9/11 Flight 93 Film Opens In Theaters. Is it a Tribute to Heroes or Just Propaganda - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 04-29-2006, 02:24 PM

There are many opinions posted at <a href="http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/index.php">Universal Studios Website<a>

Do you believe the official government story that the movie's "story line" is filmed around? Let's confine this thread to posts with opinions of who gained the most from 9/11, in terms of increased power and influence, and who lost the most....politically. Apply the same parameters to your opinion of the movie, "United 93".

Actual theories can be dicussed on the Paranoia forum, 9/11 thread. "Proof" that the official story is accurate or misleading, is welcome here, however....make sure it is proof that you post!

I think 9/11 was more about consolidation of power through a demonstration of violence intended to instill fear, than it was about terrorism from the "outside". Signifigant new powers, unearned trust, and some of our rights were transferred from us to our "leaders", almost overnight. I am not even sure that any passenger filled commercial jetliners hit any buildings, or crashed. How about you?

Ustwo · 04-29-2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I think 9/11 was more about consolidation of power through a demonstration of violence intended to instill fear, than it was about terrorism from the "outside". Signifigant new powers, unearned trust, and some of our rights were transferred from us to our "leaders", almost overnight. I am not even sure that any passenger filled commercial jetliners hit any buildings, or crashed. How about you?

And we would have succeeded if it weren't for you meddling kids!

I think 9/11 was just what it seemed, and had been predicted for a LONG time (not 9/11 specificly but bloody conflict with radical islamists).

Oh and I can't answer your poll as nothing quite fits me. I think there may be some errors on minor details but the offical explaination is fundamentaly true.

host · 04-29-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And we would have succeeded if it weren't for you meddling kids!

I think 9/11 was just what it seemed, and had been predicted for a LONG time (not 9/11 specificly but bloody conflict with radical islamists).

Oh and I can't answer your poll as nothing quite fits me. I think there may be some errors on minor details but the offical explaination is fundamentaly true.

You mean...you were in on it???? W

W!!!

This choice seems close to your position:

Quote:

I have some nagging doubts, but no serious resistance to the official story.

samcol · 04-29-2006, 03:26 PM

The internet is busting at the seems with books, videos, and information questioning the official story. I wonder how long the mainstream media can continue to ignore this issue. The message board Universal has up is a great example. They put up it up to discuss the movie, and there is hardly anything about the actual movie on it.

As for power and influence, high levels of the government, big corpporations and especially PNAC definetly win that debate, while the average citizens of the United States, Aphganistan, Iraq, and now Iran are the big losers. As for the movie I haven't actually seen it, but after reading about it there's no question where they are coming from. It's just another example of playing on emotions to get people behind a cause. The catapulted propaganda is having diminishing returns however, as Bush's poll numbers don't spike as high each time there's a new terrorist attack, war, or propaganda piece out.

Elphaba · 04-29-2006, 03:39 PM

I haven't seen the movie so I am reluctant to judge the intentions of it's makers. Certainly, anything following "lets roll" is mere speculation. I am not in the camp that believes that our government orchestrated this act of "terrorism," but I am beginning to believe that our government knew enough to prevent 9/11 and allowed it to happen for political purposes.

I also believe that there is a likelihood that there will be another attack on our country before the midterm elections and that "evidence" will be found that Iran sponsored the strike. Take that to paranoia, if you wish. Just return it here, if it proves to be true.

nezmot · 04-29-2006, 04:08 PM

I can't believe in any conspiracy or complicity. I believe that the administration reacted to events, and used them to their advantage, but there's nothing startling about that. In doing so, they managed to single-handedly legitimise and levitate Osama Bin Ladin's standing to one he never would have achieved had a more 'softly-softly' approach been taken - but I doubt that part of the issue is dealt with in this film.

I still think it's too soon to release this film though. It seems like bad taste.

Dragonlich · 04-30-2006, 12:09 AM

I believe most the official stories about 9-11. I doubt the US government is evil and competent enough to pull off a conspiracy to destroy the WTC and part of the Pentagon. They may have had early warnings, but as in every burocratic country, this wasn't acted upon. There are countless historic examples of similar situations, where afterwards you say "how the hell didn't they see that coming a mile away??".

As for the film, it may be based on the real facts, but it's also propaganda.

host · 04-30-2006, 03:23 AM

I've posted some research...excerpts from news reports and interviews, on the at <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2054528#post2054528">TFP Paranoia forum</a>, that seems to establish that Cheney labelled the flight 93 passengers as "heroes" moments after reports arrived at his bunker on 9/11, that flight 93 had crashed. It seems an odd and suspicious comment, unless a plan to turn those airline passengers into hero/martyrs had been pre-determined.

The folks making phone calls from flight 93 to "loved ones" (one fellow made four calls), were reported to be too chatty, and too tardy in ending their calls, to be available to "rush the cockpit" in time to match the newly released transcript of the flight 93 CVR. Lyz Glick, widow of "hero" Jeremy Glick, maintained that she informed him during their last phone call, that the south WTC tower had collapsed. That tower, the first to fall, collapsed at 9:59:04 am....one minute after the transcript shows that the "hijackers" were aware of the attempt by passengers to rush and open the cockpit door.

This does not take into account that Lyz Glick needed at least several moments to observe the televised collapse of the tower, during the emotion of what she says she believed to be the last conversation...ever....with her husband, Jeremy, and then explain what she saw to him....and then say a final goodbye.

The news reports show that, beginning with Cheney's on the spot declaration, the ball "got rolling" to convince us that those passengers are "heroes". The 9/11 Commission "report", the Moussaoui trial, preceded by a January, 2006 A&E TV movie, the release to the public of the voice recording (CVR), and the release to theaters of the new United 93 film, along with the books written by surviving relatives of the "heroes", (Both Lyn Glick and her father wrote books), counter details like my observation about account timeline discrepancies....and a report I included of testimony of FBI agent James M. Fitzgerald, conceding that there was no evidence of contact between Moussaoui and any of the 9/11 hijackers....and that the FBI knew for ten years before 9/11, that Al Qaeda was sending it's members to U.S. flight schools.

Why then, did the federal prosecutors emphasize previously undisclosed flight 93 CVR transcripts, recordings of WTC victims 9-1-1 calls for help, and photos of flight 93 crash debris, to attempt to convince a jury that Moussaoui should be sentenced to death?

