The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

911 In Plane Site

New Video Confirms 911 Hoax With Digital Clarity

From: Sherry Swiney <>
September 16, 2004

----- Original Message -----
From: Sherry Swiney <>
To: Everyone
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:19 PM
Subject: VIDEO - Documentary

Dear Everyone,

I am sending this email only to A-L in my address book, as that's all that's been cleaned out and updated so far. Feel free to pass this along to others.

If you are not interested in any research that's been done in search of what really happened on 9-11-2001, then I apologize for the intrusion - please just delete this message and go on with your day, and may God bless you for the work you are doing. Also, if you would like me to remove you from my address book, please let me know.

I am sending this information to all of you because I just finished watching the film mentioned below. It's a documentary and I highly recommend it (available in VHS and DVD).

The film is available at or you may search google for another source.

[Addendum, Sep. 17, 2004:
----- Original Message -----
From: Promolang
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 6:41 AM
Subject: How to download the "In Plane Site" video

Dear Ken,
a propos of your latest news update on this excellent video, you can download it in full (a Divx AVI quite good quality version) here:

As many people as possible should see it! Keep up your good work,

Cheers, Steve Lawrie, Toulouse]

As it is said, "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." -- Schoepenhouer.

Blessings to all,
Sherry Swiney
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 3:31 PM


August 13, 2004

Posted 1:010 AM Eastern

A new 9-11 video was screened last night in Sacramento, California, leaving the audience stunned. '911 in Plane Site' is basically presented in two parts. The first segment is 52 minutes and designed for showing on television with the balance of a one hour time slot reserved for commercials. Part II continues with more film and analysis. This video is digitally mastered making details sharp and clear.

'911 in Plane Site' presents actual film from that fateful day and careful analysis focusing on the Pentagon and the two World Trade Center buildings. By slowing down the actual news feeds that day from networks like CNN, FOX, the BBC and others, what you see is quite different from what most people
saw in "real time" that day. Live footage from the Pentagon and what was missed by most because of the smoke and confusion was captured up close by
the media. Following the showing, a retired vet remarked, "How did we miss this all this time? I've seen media clips of the front of that building [the Pentagon] many times, but I wasn't really seeing what was there. I feel sick."

One particular interview that brought gasps from the audience and many looking around with shock etched on their faces was an interview conducted -
live at the time - by FOX News. This intense interview with Mark Burnback, an employee of FOX News, contains the following narrative, paraphrased:
Burnback was close to the path of the second plane and had a good long look at what he describes was not a commercial airliner. The plane that hit the
second tower had no windows, Burnback was very clear about that. The plane had some kind of blue logo on the front near the nose and looked like a
cargo plane. This point was driven to the viewer several times along with the comment from this FOX employee that "this plane wasn't from around here
or anything you'd see take off from the airport."

Other footage includes several women who had a very clear view watching the second plane hit were yelling, "That wasn't American Airlines....It wasn't
American Airlines going into the building." These interviews were played that morning once on FOX News, never to be replayed again, despite the massive saturation and repetition by the media for many days to come.

Other extremely disturbing segments of this video are the clear, slow motion shots of the second plane going into the towers which show a flash right before the nose of the plane hits the building and a pod attached to the bottom of the plane. This strange flash is clearly recorded from four different angles from four different cameras. While there is only one known piece of film showing the first plane hitting the first tower, in slow motion one can clearly see - as with the second plane - a flash from the nose section right before impact. What caused this?

This video raises extremely disturbing questions about the planes that hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers, but no conclusions or accusations are made by the commentator. To date, only one piece of film has been released by DoD of the front of the Pentagon. The question raised in the video is where is all the other film footage from the Pentagon? The heart beat of America's military and security, with a building and perimeter loaded with cameras, but no film for the public to view of events as they unfolded except from one camera?

According to the producers, the purpose of '911 in Plane Site' is to demonstrate that Americans saw one thing that morning that was so shocking, so horrific and so massive, the finer details weren't really being picked up. The producer reinforces to the viewer that after one broadcast of many very controversial interviews live on the spot, these particular interviews were never broadcast again, i.e. firefighters on the spot talking about the explosions and bombs inside the towers. Since 9-11, it has been reported that "Building Seven" collapsed because of the two World Trade Center towers collapsing. However, the footage on this video tells a different story and raises more questions.

