Flight 93

[WSUCougar]

This latest flight recorder information being played at the terrorist’s trial has brought back to me all the heroism and sadness associated with Flight 93. As frightening and grim as that terrible September 11th was, there was a poignancy about what happened with Flight 93 that set it apart from the rest of the disaster. I think part of it stems from the fact that I can put myself on that plane moreso than the others. I think – and hope – that I would have been one of the ones to step forward at the call of “Let’s roll.”

I visualize that scene sometimes now when I fly. The typical layout of an airliner, the constricted space, the crude weapons and defenses at hand. The utter fucking urgency of what had to be done.

I dunno, I just felt like commenting on it. It’s struck me again in a weird way.

[stevew]

Movie comes out at the end of the month.

[Blade6119]

This latest flight recorder information being played at the terrorist’s trial has brought back to me all the heroism and sadness associated with Flight 93. As frightening and grim as that terrible September 11th was, there was a poignancy about what happened with Flight 93 that set it apart from the rest of the disaster. I think part of it stems from the fact that I can put myself on that plane moreso than the others. I think – and hope – that I would have been one of the ones to step forward at the call of “Let’s roll.”

I visualize that scene sometimes now when I fly. The typical layout of an airliner, the constricted space, the crude weapons and defenses at hand. The utter fucking urgency of what had to be done.

I dunno, I just felt like commenting on it. It’s struck me again in a weird way.
The major motion picture comes out in like a month or two...advertising is already begun

[Blade6119]

damn you stevew

[Maple Leafs]

I realize this is dangerous and somewhat touchy territory... but...

The story of Flight 93 has always bothered me a little bit. The truth is, we don't know what happened on the flight. We know it was hijacked, we know that some passengers were able to find out what was happening to other flights, and we know that there was a decision made to try to do something about it. And that's all we know. Isn't it?

Despite that, we've all filled in the blanks -- a heroic struggle, the the passengers rushing the terrorists and overpowering them even though they know they're going to die in the process. They must protect the white house. In some versions of the story, the passengers even intentionally crash the plane.

And all of that is possible... but we don't know, and we'll never know. And yet it seems like it's been decided that that's how the story will go, and that's that. It's a great story, and certainly inspiring. But is anyone else bothered that we've all just come to accept it as gospel, just because we want it to true?

Note that I'm not talking about the various conspiracy theories out there, which are mostly loony and borderline offensive. I just mean that for all we know, the passengers tried to fight back and failed. Maybe they lost their nerve and never fought at all. Maybe the plane crashed on its own (because the "pilot" didn't know what he was doing).

It wouldn't make for as inspiring a story, but does that mean we're not allowed to mention the possibility? Does enough people wanting something to be true make it true?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I visualize that scene sometimes now when I fly. The typical layout of an airliner, the constricted space, the crude weapons and defenses at hand.

I haven't flown since 9/11 without doing the same thing.
(Then again, having a flight attendant ask you to "keep an eye on" certain passengers and to "be ready for anything" kind of highlights that sort of situation).

[WSUCougar]

Maple Leafs, have you read the transcripts from the trial? It sounds a little more clear.

[sachmo71]

Despite that, we've all filled in the blanks -- a heroic struggle, the the passengers rushing the terrorists and overpowering them even though they know they're going to die in the process. They must protect the white house. In some versions of the story, the passengers even intentionally crash the plane.





It's pretty obvious from the different communications records that the cockpit was breached and there a fight ensued just before the plane nosed into the ground. Someone fought back, and I think that's pretty damn heroic.

[Maple Leafs]

Maple Leafs, have you read the transcripts from the trial? It sounds a little more clear.
No... might be interesting to do that. Are they online?

[WSUCougar]

CNN.com

[Maple Leafs]

CNN.com
I'll take a look.

I wasn't aware they had transcripts from the cockpit. That would certainly make the picture more clear.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I'll take a look.

I wasn't aware they had transcripts from the cockpit. That would certainly make the picture more clear.

They were just made available to the public today for the first time.

[SnDvls]

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060412/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui_flight93_transcript_3

here's another link for you too.

[Swaggs]

I often wonder how close (and, I will admit, even if) that plane was to getting shot down for security purposes. It will be interesting to see how this movie is scripted.

[WSUCougar]

Personally, I have zero interest in seeing the movie. It could only lessen what happened as I see it in my mind's eye.

[molson]

I often wonder how close (and, I will admit, even if) that plane was to getting shot down for security purposes. It will be interesting to see how this movie is scripted.

I think it was just a matter of 15-20 minutes – the president had given the authorization to shoot it down, pilots were in the air ready to act. That’s always been my understanding.

[gstelmack]

It's pretty obvious from the different communications records that the cockpit was breached and there a fight ensued just before the plane nosed into the ground. Someone fought back, and I think that's pretty damn heroic.

We've also had the comments from those on cell phone calls who heard what happened (the "Let's Roll!" comment for example) and heard the fight break out. I thought that had been pretty well documented for a while. The actual cockpit breach is new, but it was pretty clear otherwise that these people actually fought the terrorists for control of the plane.

[Glengoyne]

We've also had the comments from those on cell phone calls who heard what happened (the "Let's Roll!" comment for example) and heard the fight break out. I thought that had been pretty well documented for a while. The actual cockpit breach is new, but it was pretty clear otherwise that these people actually fought the terrorists for control of the plane.

I don't think the cockpit breach is brand new at all. I thought the tapes or transcripts and such were brought out months ago. The families were given the opportunity to hear them, and then several days later they were released. Or perhaps I'm remembering a media account as relayed from one of the family members. There is a loud crash...some cursing...some yelling, and then the end. I think I also remember one of the terrorists coming into the cockpit complaining that the passengers were coming, and one of them telling him to go back outside.

