NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I was with some friends at the local movie theater last weekend to see Scary Movie 4 (somewhat funny) when I saw a movie poster advertising “United 93”, a movie about flight 93.

This was news to me, so I looked into the whole thing. Apparently, Universal Studios claims to know what happened on that plane, despite the objections of various relatives of those who died on that plane. We don’t know what happened, we never will.

Apparently the movie is chock full of religious and “patriotic” messages. I’m all for making a buck, but doing so by making propaganda for the current ideology of fear and anger in the US is disgusting.

What do ya’ll think of this piece of shit?

Oh yeah, here's an article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/movies/04flig.html?ex=1159934400&en=afd143a2ca179508&ei=5087&excamp=GGMV911movies
I especially liked this part:
Mrs. Felt said people who were upset by the trailer should avoid the movie. But she added: "9/11 is a fact. It happened. Running away from the movie isn't going to resolve underlying factors of why we're upset by it."
And by like, of course I mean, it made me through up in my mouth.

I think the movie is a good idea and that it will be a pretty successful movie. If you can't face the truth, you shouldn't see the movie though.

I think the movie is a good idea and that it will be a pretty successful movie. If you can't face the truth, you shouldn't see the movie though.

Agreed.

For that matter, there's an upcoming Oliver Stone film that looks to be much worse. It's about some guy trapped in the rubble of the tower.

I think the movie is a good idea and that it will be a pretty successful movie. If you can't face the truth, you shouldn't see the movie though.
Wait. What?
The truth? We don/t know the truth. Nobody does. Making a movie about it is asinine.

Well the fact 9/11 happened, as stated in the article. It seems all the people that hated the trailer are actually outraged about the whole incident itself, not the trailer. Same thing with Pearl Harbor, although it was a long time even after that before a movie was made.

The fact that the families of most of the victims approved of this and the head got in charge and MET them and did everything he could to portray it as best he could shows amazing compassion and sympathy. Of course it will be patriotic and a little of the top, but the events that transpired were incredible!

It is the first time Americans were willing to fight to back and die to save others. Such things have not taken place in America ever. We never had an enemy to oppose us or commit suicide over to save others. (Not in war, but they were also civilians) What they did proved that not all Americans are helpless and self-centered people driven by self-preservation.

The sacrifice they made and did makes them heroes in my eyes. Although they may have died, it'd be even better if they didn't. They saved untold lives and our nations respect.

Wait. What?
The truth? We don/t know the truth. Nobody does. Making a movie about it is asinine.

Lol the above post was to DD who deleted his post....but I think we do know the truth now. Unless you can say that the previous other documentaries were also asinine and false.

All I know is that I WILL be seeing it opening day. 9/11 is the reason I always carry a mechanical pencil onto planes with me, a terrorist tries to take over, and I will stab his thigh as he walks by.

I think the movie is a good idea and that it will be a pretty successful movie. If you can't face the truth, you shouldn't see the movie though.

What truth?

They aren't making a movie about 9/11 in general, but about a flight on which we don't know what happened.

All I know is that I WILL be seeing it opening day. 9/11 is the reason I always carry a mechanical pencil onto planes with me, a terrorist tries to take over, and I will stab his thigh as he walks by.

But how much damage can a mechanical pencil really do? they dont even have real lead anymore so you cant even give em lead poisoning.

The fact that the families of most of the victims approved of this and the head got in charge and MET them and did everything he could to portray it as best he could shows amazing compassion and sympathy. Of course it will be patriotic and a little of the top, but the events that transpired were incredible!
No, they really weren't.
It is the first time Americans were willing to fight to back and die to save others. Such things have not taken place in America ever. We never had an enemy to oppose us or commit suicide over to save others. (Not in war, but they were also civilians) What they did proved that not all Americans are helpless and self-centered people driven by self-preservation.

What the fuck. People throw their lives away helping others all the time. If you’re trying to be sarcastic, it isn’t working.
The sacrifice they made and did makes them heroes in my eyes. Although they may have died, it'd be even better if they didn't. They saved untold lives and our nations respect.
Here’s the thing. We don’t even really know what they did. It’s all speculation based on some very suspicious minute long cell phone calls.

But how much damage can a mechanical pencil really do? they dont even have real lead anymore so you cant even give em lead poisoning.
There is an entire defensive art devoted to the use of the standard pen/cil. It was actually developed at a university by a maths instructor who wanted to give his female students a wayto fight back using the weapons they had on hand... in this case, a standard "Cross" brand pen.

After one student inadvertantly killed her attacker with her pen, a "non-lethal" device was designed for use with the technique, and the "Kubotan" was born.

IIRC there is also an ancient Chinese art of fighting with Chopsticks (there is an ancient chinese art of fighting with anything... including bamboo flutes). Haven't yet found an airline that won't let me carry my super-dense, unbreakable ironwood Chopsticks and a Cross Pen on board.

There is an entire defensive art devoted to the use of the standard pen/cil. It was actually developed at a university by a maths instructor who wanted to give his female students a wayto fight back using the weapons they had on hand... in this case, a standard "Cross" brand pen.

After one student inadvertantly killed her attacker with her pen, a "non-lethal" device was designed for use with the technique, and the "Kubotan" was born.

IIRC there is also an ancient Chinese art of fighting with Chopsticks (there is an ancient chinese art of fighting with anything... including bamboo flutes). Haven't yet found an airline that won't let me carry my super-dense, unbreakable ironwood Chopsticks and a Cross Pen on board.
That’s one of the coolest things I’ve heard, ever.
I can see how it could work. If you have the guts, you can kill anybody with any elongated object by shoving it through their eye socket.

No, they really weren't.

What the fuck. People throw their lives away helping others all the time. If you’re trying to be sarcastic, it isn’t working.

Here’s the thing. We don’t even really know what they did. It’s all speculation based on some very suspicious minute long cell phone calls.


Universal executives say they have gone to great pains to be sensitive to the victims' families. The film's director, Paul Greengrass — who is best known for "The Bourne Supremacy," but who also made the politically explosive docudrama "Bloody Sunday," about British troops' massacre of civilian protesters in Northern Ireland — got to know the families of most of the victims. Most cooperated in the making of the film, and they will have a chance to see the completed film this weekend, one executive said.

1. I think they did approve. It states that in the article.

2. Give one other incident where people rose up to protect many others even if they might/would/will die in the process. Remember it has to be more then a few. This was not one or two crazy people who attempted it.

3. We have many phone calls and we know enough about it. I do believe they were also more then a minute long.

Also...I think your one of these stupid conspiracy people who think that it was fake and the government had something to do with this.

Here’s the thing. We don’t even really know what they did. It’s all speculation based on some very suspicious minute long cell phone calls.
That and the BlackBox recordings of the 1st (terrorist) and 2nd (passenger)assaults on the cockpit.

(1) Flight 93 was the only plane not to connect with its intended target.

(2) Flight 93 was the only plane to have passengers assault the occupied cockpit.

So what if the rest is speculation and Rah Rah? Most movies can't even get one point of truth correct, much less two.

Also, Undelia, I was watching CSI the other day, and they had a cat-lady who was murdered by use of a simple pen to the cest. A mechanical pencil to the thigh would damage muscles, and splinter, causing further damage.

1. I think they did approve. It states that in the article.
Not all of them. SOme still question if the story they are tols is acurate.
2. Give one other incident where people rose up to protect many others even if they might/would/will die in the process. Remember it has to be more then a few. This was not one or two crazy people who attempted it.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0225s.jpg
3. We have many phone calls and we know enough about it. I do believe they were also more then a minute long.
I often wonder where those phone calls came from. Considering the plane had no service for cell phones, it would be nearly impossible to get any service at that altitude.
Also...I think your one of these stupid conspiracy people who think that it was fake and the government had something to do with this.
I assure you I am not stupid, and I don’t think it’s fake. I think we are being told a simplified story because what really happened could possibly rock the country to its core. It may have been far more serious and included much more inside involvement. Possibly the real story would show such gross incompetence as to cause nearly ever major politician to lose his or her job.

That’s one of the coolest things I’ve heard, ever.
I can see how it could work. If you have the guts, you can kill anybody with any elongated object by shoving it through their eye socket.
Actually, she punctured his aorta (kubotan techniques do not adress the head). Same result though.

It really works well. When I was working Security I embarrassed the hell out of a Chav by using a AA MiniMag Torch as a Kubotan (a secondary purpose for which it was designed BTW). The git thought it would be funny to loudly ask if I was going to beat him with my (issue) 6-"C" cell torch. I told him "no", and said that he was such a schmendrick that I would only use the little torch... which I did. A quich shot to the solar plexus and a wrist lock and it was all over but the gasping. :D

I often wonder where those phone calls came from. Considering the plane had no service for cell phones, it would be nearly impossible to get any service at that altitude.Technically not true.
A Cellular tower has a hemispherical range of a couple of miles. The reason people are not allowed to use private cell phones on planes is (ostensibly) because the .6W transmission from within the plane shell is amplified internall by the shell and could (possibly) interfere with FBW avionics.
I assure you I am not stupid, and I don’t think it’s fake. I think we are being told a simplified story because what really happened could possibly rock the country to its core. It may have been far more serious and included much more inside involvement. Possibly the real story would show such gross incompetence as to cause nearly ever major politician to lose his or her job.It wouldn't take Flight 93 to "show such gross incompetence as to cause nearly ever major politician to lose his or her job"... that's on the news nightly. But people don't care - they want their RepubloCrats. :headbang:

Not all of them. SOme still question if the story they are tols is acurate.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/brown/images/br0225s.jpg

I often wonder where those phone calls came from. Considering the plane had no service for cell phones, it would be nearly impossible to get any service at that altitude.

I assure you I am not stupid, and I don’t think it’s fake. I think we are being told a simplified story because what really happened could possibly rock the country to its core. It may have been far more serious and included much more inside involvement. Possibly the real story would show such gross incompetence as to cause nearly ever major politician to lose his or her job.

Well most of them, though it proves that your point isn't a major thing and they are being as compassionate and doing the best they can with all the people that were directly affected.

