In Plane Site

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 (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 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 -- 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.
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.

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

detailed reviews

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 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 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


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


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).



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.



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, 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.



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
"911: In Plane Site" - a bad joke hidden "in plain sight"
"911 - In Plane Site: A Critical Review" by Jeremy Baker
Video debunking of several "planesite" claims by 9/11 Visibility Project member
16 November 2004: Jimmy Walter, a sugar daddy with poison pills
(millionaire promoter of "In Plane Site" at
Dave Von Kleist, lost in foam
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

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.
a short video rebuttal to "Plane Site"

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?

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.

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]

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" <>
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" <>
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

(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 [] 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"
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

"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 supporting this peculiar phenomenon "irrefutable." Well, let the refutation begin.
The guys who pulled off this "op" may be dumb, but they're not so dumb as to attach a large, highly visible incendiary device to the bottom of a plane that they knew would be showing its belly proudly on every TV set on the planet after Flight 11 flew into the north tower. Additionally, in the movie Liberty Bound (and elsewhere I'm sure) there's excellent footage of Flight 175 ˜ a flat silhouette from straight-on -- that clearly shows no "pod" at all. It's AWOL, as well, from the footage we saw on network videos of Flight 175 taken from the northwest (the plane entering from the right) that shows the jet's underbelly at the perfect angle for an exciting glimpse of "pod." Mais non. Il ne "pod" pas.
The object in question is best described as an existing structural feature highlighted by the sharp angle of the morning sun. But don't try to tell "Pod People" that. Whatever that shadow play beneath Flight 175 is, we defeat ourselves if we place an untoward amount of emphasis on it. Why feature questionable evidence when we have so much quality information at our fingertips? Isn't it true that serious, professional researchers would, absolutely, take a hard line on these kinds of issues?
A similar apparition is presented to us in a short snippet (just a few frames) of what we‚re told is a huge, ground level explosion between Tower 1 and WTC 7. But again, under the most cursory examination, it turns out to be still more 9/11 fools gold, and yet another good reason to steer clear of this film.
Both the CNN footage of a huge cloud of white "smoke" rising fast over WTC 7 and the still photo vonKleist shows us at the end of the segment have, I'm afraid, been dealt us from the bottom of the deck.
Network video (and common sense) from that morning clearly shows that the clip in question was taken seconds after the collapse of Tower 2, the rising "smoke" being just the first billowing cloud of white demo-dust (not the black smoke we saw in the other explosions that day). And the vertical shaft of dust to the right of the north tower (singular) indicates where tower 2 had stood burning only seconds before.
But, before he's through, our narrator sets up the still photo mentioned above by asking us: "Is there any other photographic evidence that might show an the north and west of the World Trade Towers before the collapse?" He then inserts a photo, supposedly illustrative of this curiosity. But the photo is illustrative of one thing alone -- that it's been pilfered from the tail end of a video clip showing the first collapse.Look at the picture. The building in the center is a corner view of WTC 1. I have the video that the picture was taken from. It begins with a low angle perspective of the collapse of Tower 2 starting at the top and ending with the scene in the photo. This shameful chicanery (or outrageous incompetence) is yet another suspicious example of this film's dubious pedigree, and certainly one of the most appalling.
But the part of "911: In Plane Site" that I've most often heard disparaged is contained in a video shot just after the collision of Flight 175. In it we see the north tower on fire with additional smoke billowing up from behind and some shocked spectators in the foreground, one of whom yells; "That was not an American Airlines...That was not an American Airlines."
Hmm. Now what would make a person in that situation say such a thing? Think about it. What possible circumstances would compel a panicked bystander to specifically state that the plane that just struck the south tower was "...not an American Airlines"?
This single ingredient in "911: In Plane Site" is, by far, the most suspicious. It is exactly the kind of possible fabrication that detractors could attack as being just that -- a falsehood 9/11 people dubbed into a video intended to deceitfully enhance their position
(that substitute planes hit the Twin Towers) thus discrediting "911: In Plane Site," and a fair percentage of our swarthy movement as well.
Surely we need to be more careful of this sort of thing, especially as this video is increasingly touted by otherwise credible 9/11 activists and researchers. The fact that this movie contains a fair amount of good information and some seminal 9/11 video makes it all the worse when, finally, the trap is sprung and all the movie's contents are smeared by association.
But, as if all this weren't strange enough, consider this. The video mentioned above was taken from the northwest. The south tower is completely obscured by the north tower. Flight 175 came in low, towards us from the south, as far away as you can be in this view and, to a large extent, behind the towers. How could that woman see Flight 175 in any detail in the first place? And if she did, how would she see it as anything other than a tiny, front-on silhouette, indicating, at best, a passenger jet of no particular distinction?Oddly, telephoto-eyesight is enjoyed, as well, by the man (a Fox employee) who claimed to have seen strange, circular markings on the front of Flight 175. He said that he saw no windows on the plane either. Only later does he mention that he was in Brooklyn at the time.
The network video of this aircraft was presumably taken from a far more advantageous angle than this man could possibly have had and it didn't show us the markings he (or anyone else) described from any angle. And the next time you see an old photo of the WTC taken from across the East River ask yourself if you could have made out that much detail in a plane from that far away.
As far as this film is concerned, if it is a sandbag job, the proof will undoubtedly come in the form of a mainstream attack that will pick out these blatant red-herrings and use them to blast the other good stuff out of the water, and thus, discredit the movie and the 9/11 skeptics community in one fell swoop.
Problem is, some of these hokey, amateur productions do this without even trying. Even if this film is (at very least) an honest effort, it's not nearly of a caliber for any serious 9/11 skeptic to support as representative of this movement, and I strongly advise 9/11 researchers and activists everywhere to use common sense and good judgement when recommending or presenting this material.
And remember. This is the attacks of September 11th 2001, we're talking about. If government complicity in this sprawling crime is a reality, this already grave subject becomes exponentially more horrendous historically. The 9/11 visibility movement must begin taking itself seriously, and the knee-jerk support this new film has enjoyed does not reflect an attitude that we, as researchers and activists, should display as we attempt to expose this epic coverup.
There's one small thing in the movie that I do like, though. I'd always heard that not once but twice G-dub made public statements in which he specifically refers to watching Flight 11's impact on a monitor before entering the classroom in Florida that morning. This is odd, of course, considering that the only known footage of the first collision hadn't been available for hours.
"911: In Plane Site" includes audio of the one occasion I'd only read a transcript of. Hearing Bush's astounding admission from his own mouth on two separate occasions, well, it just doesn't get any better than that.

