For those of you that forgot 9/11 go see it. I don't need to. I hate those SOB's today as I did back then. I don't need a movie to reinforce what I already feel.
John, I see what your saying. But that gentleman had a choice. The people on that flight didn't. I do understand your point. And what good comes from bringing up those memories?
The people on that flight had the choice to be complacent and just take it, or to fight. Impressive. Reminding people what others have sacrificed. Same as a movie like 'Saving Private Ryan' or anything similiar. Now, I am still on the fence for the timing, but those are my thoughts on the other issues at play. I was in the Dday museum when I heard a grown woman react out loud to some pictures of the Nazi camps. She said, "oh my God, I didn't realize they really had those places!" Thank God she saw with her own eyes finally. That was a very interesting moment for me and opened my eyes to the level of many people's ignorance. So a hard look at how the Flight 93 passengers behaved could be a good thing.
No disprespect to the Discovery Channel, but they are not considered one of the BIG news networks. ONE of the networks made it a policy NOT to show any video of the planes hitting the towers. (I've seen the memo.)
1st. We knew what happened on D-day. We really do not know what happened on that flight, besides a bunch of cell phone calls and the voice tape recorder. So how do we know what is fiction and what is truth. 90% will be made up. I am not a fighting type person. But if I knew I was gonna die, I would do anything I could for that not to happen. I think you would do the same. So impressive - not really!
I guess a lot of dialog will be made up, but if there was as much participation by the families done as possible I suppose it could still show insight into the personalities. Trust me, not everyone would do so. So it shouldn't be brought down at all.
I see both sides of the argument. To say what they did was not impressive is a bit harsh, they risked and eventually lost their lives. Who knows how many lives they saved. Personally I think their story should be told. Flight 93 is typically an after thought when discussion of 9/11 come up. Matt
And that's the way THEY want it to stay. Otherwise, SOMEBODY might have to explain why debris from the plane was found something like 2 miles away from the crash site.
I saw the movie a few days ago. It was pretty well done, especially the jacking of the plane, really gave me some goose bumps. Assuming the movie followed the timeline of events exactly I can't really complain, but I will anyway. I think between the time they decide to take the plane and the time they do, it becomes a bit too sappy. I know I know, this is meant to show the emotional side of it all, but I feel they tried a bit TOO hard to drive that point home. On a slightly different note, I'm more looking forward to the movie, WTC, thats suppose to be out in the fall if I remember correctly. I feel that movie will do more than this movie in whatever it was this movie was trying to do. Assuming the movie is done right that is. A lot of people don't know what was SUPPOSE to happen, and unfortunately won't ever know unless its put into movie form. So someone needs to.
If I took the time to find a link, the naysayers would just say that it's a paranoid conspiracy theory. But I remember hearing many references to some debris being found miles from the sight. Google should provide plenty of info. EDIT: And here it is: http://www.flight93crash.com/ And the direct link to the debris field information. http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_secondary_debris_field.html Debris found floating in a lake SIX miles from the crash site and recovered by the FBI. More debris found EIGHT miles away.
It pissed me off reading the transcripts of flight United 93, I couldn't imagine how much this movie would piss me off if I watched it. This movie came out way too soon, people are still traumatized about the events that happened that day. I really don't think I'll be watching it...
I always felt the Abu Ghraib photos were aired too soon and too much, over WTC/Pentagon attacks.... but that's another subject for another time. I would like to see this Flight93 movie. I'm currious to see how they portray the actual events.
Isnt Flight 93 the one that "Crashed" in PA? Of all the posts I just read, i didnt see anyone mention the belief that that flight did not "crash" land, but was actually shot down. It has been my contention since the early afternoon of September 11 with consistent media reports on every station, both network and satellite/cable, based on the information that was mentioned that day (and never mentioned since) that Flight 93 was shot down by our military. Now, im not saying they made the wrong decision to do so. Im just saying that the timeline of events that morning would have our military in the air, armed and looking and even following civilian aircraft at the time that plane crashed. Being a resident of NJ not a 15 minute drive from NYC and being off from work that day (it was a beautiful, picture perfect Tuesday morning by the way) I vividly remember hearing the fighters scrambling and flying overhead even before the towers collapsed. I have shared my beliefs with others and not surprisingly, i am not the only one that believes that plane did not crash land due to passenger rebellion. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Anyone ever see the movie, "Wag the Dog"?
Another believer here. Come on, you had 2 planes smack the twin towers, and this hi-jacked 737(?) going for the White House (or Capitol) ... I wouldn't have enjoyed being in the shoes of the guy making that phone call "err ... well ... yeah ... shoot it down ...". Not saying it's the wrong decision, just very difficult.
