"The United States cannot simply declare "strategic pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts.
Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests.
A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions."
PDF. Rebuilding Americas Defences by Thomas Donnally
Military movies in the 1930s inaccurately portrayed the services as prepared for World War II, Suid said. The 1950s war movies depicted unbeatable military might that preceded the U.S.'s loss in the Vietnam War. Then, the 1970s brought a barrage of anti-war movies that helped set back recruiting for years, he said.
"Films do create false beliefs, and when that's revealed, it adds to the trauma," Suid said. - The Military and the Silver Screen - Pentagon, Hollywood Maintain a Symbiotic Relationship
Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett and five other actors spent March 28-31 at Schofield Barracks' "lightning boot camp," in search of inspiration for the military characters they will portray in the upcoming film "Pearl Harbor." Now filming on Oahu with 1,000 local extras, "Pearl Harbor" is scheduled for release on Memorial Day 2001. - military.com
"The MILITARY in the MOVIES"
"Pearl Harbor" is just the latest in a long line of military films designed to rally Americans to such noble tenets as nationalism, patriotism, righteousness and military might. Yet in light of Bush's current plans to escalate military spending and missile armament programs, the film's glorification of warfare, violence, racism and sexism is more ominous than usual. |
Films based on "history" are especially dangerous. In "Pearl Harbor," a specific historical account is assumed to be "the truth" and confronts moviegoers as such. This is Napoleonic history, the "lie agreed upon" by the powers that be.
Every true story has a multitude of dimensions; life is virtually never polar enough to be reduced to simply "us vs. them" scenarios. Yet this is precisely what movies like "Pearl Harbor" attempt to do.
Pearl Harbor advocates the Pentagon's interests beautifully. As the Pacific fleet is being bombed, McCawley angrily observes that America's B17s are no match for Japan's faster Zero fighter planes. Later in the film, Colonel James Doolittle (Alec Baldwin) must struggle to lighten clunky American bombers in order to execute a revenge attack on Tokyo.
The hidden message? The United States needs to spend more on its military to prevent inadequate technologies from hindering defense and endangering American civilians.
The reality? U.S. military spending is projected to be $325 billion for fiscal year 2002, up $14.5 billion from FY 2001 and more than any other country in the world. Meanwhile, the Department of Education will receive a paltry raise of only $4.6 billion, according to the Council for a Livable World.
Think America needs this budget to counter potential military threats? Think again. China, one of the Pentagon's favorite bogeymen, has an annual military budget of "only" $17 billion - Mitra Ebadolahi
THE MYTH OF PEARL HARBOR
Memorial Day propaganda blitz
With the release of Pearl Harbor, a cinematic reenactment of the popular myth handed down to us by Roosevelt's hagiographers, the Memorial Day weekend will culminate in an orgy of lying war propaganda. The movie, starring somebody named Ben Affleck (so I'm not into popular culture, what can I tell you?), steadfastly ignores recently unearthed evidence that FDR and his cronies knew when and where the Japanese would strike and reiterates the bald-faced lie of the alleged "sneak attack" by the Japanese. You can hear the wheels and cogs of the propaganda machine begin to turn and whir, because it isn't just Pearl Harbor - get ready for a weeks-long marathon of World War II memorabilia. As Eric Deggans put it in the St. Petersburg Times last week, "A virtual flood of TV and film projects focused on incidents from the World War II era is set for release in weeks to come." In the movie theaters it's Pearl Harbor, the $135 million blockbuster opening May 25. This past weekend featured no less than three special television movies focused on the events surrounding World War II (Conspiracy, a tale of genocidal Nazis run amok, Submerged, a story of a wartime submarine rescue, and a new rendition of the Diary of Anne Frank). At the video store it's Tora! Tora! Tora!, coming out in DVD and special VHS editions, and the list goes on. Gee, do you think they're trying to tell us something?
VAUNTING AND FEAR
The intended moral of it all was summed up in Newsweek by James Wire, an 82 year-old Pearl Harbor survivor, who thinks the Pearl Harbor movie is "'great' because it's a warning: 'Americans have become complacent. They think it can't happen now. But it can." A state of advanced paranoia is the natural condition of every Empire: it is the price we pay for our imperial preeminence, "a curious and characteristic emotional weakness of Empire," as Garet Garrett put it, which amounts to "a complex of vaunting and fear."
In short, we must live in a state of perpetual terror, or else the War Party (Hollywood division) isn't doing its job. "Terrorism" lurks in every airport, a ghostly specter haunting the conscience of the nation. At any moment, foreign Furies could unleash their terrible vengeance: a cyber-attack, a "rogue nation" missile attack, yet another Pearl Harbor-style "sneak" attack that we had every reason to anticipate but somehow didn't. Fear must be our permanent state, it must infuse the very air we breathe, and to that end Hollywood is more than complicit. - Justin Raimondo [written in May 2001 - wow!]
"In the hours following the attack
on the World Trade Center, every television media outlet in
the United States broadcast, again and again, the images of
the airplanes smashing into the Twin Towers, from all
conceivable angles, and then, the shots of the two towers
collapsing. It was easily the most terrifying real-life image
that most Americans had ever seen.
A population induced into a state of terror and shock was
then bombarded with SUGGESTION: images started to appear, the
mugshot-like photos of the alleged perpetrators, and the image
of the "evil mastermind" behind the deed, Osama bin Laden
And, you still believe that you weren't brainwashed? The
Movies in Our Heads "God, this is just like a movie,"
exclaimed CBS anchor Dan Rather as the first of the World
Trade Center towers collapsed. "Only, it's the real thing."
Did you have the sense, as you were witnessing the horror of
the WTC attack, that you, too, had seen this before? You
probably had--and that is part of the brainwashing operation.
In the last five years, there have been at least a
half-dozen movies, whose plots have centered on a terrorist
attack on the United States. Hollywood statisticians have
estimated that these have been viewed, both in movie theaters
and home videos, by more than 100 million people. And, many of
these movies, in the recent period, have portrayed "Arabs" or
"Islamic fundamentalists" as being behind the terrorist
MK Hollwood |
Twin Towers - standing side by side, look like the number 11
My Russian correspondent writes: "There is a theory that the Russian secret service planted the bombs in Moscow to provide justification for starting a war in Chechnya. Similarly, the CIA may have orchestrated the recent terrorist outrages in the USA as a way of garnering support for a war they wish to wage."
This idea is something that anyone familiar with the feral nature of conspiracy theory could have predicted. However, rumours of this type are an irrelevance, since most of those caught in the fall-out from the data storm that engulfed the Twin Towers fervently believe that the national territory of the United States government has been under attack.
What matters is not what happened, or even what vast numbers of people believe happened, but the combined effects of these two factors. Let me repeat myself here, the Twin Towers were not simply destroyed by terrorists. Granted, there were deaths on an industrial scale, and this was horrific enough, but the actual terror emerged from the disaster being endlessly played back and looped on television.