Umm...civil rights movement wasn't it. Nice try, but don't pull the usual crap out of your butt. We're talking an enemy here that WILL kill you and will kill and others regardless of what you do. You WILL die in the process or there is an extremely high chance of it.

Cell phones work on air planes, you can still bounce from tower to tower, they also do have telephones on airplanes also.

Politicans are icompentant idiots, we all know that and I think its already out there. :)

Technically not true.
A Cellular tower has a hemispherical range of a couple of miles. The reason people are not allowed to use private cell phones on planes is (ostensibly) because the .6W transmission from within the plane shell is amplified internall by the shell and could (possibly) interfere with FBW avionics.
http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm
As was shown above, the chance of a typical cellphone call from cruising altitude making it to ground and engaging a cellsite there is less than one in a hundred. To calculate the probability that two such calls will succeed involves elementary probability theory. The resultant probability is the product of the two probabilities, taken separately. In other words, the probability that two callers will succeed is less than one in ten thousand. In the case of a hundred such calls, even if a large majority fail, the chance of, say 13 calls getting through can only be described as infinitesimal. In operational terms, this means "impossible."
It wouldn't take Flight 93 to "show such gross incompetence as to cause nearly ever major politician to lose his or her job"... that's on the news nightly. But people don't care - they want their RepubloCrats. :headbang:
It’s possible, though unlikely, that nearly everything we were told about Flight 93 was falsified.

Umm...civil rights movement wasn't it. Nice try, but don't pull the usual crap out of your butt. We're talking an enemy here that WILL kill you and will kill and others regardless of what you do. You WILL die in the process or there is an extremely high chance of it.
You think those that marched in the Civil Rights movement weren’t in any danger. Your ignorance is unbelievable

I tried to get the most recent mass movement, but I’m willing to go as far back as the Revolution. You think the British weren’t willing to kill? You don’t think people sacrificed there lives for others?

Technically not true.
A Cellular tower has a hemispherical range of a couple of miles. The reason people are not allowed to use private cell phones on planes is (ostensibly) because the .6W transmission from within the plane shell is amplified internall by the shell and could (possibly) interfere with FBW avionics.
It wouldn't take Flight 93 to "show such gross incompetence as to cause nearly ever major politician to lose his or her job"... that's on the news nightly. But people don't care - they want their RepubloCrats. :headbang:

Ya, I don't know what proof of it they have or anything, but I do know they work. Though the whole stupid cell phone arguement came from that HORRIBLE documentary saying the cell phones would have less then a X% chance (I think it was 2%) of working at all from the airplane. I hate people that give out false info and tote a few sources saying such things are true when it clearly would.

Ever thing of radios, how come they always transmit from a large tower? It gives them extra range and allows low-lying areas to get it better then if it was at the bottom of a valley. Being higher = large range. There is no reason why a cell phone tower couldn't pick up a call from several miles away, they do it here ALL the time.

You think those that marched in the Civil Rights movement weren’t in any danger. Your ignorance is unbelievable

I tried to get the most recent mass movement, but I’m willing to go as far back as the Revolution. You think the British weren’t willing to kill? You don’t think people sacrificed there lives for others?

Not the same situation. They were doomed already. The revolution wasn't such a case either, if they cooperated they would have been fine. When it became a war it changes everything also.

http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htmSorry. Doesn't wash. Different planes, different equipment, different cellulat circuits. Show comparitive studies. Cell phones work quite well in planes over DC. Been there done that, got the fine. The FAA doesn't play around.

It’s possible, though unlikely, that nearly everything we were told about Flight 93 was falsified.
Yes, and it is also just as possible, and just as unlikely, that the Moonshot(s) and, Challanger Explosion and Holocaust were falsified as well.

What's your point? It's a movie.

Not the same situation. They were doomed already.
If they were doomed already, doesn’t it make their sacrifice less heroic, not more, since they weren’t giving up anything? It’s not as if they thought they’d get off scot-free for not doing anything. I imagine most of them held the typical American belief in an after-life and divine judgment.

Sorry. Doesn't wash. Different planes, different equipment, different cellulat circuits. Show comparitive studies. Cell phones work quite well in planes over DC. Been there done that, got the fine. The FAA doesn't play around.
Possibly.
Yes, and it is also just as possible, and just as unlikely, that the Moonshot(s) and, Challanger Explosion and Holocaust were falsified as well.
The government is trying to hide something. Their story has way to many holes.
What's your point? It's a movie.
It’s propaganda.

If they were doomed already, doesn’t it make their sacrifice less heroic, not more, since they weren’t giving up anything? It’s not as if they thought they’d get off scot-free for not doing anything. I imagine most of them held the typical American belief in an after-life and divine judgment.

The fact that they decided to risk it all and do something even when it was too late was amazing. The other planes and other hijackings had nothing like this. People are like sheep.

If they were doomed already, doesn’t it make their sacrifice less heroic, not more, since they weren’t giving up anything? It’s not as if they thought they’d get off scot-free for not doing anything. I imagine most of them held the typical American belief in an after-life and divine judgment.
Undelia, you do realize that the Flight 93 movie was produced and (IIRC) directed by a Brit, don't you? Not exactly the most likely candidate for a USian Rah Rah film...

As to the rest? I have no "typical American belief in an after-life", yet untilll medical conditions disqualified me, I dedicated my life to the protecting others - at the expense of my own life if necessary. People don't attack to save their own lives, they attack to either "defeat an enemy" or save the lives of others. Big difference.

Possibly. :confused:
The government is trying to hide something. Their story has way to many holes.They are always trying to hide somthing. But in this case, what would it be? Please be specific, and use reproducable, verifiable data to support your assertion.
It’s propaganda.
And the the rest of the movies put out by Hollyweird aren't? With the rare exception, they ALL porpagandize for or against one issue or another.

Ohhh, the eeevil BusHitler McZioNazi pee-resident is making us all watch a propaganda film about to cover up the fact that he shot down the plane!

/sarcasm

Honestly Undelia, think it through. We have black box recordings. We have phone conversations. The only reasonable explanation is the one that the film presents. So what if it makes the passangers more heroic? You don't have to watch it if the idea of American citizens being portrayed as heroes offends you so much.

Ohhh, the eeevil BusHitler McZioNazi pee-resident is making us all watch a propaganda film about to cover up the fact that he shot down the plane!

/sarcasm

Honestly Undelia, think it through. We have black box recordings. We have phone conversations. The only reasonable explanation is the one that the film presents. So what if it makes the passangers more heroic? You don't have to watch it if the idea of American citizens being portrayed as heroes offends you so much.

Good post. It is going to be more patriotic...Americans are notoriously nationalistic. Though who wouldn't fill in the parts they didn't know with some moving scenes or information.

A movie uses shots to portray things in a grander scale. If the entire movie was shot from a camera in the back of the plane and never moved it would be more realistic, or from the cockpit. It would be BORING, except for a few minutes. Movies will exaggerate things and its so true.

All people like to think the best of themselves. As an Australian, I often hear people bagging out the Yanks for their hyperbole. But everyone does it. I would just say the yanks do it better. :)

Well the fact 9/11 happened, as stated in the article. It seems all the people that hated the trailer are actually outraged about the whole incident itself,
.


Did you read his post?

What is this nonsense?

He didnt write a word about being 'outraged about the whole incident.'

Did you read his post?

What is this nonsense?

He didnt write a word about being 'outraged about the whole incident.'

It was in response to the rest of it. Jeeze.

So, I was with some friends at the local movie theater last weekend to see Scary Movie 4 (somewhat funny)

Are you kidding? It was possibly the worst movie i've ever wasted an hour and a half on. :p

All people like to think the best of themselves. As an Australian, I often hear people bagging out the Yanks for their hyperbole. But everyone does it. I would just say the yanks do it better. :)

Amen to that.

and as for our nationalism, I am a nationalist, because I love the constitution. I am loyal to the people, the ideas, the founding documents of our country. To quote Joss Whedon...

"Take my love
Take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don't care
I'm still free
You can't take the sky from me

Take me out
To the black
Tell them I aint commin back
I don't care
I'm still free
You can't take the sky from me"

So, I was with some friends at the local movie theater last weekend to see Scary Movie 4 (somewhat funny) when I saw a movie poster advertising “United 93”, a movie about flight 93.

This was news to me, so I looked into the whole thing. Apparently, Universal Studios claims to know what happened on that plane, despite the objections of various relatives of those who died on that plane. We don’t know what happened, we never will.

Apparently the movie is chock full of religious and “patriotic” messages. I’m all for making a buck, but doing so by making propaganda for the current ideology of fear and anger in the US is disgusting.

What do ya’ll think of this piece of shit?

Oh yeah, here's an article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/movies/04flig.html?ex=1159934400&en=afd143a2ca179508&ei=5087&excamp=GGMV911movies
I especially liked this part:

And by like, of course I mean, it made me through up in my mouth.

I think I can, have in the past, and will in the future, crap out better films than this steaming pile of propaganda.

1. You have not seen the film. How could you possibly know whether it was good or not.

2. What exactly makes it propaganda? Because it might portray Islamofascist terrorists in a bad light? Because it portrays the ordinary citizens who almost certainly overwhelmed the hijackers, causing the plane to crash before it could reach it's target in a good light?

I take it then that you favour islamofacist hijackers over ordinary citizens. I guess it takes all types.

1. You have not seen the film. How could you possibly know whether it was good or not.

2. What exactly makes it propaganda? Because it might portray Islamofascist terrorists in a bad light? Because it portrays the ordinary citizens who almost certainly overwhelmed the hijackers, causing the plane to crash before it could reach it's target in a good light?

I take it then that you favour islamofacist hijackers over ordinary citizens. I guess it takes all types.

People say don't judge a book by its cover, but in truth, you can often tell from previews and reviews by film critics who have already seen the movie that a certain film just isn't going to be any good.

