portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article creative global

9.11 investigation | actions & protests

Premiere today: Top 15 to boycott/leaflet "United 93"

15 reasons to boycott a government propaganda
Protest "flight93" movie today in NYC.

Here is why:

1) The movie is based on a myth and lies.
9/11 was an Inside Job.
2) Physical and Investigative Evidence shows clearly,
that there was no
shutdown or crash in Shanksville.
3) Debris had been planted in Shanksville, photos put on
hold for 4.8 years.
There was also lack of green primer on the debris or
wasn't anything of ground or grass singed, where the debris had been
4) The 2006 cockpit transcript contradicts with
the 2002 transcript and the 2001 ATC tape.
There are huge discrepancies between what family members
heard and Newsweek concluded from reading a transcript

5) The last 3 minutes until the official crash time are
still missing

6) The U.S. Government itself orchestrated and
penetrated all Sep11th attacks
7) Cell Phones do not work at high altitude, especially
in 2001.
8) The timeline of the alleged cell phone calls
has inconsistencies and contradictions, also with the
cockpit transcripts.
9) The movie claims falsely that passengers killed two
of the alleged suspects.
10) The tail number N591UA of the official Flight93 was
noticed during April 2003 on a flight to LA

11) The cockpit recorder, built by Honeywell,
had missing front parts.
There should be 25 HOURS of flight data information,
complete with timestamps, but this info was never
In the original ATC audio tape the pilot is recorded
twice within 40 seconds, while the transcript claims,
it took 8 (!) minutes until he was able to talk again.

12) The original ATC tape suggests, that the pilot was
part of a bomb terror drill crew.
His script "they have met our demands" was later changed
into "WE have OUR demands".
13) The bio of some of the passengers is linked with
military-, government and high tech companies.
Two of the passengers worked for CENSUS Bureau.
The reason of their trip was not disclosed.
14) The pilot must have spoken in english,
as also heard on the ATC tape.
Air traffic Controllers otherwise couldn't have got
them translated. Therefore the claim, that arab speaking
passengers had been in the cockpit, is a bold lie.
15) The credibility of the film crew of the "United93"
movie is under strong dispute, since even their actor
Lewis Alsamari has been denied entry to the US to attend
the premiere.

more info also at


First 9/11 movie premieres in New York

Tuesday April 25, 2006

The Tribeca film festival, Robert De Niro's New York
movie bash, is opening this evening in a blaze of
headlines with the premiere of the 9/11 film United 93...

Do a Little Research The Truth Will Be Obvious 25.Apr.2006 11:52

Joe Anybody

Thanks For Explaining That This Movie Is Nothing More Than Missleading Lies!

I have reason to believe it was shot down by the "Happy Hooligans" in three F-16, from The Langley Air Force Base.

see for your self and check this link -->  http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/flight93shotdown.html

People Wise Up - You have been taken for a ride!

More 911 Truths Here -->  http://zebra3report.tripod.com/joeanybodyshome/id16.html

joe wake yourself up 25.Apr.2006 12:49


The tail number N591UA of the official Flight93 was
noticed during April 2003 on a flight to LA

what plane joe nobody?

choose carefully what sites you choose to cite 25.Apr.2006 13:41


The letsroll911.org site is widely believed to be a disinfo site. The elite have been aggressively polluting the legitimate investigative info with preposterous stuff to make it easy to discredit the 911 Truth movement. Be careful what information you use to support claims. For example, the video which seems Photoshopped and seems to be showing a missile leaving one of the planes hitting the Twin Towers right before impact.

Focus on the impossibility of the towers coming down neatly within their own footprint without demolition explosives: the eyewitness reports of suspicious "maintenance people" entering and leaving the buildings with some kind of cargo for many days before the attacks, the impossibility of jet fuel melting steel especially in the oxygen-starved environment within the building, the inexplicability of Building 7 being demolished without any preparation being needed and no logical explanation for the reason.

Focus on the small size of the hole in the Pentagon, that the attack was on the side of the building away from the offices of the most important officials even though that was much more difficult to maneuver to, that the engines and wings were never recovered, the preposterously small size of the wheels and other debris shown in pictures at the site, and that any video that may have shown what actually hit the Pentagon has been confiscated and the government refuses to release any of it.

Just these points clearly discount the "official story", also here is an article on all the things that would have to be mere coincidence for the official story to be true:


The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11
I posted an earlier version of this last week at Democratic Underground. I've added a number of more entries, and links for all.

Happy coincidenting!

That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.

That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there's no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!

That Jonathan Bush's Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.

That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.

That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama's brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.

That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.

That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.

The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.

That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.

(it goes on for many, many more pages)

what was that statistic? 25.Apr.2006 13:44

85% of enlisted troops

Still believe that we are in Iraq because of Osama Bin Laden's attack on the World Trade Center. Just shows how far a lie can travel.
This movie will set us back even further, I'm so glad to hear that people will be leafletting it and protesting it's premier.
Thank the goddess that some of us are not asleep.

letsroll.org 25.Apr.2006 14:05


its all in the name. no such phrase was ever said but from a neocon.
letsroll.org is a joke.

dear researcher 25.Apr.2006 14:07


'That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.'

-- thanks

Rummy said flight 93 was "shot down" 25.Apr.2006 16:47

Jody Paulson

I don't profess to know what, if anything, went down over Pennsylvania or flew into the Pentagon. I do know that during a surprise visit to US troops on Christmas eve, 2004, Donald Rumsfeld said:

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten ... indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

D.C. Envoy to Canada Paul Cellucci said pretty much the same thing about flight 93 being "shot down":

Here's my radio commentary concerning this and other verbal gaffes from the administration concerning 9-11:
 link to www.radio4all.net

'In-fighting' accomplishes NOTHING 25.Apr.2006 18:26


Hey, (loser ?), why so negative?

Personal attacks against people on-your-side, seeking 9/11 truth, makes no sense. There's nothing wrong with positive "constructive-criticism" in the search for answers if you disagree with someone. That's how we learn. But, is there really any reason to be rude and insult Joe, who is 'on our side' and has been actively looking for answers, in the sea of lies, where 9/11 is concerned? There are so many layers of deception involved and it gets confusing at times. We are all just trying to make sense of all the f*cking lies.

Personally, concerning Flight 93, I question whether there really was a plane (that hit the ground at least). I lean more toward the belief that "no plane crashed in the field". Where was all the "plane debris" afterwards?? Maybe I'm wrong— I'm just trying to figure it out.

When Pan Am Flight 103 crashed in Lockerbie Scotland in 1988, there was LOTS of debris. This, after it was exploded by a bomb at the 'high elevation' of 31,000 feet.

*Remember this image? >>>  link to news.bbc.co.uk

The link above, is what a crash site of a jet is 'suppose' to look like. 'Check out' as many images of the Flight 93 crash site as you can find. Seriously, does it seem legitimate? I don't think so. Are there any "believable" pictures of debris from Flight 93?? If so, 'post them', so we can see the 'proof'.

'More Power' to EVERYONE fighting the good fight in search of 9/11 Truth. We are fighting in defense of, and as the voice for, all those who were murdered on that day. Also, for all the 'innocent people' continually dying from the resulting, never-ending wars. WE NEED TO BE ANGRY, but should focus aggression where it belongs and in a positive-direction where it can be the most productive.

We need all the people on our side, defending truth and demanding answers, that we can get! We should try not to influence people negatively, through personal insults and attacks. This will only cause people to be reluctant to 'speak out'. WE NEED ALL THE VOICES WE CAN GET! There is way too much at stake. We need so many more people to "be the media", especially with the issue of 9/11 Truth. People need to not be made afraid to 'express their opinions' for fear of being attacked. Fuck that! That's just wrong! There is NO TIME for in-fighting.

How exactly does 'making people feel bad about themselves' promote UNITY among people or 'inspire' people to ask questions and search for answers?

This "Flight 93" movie will just serve as an attempt to placate the masses. Many people want to believe the 'LIE' and need something to pacify them. My 'hope' is that this movie will be a trigger to cause more people to question and EXPOSE THE 9/11 COVER-UP. ~ Peace Out

Interesting website on Flight 93 hoax 25.Apr.2006 19:14

what to believe?

Questions and more questions!


inquiring mind 25.Apr.2006 22:48


i think 'loser' was a name like 'nobody', not an insult. heads up!

subvert the circus 26.Apr.2006 05:54


...probably the best mainstream article on flight 93 ever published:

Unanswered questions: The mystery of Flight 93
Independent.co.uk, August 13, 2002

The fate of United Airlines Flight 93 ... holds no mystery for Lee Purbaugh. He saw what happened with his own eyes. He was the only person present in the field where, at 10.06am, the aircraft hit the ground.

"There was an incredibly loud rumbling sound and there it was, right there, right above my head --- maybe 50ft up," [-] "It was only a split second but it looked like it was moving in slow motion, like it took forever. I saw it rock from side to side then, suddenly, it dipped and dived, nose first, with a huge explosion, into the ground. I knew immediately that no one could possibly have survived."

[...] Some conspiracy theorists will say that the plane was shot down by a missile, perhaps a heat-seeking missile that honed in on one of the plane's engines - a theory possibly substantiated by the 2,000yd flight of the 1,000lb engine part, but arguably refuted by consistent eye-witness accounts, including Lee Purbaugh's, that when last sighted the plane was not emitting smoke.