'911 in Plane Site,' distributed by Power Hour Productions (866-773-9469), leaves one with many questions as demonstrated by a very upset senior citizen who requested her last name be withheld. Mary asked, "If these weren't commercial airliners, where are those flights? Where are the passengers? My, God what really happened that day?" Indeed, this seemed to be the biggest question expressed by viewers after the lights came back on, but for which there were no answers. Some viewers were visibly upset, angry and "want damn answers" from the Bush Administration. Others just walked out the door in silence. One upset man commented on the way out of the viewing, "It's time to get this on PBS and every investigative news program on TV. We need answers."
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Cumbee
To: Sherry Swiney
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 10:05 AM

At 09:24 PM 8/19/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Sherry, Thanks VERY much for sending info about "911 in Plane Sight" (Do you have ordering information?). The public sight has been clouded ever since that horrific day. Why did the Bush administration initially refuse to set up the 9-11 Commission and then why, when it could no longer be avoided, was the mandate given the group to focus on what can be done to improve security now, NOT to investigate what actually happened.

Kerry said the Commission should be continued--did he say for 18 months? I say the membership should be expanded and the investigation continued for as long as it takes to answer compelling questions raised by Professor of Religion at Claremont Thelological Seminary, David Ray Griffin, in his book "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11." Just a few of those include one referred to in the article you sent: why did Bldg 7 of the World Trade Center, untouched by any airplane, explode?

Why were no fighter jets scrambled to intervene as soon as screens revealed planes had gone off path. Griffin explains in Nick Welsh's article from Santa Barbara Independent Online (Apr. 1, 2004): "jets typically get to [a hijacked] plane within no later than 15 minutes anywhere in the United States. And on that day, there were four airplanes that went for a half-hour or more after they were hijacked without jets intercepting them?" WHY were standard operating procedures not followed that day?

About the Pentagon crash "...physical evidence contradicts so violently the official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757--Flight 77....The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a hole no longer than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put out...published in the Washington Post...was that the hole ...was five stories high and 200 feet wide.....Whatever went into the Pentagon pierced six reinforced walls....This had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing 757 has a very fragile nose and would not have pierced through all those walls; it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon. And given that it only penetrated these three rings, the rest of the aircraft would have been sitting outside on the yard. And yet the photographs taken just as the fire trucks got there--very shortly after the crash--show no plane whatsoever....The official story is that the whole aircraft went inside the Pentagon. The problem with that--the firefighters in there would have seen the airplane. They would have seen the engines...the aluminum fuselage, but they reported nothing. Ed Plower, the fire chief, when asked what he saw, said, ' I didn't seen any big pieces, no fuselage, no engines, no nothing.' BUT about a month later, when asked he said, 'Oh yes, I saw all that.' His memory had had time to be refreshed."

When three airplanes had been hijacked and the U.S. experienced the most horrific attack ever, Secret Service with Pres. Bush at the elementary school "would have had to assume that one or more of them were heading toward President Bush himself...the Secret Service surely would have whisked him away immediately" (from this highly publicized site). But Bush continued for 15 minutes to listen to the students read......."then the president went on national TV, going forward with an interview that had been planned and announced in advance...then they took their regularly scheduled motorcade back to the airport. In other words, [Bush and the Secret Service] showed no fear whatsoever that they would be targeted for attack, which strongly suggests they knew how many aircraft were being hijacked and what their targets were."

I'm copying below part of an email sent me several months ago with other relevant, some very dated, info for people who want to inquire further. At the end is ordering info for another video, The Great Deception, by Barrie Swicker from Canada.----Judy

(1) Presidential candidate cries "foul" over 9-11 investigation
Senator Alleges 9/11 'Coverup'

(2) Now In Open, Empire Talk Unsettling

(3) Bush Delays 9/11 Report

(4) White House Refuses to Release Sept. 11 Info

(5) from Dana:
A founding member of 9/11 CitizensWatch, Allan Duncan has received this request from 9/11 victim family member Mindy Kleinberg of September 11th Advocates, widow of Alan Kleinberg who was killed at Cantor Fitzgerald in WTC Tower One. They are looking for support in putting pressure on the White House not to block full disclosure of materials pertinent to the investigation by the National Commission.

