May 2004 to the "911 Truth Alliance" email list by a member who was debunking the "pod" claim. Is it a coincidence that the film uses the exact same photo (out of all of the countless photos ever taken of Boeing jets), or is it just a bad joke hidden "in plain sight?"

Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "mr. cristian fleming"
To: <911truthalliance>

christ people. do a little quick research.look at this picture.
http://www.gorji.com/757-approach499a.jpg
see the extruding bulge beneath the fuselage between the wings? there's your mysterious 'pod'. standard body design on most 757s.
you know how long it took me to find that picture and another 2 or 3000 just like it? about 30 seconds.
cristian.

The "757-approach" graphic posted on May 3, 2004 is the SAME photo on the front cover of "In Plane Site."

detailed reviews www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html

This suggests that someone who was monitoring the 911truthalliance list had the idea to make a mean joke -- it's possible that "someone" wasn't Power Hour, but that this bad joke was forwarded to them (the incompetence theory). Obviously, this "someone" was monitoring the list shortly after the San Francisco Inquiry (March 26 - 28, 2004), when the "planesite" film was being made. It's a subtle signature of its real authorship (to sign the video with this mean joke on the front cover).

 

phony audio added to the film

The film claims that a video clip in New York of the second crash is strong evidence that the second plane wasn't Flight 175. This clip has a background voice yelling "that was not an American Airlines," repeated twice. It has nice hysterics, and sounds real, if you ignore the lack of correlation to the video clip (there isn't anyone in pictured in the video saying this, the person saying this is not in the scene). It is just as probable that the screaming voice was added in the studio during the manufacture of this film, something that is extremely easy to do with video editing software. Furthermore, does anyone, even those who think that Bush ordered 9/11 to happen, really believe that bystanders in New York started shouting "that wasn't an American Airline?" This is embarrassingly bad, beyond parody.

While "powerhour" has some video editing skills, taking other peoples' footage of 9/11 into their own production, it seems unlikely that their digital editing skills aren't yet to the point of being able to insert people into video clips who aren't part of the original footage, and they had to rely solely on dubbing in the sound, and then pretend that this was "testimony." The only thing that this is evidence of is that the film's producer is not competent at digital editing as the people who altered the films of the south tower collapse to add extra "flashes" not found on previous films such as "The Great Deception" (a film made shortly after 9/11 that included CNN footage of the Flight 175 crash) In a court of law, this would be immediately dismissed, and this example, which the video claims is a central piece of evidence, shows something worse than mere sloppiness. Does anyone really believe that a bystander several miles away from the crash would instantly start shouting this, or claim that there weren't any windows on a plane that was going over 500 mph? How could any witness have such eagle eyes from a couple miles away? Why should anyone have to waste time on this silliness?

 

misrepresenting photos

Their analysis of the Pentagon crash takes a photo of the repair job AFTER THE FIRES HAVE BEEN EXTINGUISHED and makes a variety of claims about how the fires were not intense. This photo shows additional supports placed to shore up the damaged building, placed after the attack. While it is impossible to say when this photo was taken, it was long enough afterwards that there wasn't any more smoke, and the repair job was already underway. The film claims that the photo includes a table with a book and the "pages aren't even singed." This claim might be true, but the photo only shows a small blob of light that might be a book, whether singed or unsinged -- and even if it is an unsinged book there is no way to prove whether it survived the fire or was placed there during the repairs to the building.
Powerhour's commentator also glossed over one of the most important, not disputed, "hidden in plain sight" pieces of evidence -- the fact that the nearly empty part of the Pentagon was hit (it was mentioned very briefly by the narrator, but not seen as evidence of official complicity). Even Painful Deceptions, a film that is a mix of good material and disinfo, has a chapter that focuses on this aspect.

 

Pentagon crash eyewitnesses misrepresented

Plane Site shows an eyewitness who claims to have seen a "cruise missile with wings" smash into the Pentagon, although this comment was a metaphor. See www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for details on why the "no plane at Pentagon" claims are a hoax.

