MovieChat Forums > The Flight That Fought Back (2005) Discussion > Cynical racist propaganda

Cynical racist propaganda

posted 18 years ago by rowmorg
62 replies | jump to latest

Everything about this movie is fake.

For example, the "hijackers" are shown passing though X-ray security at Newark Airport, run by Argenbright Security and United Airlines.

One of them is later shown wearing a bomb-belt. There is absolutely no evidence anyone aboard Flight 93 wore such a bomb belt, and no explanation of how such a thing could be got through security. No such bomb-belt was found near Shanksville.

If it had got through security, United and Argenbright would be facing some enormous lawsuits from the families --- but of course, they aren't, and it did not. The film is a racist fake.

The cellphone calls are fiction. Such calls were impossible at six miles' cruising altitude in 2001. Only now are financially strained airlines spending the money to install pica-cell technology to make them possible.

No other cellphone calls were reported from the more than two hundred other passengers aboard three other airlines, who had a combined total of more than three hundred hours in which to decide to make a cellphone call home. The cellphone call reports from Flight 93 may well involve avoiding a billing paper-chase in the case of an independent inquiry (hold one now!).

The Todd Beamer "Let's Roll" remark was overheard, not by his loving pregnant wife, but at the heart of the huge Verizon corporation, which at that time had a $1.5 billion contract with the US government and the Pentagon to revise Washington DC high-level communications. Surprise, surprise, it later became an official recruitment slogan for the Iraq war.

The flight cockpit recording made nothing clear, as legend-builder Gere Longman admitted in his book Among The Heroes and in a New York Times article.

None of the reported phone calls from the flight mentioned a fourth hijacker and no one saw a fourth hijacker at the controls of the plane. There possibly WAS no fourth hijacker, unless you believe the fairy tale of FBI agents "finding" the pilot's passport near Shanksville, which is strictly for the consumption of credulous couch potatoes.

I'm afraid that with this picture and its cinema-release companion "Flight 93" some of the Hollywood crowd have revealed their racist, warmaking credentials. It would be sad if it weren't so pernicious.

Isn't it strange that none of this crowd felt the urge to make a movie about the IRA outrages that shook the UK in the 1970s, 80s and 90s? Only when the outrage purportedly involved Arabs and Muslims, a race and creed well-hated by certain of the Hollywood crowd and their financiers, did not just one but a string of movies come out about the event, based mainly on fiction. Could it have anything to do with persuading us all that Arabs are the enemy and must be bombed, maimed and busted up for the indefinite future?

[–] broadwaydoll-1 18 years ago

whooooooooooooooooooa?? not all true. Fake?? check the records if you can.

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

Your utter credulity leaves others speechless. Do you take your thought-processes out and hang them on the door before you turn on the TV?

I said it clearly --- passengers reported no bomb-belt aboard Flight 93. No bomb-belt was found on the ground. The film is a fake.

The identity of all the "hijackers" remains an open question --- if they existed. Mohamed Atta was identified in the US by Able Danger in early 2000 (as genuinely heroic whistleblowers have informed us), meaning that he is not the Hamburg cell member he was reported to be. He clearly flew to Portland, Maine, the night before purely in order to check through to SF on 9/11/01 the baggage that was later held back for no good reason and its incriminating contents bullhorned to the world, suggesting that he was a patsy. And this patsy was the "lynchpin" of the entire mission, as Newsweek called him. A patsy was the lynchpin. Think about it.

The only evidence that Ziad Jarrah was on the plane is the scorched passport "found" on the ground near Shanksville, after the aircraft was reportedly completely demolished and its contents scattered over an eight mile-wide area. None of the passenger calls described a fourth hijacker or a rogue pilot. Three hijackers and no pilot does not make a thriller movie.

The official story fanatics want to have it both ways: they want hijackers who are masters of diguise (up to 30 identities regularly used, according to the UK's finance minister Brown), but who nonetheless for some inexplicable reason use their own true identities when buying tickets for the supposed 9-11 mission. How helpful of them!

Cellphone calls at cruising altitude (six miles high) were impossible, airlines are only now introducing the technology to make them possible. It explains why no cellphone calls were reported from passengers on the other three planes (except for Mrs Olson, but her husband changed his story months later). The cellphone calls were needed for the construction of the "heroes" legend, and they were conveniently unbillable (because they were impossible). Whom the relatives and friends spoke to, I don't know. They may have acually spoken to them by Airfone and everyone hysterically claimed cellphones were used. Whatever, the cellphone calls are fiction, and the A&E production team referred to them again on Feb 8th 2006. Make sense of it if you can.

