Has anyone seen the DVD 9/11 In Plane Sight?

[undeterred]

http://www.911inplanesite.com/

Nila Sagadevan says that seeing this is what enabled him to determine that the 911 cover story is nonsense.

[Rob Conn]

1. Yes...Beware.

Well then Sagadevan is working for Kleist. That movie is the biggest turkey of them all. If its not meant to undermine the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement, its a resounding failure in execution and judgement. Most importantly, there are many who want you to think that the movement is all meaningless debates about technical issues. I have come to believe that the government participated in the attacks, and my understanding is based very little upon the physical evidence. Please focus more on what we do know and not what we don't. This video is worth watching. The guy is quite a character, and he asks some good questions. But be warned that what he suggests in the video is considered by many to be either sloppy, or disinformation. - R.C.

We don't need no stinking plane pods! :)

[MrSammo1]

2. Physical facts

don't lie. For example.......there was no vertical stabilizer mark on the pre-collapse pentagon wall. That ends the story. There was no 757 that hit that wall. All hearsay that point to anything other than this is a lie.

[Rob Conn]

6. What is good evidence?

Your opinion is a perfect example of what is dangerous about getting too obsessed with physical evidence. If you think that the lack of a stabilizer mark makes the case, then you are only ever going to convince new people that you are a nutty conspiracy theorist. The fact that convinces YOU can only be so important. What will convince others? We must stay focused on those facts that are already true, not the ones that can't be fully proven. WTC7 was most likely brought down by demolition, but I hardly refer to it. Its too easy to get in a argument about something for which I have no physical, and only photographic evidence. I agree that the lack of stabilizer mark is suspicious, but not the smoking gun, or even that relevant in the overall case. As I said, I'm MIHOP without the physical evidence. I've got the chain of command, I've got a huge ducumentary record of intended standdown, I've got news reports that contradict the Commission Report, or were never included. These pieces of undisputed fact are the basis for a case that has been made very effectively by three of our top researchers, and they hardly refer to the physical evidence, for there is nothing to review, and therefore no case to build upon. Let's make the case for others, and not get caught up in what we think is interesting. Or at least keep the separate. The plane pods are certainly fun. - R.C.

[undeterred]

3. It just seems a little weird to me that they're selling it

Its probably a compilation of short bits of footage that are already out there on the internet (the "previews" were clips I've seen before).

[philb]

4. you are right. Its a compilation of videos and articles we've seen.

I haven't watched the video, but I have seen some of the criticisms of the video. One story in particular was criticized.
But people should also be aware that some of the criticism of the Video is disinformation - not supported by evidence or fact.

I have a friend who has seen the video. He liked it.
I think the video has some convincing pictures and references. But not necessarily the most convincing or credible. There is more known now than when that video was done.

[Rob Conn]

7. Propaganda should be free

I kid the Kleist, but he makes it fun. Yes, it is a compilation of video clips, including the 'mystery cloud' and the 'plane pod'. Kleist likes to point out that they are undoctored, yet that doesn't mean he has made very good choices about how to interpret these selections. You have to ask yourself why he would focus so heavily on the physical evidence, so easy to argue about, and not discuss any of the documentary evidence. Its worth watching, but it can easily distract you from evidence that is more important. Stay frosty. - R.C.

[demodewd]

5. no s********* gatekeepers

You may not want "no stinking plane pods" but they(it) are quite arguably there. What we don't need is no s******* gatekeepers.

[Rob Conn]

9. You can say that I stink, but you can't prove it.

Looks like I hit a nerve. Are you a fan of the Kleist. Listen, there is an editorial role to be played in this movement, because most people don't read. And most don't watch DVD's like this either. In fact, most just do research on the internet, and rely upon questionable sources. This can not be ignored. There is crap out there. And I would never tell anyone not to review evidence, but I'll sure make it clear which sources among the many I find reputable. Especially for people just getting into this. The old guard can talk about the pods without getting confused. And I like the pods. But we must be carefull not to put a stamp of approval on things that distract new enquirers from either getting at the truth, or doing something about it. And frackly, In Plane Site is simply at the bottom of my list of things to consider. I'm sorry but criticising bad evidence is not gate keeping. What would you say it is? - R.C.

[Klimmer]

8. Visual evidence is physical evidence.

Seeing is truly believing. If it can be agreed that the footage from many different source videos or cameras has not been altered digitally or otherwise, then visual evidence is physical evidence.

Using visible light (a small portion of the Electro-Magnetic Spectrum) as well as many other frequencies (radio, IR, UV, X-ray, gamma) through remote sensing is how we study and know much about many phenomenon through-out our universe including scientific investigations here on Earth.

Every-time you use a still camera or video camera with visible light, you are capturing physical evidence, you are capturing a moment in time. As Einstein states --- at the speed of light time stands still. So when those photons of EM wave "light" energy intersect with the film plane or digital plane of a still or video camera, you are indeed capturing a moment in time and that is physical evidence. As long as you know about the camera,lense, and medium for recording, much can be determined and measured from the actual film or digital photos or footage. Comparisons from one known object in an image to another known object in an image can reveal so much, then compare this to an unknown object in an image, and relative size, speed, approximate mass, and even energies involved can be determined.

Why do you think we spend so much money investing in satellite surveillance and our government has some of the best in the world, for use by our military, CIA, and many other applications etc?

Land-based images are just as important and valid. When we take images by camera or by video we are all "remote-sensing" and a great deal can be analyzed, studied, and revealed from this physical evidence. These videos of actual footage are all very, very important. You can not dismiss visual evidence. It is physical evidence.