 

south tower collapse dust cloud misrepresented

The "planesite" film pretends that a couple frames of footage of the south tower collapse is really a giant explosion at the base of the towers. Look at the dust descending on the west side of the "double tower" - it is clearly the south tower collapse photo. Look at the dust plume on the right side of the photo. Planesite then claims there's additional proof of this, and then shows a photo of the dust cloud at ground level with ONE tower visible.

In September 2004, the Power Hour retracted this claim, admitting they had made a mistake -- but then went on to claim that this dust cloud was really an explosion at World Trade Center Building 6, citing the neo-nazi American Free Press publication as a so-called source for this. The WTC 6 explosion claim is expertly debunked at http://911review.com/errors/wtc/b6_explosion.html The AFP is now promoting the "no plane in Pennsylvania" story, which ignores much eyewitness testimony and physical evidence.

Perhaps the "no buildings" theory will be promoted by AFP or an allied publication as part of the final silliness pretending to be investigative journalism.

This hoax is debunked in great detail here:

The WTC "Mystery Explosion" Video Hoax www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html

 

possible manipulation of the film producers
by disinformation agents who knew the filmmakers were gullible

pod

The alleged "pod" under the plane that hit the South Tower is a manipulation of the images that show the normal structure under a 767 that helps hold the wings together. None of the "pod people" websites that make these claims have any clear footage that provides even a scintilla of evidence for their claims. Nearly every camera in New York was aimed in the direction of the World Trade Center when the second plane hit. It is likely that the original source for these claims was a covert operation to discredit these independent inquiries (most 9/11 skeptics look at the pod campaign as lunacy).

 

flashes

PlaneSite has four different film clips that claim to show a flash as the front of the plane hits the South Tower. It is possible, if these images are proven authentic, that it was merely the spark of metal on metal as the plane struck the tower, before the rest of the plane went in and obscured this point. None of the Plane Site video clips show other parts of the plane causing any flashes, so this explanation is unlikely.

However, other video footage deemed genuine does not show any flash from the front of the plane. Barrie Zwicker's January 2002 film "The Great Deception" uses video footage from CNN in episode 5, and the only "flash" visible in that image is when the engines struck the south tower and the explosion starts to happen. The Great Decpetion does not have the "winking light" that the footage in the "powerhour" film has. However, TGD is more than two years old, before the webfairy/letsroll/podplane campaigns were started. Zwicker's film, made shortly afterwards, is more likely to have authentic footage than the "Plane Site" film with its blatant misrepresentations of other parts of the story.

It's easy to alter a video footage to add a blinking light for a couple frames.

 

evasion

curious timing

It is curious how a lot of supposedly long-suppressed video was magically unearthed nearly three years after the attacks. The timing of "Plane Site" is particularly curious -- it was made after the 9/11 movement had its very successful International Inquiry into 9/11 in San Francisco in March 2004, and was released just before the official Commission released its report (but debunking the specific lies (but debunking the specific lies in that report is not addressed in this film, and replying to the nonsense in the film takes time away from exposing the fraud of the Commission).
Any video evidence magically appearing nearly three years later must be considered somewhat suspect and is useless if it cannot be proven 100% to be authentic with a "chain of custody" tracing it back to its source. It is probably not a coincidence that the "pod people" campaign was stepped up in intensity after the International Inquiry in March 2004, since the 9/11 truth movement had more success and the perpetrators benefit if the genuine evidence for official complicity is buried in a blizzard of disinformation masquerading as 9/11 conspiracy exposure.

 

no mention of real issues

The film ignores the issues of the "failures" of the Air Force to protect New York and Washington, the multiple military and intelligence agency war games underway that morning, the allegations of a "stand down," the warnings to elites to get out of the way, the warnings from other countries, the Anthrax attacks on the Democrats, and numerous other facets that are proven beyond reasonable doubt not based on blurry low resolution photos of questionable authenticity. There is almost no political context to explain WHY 9/11 was perpetrated other than vague boilerplate material about the rise of the police state (there's no mention of OIL). Any documentary about 9/11 complicity that does not include the word NORAD must be considered suspect until proven otherwise.

