911 In Plane Site Rewound
A ‘hit piece’ in Popular Mechanics magazine
pulls the trigger
on a 911 movie’s many suspicious flaws
Jeremy
Baker
In 2004, the video 911 In Plane Site, a
52 minute documentary produced by filmmakers William Lewis and Dave vonKliest
of the Power Hour, was released for sale on the internet. This film — a
purported overview of the case being compiled by 9/11 researchers and activists
that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the attacks of September 11th
were essentially an inside job — enjoyed, from the outset, an inexplicable
popularity among the broad community of 9/11 skeptics that was wildly
disproportionate to the quality of its content. In comparison, other far better
films on 9/11 have struggled to find distribution and attract attention. But,
as this film’s veracity was examined by the best and most knowledgable figures
in the 9/11 truth movement, questions began being asked.
Understandably,
the 9/11 truth movement has attracted all sorts of adherents, credible and otherwise
— a fact that sets the stage for detractors who wish to discredit its message
by shining light on its least worthy proponents. But, if even a small
percentage of what 9/11 researchers have concluded is true (and if so much is
truly at stake) it only stands to reason that such a burgeoning grassroots
movement would be targeted by “operatives” assigned the task of sabotaging and
derailing its credibility — typically by infiltrating its ranks, establishing
an optimum level of acceptance within the movement itself and then, when the
time is right, letting loose with a deluge of false leads and disinformation
that directly impacts the movement’s credibility and compromises its
effectiveness. This strategy, nick-named the “strawman” tactic, is familiar to
career activists well versed in the antics of “co-intelpro,” an intelligence
offensive made famous in the sixties for its infiltration and undermining of
anti-war movements and student activism.
As
911 In Plane Site began its rise to notoriety, a handful of 9/11
activists attempted to alert people to this movie’s myriad flaws and
unaccountably poor research and presentation. If a film of this quality was
produced on any other subject it would be widely condemned for its shoddiness
and irresponsibility. But, unfortunately, many casual enthusiasts of the 9/11
skeptics movement, in their righteous zeal, have impulsively signed on to
various theories and viewpoints without doing their homework. It’s these
well-meaning but incautious people that, I believe, make up the core of 911
In Plane Site’s fan base.
Early
on, before I’d seen the movie, I’d been hearing a lot of hard talk from both
sides. A significant phalanx of 911 In Plane Site supporters had
naturally provoked an increasingly caustic backlash from those who knew (as
I’ve come to know) how potentially damaging this film could be. So, in an
effort to get to the bottom of things, I watched the film, carefully analyzed
every scene and released my findings in a critical review. In particular, I
examined the two most likely scenarios that would result in this film’s
disturbing inaccuracies; 1) It’s either a tabloid fiasco of poor,
sensationalist video journalism, or 2) it’s an intentional attempt to
disseminate crippling disinformation. To this day, I’m not entirely sure which
is the case but in the end it doesn’t really matter, the result is the same —
bogus information masquerading as competent research, held up as being
representative of the movement and readily available as ammunition for our
opponents.
Besides
containing many typos, grammatical mistakes and incidental (but significant)
blunders that lend the film a decidedly hokey, amateur feel, 911 In Plane
Site also includes many examples of so-called “evidence” that the producers
claim are central elements in the case being presented by the best in 9/11
research. But much of the information this video features is based on obscure,
unsubstantiated points that have had their significance exaggerated or
distorted. Many of these inconsequential points have come and gone since the
attacks and have remained, at best, peripheral to quality 9/11 researchers.
But, in 911 In Plane Site, these flimsy points take on a whole new
meaning.