9/11 CitizensWatch and wholly support such a campaign. May it begin in earnest now and not let up until we have answers to all the questions raised in the wake of 9/11.

Please forward far and wide. Thank you for doing your part in working toward accountability and the truth.

Kyle F. Hence

To review Mindy's compelling testimony during the first open hearings held by the National Commission please visit:

Mindy's message follows:
If you could possibly send this message out to anyone who wants to help, I would appreciate it. The article below talks about the WH looking to exert executive privilege on many relevant documents that are needed in order for the Commission to properly do its investigation. We would appreciate it if
people would either call or fax a letter to the White House letting them know that they are outraged by the possibility of this administration trying to block pertinent information from getting to the Independent Commission. Preventing the truth from coming out will cause this country to remain in peril.

Mindy Kleinberg

The White House Phone Numbers
COMMENTS: 202-456-1111
SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
September 11 Showdown

An imminent and potentially nasty confrontation over an independent commission's authority to investigate the White House's handling of the September 11 terror attacks was narrowly averted last week--just before President Bush landed a jet aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in a carefully crafted ceremony touting the toppling of Saddam Hussein as a major victory in the war on terrorism.

BUT THE BATTLE over the issue is far from over. In fact, NEWSWEEK has learned, President Bush's chief lawyer has privately signaled that the White House may seek to invoke executive privilege over key documents relating to the attacks in order to keep them out of the hands of investigators for the
National Commission on Terror Attacks Upon the United States--the independent panel created by Congress to probe all aspects of 9-11.

Some commission members now fear a showdown over the issue--particularly over extremely sensitive National Security Council minutes and presidential briefing papers--could be coming in the next few weeks. "We do think it's important to engage this issue relatively early--i.e., now," says Philip Zelikow, the executive director for the commission, who is negotiating with administration lawyers to inspect documents and interview senior officials.

Zelikow says he is still hopeful an accommodation can be reached with administration lawyers and that the issue is now in the hands of senior officials in the White House. But he made it clear that the 9-11 panel has no intention of backing down from its insistence that it receive full access to a wide range of material that has never been reviewed by any outside body--much less made public. "We expect to get what we need," Zelikow says. "We're not going to go quietly into that good night."

Zelikow's comments, and even stronger ones from some commission members, suggest that last week's brief contretemps over access to transcripts of secret congressional testimony was only one small flare-up in a much broader and potentially high-stakes struggle that could ultimately wind up in federal court.

Just two weeks ago, one commission member, Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, had sought to read transcripts of three days of closed hearings that had been held last fall by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees-- hearings that Roemer, as a member of the House panel, had actually participated in.

But when Roemer went down to a carefully guarded room on Capitol Hill to read the classified transcripts--he says to refresh his memory--he was stunned to learn that he couldn't have access to them. The reason, relayed by a congressional staffer, was that Zelikow had acceded to a request by an administration official to permit lawyers to first review them to determine if the transcripts contained testimony about "privileged" material.

Roemer called the deal "outrageous" and 9-11 family members victims bombarded the panel with angry calls. But late Tuesday, White House lawyers relented, thereby averting an embarrassing ublic escalation of the dispute--and inevitable charges of a White House cover-up--that could well have marred last Thursday's highly publicized ceremony aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in which Bush declared the military action in Iraq "one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

But that by no means settled the matter, sources say. Publicly, the White House has pledged cooperation with the panel and two months ago chief of staff Andrew Card even distributed a memo to agency chiefs instructing them to work with the panel and provide them access to documents. But privately, talks have been far more problematic. Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who Bush named to chair the panel, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that in private talks with White House chief council Alberto Gonzales, the president's chief lawyer, has already told him that he "may seek to invoke executive privilege" over some documents sought by the commission.

