Flight 93 - What really happened?

Matt said:
I'm not seeing it. It quite frankly does not interest me as a movie. (Wait for it...wait for it.......)
Okay yeah that is really what I wanted to say...I just did not want to be a D-bag
 
ShadowBoxing said:
I don't know. I refuse to see the Passion of the Christ, and some of my reasoning behind that decision would line up with this film (among many other things though, anti semitism was a huge reason not to go...and the violence that Christian churches thought was fine for their young and impressionable audience). However the film also isn't making much money (11 million--came in second), which is a shame since Oliver Stone obviously put his heart into this...and its a shame to see a film flop if its well reviewed. However I don't like cashing in on tragedy this soon either (however he really isn't since as I say not making much)...plus I am really not that interested in the film. I'd much rather watch one about the twin towers. Its just seems like they'd have a hard time doing much with that story and making it movie length.

Wrong on both counts.
 
celldog said:
The actually Flight adminstrator plays himself in the movie. Sliney is his name, I think. All of the families saw this movie too. I think that if it was shady they would have said something.

It's just never ceases to amaze me though, how we will give the the maniacs that are trying to kill us, more benefit than our own government.

And also note that Bush had only being President for 8 months. He barely knew where all the bathrooms were in the White House, let alone be involved with some conspiracy. The lax condition of our security was inherited from the last 8 years. After the 1993 bombing, that should never have been.

1) The movie does change facts (fake bombs, FAA being able to overrule the military, etc)..

2) I'm not giving the "maniacs" more benefit. Shooting down Flight 93 would've been rational for national security. In fact, the fact that a plane bound for either the capital or the white house was in knowingly in the air high jacked for 50 MINUTES is quite concerning.

3) It has nothing to do with Bush. If the call was made to shoot down the plane, it would've been the Joint Chiefs of Staff who made the decision...Bush at that point would've been in a bunker completely out of authority.
 
ShadowBoxing said:
Okay yeah that is really what I wanted to say...I just did not want to be a D-bag

There is nothing *****e baggish about it. I didn't see Saving Private Ryan either...because it doesn't interest me as a movie. That doesn't mean I do not appreciate D-Day, hell, my grandfather was in the raid. It simply means a movie about it does not interest me.
 
ShadowBoxing said:
I don't know. I refuse to see the Passion of the Christ, and some of my reasoning behind that decision would line up with this film (among many other things though, anti semitism was a huge reason not to go...and the violence that Christian churches thought was fine for their young and impressionable audience). However the film also isn't making much money (11 million--came in second), which is a shame since Oliver Stone obviously put his heart into this...and its a shame to see a film flop if its well reviewed. However I don't like cashing in on tragedy this soon either (however he really isn't since as I say not making much)...plus I am really not that interested in the film. I'd much rather watch one about the twin towers. Its just seems like they'd have a hard time doing much with that story and making it movie length.

I saw the movie and I thought it was really good. It doesn't seem like anyone would be 'cashing in on tragedy' with the way it was made, though. It was very 'non-hollywood' and I would highly recomend it.
 
Bad Superman said:
Wrong on both counts.
His father said all the jews were moved to Brooklyn and their was no holocaust...as far as I am concerned he made that movie (which largely blames the jews of Jesus' era for the execution) for his father.

And yes Several churches had organized groups of parents and children to go watch the Passion.

USA Today said:
Kids will see R-rated 'Passion'
By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY
As the debate rages over whether Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is anti-Semitic, parents, church leaders and theater owners are wrangling over another issue: Should children see the brutal film?

The R-rated movie portrays the final 12 hours of Jesus' life in graphic detail, including the crucifixion and a beating that lasts 45 minutes. But many parents and church leaders plan to have kids as young as 10 see the film, which opens Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday.

"The violence is necessary to understand the sacrifice Jesus made," says First Family pastor Jerry Johnston. His Baptist church has rented out a half-dozen theaters in Kansas City, Kan., and has reserved auditoriums the night of Feb. 27 for children 11 and older.

Johnston concedes they'll be disturbed by the violence. "I hope they're disturbed enough to make their peace with Jesus."

There is plenty in the two-hour film to make children and adults alike squirm:

• Roman guards employ a "cat-o'-nine-tails" that rips the flesh from Jesus' back.

• As Jesus is being crucified, a supervisor scolds one man for not nailing his hands properly. He yanks Jesus' other hand, pulling the arm out of the socket.

• To see whether Jesus is dead, a Roman soldier pierces his side with a lance. Blood showers down on the soldier.

