9/11 IN PLANE SITE - DIRECTOR'S CUT
P.O. Box 85,
Versailles, MO 65084
(573) 378-0143
www.911inplanesite.com
Certified # 7004 1160 0006 1065 1435
May 4, 2005
William F. Jasper
The New American Magazine
P.O. Box 8040
Appleton, WI 54912
Dear Mr. Jasper,
By now I’m sure you realize that the recent articles published in The New American magazine have not had the effect that you had hoped. It saddens me to find that you and your magazine have by your actions, confirmed the suspicions that many have had for years about the agenda behind the JBS. Instead of using “911-In Plane Site” as a springboard to launch a new investigation based upon video and photographic evidence posing a new premise, you have chosen to assume the role of “gatekeeper” of free thought by condemning and ridiculing anyone with the gall to think outside of the “cage” of the official story created by the main-stream media and government officials. Such an act is an obvious contradiction of true “investigative journalism”.
I had refused to this point to believe some of the “conspiracy theories” about the real purpose of the JBS and its early origins, but am now left with no choice but to accept and believe the charges made that the JBS and its publication are indeed the “controlled opposition” that so many have suspected for years. I am basing my conclusion on the simple fact that true journalists and honest publications focus on issues and not individuals. Here are a few facts:
Your magazine has rightly focused on Michael New as the torchbearer of the sovereignty issue. In the 10/2/95 issue, the article “I am Not a UN Soldier” by William Grigg contained 1,712 words. The 10/30/95 article, “One Mans Courage in Battle” contained 754 words. The 3/4/96 article, “Army Dodges a Bullet” contained 921 words. That’s a total of 3,387 words printed in the first 6 months of the Michael New issue.
In your current issue, your eight-page article, dedicated to discrediting, ridiculing and slandering the “911-In Plane Site” documentary and me, used 4,960 words. Shakespeare’s quote, “The lady doth protest too much” seems to apply. It is both evident and telling, that by spending so much ink and effort in your thinning magazine, your real concern is to focus on individuals rather than the issues. The fact that you never attempted to contact me during your “investigation” into “911-In Plane Site” shows that you were never interested in an honest critique, but rather had a malicious intent to destroy credibility and to steer people away from the ideas presented. Journalism or propaganda?
You may recall I wrote and recorded the song, “The Ballad of Michael New” and donated it to the legal fund raising effort. My wife, Joyce Riley, and I have known the New family for nearly ten years and have stayed with them in their home on several occasions. They know who we are, what we are and what we do. In 1997, Mr. McManus’s insulting letter and the subsequent article by Robert E. Lee attacking Joyce’s credibility and integrity raised red flags in the eyes of the numerous people who’s lives have been touched and positively effected by Joyce’s efforts to help the veterans. Many JBS members were both shocked and surprised by your magazines actions and allowed their memberships to lapse and others resigned as a result of this unfounded and unsubstantiated attack.
Despite this confrontational approach demonstrated by your magazine, we continued to hold out an “open hand” when it came to the JBS membership. In fact, you may recall that when I met you in Klamath Falls in August, 2001, I discussed this issue with you when we were both covering the crossing of the head gate fence. At the time, you expressed to me your lack of understanding why McManus and Lee had taken the stand that they did and told me that we had indeed proven our intentions over the years to truly help the veterans that have been abused and neglected by their own government. You even told me that there would possibly be a follow-up story in the future about the efforts of those trying to expose the reality of the illnesses that so many vets suffer from. That follow- up never happened.
In regard to our meeting at Klamath Falls, your current article, “vonKleist – Reporter or Provocateur?” is a complete fabrication and you know it. First, I was not and never was a reporter with Alex Jones’s radio broadcast. I was there to report the events as they occurred on OUR radio program, “The Power Hour” and to videotape possible confrontations so as to identify any provocateurs in the act of sabotaging the peaceful efforts of the organizers. While there, I reported live on several other radio programs including the Art Bell Show. I have nearly eight hours of footage of the events and at no time was I ever directly involved in the activities aside from interviewing the organizers, participants and the sheriff. I took great pains to stay out of the way of local TV coverage and aside from possibly joining in the singing of our National Anthem and joining the hundreds of people that crossed the head gate fence, I did nothing that could be construed as “provocational”.
You reported, “Locals on the scene wondered aloud if vonKleist was one of those who had been sent in there as an agent provocateur to discredit them.” Who are the “locals” you refer to? If they “wondered aloud’ what did they say? I have spoken to Barbara Martin, one of the main organizers and spokespersons of the events, and she has stated for the record that your charges are absolutely false. She was a guest on today’s program, and stated that your charges against me were absolutely false and that in fact I was the only reporter on the scene that she and her partner in research felt was trustworthy enough to be granted an exclusive interview. She also stated that “The Power Hour” was the only media organization that donated money ($1,000.00) to help with legal expenses, and that the ”New American” donated nothing in the cause of the rights of the locals. The interview is posted on our website.
Your credibility and the credibility of your entire organization are now on the line. Your contribution to the current issue of the New American is a blatant work of hack journalism, propaganda and slander. It should be of extreme interest that I did not include the article, “VonKleist, Reporter or Provocateur” in the above word count, (that would bring the total to over 5,000 words).
The listeners of “The Power Hour” do not fall into the category of “two week attention span” media consumers that so many media outlets rely upon. You can be assured that I will continue to focus on you and your magazine’s yellow journalism and I hereby challenge you to:
1. Appear on our show to defend and prove your charges.
2. Honestly address the many questions raised in the video, (example, “VonKleist quickly disposes of a, b, and c and settles on a missile as the only logical explanation.” Why didn’t you acknowledge and print the dismissals?
3. Print a retraction and an apology.
4. Explain how and why (According to Senate Report 94-755, Vol. III, entitled “Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, pg. 49), “the JBS was used four times as a counter intelligence agent”.
I expect to hear from you within the next 7 days as to what your intentions are. You have slandered and “prosecuted” me in a public forum and have placed me into a defensive position that I intend to strongly defend. The negative publicity continues to only hurt you and draw attention to the questions you have clearly demonstrated you do not want asked.
My intentions are and have been to present information that would re-open a real and independent investigation into the events of 911, and to have experts on both sides of the issues assess the evidence in an open and honest debate. If you were truly interested in getting to the truth, you would have recognized this information as an opportunity rather that a threat. “Divided we fall” comes to mind when observing what is going on within the “patriot community” and articles like yours serve only to divide us all further. Maybe “Divide and conquer” is more applicable to describe your efforts.
You can choose to hold your position due to pride, ego, mission or agenda, or you can choose to do the right thing and salvage what little respect you may have left. Your lack of response will be self-condemning.
This letter will be posted on the internet and a spot will be reserved for you to post your prompt response to the above challenges.
Most Sincerely,
Dave vonKleist, co-host of “The Power Hour,” producer, “911-In Plane Site”
cc: John McManus, Publisher Emeritus, Thomas G. Gow, Publisher, USAF Gen. Ben Partin (ret.), Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press
Photo: The Pentagon Building Performance Report says: "Impact of the fuselage was at column line 14, at or slightly belown the second floor slab."
It also tells us that that second floor slab was at an elevation of 14 feet, 1 inch: "All columns in the first story had square cross sections and spirally reinforced cores with a concrete cover of 1 1/2 in. The story height was 14 ft 1 in."
There is no way a 757 with it's port side 9-foot engine below the 13-foot wide fuselage could fit into the first floor of the Pentagon. It's just not possible.
