Flight 93

[lyot]

Misschien wel een interessant artikel over de noodlottige vlucht 93. De film is sinds vorige week in de VS in de zalen te zien. Heb 'm zelf ook al mogen aanschouwen. Niet bepaald een echt goeie film, maar alles bij elkaar toch tamelijk sereen. Het artikel komt uit de Washingtonpost van 30 april



[SIZE=+2]'United 93': The Real Picture[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]By John Farmer
Sunday, April 30, 2006; B02
[/SIZE]
How accurate is "United 93," Universal Pictures' new movie depicting the drama and heroism aboard the fourth plane hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001? The answer tells us a lot about Hollywood and government in the age of terrorism: The film is closer to the truth than every account the government put out before the 9/11 commission's investigation. Its release marks our passage through the post-9/11 looking glass, with our wildest fairy tales now spun not in Hollywood, but in Washington.
The facts of 9/11 are as simple as they are grim. The military officers in charge of the air defense mission did not receive notice of any of the four hijackings in time to respond before the planes crashed. The passengers and crew aboard United Airlines Flight 93 really were alone. They were all that stood between the hijackers and the Capitol (or possibly the White House). That is the core reality of that morning, and "United 93" gets it right.
The movie does make some concessions to drama. As one of the commission staffers whom the filmmakers consulted (on an unpaid basis) about what happened on 9/11, I believe, for instance, that the movie's climax shows the passengers penetrating farther into the cockpit than the evidence supports.
But compare the harsh truth that the movie accurately portrays with this account from a documentary special that aired on ABC on Sept. 11, 2002:
Army Brig. Gen. W. Montague Winfield: "The decision was made to try to go intercept Flight 93."
Vice President Cheney: "The significance of saying to a pilot that you are authorized to shoot down that plane full of Americans, is, a, you know, it's an order that had never been given before."
. . . Montague: "The vice president briefed into the conference that the president had given us permission to shoot down innocent civilian aircraft that threatened Washington, D.C. Again, in the National Military Command Center, everything stopped for a short second as the impact of those words [sank] in."
. . . Charles Gibson, ABC News: "Colonel Bob Marr is in command at the Northeast Air Defense Sector base in Rome, New York."
Marr: "I got the call and I, the words that I remember as clear as day [were], 'We will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground.' "
Gibson: "Marr orders his controllers, 'T ell the pilots to intercept Flight 93.' "
. . . Marr: "And we of course passed that on to the pilots. United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington, D.C."
Like the other government versions of 9/11, this account has all the pulse-pounding suspense of a classic movie thriller. It is also, as we discovered at the commission and as "United 93" makes clear, almost completely untrue.
The Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) was not following United 93 on radar; it wasn't even informed that the plane had been hijacked until four minutes after the crash. The authorization to shoot down commercial aircraft was not received until about 30 minutes after the plane went down, and 15 minutes after the military air defenders learned of the crash. The authorization was not passed on to the pilots. Once again, the film depicts the controlling reality more accurately: People were making judgments based on faulty information amid complete chaos.
The question we at the commission asked repeatedly was how the official accounts could have been so wrong. The answer came back: It was the fog of war. The day was too confusing, and government officials hadn't had time to reconstruct events.
But the fog wasn't that thick. The critical times and notifications were recorded in contemporaneous logs virtually all along the chain of command. In testimony before Congress and the commission, officials attributed the pivotal event of the morning -- the scramble of fighters from Langley Air Force Base -- to reports that American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, and United 93 had been hijacked. But the government's own records revealed that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to a mistaken report, received at 9:21 a.m., that American Flight 11 -- the first plane hijacked -- was still airborne and heading toward Washington.
That truth, the final commission report notes, emerges "not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records." In short, anyone who looked would have seen right through the fog.
And it's clear that officials were looking. There was a White House briefing on the facts of 9/11 within a week of the attacks. There were countless interviews, television specials and even an official Air Force history of the day, "Air War Over America."
But the story that officials told made the government's response appear quicker and more coordinated than it really was. By telling the public that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to reports that American 77 and United 93 had been hijacked, officials were able to avoid admitting that they had scrambled fighters in the wrong direction -- heading east, not west toward Pennsylvania -- against a plane that didn't exist. They were also able to say that they had been following United 93 for about 47 minutes before it crashed and were thus well positioned to shoot down the plane if the passengers and crew hadn't acted.
That, of course, was impossible. At the time when North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) officials told the commission they began tracking United 93 -- 9:16 a.m. -- the plane hadn't been hijacked yet. That didn't occur until 9:28.
Finally, many of the Federal Aviation Administration and Defense Department records that establish the truth of that day were withheld from the commission until they were subpoenaed. In one of its final acts, the commission asked the inspectors general of the Transportation and Defense departments to investigate who was responsible for the mistaken accounts of the morning's events.
That was more than 18 months ago. The inspectors general have now had longer than the life of the 9/11 commission itself to investigate. While we await their results, we can watch the movie and wonder at a government so lost in spin that it took Hollywood to set the record straight.
[email protected]
John Farmer, a former attorney general of New Jersey, was a senior counsel to the 9/11 commission.