I've also documented Rumsfeld referring to flight 93, in a 12/24/2004 speech, as having been, "shot down". I'm more comfortable than ever, the more that is disclosed about 9/11, concluding that much of what we "know".....that which was "provided to us" by those responsible for our nation's defense, and public safety. does not match the facts,

Willravel · 04-30-2006, 09:34 AM

I pretty sure most 'round these parts know how I feel about the subject. There are far too many unanswered questions and horrible coincedences for the official story of 9/11 to be anywhere close to true. Even if the last 2 years of my research were to dissapear from my mind, I'd still think this movie is a farce and clearly taking advantage of people's still sensitive state about the 9/11 massacre.

james t kirk · 04-30-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

I believe most the official stories about 9-11. I doubt the US government is evil and competent enough to pull off a conspiracy to destroy the WTC and part of the Pentagon. They may have had early warnings, but as in every burocratic country, this wasn't acted upon. There are countless historic examples of similar situations, where afterwards you say "how the hell didn't they see that coming a mile away??".

I agree.

I Michael Moore's F911, when the camera was on Bush when 911 happened (he was with a bunch of kids in school) his face was honest to goodness shocked, his eyes were fixated, you could see him breathing rapidly.

There's no way he knew about this.

ubertuber · 04-30-2006, 11:42 AM

I think there has been an effort (or at least a lack of resistance) to "mythologizing" flight 93. That's not surprising though, and I don't necessarily think it indicates a conspiracy. That's just how we, as a society, prefer to digest tragedies. My opinion is that the film is just an uncritical republishing of the current state of 9/11 mythology. That doesn't make it propaganda, though it may incidentally accomplish the same things that propaganda would. It's nothing much more or less than an attempt to make money off of an experience that is still highly charged in our collective consciencousness. All of this is incidental to the question of whether our understanding of the the events of 9/11 is accurate. It's surely not, and this is unsurprising. I don't know if that is conflated with an attempt to decieve us, or if that is simply another thing that is becoming part of the 9/11 mythology.

ASU2003 · 04-30-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

I Michael Moore's F911, when the camera was on Bush when 911 happened (he was with a bunch of kids in school) his face was honest to goodness shocked, his eyes were fixated, you could see him breathing rapidly.

There's no way he knew about this.

He was only told of the first plan hitting the WTC. So, he either thought it was an accident, and felt like it wasn't something that needed immediate attention. If he thought it was a terrorist attack, he should have politely excused himself, and said he had Presidential matters to attend to. If a nuclear bomb went off, I bet the response would have been different. But, if a 747 had been hijacked and crashed into a aircraft carrier, sinking it somehow and killing 3,000 people, he wouldn't have been able to do anything if he left immediately.

I don't remember that much detail about that video, but why would Bush looked shocked, eyes fixated, & rapidly breathing if there was just a plane crash accident in NYC? I would have to rent the movie to make sure the reaction you said happened really did though.

Elphaba · 04-30-2006, 01:11 PM

ASU, he was told that the US was under attack.

ASU2003 · 04-30-2006, 05:14 PM

How did the government know that it was a terrorist attack? There was only the one plane that hit the tower at that point.

Did the air traffic controllers get the codes from all of the airplanes saying that they had been hijacked when he was told?

host · 04-30-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

How did the government know that it was a terrorist attack? There was only the one plane that hit the tower at that point.

Did the air traffic controllers get the codes from all of the airplanes saying that they had been hijacked when he was told?

It seems that you are mistaken.......

The video of Bush sitting in the classroom, after receiving the news, from Andrew Card that a second plane had crashed into the WTC, is available here:

Quote:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/schoolvideo.html
........The only source to describe what happened next is Fighting Back by Bill Sammon. Publishers Weekly described Sammon's book as an "inside account of the Bush administration's reaction to 9-11 [and] a breathless, highly complimentary portrait of the president [showing] the great merit and unwavering moral vision of his inner circle." http://www.publishersweekly.com/inde...cleid=CA251932

Sammon's conservative perspective makes his account of Bush's behavior at the end of the photo-op all the more surprising. Bush is described as smiling and chatting with the children "as if he didn't have a care in the world" and "in the most relaxed manner imaginable." White House aide Gordon Johndroe, then came in as he usually does at the end of press conferences, and said, "Thank you, press. If you could step out the door we came in, please."

A reporter then asked, "Mr. President, are you aware of the reports of the plane crash in New York? Is there anything...", But Bush interrupted, and no doubt recalling his order, "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET," Bush responded, "I'll talk about it later."

But still the president did not leave. "He stepped forward and shook hands with [classroom teacher] Daniels, slipping his left hand behind her in another photo-op pose. He was taking his good old time. ... Bush lingered until the press was gone." [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 90] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...estingday.html ...........

The public is allowed to edit anything that seems inaccurate or disagreeable on the web pages here:

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Card

On September 11, 2001, it was Card who whispered in Bush's ear while the President was conducting an education event at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida that terrorists had attacked the United States. People most remember Card for this action. [1]

and.....under the classroom photo, on the right side of the page....

Card informs President Bush about the second WTC tower being struck on 9/11 after having told Bush prior to going into the classroom about the first plane hitting the first tower.

Quote:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595071129,00.html

Thursday, June 17, 2004
9/11: Bush didn't react to attack for minutes, report says
Bloomberg News

WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush didn't react for five to seven minutes after learning a second aircraft had hit New York's World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, because he was trying to "project strength and calm," a national commission investigating the attacks said.
At 9:05 a.m. on that day, Bush was in a second-grade classroom at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, for an event designed to prod Congress to pass his education proposals. Bush had been told that one plane, possibly a commercial jet, had hit the South Tower 19 minutes earlier.
In a moment captured on video and replayed, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card whispered in Bush's ear, saying, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Bush's face froze, his lips tight.
"The president told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis," the Sept. 11 commission said in a staff statement issued in Washington today at the panel's last public hearing before it issues a final report next month.....

.........At 8:55 a.m. on Sept. 11, nine minutes after the first airliner slammed into the trade center, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice told Bush that a plane, either a multiengine craft or a commercial jet, had struck the center.
"That's all we know right now, Mr. President," Rice said on a secure telephone from Washington, according to the commission report. The FAA and NORAD already knew the first plane had been hijacked and a second was missing, the panel said..........

......Card came forward and whispered in Bush's ear delivering his message. "I told the president, 'The second tower has been hit. America is under attack,"' Card told reporters later.
"When they learned a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, nearly everyone in the White House told us they immediately knew it was not an accident," the commission staff reported.......