[Glengoyne]

Personally, I have zero interest in seeing the movie. It could only lessen what happened as I see it in my mind's eye.

My feelings exactly. Oddly that is how I felt about Passion of the Christ as well.

[MJ4H]

Note that I'm not talking about the various conspiracy theories out there, which are mostly loony and borderline offensive.

borderline?

[MJ4H]

My feelings exactly. Oddly that is how I felt about Passion of the Christ as well.

Not odd at all.

[illinifan999]

I got chills reading through that transcript.

[RPI-Fan]

I'm surprised more people are so surprised by this. There have been several documentaries on this on channels like A&E, etc.

[wade moore]

Personally, I have zero interest in seeing the movie. It could only lessen what happened as I see it in my mind's eye.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Dutch]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Agreed.

[Buccaneer]

Agreed II.

[molson]

All of the A&E/History Channel type things I've seen have claimed that despite popular opinion, the cockpit door was never actually breached, and I don't see anything in the transcript that really disputes that (unless I missed something). Those documentaries said it was believed that the physical confrontations took place with the hijacker that was "stationed" oustide of the cockpit - and that he may have been incapacitated or even killed.

It's strange - I have the complete opposite reaction of the last few posters - I'm compelled to know every little detail of everything that happened on 9/11, trivial or otherwise. I just want to know the cold facts about everything, and and I still get chills when these stories come up again.

[sachmo71]

same here. dont want to see it. i saw the documentary on Discover, and it killed me. i don't need a more in depth character study of the guy who was on his way to Cali to bury his step-son. Jesus.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I realize this is dangerous and somewhat touchy territory... but...

The story of Flight 93 has always bothered me a little bit. The truth is, we don't know what happened on the flight. We know it was hijacked, we know that some passengers were able to find out what was happening to other flights, and we know that there was a decision made to try to do something about it. And that's all we know. Isn't it?

Despite that, we've all filled in the blanks -- a heroic struggle, the the passengers rushing the terrorists and overpowering them even though they know they're going to die in the process. They must protect the white house. In some versions of the story, the passengers even intentionally crash the plane.

And all of that is possible... but we don't know, and we'll never know. And yet it seems like it's been decided that that's how the story will go, and that's that. It's a great story, and certainly inspiring. But is anyone else bothered that we've all just come to accept it as gospel, just because we want it to true?

Note that I'm not talking about the various conspiracy theories out there, which are mostly loony and borderline offensive. I just mean that for all we know, the passengers tried to fight back and failed. Maybe they lost their nerve and never fought at all. Maybe the plane crashed on its own (because the "pilot" didn't know what he was doing).

It wouldn't make for as inspiring a story, but does that mean we're not allowed to mention the possibility? Does enough people wanting something to be true make it true?
Chuck Norris heard what was occuring and simply stared at where the plane was (he knows where everything is.) The terrorists then crashed into the ground out of fear of receiving a roundhouse kick.

[wade moore]

It's strange - I have the complete opposite reaction of the last few posters - I'm compelled to know every little detail of everything that happened on 9/11, trivial or otherwise. I just want to know the cold facts about everything, and and I still get chills when these stories come up again.

Knowing the details of what happened and seeing a Hollywood twisting of the details are much different.

[watravaler]

I thought it was common knowledge that eyewitnesses saw the plane's engine explode in mid air, hence the government shooting it down? Interesting to see how Hollywood twists the story. I don't think the families of the victims would be on board with this project if it didn't paint the victims as heroes of some sorts, or they were paid millions. Who knows? I think the whole project is a joke, and I don't see any redeeming value in the project whatsoever.

[wade moore]

I thought it was common knowledge that eyewitnesses saw the plane explode in mid air, hence the government shooting it down? Interesting to see how Hollywood twists the story.

No, that's just conspiracy loony's that say that ;)...

[Raiders Army]

Knowing the details of what happened and seeing a Hollywood twisting of the details are much different.
Very true. I heard that a small portion of the profits is going to the the memorial, but IMHO that's not enough for me to support a movie that is essentially cashing in on recent tragedy. The timing is somewhat suspect as well, since it's coming out the same month as this trial.

[CraigSca]

Like many of you, I see very little redeeming value in this project. It's too soon, and from an emotional standpoint, I don't see how anyone would want to head to the movie theater to view this. If there's a curiosity, read the 9/11 Commission's account, not a Hollywood-ized dramatic version.

[Qwikshot]

Reading the transcripts incites a lot of anger in me...

[wade moore]

Like many of you, I see very little redeeming value in this project. It's too soon, and from an emotional standpoint, I don't see how anyone would want to head to the movie theater to view this. If there's a curiosity, read the 9/11 Commission's account, not a Hollywood-ized dramatic version.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing this does pretty well in the box office.

For those that want some sort of 9/11 viewing on screen, find a way to get the documentary that CBS aired where they had been following the NYFD that day.

[stevew]

There's also that Oliver Stone movie coming out in august called World Trade Center. It'll be interesting to see his warped sense of reality on that.

[Maple Leafs]

On the subject of the movie, is the feeling that it's "too soon" or that the subject matter is just inappropriate for a Hollywood movie, period?

We've seen Hollywood movies recently like Munich and Hotel Rwanda that have dealt with similarly difficult issues and handled them fairly well. The directed of Untied 93 also did Bloody Sunday, so there's at least the possibility that he could handle the subject matter.

Now, if it turns into Die Hard on an airplane, then of course it's an outrage. But I think it's at least possible to make a legitimate film based on the events.

