Just received my DVD copy of "911 In Plane Sight" We were ALL

completely blown-away...footage from CNN, Fox ABC, CBS, SHOWN only ONCE on 9-11 and then we're apparently told NOT to show this amazing evidence again. Why? Because the footage did NOT fit the official lies of the governments story? The same stories repeated over and over and over again as truth by our news agencies. All of this footage shown only once as it was occurring. And then being told because "it would upset the America people, to have to see it all again".

This DVD points no fingers, just asks real questions never asked publicly...It blew all our minds as we watched this footage from all the news agencies and the news agencies own narrations, never to be heard or seen since.

This is such a powerful, well produced documentation of the events and must be seen by all of you...Because it's real and the photo's and video doesn't lie, like only the official reports given to the news outlets as to what they can say and have told us.

You must see this...Nothings more important, it will speak to you, and you WILL understand much more clearly what's really going on in all phase's of our lives...This is no conspiracy DVD...All you have to is watch the CNN, Fox, etc. footage and see the facts and truth, presented to us only once since and until the "official" word was being released and then lies pounded into us, day after day!

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news_info.htm

I'm going to make some copies, because anyone with a brain will be able to see the lies for themselves, even the two conservatives watching with us were blown away and asking the same questions about the governments manipulations. knowing they (the government) can get away with ANYTHING, by telling us and showing just what they want us to see and hear...also knowing there's enough talking heads to happily go along with any "official government version presented to them.

You think I'm overstating? I'm truly not.

How does it differ from the 'official' word?

the video's for yourself and watch the trailer at links below...

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news_info.htm

http://www.policestate21.com/

battles right now.

TPTB want Kerry in...so lets do our best to get out shrub. However, TPTB DO NOT want any discussion of 911 so this is a different kettle of fish.

Kerry would NOT want this discussed even after being elected becuase it gets at a very large disturbing question that would horrify America.

a lot of good movies are out, F911, Outfoxed, etc

'Unprecedented', about the election theft in Florida in 2000, and 'Uncovered', about the Iraq 'war'.....both are brought to us courtesy of Robert Greenwald of 'Outfoxed' fame.

Unprecedented is incredible.

and devastating level...I can't express enough how you really have to see this DVD...I've researched so much of this and this DVD puts it all together and the lies become so very obvious, I can not tell you.

The footage clearly shows the planes were NOT passenger planes, done by some "terrorist" with "box-cutters" since the planes didn't have windows, were more of a different nature...Even the Fox reporter (at the site) was speaking about this as it was all going down...But we've never seen nor heard any of this since...Bombs going off in the WTC that firemen are explaining this on camera. Explosions going off (as the video is slowed down, which we've never seen before by the cable news agencies) on the front of the planes in a micro-second, before the planes actually made impact on the towers.

There is SO much more overwhelming lies and conflicting reports we were to receive and believe immediately afterward and since, to the contrary.

Again, by the cameras and reporters that were there, since then America was blown away and gobbling up every bit of distorted and "official" info that the news agencies were feeding us.

This is Not some bullshit conspiracy documentation, I'm the most skeptical person around...But facts are facts and seeing is believing from the news sources themselves.

Do people REALLY want to know?

But the Pentagon's footage is the most telling...WOW! What lies. Where's the plane they told us that struck the Pentagon? Certainly not in the "official" photo's the Pentagon released to the news agencies.

A Boeing 767 only creating a 16' hole, then later, (the next day) to become a 65' foot hole, still not the size or damage a 767 would of inflicted or created with as much fuel on board, one whole side of the offices weren't even burned, as is clearly shown...And no evidence of a plane, not from one single official photo released.

You really MUST see the DVD for yourself.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/news_info.htm

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/underground/underground_explosions.htm

And a great website with plenty of rare footage and photographs.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

stories at the hearings?

of the rescue workers on 9/11. Transcripts were made public by New York law and are available. But they apparently didn't "have time" to answer a lot of questions. Several witnesses, most(or maybe all) now dead, talked about hearing separate explosions before the collapse, but that evidence is discounted by lying mainstream sources for whatever reasons.
I haven't read the report but I doubt they mention it, since they mentioned so little of interest. Move along, nothing to see here.

... you have to know the hearings were fixed, right?

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/48441.php

here's another interesting theory
or 3

http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wtc.htm

and physics911.org as well as Paul Thompson's site http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/index.jsp

are both excellent.

From the site you listed:


If both towers were still standing, what caused a huge explosion, over 60 stories tall, at the base of the World Trade Center complex? Many people argue that this was a separate event... After viewing the footage, you decide.


Now I had seen on lone animated .gif of this explosion some months ago... and I can't seem to find it anymore.

Anyone have a clip of this?

There has to be some real footage out there somewhere on this, plus I was curious to see if any broadcasters reported what they were seeing.

(I have seen this producer's blatant misinformation on a retraction letter
("from Mark Rabinowitz") he created and posted; witnessing first hand
that the producer of this show is not to be trusted. I also find it suspicious
that this Plane Site producer offers to mail this dvd to so many people
free of charge. Not many new producers I know of would consider that luxury.)

Mark Robinowitz is a researcher involved in the 9/11 truth movement,
and is well respected by activists familiar with this work.

This is a recent email Mark just sent out about yesterday, about this
very subject. This Plane Site movie is listed at the top of Mark's bogus
sites. Please read this.

"9/11: in plane site -- the worst film on the topic
is this grotesque incompetence, deliberate disinformation or a case of
useful idiots used by covert operatives?

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Is "Plane Site" the most incompetent documentary ever produced,
deliberate disinformation to discredit the 9/11 truth movement,
or are the producers merely gullible "useful idiots" used by covert
operators to cover the real evidence behind a smoke screen of bogus material?


"I guess it is painfully clear that I am a film director, not a
private investigator."
- William Lewis, producer, "In Plane Sight," July 17, 2004,
admitting one of the many mistakes surrounding this phony film
after threatening to sue the webmaster of oilempire.us for pointing
out the film's flaws


This film claims it will change the way people think about September
11 (that it was an "inside job").
However, the biggest impact this film will probably have is to think
that 9/11 skeptics are nuts who hallucinate things that do not exist.
It is possible that this film can be used as a teaching opportunity
to see how efforts are made to hide provable evidence of official
complicity behind a smoke screen of bogus material that most
people find
difficult to unravel.


Reasons why "In Plane Site" is a phony
film evidence that doesn't fit the "incompetence theory" for this film -
deliberate disinformation phony audio

The film claims that a video clip in New York of the second
crash is strong evidence that the second plane wasn't Flight 175.
This clip has a background voice yelling "that was not American
Airlines," repeated twice. It has nice hysterics, and sounds real, if
you ignore the lack of correlation to the video clip (there isn't
anyone in pictured in the video saying this, the person saying this
is not in the scene, and more likely, sitting in the studio during
the manufacture of this film). Furthermore, does anyone, even those
who think that Bush ordered 9/11 to happen, really believe that
bystanders in New York started shouting "that wasn't American
Airlines?" This is embarrassingly bad, beyond parody.
While "powerhour" has some video editing skills, taking other
peoples' footage of 9/11 into their own production, it seems unlikely
that their digital editing skills aren't yet to the point of being
able to insert people into video clips who aren't part of the
original footage, and they had to rely solely on dubbing in the
sound, and then pretend that this was "testimony." The only thing
that this is evidence of is that the film's producer is not competent
at digital editing as the people who altered the films of the south
tower collapse to add extra "flashes" not found on previous films
such as "The Great Deception" (a film made shortly after 9/11 that
included CNN footage of the Flight 175 crash) In a court of law, this
would be immediately dismissed, and this example, which the video
claims is a central piece of evidence, shows something worse than
mere sloppiness.
It is important for the 9/11 "truth" movement to expose this
deception, which seeks to distract and discredit the hard work that
has been done for three years to compile credible evidence of
official complicity.


misrepresenting photos

Their analysis of the Pentagon crash takes a photo of the repair
job AFTER THE FIRES HAVE BEEN EXTINGUISHED and makes a variety of
claims about how the fires were not intense. This photo clearly shows
additional supports placed to shore up the damaged building, placed
long after the attack. While it is impossible to say when this photo
was taken, it was long enough afterwards that there wasn't any more
smoke, and the repair job was already well underway. The film claims
that the photo includes a table with a book and the "pages aren't
even singed" This claim might be true, but the photo only shows a
small blob of light that you can't prove it is even a book, let alone
whether the pages are unsinged or not, whether the book was part of
the repairs being made weeks after the event or not.
Powerhour's commentator also glossed over one of the most important,
not disputed, "hidden in plain sight" pieces of evidence -- the fact
that the nearly empty part of the Pentagon was hit (it was mentioned
very briefly by the narrator, but not seen as evidence of official
complicity). Even painful deceptions has a scene that focuses on this
aspect. See http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html for details.The best
part of the film is the video footage of WTC Building 7, which
clearly was a demolition. But "Painful Deceptions" is a much better
film, and includes all of these film clips.


