United 93 - The Movie

[Jim Alfredson]

I think Alexander's point (and maybe what the film was trying to portray) is that, regardless of how evil these guys were and what they did, they were still human. We can sit here and curse them and want revenge and live by the ol' "eye for an eye" law and blatantly follow our animal instincts, or we can try to understand what makes our fellow humans do what they do in order to change ourselves and the world.

You can't do better unless you know better.

[patricia]

  Jazzmoose said:

  patricia said:

Actually I posted my original remarks yesterday, not 30 minutes after my first post.

Wow...that's such a classic "strawman" response, I thought I saw Toto and some ruby red slippers go by...

It was a strawman response to a strawman query.

But, the timeline was correct and Dan was wrong.

Toto and some ruby red slippers [silver in the original story] didn't go by here.

You must live in a different kind of neighbourhood than I do.

[Jazzmoose]

Interesting...on my computer, it appears as if you posted, and then posted a "bump" approximately 30 minutes later early Sunday morning, just as Dan said. But perhaps something is wrong with my computer...

[Dan Gould]

  patricia said:

Actually I posted my original remarks yesterday, not 30 minutes after my first post.

Sorry, but I have to call BULLSH*T.

Your post - #52 - came at 9:29 AM.

It was edited at 10:19 AM.

At 10:50 AM you posted:

  Quote

up.

This is still current and I think that there is still discussion warranted, since the film is newly in the threatres.

Regardless of what your earlier remarks were, you responded to my post this morning and then "upped" the thread thirty minutes after you edited your remarks and not even 90 minutes after you had posted them.

[Dan Gould]

  Christiern said:

Patricia is right, Dan. There is absolutely no evidence that the passengers were motivated by a noble goal, and the fact that some of them knew of the WTC attack proves nothing--remember, those who knew probably surmised that they were involved in a similar attempt, which meant that the plane was going to be crashed. Do you really think it mattered where that crash might take place? Don't you think man's natural instinct for survival kicked in and took over all other considerations? I think it is far more logical to assume that the passengers had their families and loved ones on their mind when they acted to overpower the hijackers. Nothing wrong with that, but turning this into self-sacrificing patriots is a stretch that in and of itself smacks of exploitation.

Dan Gould: "We KNOW from their families what motivated them to act. It was to PREVENT the terrorists from reaching their target. It may not have been "patriotic" but it was sure as hell self-sacrificing."

Really? Is that reflected in any of the recorded phone conversations, or is that understandable wishful thinking on the part of the families? The fact is that we know no such thing--would we like that to be the fact? Of course, but we don't know. Besides, we still don't know what the "target" was, so I hardly think that the passengers did.

Remember how adamant you were re the WMDs? This gives me dèjá vu, Dan.

If you seriously believe that they did not know that the terrorists would use the plane to crash into one building or another and did not intend to prevent that from happening, there is nothing left to say to you.

[Jim R]

  patricia said:

But, the timeline was correct and Dan was wrong.

In case it helps, I just wanted to mention something. I was confused by the exchange between Dan and Patricia regarding how soon the thread was "upped". As I see it, you were both wrong (unless something is escaping me, there were approximately 1 hour and 21 minutes between posts 52 and 53). It appears that Dan was wrong when he said "30 minutes, but it also seems to me that Patricia was wrong (or misunderstood Dan's point regarding the elapsed time between 52 and 53).

??? I dunno.

Is this important anymore? Probably not...

BTW, I watched the A&E film, although at times I felt like turning it off and going to do something more relaxing. I thought it was fairly well done overall, and I completely ignored the commercials by either walking away for a couple of minutes or using the mute button. Basically, I tried to look for interesting moments in the script, and not get too wrapped up in judging the whole thing. I don't know where I stand on the whole "too soon" thing... it certainly brought back a lot of strong emotions, but that's what watching films like this is all about. I think I agree with Ray... after all, we all can choose for ourselves whether to watch these films, whether to pay to see them, whether to buy the books, etc...

[Jim R]

  Dan Gould said:

  patricia said:

Actually I posted my original remarks yesterday, not 30 minutes after my first post.

Sorry, but I have to call BULLSH*T.

Your post - #52 - came at 9:29 AM.

It was edited at 10:19 AM.

At 10:50 AM you posted:

  Quote

up.

This is still current and I think that there is still discussion warranted, since the film is newly in the threatres.

Regardless of what your earlier remarks were, you responded to my post this morning and then "upped" the thread thirty minutes after you edited your remarks and not even 90 minutes after you had posted them.