[wade moore]

On the subject of the movie, is the feeling that it's "too soon" or that the subject matter is just inappropriate for a Hollywood movie, period?

We've seen Hollywood movies recently like Munich and Hotel Rwanda that have dealt with similarly difficult issues and handled them fairly well. The directed of Untied 93 also did Bloody Sunday, so there's at least the possibility that he could handle the subject matter.

Now, if it turns into Die Hard on an airplane, then of course it's an outrage. But I think it's at least possible to make a legitimate film based on the events.

That's a good question.

I think for me personally, it's too soon. I don't know that it is inappropriate to make the movie, but for me personally I just don't see how the movie could enhance the experience for me. I think that if you lived through the event, a movie is going to have less impact. Movies like Munich, Hotel Rwanda, Bloody Sunday, etc. were not in the US so it's not as close to home. Movies like Pearl Harbor, Glory, etc. were in a different time so it's not as close to home.

[Swaggs]

On the subject of the movie, is the feeling that it's "too soon" or that the subject matter is just inappropriate for a Hollywood movie, period?

We've seen Hollywood movies recently like Munich and Hotel Rwanda that have dealt with similarly difficult issues and handled them fairly well. The directed of Untied 93 also did Bloody Sunday, so there's at least the possibility that he could handle the subject matter.

Now, if it turns into Die Hard on an airplane, then of course it's an outrage. But I think it's at least possible to make a legitimate film based on the events.

I think, for Americans, it is far too soon. Everyone in the country (and I'd assume in Canada and most other Anglican countries) was glued to the television on 9/11, so there is very little to be told that we did not live through and witness ourselves. Maybe in like 25 years, when there are a generation or two of people who did not live through it, but not now.

[Anthony]

I realize this is dangerous and somewhat touchy territory... but...

The story of Flight 93 has always bothered me a little bit. The truth is, we don't know what happened on the flight. We know it was hijacked, we know that some passengers were able to find out what was happening to other flights, and we know that there was a decision made to try to do something about it. And that's all we know. Isn't it?

Despite that, we've all filled in the blanks -- a heroic struggle, the the passengers rushing the terrorists and overpowering them even though they know they're going to die in the process. They must protect the white house. In some versions of the story, the passengers even intentionally crash the plane.

And all of that is possible... but we don't know, and we'll never know. And yet it seems like it's been decided that that's how the story will go, and that's that. It's a great story, and certainly inspiring. But is anyone else bothered that we've all just come to accept it as gospel, just because we want it to true?

Note that I'm not talking about the various conspiracy theories out there, which are mostly loony and borderline offensive. I just mean that for all we know, the passengers tried to fight back and failed. Maybe they lost their nerve and never fought at all. Maybe the plane crashed on its own (because the "pilot" didn't know what he was doing).

It wouldn't make for as inspiring a story, but does that mean we're not allowed to mention the possibility? Does enough people wanting something to be true make it true?


i believe this as well. i accept the conventional theory about as much as i accept the conventional models of dinosaurs in museums and the "knowledge" we have of them - all based on skeletons and bones. we can get rather close to the truth, but like dinosaurs, a lot is based on huge leaps of faith and what we'd like to be the truth just so we can say "we know".

[Anthony]

I haven't flown since 9/11 without doing the same thing.
(Then again, having a flight attendant ask you to "keep an eye on" certain passengers and to "be ready for anything" kind of highlights that sort of situation).

you've actually had a flight attendant do that to you? that's odd.

[Anthony]

I think, for Americans, it is far too soon. Everyone in the country (and I'd assume in Canada and most other Anglican countries) was glued to the television on 9/11, so there is very little to be told that we did not live through and witness ourselves. Maybe in like 25 years, when there are a generation or two of people who did not live through it, but not now.

i agree. at least wait for like the 10th anniversay of this thing (which isn't so far away as it sounds). 5 years after? no thanks.

[Mustang]

Personally.. I watch movies to be entertained.

There is just absolutely no entertainment value for me in some Hollywood version of the events of 9/11...

[JonInMiddleGA]

you've actually had a flight attendant do that to you? that's odd.

Yes, it happened.
And yes, it was very odd, almost surreal.
And gave me quite a bit of pause about flying again for quite a while
(I think I've flown only once since that incident althought that's more circumstancial than intentional).

[Raiders Army]

Why is it too early?

09:35:40 — I don't want to die.

09:35:41 — No, no. Down, down.

09:35:42 — I don't want to die. I don't want to die.

Supposedly this is a stewardress saying this.

I talked to my wife this morning about this stuff and asked her if she would think any less of me if there was a tape of me begging for mercy. She said that she wouldn't, but...

Let's say your husband was a firefighter, policeman, or in the Armed Services. I imagine that you thought that he fought bravely against the terrorists and was one of the those who struggled. What would you think when the tape came out and what you had believed was not was what true?

I am a big fan of the truth and knowing what really happened. I am also a big fan of not kicking the dead when they're down. I think this subject matter will be extremely tricky to deal with so soon after the fact. Does the director go for realism, even though it may portray some people who died in a negative light? Or does the director go for a blurring of the truth and fictionalize what happened? Either scenario and anything inbetween is a no-win situation, IMHO.

[CraigSca]

Just read the transcript. So sad, and makes me so damned angry.

[astrosfan64]

You know I'm ok if they make the picture extra heroic. It is ok to hollywood it. History is an agreed upon fable anyway. It isn't important what happened but how it is remembered. Make them look like heros because they are.

I salute them and hope I would of done the same thing.

[astrosfan64]

dola

It is hard not to get angry at Muslims when I read this. I know, I know it is only the extremists, but it still is difficult. If I didn't have friends who were Muslim, I don't think I could be so open minded still.

[Butter]

For those that want some sort of 9/11 viewing on screen, find a way to get the documentary that CBS aired where they had been following the NYFD that day.

That was hard to watch... but it has been 4 years since even that was on the air, so maybe it would be a little easier now.

[Glengoyne]

i believe this as well. i accept the conventional theory about as much as i accept the conventional models of dinosaurs in museums and the "knowledge" we have of them - all based on skeletons and bones. we can get rather close to the truth, but like dinosaurs, a lot is based on huge leaps of faith and what we'd like to be the truth just so we can say "we know".

I don't think I've heard accounts of flight 93 where the passengers decided to crash the plane intentionally or declare that they have to save the white house. Of Course if I did hear those accounts perhaps I just discounted them as hyperbole. The accounts I have paid attention to indicate that the passengers knew what was in store for them if they did nothing, so they decided to attempt to retake the plane. They got together and made an assault on the cockpit. Whether the door was breached may be in question, but there was certainly a large BANG(presumably the door) followed by screaming in both english and arabic before the plane went down.

I guess I don't buy that the conservative version being circulated is all that far from the truth.

[King of New York]

After the military's, umm, embellishing of the story of Jessica Lynch, I've become very wary of any official accounts of "American heroes." The release of the transcript, though, gives a fairly clear indication of what actually happened. Whether they breached the cockpit door or not is fairly irrelevant--the official account of what happened is pretty much confirmed by the transcript.

On the other hand (and I don't mean this to be inflammatory), what most strikes me about the transcript is the way in which the passengers are acting, first and foremost, as human beings. They don't want to die--they attack the cockpit, as best as one can tell from what they are recorded as saying, because they understand that it is their one and only chance to save their lives. This is not a criticism; if I were on that plane, I'd be thinking more about saving my own life than saving the White House, I'm sure. It even makes the event more awful, in a way. After reading the transcript, I feel as though Flight 93 ended not so much in heroic transcendance, but in a primal fight to live.

As for the movie--I have no interest. It will always be too soon for me, I think.

[sabotai]

There's also that Oliver Stone movie coming out in august called World Trade Center. It'll be interesting to see his warped sense of reality on that.

Considering what he did with the JFK assassination....

[Anthony]

i agree, they died trying to save their own lives. but anyone who's watched a plane in a movie or whatever knows you pull the steering wheel back in order to make the plane go up. don't know what would have caused the plane to crash other than the passengers weren't as successful as we thought. i'm sure the passengers outnumbered the terrorists by a wide margin, don't know what happened that some passengers couldn't have fought off the terrorists and the others tried to right the plane. i don't think the action went down quite as we've hailed it to have went down.

[CraigSca]

Here's how I think it went down: the hijackers realized they weren't going to be able to hold control of the plane and purposely took the plane down before the passengers regained control. End of story.

[Anthony]

Here's how I think it went down: the hijackers realized they weren't going to be able to hold control of the plane and purposely took the plane down before the passengers regained control. End of story.

i can agree with that scenario much more than the commonly accepted version.

[JeeberD]

Here's how I think it went down: the hijackers realized they weren't going to be able to hold control of the plane and purposely took the plane down before the passengers regained control. End of story.

That's kinda what I got from the transcript...

[GrantDawg]

i can agree with that scenario much more than the commonly accepted version.


Which version is that? That is the only version I've ever heard.

[watravaler]

Nevermind...

[Anthony]

the version that had the passengers valiantly crashing the plan into the ground to spare the plan from striking the White House, those fine patriots.

[GrantDawg]

the version that had the passengers valiantly crashing the plan into the ground to spare the plan from striking the White House, those fine patriots.



I've never heard that. If they regained control of the plane, why would they purposely crash it? That makes absolutely no sense. Are you sure people are actually believing that?

[Glengoyne]

i agree, they died trying to save their own lives. but anyone who's watched a plane in a movie or whatever knows you pull the steering wheel back in order to make the plane go up. don't know what would have caused the plane to crash other than the passengers weren't as successful as we thought. i'm sure the passengers outnumbered the terrorists by a wide margin, don't know what happened that some passengers couldn't have fought off the terrorists and the others tried to right the plane. i don't think the action went down quite as we've hailed it to have went down.

I don't think any of the reliable accounts purport that the passengers successfully took control of the plane. It seems pretty clear to me. The passengers assaulted the cockpit, and may have gotten inside. Some reports indicate they might have used a drink cart as a ram. I have no idea how accurate that element is. In any case, assume that is how it went down. You have five highjackers in the cockpit. Knock a folding door panel into them, pushed by a drink cart. None of the passengers are even in the cockpit, and we are way overcrowded in the cockpit. Assuming the passengers fought their way past the terrorists that weren't flying the plane, I don't see it at all realistic to think that they eliminated the pilot and were able to gain control of the aircraft. I think, in roleplaying terms, that if the passengers rolled really damn well one of them might have ended up in a struggle to keep the plane righted. I think that is really a best case scenario.

[Desnudo]

That's a good question.

I think for me personally, it's too soon. I don't know that it is inappropriate to make the movie, but for me personally I just don't see how the movie could enhance the experience for me. I think that if you lived through the event, a movie is going to have less impact. Movies like Munich, Hotel Rwanda, Bloody Sunday, etc. were not in the US so it's not as close to home. Movies like Pearl Harbor, Glory, etc. were in a different time so it's not as close to home.

I don't know if I'll ever go to see a movie about 9/11. At least not until I have kids who are old enough to want to understand what happened that day. I still feel an incredible sense of pain just when I catch documentaries. There's been so much live video coverage, news and analysis around 9/11 that I don't see that a movie could possibly add anything of value. I think that's a major difference between it and some other events turned into movies.

I mean there's a video of one of the planes flying into the WTC...

[Young Drachma]

I realize this is dangerous and somewhat touchy territory... but...

The story of Flight 93 has always bothered me a little bit. The truth is, we don't know what happened on the flight. We know it was hijacked, we know that some passengers were able to find out what was happening to other flights, and we know that there was a decision made to try to do something about it. And that's all we know. Isn't it?

Despite that, we've all filled in the blanks -- a heroic struggle, the the passengers rushing the terrorists and overpowering them even though they know they're going to die in the process. They must protect the white house. In some versions of the story, the passengers even intentionally crash the plane.

And all of that is possible... but we don't know, and we'll never know. And yet it seems like it's been decided that that's how the story will go, and that's that. It's a great story, and certainly inspiring. But is anyone else bothered that we've all just come to accept it as gospel, just because we want it to true?

Note that I'm not talking about the various conspiracy theories out there, which are mostly loony and borderline offensive. I just mean that for all we know, the passengers tried to fight back and failed. Maybe they lost their nerve and never fought at all. Maybe the plane crashed on its own (because the "pilot" didn't know what he was doing).

It wouldn't make for as inspiring a story, but does that mean we're not allowed to mention the possibility? Does enough people wanting something to be true make it true?

This is how I feel about it.

[stevew]

I think the "official" story seems to imply too much that the passengers intentionally crashed the plane so that it wouldnt be used as a missle. Instead of the passengers trying to regain control of the cockpit and save themselves. I know it's a minor semantical difference, but I could easily see how someone would think that they crashed it on purpose or something, given the way the news is often worded.

Basically what HA said.

[kcchief19]

But is anyone else bothered that we've all just come to accept it as gospel, just because we want it to true?
I don't know if "bothered" is the word I would use, but I'd choose "confused."

I've read the transcript, and I think there are still plenty of blanks that continued to get filled in. I don't think the transcripts clarify anything -- and if they transcripts do clarify anything, I think it's that the public conception of what happened might not be entirely accurate.

I don't think there is any doubt that the evidence suggests that passengers learned what was happening and tried to do something about it. One way or another, what the terrorists wanted to happen didn't happen. I don't think it necessarily matters how it happened, just that it happened.

The only thing that would bother me is if there is still evidence that has been withheld that would tell the public one way or another what happened. I think the American people deserve to know what happened. I don't see any harm or disrespect in making all recordings and evidence of Flight 93 public. I certainly understand the point made early about protecting people from having the world hear their family members beg for their life -- but I don't think anyone who matters would think less of anyone for that in that situation.

[stevew]

The cockpit tapes from the other flights didn't make it, I gather? I thought that the Black Box was indestructable.

[Glengoyne]

This is how I feel about it.
Again. You are like the third person who has expressed this sentiment.

I think your premise is incorrect. I don't believe the "generally accepted" account of flight 93 has the passengers sacrificing themselves for the White House.

I think the heroic sense comes from the fact that they actually fought back. Regardless of their motivation, and the most obvious, but not exclusive, motivation would be self preservation, what they did was heroic. Even though they failed, they failed at a heroic task.

[Anthony]

they fought back only because they had the knowledge of the Twin Towers. had the passengers in both WTC attacks known there really wasn't a bomb on the plane and that they in fact were the bomb i'm sure they'd have done the same thing.

[King of New York]

I would consider them to be heroic in the following sense: they made a determined effort to try to get back control of the plane and they fought hard for their lives. All they had left was a long shot, and they took it. Their attempt to take back the plane also saved lives on the ground and helped to thwart the hijackers' plan, and that, too, makes it heroic (I suspect that Flight 93 would have been shot down before reaching Washington, but the passengers probably did not think about that.)

The transcript does qualify the "recieved wisdom" a bit, though, imho. I seem to recall the government and the media giving the impression, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, that the passengers had rather stoically and calmly ("let's roll") decided to fight the hijackers, broken into the cockpit, and died while they grappled with the hijackers for control of the plane's steering mechanism.

The transcript depicts a scenario that, in hindsight, is a bit different but more believable. There is more of a sense of the passengers' panic and instincts for self-preservation, and the hijackers clearly made the decision to put the plane into the ground.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

SteveW I have wondered about the answer to that question as well.

[RPI-Fan]

The documentary(s) on A&E apparantly did a really good job. They echo pretty much all of the sentiments discussed in the thread.

(Passengers knew about the other attacks, but were very confused nonetheless... and the way the takeback went down pretty much was exactly how the real transcripts depict it.

[molson]

The heroism discussion is kind of silly to me, and totally irrelevant - I mean, if they had done nothing, despite the knowledge of the other planes, we wouldn't be calling them cowards. We would still honor their memory.

What I try to get from the story, the documentaries, and the Flight 93 trailer, is just a connection to those people. Regular people, just like us, horribly unlucky. I'm just mesmorized trying to understand what it was like there - whether it's a desire for a connection or an inner search of what I would have felt like and what I would have done. Documentaries/movies, told the right way, can create this kind of connection much more than dry transcripts. I'm pretty optimistic this one was made the right way, from what I've seen and read, but time will tell.

I can certainly understand why people think this would be too soon - particulary those who had a more personal connection to 9/11 than I did.

[RPI-Fan]

The heroism discussion is kind of silly to me, and totally irrelevant - I mean, if they had done nothing, despite the knowledge of the other planes, we wouldn't be calling them cowards. We would still honor their memory.

