It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

United 93 - Actual 9/11 NORAD and ATC personnel star in film.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
It's interesting to note that a number of ATC staff and NORAD military personnel play themselves in the movie, so maybe it is about as accurate as one can get regarding the feelings and actions of those involved in significant positions that day who survived.


Herndon
BEN SLINEY - Himself
TOBIN MILLER - Himself
RICH SULLIVAN - Himself
TONY SMITH - Himself

NEADS (NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector)
MAJOR JAMES FOX - Himself
STAFF SGT SHAWNA FOX - Herself
1ST LT JEREMY POWELL - Himself

Newark Tower
GREG CALLAHAN - Himself
RICK TEPPER - Himself
movies.about.com...


For those that haven't seen it, a large proportion of the film actually concentrates on the events from the perspective of people in the civilian ATC centres and at NORAD.
It's also very good in that it is an accurate portrayal of human behaviour, especially in such a situation (even if you don't agree that the events happened as presented - it portrays people's actions and emotions accurately going on the assumption it did). It's worth noting for those that can't get it into their heads how cramped the environment is, especially in the cockpit, making it difficult for anyone to overpower potential hijackers even when they are technically outnumbered.
All in all though, it is an extremely moving and sad piece and I think it does justice to memories of those involved.

[edit on 4-6-2006 by AgentSmith]




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
it was a great movie

i was neighbors with a guy who did ATC with Sliney when they were younger; guy said sliney was a good dude

word is they also didnt let the "hijackers" and passengers meet til the day of filming



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

"Mom? This is Mark Bingham," the voice said. It sounded strange for her son to introduce himself by his full name. She knew he was flustered.

"I want to let you know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb," he said.

"Who are these guys?" Alice Hoglan asked.

There was a pause. Hoglan heard murmurs of conversation in English. Mark's voice came back.

"You believe me, don't you?" he asked.

"Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?"

There was a pause. Alice heard background noise. The line went dead."

www.post-gazette.com...


No, nothing odd about that exchange!



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
She also knew he was flustered.


So the fact he said, "Mark Bingham," points to some sort of conspiracy to you?

The guy owned his own company, and made many calls, went many places, and did business with a lot of clients.

Im sure 10 or more times a day hes picking up a phone, stressed from work saying "Mark Bingham,"
"Mark Bingham speaking," etc etc. In a time of stress or crisis people refer to habits a lot.


But thanks for bringing it into a thread that was talking about the actors in the movie ;-)


You guys alwaaaays gotta get your jabs in, dontcha

[edit on 4-6-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
She also knew he was flustered.

So the fact he said, "Mark Bingham," points to some sort of conspiracy to you?

The real Mark would have said, "Mom, it's Mark your son," and wouldn't avoid answering her questions and then ask "You believe me, don't you?" before the line went dead!

I couldn't write a better conspiracy script.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
who knows what the real mark would have said?

"its mark, your son," can be considered just as strange under your logic.

why would he have said, "your son?" she knows her sons voice and name! somethings strange here.


im all for being suspicious of things that warrant suspicion, like puffs being ejected from the WTC 1 and 2, or the 22nd floor on wtc 1 (?), but this conversation between Mark Bingham and his mother doesnt cut it



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
who knows what the real mark would have said?

"its mark, your son," can be considered just as strange under your logic.

why would he have said, "your son?" she knows her sons voice and name! somethings strange here.

You know, you are right. After he said "Mom" and "Mark," he wouldn't have to saying anything else.

What about the "you believe me, don't you?" and then the line going dead? Just a coincidence?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Happened me several times that even though I knew who was calling me and it was a close friend or relative, i still answered by my surname as I'm used to the foreign people. It happened usually when I was somehow distracted or so. I'd bet none of these distractions was even remotely compared to the distraction of being in a hijacked plane.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Not only is it odd he used his full name. Whats even MORE odd is that cell phones DO NOT WORK inside of jet liners because they are SHEILDED from any static electricity that is created while in flight, also they are specially grounded so that a lighting strike will not damage anything inside the plane. Also cell phone towers are ineffective at those altitudes, and speeds. Heck, I cant even drive into my local canyons without completely loosing a signal. And it is said that they didn't use the phones built into the plane, they used their personal cell phones.

Either all the passengers on board are fictional characters, AND the heartbroken family members are fictional, payed actors. Or they fabricated the whole phone call with voice morphing technology.

My apologies to anyone who just so happens to be related to people on board flight 93.


It really sickens me they could make money off of this horror, by making a movie. And at the same time brainwash everyone with events that we aren't even certain happened.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
It's worth noting for those that can't get it into their heads how cramped the environment is, especially in the cockpit, making it difficult for anyone to overpower potential hijackers even when they are technically outnumbered.


OK, so it was too cramped for the crew to overpower the hi-jackers?

So how did the hi-jackers overpower the crew, in this same cramped cockpit?

What did the hi-jackers say? "Crash the plane or we kill you"?


Kinda hard to swing a box cutter in a cramped space, no? In fact it makes it much easier for the victim to overpower their attacker in a cramped space. As long as you can get yourself inside the attackers arms length, you can take him down.

So your cramped space theory is BS imo...



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
OK, so it was too cramped for the crew to overpower the hi-jackers?

So how did the hi-jackers overpower the crew, in this same cramped cockpit?


It's kinda hard to overpower someone who's holding the knife on your throat, isn't it? Or when he's holding the knife on someone else's throat, threatening he'll cut the throat if you won't leave your seat immediately, no? Was there any fight in the cockpit or rather this situation during the hijacking?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
That 'maybe' tuccy but not the point. Point was I was de-bunking Smiths claim that they couldn't overpower the terrorists because of the cramped space, not because the terrorists were holding a knife to someones throat.

But thanx for playing...



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
That 'maybe' tuccy but not the point. Point was I was de-bunking Smiths claim that they couldn't overpower the terrorists because of the cramped space, not because the terrorists were holding a knife to someones throat.

But thanx for playing...


I assumed from your post you are trying to compare regular fight between revolting passangers and the terrorrists with the way the terrorrists had persuaded the crew to left its seat, no?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   
What?

Tuccy, it's not good to make assumptions about what someone is thinking or saying. To answer your question no or huh?
I was simply replying to something Agent Smith said as I've already explained, I wasn't comparing 'revolting passangers'(sic) with anything...


Thanx for your participation...

[edit on 5/6/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Kinda hard to swing a box cutter in a cramped space, no? In fact it makes it much easier for the victim to overpower their attacker in a cramped space. As long as you can get yourself inside the attackers arms length, you can take him down.


Sorry but here you DO clearly imply there was a fight between the hijackers and the pilots.
While the hijackers didn't need to fight them, it was enough to grab a stewardess and hold a knife to her throat.
Besides to cut someone with a boxcutter you don't have to swing much, assuming its new and thus sharp.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
People seem to forget that irritating little detail about air phones. You know. Those phones on the back seats of the plane that you can use while in flight?

They work quite well. No matter what your altitude.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Those little air-phones may work well (in some areas, sometimes) but the 911 commission specifically stated that some calls were made using cell phones and some were made using air-phones.

Remember that we were told the passengers on at least one of the planes were alerted about the hijackings by cell phone?

How? cell phones must be turned off during flight by law, FCC & FAA regulations require it, they could not have been notified.

It is possible to make calls from planes, providing a tower is within range. However:

1) Why would a 'hijacker' allow them to call? (especially a hijacker who, for the first time in history does not make any demands and only allows one person to know that they are doing this because they hate our freedom)

2) Reception is only possible up to a MAX of 8000 feet altitude.

3) When Cell phones are used below 8000 feet, they simultaneously communicate with multiple cell towers on the ground, clogging networks and preventing use.

4) Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Their directional antennas are 'aimed' at the coverage area.

5) If you are traveling in a car, your cell will connect to the tower with the strongest signal, no tower no signal. If there is only one tower, at 60 MPH you will loose signal within 10 -20 minutes. Towers are only located in urban/high usage areas, this means; Flying low altitude at 500+MPH = dropped calls.

But the planes were not at 8,000 feet:

Flight 175: 31,000 feet, 5 calls

Flight 77: 35,000 feet, at least 1 call

Flight 93: 35,000 feet, at least ten cell calls

There are several reports stating that none of these calls were listed on the billing statements when they were received by the families.

If you want to know how the calls were made see this article about
voice morphing technology



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
When I call my mom I say "hi" and she knows it is me...

I do not need to say "hi mom, it's Slap"

SHE IS MY MOM of course she knows who the hell I am. She can tell all four of her sons voices apart instantly on the phone.

She also has caller ID.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   
One more thing,
Based on the research that I have done, I do not think there were any passengers on at least two of the flights. I can not find the link right now, but at least two flights were orderd to land earlier due to 'bomb threats'. At the time, one plane had almost 200 passengers, when it crashed in Penn. it only had about 60.
But the coronor could not find even a drop of blood at the site

Another problem:

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

This is how the planes were flown. By the way, days after 911 Bush mentioned this technology was under development.
Just another lie, it has been in use since before 911

Aviation first for robotic spy plane

[edit on 18-8-2006 by skid]

[edit on 18-8-2006 by skid]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
When I call my mom I say "hi" and she knows it is me...

I do not need to say "hi mom, it's Slap"

SHE IS MY MOM of course she knows who the hell I am. She can tell all four of her sons voices apart instantly on the phone.

She also has caller ID.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



i hope i can help you come to grips with this:

911myths.com...

"Hoglan: I was staying with my brother Vaughan on the morning of September 11th, and, uh, the phone rang.

Bingham (reconstruction): Mom... Mom, this is Mark Bingham.

Hoglan: Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham"."

the clip is there for download, as well

as ive said before, people do strange things in times of stress, and if hes called his mother saying "this is mark bingham" before, why do we wonder? his mother alice hoglan said he did it on times past, is she lying?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join