Vote "United 93" Worst Movie of 2006 at IMDB

Please take a moment to vote for "United 93" as the Worst Movie of 2006 at IMDB.com. You must be registered at IMDB to vote.

You can vote it the "worst" of several categories. Don't be shy.

Send a message. We will not accept the mythology of 9/11 as documentary entertainment.

Currently, The DaVinci Code leads the voting with only 462 votes. I'm sure we can do better than that.

Show "Why is United 93 the worst" by Mark Roberts

Distractions

I am voting it "worst" of the year for ideological reasons, Mark, not because it represents bad filmmaking. The whole idea of "worst of the year" is rather stupid to begin with, but I wish to protest this film on the basis that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraud.

I'm not going to turn this thread into a debate of UA93 and whether it crashed, or where it crashed, or when it crashed, or whether cell phones work at 35,000 feet, or whether red bandannas are more crash-resistant than human skulls. I'm not even going to debate the ways in which this film is inconsistent with its source material, the 9/11 Report. That has been debated ad nauseum.

My protest is based on the fact that the repeated focus on the alleged heroism of United 93 is the mainstream media's way of ignoring the many omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report. Even if most or all of the United 93 story were true (and again, I'm not going to debate that here), it would not excuse the media for ignoring the fact that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraud.

My protest is based on the fact that there is no Hollywood movie about the multiple foreign intelligence warnings prior to 9/11, no Hollywood movie about insider trading prior to 9/11, no Hollywood movie about the multiple FBI whistleblowers, no Hollywood movie about the nexus of oil, drugs, and terrorist financing that leads back to the oligarchs who run the American government.

"United 93" is a propagandistic distraction.

93

I remember the days when I thought this movie was legit... that was before I took the red pill...

Flight 93 is a very interesting issue. What was its intended target? Did they plant explosives at the intended target like they did at the WTC and possibly the pentagon (some said they smelled cordite)?

We know that terrorists can't fly planes without extensive training. Was there anyone on the planes or were they part of a live-fly NORAD "exercise"?

--like the one on 9/11/1999 that had a simulated aircraft hit the trade center?

I haven't actually seen the movie.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

My guess, the

My guess, the Capitol.

Martial Law would have been welcomed after showing the US Capitol Dome shatter and burn on CNN over and over and over again... 

GPS

According to the map of the flight path.... the flying projectile was making a B-line straight for D.C..... prety damn good for inexperienced pilots.... those GPS machines that they had really do a good job.... they didn't have to make a single adjustment to make sure they were on target..... I need to get one of those GPS thingys.

Did they find any of those GPS machines in the wreckage?

I think they planned to hit more targets than the capitol building...... When those airforce pilots took out the projectile over Pennsylvania,,,, they threw a wrench in the plan

shot down 93

"I think they planned to hit more targets than the capitol building...... When those air force pilots took out the projectile over Pennsylvania,,,, they threw a wrench in the plan"

I think that the shoot down order must have been made (from the top) because it was taking too much time. I believe eye witnesses saw the plane being trailed for a while. If it took too long they might have feared that there would be more questioning of NORAD.

This is also the reason why they lied about the shoot down. It would be a great way to avoid answering questions about why the other planes were not shot down.

There is good evidence that the plan didn't work as planned. I don't think they thought that building 7 would have been so blatant for example--maybe they were hoping it would actually be hit by something (substantial!) before they 'pulled it'.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I agree....the execution of the "attacks" was....

.....taking too long...93 had to be shot down ("crashed") to avoid questioning....

It is possible that planes had to be re-routed to different targets that day, due to delays and other planes scenarios going wrong for whatever reason...and that caused 93 to be too late to its target....they had to settle for what had already taken place....

I bet the high perps really wish they had "pulled" 7 under cover of the dust & smoke of the Twins destruction or later under nightfall that evening.

Guys don't get distracted, nothing was shoot down

because NOTHING crashed in Shanksville. See my sig below and my posts below.

I think the shoot-down rumors were purposely started to distract us away from the botched crash scene.

--------------------------------------------------------

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

I used "crashed" in the sense of quoting the OV's term...

...my pet theory right now is that 93 was shot down....some of, but by no means all, of the now miniscule debris landed in Shanksville...and then missles were fired into the ground, creating the crater in the field and fire in the woods...

But there are many other possibilities....

I do respect and agree with

I do respect and agree with much of what you've researched about 93/ Shanksville, but remember shooting 93 down is not mutually exclusive from the phoney crash site.

I'd say they're inextricably linked--after all you can't have people wandering the countryside looking around (in the lake?) and discovering flight recorders that don't support the OT. You have to give them a show to distract them from discovering peices of the real wreckage, and head off any interest in looking elsewhere.

