Copyright Michael B. Green, August 3, 2005
"Loose Change" An analysis
by Michael B. Green
My views on 911 are as dark and conspiratorial as most. I believe that the National Security Act of 1947 was
masterminded by key members of the Council on Foreign Relations to create a
privatized mercenary force (CIA Department of Plans) to undermine and topple
secular nationalist governments that put the interests of their own peoples
before the economic interests of the ruling faction of the United States. I believe that subsequent draconian
secrecy laws and oaths, and outsourcing by means of Reagan's (read: BUSH's)
Executive Order 12333, have created privatized covert action mercenaries whose
moles and contacts within the military and intelligence agencies permit them
even greater freedom of action than they had in the assassinations of JFK, X,
MLK, and RFK, so that WTC93, OKC, and 911 are also their handiwork. I believe that the so-called
"corporate" media is in large part, when needed for crisis management
and gross disinformation, under the direct operational control of the
intelligence agencies by means of class allegiances within the ruling
elite. I also believe that the
neocon cabal is at odds with the traditional Eastern Liberal Establishment and
that there is currently a war amongst the rulers over who shall hold the reins
of power; the "other side" is roughly a combination of Leo Straussian
Zionists, crusading imperial Christian military of the Jerry Boykin cut, and
pro-American imperialists like Tom Friedman of the New York Times. Although US world domination has long
been the goal of the CFR, the muscular militancy of the neocons has gained
especial appeal in a world of diminishing resources where an unregulated
profit-driven economy has made the brute solution of military might attractive
to many with limited compassion, wit, and imagination.
have great respect for the courage of all the legitimate 911 researchers who
try to find the truth and tell it to others, but they often forget a simple
essential point. Because 911 (JFK,
etc.) are not ordinary crimes, but crimes of state, they cannot be proven by
simple forensic means. The proof
of any such crimes requires rethinking our picture of the means of government
from the ground up. People
naturally do not wish to do this, and are propagandized to believe the
contrary, so any effort to get their attention should be with evidence that is
simple, clear, and convincing, not abstract, obscure, dubious or
debatable. I do not pretend that
this is enough. Orwellian
"stop think" provides that "protective stupidity" that
allows us to function in comfort and it is both difficult and painful to
abandon. My best friend of nearly
40 years, and former co-author, now ensconced at Harvard, has trouble taking me
seriously when I discuss 911.
Within the past months he admitted not knowing that a 47 story steel
building (WTC7) not hit by anything, and with only a few small fires, had
collapsed as a perfect implosion would, nor did he know that the 911 Commission
had refused even to mention WTC7 in its report, nor did he think much of these
facts nor of his ignorance of them.
This is a very smart man, open-minded in many respects, but giving up
the world-view he inhabits is simply too hard, especially when there is nothing
coherent with which to replace it.
a film-maker or live lecturer has the good fortune of having the attention of
someone like this, or good solid middle-Americans, for an hour-long DVD, or for
a 2-3 hour live presentation, he had better use clear hard facts for persuasion,
and not iffy, vaguely or ambiguously supported possibilities. The intelligence agencies that do the
crimes try to control the counter-community's response by infiltrating moles
that infect it with large falsehoods and impossible-to-prove technical
questions (micro-analysis). The
large falsehoods are designed to prove the community wrong and nuts if the need
arises. The microanalysis into
pointless or unanswerable questions, or into just plain dumb ones, is to divert
its energies from using the clear hard facts to tell the story simply and
DVD "Loose Change" by rising media artist Dylan Avery has been touted
by some members of the 911-truth community as the best presentation yet, as the
"best evidence" (a reference to David Lifton’s book, "Best
Evidence" on the JFK assassination).
This review will show that the DVD is anything but that; if it is not
naive, foolish, uninformed and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole
or at best a naïf who has been used by such. “Loose Change” uses footage and analysis from the DVD “In
Plane Site,” by Dave vonKleist who has praised “Loose Change” as the best
overall DVD on 911, so “In Plane Site” too will come under scrutiny. What, then, is amiss with “Loose Change”?
me take umbrage from the start at the distracting and offensive musical
soundtrack that overlays “Loose Change.”
It makes interviews hard to hear, substitutes the good feeling that goes
with the beat for clear thinking, and generally supports the impoverished notion
that effective political action comes from a good concert.
video begins with a direct eyewitness report from FOX reporter Mark Burnback [sic] who
observed UA 175 that hit WTC2.
It definitely didn’t
look like a commercial plane. I
didn’t see any windows on the side.
Again it was not a normal flight that I’d ever seen at an airport. It had a blue logo on the front and it
did not look like it belonged in the area.
statement is taken as gospel both by Mr. Avery and his admirers, an amusing fact
given the deserved reputation FOX enjoys as a propaganda station for the
Cheney/Bush administration. Mr.
Avery has lifted parts of the quote from Dave vonKleist’s “In Plane Site”, but has not mentioned that in the fuller version witness Birnbach
states that he was at a subway stop in Brooklyn, hence at least a mile from the
plane that was silhouetted against the sky, so that Birnbach would not be not
able to see any windows because of both the distance and the lighting. Eyewitness reports for brief shocking
events are notoriously unreliable; and other photos of the plane definitively
show it had standard United Airlines markings; airplane wreckage with windows
was found amongst the rubble at WTC5.
Thus, Mr. Avery makes selective use of unreliable eyewitnesses ill
placed to make the relevant observations, and he ignores other available
evidence that this witness is mistaken.
That’s just for starters.
Messrs Avery and vonKleist also ignore the obvious. 911 was not a low budget operation. If a switch of planes were necessitated
for some reason, the substitute plane would look exactly like the plane it
replaced. The covert operators cannot
control all the people taking photos and would not risk having a good clear
picture of a plane that did not look exactly like AA11 or UA175. So they would not use a commercial
plane without windows with an aberrant blue logo (“circular” per Birnbach’s
full statement), and would not attach a huge pod or missile to the underside of
the plane. In fact, the historical
precedent for 911 was Operation Northwoods, a top-secret project to provide a
pretext to invade Cuba that was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962
but vetoed by President Kennedy.
One Northwoods project involved hijacking a Cuban or American airliner,
and if an American airline, switching it with a remote controlled drone that
would be crashed over Cuba to blame the Cubans. Northwoods states in pertinent part:
…8. It is possible to create an incident which will
demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a
chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala,
or Venezuela. The destination
would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of
college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common
interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
An aircraft at Eglin
AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil
registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami
area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for
the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all
boarded under carefully prepared aliases.
The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. (Emphasis
put matters plainly: any substitute plane would be an exact duplicate of AA11
or UA175. To do anything else
would be inviting disaster.
point may be made another way. One
of the major problems facing the JFK plotters was the control or destruction of
the photographic record. The car
carrying the photographic press corps that usually travels immediately behind
the presidential limousine was moved to the back of the motorcade by Secret Service
agent Winston Lawson as part of the assassination. Some cameras were seized and some photos were bought or
grabbed, but the Zapruder film that shows the assassination in its entirety
presented a special problem because it showed JFK’s head blown back and to the
left by a shot from the front instead of being thrown forward by a shot from
the rear. The CIA and its assets
were forced to mount an entire separate complicated operation to purchase,
sequester, and lie about the contents of that film until its impact could be
minimized. They also had to fiddle
the Warren Commission so that the Zapruder film was viewed by only its
operatives (Allen Dulles, John McCloy, Gerald Ford). This was a lot of work and a lot of
perpetrators of 911 knew they would have a much-photographed event, but they
intended to succeed by spectacular shock caused by their boldness and
supplemented by manufactured “expert opinion” to explain such complex events as
the collapse of the Twin Towers.
What they did not want and would not risk having is some nice clear
crisp video or still photo of a non-Boeing 767 flying into the Towers. That would not be part of the
spectacle, but hard cold evidence.
vonKleist and Mr. Avery claim that photos show that the plane that hit WTC2 had
a pod or bulge; both correctly note flashes of light when AA11 and UA175 impact
their respective targets (WTC1, North Tower; WTC2, South Tower). Mr. Avery declares that the flash is
from a missile launched from the planes hitting the towers. Again, Mr. Avery’s refusal to think
while listening to the beat of his music has served him ill. If the covert action operators were
concerned that jet fuel needed some help to ignite because a 500 mph crash into
a steel building were not incendiary enough, there are any number of means of
planting the necessary explosives without creating a huge bulge in the profile
of the plane.
will be brief. The “pod” or
“missile” is an artifact of light and shadow reflecting from the fairings of
the UA175. The fairings are the
elongated ovular pods under each wing of a Boeing 767 into which the landing
gear retract. They extend from
roughly the point where the front of the wings join the plane to several feet
behind where the back of the wings join the plane. It is a scandal of both “In Plane Site” and of “Loose Change” that neither mentions the existence of wing fairings.
vonKleist is an especially tricky fellow. His original DVD slides invisibly from proving that the
“pod” is real to showing that “there is no illusion” that a “flash” occurred by
showing four videos that each displays a flash when UA175 goes into WTC2. This proves that the “flash” is not an
illusion, but does not address the pod.
