The WTC "Mystery
Explosion" Video Hoax
(as featured in In Plane Site)
Brian Salter
questionsquestions.net
Update, Part 2 — 30 September 2004
Dave von Kleist has added a new page to the In Plane Site website, which presents a retraction (of sorts) of his claim about the "mystery explosion" footage, and also has a video segment in which he refutes allegations that he and the film's producers forged or deliberately altered any of the footage:
http://www.911inplanesite.com/911explosion.html
Some comments are necessary in light of my previous writings.
There is one thing I must clear up first. In previous updates to this page, I reported that I had heard from other 911 activists who told me that von Kleist had admitted to them in person that the claims he presented about this footage were mistaken and that he would be revising them in a future version of the film. I have received two emails from people I know who met with von Kleist at the Sept. 11 conference in NYC and discussed the matter with him. They did not say that he considered the footage to be inauthentic or forged, instead just misinterpreted (in the same way that many others have done before). This is the sense in which I referred to the footage as a "hoax" in my updates, but if my language gave the wrong impression, I am sorry for the confusion. I must note, however, that I have never received a single email from von Kleist or anyone else involved, and thus he has little right to complain if he made no effort to demand a clarification or retraction. To set the record straight, here are key excerpts of what I was told. The first is from a post to the "911 Truth Action" listserv by Angie, the webmaster of Angieon911.com on September 12:
[ As I've just written to Brian Salter previously, last night at the 911 Event in NYC, I spoke with Dave vonKleist during an intermission and afterwards about this section of his DVD and he admitted it was incorrect and that he would be revising that section in a revised version of his DVD since he had now received the real footage, and I recommend that Brian let his website readers know of same. ]
The second is from a private email to me from another NYC based 911 activist who was involved with the conference. I received this a couple weeks later:
[ Kleist on introducing himself to me in New York last Saturday immediately started in on a confession that "we solved one of the mysteries in the film," and admitted the plume was bullshit. ]
Thus, his statements, as communicated to me second-hand, were about the analysis and not about questioning the authenticity of the footage itself. I'm just putting out this information for the record.
Another thing for the record — one day after posting my original article, I emailed the In Plane Site producers using the email given at the website (BTW, the only email I could find there), notifying them courteously about the article as well as asking for a clarification about their current position vis a vis this footage (I had already heard from someone who heard second-hand that von Kleist had repudiated the claims; this was before anyone talked to him at the Sept. 11 conference). I never recieved a reply! This is the email:
From: Brian Salter
Subject: HELP DESK QUESTION
Date: September 10, 2004 12:05:28 PM GMT+07:00
To: debbie@thepowerhour.com
i have recently written a critique of part of "in plane site", which is here:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html
someone has informed me that you have now acknowledged that the claims about this footage are false, and have retracted them. if this is the case, please let me know and i will update my site with that information.
sincerely,
brian salter
questionsquestions.net
Debbie@powerhour.com, can you explain whatever happened to this email?
Since I didn't receive a reply, I later posted this to the 911TruthAlliance listserv, whose members include several people who were involved in organizing or participating in the Sept. 11 conference (note carefully that I start out here by actually defending von Kleist against an over-reaching accusation by Kyle Hence):
From: Brian Salter
Subject: Re: [911truthalliance] promoting the 9/11 truth movement
Date: September 17, 2004 4:31:02 PM GMT+07:00
To: kfh@911citizenswatch.org
Cc: 911truthalliance@lists.riseup.net
On Sep 16, 2004, at 10:00 PM, Kyle F. Hence wrote:
[[ We must show integrity when it comes to what you call the "physical evidence"
and apply and meet a high standard of evidence. When it was shown for
example that the co-called documentary "In Plane Sight" had got it wrong on
the so-called explosion of WTC 6 and Eric Salter showed a close up of the
United Airlines markings on the plane that hit the second tower on his site
questionsquestions.org and the producer of the film acknowledged at least the
former mistake than he should have taken advantage of having the stage to
admit his mistake and commit to applying a much higher standard of evidence
and analysis especially given the stakes involved. Did he do that? No. ]]
for the record, von kleist did admit the mistake about the wtc 6 explosion claim, but only one-on-one to angie d'urso who talked to him at the sept. 11 conference; she posted a notice about this to several lists (incidentally someone else contacted me immediately after i posted my critique at my site, to tell me that he had heard through word-of-mouth that von kleist had already admitted this before). i have updated the article to reflect this (http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html). however, i would agree that von kleist and the 'in plane site' producers have a responsibility to express this openly and up front, and i'm disturbed that they haven't done so. btw, i emailed the producers from the contact email at the 'in plane site' website to try and get an official statement from them on the matter, and i have received no reply at all.
