Flight 93 and 9/11 Films

[anthony!]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/united93/

Apple has posted a new trailer for the film "Flight 93".

Personally I think its still questionable taste to dramatize these events. In fact, I'm not really sure I'm interested in them ever really being put to film outside of documentaries. I just don't see how anyone can be objective about this subject so close to when it happened...

What do you all think?

[Cayman]

I saw the trailer for Flight 93 and it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. It seems exploitative and cheap. Personally, I will elect to not see this film.

Cay

[hellokittykat]

Yeah, I think it's too soon as well.

[Buzz Dixon]

Without having seen the trailer or knowing which side of the fence it is on, it's an appropriate time to do a film or TV show based on 911. Exploitive would have been within weeks after the events; now it's nearly half a decade later.

Added laterr: Just looked at the trailer. I didn't see it as exploitive.

[Jeff Brady]

Maybe in 50 years, I'll be ready for a movie about it. For now, as we stand in the 'shadow of no towers,' I'll not see this film.

[Samurai]

If this is done with the proper respect, it might be ok. I'm more irritated by "Cindy Sheehan: the Movie".

[kingdom2000]

Yeah its too erly for 9/11 movies. I currently plan on skipping the Flight movie. Also agree with that Cindy Sheenam movie, she flat out doesn't deserve one. Yay for being one of the first to speak against Bush publicily and fearlessly but that doesn't rise to a "movie" level. It barely warrents a documentary or an A&E Biography. Maybe, and even then iffy, if she creates a real political movement would she deserve the treatment. But she hasn't yet and more then likely the window to do that has passed.

[Ogdred]

Maybe in 50 years, I'll be ready for a movie about it. For now, as we stand in the 'shadow of no towers,' I'll not see this film.

It's been half a decade, man! It's time to make some money off this sucker. Gotta find that silver lining, baby.

Besides, haven't hucksters been exploiting 9/11 since it happened? Anyone who owns an American-flag factory has been making out like a bandit the past couple of years. Commemorative coins, plates, spoons? Osama Bin Laden toilet paper? No-bid contracts for Halliburton? Jacked-up prices on petroleum? GWB's re-election fund? There is some major bank to be made off of tragedy, my friend, and I see no reason why, in this great Capitalist nation, a single dollar of potential profit should be allowed to slip through our fingers just because it might come off as a little "distasteful" to a bunch of bleeding-heart terrorist-sympathizers (i.e. "liberals").

Move back to Cuba, ya damn Commies!

[Hybrid2]

propaganda!

No way i'm seeing those movie.

[f. chong rutherford]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/united93/

Apple has posted a new trailer for the film "Flight 93".

Personally I think its still questionable taste to dramatize these events. In fact, I'm not really sure I'm interested in them ever really being put to film outside of documentaries. I just don't see how anyone can be objective about this subject so close to when it happened...

What do you all think?

I hope all the families of the passengers (save the terrorists) were well compensated for this.

[Buzz Dixon]

I hope all the families of the passengers (save the terrorists) were well compensated for this.
Generally if an actual person is depicted in a fictional film -- even a now dead person -- the producers try to secure the rights to that person's story from the family, if for no other reason than to prevent somebody else from coming out with a rival film.

[Charles RB]

Oh bloody hellfire. Who spent money on this?

[EdContradictory]

They've already made at least three TV movies that deal with 9/11...

The George Bush one, the Rudy Giuliani one, and a flight 93 movie.

[The Xenos]

I saw the damned news that day. I was curled up in a stupor. Why the *&#$ do I need to see a fictionalized film about it?

For a movie to claim to know what happened to Flight 93

Also, I don't ever remember hearing about bombs being on the flight. I thought they had box cutters? Hell, facts about 9/11 are already questionable enough. We don't need Hollywood muddling things up. I don't fully trust my government already about what they say happened that day and how they have used it to fuel unAmerican movements like the Patriot Act or this crazy Iraqi war propagated by a bunch of neo-cons who hijacked the Republican Party for their own unknown goals. This is more patriotic fap material.

Plus let's not even forget the dangerous attitudes toward Mulslims in this country already. Hell, I half expected them you yell, "Durkra! Durkra! Durkra!"

You know what, give me a nice controvertial film saying Flight 93 was shot down or that that government let it happen. Hell, give me a totally wrong one one where the Cheney administration had some covert ops plan the whole thing. Then I'll be damned interested.