I used my home DVD to freeze-frame and enlarge the four videos. To make a long story short, there is no
“pod” because there is no constancy of size and shape of the supposed
attachment. In the best of the
visual artifacts the imaginary “object” is huge and much larger than the
engines, but there is nothing like this in other views of the underside of the
plane in the four videos that show the flash. Of his new and improved version of “In Plane Site” Mr.
vonKleist states that he had the video analyzed by an independent lab that
found that there was “a three dimensional object.” Well, Mr. vonKleist, who enjoys a military background, knows
how to ask the wrong question to get his preferred answer. Of course the fairing is a
three-dimensional object. But I am
not aware of Mr. vonKleist asking that lab whether there is any evidence of a
three dimensional object other than the fairings.
argument that both Mr. Avery and his mentor Mr. vonKleist use to “prove” that
the flash is a missile, or in vonKleist’s case a separate event from the plane
striking the building, deserves close attention. Only the Naudet brothers captured the impact of AA11 into
WTC1 on film. The clincher used by
Mr. Avery and his mentor is that the flash, the supposed missile explosion,
occurs before the shadow of the
plane meets the plane when it hits the tower, hence that the flash is a
separate and prior event caused by the missile impact. Unfortunately, my critique applies not
only to Mr. Avery but the any audience that has seen his film. There is a thin cylindrical shadow of
the plane’s fuselage that advances toward the tower as the plane does, and that
meets the tower when the plane does, at which point the flash occurs, corresponding
to the front of the fuselage impacting the tower. There is a second larger shadow of the wings that
arrives later, but only this “late shadow” from the wings “proves” the missile
theory. Thus, the analysis of both
films is such a gross distortion of their content that I am inclined to think
it is deliberate misinformation; that it works is a sad commentary on audience
gullibility. Indeed, both films
play the crash in reverse to prove their point with narratives that state that
the flash occurs “before” the shadow meets the building because you can see the
flash yet see that the shadow has not yet touched the building. The trouble is that it is only the
shadow of the wings that have not yet touched the building. The shadow from the front of the fuselage
meets WTC1 just when the flash occurs.
It is one thing to let this error slip by you in a theater, quite
another to see it scores of times as both these film makers have and keep
peddling it to your audience.
final illustration of Mr. vonKleist’s artistry is his proof that the flash is not caused by the fuselage impacting the South
Tower. Obviously, it not
surprising that a fuselage and engines of aluminum-titanium hitting an
irregular surface of concrete, steel and cosmetic siding would be expected to
generate friction and intense heat producing a flash like the sparks from a
giant grinding wheel as metal is forced against it at some 500 mph., but
vonKleist denies this innocent explanation. By using the third of his four video clips, vonKleist rebuts
skeptics who claim that the flash is caused by the fuselage impact.
take another look at this one clip and you’ll notice that the flash is a
separate event than the contact of the fuselage as it hits the building. Some folks have stated that the
flash was the result of the fuselage making contact with the trade center
building. But as you can see the flash is indeed to the right of the
and in fact as the fuselage makes contact with the world trade tower you can
see a reflection of the flash in the fuselage which further supports the
contention that these are two separate events.
This interpretation is patently false, since the first of the video
clips – the CNN footage that gives the best, longest, fullest and clearest
picture of this impact from an angle almost directly behind the plane just to
the right side of the fuselage – shows there is no such separate event, but
only a flashpoint where the fuselage hits the tower, but not to the right of
it. My point is not simply that vonKleist
is wrong; but that his error is likely a deliberate hoax from someone who is
pretending to be so careful to check all known videos to make sure that the
flash (not the pod!) is not an illusion.
Mr. Avery’s video is especially offensive because it displays frames
from the “flash” side-by-side between 3:25 and 3:32. As any reader can see by freeze-framing the movie at 3:29,
the illusory missile present in one (or with vonKleist the flash to the right
of the fuselage as a separate event) is not present in the main CNN
footage. This should make any
reasonable person appreciate that grainy footage of fast moving objects vary
greatly depending on such factors as whether one has a digital or analogue
camera, how steady one holds it, the quality of the camera, and whether or not
one captures a reflective burst of light from the plane exterior or a building
window pane. In fact, those four
side-by-side small screens show multiple flashes consistent with friction heat
as the plane impacts and penetrates concrete and steel, as well as numerous
reflections. The fact that Messrs.
Avery and vonKleist prefer imaginary incendiaries or missiles fired from an
immensely implausible non-existent “pod” suggests that they are hoaxers. The best full rebuttal of their nonsense
is by Brian Salter, “Analysis of
Flight 175 ‘Pod’ and related claims,” from which the photos in
this article were copied.
It may be found at http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html.
it is unlikely that Mr. vonKleist has made an innocent mistake
The USG intelligence community is for the most part smarter and better
educated than the people it fools, and it is certainly better organized,
funded, and equipped for its tasks than its audience is to resist or expose
them. Many of the operatives who
write the dialogue come from the best universities and are inclined to amuse
themselves by mocking the rubes that they fool. This mockery is typically done by announcing what they are
doing in disguised form, and then doing it with verve and bravado. In Mr. vonKleist’s video, he states:
take another look at this clip [of plane hitting south tower, CNN, #1] in slow
motion but before we do, keep in mind that sometimes the best place to hide
something is in plain site. We’ve all seen this video clip,
and there have been many publications that have taken frames from this video
and published them in hundreds of magazines. Here’s an example, on page 3 a
full size blow up of this picture. And in this magazine, it was published on
page 4. And on the back of this book that we discussed earlier, it’s on the
back cover. I suggest you all take a copy of your magazines and books and if
you have the video footage, take a good hard look. We’ve all got this. Now
let’s take a look at this in slow motion. As the plane approaches the south
tower, notice carefully, the belly of the plane, there appears to be something
attached, and just as it hits the building there’s a flash. Let’s take
another look in super slow motion.