Copyright 2004 by Darkprints


Pod supporters promote propaganda to the media

An effort to convince KQED (San Francisco public television) that "planesite" is the 9/11 truth movement -- an excellent way to convince the media that the best claims of complicity are based on photoshopped hoaxes


Date Wed, 25 Aug 2004 3:18 PM
From JSalans
To sf911physicalevidence
Subject Re: [SF911PE]Issues with the List Topics
I support ALL of that info. A video makes a strong statement. If we could publish a video of Jim Hoffman's facts with the videos of the day that would be perfection for me, but I will take what I have to teach the friends in my circle the lies of 9-11. It doesn't detract from the story, it uses the shock to wake people up who can then absorb what I have learned over the last three years. Its additive not exclusive.

Date Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:22 AM
From JSalans
Subject [SF911PE]Request to show video

I have been studying the research that both mainstream media and internet researchers have been doing in regards to the events of 9-11-01. The two commission's that have completed their work only delved into the story of 9-11 with the supposition that it was carried out by 19 muslims under the tutelage of Osama Bin Laden. No official study has been done without these blinders of who was guilty.
It is my contention that some other group perpetrated these horrendous acts on that day, and a video named "9-11 In Plane Site" does justice to the hypothesis it had to be some kind of "inside job", where the perpetrators could alter the normal operating procedures of NORAD, the CIA, the FBI, the FAA and set demolition charges in three of the WTC buildings.
This video proves without much doubt, that there was no 767 plane wreckage on the Pentagon site, that the hole in the Pentagon could not have been made by a fully fuel loaded 767, but more likely a cruise missile. We know Osama does not have this capability. Watching the WTC towers explode, just after a ground explosion in front of the buildings occurred, watching WTC7 collapse in perfect controlled fashion and then hearing and seeing Larry Silverstein tell the story that he ordered the building to be "pulled" is further proof of an inside job (with Larry being one of the culprits).
Since this event has allowed our government to destroy two countries and kill thousands of innocent people, and to take away American freedoms, I think in the name of our democracy and freedoms we have no choice but to seek the truth on this issue. This video does a fine job of starting that process, and I think it worthy of being shown on KQED TV.