Me? I already saw the news. I remember the damned day. I might watch a documentary on the history channel or even a moive documentary. I'm not going to watch a Hollywood movie about it. Hollywood is already producing enough crap. We don't need this. As people have said, this is yet another cheap ploy to make money off 9/11.

[The Xenos]

Yeah its too erly for 9/11 movies. I currently plan on skipping the Flight movie. Also agree with that Cindy Sheenam movie, she flat out doesn't deserve one. Yay for being one of the first to speak against Bush publicily and fearlessly but that doesn't rise to a "movie" level. It barely warrents a documentary or an A&E Biography. Maybe, and even then iffy, if she creates a real political movement would she deserve the treatment. But she hasn't yet and more then likely the window to do that has passed.

Well I would see a Sheehan movie if it showed what a nutjob she is. Gee, she goes down to Venezuela and supports a questionable far leftist leader to protest President Bush's unethical changes to thos country? That's crazy. That's no way to fight wrongful changes your president has made.

You know what? Those trying to stop the Bush government don't need nutjobs like her. Also, her son must be rolling in his grave over what an insane mess and fool of herself she's making.

There are ways to protest your government, patriotic ways, especially when you think your government has strayed from American ideals and has started crap like what Bush is doing. Yet Sheehan is just ranting like an internet flamer. Yes, she may not be in the right state of mind after the death of her son. Maybe she shouldn't have made herself a celebrity and now a tool of leftist protests not only across the country, but around the globe. I want to know who is pulling this poor woman's strings.

[TCJohnson]

double post. Sorry.

[TCJohnson]

I am ok with it because it is flight 93.

These were the people who ganged up on the terrorists and forced the plane down in a field where nobody else was hurt. These people were real heroes. I don't mind that people are reminded of their story.

Somebody I went to college with was on flight 93. Didn't know him real well but knew him. Glad if his story is told.

[Charles RB]

They've already made at least three TV movies that deal with 9/11...

The George Bush one, the Rudy Giuliani one, and a flight 93 movie.

Yeah, but who counts TV movie? It's not like they're real movies.

[Crowley]

I am ok with it because it is flight 93.

These were the people who ganged up on the terrorists and forced the plane down in a field where nobody else was hurt. These people were real heroes. I don't mind that people are reminded of their story.

Somebody I went to college with was on flight 93. Didn't know him real well but knew him. Glad if his story is told.
allegedly.

sorry to say this but I'm under the understanding that there still exists the possibility that the plane was shot down.

[TCJohnson]

I kinda doubt it. There were cell phone calls saying they were going to try to rush the terrorists before it went down.

[Buzz Dixon]

So are the people who think this is a bad idea also saying Hollywood shouldn't have made any movies about Pearl Harbor before WWII was over?

And at least a couple of people seem to be hinting that their real fear is that the movie with stir up patriotic feelings among the hoi polloi and thus cause them not to pay attention to folks who oppose our actions in the Middle East...

If that's your concern, you can always spend your entertainment dollars on SNAKES IN A PLANE.

[Ogdred]

And at least a couple of people seem to be hinting that their real fear is that the movie with stir up patriotic feelings among the hoi polloi and thus cause them not to pay attention to folks who oppose our actions in the Middle East...

Whoa...where are you getting that? You're reading an awful lot into people's comments there, Buzz. So, I'm going to read into your post: you WANT them to be saying what you claim they're saying so that you can post on your blog (do you have a blog?) about how liberals hate America so much that they actually don't want movies about 9/11 being made because it might make people proud of their President again.

And it's "Snakes ON a Plane," damn it!

[Buzz Dixon]

Whoa...where are you getting that? You're reading an awful lot into people's comments there, Buzz. So, I'm going to read into your post: you WANT them to be saying what you claim they're saying so that you can post on your blog (do you have a blog?) about how liberals hate America so much that they actually don't want movies about 9/11 being made because it might make people proud of their President again.

And it's "Snakes ON a Plane," damn it!
Mebbe so, but as George Carlin once observed, "I don't want to get 'on' the plane, I want to get 'in' the plane. Evil Kneivel can ride 'on' the plane!"

And I have no blog, so there, nyah. :p

[kingdom2000]

If a republican, should promote this movie. It will only help national pride and help feed the "oh god oh god we are going to die...unless you vote republican" machine.

[Corrina]

My concern is that unlike WWII, where there were only still photos, that 9/11 has been one of the most, if not *the* most documented tragedy on record.

What can a fictionalized movie do that documentary footage, plus tapes of various cell phone calls, don't do already? We know they rushed the cockpit from transcripts of those calls, we know that many of them on board were told on what had happened to the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and were determined not to be used to kill others.

