‘United 93’ includes invented details

[Radio_Guy]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12521202/

"United 93," Hollywood's first big-budget film about the events of Sept. 11, 2001, is faithful to the major aspects of the tragic morning it depicts. The movie tracks the key events detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report, the most definitive source on the subject: the commandeering of the United jet by four terrorists, the panic of the passengers and the heroic rebellion that ended with the plane crashing in a field near Shanksville, Pa.

But the movie, which opens nationwide today, is a dramatic re-creation that includes scenes and images that go far beyond what is known about the attacks.

Those scenes raise questions: How far can a dramatic movie go in imposing its own reality before it distorts the public's understanding of the event? And with memories of 9/11 still vivid and raw, is it too soon for such films to be made?

<snip>

I know one lie that will be in that movie. That the plane crashed in Pennsylvania leaving a crater.

[northzax]

1. so perhaps you'd be so nice to explain

what exactly DID crash in Pennsylvania that morning? Something sure did, and it looked remarkably like a civilian jetliner. And where did they hide the plane that didn't crash?

let me guess, Area 51?

[tridim]

4. Where did you see evidence of a jetliner crash?

I've never seen it. All I've seen is a small, charred hole.. No aircraft parts, no body parts, no fire. Nothing. Same deal at the Pentagon.

[Hobarticus]

14. "No fire at the Pentagon". Ohhhhhh-kay.

Must have been one hell of a barbecue gone bad.

[northzax]

20. no, they were picking a new Pope, see

and the Cardinals couldn't agree, so they kept sending up black smoke, for hours, billowing clouds of it. That must have been what I saw from the roof of my building half a mile from the Pentagon. that's the ticket.

I think people are shocked that the limestone facade of the pentagon didn't burn. and that teh whole building didn't burn. It's like no one has ever heard of firewalls.

[tridim]

29. I guess all the parts and bodies were vaproized then?

I bow to your flawed logic.

[Hobarticus]

32. I'm not the one who said there was no fire at the Pentagon...

Don't talk to me about "flawed". Your argument's dead in the water from the get-go, when you cite "facts" like there being no fire at the Pentagon.

[tridim]

34. I said there were no airplane parts and bodies at the Pentagon

The "fire" part was referring to flight 93. Show me one pic of flaming wreckage and I'll drop the argument.

Looking at my original post I can see the mistake. Sorry about that, but by all means keep ignoring the lack of parts at both crash sites, it certainly supports your BS argument.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[longship]

18. Nope. Thanks for playing.

Do you have any idea of what is left of an airliner, let alone the people inside it, when it collides with a building or the ground at multiple hundreds of miles per hour?

Airliners are made of aluminum alloy, which is rigid and strong, but brittle. They are also mostly empty space, with the exception of the main spars in the wings and the backbone of the fuselage (actually the underside).

I worked at Boeing for years and was privy to pics of crashes.

An airliner crash, even when the pilot is trying to mitigate damage by coming in "soft", breaks up. During a collision like those on 9/11 which occurred at hundreds of mph there will be very little left that could be called an airplane. Just small pieces of fractured aluminum. That's a *fact*. So people cannot use that for a justification for claiming that:

A. The airliner was shot down.
B. That the airliner landed in Ohio someplace and the passengers were carted away by the CIA to be eaten alive.

[Beaverhausen]

37. Now there you go bringing facts into the argument

:spank:

[northzax]

45. C.

it;s a variation on B, but it turns out that Dick Cheney needs to eat a human heart a day, just to keep 'living' this was before he was able to fill his desire for Muslim flesh, so they kidnapped all the passengers to provide him with a supply! it's the new meme, pass it on.

[Hobarticus]

5. This should be good...

Pass the popcorn!

:popcorn:

[benburch]

9. Here is the truth. (As I see it.)

Flight 93 crashed.

The passengers WERE fighting to take it over as it crashed.

However, as they were engaged in that, the USAF shot the plane down (and properly so!)

The shootdown has been suppressed because if it were known that the plane was shot down as the passengers were fighting to take it back, we couldn't use "Let's Roll" as a political "Bon Mot" to roll off the tongue of a cowardly President who wants to wrap himself in the late Mr. Beemer's bravery.

[H2O Man]

13. True n/t

[alarimer]

15. That's kind of how I see it

I think that they played up the "let's Roll" angle to hide that they shot it down. Or maybe not, but the fact is we have lied to over and over again, it is so hard to tell what it real and what it paranoia.