"Most images of Christ on the cross are too tame," says Matt Stoehr, pastor of the West Coast Christian Center in Vista, Calif. "They minimize the sacrifices he made. Scripture tells us that he was beaten to a pulp. I think seeing that on screen will be more powerful for kids than any sermon."

His church, about 30 miles south of Los Angeles, has rented out a theater Feb. 29 and will admit children 10 and older if they are accompanied by adults. Stoehr says he is thinking of raising the minimum age to 12, "but a lot of kids are already mature for their age. Look at what they see on MTV."

That's no reason to subject youngsters to Passion's adult themes, says columnist Nell Minow, "Movie Mom" for Yahoo! Movies. She has not seen the movie.

"Disturbing images can be what sticks with a child, not the message behind it," she says. "I would have severe concerns about exposing children to that kind of violence."

But theater owners already are bracing for a first: children flocking to a violent R-rated film with their parents' blessings. Regal Entertainment Group, which has 550 theaters and is the nation's largest theater chain, has issued consent forms requiring that pastors and church leaders get parents' permission before showing the film to children in rented theaters.
"It's still an R-rated movie," Regal's Dick Westerling says. "Kids (under 17) still must have a parent or guardian with them."
 
ShadowBoxing said:
His father said all the jews were moved to Brooklyn and their was no holocaust...as far as I am concerned he made that movie (which largely blames the jews of Jesus' era for the execution) for his father.

And yes Several churches had organized groups of parents and children to go watch the Passion.

1- I don't know what his father thinks about Jews, but the question is: What does that have to do with the film being "Anti-Semitic"? It wasn't

2- Children were accompanied by adults. I'm sure they explained the children what they were about to watch and explained the events of the Passion. It's not a celebration of violence, if that's what you think.

3- The majority of the media is Anti-Christian and their perspective will be not only exaggerated but sensasionalist. It's not the first time Christians have been attacked by it and unfortunately it won't be the last. I see this every day and get upset of the lies and the way information is manipulated to destroy our reputation (slander) with scandal and lies, SPECIALLY, when the media generalizes.
 
TheSumOfGod said:
Bin Laden DID plan to bring down the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol building. But unbeknownst to him, his 19 amateurish hijackers were neutralized by American intelligence community early on. They wouldn't have been able to fulfill their mission anyway, they couldn't even fly a freakin' plane. But Bin Laden was convinced that his men were responsible for 9/11, although he did say in one of his videos: (paraphrase from memory) "I'm surprised the towers were completely destroyed, I just thought that the top part would fall off unto the street and the buildings besides it." Which is precisely what would have happened if it wasn't for the pre-set explosives. :o

:rolleyes:
 
Bad Superman said:
1- I don't know what his father thinks about Jews, but the question is: What does that have to do with the film being "Anti-Semitic"? It wasn't

2- Children were accompanied by adults. I'm sure they explained the children what they were about to watch and explained the events of the Passion. It's not a celebration of violence, if that's what you think.

3- The majority of the media is Anti-Christian and their perspective will be not only exaggerated but sensasionalist. It's not the first time Christians have been attacked by it and unfortunately it won't be the last. I see this every day and get upset of the lies and the way information is manipulated to destroy our reputation (slander) with scandal and lies, SPECIALLY, when the media generalizes.
It was very much so from the perspective of Jewish viewers. On about.com 29% found it antisemitic while 34% did not (open poll--non official), still a significant number (for gen pop)

"It's conventional Christian theology that the temptation to do evil (or Satan himself) is everywhere. But many Jews saw Satan acting through a specifically Jewish gathering, yet another in a long line of Christian libels. For Jews, this film was very close to the traditional passion play so often used to incite anti-Semitic violence. Jews also noticed that when God becomes angry at the killing of Jesus, he doesn't wreak havoc on the Roman forum or Pilate's house. He doesn't even confine the damage to Herod's palace and Caiaphas's house. He destroys the temple.
Jews don't understand why Christians don't seem to get this. They tend to think that Christians are either blind to the movie's message, or insensitive to the feelings of Jews"

Rabbi Levine wrote that "It hurt me as a Jew to watch it. It was the most appalling depiction of Jews in a film in my recollection. It was painful and inaccurate." The Rabbi did not specify any of the falsehoods he claims to have seen. "My eyes burned. My hair fell out. Never mind that Toledoth Yeshu behind the curtain!" He stated the film "undermines the 1965 Vatican II declaration that the human element of the Church is no longer Catholic and no longer believes that Jews were anywhere near the crime scene as they were much too busy at the time debating whether walking around with a mote of dust on your coat constitutes carrying something on the Sabbath."

