United 93 -- see it!

[Cub Driver]

I'm just home from the 'plex, where I spent a claustrophobic hour and
a half living through the last flight of "United 93." By this time, it
will come as no surprise that this is one of the most astonishing
pieces of movie-making of all time. (FAA operations manager Ben
Sliney, who plays himself as the man who shut down American airspace
after the third plane/missile struck the Pentagon, should win the
Oscar as the best supporting actor of 2006.) It should be seen by
everyone over the age of 15, and on the big screen.

Oddly, it was the first half-hour that impressed me the most.
(Well--impressed! It was more like being hit beside the head with a
brick.) The sense of doom over that slender gray metal tube was so
overpowering that I found it hard to breathe. I returned to earth
during the actual hijack, perhaps because at that point it was at its
most fictional: who knows what happened? Then there is the final
half-hour, in which the passengers rebel and the plane goes out of
control, and again the reality overwhelmed me.

See this movie. There will never be another like it--I hope.

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Miles Bader]

Cub Driver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:
> See this movie. There will never be another like it--I hope.

Man, basically everybody loves this movie, but ... I'm thinking it may
be better to wait until _after_ summer vacation (involving lots of
flying) is over ... :-/

-Miles
--
=====
(^o^;
(()))
*This is the cute octopus virus, please copy it into your sig so it can spread.

[Jon Kraus]

Why??? One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
let some ragheads take over a plane ever again.... September 11 was
their first any only time to try that tactic... They will think of
another way to kill us that is for sure and then you can be afraid just
like they want you to be.

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ

Miles Bader wrote:
> Cub Driver <usenet AT danford DOT net> writes:
>
>>See this movie. There will never be another like it--I hope.
>
>
> Man, basically everybody loves this movie, but ... I'm thinking it may
> be better to wait until _after_ summer vacation (involving lots of
> flying) is over ... :-/
>
> -Miles

[Jay Honeck]

> Why??? One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
> let some ragheads take over a plane ever again.... September 11 was
> their first any only time to try that tactic... They will think of
> another way to kill us that is for sure and then you can be afraid just
> like they want you to be.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the idiot that tries to take over an
airliner again. He'd be ripped from stem to stern.

The movie is simply very, very good. I highly recommend it, although
it's very sobering.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rob Arndt]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Why??? One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
> > let some ragheads take over a plane ever again.... September 11 was
> > their first any only time to try that tactic... They will think of
> > another way to kill us that is for sure and then you can be afraid just
> > like they want you to be.
>
> Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the idiot that tries to take over an
> airliner again. He'd be ripped from stem to stern.
>
> The movie is simply very, very good. I highly recommend it, although
> it's very sobering.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


I saw the movie on opening day and the theater was half empty. Most of
the people there were old people and adults.

While I would say the movie was good, it is far from great and its
$11.6 mil opening means it is a movie failure; either that, or people
just don;t want to relive 9/11.

You will notice a couple of things in the movie that for me made it
unrealistic:

1) absence of any children and young adults except for one girl who is
given a cell phone by a fellow passenger to call home

2) while people were praying, the screaming and "Oh God, I don't want
to die" pleas were omitted largely

3) the group of men that planned the counter-attack to retake the plane
seemed larger than life and NOT real people- as if when disaster struck
it was "HEY, LET'S TAKE THE PLANE BACK ASSAULT PLANS" supported by a
bunch of other adults. I know it's a hero film meant to make the nation
feel better knowing that Americans fought back... just like Pearl
Harbor but the movie comes off as too weak in some areas and too
self-assuredly strong in others.

The most shocking parts in the movie to me was the point where the air
traffic controllers lost the second aircraft's position below radar and
then watch as it slams into the second tower and the scenes in the
cockpit as the passagers struggled to gain control as the ground rushes
up at them- and then black screen.

I know that for the sake of the audience and the victims' families the
panic and fear were toned down and as I said before I don't recall
seeing any children or young people. I'm sure the flight had them...

The more disturbing film, "The World Trade Center" opens Aug 9th and is
told from the ground from the Port Authority POV based on two real men.
Judging by "Flight 93" I'm not sure if people will want to see that one
either as preliminary reviews all say there WILL be crying in the
theater and not for the weak hearted.

After seeing "Flight 93" I'm not sure I'm going to the second film. A
third Pentagon strike film is in the works as well based on another
true story...

Rob

[Ed Rasimus]

On 5 May 2006 09:39:51 -0700, "Rob Arndt" > wrote:

>I saw the movie on opening day and the theater was half empty. Most of
>the people there were old people and adults.

Consider time of day, location of theater, day of week, etc. Consider
that your singular observation is anecdotal and not statistically
significant.
>
>While I would say the movie was good, it is far from great and its
>$11.6 mil opening means it is a movie failure; either that, or people
>just don;t want to relive 9/11.
>
>You will notice a couple of things in the movie that for me made it
>unrealistic:
>
>1) absence of any children and young adults except for one girl who is
>given a cell phone by a fellow passenger to call home

Note that the passenger list has been published, the passenger load on
the flight was light, the departure time of day was very early and it
was a Tuesday during school year. Visit your local airport and observe
who travels at 7-9 AM.
>
>2) while people were praying, the screaming and "Oh God, I don't want
>to die" pleas were omitted largely

The "Oh God...." stuff is largely from grade-B fictional movies. Very
few folks actually accept their impending demise, remaining in strong
denial until it's over. The "Oh God..." pleading usually is when
someone is already seriously injured and in pain.
>
>3) the group of men that planned the counter-attack to retake the plane
>seemed larger than life and NOT real people- as if when disaster struck
>it was "HEY, LET'S TAKE THE PLANE BACK ASSAULT PLANS" supported by a
>bunch of other adults. I know it's a hero film meant to make the nation
>feel better knowing that Americans fought back... just like Pearl
>Harbor but the movie comes off as too weak in some areas and too
>self-assuredly strong in others.