 

no mention of best websites, only mentions pod promoter

In Plane Site only mentions letsroll911.org, a site predicated on the pod claims. Letsroll911 used the "webfairy" website to process some of their photo clips -- a site that claims that the North Tower was not hit by a plane, even though the hole in the side of the building was the size and shape of a 767 and argues that it was perpetrated with giant holograms and missiles, perhaps the strangest claims anywhere. In contrast, most of the other pod people sites at least mention a few legitimate sites in order to gain false status for their own efforts. Perhaps the "power hour" realizes that these other sites will quickly catch on to their scam and expose it, so linking to any of the real sites was too risky.

 

possibly real evidence

remote control

Plane Site does briefly mention the technology of remote controlled airplanes. However, this information is stuck on an addendum to the actual film, does not discuss how this technology can be used for large planes, avoids the strongest evidence for its use on 9/11 (the plane hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon), and discredits this accurate information by association with the hallucinations that are the central parts of the film.

 

Building 7

Plane Site includes several films of the symmetrical, vertical collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. It is difficult to imagine any other cause than controlled demolition to explain this aspect -- the evidence for demolition of Building 7 is stronger than the evidence for demolition of the twin towers, although there is evidence that suggests this is not true even for WTC 7.

 

plagiarism

In Plane Site's makers have shown that they know how to make simple video effects, to take stock footage of the attacks and show them over and over in their film (hopefully to shock people into abandoning a necessary level of skepticism toward their bogus claims), and to package it with art lifted from other people's work (the Osama picture on the cover is the same image as used on Alex Jones's "9/11: The road to tyranny")

9/11 is so important that plagiary in the cause of spreading the truth of 9/11 is probably acceptable in the long run, although it is nice to credit the original writers or researchers, when possible. However, plagiary in the good parts of "Plane Site" (there is some accurate information in the film) combined with blatant bullshit is evidence of a scam

 

other movie reviews

www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html
"911: In Plane Site" - a bad joke hidden "in plain sight"

www.darkprints.net/planesitereview.html
"911 - In Plane Site: A Critical Review" by Jeremy Baker

www.digitalstylecreations.com/Download/
Video debunking of several "planesite" claims by 9/11 Visibility Project member

www.questionsquestions.net/blog/041116walter.html
16 November 2004: Jimmy Walter, a sugar daddy with poison pills
(millionaire promoter of "In Plane Site" at reopen911.org)

www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg115085.html
Dave Von Kleist, lost in foam

www.awitness.org/journal/september_11_norad_standdown.html
perhaps this spreading of such nonsense around is part of some psyop by some intelligence agency in the government the purpose of which is to create people just like me who are reacting with growing disgust and deep mistrust and suspicion to each and every new 9-11 conspiracy type story that comes out, having been burned so many times before, and thus this psyop can work to undermine any 9-11 investigation


www.portlandmercury.com/2004-10-14/film_shorts.html

9/11: In Plane Site should have been a fun, Fox Mulder-y conspiracy diatribe--it features both an exceedingly annoying crackpot theorist and outlandish, unsubstantiated allegations about blurrily pixelized photos that don't really show anything. But there's something still very raw and powerful about the imagery from 9/11 that Plane Site so gleefully throws around in its half-assed allegations that 9/11 was a staged event, and the role that the film ultimately fills is that of the cheapest, most unintelligent form of cashing-in on the day it so poorly tries to redefine.


www.heraldextra.com/modules.php?
op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=33961


www.archive.org/details/911-Conspiracy-Rebuttal
a short video rebuttal to "Plane Site"


http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/04/bridge-over-muddied-waters_18.html

