Huffington Post Reviews "Flight 93" (shamefully, o

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Huffington Post Reviews "Flight 93" (shamefully, o

Postby HMKGrey » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:29 pm

<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/on-fearlessness-courage_b_19946.html">www.huffingtonpost.com/ar...19946.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>... Arianna covers herself in shame. <br><br>People are already posting helpful 9/11 links all over the comments board there... suggest many of us should do the same. <p></p><i></i>
HMKGrey
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:56 pm
Location: West Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Huffington Post Reviews "Flight 93" (shamefull

Postby CyberChrist » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:23 pm

Arianna is just doing what is politically safe for her. Just look at what has been happening to Cynthia McKinney after coming out against the official 9/11 story. <p>--<br>CyberChrist<br>http://www.hackerjournal.org<br>My brain is hung like a horse.</p><i></i>
CyberChrist
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Huffington Post Reviews "Flight 93" (shamefull

Postby robertdreed » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:38 pm

Gee, Arianna really hasn't <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>said</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> anything there that's really offensive. <br><br>She's simply giving credence to the story found on the flight recorder tape- that some of the passengers did organize a resistance to the hijacking attempt. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (not to be confused with "absence of evidence to the contrary" ), I'm inclined to grant credence to the flight recorder tape, myself. <br><br>( Including those last missing three minutes- a glaring fact that is glaringly <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>present</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, rather than a matter of speculation. )<br><br>That said, I agree that movies like "Flight 93" are phony mock-ups, just on general purposes. <br><br>For what it's worth, a front-page story in today's <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Washington Post</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> points out that the film includes a lot of invented details.<br><br>(Off-topic, but I couldn't help noticing this story below AH's post <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/04/28/stephen-colbert-proposes-_n_19984.html">www.huffingtonpost.com/20...19984.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> ) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/28/06 12:41 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Huffington Post Reviews "Flight 93" (shamefull

Postby StarmanSkye » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:22 pm

I'm heartened that so many folks have called Huffington on her shameless pandering to the Flight 93 myth -- the comments are overwhelmingly critical of the movie and her unquestioning adherance to the whole 911 fraud. It's a helluva sign the public (well, a part of it anyway) is much better informed than 'officialdom' is willing to acknowledge. I get a similiar sense from search engine results on almost everything dealing with Bush and White House Cabinet and policies and Republican party that is forcefully critical. A small but hopeful sign anyway, that public awareness is lightyears ahead of what many pundits may think.<br><br>Question is -- Can this critical awareness make any difference, can it be constructively channeled to compel progressive reform of public institutions and an enlightened, peace-and-cooperation -based foreign/domestic policy?<br><br>I'm too cynical and discouraged to remain optimistic -- but I'm still hopeful to be pleasantly surprised. I know decent people ARE capable of enormous courage and effort -- but the forces of tyranny and oppression are well-entrenched and funded, willing to commit any horror to preserve their agenda.<br><br>This is 1773 all over again.<br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Check out the official movie blog too!

Postby HMKGrey » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:30 pm

Amazing. <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.universalpictures.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1">www.universalpictures.com...um.php?f=1</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>it's full of almost nothing but people talkin gabout what a load of BS the movie is and how 9/11 needs to be exposed. <br><br>Apparently, it was taken down and scrubbed clean once already today. <br><br>I think this is great. Just think of the exposure the 9/11 truth movement is getting from this. <br><br>Let them bring more movies. It just gives us chance to say what we think at last! <p></p><i></i>
HMKGrey
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:56 pm
Location: West Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Flight 93 discussion board

Postby Moddey Screbbagh » Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:01 am

yes, HMK, and i like the explanation for scrubbing the earlier posts:<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"We apologize for the removal of the message boards - due to technical difficulties all previous threads have been inadvertantly deleted. We invite you to renew your dialog and discuss your thoughts on the film."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>gee, i hate it when that happens!! <p></p><i></i>
Moddey Screbbagh
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Flight 93 discussion board

Postby dbeach » Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:38 pm

"Flight 93 myth "<br> U GOT that RT..or how about the 93 LIE.<br><br>IF bush has lied about everything else in his entire life <br> WHY would he tell the TRuth about 9/11 ,93 or anything else about 9/11??<br><br>93 is mass conditioning of the worst kind .. capitalizing on the confused emotions of a trumatized nation {and planet to some extent.}<br><br>9/11 was a coup and all of its elements are related mini coups<br>and 93 is candy to feed the slumbering American public.<br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Flight 93 discussion board

Postby HMKGrey » Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:39 pm

What I love are the post view stats on the right... so here's this Disneyesque view of a major part of 9/11 and it's completely opened up and made very public a debate that has hitherto dwelled largely in the shadows and now thousands upon thousands of people are getting to see and hear <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>alternative</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> view points. <br><br>Of course, some of it is the no planes at the WTC and missile-firing-holograms nonsense that does us no favors but, at the same time a lot of it is good stuff and the beauty is that it all - even the wonky stuff - creates questions and doubts and turns civillians in to researchers and this has to be fantastic news. Right? <br><br>Can you imagine the number of companies in America where actual decent links will be being sent among employees by e-mail next week and discussions will be being had because of this? <br><br>And best of all, it just might mean that this 'debate' actually becomes a more acceptable thing to talk about. Can you imagine if we were able to go to a bar and actually talk about this? Or go to a dinner party with friends and actually discuss the evidence or lack thereof? <br><br>Maybe I'm hoping against hope... but history shows that catalysts are so often unexpected guests at the table. <p></p><i></i>
HMKGrey
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:56 pm
Location: West Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Flight 93 discussion board