...........The president's motorcade left the school at about 9:35 a.m. and arrived at the airport between 9:42 and 9:45 a.m.
On Air Force One at about 9:45 a.m., Bush told Vice President Dick Cheney by telephone, "Sounds like we have a minor war going on here, I heard about the Pentagon. We're at war. Somebody's going to pay," the report says, citing notes of the call.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2754-2002Jan26
PART 1: Sept. 11
America's Chaotic Road to War
Bush's Global Strategy Began to Take Shape in First Frantic Hours After Attack

By Dan Balz and Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 27, 2002; Page A01

First in a series

Tuesday, September 11

......At 9:05 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, also a Boeing 767, smashed into the South Tower of the trade center. Bush was seated on a stool in the classroom when Card whispered the news: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."
<img src="http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/1h/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I45468-2002Jan27">

Bush remembers exactly what he thought: "They had declared war on us, and I made up my mind at that moment that we were going to war."

A photo shows Bush's face with a distant look as he absorbed what Card had said. He nodded and resumed his conversation with the class. "Really good," he said before excusing himself and returning to the holding room. "These must be sixth-graders."

........At 9:30 a.m. the president appeared before television cameras, describing what had happened as "an apparent terrorist attack" and "a national tragedy." He appeared shaken, and his language was oddly informal. He would chase down, he said, "those folks who committed this act."

Bush also said, "Terrorism against our nation will not stand." It was an echo of "This will not stand," the words his father, President George H.W. Bush, had used a few days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990-in Bush's opinion, one of his father's finest moments.

"Why I came up with those specific words, maybe it was an echo from the past," Bush said in an interview last month. "I don't know why. . . . I'll tell you this, we didn't sit around massaging the words. I got up there and just spoke.".......

The decisions at 8:55 am, to go into the school after hearing the news that the first plane had flown into a WTC tower, and then, to stay in the classroom after hearing the news that the second plane had hit the WTC, resulted in Bush being sidelined and effectively disabled for 40 minutes, including the crucial half hour after the second plane hit. Bush departed from the school at 9:35 am. He has offered conflicting accounts of the event, and his actions that morning, in the classroom have never been fully, or coherently explained.

docbungle · 04-30-2006, 07:36 PM

Host: The government did not make this movie. The government was not the only source used by the filmmaker to to make the best educated guess possible as to the events that happened on the plane. No one in the movie is made out to be a hero.

I do not understand your correlation between this movie and the "official story" the government has led us to believe.

As a film, 'Flight 93' is a total success. It is directed with a skill that makes you forget you're watching a movie. The acting is transparent. There are no politics involved. It is seen from the point of view of a silent observer, with no political beliefs.

host · 04-30-2006, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

How did the government know that it was a terrorist attack? There was only the one plane that hit the tower at that point.

Did the air traffic controllers get the codes from all of the airplanes saying that they had been hijacked when he was told?

The following, from the 9/11 Commission final report, and from testimony at a 2003 9/11 Commission hearing, shows what they knew, and when they knew it, except about their awareness of the status of flight 93. The 9/11 commission ignored the logged "wheels of" time of flight 93, the testimony of Colonel Allen Scott, and the testimony of transportation secretary, Norman Mineta, probably in order to rule out the possibility that flight 93 was actually shot down, instead of "brought down" by "hero" passengers.....

Quote:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
Between 8:25 and 8:32, in accordance with the FAA protocol, Boston Center managers started notifying their chain of command that American 11 had been hijacked. At 8:28, Boston Center called the Command Center in Herndon to advise that it believed American 11 had been hijacked and was heading toward New York Center's airspace.

By this time, American 11 had taken a dramatic turn to the south. At 8:32, the Command Center passed word of a possible hijacking to the Operations Center at FAA headquarters. The duty officer replied that security personnel at headquarters had just begun discussing the apparent hijack on a conference call with the New England regional office. FAA headquarters began to follow the hijack protocol but did not contact the NMCC to request a fighter escort.111 ....

..........Military Notification and Response. Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked:115 ......

........United Airlines Flight 175 FAA Awareness. One of the last transmissions from United Airlines Flight 175 is, in retrospect, chilling. By 8:40, controllers at the FAA's New York Center were seeking information on American 11. At approximately 8:42, shortly after entering New York Center's airspace, the pilot of United 175 broke in with the following transmission:
UAL 175: New York UAL 175 heavy.

FAA: UAL 175 go ahead.

UAL 175:Yeah.We figured we'd wait to go to your center.Ah, we hearda suspicious transmission on our departure out of Boston, ah, with someone, ah, it sounded like someone keyed the mikes and said ah everyone ah stay in your seats.

FAA: Oh, okay. I'll pass that along over here.122

Minutes later, United 175 turned southwest without clearance from air traffic control. At 8:47, seconds after the impact of American 11, United 175's transponder code changed, and then changed again. These changes were not noticed for several minutes, however, because the same New York Center controller was assigned to both American 11 and United 175.The controller knew American 11 was hijacked; he was focused on searching for it after the aircraft disappeared at 8:46.123

At 8:48, while the controller was still trying to locate American 11, a New York Center manager provided the following report on a Command Center teleconference about American 11:
Manager, New York Center: Okay. This is New York Center. We're watching the airplane. I also had conversation with American Airlines, and they've told us that they believe that one of their stewardesses was stabbed and that there are people in the cockpit that have control of the aircraft, and that's all the information they have right now.124

The New York Center controller and manager were unaware that American 11 had already crashed.

At 8:51, the controller noticed the transponder change from United 175 and tried to contact the aircraft. There was no response. Beginning at 8:52, the controller made repeated attempts to reach the crew of United 175. Still no response. The controller checked his radio equipment and contacted another controller at 8:53, saying that "we may have a hijack" and that he could not find the aircraft.125

Another commercial aircraft in the vicinity then radioed in with "reports over the radio of a commuter plane hitting the World Trade Center." The controller spent the next several minutes handing off the other flights on his scope to other controllers and moving aircraft out of the way of the unidentified aircraft (believed to be United 175) as it moved southwest and then turned northeast toward New York City.126

At about 8:55, the controller in charge notified a New York Center manager that she believed United 175 had also been hijacked. The manager tried to notify the regional managers and was told that they were discussing a hijacked aircraft (presumably American 11) and refused to be disturbed. At 8:58, the New York Center controller searching for United 175 told another New York controller "we might have a hijack over here, two of them."127........

........The controllers observed the plane in a rapid descent; the radar data terminated over Lower Manhattan. At 9:03, United 175 crashed into the South Tower.130

Meanwhile, a manager from Boston Center reported that they had deciphered what they had heard in one of the first hijacker transmissions from American 11:
Boston Center: Hey . . . you still there?