Pentagon eyewitnesses

Plane Site shows an eyewitness who claims to have seen a "cruise
missile with wings" smash into the Pentagon. However, most
eyewitnesses state that they saw a large jet do this, although there
is no unanimity on the claims. See
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html for details. The film does
ignore the fact that the hole in the Pentagon was the diameter of the
plane's fuselage, that the massive reinforcing of that part of the
Pentagon minimized damage to the structure, and that numerous
eyewitnesses did see debris from the plane outside of the building
immediately after the crash.


south tower collapse

The "planesite" film pretends that a photo of the south tower
collapse is really a giant explosion at the base of the towers. Look
at the dust descending on the west side of the "double tower" - it is
clearly the south tower collapse photo. Eric Hufscmid's Painful
Questions book has a photo that is almost identical - and that
clearly states the south tower collapse. Look at the dust plume on
the right side of the photo.
Planesite then claims there's additional proof of this, and then
shows a photo of the dust cloud at ground level with ONE tower
visible. This is embarrassingly bad. If they had any shame they'd
withdraw the film and slink into deserved obscurity. But they've
clearly got lots of $20 bills headed their way and they need to
collect the loot first.



possible manipulation of the film producers by disinformation agents
who knew the filmmakers were gullible


pod

The alleged "pod" under the plane that hit the South Tower is a
manipulation of the images that show the normal structure under a 767
that helps hold the wings together. None of the "pod people" websites
that make these claims have any clear footage that provides even a
scintilla of evidence for their claims. Most of these sites, however,
have fraudulent photos that show clear signs of compression, filters,
and other manipulation of the images. Nearly every camera in New York
was aimed in the direction of the World Trade Center when the second
plane hit -- but to date, there is still zero evidence for these
insistent claims that the "pod" is the primary thing proving the Bush
regime's complicity. It is likely that the original source for these
claims was a covert operation to discredit these independent
inquiries, since even most 9/11 skeptics look at the pod people
campaign as lunacy.


flashes

PlaneSite has four different film clips that claim to show a
flash as the front of the plane hits the South Tower. It is possible,
if these images are proven authentic, that it was merely the spark of
metal on metal as the plane struck the tower, before the rest of the
plane went in and obscured this point. None of the Plane Site video
clips show other parts of the plane causing any flashes, so this
explanation is unlikely.
However, other video footage deemed genuine does not show any
flash from the front of the plane. Barrie Zwicker's January 2002 film
"The Great Deception" uses video footage from CNN in episode 5, and
the only "flash" visible in that image is when the engines struck the
south tower and the explosion starts to happen. The Great Decpetion
does not have the "winking light" that the footage in the "powerhour"
film has. However, TGD is more than two years old, before the
webfairy/letsroll/podplane campaigns were started. Zwicker's film,
made shortly afterwards, is more likely to have authentic footage
than the "Plane Site" film with its blatant misrepresentations of
other parts of the story.
It's not that hard to alter a video footage to add a blinking light
for a couple frames.


how the film evaded the real issues
of 9/11

curious timing

It is curious how a lot of supposedly long-suppressed video was
magically unearthed nearly three years after the attacks. The timing
of "Plane Site" is particularly curious -- it was made after the 9/11
movement had its very successful International Inquiry into 9/11 in
San Francisco in March 2004, and was released just before the
official Commission released its report (but debunking the specific
lies in that report is not addressed in this film, and replying to
the nonsense in the film takes time away from exposing the fraud of
the Commission).
Any video evidence magically appearing nearly three years later,
especially if given to a right-wing Christian fundamentalist film
maker by military sources, must be considered somewhat suspect. It is
probably not a coincidence that the "pod people" campaign has been
stepped up in intensity since the International Inquiry in March,
since the 9/11 truth movement is being more successful politically
and the culprits benefit if the genuine evidence for official
complicity is buried in a blizzard of disinformation masquerading as
9/11 conspiracy exposure.