The "Let's Roll" recruitment slogan the Pentagon used for the ensuing wars came straight out of the bowels of a huge corporation that was at the time working on a $1.5 billion contract with Uncle Sam and the Pentagon. No one else heard from Todd Beamer (a cellphone fanatic, by the way). Only Verizon.

[–] rick_hatman 18 years ago

I don't know all the facts about Flight 93, but even if the certain events were fictionalized in this film I don't see it as racist. The fact is that Bin Ladin, Mohammad Atta and the rest of the 19 hijackers were Arab. Does that mean that all Arabs are terrorists and that Islam preachers hate? No, it does not. Members of the Ku Klux Klan tend to be white Southern Americans who preach protestantism. That doesn't mean all white Southerners are racist or Klansmen or that all protestants teach hatred of African Americans. Years ago, when the FBI decided to go undercover to stop the Klan, they did not look for members in New York, or suspect Asians of Klan allegiance. Just the same, being an Arab does not make you a terrorist any more than being a German makes you a Nazi, however, in World War 2 we invaded Germany to stop the Nazis so it makes sense that we would attack Arab countries today to stop Arab terrorists.

[–] pgrass13 17 years ago

Rowmorg you are an incesetive jerk, yes I don't believe there were bob belts but the phone calls are most certainly real. I know about loose change certain things look suspicious but you are unAmerican. The idea of the pentagon not being hit by a plane because the hole is too small is flawed because the wings probably came off during impact.

Same thing we do every night try to take over the world

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

Hi, Bret, I can go along with you part of the way. I think there is a strong element of deception in the events of 9/11 as depicted by the official story. Now that the administration has been demonstrated to be proven liars, we have no choice but to view the official story with scepticism. However, I could not go along with you that "no one really died". There were victims in the Twin Towers, and in the NY Fire Dept. There were also flight passengers who have vanished, although it is uncertain exactly how they met their ends. It is possible that no real hijackers were involved and that they did not die. But to claim at "no one really died" is far-fetched, and bound to enrage family and friends of the deceased.

[–] monsoon1965 18 years ago

"Hollywood warmaking"??? These people are the most liberial in the world, I think.

And for IRA movies, what about "In the Name of the Father" with Daniel Day-Lewis?

[–] broadwaydoll-1 18 years ago

you show up everywhere , don't cha???

[–] yankeefan55 18 years ago

No bomb-belt was found because IT WAS A FAKE BOMB, MADE OF VARIOUS MATERIALS SUCH AS CLOTH AND CLAY.

"...a lousy one percent...one percent, unbelievable."--NT1

[–] rowmorg 17 years ago

Spot-on, Yankeefan. That was the clever get-out, wasn't it. The film is based entirely on fantasy anyway, but just to give it a good twist and a juicy story-line, the bloodthirtsty warmaker fanatics introduced the idea of FIENDISH DECEPTION by the wicked insurgents. Their wicked suicide bomb was actually not a bomb, but a replica of a suicide bomb. How incredibly post-modern! I wonder whose idea that was --- oh! step forward Mr Paul Greengrass, fabled anti-war filmmaker erstwhile of the ITV channel, I believe that would be you, wouldn't it, you staggeringly smug individual with the salesman's gift of the gab? How would YOU explain this tissue of fantasy passed off as reality?
Mr Greengrass, are you the living fable of how a man becomes utterly untrustworthy past a certain age? I think you ARE past a certain age, aren't you?

[–] stephen_nelson 18 years ago

Just one question... are you a liberal?

[–] omalley-6 18 years ago

you saw the documentary that use wikipedia as a source too?

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

Care to elaborate?

[–] MikeyMo_nl 18 years ago

Loose Change...

your typical conspiracy theorie; we can point out some strange facts, we can give you our version of what really happened but we can give you no evidence for our statements...

[–] Udo666 18 years ago

You know what really like about all those Conspiracy Theories about 9/11? They´re worth a good laugh. Just like yours.

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

If you find the ruination of your country laughable, then laugh away...

[–] Udo666 18 years ago

"My country"? Who says that i am an american?
I just said that you are talking trash.