[northzax]

19. I don't think so

although it's a perfectly reasonable explanation. I don't really think our internal air defense was good enough to do that that particular morning. But it could be.

doesn't change the story of the movie though, since the people inside the plane didn't know that, if it happened. And they are all still dead.

[smb]

39. That's Another Reason I Dismiss The "Shot Down" Theory

I don't really think our internal air defense was good enough to do that that particular morning.

Yep -- every reliable report indicates that the system was caught flatfooted, and engaged in the bureaucratic equivalent of sitting there holding a children's storybook.

[novalib]

22. Exactly Right!

The Bush Cabal would never pass up the opportunity to whip the American population into a frenzy.

Converting the people on Flight 93 from victims into "heros" certainly serves the regime's interests.

[longship]

24. Some issues with that.

There are some issues with a flight 93 shoot down.

First, the civilian investigators on the scene specifically indicated that there was no reason to believe that the plane was either shot down or bombed. Such a thing is very easy to detect because the distribution of the wreckage would clearly indicate that some of the breakup occured prior to hitting the ground.

Second, the people who are claiming that 93 was shot down are substantially the same folks who claim that there was a military "stand down". If flight 93 was shot down, there clearly was *not* a stand down. People can't have it both ways.

Third, much of the shoot down claim comes from the fact that the airliner disintegrated when it hit the ground (no big recognizable pieces, etc.). Well, as any airline engineer would know, a plane hitting the ground at a high angle (auger in!) at hundreds of MPH would not survive except in small pieces.

Last, the small crater and the relatively small distribution of pieces around it clearly indicates an airplane which hit the ground essentially intact. That is the clearest evidence that the airplane crashed intact and was not subject to either explosion or missile.

[benburch]

28. What you fail to understand;

First, I know there was no stand down. There simply were not many active interceptors regularly on duty in the USA at that era. But 93 was shot down so long after the WTC and Pentagon a/c struck that the interceptors that WERE on duty would have time to get there.

The usual arguments about how quickly the Payne Stuart plane was intercepted don't hold water. The intercept was not particularly prompt, and the intercepting aircraft was diverted from a training mission and was not armed.

Second, a heat-seeking missile would hit an engine, not the body of the aircraft. They are fairly small warheads. No reason to assume this would case a breakup at all.

Likewise, if cannon fire were used, the aircraft would be damaged enough to come down without being torn to shreds.

Finally, a member of my network knows an air traffic controller who saw the shoot down on radar. He refuses to talk in public for fear of his life. We are still working on him to get him to go on the record.

[jschurchin]

31. Excellent Points Ben.

Hey Longship, what you got?

[smb]

40. What About That Iranian Airliner?

Second, a heat-seeking missile would hit an engine, not the body of the aircraft. They are fairly small warheads. No reason to assume this would case a breakup at all.

Didn't the Iranian airliner one of our ships shot down by mistake about twenty years back pretty much shatter?

[northzax]

44. different weapons

a Surface to Air missile like the one used in that incident is several times larger than an air-to-air missile. still, Pan-am 103 broke apart in the air, and left more obvious debris than 93 did, which leads me to believe that a plane that shatters in mid air actually leaves MORE debris than one that augers in at 500 MPH plus.

[longship]

41. Interesting

I would not categorically rule out a shoot-down. However, the reasons used by many around here to argue for a shoot-down are easily debunked. The intention of my post was to defuse these arguments, which hold no water.

AFAIK, there was at least one engine found a distance away from the main wreckage. Although that does not mean that a missile hit it, it certainly supports that a shoot-down is a possibility. But, engines are very massive objects and can fall off due to aerodynamic stress during the kind of plummet to earth that 93 must have done.

I would think that if there had been a missile hit that the accident inspectors would have said so at that time. There were reporters all over the place asking precisely those kind of questions. The inspectors would have easily and quickly concluded missile or no-missile. I don't think that it would have been easy keeping such a thing secret. Just like the NY firemen, these people are just ordinary people, not agents of the Bush administration. I knew a couple of them when I worked at Boeing. Whenever there was a Boeing crash, off they'd go.

It would be interesting to hear your friend's story, or even see it in the press. That might shake things up a bit.

[petgoat]

54. The engine found a distance away could have broken off

from the violent motions of the plane when the hijacker pilots were trying to deter
the passengers' attack.

The fact that it was discovered (When?) submerged in a pond is slightly suspicious.
I have never seen a picture of this engine-have you? Did the "accident inspectors"
have an opporunity to examine the engine? The investigation was taken out of the
authority of NTSB.

[petgoat]

53. "there was no stand down."