I didn't notice the edit... sorry.

[Jim R]

  Dan Gould said:

  Christiern said:

In other words, Dan, you won't accept a film that does not follow your imagined scenario. As you pointed out, nobody knows whether or not any of the hijackers hesitated, so you object to that being suggested in the script--I agree, but we also don't know if a feeling of patriotism motivated the passengers. So, is one conjecture acceptable and the other not?

This is where you are flat out wrong.

We KNOW that the passengers knew what had already happened.

We KNOW from their families what motivated them to act. It was to PREVENT the terrorists from reaching their target. It may not have been "patriotic" but it was sure as hell self-sacrificing.

The way it was presented in the A&E film, it was basically a common sense decision aided by the telephone conversations with family members- try to prevent the hijackers from taking the plane to their planned crash site. Nothing about "do this for America" or anything overtly "patriotic". I guess I'm just observing a distinction between being "patriotic" and being humanitarian.

Also, the tv film gave a sense that they all (or most of them) knew they were going to die one way or the other. So, I'm not sure that "self-sacrificing" makes sense to me in this situation, in terms of the outcome of the action they decided upon. They died sooner than they would have otherwise, I suppose, but is that "self-sacrificing"? Not only that, but by choosing to try to take back the plane, they at least had some (albeit miniscule) chance of surviving.

[patricia]

  Quote

Also, the tv film gave a sense that they all (or most of them) knew they were going to die one way or the other. So, I'm not sure that "self-sacrificing" makes sense to me in this situation, in terms of the outcome of the action they decided upon. They died sooner than they would have otherwise, I suppose, but is that "self-sacrificing"? Not only that, but by choosing to try to take back the plane, they at least had some (albeit miniscule) chance of surviving.

I got the impression, watching the tv film, that the plan was to take back the plane, when one of their number said he had a pilot's license. That plan seemed to have been seen to be unworkable because the passenger's experience was on single engine planes. But, even if they had taken over the plane, they were too low, finally, to land it. But, by fighting back they were doing something and not just waiting to die. So, in that sense they are certainly to be admired, for at least trying to save themselves.

That was my impression when the event took place and I still feel that their heroism involved not doing nothing, which would have been easier, even though they knew that they were going to die.

[Jim R]

  patricia said:

  Quote

Also, the tv film gave a sense that they all (or most of them) knew they were going to die one way or the other. So, I'm not sure that "self-sacrificing" makes sense to me in this situation, in terms of the outcome of the action they decided upon. They died sooner than they would have otherwise, I suppose, but is that "self-sacrificing"? Not only that, but by choosing to try to take back the plane, they at least had some (albeit miniscule) chance of surviving.

I got the impression, watching the tv film, that the plan was to take back the plane, when one of their number said he had a pilot's license. That plan seemed to have been seen to be unworkable because the passenger's experience was on single engine planes.

I didn't really hear/see it that way... I thought the real emphasis was on the communication from the families that the plane was headed for an occupied target.

  Quote

But, even if they had taken over the plane, they were too low, finally, to land it. But, by fighting back they were doing something and not just waiting to die. So, in that sense they are certainly to be admired, for at least trying to save themselves.

... and potentially a lot of people on the ground.

[Christiern]

  Dan Gould said:

If you seriously believe that they did not know that the terrorists would use the plane to crash into one building or another and did not intend to prevent that from happening, there is nothing left to say to you.

Dan, I think my conjecture is as valid as yours--neither one of us knows with any kind of certainty what was going through the minds of the passengers (or, for that matter, the hijackers). Ergo, it is you assumption against mine, and the fact that you are ending our dialog because you disagree with my reasoning is a copout, IMO. Why not, instead, explain your belief beyond making general unsubstantiated statement like:

"It was undoubtedly a patriotic attempt to prevent a fourth terrorist act - they may not have known the target but they knew the outcome.

That's why they acted, and it wasn't a purely self-centered act to save their own lives but also to save lives they knew were at stake somewhere on the ground.

Yes, they probably had some blind hope they could land the plane but the odds of that were a 1 million to 1. The odds of overpowering the hijackers were about 40 to 4, a damn sight better."

"undoubtedly"? Based on what, other than wishful thinking?

So you think their chances of overpowering the hijackers were good but their chance of landing the aircraft was super slim. What about the pilot and/or copilot? Were they still alive? If so, would that not have seriously increased the odds in favor of landing? You have a history here of stating wishful thinking as fact, and this looks to me like another case of that, but only because you have failed to substantiate any of your theories.