I term it propaganda because from what I have seen, certain events that mat or may not have occured, since no one really knows exactly what happened on board flight 93, have been embelished and portrayed in a certain light to suggest the heroes of this story did what they did out of love for their country and their belief in the amerian dream or some such tripe. While that is a possiblity, I find it much more plausible that they attempted to sieze control of the plane out of a sense of self-preservation, and a strong aversoion to death.

Wait. What?
The truth? We don/t know the truth. Nobody does. Making a movie about it is asinine.
What the heck do the facts have to do with making a movie? It's never bothered Hollywood before that they might include some inaccuracy.

Give up, it's entertainment, not documentary.

What the heck do the facts have to do with making a movie? It's never bothered Hollywood before that they might include some inaccuracy.

Give up, it's entertainment, not documentary.

What it is is a shameless attempt to make money and dredge up support for the ongoing war in Iraq using a story of personal tragedy.

And I suppose then you think that michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11, or Bowling for Columbine, should not have been made?

Both used personal tragedies to make money and further a political agenda.

It is the first time Americans were willing to fight to back and die to save others. Such things have not taken place in America ever. We never had an enemy to oppose us or commit suicide over to save others. (Not in war, but they were also civilians) What they did proved that not all Americans are helpless and self-centered people driven by self-preservation.

Surely, Timothy McVeigh fits this description? ...or for that matter the members of the SLA?

And I suppose then you think that michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11, or Bowling for Columbine, should not have been made?

Both used personal tragedies to make money and further a political agenda.

I haven't seen Bowling for Columbine, but I did see Farenheit 9/11 and didn't think much of it. Moore does manage to make a few points, but most of his time is spent walking around DC bothering the little people and making a scene.

you didn't answer my question :)

you didn't answer my question :)

To answer the question more directly for you, no, they probably should not have been made.

huh. Well, whilst I think Moore's films were crap, and full of lies, I am looking forward to United 93.

Whilst no one knows definitevely what happned, between the cell-pone calls, and the black box recording, we have a fair idea. I think it is one of the more remakeable stories of ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and deserves to be told.

Many stories are like this. To use one of my favourite films as an example, look at Zulu, or Gallipoli. No one could possibly know the private thoughts of the men who died at Rorkes Drift or Pine Gap, but we can piece together a story that is as accurate as possible, and tell that to the world.

simply saying that we don't know all the details is like saying that we should not teach any history at all, becase we have to inevitably make some guesses and assumptions.

No one could possibly know the private thoughts of the men who died at Rorkes Drift or Pine Gap, but we can piece together a story that is as accurate as possible, and tell that to the world.

Ignoring the fact that there were survivors of both: unlike the flight.

This film sounds more schlock than propaganda.If you want propaganda try Valley of the Wolves Iraq.It is like watching one of those old greman war movies.Just a wee bit over the top...

While I think that it's tacky to make a movie about this so soon, and it will probably be unnecessarily (read: 'at all') patriotic, I can't say that it's an outrage.

huh. Well, whilst I think Moore's films were crap, and full of lies, I am looking forward to United 93.

Whilst no one knows definitevely what happned, between the cell-pone calls, and the black box recording, we have a fair idea. I think it is one of the more remakeable stories of ordinary people doing extraordinary things, and deserves to be told.

Many stories are like this. To use one of my favourite films as an example, look at Zulu, or Gallipoli. No one could possibly know the private thoughts of the men who died at Rorkes Drift or Pine Gap, but we can piece together a story that is as accurate as possible, and tell that to the world.

simply saying that we don't know all the details is like saying that we should not teach any history at all, becase we have to inevitably make some guesses and assumptions.

The thing is in those situations there were survivors who were able to tell people about their thoughts and experiences. There were no surviors of Flight 93, and therefore, there is no one who can give a firsthand account of what happened.

On top of that, the story of Flight 93 has already been told. You'd have to have been living in a cave for the past five years not to know about it. While at some point it will be important to retell the story, I don't think now is the time, or that this film is quite right in its direction. Yes, what the people on board that plane did was an amazing thing in the face of extreme adversity, but I think the makers of the film have gone way overboard with their patriotic theme.

Ignoring the fact that there were survivors of both: unlike the flight.

The black box and recordings of the cell phone conversations is in many ways a more accurate record than oral accounts of soldiers after action.

I am not saying that they are worthless, just that physical evidence such as the black box recording is extremely useful for a historian. Would you consider an eyewitness or a video recording to be the best measure of a car accident, for example?

but I think the makers of the film have gone way overboard with their patriotic theme.

You might be right, but I'll reserve my judgement until I've seen the film myself.

The black box and recordings of the cell phone conversations is in many ways a more accurate record than oral accounts of soldiers after action.

I am not saying that they are worthless, just that physical evidence such as the black box recording is extremely useful for a historian. Would you consider an eyewitness or a video recording to be the best measure of a car accident, for example?

Audio != video.

Actually I would go for the agreed story according to the several eyewitnesses.

fair enough. In the case of United 93 however, the best evidence we have is electronic. There is no reason to believe it is not true.

So, I was with some friends at the local movie theater last weekend to see Scary Movie 4 (somewhat funny) when I saw a movie poster advertising “United 93”, a movie about flight 93.

This was news to me, so I looked into the whole thing. Apparently, Universal Studios claims to know what happened on that plane, despite the objections of various relatives of those who died on that plane. We don’t know what happened, we never will.

Apparently the movie is chock full of religious and “patriotic” messages. I’m all for making a buck, but doing so by making propaganda for the current ideology of fear and anger in the US is disgusting.

What do ya’ll think of this piece of shit?

Oh yeah, here's an article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/movies/04flig.html?ex=1159934400&en=afd143a2ca179508&ei=5087&excamp=GGMV911movies
I especially liked this part:

And by like, of course I mean, it made me through up in my mouth.

Considering we have a pretty good idea what happened both before, during, and after the flight, It is a good idea. I cannot wait to see the movie personally. I think you really need to get a life.

Wait. What?
The truth? We don/t know the truth. Nobody does. Making a movie about it is asinine.

Incorrect. We actually do know alot about what happened on Flight 93. Thank God for Cell phones. If you bothered to do a little research, he has all the family members of the victims on board for this. If the family that it was dumb, they wouldn't have signed on to it.

Well the fact 9/11 happened, as stated in the article. It seems all the people that hated the trailer are actually outraged about the whole incident itself, not the trailer. Same thing with Pearl Harbor, although it was a long time even after that before a movie was made.

The fact that the families of most of the victims approved of this and the head got in charge and MET them and did everything he could to portray it as best he could shows amazing compassion and sympathy. Of course it will be patriotic and a little of the top, but the events that transpired were incredible!

It is the first time Americans were willing to fight to back and die to save others. Such things have not taken place in America ever. We never had an enemy to oppose us or commit suicide over to save others. (Not in war, but they were also civilians) What they did proved that not all Americans are helpless and self-centered people driven by self-preservation.

The sacrifice they made and did makes them heroes in my eyes. Although they may have died, it'd be even better if they didn't. They saved untold lives and our nations respect.

*applauds and hands Asbena a cookie*

What truth?

They aren't making a movie about 9/11 in general, but about a flight on which we don't know what happened.

Oh that's a lot of horse hockey.

http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm


It’s possible, though unlikely, that nearly everything we were told about Flight 93 was falsified.

Tell that to the families who lost loved ones while talking on their cell phones. I'm sure they would love to hear from you.

You make me sick.

People say don't judge a book by its cover, but in truth, you can often tell from previews and reviews by film critics who have already seen the movie that a certain film just isn't going to be any good.

Some of the best movies on the market were denounced by critics. I do not know about you but critics are just humans. Let the people decide if a movie was good or not.

What it is is a shameless attempt to make money and dredge up support for the ongoing war in Iraq using a story of personal tragedy.

Where the hell did this come from?

While I think that it's tacky to make a movie about this so soon, and it will probably be unnecessarily (read: 'at all') patriotic, I can't say that it's an outrage.

ITS BEEN 5 YEARS!!! Come on.

ITS BEEN 5 YEARS!!! Come on.Yes, 5, not 20. (And it won't be 5 years till September.)

Yes, 5, not 20. (And it won't be 5 years till September.)

Jello, get a life. Its about time that this nation moved on. This is the best way to do it. Even the family members agreed to it. If they felt it was too soon, they wouldn't have agreed to it.

So no, it isn't to soon, in fact, it is long overdue.

Jello, get a life. Its about time that this nation moved on. This is the best way to do it. Even the family members agreed to it. If they felt it was too soon, they wouldn't have agreed to it.

So no, it isn't to soon, in fact, it is long overdue.The best way to move on is to stop talking about it, unless there is something new to say. It's unlikely that this movie will say anything that the documentaries haven't already said.

Yeah, I've been seeing ads for this movie. I heard when a lot of people first see the trailer, they can't handle it and break down, etc. I'm not sure we're ready for this yet, you know?

As for knowing what really happened, they do have recordings from the plane. They were played in court for a jury at some point. Supposedly the whole movie uses stuff from those recordings and sort of builds on it. We have movies that do that all the time, and most of the time when they're based on a true story, the actual story is contorted all out of proportion.

It does seem insensitive to the families, but what about horror movies that are based on true stories? What about the families of those victims? Or TV shows that ape real news stories, like Law and Order does a lot.

I don't know...I doubt I'll see it, cause it's just too disturbing for me. It was such a heartbreaking thing all around and I'd rather not think about it in such a personal light. I've got depression problems already, I don't need it at all.

Yeah, I've been seeing ads for this movie. I heard when a lot of people first see the trailer, they can't handle it and break down, etc. I'm not sure we're ready for this yet, you know?

Nope I don't.

As for knowing what really happened, they do have recordings from the plane. They were played in court for a jury at some point. Supposedly the whole movie uses stuff from those recordings and sort of builds on it. We have movies that do that all the time, and most of the time when they're based on a true story, the actual story is contorted all out of proportion.

From what I've seen of the trailer (and I've seen it) it looks pretty accurate but then, I need to see the film personally to see if it really is.

It does seem insensitive to the families,

The family members agreed to this movie.

