Malicious nonsense posing as proof

You know what is hilarious about this article, the author makes this statement:

He gives the impression of impeccable logic, painstaking scrutiny of photos and footage and of inescapable conclusions. But he asks no experts for explanation of the many "anomalies" he presents...

But then he dismisses the entire documentary without discussing any of the topics at all, or asking any experts for their opinions, he dismisses it based solely on the timeslot that it was aired!!! Hows that for journalism?

Thanks to Edward for submitting this:

Conspiracy theories can make great entertainment. Elvis is alive; the moon landing was faked; the world is run by communists/masons/Jews/aliens; The X-Files was a documentary series dressed as fiction . . . Great stuff.

Conspiracy theories are especially effective when they challenge deep cultural assumptions. The Da Vinci Code was a massive best-seller because it tapped into suspicions about a major religion - not because it was full of fun, Italian-style Sudoku puzzles.

But conspiracy theories can also be malicious, even dangerous. 911: In Plane Site is both.

This cynical attempt to cloud what happened on September 11 uses dubious but slick techniques to sway gullible viewers. The producers imply that:

- The Pentagon was hit by a missile, not a passenger plane

- The planes that hit the World Trade Centre towers were military, not passenger planes

- The towers and other buildings were brought down by pre-positioned demolition charges, not by the planes crashing into them

- The US government and military were behind the attacks of September 11

These are not stated as fact, or even as possibilities - all conclusions are left to the viewer. Using clever sleight-of-hand, dodgy logic, selective discussion of "inconsistencies" of evidence and "testimony" of eyewitnesses, a new and disturbing picture of the events is painted. The gulf between that picture and reality is the same gulf between a child's dot-to-dot picture of a farmyard and a Rembrandt.

How presenter Dave von Kleist manages to keep a straight face while dishing up this rubbish is a mystery. He gives the impression of impeccable logic, painstaking scrutiny of photos and footage and of inescapable conclusions. But he asks no experts for explanation of the many "anomalies" he presents and uses dodgy rhetoric of the "Is it not outside the realm of possibility that . . . ?" school. Don't be fooled.

The most compelling argument that this program is a load of cobblers is obvious. It is not being screened as a Four Corners or 60 Minutes special. It's not being shown as a Sunday feature, or SBS As It Happened documentary.

It's being broadcast on a Wednesday night, at 10.30pm, during TV's silly season on Channel Ten.

Enough said.

Sorry SBG... not going to

Sorry SBG... not going to comment on this...

New Study Shows Iraq War To Cost $1-2 Trillion, Not $100-200 Billion

The problem with this brand

The problem with this brand of 'journalism' is that it represents everything that 9/11 truth tellers are up against.

Those who are need to maintain the official account of 9/11 will fight vigorously to oppose the truth. The moron who wrote this 'review' can be counted on to parrot those prejudices.

The old adage "never one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public" said it right.

The words of 9/11 truth tellers will be opposed that's for sure. It becomes even harder when the critics pretend you have never even spoken.

There's a lot of work to do.

Sorry, that quote should be

Sorry, that quote should be "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public"

"It's being broadcast on a

"It's being broadcast on a Wednesday night, at 10.30pm, during TV's silly season on Channel Ten."

Makes me happy it bothers him enough to know its on. Even the dis and misinfo are getting people to question the official story, which comes up holes and lies anyway anyone without an agenda looks at.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Ghandi and his followers drove out the British Empire with non-violent resistance. The truth makes these people fry, like vampires dragged into the sun.

Israel was involved with

Israel was involved with 9/11 it's quite blatant. Just look at the facts, if people are worried about being labelled anti-Semitic, then their being stupid. I am certainly not anti-jew, far from it “Jews” had nothing to do with this. Its like saying “Christians” are to blame for Iraq because of Bush’s blatantly false Christianity. This is way more then "no Jews died in the towers" which I think is bullshit anyway, this is about blatant evidence of Israeli Mossad fore knowledge/involvement in 9/11.

Aside from "the dancing Mossad agents”, there were also 200 Israeli intelligence agents who were busted by US authorities, exposed for conducting a huge Israeli spy ring. Some of these people were apparently explosive ordnance experts, and they were posing as "art students". (Now it is suspected and practically proven now, that the towers and world trade centre seven, were brought down using explosives.)
Even FOX news, a channel owned by Rupert Murdock, a confessed Zionist and close friend of Arial Sharon, had to cover this "Israeli spy ring" story because it gathered so much momentum. So they did a series of pieces on it, which apparently explained that the "art Students" were, tracking the "9/11 hijackers" and going around to US intelligence institutions etc or something to that effect, trying to sell them art work, while planting bugs and stealing documents. FOX news reported that the fact this coincided with the lead up, and occurrence of 9/11 was suspicious, but just said that Israel might have known something about 9/11 before it happened, but nothing more.

