911: In Plane Site
| 911: In Plane Site |
| Directed by |
William Lewis |
| Produced by |
David von Kleist, William Lewis |
| Written by |
David von Kleist |
| Distributed by |
BridgeStoneMediaGroup.com |
| Release date(s) |
2004 (2004) |
| Running time |
52 minutes |
| Country |
United States |
| Language |
English |
911: In Plane Site: Director’s Cut is a 2004 documentary which explains a number of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Photographs and video footage from the September 11 attacks are presented as evidence that the public was not given all of the facts surrounding the "worst terrorist attack in U.S. history". The full-length version of documentary was released on Google Video in January 2007. Several of the claims made in the film have been rejected by some individuals in the 9/11 Truth movement.
Claims
The films ask a series of leading questions about 9/11 conspiracy theories, then analyzes data about the events 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 (4.9 m). 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 (4.9 m). in diameter – how does a jetliner over 44 feet (13 m) tall and 125 ft (38 m). 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?"
- "Why was there no Boeing debris outside the Pentagon building immediately after the event?"
- "In the aftermath, it was reported by media sources, that a giant 100 ft (30 m). 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 misled?"
- "How does a Boeing 757, constructed from lightweight aluminum, penetrate over 9 ft (2.7 m). 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, and Seven?"
- "What is the bright flash on the right side of the Boeing 767, seen just before impact on both the North Tower and the South Tower, captured on video by five separate cameramen, including CNN and ABC? Slow motion analysis reveals startling verification of this extraordinary event and raises the question, 'What is it?'"
- "Why were there numerous reports of bombs and explosions going off in and around the WTC before any buildings had collapsed? Hear and 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 September 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 claims
- 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[1] by showing that a hole of over 90 feet (27 m) 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 (27 m) 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."[2]
- One theory the film suggests, 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 (swapped plane theory), has been refuted by a number of researchers, however the supporters of this evidence have published articles criticizing such articles.[3][4][5][6]
- 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. So many in the 9/11 Truth Movement have rejected this claim as false[7][8][9] 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")."
Some who research the events of 9/11 assert that such mixing of clear hoax claims—i.e., the involvement of pods, missiles, "flashes", and tanker planes—with valid questions about the attack, is a means to discredit what they see as valid questions by association.[10]
- Another claim to justify that the plane that hit the south tower was not commercial rather a military jet, showed a women yelling "that was not American Airlines, that was not American Airlines" is misconceiving because, according to news reports, the plane that did hit the south tower was in fact United Airlines Flight 175, thus refuting the claim of the women inferring it was a non-commercial plane.
Reviews
A short review in 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".[11]
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."[12]
Television coverage
- November 11, 2004 – Fox News played portions of the video while interviewing Jimmy Walter on the topic of alternate 9-11 theories.
- January 4, 2006 – Australian broadcast television station Channel Ten.
- September 9, 2006 – Australian broadcast television station Channel Ten. Broadcast resulted in complaints from MP Michael Danby.[13]
- May 17, 2006 – CNN Headline News "Glenn Beck on Headline News" played portions while interviewing David von Kleist, the producer of the video.
- December 16, 2006 – TV3 in New Zealand airs the documentary.
See also
References
External links
Criticism of In Plane Site
|
|
|
| Topics |
|
|
| Notable proponents and supporters |
|
|
| Groups |
|
|
| Film and television |
|
|
| Books |
|
|
| Categories |
- 9/11 Conspiracy theories
- September 11 attacks
- Conspiracy theories
|
|