portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Documentary - "911 in plane site"

Whether or not you believe the official story surrounding the events of September 11, 2001, it is impossible to walk away, having seen "911 In Plane Site," and still believe that terrorists wielding box cutters were the masterminds behind the single most horrific terrorist act ever carried out against the citizens of the United States of America.
The producers of "Power Hour Productions" and "BridgeStone Media Group" set out to make a video documentary, using a modern news magazine format, to examine and ultimately expose the falsehoods contained in the official story of what took place on September 11, 2001.

What has transpired as a result of these efforts has blossomed into a full-scale battle - not of right as opposed to left, or conservative in contrast to liberal, but simply of right versus wrong.

IF A PHOTOGRAPH SPEAKS A THOUSAND WORDS, WHAT DOES VIDEO SAY?

What "911 In Plane Site" accomplishes that no other video expose' on September 11th has to date, is it exposes the viewer to a barrage of news clips from a majority of the mainstream news outlets. The official story of that day was told on live TV by reporters, policemen, firefighters, and other on-the-scene eyewitnesses, however, that footage was shown only once on live television broadcasts in the first hours of the attacks and then... it was never repeated.

The stories changed, information was enigmatically omitted, and what can only be described as officially prescribed propaganda took the place of indisputable reality.

Video download [mirror]:  http://lastcallpdx.com/videos/911_In_Plane_Site.avi

Documentary's Site:  http://www.911inplanesite.com/911_in_plane_site.htm

homepage: homepage: http://www.lastcallpdx.com

Highly recommended. 12.Oct.2004 10:08

Tony Blair's dog

Compared to the realvideo stream available here:
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm
the above avi is of extremely nice quality.

Thank you for the post.

Steve O'Brien's C130 Good Time 12.Oct.2004 22:29

Charles Spiesel

Thank you for again trying to defraud us with this hoax.


In plain sight, but intentionally ignored and/or buried in a deluge of absurdities, was the plane that hit the Pentagon, AND the plane that didn't.

===================


The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, [Keith Wheelhouse] said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar - while at the same time - guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.
Daily Press, September 14, 2001

Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.

At the same time, [Keith Wheelhouse] and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet.
Daily Press, September 15, 2001

"Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround. - New York Lawyer
Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack" If there is another explosion, we're toast.'" - eWeek

As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. - Cloth Monkey

Within moments there was a very loud bang, which seemed to come from the direction of Henderson Hall. At least, all the heads turned towards Henderson. It is possible that this was a secondary explosion from the Pentagon or possibly an F-16 going supersonic.[...] The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading. - Our Net Family


77 and 93 - Connecting Flights:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/288464.shtml

Thanks Charles 13.Oct.2004 05:08

Tony Blair's dog

Yes, there are many accounts of witnesses telling of multiple aircrafts
at the Pentagon. If there was a "gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic
warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading",
it may have been guiding a drone to it's target.

The no-plane theory is not strong 13.Oct.2004 10:18

this is bogus

The theory put forth by IPS - that the commercial jet said to hit the Pentagon did not - is not strong because it is based on photos seen from a distance, often with foam or smoke obscuring the building, and has NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. People talk about the "size of the hole" but they only refer to the hole on the 2nd floor, not the 1st, which is far larger. In fact, the actual hole is consistent with the plane implicated, except for the ends of the wings and the tail. Based on that ALONE, this movie is saying there was 'no plane.' Then, they use edited and chopped up versions of witness statements to try to boost their position. It's complete BS. When someone says it was 'like a missile,' they are not saying 'it was a missile.' IPS cannot understand the difference between the english language usage of metaphor or simile as opposed to a statement. Give me a break.

An excellent review of this is here:

 http://oilempire.us/bogus.html#planesite

Nice try mr."this is bogus"... 13.Oct.2004 20:21

Tony Blair's dog

"is not strong because it is based on photos seen from a distance, often with foam or smoke obscuring the building"

False.

"and has NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE"

False.

"People talk about the "size of the hole" but they only refer to the hole on the 2nd floor, not the 1st, which is far larger."

False.

"In fact, the actual hole is consistent with the plane implicated, except for the ends of the wings and the tail."

False.

"Based on that ALONE, this movie is saying there was 'no plane.'"

False.

"An excellent review of this is here:
 http://oilempire.us/bogus.html#planesite"

Yes, here I fully agree. Please, watch the film and then go to the above
website and read their attempt to discredit the In Plane Site movie.
Go through all the points the site lists and see how many actually
are truthful in regard to what the film actually show.

It seems that YOU mr."this is bogus", are the one who have bought into the
Bush administration damage control hoax.

Better read up and learn:
Washington Post Features 9/11 'Conspiracy Theorists' on Front Page
 http://208.151.246.109/en/2004/10/299197.shtml

muddy the waters 13.Oct.2004 23:48

Karl Rove

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association." (Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184)

New 9/11 video evidence analysis at questionsquestions.net:

Analysis of Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims
 http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

Webfairy's Reign of Error
 http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/webfairy.html

The WTC "Mystery Explosion" Video Hoax
 http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html


Detailed Review of fake "Inplanesite" film
 http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

The photo on the cover of "Plane Site" uses a photo of a 757 that shows the normal "fairing" structure on the underside of the fuselage. The photo was posted in early May 2004 to the "911 Truth Alliance" email list by a member who was debunking the "pod" claim. Is it a coincidence that the film uses the exact same photo, or is it (like the pod claim) just a bad joke hidden "in plain sight?"

Nice try mr."Karl Rove"... 14.Oct.2004 12:47

Tony Blair's dog

Here are two(2) questions for you;

What model of aircraft was Flight 175(said to be)?

What model of aircraft is shown on the cover of the In Plane Site video?


Someone is indeed muddying the waters and it seems to be you.

welcome back, Mark 15.Oct.2004 14:42

ewing2001

Welcome back, Mark Robinowitz.

Why are you always hiding behind these lousy pseudonyms?
It's pretty obvious, that's always the same person, who promotes the Salter and Oilempire-articles with the same hatred slang, since the Salter Brothers are no cowards, who promote their stuff under the real name.

By now, v.Kleist made more money. Maybe he should put you on his payroll as well?
Give it up Mark "Karl Rove" Robinowitz and better smear me and my blog with your real name as well.

Logical Fallacies of the No-Planers 22.Oct.2004 01:53

Anonymous Publications

What is the name of the logical fallacy whereby a person's character is attacked rather than the content of their argument?

"ewing"?

from Mark Robinowitz 01.Nov.2004 17:59

Mark Robinowitz

Hey Nico Haupt (aka Ewing aka Woodybox)

There are many people who understand that "in plane site" is fake.

I'm pleased that this site has a number of folks who have debunked some of the bullshit that your friends are spamming to this board. If the board had an editorial staff, very few of your posts would remain here.

Mark Robinowitz
www.oilempire.us