Main Navigation



911 In Plane Site


On January 4, 2006, Mr. Gordon Farrer of The Age wrote an editorial review of 911 In Plane Site entitled "Malicious nonsense posing as proof" before it aired on Channel 10 AUSTRALIAN TV NETWORK. Please fell free to read his editorial:
(Text Link to editorial:)

Below, please find a response issued by Dave vonKleist regarding the editorial review of 911 In Plane Site by Mr. Gordon Farrer:

January 6, 2006

Dear Mr. Farrer,
     As producer the documentary, "911 In Plane Site", I find it necessary to respond to your blatantly biased review that was posted on January 4, 2006. It is obvious that you either didn't see the documentary and were told what to write, or that you did see it and chose to attack the messenger rather than address the questions that were raised.

     In either event, it demonstrated to me (and the many people that have e-mailed us at The Power Hour) that your intent was to dissuade and intimidate potential viewers to keep them from watching, and to ridicule anyone who had the audacity to watch the program and indulge themselves in the exercise of thinking outside the "cage" that you had so carefully and skillfully crafted for them.

     As a "journalist", you are aware that unbiased reporting of the facts after following a line of inquiry is what separates a professional journalist from a hack. A "propagandist" presents pre-supposed notions and utilizes the technique of ridicule to sway opinion before the facts are presented. Given the above definitions, which one do you think would describe your contribution to The Age? Sadly, I have no doubt that you actually believe you would be defined as the former, despite the actions taken can only be defined as the latter.

     If you have any interest at all in pursuing the facts, you may want to follow up on these leads:

     On our radio program, we have interviewed a two-star General, an Air Force Colonel (with 30 yrs. identifying aircraft ant aircraft parts), an Army Major, Air Force Major, a 33 yr. veteran of the DoD in missile defense systems, numerous Airline pilots including an instructor, and the United Airlines pilot who flew Flight 175 up to two months before 9/11 when he retired. They agree that a 757 could not have caused the damage at the Pentagon and that the planes that hit the towers could not have been commercial aircraft. That is their opinion not mine.

     What "experts" can you bring forth to support or justify your condemnation of the hard photographic evidence presented in the film? I would be most interested as to what your explanation would be in regard to the "pod" and the "flash" is. How do you explain the Pentagon photos and footage taken before the collapse of the "E" ring? I noticed (and so did many of your readers) that you didn't address any of these issues. In fact, you didn't address one issue, not one. I would challenge you to do so however, coward "journalists" usually throw their rocks, shoot their arrows and then run and hide. Prove me wrong.

     Notice the above poll taken from USA Today. I know this is from the US, but I'm sure that your fellow Aussies share similar sentiments. According to this poll, 94% DON'T trust the Federal government, 78% DON'T trust newspapers and 76% DON'T trust the news. Could it be that your "journalistic efforts" might be a contributor to the miserable failing levels of trust from the people you claim you serve? The Age has enjoyed 152 years of publication and it is sad to see that your brand of reporting is printed in such a respected newspaper. This indeed is demonstrative of the fall of integrity of the mainstream media, due to the corporate takeover of most forms of broadcast and print media.

     I would suggest you re-examine the issues presented in "911 In Plane Site" with an open mind and consider that everything we were told came from government officials and mainstream media. Look at the poll again. Get it? Unless writers and publishers get with the program, no doubt you'll all be looking for a new vocation. You can't stop the people from thinking outside the cage for long. Some of them actually employ cognitive skills that prevent them from being influenced by propagendists.

     On Friday, January 6th, I spoke with Monica Forlano, from the "TEN Network" program-scheduling department. I was told that typically, the network would receive between 12 and 24 calls after airing a given program. After airing "911 In Plane Site", the network received a total of 548 calls, 540 of them being positive and supportive. It appears that you and those that share your sentiments are in the extreme minority. Yet you write for a major publication that gives the appearance of reflecting the views of the people! What's wrong with that picture? ( The Poll!! The Poll!!)

      I will welcome any intelligent response from you and post it proudly on the web, as I have with your article and this reply.

G'Day Mate!

Dave vonKleist

The Power Hour
Joyce Riley & Dave vonKleist



The Power Hour:
(7-10am CST)
иииListen Live

Listen FREE thru Global Star Satellite Feed






All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

Copyright © 2007. The Power Hour. All rights reserved.