What I try to get from the story, the documentaries, and the Flight 93 trailer, is just a connection to those people. Regular people, just like us, horribly unlucky. I'm just memorized trying to understand what it was like there - whether it's a desire for a connection or an inner search of what I would have felt like and what I would have done. Documentaries/movies, told the right way, can create this kind of connection much more than dry transcripts. I'm pretty optimistic this one was made the right way, from what I've seen and read, but time will tell.

I can certainly understand why people think this would be too soon - particulary those who had a more personal connection to 9/11 than I did.

The show on A&E was two hours, so essentially, a feature film.

Other than being a bit too fragmented to be less documentary and more movie, I thought it was very touching.

[Glengoyne]

they fought back only because they had the knowledge of the Twin Towers. had the passengers in both WTC attacks known there really wasn't a bomb on the plane and that they in fact were the bomb i'm sure they'd have done the same thing.

I think that makes their efforts no less heroic. Consider the alternative, or consider if their efforts had been turned back.

[Anthony]

I think that makes their efforts no less heroic. Consider the alternative, or consider if their efforts had been turned back.

efforts turned back? these were islamic extremists, not super evil mutants. there was like what, 4 or 5 of them? and how many passengers? not trying to shit on their legacy, just tired of being fed nationalistic propaganda bullshit.

[astrosfan64]

efforts turned back? these were islamic extremists, not super evil mutants. there was like what, 4 or 5 of them? and how many passengers? not trying to shit on their legacy, just tired of being fed nationalistic propaganda bullshit.

fucking commie :)

[Glengoyne]

efforts turned back? these were islamic extremists, not super evil mutants. there was like what, 4 or 5 of them? and how many passengers? not trying to shit on their legacy, just tired of being fed nationalistic propaganda bullshit.


Yeah 4 or 5 of them. They were armed, and they had shown their willingness to kill. They were playing for keeps. Life and death.

I'm not exaggerating what they did one iota. I'm not playing up any jingoistic theme. I'm saying that they knew their lives were in danger, and they acted. As King of New York said "all they had was a long shot, and they took it." They didn't sit in the back of the plane cowering. They took action when pressed.

[Blade6119]

efforts turned back? these were islamic extremists, not super evil mutants. there was like what, 4 or 5 of them? and how many passengers? not trying to shit on their legacy, just tired of being fed nationalistic propaganda bullshit.
Gotta love irony, this comment coming from the person who said Jim adds nothing to the board. I dont see how this comment really adds anything to this thread other then to potentially cause an argument...but then again thats all you ever do around here

[sachmo71]

Gotta love irony, this comment coming from the person who said Jim adds nothing to the board. I dont see how this comment really adds anything to this thread other then to potentially cause an argument...but then again thats all you ever do around here

the one thing he does well is act like an asshole. why fight it?

[Maple Leafs]

One of the local papers up here ran a story on the movie, along with a short advanced review which game the movie five stars. This is the first review I've seen -- maybe it's not going to be the Hollywood hack job most are expecting...

Edit: Just checked rottentomatoes.com and there are some reviews there as well -- 15 positive, one negative, with Roeper calling it the best film of the year.

The continuing terror of United 93
'The most terrifying movie in years'

Peter Simpson, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, April 25, 2006

United 93 is the most terrifying movie I've seen in years.

This is not a blurb of movie-critic hyperbole: It's a measured response to a movie that is too real, too recent, and too close to be seen, to be felt, as entertainment. It's more like group therapy: we all sit together to face this demon, to relive these horrible minutes in the hope of a collective release, or at least insight.

United 93 succeeds because director Paul Greengrass gives us a relentless, yet restrained, retelling of a day when we all stood together and watched a lot of innocent people die, a day when everything really did change -- and five years later continues to change. Greengrass does nothing to get in the way of the story. There is no melodrama, no romanticism, no torquing special effects, and no glimmering movie stars. The lone affectation is the use of handheld cameras, which give the film a jumpy volatility that reflects our shared helplessness, that fact we know what's coming and can't do a damn thing about it.

There's no back story: the movie begins early that morning and ends the instant the plane crashes into an empty field.

Those heartbreaking phone calls by doomed passengers to their loved ones on the ground are used more for narrative than dramatic effect: through them the passengers learned that planes have crashed into the World Trade Center. That changed everything on board, and in all likelihood saved many lives.

I expected to feel voyeuristic watching United 93, but in fact it was cathartic. Though the film is frequently claustrophobic -- most scenes are shot in the cabin of the aircraft or in windowless command centres -- it somehow speaks to the larger awareness that the attack was aimed not just at the thousands who died, but at our culture, our freedom, our future.

Well-told stories are essential to our collective understanding of what it all means.

Everybody with a heart was shaken that day, and there's a release in seeing the events portrayed like this, without judgment or sentiment. The film seeks neither to demonize nor sanctify, and restates the facts in almost documentary fashion.

The approach is profound in ways large and small.

There's a curious relief in seeing that everybody, even the most experienced aviation and military officials, reacted with the same disbelief as the second plane hit the World Trade Center, even though another had crashed into the towers moments earlier. My naivete was our naivete: we all shared that woefully misplaced complacency.

That footage of the second jet circling toward the towers -- the CNN broadcast is the only glimpse of the other three doomed aircraft seen in United 93 -- is the most chilling image of our era. It is cut into my memory like an etching on steel, both permanent and cold.

I remember the hollow feeling that followed, the ungodly mix of horror and helplessness, the draconian possibility that what we were seeing was "real world" and not a simulation or camera trick. I remember the dull realization that hate remains a powerful force, and is not safely locked in our history books like some deadly animal at the zoo. There it was before our very eyes, live on television, throwing jets full of innocent people into buildings full of ordinary people. How could such hate exist, and how could it strike with such conviction at the heart of Western society? How could this happen on this sunny, beautiful September morning?

Hate breeds hate, often under the red banner of vengeance, but Paul Greengrass doesn't fly that flag. We all know the hijackers die in the film, but there's no great moment of triumph, no grand and righteous blast of the trumpets. In the end there is only silence, and blackness. Then it's over.

Except in real life, of course, where it's not over, where it's never over. That's why well-told stories are so critically important. They may not bring us understanding of why things happen, but they show us why our response to terror is what keeps us free, that we must stand and spit in the face of hate. The passengers on Flight 93 realized their captors were determined to kill them all and a lot more people on the ground below. So they fought back, without weapons or hope, and sacrificed their own lives to save many others.

The feeling that hangs over United 93 is not suspense, but rather a rank sense of the inevitable, of the indifferent march of the facts toward a bitter fate.

Late in the flight we see both hijackers and passengers praying to God, in a macabre competition for divine intervention. We know there will be no salvation, that there is only truth and history, so real and so close that we can still feel its chill.

That's what makes United 93 so terrifying, in a way that no "horror movie" could equal.

Peter Simpson is the Citizen's Arts & Entertainment editor.

What Jay Stone says about united 93

*****

United 93 is a harrowing movie: anxious, unsparing, raw. It is also a magnificently accomplished drama that takes you right inside the doomed airliner to live out a story of unrelenting tension and documentary tragedy. Read the full review Friday.

[Blade6119]

One of the local papers up here ran a story on the movie, along with a short advanced review which game the movie five stars. This is the first review I've seen -- maybe it's not going to be the Hollywood hack job most are expecting...
The local paper reviewed it at 4/4 stars...though IMDB user ratings, which are usually spot on accurate due to the sheer size of the voting group has it rated rather poorly compared to other movies. Im going to wait for the # of votes to go up and hope it rises, but i have to say i almost always agree with IMDB over critics

[Draft Dodger]

EW also gave it a very good review.

still have no interest in seeing it...maybe ever.

[stevew]

The local paper reviewed it at 4/4 stars...though IMDB user ratings, which are usually spot on accurate due to the sheer size of the voting group has it rated rather poorly compared to other movies. Im going to wait for the # of votes to go up and hope it rises, but i have to say i almost always agree with IMDB over critics

IMDB reviews are from people that likely havent even seen the film at this point. There are only 395 votes right now, and 140 are for both 1 and 10. I'd probably think that it's much more likely that the 140 people who rated it a 1 are just downvoting to be dicks. Let the voting group get up to 10k or so, I bet the movie is a 7-8 by then.

[Blade6119]

IMDB reviews are from people that likely havent even seen the film at this point. There are only 395 votes right now, and 140 are for both 1 and 10. I'd probably think that it's much more likely that the 140 people who rated it a 1 are just downvoting to be dicks. Let the voting group get up to 10k or so, I bet the movie is a 7-8 by then.
I agree, i want to wait for the total votes to raise...usually IMDB user rating is a wonderful guide to how good it will be...just stating right now its low, and i do expect it to rise if critics are right

[Maple Leafs]

I think it's quite possible that the critics could consider it an excellent movie and audiences could react very negatively, and both sides wouldn't necessarily be wrong.

[Draft Dodger]

no matter what the motivation, it reeks to me of exploitation. can't get behind it. no way.

[Blade6119]

no matter what the motivation, it reeks to me of exploitation. can't get behind it. no way.
Did you see titanic? That another american tragedy that they turned into a movie. War flicks about true battles. Heck, 50% of movies are about real events and al of them exploitative of human emotions. Thats business though, and if people are willing to see this i think its 10x a better movie to make then hostel(which i will never see as the stories i heared are just fucking disgusting)...id rather see a flight 93 type flick then one where they just torture people for 2 hours...but to each his own

[Draft Dodger]

The Titanic sunk in 1912. I don't know anyone who lost loved ones on the Titanic, nor did I watch the horror unfold on TV.

I just don't like the idea of the flight 93 movie (or the WTC one). to me, they are closer to made for TV sleazy bio pics like they might do for Heidi Fleiss or Joey Buttafuco. I'm sure that's not correct, but that's how I feel.

In 15 years? Maybe.

[ISiddiqui]

What's an extra 10-11 years going to gain?

From the reviews I've read there is little to no exploitation in this flick and actually pulls it off.

[ice4277]

What's an extra 10-11 years going to gain?

From the reviews I've read there is little to no exploitation in this flick and actually pulls it off.

Yep, from everything I've heard, its an honest, decent treatment of the event. I also don't think waiting years to make the movie would make a difference, at least to me. Its an emotional period for most, to be sure, but reacting to it by locking those emotions away and not examining them seems kind of backwards to me.

[Celeval]

Noting off a few comments about Oliver Stone's fall version - from what I've been reading, there's none of the JFK-like implications... the focus is on the rescue effort around two particular first responders, rather than the event in general.

[SFL Cat]

I've heard that the movie is very good, almost documentary-like. I've also heard the story hasn't been twisted into a Hollywood action-adventure flick.

That said, I'm not sure yet if I plan on seeing it. I've heard it is very graphic, especially in the scenes where the terrorists kill the pilots. I'm thinking that seeing that stuff on the screen, and knowing it probably isn't far from the factual events would probably wierd me out a bit.

[stevew]

Noting off a few comments about Oliver Stone's fall version - from what I've been reading, there's none of the JFK-like implications... the focus is on the rescue effort around two particular first responders, rather than the event in general.

True, I had heard that it was about trapped individuals as well.

[TroyF]

I'm sure they pulled it off fine. But I'm just not ready. I've read books on 9/11. I've read essays from some of the family members of Flight 93. I've watched some specials on it.

