Flight 93

[ardillacid]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:37 AM']Now change your avatar...
[right][snapback]947251[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't think so. You are an all powerful mod, you could change it if you desired.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 14 2006, 06:32 AM']The guy who led the passenger takeover (the "Let's roll" guy) was a devout Catholic who actually had premonitions of his death years before. His wife confirmed that.

I think it's a legit story. Who knows, maybe he'll be a Saint someday.

An article about him:

[url="http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/20020927.html"]http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/20020927.html[/url]

I don't think his wife would lie about the takeover. He told her about it when he called home:
[right][snapback]947104[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It isn't so much that he didn't attempt a takeover. That the people attempted to take over the plane I don't think is doubted. What is doubted is if they managed to do anything, i.e. gain access to the cockpit or force the plane down. It seems that the plane went down because the terrorist flying it over corrected, not that it was taken over.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Apr 15 2006, 03:45 PM']It isn't so much that he didn't attempt a takeover. That the people attempted to take over the plane I don't think is doubted. What is doubted is if they managed to do anything, i.e. gain access to the cockpit or force the plane down. It seems that the plane went down because the terrorist flying it over corrected, not that it was taken over.
[right][snapback]948148[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, absent any concrete proof that they DIDN'T cause the plane to crash, I'll stick with that story. I don't think the terrorists wanted to crash the plane in an empty Pennsylvania field.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 15 2006, 01:07 PM']Well, absent any concrete proof that they DIDN'T cause the plane to crash, I'll stick with that story. I don't think the terrorists wanted to crash the plane in an empty Pennsylvania field.
[right][snapback]948205[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A) The proof would be the on cockpit tapes
B) The terrorists didn't want to, they "messed up" and over corrected, like what causes a lot of car wrecks
C)The FBI and 9/11 Commission state that that is most likely what happened

[Era Might]

From the article I posted:

[quote]Deena says that when she and other relatives listened to the flight's "black box" (the cockpit recorder), she could hear her husband barking directives as they indeed took the plane back. "I know that he motivated those people aboard that flight to do what they did," says Deena. "And I also know that had he not been on the plane, that circumstances would have been very different today."[/quote]

Since neither you or I has heard the tapes, and the family members have, their account sticks until proven otherwise. If the government has concluded otherwise, I'm open to documentation. But for now, I am content to believe what we have been told.

[Iacobus]

From the 9/11 Report, who heard the tapes and spoke the Gov't's side:

"During at least five of the passengers' phone calls, information was shared about the attacks that had occured earlier that morning at the World Trade Center. Five calls described the intent of the passengers and surviving crew members to revolt against the hijackers. According to one call, they voted on whether to rush the terrorists in an attempt to retake the plane. They decided and acted. (84)

At 9:57, the passenger assault began. Several passengers had terminated phone calls with loved ones in order to join the revolt. One of the callers ended her message as follows: "Everyone's running up to first class. I've got to go. Bye." (85)

The cockpit voice recording captured the sounds of the passenger assault [b]muffled by the intervening cockpit door.[/b] Some family members who listened to the recording report that they can hear the voice of a loved one among the din. We cannot identify whose voices can be heard. But the assault was sustained.(86)

In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52 Jarraj changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assult. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts and breaking glasses and plates. At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane. (87)

Five seconds later, Jarrah asked, "Is that is? Shall we finish it off?" A hijacker responded, "No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off." The sounds of fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the aircraft up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!" Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, "Roll it!" Jarrah stopped the violent maneuvers at about 10:01:00 and said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!" He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit, "Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?" to which the other replied, "Yes, put it in it, and pull it down." (88)

The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!" The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down; the control whell was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting, "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest." With the sounds of the passengers counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shaksville, Pennsylyvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C. (89)

(84) See FBI reports of investigation, interviews of recipients of calls from United 93.
(85) FBI reports of investigations, interviews of recipients of calls from United 93. For quote, see FBI report of investigation, interview of Philip Bradshaw, Sept. 11, 2001; Philip Bradshaw interview (June 15, 2004); Flight 93 FDR and CVR data. At 9:55:11 Jarrah dailed in the VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR) frequency for the VOR navigational aid at Washington Reagan National Airport, further indicating that the attack was planned for the nations capital.
(86) Flight 93 FDR and CVR data.
(87) ibid
(88) ibid
(89) ibid. The CVR clearly captured the words of the hijackers, including words in Arabic from the microphone in the pilots headset up to the end of the flight. The hijackers statements, the clarity of the recording, the position of the microphone in the pilot headset, and correspoinding manipulations of flight controls provide the evidence. The quotes are taken from our listening to the CVR, aded by an Arabic speaker."

[Era Might]

So they did force them to bring the plane down, confirming what his wife said, that if it wasn't for them, the flight would have gone on to its intended destination. They may not have physically disrupted the control room, but they did stop the terrorists from going where they were going. Based on the report, the reason the terrorists crashed the plane was because they knew that they would be outnumbered if the passengers managed to get through the cockpit door. From the report:

[quote]The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them.[/quote]

They didn't just lose balance. They "remained at the controls", but decided to crash in the middle of nowhere rather than risk a passenger takeover, which they were "only seconds from".

They were heroes.

[Iacobus]

The passenger attack caused them to decide to bring down the plane. But the "popular" image is that they got to the controls and forced it down. If the movie shows that, then it is fiction and propoganda. If it shows what the 9/11 Commission reported then it is adhering to TBK of what happened.