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

It's hard to debate with you when you don't make any points. Just saying my reasoning is trash doesn't get us anywhere. Do you find absolutely no merit in anything I write about these propaganda movies? If not, cite your own evidence to back up the official warmaking story they promote.

[–] Udo666 18 years ago

The major problem i have with your argumentation is, that you don´t prove any of your points. Let me give you two examples: You say that the movie is a fake, because one of the terrorists wears a bomb belt. You are right when you say, that this wasn´t reported. But it was reported that the terrorists wanted the passengers to believe, that there is a bomb on board. I think that the movie wanted to give an explanation why the passengers really should believe them. So they let one of the terrorists wear a bomb belt which was actually made of plastic.
According to the phone calls: I am no expert, but the movie states, that phones did only work partially. Why shouldn´t this be possible? Please give me an explanation, i´m really curious about that fact.
Btw, i want to apologize for my harsh tone yesterday.;-)

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

Apology accepted, and I want to point out that I have no idea what happened aboard Flight 93 any more than anyone else does. My intention was to denounce what I see as assumptions made in the film(s) deliberately in order to mislead and frighten the US public into accepting crazy warmaking ventures in the Mid-East region.
It is possible that as AT&T said "fluke" cellphone calls occurred at cruising altitude but they could never have lasted more than the very brief call in which a caller managed to say "Dorothy ---". The other cellphone calls lasting from one minute up to more than fifteen minutes are fantasy, as the US prosecutors of Moussaoui admitted in court this year, reducing the number of claimed cellphone calls from thirteen to two. Remember that the official story tells of Flight 93 diving directly into the ground from cruising altitude at the speed of a bullet emerging from the barrel of a gun. Why were the cellphone calls officially accepted for so long, and then abandoned in the harsh light of a court case?
Regarding the phoney bomb-belt(s). Your idea that the producers presented a bomb-belt as-it-were symbolically, or that the alleged hijackers had prepared plastic models of a bomb-belt, is far-fetched, and in this case I think it is you who are making others laugh, and not I. It is far more likely in my opinion that the bomb arose from those weird pilot warnings that the air-traffic controllers somehow overheard. Why was the sound quality so poor on them, when earlier (official) pilot communications (also recorded) had been perfectly clear? What caused the static and other background noise? I think the pilot announcements were faked, and background noise was required to blur the voice to prevent it being identifiable, or even immediately understandable. It's all quite feasible using existing flight-simulator technology.
Much of the other Flight 93 fakery has been denounced by the European authorities concerning the "rendition" flights of secret prisoners to torture locations in Eastern Europe over the last few years. It's all in the press archives, they've been disguising flights with false IDs and other trickery. What else is Hollywood movie technology but trickery and illusion? The US public is being taken for idiots.

[–] Udo666 18 years ago

Ok. Just a few more questions: Why did some of the relatives say, that the passengers actually called them? Did they do it with a telephone on the plane (please don´t laugh at me, i don´t know if planes have one or not).
Regarding the background noise. This noise can have many possible reasons (never heard the original announcements) so i don´t think that this can be a proof for your theory.

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

People on the ground received calls, it's a question of where they came from. Airfones were available on that flight, but some recipients specifically said they got cellphone calls, which is a bit baffling. For example, one said he saw the cellphone number on the read-out on his phone. Considering cellphone calls were impossible at cruising altitude, explain that! Of course, we have to remember that these people were receiving very tragic information from their loved ones during a national crisis, and that must have influenced their memories of what happened.
The background noise on the recorded pilot announcements can be heard on any of the sceptical websites. Compare them with the messages of the official pilots moments earlier --- crystal clear. What happened in between? I repeat: the background noise conveniently blurs the voice profile, and "sounds rogue" for an uncritical listener.
I suggest you go to Amazon.com and order the new book coming out next month from Carrol & Graf, called Flight 93 Revealed by Rowland Morgan. I think you'll find the whole story is far more complicated and suspicious than you ever dreamed.

[–] Udo666 18 years ago

Maybe i really order that book. I´m really interested in that story.

[–] shawn_Lee 18 years ago

Rowland Morgan, eh? No relation to you rowmorg?

Basically, you come up with this stupid conspiracy theory, write a book about it, and come to this website to try and sell a few copies? Sad.

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

In the book Flight 93 Revealed, the author follows the building of the delusional warrior cult and examines the evidence for the propaganda movies made about it. He finds there is very little. The US government itself reduced the number of cellphone calls from the airliner to two from a reported thirteen --- so what does that do to the reported other cellphone calls? The released transcript of the cockpit voice recorder is so garbled it tells us nothing at all. It even has one of the voices requiring the pilot to be brought back in --- so according to the tape at least one of the pilots was never killed, so how did they effect the hijacking (something that is unknown)? The last 10 minutes of dialog in the cockpit are marked unintelligible, so nothing is known about any imagined passenger rebellion and the rogue pilots' response to it. The controversy over the "crash" time is on the public record. There are many witnesses to the presence of other unidentified planes at the site near Shanksville. And so on. If you bothered to find out the facts, instead of believing government propaganda and ridiculing those who do their own research and propound it to others, you would make a better human being IMO. Have a good day.

[–] Sean1956 17 years ago

"Rowland Morgan, eh? No relation to you rowmorg?"

As I read through his trash, I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one laughing my ass off at mowrog's cheap & obvious "hiding" of his real identity as Rowland Morgan. I'm happy to see I am not alone.

I note that he doesn't deny (or even directly address) your observation. In a later post, he does refer to "the author" of the book, though. This is, as I'm sure you know, typical of people with hidden agendas & those who are so very fond of practicing deception by omission.

"Basically, you come up with this stupid conspiracy theory, write a book about it, and come to this website to try and sell a few copies? Sad."

Not sad. FUNNY! What's sad is that there are people who actually buy into this nonsense.

Sean

[–] dbaran-1 17 years ago

The ruination of America is caused by its corrupt, greedy government.

[–] devin-doyle 18 years ago

I've made cellphone calls aboard airplanes before without issue.

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

Hi Devin Doyle,

If you have made a cellphone call at cruising altitude you should contact AT&T, whose spokesperson has said that such a call would be a wild fluke if it ever happened. You may have a unique cellphone unit that can be sold at auction in New York for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Alternatively, our call(s) must have been made around take-off or landing.

[–] blfsweet16 18 years ago

You do know that the hijackers dropped the plane to a very low altitude, don't you? You can't hit a target in Washington D.C. at 35,000 feet, they had to drop altitude. That probably explains why a lot of cell phone calls got through.

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

At the Moussaoui show-trial earlier this year, the FBI only claimed that TWO cellphone calls had been received from Flight 93. Strangely, they had never contested the dozen others that were claimed in the intervening four years.

The official story does not have the plane flying low. It is supposed to have dived from cruising altitude to hit the ground at the speed of a bullet, nearly vertically. It then supposedly plunged to 30 feet below ground in a miasma of crushed metal, bones, flesh and blood. Somehow, the FBI extracted a laundered red bandana and an intact passport and visa document from this. Don't ask me how. We have never seen the ruined plane being retrieved from the site.

[–] blfsweet16 18 years ago

The official story does have the plane as flying low. Several eyewitnesses saw the damn thing streaking across the sky turning sharply to the left and then to the right at a very low altitude before turning upside down and taking a nose dive toward the ground and exploding upon impact. The plane dropped sharply in altitude about 20 or so minutes before the passengers began their rebellion for control of the plane.

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

I realise that there is conflict in various parts of the official story. The flight is supposed to have dived more or less perpendicularly into the ground but many witnesses saw it limping over the treetops ---- in which case the plane could never have plunged 30 feet into the ground, leaving virtually no trace of itself. Witnesses said: "There was nothing there."

So, what are we to make of this conflicting evidence? I don't know. But I am sure of one thing: the propaganda movies called The Flight That Fought Back and United 93, have no more idea of what happened than this.

The fact that they spin a tale of rebellion and conflict aboard the flight seems to be entirely spurious. I mean, either the plane did plunge into the ground at the speed of a bullet and formed a mashed plug 30 foot below ground, or it didn't. And if it didn't, what about the warmaking rah-rah storyline?

[–] devin-doyle 18 years ago

No, no fluke. During the pilot union strikes 5 or 6 years ago I was on an airplane somewhere over chicago that was full of pissed off passengers booking hotels for the night when connecting flights were cancelled.
Nobody gave a damn that it was against the regulations, they just wanted to get where they were going.

And if I'm not mistaken, AT&T hasn't been in the cellphone business for several years now. You ought to re-check your information.