Executive privilege is a doctrine traditionally invoked by all White Houses to keep confidential briefings or advice given to the president. But the precise boundaries of the doctrine are hardly settled. And it is far from clear how a White House attempt to withhold material from a congressionally authorized national commission on 9-11 will play out.

Gonzales and the rest of the White House legal staff are known to feel particularly passionate about the sanctity of staff advice given to the president--a view that reflects Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's adamant opinion that internal executive-branch decision-making should be conducted without
fear of congressional or media scrutiny. "Those are like the crown jewels--we'll never give those up," one White House lawyer predicted to NEWSWEEK recently when asked about presidential briefing papers that were likely to be sought by the commission.

But some commission members say it might be politically difficult for the White House to sustain that position--especially given the panel's broad legal mandate to unearth all pertinent facts relating to the events of 9-11. The invocation of executive privilege could fuel suspicions that the White House is
stonewalling the panel in order to cover up politically embarrassing mistakes. "I think they have got to be worried about this," says one panel member. "This is a bipartisan commission, and we've got the family members."

Among the most sensitive documents the commission is known to be interested in reviewing are internal National Security Council minutes from the spring and summer of 2001 when the CIA and other intelligence agencies were warning that an attack by Al Qaeda could well be imminent. The panel is also expected to seek interviews with key principals--such as national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her chief deputy, Stephen J. Hadley--to question them both about advice they gave the president and about what actions they took to deal with the rising concerns of intelligence-community officials
about the Qaeda threat.

An equally dicey subject, sources say, is the commission's expected request to review debriefings of key Al Qaeda suspects who have been arrested--such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh--who played critical roles in the 9-11 plot. The intelligence community has treated those debriefs as among the most highly classified material in the government, and the Justice Department is stoutly resisting a ruling by the federal judge overseeing the Zacarias Moussoui case to make bin al-Shibh available to the defense.

But commission members argue that they can't possibly do their job to write an authoritative history of 9-11 if they can't discover what the federal government has learned from Al Qaeda operatives who know the most about how the plot was put together.
© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
* * * * * * * * * *
(7) And from Eddgra:
From the "Toronto Star", May 11, 2003
Column on well-credentialed journalist who refuses to sweep under the carpet one of the most symbolic attacks upon America, which has been used as justification for attacking everything this country has stood for. Why is the Bush administration refusing to allow the Congressional investigation of 9/11 be released? Information for obtaining an investigative video is at the end. It also can be ordered, along with other informaiton, at:

May. 11, 2003. 08:25 AM
Conspiracy crusader doubts official 9/11 version

Barrie Zwicker gazes calmly into the camera, hands clasped, voice clear and resonant, looking the quintessential Canadian progressive: a colourful knitted vest over an open-collared shirt, a neat little beard, a personality that radiates boyish, almost naive friendliness.

Not a shard of irony, not a sliver of petulant, up-to-date narcissism.Perfect. You couldn't possibly be more agreeable or less threatening.

Then, of course, he ruins it all by asking questions. They are questions that 99 per cent of Canadian journalists have not dared or deigned to ask, and that most Canadians would prefer not to hear.

In these strange times, asking direct and probing questions about 9/11 will get you instant put-downs.

Zwicker grins as he mimics the upward eye-roll and patronizing hand-flap that go along with the phrase "conspiracy theorist."

As Vision TV's media critic for the past 15 years, and as a journalist with a long list of solid credentials (he's worked at The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Star, taught at Ryerson University, and was awarded a Southam Fellowship at the University of Toronto), Zwicker should be safely out of the line
of fire. It's a measure of his determination to challenge conventional wisdom that he has willingly kept his head up, instead of down, and tried to look facts right in the eye.

"You know, the people who just shrug off these questions with the `conspiracy theorist' epithet should be asked what they stand for. Unquestioning acceptance of the official narrative? Sure, there are outlandish theories out there - aliens, Atlantis - but there have also been real and huge
conspiracies," Zwicker told me in an interview in his home office.

