911: In Plane Site

The film 'In plane site' was an interesting revelation into pictorial fact. At least it was done WITHOUT any powers that be, therefore without their manipulative media control and this alone opens speculation around the 'powers that be' and their real agenda's, opposed to their supporters who don't seem to know that the governors they support are not capable of representing the good of the major part of the population,FAR FROM IT!! They are consumed with self interest. History shows the same pattern over and over. (And over...argue with that dockyards!) If you really think they act only in the peoples interest wouldn't they be more up front about their dealings?? NO! they're not, but you 2 party idiots keep voting for them 'coz it's all you know how to do!! Wake up fools! you are riding the whole worlds death train.

I have seen a lot of movies on the 9-11 cover up. however, this one probably sums up the endless proof the best. Also I do believe that Van Kliest was the first person to notice the pod and the missile flash before the planes hit the tower. Good call man. sometimes the best place to hide something is right in front of your face! Just one quick comment on the flashes. It is absolutely irrefutable that the flash happens before the first plane hits. The second one is controversial. However, if the flash really is the fuselage sparking off the tower wouldn't the wings also spark????? When you view the footage the rest of the plane goes in without any flash.

Don't listen to these people that are saying this movie is terrible. They are in denial. Take the red pill and do some research.

The questions raised by the video are valid questions. How could a plane have crashed into the pentagon leaving no wreckage whatever? The photos and videos of the fire fighters confirm there was absolutely no wreckage on the ground. Where is the wreckage what of the black box? An eye witness said he saw something like a missile hit the pentagon.

President Bush told school children that he saw the first plane crash into the tower on TV. Why would he make that up when there was no video of that crash on TV at the time?

How could the steel inner core of the towers melt when the fire did not reach the bottom of the towers not even half way down? Why is it that not of shred of evidence related to the planes has been released?

How does it happen that the tower planes and the pentagon plane somehow exploded into oblivion. One must admit that is very suspicious as though it were planned some how. How convenient that all the legal work on the corporate fraud was destroyed in building 7. Frankly it takes a lot of blind faith to believe the government and media explanations for what happened.

These are all valid questions and they deserve honest answers.

For once the truth has come out about that fateful day in 2001.

And to reply to MR Stupid AKA Tim Moody (UprTupr)

(Not since "Fahrenheit 9/11" have I seen such bombastic, utterly laughable garbage purporting to be "truth)

Michael Moore is a hate figure in the US but is loved here in the UK and Ireland because unlike most Amercians he can see what has being going on just like the rest of the world. OPEN YOUR EYES.

(A "pod" on UAL Flight 175? Nope. Try the shadow of the right engine since the sun was shining in that direction.)

YES there is a POD there are you blind ??!!!

(A "flash" upon impact? Sorry. Metal on metal sparking and/or video enhancement)

Metal on Metal sparking ???...strange considering there are mostly WINDOWS along the surface of the two towers !!! Video enhancement - now you are just making it up !!!

(No other security camera footage at the Pentagon? It obviously didn't occur to von Kleist or his handlers that the Pentagon is a high security building and providing footage from other cameras would have compromised security by revealing their location.)

Everyone knows the location of the Pentagon so why would it compromise its location ???!!! and I'm sure camera are hidden quite well these days anyway.

("Pull" the building? Nowhere on the video is the use of this term explained. It's taken completely out of context)

If you were paying attention to the film the phrase is actually used. And the clip was shown TWICE.

As the presenter said at the start of the film so of you would be in denial and it looks that way.

no wonder most people in the world look at the US and shake their heads as you haven't got a clue.

Isn't it unbeliavble that there is not a single photo of an approaching airliner? Even our modest apartment buildings have security cameras just in case a small burglary occurs. Even a few vague picture would stop all this senseless discussion. Americans -- and the whole world -- were fooled and we are still paying the price in terms of mistrust, war, hatred, etc.