Postby Qutb » Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:26 pm

Not having seen the movie, my guess is that "Flight 93" contains more truth than the average 9/11 revisionist site. <p></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Qtb always goes with the msm story not matter what

Postby darkbeforedawn » Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:37 pm

Yes Qtb the fox news account is dripping with "truth" and it also makes a great movie. Too bad it's all so much hog wash as this blogger succinctly shows.<br><br>Many questions linger<br><br>By WILL BUNCH<br>bunchw@phillynews.com 215-854-2957<br><br>VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING that is known about United Flight 93, the hijacked jetliner that crashed into a coal field in western Pennsylvania, has been put into the new Hollywood feature film about the doomed voyage.<br><br>Director Paul Greengrass not only relied on known transcripts and accounts of real conversations that took place during the Sept. 11, 2001, drama, but he even used some real pilots, crew and flight controllers in filming "United 93."<br><br>"They also believed, as the families believed, that making this film an accurate account - not a conspiratorial effort - would help us," Greengrass told the Boston Herald recently. "It gave the film a veracity, an authenticity."<br><br>But while Greengrass tackled everything known about the flight - which the government believes was purposely crashed by its four al Qaeda hijackers because of the uprising by passengers who'd learned of the World Trade Center crashes - there were things the movie could not address.<br><br>Those are the unknowns of Flight 93.<br><br>Today, few but the most radical skeptics about 9/11 would question the events at the core of "United 93," the struggle with heroic passengers that was captured on the cockpit voice recording played in a Virginia courtroom earlier this month.<br><br>But other questions remain - most notably about the government's response. Why was the hijacked jet not intercepted by the military jets that had been sent aloft after the Trade Center strikes? Did President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney order a shoot-down as the plane neared Washington? And why didn't it happen?<br><br>"Unfortunately, we have yet to have a serious and honest investigation into what happened on 9/11," said Paul Thompson, the author of "The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute."<br><br>Thompson believes that officials should still be held accountable for what he considers a flawed military response.<br><br>Here are some other questions:<br><br>Q. Why weren't military fighters under the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, able to intercept the doomed flight?<br><br>A. Ever since 9/11, Pentagon officials have insisted that NORAD was geared toward a foreign attack and not set up to deal with a domestic hijacking, but there is considerable evidence to contradict that. In fact, the 9/11 Commission found that NORAD had been planning for a June 2002 exercise called Amalgam Virgo 2 that involved a scenario with two simultaneously hijacked planes.<br><br>NORAD also told the 9/11 Commission that it hadn't been informed of the Flight 93 hijacking until it was much too late to respond. However, NORAD Commander Larry Arnold told an author in 2004, "We watched the 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area and started to turn south toward D.C." That was about 27 minutes, or more, before Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pa.<br><br>In defending its actions, NORAD has said that it launched its remaining F-16 fighters from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia at approximately 9:30 a.m. - roughly 33 to 36 minutes before Flight 93 crashed - but after another hijacked jet had struck the Pentagon, the fighters were needed to defend the perimeter of Washington.<br><br>Q. Did high-ranking officials from the Bush administration order fighters to shoot down Flight 93, and did Bush know about it?<br><br>A. The 9/11 Commission said that it was about 10 a.m. when Cheney - running the White House command center because Bush had been speaking at a Florida elementary school - was told that a hijacked plane was 80 miles away and was asked for military authority to shoot it down.<br><br>Joshua Bolten, the aide who is now White House chief of staff, testified that he suggested that Cheney reconfirm that order with Bush, and the two top officials and other aides said such a call had been made.<br><br>But according to a June 24, 2004, article in Newsweek, "some on the [9/11] commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers 'flat out didn't believe the call ever took place.' "<br><br>Some have even speculated this issue is why Bush and Cheney took the unusual step of testifying jointly to the 9/11 Commission.<br><br>Q. Who was flying the fast-moving, low-flying white jet that was seen by a dozen or more Shanksville residents just seconds after Flight 93 crashed?<br><br>A. After several accounts, the government and a supporting 2005 article in Popular Mechanics said the mystery jet had been a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp., a North Carolina clothing firm. The magazine said the jet was descending into Johnstown Airport and circled the crash site at the request of the Federal Aviation Administration.<br><br>The plane was seen by about a dozen witnesses, including Susan McElwain, who told Britain's Daily Mirror in 2002: "It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and two upright fins at the side... . It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets." Several residents said the plane resembled the military's A-10 Warthog.<br><br>Q. Why haven't we heard cockpit recordings nor seen the flight-data recording from the other three flights?<br><br>A. Government agencies have insisted that the "black boxes" (actually orange) found at the Pentagon were too badly damaged, while the four in New York were never recovered, which was a first.<br><br>However, the Daily News reported in 2004 that two Ground Zero rescue workers claimed they helped the FBI recover three of the four "black boxes" there. Last year, Philadelphia free-lance writer Dave Lindorff reported that a National Transportation Safety Board source told him: "Off the record, we had the boxes. You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."<br> <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 


Return to 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests