Dan Gould

Yes.

Well, color me shocked and pleased. First, I uncovered the printout from the order confirmation page, and actually noticed that there was a code listed "to check the status of your order". So I go back to the website and see that the first choice under "options" is "order status" so I enter the info ... and it says "completed". Then I walked out to the mail box, and guess what was waiting for me?

Not even at gunpoint. WORD! (and I'm not even a "goombah" when it comes to "Sweet Home Alabama" or "Takin Care of Business". )

I can't imagine why you are having trouble, since after the board problems, my avatar was dropped and I had no trouble replacing it with a new one.

To get back to the issue of this film, it is apparent that the film maker chose to extrapolate from knowledge that there were licensed private pilots and perhaps a former ATC on board into an assumption that the passengers hoped to fly the plane safely after overpowering the terrorists. There is nothing in the Commission's report that supports this, but I'd suggest that because of the power of film, this will soon be part of the assumed "facts" of what happened to Flight 93.

From the 9/11 Commission Report: At least FIVE of the passengers phone calls resulted in info about the WTC attacks. Furthermore, 40 passengers were herded into the back of the plane, where these phone calls took place, and where a plan was devised. So how do you get from that to your conjecture that something less than 100% of the passengers knew about the earlier attacks??? Also from the 9/11 Report: Sounds like heroes to me. As far as the question about whether or not the pilots were alive dead. There is this in the Report:

I tried to let it rest but you wouldn't let me. Are you now saying that the families invented a noble purpose to "justify the premature loss of a loved one"? No one says they were saving a building or government officials. They were saving lives. Let me venture a guess: there's no nobility in saving lives if they are lowly Congressmen, let alone Presidential staff members.

Please tell me what is different from skeith "thinking" that they acted to prevent another successful strike against a target and you "thinking" that they were purely motivated by self-preservation???? Oh, I get it. YOU are doing the thinking, and only YOU can be right. PATHETIC. What is doubly pathetic though is your bringing up a strawman like Jessica Lynch. That is simply sad ... the fact is that the passengers were told by multiple people on the ground about the WTC and the Pentagon, and they acted to prevent another such atrocity. So, Chris, are you saying that the FAMILIES of the victims of Flight 93 are equivalent to the Pentagon, "telling stories" about what motivated their loved ones? In a history of sad and pathetic commentary we've heard from you, this is the lowest you've ever sunk.

Who called the passengers "heroes" and "patriots"? The right-wing bloviators, for the most part. Who do you hate? I think we all know that the right-wing ain't on your christmas card list.

Dan, according to my research and please correct me if I'm wrong, the six songs were: Ain't Nobody's Business Blues Stay Away from Me Eyesight to the Blind Five Long Years Make Me Blue A Woman Don't Care Ain't Nobody's Business was released as a single (Kent 447), on the LP "The Jungle" (Kent 521/5021) and was reissued both on "The Vintage Years" box set and more recently on "Original Greatest Hits" (Virgin 11654). Blues Stay Away from Me was released as a single (Kent 458), on the LP "Rock Me Baby" (Kent 512/5012), and was also reissued on "The Vintage Years" and "Original Greatest Hits." Eyesight to the Blind with overdubbed horns was released as a single (Kent 441) and reissued on "The Best of the Kent Singles" (Ace 760). The version without horns was issued on "The Jungle" LP and reissued on "B.B. King" aka "The Soul of B.B. King" (Ace 986). Five Long Years was on Kent single 445 and on "The Jungle" and was reissued on both "The Best of the Kent Singles" and "The Vintage Years." Make Me Blue was first released in Japan and is on "The Vintage Years." A Woman Don't Care with overdubbed horns is on "B.B. King" aka "The Soul of B.B. King" and without horns on "The Great B.B. King (Ace 1049). The version with horns is mono while the one with horns is in stereo. Foolishly, I did not consult my copy of The Jungle til yesterday. Turns out that "Blues Stay Away From Me" was also issued on that album (I don't know if it was also on Rock Me Baby but its definitely on The Jungle with the truncated title of "Blues Stay Away".) I say foolishly, because I had sprung for a batch of mint 45s of "Blues Stay Away" as well as "The Worst Thing In My Life" which the Ace people identified as only being reissued in Japan and both are in fact on The Jungle so if I'd only cross-checked I'd have saved some cash.

there is no cop out for the simple fact that there is no point in furthering the discussion. You've come to a conclusion based on your assumptions. Its predicated on flat-out hatred of the people who call the passengers "heroes" and "patriots". You feel compelled to insist on any alternative that denies a heroic motivation. Its pathetic and offensive to their memories and to their families. I've come to a conclusion based on my assumptions, and they are predicated on the actual known facts. They wished to prevent a fourth strike against some unknown target. And nothing you can say denies that fundamental fact. But go ahead. Keep talking.

Dan, I think my conjecture is as valid as yours--neither one of us knows with any kind of certainty what was going through the minds of the passengers (or, for that matter, the hijackers). Ergo, it is you assumption against mine, and the fact that you are ending our dialog because you disagree with my reasoning is a copout, IMO. Why not, instead, explain your belief beyond making general unsubstantiated statement like: "It was undoubtedly a patriotic attempt to prevent a fourth terrorist act - they may not have known the target but they knew the outcome. That's why they acted, and it wasn't a purely self-centered act to save their own lives but also to save lives they knew were at stake somewhere on the ground. Yes, they probably had some blind hope they could land the plane but the odds of that were a 1 million to 1. The odds of overpowering the hijackers were about 40 to 4, a damn sight better." "undoubtedly"? Based on what, other than wishful thinking? So you think their chances of overpowering the hijackers were good but their chance of landing the aircraft was super slim. What about the pilot and/or copilot? Were they still alive? If so, would that not have seriously increased the odds in favor of landing? You have a history here of stating wishful thinking as fact, and this looks to me like another case of that, but only because you have failed to substantiate any of your theories. Momma always said not to argue with a fool.

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

Sorry, but I have to call BULLSH*T. Your post - #52 - came at 9:29 AM. It was edited at 10:19 AM. At 10:50 AM you posted: Regardless of what your earlier remarks were, you responded to my post this morning and then "upped" the thread thirty minutes after you edited your remarks and not even 90 minutes after you had posted them.

thanks, Ray. As Chris wants to see pure self-motivation on the part of the passengers, may be our resident humanist Alex wants to see the fullest possible measure of humanity in the terrorists, traits that neither the people nor the film maker intended.

This is where you are flat out wrong. We KNOW that the passengers knew what had already happened. We KNOW from their families what motivated them to act. It was to PREVENT the terrorists from reaching their target. It may not have been "patriotic" but it was sure as hell self-sacrificing.

Thanks Alex. Here are my problems: The film maker CHOSE to show the hijackers as "scared kids" and the "head hijacker" with "hesitation in his eyes" etc. etc. Let me ask you: HOW does the film maker know that he "put off the hijacking as long as he can"? There is NO evidence of any sort of hesitation in the Commission's report. The reason that plane was hijacked later than the others was that it was delayed on the ground. So, basically the film maker had two choices: Show the hijackers by their KNOWN actions: vicious killers who carried out a plan to kill any crew members that stood in their way of taking over the plane. OR Imagine them to be "scared kids" led by someone who doesn't really want to be there and, as Alex describes it, "events carry the decision out of his hands. " There is no evidence of this. No one KNOWS what was going through their minds, and I honestly do not begrudge the film maker his right to make these choices. The problem comes when Americans, being the stupid, uneducated people we mostly are, take what is presented on screen as the gospel truth. I can imagine a time in the future when students will believe that the hijackers didn't really want to do what they were doing, purely based on what is presented on this film. Why do I assume that? Simple. The experience of Oliver Stone's "JFK". In JFK, Stone had Jim Garrisson demonstrate the so-called "magic bullet" by showing a stand-in for the President and Gov. Connoly sitting in chairs. These chairs were the same height and lined up together. This was FALSE. Connoly was on the jump seat, 8 inches lower than the President and a foot inside the door. Recently I saw a documentary on the assasination that not only utterly destroyed the so-called "accoustic" evidence of a second shooter, but actually duplicated the path of the "magic bullet". And yet, largely due to the popularity of that movie, people believe that it was indeed a "magic" bullet, and that one bullet could not account for the wounds of the President and the Gov. This is why I object to the movie: it presents facts not in evidence, and the end result is likely to be that those facts become the "popular" truth. Its why I prefer the A&E movie to this one: It presented the events in a compelling way and made no assumptions about anything. Again, I don't know - none of us know - the true attitudes of the hijackers. But now that I've been told by Chris that the passengers only wanted to save themselves and aren't "heroes" or "patriots" I surely do not need to be told by a film maker that the terrorists were in any way shape or form, sympathetic, almost "unwitting" actors.

Wouldn't it be awesome if he could, without the aid of any "juice", eliminate Barry from the season home run mark?

A slow, lazy Sunday morning and you need to "up" this thread a scant 30 minutes after your last post? What are you afraid of exactly, Patricia? That the film will remind people of the ugliness of that day, and suddenly there will be an upswing in support for the war on terrorism? No one said that the airing of the TV film was "free" - only that it originally had a major corporate sponsor, who got spots aired at the beginning and end, and multiple "billboard" mentions during the broadcast. So it wasn't broadcast at a loss as a public service, and therefore your suggestion that admission to the movie theatre should also be free is misplaced. Furthermore, if you bothered to read what Ray has posted, and what has been reported in the media, the motion picture was made at a relatively meager cost and with "NO" concern by the studio whether that money is recouped. So in fact, the film was not made "to make money".

It should be noted that the first time that movie ran, iirc, there were NO commercial interruptions. Obviously that is not something that can be sustained subsequently. In fact, what is truly exploitative is the way the cable channel is exploiting the premier weekend of the major motion picture to show their film again. THAT is exploitation. They ought to have found another major sponsor and shown it again without commercials, to avoid the very thing you complain about.

It was undoubtedly a patriotic attempt to prevent a fourth terrorist act - they may not have known the target but they knew the outcome. That's why they acted, and it wasn't a purely self-centered act to save their own lives but also to save lives they knew were at stake somewhere on the ground. Yes, they probably had some blind hope they could land the plane but the odds of that were a 1 million to 1. The odds of overpowering the hijackers were about 40 to 4, a damn sight better. Nobody is bestowing sainthood. But they should be recognized for the way in which they died and why.

Ray makes good points but I am still not prepared to see a dramatization of these events. I think this movie is going up against some strong gut reactions against seeing these events dramatized - it will be interesting whether word of mouth can overcome that.

Looking through a list of 45s, I saw "Bad Luck" and wondered if this was in fact renamed. Either way, its cool, since I don't have the Vintage Years box anyway.

Thanks Jack. For what its worth, the B.B. King Reader has it as a given that B.B. recorded once more for the Biharis in 1965, and specifically mentions that he didn't want to record new material and share composer credits. Since the Ace reissues, and the book, came after the discography, maybe they found new info to confirm the '65 session? But regardless, I'm glad that "Bad Breaks" is in fact new and unissued on CD. I was also glad to discover that in a couple of cases, the 45s that I bought had "issued" tunes on the Crown series which turned out to be different performances, confirmed in the Crown liners. Best example is "You're Gonna Miss Me" which on the 45 is taken at a much brighter tempo than the Crown LP take. This leaves me with my next question, probably best answered by studying all of the reissue liners to see if there are any clues: Leaving aside attempts to "spruce up" old recordings with ill-advised over-dubs, are there any other worthy singles that are different from the Crown reissued takes?

Well, rather than springing for the Vintage box, which would be about 98% duplicative of what I already have, I ended up finding some mint Kent 45s to cover some of the tunes from that '65 session. In searching the shop's database, I found one that I decided to spring for, as I could find no such title in the Ace catalog: Its Kent 470, "Bad Breaks"/"Growing Old". I know that "Growing Old" appeared on King of the Blues, but after my experience with Twisting with B.B. King, can anyone reassure me that "Bad Breaks" is not one of those old tunes that were re-named? Thanks!