We don't know exactly what each person on that plane did but neither do the writers of this movie.

[Crowley]

And at least a couple of people seem to be hinting that their real fear is that the movie with stir up patriotic feelings among the hoi polloi and thus cause them not to pay attention to folks who oppose our actions in the Middle East...
this is the single dumbest thing posted this week.

the sensitivity of the families involved was the issue Buzz.

[Buzz Dixon]

It's been five years. This film wasn't rushed to cash in. It's a story about Americans acting heroically. I fail to see how that would offend the families of anyone who died on that flight.

Added later: Did any of the people who are worried about the sensitivies of the families involved re this film ever go on record as decrying Michael Moore's film, FAHRENHEIT 911, for offending the families' sensitivities?

[Adam Crocker]

I have to agree with Buzz on this. It's been five years and unless the families are objecting to the film I don't see the problem.

But I'm not interested in seeing it. Instead I wanna Snakes On a Plane. :)

[sk716]

I won't see it, not because I'm against the idea of the movie, but because the images from 9/11 are still burned into my brain. I saw the second plane hit. I woke up, turned on the t.v. to watch GMA, except it wasn't GMA, it was coverage of the first crash. Then the second plane came into the shot...

I remember every image.

No, I don't need to see a movie.

[EZMOHR]

I don't see how people can say this is a PROPAGANDA movie. It is a movie being produced by the so called, Leftist in Hollywood. It is being directed by an ENGLISHMAN, who's most famous film is about the ENGLISH killing a bunch of IRISHMEN. Paul Greengrass is not going to make this some leftist or right leaning piece. If anything you may feel quesay after looking at the camera angles the man uses with a handheld digital camera (his claim to fame right now.) This movie will most likely be about what would happen if you were just a regular joe, on a plane, who had to do something to help the greater good. That is all. It is just a movie.

And the fact that they were making WWII movies while we were still fighting the war says that it is most certainly not to early to make these movies about 9/11. It was half a decade ago. If you don't want to see it, don't...just don't bitch about it until it has come out at least.

[Jeff Brady]

I won't see it, not because I'm against the idea of the movie, but because the images from 9/11 are still burned into my brain. I saw the second plane hit. I woke up, turned on the t.v. to watch GMA, except it wasn't GMA, it was coverage of the first crash. Then the second plane came into the shot...

I remember every image.

No, I don't need to see a movie.

Ditto, except it wasn't on TV for me or Anthony. It was more like 15 blocks away.

[kingdom2000]

I have to agree with Buzz on this. It's been five years and unless the families are objecting to the film I don't see the problem.

But I'm not interested in seeing it. Instead I wanna Snakes On a Plane. :)

If the "families" objected i might watch it. Wouldn't want that new mafia political group to get their way. :evilsmile

[Crowley]

It's been five years. This film wasn't rushed to cash in. It's a story about Americans acting heroically. I fail to see how that would offend the families of anyone who died on that flight.

Added later: Did any of the people who are worried about the sensitivies of the families involved re this film ever go on record as decrying Michael Moore's film, FAHRENHEIT 911, for offending the families' sensitivities?
Fahrenheit 9/11 had to do with the government handling of the situation following 9/11 not the explicit details of the events themself.

Furthermore it was a documentary, not a dramatization.

interesting how you've choosen to now switch liberal targets from people worried about stirring up "patriotism"* to now a defense of "Moore did it!"



*patriotism is about more than smiling and nodding when Hollywood producers make a film, or similarly smiling and nodding when the President violates the Constitution.

[Cam63]

I won't see it, not because I'm against the idea of the movie, but because the images from 9/11 are still burned into my brain. I saw the second plane hit. I woke up, turned on the t.v. to watch GMA, except it wasn't GMA, it was coverage of the first crash. Then the second plane came into the shot...

I remember every image.

No, I don't need to see a movie.

'Same here.

I hate that fucking day.

[Clement]

allegedly.

sorry to say this but I'm under the understanding that there still exists the possibility that the plane was shot down.


only 2 fighter planes were close enough to flight 93 to have been able to intercept it. their pilots were doing routine training missions on a nearby base and their planes did not carry live ammo. Still, they were sent to intercept the place, and "broke the rules" by breaking the sound barrier over a populated area.

they never made it to the plane in time, but when during the flight, one pilot called home base and mentionned that they were not carrying any ammo. when he asked what he should do if the situation took a turn for the worse and the plane needed to be shot down, he superior repplied something like "what will be necessary". He understood at the point that it meant taking the plane down by crashhing his fighter jet into it.

