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 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 explosion...to 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
Comments? web_wender@hotmail.com

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 @aol.com
To sf911physicalevidence @cosmicpenguin.com
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.
Josh

Date Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:22 AM
From JSalans @aol.com
To tv@kqed.org
Subject [SF911PE]Request to show video

Gentlemen,
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

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

http://kpfk.org/content.shtml#plane
KPFK PROUDLY PRESENTS
3 FREE SCREENINGS OF “911 IN PLANE SITE”
A DOCUMENTARY ON THE LARGEST COVER-UP IN MODERN HISTORY
WITH SPECIAL GUEST
DAVE VONKLIEST

Wednesday August 4th - Long Beach
7:30pm-10pm
St. Lukes Episcopal Church
525 E 7th St Long Beach 90813

Friday August 6th - Los Angeles
7pm-10pm
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
Email: GM@kpfk.org

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 www.oilempire.us -- 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.

Oilempire.us 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 http://www.oilempire.us/understanding.html "Understanding 9/11 paradigms: Incompetence, Blowback, Perle Harbor or Reichstag Fire?" and http://www.oilempire.us/911intro.html "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 http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#planesite

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 http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html 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 infowars.com) 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 (http://911inplanesite.com) 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 http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#planesite

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 (www.fromthewilderness.com) 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 www.cryptogon.com

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 http://www.oilempire.us/denial.html

In solidarity,
Mark Robinowitz

from Nicholas Levis, 911truth.org

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 cooperativeresearch.org (home of "The Complete 9/11 Timeline") and 911Truth.org, 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 911Inquiry.org and communitycurrency.org). 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
www.snowshoefilms.com
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
http://tucradio.org
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
http://911busters.com
The entire San Francisco Inquiry seems to be up here in video snippets, 20-25 speakers.

Clarity video "Buddy Buddy" (about airforce standdown)
www.ericblumrich.com/buddy.html

"Unwelcome Guests" radio
www.radio4all.org/unwelcome/archive.html
Shows #203-207 so far are audio records of five full sessions of the San Francisco inquiry.

9/11 Visibility video page
www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/
Grey, Kubiak, Hellyer, Sferios, Mariani, Douglas, mostly Toronto.
digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/movieMedia.htm
Douglas, Mariani, Mariani, from Toronto & KC.

Thank you and all the best,

Nicholas Levis
911Truth.org

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 (911inplanesite.com) 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
oilempire.us

www.policestate21.com/rabinowitz.html
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.
Sincerely,
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
(THIS IS A COURTESY EMAIL)
To the person masquerading as Mark Rabinowitz:
---------------------EXCERPT---------------------
From: Mark Robinowitz mark @ oilempire.us
"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...
(THIS ARTICLE CONTINUES)
Reference:
http://www.talkaboutgovernment.com/group/alt.politics.media/messages/196650. html
---------------------EXCERPT---------------------
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:
http://www.policestate21.com/rabinowitz.html

Best Regards,
William Lewis
BridgeStone Media Group 
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:51:08 -0400
From: "William" <william@policestate21.com>
To: [email removed to prevent spamming]
Subject: Rabinowitz
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:48:39 -0500
Message-ID: <NIBBKGOKALBHEJKCIOPPCELLCDAA.william@policestate21.com>

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 www.oilempire.us 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

"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.
http://www.911inplanesite.org

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 http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html 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 www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html and www.oilempire.us/remote.html 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."