someone amongst those who are in regular close contact with von kleist needs to do a favor for the movement by trying to get an open, public statement from him on this matter.
-brian
Do these sound like the words of someone who is trying to misrepresent von Kleist?
Furthermore, I must point out again that I have to this day never received any emails from von Kleist or anyone officially involved with In Plane Site, despite my honest and good-faith efforts to get in touch and properly represent their positions. What does this say?
Concerning my previously expressed suspicions about alteration of the original footage: I had speculated that the uneven level of the two sides of the roof line may have been the result of tampering by persons unknown, in order to create the illusion of two towers. This was the sole basis of my suspicions, but I never said I was certain about this, and I certainly never accused the In Plane Site producers of doing any of their own forgeries (as I made clear, this same footage had already been around in the same form on the web for a long time). After looking at a number of photos of the WTC, I didn't find any which had the same appearance, and I wrote:
' The roofline of the tower in this and other photos looks quite level and even between the two sides of the building, which supports my suspicion that the roofline was altered in the footage (if I'm wrong in that suspicion and some natural effect created the illusion of two towers from a normal diagonal view of the North Tower, that nevertheless wouldn't change the fact that the "mystery explosion" claim is still a hoax). '
In light of this statement, I think it should have been clear what I meant when I used the word "hoax". As my previous statements quoted above show, I have been consistent about this, in that the issue is about the CLAIMS, and thus the authenticity of the footage doesn't resolve the basic issues at all.
Because I am currently stuck with a slow internet connection, I was only able to view the low-bandwidth version of von Kleist's new online video, and I wasn't able to discern and compare these details on his newly obtained version. Recently, however, someone emailed me to point out some photos which did have a rather similar appearance at the roof, such as this one:
Therefore, I'm comfortable with dropping my speculation that the images of the towers had ever been manipulated in the old online version of the footage which was used in In Plane Site. It did turn out however that I was inadvertently right about being suspicious that someone had manipulated this footage, whether or not there was some agenda at work. It wasn't in any alteration or forgery of the images; it was simply manipulation in the form of editing out the last moments of the broadcast clip which reveal the rest of the large dust plumes on all sides around the building! Thus, this new full-length version of the footage makes it now totally obvious that we are seeing the South Tower collapse in progress, with the North Tower is standing by itself in front. I think it may be likely that whoever originally put this footage online deliberately edited this last part out with an intent to deceive ó and succeeded.
But ultimately, the real problem was the erroneous claims about this footage, which von Kleist included in his video, and has now fortunately retracted — if I am interpreting things correctly, that is. A prominent caption on the new page reads, "Giant plume of smoke occurs at the collapse of WTC South Tower", showing apparently that von Kleist now admits that his critics are right about when this event occured, but instead of stating clearly for the record that the claims made in the film were incorrect and giving anything like a plain apology or retraction, the whole matter is characterized as a "mystery" ó which the In Plane Site crew have now "solved"! (a second tacit admission of this change is the fact that this page introduces a whole new speculation that this was some "totally unconnected" event which occured at the same time as the South Tower collapse. Really, is this a serious inquiry or is it an attempt to save face?).
I would say instead that there never was a mystery. This footage and the hoax claims about it were already explained and conclusively debunked by numerous 9/11 investigators long before In Plane Site was released. Von Kleist has little to take credit for here. He has only provided a more complete version of the footage which shows more clearly what better informed and more careful investigators ó those who took the time to do their homework ó already knew.
Now here's one little question on my mind — why didn't anyone involved see to it to track down this original, complete footage in the first place?
Furthermore, I for one have to complain about von Kleist's constant tactic of claiming that he's just presenting evidence and letting his viewers come to their own conclusions. Nonsense! All kinds of explicit and implicit claims and interpretations of the "evidence" are made throughout In Plane Site. In the case of the "mystery explosion", his claims were explicit, and dramatically so. And they have been refuted. Here are some examples of his original claims:
"Now, as we look at the footage, the first thing we note is that BOTH towers are still standing. "
"The question is IF BOTH TOWERS ARE STILL STANDING and the smoke is being blown away from the towers, what is this huge plume of smoke approximately 50-60 stories high rising from the trade center area?"
"How could this plume of smoke be rising from the base of the tower if NEITHER ONE OF THE TOWERS HAD COLLAPSED."
Some more assorted comments:
1. I am still very disturbed at the level of sloppiness shown by the original treatment of this footage in In Plane Site. As I pointed out before, von Kleist made a startlingly crude error in claiming that the plume is located to the north and west of the WTC. How many seconds of effort went into this analysis? The distinctive and easily identified pyramid-topped building to the right of the WTC in the footage is Three World Financial Center, and the dark, wide building on the left is WTC7. Thus one can easily determine by the relative locations of the buildings that the camera was located roughly north-by-northwest of the WTC, which means that the plume was to the east or southeast. The direction of the sun & shadows is also a clear indicator. Von Kleist got this part wildly wrong, and presenting a new version of the footage doesn't do anything to explain how he managed that.
Note: for a clearer photograph of the surrounding area, a good reference is the third photo on the following page from Jim Hoffman's website, shot from a somewhat different viewpoint (more eastward, but still similar enough for comparison). Note the plume rising up behind WTC 7:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp13.html
On top of this, von Kleist introduced a still photo after this footage in In Plane Site which he claimed was further evidence of this event occuring while both towers were standing ó but only one tower can be seen in the photo! So the first time around, he was not just investigating a "mystery" but was actively adding more layers of bogus material to it.
I'm emphasizing these points because there was something worse here than a simple mistake or a previously unsolved "mystery". This was a case of fundamentally deficient standards, and so there is more to answer for.
2. Von Kleist has linked to an old article by Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press which claims that the "mystery explosion" was an event at WTC 6 that occured shortly after the plane impacts:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_14_02/Unexplained_9-11_/unexplained_9-11_.html
First of all, it is deceptive or at least inconsistent for von Kleist to make an uncommented link to this article if in fact he has repudiated his own similar claim about the footage ó this article directly contradicts his own new position! So what's the point?
Secondly, this claim is very easily debunked anyway. As was already pointed out some time ago by Jim Hoffman and other 9/11 researchers, the plume in this footage would have had to be in front of the tower, at least partially, if it came from WTC 6, because of the camera angle. This is easily verified by looking at a map. Instead, the plume is behind and to the left of the tower. If this plume came from any separate explosive event ó for which there is no evidence ó the only really logical speculation in this case would be that it was from WTC 4 or 5.
3. Von Kleist is right to defend himself against false charges that he has forged or manipulated any video footage (I can sympathize, in fact, given that my site has been the target of similar false accusations from the incorrigible "Webfairy"). In his new online video von Kleist mentions the site oilempire.us, whose author Mark Robinowitz has alleged for example that the "flashes" in the WTC plane impacts were faked. I have in fact already refuted this publicly and expressed my opposition to such tactics on more than one occasion, including once or twice on the "911 Truth Alliance" listserv of which Robinowitz used to be a member, and again by posting an analysis of "pod" claims by Eric Salter which shows that the flashes, whatever they are, are real and in all the original footage (http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html). That said, I am not aware of any occasion where Robinowitz accused von Kleist and the In Plane Site producers specifically of manipulating the "mystery explosion" footage. And I haven't either. Has anyone? Is this issue of those actually unrelated accusations being trumped up and spotlighted to distract from the real problem with In Plane Site in regards to the "mystery explosion", which is ultimately not the footage itself but the CLAIMS originally made about it?
4. Even if there are unfair claims and accusations in the air, one thing still remains: being a victim of a so-called "internet lynch mob" doesn't mean you're right. Facts are facts, and mistakes are mistakes. I haven't seen anything said or done by any "internet lynch mob" which in even the slightest way mitigates or excuses the mistakes that von Kleist has made with the "mystery explosion" and which I and others have debunked.
When someone changes their position after a mistake but then uses the occasion to immediately shift attention to bad tactics used by some of their critics in areas which don't have to do with the immediate factual matters at hand, this gives the impression that they really aren't too comfortable with acknowledging a serious blunder in a frank and humble manner, at least not without resorting to face-saving and point-scoring, and aren't prepared to present themselves in a way that builds or rebuilds trust. And after all, however unfair or hateful some of those internet critics might be at times, they aren't the ones selling their theories for 20 dollars a pop.
This is only a purely personal opinion, but I see something excessively defensive, evasive, and postured in the way von Kleist has presented his retraction (if indeed I perceive that correctly) of this claim. Others may disagree and feel satisfied with where things currently stand, but I think that the gravity of our general situation demands a totally different attitude than this. As a matter of fact, I have received a handful of emails from people who have listened to von Kleist's recent interviews and viewed his new page, and somehow seem to have come away with the impression that the original claim about the "mystery explosion" ó i.e., that it happened earlier when both towers were still standing ó still holds up and that von Kleist still supports it. It's strange — this is exactly the opposite conclusion I came to after a very careful reading of his hew statements ó but I can understand how some people would come away with this impression given von Kleist's lack of directness and clarity concerning the main points involved here. I'll wrap up with some comments from an email to me by Judy Andreas who heard a recent von Kleist interview on the program "Mysteries of the Mind" and who has been closely following this "controversy":
' This weekend I got a chance to watch the new footage a few times. I then compared it with the old footage. von Kleist is DISINGENUOUS. He states, in his video, that there are two towers in the footage.
In the new addition, he says "some people" claim that there are two towers.....
HE WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. He also talks about a raging 3 year old controversy. He never said, in his original video, anything about a controvery.
The least he could have done was admitted that he had mistakenly thought there were two towers and had not made that clear. He threw everything on "the internet lynch mob" '
[note: a new publication has just been issued by the oddly-named "911 Science and Justice Alliance" which repeats the bogus WTC 6 "plume" claim: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/911SJA/]
[end of Part 2, 27 September 2004]
Part One (9-13 September 2004)
[Update, 13 September: I have now received confirmation from someone who spoke personally with Dave von Kleist at the 9/11 conference in New York last Saturday, that von Kleist has acknowledged that this video was a hoax. A new version of the DVD is in production and this part will presumedly be corrected. Note, however, that there appears to be no notification of this retraction at the In Plane Site website yet.]
[Update, 10 September: I have been informed that the producers of In Plane Site have recently already acknowledged that the "mystery explosion" claim is false. I am glad to hear this, although unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any easily visibly notification of this retraction at their website, 911inplanesite.com. I will check into this and update this page again as necessary...
Update #2: A previous debunking, on Jim Hoffman's site, has been brought to my attention: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.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.
Anyone with a good visual skills who is already familiar with imges of the WTC should be able to spot what is wrong fairly quickly — the would-be dual towers are abnormally tall and narrow. A visual proof of this is shown below. I have superimposed a rectangle with the same proportions as the face of one WTC tower over the fake right-hand tower. The rectangle doesn't fit.
There is a second easy proof of the hoax. The large antenna atop the WTC is visible, but it is in the wrong place. The antenna was mounted right in the middle of the North Tower, so it ought to be right in the middle of the right hand tower in the video. It isn't — instead, it is located exactly over the center line between the two fake towers.
The following is a pre-9/11 photo of the WTC taken from roughly the same angle, albeit a lower elevation. The South Tower is directly behind the North Tower, almost hidden. Note the location of the antenna in the middle, as well as the proper edge-on, diagonal view of the building, as opposed to the erroneous face-on view in the fake footage. This is similar to what should be seen in this video (not counting the smoke and dust cloud, of course).
The roofline of the tower in this and other photos looks quite level and even between the two sides of the building, which supports my suspicion that the roofline was altered in the footage (if I'm wrong in that suspicion and some natural effect created the illusion of two towers from a normal diagonal view of the North Tower, that nevertheless wouldn't change the fact that the "mystery explosion" claim is still a hoax).
There is really no excuse for any serious investigator or documentary producer to fall for this sort of hoax. Making matters worse, von Kleist commits a strangely simple error when he incorrectly identifies the location of the "explosion" as Northwest of the WTC, when in fact it is on the opposite side — East or Southeast. His error is made apparent simply by noting the direction of the sun and shadows, as well as the location of surrounding buildings. This hoax footage is then followed up by a single still photograph, obviously of the dust cloud from one of the collapses, with the implication that this is a photo of the same "mystery explosion" — but with no proof or explanation from von Kleist, only a bit of dramatic soundtrack music!
One might also note that an event of this kind could not possibly have happened without some specific eyewitness reports, not to mention showing up in other sources such as the scores of still camera photos that were taken constantly that morning. The claim falls apart deductively as well as empirically.
Clearly, the decision by the producers of In Plane Site to include this footage in the first place indicates a disturbing degree of sloppiness — at best. Unfortunately, the film has been getting quite a bit of attention and promotion from 9/11 researchers and activists, many of whom seem to feel that it is an ideal vehicle for approaching the general public with alternative views of 9/11.
On the contrary, the promotion of this hoax could easily end up discrediting a discussion about the real anomalies of the WTC attacks, especially because it will muddy the waters concerning numerous testimonials from on-site witnesses who reported hearing extra explosions or bomb blasts in the building, apart from the aircraft strikes and final collapses. In Plane Site sandwiches good evidence and phony evidence together, to the detriment of the good.
Full version of "Mystery explosion" video (animated .gif file, 1.6 MB)
Note:
A review of In Plane Site from Jeremy Baker offers numerous
other critiques of the film. Except for allegations that the filmmakers
deliberately added forged imagery to their video footage, which I disagree
with, I think most of his points are well-considered:
http://www.darkprints.net/planesitereview.html
The following excerpt is his commentary on the "mystery explosion" footage. My interpretation is different because I suspect the footage may have been deliberately altered (but not by the filmmakers themselves). The basic arguments, however, are otherwise similar:
Both the CNN footage of a huge cloud of white "smoke" rising fast over WTC 7 and the still photo vonKleist shows us at the end of the segment have, I'm afraid, been dealt us from the bottom of the deck.
Network video (and common sense) from that morning clearly shows that the clip in question was taken seconds after the collapse of Tower 2, the rising "smoke" being just the first billowing cloud of white demo-dust (not the black smoke we saw in the other explosions that day). And the vertical shaft of dust to the right of the north tower (singular) indicates where tower 2 had stood burning only seconds before.
But, before he's through, our narrator sets up the still photo mentioned above by asking us: "Is there any other photographic evidence that might show an explosion...to the north and west of the World Trade Towers before the collapse?" He then inserts a photo, supposedly illustrative of this curiosity. But the photo is illustrative of one thing alone - that it's been pilfered from the tail end of a video clip showing the first collapse.
Look at the picture. The building in the center is a corner view of WTC 1. I have the video that the picture was taken from. It begins with a low angle perspective of the collapse of Tower 2 starting at the top and ending with the scene in the photo. This shameful chicanery (or outrageous incompetence) is yet another suspicious example of this film's dubious pedigree, and certainly one of the most appalling.