I know conspiracy theories are fun, especially this one, because it would mean that the US governement is so on top of things that they could figure everything out and respond so fast that they had time to attack the terrorist in the air before they could make their move, but that just didn't happen.

[Buzz Dixon]

Fahrenheit 9/11 had to do with the government handling of the situation following 9/11 not the explicit details of the events themself.

Furthermore it was a documentary, not a dramatization.
Crowley, ya crack me up. Honestly.

FAHRENHEIT 911 is not a documentary, certainly not a non-fiction film. It is propaganda, and clumsily executed propaganda at that since a lot of its key tennets have been demonstrated as false and were known by Moore to be false when he made the film (Google the facts for yourself; I'm tired of doing other people's leg work for 'em and my track record shows I'm not blowing smoke when I say stuff like this). It was clearly marketed as implying the administration was either complicit in the events leading up to 911 or so incompetant as to let it creep up on 'em unnoticed.

You think that isn't a slap in the face of the survivors? I mean, even if you believe it's true, you can't deny the very nature of such a charge is to enrage, enrile, and offend the sensibilities of the victims and survivors of that day.

[The Xenos]

I really wonder if radical eogmaniacs like Michael Moore are helping Bush. I do think the film can be considered propaganda and its merits as a documentary can be questioned. Ok, I admit, I haven't seen it yet. I did see interviews he did when it was coming out and I couldn't stand what he said and how he came across. I hate to waste money on even a rental for it.

Since that movie came out I have really become Anti-Bush administration. Yet I really don't like the way Moore argues, even on some points I somewhat agree with him on. Give me the Daily Show anyday. At least they admit that they're clowns.

At the same time I really don't care for this Flight 93 movie. Now I'm somehwat one of those paranoid freaks that still doesn't trust his government about 9/11. Now I'm not saying I belive something happened, but I try to keep my mind open about it. It's just such a dangerous thing if any of those conspiracies are even remotely true that I feel we need to ask that question.

It was amazing when I saw V for Vendetta basically asking the same question. The cop was talking to his partner about if you thought your goverment might remotely be responsible for a supposed terroist attack, would you really want to know? To see that in a widely distributed movie is awesome.

Me? I don't trust a large government. Our government is too damn big and this administration has used 9/11 as an excuse to make it bigger instead of taking the current system and fixing it. Not only do I think that is terrible, but I think Bush betrays the basic fundamentals of conservativism and his own party by doing so. Nevermind how he used 9/11 as an excuse for Iraq. I can't help but wonder if 9/11 was allowed to happen to get us to Iraq. It's just too convienent. I don't know if it's true or not, but we should be asking about it and not just taking the president's word for it and allowing him to fundanentally alter our entire government to give his agenda power because of 9/11.

Ok, that's enough out of me.

[LibrarianThorne]

I won't see it, not because I'm against the idea of the movie, but because the images from 9/11 are still burned into my brain. I saw the second plane hit. I woke up, turned on the t.v. to watch GMA, except it wasn't GMA, it was coverage of the first crash. Then the second plane came into the shot...

I remember every image.

No, I don't need to see a movie.

Quoted for truth.

[Crowley]

Crowley, ya crack me up. Honestly.

FAHRENHEIT 911 is not a documentary, certainly not a non-fiction film. It is propaganda, and clumsily executed propaganda at that since a lot of its key tennets have been demonstrated as false and were known by Moore to be false when he made the film (Google the facts for yourself; I'm tired of doing other people's leg work for 'em and my track record shows I'm not blowing smoke when I say stuff like this). It was clearly marketed as implying the administration was either complicit in the events leading up to 911 or so incompetant as to let it creep up on 'em unnoticed.

You think that isn't a slap in the face of the survivors? I mean, even if you believe it's true, you can't deny the very nature of such a charge is to enrage, enrile, and offend the sensibilities of the victims and survivors of that day.

right, you just decided to move the goal post... but I'll play none the less.

but what parts of Farenheit 9/11 were absolutely true?

*On August 6th, 2001, the CIA sent Bush a memo warning of possible al Qaeda plane hijackings.

*Rice: "This memo known as a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

*Bush: "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

which parts are wrong Buzz? Did he use special CGI to make their lips say those words?