[Dan Gould]

  Christiern said:

  Dan Gould said:

If you seriously believe that they did not know that the terrorists would use the plane to crash into one building or another and did not intend to prevent that from happening, there is nothing left to say to you.

Dan, I think my conjecture is as valid as yours--neither one of us knows with any kind of certainty what was going through the minds of the passengers (or, for that matter, the hijackers). Ergo, it is you assumption against mine, and the fact that you are ending our dialog because you disagree with my reasoning is a copout, IMO. Why not, instead, explain your belief beyond making general unsubstantiated statement like:

"It was undoubtedly a patriotic attempt to prevent a fourth terrorist act - they may not have known the target but they knew the outcome.

That's why they acted, and it wasn't a purely self-centered act to save their own lives but also to save lives they knew were at stake somewhere on the ground.

Yes, they probably had some blind hope they could land the plane but the odds of that were a 1 million to 1. The odds of overpowering the hijackers were about 40 to 4, a damn sight better."

"undoubtedly"? Based on what, other than wishful thinking?

So you think their chances of overpowering the hijackers were good but their chance of landing the aircraft was super slim. What about the pilot and/or copilot? Were they still alive? If so, would that not have seriously increased the odds in favor of landing? You have a history here of stating wishful thinking as fact, and this looks to me like another case of that, but only because you have failed to substantiate any of your theories.

Momma always said not to argue with a fool.

[Christiern]

I think that says it all, Dan--you have no argument, so you cop out--with the obligatory name-calling, I might add.

Oh, well.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Christiern

[Dan Gould]

  Christiern said:

I think that says it all, Dan--you have no argument, so you cop out--with the obligatory name-calling, I might add.

Oh, well.

there is no cop out for the simple fact that there is no point in furthering the discussion.

You've come to a conclusion based on your assumptions. Its predicated on flat-out hatred of the people who call the passengers "heroes" and "patriots". You feel compelled to insist on any alternative that denies a heroic motivation. Its pathetic and offensive to their memories and to their families.

I've come to a conclusion based on my assumptions, and they are predicated on the actual known facts. They wished to prevent a fourth strike against some unknown target. And nothing you can say denies that fundamental fact.

But go ahead. Keep talking.

[Christiern]

"flat-out hatred"?

So now I'm not just a fool, but a hateful one. Don't you think that is a bit overboard? To me, that assumption (character attack) demonstrates your tendency to see only your own side of things, and then twist the facts to suit or justify (to yourself) a jump to ludicrous conclusions. IMHO, if there is any hatred to be found in this matter, it ought to be aimed at the perpetrators of this tragedy and those who prompted them to carry it out, not at people who simply do not see things the way Gould does.

You are right, as long as your mind remains closed to contrasting viewpoint, carrying any further this dialog with you can not accomplish anything.

[Dan Gould]

  Christiern said:

"flat-out hatred"?

So now I'm not just a fool, but a hateful one. Don't you think that is a bit overboard? To me, that assumption (character attack) demonstrates your tendency to see only your own side of things, and then twist the facts to suit or justify (to yourself) a jump to ludicrous conclusions. IMHO, if there is any hatred to be found in this matter, it ought to be aimed at the perpetrators of this tragedy and those who prompted them to carry it out, not at people who simply do not see things the way Gould does.

Who called the passengers "heroes" and "patriots"?

The right-wing bloviators, for the most part.

Who do you hate? I think we all know that the right-wing ain't on your christmas card list.

[7/4]

  Christiern said:

"flat-out hatred"?

So now I'm not just a fool, but a hateful one. Don't you think that is a bit overboard?

Nah.

[Epithet]

crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch

[RDK]

So, anybody see RV? I hear it was Number One this weekend...

[Noj]

  RDK said:

So, anybody see RV? I hear it was Number One this weekend...

Was it really? The trailer couldn't possibly make it look less funny.

[skeith]

  Alexander said:

Finally, there is the scene where the passengers attack the hijackers. Seeing previously rational people fighting for survival (terrorists and victims alike) brought to mind Dr. Johnson's maxim: "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." That is the ultimate tragedy of United 93: That all of these people lost their humanity just before losing their lives. It is a profound moment, and it is one that should be experienced by all people. It is a warning of all that we have to lose...

So Alex,

let me get this straight, you become irrational and inhumane by fighting against the people who are trying to kill you?

Give me a break................

So Alex, if someone were trying to strangle you, would you just let them finish the job out of fear of losing your humanity?

