Review: United 93 by Victor Thorn

From http://www.wingtv.net/thorn2006/united93review.html

Review: United 93 by Victor Thorn


Leni Riefenstahl, the Third Reich’s famous movie-maker, would have smiled approvingly at Tinseltown’s latest example of heavy-handed brainwashing – United 93. But this state-sponsored propaganda didn’t originate in Nazi Germany, but instead Jewish-dominated Hollywood, which has frequently been used throughout its history to conceal the government’s crimes. In fact, a good determinant of how frightened D.C. has become in regard to being exposed can be gauged by how strenuously it uses the studios to hoodwink the public. If this is the case, then the actual conspirators behind 9-11 must be running scared because United 93 is classic propaganda that would make Edward Bernays proud. The film opens with a shot of four Muslim men praying in Arabic, immediately letting the filmgoer know who 'the enemy' is. Yet all available evidence, including a lack of Arab names on the passenger lists and an absence of photographs showing any of the 19 'hijackers' in the airport terminals that morning, doesn’t qualify or reinforce this premise.But such oversights become standard fare in United 93, for not once is the significance of a nearly empty airliner explained (Flight 93 had a seating capacity of 289, yet only 37 paying customers were aboard – an 87% vacancy rate – see 9-11 Exposed ), nor is its 41 minute takeoff delay (see Phantom Flight 93 for more information on how vital this was to foiling the “master-plan”).

Likewise, the smokescreen continues with the military’s blatant stand-down being portrayed over-and-over again as incompetence, confusion, or a lack of communication. Not only weren’t any times shown onscreen to convey how long our fighter jets were grounded, but the movie makes it seem as if key personnel didn’t even know which airliner struck WTC 1 (or when). Of course, for a 91-minute stand-down to occur there had to be direct sabotage from the highest corridors of power.But what we see instead is:

- no scramble authority for Otis fighter pilots
- huge amounts of blame placed on the FAA
- no clearance or authority for shoot-down orders
- long-standing protocols, rules of engagement, and chains-of-command inexplicably disregarded
- unarmed planes, a lack of available aircraft, and jet fighters sent in the completely wrong direction (all this from a multi-billion dollar military within the world’s most heavily-guarded airspace).

The cover-up doesn’t end there; for once we step inside Flight 93 the myth-making becomes legendary. Most obvious is how readily nearly all the infamous ‘cell-phone calls’ have been flushed down Orwell’s Memory Hole, replaced by more plausible “Airphones”. But initially, and for years afterward, the public was inundated with stories of heart-touching cell-phone calls made at 35,000 feet (a physical impossibility in 2001).In addition, the cinematographers conveniently overlooked Mark Bingham’s absurdly laughable line (“Mom, this is Mark Bingham”), or why the most famous phone call in three decades (Todd Beamer’s 15-minute conversation with GTE operator Lisa Jefferson) has never been released to the public to verify its authenticity. Then again, why would this film concern itself with such matters when it was too busy creating passenger dialogue out of thin air?There are many other glaring inconsistencies in this flick (see United 93: Propaganda & Lies ), but in the end what we’re shown is a piece of fiction which reinforces a legend that was created to coincide with the government’s “official” version of events (i.e. their conspiracy theory). As Lisa Guliani so aptly commented as we left the theater, this movie was a lie used to commemorate another lie.