This was fed into the public psyche twenty-four hours a day, and nothing but terror could emerge from this implosion of meaning in the media. This technique is known as psychic driving, and the effects are particularly deadly among those who willingly expose themselves to "real" time footage of unfolding media events and endless replays of disasters. In the US, after the Twin Towers were engulfed by a data storm, there were rumours that harbours had been closed and fuel was running out. As a result of these panics, petrol stations in some parts of America hiked their prices as Hurricane Fear drove queues of gullible motorists helplessly into the clutches of profiteers. As has happened elsewhere and before, rumours of a fuel shortage created a fuel shortage. - Stewart Home
The Lone Gunmen Episode 1: Pilot |
"World Trade Center -- they're going to Crash the Plane into the World Trade Center"
In March of 2001 Fox TV aired Episode One of a new show spun-off from The X-Files. In the first episode of this new show, The Lone Gunmen, an inside faction of the government posing as terrorists hijacks a 727 by remote control. They do this because the cold war is over they need an excuse for war to increase arm sales. They target the World Trade Center, but their plot is foiled at the last minute.
The Coup Depicted The World Trade Center
Written On: Thu, Sep 13, 2001 01:15 PM LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -
Striking a macabre note, a new album cover by hip-hop band The Coup -- whose music has a strong anti-capitalist bent -- had until recently depicted the World Trade Center exploding, the band's label said on Wednesday.
"We changed the artwork as soon as we saw what had happened," said Daria Kelly, director of sales for 75 Ark, the band's label.
Kelly said the picture, which eerily shows group member "Boots" Riley holding a detonator in front of the exploding towers, was yanked from the San Francisco-based company's Web site at (http://www.75ark.com) by 9:30 a.m. PDT on Tuesday, hours after two hijacked airliners actually smashed into the World Trade Center's twin towers and brought them down, possibly causing thousands of deaths.
Kelly said the artwork was done about two months ago for the band's upcoming album, "Party Music," which features a single called "5 Million Ways to Kill a CEO" and is due to hit stores on November 6.
"We were going to print them this week. Thank goodness we hadn't yet printed them," she said, adding that the new album cover would probably just bear the band's logo.
Meanwhile, the rock band Dream Theater and its record company, EastWest, are contemplating whether to withdraw that group's new album, "Live Scenes From NY," because of similar cover art.
That album, released Tuesday, depicts the World Trade Center towers and the Statue of Liberty engulfed in flames and perched atop an apple draped in barbed wire.
"It's an unfortunate coincidence, an eerie coincidence," said Gihan Salem, a spokeswoman for EastWest, an imprint of Elektra Entertainment under AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group. She said a decision on whether to recall the album would be made in a day or two.
While the 75 Ark label quickly moved to delete the World Trade Center image -- showing explosions in the towers at about the same level as the actual blasts -- the picture has begun to circulate on the Internet and generate a lot of reaction.
It was featured Wednesday on lifestyle-culture Web site at (http://www.ammocity.com) accompanied by the following message: "The album cover for hip-hop group 'The Coup' manages to even outweird the quotes from Nostradamus doing the email rounds today."
Kelly said she had not received any e-mails about the cover, noting it hadn't been circulated by the label very much.
"We just started press about a month ago," she said describing the Oakland, Calif.-band's music as focusing on the "destruction of corporate America."
The band, considered among the more overtly political rap bands, was formed in the early 1990s. Lead rapper/producer Boots Riley, whose real name is Raymond Riley, was involved in political activism before becoming a musician, according to music industry sources.
Released in 1993, the Coup's debut album "Kill My Landlord" was a highly charged blend of leftist resistance and 70s funk, which received wide critical praise
Bush - linguistic hypnotist |
Of all the labels hung on George W. Bush, the hardest to shake may be the comparison with Hitler.
Perhaps the clearest likeness between the two men lies in their use of emotionally induced hypnosis to plant in the mass consciousness an image of themselves as protectors of their subjects from threats to national survival both inside and outside the fatherland.
In a June, 2003 article written for The Nation about Bushs "mastery of emotional language, especially negatively charged emotional language," clinical psychologist Reanna Brooks observed that "Bush creates and maintains negative frameworks in his listeners minds with a number of linguistic techniques borrowed from hypnosis and advertising to instill the image of a dark and evil world around us."
His subliminal messages to justify religious war against "evildoers" are right out of Madison Avenue. Writing in The New Yorker of July 12 & 19, David Greenberg tells how Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, "himself an evangelical, laces the Presidents addresses with seemingly innocuous terms that the devout recognize as laden with meaning: whirlwind, work of mercy, safely home, wonderworking power."
Aspiring political hypnotists would do well to study Hitler as an introduction to Bush.
"Without in any way straining language we can truthfully say that he (Hitler) was one of the great hypnotists of all time," says George H. Estabrooks in Hypnotism, the ne plus ultra of Hitler hypnosis books. Dr. Estabrooks was chairman of Colgate Universitys psychology department, and taught at the school from 1927 to 1964. Bush-Hitler: Hypnotizing The Masses
Only days after the terror attacks, the Pentagon-funded Institute for Creative Technologies at the University of Southern California convened several meetings with filmmakers-including screenwriter Steven E. De Souza (Die Hard, Die Hard 2), director Joseph Zito (Delta Force One, Missing in Action), and wackier creative types like David Fincher, Spike Jonze, and Mary Lambert. The proceedings were chaired by Brigadier General Kenneth Bergquist; the idea was for the talent to "brainstorm" possible terrorist scenarios and then offer solutions. (Why not? We live in a country where Steven Spielberg is called upon by Congress to offer insight into hate crimes and Tom Clancy was interviewed by CNN as an expert on terrorism.) |
For the first time since Ronald Reagan left office, it has become all but impossible to criticize the movie industry. After George Bush's late September suggestion that Americans fight terrorism by taking their families to Disney World, Disney chief Michael Eisner reportedly sent out an e-mail praising the president as "our newest cheerleader." - Village Voice
Eisner, Farenheit 911 and the fake controvosy...
In May 2004, Michael Moore announced that Disney (which owns Miramax, the film's distributor) had officially prohibited Miramax from releasing the film and expressed his frustration that the film was being stifled. Disney said that the decision had been made a year earlier in May 2003 when it told Miramax that it would not be willing to distribute the film. Disney chief executive, Michael Eisner, said that Moore was announcing it at that time to create publicity for the film's screening at the Cannes Film Festival. Moore claimed that Eisner had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels, and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush, President George W. Bush's brother, is governor.
Michael Moore retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers of The New Yorker to vet the film. He has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.
Moore said his film is targeted at "the 50 per cent of the American people who don't vote. Are they the elite? Are they the rich? Are they the well-educated? They are the poor, the working class, the single moms, the young people and the African-Americans."
Due to an agreement between Walt Disney Co. and Miramax Films, roughly 60% of the net profit generated by the film will be donated to charity.[WHICH CHARITY???]
Farenheit begins with the theft of the Presidential election in 2000. Then Moore runs credits. Then he establishes the greed of the Bush clan with video snippets of them that establishes their station.
Then he switches to his propaganda campaign about 9/11. He asserts repeatedly that there were hijackers, 15 of whom are Saudi. Moore's boldness is faux. Yes, he's hinting that the Bush Regime was in contact with elites in Saudi Arabia that sponsored the Saudi hijackers. However, by confirming the existence of and continuously legitimizing Al Qaeda generally he cedes the means of control the Bush Regime has over the anti-war movement. This central flaw in Farenheit comes at this crucial juncture in history. Meanwhile, the mass hysteria over Farenheit among the anti-war movement is drowning out legitimate criticism of it. - Scott Loughrey
Remember, Mikey Moore spent years, as a proponant of guerilla journalism - harrassing Corporations supposedly for 'the common humanity' in his programme 'Video Nation'...so who are his paymasters associated with?|
FAIR: Eisner's Fantasyland Excuse for Censorship [see fake Hype!]
Disney, through its various subsidiaries, is one of the largest distributors of
political, often highly partisan media content in the country-- virtually
all of it right-wing. Consider:
* Almost all of Disney's major talk radio stations-- WABC in New York,
WMAL in D.C., WLS in Chicago, WBAP in Dallas/Ft. Worth and KSFO in San
Francisco-- broadcast Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Indeed, WABC is
considered the home station for both of these shows, which promote an
unremitting Republican political agenda. (Disney's KABC in L.A. carries
Hannity, but has Bill O'Reilly instead of Limbaugh.) Disney's news/talk
stations are dominated by a variety of other partisan Republican hosts,
both local and national, including Laura Ingraham, Larry Elder and Matt
* Disney's Family Channel carries Pat Robertson's 700 Club, which
routinely equates Christianity with Republican causes. After the September
11 attacks, Robertson's guest Jerry Falwell (9/13/01) blamed the attacks
on those who "make God mad": "the pagans and the abortionists and the
feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make
that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all
of them who try to secularize America." Robertson's response was, "I
totally concur." It's hard to imagine that anything in Moore's film will
be more controversial than that.
* Disney's ABC News prominently features John Stossel, who, though not
explicitly partisan, advocates for a conservative philosophy in almost all
his work: "It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market," he
has explained (Oregonian, 10/26/94). No journalist is allowed to advocate
for a balancing point of view on ABC's news programs. - FAIR
Movie people like Oliver Stone and movies like "Fahrenheit 9/11" have created the general impression that Hollywood is controlled by "liberals", Americanese for leftists, possibly dangerous. However, there is another side to Hollywood. Every morning at 6 a.m. I watch the History Channel classroom, which I esteem highly. However, it deals almost exclusively with US history; I have not even seen a program on Canada, Moreover, the dominant theme is war, not peace, and the actors are the US military, and that is one reason why I hope to persuade the History Channel to prepare programs on the peaceful history of America's great universities.
It is obvious that there is a connection between the Pentagon and Hollywood, but it has been hard to document. Now David Robb has filled the gap with his heavily documented Operation Hollywood (Prometheus, 2004). Many organizations, including the CIA, have offices in Hollywood which try to influence the content of films, but the biggest one and the one with by far the most clout is the Pentagon's, which exercises control over films in which the military are involved by providing soldiers and equipment or by refusing them. Robb is very critical of Hollywood for selling out to the military. The Pentagon has two aims. The first is to present the military in a good light: no foul language, no drugs or other unseemly behavior. It is for this reason that the revelations about Abu Graib prison were such a shock. The censorship is a two-step process: first the Pentagon's Hollywood office gives instructions and, as the filming progresses, cuts out anything it does not like. Robb views this as a violation of free speech, and quotes law professors on the point. Then there is a showing in the Pentagon, where final approval is given. - source
This is ALL scripted
In the 1995 James Bond movie Goldeneye, for example, the original script had a US Navy admiral betraying state secrets. This was changed to make the traitor a member of the French navy. After that the military's co-operation was forthcoming. Pacull and Robb takes us from the pedantry to the powerful in examining the changes to scripts. They list the producers and the movies that have fallen into line and show how the military's script editors work. Interestingly, it's not the censors who come under fire here quite so much as those co-operative, self-censoring filmmakers.
Still, as Robb says, in what has become ostensibly his campaign against this system, the long-term effect on generations of young Americans is an unknown. "How many of those killed in Iraq died because they joined up after they saw what was presented in a film?" How many have died as the result of unknown recruiting propaganda?
All a producer needs do for assistance, it seems, is submit five copies of his script to the Pentagon for approval, make whatever script changes the Pentagon suggests, film the script exactly as approved by the Pentagon and preview the finished product for Pentagon officials before it's shown to its broader audience. And, according to Robb, as he puts the boot firmly into Jerry Bruckheimer, Tom Goldberg (Stripes), John Woo and other producers and directors, many do this gladly. It is, he insists, Hollywood's dirtiest little secret.
Not that the big screen is alone. Among the early changes we hear about is a scene from an episode of the children's television series Lassie in which a light aircraft crashing in the woods concerned the Pentagon. A change to the script was called for. The military didn't want children, the subject of its future recruitment drives, to get the idea that the US Army produced faulty equipment.
Not surprisingly, Washington will back what it sees as the positive message every time. There is enthusiasm for such gung-ho films as The Longest Day, Top Gun or, believe it or not, Pearl Harbor. There is no point talking to them about Apocalypse Now, Platoon or Dr Strangelove. As for films about the wounded and traumatised victims of war, concentration camp horror, or civilian casualties ... well, that has nothing to do with them, does it? Use your imagination, however, and make a heroic star of yet another four-star general and you will be marching step-in-step with America's medal-winning movie buffs. And be rewarded for it.
Pentagon to broadcast to millions of U.S. homes|
9th February, 2005 - The U.S. military is to beam its own news coverage to millions of Americans.
Moving on from its phase of embedding journalists, or as some would say, 'a policy of restricting and controlling the flow of information,' the Pentagon will now produce and disseminate the news itself. It will be beamed to the public at no charge. The service will emanate from what is known as the Pentagon Channel, an internal public relations television unit within the Department of Defense. It was set up nine months ago.
The government-run TV service will be channeled to the public through EchoStar Communication's Dish Network which will offer the Pentagon Channel to its more than 11 million viewers on a no-cost basis. Programming will appear on the network's public interest channels and will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Dish viewers will be kept up to date with current military news and information including Department of Defense news briefings, military news, interviews with top defense officials, and short stories about the work of military people.
'We appreciate Dish Network's decision to carry the new Pentagon Channel on their satellite TV system,' said Defense Department spokesman Larry Di Rita. 'Their support helps us fulfill our mission of providing timely military news and information.'
To keep the Pentagon happy, some Hollywood producers have been known to turn villains into heroes, remove central characters, change politically sensitive settings, or add military rescues to movies that require none. There are no bad guys in the military. No fraternization between officers and enlisted troops. No drinking or drugs. No struggles against bigotry. The military and the president can't look bad (though the State Department and Canada can).
"The only thing Hollywood likes more than a good movie is a good deal," David Robb explains, and that's why the producers of films like "Top Gun," "Stripes" and "The Great Santini" have altered their scripts to accommodate Pentagon requests. In exchange, they get inexpensive access to the military locations, vehicles, troops and gear they need to make their movies. mother jones
With the reality of entrenched opposition in Iraq resulting in increasing U.S. fatalities there, the opposition at home to the occupation is hardening by the day. The military appears to have come up with a solution: Change reality.
In what has been described as a "Pentagon infomercial," the Defense Department has hired a former producer of the TV show "Cops" to film postwar Iraq from its perspective. Though producer Bertram van Munster has denied that he is shooting a propaganda piece, it is clear that the Pentagon is gearing up to frame its own account - and history - of the Iraq war.
The Pentagon has a long history of propaganda efforts. Indeed, the Pentagon is hard at work participating in a number of movies that will deliver its message on the legitimacy of the war and its own conduct in Iraq. - Hollywood Isn't Holding Its Lines Against the Pentagon
911 - the made for cable movie
In the end 9-11 turned out to be a made-for-TV movie, or rather, the basis for one-a shameless propaganda vehicle for our superstar president George W. Bush.
