2006 - Film Fictionalisation - United 93 & World Trade Center

Even before it’s world premiere on 26th April 2006 at New York’s Tribeca film festival, the film United 93 prompted a number of articles discussing 9/11 alternative theories. One of the first of these was “Chaos and cock-up always trump conspiracy” published in the Sunday 9th April, 2006 edition of the Observer.

Throughout the article, 9/11 is linked with other alternative theories, mainly those which have been explored in films. Journalist Mark Kermode tells of his encounter with US filmmaker Spike Lee, who has spoken with people who “‘will swear on a stack of bibles that they heard explosions and they think that the levees were blown up.’” Kermode later notes that, “the Apollo conspiracy theorists clearly owe less to reality than they do to the plot of the Seventies cult movie Capricorn One.”

Describing the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate, he claims that, “…among conspiracy theorists, its central brainwashing premise is taken as barely disguised fact” and “…most of what the public knows about the Kennedy assassination is based on a string of excitably dramatic movies…which viewers have mistaken for verifiable truth.”

Kermode concludes the article by admitting that, “I used to take solace in Gail Brewer-Giorgio's bonkers books Is Elvis Alive? and The Elvis Files, which argued that a fit and healthy Presley had carefully planned and faked his death in 1977, fled Graceland in a helicopter and restarted his life in privacy and seclusion.”

Amongst these references to a plethora of alternative theories, Kermode mentions Loose Change: 2nd Edition, and briefly summarises it: “The film argued that the World Trade Centre was blown up from inside, that the Pentagon was struck by a cruise missile and that United Airlines Flight 93, in which terrorists were officially reported to have been overpowered by passengers, did not crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, but landed safely in Ohio.”

He continues, “This all sounded like baloney to me. But just to be sure, I contacted respected British film-maker Paul Greengrass, who's putting the finishing touches on his thoroughly researched, fact-based docudrama, United 93.” Satisfied with Greengrass’s assertion that, “The stuff about the plane being shot down is simply not true” Kermode notes that, “…the body of people who deny the official version of what happened on 11 September, the so-called '9/11 Truth Movement', is growing by the day…with Charlie Sheen telling America's GCN radio network last month: 'Nineteen amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 per cent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory.'”

This is one of the first mentions of ‘The 9/11 Truth Movement’ a term commonly used by 9/11 alternative theorists but avoided by the media. Kermode is also slightly out of step with many of his fellow journalists, who usually downplay the number of people who subscribe to 9/11 alternative theories.

Letters

A week later, on Sunday 16th April, 2006 the Observer made the previously unheard of step of publishing a letter from not just one, but two 9/11 alternative theorists. The letters page, titled, “Three cheers for Modernism, and a word from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists” contained letters (both via email) from former MI5 officer Annie Machon, and Andrew Johnson.

Machon’s letter notes the, “the rapidly growing body of academics, scientists, celebrities and members of the public questioning the events of 9/11 (who) take the view that the basic laws of physics mean that the events of that day could not have happened in the way described by the US government.” Johnson publicises, “A new group…called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.” Both letters include websites, a rare example of the Observer linking to sources of 9/11 alternative theories.

Internet

This new approach of allowing those sceptical of the official 9/11 account to voice their opinions continued in the Guardian on Thursday 11th May, 2006 with “Flight 93: special internet edition”. Whilst not an out and out 9/11 alternative theorist, journalist and filmmaker Alex Cox is clearly willing to share some of their concerns.

He writes that, “Although the mainstream media treated the Kean Commission report with reverence, its name is mud on the web. On the internet, Kean's version of events has been dissected from all sides…The internet pullulates with blogs and sites and forums dedicated to "alternative" 9/11 scenarios. Very occasionally, one of them leads to a page about the conspiracy of George Bush and alien reptiles, but many more are considered and informative, with copious hyperlinks.” Here he links to the Complete 9/11 Timeline, also published by Paul Thompson as a book.

Cox also reveals the levels of scepticism which many journalists ignore, that, “…a lot of Americans believe it (or something like it): polls tell us that 70% of them don't trust the "official" version, which may explain some of the stick United 93 has been getting on the internet.”

It is this “stick”, according to Cox, which led Universal, the studio behind United 93, to shut down the internet forum associated with the film. “Posts on the message board were believed to have run as high as 10 to one against the film,” he writes.

Cox also details the evidence cited by alternative theorists to back up their ideas: “…people on the ground who saw flight 93 tailed by another aircraft, and the apparent explosion of the aircraft in mid-air (which would suggest it was shot down by the air force - something Donald Rumsfeld briefly said, apparently in error). (CNN / CNN / video)

Several eye-witnesses say they heard the plane explode in the air. The ‘Flight 93 Crash Theory Home Page’ claims a secondary debris field eight miles from the crash site: its sources are CNN and a Pennsylvania newspaper.”

Heroes

The Telegraph returns to more familiar ground in “What the heroes of United 93 teach us” published on 22nd May, 2006. Half way through the article, journalist Jim White turns his attention to alternative theories. He writes, “For those of us who believe that history is governed by cock-up, the biggest service it provides is the way in which it subverts 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

White then mixes two peripheral alternative theories with one of the most widely believed: “These began to circulate even as the Twin Towers still smoked. There were dozens of them: that this was the work of Mossad, that the planes were never hijacked at all, that the World Trade Centre was blown up by rogue elements in government.”Changing tack, he then states that: “It is almost common currency that United 93 did not crash as a result of a disturbance in the cockpit, but was shot down by the US Air Force to prevent it reaching Washington. The truth, as the film recognises, is that human organisation works on precedent rather than foresight. Thus, on September 11, when the unexpected happened, there was no procedure in place to counteract it. In its scenes of panicked confusion in control rooms and flight towers, the film shows that no one knew what to do: their systems had failed them. Indeed, such was the fuzziness of lines of command that the military did not even learn United 93 had been hijacked until four minutes after it crashed.”

Here, White claims that “when the unexpected happened, there was no procedure in place to counteract it”, yet this runs contrary to an Associated Press report of 12th August 2002 (unavailable on the AP website) which explained that, “From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001.” (link / link / link)

So if this AP report did exist - it is cited by authors such as Nafeez Ahmed and David Ray Griffin - then it would provide an argument against White’s position that, “no one knew what to do: their systems had failed them.”

Shot Down

Having already broken ranks on two occasions with the rest of the British media – Sue Reid’s 2004 review of A New Pearl Harbor and Tony Rennell’s 2005 review of 9/11 Revealed - the Mail achieved another first by allowing a 9/11 alternative theorist author a platform to review the film United 93.

Rowland Morgan, author of “Flight 93: What Really Happened On The Heroic 9/11 ‘Let’s Roll’ Flight” wrote a very lengthy article on 19th August 2006 under the title, “Flight 93 'was shot down' claims book” Morgan gives a brief outline of the official story of, “the legend of United Airways Flight 93, one that has been vigorously promoted in a stream of books and films, most recently in the £9.6 million Hollywood movie…”

But he soon moves straight to the point: “Yet my own exhaustive investigations have led me to conclude that the story of Flight 93 is far from being the straightforward account of supreme courage that the authorities would have us believe… For I believe that Flight 93 may well have been deliberately shot down as a means of stopping it from reaching its ultimate target — even at the expense of the 40 blameless people on board. It is a suspicion that was held even by the FBI, but was swept aside as a shaken America clung on to the official version of selfless sacrifice and raw patriotism.”

Morgan then issues a call which characterises the more rational 9/11 alternative theorists: “But let us examine the evidence — so that you can come to your own conclusion.” This evidence is then explained in several detailed sections. First comes the crash site itself: “…the absence of any significant debris — including tailplane and wings — bewildered witnesses, relatives and, more importantly, some crash experts. They found it hard to believe that an airliner up to 155ft long, with two engines each weighing more than six tons, could have penetrated the ground so completely as to utterly disappear. Had it, in reality, been blown to pieces in mid-air?”

We learn that rather than a single impact site, “…a dining room table (was) recovered from a marina in Indian Lake, a couple of miles away from the crash site…and only a one-ton segment of an engine was ever recovered, again more than a mile from the crash site. The FBI said, unconvincingly, that it had ‘bounced’ there. The FBI also claimed metal fragments found up to eight miles away could have been carried there by the wind, even though the breeze was very light.”

In scenes reminiscent of Satam-al-Suqami’s passport at Ground Zero, “…the FBI belatedly claimed to have made two sensational discoveries - a red bandana and a passport allegedly belonging to the hijackers. Very conveniently, these turned up as prosecution evidence earlier this year at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker…”

To support his thesis that Flight 93 was shot down, Morgan turns to eyewitness reports of “two F-16s tailing Flight 93 minutes before it went down” and “numerous and highly credible witness accounts of a mysterious white jet being seen after Flight 93 went down.”

The article also covers issues such as when did the military find out from the FAA about the hijacked plane, the fact that, “the Transportation Safety Board was not in charge of the investigation - the FBI was” and the mobile phone calls made by the passengers, including “Flight 93’s most famous passenger Todd Beamer, whose ‘Let’s roll!’ phrase became a byword for the victims’ heroism and patriotism.”

World Trade Center

In stark contrast to United 93, Oliver Stone’s film World Trade Center produced no articles dealing directly with 9/11 alternative theories. However, many journalists commented in passing on their surprise that Stone – the director of conspiracy classics JFK and Nixon - hadn’t incorporated any conspiratorial aspects into his film. World Trade Center, produced by Paramount Pictures, was released in the US on 9th August 2006. The fact that the UK release date for the film is not until late September could in part account for this lack of coverage.

Schlock

However, one example of a passing mention occurs at the end of, “Mixed reaction to 9/11 film in US” a BBC website article from Friday, 11th August 2006. After commenting on whether the film might shock sensitive audiences, it concludes, “A film based on the conspiracies buzzing round the internet - for which there is no evidence - is on the way, apparently. Where good taste and sensitivity goes now, schlock and dangerous misinformation may follow.”

Another article from the BBC which might be expected to at least reference 9/11 alternative theories is “Stone explains 11 September movie” published on Tuesday, 21 February 2006. At no point though, are such ideas even mentioned, let alone explained or more fully explored.

2006: The 5th Anniversary