no mention of real issues

The film ignores the issues of the "failures" of the Air Force
to protect New York and Washington, the multiple military and
intelligence agency war games underway that morning, the allegations
of a "stand down," the warnings to elites to get out of the way, the
warnings from other countries, the Anthrax attacks on the Democrats,
and numerous other facets that are proven beyond reasonable doubt,
not based on blurry low resolution photos of questionable
authenticity. There is almost no political context to explain WHY
9/11 was perpetrated other than vague boilerplate material about the
rise of the police state (there's no mention of OIL).


no mention of real websites, only mentions letsroll911

"In Plane Site does not mention any of the websites in the
growing, international 9/11 truth movement. Instead, it only mentions
letsroll911.org, a site that was "outed" as a possible FEMA
disinformation campaign a month before this film's release.
Letsroll911 uses the "webfairy" operation to process some of their
photo clips, which is prima facie evidence that webfairy and
letsroll911 (both based in the Chicago suburbs, a region without an
organized 9/11 truth outreach effort) are an official deception to
hide the real evidence for official complicity among a blizzard of
nonsense that is easily debunked. (Webfairy is a site that claims
that the North Tower was not hit by a plane, even though the hole in
the side of the building was the size and shape of a 767 -- this site
has lots of suspect videos, and argues that it was perpetrated with
giant holograms and missiles, perhaps the loopiest claims anywhere on
the web.)
In contrast, most of the other pod people sites at least mention
a few legitimate sites in order to gain false status for their own
efforts. Perhaps the "power hour" realizes that these other sites
will quickly catch on to their scam and expose it, so linking to any
of the real sites was too risky.


real information mixed with fake information

remote control

"Plane Site does briefly mention the technology of remote
controlled airplanes. However, this information is stuck on an
addendum to the actual film, does not discuss how this technology can
be used for large planes, avoids the strongest evidence for its use
on 9/11 (the plane hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon), and
discredits this accurate information by association with the
hallucinations that are the central parts of the film.


Building 7

Plane Site includes several films of the symmetrical, vertical
collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. It is difficult to imagine
any other cause than controlled demolition to explain this aspect --
the evidence for demolition of Building 7 is MUCH stronger than the
evidence for demolition of the twin towers. But this material is much
better explained in Eric Hufscmid's film Painful Deceptions, which is
not a perfect production, but is much stronger in its arguments.


plagiarism

" In Plane Site's makers have shown that they know how to make
simple video effects, to take stock footage of the attacks and show
them over and over in their film (hopefully to shock people into
abandoning a necessary level of skepticism toward their bogus
claims), and to package it with decent cover art lifted from other
people's work (for example, the Osama picture on the cover is the
same image as used on Alex Jones's "9/11: The road to tyranny,"
available through infowars.com)
9/11 is so important that plagiary in the cause of spreading the
truth of 9/11 is probably acceptable in the long run, although it is
better to credit the original writers or researchers, when possible.
However, plagiary in the good parts of "Plane Site" (there is some
accurate information in the film) combined with blatant bullshit is
evidence of an incompetent scam


Disinformation masquerading as 9/11 Truth exposure

"Much of the bogus evidence about 9/11 was manufactured to support the
official conspiracy theory -- 19 guys directed by a dialysis patient
in a cave of Afghanistan managed to outwit the largest military and
intelligence system in history, a system so incompetent that it needs
a massive budget increase.

"A different kind of bogus evidence -- which makes wild, unprovable,
unlikely claims about complicity based on poor quality and doctored
images -- has been increasingly prominent as the 9/11 Truth Movement
has begun to experience long overdue political successes.

"Much of this material pretends to be investigative journalism but
does not bother to present even a scintilla of credible evidence. The
fringe websites fringe 9/11 websites include the claims that there
wasn't a plane at the World Trade Center north tower (even though the
photos of the hole in the tower clearly show the impact of the
wings). Some of these "no plane at the north tower" sites include
letsroll911.org (mirrored at 911uncovered), 911hoax.org,
physics911.org and the fairy godmother of this modus operandi -
webfairy.org Oilempire.us doesn't provide direct links to these
sites, which are a mix of accurate material and disinformation -- but
they are easy enough to find.