Now let’s take another good hard look at this video
footage. As the plane approaches, it is irrefutable that there is something
attached to the bottom of this plane, and a distinct flash as it makes contact.
Now there are some that would say this is
a trick of light, a reflection.
[COMMENT: Which “this” does vonKleist mean, the pod or the flash?] Well
let’s keep in mind that if you hold a mirror in your hand and reflect the suns
rays, that reflection only goes where you aim that reflection. So a
reflection should only be seen from one particular angle. Let’s take a look at
this event, from another angle. [COMMENT: Each “angle” is a separate video.]
And now let’s take a look
at it again from a 3rd angle.
And now let’s take a look
at it again one more time from a 4th angle.
Ladies and gentlemen,
you’ve just seen a very interesting event indeed. Not recorded by one, but by 4
different cameras from 4 different angles. There can be no doubt, that this
is not the result of a reflection of any sort, but in fact was a flash caused
by an explosion, a detonation, a missile, something happened that was not...a
terrorist with a box cutter.
The big boast is that the best place to hide things is “in plain
site.” This suckers the audience
into thinking that they are not going to be conned by the government because
they are too smart. This is how
Dave vonKleist cons them. The CNN
footage has an artifact of shadow and lighting off the fairing that looks like
a huge object. The problem is that
the other three videos – even though grainy -- do not show this same shaped
huge object. So how to hide such
in plain sight? Well, Dave tells
us truly that it is irrefutable that there is something attached to the plane
(it’s the fairing) and that there is a flash when the plane hits the
building. So what anyone who is
interested in the truth would want to know is whether that huge something
attached to the plane is in the other three videos. But instead, Dave switches the topic smoothly and invisibly
– sheer distraction, sheer fallacy of equivocation – to show that sure enough,
there really is a flash! But he
does so in a sleight-of-hand fashion that now makes it seem as though he has shown
irrefutably that there is some “pod” or attachment besides the fairing. And once he has done that, Dave can
play all four of those videos side by side and no one tries to see whether the
“pod” is in the other three.
Better still, Dave makes a sly false inference from the genuine
certainty that there is a flash to the specious claim of certainty that it “was a
flash caused by an explosion, a detonation, a missile, something happened that
was not...a terrorist with a box cutter. “ Of course, a plane hitting a building and causing a flash is
not a terrorist with a box cutter.
Best, however, moments later at 42:52 Dave can add to the deception by
showing video footage of the impact taken from an angle that shows the entire
right side of the plane as it hits WTC2, and angled from just a little behind
the point of impact.
Let’s take another look at this one clip [video #3,
Spiegel TV] and you’ll notice that the flash is a separate event then the
contact of the fuselage as it hits the building. Some folks have stated that
the flash was the result of the fuselage making contact with the trade center
building. But as you can see the flash is indeed to the right of the
fuselage and in fact as the fuselage makes contact with the world
trade tower you can see a reflection of the flash in the fuselage which further
supports the contention that these are two separate events.
Mr. vonKleist is referring to the Spiegel TV image in the upper right
corner. Well, dear reader, a part
of the flash is to the right of the fuselage in that image, but that flash is
some sort of reflection from the building to the camera; it is clearly not the
same flash that occurs where the fuselage impacts the building. This “flash to the right” is Mr.
Avery’s missile. But the CNN
footage [video #1], which tracks the plane from behind (and to the right and
below perspective) as it hits WTC2, shows that there is no separate event, full
stop. The moving CNN video in
DVK’s video gives a crisper image of the fuselage than the above CNN still and
shows the flash hugging the point of impact, not the least bit to the right of
I don’t pretend to know what caused this separate flash, and do not
care; anyone with a slow motion function on their DVD can find many such
flashes at many points of impact (friction flares) and points of non-impact
(sheer reflection) in the four side-by-side videos. Many of them are in some videos but not the others. So Dave vonKleist has succeeded in
typical intelligence community fashion.
The disinformation branch of the intelligence community mocks the rubes
by telling them what they are going to do – hide the truth in plain sight --
then they do it, and they do it so deftly that they can show side-by-side
photos where one disproves what Dave claims about the other, and the audience
buys it without a thought.
Do you think I am kidding you?
