The possibility of this is mind-numbingly devastating.

This is from Curtis over at Let Me Tell You All About It, Sweetie. There is so much we don't know. And the mere thought that even 2% of this might be true is just unfathomable. Does anyone know who Dave vonKleist is? I've never heard of him before now. I feel sick.


Scott said...

Von Kleist has his followers. As he says, there's denial, violent rejection, and acceptance. There's a slew of people who, along with wearing tinfoil hats, buy his view.

There's a 12:45 video that debunks the vast majority of his story available in WMV format and RealAudio here:


There is also a conspiracy rebuttal video on Archive-dot-org: 911 Conspiracy Rebuttal (2004)

john said...

Haven't heard of him until you mentioned him.

Bruce said...

The strongest argument against a comspiracy theory involved with the 9/11 events is that the Bush administration, which is the most incompetant, bumbling, and out of control administration in recent American history, would not be capable of the planning and coordination necessary to pull this off in the way that von Kleist suggests. It would require a level of sophistication in planning and discipline that Bush and his cohorts simply don't have.

Much more likely is that the administration had good indication that the attacks of 9/11, purpetrated by Ben Laden, were not only possible but probable, and Bush and his cabal just let them happen, intending to turn them to the administration's political advantage.

Sam said...

Hi Bruce; did you watch the video? The scariest implications--and the ones that i must find out more about--are many, nothwithstanding your 2 arguments above. For example: Why were there news reports from Cleveland (since suppressed, can find nothing of them now) that United 93 landed THERE, and did not crash in rural Pennsylvania? Why was the damage to the Pentagon so much more minimal than the type of aircraft that allegedly hit it would have logically created? Why are there no eyewitness accounts of an aircraft hitting the Pentagon? And finally, as there was SO much filming of the second aircraft hitting the Trade Center, why does none of that clearly show identification of the airliner--why are no United or American Airlines graphics/branding evident? These are all very, very disturbing questions in my mind. The short film does make me feel that the lies and deceit are in plain sight. I'd be interested to know what your take is on these salient points the film makes.

Bruce said...


I admit that I desperately don't WANT to believe the film. The implications really are too devastating. I also looked at the debunking video, and it doesn't explain away many of the points you raise. I want to look at the film and the debunking film both again, think about them a little, and then get back to you.

Sam said...

Bruce, bingo. That's exactly what I thought: why doesn't this debunking piece deal directly with those most serious indictments? Well, interested to see what you think, and if you find any interesting background.

Bruce said...


I've looked at the videos again, and you're absolutely right. They don't deal with the most serious allegations. BUT, the intent of the "debunking" videos, especially the "9/11 Conspiracy Rebuttal (2004)," despite its title, is not to debunk the conspiracy theory, but rather to discredit von Kleist. In fact, this 2004 video says quite clearly that the claims of the Bush administration cannot be taken at face value on this issue.

Von Kleist is sloppy, has poor judgment, and is probably somewhat dishonest; this has, of course, nothing to do with the validity of many of the points he makes. Unfortunately, his lack of discipline and perhaps even integrity make him a poor advocate for the issue. But the fact that 9/11 played right into the Bush administrations hands and the possibility that he and his cabal were in some way, either actively or passively responsible for what happend that day clearly deserves further investigation.

Fight the H8 in Your State