"The "webfairy" theories claim that no planes hit the World Trade
Center, it was done with missiles and high-tech hologram, and uses
video clips that supposedly prove these arguments. The "letsroll911"
site claims that a missile was fired at the South tower just before
the plane crashed into it, and also uses poor quality photos to
"prove" this argument. However, blurry low resolution photos that
magically appear two years later are not evidence of alternative
views of what happened, they are only evidence of people's
unfamiliarity with photo editing software and their gullibility. The
"physical evidence" clearly shows that large jets hit the towers -
the hole in the side of the North tower (which was hit first) is the
size of a 767. And the idea that a missile was fired a split second
before the South tower was hit makes no sense, since there was no
"need" for this to happen (no tactical advantage for the attackers,
since the towers were not anywhere as strong as the sector of the
Pentagon that was hit - which had been strengthened against attack
immediately prior to 9/11).

"The "pod plane at the WTC," "no plane at the WTC" and "plane plus
missile" theories are toxic to the cause of 9/11 truth. It is a sign
that our political efforts are having an effect -- that these
"theories" (unsupported by any credible evidence) are being
distributed to "muddy the waters" to make those who seek to expose
the lies of 9/11 as crackpots who have no idea what we are talking
about.

"There was no extra "pod" that was used to fire a missile from the
767. A quick search on the web will retrieve photos of 767's with a
structure under the plane to hold the wings together. It is sad that
9/11 truth exposers are forced to waste our time dealing with this.
There are NO photos with high resolution that show an extra "pod,"
there is no credible theory to suggest the need for any alleged pod.
(Since a major point of the staggering of the timing of the attacks
of the twin towers was to ensure maximum photographic coverage of the
second crash, the idea that the plane had an extra pod is especially
ridiculous, since a single clear photo of this would instantly expose
the conspiracy.)

"The same thing happened during the citizen investigations into the
coup against President Kennedy -- people popped up claiming inside
knowledge that turned out to be psychotic ravings. One particularly
memorable occurrence was during the Jim Garrison prosecution of Clay
Shaw, a CIA agent who participated in the plot against Kennedy - the
film JFK covers this episode very well. Garrison's legal team had
found a witness who claimed to have participated in meetings with
Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald and others, but on the stand, the man's
claims of participation were totally shredded by his claims that he
had fingerprinted his daughter before and after she went to college
to prove that she was the same person (and therefore, this obviously
insane testimony was used to discredit the genuine evidence that
Garrison had used to prosecute Shaw). Shaw was found innocent by the
jury (even though subsequent research and official admissions
revealed he was CIA), although that jury did admit that there had
been a conspiracy to kill JFK, they merely didn't believe that Shaw
was a participant.
(end)

http://www.911Truth.org/index.php


http://www.septembereleventh.org/forum/ubbthreads.php

I admit to looking at one of the linked sites last night and watching one of the short videos. It showed on a tiny window on my already small screen, but it was enough.

I'm no video editor, not by a long shot, but what little experience I have was enough to make me seriously question the veracity of that single clip. Supposedly taken from a helicopter with voice-over in Hebrew, it then features a VERY American voice shrieking something like "Omigod, they've taken out the whole freakin' building!" Volume and clarity of that voice just screamed (bad pun) "added at editing."

I didn't waste my time with any more.

I do think the pod people and other sillinesses distract us from the serious issues, which are political, not digital. The towers are gone, the people are dead, the constitution is in tatters, we're in a messy war with no easy exit -- and engaging in intense "research" into meaningless conspiracy theories is a waste of valuable time.

But that's just MHO.

What video was that???? !!!!

all this has been debunked. but. here we go again. (Yes, I watched it on the site you linked to) They take grainy photos and photos taken from specific angles to try to "prove' their theory. Sorry, I'm not buying it, and I'm not buying that bridge they're selling either.

bye bye

Once they have you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

The pod people seem silly, look at a photo of a 757 or 767 like and you can see the bulged area below the fuselage where the wings attach, the landing gear retracts into etc. As for a plane shooting a missile into a building before ramming it, what would be the point? It'd be like shooting a person with a BB gun before driving into them with a tractor trailer truck.

Making it easier for the plane to really make a mess. It would be helpful if you wanted to make the crash of a small plane, ohhhh, say a Predator drone, look like the crash of a much larger plane, ohhh, say a Boeing 757.

That was no Predator drone...look at the video footage. It was a 767.

If there WAS a "pod", where was the landing gear?

I'm ordering it as we speak.

Barbara Olson in an undisclosed location ???

from those airplanes? Were the planes flown to a military base, the passengers executed and interred in mass graves, and the airplanes converted to military use? Are the passengers in Guantanamo?

We tracked it the entire way. It did NOT land at Hopkins.