Thank you,
Josh Salans
Sunnyvale, CA

[note: as discussed above, the "planesite" film does gross injustice to the "inside job" thesis, since most of the claims in the film are easily debunked. The evidence of a "ground explosion" at the WTC is really a photo of the South Tower collapse dust cloud


KPFK Pacifica Radio promotes In Plane Site

In 2002, KPFK attacked 9/11 skeptics,
in 2004, it started promoting hoaxes about 9/11 complicity

Wednesday August 4th - Long Beach
St. Lukes Episcopal Church
525 E 7th St Long Beach 90813

Friday August 6th - Los Angeles
Immanuel Presbyterian Church
3300 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles 90010

Saturday August 7th - Santa Barbara
2pm – 5pm
Trinity Episcopal Church
1500 State St Santa Barbara 93101

While these events are FREE to the public
on a first come, first served basis,
copies of the film will be available for a small donation



Letter to KPFK radio

From: Mark Robinowitz
Subject: Re: KPFK radio (Los Angeles) promotion of "In Plane Site," a disinformation "documentary" that distracts and discredits the 9/11 Truth Movement

Eva Georgia
KPFK General Manager
(818) 985-2711  Ext: 503

Dear Ms. Georgia:

I am a member of the 9/11 truth movement, a social justice effort that works to expose evidence for Bush regime complicity in the September 11th attacks. I publish -- a website that is part of the "Deception Dollar" campaign. I co-organized a very successful public event with David Ray Griffin on July 28, author of "The New Pearl Harbor," which had about 450 attendees (in Eugene, Oregon). Dr. Griffin was a guest on KPFK last month. has very detailed information on the 9/11 wargames done by the military and intelligence agencies that probably paralyzed the response to the hijackings, the circumstantial evidence for remote control of the planes, the role of oil and peak oil in 9/11 and the Iraq war, election tampering, elite selection of candidates, electronic voting machines, the role of the anthrax attacks in the passage of the USA Patriot Act, fascism and Homeland Security. Two of the most important pages are "Understanding 9/11 paradigms: Incompetence, Blowback, Perle Harbor or Reichstag Fire?" and "The archeology of 9/11 evidence." These essays are part of what will be a published book in the near future.

It pains me to have to appear as a critic of an effort claiming to expose the 9/11 scam, but the "truth" of this situation is that the film "911: In Plane Site," which KPFK is promoting, is an effort to drown out truth with distraction and disinformation that discredits by association.

I have very mixed feelings about KPFK's promotion next week of the "In Plane Site" film. On the one hand, it is nice to see a Pacifica station clearly stating that 9/11 was probably an "inside job." On the other hand, the "In Plane Site" is a mix of proven evidence and ridiculous, blatant disinformation that "muddies the waters" of truth. In Plane Site has so many severe errors, misrepresentations, doctored video, a fake audio track that pretends to be evidence that it discredits the legitimate indpendent efforts to investigate what actually happened on 9/11. A detailed review of this film is posted at

A couple of the lies that are in this film:-- the outrageous nonsense that there was a "pod" attached to the underside of Flight 175, which hit the South Tower (the second strike). None of the "pod people" who promote this claim on various websites that have materialized in the past few months have been able to produce a single quality photo that actually shows this. Blurry, altered photos that magically appear on anonymous websites two years after 9/11 are only evidence of peoples' gullibility (and possibly, an official disinformation COINTELPRO campaign against the 9/11 Truth Movement).

-- 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 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, and more likely, sitting in the studio during the manufacture of this film). 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 American Airlines?" 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." In a court of law, this would be immediately dismissed, and I think this example, which the video claims is a central piece of evidence, shows something worse than mere sloppiness.
It is important for the 9/11 "truth" movement to expose this deception, which seeks to distract and discredit the hard work that has been done for three years to compile credible evidence of official complicity.
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 Plane Site shows a photo of the Pentagon repair that claims that there wasn't a severe fire in the area that was struck, although other parts of the film show that the fires went much further than the area in this photo. 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 clearly shows additional supports placed to shore up the damaged building, placed long 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 well 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 you can't prove it is even a book, let alone whether the pages are unsinged or not, whether the book was part of the repairs being made weeks after the event or not..
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). In contrast, the film "Painful Deceptions" has a scene that focuses on this aspect. See for details.The best part of Plane Site is the video footage of WTC Building 7, which clearly was a demolition. But "Painful Deceptions," although flawed, is a much better film, and also includes of these film clips. (The event with David Griffin showed the "Painful Deceptions" segment on Building 7.)

