A number of articles have been published on the web criticising various aspects of Dave Von Kleist's documentary. In response to these complaints he has removed one of the more questionable claims, the 'WTC Mystery Explosion', from the Director's Cut version of the movie.

 

 

---

 

You can download the movie for free here:

http://www.question911.com/links.php

 

---

 

 

I am not sure if the version played on TV here in Australia contained the 'WTC Mystery Explosion' segment.

 

Link to Von Kleist's retraction of the Mystery Explosion:

http://www.911inplanesite.com/911explosion.html

 

Unfortunately, Mr. Von Kleist does not formally acknowledge his obvious error. Instead he presents supposedly 'new evidence', and justifies the original mistake by claiming that other websites and books also promoted the error. This is disingenuous at best.

 

There are more problems with the documentary, in particular the 'plane pod' hypothesis, which is supported by very weak evidence and can easily be refuted as an artifact of photography. His refutation of the offical claim that the  Pentagon  was struck by Flight 77 is also weaker than it need be. For example, he says that a Boeing 757 could not have gone through the 16 foot wide hole visible in the photograph, but in the photograph the spray from fire hoses obscures the much wider gash in the building just below. The relience on this kind of weak evidence is itself evidence that Dave Von Kleist is really a disinformation agent. (See the section on Disinformation at 911oz.com.)

 

Critical articles on Dave Von Kleist and the 'pod':
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040810075752147
http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html
http://911review.com/disinfo/videos.html

 

I quote here from an old article by Brian Salter in which the Mystery Explosion error was exposed. The link has more recent updates to the story.

(link: http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html)

 

A recently released documentary about 9/11, In Plane Site, presents a video sequence which appears to show a mysterious explosion at the World Trade Center, after the airliner impacts but before either of the tower collapses. A large expanding cloud of dust is seen rising from the base of the towers, and the narrator Dave von Kleist claims that this video footage was broadcast only once on TV, after which it was supposedly suppressed from the mass media airwaves. The implication is that this footage is long-lost visual evidence backing up well-documented testimonials from eyewitnesses who report that they heard what sounded like bomb blasts in the WTC, events separate from the crashes and collapse.

 

 

Unfortunately, the producers of In Plane Site were taken in by a very obvious hoax, which first circulated on the internet not long after 9/11. They aren't the only ones - this video clip has been featured on numerous websites and was also covered in Eric Hufschmid's Painful Questions. I have a version in my archives which I downloaded in mid-2002 (for reference, it is linked at the bottom of this page).

 

Simply explained, this footage is an apparently manipulated view of the WTC just as the South Tower collapses. The view is facing the North Tower from an angle where the South Tower is hidden behind the North Tower. This angle was an edge-on, diagonal view of the North Tower, but someone has altered the image to make it appear that there are two towers standing, both appearing to be lined up square with the camera. The rooflines have apparently been altered to make one side slightly higher than the other, which creates the illusion of two towers (it may be that this is just an unaltered view of the North Tower from a perfectly diagonal angle, but I have not found any other images which show an irregularity in the roof level that would create this two-building illusion; therefore, I believe this footage has been deliberatlely altered by persons unknown). In any case, speculating about what manipulation may or may not have been used on this footage is not necessary to demonstrate that it simply isn't what is being claimed.