I knew about some of those conspiracies. Last January, I wrote a column about American declassified documents that verify a long history of top-level conspiracies. The U.S. government, its military and its secret service have plotted to justify wars and impose their control on other countries through
intricate secret schemes of drug-running, gun smuggling and assassination. They even considered rigging fake terrorist attacks that would cost American lives in order to stir the public to war-ready outrage.

Immediately, I was deluged with hundreds upon hundreds of approving e-mails from American citizens. Some of them praised the TV work of Barrie Zwicker - a Globe and Mail colleague of my youth.

I sat down, with a fair degree of skepticism, to watch Zwicker's video, The Great Deception, which challenges the U.S. government's account of what really happened on 9/11. Slowly, a frightening chill came over me. These were the very questions I had asked myself on 9/11 and for several weeks after. Failing to find easy answers, I had locked the subject away.

Why did the United States Air Force fail to scramble interceptor jets - in defiance of all long-standing rules and well-established ractice - for almost two hours after it was known that an unprecedented four planes had been hijacked?

How could the world's most powerful military fail to react throughout a prolonged, horrifying attack on the financial and political capitals of the nation?

How did the FBI know the exact identities of the hijackers within 24 hours of the attacks? If their files were so readily to hand, why hadn't they been apprehended earlier? After all, several conscientious FBI agents had raised the alarm about a number of known Al Qaeda sympathizers at U.S. flight
schools, and had been ignored.

Why did Donald Rumsfeld call for a war on Iraq (not Afghanistan) the morning after the Saudi hijackers had accomplished their attack?

Why did the two squadrons of fighter jets at Andrews Air Force base, 19 kilometres from Washington, not zoom into action to defend the White House, one of their primary tasks?

Why did George Bush sit for half an hour in a Florida classroom, listening to a girl talk about her pet goat, after his chief of staff told him about the second plane? For that matter, why did he pretend that he first learned of the attacks in that classroom, when he had actually been briefed as he left his hotel that morning?

Why has there been no public investigation into the billions of dollars "earned" by insider trading of United and American Airlines stock before 9/11?

I went to interview Zwicker because I was fascinated by his courage in raising these unpopular questions and wanted to know what made him persist. I saw the answer for myself. At nearly 69, Zwicker has boundless energy, intellectual as well as physical. (This is an environmentalist who gave up cars in
1966 and who bicycles thousands of kilometres across country for fun).

He has a restless scientific curiosity, coupled with humanistic principles absorbed from his United Church minister father. At age 12, as a fledgling skeptic growing up in Swan River, Manitoba, Zwicker couldn't merely accept the common schoolboy belief that Coca-Cola contained acid powerful enough
to dissolve a penny. Into five bottles of Coke he dropped a penny, a nail, a piece of leather, a strip of cloth and a cube of bread. Next morning, he found all intact.

In his teens, anguished at his loss of faith, he turned to his father. "Out there in his garden, near the sweet peas, he put his arm around my shoulder and said `Barrie, follow the truth, wherever it leads you.'"

Zwicker and his wife Jean (they've been married 40 years and have a grown son and daughter) are avid gardeners and theatre fanatics with subscriptions to nearly every series in town.

His energy seems equalled only by his good humour and relentless pursuit of honest fact.

You can catch Zwicker's Eye Opener media critique on the current affairs show, 360 Vision, Thursdays at 8 p.m. on Vision TV. He has sold more than 1,000 of his Great Deception videos at near-cost. You can order one for $38 (that includes shipping) by calling 416-651-5588.

And if you call him a conspiracy theorist, call me one, too, because I agree with Zwicker when he says, "I don't know exactly what happened, but something smells very fishy." Even more rank-smelling is the refusal of most Canadian journalists to ask embarrassingly uncool questions about one of the worst catastrophes of our time.

Michele Landsberg's column usually appears in the Star Saturday and Sunday. Her e-mail address is
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherry Swiney
To: Judy Cumbee
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 6:02 PM

Hi Judy,

Yes, I found a website sponsored by American Patriots Network where you can order the film. I have already placed my order. Please see

People want answers and when enough people demand the answers, we shall see what happens. More outrageous coverups? Another attack? Or the Truth?



Free Newsletter

Email Address:

Join the Educate-Yourself Discussion Forum

All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.