Tuesday, April 18, 2006
A Bridge over Muddied Waters

... We can do better than the scattershot method of much conspiracy theory that goes not much further, nor deeper, than a litany of seeming anomalies and breaks to the system. Because any system which helps to structure power can bend itself to conspiracy without breaking. That is to say, parapolitics doesn't just happen when things go wrong with politics, but also when things go right. It's embedded, and so difficult to see and understand if we're trained to look only for the exceptions. To think of another metaphor, it's a forest/tree problem.
Since it was something no one had seen before on such a scale there are a lot of tall trees left standing from 9/11. Some deserve attention, some simply draw attention to themselves, and some have our attention drawn to them by forces which mean for us to miss the forest. Such trees, perhaps, ought to be cut down.
An extreme example of scattershot conspiriology is the film In Plane Site. No anomaly or apparent contradition, whether a shadow or a flash or a puff of smoke, is too subjective or irrelevant to be excluded, and nothing else in the way of evidence is admitted, regardless of whether the whole coheres as an alternative narrative to the official account. In fact, and common to such work, no narrative at all is offered. By way of contrast, the original research of Daniel Hopsicker is all about constructing a narrative - identifying the pattern - which takes him a long way from Ground Zero but much closer to the event's organic nature. His April 17th story, for instance, concerning a DC9 seized in the Yucatan last week after hauling more than five tons of cocaine from Caracas. A co-owner of the aircraft is Brent Kovac, a Tom Delay appointee to the Business Advisory Council of the National Republican Congressional Committee. The plane's Florida charter company, "Royal Sons," used to be housed in a hanger at Florida's Ground Zero of Huffman Aviation, from which Mohammed Atta, according to Hopsicker's research, also used to make drug runs to Venezuela. "A close look at Royal Sons," writes Hopsicker, "reveals evidence indicating that the firm is part of a cluster of related air charter firms being used as dummy front companies to provide 'cover' for CIA flights." And let's remember, just three weeks after Atta enrolled at his flight school, its right-wing evangelical owner, Wally Hilliard, had his private plane seized with 43 pounds of likely Afghanistan heroin on board. Hilliard made some calls. Hilliard wasn't charged. Hopsicker's narrative is drugs and money, and from Iran/Contra to Indochina's Air America to Bonesmen profiteering by China's Opium Wars, it's a long-established and predictive pattern.
Which methodology seems more profitable and encouraging and troubling to power, and which evidence most merits dissemination? Which is the only one to receive play, as though it were representative of the whole, in America's corporate media?


www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html

Following the first 9/11 International Inquiry in San Francisco in 2004, a new video packaged as a sensational exposé of evidence that the 9/11 attack was an inside job burst on the scene. In Plane Site, a production of The Power Hour, features Dave Von Kleist sitting in front of a wall of computer monitors and pretending to expose shocking anomalies in footage from the day of the attack. The vast majority of Von Kleist's claims are nonsensical, debunked in the Parade of Errors section.

Von Kleist's video functions to marginalize the case that the attack was an inside job by associating that idea with sensationalism and lack of critical thinking. The video got top billing in the Popular Mechanics attack piece, which used several of its ill-founded claims to smear the entire 9/11 Truth community.

Some people in the 9/11 truth community have promoted In Plane Site even while acknowledging that promotes false claims, saying that it's beneficial because it "brings people into the movement". It's certainly true that IPS motivates some people to get involved. However, the claim that the video is beneficial to the movement overlooks three facts:

  • Many people are turned away by seeing a video such a IPS especially people whose rational sensibilities are offended by the video's patently ludicrous claims and sensationalism.
  • As a tool for motivating involvement, IPS selects for people who tend to undervalue critical thinking skills and scientific evaluation of evidence. Such people will tend to promote IPS and other flawed materials, playing into the stereotype of 9/11 conspiracists as lunatics.
  • IPS is, by itself, a powerful tool for smearing the movement, as the Popular Mechanics piece illustrates. Any promotion reinforces the case of the movement's detractors.