The upcoming Showtime feature DC 9/11: Time of Crisis is a signal advance in the instant, ongoing fictionalization of American history, complete with the president fulminating most presidentially against "tinhorn terrorists," decisively employing the word problematic in a complete sentence, selling a rationale for preemptive war, and presciently laying out American foreign policy for the next 18 months. "We start with bin Laden," Bush (played by Timothy Bottoms) tells his cabinet. "That's what the American people expect. . . . So let's build a coalition for that job. Later, we can shape different coalitions for different tasks."
Scheduled for cablecast on September 7, DC 9/11 inaugurates Bush's re-election campaign 50 weeks before the 9-11 Memorial Republican National Convention opens in Madison Square Garden. DC 9/11 also marks a new stage in the American cult of personality: the actual president as fictional protagonist.
According to the Federal Procurement Data System (fpds.gov) database, the US DOD's US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has awarded just over 29,000 contracts since at least October of 2003. A review of 2,000 of those contracts shows that awards go to the usual suspects like SAIC, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Some go to unusual suspects like Colombia Tri-Star pictures and Time Warner for movie and video distribution services.
The war on Terror is, in reality is the next phase in |
full spectrum global dominance [globalisation]
The War on Terror is the reason used again and again for the war in Afghanistan, Iraq and geo-political military posturing as a bid for primary control of global resources and strategic command in the Middle East Upwards through the Caspian region & Eastwards through South East Asia:
Iraq, Syria, Iran, Ukraine, Georgia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Afghanistan, North Korea
These countries have undergone a color coded 'revolution' or are on the axis of evil.
The REALLY BIG QUESTION...
Would a government really plan
to commit faked terrorist actions against it's own people
with such attention to media based programming?
I believe so...
Why would such a plan be carried out like this? who could possibly gain?|
The Global coup is part of a plan to control the population through addiction to a lifestyle.
An imposed 'normalty' that is reliant on an oil based mega-Industry and a financial system of money / debt which are a hoax...
Those at the top of the pyramid are only in power because of the money extorted by the false system of needless taxes
on food, drugs, water & energy, through laws written only to serve & protect corporations.
Cartel: a group of producers whose goal it is to fix prices, to limit supply and to limit competition. Cartels are prohibited by antitrust laws in most countries, however they continue to exist nationally and internationally.
As its name implies, OPEC is organised by sovereign states. It escapes antitrust enforcement in other jurisdictions by virtue of the doctrine of state immunity under public international law.
The next time you hear a politician saying that the decision that they have made is to serve the best interests of his country...this means they serve the method used to control the country and the population therein.
Big corporations control oil, chemicals / pharmaceuticals, Weapons, GM food, & 'treated' Water... and have only a few aims, to stay in business by lowering labour costs and heightening price of product, and to eradicate all competition. A further aim is to make YOU PAY for your own slavery. To make you WANT to proudly serve as a prisoner in a police state.
The only purpose of a country as it stands right now is to socially engineer popular compliance using constant gradualism via a memetic smokescreen of tradition and culture. The aim of this gradual change is to gently push us into a Global system that is Cartel approved.
The events of Sept 11th are the event which defines a shift in method to FEAR based population control.
This is the 'War on Terror'.
It is World War IV
It is Happening NOW!
Become aware of the programming currently being utilized.
A process is underway, which will prepare you
to react in a certain way to another planned event.
A process of covert use of computer graphics is now evident in most Advertising.
Uber realistic CGI Scenes are being placed surrepticiously
within scenes shot with 'real film'.
It's purpose is to confuse you and to prepare you to believe the images that the corporate news media will present to you.
Presented for you to react in the appropriate way to another planned event of global importance.
could the pictures released during and after the 9-11 attack have been manipulated?
is this the only thing that has been played with? how about your memory...pliable after the trauma of endless hours of rolling images & Neuro-linguistically programmed News-feeds of terror
What sets the Witt demo apart - way apart - is that the technology used to "virtually delete" [...] can now be applied in real time, live, even as a camera records a scene and instantly broadcasts it to viewers. In the fraction of a second between video frames, any person or object moving in the foreground can be edited out, and objects that aren't there can be edited in and made to look real. "Pixel plasticity," Livingston calls it. The implication for those at the satellite imagery conference was sobering: Pictures from orbit may not necessarily be what the satellite's electronic camera actually recorded.
But the ramifications of this new technology reach beyond satellite imagery. As live electronic manipulation becomes practical, the credibility of all video will become just as suspect as Soviet Cold War photos. The problem stems from the nature of modern video. Live or not, it is made of pixels, and as Livingston says, pixels can be changed.
FULL ARTICLE: Lying with Pixels by Ivan Amato
LIVE REAL TIME VIDEO MANIPULATION???
Summary of Research Interests: I study human memory. My experiments reveal how memories can be changed by things that we are told. Facts, ideas, suggestions and other forms of post-event information can modify our memories. The legal field, so reliant on memories, has been a significant application of the memory research. My interest in psychology and law, more generally, has grown from this application.
Planting false memories:
Elizabeth Loftus, [is] a UCI psychologist who has been obsessed with the subject of memory and its unreliability since Richard Nixon was sworn in as president. Early on in her research, she would invite people into her lab, show them simulated traffic accidents, feed them false information and leading questions, and find that they subsequently recalled details of the scene differently - a finding that has since been replicated hundreds of times.
More recently, she has come to believe that lab studies may underestimate people's suggestibility because, among other things, real life tends to be more emotionally arousing than simulations of it. So these days she takes her investigations outside the lab. In a study soon to be published, she and colleagues describe how a little misinformation led witnesses of a terrorist attack in Moscow in 1999 to recall seeing wounded animals nearby. Later, they were informed that there had been no animals. But before the debriefing, they even embellished the false memory with make-believe details, in one case testifying to seeing a bleeding cat lying in the dust.
"We can easily distort memories for the details of an event that you did experience," says Loftus. "And we can also go so far as to plant entirely false memories - we call them rich false memories because they are so detailed and so big."
'We can implant entirely false memories' [The Guardian - Thursday December 4, 2003]
Mar. 28 2006
'Flight 93' recreates 9/11 hijacking
Mar. 28 - 'Flight 93' is first big screen adaptation of events of 9-11.
"United 93" tells the story of the passengers and crew, their families on the ground and the flight controllers who watched in horror as United Airlines flight 93 became the fourth hijacked plane on US soil on September 11, 2001.
"United 93" recreates the doomed trip in actual time, from take off to hijacking to the realization by those onboard that their plane was part of a coordinated attack. Over the course of just 90 minutes the viewer watches as the passengers are transformed from a random assembly of disconnected strangers into a bonded allies who confront an unthinkable situation.
The film was directed by Paul Greengrass, whose previous films include "Bloody Sunday," and "The Bourne Supremacy." The film will be released in North America on April 28. - reuters.com
Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006
Let's Roll ..
