"Flight 93" the movie, why? - onlinejournal.com

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?

Also, Flight 93’s patriotic spin landed before the sentencing of Zaccharias Moussaoui, who has been thrust in the role of scapegoat for the entire 9/11 debacle, even though he was in jail at the time. So we have a little multi-media propaganda to stir up the jury and America’s misguided rage. There are no accidents in the world of US government spin.
..
But then we have one of the most important 9/11 books, David Griffin’s, The New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Griffin is a professor of philosophy and religion at the Claremont School of Theology in California for over 30 years. He also is the author and editor of more than 20 books, a fastidiously scrupulous and honest scholar, not a writer of blockbusters, though The New Pearl Harbor became one simply because of its amazing array of factual and logical thinking that contradicted the 9/11 myth, including Flight 93.

In Chapter Three, pages 49-55, 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.”
..
Were those scenes in the movie, the fireball in air and the parts falling, or Cheney and Rice in the White House? And were those eyewitnesses mentioned by Griffin and Thompson considered misguided, blind or on acid? This film poses as totally “factual.” In Hollywood that may have a slightly different meaning.

Thanks Carol for the heads up!