The missing facts in the 'United 93' movie
The missing facts in 'United 93'
Chicago Sun-Times | May 18, 2006
By Roger Ebert
From: Frank Cecrle, South Bend, IN
There are several puzzling facts that the film "United 93" does not even attempt to address. The first is the fact that Flight 93 left a debris trail extending over 8 miles long. This is not consistent with a plane "brought down" by passengers within -- but it IS consistent with a plane that was shot down.
Several witnesses reported seeing a military plane trailing United 93 shortly before the crash (consistent with the U.S. F-16 interceptor jets used to prevent this exact type of situation). Human remains of the passengers ended up MILES from Flight
93's crash site. Official sources tried to claim these things occurred since it was a windy day, and that debris might have been scattered by this wind -- but a published photo of the final impact site clearly show a tall column of smoke rising from the
wreckage straight into the air, an obvious refutation of the claim that there was enough wind that day to drag heavy debris and human remains.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/flight_93_depressurisation.html
What do I take all of this to mean? I think the best explanation of these facts is that a military jet, probably an F-16 interceptor, tailed Flight 93 that day and shot it down before it could reach its intended destination. (Donald Rumsfeld, in Dec. of 2004, appears to have mixed up his lies when he referred to the jet above Pennsylvania as being "shot down.") If the U.S. government admitted to this, however, they would have to explain why F-16s weren't successfully scrambled in the same manner for those airliners that crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon -- the lie that is 9-11 would begin to unravel.
We are the world's foremost military power, with billions spent on fast, stealthy aircraft, yet we can't even protect our own airspace from blatant hijackings, within HOURS of the alert?! This is preposterous. Several years ago that golfer, I forget his name, passed out in his little Cessna aircraft and began to go off of his flight course. Within MINUTES, military jets were scrambled and tailing the tiny aircraft. Yet we're expected to believe that 4 separate, hijacked AIRLINERS didn't evoke the same response from our military?!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/911stand.html
The Bush administration has been caught lying when they tried to claim that the notion of hijacked jets used as weapons had never occurred to them -- internal
documents show that this idea had indeed been considered in military simulations in the recent past.
I don't know how much about the 9-11 Truth Movement you've looked into, and if you haven't heard many of its arguments, I know that I might sound like a "nut" or a "kook" to you. Yet I know that you're an intelligent man with an open mind, and that you just might take the time to sift through the facts in search of the truth. (You gave "JFK" a good review, and didn't dismiss it as the work of a crank or loony!).
http://www.911proof.com
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org
I believe that Bush's neo-cons ALLOWED 9-11 to occur (at least allowed, perhaps helped or even designed), in order to justify wars aimed at dominating the Middle East and to squelch domestic dissent here at home. The global capital that these power-players stood to acquire must have FAR outweighed the American lives they were willing to sacrifice. The neo-cons' "Project for a New American Century" basically comes out and admits these things.
They probably allowed jets to hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon for the PR spectacle it would create (also suspicious is the fact that the Pentagon was hit on the one side that had received extra structural reinformcement, a 1 out of 5 chance, and the fact that most of the Pentagon workers in that section didn't have to report to work there on that day). But they didn't want the White House to be hit since it would make the U.S. government appear too vulnerable -- a jet hitting the Pentagon didn't do much damage, but a jet hitting the White House would have demolished it. So they probably allowed some military pilot to go ahead and shoot down Flight 93 before it could get to the White House. They gave us hyped up, "heroic" stories about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch, and BOTH turned out to be false, blatant PR stunts designed to rally positive war sentiment at home. I see the "let's roll" aspect of Flight 93 to be a similar ploy.
I think a film like "United 93" is intended to keep the wool firmly pulled down over our eyes, to make us feel like we KNOW what happened on 9-11, so that we won't bother to look into other accounts. It might be a good film, but it is most likely FICTION, not fact. I pray that intelligent, influential men like yourself will look into these strange facts before America is lost down the road of lies forever.
United 93 is showing in Modesto.
Submitted by askquestions on Sun, 2006-05-21 13:21.
tags: 9/11 Coverup | 9/11 Inside Job | Charlie Sheen | conspiracy | Entertainment | Film | Flight 93 fairytale movie | General | Modesto | Politics | Politics