TIME gets the first look at United 93, the controversial film that is unbearable--and unmissable
By RICHARD CORLISS - Time.com [Sunday, Apr. 09, 2006]
On United Airlines Flight 93--out of Newark, scheduled for San Francisco, bound for history--34 passengers caught up on paperwork or dreamed their last dream. Four others were there on a mission. Forty-six minutes into the flight, one of them shouted in Arabic and brandished a bandolier of explosives. Another got into the cockpit, stabbing the pilot and co-pilot. A third seized the controls. Some of the captives, getting on phone lines, learned that two other planes had torpedoed into the World Trade Center. Realizing their doom, the passengers also found a mission. They stormed the hijackers, rammed their way into the cockpit and, to keep the plane from being one more missile aimed at a U.S. landmark, tried to wrest command of it.
That's how many times Paul Greengrass, writer-director of United 93, put his cast through the hijacking and ensuing heroics. On a set in suburban London's Pinewood Studios, where many James Bond fantasies have been filmed, Greengrass staged this real-life, high-stakes death battle over and over--the whole ordeal, nonstop, in takes lasting from 20 to 55 min., as the reconstructed Boeing 757 would wobble and shudder, and the camera crew followed the action like nosy paparazzi. Says Cheyenne Jackson, who plays Mark Bingham, one of the stalwart passengers: "We spent so many hours throwing our trays around and bleeding and screaming and crying and praying, and throwing up and peeing ourselves, and trying to imagine every possibility of what these people were going through. It was an environment where we could go to these deep, dark places. But the saddest thing about it was that finally we could wash off our makeup and come out of those places."
He means that the passengers on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, of course, could not come out; they crashed and died, along with the hijackers, in a field near Shanksville, Pa. But there are many Americans for whom the dark place of a movie auditorium is a last refuge from reality. The trailer for United 93 has upset viewers with its gritty evocation of that day, especially a shot of the plane hitting the second tower of the World Trade Center. Audiences who wouldn't flinch at slasher movies and serial-killer thrillers have shouted back at the previews. A multiplex in Manhattan yanked the trailer after complaints from patrons. Some were angry, some in tears. They felt violated to see, in the guise of entertainment, a pinprick reminder of a tragedy for which Americans still grieve and which they may wish to keep buried, along with the people and the image of national invulnerability lost that day.
Yet the events of 9/11, like a nightmare that haunts the waking, have permeated the media. Not just the all-news channels but also books, plays, songs. Michael Moore's political take, Fahrenheit 9/11, scared up $119 million at the domestic box office, and ABC is preparing a mini-series based on The 9/11 Commission Report, with Stephen Root as terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke and Harvey Keitel as John O'Neill, the FBI's al-Qaeda sleuth who died in the World Trade Center carnage. Flight 93, a TV movie about the same events shown in United 93, reaped the A&E Network's all-time highest ratings and stoked no protests.
Perhaps those who saw the trailer didn't realize that this was the one flight, of the four hijacked that day, with an inspiring ending. This was the one on which the good guys, following passenger Todd Beamer's John Wayne--like invocation, "Let's roll," foiled the bad guys. The saga of this flight makes for, in 9/11 terms, a feel-good movie. Just as important, United 93, at which TIME was given an exclusive first look, is a good movie--taut and implacable--that honors the deeds of the passengers while being fair, if anyone cares, to the hijackers' jihad bravado. (At one point the passengers are heard murmuring the Lord's Prayer while the hijackers whisper their prayers to Allah.) If this is a horror movie, it is an edifying one, a history lesson with the pulse of a world-on-the-line suspense film.
Ready or not--and the pending release this week of the black-box tapes from the doomed flight suggests some kind of turning point--United 93 opens around the country April 28, three days after its world premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival, within view of the still gaping Twin Towers site. Greengrass's film is the first of a few big-studio projects dealing with 9/11. World Trade Center, the account of two Port Authority policemen trapped beneath the towers' charnel rubble, follows in August. James Vanderbilt's screenplay of Against All Enemies, Clarke's contentious memoir of his career tracking terrorists, which begins with frenetic scenes in the White House on 9/11, is floating around Hollywood. Paul Haggis, fresh from his Oscar upset with Crash, has expressed interest in directing it.
Against All Enemies will get its juice from the spectacle of stratospheric double-dealing; there's more backstabbing than in Hamlet. World Trade Center promises to be a hymn to the courage and perseverance of Sergeant John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Officer Will Jimeno (Michael Pena). Jimeno was trapped in an elevator shaft for 15 hours, McLoughlin interred in rubble a few feet below Jimeno for 23 hours.
The days the two men visited the set--Howard Hughes' old airplane hangar near Marina del Rey, Calif.--McLoughlin, who had 30 surgeries that left braces on his legs and an open wound on his left hip, stayed away from the 65-ft. mound of Styrofoam beams and cargo boxes meant to represent ground zero. "I hate getting upset," he says. As soot-covered extras in police and military uniforms milled around, Jimeno was reduced to tears by the sight of the too-lifelike rubble pile. "I survived for a reason," he says. "We, as a country, have a short attention span. We don't want people to forget those who died and those who saved us."
Although the film's director is Oliver Stone, this is no paranoid panorama on the order of JFK. It's a boy-down-a-well saga with, insists first-time screenwriter Andrea Berloff, "no politics. This is a small story. We're in the hole with these two guys for practically the whole movie." With the digging out comes the uplift. "I hope people will walk out of the theater and say to themselves, 'Life is short,'" Jimeno says, "and go home and hug their loved ones." Berloff has the same aim. "You don't want people leaving theaters slitting their wrists. I don't think the world is ready for the Towering Inferno version of 9/11. I don't know how you would make that movie."
These three films, in various stages of gestation, all look to be honest, fact-based depictions of a central American story. They also have recognizable movie antecedents. In the horror stories of history, Hollywood picks through the carnage to find heroes, and the makers of the 9/11 films have found a few. Clarke, in Against All Enemies, is the lonely sentinel begging a smug, slow-witted establishment to take al-Qaeda seriously. He's Frank Capra's Mr. Smith after 30 years in Washington, his stubborn zeal intact. Another species of hero is the lucky survivor; and as Schindler's List was not about the nearly 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis but about 1,100 who escaped, so World Trade Center focuses on two of the last victims evacuated alive after the big buildings collapsed. As for the United 93 passengers--in movie terms, and in the life of the world--they are the first heroes of the 21st century.
"At 28 minutes past 9," says Greengrass of Sept. 11, "none of us were wondering What are we going to do? We were watching telly, wondering What the f___ is going on? The people on United 93 weren't doing that. They were looking at four guys. They knew exactly what was going on." Knowing of the World Trade Center attack, they could surmise that their own flight might be the next weapon.
"Subsequent to 9/11," says Greengrass, an Englishman who directed the superb docudrama Bloody Sunday, set in Northern Ireland in 1972, and the gritty espionage film The Bourne Supremacy, "we all had to make decisions about the world we live in, about the courses of action that we take. This film is saying that, before we got to that, there was this event: this extraordinary work of fate, mired in confusion, with the passengers gaining knowledge of 9/11 as they went. What that did was create a debate on the plane: What are we going to do? Are we going to do nothing and hope for the best, or are we going to do something? What can we do? What will be the consequences of both courses of action? That is our post-9/11 debate." Which the doomed, defiant passengers had just a few minutes to comprehend and resolve--on the fly.
United 93 is a meticulous reconstruction of that morning. Greengrass worked closely with the victims' families, who had already heard the black-box recordings, and the actors, who were improvising. Few events, either on the plane or in the air-traffic control centers, are underlined for effect. As Bingham's mother Alice Hoagland notes, "What happened on board Flight 93 has so much drama and pace, it needs no embellishment."
