Review: In Plane Site (2004) di Paolo Attivissimo. Questo articolo si basa su una recensione pubblicata inizialmente nel 2006 su Disinformatico.info e viene pubblicato ora per accorpare tutta la documentazione presso Undicisettembre. 
Nel 2006 la rivista italiana
Nexus pubblicò la versione tradotta in italiano del DVD
"9/11 In Plane Site" di Dave VonKleist, all'epoca uno dei pochi video cospirazionisti sull'11 settembre tradotti e titolati in italiano.
In Plane Site è, dal punto di vista strettamente tecnico, un prodotto molto professionale. È chiaro che chi ha prodotto This DVD has spent a lot 'of money. Mounting spans, music written especially, animation, audio and lighting professionals, dubbing made by speakers. Quality that should give pause to those who accuse
debunker of being in the pay of the CIA and the like. The money, here, show them to the conspiracy. One wonders, indeed, those who finance these DVDs per plot so well done.
Apart from this technical issue, however, the DVD is a disappointing mixture of conspiracy cliches. Today, after four years,
In Plane Site has more than the merit of having set the state of the art of conspiracy theory of the time, giving you no forget the many nonsense alleged by the proponents of these theories.
immediately attracts the attention of the heading of the DVD, which claims to be presented only the facts and that is not to suggest any conclusions. Noble mission statement: that sin is repeatedly rejected, as we shall see shortly.
is then presented the alleged mystery of
no signs of burning in different rooms of the hole in the Pentagon . However, the DVD shows footage of the room not only burned the top floors first and then collapsed to the sides of the area, or portions of the building in accordance with the technical reconstruction of the events were not affected from the plane, but were exposed in Later, because of the subsequent collapse of the injured portion. So it is not mysterious that there are sheets of paper burned in the upper rooms.
fact in the impact at the Pentagon the airliner into the building at ground floor level and gutted for mechanical strength. Its fuel ignited and the resulting fire destroyed the ground floor and it weakened the structure, already compromised physical impact. Immediately after the impact, and is the same DVD to show up and the announcer makes this clear, the upper floors were still standing and undamaged, so they were shielded from the fire. They were brought to light only after the collapse, which occurred later, after the fire is almost extinguished. So it is normale che non ci fossero tracce d'incendio in quei locali.
Il presentatore poi afferma che
non ci sarebbero frammenti o detriti sul prato del Pentagono . Eppure il filmato di Fox News presentato nel suo stesso DVD, intorno a 19:30, li mostra chiaramente. Ma come? VonKleist non ha neppure guardato i filmati che presenta come prove?
A proposito della
simulazione d'impatto al Pentagono della Purdue University che
In Plane Site contesta, è invece giusto che manchino i motori, che la sezione di coda (in particolare la deriva) non venga scalfita e che la resistenza del muro esterno del Pentagono non venga considerata. Questa simulazione, infatti, fu realizzata specificamente to determine the effect of the liquid mass of fuel on the structure of the building, not that of the solid parts of the aircraft, which were then included only if relevant to the content of the fuel. Details are in this article
.
In Plane Site in addressing the attacks on the Twin Towers dismantles the arguments of those who do not believe that the WTC was hit by air: it shows a clip of Fox News reports that clearly fragments of plane (a wheel of the cart) on the streets of New York (30:00-30:13). The words of the reporter confirm the presence of fragments of the aircraft.
The DVD also quotes the famous phrase with
"pull it" of Larry Silverstein , which some interpret as an admission that he intentionally destroyed the World Trade Center Building 7. Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC complex, seems to say in an interview that he ordered the firefighters to
"pull it" , expression in the Italian translation of the DVD, created by Nexus becomes
"pull down" . It would be an important witness, if confirmed. But what do those
In Plane Site ? They are going to ask Silverstein
"Excuse me, we got it right? She gave the order to demolish WTC 7 with explosives, or not?" . No, throw the challenge and then move on. This is not investigative journalism. If avessero investigato, infatti, avrebbero scoperto che il
"pull it" di Silverstein significava
"tirarlo via" , riferito al contingente dei pompieri che operava nelle vicinanze dell'edificio pericolante e che effettivamente si tirò indietro quando fu chiaro che l'incendio del WTC7 era incontrollabile e che l'edificio dava segni evidenti di collasso imminente, come documentato in
questo articolo .