FOX News:Israel Is Spying In And On The U.S.? Parts 1 to 4

This FOX news version of events seems to be a smokescreen cover story, as Israel had "warned the US" that there were going to be up to "200 Al-Qaeda" operatives inside the US coinciding with 9/11, but non of these "200" people were ever arrested. But "200" was also the number of Israeli "Art Students", and Israel obviously knew about them. So my conclusion is that these "200" Israeli "art students" when considering there field if expertise, "explosive ordnance", were the people outsourced to wire the WTC buildings for demolition.

Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks

"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation."

US arrests 200 young Israelis in spying investigation

"The DEA report said most of the students questioned by American investigators acknowledged having served in units of the Israeli armed forces specialising in military intelligence, electronic signals interception or explosive ordnance."

Israel has benefited from 9/11 as now its enemy "Fanatical Muslims" are also the enemy of the US. And it's enemy neighbours, Iraq etc, are being dealt with by the US. The US benefiting from the strategic dominance of the Middle East and its oil supply etc.

Wake up, this isnÂ’t anti-Semitism!

^ LOL, what a dumbass, sorry

^ LOL, what a dumbass, sorry wrong thread.

I emailed the author about

I emailed the author about his article and I thought I'd share his response w/ y'all (it's a bit long but give him a chance to defend himself) I haven't seen "in plane site" for quite some time so I'd have to watch it again to respond.

Gordon Farrer: I don't know whether you will read the following -- it's pretty long -- but I send it to you to as an explanation of my position on this in case you are interested.

I can't prove or disprove anything about what happened on September 11, 2001. A 400-word review certainly can't start to deal with the claims of a program such as In Plane Site.

Given that, my aim was to question the journalistic/documentary methods used in the program and argue that isolated facts assembled in a certain way, out of context, can be used to prove/disprove anything. I was questioning the validity of vonKleist's "investigation", not the truth of the "facts". That would require an investigation bigger than anything you or I could afford.

I think you misunderstand the point of the article. I have no problem with well-research programs that raise questions about the September 11 events in a responsible, credible way. The problem with 911: In Plane Site was that it was a deceptive piece of work that broke all the rules of good journalism and logical argument and clearly pushed a theory that was unsupported. It failed in its attempt to prove its case.

I understand people's desire to pick holes in the "evidence" around 911, to raise anomalies and doubt the mainstream account of the events. But that's also what I was doing in discussing the 911 program: question its evidence and doubt its conclusions. Why is it valid to do it in one case but not the other?

The program was flawed in countless ways and was not a piece of credible reporting/journalism.

No real evidence was offered for any of its theories. It only suggested there are "questions" around the events based on selective, flimsy reports. These reports could be easily double checked but they were not. Dave vonKleist, the presenter, just put them forward as uncontested fact. (Here's one example from many: It seized on from about the Pentagon attack that said there was a large crater in front of the building -- when there clearly wasn't -- as some sort of official cover-up. The author of the book , that's all. That's bad research, not proof of a cover-up.) Raising "questions" are not proof of anything.

The program's logic was circular; it generally used vague, evasive language; when the language wasn't vague it was designed to lead to unsupported conclusions; it offered no plausible explanations for anything (if the two planes that crashed into the towers were military, what happened to the passenger jets and the people in them?); it didn't ask a single expert or airline official to comment on hard facts or to refute their theories (which they refuse to spell out clearly, preferring to let the fear they create act as a cancer in the minds of viewers).

Here's the logic Dave vonKleist used. The critical comments in square brackets are mine.

* "It is possible to raise questions about the events of 9/11." [True. You can raise questions about anything. But that does not constitute proof.]

* "If enough questions are raised, that proves the events didn't happen the way they've been described." [No, it only shows you don't have an explanation to answer your questions. It's still not proof of anything. is hard evidence that , not questions about whether or not it happened. vonKleist made no real attempt to properly investigate the doubts he raised.]

* "Because the events didn't happen as described, there's been a cover-up." [Hang on, we haven't proven yet that the events didn't happen that way, so the argument can't proceed on that basis.]

