Click Here For More

If a photograph speaks a thousand words, what does video say?  

What “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.



  Some of the most damning evidence surrounding the attack on the Pentagon centers about substantial and incontrovertible video and photographic evidence which insights viewers to ask crucial and essential questions.  After all, the laws of physics cannot be suspended or can they?

  One question many viewers ask is, why was America and the rest of the world not shown the video footage and the photographs of the Pentagon, BEFORE the outer wall had collapsed?”  Many people do not realize that the outer wall of the Pentagon did not collapse until 20 minutes after the initial impact of what we were told was a Boeing 757.

Upon examining these photographs, one can clearly see a hole, which is only 16 feet in diameter.  This begs the question: “How can a Boeing 757 which is over 44 feet in height and 124 feet in width simply disappear without a trace into a hole that is only 16 ft. in diameter?  Also, why is there no external damage to the Pentagon where the wings and the tail section would have impacted with the outer wall?

Contrary to the video footage shown to the American public, photographs taken only moments after the impact show no wreckage on the lawn of the Pentagon.  Where is the plane?  Where are the wings, the tail, the luggage, the seats, the landing gear, and the engines?  Most importantly, what happened to the passengers who were aboard that plane?

America remembers the photographs that they were shown of tiny, indiscernible fragments, which were described as pieces of a Boeing 757.  Were these fragments of a Boeing 757?  Internal photographs of the Pentagon taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a FEMA photographer, do not show engine parts matching the description of a 757’s engine turbofan according to John W. Brown, a spokesperson for Rolls Royce.  Both Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce manufacture the engines used on these jetliners.  The turbofans themselves are approximately 7 feet in diameter.  The FEMA photos show what appears to be a single turbofan that is approximately 3 feet in diameter.  This better fits the descriptions of eyewitnesses who claim that they saw what could only be described as a commuter plane capable of holding only 8 to 12 passengers.  This single piece of evidence also helps support other reports from witnesses such as Lon Rains, editor for "Space News," who was quoted as saying “I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound.

I was convinced it was a missile.  It came in so fast – it sounded nothing like an airplane.”  Don Parkal said, “A bomb had gone off.  I could smell the cordite.  I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.”  Tom Seibert said, “We heard what sounded like a missile.”

Another interesting point worth mentioning is that in the aftermath following the Pentagon attack, it was reported by media sources that a giant 100 feet crater had been plowed into the front lawn of the Pentagon as the result of a powerful airliner crash.  Photographic evidence overwhelmingly shows that this was absolutely not the case.  No crater – no skid marks – no burn marks… (No plane?)  Why was the American public and the entire world deliberately misled about this easily disproved fact?  (refer to photos at the top of this page)

Six months after the attacks, as many Americans began to stand up and ask questions concerning the official story of what happened at the heart of the nation’s military establishment, Pentagon officials responded by releasing five fuzzy frames of what they claimed was a 757 plowing into the side of the Pentagon.  We were told that a surveillance camera located across from the heliport pad took these photos.  However, these five frames seemed to raise more questions than they attempted to answer.  First of all, why is the date code on the first frame dated September 12, 2001 (5:37 P.M.)?  That’s one day and eights hours too late.  Secondly, the resolution of the frames 

was so incredibly low that they did not allow for a thorough analysis of the images that we were being shown.  Thirdly, the one frame labeled “plane” did not show anything that could even remotely be interpreted as a Boeing 757.  Are we truly expected to believe that there was only one security camera capable of capturing the most heinous attack ever carried out against the nucleus of U.S. national defense?  Upon further examination of this area of the Pentagon, one can clearly count at least five additional security cameras, two of which were unmistakably aimed directly where the plane would have impacted with the Pentagon.

It is also worth mentioning that there was three privately owned security cameras all trained in the direction necessary to capture video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.  One at a gas station across I-395, one on the rooftop of the Hilton International Hotel, and another located at the Virginia Department of Transportation, which would have captured the plane descending over Interstate 395.  Literally, within only a few minutes after the attack, Federal officials arrived at all three locations and confiscated the videotapes.  The contents have never been released to the public.


Summarizing similar discrepancies relating to the World Trade Center attacks, Marc Bernback, who was introduced on air as an employee of Fox News, stated on live television that the plane he saw crash into the South tower came down so low that he could make out the fact that the “commercial airliner” had no windows.  This was repeated twice in the same interview.  Even the Fox anchorperson asked, “Could these have been cargo planes?”  Marc went on to describe a blue, circular logo located on the front of the plane.  He also alluded to the fact that this plane “did not look like it was from around here;” speculating that the plane may have come from a military base - not a commercial airport.  The producers of “In Plane Site” later interviewed Marc Bernback and he stands firmly behind his on-air account. “The plane had no windows…”

Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and other news networks provided live video feed of witnesses who claim that they heard other explosions going off in and around the World Trade Center AFTER both planes had struck their respective targets.  These witnesses were policemen, firefighters, reporters, and businessmen who were on the scene as the events unfolded and were in a unique position to know the intricacies of what was taking place.  One after the other a reporter would ask, “Was that a building collapse or did you hear an explosion?”  One right after the next they all came back with the same equally resonant answers - “It sounded like a bomb…”  “It sounded like an explosion.” One eyewitness in particular, a physician, who was interviewed live on Fox News said, “I think it was a bomb because there were two of them.”

Another eyewitness, Louie Cacchioli, a 51 year old firefighter assigned to engine 47 in Harlem whose interview appeared in the September 24, 2001 edition of People Magazine had this to say, “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck.  I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers.  On the last trip up a bomb went off.”

In the documentary “The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition” a film about the New York City firefighters by Gedeon and Jules Naudet, other firefighters articulated their alarming accounts about the possibility of demolition explosives being planted in the North and South tower - “Floor by floor it started popping out… It was as if they had detonators planted to take down a building.”

The firefighters battling the blazes that day weren’t the only onlookers who noticed something out of the ordinary when it came to the demise of the twin towers.  A significant number of news anchors and on-the-scene reporters also began to make on-air comments regarding the North and South tower collapses.  Each in turn making distinctive comparisons of how the towers fell in such a controlled “demolition-like” fashion.  One by one the reports came in.  “We heard a loud explosion.”  “We have a report now of a second explosion.”  “We have a report now of a fourth explosion.”  “The top of the building just blew up.”  “We heard a very loud blast – an explosion.  Not clear now is why that explosion took place.”

Rick Sanchez, who was giving his report live on MSNBC, had this to say, “I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center, aside from the one that may have been caused by the impact of the plane with the building, may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it.”  In a separate event he also describes police evacuating an area where police had discovered a ‘suspicious device’ which police officials fear may lead to another explosion.  These accounts echo on and on until it is evident that we are not discussing simple terrorists with box cutters hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.  Something else took place September 11, 2001, and what has been presented thus far isn’t even the most damning evidence to suggest a high level cover-up.


The most controversial footage contained in “In Plane Site” comes from at least four separate mainstream sources – CNN’s “America Remembers,” BBC’s “Why The Towers Fell,” PBS’s “Son of Al Qaeda,” and Gedeon and Jules Naudet’s “The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition,” as well as, three other independent sources of video shot by private citizens on the streets of New York using their handheld camcorders and eventually purchased for licensing from a company in New York named Camera Planet.

Let’s begin by examining the original source footage from CNN.  Everyone has seen this same footage over and over again.  The Boeing 767 enters from the left side of the frame and plows full speed into the corner of the South tower.  Still frames from this shot appear on dozens of national magazine covers from all over the country and it is also the trademark video that is used by most filmmakers for their documentaries on 9/11.  What most people have failed to recognize, until recently, is that on the underside of the plane, just to the right of the fuselage, there appears to be a peculiar three-dimensional anomaly.  By comparison, this “protrusion” looks as if it is slightly smaller than one of the engines mounted to the plane.  Keep in mind that the engines on a 767 are approximately 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length.

The first impression is that it might be a trick of light and shadow, so it was important to turn to experts in this field.  La Vanguardia, a publication in Barcelona, Spain, published an investigative report from a Spanish University, back in June of 2003.  What was their professional opinion?  After a thorough digital image analysis, the university experts came to the conclusion that the object mounted to the bottom of this plane was three-dimensional in nature and could not have been caused by shadows 

or reflections.  This brings us to a very interesting point in our investigation and begs us to ask some very serious questions.  What is mounted to the underbelly of Flight 175?  What purpose did it serve in the attacks?  How could this plane have departed from a commercial airport without such a large attachment being noticed by maintenance and refueling personnel?  Wouldn’t the baggage handlers have noticed it?  Surely we can all agree that they would have noticed it - that is, if it had taken off from a commercial airport.