I don't know...I doubt I'll see it, cause it's just too disturbing for me. It was such a heartbreaking thing all around and I'd rather not think about it in such a personal light. I've got depression problems already, I don't need it at all.

Then don't go see the movie.

Nope I don't.

From what I've seen of the trailer (and I've seen it) it looks pretty accurate but then, I need to see the film personally to see if it really is.

The family members agreed to this movie.

Then don't go see the movie.

Dude, I'm not dissing anybody here. I'm glad the families agreed. I don't intend to see it. Whatever! Don't be an ass, I just wanted to weigh in.

What it is is a shameless attempt to make money and dredge up support for the ongoing war in Iraq using a story of personal tragedy.
You think anyone in Hollywood has any shame? Think again. It's about box office receipts. Period.

In the weeks before the release of United 93 in the US, there has been a steady drumbeat of partly justified, partly manufactured controversy about director Paul Greengrass's re-enactment of the events leading to the crash, in a Pennsylvania field, of United Airlines flight 93 on the morning of 9/11. We know some of what happened on the aeroplane thanks to passengers' cellphone calls to loved ones, but we only belatedly heard the full, bitter details last week when recordings of the black box were made available at the sentencing portion of the trial of alleged 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. An added frisson came from the fact that they dovetailed almost nauseatingly well with the movie's ad campaign.

Inevitably, given America's story-hungry media, the impending release of the movie was covered in the stupidest of terms. Is it too early? (It's been five years.) What do the families think? (Greengrass secured the cooperation of them all.) Should the trailer be prefaced by warnings in case relatives of the 9/11 attacks might be in the audience? (One New York cinema has pulled the trailer.) Add to this the fact that Oliver Stone is also preparing his own - avowedly nonpolitical - 9/11 project, and you'd think that Greengrass was dancing merrily on the graves of Flight 93's dead.

I'm inclined to think a lot of the problem with United 93 comes from the American media's lack of familiarity with the essentially British quasi-documentary tradition that informs the film. Few in the US are familiar with Greengrass's works about Stephen Lawrence, Omagh or Bloody Sunday. Nor is the media much aware of Britain's rich tradition of film-making on the borderline between fiction and documentary. Remember that many of the great British docs of the first half of the past century - including Harry Watt's Night Mail, John Grierson's Drifters and Humphrey Jennings' Fires Were Started - were at least partly made on reconstructed studio sets. America has no equivalent to the work of Peter Watkins, which is almost Brechtian in its desire to expose the tricky mechanics of media presence at real or reconstructed events - or of Ken Loach, who sought to import documentary realism to maximise the impact of his political message in early TV works such as Up the Junction and Cathy Come Home.

An American reconstruction of real events, usually in the form of a made-for-TV movie, will seek out "characters" and ensure they are played by stars. British film-makers, such as Alan Clarke in Contact, will often strive to downplay dubious redeeming features or personal crises that might permit us to find points of identification within the drama. And certainly, as is the case in United 93, there will be no stars for us to root for: it's a thoroughly honourable way to equalise the characters and to let the drama breathe.

Another part of the reaction to United 93 is a certain craven American fear of looking at terrifying or unpalatable moments in history head-on. The British TV movie The Hamburg Cell, about Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah et al, only recently ran on HBO here, with absolutely no fanfare, at odd times like three in the afternoon or the middle of the night - perhaps because it points out how easily the hijackers and plotters were able to bypass American security. Intelligent and disturbing movies such as The War Within and Paradise Now, about suicide bombers in New York and Israel, have to be actively sought out.

It's as if examining these events or ideas might be too disturbing or challenging - as if we were all five years old - and it somehow coalesces with the fact that 9/11 footage has been more or less banned from TV here, along with coverage of Saddam Hussein's trial or any discussion of the Bush administration's cutting back of funds to prevent nuclear proliferation. It's Homer Simpson logic: if we can't see it, it isn't real. It isn't happening. It will all go away.


Slightly diffrent prospective. And another one:


Famillys welcome 9/11 film
A film about the hijacked plane which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11 2001 has been praised by relatives of those who died in the terror attacks on America. United 93 was shown to families of the victims earlier this week in advance of its premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York next week. Peggy Beamer, whose son Todd Beamer died on United Airlines flight 93, said: "I think the timing is very good. If it had been one or two years after September 11, it would have been much too difficult." The movie is directed by Bloody Sunday film-maker Paul Greengrass.

You think anyone in Hollywood has any shame? Think again. It's about box office receipts. Period.

Well, there's probably some people involved who really feel that they're doing a service. I guess that's fine. What good do you think might come out of it? I can't think of anything but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

Umm, Undelia, has it occurred to you that the Terrorists forced Flight 93 to fly far lower than cruising altitude? Say, low enough to recieve cell-phone signals?

Well, there's probably some people involved who really feel that they're doing a service. I guess that's fine. What good do you think might come out of it? I can't think of anything but that doesn't mean there isn't any.
I think those people work for Public Broadcasting. Hollywood studios need to make money, not champion causes.

Umm, Undelia, has it occurred to you that the terrorists forced Flight 93 to fly far lower than cruising altitude? Say, low enough to recieve cell-phone signals?

I like this bit from the Guardian:

I'm inclined to think a lot of the problem with United 93 comes from the American media's lack of familiarity with the essentially British quasi-documentary tradition that informs the film. Few in the US are familiar with Greengrass's works about Stephen Lawrence, Omagh or Bloody Sunday. Nor is the media much aware of Britain's rich tradition of film-making on the borderline between fiction and documentary. Remember that many of the great British docs of the first half of the past century - including Harry Watt's Night Mail, John Grierson's Drifters and Humphrey Jennings' Fires Were Started - were at least partly made on reconstructed studio sets. America has no equivalent to the work of Peter Watkins, which is almost Brechtian in its desire to expose the tricky mechanics of media presence at real or reconstructed events - or of Ken Loach, who sought to import documentary realism to maximise the impact of his political message in early TV works such as Up the Junction and Cathy Come Home.

I love how people keep making this film out to be a bit of US Government Conspiracy RahRah propaganda... when it is essentially a British film. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Asbena
It is the first time Americans were willing to fight to back and die to save others. Such things have not taken place in America ever. We never had an enemy to oppose us or commit suicide over to save others. (Not in war, but they were also civilians) What they did proved that not all Americans are helpless and self-centered people driven by self-preservation.
Surely, Timothy McVeigh fits this description? ...or for that matter the members of the SLA?
Timothy McVeigh was not willing to "die to save others" so sorry... doesn't fit the description.

I think the point of the film is propaganda to detract from the real issues around flight 93. If you take a look at some of the pictures of the crash site its quite obvious there is no plane there:

http://www.utopiax.org/ua93.html

Also, the lack of coroner report was quite interesting I think:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-09102005-539399.html

I think that is very suspicious and because of that I cannot accept the black box recordings that have been used nor the recordings of cell phone conversations as they are just far too weird and there is doubt as to whether the call could have been made! All I will say is that if they were able to make the calls then how does one explain the article below?!

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6174

There are 2 things for certain though:
1, I won't be watching the film about flight 93
2, I can't wait to see scarey movie 4, mainly because of the scene with Leslie Nielson playing the president and being more interested in what happens to the rabbit than the alien invasion - pure class!!! :)

All I know is that I WILL be seeing it opening day. 9/11 is the reason I always carry a mechanical pencil onto planes with me, a terrorist tries to take over, and I will stab his thigh as he walks by.

Yes, you are really going to put a detriment to the man whos already prepared to blow himself the fuck up! Go you!

But seriously, I doubt hat would even phase a terrorist, and thats considierng that you manage to penetrate with a mechanical pencil, which is usually very blunt and hard to stab somebody with. And dont try to give me taht you'll stab him with lead, because pencil lead is very brittle and breaks easily.

But I agree with the creator of the thread. Adn since this is 9/11 related, I think you guys should watch this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change

It seems to be very convincing, even for a piece of "liberal propaganda". Unless, of course, you consider scientific fact backed up by ample research to be "liberal propaganda". In which case, you should STFU.

So, I was with some friends at the local movie theater last weekend to see Scary Movie 4 (somewhat funny) when I saw a movie poster advertising “United 93”, a movie about flight 93.

This was news to me, so I looked into the whole thing. Apparently, Universal Studios claims to know what happened on that plane, despite the objections of various relatives of those who died on that plane. We don’t know what happened, we never will.

Apparently the movie is chock full of religious and “patriotic” messages. I’m all for making a buck, but doing so by making propaganda for the current ideology of fear and anger in the US is disgusting.

What do ya’ll think of this piece of shit?

Oh yeah, here's an article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/movies/04flig.html?ex=1159934400&en=afd143a2ca179508&ei=5087&excamp=GGMV911movies
I especially liked this part:

And by like, of course I mean, it made me through up in my mouth.
I've seen the movie and it's fantastic. It's full of religious messages because people tend to get religion when they're about to die and they all knew it. It's full of patriotoc messages because the people knew that they were probably going to die anyway so they decided not to let the terrorists copmplete their objective which, of course, was to fly the plane into the building. The relatives who actually saw the movie last week before testimony about the flight was presented at the Moussaui trial said everyone should see it. They have a rough idea of what happened because they have the flight recorder from the plane and they have numerous cellphone calls to relatives of people who were on the plane calling to say goodbye and to tell them they were going to try to take over the plane. They also have recordings from the tower because at one point teh terrorists radio'd the tower instead of the people on the plane so they have the recordings from the tower.

I think the point of the film is propaganda to detract from the real issues around flight 93. If you take a look at some of the pictures of the crash site its quite obvious there is no plane there:

http://www.utopiax.org/ua93.html

A fully loaded plane, nose diving into the ground.. Yea, there would be no plane. Oh brother.

Also, the lack of coroner report was quite interesting I think:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-09102005-539399.html

Why should there be a coronor report?

I think that is very suspicious and because of that I cannot accept the black box recordings that have been used nor the recordings of cell phone conversations as they are just far too weird and there is doubt as to whether the call could have been made! All I will say is that if they were able to make the calls then how does one explain the article below?!