-- In Plane Site claims that a photo of the South Tower collapse is really an image of a giant explosion at the base of the twin towers. If you watch this horrid film, look at the right side of this photo, which clearly shows the dust plume created by the collapse. Other photos of the South Tower collapse also show the gigantic plume to the left of the towers which "plane site" claims is a giant explosion. There is a fair amount of evidence for controlled demolition, especially of the 47 story Building 7 (which was not hit by a plane nor by the collapsing towers), but the bogus material in "Plane Site" isn't helpful to exposing this issue.

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, and to package it with decent cover art lifted from other people's work (for example, the Osama picture on the cover is the same image as used on Alex Jones's "9/11: The road to tyranny," available through When I was in school, this was called plagiary, and it was cause for being expelled. Now, 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 I always prefer 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 an incompetent scam that should be shunned by KPFK.

In Plane Site and the corporate media share one disturbing practice -- show the footage of the 9/11 crashes over and over for shock value, and then provide blatant disinformation while the viewers recall their shock from the events. The corporate media role was summarized well by Barrie Zwicker, who stated in "The Great Deception" that "the psychological trick at the heart of September 11th, by the way, is that people confuse their compassion for the victims with their certainty about who the perpetrators are. The public was presented with instant perpetrators. The trick will most likely continue working for all future planned invasions – looks as if Iraq is next – so long as the public remains blindfolded by the media."

In contrast, In Plane Site promotes evidence-less theories and obvious misinformation woven in with shocking stock footage of the attacks and some real, shocking footage of the demolition of WTC Building 7. A few 9/11 activists have been fooled into thinking that In Plane Site is a real documentary, and are unable (or unwilling) to point out that parts of Plane Site are phony propaganda. I was amused a few weeks ago to be threatened by William Lewis, the producer of "In Plane Site," with a lawsuit for daring to point out that the advertising for this film ( contains misinformation. (The complete film is much worse than their website, since the most blatant nonsense is buried in the film, and not publicized on their webpage.) The producer posted on his site the claim that I hadn't actually written a review of their website's bogus claims, and that "Mark Rabinowitz" had recanted the claims. However, they did manage to send me via my correct email their threat of litigation, so their claims of incompetence are suspect. Mr. Lewis later admitted to an author who inquired as to their incredible screwup that "I guess it is painfully clear that I am a film director, not a private investigator." Thiis story is described in more detail at

I hope, if you look closely at this bogus film, that you will choose to substitute a genuine film series that accurate exposes official complicity in 9/11. To date, the best film on the topic is "The Great Deception" by Vision TV of Toronto, Ontario. Barrie Zwicker, who is the host of the film, is currently working on an update (it originally aired in January and February 2002 - the first film to talk about Bush's bizarre behavior in the elementary school that morning). The 911 Truth LA group has a copy of this.

You could also invite Michael Ruppert ( to give a presentation about 9/11 evidence and his forthcoming book "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" He is local to your station, and is one of the best speakers on this crucial topic. I urge you to invite him onto KPFK to promote his extremely important book, and organize public meetings with him. (After learning about "Plane Site," Fromthewilderness removed their link to "power hour," on their links page.)

Another Los Angeles area website that KPFK should promote is

A great mistake has been made to promote "In Plane Site," a disinformation film that seeks to hijack a growing social movement with easily disproven doctored evidence. I hope that over the next few days, KPFK can rectify this by withdrawing the offer to sponsor this film and its narrator, and substitute genuine experts with an accurate attention to detail. The deceptions by the film's producers constitute a valid reason to withdraw the invitation, and to substitute accurate information about the 9/11 scam for your audiences.