...

that's why i refered to it a a projectile..... it could have been a global hawk... or a smaller plane.... just don't see the evidence for it being a commercial jetliner

Show "The terrorists had extensive" by Mark Roberts

Save it for the ignorant SOBs who visit your site, Mark

Mark, are you referring to the NORAD tapes for your interpretation of events?

Would that be the timeline about which Thomas Kean told the press, "We, to this day, don't know why NORAD told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied"?

Ah yes, this would be the official story, according to which the FBI identified 18 of 19 hijackers by 9:59am, eight minutes before NORAD says it was even aware that UA93 had been hijacked.

In the 2003 version of events, Col. Alan Scott and Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold testified that jets were scrambled from Langley AFB at 9:24am in response to either the 77 or 93 hijack heading for Washington. But in the NORAD tapes, NEADS doesn't learn of 77 or 93 until after they had crashed.

In the military's earlier version, they claimed they learned from the FAA about UA93 at 9:16, and that NEADS was in position to shoot it down. But the tapes say that NORAD didn't learn of UA93 until at least 10:07, after it had crashed.

In the earlier version, the military was prepared to shoot down 93 on Cheney's command. But in the 2004 version there was no command to shoot down.

As Dr. Griffin says, “The implication of the NORAD tapes, therefore, is that virtually the entire account given by NORAD on September 18, 2001—which served as the official story from that date until the issuance of The 9/11 Commission Report in July 2004—was false.”

Show "simuvac, 1) I do not have a" by Mark Roberts

Um

everything in your post is incorrect.

and why do you think an FAA official destroyed tapes early that morning?

Extensive?

3 sessions on a simulator, which is all the jet training Atta and Alshehhi had according to the FBI, cannot be described as "extensive" by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

It may have been

It may have been deliberately crashed. Four hijacked planes hitting each of their targets with pinpoint accuracy? Few could believe a story like that!

Flight 93 gave us our "war cry" and enhances the believability of the official story. If they succeeded so spectacularly in guiding the planes into the towers, hitting the Pentagon, and successfully bringing down the towers, why should we believe they failed regarding Flight 93?

TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!

All fingers on down arrows! This is not a drill!

Thanks, Jenny. I am aware of

Thanks, Jenny. I am aware of Mark's work. I would hope that he is not here simply to annoy.

I hope he takes the time to follow the links I offered in my response to his inquiry. :-)

You're so sweet. Sounds

You're so sweet. Sounds like my hope Chomsky's passive agressive comments about 911truth are a warning in code that he needs help.

Hope-- leads us to strange places, doesn't it?

False hope can lead to some

False hope can lead to some disturbing places as well...

Thanks for looking out for

Thanks for looking out for us, but I didn't buy a one way ticket on that "hope".

New smoking gun find at Shanksville

Most of the fire damage to the forest was done AFTER 9/11:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/12/shanksville-forest-mostly-burned-after.html

--------------------------------------------------------

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

JREFers are getting scared of this new find!

They started attacking me and get my claims wrong again!

Gravy - "Yeah, Killtown thinks that a news helicopter made it to the remote site before the people who were a few hundred yards away, or the first responders who were down the road.

On his website he has numerous photos of the smoking crater and forest. What a freakishly stupid person he is."

 

Gravy is the one who is "freadishly stupid", he seems to think I'm suggesting the WTAE heli pic was taken before anybody arrived at the scene!  I'm only suggesting the WTAE pic was taken before the other aerials that show much much more forest, I never said the WTAE pic was taken on 9/11, no less taken before anybody arrived at the scene!

--------------------------------------------------------

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Why do you go to JREF, any

Why do you go to JREF, any way? Doesn't seem to be worth the aggravation. I saw, well "read", them dumping on a fellow SKEPTIC because she wouldn't toe the line. She just wondered if she was right seeing another aircraft in the Pentagon video(forget which one-not going back to find out--sorry!) and they were all like "it doesn't matter even if there was another aircraft flying around the Pentagon."

Are these people insane? It doesn't matter if aircraft are flying around the center of the US military industrial complex? Right or wrong, THAT is an insane statement. And it wasn't alone.

So why do you bother?

False. In that thread we

False. In that thread we noted that there's nothing unusual about an aircraft being near the Pentagon, and several of us provided evidence that a helicopter landed at the helipad and took off again shortly before the attack. She dismissed that evidence. That's her problem, not ours.

Please at least make an attempt to get your facts right, Jenny. Can we all agree that lying is bad?

TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!

It was a paraphrase, you twit. How about you post a link so everyone else can judge how reasonable she was/wasnot and how rude/or not everyone else was?

Helped a first responder lately?

It occurs to me you may be

It occurs to me you may be very lonely. Maybe that's why you come here, this is the only interaction you get. Kind of sad, actually. That's probably why you posted your email address publically on Kevin's blog:

nyctours@gmail.com.
>Mr. Ryan, I await your reply. Or you can contact me privately at nyctours@gmail.com.<

You did realise that was public? Here's the link so everyone knows I'm not being bad:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5272#comment-102812
(second page)

Well, you know you've upset people here for no good reason. And all you had to do to contact Kevin was go to his website. So--what's your angle leaving this contact info?

Killtown, why do you

Killtown, why do you constantly lie? Is it that you cannot, or that you will not, stop?

Want to see the damage to the forest? Look at the pictures taken on 9/11 that are on your own damn website.

On 9/11, these are just some of the organizations and agencies who were on the scene outside Shanksville:

• 8 Police Departments
• 7 EMS Services
• 8 Fire Departments
• 10 Emergency Management Agencies
• NTSB
• ATF
• FBI
• CISM
• Red Cross
• United Airlines

What does the Shanksville VFD have to say about your claim, Killtown? Come on, tell us what the first responders told you. We're all ears.

And why did you say you would "destroy" me in a debate on this topic, then flee when I challenged you? Please explain.

TROLL ALERT!

TROLL ALERT!

Killtown, why do you

Killtown, why do you constantly lie? Is it that you cannot, or that you will not, stop?

Want to see the damage to the forest? Look at the pictures on your own damn website.

What does the Shanksville VFD have to say about your claim, Killtown? Come on, tell us. We're all ears.

TROLL ALERT!

Slow learner, aren't you? Piss off.

Here is the WTAE aerial showing less forest damage

(See enlarged photo.)

notice later aerials show significant forest damage:

--------------------------------------------------------

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Many witnesses to 2nd plane in area

BEFORE and after the explosion around the FAKE Shanksville crater:

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93.html#white_jet

--------------------------------------------------------

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Already covered at length at

Already covered at length at the JREF, Killtown. Surely you remember the spanking you took there?

When will our debate on flight 93 be, Killtown? You know, the one in which you said you'd "destroy" me. I told you that you could choose the location and the moderator! How much more agreeable can I be?

TROLL ALERT still in

TROLL ALERT still in effect... I'll probably stop with this one--it should be clear to any newbies this is a trouble maker. But if he asks for a response from me, it'll be headed as an alert.

Just warning yeh...

What happens to dirt when fueled wings strike at 500mph

A big massive crater forms from the explosion and everything nearby is leveled. - Pan Am 103, Lockerbie, Scotland

What happened when supposedly an entire plane going 580mph hits "spongy dirt":

A plane supposedly disappears underground and none of the grass around the crater gets burnt!

http://killtown.911review.org/flight93.html

--------------------------------------------------------

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Honestly, Mr. Town, didn't

Honestly, Mr. Town, didn't you read what I said earlier?

We all know where your website is. We know where to find you, if necessary.

Sorry, I didn't

just wanted to drive the point home as to why 'UA 93' should be in the fiction catagory.

--------------------------------------------------------

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

Killtown, you said you'd

Killtown, you said you'd "destroy" me in a debate about flight 93. I immediately challenged you to such a debate, and you tucked your tail between your legs and ran away.

You are a sad coward.

TROLL ALERT!

Takes one to know one--repeat after me: STALKING is not free speech.

How many of the 10 rims & 3 landing gears from Flight 93

were found at Shanksville?

 

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/10/flight-93s-three-landing-gears-and-ten.html

--------------------------------------------------------

Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.

This movie is in the same category

as the 'Path to 9-11,' namely, that a corporate entity decides how to write history.

Pardon? No me gusta. It is info-tainment and Disney politics, like corporate cable news.

The truth is we still don't know the truth, and as long as those in power are untrustworthy, we will continue not to know.

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com

United 93

was actually a much, much better film than Stone's WTC. Greengrass is a much more enthusiastic propagandist, perhaps.

I would agree, though, that the movie is deserving of "worst picture" designation because the whole reason it was made was to reify and amplify a fantasy which has been used to fuel crappy pseudo-patriotism.

So none of you believe that

So none of you believe that the passengers on flight 93 behaved heroically?

I don't believe there is any basis to know

what they did, and I *do* believe that this is a constructed fairy-tale that takes advantage of our inability to know.

C'mon, even my Bush-loving aunt said, on the day, "Ooops, they shot that one down and they're going to bury that fact a hell of a lot deeper than some abandoned mine shaft."

Show "There is a very good basis" by Mark Roberts

Do you believe their heroism is more important than the truth?

You're playing games with the dead, Mark.

Do you think we should ignore the obvious omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report, because of the heroism of the passengers on UA93? I'd like an answer to that question.

You see, what people like you and the mass media try to do is change the topic from the obvious fraud of the 9/11 Commission to something emotional and jingoistic, but ultimately irrelevant, like what may have happened on UA93. Let's say you're right, and everything about UA93 in the commission report is true. Does that mean I should not care about every other inconsistency and lie in the report? I should just pump my fist and yell, "Let's roll!"?

I asked you not to spam this blog, Mark, and went and pissed on me anyway.

Show "Please explain how" by Mark Roberts

TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!

And simuvac was so civil to you. No appreciation, you haven't. So don't complain when people are not nice to you.

So, how is your mate, 911debunker, doing anyway? People at his journal don't seem to be too impressed with your performance over here...especially on Jon Gold's blog...

Do you believe their heroism is more important than the truth?

You're playing games with the dead, Mark.

Do you think we should ignore the obvious omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report, because of the heroism of the passengers on UA93? I'd like an answer to that question.

You see, what people like you and the mass media try to do is change the topic from the obvious fraud of the 9/11 Commission to something emotional and jingoistic, but ultimately irrelevant, like what may have happened on UA93. Let's say you're right, and everything about UA93 in the commission report is true. Does that mean I should not care about every other inconsistency and lie in the report? I should just pump my fist and yell, "Let's roll!"?

I asked you not to spam this blog, Mark, and you went and pissed on me anyway.

TROLL ALERT!

Have you helped a first responder lately?

I believe that if it were

I believe that if it were not for the passengers of Flight 93, we would have been under Martial Law on 9/11/2001 after the last target was hit.

And they were rewarded with a missile hit. 

They were hero's, much more heroic then you give them credit. You hack...

TROLL ALERT!

Have you helped a first responder lately?

Show "To whom is that addressed?" by Mark Roberts

Mark,

So, what do you think about the "air is safe to breath" statement that officials made after 911, with fatal consequences?
Is that all cool and sound too? Can you explain that too?
Also, whilest were at it, im still waiting for your debunking of '911 press for truth'. I can understand it takes a bit longer , so i don't mean to rush you . Just checking how that is coming along..

He's not going to answer,

He's not going to answer, you know. How can he argue with Condolezza's own words, "The air is safe to breathe"? Considering she saw the first EPA report, before the White House edited it, that would make her, and anyone who knew, guilty of criminal negligence. Can't see Mark supporting criminal negligence. Not publically anyway.

Then again, even if the OT was true, the entire administration is guilty of crimnial negligence, and he's no problem with that, so maybe I'm wrong about what he'd support.

As for "911 Press for Truth", well, he's a sociopathic bully but you don't pick on widows. Bet he's got allot of chivalry Lite to go with his COURAGE.COM.

"Bugger this; I want a better world."

Can't you people ever stay

Can't you people ever stay on topic? This thread is about flight 93.

Ground Zero first responders and air quality issues have nothing to do with the cause of the jihadist terrorists attacks of 9/11. I post at the JREF almost every day: forums.randi.org Feel free to register there for extended dissions about other topics.

To my critics, specifically what did I get wrong in my comments here?

Your purpose is to be

Your purpose is to be lightening rod, to attract attention away from the task at hand...

The presence of your comments is enough as the majority of 911blogger readers KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, 9/11 is a lie.

If you are miffed, go back to your forum, the time-sink that it is... We have more important items to discuss amongst others who KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, 9/11 is a lie. You hack...

You are wrong. My purpose is

You are wrong. My purpose is to provide accurate information about the events of 9/11 where it is lacking. Do you think it is important to be accurate when discussing these events? Please answer.

TROLL ALERT!

Have you helped a first responder lately?

PS--normal people don't post places they're not welcome. You are either obsessed with truthers or your a paid shill.

BYE.

Mark,

why do you ignore my questions?
'stay on topic' is not a good excuse here, im sorry. It was you telling us how you donated money to the first responders, so i dont see how my question was off-topic at all.
You talk of 'accurate information'.
Ok then, my guess is you think '911 press for truth' is totally inaccurate, right? We are awaiting your explanation.
Look, youre current approach is not gonna work on this blog. It might work somewhere else, where you're dealing with people whose horizon about 911 does not exceed watching loose change once... That is not the case here. Sorry about that.
You can't hide behind the questions you are comfortable with, and ignore the others.
Also, i would recommend that you change your strategy , slightly. You know, if you always 100% try to defend the official lie, it won't work. You should give in, just a little bit... would make you appear more REAL. Cause, quite frankly, pretty much nobody believes the official lie 100% as you do.

Why hasn't the James Brolin View episode surfaced?

It was re-broadcast on 12/26, with advance notice. I would think someone would've recorded it....

I know it was a short endorsement of 911weknow.com, but it would still be nice to see.....