[Crowley]

only 2 fighter planes were close enough to flight 93 to have been able to intercept it. their pilots were doing routine training missions on a nearby base and their planes did not carry live ammo. Still, they were sent to intercept the place, and "broke the rules" by breaking the sound barrier over a populated area.

they never made it to the plane in time, but when during the flight, one pilot called home base and mentionned that they were not carrying any ammo. when he asked what he should do if the situation took a turn for the worse and the plane needed to be shot down, he superior repplied something like "what will be necessary". He understood at the point that it meant taking the plane down by crashhing his fighter jet into it.

I know conspiracy theories are fun, especially this one, because it would mean that the US governement is so on top of things that they could figure everything out and respond so fast that they had time to attack the terrorist in the air before they could make their move, but that just didn't happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEr5hjmRe7E&search=Bush%2Bbin%20laden

this asks interesting questions...

I choose to believe that our goverment would not knowingly hurt its citizens... though wiretapping and numerous inconsistencies make me worry sometimes about that belief.

[Buzz Dixon]

right, you just decided to move the goal post... but I'll play none the less.

but what parts of Farenheit 9/11 were absolutely true?

*On August 6th, 2001, the CIA sent Bush a memo warning of possible al Qaeda plane hijackings.

*Rice: "This memo known as a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

*Bush: "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

which parts are wrong Buzz? Did he use special CGI to make their lips say those words?
Those parts are factual. What you leave out is that reports of possible hijacks and terrorist activities come in all the time. Sometimes they're real, sometimes they're rumors based on real information, sometimes they're rumors based on speculation that sounds like real information, sometimes they're completely bogus, and sometimes they are mis-information deliberately leaked by the otherside to see what our reaction would be.

Al Qeda had not launched a significant operation in the U.S. since the original World Trade Center attack under Clinton's watch. All of their subsequent actions had been overseas. Nothing they had done matched the size and scale of 911, not even the Cole bombing.

You could make a similar charge against FDR's administration prior to WWII and Truman's prior to the invasion of South Korea. Both of them had information something might be in the works, both of them knew it was a possibility, but both of them had a lot more on their plates before Pearl Harbor and the North Korean push south. Once those things occured, they rose to the forefront.

As to the possibility of shooting down our own planes, I don't think anyone would have blamed the Bush administration if that had happened. The truth is we didn't have armed aircraft flying combat patrols over the northern U.S. because we didn't think it was necessary then. We do now.

[TCJohnson]

Ditto, except it wasn't on TV for me or Anthony. It was more like 15 blocks away.


Same here except I was in DC.

According to mapquestion I was 1.13 miles from where the plane hit.

[Crowley]

Those parts are factual. What you leave out is that reports of possible hijacks and terrorist activities come in all the time. Sometimes they're real, sometimes they're rumors based on real information, sometimes they're rumors based on speculation that sounds like real information, sometimes they're completely bogus, and sometimes they are mis-information deliberately leaked by the otherside to see what our reaction would be.

Al Qeda had not launched a significant operation in the U.S. since the original World Trade Center attack under Clinton's watch. All of their subsequent actions had been overseas. Nothing they had done matched the size and scale of 911, not even the Cole bombing.

You could make a similar charge against FDR's administration prior to WWII and Truman's prior to the invasion of South Korea. Both of them had information something might be in the works, both of them knew it was a possibility, but both of them had a lot more on their plates before Pearl Harbor and the North Korean push south. Once those things occured, they rose to the forefront.

As to the possibility of shooting down our own planes, I don't think anyone would have blamed the Bush administration if that had happened. The truth is we didn't have armed aircraft flying combat patrols over the northern U.S. because we didn't think it was necessary then. We do now.
this is simply not true not true. Clinton thwarted the terrorist attack planned for 2000.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/steinberg.html
Hey they knew about Bin laden WELL before W got into office.
oh and the attempt by Saddam to kill Bush senior.

now point out what's false BUzz..

and I love how in all this, you don't address W saying that he doesn't think about Osama...

[Buzz Dixon]

A terrorist attack may very well have been foiled under Clinton's watch; I never said no terrorist attacks weren't foiled. One of the dangers of success is that it gives one a false sense of security. Osama had done nothing of significance prior in the U.S. after the first World Trade Center bombing prior to 911. By a similar token, the Bolsheviks did nothing of significance prior to grabbing credit for the Russian revolution. Nobody considered them to be a big enough threat to take them seriouslyt prior to their power grab.

(I would likewise invoke another political party and its leader who came to power after a decade or more of obscurity in a Western European nation in the 1930s, but by the arcane rules of Internet debate that would mean I lost...)