All that said, I just don't have any desire to see it. Kind of like DD said, living through it changed me.

When I have children? I'd love for them to see it when they are 15 or 16. To show them some of history.

FWIW, I'm like this with most movies based off of true stories I've lived through. I have no desire to see an OKC bombing movie, a 9/11 movie or a movie about the '89 SF quake. Just a personal preference there.

[bulletsponge]

if im ever in a situation like that, as soon as the others made plans to rush the cockpit, id stand up and say "alright boys, lets do this. LEERROOYY JEEEENNNNKKKIINNSSS!"

[Craptacular]

For those that want some sort of 9/11 viewing on screen, find a way to get the documentary that CBS aired where they had been following the NYFD that day.

I'm pretty sure I have that on tape. It was a couple of foreign (?) journalists who were following a rookie firefighter around.

[EagleFan]

efforts turned back? these were islamic extremists, not super evil mutants. there was like what, 4 or 5 of them? and how many passengers?


The numbers game doesn't much matter here when you are talking about the outnumbered people not only being the only armed people but the layout of the "battlefield". The passengers were attacking from a choke point, unless you can figure out a way to get more than one person down an aisle on an airline at a time, and that neutralizes any numbers advantage. The terrorists were trained to kill and are willing to die for their "cause" so I would put money on any of them in a one on one battle with Joe average who would have been on the plane. Terrorist kills the fist couple people he faces and now it's an even trickier "battlefield" for the passengers to navigate. That's pretty much battle tactics 101.

I don't believe that the passengers made it all the way to the "pilot" before it crashed, but their efforts probably played a part in the crash.

[molson]

Ebert gives it four stars, and the review has convinced me to check it out this weekend.

hxxp://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060427/REVIEWS/60419006

[chinaski]

i would pay money too see it IF all the proceeds went to the families. No one should profit from this movie.

[Franklinnoble]

At this point, all the 9/11 families ought to be pretty well taken care of. I can't count the number of charities that were set up for victim's families after that happened.

Anyhow, all the families of the passengers on United 93 endorsed the movie. 100%.

[IwasHere]

Yeah 4 or 5 of them. They were armed, and they had shown their willingness to kill. They were playing for keeps. Life and death.


Where are you getting this info? I do not remember any reports that these terrorist had their AK-47s with them?

[Deattribution]

Is it really possible for notable reviewers to give this movie a bad review anyway? I mean they're 'suppose' to be unbiased in their view of a movie so they can't say it's exploitation, and they obviously can't shit all over the story or subject... so what can they really say negatively?

[molson]

Is it really possible for notable reviewers to give this movie a bad review anyway? I mean they're 'suppose' to be unbiased in their view of a movie so they can't say it's exploitation, and they obviously can't shit all over the story or subject... so what can they really say negatively?

If this was the hollywood hack-job everyone was fearing, I'm sure people, including critics, would be outraged. And on a more artistic level, Ebert pointed out a lot of things that would have made this movie suck - like if they focussed on a handful of the characters, gave them histories and backstory. or otherwise made this feel like a typical "doomed voyage" movie.

[stevew]

Where are you getting this info? I do not remember any reports that these terrorist had their AK-47s with them?


They had box cutter knives. Which is "armed." Apparently they killed a few people early on, so people got the idea that they were serious.

[Glengoyne]

At this point, all the 9/11 families ought to be pretty well taken care of. I can't count the number of charities that were set up for victim's families after that happened.

Anyhow, all the families of the passengers on United 93 endorsed the movie. 100%.

Brian Williams did a piece at the end of the the news the other night commenting on how the Air Traffic Controllers working 9/11 were in the audience of the premiere, along with all of the family members. The picture of the theatre he painted was very powerful. It was reminiscent of how powerful Schindler's List was for me, especially when he described the packed theatre emptying out in complete silence. With Schindler's List, my friends and I left the theatre, rode home for a good 15 minutes in the same car, all without speaking a word.

I was happy that the movie as he described it ended with that kind of power, strangely I was also happy when he mentioned that the movie "Will make you Angry". That is an emotion I feel most appropriate when I think of 9/11. I don't think the anger over 9/11 is something to be ashamed of. I think it is actually a healthy reminder of what hate can do if not curbed.

[Glengoyne]

Where are you getting this info? I do not remember any reports that these terrorist had their AK-47s with them?

Are you for real?

[stevew]

This was a very powerful film and extremely well done. This is not a hack job by any means.

[IwasHere]

Are you for real?
Yes, can you please provide me with a link that says the terrorist were armed with AK47s or other Guns.

Sorry, but I do not remember reading about how they were able to smuggle all their guns on boards the plains.

[stevew]

Yes, can you please provide me with a link that says the terrorist were armed with AK47s or other Guns.

Sorry, but I do not remember reading about how they were able to smuggle all their guns on boards the plains.

Dude, you are the only one saying anything about AK 47s. You somehow misinterpreted "Armed" meaning that they had guns.

[IwasHere]

Dude, you are the only one saying anything about AK 47s. You somehow misinterpreted "Armed" meaning that they had guns.
In this day an aged what else would "Armed" mean?

[stevew]

Armed with a knife. Armed with a screwdriver. Armed with a frozen trout. All deadly weapons in the hands of trained killers.

[BrianD]

Armed with an "Ignore" button?

[dervack]

Great movie. Was constantly getting the chills watching it (maybe because I was the only one in the theater). I would say that anyone who might see, go.

[Glengoyne]

In this day an aged what else would "Armed" mean?

Yeah 'cause certainly anyone standing in the narrow aisle of an airliner with a knife, just isn't dangerous.