One of the movement's greatest assets is a physics professor at Brigham Young University, Steven Jones, who persuasively articulates the case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 in a scientific paper. Because of Jones' credentials, he addresses the criticism that the demolition thesis lacks the support of experts. In a slide presentation Jones has shown to scores of academics, he states:

Watching the "In Plane Site" video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially -- until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

Copyright Michael B. Green August 3, 2005
"Loose Change"
An analysis by Michael B. Green

I have great respect for the courage of all the legitimate 911 researchers who try to find the truth and tell it to others, but they often forget a simple essential point. Because 911 (JFK, etc.) are not ordinary crimes, but crimes of state, they cannot be proven by simple forensic means. The proof of any such crimes requires rethinking our picture of the means of government from the ground up. People naturally do not wish to do this, and are propagandized to believe the contrary, so any effort to get their attention should be with evidence that is simple, clear, and convincing, not abstract, obscure, dubious or debatable. I do not pretend that this is enough. Orwellian "stop think" provides that "protective stupidity" that allows us to function in comfort and it is both difficult and painful to abandon. ...

If a film-maker or live lecturer has the good fortune of having the attention of someone like this, or good solid middle-Americans, for an hour-long DVD, or for a 2-3 hour live presentation, he had better use clear hard facts for persuasion, and not iffy, vaguely or ambiguously supported possibilities. The intelligence agencies that do the crimes try to control the counter-community's response by infiltrating moles that infect it with large falsehoods and impossible-to-prove technical questions (micro-analysis). The large falsehoods are designed to prove the community wrong and nuts if the need arises. The microanalysis into pointless or unanswerable questions, or into just plain dumm ones, is to divert its energies from using the clear hard facts to tell the story simply and clearly.

... If Mr. VonKleist [the primary spokesperson of In Plane Site] is not a paid intelligence disinformation asset, then he is the dream of the intelligence community: someone who dissembles as artfully as they do, and with all their wit, but who doesn’t draw a salary.
[emphasis added]


www.awitness.org/journal/september_11_norad_standdown.html

perhaps this spreading of such nonsense around is part of some psyop by some intelligence agency in the government the purpose of which is to create people just like me who are reacting with growing disgust and deep mistrust and suspicion to each and every new 9-11 conspiracy type story that comes out, having been burned so many times before, and thus this psyop can work to undermine any 9-11 investigation and protect not only the airplane multinationals, but all the other corporations of the world, who also get shown the same favoritism by the government, even if it means sacrificing public safety for corporate profits so as to prop up 'consumer confidence'...however, while that could be true that these conspiracy stories are part of a psyop to discredit the investigation of 9-11, there are a lot of people working on their own as well, who pick up the merest shreds of evidence and then attempt to make a case using hyperbolic assertions which are intended to strengthen an otherwise weak argument...)
....
That '9-11 in plane site' is so utterly absurd, and such a worthless conspiracy theory that perhaps it is actually supposed to be a parody of all the 9-11 conspiracies to date...
And if that is true I want to salute the creators of the 'in plane site' website for creating what would have to be the cleverest parody site on the internet this year, in that it really is a classic emulation of everything that is wrong with 9-11 conspiracies on the internet...
Either that or it is just a real classic example of a really really stupid conspiracy theory, in that case, making it an unintentional self parody...
As for my self, if this is a psyop, its working great, because, I, like so many other people am developing a firm resistance to so called 'evidence from 9-11' and the second I hear such things I immediately kick into resistance mode and I am not the only one...
And then people say you are a 'government stooge' or they bewail the fact that the public 'resists the truth'...
As for me well was that a global hawk engine? I think I'll just pass on that 'evidence' and maybe wait a year or two or three...
If anyone is wondering what creates people like me well just consider a classic example of the type of crap going around all the time, '9-11 in plane site', either the cleverest parody or the best example of those 9-11 conspiracy theories warts and all, or part of a very successful psyop designed to permanently shut down the 9-11 investigation..
[emphases added]

 

It is interesting that the only rebuttal that the director of "Plane Site" sent to the "oil empire" review of his bogus film was that he was mischaracterized as the producer, not the director. However, he declined to rebut any of the more substantive criticisms.

The film makers try to rebut the information on this webpage
a complaint that William Lewis is the director of the film, not the producer

From: "William" <william@policestate21.com>
To: "Mark Robinowitz"
Subject: RE: detailed review of "In Plane Site" and the "Pod People" campaign
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 01:18:12 -0500

Director... not PRODUCER, not WRITER... DIRECTOR (at least get it straight)


Power Hour film director promotes extreme religious fundamentalism

From: "William" <william@policestate21.com>
To: "Mark Robinowitz"
Subject: RE: detailed review of "In Plane Site" and the "Pod People" campaign
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 01:29:30 -0500

http://www.restoringthetruth.com

(this site is extreme fundamentalism, it gives an interesting insight as to the motivations of the "Power Hour")


It shows the lack of integrity of the film producers that they threatened to sue me for pointing out their website contained bogus material mixed with real material. William Lewis (the film producer) admitted to Jamey Hecht that he's a film producer, not an investigator.

It is probable that the fake film footage in their film was given to them by official folks who realized that the power hour is relatively incompetent (as several people who have tried to reason with them directly have privately told me). This "useful idiots" theory is speculation, but it is the more innocent approach. However, there is enough deliberate disinformation in the film to suspect a more malicious intent.

A closer examination of the "power hour's" links page [http://www.policestate21.com/links.htm] shows that they are right-wing fundamentalists. Why would fundamentalists want to publish an expose of Bush's involvement in 9/11? Do they really have an ultra-conservative agenda that they think Bush is unable to fulfill? Are they genuinely motivated by military -intelligence complex crimes? Or are they being used by covert operators who understand their journalist skills are non-existent who feed them phony information that then is used to discredit dissent?

 

A couple of obscure commentators offer praise for the film at their website, including an extreme fundamentalist publication, a site called "disinfotainment" (which is what this "film" is), a writer who claims the world is run by alien reptiles, and a writer who initially thought that planesite was genuine but upon further review realized it is a hoax. This is hardly the type of material calculated to get a large groundswell of people to mobilize for a genuine investigation, especially when it is not hard to see through most of the deceptions in this effort.


a different "In Plane Sight"

from "threat matrix" - an extremely bad TV agitprop promotion of "Homeland Security"

www.tvtome.com/ThreatMatrix/season1.html
Threat Matrix - Episode Guide
6. In Plane Sight
gs: Sherman Augustus (Sal) Treva Etienne (Airport Manager) Timothy Carhart (CSAF Scott) Lorraine Toussaint (Cassandra Hodges) A corrupt West African airport official and a CIA agent who has changed sides as a result of the role that the U.S. played in Angola end up being key components in the theft of an airplane that is used to attempt an act of terrorism on the east coast of the United States.

b: 23-Oct-2003 pc: 104 w: Timothy J. Lea d: Larry Shaw


www.darkprints.net/planesitereview.html

"911 - In Plane Site: A Critical Review"
by Jeremy Baker

"911: In Plane Site"
Directed by William Lewis

Produced & written by Dave vonKleist
Narrated by Dave vonKleist
A production of The Power Hour

"Never forget. The most effective disinformation campaigns are 90% correct."
- overheard at Phase II of the International Citizens Inquiry into 9/11, Toronto

Recently I spent some time watching and analyzing the controversial new video, "911: In Plane Site." This 52 minute documentary -- vigorously touted by some and harshly condemned by others -- offers, I believe, an interesting opportunity to the broader community of 9/11 researchers and activists. In particular, it gives us the chance to honestly ask ourselves the question: Are we meticulous, sophisticated and responsible researchers and activists, or are we impulsive, gullible groupies?
I'd like to offer some thoughts on the matter.
For quite a while the mud-wrestling and invective was the movie for me, drawing me in, perhaps against my better judgement. Suggestions have even been made that the producers of this film may be operatives attempting to sabotage and derail the 9/11 visibility movement from within. Well, that's quite an accusation.
Personally, I'm not quite sure what to think. But after careful scrutiny, and without taking a decisive stand one way or the other, I believe that there are aspects of this film that do, in fact, warrant our scrutiny. Surely the issue of what we approve of (or condemn) within this movement is a valid one. So maybe it has become time for us to ask one another the difficult question -- solemnly posed by Mr. vonKleist and friends -- "Where is your line in the sand?"Well, I'll tell you where mine is and you can decide for yourself. I'll start by doing a little nitpicking. We'll get to the big stuff later.
"911: In Plane Site" begins with text being typed across the screen (à la The X-Files) as our narrator "advises" us that "the information we're about to view is overwhelmingly significant." Well good. I hate wasting my time on pointless nonsense. So far, so good.
So good I almost forgave them that last little bit, the part about the evidence in their program being so vital that they "could not let this information be kept from the American people and indeed from the global community as it affects both NATIONAL SECURITY and GLOBAL SECURITY respectfully [sic.]."
Well, I guess nobody's perfect. I'm just a little concerned that 9/11ers and the general public might be put off by this lapse, being, as they are, members of the former and latter demographics "respectively."
The inevitable montage of planes crashing into buildings, billowing fire and smoke comes next. Inevitable, as well, is the dramatic music, swelling up from below, the kind appropriate to issues of such "overwhelming significance," and straight out of an Alex Jones movie.
The tabloid-style drama of many 9/11 videos has often turned me off, even to films that I later came to enjoy, respect, even recommend. But, unfortunately, I'm already sniffing a familiar odor from this film, and it only just began.
After the Wagnerian music trails off, we're introduced to our narrator, Power Hour talk-radio host, Dave vonKleist, who offers us some more introductory remarks. Seems like a nice enough guy, easy going, committed.
Soon after, we hear an unidentified witness to the crash of Flight 77 specifically describe the object that struck the Pentagon as a "cruise missile with wings," an interesting piece of footage I‚d never seen before.Unfortunately, this is one of the problems with this film. You could have stopped right there and done a whole segment on this actual, purported witness to the Pentagon attack whose comments confirm what some theorists consider to be, given the evidence, what must have actually hit the Pentagon that day. Or, for that matter, you could have exposed this guy as a fraud, whatever the case may be. But instead, that's the end of it. A whiff of something huge, and then it's gone.
Mr. vonKleist then explains to us that all those picture magazines that appeared in grocery store check-out lines in the days and weeks that followed the attacks were the place where he and his people began their investigation into 9/11. He then goes on to spend valuable time challenging a passing statement made in a book entitled America Attacked -- also the kind that he says made its way into grocery stores.
On page 194, this book apparently claims that "the jet had plowed a crater 100' wide" before collapsing the outer walls of the Pentagon. He then makes the obvious point that there is no 100' wide crater to be seen anywhere in the video or photos of the Pentagon that day.
He is, of course, correct, but that's not the point. The point is this: Why go to the trouble of refuting a short comment made in just one of a myriad of inconsequential post 9/11 books? Has this long forgotten story become a key obstacle in our efforts to expose government complicity in 9/11? Of course it hasn't. Why waste time picking splinters out of your feet when you've got that railroad spike stuck in your head?
Interspersed between the, shall we say, thin sections of the film is, however, a fairly generous helping of data and information that has become pretty much second nature to most devoted 9/11 researchers. "911: In Plane Site" does, I suppose, offer the neophyte a somewhat well presented overview of some aspects of the mainstream in 9/11 conspiracy theory.VonKleist does, for instance, show the excellent photos of the Pentagon before the roof collapses. He then posits the obvious questions that evidence raises: Why is the hole so small? Where's the wreckage of a passenger jet? What about the surveillance tapes? Etc.