None was needed. The six simultaneous war games disrupted the air defense.
Nobody can talk about the war games, because they're classified.

The question is, how did al Qaeda know the war games were happening on 9/11?

[petgoat]

52. There you go again, longship

You say "People can't have it both ways."

They certainly can. The fighters failed to intercept the three planes they should have
intercepted, and they shot down one they shouldn't have.

If you had bothered to read "The New Pearl Harbor" you would know this. (See chapter 3)

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

The FBI knew the passengers were counterattacking. There was a pilot among the passengers.
The plane would have been over Blair Witch territory another ten minutes. What was the
hurry to shoot it down?

Dr. Griffin suggests that the officials very much did not want that plane landed.

shoot down claim comes from the fact that the airliner disintegrated

There you go again. The shoot down claim comes from the fact that the debris was
distributed across eight miles.

relatively small distribution of pieces

Baloney. Please research.

[jschurchin]

30. Probably closer to what actually.......

happened than the 9-11 Commission Report.

[smb]

38. Occam's Razor

Flight 93 crashed. The passengers WERE fighting to take it over as it crashed. However, as they were engaged in that, the USAF shot the plane down (and properly so!)

This is kind of like asserting that an apple falls out of a tree because of gravity... and an invisible angel guides it on its course. The former is sufficient to explain the observed facts, and the latter is unsupported by any particular evidence.

[petgoat]

55. I disagree. What was the evidence, aside from the fact that

tha plane fell into the ground, that the hijackers crashed it?

"Allah Akhbar?" Do you really believe the government's version of
the tape? And might not that phrase occur in the prayers of an
ex-hijacker-pilot now subdued under the knee of a 200 pound passenger?

[petgoat]

51. Hey Ben, we actually agree on something! How

refreshing!

Except "properly so". I used to agree with that until I learned that the
FBI was in contact with the phone call recipients and should have known of
the plans to counterattack.

Flight 93 was going to be over Blair Witch territory for ten minutes more
or so. So what was the hurry to shoot it down?

[SeattleRob]

16. yes..

Anybody who questions official versions of events is obviously a conspiracy looney!

[northzax]

21. well, anyone who doesn't think a plane went down in Pennsylvania

has some explaining to do. Where is that plane? or did it never exist in the first place? Where are the passengers on the plane? United seems to have misplaced a $200 million plane, along with a hundred people or so.

Why a plane crashed is a different question, but if you are going to claim that a plane DIDN'T crash there, you have some explaining to do, Occam's Razor would posit that the evidence at hand shows that the simplest, and most logical explanation is that a plane, United flight 93, crashed in a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. It doesn't say WHY the plane crashed,only that it did.

So if you want to argue that a plane didn't crash, against all the evidence, you need to posit a reasonable alternative explanation for the evidence at hand. If you can't do that, then yes, you can be dismissed as a conspiracy looney. Provide an alternative explanation for the evidence at hand, or be prepared to be dismissed.

[SeattleRob]

23. I don't know what happened

So if you want to argue that a plane didn't crash, against all the evidence, you need to posit a reasonable alternative explanation for the evidence at hand. If you can't do that, then yes, you can be dismissed as a conspiracy looney. Provide an alternative
explanation for the evidence at hand, or be prepared to be dismissed.


I can't say for certain what happened on that tragic day. But I can say there are many reasonable questions that have not been answered. (not just what happened in Pennsylvania, but in NYC and Washington DC.) I also think it is reasonable for people to raise these questions about the inconsistencies without being branded as "conspiracy nut."

[longship]

27. Very reasonable.

However, bear in mind...

There is no evidence for a missile hit at the Pentagon. Hundreds of commuters on the Parkway witnessed a airliner hit it, including Paul Begala and people of all persuasions.

There is no evidence and no need to posit controlled demolition at the WTC. Independent academic studies show clearly that the WTC towers could collapse as a result of the collisions and the resulting destruction. Analysis of the day's video (available nearly anywhere) show the buildings bulging at the strike zones before, and especially immediately before the collapses. The engineering studies describe the scenerios which would cause the catastrophic failures of the buildings.

It is very likely that the 9/11 events happened just as they were reported that day.

There are still questions, but I don't see any compelling evidence that would lead me to set aside the Islamic terrorist scenerio. Actually there is not one tiddle of evidence that I've seen (including the tin foil hat stuff, which is substantially flawed) that would compel me to move away from the terrorist scenerio.

Like northzax, I must answer to the calling of the scientific method.