At the start of the film, before 93's takeoff, our knowledge of what is to come bestows a creepy portent, a sad, sick, helpless feeling, to banal intimacies and mundane activities. A simple cell-phone "I love you" holds a lifetime of poignancy; the closing of the plane door is like the sealing of a tomb with live bodies inside.
In a film that, in its near finished state, runs about 105 min., it's 30 min. before Flight 93 is aloft, an additional 12 min. before the second plane hits the World Trade Center, a full hour before the hijackers seize control. For the viewer, the wait is rackingly tense, as real as a newsreel.
That is because, wherever possible, Greengrass cast people close to their roles. J.J. Johnson, who plays the captain of Flight 93, is a real United pilot. Trish Gates, who plays head flight attendant Sandy Bradshaw, was a real United flight attendant. Ben Sliney, who as national operations manager for the FAA kept track of the mounting atrocities, appears as himself. Lewis Alsamari, who plays one of the hijackers, spent a year in the Iraqi army.
The actors playing the terrorists were kept segregated from those playing the passengers; they stayed in different hotels and did not meet until the hijack sequence was shot. Those actors had to deal with the violence on a more personal level. "We all came out with stuff that we've never seen in ourselves before," says Jamie Harding, who describes his character, Ahmed Al Nami, by saying, "I do all the beating and hurting, although I don't actually kill anybody." Alsamari says he looked at a scene in the film in which he attacks the pilot and co-pilot, "and I had my hand on my mouth. I thought, I can't believe someone could do that. It was like looking at somebody else."
If the actors find United 93 hard to take, what will an audience's reaction be? Many people will certainly feel they're not ready to see the film. And that's fine. But it's honorable and artful as a re-creation of history, and as a film experience it's both unbearable and unmissable.
"Movies need to address the way the world is," Greengrass says. "We have to tell stories about 9/11." He also notes, "The victims' families want this film made. Every single one of them." (Universal, the studio producing the film, is donating 10% of the first weekend's box-office gross to the Flight 93 National Memorial Fund.)
Hamilton Peterson, whose father and stepmother died on the flight and who serves as chairman of Families of Flight 93, sees two reasons America needs this film. "One, we're proud of what these Americans did," he says. "These are ordinary citizens who in a matter of minutes overcame what very evil and capable people had planned for years. The passengers took action without police or official support. They knew right from wrong, and they acted on it. Out of the dark of 9/11 came these heroes. And two, it is an example that future world citizens can learn from. If you remember Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, he tried to engage a very dangerous bomb and was thwarted by the bravery of the passengers and crew. Flight 93 served as a beacon for them. I don't think you can reaffirm that message too often or too much."
"I hope we're not as a society inured to the messages of the movie," says Hoagland. Those messages, of the hijackers' terrible cunning and dedication, the passengers' valor and sacrifice, are both timeless and timely. "I know it's not too soon," she says. "I hope it's not too late."
With reporting by Rebecca Winters Keegan/ Los Angeles, Reported by Clayton Neuman/ New York
Wednesday, Apr. 12, 2006
images released by the U.S. District Court, a government exhibit shows a photo of the flight data recorder found at the scene in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, that was introduced at the sentencing trial of admitted terrorist conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui. (AP Photo/U.S. District Court)
Moussaoui Jurors Hear Flight 93 Tape
By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press 12 April 2006 - ALEXANDRIA, Va. -
In the final minutes of doomed United Air Lines Flight 93, on Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers try to shake off passengers clamoring for control of the plane over Pennsylvania. Amid groans and sounds of a struggle, a voice says, "I am injured." A hijacker asks, "Shall we finish it off?"
Moments later, the plane hurtles out of control to the ground, according to a cockpit voice recording played for a jury on Wednesday by federal prosecutors seeking the execution of Zacarias Moussaoui.
Culminating their case, the prosecutors figuratively placed the jury aboard the flight for its last heart-wrenching moments, using a computerized simulation of the plane's flight path based on information from the flight data recorder.
Hamilton Peterson, whose parents were on Flight 93, earlier heard an enhanced audio version that was played for family members only. He believes the recording provides evidence that passengers attacked and killed a hijacker guarding the cockpit door.
The audio played in the courtroom made it impossible to confirm that interpretation. The Sept. 11 Commission concluded there was a struggle for control but reached no conclusion about whether passengers killed a hijacker.
Much of what was heard was open to interpretation. In the last minute, voices could be heard in English saying "push up" and "pull down," as flight data showed the steering yoke moving wildly. Some interpreted that as a struggle for control in the cockpit between passengers and hijackers. The hijackers for more than four minutes before that had been swinging the plane wildly in an effort to throw the rebelling passengers off balance.
At 10 a.m. a hijacker asks in Arabic "Shall we finish it off?" The response come back: "No, not yet."
Then a voice is heard in English: "In the cockpit! If we don't, we die!"
At 10:01 a.m., a hijacker asks again: "Shall we put it down? The response: "Yes, put it down."
At 10:02 a.m., a hijacker says, "Give it to me. Give it to me." At 10:03 a.m., the recording ends, and the simulation shows the plane flying nose down, then rolling over belly up and hitting the ground nose first.
The Flight 93 cockpit voice recording is the only such tape that investigators were able to hear from any of the four airplanes hijacked on Sept. 11.
The government later Wednesday rested its case after the judge rejected prosecutors' request to display a running presentation of the names and photos of all of the nearly 3,000 victims of Sept. 11. Prosecutors were instead allowed to show one large poster with the pictures of all but 92 of the victims, and three victim-impact witnesses gave testimony following the playing of the Flight 93 tape.
The judge sent the jury home for the day. Just after that, Moussaoui shouted, "God curse you all!"
His defense will commence its case on Thursday.
During the government's playing of the recording, a voice is heard from the cockpit, possibly that of a flight crew member, saying, "Please don't hurt me. Oh God!" A few seconds later, somebody says, three times, "I don't want to die."
But then, amid sounds of a struggle, a hijacker asks, "There is something, a fight?" The response is, "Yeah."
The last words heard as the plane nears the ground were repeated four times in Arabic: "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest." Then, just the sound roaring static can be heard.
The flight, one of four hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001, crashed in a Pennsylvania field as passengers tried to retake it. The cockpit voice recording had not been played publicly before.
The recording began at 9:31 a.m. with the hijackers' voice clearly stating "ladies and gentlemen, this is the captain ... we have a bomb on board, so sit." For the next few minutes, passengers are repeatedly told, in English, "Don't move," "Shut up" "Sit," and "down down down."
The hijackers alternated between Arabic and English.
As the tape proceeded, it was clear that passengers were gaining the upper hand.
A voice of a hijacker, presumably inside the cockpit, says, "They want to get in." The voice continues, "Hold from within." At 10 a.m., there is a voice that says, "I am injured."
Sounds of a struggle can be heard. At that point, the plane appears to go out of control. There are sounds of the hijackers trying to shake off the passengers. The plane pitches back and forth.
The plane had been headed for the U.S. Capitol, according to Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Moussaoui, who has admitted to being a terrorist conspirator and al-Qaida sympathizer, is the only person charged in this country in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks. The jury deciding his fate has already declared him eligible for the death penalty by determining that his actions caused at least one death on 9/11. Even though he was in jail in Minnesota at the time of the attacks, the jury ruled that lies told by Moussaoui to federal agents a month before the attacks kept them from identifying and stopping some of the hijackers. Now they must decide whether Moussaoui deserves execution or life in prison.