[Era Might]

Well, I don't know if it would be "propaganda". All fact-based movies embellish the Truth. Unless they were making a documentary, it wouldn't surprise me if they did something like that, although I have no idea if they will. Breaking into the cockpit and physically bringing the plane down wouldn't be too far from the truth. A few minutes more, and they would have done it, and they still managed to thwart the plane with their pressure.

To use a football analogy, the defensive line doesn't have to actually sack the quarterback to get the job done. If they get enough pressure on him, they can get him to throw the ball away or throw an interception. A movie might make it a sack for dramatic effect, but it's not really "propaganda".

Did Oskar Schindler really see a little girl in red and have an instant change of heart? Who knows, but it's a darn good moment in "Schindler's List".

[shortnun]

I just saw another preview of it on tv and asked a friend what she thought about it. Then I stumbled across this thread. There is something [u]very unsettling[/u] to me about this movie. And I think many of the comments made thus far reflect my feelings, particularly HSMom's comments:

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Apr 14 2006, 10:08 AM']Frankly, I'm not too optimistic about this movie. It's going to have to contain great leaps as far as fictionalizing the events-- do we really want that? If I were a widow, I would NOT want my husband to be made into a fictionalized folk hero. Please don't get me wrong-- what those people did was really brave and a great sacrifice to deliberately crash the airplane. If I were a widow, I couldn't watch such a movie. I couldn't listen to the tapes... I just would want to remember my husband aside from the horror of his death.
[right][snapback]947191[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I read that the families are coming to support this, but to me it seems like we're idolizing them and turning these people into "fictionalized folk heros."-- like Sojourner and others said, [i]it just seems too soon.[/i] Not to mention, you're putting faces on the terrorists that will stick in peoples' minds, and IMHO will lead to more racial profiling.

[quote name='God's Errand Girl' date='Apr 14 2006, 11:38 AM']And I think that I would probably react that way too if my husband were involved. 

For some reason, though, quite a few of the family members (i.e. Lisa Beamer) have stepped out to share their story.  [b]It almost seems like they feel that they must share their stories and it would be intriguing to know why.[/b]
[right][snapback]947252[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[Emphasis mine] If I may propose a reason why it "seems like they feel that they must share their stories" I think it's part of the grief process. It helps solidify their experiences so that they may progress from victim to survivor. And then they're also heavily influenced by the rise in (for lack of a better term) patriotism. I use that word with caution as I think it can mean so many different things for different people, [i]particularly[/i] in light of 9-11. So as many meanings as it can hold, peoples' emotions are a powerful influence on the emotions of others. And when you add in the death and destruction that came about from these events, I can see how publically sharing their stories is a way that the survivors (victims and rescuers) grieve and process.

[Theoketos]

Shortnun, I find it frustrating that you are disturbed by flight 93 but are fine with the VM.

[Socrates]

Ok, first of all, I'll say that I really know little about this movie beyond what has been posted here, and thus cannot make a solid judgment on it.
However, I see nothing wrong with making this movie on principle.

I find it interesting how liberals seem to be having such a problem with the whole idea of making this movie, on the basis of it supposedly being dangerous "propoganda" and "profitting on the deaths of the victims." When a couple years ago Michael Moore made a movie that did use the events of 9-11 as blatant political propaganda (and outright slander), there was in general little outcry from the Left. Indeed, Moore's propaganda flick was regarded as an acceptable, even laudable, exercise of "first amendment rights."
There was little concern voiced about the profit Moore was making from his flick.

The same applies to Oliver Stone's paranoid twisting of history, or Lefty propaganda such as V for Vendetta.

But if a movie comes out which portrays Christ's Passion in a reverent light, or (oh horrors!) paints Americans as heroes, the Left seems to get their panties in a knot.

As Sojourner pointed out, if we are to complain about this movie profitting from deaths, we must also condemn every movie made about WWII or Vietnam.

I can understand how this movie can create a negative emotional reaction, but then, nobody has to go watch it.

It seems that the modern Left has become very uncomfortable with anything portraying American citizens as heros or the "good guys," anmd terrorist murderers as the "bad guys." This is in stark contrast to the way Americans thought in the past, and in my opinion, does not speak well of the Left.

[Theoketos]

War should never be glorified, espcially these modern wars, but well put Socrates.

[Iacobus]

Socrates, it isn't so much that I think that making a film about the hero's of that day is wrong. There were heros, many of whom died. But what I don't like, and what really bugs me about this film, is the fact that will we still have the popular idealized image of some of the heros on that day, like the fire fighters and police officers, we don't respect them at all. We talk about how brave they were, how selfless they were, etc, but when it comes down to it, all we do it give them lip service. Next time you are driving down the road, see how many people yield to a fire engine or police car with its lights and sirens on. Like I said earlier, roughly 90% of all fire fighter deaths occur en route to a call with the vast majority of them being from someone not respecting the rigs right of way or who just doesn't care. We can make them into heros in words, we can have the bumper stickers saying "FDNY 9/11" or something, but we cannot, as a society, bring ourselves to respect them at all.

Furthermore, what I also don't like is that we are idealizing them by ignoring their problems. Of the firefighters that were at Ground Zero, over 80% are now divorice or seperated because of the stress and because they feel as though their wives (and a few husbands) just cannot understand what they underwent. By idealizing them as heros, we forget that they are human and have the same problems as everyone else. Seeing them as heros makes it easier to ignore the bad elements of reality which envlope them. The firefighters there that day died and burned just like all of us, they were and are still human. We risk the same problem with idealizations of United 93.

[Theoketos]

Lip Service is ludicrous...good point.