Pacifica's National Correspondent, Larry Bensky, who is based at KPFA in Berkeley, is extremely hostile to any suggestions that the Bush regime was complicit in any way with 9/11. Promoting the obviously bogus 911inplanesite film is going to give supporters of the official story such as Bensky incredible ammunition to attack genuine investigators such as Michael Ruppert and others who have worked very hard to compile enormous amounts of documented evidence for official foreknowledge and complicity in "the event that changed the world." You can read an interesting exchange of letters about 9/11 between Mr. Bensky and I at

In solidarity,
Mark Robinowitz


from Nicholas Levis,

Message Subject: Please Show a Real 9/11 Documentary!

Dear KPFK People,

As an activist of the 9/11 truth movement, I am normally thrilled whenever anyone works to expose the official story of 9/11 as a lie. Unfortunately, I fear that your sponsorship of the highly flawed film "In Plane Site" will have the opposite effect. I write to urge you to withdraw this film and to show and promote other films that also reject the official story, but do so in a serious fashion.

I am disheartened to see you passing up many excellent films that present alternative narratives on 9/11, for example:

Barrie Zwicker's "The Great Deception"
Shadow Government Television's "Osama Is a Bush" (SGTV 1-3)
Michael Ruppert's "Truth and Lies of 9-11"
Guerilla News Network's "AfterMath: Unanswered Questions from 9/11"
Eric Hufschmid's "Painful Deceptions"

None of these films are perfect or necessarily right in every claim; in fact, they even disagree on some items. But each takes a thoughtful, critical-minded approach and uses normal standards of fact-checking and logic.

Since Sept. 11, many researchers have employed the "best evidence" to build a credible and complete case that elements of the U.S. government had specific advance knowledge of the attacks and were almost certainly complicit in engineering 9/11. Examples of this work can be reviewed at sites like (home of "The Complete 9/11 Timeline") and, which contains links to diverse research and activist sites. Many 9/11 researchers subjected their work to peer review at gatherings like the two-phase "International Inquiry into 9-11," held last March in San Francisco and last May in Toronto (see and Many video clips of speakers at the San Francisco and Toronto Inquiries are available on the Web - see the list of links below.

Now along comes this late entry, "In Plane Site," produced by a fundamentalist Christian radio show and featuring shoddy logic, obvious misinformation, and cheap stunts that look almost as though designed to be easily discredited. This film is like a lunatic who screams outlandish and obviously false things, effectively tarnishing the work of the serious researchers.

What is wrong with "In Plane Site"? Let us look at the site promoting the film and consider some of the claims:

- There is no evidence that a "pod" was attached to the bottom of the plane hitting the South Tower. What you see in the "pod" photos is actually the normal 767 undercarriage design. The images of an alleged "pod" are artefacts produced by the angle of the plane and the sunlight. One of the usual bulges on either side of the undercarriage (where the wings attach to the lower fuselage) appears slightly more prominent than the other (which is also visible). Look at any picture of a 767 undercarriage and you will see these bulges on the undercarriage. Worse, the pod myth promoters generally make use of low-resolution images taken from video clips of the attacks, in which all of the shapes are too vague to tell anything for sure. The pod is an illusion.

- No one ever noticed a "flash" at the moment of impact until recently. Could it be the product of photo-shop? Possibly not, since if you look carefully, the flash happens exactly in the split-second of initial impact, and exactly at the point where the nosecone first touches the building. Which means what? Impact produces heat. You are seeing the spark of metal against metal, before the rest of the plane goes in and obscures it. Nothing indicates that the passenger plane fired a missile or other "anomaly."

- "Why does AN eyewitness report seeing no windows on Flight 175..." This is evidence?! Again, low resolution pictures do not establish "no windows" on the plane. And what kind of conspirators would risk such a thing?

- "If both towers are still standing, what caused this huge explosion at the base of the WTC complex?" The conditional phrase suggests a sense of humor on the part of the likely scam artists who made this video. Look again: both towers are not standing. The South Tower collapsed several seconds before this shot. The "explosion" is actually a Godzilla-sized plume of dust from the South Tower collapse. View footage of the South Tower collapse from a greater distance and you will see clearly how several mammoth dust plumes, including the one in the picture, formed along the lines of least resistance, moved outward, and ran into surrounding buildings.

- Were there really "dozens of reports" of bombs and explosions before any buildings collapsed? One could hear bodies and debris hitting the ground, and this was very loud. Even granting that the the buildings may have been brought down by an explosive demolition, why would anyone who wanted to demolish the buildings engage in "foreplay explosions" in advance of the actual demolition? Does this make any sense?

The stronger points made by the site and film - which could also be wrong - are secondary to these obvious red-herrings, and so are discredited by association. This indicates a misinformation campaign. Perhaps they are actively trying to make 9/11 skeptics look ridiculous.

I urge you please to sample the vast resources of good work on the web, decide for yourselves whom among the many serious researchers within the 9/11 movement you wish to contact, and put together programming about 9/11 based on the best evidence, not ridiculous red herrings like "In Plane Site." Just published, The 9/11 Commission Report is full of omissions and contradictions. Over the next few weeks, there is a golden opportunity to expose the report as a whitewash. That cause is ill-served by the likes of "In Plane Site," which only muddies the waters.

Here, from various web sites, are video/audio resources with material from San Francisco, Toronto, and other events this year:

Snowshoe Films
One-on-one interviews and footage of speakers at San Francisco and Toronto Inquiries: Schoenman, Ruppert, Mariani, Joyce Lynn, Mariani, Ahmed, Zwicker, Gagnon, Brechin, and more.

TUC Radio
San Francisco audio tapes: Opening Press Conference (excellent group effort), Thompson, Lynn, Ruppert, Heinberg, plus interviews with David Ray Griffin and Greg Palast and a tape of the "Behind Every Terrorist There Is a Bush" comedy benefit in February.

9/11 Busters
The entire San Francisco Inquiry seems to be up here in video snippets, 20-25 speakers.

Clarity video "Buddy Buddy" (about airforce standdown)

"Unwelcome Guests" radio
Shows #203-207 so far are audio records of five full sessions of the San Francisco inquiry.

9/11 Visibility video page
Grey, Kubiak, Hellyer, Sferios, Mariani, Douglas, mostly Toronto.
Douglas, Mariani, Mariani, from Toronto & KC.

Thank you and all the best,

Nicholas Levis


Bogus film producers get on the defensive, but refuse to provide actual evidence for their claims

re: phony claims by the "Power Hour," producers of "9/11: In Plane Site" film

1. The author of this bogus story can't even spell my name correctly.
2. The story claims that the producer contacted me on my cell phone. Nice prose, but totally untrue (I didn't even have a cell phone on the date in question).
3. The article of voluminous size that mentioned the "in plane site" video contained only a small amount of writing about this film. But after this episode, the "bogus" article will now highlight their efforts much more.
4. The 9/11 In Plane Site website claims that a photo of the South Tower collapse is actually a large explosion at the base of the towers (and therefore that proves demolition of the towers). There is evidence for demolition, especially of the nearby WTC 7 building, but this website (inplanesite) discredits serious, factual efforts to rebut the official story. This is incredibly sloppy. Looking at the advertisement of the film ( is sufficient to see that the film is bogus, there's no need to send $19.95 plus shipping to the producers.
5. At 7:50 pm (west coast time) on July 14, I was at a presentation on solar energy. A google search of the "power hour" phone number suggests they are in Missouri (central time), but this is a mere distraction. The producers, nor anyone else associated with this campaign, has ever contacted me, by email, snail mail or phone. I'm sure a competent intelligence agency could create a fake long distance telephone bill with my phone number on it, but they would probably spell my name correctly. This seems to be merely someone's hyperactive imagination.

I don't know if this fiction (of their contacting me to find that someone is masquerading as myself) is evidence that they are a COINTELPRO operation or not. But it is conclusive proof that they don't give a damn about the truth, and that they are obviously desperate that their bogus film might be a flop. Their devotion to accuracy in their report of their alleged conversation with me is about as accurate as their claims on their "911inplanesite" website, and it would be best for the cause of exposing Bush regime complicity in 9/11 if they merely slink away in embarrassment.
The real "masquerading" that is going on is the "power hour's" claim to have spoken with me to get my retraction. I suspect this tactic (make a fake interview) will backfire on them, and draw more attention to the bogus 9/11 websites that have popped up in recent months to muddy the waters with easily disproved material that discredits the detailed, multiple sourced evidence of Bush regime complicity in 9/11.
My philosophy is things are bad enough, there is no need to make things up that aren't true. The "power hour" may be proven correct that there will ultimately be "masses of people" demanding 9/11 truth as part of the efforts to stop world war and redirect military spending for our collective survival after the oil age is over. However, it is unlikely that sloppy films based on photoshopped images and blatant misrepresentations will accomplish that goal - there's more than enough credible evidence in the public domain to show how 9/11 was deliberately allowed (if not engineered) to provide the pretext for the oil wars and "Homelaned Security" The "power hour" website, which has material not based on any actual evidence, is reminiscent of similar campaigns against the citizen investigators of the coup against President Kennedy - promote wingnut ideas that can be easily disproven in order to tar by association the legitimate information. Thanks to the sloppiness of the Power Hour's fake claims of my retraction of my review of their site, more people will understand this tactic.
Mark Robinowitz