New England Region:Yes, I am.

Boston Center: . . . as far as the tape, Bobby seemed to think the guy said that "we have planes." Now, I don't know if it was because it was the accent, or if there's more than one, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna reconfirm that for you, and I'll get back to you real quick. Okay?

New England Region: Appreciate it.

Unidentified Female Voice: They have what?

Boston Center: Planes, as in plural.

Boston Center: It sounds like, we're talking to New York, that there's another one aimed at the World Trade Center.

New England Region: There's another aircraft?

Boston Center: A second one just hit the Trade Center.

New England Region: Okay. Yeah, we gotta get-we gotta alert the military real quick on this.131

Boston Center immediately advised the New England Region that it was going to stop all departures at airports under its control. At 9:05, Boston Center confirmed for both the FAA Command Center and the New England Region that the hijackers aboard American 11 said "we have planes." At the same time, NewYork Center declared "ATC zero"-meaning that aircraft were not permitted to depart from, arrive at, or travel through New York Center's airspace until further notice.132

Within minutes of the second impact, Boston Center instructed its controllers to inform all aircraft in its airspace of the events in New York and to advise aircraft to heighten cockpit security. Boston Center asked the Herndon Command Center to issue a similar cockpit security alert nationwide. We have found no evidence to suggest that the Command Center acted on this request or issued any type of cockpit security alert.133

Military Notification and Response. The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03.The notice came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower.134 ......

.......By 9:25, FAA's Herndon Command Center and FAA headquarters knew two aircraft had crashed into the World Trade Center. They knew American 77 was lost. At least some FAA officials in Boston Center and the New England Region knew that a hijacker on board American 11 had said "we have some planes." Concerns over the safety of other aircraft began to mount. A manager at the Herndon Command Center asked FAA headquarters if they wanted to order a "nationwide ground stop." While this was being discussed by executives at FAA headquarters, the Command Center ordered one at 9:25.145

The Command Center kept looking for American 77. At 9:21, it advised the Dulles terminal control facility, and Dulles urged its controllers to look for primary targets. At 9:32, they found one. Several of the Dulles controllers "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed" and notified Reagan National Airport. FAA personnel at both Reagan National and Dulles airports notified the Secret Service. The aircraft's identity or type was unknown.146

Reagan National controllers then vectored an unarmed National Guard C130H cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to Minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft. The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: "looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir."147

Military Notification and Response. NORAD heard nothing about the search for American 77. Instead, the NEADS air defenders heard renewed reports about a plane that no longer existed: American 11.

At 9:21, NEADS received a report from the FAA:
FAA: Military, Boston Center. I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it's on its way towards-heading towards Washington.

NEADS: Okay. American 11 is still in the air? [Note...American 11 had hit the WTC at 8:45...]

FAA: Yes.....

United Airlines Flight 93 FAA Awareness. At 9:27, after having been in the air for 45 minutes, United 93 acknowledged a transmission from the Cleveland Center controller. This was the last normal contact the FAA had with the flight.157

Less than a minute later, the Cleveland controller and the pilots of aircraft in the vicinity heard "a radio transmission of unintelligible sounds of possible screaming or a struggle from an unknown origin."1 .....

My post here shows: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=182
The 9/11 Commission Report ignored the BTS logged, ACS "wheels off time" of Flight 93, (8:28 am). They decided that the plane left the ground at 8:42....and that

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007/
Updated: 10:17 a.m. ET June 17, 2004

.......Nor did the military have 47 minutes to respond to United 93, as would be implied by the account that it received notice about it at 9:16. By the time the military learned about the flight, it had crashed.........

Colonel Scott's testimony, below, seemed reliable....so does the ACS log of Flight 93 "wheels off" time....8:28 am...on the BTS website log. Colonel Scott's testimony, the BTS log, and Norman Mineta's testimony as to when he arrived and observed Cheney in the command "Bunker", were all changed by the 9/11 Commission. Was this a cover up of news that a U.S. fighter jet had acutally executed Cheney's order to shoot down flight 93?

The 9/11 Commission Report ignored this testimony, taken in a hearing it conducted:

Quote:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archiv...2003-05-23.htm
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Public Hearing
Friday, May 23, 2003

....MR. KEAN: Thank you very much. I would certainly agree.

I would like to have Major General Craig McKinley, commander, 1st Air Force, Continental U.S. NORAD, here representing NORAD.

GEN. MCKINLEY: Governor Kean, Congressman Hamilton and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the combatant commander, United States Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, to provide testimony on the events surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001, when our nation was attacked from within by foreign terrorists using commercial aircraft as weapons of mass destruction......

........Our intention is to provide the chronology first to the events leading up to September 11th, as well as taking your questions to give you a detailed look at how NORAD's response was made on 9/11, and any subsequent questions you may have on our posture since. Mr. Commissioner, that concludes my formal statement. The rest will be provided for the record. And, with your indulgence, sir, I would like Colonel Scott (ret.), Alan Scott, to walk you through the timeline.

MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It is my pleasure to be here with you today. General Arnold and I worked together that day on September the 11th.

What I will walk you through here is a chronology of the attacks, and I've presented it in a matrix form. And the only thing I lay claim to is having studied all of the attacks and how they are interwoven together. This was not a linear sequence of events where one attack began and ended and then a second attack began and ended. This was a coordinated, well-planned attack. We had multiple airplanes in the air. The fog and friction of war was evidence everywhere in the country, both on the civil side as well as the military side. And this hopefully will show you how those interwoven events came about.

I will tell you the times on this chart come from our logs. The time on the chart is the time that's in the log. It may not be the exact time the event happened. It may be the time when the log-keeper was advised or became aware of the event.....

........At 9:05, FAA reports a possible hijack of United 175. Again, that's three minutes after the impact in the tower. That's how long it is taking now the information to flow through the system to the command and control agencies and through the command and control agencies to the pilots in the cockpit. At 9:09, Langley F-16s are directed to battle stations, just based on the general situation and the breaking news, and the general developing feeling about what's going on. And at about that same time, kind of way out in the West, is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage. And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on an airplane, and they don't know exactly whether that is 77, and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including an a C-130 that is westbound toward Ohio. At 9:11 FAA reports a crash into the South Tower. You can see now that lag time has increased from seven minutes from impact to report; now it's nine minutes from impact to report. You can only imagine what's going on on the floors of the control centers around the country. At 9:11 -- I just mentioned that -- 9:16, now FAA reports a possible hijack of United Flight 93, which is out in the Ohio area. But that's the last flight that is going to impact the ground.

At 9:24 the FAA reports a possible hijack of 77. That's sometime after they had been tracking this primary target. And at that moment as well is when the Langley F-16s were scrambled out of Langley.....

stevo · 05-02-2006, 06:21 AM

I said "nagging doubts" only because since everyone on United 93 perished the only records we really have of what went on are cockpit recordings and phone calls. I'm sure they do a good job of giving us a general picture of the situation, but obvioulsy some minor details would not be known. I suppose the doubts are hardly "nagging" though, I'm somewhere just below the first choice and just above the second.

Hardknock · 05-02-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I haven't seen the movie so I am reluctant to judge the intentions of it's makers. Certainly, anything following "lets roll" is mere speculation. I am not in the camp that believes that our government orchestrated this act of "terrorism," but I am beginning to believe that our government knew enough to prevent 9/11 and allowed it to happen for political purposes.

I also believe that there is a likelihood that there will be another attack on our country before the midterm elections and that "evidence" will be found that Iran sponsored the strike. Take that to paranoia, if you wish. Just return it here, if it proves to be true.

There was supposed to be an attack keeping people from voting for Bush again too.....

Hardknock · 05-02-2006, 10:49 AM

The fact that Universal is making any money on this at all should have the public up in arms!

True or not, they're making a mockery of all the people who died.

Seaver · 05-02-2006, 05:39 PM

Quote:

The fact that Universal is making any money on this at all should have the public up in arms!

True or not, they're making a mockery of all the people who died.

Um.... historical movies/books/paintings/etc. make ALL their money off of people who died. Showing them in a manner of standing up and fighting back does them justice IMO.

ubertuber · 05-02-2006, 06:25 PM

Or it exploits what we like to see...

Willravel · 05-02-2006, 06:35 PM

People love to turn their heads and look at car crashes on the road. People love to watch a celebrity self destruct. People love to gossip about horrible things that happen to people. People love to listen to Bai Ling sing. People are often entertained by the macabre, taboo, or just downright terrible. While I know that the storyline in the movie is obviously false, it's kinda irrelevent. The producers, writers, directors, and studios want to make a movie that will make money, and probably don't know or care about the truth. As I said before, they are taking advantage of a massacre, HOWEVER they only get away with it because the moviegoers let them.

Poppinjay · 05-02-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

The fact that Universal is making any money on this at all should have the public up in arms!

True or not, they're making a mockery of all the people who died.

Yeah! And the same with the Holocaust! Damn you Stephen Spielberg and your mercenary Schindler's List!

/sarcasm

First off, Universal donated 10% of the opening weekend's take - when the average film takes in about half its total income - to victims of 9/11.

Second, the USA has a history of rewarding handsomely those who can artistically portray events in our history.

I'm fully against Bush, big business yadda yadda. And I have to say, this happened. It's real. The paranoia within these events practiced by Americans is revolting. That's more about what I would be up in arms about. These attacks were a huge blow to several large industries and have made air travel unprofitable and nearly untenable.

And after seeing United 93, I also have to say there's a lack of choice in this poll. The movie did not portray the passengers as heros. It was a potrayal of what may have happened, supported by cell and air phone records, tracking data, recall, and other evidence. There was no celebration of Todd Beamer or any nationalistic nonsense.

I'm appalled at supposedly rational people coming up with nonsense about this not happening. The current administration is an ass over tea kettle train wreck, let alone able to pull off a massive conspiracy in alignment with big business.

If you believe in this stuff, I don't want to know you, I don't want to be aligned with you, and I don't want to come to your parties.

Seaver · 05-02-2006, 07:20 PM

I have to agree. To allow your searing hatred of Bush to blind yourself to the bravery of your countrymen is outrageous.

Willravel · 05-02-2006, 07:40 PM

Poppin, you're welcome to join me in Paranoia in the 9/11 threads.

Seaver · 05-02-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

you're welcome to join me in Paranoia in the 9/11 threads

That's why it's paranoia. If it held any real legitimacy it would be here.

Willravel · 05-02-2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

That's why it's paranoia. If it held any real legitimacy it would be here.

So be it.
.....

Hardknock · 05-03-2006, 12:52 AM

You single-minded idiots know damn well that comparing shindlers list and WWII movies to 9/11 are comparing apples to oranges. Terrorism and statements like "support the troops" "you're helping the terrorists if you don't lick Bush's ass" and "support the war" were NOT popular culture during any other time in this country's history, as we did not have the problem of terrorists on our doorstep until 2001. I'm sick of the right using 9/11 to promote this bullshit war and promote idiotic policies but when someone says something contrary to popular belief, they're ridiculed. (as always)

Quote:

First off, Universal donated 10% of the opening weekend's take - when the average film takes in about half its total income - to victims of 9/11.

That's just dandy. Why didn't they donate every single fucking dime they made if they truly gave a fuck??? I didn't know Universal was hurting for cash.

Quote:

I'm fully against Bush, big business yadda yadda. And I have to say, this happened. It's real. The paranoia within these events practiced by Americans is revolting. That's more about what I would be up in arms about.

The paranoia that's been going on for the last 4 and a half years is what gets me.

Quote:

These attacks were a huge blow to several large industries and have made air travel unprofitable and nearly untenable.

Really? Yes, 9/11 was a shock but here's a bigger shocker for ya. The airline I work for has been making money all along. And it ain't Southwest either so don’t believe everything they tell you….

Quote:

I have to agree. To allow your searing hatred of Bush to blind yourself to the bravery of your countrymen is outrageous.

Don't believe what you see on the big screen as absolute truth....

No one will even know with 100% certainty what happened. I see no sense in believing whatever Universal puts together with all the hollywood pizzaz added to it.

Quote:

Um.... historical movies/books/paintings/etc. make ALL their money off of people who died. Showing them in a manner of standing up and fighting back does them justice IMO.

Even when the truth is sacrificed just so hollywood can make a few bucks??

ubertuber · 05-03-2006, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

You single-minded idiots know damn well that comparing shindlers list and WWII movies to 9/11 are comparing apples to oranges. Terrorism and statements like "support the troops" "you're helping the terrorists if you don't lick Bush's ass" and "support the war" were NOT popular culture during any other time in this country's history, as we did not have the problem of terrorists on our doorstep until 2001. I'm sick of the right using 9/11 to promote this bullshit war and promote idiotic policies but when someone says something contrary to popular belief, they're ridiculed. (as always)...