The following is a brief recap of the points
I originally made in my review. Towards the beginning of IPS, the
narrator, Dave vonKliest, tells us that he began his “research” into 9/11 by
studying the myriad picture magazines and books published after 9/11 that he
found in grocery stores. He makes a big point of sorting out a claim made
once in one of these inconsequential books about a 100' wide crater left
by Flight 77 in the Pentagon. His stalwart refutation of this long forgotten
claim adds nothing of value to the debate but does falsely create the illusion
that he’s a tough, no nonsense investigator busy tearing holes in the
“official” story. Later in the movie, he does it again by playing a Fox News
segment in which a man describes Flight 175 (the second plane to hit the
WTC) as having no windows and strange markings, a claim that hasn’t been
supported by a single other witness and has never achieved credibility among
quality 9/11 researchers.
He
then produces a report from an EAA (Environmental Assessors Association)
“specialist” that contains faulty information and bogus conclusions about the
damage a 757 should have made to the Pentagon. This report also makes claims
about the temperature levels required to melt steel with jet fuel — assertions
that fly in the face of everything we know about fuel fires in enclosed spaces.
The
producers also irresponsibly focus on the “pod” and “flash” theories, both of
which are esoteric, technical issues that have effectively distracted attention
from far more central points. Who cares what caliber of gun Boothe used to
shoot Lincoln? But these tangential technical points also have the distressing
potential of making the 9/11 researchers who dwell on them look like tech-nerds
and crackpots. More alarming, however, is the obviously manipulated video that
they use to support these theories — film clips that don’t require a
specialist’s seasoned eye to confirm as being fabrications. Whether or not the
makers of IPS doctored this video or were honestly duped by those who
did is unclear but, given the obvious nature of these video enhancements, they
should certainly have known better.
911
In Plane Site also includes
a segment that references a short video clip that appears to show an explosion
in the vicinity of WTC 6 while both towers were still intact. This clip had, at
one time, attracted attention among 9/11ers but had long since been exposed as
just an odd, anomalous sight gag that merely shows the first billowing cloud of
debris from the collapse of WTC 2, not an unexplained explosion. The video clip
they include and the still image they use to support it are both entirely bogus
and represent either truly bush-league blunders or intentional sleight of hand.
But
the part in 911 In Plane Site that has generated the most suspicion is
contained in a segment espousing the theory that the planes striking the towers
may have been substitute, military cargo planes. Central to this issue,
according to IPS, is a film clip showing witnesses reacting to the
impact of Flight 11 into the North Tower. In this clip, a woman cries out:
“That was not an American airlines...that was not an American airlines,” a
comment they claim supports the theory at hand. But the only interpretation of
this woman’s cryptic remarks that has ever made the slightest sense was that
she meant: “That was a foreign attack on our country,” a statement that
proves absolutely nothing (other than a woman’s rush to judgement) and
contributes even less to the substitute planes theory. But that didn’t keep
Lewis and vonKliest from placing an untoward amount of stress on this flimsy,
ill-considered piece of highly questionable “evidence.”
But
what worries me most about 911 In Plane Site, and other equally
frivolous 9/11 films, books and websites, is this: towards the end of my review
I made what’s proven to be a prophetic remark, specifically that, if this movie
is a setup, “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...” It’s a classic strategy. Juxtapose the responsible
research with the goofy stuff and then pull the trigger — the good gets shot
down with the bad. And it wasn’t long before this very thing happened before
our eyes.
In
the March, 2005, issue of Popular Mechanics, the cover story is devoted
to debunking what they alone call the “16 most common 9/11 lies”
(not mistakes or ill-considered points, lies) put forth by 9/11
researchers and skeptics. I expected this piece to be full of holes and easy to
debunk back, but I had no idea that it would be nearly as flawed as the
9/11 video they mention first in their attack. That’s right, 911 In Plane
Site is first out of the blocks in PM’s hit piece, and no wonder.
It’s rightfully attacked as being a salesman of such ludicrous theories as
the “no windows in Flight 175" hypothesis, the “intriguing” issue of “pods
and flashes” and many other weak and superfluous points.
PM
goes after several other researchers, writers and websites, some that are among
the best in the 9/11 visibility movement but others, as well, that are among
the worst — again, put the bad in right along side the good and take them both
down together. It’s important for 911ers to be cognizant of IPS’s
shortcomings and potential for distorting our message, but it’s equally
important to see it as possibly being just one part of a broader scheme
concocted by desperate men whose lives and legacies hinge on maintaining the
fairytale of evil Arab terrorists being confronted by the global white knights
of America. Surely we need to make these distinctions as we carefully attempt
to deconstruct the complex and gut wrenching riddle of 9/11.
In a webcast late in 2004, vonKliest appeared
to discuss his movie. By that time, the film clip in IPS allegedly
showing an explosion over building 6 had proven itself to be misconstrued
and irrelevent. But, rather than taking
responsibility for the gaff, vonKliest actually tried to claim that IPS
had played an important role in clearing up the issue! He then proceeded to
disparage (in no uncertain terms) those of us who dared to point out the many other
glaring problems with his movie. Calling us “keyboard commandos” (among other
things), vonKliest expressed nothing but contempt for his critics and not the
slightest contrition for his unaccountably poor work. He shamelessly claimed
that all he did was put these “compelling” points before the world and, oh boy,
what a hubbub he’d created — a cheap ploy designed to make him look like a
brave but misunderstood bearer of shocking but vital news, rather than the particularly
irresponsible film-maker that he is. Well, it’s not our fault he made such a
poor film and surely there are more accurate ways of determining a film’s
final, metaphysical value than the
extent to which it makes neophytes “ooo” and “aah.”
But
his most vehement words were reserved for his fellow 9/11 researchers who had
so vocally criticized his movie, accusing us of being reactionary competitors
and petty nay-sayers. Now I ask you: are these really the kind of people we
want to embrace as we confront the awesome task of unmasking the real
perpetrators of 9/11 and put our hard fought case before the world? Some
9/11ers have actually recommended that, despite his recklessness, we should
withhold judgement and welcome vonKliest in the movement as a good man who’s at
least making an effort. But is it really in our best interests to offer an
olive branch to those who’ve shown nothing but contempt for us in return
— who make movies and write books that are already doing damage and appear to
be more concerned about covering their tracks than uncovering the truth?
If
911 In Plane Site is a setup, I’m very concerned that the piece in Popular
Mechanics is just the beginning. Movies like IPS are, I’m afraid, a
gift to our detractors that will just keep on giving, providing an endless
supply of legitimate targets and serving as a focal point for attacks,
contrived though they may be. If IPS was just another no-account 9/11
movie that enjoyed a moment in the sun and then faded into obscurity, I
wouldn’t be the slightest bit concerned. But the fact is that the director’s
cut of IPS is now available and
I’ve heard that it’s selling better than ever, even in the wake of the PM
article which clearly shows the films potential for harm.
In
2004, Canadian journalist and media critic Barrie Zwicker released a DVD remake
of his popular 9/11 film The Great Deception. The Great Conspiracy
is a thoughtful, impeccably researched and very well-presented account of the
best in 9/11 research and has proven itself to be consistently inspiring and
enlightening to staunch 9/11 conspiracy advocates. But its effect on the many fence-sitters who aren’t yet
onboard with 9/11 conspiracy theory but who are ready to loan us their ears is
perhaps this movie’s finest quality. Barrie is a consummate professional whose
dignified demeanor and on-camera acumen is second to none and a gracious gift
to the 9/11 Truth movement from our northern neighbors.
I’ve
seen the affect TGC has had on its audiences with my own eyes and highly
recommend it to anyone who sincerely wants to take a well guided tour down the
rabbit hole (i.e., educate themselves on the subject of US government
complicity in the attacks of September 11th). The Great Conspiracy is
peerless among the movies made about 9/11 and it’s well-deserved popularity is
appropriate to its quality. Mr. Zwicker is constantly on the road appearing
internationally to speak and present his movie. His is the kind of work we
should be embracing and I encourage 9/11 enthusiasts to make a careful
judgement as to what efforts they support and which ones they leave behind.
Credibility is everything to the 9/11 truth movement and we must guard
and protect our hard won credibility like a mama bear watches out for
her cubs.
Copyright
2005 Darkprints