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

The AT&T statement was issued directly after the 9/11 events, when the corporation was involved both in seatback and cell phones. But it doesn't matter, because things have moved on. Originally there were at least 13 cellphone calls, that were supposed to have conveyed information about Arab hijackers. But by the time of the Z. Moussaoui show-trial this year, when rules of evidence applied, the FBI had reduced the number of cellphone calls made to two. Why had the FBI not set the record straight during the past four years, correcting countless news reports world-wide that promoted cellphones as some kind of miracle talking-wands?

[–] rotten_rach 18 years ago

Aww thanks, I needed a good laugh. Conspiracy theorists are funny.

But seriously, you're almost as bad as the people who say there were no plane crashes at all!

America pwns you and you're grandma! =P

(By the way, if you're slow, the "=P" means I'm joking.)

[–] rowmorg 18 years ago

Hi Rotten Rach, I see you post about once a year, and I can't really understand this one, so have a little think about how to write English and then next ytear when you post again, perhaps we'll all be able to get it.

[–] rotten_rach 18 years ago

I don't post often for two reasons. 1) I don't watch a lot of movies, therefore, I don't waste my time on here. 2) I have a life.

Kind of ironic that you tell me to think about how to write English, yet you can't even spell "year".

[–] NinaMyers 18 years ago

I just wanted to say that i completely agree with rowmorg. That's all. Continue to debate away.

[–] darthstuey 17 years ago

I think your quest for the the truth has detracted from the fact that 1000s of people died that day. Hundreds of children were left without one or both parents; parents lost their children; brothers lost sisters and so on.

Yes these films can never tell the truth as only those who died knows what happened so all your conjecture is pointless. Why don't you spend a little less time worrying about the reputations of alleged hijackers and actually develop a bit of empathy with those families who lost loved ones.

Seriously, you are beginning to sound like those who claim the holocaust never happened.

[–] rowmorg 17 years ago

Get things in perspective. The ethnic, class and medical cleansing of the Nazi years is not comparable to Flight 93.

You sound deranged making that comparison.

Could you be using blind patriotism, from the reptile part of your brain, to replace thought?

To what kind of intellectual rigour do you adhere?

Have you ever looked at the evidence presented for the official story to explain this particular aircraft disappearance?

I suggest you look at "Flight 93: A New Report" recently published in NY by Carrol & Graf.

Check out the facts, instead of listening to your pulse-rate.

[–] pgrass13 17 years ago

*BUMP*

Same thing we do every night try to take over the world

[–] darthstuey 17 years ago

Rowmog- Blind patrionism? I'm English you idiot.

[–] rowmorg 17 years ago

I don't like being abused. It's not surprising you are a 9-11 believer, living in England. The 9-11 official conspiracy theory has been energetically expounded by the UK media. I wish you would read one of the authoritative books on the subject and actually LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. The latest, for example, is called DEBUNKING 9-11 DEBUNKERS and you might find it very interesting. The official story is in tatters. For example, it has just been established that Flight 77 did not have seatback phones, so Mrs Olson COULD NOT have made her sensational telephone call to the Dept of Justice building. How do you explain that, please. Please?

[–] doctorvalis 14 years ago

Um, "darthstuey" [heh heh]

Because if you ignore the details, anyone can do whatever they want and then put out a movie saying what they want you to think.
If people don't question it or are to lazy to try and gather the facts behind the lies or too stupid to believe that politicians, movie makers, corporations or any of the thousands of people with power MIGHT actually lie to you, then they can just do whatever they want can't they?

"You think too much" - battle cry of the idiot

BTW I bet you couldn't tell anyone dick about the holocaust either [don't bother BTW, this ain't that forum], BECAUSE you don't seem the type to question things and look for facts. The world's a terrible place where terrible men do terrible things, and I don' wanna think about it! Waaaah! TV and movies COULDN'T lie!

I'd ask if you were eight years old, but unfortunately, as long as we're fed and have cable, even most adults don't seem to want to know the bad stuff anyway.

Dig: If you want the world to be a good place you gotta figure out where it's actually broke and then try to help fix it. TV and Movies generally aren't considered the gatekeepers for actual truth. Disseminating info or at least theories that might have some truth behind them is at least a start, that is if it actually gets you to think, neh?

BTBTW: For all conspiracy haters, conspiracies of all sorts hidden or revealed do exist and if your kneejerk is "OOO! It's a conspiracy theory it must be crackpot!" shows your level of current wisdom to be...well...not great.