So is "In Plane Site" Going to Air? Limpballs ABC--IS IT??

[texastoast]

You know, the one which questions where the wings went from the plane that flew into the Pentagon?

And asks a lot of other questions.

How does a plane over 44 feet tall, fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. in diameter, as shown in the crystal-clear photographic evidence taken at the Pentagon? See the astonishing evidence for the first time.

Why does photographic evidence taken moments after the event, show no wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon?

Why weren’t America & the world shown the video & photos of the Pentagon, before the outer wall collapsed?

Why is there a “pod” attached to the bottom of “Flight 175” and what purpose did it serve in the attacks? Full screen television blow-up reveals all of the details.

What is the bright flash seen right before impact on both the North Tower& the South Tower, captured on video by 5 independent cameramen? Slow motion analysis reveals startling answers.

Why did a FOX News employee report seeing no windows on “Flight 175” a commercial United Airlines jetliner?

Why were there numerous reports of bombs & explosions going off in and around the World Trade Center before any buildings collapsed? Hear and see the testimony of the reporters and rescue teams.

Why did firefighters, reporters and other on the scene eyewitnesses describe a demolition-like, pancake collapse of buildings One, Two & Seven? Shocking new video evidence answers this important question.

I feel a froth coming on.

[Freedomofspeech]

1. Who made this film...

and where can it be viewed? Thanks.

[texastoast]

4. Here's a link--you can buy it there

Writer / Producer
Dave vonKleist

Exec-Producer / Director
William Lewis

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

There were viewings at minor theatres when it came out.

[MercutioATC]

10. Von Kleist the huckster.

Absolute garbage video...he makes a material misrepresentation of a witness statement to support his crazy theories.

Simply put, he lies.

[longship]

2. Neither should air.

Both are propaganda.

Both "Path to 9/11" and "Plane Sight" make shit up.

[texastoast]

5. Fine with me--as long as BOTH films are kept off national airwaves

However, I would like to hear legitimate answers to the questions posed in the "In Plane Site" film. Many "official" answers do not make sense.

[longship]

6. Here are your answers.

www.911myths.com/

But "Plane Site" is not the answer.

E.G., Millions of people saw airliners crash into the towers in real time, and in actual footage. But "Plane Site" makes shit up and speculates that they were missiles, not airliners. And so it goes. "Plane Site" is much, much worse than "Path to 9/11" because it is *entirely* a fabrication out of whole cloth. At least "Path to 9/11" has *some* things right. Note: I am not defending either one, nor am I defending the official account.

[texastoast]

7. So where was the debris that should have been there

at the Pentagon? Why was there so little smoke damage? Do you have some facts for me?

[longship]

8. Mad up shit.

There was plenty of debris all over the Pentagon site as well as inside the Pentagon. Saying that there wasn't will never change the inescapable fact that there was. They identified all passengers and crew from that flight from DNA evidence gathered at the site. The collision of the airliner with the Pentagon was eye-witnessed by hundreds of rush hour commuters driving on the three expressways immediately surrounding the Pentagon. But "In Plane Site" and "Loose Change" ignore all this and make shit up anyway.

Both of these films are much, much worse than "Path to 9/11" because not only are they in their entirety fabrications, but they do much harm to responsible and reasonable claims that further investigation is necessary. People would not lose credibility saying that the 9/11 truth movement if full of conspiracy kooks.

[texastoast]

9. And the missing smoke damage?

And how did the plane fit into a hole 65 feet wide?

[longship]

11. Not going to argue with you in this forum.

Please take the time to go to some Web sites that debunk these conspiracy films. 99% of "Loose Change" and "9/11 in Plane Site" is pure, unadulterated garbage.

www.911myths.com
urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm
www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

The overwhelming eye-witness evidence alone is sufficient to see that the conspiracy kooks are the ones drinking the kool-aid. The Pentagon is adjoined by three major expressways and Flight 77 hit at the height of rush hour. There were hundreds of eye-witnesses who saw it happen. But the conspiracy nuts stick their fingers in their ears, wave their hands, jump up and down, and screech, "Did not. Did not!" Either that, or they do something even worse, cherry pick the accounts and twist people's metaphorical descriptions. That is not only wrong, it's an unconscionable.

[texastoast]

12. I didn't ask you to argue

I asked for facts. I asked for explanation. You acted like you knew. I was wrong. I admit it. I have no problem with that. Good day.

[longship]

13. Apologies.

I included links on my previous post.

I get weary of debunking these conspiracies on DU. There are so many people here who seemingly do not have the requisite congnitive skills to cut through the B.S. and come to a conclusion that they are being manipulated by a fringe group.

I confess to having a short fuse when it comes to 9/11 conspiracies. In part, you have the 9/11 conspiracy true believers to thank for that. They have a tendency to initiate flame wars here. Although I should know better, I too often jump into the fray.

So accept my apology for my tone.

[Nozebro]

14. The facts don't fit the OCT. Therefore, they don't argue the facts.

What they WILL do (and prefer to do) is respond to a technical point by citing an expert that supports the OCT, because anyone can have an opinion about what caused something to happen. Proving causation is almost as difficult as trying to prove that Bush wasn't a military deserter.

[Recursion]

18. I worked at the Navy Annex just up the hill from it at the time

And there was debris and wreckage everywhere, for days. Smoke, too.

And you ask your question about the size of the hole as if we have a deep and complete set of data on what happens to an airplane when it crashes into reinforced and fortified concrete; as far as I know the dataset for that scenario currently has a cardinality of 1.

[Abenoxious]

3. try this

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

[Sinti]

15. Welcome to DU Abenoxious

Freedom is in fact free. It is to take away from you the basic freedoms granted by birth that great fortunes and endless hours of labor are spent in the bomb factories, board rooms and battlefields. Do you really believe such jingoistic slogans?

[Sven77]

16. CNN reported "No plane hit Pentagon"

heres a interesting link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJlsRynkYdk&mode=related&search=

YouTube - 9/11: CNN reported "No plane hit Pentagon" -mcintyre
VIDEO: CNN reported "No plane hit Pentag VIDEO: CNN reported "No plane hit Pentagon"

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Not true.

No plane crashed "near" the Pentagon. That's what the CNN report from McIntyre states clearly.

Flight 77 didn't crash near the Pentagon. It crashed into it.