Edited May 1, 2006 by skeith

[skeith]

  Christiern said:

The passengers were, understandably, trying to save themselves--had they taken action to avert another jet-as-missile attack, they could simply have worked to destroy (crash) the aircraft. I think that would have been too much to ask, so, again, I don't mean that as a criticism of the victims.

I am not so sure, as you seem to be Chris, that the passengers were trying to save themselves.

First of all, I am not sure that there were any passengers on the plane capable of flying it.

Even as depicted in the film, and I don't know whether it was true, there is only one guy who says he is a pilot, but he hastens to add he has never flown a plane like the one they are in.

Furthermore, he also states, and again whether he was a real character or not it must have been obvious to the passengers, that given that the plane was flying so low to the ground, the odds of getting the controls away from the hijackers without hitting the ground would be practically nil.

It is true that they knew that by keeping still, they were probably going to die anyway, but nevertheless where there is life there is hope. They were still along way from Newark or Washington when they fought back. They could have hoped that maybe the hijackers could have chickened out, or maybe that given that the other planes had hit their targets, maybe this one did not have to. I could imagine any number of scenarios where you might hope to live. And it was no easy matter to attack these hijackers who were clearly going to fight back with knives- that is harder than dying in an instant. Once the passengers attacked, I have to believe that they did not have much hope of surviving much longer. I think that they were motivated by the idea that they were saving other american lives or american buidings, institutions, whatever.

That would make them heroes in my book.

And Chris, spare us the lecture about name calling, you have done plenty of that.

Edited May 1, 2006 by skeith

[Christiern]

Skeith, we all would like to think that the passengers who charged the cockpit were doing so for a noble cause and not just to save their own lives, but the operative word here is think--you say:

"I think that they were motivated by the idea that they were saving other american lives or american buidings, institutions, whatever.

That would make them heroes in my book."

And in many other people's book, including my own, but let's be real here--This is the Jessica Lynching of Flight 93. Remember Jessica Lynch? Remember how the Pentagon made up stories to portray her as a hero? Well, America needed a hero, so there she was, packaged neatly for public consumption by the Bush regime.

I have lot of respect for Jessica Lynch, because she exposed the little PR trick--good for her, so perhaps she was a hero after all.

There are many real heroes in this world--we do not need to make them up. It is enough that the passengers and crew of Flight 93 died as a result of an unspeakable terrorist act--we can remember and honor them for that, because it is the reality.

As for your little comment on name-calling, no one asked you. Dan is a grown man, if he thinks this was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, let him say so--keep your 2¢.

Unless this thread gets back on track, I'll be found elsewhere.

[Alexander]

  skeith said:

  Alexander said:

Finally, there is the scene where the passengers attack the hijackers. Seeing previously rational people fighting for survival (terrorists and victims alike) brought to mind Dr. Johnson's maxim: "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." That is the ultimate tragedy of United 93: That all of these people lost their humanity just before losing their lives. It is a profound moment, and it is one that should be experienced by all people. It is a warning of all that we have to lose...

So Alex,

let me get this straight, you become irrational and inhumane by fighting against the people who are trying to kill you?

Give me a break................

So Alex, if someone were trying to strangle you, would you just let them finish the job out of fear of losing your humanity?

Did I say that I wouldn't do that same thing they did? Of course not. I'm just saying that the struggle to survive reduces us to our animal insticts. Watch the movie. The mob of howling passengers are depicted literally tearing the hijackers to pieces. Were they justified in their actions? Darn tootin'. Would they be proud of what circumstances forced them to do? No way. Eli Weisel wrote quite elequently about how the conditions in the Concentration Camps turned him and other inmates into animals concerned with nothing but their own survival. He describes a son strangling is own father to death over a piece of bread. It was every man for himself, but that doesn't mean that that anyone would be PROUD of their actions under such circumstances. I'm sure the members of the Donner party felt pretty horrible about what they had to do to survive. I'm sure it haunted them for the rest of their lives.

[Alexander]

I should also note that while the passengers fight back, the audience is caught up in the blood-lust of the moment. We're rooting for them, no question. But being, as I am, a critical thinker I am capable of split-screening my lower consciousness in order to fully process the things I see and hear. I watched the film and was caught up in it emotionally, but I was also watching myself watching the film and was analyzing both the film and my reactions to it in real time. So as I was rooting for the passengers, I was also thinking: "My God. Look what people become in the struggle for survival. Truly, nature is red in tooth and claw."

Edited May 1, 2006 by Alexander