I may have gotten to these posts in the wrong order, but that's strike two Hardknock. Next one gets an automatic 3 day time out. Please think hard before posting. I'd rather not temp ban you.

Knight Dragon · 05-03-2006, 04:03 AM

Hollywood rarely gets it right. Movies that depict historical events always end up with a twist one way or the other whether it be intentionally or accidentally. The unintentional ones usually occur from editing or from using a composite character or composite event to sum up a series of facts. In the movie Blackhawk Down, for instance, the viewer is lead to believe that the Somalies were firing RPGs right off the bat. The first casualty occurred when a rookie RANGER miscalculated his fast-rope jump and literally fell out of the helicopter down to the ground. The intentional ones, obviously, come from directors who want to spin the event in a certain direction. Oliver Stone comes to mind with JFK, for example, with his conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination. Then there's the omission of details or surrender to stereotype. The shootout at the OK Corral, for example, always depict Wyatt Earp and his brothers with Doc Holiday wearing holsters or in typical western wear. In fact, they were dressed in urban wear (coats and ties) and had their weapons either tucked inside the waistband or inside coat pockets. No one had holsters except for the McLaurys and Clantons. My point here is that Hollywood depictions of historical events will always contain, for one reason or another, inaccuracies or distortions, be they intentional or unintentional.

United 93 seems to be an effort to use as much documented data as possible to portray an event inwhich all of the eyewitnesses are dead. In virtually all other historical events, there were always survivor or eyewitness accounts. The only data available here are from flight recording data, phone calls made to families and friends, interviews with FAA and NEADs officials but no actual first hand eyewitness accounts. It's the next best thing to an eyewitness account but it is not a first hand account. There will ALWAYS be room for speculation. Still, it seems that Universal Studios tried to stick to documented facts as much as possible.

As for the use of the term "hero," we love to use that word a lot. A ball player who hits the winning home run at the bottom of the ninth inning is often described as a hero. A philanthropist who donates a generous amount of money to a worthy charity is often described as a hero. Teachers who inspire students to succeed and work their way out of troubled neighborhoods are also described as heroes. I'm not complaining about the use of the term, I'm just pointing out how that term is used in so many different ways.

Passengers who stop a plane commandeered by terrorists who, by all indications, intended to fly it into the Capitol in Washington DC certainly qualify as heroes. While their intent was to re-take the plane, I think they clearly understood that the odds of their survival were clearly stacked against them either way (doing nothing or doing something). It takes a special courage to take an action that will most likely result in your own death. Yeah, the passengers and crew of United 93 are heroes in my book.

This isn't propaganda. It's Hollywood's attempt to tell the story of what happened on United 93 that adds human emotion and feeling where documentaries do not.

stevo · 05-03-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

You single-minded idiots know damn well that comparing shindlers list and WWII movies to 9/11 are comparing apples to oranges. Terrorism and statements like "support the troops" "you're helping the terrorists if you don't lick Bush's ass" and "support the war" were NOT popular culture during any other time in this country's history, as we did not have the problem of terrorists on our doorstep until 2001. I'm sick of the right using 9/11 to promote this bullshit war and promote idiotic policies but when someone says something contrary to popular belief, they're ridiculed. (as always)

That's just dandy. Why didn't they donate every single fucking dime they made if they truly gave a fuck??? I didn't know Universal was hurting for cash.

The paranoia that's been going on for the last 4 and a half years is what gets me.

Really? Yes, 9/11 was a shock but here's a bigger shocker for ya. The airline I work for has been making money all along. And it ain't Southwest either so don’t believe everything they tell you….

Don't believe what you see on the big screen as absolute truth....

No one will even know with 100% certainty what happened. I see no sense in believing whatever Universal puts together with all the hollywood pizzaz added to it.

Even when the truth is sacrificed just so hollywood can make a few bucks??

You obviously haven't seen the film. The "right" didn't make this movie, and its hardly a hollywood production. There is no hollywood pizzaz to it. there are no special effects, hardly any music. I don't even think you ever see the outside of United 93, you don't see it crash. The only crash shown is the footage of the second tower hitting the wtc near the beginning of the film. Sometimes its better to keep quiet, lest people realize you have no idea what your talking about.

Poppinjay · 05-03-2006, 12:45 PM

I'll have to echo what Stevo said. There is no "star", many of the military and aviation personnel involved played themselves, there is no "treatment" that films usually go through to enhance characters, the only way Todd Beamer is recognizable is when he says, "let's roll".

There's no relatives on the ground watching TV helplessly or any of that other stuff that goes on in movies like Apollo 13.

The most reconizable cast member was Denny Dillon. The movie was not a typical Hollywood production by any means.

The director was Paul Greengrass, an avowed British liberal.

Poppinjay · 05-03-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Really? Yes, 9/11 was a shock but here's a bigger shocker for ya. The airline I work for has been making money all along. And it ain't Southwest either so don’t believe everything they tell you….

Then it would not be United, American, USAirways, Delta, Air France, Lufthansa, Canadair, British Airways, KAL, and a myriad other airlines who have seen destructive stock drops or bankruptcy due to security costs and losses tied to 9/11.

Or Midway, the carrier we had booked our honeymoon flight on, September 15 2001. They went out of business.

samcol · 05-04-2006, 02:12 PM

Well it happened. Universal removed its forum about the flight 93 movie because it was filled to the brim with people questioning what actually happened on to that flight, and the 9/11 story as a whole.

WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF?

SteelyLoins · 05-06-2006, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

The internet is busting at the seems with books, videos, and information questioning the official story. I wonder how long the mainstream media can continue to ignore this issue. The message board Universal has up is a great example. They put up it up to discuss the movie, and there is hardly anything about the actual movie on it.

As for power and influence, high levels of the government, big corpporations and especially PNAC definetly win that debate, while the average citizens of the United States, Aphganistan, Iraq, and now Iran are the big losers. As for the movie I haven't actually seen it, but after reading about it there's no question where they are coming from. It's just another example of playing on emotions to get people behind a cause. The catapulted propaganda is having diminishing returns however, as Bush's poll numbers don't spike as high each time there's a new terrorist attack, war, or propaganda piece out.

So you would say this movie is much less accurate than, say, Fahrenheit 911?

59 Deceits of Fahrenheit 911

One of the best is the documentation that Michael Moore, in December of 2002, was saying that OBL wasn't behind 911.

samcol · 05-06-2006, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelyLoins

So you would say this movie is much less accurate than, say, Fahrenheit 911?

59 Deceits of Fahrenheit 911

One of the best is the documentation that Michael Moore, in December of 2002, was saying that OBL wasn't behind 911.