By a counter point, look at all the attention that was leveled on home grown white separatist groups after the Oklahoma City bombing. In terms of actual damage and immediacy of threat, they were of far more concern to the government prior to 911. What we have learned since then, however, is that they were far less of a menace than we imagined, that the Oklahoma City bombing was an abberation in terms of scale, and that while violent white separatists exists, their level of activity is far lower and on a far smaller scale than the Oklahoma attack.

Conversely, al Queda had never mounted a large scale attack in the U.S. prior to the first World Trade Center bombing, and even though the magnatude and organization of their attacks were known elsewhere, nobody thought they were liekly to launch that scale of an attack against the U.S. mainland. Despite being aware of their agression in China and the South Pacific, people really weren't expecting the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, though they knew that was a possibility.

All of which is beside the point re this movie: It does not appear to be exploitive, it does not appear to be insensitive to the surviving families. I'm sure many people were physically and emotionally too close to 911 to want to see it in any form on screen; likewise there are millions more who are still trying to fathom some sense about it.

[Crowley]

if Al Gore had been in office and had dropped the ball thw way W did... you'd be crucifying him...

the difference between us? So would I.

All of which is beside the point re this movie: It does not appear to be exploitive, it does not appear to be insensitive to the surviving families.
I think I'd let the 9/11 families decide that. Just saying.

[Buzz Dixon]

Bush is damned for doing, Gore would probably have been damned for not doing.

[Crowley]

that makes no damn sense... but at this point its par for the course.

[Buzz Dixon]

Jes' replying in kind, compadre.

[kingdom2000]

Once again, using a democrat thats not in power, has no power, has no ability to make policy, as a way to "prove" a point. That is so pathetically weak. Its actually beyond pathetic. Its like like blaming the brakes on car for you driving drunk. The two are so far unrelated it becomes ludicrous. I would feel ashamed for making those kinds of comments as they have no basis in reality and screams of desperation. If on such solid ground, desperation wouldn't be needed.

[Buzz Dixon]

kingdom, you're another person who would probably be happier not reading my posts.

[Jeff Brady]

kingdom, you're another person who would probably be happier not reading my posts.

Well, he'd be happier if your posts weren't so glib and more conducive to discussion.

[The Xenos]

I don't like the TV ad I just saw for Flight 93. They kept repeating that they saved "the nation's Capital". They even had a terroirst with an image of the damn buidling in the trailer.

Last time I checked, that was one theory. They just turned this moive into *(#$ing goverment propaganda.

It sadly did sound decent as they had actual air traffic controlers int he film playing themsleves. Maybe if they stayed on that and off the plane and out of fiction and focused on them, I would go see it. Sadly this movie appears to assume too much.

[f. chong rutherford]

Those parts are factual. What you leave out is that reports of possible hijacks and terrorist activities come in all the time. Sometimes they're real, sometimes they're rumors based on real information, sometimes they're rumors based on speculation that sounds like real information, sometimes they're completely bogus, and sometimes they are mis-information deliberately leaked by the otherside to see what our reaction would be.

Al Qeda had not launched a significant operation in the U.S. since the original World Trade Center attack under Clinton's watch. All of their subsequent actions had been overseas. Nothing they had done matched the size and scale of 911, not even the Cole bombing.

What about the 'Al Qaida' sponsored Millenium Bomb Plot?

22 Years For Millennium Bomb Plot
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/27/national/main712240.shtml

These were stopped because border security was placed on high alert--because the words 'Al Qaida' registered at a federal level and warnings went out. In Seattle, for example, New Year's Even festivities were halted and largely monitored--and explosives were caught at the border because of it. If Clinton had ignored the warnings, this conversation would be completely different.

And even on the day of 9/11, the chief problem was a lack of decision making at the Federal level--especially at the top. On top of that--had Bush or one of his senior staff been reading stories from Daniel Perle in that left wing rag 'The Wall Street Journal' they would've read about the assasination of Ahmed Masood* in Afghanistan on 09/09/01--which was the likely signal that set the chain in motion. The Taliban were acting crazy that entire summer, blowing up statues, hanging people, brutalizing and terrorizing their people in an incredible way. Yet, we were focused on China--the big news that year was the spy plane incident.

This rhetoric about 'the government gets terror threats all the time' is a smoke screen that hides a simple truth that even Condleeza Rice admitted to--the Bush Administration simply wasn't focused on Al Qaeda before 9/11--even though they remained and still remained a threat at the time--and now.

*edit due to bad memory--Masood was killed by explosive on 09/09/01--this was on the front page of the WSJ. Abdul Haq was killed in ground fighting on October 26, 2001.