911 In Plane Site Director's Cut Now Showing

Here in Australia (Melbourne) it's after midnight and a program called "911 In Plane Site" is showing. Shows a lot of things I hadn't seen before and also talks about the Oklahama bombing.

Has anyone else seen this and care to comment?

Okay - program has finished now.

Main points:
- photographic evidence shows no wreckage from plane that hit Pentagon
- original damage (before roof collapsed) much too small to be caused by an airliner
- stranged object seemingly attached to bottom of flight that hit the second tower
- a brief flash appears ahead of both planes before they hit the Twin Towers
- witness at the Trade Centre heard a series of explosions before the buildings collapsed
- it was admitted that building 7 was "pulled"
- there was a news story which claimed Flight 93 landed due to a bomb scare and it was evacuated, but this occured after it was supposed to have crashed ina field in Pennsylvania

Also discussed the Oklahama bombing and showed news stories that claimed that two bombs were recovered that failed to explode.

All of this was supported by photographic and video evidence.

I found it quite fascinating and would appreciate some feedback.

Yeah I watched the end of it, but have watched it twice before on various iternet media viewerrs. I was so impreesed and excited about Chanel Ten showing it that I downloaded a "complaint form" (it is the only way to contact them) and congratulated the on this move and in taking the first step in making the public aware about the truth about the occurences on 911, and that they should have screened it at 7:30pm or 8:30pm during the week and hipefully we will see more programs as this. I will fax it Monday when I get to work,

Finally a network has grown the balls to show something that goes against the grain.

It's a pity you didn't see all of it, MM. I missed the very start but turned over in time to see the director's opening speech. If I'd know it was going to be on I would have definitely taped it - and I really wish I had taped it now that I've seen it.

What stood out for you?

There was nothing unusual on the bottom of the planes at the WTC.

The flash was a static discharge. Planes build up a static charge as they fly and the buildings were giant lightning rods.

The 757 that hit the Pentagon was only around 14 feet in diameter. The wings wouldn't have left a noticable imprint in the building due to their fragility and the construction materials on the building.

There WAS wreckage found at the Pentagon.

Flight 93 was confused with a Delta flight at the airport. Flight 1583(?) They were both flying in very close proximity to each other at the time Flight 93's transponder was lost from radar.

I am also in Australia and the main thing I got out of it while also reading things on this site at the same time, was something that people seem to be skipping over and I need explaining to me.

How can eye witnesses say that the planes that were used were definately not commercial airlines and that they were foriegn to the area and we be told over and over again that they were commercial airlines.

Please explain. Are they or arent they?

That is my main question at the moment.

Thanks

Because most people didn't get a good look at them, and couldn't tell United Airlines from British Airlines. I've only heard a very small number of eye witnesses saying they weren't, and have seen some very well done photo analysis showing they WERE. The planes I saw on video and tv that day matched perfectly with an American and United Airlines 767.

One person in particular said they were very close by the plane when it went past one of the buildings and it had no windows, is that normal for a commercial airline?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The 757 that hit the Pentagon was only around 14 feet in diameter. The wings wouldn't have left a noticable imprint in the building due to their fragility and the construction materials on the building.

The wings may have been made out of aliminium and other weaker materials but what about the two engines? they were made out of steel and titanium amongst other materials and were probably amongst the hardest parts of the aircraft, and yet they didn't leave a mark and vaporized for the first time in history?

[edit on 9-9-2006 by solidshot]

No, one exploded when it hit a wall, and the other one we simply didn't see a picture of. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. The titanium bits are only the fan blades, the steel the combustion chamber, most of the rest of the engine is aluminum and softer materials.

Originally posted by kvine
One person in particular said they were very close by the plane when it went past one of the buildings and it had no windows, is that normal for a commercial airline?

At several hundred miles an hour, and just how could he be "very close" to the plane when it went by? He was either on the ground, in which case it was a couple hundred feet over his head, and you wouldn't be able to make out small details like that, or he was in the building, in which case he would have seen it nose on or below it, in which case he wouldn't have seen them. And why is it that one witness is so much more credible than hundreds?

To me it sounded like he was in a nearby building when it went by and more than one person descibed it as being grey with no windows and foreign to the local area as if they hadnt seen that sort of plane on a regular occurrence.

Not saying either way is the way i believe just asking as nobody seems to touch on this in other threads.

Have you looked at a United and American plane? One is dark grey, the other is silver. And windows are VERY difficult to distinguish at any distance, especially when the planes are at that speed. You're talking about looking at something that's like 12 inches tall, and less than that wide, that tends to blend in with the paintjob.

Here is a large, non-moving picture of a United Airlines 767-200, same type that hit the WTC. Look at how grey it is, and how the windows blend in with that.



Here is an American Airlines 767-200. Same thing, except it's silver.



Now imagine if you were looking at those planes going by you at 400+ mph.

if you missed any of it you can watch it here on google video

video.google.co.uk...

saw it months ago now, its up there with loose change, 9/11 eyewitness, 9/11 revisited and the likes

video.google.co.uk...

ok fair enough, but still you would think they would be able to tell the difference of whether they see them all the time or not.

and then with the thing on the bottom of the plane, you say there wasn't anything but what proof do you have? I'm not saying they are right in saying there was just in the same way I can't say you are right in saying there wasn't. I accept your discussion about static electricity.

I suggest reading first post in the thread located a little ways down...
A 757 Hit The Pentagon

This thread is very informative, very factual, easy to follow, and full of references with sources.

It's pretty simple with the "pods". They were supposedly put where the landing gear bays are. Where are your landing gear going to go? But there was a really good photo analysis done a few months ago. I'll try to find it again and link to it.

As for not seeing them around, they didn't. You NEVER saw planes over NYC like on 9/11, and how many people actually pay attention to planes overhead? Like someone said in another thread, it's amazing how people won't notice contrails or planes going overhead until someone points them out, then it's "Where did that come from! I never saw that before!"

oh k sorry didnt know that, see where i am we see them all the time.
I just wrongly assumed

Thanks

Here's the page with the pods. The odd shape to the fuselage was just the wing fairing.

www.questionsquestions.net...

I grew up on a military base. When planes go overhead there, everything stops and people watch. I was amazed at how people just ignored them when I moved off base. But I was the same way, I just always assumed that people were watching them going over.

[edit on 9/9/2006 by Zaphod58]

Thanks everyone for your contributions. You've given me more to ponder and read.

Thanks again.