[straddle]

Inderdaad. Een interessant artikel. En een paar interessante punten. Men neemt het ons "believers" kwalijk dat we met zoveel versies afkomen...

Het is duidelijk dat de overheid de officiële versie zelf constant heeft zitten aanpassen, verdoezelen, onderbouwen met louter veronderstellingen.... De overheid mag dat, wij niet....

Dat potje stinkt meer en meer...

The film is closer to the truth than every account the government put out before the 9/11 commission's investigation. Its release marks our passage through the post-9/11 looking glass, with our wildest fairy tales now spun not in Hollywood, but in Washington.

As one of the commission staffers whom the filmmakers consulted (on an unpaid basis) about what happened on 9/11, I believe, for instance, that the movie's climax shows the passengers penetrating farther into the cockpit than the evidence supports.

Like the other government versions of 9/11, this account has all the pulse-pounding suspense of a classic movie thriller. It is also, as we discovered at the commission and as "United 93" makes clear, almost completely untrue.

The question we at the commission asked repeatedly was how the official accounts could have been so wrong. The answer came back: It was the fog of war. The day was too confusing, and government officials hadn't had time to reconstruct events.

Dat is toch wel serieus bij de haren getrokken hé... Daar komen de overheid en de officials heel goed weg... En niemand die er iets over (durft) te zeggen, tenzij een alerte senator...

But the fog wasn't that thick. The critical times and notifications were recorded in contemporaneous logs virtually all along the chain of command. In testimony before Congress and the commission, officials attributed the pivotal event of the morning -- the scramble of fighters from Langley Air Force Base -- to reports that American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, and United 93 had been hijacked. But the government's own records revealed that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to a mistaken report, received at 9:21 a.m., that American Flight 11 -- the first plane hijacked -- was still airborne and heading toward Washington.
That truth, the final commission report notes, emerges "not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records." In short, anyone who looked would have seen right through the fog.
And it's clear that officials were looking. There was a White House briefing on the facts of 9/11 within a week of the attacks. There were countless interviews, television specials and even an official Air Force history of the day, "Air War Over America."
But the story that officials told made the government's response appear quicker and more coordinated than it really was. By telling the public that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to reports that American 77 and United 93 had been hijacked, officials were able to avoid admitting that they had scrambled fighters in the wrong direction -- heading east, not west toward Pennsylvania -- against a plane that didn't exist. They were also able to say that they had been following United 93 for about 47 minutes before it crashed and were thus well positioned to shoot down the plane if the passengers and crew hadn't acted.
That, of course, was impossible. At the time when North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) officials told the commission they began tracking United 93 -- 9:16 a.m. -- the plane hadn't been hijacked yet. That didn't occur until 9:28.

Ah, "per ongeluk" de verkeerde richting ingestuurd. Dommeriken toch die amerikanen hé...

In one of its final acts, the commission asked the inspectors general of the Transportation and Defense departments to investigate who was responsible for the mistaken accounts of the morning's events.
That was more than 18 months ago. The inspectors general have now had longer than the life of the 9/11 commission itself to investigate. While we await their results, we can watch the movie and wonder at a government so lost in spin that it took Hollywood to set the record straight.

[C uit W]

Als we er vanuit zouden gaan dat de Amerikaanse regering dit heeft gespeeld.
WAAAROM heeft ze dat gedaan?

[straddle]

Ik zeg niet dat heel de regering dit heeft zitten spelen. Er waren en zijn echter officials die zelf ook zagen dat het één en het ander niet klopte. Maar die houden wijselijk hun bek toe.

Een handvol figuren binnen de regering (Cheney), defensie (Perle, Wolfowitz, etc) en CIA wisten perfect wat er gebeurde en zou gebeuren... (en zelfs met directe betrokkenheid, maar daar kan over gediscussieerd worden). De lagere echelons voerden gewoon orders uit in hun deeldomein, niet wetende of beseffende wat het uiteindelijke doel was...

Laat me maar stellen dat de schrijvers van de PNAC er voor heel veel tussenzitten...

Waarom? De nodige pretext om militair in te grijpen in heel het midden oosten... 9-11 was dringend nodig om de bevolking de militaire aanpak te doen slikken. De militaire aanpak om de midden oosten strategie van de PNAC door te voeren...