Defense lawyers have already said they think the jury should spare Moussaoui's life because of his limited role in the attacks, evidence that he is mentally ill and because his execution would only play into his dream of martyrdom.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema issued an order requiring an unidentified individual to be produced for testimony. The order apparently applied to would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid - defense lawyers issued a subpoena last week seeking his testimony. Prosecutors had opposed the subpoena.
Moussaoui testified previously that he and Reid were going to hijack a fifth plane on Sept. 11 and fly it into the White House. The defense lawyers, who have tried to discredit their client's credibility, have said Moussaoui is exaggerating his role in Sept. 11 to inflate his role in history.
- Yahoo News
this is a animation made up of the still released by the authorities of Flight 77 hitting th Pentagon only
On Wednesday, prosecutors plan to air for the first time publicly the cockpit voice recording of passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 who rushed to take back that plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.
Thirteen more Sept. 11 victims and family members strode to the witness stand Tuesday as jurors endured a third day of graphic evidence of the horrors and haunting impact of the nation's worst terror attack.
While the material was supposedly toned down in response to defense lawyers' complaints, it included videos of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the building at 530 miles per hour and photos of charred bodies - one on a stretcher and another sitting upright in an office _ of some of the 64 airline passengers and crew and 125 Pentagon workers who died that day. - source
Ready or Not, 'United 93' Brings Mixed Emotions
First Major Movie About Sept. 11
April 29, 2006 - abcnews
A tragic day for America is now playing at a theater near you, and for some far from the attacks, it is 9/11 up close for the first time.
"United 93," the first major movie about Sept. 11, opened nationwide Friday. The film was pieced together from actual cockpit recordings and phone calls to loved ones from the doomed plane, which heroic passengers overtook from hijackers to avert an attack on Washington.
The movie depicts in real time each of the 91 minutes from the boarding of Flight 93 to its terrifying final moments. The horrifying events of that September day took place 500 miles from Batavia, Ill. But now, they are as close as the local cinema.
Jim Smyth, a retired 911 dispatcher, said he had to see the movie. "It's just gonna be hard to get through," he said.
Along with Smyth, Sandra and Michael Lech were also at the front of the line in Batavia on opening day.
"There was no question in our minds that we were coming this evening," Sandra Lech said.
Too Much Too Soon?
But many say the release of the painfully authentic film is too much too soon.
The family of Flight 93's pilot, Jason Dahl, did not attend the premiere. The memories, they say, are too raw. "It's just— I can't do it," said Lowell Dahl, Jason Dahl's brother. "It's just too hard. I don't want to relive it right now."
There also is concern that Hollywood has created scenes that manipulate the truth. The movie suggests the terrorists had killed the pilot and co-pilot, and were headed for the Capitol. In reality, those facts are unclear. Still, viewers say the film sends a powerful message — and some say watching the courage shown in this heart-wrenching film is uplifting.
"In a way it made me feel a little better about knowing we weren't afraid to fight back," moviegoer Rob Brundage said.
"we need heroes..."
Three-minute discrepancy in tape
Cockpit voice recording ends before Flight 93's official time of impact
By WILLIAM BUNCH [email@example.com] Posted on Mon, Sep. 16, 2002 Val McClatchey / For the Daily News
THE FINAL three minutes of hijacked United Flight 93 are still a mystery more than a year after it crashed in western Pennsylvania - even to grieving relatives who sought comfort in listening to its cockpit tapes in April.
A Daily News investigation has found a roughly three-minute gap between the time the tape goes silent - according to government-prepared transcripts - and the time that top scientists have pinpointed for the crash.
Several leading seismologists agree that Flight 93 crashed last Sept. 11 at 10:06:05 a.m., give or take a couple of seconds. Family members allowed to hear the cockpit voice recorder in Princeton, N.J., last spring were told it stopped just after 10:03.
The FBI and other agencies refused repeated requests to explain the discrepancy.
The cockpit voice recorder a roughly 30-minute tape loop, is supposed to record the sounds inside the cockpit right up until the moment of impact and usually does.
Aviation experts said there could be several explanations for the gap.
They said it could mean that the FBI and other government agencies either failed to properly synchronize the times, or there were other problems in the retrieving or handling of the tape from the so-called "black box" recovered from the wreckage at Shanksville, Pa.
Or, experts speculated, it could mean there was a major on-board electrical failure on the plane three minutes before Flight 93 crashed, causing the recorder to quit working.
What's not told
The broader significance is that the three-minute gap points to how little is really known about how and why Flight 93 crashed - even as the saga of the doomed jetliner and cell-phone calls from some of the 40 passengers and crew continue to captivate the nation.
"That's part of the whole war aspect - we don't want to tell about what we did and didn't do," said Vernon Grose, a former National Transportation Safety Board member who says he still has questions about the Flight 93 crash. He said he doubts there will ever be "a nice, open public hearing with eyewitnesses telling what they saw."
However, in recent weeks, two books about Flight 93 have topped the best-seller lists, while President Bush and other top government officials continue to invoke the story - based largely on the cell-phone calls - of fighting between the passengers and the hijackers as a "Let's roll" rallying cry to continue the war against global terrorism.
But the FBI has clamped a tight lid of secrecy on the flight data recorder - which could best show how Flight 93 actually crashed - and on the cockpit voice recorder.
"We have no comment at all on the tape issue," said Sam Dibbley, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in northern Virginia that presented the tape to families.
An FBI spokesman, Steven Berry, said the bureau continues to officially list the time of the Flight 93 crash as 10:03 a.m. The NTSB referred all questions to the FBI.
But the relatives of Flight 93 passengers who heard the cockpit tape April 18 at a Princeton hotel said government officials laid out a timetable for the crash in a briefing and in a transcript that accompanied the recording. Relatives later reported they heard sounds of an on-board struggle beginning at 9:58 a.m., but there was a final "rushing sound" at 10:03, and the tape fell silent.
What can be heard
"There is no sound of the impact," said Kenneth Nacke, whose brother, Lou Nacke Jr., is one of the passengers believed to have fought with the hijackers. Nacke confirmed that the government said the tape ended at 10:03 a.m.
He added: "The quality of the sound is really poor."
Vaughn Hoglan, the uncle of passenger Mark Bingham, said by phone from California that near the end there are shouts of "pull up, pull up," but the end of the tape "is inferred - there's no impact."
New York Times reporter Jere Longman, who spoke with relatives of all but one of the 40 Flight 93 victims, writes in the epilogue to bestseller "Among the Heroes" that "at about three minutes after ten, the tape went silent."
Lisa Beamer, the wife of passenger Todd Beamer, who heard the tape while working on her No. 1 best-seller "Let's Roll," also gives 10:03 as the end of the flight.
Seismologists - experts in the earth's vibrations - have almost exactly pinpointed the time of the crash of Flight 93 at 10:06:05.
"The seismic signals are consistent with impact at 10:06:05," plus or minus two seconds, said Terry Wallace, who heads the Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory and is considered the leading expert on the seismology of man-made events. "I don't know where the 10:03 time comes from."
Likewise, a written study commissioned by the Department of Defense - carried out by seismologists from Columbia University and the Maryland Geological Survey - also determined impact was at 10:06:05.