Power Hour smear campaign
Dis-Information Campaign Begins
Weeks Before 911 Video Is Released
911 In Plane Site Review Purportedly Written by Mark Rabinowitz
Revealed As Fraudulent, According to Rabinowitz
Almost three weeks ago, an article of voluminous proportions began to circulate on the Internet.  Is was a scathing review of "911 In Plane Site" ostensibly written by Mark Rabinowitz and posted on numerous web sites three weeks before any review copies had even been mailed to press agents or media reviewers. 
The review raised serious questions as to the integrity of the documentary and immediately began to disassemble two years of research into what really happened on September 11, 2001.  The reviewer made unsupported accusations that the video footage was of poor quality and had somehow been manipulated using Photoshop.  Nothing could have been further from the truth.  The entire mission of the production was to take footage directly from CNN, FOX, ABC and all of the other independent networks and present them in their original form in order to show incipient duplicity on the part of the very networks entrusted with safeguarding the American people through the transmission of fundamental truth.
Immediately, we began to scratch our heads in wonderment.  How could someone have written a review of a film which they had never seen?  Furthermore... Why would they do it?  I suspect that you already know the answer to these questions, but please read further.
Over the past few weeks, I had made several attempts to contact Mr. Rabinowitz with the intension of offering him a preview copy of the video so that he could at least watch the film and write a genuine review article.  I was convinced that if he were to simply make an inspection of the evidence contained therein, he would presumably change his mind.  I also wanted an explanation for the unfounded attack.
At roughly 7:50 P.M. on Wednesday, July 14, 2004, the phone rang.  It was Mark Rabinowitz returning my phone call.  He first questioned me as to how I was able to obtain his cell number here in the states.  I explained that I had been a radio producer for a number of years and in that occupation it is essential to be able to track down, locate and contact people.
Now it was my turn to needle in a question.  I described the article that was circulating on the Internet and ask him why he had felt so inclined to write such a distortion of the facts.  To my surprise, he immediately plead his innocence.  According to Mr. Rabinowitz, he has never written any such article nor would he ever write a review of a film that he has never seen.  He turned out to be quite knowledgeable on the topic of "911" and we ended up having a very pleasant, albeit brief, conversation.  I tend to believe Mr. Rabinowitz and I take him at his word.
Yes, indeed, ladies and gentlemen - the disinformation blitzkrieg has begun, and I suspect that it's only going to get worse as the news of this documentary begins to reach the masses of people who will no doubt be stunned and infuriated after learning the truth behind the 911 mask of beguilement and obfuscation.  There will, no doubt, be masses of people who will finally discover that they were not told the truth and will demand straightforward answers and command in unity, with a single voice, "We want justice..."
So when you're out there surfing the Internet and come across an article entitled "Bogus 9/11 Sites," keep in mind that the only thing bogus, is the article that you are reading.
William Lewis
Here is one of the links to the article allegedly written by Mark Rabinowitz:
Click Here To View Full Article
Contact   News Archive   News Links   The Police State CD    911-In Plane Site Video
To the person masquerading as Mark Rabinowitz:
From: Mark Robinowitz mark @
"911 In Plane Site," a new movie by a website called "The Power
Hour," mixes accurate material about September 11 with easily
disproved, bogus information. It is toxic to the cause of exposing
, since much of it is based on poor quality, manipulated photos and misunderstandings...
Reference: html
I have personally spoken with Mark Rabinowitz. He denies having
written any review of "911 In Plane Site," furthermore, he plans
to investigate any activities involving fraudulent articles posted
under his name.
I strongly suggest before possible charges are filed, that you
remove any material from your website written by Mr. Rabinowitz
until you can verify its authenticity
For a complete explanation, please refer to the following link:

Best Regards,
William Lewis
BridgeStone Media Group 


Plane Site film director admits he's not an investigator

Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:51:08 -0400
From: "William" <>
To: [email removed to prevent spamming]
Subject: Rabinowitz
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:48:39 -0500
Message-ID: <>

Dear xxxxx,
It is my estimation that you have been in contact with
Mark Rabinowitz, not to be mistaken for Mark Robinowitz.
I guess it is painfully clear that I am a film director,
not a private investigator.
Certain issues have come to
my attention which need immediate clarification.
The Mark Rabinowitz who I contacted writes reviews under
the title "The Rabbi Report."
I am afraid that I made a terrible mistake in assuming
that this was "Mark Robinowitz" as I hastily compiled a
rebuttal of the extremely chastising review which now
appears in many newsgroups. Obviously this was a mis-
take on my part.
Please accept my sincere apologies. Apparently Mark
Robinowitz of did write the review
which you questioned me about today.
I hope this incident will be cleared up and that there
will be no harsh feelings between us.
(please keep this email private)
Best Regards,
William Lewis


Original review of "plane site" promotional material
(based on Power Hour's website)

"911 In Plane Site," a new movie by a website called "The Power Hour," mixes accurate material about September 11 with easily disproved, bogus information. It is toxic to the cause of exposing 9/11 truth, since much of it is based on poor quality, manipulated photos and misunderstandings.

from the film:
What is this "pod" attached to the bottom of "Flight 175" and why is it there
What is this bright flash seen right before impact of both the North & South Towers
Why did an eye witness report seeing no windows on "Flight 175" a commercial United Airlines jetliner

[rebuttal: poor quality, altered images are not a basis for making new, implausible theories of 9/11 conspiracies - they only serve to discredit the proven material that shows it was not a surprise attack and probably was an "inside job." Photoshop is an amazing tool.]

from the film:
If both towers are still standing, what caused this huge explosion at the base of the WTC complex

[rebuttal: the photo that this references is actually of the collapse of the South Tower, partially obscured by the still standing North Tower. The billowing dust next to WTC 7 is not from a "huge explosion," it is the result of the South Tower collapse dust cloud. This one is extremely easy to rebut.]

from the film:
How does a plane 125 ft. wide & 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across

[rebuttal: the hole is about the diameter of the fuselage of the plane. None of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theories analyze the fact that the building had been massively reinforced, and the physics of the crash were not those of a normal building. There were LOTS of eyewitnesses who saw the plane crash - see for some of this information. But the real issue, which is not disputed, is that the Pentagon was hit in the nearly empty sector, which minimized casualties.

from the film:
Why did firefighters, reporters and other eye witnesses describe a pancake collapse of the WTC

[this is true -- there were eyewitnesses who definitely did think the buildings were intentionally demolished. But the "pancake" theory is not intentional demolition.]

from the film:
Why is there no wreckage or crater from "Flight 77" on the lawn of the Pentagon

[rebuttal: There was lots of tiny wreckage on the lawn. The crater was in the side of the building. Plane crashes at 400 mph into extra reinforced concrete / steel generally don't leave large pieces of wreckage.]

from the film:
Why were there dozens of reports of bombs & explosions going off in and around the WTC before any buildings collapsed

[rebuttal: There were also reports of explosions at the State Department in Washington and other locations that turned out to have been false.]

from the film:
How does a 757 exit the Pentagon's 3rd ring & leave a hole approximately 16 ft. across with no visible wreckage

[note: this is an anomaly that is very difficult to explain. If it really is true that the plane did go through several rings of the Pentagon, that would be strong evidence for the something-other-than-a-plane theory. However, there were way too many witnesses from a variety of backgrounds who saw a large jet at the Pentagon. The real, 100% provable fact of the Pentagon crash, which nobody disputes, is that the Pentagon was hit in the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector, which minimized casualties. See and for details.]

While it is true that 9/11 was an "inside job," bogus claims based on altered images that make no sense only discredit factual inquiry into "the event that changed the world."