Dave vonKleist has even spelled out his rigorous scientific methodology
for determining whether a flash is a genuine event as opposed to an imaginary
one caused by a reflection. From
Now there are some that would say this is a trick of
light, a reflection. Well let’s keep in mind that if you hold a mirror in your
hand and reflect the suns rays, that reflection only goes where you aim that
reflection. So a reflection should only be seen from one particular
So Dave states his investigative method, then flouts it, and the
gullible, obedient, trusting audience laps it up. If there were a separate event it would be in the CNN video,
but it is not. I am put in mind of
the complaint of the great anti-imperialist English political economist J.A.
Hobson who in 1903 rued the fact that the English populace could be so easily
deceived by politicians who told them one story from one side of their mouth
and another story from the other.
That politician faced no fear that he would be discovered a fraud by the
…for he will be aware that the people whose votes
he craves cannot hold two arguments in their heads at the same time for
purposes of comparison. (Imperialism: A Study 1938 ed., p. 104)
Well, the Americans have them beat. The Americans have got the two photographs in front of them
at the same time yet cannot realize that one rebuts what Dave is telling them
about the other. God Love them,
KPFK was duped by “In Plane Site” last year and is now hyping “Loose Change” as the
second coming. As for Mr.
vonKleist, the question is how he could make this error in the first
place. Clearly if one is putting
together a video as he did, it would be impossible not to notice that the
“separate event flash” is in just one of his four flash videos.
Both videos contain much good evidence and valuable material of
explosions in the WTC that brought down WTC1, 2, 7 that cannot be
suppressed. I suggest that the
purpose in including both junk and substantive evidence is to discredit the
latter. If rotten fish is wrapped
in the same package as delicious truffles, few people with good judgment or
good taste will attempt to retrieve and salvage the truffles. It is also to scant good evidence and
thorough analysis in favor of cheap shots and one-liners that have no
evidentiary value whatsoever.
vonKleist wraps the good meat of the WTC blowing up between two pieces
of rotten bread: the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon, and the Pod & Flash
fraud. If Mr. vonKleist is not a
paid intelligence disinformation asset, then he is the dream of the
intelligence community: someone who dissembles as artfully as they do, and with
all their wit, but who doesn’t draw a salary.
I do not know what hit the Pentagon, but the evidence strongly
indicates it was a Boeing 757. The
same general arguments that any substitute plane that hit WTC1 and WTC2 would
be an exact duplicate would apply to the Pentagon strike. I have nothing against a missile, two
planes, or other theory, but there is little to support them except junk
forensics and uninformed intuitions.
From its start the “no-Boeing” fight was a miserable tar baby
facilitated by the release of five still frames allegedly from a Pentagon
parking kiosk video absent the Boeing; such stills should make anyone
suspicious of USG complicity realize that they have just been served a red
Let me make this point about rotten wrappings concrete. Last year I bought In Plane Site and saw it twice before going to the KPFK screening
on August 7, 2004. I was so moved
by the power of the film, by vonKleist’s constrained moral gravity about the
pod, that I sent an email to about 25 people with the subject “911 was a US
military operation.” I spent the
next morning replaying all four impact videos in slow motion, with
magnification, and realized there is no pod. I wrote those 25 people an
apology. They all now have reason
to regard me as impulsive, a bit oddly drawn to and easily taken in by
conspiracy theories, and to dismiss the idea that 911 was even in part a US
military operation. Mr. vonKleist
made me cry wolf, and even though it was (approximately) the right wolf, I had
the wrong evidence. When I now try
to urge these people to examine the evidence that the Twin Towers were blown
up, they dismiss my enthusiasm as an expression of my quirks, and are more than
happy to defer to knowledgeable charlatans like Professor Thomas W. Eagar of Journal
of Metallurgy and NOVA. The situation is especially
embarrassing for me because my scientific training has shown many situations
where the correct explanation is at odds with even sophisticated common sense,
but here I am urging the latter against the cool quantified experts and their
Last August I thought that Dave vonKleist was acting in good faith, and
I thought so in part because I had liked and admired the work of his wife Joyce
Riley, who has exposed so many of the military’s lies. But after recently seeing “Loose Change” and hearing it hyped by vonKleist, I went to The Power Hour website to
see how Mr. vonKleist’s education had progressed since August 2004. There he was asking classic nonsensical
disinformation questions, of which the following is typical:
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?
As FOX employee Marc Birnbach states in DVK's original IPS, he saw the
plane from a subway station in Brooklyn, and it turns out that this subway
stop was about two miles from the crash, which he did not see. Birnbach’s distance from the plane
would make it impossible to see the windows of a plane silhouetted against
the morning sky. I suspect that the other eyewitness is the
hysterical woman separated from Manhattan by a very long bridge screaming,
"That is not an American airline!" You don't have to be a
genius to know that other closer eyewitnesses saw a commercial airline, and
that other photos show the plane with UA markings, and that debris found
in the WTC wreckage is of a commercial airliner with windows. But Dave's
job is to keep those nonsensical questions in the mix.
Such nonsense prompted me to take a closer look at both DVDs and to
write this review.
to Mr. Avery’s Contribution
Let me then be very brief with the rest of Mr. Avery’s film, omitting
mention of many erroneous or misleading points that would require endless
background or debate.