Others might say, as they have done about a TWA flight that fell to the sea in 1996 after taking off from New York, that the plane was a victim of electromagnetic interference. In the case of the TWA flight, the argument, put forward in a series of exhaustive articles written in the New York Review of Books by the Harvard academic Elaine Scarry, is that it happened accidentally. However, as Scarry's articles relate, documentation abounds showing that the Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on "electronic warfare applications" with the possible capacity intentionally to disrupt the mechanisms of an aeroplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive. Scarry also reports that US Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry; as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes. The FBI has stated that, apart from the enigmatic Falcon business jet, there was a C-130 military cargo plane within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed. According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed "electronic suites" in at least 28 of its C-130s - capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals.

entire article at webarchive

UNITY at all costs, as deh furher demands!! 26.Apr.2006 16:42

not an ostrich

UNITY with some of the foolishness
that permeates this 'truth movement'
is highly overrated . . .

no thanks.

How many lies are people willing to accept? 26.Apr.2006 18:23

- whatever -

anti-clown — So, what we are being led to believe from the testimony of this sole eyewitness [is as follows].

Shortly before it made impact and crashed, Flight 93 was flying low [an elevation of only 50 feet] flying PARALLEL to the ground. Would this not have caused a much LONGER crash site than what occurred?

Then it [dipped and dived] and plunged 50ft. virtually straight down [nose first] into the ground causing the plane to basically ENTIRELY DISINTEGRATE? For this to have happened- the speed would have had to been incredible. Yet, the eyewitness said [it looked like it was moving in slow motion, like it took forever]

Call me crazy, but to me this account of what happened doesn't make any sense. If you think logically about it, really it just does not ring true.

Where are the pictures of the crash site to corroborate this story???

None of this adds up, if you take the time to research and look closely at it.

What a surprise, it's just more lies upon lies.

One more thing — If Flight 93 was brought down by a missile, causing it to explode before hitting the ground, would there not have been larger pieces of visible debris? Much the same as with Flight 103 in Scotland, which exploded from a bomb and then crashed over an extensive area—dropping huge pieces of the plane in many places.

It does not appear, from the isolated debris path of the supposed wreckage of Flight 93, that it was brought down with a missile.

Anybody have any thoughts?

They Will Paint Us Crazy.... 26.Apr.2006 19:13


>>> So, what we are being led to believe from the testimony of this sole eyewitness

Yes, you weren't there, and there was only ONE eyewitness at impact - learn to live that.
I did - it was easy.

Now go look at the crash site photos, and what you see is a crater not unlike what you might expect from an almost vertical nosedive -- wingmarks and all!

Can you find photos of any other vertical nosedive crash?
I can't, because vertical nosedives are an abberation.

Personally, I think 93 was crippled by a missile shortly before being terminated using what is known as a "flight termination system".
Unlike most speculations concerning 93, this one matches the availabe evidence.
(See C-130 compendium under the above link.)

(not an ostrich) Talk about a backwards world 27.Apr.2006 18:04


If you speak for peace, unity and truth, you are compared to Hitler.

- thanks

United 93 flyers here . . . 28.Apr.2006 15:37


1. 6-Panel pdf 'Flight 93' Flyer from 911Research
Folding flyer that highlights some of the omissions and contradictions in the official story of the crash of Flight 93. An HTML version of the flyer has hyperlinks to all the supporting references. Suitable for printing on both sides of an 8-1/2 X 11 sheet. Color or b/w.

2. 1-Page 'Flight 93' Fact Sheet from Digital Style Designs
Single page high resolution pdf with the clear and simple facts for a quick education on the street in b/w.

Pentagon hole is 96' wide 28.Apr.2006 15:42


>>Focus on the small size of the hole in the Pentagon


The hole is 96' on the first floor, easily accomodating FL 77. Loose Change makes it look like hole is only 18'. It is obviously not, as a student of Prof. Steven Jones shows in this image.

How does "Operation Northwoods" relate? 01.May.2006 12:36

just wondering

"Questionable" aerial maneuvers by both Flight 93 and Flight 77 02.May.2006 14:23


Strange coincidence? Is there an easy explanation, or are both flights 'connected' in some way by their both exhibiting "aberrant behavior"?

Friendly response to { anti-clown } who said in reference to Flight 93 - "There are no photos because vertical nosedives are an aberration."

This being 'supposedly' the case and the plane evaporated, why were 'incriminating objects' visible evidence afterwards, and left intact? (i.e.- papers, drivers licenses, bandanas, etc.) Since the plane that contained these items 'disintegrated' into nothing identifiable as being a plane, how is it possible for these items to have not been vaporized and destroyed along with the plane? This seems strange.

Another strange occurrence is this. Why did the explosion in the Shanksville PA field, directly after the crash of Flight 93, look nothing like what you would expect to see from the crash of a Boeing 757 completely full of jet fuel? Where did all the jet fuel go??

The small puff of smoke, which is the only photo directly after the crash, looks highly suspicious. THERE IS NO VISIBLE BURNING JET FUEL. How can this be explained away? It doesn't make any sense.


This is all just one more piece to the puzzle of deception that is included within the 9/11 inside job.

Also, in addition to what { Jody Paulson } said about Rumsfeld. Didn't Rumsfeld also state/allude to the notion that "a missile hit the building (Pentagon)"? This referring to what 'most likely' happened there, not Flight 77 striking as we are being led to believe now.