* "Those involved in the cover-up must have been involved in the events being covered up, or why else would they be covering it up?" [WE STILL HAVEN'T PROVEN THAT THE EVENTS DID NOT HAPPEN AS DESCRIBED OR THAT THERE WAS A COVER-UP!]

* "Therefore, the government and military agencies involved in the cover-up must have perpetrated the original crime." [In Philosophy, the word for this sort of argument is "sophistry". Unsupported claims are used as the "proven" basis for a "logical" progression to an "inescapable" conclusion. It is not a valid form of logical argument, but it's a very handy tool for deceiving people.]

OK, forget vonKleist's "evidence" that there was a cover-up. Look at the events from the other side. Conspiracies require many many people to keep quiet if they are to work. Conspiracy theories are usually seized on to fit facts that the theorists have no explanation for. That doesn't mean there isn't valid explanation for the events, only that the theorist doesn't have that valid explanation. It's a cover for not having all the facts and a justification for the desire of cynical people to believe the worst. It's also about jumping to conclusions without all the facts, a desperate clutching at straws to explain things we feel need explaining. Or -- if you want to be really suspicious -- to redirect attention from the real guilty party. (Here's a new conspiracy theory: the terrorists are trying to sow seeds of doubt about what they did on 9/11 by planting dubious evidence, such as was used by vonKleist, so that America will turn on itself and fall apart, making it easier to overcome.) Conspiracy theories are routinely rejected as a form of defence in criminal cases in legal systems around the world for these sorts of reasons.

A conspiracy as large as this program claims about September 11 would require thousands of people to cooperate -- not just military or government employees but honest everyday citizens who would have seen something that contradicted the official story and proved it didn't happen as claimed. Eg: If the three passenger planes did not crash into the towers, what happened to them and the passengers? (Who are dead, by the way, they've been buried by their relatives -- or are they all part of the conspiracy, too?) Air traffic controllers on the day would have been watching the planes and would have seen where they went. The conspiracy theory presented by vonKleist requires that they -- and all other honest citizens who saw something on the day that doesn't fit the official story -- have been bought off or their silence somehow coerced. It's a crazy, unsupportable suggestion. You'd have to think the world operates like a Hollywood spy/thriller movie to accept that. It doesn't.

Odd or misunderstood facts presented in isolation or combined in selective ways will distort the truth. It might look like they add up to something -- especially when available contradictory evidence is deliberately ignored -- but examined in the detail of their real context they often amount to nothing sinister. vonKleist's program was a perfect example of the crude, misleading join-the-dots way of painting a picture of an event that typifies conspiracy theories.

Of course questions should be asked about serious events and whether the whole truth is being told. But you need to apply honest intellectual rigour if your aim is to be reasonable and thorough and credible in your investigation. vonKleist made no attempt to apply any of the basic tools of honest investigation and did everything he could to mislead his audience using the flimsiest of "evidence" and the cheapest of tricks. Even though the "evidence" and the arguments look and sound convincing, nothing in the program added up. It was all smoke and mirrors, a pea-and-thimble trick.

And is what I criticised in my preview.


Gordon Farrer

Ms. Farrer has a point. In

Ms. Farrer has a point.

In Plane Site is one of the weakest videos in my opinion.

All these different theories just damage the movement...

The movement should be a simple message:

"The official story doesn't add up, contains many ommissions and was never independently investigated or treated like a normal crime scene, and has serious scientific,logic, and conventional flaws."

All this crap about what were the planes and were they really planes and where did the planes go is nonsense... Use the KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid)...

The collapses of 1,2, and 7 should be the discussion....... let's get an independent investigation about that first, then move on to other issues.

The argument, that a

The argument, that a conspiracy needs thousands of Co-conspirators is totally bogus. Can someone explain what leeds to this conclusion?

We have hierarchy systems, therefore you need only a few people on the top, mostly afterwards for the none-examination.

The operation itself can be done with very few people.
I can imagine an operation like this on 9-11 with less than 20 perpetrators.

And we knew already how a criminal conspiracy has to be build up therefore it leads to the expected goal- to shift the blame away from the real terrorists with alibis, false accusations, scapegoats, false trails. Every member of the conspiracy knew as less as possible, all doing only a small wheel, and only very few people knew the whole plan, and even these people can be shot dead afterwards.

So C'mon, you CoIntelpro-using desinfo persons- don't use this silly and weak argument to weaken other 9-11 truthsearchers.

Or I'll call you CoIntelpro-agent, if you insist on this ridiculous crap.

Have a nice weekend

what is Channel Ten? where

what is Channel Ten? where exactly is this movie airing?