Normally, such a large discrepancy might be cleared up when the National Transportation Safety Board releases a written transcript of the voice recorder - edited for sounds of suffering or profanity - right before holding public hearings on an air disaster. But because the Flight 93 crash was part of a criminal act, no NTSB hearings are expected.
The Justice Department has also insisted that the cockpit tape can't be released because it will be played to the jury at the trial of admitted al Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, now set for January.
Although Moussaoui is often referred to in the media as "the 20th hijacker," there's been no evidence that he was slated to be on board Flight 93 or the three other planes hijacked on Sept. 11. Moussaoui's court-appointed lawyers sought last week to block the use of the recording.
What could've happened
Last fall, as the saga of the Flight 93 passenger uprising became widely known, several relatives of the crash victims made an unusual request: They wanted to hear the actual tape. The FBI initially issued a cold refusal.
"While we empathize with the grieving families, we do not believe that the horror captured on the cockpit voice recording will console them in any way," FBI Assistant Director John Collingwood said last December. But under continuing pressure, the bureau changed its mind and agreed to the unusual April gathering at a Princeton Marriott hotel.
None of the family members interviewed for this story recalls any explanation of a discrepancy between the times on the tape recording and the actual crash at 10:06.
They were, according to the relatives and published accounts, given a talk by one of Moussaoui's prosecutors, who speculated that the passengers may have used a food cart to break into the cockpit.
But with government officials refusing to be interviewed, leading aviation experts interviewed for this story could only speculate about the tape discrepancy.
Possibilities they suggested:
• The FBI could have bungled this part of the investigation by failing to synchronize the time stamp of clocks onboard Flight 93 - which could have been set wrong - with air traffic control tapes and other tones that make it possible to determine the exact, correct times. Such a mistake would mean that the tape really did run until the impact, but that all the times given to the relatives on the transcript were off by three minutes.
Investigators typically nail down the correct times very early in a probe, experts said. Todd Curtis, who runs the Web site AirSafe.com, said the three-minute gap "does not make sense."
"From what I have heard about the flight's CVR [cockpit voice recorder], there was at least one transmission from the cockpit to air traffic control that would have been captured by the ATC tapes," Curtis said. "Those tapes should also have some kind of time reference."
• At 10:03, the hijackers - or possibly passengers and crew who were fighting to regain control of the plane - flipped a circuit breaker or switch that cut off power to the cockpit voice recorder.
Experts said this would explain why the tape ends abruptly, but they had no idea why the terrorists would do such a thing, especially so far along into their hijacking. And they noted that the location of cockpit circuit breakers makes it unlikely it was struck accidentally during a struggle.
"That would be a much tougher task than turning off the transponder," said R. John Hansman, an aviation professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "You would have to know exactly which circuit breaker to pull."
• There was a major on-board electrical failure before the crash - although it's not clear what could have triggered this. It has happened before. On Swissair Flight 111, which crashed off the coast of Nova Scotia in September 1998, the cockpit fire that caused the crash also killed power to the plane's two black boxes six full minutes before the crash.
New evidence that came out last week may support the electrical-failure theory. A federal air traffic controller from Cleveland, Stacey Taylor, told "Dateline NBC" that Flight 93's transponder, initially shut off by the hijackers, came back on briefly only to give out - at 10:03 a.m.
• There was some unknown problem either in retrieving the cockpit tape from the black box, or in its handling by government officials and contractors since last September, or in the presentation that was given in Princeton.
No one has stepped forward with any evidence of that.
But the three-minute gap is certain to fuel ongoing debates on the Internet over how Flight 93 really crashed, and whether the plane could have been shot down by military jet fighters that were sent aloft as the Sept. 11 hijackings unfolded. The government insists there was no shootdown.
Numerous witnesses in the Shanksville area have told the Daily News and other publications since last September that a mysterious, low-flying unmarked white jet, military in nature, circled the area at the time of the crash. The FBI has claimed this was a business jet that had been asked by air-traffic controllers to inspect the Flight 93 crater.
The debate has also been driven by the wide debris field from Flight 93 - including papers found eight miles away - and by conflicting accounts over whether a 911 caller reported an explosion and white smoke on board.
Grose, the former NTSB member, said he doubts the entire story of Flight 93 will ever be told.
"I don't think so," he said. "It's like David Crockett at the Alamo. We need heroes."
"the managers were concerned about keeping things secret"
American Airlines Could Have Saved That Flight;
Instead They Tried to Keep the Hijackings Secret
What You Won't See in Flight 93, the Film
By JAMES RIDGEWAY
The only people to defend the United States on 911 were the passengers and crews of the 4 hijacked planes.
The President and the Secretary of Defense, the two top officials in the chain of command responsible for defense the country were out of commission. Dick Cheney, the vice president, who under the constitution has no authority to issue orders, was running the country from the White House bunker. The FAA and the military were nowhere.
On Flight 11, flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney were on the phone to American Airlines ground personnel minutes after the hijacking began. Even though both the FAA and the airlines had been warned more than 50 times in the months preceding the attack, officials on the ground reacted with skepticism an annoyance to Betty Ong's desperate call.
According to one account by people who have listened to all the tapes, American Airlines people were anxious to keep what was going on secret. An American Airlines tape, according to Gail Sheehy in the New York Observer, shows the managers were concerned about keeping things secret. People who listened to the tapes said there were statements including the following: "Keep it close,'' "keep it quiet'', "Let's keep this among ourselves.''
So in those terrifying minutes before the first hit, two brave women on the phone inside Flight 11 were calmly telling American Airlines ground officials exactly what was happening.
The airline's reaction: Nothing. It did absolutely nothing.
The managers could have picked up a phone and told all their pilots what was going on. Indeed they co told all pilots in the air what was happening. They could have called officials in New York. There is a real likelihood people at least could have evacuated the second tower.
If someone on the ground had acted, Flight 93, sitting on the Newark airport tarmac, might well have avoided the hijack.
Flight 93 took off at 8:42 that morning, a few minutes before the Flight 11 struck the WTC. It was not hijacked until 9:28. It is simple fact that the FAA, American Airlines and the military knew about the 911 hijacking before Flight 93 took off. Before its cockpit was seized two planes had hit the World Trade Center.
The 911 Commission report states it clearly: "As news of the hijackings filtered through the FAA and the airlines, it does not seem to have occurred to their leadership that they needed to alert other aircraft in the air that they too might be at risk.''
The 911 Commission found "no evidence...that American Airlines ever sent any cockpit warnings to its aircraft on 911.'' United's first decisive move to inform its pilots occurred at 9:19 when a United Flight dispatcher, on his own initiative, notified the airline's intercontinental flights: "Beware any cockpit intrusion. Two a/c [aircraft] hit World Trade Center.''
Flight 93 got this warning at 9:24. Two minutes later the pilot responded and asked for confirmation. And two minutes later flight controllers in Cleveland heard shouts from the cockpit: "Hey get out of here ... get out of here ... get out of here.''
The pilot had heard the warning, but had not had time to react.
The only people who were aware of the earlier hijackings that day and used their knowledge to take decisive and effective action were the passengers on Flight 93.
James Ridgeway is the author of "Five Unanswered Questions about 911.'' Seven Stories Press.
Imagine the majority of the planet in front of their TV sets...watching computer generated Mushroom clouds...or the simulated devastation caused by an asteroid strike...only to be told it is all real