Let’s stop for a moment and ask the question, “Did this plane take off from a commercial airport?”  We already have one Fox News employee making the statement that the plane had no passenger windows.  What commercial airliner has no passenger windows?  The answer, I’m sure we all can agree, is none.  We have a Fox News anchor asking the question, “Is it possible that was some sort of cargo plane?”

After a few weeks of searching, we were able to obtain photographs of a military Boeing 767. This plane is being marketed to the U.S. Air Force by Boeing to replace their KC-130 series.  The most perplexing aspect of this military craft is that it has no passenger windows and is in fact a refueling tanker aircraft.  Is it possible that the plane we all saw crashing into the South tower was a Boeing 767 refueling tanker aircraft?  Wouldn’t such a plane take off from a military base?

Upon further examination of the plane that hit the second tower we see nothing out of the ordinary… or do we?  When the footage is viewed at full speed, 30 frames per second, we do indeed see nothing out of the ordinary.  In spite of this, when we slow the footage down from 100% to roughly 2% we see something completely unexpected.  Just as the plane is making contact with the building we see something quite remarkable.  Just to the right side of the nosecone we can make out a distinct bright red flash.

Some have speculated that this is simply a reflection of light caused by the sun reflecting on the metal surface of the plane.  Then again, we have to take into account the physical properties of what causes a reflection.  Reflections can only be seen from one angle.  For instance, you can use a mirror to aim a reflection of the sun’s rays and point those rays at a different point in space.  This is a direct result of light bouncing off of one surface and being directed at another single point.  So, in short, a reflection can only be seen from one particular angle.  If you move away from that that position, you no longer see the reflection.  
 “911 In Plane Site” actually uses a total of 4 different pieces of footage to demonstrate that this is no mere reflection.  In fact, in one of the most spectacular illustrations the viewer can actually see the bright red flash being directed back onto the fuselage itself.

There has also been speculation that the flash may be landing lights mounted on the underside of each of the wings on the plane and that these powerful lights are radiating on the surface of the building.  This theory sounds plausible at first.  However, upon closer inspection of additional video footage, which was shot from an angle under the plane, we have a clear view of the other side of the plane.  Is there a flash, reflection, or sparkle of light on the left side of the plane?  No, there is not.  If we rule out landing lights and glinting reflections, does this bring us any closer to explaining this mystery?


What we needed now was further confirmation that something out of the ordinary was taking place.  So now we turn to the North tower, the first building struck by an airliner.  When we slowed down this footage, did we see anything out of the ordinary?  Indeed we did.  There is a massive momentary flash, which occurs just a split second before the plane strikes the outer skin of the building.  In this case the flash appears to be a giant solid blast of white smoke.

Ones first impression of this phenomenon might be that it is simply the outer wall of the tower being pulverized into a giant plume of dust and debris.  This theory sounds plausible until you play the video backwards in slow motion.  It then becomes overwhelmingly apparent that the plane is clear of the building before the blast takes place.  We clearly have confirmation of not just one mysterious flash, but two.

What does this all mean?  Simply put, there were more things going on the morning of September 11, 2001, than the American public has been led to believe.  It is not necessarily our intention to answer all of the questions raised in this documentary, but simply to ask the questions.  It is up to the viewing audience to decide if the video and photographic evidence that they are viewing with their own eyes warrants further investigation.  If you are like most people who have seen this video, you will no doubt be stricken with an overpowering sense of betrayal.  Serious questions need to be addressed by those officials to whom we have entrusted the very survival of this great country.

There can be no doubt; video footage and still photographs need no voice because they speak for themselves.  They are incontrovertible evidence of a massive cover-up concerning the events of 9/11.  Action is needed and action must be taken – at the polls, in the voting booths, on the street corners, and in your very own living rooms.  Spread the word.  Spread the video.

To those innumerable individuals who all ask the same drumming question, “What happened to the people onboard those jetliners?”  Keep this one simple idea in mind.  If you have an unlimited black ops budget, you can make people say anything, do anything, and go anywhere – and no one said choice was an option.

If you still believe that terrorists with box cutters carried out 9/11, then you may have nothing to worry about, but the next time you hear on your local news station that the terrorist threat level has just been elevated, remember the words of Dave vonKleist as he closes this video presentation.  “Where is your line in the sand?”