First of all, they've already aired an uninterrupted docu-drama on this flight on cable. It was either History or Discovery channel that ran it a couple months ago. So I don't know why people are making such a deal out of this one. I seriously doubt this new cinematic version will be much different other than a couple more over-emoted scenes and dialogue. I'm more interested in historical accounts of events like this than some film producer's commercializing interpretation of it. I suppose it's inevitable for this thread to end up as an argument about "was it or wasn't it shot down?" Something interesting struck me after watching a few different specials on TV. If anyone has more info to fill in the blanks on this, please post it, but it goes something like this: The documentary for Flight 93 maintained that jet fighters weren't scrambled until nearly the time of its crash, and definitely hadn't been issued engagement orders, supposedly proving that it couldn't have been shot down. A special about NORAD and Cheyenne Mountain showed the computers that monitor the NA airspace. They threw out some statistics about tracking every airborne aircraft, and the scramble response time of, I think, 15 minutes or so to engage any questionable craft. ANOTHER special showed more about the timeline on 9/11. Flight 93 didn't even take off until AFTER at least one of the first planes hit the towers, if not both. I believe they were about 15 minutes apart. After takeoff, it flew West for about 45 minutes before the hijackers overtook the plane, and so on. So based on that timeline, there was an hour if not more for the potential of military intervention. And the plane was flying for quite a while after it made its first suspicious transmissions due to the hijackers leaving the cockpit microphone on. Add to this how much our government loves a good hero story. When Jessica Lynch first turned up in the news, she was reported as having gone down emptying the humvees guns on the attacking Iraqis, never giving up the fight. Well, turns out she was cowering in the back of the humvee, crying like the frightened girl she really was. Pat Tillman? They grabbed hold of that one too. Died in the line of duty, leading his fellow troops against the insurgents...Whoops. Decapitated by his own men. So, whether or not the plane was shot down we'll never really know. It's better for the families of the victims to hold on to the memories of their loved ones believing they did something, banded together to over-power their captors. And I like to think that they WERE doing that either way. But I have a problem with the whole "Let's roll" mantra, and that it just seems a bit much. The government just ran with the whole story a little quickly, like other times, and it has that same questionable, concocted feel to it.
What about pure logic? Logic dictates that if this plane had been shot down, it would have happened at a high altitude. This being the case, the plane would break apart. Complete destruction, mid fall, very high up. That means you would have a debris field that would stretch, evenly, for a dozen miles. Not one or two pieces off in a field somewhere away from the main debris filed. No, thousands upon thousands of pieces evenly distributed. Had they had the opportunity the plane should have been shot down, this simply never happened because the fighters were not there. I invite this theory to be questioned, openly. Basing the assumption that the flight was shot down because news outlets said so(and then haven't mentioned it since) is not enough info to conclude that this actually happened. They don't mention those initial reports because they were a MISTAKE. No gov't group came in and strong-armed the entire media to not mention it. The U.S. can't control outside media groups, and I haven't heard ANY credible outside sources echoing the shoot down theory. If you remember, the media said MANY things on that day that ended up not being true. That is how rumors work in crisis situations. The news hears someone 'report' something, and they, in turn, broadcast those 'reports' as fact. They simply don't fact check in these situations. Don't believe me or think I am exaggerating? Ok, I'll give you some perfect exapmles. I am sure you watched the news coverage of the supposed chaos that ensued here, where I live, in New Orleans, post Katrina. Reports were made that someone was sniping people from atop the New Orleans Arena. 'Reports' were made that people were raping and killing children inside both the Superdome AND the Convention Center. These 'reports' went unchecked for days and weeks. People across the country began to think of New Orleans as a rogue city of thugs and leaches. In fact, the thoughts were so ingrained in people's minds they began to dismiss the efforts to rebuild(all while ignoring the plausible reasons for doing so in a safe manner). N.O. is a complex situation, where things are not necessarily as they seem. My point? All of those initial 'reports' ended up being 100% FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. Think about it. None of those N.O. reports in a time of crisis ended up being true! The snipers, the rapes of 8 year olds, the mass killings...ALL made up. The after effects? The media apologizes weeks later on the back pages of their printed news. All that is left is a misperception that was created by misinformation spouted as fact. It damaged New Orleans' image, and it still continues to mislead those who still buy into the initial stories. The same remains for anyone buying into a lot of the information/conjecture that was touted on the day of 9/11.
So essentially you are saying that the wife of Mr. "Let's roll" is lying. She is making the entire story up. That is what you are saying, right?
I intend to see this movie.............if for more than anything to get a sense of what those people must have gone thru...........and to pay my personal respects to them in doing so. And I am going to NYC this September for that very reason. I expect I won't be able to hold back the tears. The political left hates hero worship........for none of them could ever rise up to the challenge..........being the diaper wetting fanboys that they are. If anyone ever stood in front of me and said anything negative about these people or those in the towers that day............it'd be their one way ticket to the emergency room. RIP UAL 93................"Let's Roll !!"
In my opinion, 911 was a big part of history the moment it happened. I'm in Sweden and even if 911 had it's main impact i the United States of America, every person here in my country that I've asked remembers exactly what they we're doing the moment the heard about WTC and the hijacked planes.
Anyone thinking that plane was shot down ,has never been in the Air Force,has no idea what happens when a plane is hit by a rocket at high altitude and reads too much BS, written by similar ignorant "experts".
Who said they were shot down at "high altitude"? If you read those links that I posted, there are several references to eyewitness reports of a small white jet flying at LOW altitude in the vicinity of Flight 93. And once again I ask: HOW do you explain debris from flight 93 being found in a lake 6 miles away from the crash site if the plane simply augered straight into the ground as the patented story line expects us to believe?