The film shows two still
photographs of the underside of two airplanes. The one on the right is of the plane that crashed into the
WTC2; the one on the left “is what the underside of a Boeing 767 should look
like,” Avery intones gravely, intending us to see that the plane that hit the
Tower could not be UA175. (2:17)
COMMENT: I can see no relevant difference except for the angle of the photos
and the fact that the photo on the left is in color, the one on the right in
black-and-white. If there is a
relevant difference, Mr. Avery fails to mention it.
Mr. Avery makes much of
Donald Rumsfeld’s slip of the tongue on 10/12/01 referring to the “missile that
damaged this building.” COMMENT:
Worth a snigger, no evidentiary value.
A valuable interview
with Air Flight School instructor Marcel Bernard showing that alleged Pentagon
pilot Hani Hanjour could not fly well is obscured by the musical sound track
and omits such questions as whether Hanjour could have acquired the necessary
skills in the month or two between when he was shown deficient and 911.
Mr. Avery makes much
effort to prove that UA77 did not bounce off the Pentagon lawn. He even shows photos of other plane
crashes that bounced off the ground and what they look like. The film gives no idea why this is
relevant to anyone except, perhaps, the Pentagon gardener.
Mr. Avery states that
“the downed light poles were thrown away from the Pentagon, not towards it, and
the bases are ripped out completely.
There is no indicated that these were bent or damaged by a Boeing 757
traveling at 535 mph. Instead,
they seem to have just popped out of the ground.” (11:20-11:35) COMMENT: First,
The direction of the light poles doesn’t much matter given that their final
direction depends on the torquing forces to which they were subjected and the
fact that they might bounce around on the ground once toppled. Hence, it is largely irrelevant. Second, the spatial relationship of the
toppled poles to the Pentagon is nowhere apparent in most of the photos. Nonetheless, where it is apparent the
photos in the film show the toppled light poles falling in the direction
of the Pentagon, away from the highway, and roughly pointing in the Pentagon’s
direction. Furthermore, every one
shows significant structural damage at its top as though it had been clipped by
a plane and popped from the ground.
Mr. Avery claims that
the damage to the Pentagon is “completely inconsistent” with a being hit by a
Boeing. He shows a video of a test
crash of a small jet fighter smashing into a reinforced concrete barrier and
advises that if a Boeing hit the Pentagon flying at full speed, “the wings
would rip off outside.” Yet the
crash video does not show the wings being ripped off outside, but of being
smashed to smithereens just as the reinforced exterior wall of the Pentagon
might be expected to smash or shred the Boeing’s wings. (11:55) He then asks
why there are “absolutely no traces of the aircraft at all” even while showing
a FOX News Alert that shows the entire area littered with what look like small
pieces of aircraft debris. Mr.
Avery even asks why there is “not one seat cushion,” on the outside, apparently
having forgotten his own statement of moments before that the fuselage
penetrated the Pentagon.
Mr. Avery shows a photo
of Pentagon employees carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue plastic tarp
and asks, “What was in that box?
Why weren’t we allowed to see it?”
COMMENT: Why should removal of materials from a sensitive site like the
Pentagon and the fact that it is not made public be of any evidentiary value
whatsoever, as opposed to idle speculation?
Mr. Avery states that
the “official” account of the Pentagon crash claims that the intense heat
vaporized the entire plane, and then he proves that titanium would not have
been vaporized. COMMENT: I have no idea what “official” account he means and
believe he has invented a straw man.
Mr. Avery offers
extended discussion of the difficulty of identifying residue in the Pentagon
proper that might be plane parts.
Since the time, source, and subjects of most of the Pentagon photos are
unknown – and since we do not know what photographs have been withheld – it is
difficult to know what to make of the ones he addresses. I cannot follow his technical talk and
we have seen that there is no reason to trust it. But Mr. Avery is clear in his rebuttal that a large diffuser
case from the debris cannot come from a 757. (He seems to have forgotten what he said was the official
version that everything was vaporized.)
Mr. Avery then argues that the damaged diffuser case has circular bezels
but both a diagram and an actual diffuser case from a 757 have triangular
bezels. COMMENT: This observation might be of interest
if Mr. Avery made use of the fact that at least two companies have made engines
for the 757 (Rolls Royce, Payne-Whitney); that they almost certainly do not make them the same way, and that each company in turn
may have made them differently at different times since the shape of the bezel
is not an essential specification of performance, and it is the performance
specifications that must be met, not the bezel shape. This is like arguing that the 1.6 liter engine found in the
fiery crash of a 1983 Nissan Sentra could not be from a 1983 Sentra because,
LOOK!!, Here is a photo and a diagram of a 1.5 liter 1983 Nissan Sentra
engine. Well, Nissan makes both
size engines for the 1983 Sentra.
10) Mr. Avery then says to “forget the debris. The 767’s that hit the WTC left a very
distinct outline of a commercial airliner. Therefore we should expect something similar at the
Pentagon.” The film then flashes
to the famous photo of the smoky Pentagon that shows the entry hole before the
outer wall collapsed. Avery
remarks, “The only damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole
approximately 16’ in diameter.” COMMENT: First, Avery advances a bad argument
because whether or not the Pentagon should show the outline of an airliner in
the same way depends on whether it is constructed of the same material as the
WTC, and if not, upon the structural differences. Since the outer wall of the Pentagon reportedly was 18” of
steel reinforced concrete and reportedly had many of its windows replaced with
bomb-resistant 2,500-pound windows in the renovation process that was not yet
completed, there is no reason to expect the same pattern.
Indeed Mr. Avery’s short attention span shows when he asks the relevant
question at 21:35 “And is it merely a coincidence that the Pentagon was hit in
the only section that was renovated to withstand that kind of attack?” Second,
the area of damage caused by the wings to the Pentagon does in fact fit its
outlines well. The photo that
Avery mistakenly says shows just a small hole in fact shows massive damage to
the façade where the right wing hit; the left side is totally obscured by black
smoke. Other photos of the left
area show a very close correlation to the angled wingspan of a 767. See “Revelations 911,”
For those who were awake during “In
Plane Site”, the video contains a
photo (9:38) showing massive damage from the left wing to the Pentagon façade
even while Mr. vonKleist is acting like some fraud must have been committed
because the ever-tapering ever-thinner 757 wings did not collapse every part of
the Pentagon they impacted. Mr.
Avery succeeds by simply ignoring massive damage in his own data and denying
that it is there. Indeed, he
continues “Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact?” while
showing windows that are smashed open and have flames licking through
them. As noted, the 2” 2,500-pound
bomb-resistant windows may have done quite well while other windows not yet
replaced were broken.
11) At 20:00 Mr. Avery plays a video that shows a car
being swept from a highway and says, “This is what happens when a car gets too
close to the wake of a commercial airline.” He implies that cars on the highway should have been blown
off, but since they were not, no 767 passed overhead. COMMENT: Mr. Avery’s demo video does not show what happens to a car in the wake of a commercial airline. It shows a stationary airliner whose jet engine blast sweeps a car off the highway when it
comes too close. The likely case
at the Pentagon is that the cars on the highway were not that close and that
the Pentagon jet was in the air with its jet engines slightly tilted upward
away from traffic, and neither close enough to, nor pointed directly at, the
cars near the Pentagon.
The Avery video then
spews confusion by quoting many contradictory eyewitness statements to no good
end, and without taking account of all the eyewitness statements and what they
support as a whole: A 767 into the Pentagon. Again, see “Revelations 911” at
and also “Analysis of Eyewitness Statements on 9/11 American Airlines Flight 77
Crash into the Pentagon” by Penny Schoner at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentaToC.html.
At 30:00 Mr. Avery
describes an explosion in the lobby of the North Tower just after AA11 crashed
into it. He notes an official
explanation that this was caused by a fireball, but then says, “However there
was no soot, no fire, no fuel residue.”
Within a minute, Mr. Avery quotes approvingly of first-person testimony
from “We Will Note Forget,” published in The Chief Engineer, in 9/2002 which quotes hero Mike Pecoraro describing
how the WTC1 looked just after the blast, "When I walked out into the
lobby, it was incredible," he recalled. "The whole lobby was
soot and black, elevator doors
were missing. …” This actual text
is in Mr. Avery’s film, and Mr. Avery reads it aloud, but he ignores it. Earlier, a part of the article not in
the film, states:
kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was
upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the
tower but above the deep space where they were working. … The jet fuel actually
came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled
through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was
sooted in the lobby.
The smell of kerosene would be from aviation fuel, not an internal
explosion. Mr. Avery apparently
does not read, nor remember what he said a moment before. (I believe that Mike Pecoraro is
mistaken in holding that the explosions were caused by a fireball, but the
evidence is complex and ambiguous and simply cannot be assessed in a video. The fact that Mr. Avery just tells his
side of the evidence reduced his video to propaganda. I believe that WTC1 suffered an explosion in the
sub-basement just prior to the impact of AA11, but this conclusion is from
other evidence that Mr. Avery does not use. Mike Pecoraro may be reporting a secondary fuel spillage down
the elevator shafts in the core, and may have been persuaded by the “official
account” that a fireball caused the explosions.)
