911: In Plane Site

911: In Plane Site
File:In Plane Site Flyer.jpg Flyer for a screening of the documentary
Directed by	William Lewis
Written by	Dave vonKleist
Produced by	Dave vonKleist, William Lewis
Distributed by	BridgeStoneMediaGroup.com
Release dates	June 28, 2006
Running time	52 min.
Language	English

911: In Plane Site: Director’s Cut is a documentary that examines a number of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[1] Photographs and video footage from that day are presented as evidence that the public was not given all of the facts surrounding the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.

Overview

The film is directed by William Lewis and produced by Dave vonKleist, who also hosts the documentary. The seventy-three minute video discusses the events surrounding the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, asserting a series of 9/11 conspiracy theories, some of which have been criticized (see criticism section). Included in its methods of examination are frame-by-frame computer aided analysis of video, during some of which the narrator asserts that pods were attached to the undersides of the planes.

Claims

The films ask a series of leading questions about 9/11 conspiracy theories, then analyzes the events with selected evidence to answer those questions:

• "Why were America and the world never shown the video and photographs of the Pentagon, before the outer wall had collapsed showing only one 16 ft. hole? Many people do not realize that the outer wall did not collapse until almost 30 minutes after the initial impact.

• "Given that the outer wall of the Pentagon had not yet collapsed and the only hole is approximately 16 ft. in diameter - how does a jetliner over 44 feet tall and 125 ft. wide fit into that hole as shown in the crystal-clear and close-up photographic evidence from the Pentagon? Furthermore, can physics explain why there is no damage to the Pentagon's upper floors where the tail section would have hit?

• "In the aftermath, it was reported by media sources, that a giant 100 ft. crater was plowed into the front lawn of the Pentagon as the result of a powerful airliner crash? Why does photographic evidence overwhelmingly show that this was absolutely not the case? Why no crater? Why no skid marks? Why no burn marks? Why was the entire world deliberately mislead?

• "How does a Boeing 757, constructed from lightweight aluminum, penetrate over 9 ft. of steel reinforced concrete?

• "At the World Trade Center, why did firefighters, reporters and other on-the-scene eyewitnesses describe a demolition-like, pancake collapse of buildings One, Two & Seven?"

• "What is the bright flash on the right side of the Boeing 767, seen just before impact on both the North Tower & the South Tower, captured on video by 5 separate cameramen including CNN and ABC? Slow motion analysis reveals startling verification of this extraordinary event and begs the question, "What is it?"

• "Why were there numerous reports of bombs & explosions going off in and around the WTC before any buildings had collapsed? Hear & see the testimony of the reporters, rescue teams and eyewitnesses who tell a different story of potential demolition charges, unexplained explosions, and vehicles loaded with explosives as reported on live television the morning of Sept. 11, 2001."

• "Why did a FOX News employee, who witnessed the second tower attack, report seeing no windows on "Flight 175" a commercial United Airlines jetliner? Why did another eyewitness report that United Airlines Flight 175 was not a commercial airliner? What kind of plane hit the second tower?"

• "Is there some type of exterior swelling protruding from the undercarriage of "Flight 175"? An independently conducted computerized digital analysis says yes. Where was this "instrument" attached? How could it have departed from a commercial airport without being noticed? What purpose did it serve in the attacks?"

Criticism of the claims of In Plane Site

• Despite the film's assertions that "a jetliner is too large to fit into the hole made in the Pentagon," others have refuted this claim by showing that a hole of over 90 feet in width was made on the first floor. Films such as In Plane Site and Loose Change only refer to the smaller hole on the second floor. The website questionsquestions.net states -

"Both In Plane Site and the Pentagon Strike web movie disingenuously use selective photos in which the 90-foot ground level hole is hidden behind smoke & water being sprayed by a firetruck, and it isn't even mentioned. But note that not all Pentagon no-757 advocates hide the real proportions of the hole in this way, which makes this misprepresentation even more egregious."

• One theory the film suggests is that at least one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers was a twin engine U.S. military plane, not a commercial airliner (the "no plane" or swapped plane theory), has been refuted by a number of researchers.

• The film also suggested that "pods" were attached to the undersides of the planes which hit the World Trade Center towers and fired missiles into the buildings. This was rejected as false by so many that the second edition of the film had to remove this claim. Oilempire.us states, "The "pod" is the primary thesis of the fake film "In Plane Site" - which uses a photo of a normal Boeing 757 on the front cover that disproves the "pod" nonsense (a bad joke "hidden in plain sight")."

Reviews

A short review in the The Portland Mercury says of In Plane Site, "it features both an exceedingly annoying crackpot theorist and outlandish, unsubstantiated allegations about blurrily pixelized photos that don't really show anything."

Another review at Heraldextra.com states, "Nor does the presentation explain, if the attack planes were military, what happened to the commercial planes. It hints that they might have been shot down over the ocean. The trouble is that they weren't necessarily over the ocean. And who remembers an Atlantic crash of an airliner where debris such as luggage did not wash up all up and down the Eastern seaboard? If airliners went down in the sea, the secret could not have been kept for long. It's fine to be entertained by this stuff, even if it is a bit morbid. But let's not lose our senses."

Television coverage

• November 11, 2004 – Fox News played portions of the video in while interviewing Jimmy Walter on the topic of alternate 9-11 theories.

• January 4th, 2006 – Australian broadcast television station Channel Ten.

• September 9, 2006 – Australian broadcast television station Channel Ten. Broadcast resulted in complaints from MP Michael Danby.

• May 17th, 2006 – CNN Headline News "Glenn Beck on Headline News" played portions while interviewing David vonKleist, the producer of the video.

• December 16th, 2006 – TV3 in New Zealand airs the documentary.

See also

• American Airlines Flight 11
• American Airlines Flight 77
• United Airlines Flight 93

External links

• In Plane Site Official Website
• Template:Google video

Criticism of In Plane Site

• 911: In Plane Site; A bad joke hidden "in plain sight"
• Video evidence
• Jimmy Walter
• Jean-Pierre Desmoulins Commentary
• Hoax-Promoting Videos