I don't know if you can quantify which one is more or less accurate, they are totally different types of movies. Plus I haven't seen flight 93 and I saw F 9/11 like 3 years ago or whenever it first came out. Fahernheit 9/11 is a joke compared to the real 9/11 movies that are out. Watch this one (namely part 2) Martial Law, or this 911revisted, or Loose Change 2 if you want a better idea of 9/11.

View Poll Results: Do You Believe the Official Story of the Crash of Flight 93?
Yes, just the way the movie and the 9/11 Commission tells it.	6	17.14%
I have some nagging doubts, but no serious resistance to the official story.	12	34.29%
I suspect that the government lied to us and that the movie is just propaganda.	15	42.86%
On 9/11 Federal officials had advance knowledge, but "stood down", or they were in on it!	6	17.14%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

04-29-2006, 02:24 PM	#1 (permalink)
host Banned	9/11 Flight 93 Film Opens In Theaters. Is it a Tribute to Heroes or Just Propaganda There are many opinions posted at <a href="http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/index.php">Universal Studios Website<a> Do you believe the official government story that the movie's "story line" is filmed around? Let's confine this thread to posts with opinions of who gained the most from 9/11, in terms of increased power and influence, and who lost the most....politically. Apply the same parameters to your opinion of the movie, "United 93". Actual theories can be dicussed on the Paranoia forum, 9/11 thread. "Proof" that the official story is accurate or misleading, is welcome here, however....make sure it is proof that you post! I think 9/11 was more about consolidation of power through a demonstration of violence intended to instill fear, than it was about terrorism from the "outside". Signifigant new powers, unearned trust, and some of our rights were transferred from us to our "leaders", almost overnight. I am not even sure that any passenger filled commercial jetliners hit any buildings, or crashed. How about you?

04-30-2006, 03:23 AM	#8 (permalink)
host Banned	I've posted some research...excerpts from news reports and interviews, on the at <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2054528#post2054528">TFP Paranoia forum</a>, that seems to establish that Cheney labelled the flight 93 passengers as "heroes" moments after reports arrived at his bunker on 9/11, that flight 93 had crashed. It seems an odd and suspicious comment, unless a plan to turn those airline passengers into hero/martyrs had been pre-determined. The folks making phone calls from flight 93 to "loved ones" (one fellow made four calls), were reported to be too chatty, and too tardy in ending their calls, to be available to "rush the cockpit" in time to match the newly released transcript of the flight 93 CVR. Lyz Glick, widow of "hero" Jeremy Glick, maintained that she informed him during their last phone call, that the south WTC tower had collapsed. That tower, the first to fall, collapsed at 9:59:04 am....one minute after the transcript shows that the "hijackers" were aware of the attempt by passengers to rush and open the cockpit door. This does not take into account that Lyz Glick needed at least several moments to observe the televised collapse of the tower, during the emotion of what she says she believed to be the last conversation...ever....with her husband, Jeremy, and then explain what she saw to him....and then say a final goodbye. The news reports show that, beginning with Cheney's on the spot declaration, the ball "got rolling" to convince us that those passengers are "heroes". The 9/11 Commission "report", the Moussaoui trial, preceded by a January, 2006 A&E TV movie, the release to the public of the voice recording (CVR), and the release to theaters of the new United 93 film, along with the books written by surviving relatives of the "heroes", (Both Lyn Glick and her father wrote books), counter details like my observation about account timeline discrepancies....and a report I included of testimony of FBI agent James M. Fitzgerald, conceding that there was no evidence of contact between Moussaoui and any of the 9/11 hijackers....and that <b>the FBI knew for ten years before 9/11, that Al Qaeda was sending it's members to U.S. flight schools.</b> Why then, did the federal prosecutors emphasize previously undisclosed flight 93 CVR transcripts, recordings of WTC victims 9-1-1 calls for help, and photos of flight 93 crash debris, to attempt to convince a jury that Moussaoui should be sentenced to death? I've also documented Rumsfeld referring to flight 93, in a 12/24/2004 speech, as having been, "shot down". I'm more comfortable than ever, the more that is disclosed about 9/11, concluding that much of what we "know".....that which was "provided to us" by those responsible for our nation's defense, and public safety. does not match the facts, Last edited by host; 04-30-2006 at 09:29 AM..

04-30-2006, 11:42 AM	#11 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I think there has been an effort (or at least a lack of resistance) to "mythologizing" flight 93. That's not surprising though, and I don't necessarily think it indicates a conspiracy. That's just how we, as a society, prefer to digest tragedies. My opinion is that the film is just an uncritical republishing of the current state of 9/11 mythology. That doesn't make it propaganda, though it may incidentally accomplish the same things that propaganda would. It's nothing much more or less than an attempt to make money off of an experience that is still highly charged in our collective consciencousness. All of this is incidental to the question of whether our understanding of the the events of 9/11 is accurate. It's surely not, and this is unsurprising. I don't know if that is conflated with an attempt to decieve us, or if that is simply another thing that is becoming part of the 9/11 mythology. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

04-30-2006, 07:36 PM	#16 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	Host: The government did not make this movie. The government was not the only source used by the filmmaker to to make the best educated guess possible as to the events that happened on the plane. No one in the movie is made out to be a hero. I do not understand your correlation between this movie and the "official story" the government has led us to believe. As a film, 'Flight 93' is a total success. It is directed with a skill that makes you forget you're watching a movie. The acting is transparent. There are no politics involved. It is seen from the point of view of a silent observer, with no political beliefs. __________________ Bad Luck City

04-29-2006, 03:26 PM	#4 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	The internet is busting at the seems with books, videos, and information questioning the official story. I wonder how long the mainstream media can continue to ignore this issue. The message board Universal has up is a great example. They put up it up to discuss the movie, and there is hardly anything about the actual movie on it. As for power and influence, high levels of the government, big corpporations and especially PNAC definetly win that debate, while the average citizens of the United States, Aphganistan, Iraq, and now Iran are the big losers. As for the movie I haven't actually seen it, but after reading about it there's no question where they are coming from. It's just another example of playing on emotions to get people behind a cause. The catapulted propaganda is having diminishing returns however, as Bush's poll numbers don't spike as high each time there's a new terrorist attack, war, or propaganda piece out.