[C uit W]

Afghanistan ging toch sowieso wel binnengevallen kunnen worden.
En Irak heeft geen fluit met 9/11 te maken.
Sorry, maar da's helemaal niet overtuigend

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door C uit W

Afghanistan ging toch sowieso wel binnengevallen kunnen worden.
En Irak heeft geen fluit met 9/11 te maken.
Sorry, maar da's helemaal niet overtuigend

Het KLIMAAT dat gecreerd met 9/11 heeft dit mogelijk gemaakt.

[C uit W]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

Het KLIMAAT dat gecreerd met 9/11 heeft dit mogelijk gemaakt.

Laat moslims zichzelf zijn, en het klimaat volgt wel.

[straddle]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door C uit W

Afghanistan ging toch sowieso wel binnengevallen kunnen worden.
En Irak heeft geen fluit met 9/11 te maken.
Sorry, maar da's helemaal niet overtuigend

Ik begrijp uw scepticisme volkomen, daar niet van. Irak past echter volledig in het kader van de PNAC strategie (met daarin o.a. een overkoepelende midden oosten strategie, opgesteld door o.a. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perle... Er wordt zelfs zwart op wit in beschreven dat er een "trigger event" nodig is om de strategie en militaire aanwezigheid te implementeren). 9-11 was de broodnodige "trigger" om massa's troepen naar de regio te sturen. Er werd een kleine militaire aanwezigheid in Afghanistan opgezet. Het gros van de troepen echter in Irak (dat niks met 9-11 te maken heeft zoals je zegt...) De VS bevolking was er nu immers klaar voor.

[straddle]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door C uit W

Laat moslims zichzelf zijn, en het klimaat volgt wel.

Ook dat begrijp ik volkomen.

Het spel van moslimterrorisme is echter wel in gang gezet of ten minste sterk aangewakkerd door de VS politiek. En ja, het hek is van de dam nu, nu is er "bewustwording" bij die moslims en staan er honderden duizenden terroristen klaar. Dat hebben we te danken aan al dat gezever.

[TomB]

En veranderd dat het leven hier is jong, niet te doen. Ik leef hier inmiddels in een politiestaat

[exodus]

Goed artikel over de film "United 93".

[SIZE=4]"Flight 93" the movie, why?[/SIZE]


Jerry Mazza | May 3 2006

Why would anyone make a 9/11 movie based on a number of cell and air phone calls that might have been scientifically impossible on September 11, 2001, simply because the technology couldn’t handle calls of that distance, six to seven miles up.

Well, they made Flight 93 because the calls were used as spin-evidence that a band of brave Americans fought off a smaller vicious band of terrorists, when in fact the entire event is surrounded in a mire of questions? Like the once-quarried bog that supposedly swallowed Flight 93’s 757 in a grassy field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, leaving a smoking hole, grave deep, some 20 by 10 feet wide, and little else.


But maybe the “why” can be answered in part by “who” made Flight 93. It arrived packaged and promoted by Universal Studios, which is owned by NBC Universal, which also owns NBC, which is all owned by General Electric, media giant and major weapons contractor. What’s more according to la.indymedia.org, General Electric donated $1.1 million to GW Bush for his 2000 election “run.” MSNBC is an NBC joint venture with MS or Microsoft that kicked in $2.4 million to get GW Bush elected. Now, where do you think the movie’s point of view is coming from?

En vooral dit over de feiten die het officiële verhaal totaal tegenspreken:

In "The new Pearl harbour", Griffin presents us with a very different scenario. It amounts to the fact that numerous eyewitnesses saw two F-16’s tailing Flight 93 minutes before it went down, at 10:06, which time was arrived at by a seismic study. That is not 10:03, the official time, which leaves the last three minutes off the cockpit recorder tape, the most important part, what’s said as it hits. Subsequent to 9/11, Griffin also reports, the government released flight controller transcripts, except for Flight 93.


Again, according to eye-witness reports in Chapter Three, one of the F-16s moved closer and fired, once, then twice, what were probably two sidewinder missiles, thump, thump, and boom, one of them catching at least one of the huge engines and the “plane dropped,” someone said, “like a stone.”


Someone else heard “a loud bang” and then saw the plane’s right wing dip, and then 93 plunged to earth. A Vietnam vet said, he “heard a missile,” which sound he was familiar with. In fact, the multiple accounts add up to a missile strike. By our own planes, and then a fly-over the site by a smaller white plane, military-looking, with two rear engines and a spoiler tail. Is that box office, baby? I don’t think so.

[Kaal]

Gaat het hier nog over de film of zijn jullie weer vertrokken met de zoveelste NWO thread.

Ik ga die film zeker zien. En nu wij de bochten van Freya ivm met de olielening hebben kunnen aanschouwen kunnen wij misschien ook heel even de mogelijkheid onder ogen zien dat een regering die zaken verbergt en tegenstrijdige uitspraken maakt dat niet perse doet omwille van een complot.

Het blijft mij verbazen hoeveel aandacht men hier heeft voor de minste uitspraak van de Amerikaanse regering terwijl men geen oog heeft voor de fratsen van de eigen politici. Freya liegt. Reynders liegt. Vandelanotte neemt ons voor idioten. Het parlement wordt in de regel straal genegeerd. Er verdwijnen regelmatig stukken uit gevoelige dossiers en rapporten. De VRT laat politici interviews overdoen opdat ze beter uit de verf zouden komen. Het CGKR mag forums afschuimen om racisten en de extremisten op de bon te zetten. En toch is het belanrijker om de laatste uitspraak van Donald Rumsfeld uit te pluizen.

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Kaal

Ik ga die film zeker zien. En nu wij de bochten van Freya ivm met de olielening hebben kunnen aanschouwen kunnen wij misschien ook heel even de mogelijkheid onder ogen zien dat een regering die zaken verbergt en tegenstrijdige uitspraken maakt dat niet perse doet omwille van een complot.

Tuurlijk niet, maar het een sluit het andere niet uit. Mensen die zulke uitspraken doen zijn meestal diegene die de feiten niet bekeken hebben dat aanwijzen dat er weldegelijk complotten zijn. Zelfs hele grote.

Wanneer mensen in het geheim aan een plan samenwerken dat niet mag geweten zijn, omdat het geen goeie bedoelingen heeft, dan is dat een samenzwering.

De feiten wijzen aan dat er , wat je kan noemen een internationale "samenzwering" is, die tot doel heeft om een wereld orde op te richten.

[exodus]

Het forum op de officiële site van de film is van het net gehaald. Blijkbaar waren er teveel mensen op die het officiële verhaal in vraag stelden. Het ligt er weer dik op. Dit is een nederlaag voor hun, want ze kunnen zich blijkbaar niet verdedigen.

[SIZE=4]
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=5]Universal Admits Defeat, Removes Flight 93 Forum[/SIZE]

Crescendo of dissent on official fairy tail leads to wiping of website

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | May 4 2006

Universal Studios has admitted defeat in its efforts to re-package the official 9/11 fraud and has completely deleted its own forum after the website was hijacked by individuals posting truthful information about what really happened to Flight 93.

We previously reported that Universal's forum moderators were deleting entire threads in real time deeming them, "inappropriate."

The website had been turned into a battle ground for countering the Flight 93 government apologist propaganda being regurgitated in an impetuous lunge to give credibility to a tale about as reality-based as Humpty Dumpty.

Now a visit to the website only returns the text, "There are no message boards currently available."

The fact that Universal took the decision to remove the entire forum suggests they were concerned that people voicing alternative explanations behind 9/11 and attacking the government version of events was harmful to the reputation of the film, proving again that Flight 93 was produced, in addition to making hundreds of millions of dollars, to negatively reinforce the official 9/11 orthodoxy.

Polls on the website returned results of 80% believing a government cover-up behind 9/11.

The Stop The Lie website highlights one exchange with a debunker that illustrates how the forum portrayed those opposing anything other than the official story as ignorant and ill-informed.

"Those challenging the official account were mostly polite and articulate. -They laid out well-reasoned arguments and produced references to back their assertions. The defenders of the "Official account" on the other hand were habitually rude and inarticulate. They laid out poorly reasoned arguments and relied on pejoratives to back their assertions."

"For instance, a post about the importance of the Northwoods Document was made. One of the boards "Official theory" defender's considered this a sufficient response:


"It never happened; people got fired, next-"
I replied:


"The relevance of the Northwoods Document is: It irrefutably establishes our government WOULD openly conspire to not only provoke and allow an attack (to further an already established military agenda) ...they'd actually manufacture the entire event."


"Perhaps equally important: If the plan hadn't been made public, the same type of people who blindly accept whatever the government says would be calling the Northwoods Document an "urban legend" spun by kooks, loons, and moonbats."


" -Worse, if it had been enacted, the government groupies would have bought the official account hook, line, and sinker."
The removal of the Flight 93 forum can be marked down as a victory for the 9/11 truth movement. Just as the San Francisco Chronicle had to issue a major retraction to a badly researched 9/11 hit piece, so overwhelmed were Universal with the crescendo of dissent, the majority of it sent by way of big alternative websites encouraging people to participate, that they were forced to retreat and pull the website.


Flight 93 is a badly researched hit piece on the reality of what happened on the day and an insult to those who lost their lives and their families.

[Kaal]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

Tuurlijk niet, maar het een sluit het andere niet uit. Mensen die zulke uitspraken doen zijn meestal diegene die de feiten niet bekeken hebben dat aanwijzen dat er weldegelijk complotten zijn. Zelfs hele grote.

Jij bent niet in de "samenzwering" van onze eigen bewindslieden geïnteresseerd. Niet sexy genoeg waarschijnlijk.