A 35:30 circa, Dave VonKleist dice
"ci hanno mentito, ci hanno ingannato" . Una frase che contraddice il preambolo in cui garantiva che avrebbe presentato fatti, senza trarre conclusioni.
Si passa poi alla solita, trita
faccenda del "Pod" , the object is hanging below the plane of the second WTC impact, a Boeing 767 for United Airlines, as discussed in detail in another article
. The photos of the New York Times
, which would be the second
In Plane Site the best picture available of the bottom of the second plane WTC (see the small beginning of this article), is shown as confirmation of
this "pod" . But let's look at an aircraft livery of United Airlines:
A United Airlines Boeing 767. Picture of Tim Samples published with his permission. The original photo is at Airliners.net and is numbered 362107. This photo (ID362107) is used by written permission of Tim Samples. Airliners.net Has Been Notified of ITS use. You immediately notice that the shape of the bottom of the fuselage in the picture a "suspect",
is exactly the one shown in the picture of the normal livery . There are no bosses, if not the root of the ordinary ones: the
"pod" is simply the swelling of the fuselage that houses the truck at the root of the wing. The thesis of
"pod" was removed even from sites such as pro-conspiracy
Luogocomune.net here.
In Plane Site , unfortunately, coffin instead shamelessly takes when, as a "confrontation", a picture of an identical aircraft, but it happens with a completely white plumage, which flattens all, not with the lively United Airlines , where the fuselage is blue with a silver stripe at the bottom and wings are silver. This is not an honest comparison. The history of
"pod" is then "confirmed" from the DVD with a sequence of military aircraft equipped with fairing under the fuselage. But vonKleist forget to point out one very important difference: all the covers are shown
symmetrical, that is centered to the longitudinal axis aircraft, for obvious reasons of aerodynamics and stability, while the alleged
"pod" protrude from one side. This too, therefore, is a comparison artifact. At approximately 41:35
, the presenter fails once again to his promise not to present conclusions and
says "it is undeniable that under the aircraft there is something hanging" . And more subtly reiterates 42:50:
"we take another look object attached to the belly of the plane" . As if it was now regarded as established and beyond dispute. This is an impropriety, made worse dall'infilarla stealthily.
We then move to eyewitnesses of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Is given much emphasis, complete with slow motion, in a statement to the effect that a lady
"was not an American Airlines plane" . How do you say? In the DVD you can clearly see that the lady is very far from the Twin Towers, as shown here alongside the frame.
By the evidence visible on the buildings, that the woman is at least 1.5 to 2 km from the Towers (
11 / 9 The Conspiracy Failed , Piemme, P.. 96). It seems very unlikely, at that distance, so you can identify a plane say it is not American Airlines.
There is also a journalist,
"Marc" , che afferma di
non aver visto finestrini. La sua dichiarazione è presentata come una prova inconfutabile, ma i riscontri (che
In Plane Site non ha fatto) permettono di scoprire che si tratta di Marc Birnbach e che il giornalista si trovava ancora più lontano della donna citata prima: a circa 3,7 chilometri dalle Torri. A quella distanza sarebbe stato impossibile vedere eventuali finestrini, specialmente nel caso di un aereo che vola velocemente a bassa quota. Per verificarlo basta andare nei paraggi di un aeroporto, stando a quasi quattro chilometri dagli aerei, e vedere se si scorgono i finestrini degli aerei che decollano e atterrano.
Uno dei punti più ridicoli dell'intero DVD è la
thesis of the 'lighter' to justify the lightning visible the impact of planes into the Twin Towers. According to this view, the flash (which the real presence there is reasonable doubt, being present in all the video footage) would need a trigger to ignite the fuel contained in the plane.
Perhaps the authors of the DVD have missed the small detail that jet fuel has an unpleasant tendency to catch fire easily impact, without requiring lighters mounted on the nose. Just look at the pictures of the aircraft incidents collected at sites such as
Airdisaster.com : the fuel is kindled for a trifle. Does anyone remember the disaster of the Concorde, whose fuel caught fire because the aircraft had been hit by a piece of metal
raised by the wheels. At 47:00
states that precedes the lightning the impact, but does not consider that the plane hit the WTC facade that is in shadow, so the nose of the aircraft enters the shadows, changing color and brightness. It is possible that what appears to be the nose (in a movie which are very grainy and unclear) is actually a portion of the rear fuselage, so the lightning actually coincides with the impact of the muzzle. If you are using as reference the position of the engine to determine where the muzzle anche quando l'aereo entra nel cono d'ombra, si nota che questa interpretazione è piuttosto plausibile.