He also produces a report from a certified environmental specialist from the EAA (the Environmental Assessors Association) that would appear to indicate that if the object that hit the Pentagon were, indeed, a passenger jet, the fuel load should have "reduced the Pentagon to the thickness of a pancake" and caused environmental contamination that would have taken months to study, let alone clean up.
But wait. The first page of the report that vonKleist superimposes on the screen, under the heading "Type of Aircraft," includes this: "There were (100) people onboard." Well, this is odd. The last time I checked there were 64 passengers and crew on board Flight 77.
Innocent mistake? I don't care. Is this person a "specialist" or not? Her use of the "technical" term "thickness of a pancake" bolsters this "expert's" testimony even more. And her claim that the Pentagon fires would've burnt at 3,000 degrees if a 757 did touch down with a belly full of fuel goes against all the previous research I've heard on hydrocarbon fires in enclosed spaces (specifically in regard to the Twin Towers).
Besides the film's more obvious technical glitches, there are other more central problems with this project that need to be addressed. In particular, it's not just what this film covers that is at issue -- it's what it doesn't cover. It's what is omitted in this account of the attack on the Pentagon that concerns me most.
For example, not a word is mentioned about the fact that the area around Washington D.C. is some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world. How could a hijacked plane, known to be barreling towards downtown D.C., well after the previous strikes on the WTC, possibly meet with absolutely no resistance? It's unthinkable.The producers, to their credit, do a good job of presenting the video evidence that proves that WTC 7 was clearly brought down in a controlled demolition. They also include the excellent story (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) about Larry Silverstein and the PBS interview in which he reassures us that the building was intentionally "pulled" -- a "tough" decision made by a "stand-up" guy to save lives (?) on that terrible day.
But here again vonKleist shoots himself in the foot. He puts the name, Louie Cacchioli, (a firefighter who heard explosions in Tower 1 before it came down) up on the screen for us to see as he then goes on to pronounce this guy's first name "Lou-iss" instead of "Lou-ee," as he likes to be called. He then further offends the poor man, his children and ancestors by pronouncing Louie's last name "Cacchio-la" instead of "Cacchio-lee," as he also likes to be called.
Now, this may seem like nit-picking to you, but in the court of public opinion these things matter. You don't often see so many glaring blunders in serious documentary film-making, and if you think our detractors won't hop on each and every one of them you‚re wrong. These screwups, like it or not, reflect on the entire community of 9/11 activists (especially the ones who so strongly support this video) and could go a long way to alienating the fence sitters we can and should be trying hard to woo.It's worth noting that the videos featured in this film have been in evidence now for quite some time. Nothing that hasn't been presented many times before on the subject of September 11th is being divulged in "911: In Plane Site." This becomes an important point when we attempt to assess the veracity of the outfit that produced this film and consider whether or not they, in fact, have this movement's best interests at heart.
Towards that end let me say this. Whatever respect I may've generated for this film rapidly disintegrated when the subject turned to the obviously enhanced video "evidence" of the impacts of Flights 11 and 175 used by vonKleist in his "investigation." The flashes we see as the film is slowed down have clearly been accentuated for emphasis, making them useless to all but the most casual viewers and simultaneously obliterating any professional regard I may've had for these "researchers."
... watch the "flashes" in these videos smoothly fade in and out while the rest of the video clunks along, frame by frame. The "flashes" are too bright as well, even in comparison to the other footage they show elsewhere in the same film. Clearly this video has been tampered with, and you don't need to be an expert to see it.
But stressing the significance of "pods" and "flashes" in 9/11 presentations at all, is, I believe, ill-considered. We must always lead with what lawyers call "best evidence,"
and leave the more flimsy stuff for another time. These esoteric elements of the 9/11 discussion -- even if they may have some validity -- are potential spoilers that may or may not prove...what? Well, vonKleist doesn't say. Certainly, if you have a theory about something that was done, doesn't it then become relatively important to offer some explanation of why it was done?
I'm troubled, as well, by the finality with which our narrator dismisses various issues. The idea that the planes that hit the WTC may have been privately owned (rather than military) has never been settled conclusively, but vonKleist smugly dismisses this possibility without the slightest explanation -- twice.
And as for "pods," well, vonKleist calls the video evidence supporti