Well, DUH! Yes, that 's exactly the point. This group of non-descript
common people suddenly became larger-than-life when the enormity of
their situation struck home.

The movie is a relatively seemless merging of documented facts on the
ground and constructed approximations of what might have been going on
aboard the aircraft built on various conversations and scraps of
dialog. That means it will be weak in some areas and strong in others.
>
>The most shocking parts in the movie to me was the point where the air
>traffic controllers lost the second aircraft's position below radar and
>then watch as it slams into the second tower and the scenes in the
>cockpit as the passagers struggled to gain control as the ground rushes
>up at them- and then black screen.
>
>I know that for the sake of the audience and the victims' families the
>panic and fear were toned down and as I said before I don't recall
>seeing any children or young people. I'm sure the flight had them...

What leads to your surety? Simple opinion or basis in fact?
>
>The more disturbing film, "The World Trade Center" opens Aug 9th and is
>told from the ground from the Port Authority POV based on two real men.
>Judging by "Flight 93" I'm not sure if people will want to see that one
>either as preliminary reviews all say there WILL be crying in the
>theater and not for the weak hearted.
>
>After seeing "Flight 93" I'm not sure I'm going to the second film. A
>third Pentagon strike film is in the works as well based on another
>true story...

If you saw "Flight 93" you saw a different movie than is being
discussed here. The recent film release in theaters is "United
93"--the movie "Flight 93" was released several months ago, is now out
on DVD and was aired on A&E last weekend. Different movie.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Typhoon502]

The "Flight 93"/"United 93" confusion is understandable...I've heard
both, and I didn't even know that the "Flight 93" film had been
released or aired. And I haven't seen either, *and* I'm really not sure
that I want to, or even can. I know people will say it's important or
"you HAVE to go see it" (my father's dropped that one on me for a few
movies), but I kind of feel like if you need to go see a movie to fire
your emotions and/or memories about an event, maybe you weren't really
that connected in the first place. Just hearing the transcripts of the
Flt. 93 voice recorders chilled me to the core.

[Rob Arndt]

Sorry, in my last post the film is titled "United 93". I mistakenly
called it "Flight 93" in my last two paragraghs.

My apologies (IIRC, Premiere magazine first reported the movie as
"Flight 93" before filming started). Anyway, sorry for the trivial
mistake...

I'd like to add that I think adults will fare better with this film
than young adults and children. I saw the first show, first day and
there was a conspicuous absence of these groups which ironically
make-up the bulk of the movie viewers in America.

I think maybe some families just skipped the film or didn't allow their
kids to see it. The news reported that many Americans, including the
young, didn't even recognize the title- what "United 93" meant. We will
find out if the box office jumps this week or not as word spreads. But
if a major motion picture opens under $15 mil the first wk, then it
will soon drop to the $5mil level and then disappear.

With "MI:3, Poseidon, The DaVinci Code, and X-Men3:Last Stand" opening
over the next four weeks, I don't think "United 93" will sell. This
movie is more for the rental or purchase market since then parents can
explain the film to their kids at home or turn it off if it gets too
intense or emotional.

I personally am not going to buy it because it's just too depressing a
film and not one I would want to play over and over. My brother didn't
take his boys to the film because they thought it would be "great" and
my brother had to explain to them that real people died and it isn't
"great" no matter what action was taken. My brother also did not want
to sympathize with the Arabs saying their prayers and watch them live
out their holy war on what they perceive as "infidel America". I don't
blame him. I would not have taken my nephews either.

Does anyone else feel this way, honestly? Or will people start labeling
people that didn't like the film or fully support it "un-patriotic"? I
saw this film with two adults my age and one had served in the military
while another had a family member in NY that almost died on 9/11. All
of us thought the movie was just OK... but depressing and we left the
theater feeling miserable.

Rob

[Gene Seibel]

This movie had the cooperation of the families and I believe that every
effort was made to make it as realistic as possible. There is a lot of
information that could be reconstructed.

1) ATC communicatons and flight track
2) Bits of info in the many phone calls from the aircraft - ie one
hijcaker had a bomb, pilots on floor outside cockpit, stabbing, etc
3) People aboard, their seat assignments, what they looked like,
perhaps their typical demeanor when travelling by air - ie Usually
slept, talked to other passengers, used laptop, looked out window, etc.
4) Phone records showed who might have loaned a phone to whom to make a
call.
5) Flight recorder speed, altitude and attitude.

I feel that up until the point where the phone calls from the aircraft
ended, the movie is probably extremely realistic. After that there has
to be some conjecture, but I believe the story is probably still very
reliable.

These people were in a very unique position in history. No other
passengers have ever been aboard a hijacked aircraft with the knowledge
that the plan was to fly the airplane into a building.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Flying Machine - http://pad39a.com/gene/
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Gene Seibel]

It's for those that want to see it, not entertainment for kids or
anyone else. It's depressing, but it happened. Ignoring what happened
won't change it.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Jay Honeck]

> While I would say the movie was good, it is far from great and its
> $11.6 mil opening means it is a movie failure

I read that 'United 93' only cost $15 million to produce, and that it
opened in fewer theaters than normal.

This means that this movie has already easily made back the initial
investment, and has probably gone 50% over that, by now.

If only all of my investments were such "failures"...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Rob Arndt" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'd like to add that I think adults will fare better with this film
> than young adults and children. I saw the first show, first day and
> there was a conspicuous absence of these groups which ironically
> make-up the bulk of the movie viewers in America.
>
> I think maybe some families just skipped the film or didn't allow their
> kids to see it.

And this makes total sense because the film was rated R.




1 New RV Sony $16,414,767 -- 3,639 -- $4,511 3 $16,414,767
2 New United 93 Universal $11,478,360 -- 1,795 -- $6,395 3 $11,478,360



Looking at the chart above you might note that the film was in many fewer
theaters than the number 1 movie and earned much more per screen than did
"RV"

[tscottme]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > Why??? One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
> > let some ragheads take over a plane ever again.... September 11 was
> > their first any only time to try that tactic... They will think of
> > another way to kill us that is for sure and then you can be afraid just
> > like they want you to be.
>
> Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the idiot that tries to take over an
> airliner again. He'd be ripped from stem to stern.
>

Unless the hijacker had the good fortune to find an aircraft full of
Democrats. Those passengers would apologize to the hijacker and offer to
fly it into the target of choice while massaging the feet of the hijacker.
After all, 10 generations ago some people the the West still owned slaves
and we haven't raised our minum wage, yadda, yadda, yadda.

If Western Civilization was a person, Islam would be the AIDS virus and
liberalism would be a clinical depression leading toward suicide. The libs
feel compelled to stand apart from their own survival and carp against the
small effort which is all that stands between them and slavery.

--
Scott

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so
that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding
on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.
-ANN COULTER
http://tinyurl.com/arrsg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"tscottme" <blahblah@blah,net> wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > > Why??? One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
> > > let some ragheads take over a plane ever again.... September 11 was
> > > their first any only time to try that tactic... They will think of
> > > another way to kill us that is for sure and then you can be afraid just
> > > like they want you to be.
> >
> > Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the idiot that tries to take over an
> > airliner again. He'd be ripped from stem to stern.
> >
>
> Unless the hijacker had the good fortune to find an aircraft full of
> Democrats.

That was a cheap shot. I am a Democrat, and I am offended that you
would assume that I would sit idly by while a plane I was on was
hijacked. How dare you accuse me of such cowardice when you don't even
have the courage to make such an accusation using your true identity?
Who are you Scott? Would you make your accusation to my face? Or are
you too afraid that I might tear you a new world view?

Ron Garret, Ph.D.
PPIASEL
http://www.flownet.com/ron

[Jim Logajan]

"tscottme" <blahblah@blah,net> wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the idiot that tries to take over an
>> airliner again. He'd be ripped from stem to stern.
>
> Unless the hijacker had the good fortune to find an aircraft full of
> Democrats.

Trolling trolling trolling
Though the strawmen are swollen
Keep them trollposts rolling
Rawhide!

[Rob Arndt]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > While I would say the movie was good, it is far from great and its
> > $11.6 mil opening means it is a movie failure
>
> I read that 'United 93' only cost $15 million to produce, and that it
> opened in fewer theaters than normal.
>
> This means that this movie has already easily made back the initial
> investment, and has probably gone 50% over that, by now.
>
> If only all of my investments were such "failures"...
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


.... which means nothing since it should have made easily $25 mil+ if it
was that good of a film or had FULL theaters. My theater was not the
only one where "United 93" was half-empty all day on opening (a 16-plex
at that). The news reported similar empty theaters on opening day
nationwide and the box office confirms that.

I think this film is OK but if you think it making say $26 mil US
domestic is great when it could have made realistically over $60 mil...
I think you are over-rating the movie. "United 93" is NOT comparable to
say "The Blair Witch project". To be profitable by studio standards you
have to make double the budget, so the film needs to make $30 mil just
to be considered profitable. So far in opening week with such a low
budget, it didn;t even make that number.

.... and teh Number One Slot "RV" is a **** film. Consider that.

Rob

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "Gig" == Gig <601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net>> writes:

Gig> And this makes total sense because the film was rated R.

What was in it to earn an "R" rating?

[Morgans]

"Bob Fry" > wrote

> What was in it to earn an "R" rating?

Could it be.......

Violence?

Just a guess. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[tscottme]

My hiding is nothing but spam avoidance. My name is Scott Methvin and you
can whine all you want at my hotmail account, if you are smart enough to
deduce an email address from my screen name and hotmail.com. If you want to
do something about it, feel free. Liberals are an active fifth colum in
this country. It's no coincidence the liberals have been the home to
America's enemies for 60 years. They wake up, for the last 60 years, and
engage in any measure which they presume will weaken the country or weaken
anyone's will to fight for this country. It wasn't Republicans spitting on
soldiers in airports and calling them "baby-killers". It wasn't Republicans
making up stories of atrocities or fighting to keep ROTC off campus and
Taliban members on campus. It's not Republicans publishing stories of US
surveillance of Osama's sat phone and al qaeda cell phones. It's not
Republicans concocting and publishing phoney koran flushing stories. It's
not columnists for National Review tipping off the target of an FBI search
warrant that the Feds are on the way over for a visit to discuss their
involvment in the 1993 WTC bombing, that would be NY Times, Washington Post,
and Newsweek staff.

Liberals lie to all of us when they pretend they would support this country
against some enemy at some time. The fact is when it's nut cracking time
they always have excuses why this enemy and this effort should be put on
hold and we should concentrate on other things. In their hearts they
suppose if we had no past sins and if our enemy was free of any history they
would take action. Their ability to invent reasons for inaction is exceded
only by their innate guilt over all things Western.

Your rush to personal offense is your problem, you deal with it. I haven't
a moment's concern for your tender sensibilities or the approval of the
treason wing of the DNC. When I see the Dems punish fellow Dems for
treason, undermining the war effort, or making an effort to support and win
this war only then will I consider Dems capable of such support, not assume
it because you don't like the charge. I have a similar contempt for 99% of
liberals and Dems as I have for those that claim orthodox Islam isn't
violent and genocide, it's only been hijacked by a small fringe. The facts
speak in support of my position in both cases.


--
Scott

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so
that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding
on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.
-ANN COULTER
http://tinyurl.com/arrsg
"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "tscottme" <blahblah@blah,net> wrote:
>
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > > > Why??? One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will
NEVER
> > > > let some ragheads take over a plane ever again.... September 11 was
> > > > their first any only time to try that tactic... They will think of
> > > > another way to kill us that is for sure and then you can be afraid
just
> > > > like they want you to be.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the idiot that tries to take over an
> > > airliner again. He'd be ripped from stem to stern.
> > >
> >
> > Unless the hijacker had the good fortune to find an aircraft full of
> > Democrats.
>
> That was a cheap shot. I am a Democrat, and I am offended that you
> would assume that I would sit idly by while a plane I was on was
> hijacked. How dare you accuse me of such cowardice when you don't even
> have the courage to make such an accusation using your true identity?
> Who are you Scott? Would you make your accusation to my face? Or are
> you too afraid that I might tear you a new world view?
>
> Ron Garret, Ph.D.
> PPIASEL
> http://www.flownet.com/ron

[Morgans]

"Rob Arndt" > wrote

> To be profitable by studio standards you
> have to make double the budget, so the film needs to make $30 mil just
> to be considered profitable. So far in opening week with such a low
> budget, it didn;t even make that number.
>
> ... and teh Number One Slot "RV" is a **** film. Consider that.

I'm not quite sure why I am answering you, but consider that this is bound
to be a subject that is very uncomfortable to many people, still.

Also, many go to see a movie for fluff, and escapism. I would have to say
that this is neither of them.

It is not surprising to me, considering the above, that theatres were not
full. With small numbers of opening theatres, some must have been well over
half full, to bag 15 million.

Wait and see if more people come to see it, once word gets out about it's
emotional grip that it has had on many that have reported here. I suspect
it will not be a box office smash, for the reasons stated, but that it will
be a successful movie.
--
Jim in NC

[Raptor]

tscottme wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the idiot that tries to take over an
>> airliner again. He'd be ripped from stem to stern.
>>
>
> Unless the hijacker had the good fortune to find an aircraft full of
> Democrats. Those passengers would apologize to the hijacker and offer to
> fly it into the target of choice while massaging the feet of the hijacker.
> After all, 10 generations ago some people the the West still owned slaves
> and we haven't raised our minum wage, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Unless the hijacker let it be known that it was a Republican.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

[Flyingmonk]

Jon Kraus wrote:
>One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
>let some ragheads take over a plane ever again....

Jon, I've never been a Muslim nor a Sikh. I've been a Baptist, a
Mormon and a Buddhist. You calling terrorists "ragheads" offended
me and probably a lot of others.

Back in the late 80's, I had two roommates, one was an Iraqi and the
other was an Iranian. They had friends visiting all the time and
you'd be surprised how many of them were blond-headed and blue-eyed
and speaking fluently both in English and in their native language. Oh
yes, they were clean cut and shaven.

When you are only thinking that your enemies are "ragheads", you
have already missed 30-40% of your potential threat. Yeah, and don't
forget people like Timothy McVeigh.

Another thing, Jon, if I was to come out the way you often do, I would
not advertise my tail number and where I park my plane. Just a
thought.

The Monk

[Miles Bader]

Christ, another idiot troll...

-plonk-

--
Is it true that nothing can be known? If so how do we know this? -Woody Allen

[Matt Barrow]

"Raptor" > wrote in message
...
> tscottme wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>>> Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the idiot that tries to take over an
>>> airliner again. He'd be ripped from stem to stern.
>>>
>>
>> Unless the hijacker had the good fortune to find an aircraft full of
>> Democrats. Those passengers would apologize to the hijacker and offer to
>> fly it into the target of choice while massaging the feet of the
>> hijacker.
>> After all, 10 generations ago some people the the West still owned slaves
>> and we haven't raised our minum wage, yadda, yadda, yadda.
>
> Unless the hijacker let it be known that it was a Republican.