A 49:06 si afferma che
"il fatto che questo lampo si verifica un attimo prima dell'impatto..." . E ci risiamo. Conclusioni, conclusioni, conclusioni: quelle che il DVD aveva solennemente promesso di non presentare.
Osservando invece le ombre nel video (quello del primo impatto al WTC), si nota che l'ombra dell'aereo, stavolta su una facciata esposta al sole, incontra la sagoma della fusoliera esattamente al momento dell'impatto. Lo dice anche il presentatore medesimo, contraddicendo quello che ha detto pochi minuti prima:
"proprio al momento dell'impatto dell'aereo, there is a flash ". Well, you decide: claims that the flash occurs first
, or occurs simultaneously
impact?
In Plane Site presents the original recording of the hotly contested sentence of the President George W. Bush to the effect that would see the first impact: Bush says
"fly into" (
"fly in" )
not "hit" (hit / hit), so there is no doubt I've heard that he had seen the plane had already hit
the WTC. He says they saw him fly into
. But knowing the unfamiliarity of Bush Junior with the grammar e la sintassi, possiamo fidarci di quello che ha detto? Basta questo per dire
"è stato un complotto del governo USA" ? E se lo fosse, perché Bush andrebbe in giro a dire (in più occasioni) di aver visto un filmato che nessuno poteva aver visto in quel momento? Non può essere contemporaneamente un genio del complotto internazionale e un cretino che spiffera tutto.
Il DVD ripete poi l'errore di lanciare notizie-bomba e non approfondirle quando parla del lancio d'agenzia secondo il quale
il Volo 93 sarebbe atterrato regolarmente e non precipitato in Pennsylvania come racconta invece la "versione ufficiale". Una dichiarazione potenzialmente esplosiva. E cosa fa il presentatore? Va a intervistare Who wrote that delivery agency? Go to interview someone from the staff of the airport where the flight would land and asks you to confirm the news? No. Forget it and move on. If he really in his hands a resounding denial, because it deepens confirming the details?
follows a long discourse on
lie about other terrorist attacks . Dave vonKleist, however, does not consider that it is said that those who have lied in the past should always lie. Besides the "lies" made hasty statements sound more like, issued during the chaos and panic of an attack. But let's assume that
vonKleist is right and that the U.S. government has orchestrated the attacks. It does not seem logical that they would be a bit 'less messy and amateur? That would not have left tons of clues and witnesses? An attack that would have invented a simple and practical, instead of understanding the coordinated launch of radio controlled aircraft, with no windows and equipped with fairing vistosissime external hitting towers stuffed with explosives hidden to ensure the demolition, while passengers on flights are true facts disappear without trace?
Why bother using radio and explosives whose detonation must be planned scientifically, when they just take an airliner over a hundred tonnes, fuel, run it as a battering ram to over seven hundred miles an hour against a tower, and let the fire and structural damage
together produce the desired damage?
This is the fundamental flaw of all cases of conspiracy around 11 September: claim that the bombers were both able to devise a complicated series of coordinated actions, but so stupid as to leave around photos, movies , witnesses, items in plain view and so expose them.
so stupid not to think "Hey, if we put a 'pod' out of the plane, maybe someone will notice, he should be inside, and if we have to believe it was an airliner, we use a plane I have also the windows. " Etcetera, etcetera.
There are many other critical elements of
In Plane Site, reported for example in the Wikipedia entry
dedicated to video, or even conspiracy
Oilempire site. us, but those presented so far are sufficient to outline the general approach of the DVD: a veneer of professionalism that expensive covers an embarrassing lack of data and surveys of real journalism.
The title is a play on words: ' homophone
expression "in plain sight" , in English, it means
"under the eyes of all, on display" , but the authors have crippled
"plain" in "plane" (
"plane" )
and "sight" in "site" (
"site" ), thinking cleverly allude to the argument that the evidence of conspiracy would be under the for all to see. In fact, if you know the facts, under the eyes of all there's just the wrong approach, journalistically amateurish and incomprehensible on this DVD.
