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	David von Kleist
Produced by	David von Kleist, William Lewis
Distributed by	BridgeStoneMediaGroup.com
Release date	2004
Running time	52 min.
Country	United States
Language	English

911: In Plane Site: Director’s Cut is a 2004 documentary that advocates 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 individuals in the 9/11 Truth movement.

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 (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 by showing that a hole of over 90 feet (27 m) in width was made on the first floor.. However, the film presents several photographs and films taken on the day of the event which clearly show the hole in the Pentagon before structural collapse with Fire trucks parked in front of it indicating the whole as being no bigger than approximately 15 feet wide on the ground floor. The film also notes the lack of damage to the floors above where the tail section of the plane would have been expected to have hit and site this as extra evidence to film makers claims.

• 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 and not a commercial airliner (the swapped plane theory). Although supported by , interviews from video experts and aircraft identification experts testimony, the claims have been refuted by a number of researchers. Supporters of this counter-claim have published articles criticizing such research..

• The film also examines photographic and video evidence which suggests that some kind of "pod" or extra hardware was attached to the undersides of the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers.

Some who research the events of 9/11 assert that such mixing of claims – (the involvement of pods, "flashes", military planes), with valid questions about the attack (eyewitnesses reporting hearing explosions before aircraft impact, the collapse of WTC7, peer-reviewed scientific journals confirming the existence of military grade explosive thermite on the main steel supports of the twin towers, and the collapse of all three buildings at free fall speed), is a means to discredit what they see as valid questions by association.

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".

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 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.
• 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

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

External links

• In Plane Site Official Website
• Director's Official Website
• Template:Google video
• 911: In Plane Site at IMDb

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