When the movie was finally released, the overwhelming reaction from within the Jewish community was highly negative. The Jewish community was concerned with a number of issues:
  • Many Jews, such as the High Priest, are portrayed as physically ugly.
  • The High Priest is shown as if he a were a member in good standing of the Jewish community; historians note that the Jews were not allowed to appoint their own High Priest according to Biblical law, and that the High Priest at the time was in the service of the Roman government.
  • Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a thoughtful, temperate man who ultimately agrees to crucify Jesus because he does not want to risk a Jewish rebellion on the one hand, and a Christian rebellion on the other. While that is how the Gospels portray him, historians insist that Pilate was known by his rough treatment of Jews in general, and was responsible for crucifying many Jews during his reign.

"Father Pawlikowski suggested that a joint committee of Catholics and Jews be set up to analyze the script of The Passion....The study group concluded that a film based on the script they had been shown would promote anti-Semitic sentiments. It assessed that 'the Temple-and by extension Judaism-is presented as a locus of evil…. A Jewish mob is shown in ever-increasing size and ferocity. The mob is plainly identified as representing the Jewish people as a whole, portraying them as such as "bloodthirsty," "frenzied," and "predatory"…Jewish figures are particularly associated with evil uses of money.'

Gibson believed in the libel of the Jewish world conspiracy. Shortly thereafter his father, Hutton Gibson, a self-proclaimed Holocaust denier, gave an interview. Commenting on his father, Mel Gibson said, 'My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life.'"[SIZE=-2]7[/SIZE]

Only a very small section of conservative Jews tended to find the film unoffensive.

Furthermore Roger Ebert and David Asen said it was [paraphrase]"The most violent film they had ever seen". I do not care if you go with your parents, I have seen clips of the film since and it is inappropriate for children.period.

The fact is Mel Gibson choose a film and text that has been largely used throughout the middle ages and holocaust (by Hitler...who actually hated all religion) to insight hatred and persecution against the Jews


And quit playing this liberal media, persecuted Christian bullcrap...it's old

For all these well founded reasons I refuse to support his movie.
 
If you want to show your support of Charlie Sheen and his courage to speak out against the web of lies we've been told, there is a website.

http://www.bravocharlie911.com/

The momentum of the 911 Truth Movement is picking up incredible speed and it's very refreshing to see.
 
FlameHead said:
The momentum of the 911 Truth Movement is picking up incredible speed and it's very refreshing to see.

You realize that youre never going to convince enough people to move your cause forward right?
 
ShadowBoxing said:
It was very much so from the perspective of Jewish viewers. On about.com 29% found it antisemitic while 34% did not (open poll--non official), still a significant number (for gen pop)

"It's conventional Christian theology that the temptation to do evil (or Satan himself) is everywhere. But many Jews saw Satan acting through a specifically Jewish gathering, yet another in a long line of Christian libels. For Jews, this film was very close to the traditional passion play so often used to incite anti-Semitic violence. Jews also noticed that when God becomes angry at the killing of Jesus, he doesn't wreak havoc on the Roman forum or Pilate's house. He doesn't even confine the damage to Herod's palace and Caiaphas's house. He destroys the temple.
Jews don't understand why Christians don't seem to get this. They tend to think that Christians are either blind to the movie's message, or insensitive to the feelings of Jews"







Gibson believed in the libel of the Jewish world conspiracy. Shortly thereafter his father, Hutton Gibson, a self-proclaimed Holocaust denier, gave an interview. Commenting on his father, Mel Gibson said, 'My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life.'"[SIZE=-2]7[/SIZE]

Only a very small section of conservative Jews tended to find the film unoffensive.

Furthermore Roger Ebert and David Asen said it was [paraphrase]"The most violent film they had ever seen". I do not care if you go with your parents, I have seen clips of the film since and it is inappropriate for children.period.

The fact is Mel Gibson choose a film and text that has been largely used throughout the middle ages and holocaust (by Hitler...who actually hated all religion) to insight hatred and persecution against the Jews


And quit playing this liberal media, persecuted Christian bullcrap...it's old

For all these well founded reasons I refuse to support his movie.

You just proved my point. I'm done discussing this.
 
We'll never know the truth of what happened on that flight. It will always be conjecture. Let it slide, it doesn't really matter anyways, those folks are dead either way.
 
Wow, that's the saddest thing I've heard in a while. Jesus, we owe it to those dead people to at least find some sense of truth in that day. To lay down and taken what you're being spoon fed is almost as criminal as what they're trying to spoon feed you.

Stand up for yourselfs America. Stop this maddness from continuing.

Admiral_N8 said:
You realize that youre never going to convince enough people to move your cause forward right?

No, I don't realize that and I'm not giving up.
 
Some of you may be interested in this article:

Source: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2006/040506admitsdefeat.htm

Universal Admits Defeat, Removes Flight 93 Forum
Crescendo of dissent on official fairy tail leads to wiping of website
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | May 4 2006

Universal Studios has admitted defeat in its efforts to re-package the official 9/11 fraud and has completely deleted its own forum after the website was hijacked by individuals posting truthful information about what really happened to Flight 93.

We previously reported that Universal's forum moderators were deleting entire threads in real time deeming them, "inappropriate."

The website had been turned into a battle ground for countering the Flight 93 government apologist propaganda being regurgitated in an impetuous lunge to give credibility to a tale about as reality-based as Humpty Dumpty.

Now a visit to the website only returns the text, "There are no message boards currently available."

The fact that Universal took the decision to remove the entire forum suggests they were concerned that people voicing alternative explanations behind 9/11 and attacking the government version of events was harmful to the reputation of the film, proving again that Flight 93 was produced, in addition to making hundreds of millions of dollars, to negatively reinforce the official 9/11 orthodoxy.

Polls on the website returned results of 80% believing a government cover-up behind 9/11.

The Stop The Lie website highlights one exchange with a debunker that illustrates how the forum portrayed those opposing anything other than the official story as ignorant and ill-informed.

"Those challenging the official account were mostly polite and articulate. -They laid out well-reasoned arguments and produced references to back their assertions. The defenders of the "Official account" on the other hand were habitually rude and inarticulate. They laid out poorly reasoned arguments and relied on pejoratives to back their assertions."

"For instance, a post about the importance of the Northwoods Document was made. One of the boards "Official theory" defender's considered this a sufficient response:

"It never happened; people got fired, next-"

I replied:

"The relevance of the Northwoods Document is: It irrefutably establishes our government WOULD openly conspire to not only provoke and allow an attack (to further an already established military agenda) ...they'd actually manufacture the entire event."

"Perhaps equally important: If the plan hadn't been made public, the same type of people who blindly accept whatever the government says would be calling the Northwoods Document an "urban legend" spun by kooks, loons, and moonbats."

" -Worse, if it had been enacted, the government groupies would have bought the official account hook, line, and sinker."

The removal of the Flight 93 forum can be marked down as a victory for the 9/11 truth movement. Just as the San Francisco Chronicle had to issue a major retraction to a badly researched 9/11 hit piece, so overwhelmed were Universal with the crescendo of dissent, the majority of it sent by way of big alternative websites encouraging people to participate, that they were forced to retreat and pull the website.

Flight 93 is a badly researched hit piece on the reality of what happened on the day and an insult to those who lost their lives and their families.
 
ShadowBoxing said:
Hahahahaha...you took the words right out of my mouth.

Yeah, I would be interested in articles like this if they showed a least a bit of objectivity....look at the first part of the article " in its efforts to re-package the official 9/11 fraud" or "The website had been turned into a battle ground for countering the Flight 93 government apologist propaganda being regurgitated in an impetuous lunge to give credibility to a tale about as reality-based as Humpty Dumpty".




Oh and Flamehead, for the future, if you are going to try to convince people that the 9/11 story was a fraud [as you seem to believe], try using objective sources?
 
I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything with that article. Just merely adding to the conversation.

In addition, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. The proof that's out there does that on it's own. I'm just spreading the information. Believe what you want. Me, I'm going to do something about making this world a better place.
 
FlameHead said:
I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything with that article. Just merely adding to the conversation.

In addition, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. The proof that's out there does that on it's own. I'm just spreading the information. Believe what you want. Me, I'm going to do something about making this world a better place.
I would start by getting off your computer.
 
FlameHead said:
Me, I'm going to do something about making this world a better place.

By spreading conspiracy theories??
 
No, by spreading information so that people can decide for themselves what's the true conspiracy.

ShadowBoxing said:
I would start by getting off your computer.

Gee, never thought of that.

Actually, my online campaign is merely the start of what I plan on doing. Unlike most people, I can't sit around and let our world go further to ****.
 
Where's The Pod?
CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"