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6174

tell that to the families who lost their loved ones on 93. I''m sure they would love to know that they were not called by their dead loved ones.

There are 2 things for certain though:
1, I won't be watching the film about flight 93

Your choice.

I love how the Democrats of this forum are the ones objecting to the film and discussing why it might be objectionary, whereas the Republicans of the forum are all--practically as one--saying "shut up, it's just a movie, so go fuck off."

Frankly, I don't like the idea of the movie and won't go see it, but it doesn't bother me too much. I do think, however, if people wish to discuss why they feel it is objectionary, you should let them. If you don't agree with them, then don't post about it. Really. Why argue over it?

I love how the Democrats of this forum are the ones objecting to the film and discussing why it might be objectionary, whereas the Republicans of the forum are all--practically as one--saying "shut up, it's just a movie, so go fuck off."

Frankly, I don't like the idea of the movie and won't go see it, but it doesn't bother me too much. I do think, however, if people wish to discuss why they feel it is objectionary, you should let them. If you don't agree with them, then don't post about it. Really. Why argue over it?


Interesting how that political persuasion corresponds to being tasteful, isn't it?

Yes, you are really going to put a detriment to the man whos already prepared to blow himself the fuck up! Go you!

But seriously, I doubt hat would even phase a terrorist, and thats considierng that you manage to penetrate with a mechanical pencil, which is usually very blunt and hard to stab somebody with. And dont try to give me taht you'll stab him with lead, because pencil lead is very brittle and breaks easily.

But I agree with the creator of the thread. Adn since this is 9/11 related, I think you guys should watch this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change

It seems to be very convincing, even for a piece of "liberal propaganda". Unless, of course, you consider scientific fact backed up by ample research to be "liberal propaganda". In which case, you should STFU.

1. with the proper amount of force, a mechanical pencil cand surprising amounts of damage.

2. I have seen loose change, and the film doesn't prove anything to me.
a. He fails to take into acount how the building was constructed.
Thje average building is built like a scaffold, withe support columns everywhere. If you go into the Empire State building you can see what I mean. The WTC on the other hand was designed so that the outer wall could bear the load. The central core was there for stability, minor support, and to house the elevators and stairs.

Normal construction
http://www.wirednewyork.com/real_estate/orion/orion_manhattan_plaza.jpg
WTC Design
http://www.thaiengineering.com/column/lesson_disaster/World_trade_center/image/wtc.jpg
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture5.jpg

When the planes hit, they took out large sections of the load bearing columns on the interior, and the load bearing columns on the exterior. Thus, it was getting closer to a collapse the entire time that the fires raged.

And as for why WTC 1 fell first, despite being the second one hit, look at the photo evidence.

The first plane hits and send a shockwave through the building that causes damage to the second building. already damaged, the second tower takes a massive hit that knocks out the equivalent of an entire load bearing wall. http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/images/wtc/wtc5.jpg.

Seriously damaged, the building falls, leaning toward the damaged section. as the lower floors go, it brings the rest of the building down. The resulting shockwave would have been enough to seriously damage the foundation of the second building, bringing it down.

Now the Pentagon, I am not sure what happened there, the Government's confiscation of the footage from security cameras is fishy, but with that one, who knows what happened. As for 93, two things.

1. the aircraft drops down 700 feet from the height it was flying at.
2. I have flown on a 757, and we where able to get cell phone service at standard flying heights for a 757. It wasn't perfect, but we where able to.

the guy twisted the evidence and spun it his way.

If I remember correctly....a straw could kill a man or impale a tree from tornado force speeds. It was well within the laws of physics for what happened and 'loose change' is a piece of crap. Seriously it is shocking to what some people will fake things.

Until I learn more about the movie, I simply won't trust a couple of trailers to convince me that this movie was done tastefully and with a serious intent to inform. There is no reason to see just a basic "disaster" movie about the death of civilians (however heroic they may be), some of whom people I know were friends with. If there is more of a point, I'll probably just wait for it to come out on DVD. Such a movie seems like a movie better seen in the privacy and comfort of your own home.

Why should there be a coronor report?
Even when planes slam into the mountains, there’s a coroner report.

1. with the proper amount of force, a mechanical pencil cand surprising amounts of damage.
Keerist, I already explained this... :headbang:

Google Kubotan sometime.

Even when planes slam into the mountains, there’s a coroner report.

Ya. But when its national security...we don't see it.

The pentagon hit was probably real also.

Ya. But when its national security...we don't see it.
Just like they don’t let us see the soldiers, eh?
The pentagon hit was probably real also.
Be the first time a jetliner vaporized on impact.

Just like they don’t let us see the soldiers, eh?

Be the first time a jetliner vaporized on impact.

They don't make those reports public Undelia. Soldier reports aren't public.

Your second line was RIGHT from the movie! Thing is...a direct hit on a reinforced steel wall is STRONG, carbon fiber and aluminium is gone.

Though since we were talking about the twin towers before...you think that was real?

1. You have not seen the film. How could you possibly know whether it was good or not.

2. What exactly makes it propaganda? Because it might portray Islamofascist terrorists in a bad light? Because it portrays the ordinary citizens who almost certainly overwhelmed the hijackers, causing the plane to crash before it could reach it's target in a good light?

I take it then that you favour islamofacist hijackers over ordinary citizens. I guess it takes all types.

Wow, you're fond of the strawman, eh? Can you quote for me where they said anything that would lead anyone to the conclusions you hopped, skipped and jumped to?

Yes, you are really going to put a detriment to the man whos already prepared to blow himself the fuck up! Go you!

But seriously, I doubt hat would even phase a terrorist, and thats considierng that you manage to penetrate with a mechanical pencil, which is usually very blunt and hard to stab somebody with. And dont try to give me taht you'll stab him with lead, because pencil lead is very brittle and breaks easily.

But I agree with the creator of the thread. Adn since this is 9/11 related, I think you guys should watch this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change

It seems to be very convincing, even for a piece of "liberal propaganda". Unless, of course, you consider scientific fact backed up by ample research to be "liberal propaganda". In which case, you should STFU.

Hahaha! Loose Change is so thoroughly debunked is amusing. Search out the Popular Mechanics article on it. Also, I can tell you that I know people who worked on looking at the trade center after the earlier attempt (a bomb in the basement) and after the 9/11 attack. The Loose Change 'documentary' was completely and utterly without merit.

Hahaha! Loose Change is so thoroughly debunked is amusing. Search out the Popular Mechanics article on it. Also, I can tell you that I know people who worked on looking at the trade center after the earlier attempt (a bomb in the basement) and after the 9/11 attack. The Loose Change 'documentary' was completely and utterly without merit.

Yep. If you ever made a building yourself and seen it you'd know that the 'explosions' were the floors collasping on themselves and a few other things which I rather not get into here.

Just like they don’t let us see the soldiers, eh?

Be the first time a jetliner vaporized on impact.
It would also be the first time dozens of eyewitnesses all experienced a mass delusion that was exactly the same - that being actually seeing the plane hit the building.

It would also be the first time dozens of eyewitnesses all experienced a mass delusion that was exactly the same - that being actually seeing the plane hit the building.

Yes, I met several of those delusional people. I find the whole thing ridiculous, but there will always be some people who believe Elvis is alive and GWB is peeking through their television. Tinfoil hats all around.

EDIT: By the by, you've fallen off my signature. Sorry, bud. I was making you famous. ;)

It would also be the first time dozens of eyewitnesses all experienced a mass delusion that was exactly the same - that being actually seeing the plane hit the building.
They don't know what they saw, and I don't trust the mindless proles milling about in DC. I imagine it would have been very easy for the right questions to bring out just the response the government was looking for.
Though since we were talking about the twin towers before...you think that was real?
Of course they were. The buildings collapsed. It was a terrorist attack, just far more thorough than explained to us and possibly originating from source that would be uncomfortable for the government to recognize as an enemy. Same with the Pentagon attack.

The movie was bound to happen sooner or later, and though I am pretty patriotic I am against using disaster to make money. Documentries are one thing but...

They don't know what they saw, and I don't trust the mindless proles milling about in DC. I imagine it would have been very easy for the right questions to bring out just the response the government was looking for.
You think the dozens, maybe hundreds of people who watched the jet hit the building didn't know what they saw? Have you ever been to an airport? A jumbo jet is a pretty hard thing to mistake. They're kinda big and they make a lot of sound. I mean a LOT of sound. ;) Esecially since many of them were in the park and it flew just a couple dozen feet over their heads. You think maybe they saw space aliens? Maybe it was a bird? Flying elephant?

They don't know what they saw, and I don't trust the mindless proles milling about in DC. I imagine it would have been very easy for the right questions to bring out just the response the government was looking for.

Interesting how the witnesses that 'agree' with the conspiracy are reliable. Even the ones that weren't actually witnesses. Like the guy they quote as having seen a cargo plane.

And I suppose my friends that were staying in the hotel across the street were just answering just the right questions when I asked them what they saw. Amusing.

Of course they were. The buildings collapsed. It was a terrorist attack, just far more thorough than explained to us and possibly originating from source that would be uncomfortable for the government to recognize as an enemy. Same with the Pentagon attack.
Uh-huh. Yep. They faked all the witnesses. And the guys in my company that actually did the research. They got to them. Do you have a tinfoil hat in my size too? I don't want the government listening to my brainwaves.

The documentary said 93 landed. >.> WTF.

They're kinda big and they make a lot of sound. I mean a LOT of sound.?
So do missiles.

Just like they don’t let us see the soldiers, eh?

Be the first time a jetliner vaporized on impact.

If a fully loaded plane does a dead on faceplant into the ground at speeds of 400mph + it will vaporizes on impact. Other plane crashes dont usually crash headfirst like that!
Remember that Jet Blue crash in the Florida Everglades in 98 or 96 I believe. Before TWA? It noes dived into the ground, hardly anything left!

Jello, get a life. Its about time that this nation moved on. This is the best way to do it. Even the family members agreed to it. If they felt it was too soon, they wouldn't have agreed to it.

