If A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words, What Is A Video Worth?

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.

THE PENTAGON:

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."