Funny, isn't it, that the Democrats are the one who are so cozy with the
Islamofascists (Dick "Turban" Durbin, Jay Rockefeller, for example). So who
more represents Gang Bangers, headhackers?

> Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
> I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
> trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
> the most insidious of traitors."
> George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999

Another clueless one.

[Jay Honeck]

> If Western Civilization was a person, Islam would be the AIDS virus and
> liberalism would be a clinical depression leading toward suicide.

Hee hee!

No matter what you may think of this post, you have to admit: That's
pretty good...

;-)

(Or, as Jimmy Doolittle says to our protaganist in "Pearl Harbor":
"That's bull****, boy! But....it's very, very good, bull****...")
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Pooh Bear]

Morgans wrote:

> I suspect
> it will not be a box office smash, for the reasons stated, but that it will
> be a successful movie.

Will probably only be a draw in the US.

Graham

[Cub Driver]

On 5 May 2006 10:11:07 -0700, "Typhoon502" > wrote:

> I know people will say it's important or
>"you HAVE to go see it" (

No, no! That's not it!

This is a great film *despite* all that other stuff. This is a great
film, period. It is not an educational film, nor a patriotic film (it
may be that as well), nor a catharic film (it may be that as well), it
is pure and simple a great piece of movie-making.

For God's sake, it was so good that it inspired Rob Arndt to write an
intelligent response to it! How often have you seen that happen?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

My apologies to rec.aviation.piloting for crossposting this. I forgot
that this would inevitably expose you to the mad responses that are
typical on rec.aviation.military.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > I suspect
> > it will not be a box office smash, for the reasons stated, but
that it will
> > be a successful movie.
>
> Will probably only be a draw in the US.

United 93 is getting good reviews here in Canada. According to one I
heard on Radio 1, it is understated, not at all bombastic and
inspiring.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Flyingmonk]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > I suspect
> > it will not be a box office smash, for the reasons stated, but that it will
> > be a successful movie.
>
> Will probably only be a draw in the US.
>
> Graham

I say it will make alot of profit over-seas and via viedo rental and
sales.

The Monk

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 5 May 2006 21:07:59 -0500, "tscottme" <blahblah@blah,net> wrote:

>The facts speak in support of my position in both cases.

"Ehh, all right. Two points, ah, two flats, and a packet of gravel." [1]


#m, Popcorn, anybody?

[1] <http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-03.htm>
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Raptor]

tscottme wrote:
It's not Republicans publishing stories of US
> surveillance of Osama's sat phone and al qaeda cell phones.

But it was a Republican who provided the information to the evil libruhl
press, on a live radio feed.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

[Matt Barrow]

"Raptor" > wrote in message
...
> tscottme wrote:
> It's not Republicans publishing stories of US
>> surveillance of Osama's sat phone and al qaeda cell phones.
Yes, thank the "liberal" MSM for that.

>
> But it was a Republican who provided the information to the evil libruhl
> press, on a live radio feed.

Cite?

> --
> Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
> I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
> trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
> the most insidious of traitors."
> George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Sources?

[Paul J. Adam]

tscottme wrote:
> Unless the hijacker had the good fortune to find an aircraft full of
> Democrats. Those passengers would apologize to the hijacker and offer to
> fly it into the target of choice while massaging the feet of the hijacker.
> After all, 10 generations ago some people the the West still owned slaves
> and we haven't raised our minum wage, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Can I have a real name so I can quote you properly in future? Folk over
here don't believe the sort of fanatical extremes USAians will
cheerfully expound about half their
voters-who-could-be-bothered-to-get-off-their-lardy-arses-and-vote, and
you're a useful anchor for the rightward end.


--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Raptor]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Raptor" > wrote in message
> ...
>> tscottme wrote:
>> It's not Republicans publishing stories of US
>>> surveillance of Osama's sat phone and al qaeda cell phones.
> Yes, thank the "liberal" MSM for that.
>
>> But it was a Republican who provided the information to the evil libruhl
>> press, on a live radio feed.
>
> Cite?

Senator Orrin Hatch, 9/11/01, KSL radio based in Salt Lake City.

>> --
>> Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
>> I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
>> trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
>> the most insidious of traitors."
>> George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,
>
> Sources?

Google & learn.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

[Montblack]

("Paul J. Adam" wrote)
> Can I have a real name so I can quote you properly in future?

> He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
> Julius Caesar I:2


"One of the most celebrated people in the world desperate not to be
recognized," - Julie Christie


Montblack :-)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>> "Gig" == Gig <601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net>> writes:
>
> Gig> And this makes total sense because the film was rated R.
>
> What was in it to earn an "R" rating?
>
>

Don't know I haven't seen it yet. (It hasn't opened yet on any of ELDs 13
screens. My guess it would be violence.

[Yeff]

On Mon, 8 May 2006 09:33:59 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> My guess it would be violence.

The violence in the film, both the initial take-over and when passengers
fight back, is rather brutal.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm

[Jon Kraus]

Did I hit a nerve Mr. Monk? I see from your recent posts that you
communicate with the Arabs too.. Now it all makes sense... Get over it
dude... I could care less if you are offended... This is USENET and I
can give whatever opinion I like. If you don't like my rants then plonk
me in your killfile... I care not... Your empty threats scare me none...
Touch my plane and I'll kill you (Frances from the movie Stripes)... Now
get back in your rental 152 and get the hell out of here...

Below is my real name:
Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ


Flyingmonk wrote:
> Jon Kraus wrote:
>
>>One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
>>let some ragheads take over a plane ever again....
>
>
> Jon, I've never been a Muslim nor a Sikh. I've been a Baptist, a
> Mormon and a Buddhist. You calling terrorists "ragheads" offended
> me and probably a lot of others.
>
> Back in the late 80's, I had two roommates, one was an Iraqi and the
> other was an Iranian. They had friends visiting all the time and
> you'd be surprised how many of them were blond-headed and blue-eyed
> and speaking fluently both in English and in their native language. Oh
> yes, they were clean cut and shaven.
>
> When you are only thinking that your enemies are "ragheads", you
> have already missed 30-40% of your potential threat. Yeah, and don't
> forget people like Timothy McVeigh.
>
> Another thing, Jon, if I was to come out the way you often do, I would
> not advertise my tail number and where I park my plane. Just a
> thought.
>
> The Monk
>

[Jim Logajan]

Jon Kraus > wrote:
> This is USENET and I can give whatever opinion I like.

This is Usenet (not USENET - the word is not an acronym for anything and
shouldn't be in all caps) and if you can't keep your testosterone levels
within manageable range when people respond with their opinions, then you
may want to consider other less stressful pursuits like knitting.

Also, you wrote earlier:

>>>One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
>>>let some ragheads take over a plane ever again....

Sikhs wear head scarves, but they have nothing to do with Islam or Islamic
extremists. Arabs wear keffiyeh, but not all Arabs are Islamic extremists
or even Muslim. And not all Islamic extremists or terrorists are Arab.

Everyone has a right to expressing opinions founded on ignorance, and you
have exercised that right.

My advice is next time the opportunity occurs, try saying "terrorist" or
"religious extremist" rather than "raghead".

[Gary Drescher]

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jon Kraus wrote:
>>One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
>>let some ragheads take over a plane ever again....
>
> Jon, I've never been a Muslim nor a Sikh. I've been a Baptist, a
> Mormon and a Buddhist. You calling terrorists "ragheads" offended
> me and probably a lot of others.

Yup. Sadly but predictably, many people like Jon exploit 9/11 as an excuse
to indulge in ethnic hatred.

--Gary

[Flyingmonk]

Jim Logajan wrote:

>Everyone has a right to expressing opinions founded on ignorance, and you
>have exercised that right.

>My advice is next time the opportunity occurs, try saying "terrorist" or
>"religious extremist" rather than "raghead".

That is all I was trying to say. Thank you for being able to express
it better than I did.

The Monk

[Flyingmonk]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> Did I hit a nerve Mr. Monk? I see from your recent posts that you
> communicate with the Arabs too.. Now it all makes sense... Get over it
> dude... I could care less if you are offended... This is USENET and I
> can give whatever opinion I like. If you don't like my rants then plonk
> me in your killfile... I care not... Your empty threats scare me none...
> Touch my plane and I'll kill you (Frances from the movie Stripes)... Now
> get back in your rental 152 and get the hell out of here...
>
> Below is my real name:
> Jon Kraus
> '79 Mooney 201
> 4443H @ TYQ
>
>
> Flyingmonk wrote:
> > Jon Kraus wrote:
> >
> >>One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
> >>let some ragheads take over a plane ever again....
> >
> >
> > Jon, I've never been a Muslim nor a Sikh. I've been a Baptist, a
> > Mormon and a Buddhist. You calling terrorists "ragheads" offended
> > me and probably a lot of others.
> >
> > Back in the late 80's, I had two roommates, one was an Iraqi and the
> > other was an Iranian. They had friends visiting all the time and
> > you'd be surprised how many of them were blond-headed and blue-eyed
> > and speaking fluently both in English and in their native language. Oh
> > yes, they were clean cut and shaven.
> >
> > When you are only thinking that your enemies are "ragheads", you
> > have already missed 30-40% of your potential threat. Yeah, and don't
> > forget people like Timothy McVeigh.
> >
> > Another thing, Jon, if I was to come out the way you often do, I would
> > not advertise my tail number and where I park my plane. Just a
> > thought.
> >
> > The Monk
> >

Yes you did touch a nerve Jon. You assuming that people who wear cloth
on their heads are all terrorists. You missed the point that I was
trying to tell you that I know of many arabs that look nothing like
arabs. I tried to tell you that not all your enemies will wear a
cloths on their heads to tell you that they are your enemies.

You assuming that all people that wear cloths on their heads are
terrorist is just the same as the terrorists assuming that all
Westerners are what they think we are.

I also tried to tell you that this is a www (WORLD wide web) that when
you express your opinion like that and have your name and tail number
and where you parked your plane was a bad idea and you took that as a
threat. Jon I don't threat.

I think I touch a nerve with you huh? Well all I can say is that you
are quick on the draw Jon.

The Monk

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Flyingmonk" > wrote:

> You assuming that all people that wear cloths on their heads are
> terrorist is just the same as the terrorists assuming that all
> Westerners are what they think we are.

"just the same"? hardly.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jon Kraus]

Exploit huh... Not really... Those that know me (yourself not included)
would tell you that I'm not a hating kind of guy.. 9/11 changed the way
that I look at some things in the world. One thing I have developed is a
hatred for the terrorists, Islamo Fascist's, insurgents, ragheads or
whatever you refer to them as that are trying to kill me, and those that
I love. As far as ethnic hatred goes... I saw plenty of that in the form
of dancing in the streets on the evening of 9/11.

Jon

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Jon Kraus wrote:
>>
>>>One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
>>>let some ragheads take over a plane ever again....
>>
>>Jon, I've never been a Muslim nor a Sikh. I've been a Baptist, a
>>Mormon and a Buddhist. You calling terrorists "ragheads" offended
>>me and probably a lot of others.
>
>
> Yup. Sadly but predictably, many people like Jon exploit 9/11 as an excuse
> to indulge in ethnic hatred.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
. ..
> 9/11 changed the way that I look at some things in the world. One thing I
> have developed is a hatred for the terrorists, Islamo Fascist's,
> insurgents, ragheads or whatever you refer to them as that are trying to
> kill me, and those that I love.

What's reprehensible is your inability or refusal to draw all-important
distinctions--between terrorists, who deliberately kill civilians;
insurgents, who fight an occupying army, as you or I would do if someone
occupied the US; and "ragheads", a derogatory term for an entire ethnic
group (a group that includes some of your fellow pilots here and their
friends).

No one is objecting to your enmity toward terrorists. The objection is to
your hatred of people who merely bear a superficial resemblance to
terrorists. In your absurd followup to Flyingmonk, you even went so far as
to denounce him for merely *talking* to Arabs (or as you put it, for talking
to "the Arabs", as though they were monolithic and interchangeable).

> As far as ethnic hatred goes... I saw plenty of that in the form of
> dancing in the streets on the evening of 9/11.

And so your reaction now is to endorse that sort of thinking? They persuaded
you that they were essentially right?

--Gary

[Jon Kraus]

You voted for John Kerry didn't ya...



Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>9/11 changed the way that I look at some things in the world. One thing I
>>have developed is a hatred for the terrorists, Islamo Fascist's,
>>insurgents, ragheads or whatever you refer to them as that are trying to
>>kill me, and those that I love.
>
>
> What's reprehensible is your inability or refusal to draw all-important
> distinctions--between terrorists, who deliberately kill civilians;
> insurgents, who fight an occupying army, as you or I would do if someone
> occupied the US; and "ragheads", a derogatory term for an entire ethnic
> group (a group that includes some of your fellow pilots here and their
> friends).
>
> No one is objecting to your enmity toward terrorists. The objection is to
> your hatred of people who merely bear a superficial resemblance to
> terrorists. In your absurd followup to Flyingmonk, you even went so far as
> to denounce him for merely *talking* to Arabs (or as you put it, for talking
> to "the Arabs", as though they were monolithic and interchangeable).
>
>
>>As far as ethnic hatred goes... I saw plenty of that in the form of
>>dancing in the streets on the evening of 9/11.
>
>
> And so your reaction now is to endorse that sort of thinking? They persuaded
> you that they were essentially right?
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
.. .
> You voted for John Kerry didn't ya...

Actually, George Bush too has repeatedly denounced the bigoted, anti-Arab
reaction to 9/11 that you've embraced.

But I understand what you're getting at with that question. There are two
basic approaches to dealing with a conflict:

* One approach is to care about the distinction between truth and falsehood,
right and wrong, innocence and guilt--and accordingly, to engage in
reasearch, reasoning, and debate in order to decide what stance to take.

* The other approach is to choose what team you're on and then cite your
team affiliation as a blanket justification for anything you do or say or
believe, automatically rejecting everything and everyone that you perceive
as belonging to a different team.

The second approach is profoundly ignorant and dangerous, but it requires a
lot less work than the first approach.

--Gary

> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>9/11 changed the way that I look at some things in the world. One thing I
>>>have developed is a hatred for the terrorists, Islamo Fascist's,
>>>insurgents, ragheads or whatever you refer to them as that are trying to
>>>kill me, and those that I love.
>>
>>
>> What's reprehensible is your inability or refusal to draw all-important
>> distinctions--between terrorists, who deliberately kill civilians;
>> insurgents, who fight an occupying army, as you or I would do if someone
>> occupied the US; and "ragheads", a derogatory term for an entire ethnic
>> group (a group that includes some of your fellow pilots here and their
>> friends).
>>
>> No one is objecting to your enmity toward terrorists. The objection is to
>> your hatred of people who merely bear a superficial resemblance to
>> terrorists. In your absurd followup to Flyingmonk, you even went so far
>> as to denounce him for merely *talking* to Arabs (or as you put it, for
>> talking to "the Arabs", as though they were monolithic and
>> interchangeable).
>>
>>
>>>As far as ethnic hatred goes... I saw plenty of that in the form of
>>>dancing in the streets on the evening of 9/11.
>>
>>
>> And so your reaction now is to endorse that sort of thinking? They
>> persuaded you that they were essentially right?
>>
>> --Gary
>>

[Flyingmonk]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > You voted for John Kerry didn't ya...
>
> Actually, George Bush too has repeatedly denounced the bigoted, anti-Arab
> reaction to 9/11 that you've embraced.
>
> But I understand what you're getting at with that question. There are two
> basic approaches to dealing with a conflict:
>
> * One approach is to care about the distinction between truth and falsehood,
> right and wrong, innocence and guilt--and accordingly, to engage in
> reasearch, reasoning, and debate in order to decide what stance to take.
>
> * The other approach is to choose what team you're on and then cite your
> team affiliation as a blanket justification for anything you do or say or
> believe, automatically rejecting everything and everyone that you perceive
> as belonging to a different team.
>
> The second approach is profoundly ignorant and dangerous, but it requires a
> lot less work than the first approach.
>
> --Gary
>
First approach: One shot, one kill.

Second approach, spray and pray.

First approach is what a man does, second approach is what a boy does.

The Monk
> > Gary Drescher wrote:
> >> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >>
> >>>9/11 changed the way that I look at some things in the world. One thing I
> >>>have developed is a hatred for the terrorists, Islamo Fascist's,
> >>>insurgents, ragheads or whatever you refer to them as that are trying to
> >>>kill me, and those that I love.
> >>
> >>
> >> What's reprehensible is your inability or refusal to draw all-important
> >> distinctions--between terrorists, who deliberately kill civilians;
> >> insurgents, who fight an occupying army, as you or I would do if someone
> >> occupied the US; and "ragheads", a derogatory term for an entire ethnic
> >> group (a group that includes some of your fellow pilots here and their
> >> friends).
> >>
> >> No one is objecting to your enmity toward terrorists. The objection is to
> >> your hatred of people who merely bear a superficial resemblance to
> >> terrorists. In your absurd followup to Flyingmonk, you even went so far
> >> as to denounce him for merely *talking* to Arabs (or as you put it, for
> >> talking to "the Arabs", as though they were monolithic and
> >> interchangeable).
> >>
> >>
> >>>As far as ethnic hatred goes... I saw plenty of that in the form of
> >>>dancing in the streets on the evening of 9/11.
> >>
> >>
> >> And so your reaction now is to endorse that sort of thinking? They
> >> persuaded you that they were essentially right?
> >>
> >> --Gary
> >>

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 14:52:46 GMT, Yeff > wrote:

>> My guess it would be violence.
>
>The violence in the film, both the initial take-over and when passengers
>fight back, is rather brutal.

I didn't find it so, because the fast cutting blurred it. (My wife,
who is forever saying "Can I look now?" in even the mildest war movie,
had her eyes open the whole time.)

I did think, however, that someone gouged out the eyes of the junior
terrorist (the excitable lad with the red headband).


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Jon Kraus]

I see USENET and Usenet used interchangeably all over the web... I never
said it was an acronym... I don't know anything about knitting so you
might have to help me out on that one... Jeeze, you appear to be very
critical and then know about knitting too... You sure your not a woman
wrapped up in a mans body? :-) Thanks for your adivse though.. Peace
out...

Jon


Jim Logajan wrote:
> Jon Kraus > wrote:
>
>>This is USENET and I can give whatever opinion I like.
>
>
> This is Usenet (not USENET - the word is not an acronym for anything and
> shouldn't be in all caps) and if you can't keep your testosterone levels
> within manageable range when people respond with their opinions, then you
> may want to consider other less stressful pursuits like knitting.
>
> Also, you wrote earlier:
>
>
>>>>One thing that is for sure is that airline passengers will NEVER
>>>>let some ragheads take over a plane ever again....
>
>
> Sikhs wear head scarves, but they have nothing to do with Islam or Islamic
> extremists. Arabs wear keffiyeh, but not all Arabs are Islamic extremists
> or even Muslim. And not all Islamic extremists or terrorists are Arab.
>
> Everyone has a right to expressing opinions founded on ignorance, and you
> have exercised that right.
>
> My advice is next time the opportunity occurs, try saying "terrorist" or
> "religious extremist" rather than "raghead".

[Flyingmonk]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Flyingmonk" > wrote:
>
> > You assuming that all people that wear cloths on their heads are
> > terrorist is just the same as the terrorists assuming that all
> > Westerners are what they think we are.
>
> "just the same"? hardly.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate

"Oh, he's black, he must be a mugger or a drug dealer or just plain up
to no good."
"Oh he's asian, he must not be able to play basketball."
"Oh he's wearing cloth on his head and he's looks Arabic, he must be a
terroist."
"Oh he's Polish, he must be stupid."
"Oh he's Irish, he must be a perpetual drunk."

Like the qoutes above, Jon's statement was a general
assumption/sterotypical. His inability to separate friends from foes
is the same as the terrorists' inability to separate friends from foes.
It is/was this 'shortcoming' that gets more and more of our people
targeted and killed. It is/was this 'shortcoming' that makes more and
enemies for us around the world. It is/was this 'shortcoming' that
makes us 'hate' our enemies and our enemies hate us more and more. It
is "shoot them all, let God sort them out" attitude that perpetuates
hatrade.

The Monk

[Bob Noel]

In article . com>,
"Flyingmonk" > wrote:

> Like the qoutes above, Jon's statement was a general
> assumption/sterotypical.

true.

> His inability to separate friends from foes
> is the same as the terrorists' inability to separate friends from foes.

possibly.

> It is/was this 'shortcoming' that gets more and more of our people
> targeted and killed.

wrong.

The terrorist and his perversion of a religion (to be kind about it)
is what make him hate us. What we do doesn't matter.

To equate Jon's statement with the terrorist hatred shows a huge
gross misunderstanding of the terrorist.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate