Jerry Mazza"Flight 93" the movie, why?Mon Sep 11, 2006 21:42
"Flight 93" the movie, why?
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Contributing Writer
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.
Flight 93 the movie also lands in the middle of Robert DeNiro’s prestigious Tribeca Film Festival although its hangar is the uptown 1,000 seat Ambassador Theater. Spare no expense. Has DeNiro the once Raging Bull turned into one of the corporate Goodfellas? Or doesn’t he read books or surf the web?
Was it love for New York and hate of the 9/11 event blinding him to see who really sat behind the controls of the whole op? Hey, Bobby, we love you, but wise up. You’re traveling with bad faces. This gang makes the Mulberry Street guys look like Boy Scouts.
In all fairness, I realize DeNiro holds an honest commitment to Independent film-making (though this is hardly an Indy). And he has a deep commitment to Tribeca and New York, in which he lives, has his Film Center and Tribeca Grille. After 9/11 he kept it open as long as possible to preserve jobs, even though the area was devastated by the attack. As soon as he could, he reopened the expensive restaurant. He is, I believe, a stand-up if not misguided guy.
Did DeNiro realize the film he was endorsing lands story-wise right next to the government myth? That Flight 93, a United Airlines Boeing 767 departing 45 minutes late from Newark was hijacked on route to San Francisco. Somewhere near Cleveland, it made a sharp left to southeast, heading conceivably towards the White House or the Capitol (bye bye Congress, bye bye Mrs. Bush, I think I’m gonna di-ie).
But on board, as the myth goes, said brave set of passengers challenged the hijackers, fighting gallantly, but losing ultimately as the pilot lost control of the giant plane. Then its 46 passengers, including four terrorists, and more than 11,000 gallons of fuel, hit the ground that supposedly covered an old quarry. And so the plane vanished into the rabbit hole, not burning aboveground, just smoking, smoking. But you know, where’s there’s smoke there’s fire, enough to evaporate the plane, the passengers, the engines, etcetera, etcetera, bullshit.
In fact, does DeNiro know there was no plane left to see when nearby residents and first responders arrived? See at it the link above, folks. No engines, fuselage, luggage, bodies in the 20 feet long by 10 feet wide grave, not a particularly large area for such a large plane. Only this confetti-shower of itsy bitsy pieces was left.
Enter David Griffin and The New Pearl Harbor
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.”
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. Or maybe it is. Maybe people would like to see the truth or an opposing view, like LooseChange2.
Also, Griffin refers to Paul Thompson’s Timeline, in which witnesses saw burning debris fall from the plane “as far as eight miles away, with workers at Indian Lake Marina saying that they saw ‘a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion.’” Also this debris, along with human remains, was found again as far as eight miles from the site. Also the debris fell from the sky, not exploded upward out of the hole.
What’s more Griffin tells us “an F-15 pilot was told that a military F-16 had shot a fourth airliner in Pennsylvania.” Even Paul “the Wolf” Wolfowitz said “the Air Force was tracking the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania . . . and had been in a position to bring it down if necessary.” Apparently it was necessary to some people. Would they be Dick Cheney and Connie Rice, calling the shots in the White House and then its basement bunker?
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.
Also, was it mentioned that were five parallel terror-hijacking drills going on that day that siphoned off planes to defend New York City or Washington, DC and that filled air controllers’ screens with some 22 planes? This was not an accident but an unbelievably, well planned mega-ops, with all the usual participants to round up: NORAD, DOD, Pentagon, The White House CIA, FBI, etc.
Were the ‘Good Guys” Shot Down for Winning?
And, even if one buys in to the passenger revolt on F 93, could it be that the real reason the hit was necessary was because the good guys on the plane were taking the bad guys and the plane would land safely? And maybe the bad guys then would spill the beans about whom they were working for, like the US government. Aha. Sure, boss, we made the deal with the devil. Can I go home now?
Or, we have the more patriotic reason, I mean relatively speaking, that the plane was about to leap towards the White House or the Capitol and flatten one or the other. And lord, what would we do without the White House? And what would we do without the robot Congress about to give Bush cart blanche to declare and spend, spend, spend on the War on Terror, attacking Afghanistan, eventually Iraq illegally, naming Bin Laden as Perp in Chief (and never catching him), Georgie walking away clean as a whistle with his goat book, at least for a while?
And curiously Flight 93’s demise made celebs of lots of people, including local coroner Wally Miller, flight victim Todd (Let’s Roll) Beamer, and his wife Lisa [who was on the ground], later summoned to the White House for agit prop purposes. Also elevated to star status were victims Tom Burnett, Mark Bingham and Jeremy Glick, all whose souls should rest in peace, no question, though many other victims’ families resented not being recognized nearly as much as the others.
And just like real unreal life the movie Flight 93 will now make stars out of its fairy tale actors and actresses and director. So what, right? That’s entertainment. Who’s getting hurt? Who knows, but one of my spies tells me "Flight 93" gets blasted on Universal's own blog. She adds another quote “Think this film will be the 2006 contender for some type of Leni Riefenstahl Propaganda Film Awards?” Hey, anything’s possible, especially with the goose-steppers.
I mean things were very convivial at the opening. Lots of media coverage. People had a good time, including victims' family members. I suppose they deserved to. Nobody hung their head mumbling bullshit. Well, maybe just a few guys from the 9/11 movement who knew better, and were trying to spread the word without getting their heads bashed in by security or the cops.
But hey, what do they know, scruffy sign carriers, pamphlets in hand, like flower kids sticking daisies in rifles at the Pentagon way back when. Remember grandma? Only then we had, Apocalypse Now, Marty Sheen [father of Charley Sheen], Brando, and Robert Duvall, saying, “You know what I love? The smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like . . . victory.”
Right, only Flight 93 the film and those behind its propaganda, and those behind that stink of diesel fuel and explosives they made that horrible blue morning, have more crooked angles to them than cinematographer Gregg Toland shooting Citizen Kane, the fictional portrayal of media mogul, yellow press boss, William Randolph Hearst. And you can take that to the bank, Bob. And not for nothin, my fellow Italo-American, find out what really happened, by clicking the blue words.
Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer born, raised, and living after all these crazy years in New York. Reach him at the candy store or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Main Page -
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES