I am gonna go see this tomorrow.
I think that this "too soon" think is Anti Bush.
Is the movie "Bushco Propaganda" or "a fabrication"? I doubt it. But that's what they are saying at the democraptic underground.
From reading around the various political forums it looks very polarized as far as support for and desire to view the movie.
Why would you think it is "anti-Bush" if one thinks it is too early?
I don't think it is pro-Bush in anyway. Who was President had NOTHING to do with what happened on that day. This is about the American spirit and how people of all races come together as Americans....not republicans or democrats.
Because it's gonna stoke the post-9/11 emotions and the war effort will be the beneficiary when people remember the a-holes were trying to kill in Iraq and Afghanistan and who are fomenting hate and discontent in Iran and Palestine and the Sinai.
Just wait, the conspiracies about the producer/director ties to the Bush administration are coming...particularly when you see the American Spirit get back in the game.
I hate to see what Oliver Stone is going to do with this...
I'm sure 9/11 will end up having something to do with the JFK assassination.I hate to see what Oliver Stone is going to do with this...
It's just an observation at this point. Only a few weeks after release with feedback and box numbers will tell.
I don't think everyone that says too early is anti Bush. But I think maybe a majority will be and it is the "talking point". (that's my opinion too..).
I am just translating too early meaning wait till Bush leaves.
You have to take into this context that PRE 911 Bush was hated by the left.
The people who think this movie is Pro-Bush are probably the same people who thought V for Vendetta was Anti-Bush: nutjobs.
It's a story worth telling and the families have given their blessing to telling it now. I don't see how the movie can really be political at all, if it's viewed as biographical.
Then again, there are those who can make a political issue out of some guy taking out trash or mowing his lawn, so I'm sure the political agendas will come to bear and take away from the point of the movie.
Think what you want, but I don't see how this movie can not be political. How can the government claim that it's done a thorough job of investigating the largest act of homicide in the short history of our country when key witnesses who knew, and in some cases even lived with key perpetrators while they were in the U.S., have never even been interviewed by either the 911 Commission or the M$M?
Blah, they'll gloss over most of the covert stuff that will eventually come out in history books after the Neo-Cons are out of power, such as the fact that Cheney was conducting a military exercise on 911 which coincidentally involved (or not), of all things, domestic planes being hijacked. , I doubt the movie will even cover that Mark Bingham was likely gay.
OmG!!! Mark Bingham was gay!!! I'll never vote republican again.
How would you like it covered dan and what's the significance? phobic?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47730
Is Opening Week Too Soon To See A 9/11 Movie?
By Marissa Springer
April 26, 2006 | Issue 42•17
Has enough time passed since we first witnessed the awful event of the United 93 trailer to confront the full-length movie of United 93 in its opening week?
April 4, 2006 was the day Americans learned about the existence of United 93 by viewing the new preview. And in that moment, frozen in time, what had once seemed impossible—a filmed reenactment of the events of 9/11—became all too frighteningly real.
Millions of Americans went about their daily concerns that fateful day, unaware that our lives as movie-watchers were about to change forever. We would watch in terror on April 28, the film's release date, suspending our disbelief as best we could, unable to face the reality that a feature-length film about the terrorist attacks on America had indeed taken place before our eyes.
Are we ready to relive the most dramatized strike on American soil since the movie Pearl Harbor? Or will United 93 stir up the deep, unresolved feelings we've had bottled up for the last three weeks or so?
Maybe these questions would be easier for me to answer if I hadn't known one of the gaffers from the movie about that flight.
For me, opening week may prove to be too soon. I may have to wait till the second or third week of its release.
Yet we must remember the brave actors and actresses who boarded United 93's commercial-airliner set, whose artistic sacrifice ultimately cost them months of their lives, and ask ourselves what they would have wanted. Wouldn't they have wanted us to see the movie on the opening day? Wouldn't they have wanted this movie to have the highest possible first-weekend gross?
Director Paul Greengrass, for example, has been said to be suffering from post-production-stress disorder.
It could be argued that this is a time for all American moviegoers to come together and stand united in support of the filmmaking heroes who stood up when this project was greenlit and said, "Let's roll."
But for some of us, it would be easier to pretend its theatrical release had never happened and wait until United 93 makes its way to DVD in a couple of months.
Am I taking my freedom to see this movie for granted? After all, the men and women involved in this filmed catastrophe didn't have the choice to walk off the set. They were just extras in the tragedy, and exercising such freedom would have ended their careers then and there.
It just goes to show you that life is precious, and that one never knows when one's last moments on camera will come.
Regardless of when or where I ultimately see this film, one thing remains certain: We live in a post-United 93 world now, and as American moviegoers it is our duty to remain vigilant in hopes of preventing these events, or a sequel to them, from ever happening again.
i want to see that movie too. i saw the one shown on A&E, and that one was pretty powerful.
I understand he is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. No connection to Bush.
He is also British.
I think everyone misunderstands my post.
I'm not claiming the movie was produced as a political tool to help the President. I'm saying that short-memoried Americans will be reminded of how they felt on September 11, 2001 and that that will stoke the passion needed to get behind the war effort.
The assholes who attacked on 9/11 WERE NOT IN IRAQ when dubya started his phony war. But they are now thanks to the Repugs, and the US military can't stop them, after 3 years of trying.
The assholes who DID attack on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, but starting the phony Repug war in Iraq drained focus and resources from Afghanistan. Consequently, the Qaida-harboring Taliban and Qaida are both resurging in Afghanistan, along with tribal warlords.
Repugs are ing up both Afghanistan and Iraq, demonstrating the limits of US military power while encouraging and recruiting, not defeating, the assholes.
"You're doing a heckuva job dubya/ head/rummy/karl"
I agree. I think, but it wont happen, that they should show the WTC
and remind everyone what we are in the war about. Seemed to be
no problem showing Pearl Harbor over and over again and again. And
we still see it on a regular basis.
The people on 93 were absolute hero's in every sense of the word. And
the people in the WTC were innocent, unknowing victims of some of the
most vicious people in the world. slapping people, like in the other
aircraft, WTC or Pentagon is not a brave act. Anyone can get a telling
blow on anyone when they are not expecting it.
Now about all they can do is blow themselves up and take out a few
people at a time. Really brave, still slapping someone, but with
a wimpy limp wrist. I would like to see old UBL just show himself the
friggin coward. Send some idiots out to kill themselves, about all he
is good for.
I probably won't see it but I don't necessarily have a problem with it.
I'm plenty moved by the actual footage and stories, so I don't really need Hollywood's take on it.
it cant be as good as the passion
and then to vote for Jeb Bush in '08.
^^or for Hillary or better yet. Nancy Pelosi. Both real winners.
Just got back from the movie. Very well done. Very quiet.
No one spoke a word or a peep the whole time.
YOU THINK THETS BAD
rememba tha time I took a big dump in a little box, marked it "Garunteed pro-Bush", then every neocon in the nation bought it and ate the contents?
WHAT DID HAPPEN TO FLIGHT 93?
RICHARD WALLACE, US Editor, examines riddle of hijacked jet as he visits crash site
MirrorTHE unmarked military-style jet swooped down at high speed through the valley, twice circled the smouldering black scar where Flight 93 had careered into the ground just seconds earlier and then hurtled off over the horizon.
GRIEF: Victims' relatives visit a makeshift memorial at crash site
At least six eyewitnesses saw the mysterious aircraft on the morning of September 11 last year. But the US authorities deny it ever existed.
So when George Bush laid a wreath yesterday at the crash site in a remote valley outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, he was one of only a handful of people who know what really happened to the 40 innocents and four hijackers aboard the doomed United Airlines Boeing 757-200.
Those unimaginable final seconds as passengers showed courageous defiance apparently wrestling for control of the aircraft have become one of the defining images of the tragedy.
Advertisement
Falk AdSolution
And "Let's roll" - ringleader Todd Beamer's no-nonsense call to arms - became a defining battle cry in America's war on terror.
But of the four aircraft taken on September 11, the exact fate of Flight 93 after its two-hour journey is proving difficult for US officials to explain.
What was the white jet doing there and why won't they admit to its presence? Why did other witnesses see smoke and flames trailing from Flight 93 as it fell from the sky, indicating a possible explosion aboard?
Or - and this is proving to be the most uncomfortable question of all - in the moments before the airliner piled into the black, spongey earth at 575mph did an American fighter pilot have to do the unthinkable and shoot down a US civil airliner?
Susan Mcelwain, 51, who lives two miles from the site, knows what she saw - the white plane rocketed directly over her head.
"It came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50ft above my mini-van," she recalled. "It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was travelling real fast, but hardly made any sound.
"Then it disappeared behind some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed. The ground really shook. So I dialled 911 and told them what happened.
"I'd heard nothing about the other attacks and it was only when I got home and saw the TV that I realised it wasn't the white jet, but Flight 93.
Ididn't think much more about it until the authorities started to say there had been no other plane. The plane I saw was heading right to the point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very moment it came down.
"There's no way I imagined this plane - it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look.
"It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven't found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.
"Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up.
"But I saw it and it was there before the crash and it was 40ft above my head. They did not want my story - nobody here did."
Mrs Mcelwain, who looks after special needs children, is further convinced the whole truth has yet to come out because of a phone call she had within hours from the wife of an air force friend of the family.
"She said her husband had called her that morning and said 'I can't talk, but we've just shot a plane down,' " Susan said. "I presumed they meant Flight 93. I have no doubt those brave people on board tried to do something, but I don't believe what happened on the plane brought it down.
"If they shot it down, or something else happened, everyone, especially the victims' families, have a right to know."
Lee Purbaugh, 32, was the only person to see the last seconds of Flight 93 as it came down on former strip-mining land at precisely 10.06am - and he also saw the white jet.
He was working at the Rollock Inc. scrapyard on a ridge overlooking the point of impact, less than half a mile away. "I heard this real loud noise coming over my head," he told the Daily Mirror. "I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke."
But did he see another plane? "Yes, there was another plane," Lee said. "I didn't get a good look but it was white and it circled the area about twice and then it flew off over the horizon."
Tom Spinelli, 28, was working at India Lake Marina, a mile and a half away. "I saw the white plane," he said.
"It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash."
India Lake also contributes to the view there was an explosion on board before the Newark-San Francisco flight came down. Debris rained down on the lake - a curious feat if, as the US government insists, there was no mid-air explosion and the plane was intact until it hit the ground.
"It was mainly mail, bits of in-flight magazine and scraps of seat cloth," Tom said. "The authorities say it was blown here by the wind." But there was only a 10mph breeze and you were a mile and a half away? Tom raised his eyebrows, rolled his eyes and said: "Yeah, that's what they reckon."
Light debris was also found eight miles away in New Baltimore. A section of engine weighing a ton was located 2,000 yards - over a mile -from the crash site. Theorists point out a Sidewinder heat-seeking missile attacks the hottest part of aircraft - the engine.
The authorities say the impact bounced it there. But the few pieces of surviving fuselage, local coroner Wallace Miller told us, were "no bigger than a carrier bag".
Nearly all the passengers were reduced to charcoal on impact and the largest piece of human tissue found was a section of spine eight inches long.
CURIOUSLY, military officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, although they were informed that it was a suspected hijack at 9.16am, 50 minutes before the plane came down.
At 9.35am they assumed it was heading for Washington DC after it changed course in a 180 degree turn and three F-16s - top speed 1,800mph - now patrolling over the capital were told to "protect the White House at all costs".
An anonymous flight controller said on the day that an F-16 was "in hot pursuit" of Flight 93 - Washington to Shanksville is seven to 10 minutes flying time.
A few minutes before the crash Bill Wright, piloting a single-engine Piper, could see Flight 93 three miles away, but was suddenly told to turn away and land immediately without explanation.
At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt.
Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.
"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI.
Also, according to sources, the last seconds of the pit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage. What caused the smoke and explosion? Why the wind sounds?
The FBI's later explanation for the white jet was that a passing civilian Fairchild Falcon 20 jet was asked to descend from 34,000ft to 5,000ft some minutes after the crash to give co-ordinates for the site. The plane and pilot have never been produced or identified. Susan Mcelwain says a Falcon 20 was not the plane she saw.
FURTHER verification that some kind of military aircraft was operating in the area is scientifically irrefutable.
At 9.22am a sonic boom - caused by supersonic flight - was picked up by an earthquake monitoring station in southern Pennsylvania, 60 miles from Shanksville.
That Todd Beamer and others launched an assault on the hijackers there is no doubt. The brief extracts released from audio tapes indicate a fierce struggle going on at the pit door.
But nobody - official or otherwise - has categorically said the group got into the pit or that their actions led to the crash. Those final, agonising moments are mere presumption.
President Bush and his team have the whole story. So why aren't they telling the rest of us?
I find some of you people disgusting.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