So no, it isn't to soon, in fact, it is long overdue.
Wrong. Perhaps for people over on the west coast (iirc...I think you're a west coaster, no?) it is fine. Come visit the Northeast. We're still licking our wounds. Why do you think many people in NYC are booing the promos? Why do you think they've been pulled in dozens of theaters around the area? This damned movie isn't going to help us move on. We're doing our best, but having it constantly rubbed in our faces, used to justify actions, etc, doesn't make it any easier. It was our friends and families, literally, who were in those buildings. So sorry if it will take us a bit more than 5 years to "get over it"

If a fully loaded plane does a dead on faceplant into the ground at speeds of 400mph + it will vaporizes on impact. Other plane crashes dont usually crash headfirst like that!
Remember that Jet Blue crash in the Florida Everglades in 98 or 96 I believe. Before TWA? It noes dived into the ground, hardly anything left!

And that was in water. >.>

So do missiles.So you think dozens, possibly hundreds of peop mistook this:

http://www.wilhelm-aerospace.org/Photos/nm-2002/15-a-tow-missile.jpg

For this:

http://www.scconcordia-hamburg.de/Japanbilder/JumboJet.jpg

And that people who had cellphone calls from the passengers on the plane were just hearing things and their loved ones didn't come home ever again because the CIA had them all killed on a fake plane somewhere?

So you think dozens, possibly hundreds of peop mistook this:

http://www.wilhelm-aerospace.org/Photos/nm-2002/15-a-tow-missile.jpg
Hey, I never said it was a US missile.
And that people who had cellphone calls from the passengers on the plane were just hearing things and their loved ones didn't come home ever again because the CIA had them all killed on a fake plane somewhere?
I don’t know what happened to them. All in know is that there is no way, based on photographic evidence, that a plane crashed into that building.

And the fact that we can use cell phones on air planes and his whole evidence that a .006 chance that a cell phone could get a call through. When we have someone in this VERY thread that also notes he could use a cell phone on a plane. Hmm....I think that disproves that WHOLE section easily. :)

Ya, I don't know what proof of it they have or anything, but I do know they work. Though the whole stupid cell phone arguement came from that HORRIBLE documentary saying the cell phones would have less then a X% chance (I think it was 2%) of working at all from the airplane. I hate people that give out false info and tote a few sources saying such things are true when it clearly would.

Well, the people that did make that test were Canadian.

And the fact that we can use cell phones on air planes and his whole evidence that a .006 chance that a cell phone could get a call through. When we have someone in this VERY thread that also notes he could use a cell phone on a plane. Hmm....I think that disproves that WHOLE section easily. :)
Of course you can make a call on a plane, if it has a cell tower.

Flight 93 did not.

Hey, I never said it was a US missile.

I don’t know what happened to them. All in know is that there is no way, based on photographic evidence, that a plane crashed into that building.

I watched first hand 5 years ago of what happened! I also knew LONG LONG LONG before anyone else that those stupid towers would fall. As a MERE child of 14 I KNEW what would happen without even watching the rest of it, I knew over 20 minutes BEFORE it fell that it would fall!

Any lame brain who watched it first hand could see that the impact jarred the column and seperated the piece angling the building to one side, this caused the other columns to break from tension and the mass of the building had enough power to smash down from above.

Remember, I watched the WHOLE thing and knew what was going to happen long before it did. Children are NOT stupid, I even said it would fall. The US government would not kill thousands of its own people to pull off such a thing and fool millions of eye-viewers and hundreds of thousands of people in the city and the entire US population on such a scale.

Of course you can make a call on a plane, if it has a cell tower.

Flight 93 did not.

Uh...and how come we could do such a thing in Oct 01!? Also....if they don't want you using the cell phones on a plane because it amplifies the signal and could mess with the instruments, why would they have a cell tower on them? Hmmm?

Hey, I never said it was a US missile.
Can you find a pic of a missile that looks enough like a plane to fool all those people in the park and on the street and walking around on a weekday morning just outside the capitol? I actually think there must have been hundreds. Dozens doesn't make sense.

I don’t know what happened to them. All in know is that there is no way, based on photographic evidence, that a plane crashed into that building.
Where'd you get your metalurgy and engineering degrees? The metalurgists and engineers that wrote all the debunking the conspiracy myths all had degrees from places like Cornel and CIT, maybe yours is from a better school? Or are you a fireman? I read one thing from a fireman once where he said that he has put out fires at aluiminum structures and that there tends to be nothing left of them. Those also don't have jet fuel as an accelerant.

By "that building" I was referring to the Pentagon, but I'll respond to your diatribe anyway.
Any lame brain who watched it first hand could see that the impact jarred the column and seperated the piece angling the building to one side, this caused the other columns to break from tension and the mass of the building had enough power to smash down from above.
Too bad the government told us that the heat melted the steel. Too bad engineers were fired for saying that a “controlled explosion” was a possibility. I’m not saying they caused it. I’m saying they found a story, stuck to it for convenience and repressed any other possibilities.
Children are NOT stupid,
Yes they are.
he US government would not kill thousands of its own people to pull off such a thing and fool millions of eye-viewers and hundreds of thousands of people in the city and the entire US population on such a scale.
Yes it would. Ever heard of a little thing called Tonkin Bay?

The hole in the Pentagon did look a little small.

But the only possibility (outside of the third plane hitting the Pentagon... but where's the wreckage of the third plane, if it didn't hit the Pentagon?) is that the plane that was to hit Washington was shot down and a warplane accidentally dropped a bomb there.

Of course, someone would lose their career over that, but given what would have happened, assuming this bomb-dropping warplane that shot down the third plane existed, BUT it really wouldn't change anything.

I just have one question, and I can't be bothered to read through 8 pages to see if anyone else noticed this...
Didn't the terrorists on the planes have... box cutters?
The trailer with the terrorist with explosives strapped to his chest was a bit... overly dramatic, I think. I guess guys with box cutters running around threatening people just wasn't Hollywood enough...

Can you find a pic of a missile that looks enough like a plane to fool all those people in the park and on the street and walking around on a weekday morning just outside the capitol? I actually think there must have been hundreds. Dozens doesn't make sense.
Do you have any idea how easily witnesses are influenced?
Where'd you get your metalurgy and engineering degrees? The metalurgists and engineers that wrote all the debunking the conspiracy myths all had degrees from places like Cornel and CIT, maybe yours is from a better school? Or are you a fireman? I read one thing from a fireman once where he said that he has put out fires at aluiminum structures and that there tends to be nothing left of them. Those also don't have jet fuel as an accelerant.
You don’t need a degree to look at the pictures taken right after the impact to realize that the surface damage is too little for a jetliner to cause. You also don’t need a degree to see that the grass outside the Pentagon is untouched and that the damage to nearby light poles is inconsistent with a collision.

Too bad the government told us that the heat melted the steel. Too bad engineers were fired for saying that a “controlled explosion” was a possibility. I’m not saying they caused it. I’m saying they found a story, stuck to it for convenience and repressed any other possibilities. That's because they didn't want to waste time on a bunch of bullshit conspiracy theories. What do you think happened?


Yes it would. Ever heard of a little thing called Tonkin Bay?
You're equating the government lying about being fiired on right outside of a war zone with the deliberate murder of thousands of civillians during peace time on our own soil?

:confused:

Of course, someone would lose their career over that, but given what would have happened, assuming this bomb-dropping warplane that shot down the third plane existed, BUT it really wouldn't change anything.
It would just mean that the government is lying to us. No big deal.

That's because they didn't want to waste time on a bunch of bullshit conspiracy theories. What do you think happened?
I don’t know. Likely, we won’t ever know.
You're equating the government lying about being fiired on right outside of a war zone with the deliberate murder of thousands of civillians during peace time on our own soil?

:confused:
They used Tonkin Bay to justify the drafting and resulting deaths of thousands of civilians. It’s the same thing.

Can you find a pic of a missile that looks enough like a plane to fool all those people in the park and on the street and walking around on a weekday morning just outside the capitol? I actually think there must have been hundreds. Dozens doesn't make sense.


Where'd you get your metalurgy and engineering degrees? The metalurgists and engineers that wrote all the debunking the conspiracy myths all had degrees from places like Cornel and CIT, maybe yours is from a better school? Or are you a fireman? I read one thing from a fireman once where he said that he has put out fires at aluiminum structures and that there tends to be nothing left of them. Those also don't have jet fuel as an accelerant.

You know what's even more funny?

If you outfit a cruise missile with such weight and systems, it won't fly in the first place, it would be too massive to hit that speed! Also since a cruise missile has a distinct thrust and its not a twin-turbo jet engine, it would be a giant plane object with a cruise missile inside? That makes no sense! I personally seen the plane it and how it banked on it, cruise missiles DON'T BANK IN! Of all the cruise missiles I've seen they come in straight and true and no last minute alignments into specific sections. It wouldn't make sense to do such a thing.

In that documentary they said they found MOLTEN steel after a month inside the buildings....what kind of stuff were they smoking? Do you realize t what temperature they had to be to stay that hot? Yes they said MOLTEN after a MONTH inside the building, but show no evidence to back up that claim.

Also...for the record jet fuel is NOT KEROSENE! It is of a higher grade and you cannot use the effects of the regular heating kerosene to compare it to commerical or military grade fuels. The stuff goes up big time, it is a wall of flame that shoots out and covers everything and continues to burn after a long time still. Remember the video of the jet crash they did to learn about the fuel? See how the flames shoot out and flow? If you seen the rest of that clip you'll see it doesn't 'just' go out. That alone won't wreck a building. Though take out its mass support structure and then you will.

I don’t know. Likely, we won’t ever know.

They used Tonkin Bay to justify the drafting and resulting deaths of thousands of civilians. It’s the same thing.

Tonkin Bay was the flash point from the true Cold War. It was an outlet of the Cold War between two nations indirectly attacking each other with Cold War weaponry on a different battlefield.

Do you have any idea how easily witnesses are influenced?Sure. I understand that an eye witness may not remember things exactly as they happened. I am unaware of how hundreds of eyewitnesses can all at the same time mistake a Jumbo Jet that is literally flying right over their heads at a few hundred miles per hour and 70+ decibles with a missile.

You don’t need a degree to look at the pictures taken right after the impact to realize that the surface damage is too little for a jetliner to cause. You also don’t need a degree to see that the grass outside the Pentagon is untouched and that the damage to nearby light poles is inconsistent with a collision.
According to the guys with the degrees hanging on the walls nothing was inconsistent. I'll take their word for it. Unless...

You don't have some evidence that the government paid off the hundreds of experts to lie about the deaths of thousands of Americans do you?

Tonkin Bay was the flash point from the true Cold War. It was an outlet of the Cold War between two nations indirectly attacking each other with Cold War weaponry on a different battlefield.
Tonkin Bay was the US firing on innocents in a place we had no right to be and then lying about it by saying that they attacked us because those “damn chinks” had the nerve to fight back.

It would just mean that the government is lying to us. No big deal.

They do that to us everyday. Should the secret be let out? Should a man who made the hypothetical decision to shoot down a hijacked American airliner, killing American citizens whose lives were already forfeit, lose his job because he made a tough decision that saved lives? No.

A lie is only wrong when people get hurt by it (ie: Iraq, Tonkin Gulf). Until then, it's amoral (ie: Clinton's BJs), but it's not immoral.

You don’t need a degree to look at the pictures taken right after the impact to realize that the surface damage is too little for a jetliner to cause. You also don’t need a degree to see that the grass outside the Pentagon is untouched and that the damage to nearby light poles is inconsistent with a collision.
Just so we have a place with which to start from, here's what the guys with the paper on the wall say:
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

A lie is only wrong when people get hurt by it (ie: Iraq, Tonkin Gulf). Until then, it's amoral (ie: Clinton's BJs), but it's not immoral.
Everything is amoral.

Everything is amoral.

Then you have no right to be upset if the government lies to you.

Spies on you.

Arrests you and sends you to Gitmo.

Afterall, you're just as amoral as they are. They're simply using evolution against you.

Everything is amoral.
Is this amoral?
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Everything is amoral.
This guy definately sounds amoral:
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Then you have no right to be upset if the government lies to you.

Spies on you.

Arrests you and sends you to Gitmo.

Afterall, you're just as amoral as they are. They're simply using evolution against you.
Yeah, I do. Those things harm me. It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with me not wanting to get screwed.

Hey, Undelia, do you think that the moon landing was fake, that FDR knew about the attack onPearl Harbor, and that Jesus was black?

Hey, Undelia, do you think that the moon landing was fake, that FDR knew about the attack onPearl Harbor, and that Jesus was black?
I don’t know enough about the moon landing to come to a definite conclusion about it, but the other eight times were fairly successful.

FDR didn’t know about the attack on Pearl Harbor, but he knew something was bound to happen when he cut off oil supplies to Japan.

Jesus was of Hebrew descent and probably and bit darker than the average Hebrew of today, but he definitely wasn’t black.

Ah so it did flow in as I thought it would, though still the fact that the wing must have been completely shredded in the first place still shocks me. Though it would explain what the engines would do on the angle. It would implode on itself and those very delicate parts (accurate to 1/1000th of an inch) would be absolutely destroyed beyond anything.

I don't believe the documentaries comment about how this piece of scrap came from this engine or whatever. If they were so good at recognizing a single piece of scrap from an engine and being able to go as far as say the maker and what jet it was used on and then give specifics on that without actually LOOKING at it themselves (just a picture is all they had) and saying it as so to be a small jet is just weird.

Though saying a cruise missile also smashed through the pentagon is a little messed up, because a cruise missile would do that kind of damage or leave those parts behind. Also a mainly hollow light-weight construction jet slamming into reinforced solid concrete walls at 500 miles per hour is like a bug on a windshield. Not much left to put it back together. :O

I don’t know enough about the moon landing to come to a definite conclusion about it, but the other eight times were fairly successful.

FDR didn’t know about the attack on Pearl Harbor, but he knew something was bound to happen when he cut off oil supplies to Japan.

Jesus was of Hebrew descent and probably and bit darker than the average Hebrew of today, but he definitely wasn’t black.

Actually the top guys were trying to get the war started with the Japanese making the first move. They sure as hell got it to. They didn't expect Pearl Harbor, but they wouldn't go to war as long as the Japanese didn't attack. They were waiting and waiting, but no way did they expect Pearl Harbor.

Also Jesus wasn't born in winter. ^-^

Wrong. Perhaps for people over on the west coast (iirc...I think you're a west coaster, no?) it is fine. Come visit the Northeast.

I live in the Northeast. I live 2 hours from where United Flight 93 went down. The plane buzzed the Pittsburgh ATC which Ironiclly shares the same runways with my father's base.

We're still licking our wounds. Why do you think many people in NYC are booing the promos?

Because they are idiots. They may think it is too soon but guess what? Most of us don't. Alot of us are getting sick and tired of the city having this "victims attitude" Its been nearly 5 years. Time to move on. Don't ever forget but it is time for this nation to move into the future and not to relive the past.

Why do you think they've been pulled in dozens of theaters around the area? This damned movie isn't going to help us move on. We're doing our best, but having it constantly rubbed in our faces, used to justify actions, etc, doesn't make it any easier. It was our friends and families, literally, who were in those buildings. So sorry if it will take us a bit more than 5 years to "get over it"

Just like Pearl Harbor had us reliving the past. Just like the Docu-dramas of Midway and Tora Tora Tora. Or how about 30 seconds over Tokyo? Shall we discuss the movies about Hiroshima? How about the Perfect Storm? I could go on and list all the movies that are based on true stories but then, I'd be typing all evening. Frankly, I think New York City needs to grow up and move on like the rest of the Country. Frankly, I'm surprised that New York City hasn't done so already.

I don’t know what happened to them. All in know is that there is no way, based on photographic evidence, that a plane crashed into that building.

Then you really are dillusional.

Ya. New York HAS been playing it long enough. Not even Pearl Harbor did that.

Then you really are dillusional.

That's nothing. You should read about how he wants to wipe out poverty in America by killing all the lower class folk.

Then you really are dillusional.

Yep. Sadly so.

Actually the top guys were trying to get the war started with the Japanese making the first move. They sure as hell got it to. They didn't expect Pearl Harbor, but they wouldn't go to war as long as the Japanese didn't attack. They were waiting and waiting, but no way did they expect Pearl Harbor.
What do you think the Japanese woudl say if they met this guy?
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Also Jesus wasn't born in winter. ^-^
Do you think this guy was born in winter?
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

That's nothing. You should read about how he wants to wipe out poverty in America by killing all the lower class folk.
Who wants to do that?

damn. Cut and pasted the wrong quote. that post above was meant for Undelia. You know, the one where I posted this:
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
And this:
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" In an effort to refute this:
I don’t know what happened to them. All in know is that there is no way, based on photographic evidence, that a plane crashed into that building.

What the fuck is a 'camal', Dan? The home Saudis are getting restless...

What do you think the Japanese woudl say if they met this guy?



Do you think this guy was born in winter?

Huh?! That made no sense.

That's nothing. You should read about how he wants to wipe out poverty in America by killing all the lower class folk.

Who!? What!? How!? O.O!

That's nothing. You should read about how he wants to wipe out poverty in America by killing all the lower class folk.
You are quite big on hyperbole, aren’t you? The poor are necessary, but they must be placated with public works projects and welfare programs, or else they will surely attempt to kill us all. I think the poor are a threat, but genocide isn’t necessary to deal with them. They are simple-minded and easily pleased.

Ya. New York HAS been playing it long enough. Not even Pearl Harbor did that.

They were just mad.

They were just mad.

A five year 'boo hoo' is a little different then us screaming "DIE! YOU BASTARDS!" for the fact we were in war and it wasn't just over Pearl Harbor at that point. :o

You are quite big on hyperbole, aren’t you?

If shoe fits.... (And that cuts both ways.)

The poor are necessary, but they must be placated with public works projects and welfare programs, or else they will surely attempt to kill us all. I think the poor are a threat, but genocide isn’t necessary to deal with them. They are simple-minded and easily pleased.

Wait. Genocide? Against a class? And here I thought you said you weren't racist....

A five year 'boo hoo' is a little different then us screaming "DIE! YOU BASTARDS!" for the fact we were in war and it wasn't just over Pearl Harbor at that point. :o

Yea true but Pearl Harbor was just like 9/11. It pissed off the nation and we took care of the problem. However, fighting terrorists is a whole lot different than fighting a nationalistic imperial army who doens't believe in surrender.

Huh?! That made no sense.
It's all jjst an effort to get Undeliato respond. you know, to this:
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
And this:
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

IWait. Genocide? Against a class? And here I thought you said you weren't racist....
Genocide is any mass murder.

Genocide is any mass murder.
was this a mass murder?
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
I think this guy saw a mass murder:
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Yea true but Pearl Harbor was just like 9/11. It pissed off the nation and we took care of the problem. However, fighting terrorists is a whole lot different than fighting a nationalistic imperial army who doens't believe in surrender.

And after we throughly owned them and the war is over, we didn't carry on still. New York is. x-x

Genocide is any mass murder.

Genocide. To kill someone based on their genes. Synonyms: Ethnic cleansing.

It would be mass murder based on undesireable traits (wealth, mainly). Maybe macrocide?

And after we throughly owned them and the war is over, we didn't carry on still. New York is. x-x

Sad ain't it?

Sad ain't it?

Yep. All this stuff about it, and not a single theory that Pearl Harbor was 'faked' when very few people saw it. Though you have in recent history when thousands of people watched it, and they all can't believe it.

Like Challenger which was also live. People say its fake!

Like Challenger which was also live. People say its fake!

Now that's a new one :D

Yep. All this stuff about it, and not a single theory that Pearl Harbor was 'faked' when very few people saw it. Though you have in recent history when thousands of people watched it, and they all can't believe it.

Like Challenger which was also live. People say its fake!

And Columbia was shot down by an A-sat launched by a rogue general!

Of course you can make a call on a plane, if it has a cell tower.

Flight 93 did not.

the average 757 does not have a cell tower, but neither does most of central missouri, unless you are over a city. So take our example of being able to get a signal, we didn't make a call, but we where receiving a signal, over Central Missouri, and transplant that to n area on the east coast, where there are cell towers everywhere, and lower it 700 feet, and the signal would be nice and strong. we really should have tried it over Pennsylvania when we flew over, but we where to busy debating things to see in DC for the week we where there.

Yes it would. Ever heard of a little thing called Tonkin Bay?

whoah, this is a coincindence, we just covered that in my AP History Class. Tonkin is a screwed up place when it comes to sonar. To this day, sonar in the gulf of Tonkin give false readings of almost anything. Add in the fact that there was a storm that day, and who knows what they saw on the sopnar in Tonkin.

Yep. All this stuff about it, and not a single theory that Pearl Harbor was 'faked' when very few people saw it. Though you have in recent history when thousands of people watched it, and they all can't believe it.

Like Challenger which was also live. People say its fake!

I haven't heard that one before. I went to an elementry school named after Christa McAuliff. I highly doubt it was staged. Same with Colombia, some of my friends say that Columbia was fake. Of course they also say that the Gateway Arch is fake, and that you are brainwashed in those egg shaped elevators. I think I need new RL friends.

Undelia!

Another one for you! :D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/

Undelia!

Another one for you! :D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/
Oh for the fucking love of...

I live in the Northeast. I live 2 hours from where United Flight 93 went down. The plane buzzed the Pittsburgh ATC which Ironiclly shares the same runways with my father's base. so you had family and/or friends die in the attacks?



Because they are idiots. They may think it is too soon but guess what? Most of us don't. Alot of us are getting sick and tired of the city having this "victims attitude" Its been nearly 5 years. Time to move on. Don't ever forget but it is time for this nation to move into the future and not to relive the past.
it has been less than 5 years. Do we expect everyone else who mourns a loos to get over it in 5 years? No. NYC doesn't want to hear about it any more. We want to move on. Unfortunatly, having it used as justification as actions constantly doesn't help.


Just like Pearl Harbor had us reliving the past. Just like the Docu-dramas of Midway and Tora Tora Tora. Or how about 30 seconds over Tokyo? Shall we discuss the movies about Hiroshima? How about the Perfect Storm? I could go on and list all the movies that are based on true stories but then, I'd be typing all evening. Frankly, I think New York City needs to grow up and move on like the rest of the Country. Frankly, I'm surprised that New York City hasn't done so already.Pearl harbor was made 50 years after the fact. There is a huge fucking difference between 50 and 5. The wounds are fresh. Perfect storm was an incident involving very few people. It is NOT the same. The wounds are fresh. We are trying to move on. Let us have our time to do so. And mentioning it every 5 seconds doesn't help.

so you had family and/or friends die in the attacks?

Luckily my dad was in the State of Washington and the plane decided not to hit the base or my family would've lost friends.

it has been less than 5 years. Do we expect everyone else who mourns a loos to get over it in 5 years? No.

True however when the city plays it up and throws it in our faces for that same amount of time, that grates on people. Frankly, I wish the city itself will just grow up. Enough is enough. The rest of the country is moving on, including PA. Even the family members of 93 are moving on with their lives because that is what their loved ones would've wanted.

NYC doesn't want to hear about it any more. We want to move on. Unfortunatly, having it used as justification as actions constantly doesn't help.

Who is justifying what? Justifying what action?

Pearl harbor was made 50 years after the fact. There is a huge fucking difference between 50 and 5. The wounds are fresh. Perfect storm was an incident involving very few people. It is NOT the same. The wounds are fresh. We are trying to move on. Let us have our time to do so. And mentioning it every 5 seconds doesn't help.

The Perfect Storm is precisely the same. Just because it affected a few people means diddly squat. The wounds are fresh because the people of the city of New York keep them open for some unknown reason. The Rest of the country is moving on. Its time for NYC to do the same.

not to mention wanting to denegrate it with the filthy IFC. I can't believe they actually approved the building of that piece of Sh**

A fully loaded plane, nose diving into the ground.. Yea, there would be no plane. Oh brother.



Why should there be a coronor report?



tell that to the families who lost their loved ones on 93. I''m sure they would love to know that they were not called by their dead loved ones.



Your choice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4542226.stm

This plane slammed into a moutain at full speed - check out the pics of the wreckage. There was also a coroner to help identify the 121 bodies that were found.
As for your comment about the phone calls, you are using the same techniques that are being used in the pharce that is the Moussaoui trial. I.e. ignore any facts and use emotional statements to get your point across.

p.s. Corneliu, do you work in the white house?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4542226.stm

This plane slammed into a moutain at full speed - check out the pics of the wreckage. There was also a coroner to help identify the 121 bodies that were found.
As for your comment about the phone calls, you are using the same techniques that are being used in the pharce that is the Moussaoui trial. I.e. ignore any facts and use emotional statements to get your point across.

Big difference about plowing into a mountain and plowing straight into the ground. There would be nothing left especially at the speed the plane was going.

As to the Moussaoui trial, it is a fair trial. Not my fault that he decided to ignore the advice of his council and not talk by talking his head off. And again, as to the cell phone calls, tell the loved they didn't hear from them. I'm sure they'll have a proper response for ya.

Big difference about plowing into a mountain and plowing straight into the ground. There would be nothing left especially at the speed the plane was going.

As to the Moussaoui trial, it is a fair trial. Not my fault that he decided to ignore the advice of his council and not talk by talking his head off. And again, as to the cell phone calls, tell the loved they didn't hear from them. I'm sure they'll have a proper response for ya.

Personally I think hitting a mountain - that is essentially just a bump in the ground - would be much the same as hitting the ground. The greek plane was at cruising speed so the speeds would have been similair.
Yet again, I will reiterate my last comment about the calls: all emotion and no substance.

Yet again, I will reiterate my last comment about the calls: all emotion and no substance.

Yet again, I tell you to tell the family members that.

Yet again, I tell you to tell the family members that.

**yawns**

So, warhawk911. Which agency do you work for?

**yawns**

So, warhawk911. Which agency do you work for?

HAAA so you looked at my yahoo screen name. I work for the Campus Recreation Department here at the university I attend. That's the agency I work with.

HAAA so you looked at my yahoo screen name. I work for the Campus Recreation Department here at the university I attend. That's the agency I work with.

interesting choice of name I have to say ;)

interesting choice of name I have to say ;)

Oh goodie. Another conspiracy nut on this board. :headbang:

And yes it is an interesting name since I work in the Intramural Department.

Yet again, I tell you to tell the family members that.

Emotional appeals =/= facts. Dodging the question by using families who have suffered loss as decoys = cowardice.

Just like claims of militant patriotism + excuses to not join that have no basis in reality = cowardice.

I wonder who that sounds like? Oh. I know. I'm quoting him.

Emotional appeals =/= facts. Dodging the question by using families who have suffered loss as decoys = cowardice.

He didn't ask any questions

Just like claims of militant patriotism + excuses to not join that have no basis in reality = cowardice.

I can give you my whole medical history if ya like.

I wonder who that sounds like? Oh. I know. I'm quoting to him.

I'm not going to rise to the bait.

He didn't ask any questions

Then answer this. What feasible explanations are there for the fact that the cell phone calls were possible on a craft that had no support for it?


I can give you my whole medical history if ya like.


Do so. Include a medical report if you can. Anything serious enough to keep you out of the armed forces would have resulted in at least one medical record stating whatever disability it is that kept you out.

I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath.


I'm not going to rise to the bait.

Interesting because this was rope which you yourself made Cornster. I didn't pull any of the claims I'm using out of thin air. You practically gave them to NS.

[QUOTE=Mooter]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4542226.stm

This plane slammed into a moutain at full speed - check out the pics of the wreckage. There was also a coroner to help identify the 121 bodies that were found.
As for your comment about the phone calls, you are using the same techniques that are being used in the pharce that is the Moussaoui trial. I.e. ignore any facts and use emotional statements to get your point across.
QUOTE]

How about the fact that the plane was flipped upside down and literally freefell full speed into the ground? dropping from 2500ft upsidedown will obliterate any large aircraft. Like the B-52 crash caught on video at an airshow about 10 years ago? Not much left after that either!
People saw flight 93 flip and go down in an inverted nose dive!

Oh goodie. Another conspiracy nut on this board. :headbang:

And yes it is an interesting name since I work in the Intramural Department.

Conspiracy nut!?!?!?!

If you wanna find the conspiracy nuts go here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

The authors of that are the "conspiracy nuts" IMO

I've never heard that flight 93 flipped over in mid air and fell like that, I must have missed that nugget of (mis)information.

Then answer this. What feasible explanations are there for the fact that the cell phone calls were possible on a craft that had no support for it?



Do so. Include a medical report if you can. Anything serious enough to keep you out of the armed forces would have resulted in at least one medical record stating whatever disability it is that kept you out.

I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath.



Interesting because this was rope which you yourself made Cornster. I didn't pull any of the claims I'm using out of thin air. You practically gave them to NS.


I would like to point out what The AMerican Privateer stated earlier.
1. Flight 93 was a 757
2. 757's do not have cell towers
3. North Central Missouri is sparsley populated when it comes to Cell Towers
4. He was able to get service on a 757 over North Central Missouri
5. New England has massive numbers of Cell Towers
6. Flight 93 was 700 feet below cruising altitude

therefore, using his evidence, I would have to say that it is feasible that they got phone calls off.

Conspiracy nut!?!?!?!

If you wanna find the conspiracy nuts go here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html

The authors of that are the "conspiracy nuts" IMO

I've never heard that flight 93 flipped over in mid air and fell like that, I must have missed that nugget of (mis)information.

Dude, I heard them talking about it on the news that day. I remember it clear as a bell, because as the reports came in, my first thought was yes, some one fought back. Plus, the second Black Box does record the inversion.