Let me conclude with two more points, one of which
shows what is missing in Mr. Avery’s account, the other of which shows his lack
First, WTC 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by
explosive charges. WTC1-2
literally exploded in mid-air before hitting the ground while WTC7 was
demolished by a classic lower energy implosion. I recommend Jim Hoffman’s excellent site, www.911review.com, as well as the photos on the back of his co-authored book, Waking
Up From Our Nightmare. One key to understanding the official
hoax of WTC1 and 2 is to juxtapose official accounts of its flimsy or non-existent
core with photos of the core 47 massive steel box columns held together by
massive interlocking grid work, and connected to the peripheral columns by
massive beams and girders as well as the lighter-duty trusses that supported
the flooring. This is what gives
the lie to the pancake theory –- even if the floors collapsed the core would
still stand, or demonstrate terrific resistance to collapse instead of nearly
free-fall descent. Again, though
not definitive, the core being demolished first then makes sense of a video
mounted on a tripod, focused on one of the towers, shaking several seconds before
the building’s collapse (when the base is
detonated); and again though not definitive, makes sense of a video taken from
a helicopter photographing a WTC collapse that is rocked by propagating shock
waves that would not occur from a simple collapse. Some of these facts are better presented in a print and
still medium, but any video of the subject that wants to be effective should
Second, the telephone calls from the airplanes are a
difficult subject, and I have no firm idea whether any, some, or none were
genuine. But Mr. Avery makes two
claims that are pragmatic contradictions, and argues very badly for each of
them. Mr. Avery argues that all
the calls are bogus based on research by Professor of Physics A.K. Dewdney
trying to make call phone calls from a chartered airplane over Canada. I don’t think that Dewdney’s
self-funded research in Canada is definitive about how the entire lot of commercial
cell phones in airlines at unknown heights may have behaved in the United
States. Additionally, some reports
of cell-phone calls may be paid air-phone calls.
Mr. Avery’s tack is then to scoff at the alleged
implausibility of reported dialogue, which we shall show momentarily he does
crudely and wrong-headedly.
Perhaps the worst part is that as part of his debunking all the calls,
Mr. Avery makes such comments as the following. Referring to Flight Attendant Madeline Sweeney’s 25 minute
call with her ground manager Michael Woodward, Mr. Avery mimics and mocks her
statement “near the end [when] she says, ‘I see water and buildings! Oh my god! Oh, my god!’ as though
she had never seen the Manhattan skyline before in her life.” (53:00) COMMENT: Mr. Avery seems to have little
capacity for understanding how people feel. If this is genuine dialogue, its obvious interpretation is
that Madeline Sweeney has just realized that the hijacked plane is not going to
be landed, but to be crashed into lower Manhattan.
Mr. Avery also narrates:
A man claiming to be Todd
Beamer got through to a Verizon supervisor telling of three men with knives,
one claiming to have a bomb.
Thirteen minutes later he recites the 23rd psalm of the bible and drops
the phone, turning to utter his rallying cry, “Let’s roll!” Why would Beamer spend the last
minutes of his life talking to a complete stranger as opposed to a member of
his own family?
The boldfaced, supposedly deep question unmasking the
perpetrators’ charade, is designed to show that Mr. Beamer’s behavior made no
sense, and to set up Mr. Avery’s own opinion that based on Dewdney’s research,
“The cell phone call were faked.
No ifs, ands, or buts.” It
would take too much time to show in detail why this does not follow from
Dewdney’s research, not least of which is that the altitudes from which the
calls were made remain unknown, and the low probability given by Dewdney of
getting through on any given call is offset in a hard-to-calculate way by
automatic redial, not to mention that these calls may have been air-phone
calls. But given Mr. Avery’s cry
that the calls were faked, I don’t see anything but intelligence community
irony in ending his film with a rallying cry to all Americans that we should
follow Todd Beamer’s example and, “Let’s roll!” Why should we follow as an example what Mr. Avery has just
told us is sheer fiction manufactured by the 911 perpetrators through voice
And as for Mr. Avery’s distinct incapacity to imagine
the obvious, let alone see it in front of his face, here are several good
reasons why Todd Beamer would spend the last few minutes of his life talking to
a complete stranger rather than a family member:
Mr. Beamer may have been
able to reach a Verizon supervisor but not able to reach a family member to
whom he wanted to talk at a time like that.
Mr. Avery’s video
displays a 9/22/01 article from the Post Gazette that states that the Verizon supervisor notified the
FBI and Todd Beamer was apprising her, and presumably the FBI, of the status of
the airplane in preparation to making a counter-attack. Mr. Beamer may have felt that speaking
to her and the FBI would be more useful at that moment than speaking to a
Mr. Beamer clearly did
not know that he would die, and clearly hoped that he might survive. A passenger on that flight was a
licensed commercial pilot and might have been able to land the plane. Todd Beamer asks the Verizon supervisor
to call his wife and tell the wife how much he loved her in case he dies. Since he hoped to live, and since he
needed to steel himself for the task immediately ahead, he may well have not
wanted to burden his wife at such a moment as he then faced.
Mr. Avery did not ask penetrating questions, but asked
shallow, immature, insensitive, callow and uninformed questions consistent with
his performance through his video.
Michael B. Green, Ph.D.
Qualified Medical Examiner
August 3, 2005