[petgoat]

56. "Independent academic studies show clearly"

Would you care to cite these studies?

Analysis of the day's video (available nearly anywhere) show the buildings bulging

Got link? I think your video shows distortion due to heat waves.

I don't see any compelling evidence

But you clearly have not read The New Pearl Harbor. http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

I must answer to the calling of the scientific method.

Then at least address the issue of the destruction of WTC evidence.

[longship]

25. Thank you, my friend.

Sir William of Okham thanks you, as well.
:yourock:

[petgoat]

57. You forgot your

:sarcasm: glyph.

[tridim]

2. Anyone know if there's a disclaimer at the beginning of the film?

Something like, "This film is based on both fictional and non-fictional events". If not, I have a big problem with it.

[elehhhhna]

6. Same disclaimer belongs on the 911 Report.

[Tulum_Moon]

8. They all died!

So some events are made up! After all, there was no one left to interview.

[tridim]

10. Exactly, maybe "Events portrayed in this film are a guess, at best"

[Ian David]

3. Radio Guy (Art Bell?) You misquoted the article...

Nowhere in the MSNBC article does it say, "I know one lie that will be in that movie. That the plane crashed in Pennsylvania leaving a crater."

That bit of mean-spirited lunacy must belong to you?

[Left Coast Lynn]

7. Anything to fit

America's notions

[novalib]

11. Wow

"That bit of mean-spirited lunacy".

I guess it's not enough that you disagree with what the other poster said.

You had to call him/her "mean spirited" and a lunatic as well.

Nice.

[Ian David]

46. I didn't say HE was a mean-spirited lunatic...

just that his ideas were mean-spirited lunacy.

I've had mean-spirited lunatic ideas myself.

I think it is unconscionably mean-spirited to spit in the faces of the families killed aboard that flight and tell them that they and/or their loved ones are pepetrating a hoax.

Why doesn't he call them on the phone and tell them that himself?

"Hey, guess what? Your daddy didn't die on that plane. He's sipping margahritas at Area 51!"

Yeah.

That's real classy.

[Radio_Guy]

26. Thus the

I <snipped> off the end of the article because to post the whole thing would be copywrite infringement. I then added my own commentary. Please try to keep up.

Personally I think anyone who drinks the official Kool-Aid of the government is a looney conspiracy theorist. But freepers will indeed believe everything Bush tells them to believe including 9/11.

[Hobarticus]

33. So I'm a Freeper, then, if I don't agree with you?

Name-calling's usually the last resort of a failed argument, good luck with that.

[Radio_Guy]

35. Name-calling's usually the last resort of a failed argument,

And you called me a lunatic. So now you are a hypocrit.

[Hobarticus]

36. I didn't call you anything. Check the poster's names. n/t

[Ian David]

47. I don't believe the official story, but when you say,,,

"Fool me once, shame on you," it doesn't mean that you have to believe every theory so long as it comes from a different liar.

Dude, we're all on the same team.

But you're not helping when you're shooting on the wrong goal.

[sakabatou]

12. ...

:tinfoilhat:

[gWbush is Mabus]

17. if the shoot-down was covered up

it was only to protect Cheney, who illegally ordered it w/o Bush's approval.

[reprehensor]

43. Thanks for posting this.

Ye Gods.

[quickesst]

48. This is ....

interesting. Don't you think? One of the debunkers witnesses quoted from above post.

" As it went over started going end over end, Peterson said, and then dropped below a tree line and exploded. Peterson saw a flash and then a mushroom cloud of smoke.
The plane went down on a strip mine field. Peterson and his friend rushed to the field and looked for bodies, but couldn't find any. They called out, but heard nothing."

So how does a plane that big fly over anyone's head, START GOING END OVER END, drop behind the tree-line, then manage to slam almost vertically into the ground, virtually disappear in a cloud of smoke, and do it at what, 500+ miles an hour? Yep, good ole' Mr. Peterson.
:dilemma:

quickesst
On edit: If I take two pieces of debris, place on piece on the ground, walk two-hundred yards, place the second piece of debris on the ground, then I have technically, "spread debris over the length of two football fields."

[leftofthedial]

49. well, given that the "most definitive source" is already a distortion,

why not?

just make up whatever shit you want.

[Jazz2006]

50. Might I gently suggest viewing the movie ....

before ranting about what you (wrongly) think it "might" contain?

[petgoat]

58. Hear, hear, Jazz. Might I suggest applying the same courtesy to

Loose Change?

[Jazz2006]

59. Certainly.

I've watched Loose Change several times.