04-29-2006, 03:39 PM	#5 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I haven't seen the movie so I am reluctant to judge the intentions of it's makers. Certainly, anything following "lets roll" is mere speculation. I am not in the camp that believes that our government orchestrated this act of "terrorism," but I am beginning to believe that our government knew enough to prevent 9/11 and allowed it to happen for political purposes. I also believe that there is a likelihood that there will be another attack on our country before the midterm elections and that "evidence" will be found that Iran sponsored the strike. Take that to paranoia, if you wish. Just return it here, if it proves to be true.

04-29-2006, 04:08 PM	#6 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	I can't believe in any conspiracy or complicity. I believe that the administration reacted to events, and used them to their advantage, but there's nothing startling about that. In doing so, they managed to single-handedly legitimise and levitate Osama Bin Ladin's standing to one he never would have achieved had a more 'softly-softly' approach been taken - but I doubt that part of the issue is dealt with in this film. I still think it's too soon to release this film though. It seems like bad taste.

04-30-2006, 12:09 AM	#7 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	I believe most the official stories about 9-11. I doubt the US government is evil and competent enough to pull off a conspiracy to destroy the WTC and part of the Pentagon. They may have had early warnings, but as in every burocratic country, this wasn't acted upon. There are countless historic examples of similar situations, where afterwards you say "how the hell didn't they see that coming a mile away??". As for the film, it may be based on the real facts, but it's also propaganda.

04-30-2006, 09:34 AM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I pretty sure most 'round these parts know how I feel about the subject. There are far too many unanswered questions and horrible coincedences for the official story of 9/11 to be anywhere close to true. Even if the last 2 years of my research were to dissapear from my mind, I'd still think this movie is a farce and clearly taking advantage of people's still sensitive state about the 9/11 massacre.

04-30-2006, 01:11 PM	#13 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	ASU, he was told that the US was under attack.

04-30-2006, 05:14 PM	#14 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	How did the government know that it was a terrorist attack? There was only the one plane that hit the tower at that point. Did the air traffic controllers get the codes from all of the airplanes saying that they had been hijacked when he was told?

05-02-2006, 06:21 AM	#18 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I said "nagging doubts" only because since everyone on United 93 perished the only records we really have of what went on are cockpit recordings and phone calls. I'm sure they do a good job of giving us a general picture of the situation, but obvioulsy some minor details would not be known. I suppose the doubts are hardly "nagging" though, I'm somewhere just below the first choice and just above the second. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

05-02-2006, 10:49 AM	#20 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	The fact that Universal is making any money on this at all should have the public up in arms! True or not, they're making a mockery of all the people who died.

05-02-2006, 06:25 PM	#22 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Or it exploits what we like to see... __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

05-02-2006, 06:35 PM	#23 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	People love to turn their heads and look at car crashes on the road. People love to watch a celebrity self destruct. People love to gossip about horrible things that happen to people. People love to listen to Bai Ling sing. People are often entertained by the macabre, taboo, or just downright terrible. While I know that the storyline in the movie is obviously false, it's kinda irrelevent. The producers, writers, directors, and studios want to make a movie that will make money, and probably don't know or care about the truth. As I said before, they are taking advantage of a massacre, HOWEVER they only get away with it because the moviegoers let them.

05-02-2006, 07:20 PM	#25 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I have to agree. To allow your searing hatred of Bush to blind yourself to the bravery of your countrymen is outrageous.

05-02-2006, 07:40 PM	#26 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Poppin, you're welcome to join me in Paranoia in the 9/11 threads.

05-03-2006, 04:03 AM	#31 (permalink)
Knight Dragon Upright	Hollywood rarely gets it right. Movies that depict historical events always end up with a twist one way or the other whether it be intentionally or accidentally. The unintentional ones usually occur from editing or from using a composite character or composite event to sum up a series of facts. In the movie Blackhawk Down, for instance, the viewer is lead to believe that the Somalies were firing RPGs right off the bat. The first casualty occurred when a rookie RANGER miscalculated his fast-rope jump and literally fell out of the helicopter down to the ground. The intentional ones, obviously, come from directors who want to spin the event in a certain direction. Oliver Stone comes to mind with JFK, for example, with his conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination. Then there's the omission of details or surrender to stereotype. The shootout at the OK Corral, for example, always depict Wyatt Earp and his brothers with Doc Holiday wearing holsters or in typical western wear. In fact, they were dressed in urban wear (coats and ties) and had their weapons either tucked inside the waistband or inside coat pockets. No one had holsters except for the McLaurys and Clantons. My point here is that Hollywood depictions of historical events will always contain, for one reason or another, inaccuracies or distortions, be they intentional or unintentional. United 93 seems to be an effort to use as much documented data as possible to portray an event inwhich all of the eyewitnesses are dead. In virtually all other historical events, there were always survivor or eyewitness accounts. The only data available here are from flight recording data, phone calls made to families and friends, interviews with FAA and NEADs officials but no actual first hand eyewitness accounts. It's the next best thing to an eyewitness account but it is not a first hand account. There will ALWAYS be room for speculation. Still, it seems that Universal Studios tried to stick to documented facts as much as possible. As for the use of the term "hero," we love to use that word a lot. A ball player who hits the winning home run at the bottom of the ninth inning is often described as a hero. A philanthropist who donates a generous amount of money to a worthy charity is often described as a hero. Teachers who inspire students to succeed and work their way out of troubled neighborhoods are also described as heroes. I'm not complaining about the use of the term, I'm just pointing out how that term is used in so many different ways. Passengers who stop a plane commandeered by terrorists who, by all indications, intended to fly it into the Capitol in Washington DC certainly qualify as heroes. While their intent was to re-take the plane, I think they clearly understood that the odds of their survival were clearly stacked against them either way (doing nothing or doing something). It takes a special courage to take an action that will most likely result in your own death. Yeah, the passengers and crew of United 93 are heroes in my book. This isn't propaganda. It's Hollywood's attempt to tell the story of what happened on United 93 that adds human emotion and feeling where documentaries do not.

05-03-2006, 12:45 PM	#33 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	I'll have to echo what Stevo said. There is no "star", many of the military and aviation personnel involved played themselves, there is no "treatment" that films usually go through to enhance characters, the only way Todd Beamer is recognizable is when he says, "let's roll". There's no relatives on the ground watching TV helplessly or any of that other stuff that goes on in movies like Apollo 13. The most reconizable cast member was Denny Dillon. The movie was not a typical Hollywood production by any means. The director was Paul Greengrass, an avowed British liberal. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

05-04-2006, 02:12 PM	#35 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	Well it happened. Universal removed its forum about the flight 93 movie because it was filled to the brim with people questioning what actually happened on to that flight, and the 9/11 story as a whole. WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF?