United 93 - The Movie

[skeith]

Skeith, we all would like to think that the passengers who charged the cockpit were doing so for a noble cause and not just to save their own lives, but the operative word here is think--you say:

"I think that they were motivated by the idea that they were saving other american lives or american buidings, institutions, whatever.

That would make them heroes in my book."

And in many other people's book, including my own, but let's be real here--This is the Jessica Lynching of Flight 93. Remember Jessica Lynch? Remember how the Pentagon made up stories to portray her as a hero? Well, America needed a hero, so there she was, packaged neatly for public consumption by the Bush regime.

I have lot of respect for Jessica Lynch, because she exposed the little PR trick--good for her, so perhaps she was a hero after all.

There are many real heroes in this world--we do not need to make them up. It is enough that the passengers and crew of Flight 93 died as a result of an unspeakable terrorist act--we can remember and honor them for that, because it is the reality.

As for your little comment on name-calling, no one asked you. Dan is a grown man, if he thinks this was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, let him say so--keep your 2¢.

Unless this thread gets back on track, I'll be found elsewhere.

Yes, Chris I admit that I am not sure what actually happened- that's why I used the phrase "I think" but what I mean by "I think" - that it is a rational deduction based on the circumstances that probably approaches the truth. I am not just making stuff up. And the key element here is if indeed the passengers were merely seeking to save their own lives - what was the likelihood that a passenger could have flown the plane to a safe landing. I submit to you based on the film, and all that I know about it, there was very little if any chance of that.

I noticed that you chose not to deal with my argument, but instead raised Jessica Lynch.

And as for butting in, nothing stopped you from butting in to arguments I have had with others on this Board.

Edited May 1, 2006 by skeith

[skeith]

Finally, there is the scene where the passengers attack the hijackers. Seeing previously rational people fighting for survival (terrorists and victims alike) brought to mind Dr. Johnson's maxim: "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." That is the ultimate tragedy of United 93: That all of these people lost their humanity just before losing their lives. It is a profound moment, and it is one that should be experienced by all people. It is a warning of all that we have to lose...

So Alex,

let me get this straight, you become irrational and inhumane by fighting against the people who are trying to kill you?

Give me a break................

So Alex, if someone were trying to strangle you, would you just let them finish the job out of fear of losing your humanity?

Did I say that I wouldn't do that same thing they did? Of course not. I'm just saying that the struggle to survive reduces us to our animal insticts. Watch the movie. The mob of howling passengers are depicted literally tearing the hijackers to pieces. Were they justified in their actions? Darn tootin'. Would they be proud of what circumstances forced them to do? No way. Eli Weisel wrote quite elequently about how the conditions in the Concentration Camps turned him and other inmates into animals concerned with nothing but their own survival. He describes a son strangling is own father to death over a piece of bread. It was every man for himself, but that doesn't mean that that anyone would be PROUD of their actions under such circumstances. I'm sure the members of the Donner party felt pretty horrible about what they had to do to survive. I'm sure it haunted them for the rest of their lives.

I saw the movie, no hijacker winds up in pieces. One is killed by a mob of passengers, but that is because since they had no serious weapons, it took a number of passengers to subdue the guy who they appear to beat to death. As for "howling" - yes there was screaming in the struggle - it seems you want to degrade the passengers.

In the cockpit - there is a struggle. Again I saw no one in pieces.

I understand your rationale but it smacks too much to me of equating the victim with the perpetrator.

The families of Flight 93 can be proud that the actions of those passengers saved american lives and perhaps the Capitol building.

I remember by the way, you stating on the first anniversary of 9/11, that you saw signs saying "We will never forget" and your reaction was "forget what?"

Yeah I think I know where you are coming from.

Edited May 1, 2006 by skeith

[Dan Gould]

Skeith, we all would like to think that the passengers who charged the cockpit were doing so for a noble cause and not just to save their own lives, but the operative word here is think--you say:

"I think that they were motivated by the idea that they were saving other american lives or american buidings, institutions, whatever.

That would make them heroes in my book."

And in many other people's book, including my own, but let's be real here--This is the Jessica Lynching of Flight 93. Remember Jessica Lynch? Remember how the Pentagon made up stories to portray her as a hero? Well, America needed a hero, so there she was, packaged neatly for public consumption by the Bush regime.

I have lot of respect for Jessica Lynch, because she exposed the little PR trick--good for her, so perhaps she was a hero after all.

There are many real heroes in this world--we do not need to make them up. It is enough that the passengers and crew of Flight 93 died as a result of an unspeakable terrorist act--we can remember and honor them for that, because it is the reality.

As for your little comment on name-calling, no one asked you. Dan is a grown man, if he thinks this was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, let him say so--keep your 2¢.

Unless this thread gets back on track, I'll be found elsewhere.

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.

[Alexander]

Finally, there is the scene where the passengers attack the hijackers. Seeing previously rational people fighting for survival (terrorists and victims alike) brought to mind Dr. Johnson's maxim: "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." That is the ultimate tragedy of United 93: That all of these people lost their humanity just before losing their lives. It is a profound moment, and it is one that should be experienced by all people. It is a warning of all that we have to lose...

So Alex,

let me get this straight, you become irrational and inhumane by fighting against the people who are trying to kill you?

Give me a break................

So Alex, if someone were trying to strangle you, would you just let them finish the job out of fear of losing your humanity?

Did I say that I wouldn't do that same thing they did? Of course not. I'm just saying that the struggle to survive reduces us to our animal insticts. Watch the movie. The mob of howling passengers are depicted literally tearing the hijackers to pieces. Were they justified in their actions? Darn tootin'. Would they be proud of what circumstances forced them to do? No way. Eli Weisel wrote quite elequently about how the conditions in the Concentration Camps turned him and other inmates into animals concerned with nothing but their own survival. He describes a son strangling is own father to death over a piece of bread. It was every man for himself, but that doesn't mean that that anyone would be PROUD of their actions under such circumstances. I'm sure the members of the Donner party felt pretty horrible about what they had to do to survive. I'm sure it haunted them for the rest of their lives.

I saw the movie, no hijacker winds up in pieces. One is killed by a mob of passengers, but that is because since they had no serious weapons, it took a number of passengers to subdue the guy who they appear to beat to death. As for "howling" - yes there was screaming in the struggle - it seems you want to degrade the passengers.

In the cockpit - there is a struggle. Again I saw no one in pieces.

I understand your rationale but it smacks too much to me of equating the victim with the perpetrator.

The families of Flight 93 can be proud that the actions of those passengers saved american lives and perhaps the Capitol building.

I remember by the way, you stating on the first anniversary of 9/11, that you saw signs saying "We will never forget" and your reaction was "forget what?"

Yeah I think I know where you are coming from.

Well, you'd be wrong, on all counts. I don't seek to degrade the passengers. If you beat a man to death, however justified, you'd feel all right about it? It wouldn't bother you that you've taken a human life, even if it was to save your own? Then you're a tougher man than I. I'd be weak and would feel guilty about it. Hell, I still feel bad about about running over a squirrel about five years ago.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Alexander

[Christiern]

It is human nature. People whose kids perform a crime always insist that they didn't do it--similarly, people need to find something that--in their minds--can justify such a horrible event and the premature loss of a loved one. It is something that happens all the time, not something I am making up because I harbor some kind of deep hatred for people who need heroes. I love the way you can twist things around to suit your own purpose, Dan.

The facts are:

I don't believe that the passengers acted out of a patriotic need to save a building or government officials.

You believe that they did.

Neither one of us will ever know who is right.

Now let it rest.

[skeith]

It is human nature. People whose kids perform a crime always insist that they didn't do it--similarly, people need to find something that--in their minds--can justify such a horrible event and the premature loss of a loved one. It is something that happens all the time, not something I am making up because I harbor some kind of deep hatred for people who need heroes. I love the way you can twist things around to suit your own purpose, Dan.

The facts are:

I don't believe that the passengers acted out of a patriotic need to save a building or government officials.

You believe that they did.

Neither one of us will ever know who is right.

Now let it rest.

Well that is a bit of a change Chris, before you were saying that the passengers acted only out of the interest to save their own lives.

who was going to fly the plane Chris?

One more fact: In stating your belief you do not support it with a single fact that relates to what we do know.

Now let it rest.

[Jim Alfredson]

This whole exchange is pretty pathetic, imo.

[Quincy]

Why do all the members of "they" have to be thinking alike anyway? Could it be that some were trying to save themselves by trying to take control of the aircraft, while others figured they were probably going to die anyway, so why not prevent it from hitting some target, that while unknown presumably would be in the league of the trade towers. Why assign a single motive to a group like that?

[Dan Gould]

It is human nature. People whose kids perform a crime always insist that they didn't do it--similarly, people need to find something that--in their minds--can justify such a horrible event and the premature loss of a loved one. It is something that happens all the time, not something I am making up because I harbor some kind of deep hatred for people who need heroes. I love the way you can twist things around to suit your own purpose, Dan.

The facts are:

I don't believe that the passengers acted out of a patriotic need to save a building or government officials.

You believe that they did.

Neither one of us will ever know who is right.

Now let it rest.

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.

[skeith]

This whole exchange is pretty pathetic, imo.

so enlighten us please.

[Guy Berger]

Why do all the members of "they" have to be thinking alike anyway? Could it be that some were trying to save themselves by trying to take control of the aircraft, while others figured they were probably going to die anyway, so why not prevent it from hitting some target, that while unknown presumably would be in the league of the trade towers. Why assign a single motive to a group like that?

Hooray, common sense! John Tapscott's entry below is good too.

Guy

Edited May 2, 2006 by Guy

[John Tapscott]

Why do all the members of "they" have to be thinking alike anyway? Could it be that some were trying to save themselves by trying to take control of the aircraft, while others figured they were probably going to die anyway, so why not prevent it from hitting some target, that while unknown presumably would be in the league of the trade towers. Why assign a single motive to a group like that?

I tend to agree, though a bit of reflection on human nature suggests that most (probably all) were trying to save themselves first. The thought that they might save others on the ground was probably quite secondary, though that reality likely dawned upon some of them as time went on. Ironically, in failing to save themselves they most likely saved many others. No matter what happened up there, I think they're heroes.

I saw the A&E movie a few months ago. Thought it was pretty well done for the most part. Planning to see this one this weekend. Looking forward to it (sort of).

[skeith]

Why do all the members of "they" have to be thinking alike anyway? Could it be that some were trying to save themselves by trying to take control of the aircraft, while others figured they were probably going to die anyway, so why not prevent it from hitting some target, that while unknown presumably would be in the league of the trade towers. Why assign a single motive to a group like that?

I tend to agree, though a bit of reflection on human nature suggests that most (probably all) were trying to save themselves first. The thought that they might save others on the ground was probably quite secondary, though that reality likely dawned upon some of them as time went on. Ironically, in failing to save themselves they most likely saved many others. No matter what happened up there, I think they're heroes.

I saw the A&E movie a few months ago. Thought it was pretty well done for the most part. Planning to see this one this weekend. Looking forward to it (sort of).

Of course, they did not have to all have the same motive. On the other hand, I fail to see how you could think you were saving yourself unless you thought a passenger could fly the plane and was able to get the controls away from the hijackers in a matter of seconds -given the low flying altitude. Do you have any evidence that the passengers thought they could do these things?

[Jim Alfredson]

This whole exchange is pretty pathetic, imo.

so enlighten us please.

It's pretty simple. Nobody knows exactly what when on up there, including whether they were trying to save themselves or save the Whitehouse or whatever, except the people who were there. And they are all dead.

And in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not they were trying to save their own lives, the lives of people on the ground, or the Whitehouse. The simple fact is they recognized they were not going to be held hostage but instead they were dead meat and decided to do something about it, instead of passively allowing a few men to control their collective destiny. And for that they are heroes.

[Christiern]

Is self defense heroism?

Just wondering, because I think this thread needs a definition before any further assumptions are made. The way I understand it, a person who rushes into a burning building and and rescues someone is a hero; a person who runs out of a burning building is not.

If I am wrong, I hope someone will set me straight.

[Alexander]

Why do all the members of "they" have to be thinking alike anyway? Could it be that some were trying to save themselves by trying to take control of the aircraft, while others figured they were probably going to die anyway, so why not prevent it from hitting some target, that while unknown presumably would be in the league of the trade towers. Why assign a single motive to a group like that?

I tend to agree, though a bit of reflection on human nature suggests that most (probably all) were trying to save themselves first. The thought that they might save others on the ground was probably quite secondary, though that reality likely dawned upon some of them as time went on. Ironically, in failing to save themselves they most likely saved many others. No matter what happened up there, I think they're heroes.

I saw the A&E movie a few months ago. Thought it was pretty well done for the most part. Planning to see this one this weekend. Looking forward to it (sort of).

Of course, they did not have to all have the same motive. On the other hand, I fail to see how you could think you were saving yourself unless you thought a passenger could fly the plane and was able to get the controls away from the hijackers in a matter of seconds -given the low flying altitude. Do you have any evidence that the passengers thought they could do these things?

As I noted before, the film seems to suggest that they did believe that they could take control of the plane, although they were also aware of the risks.

[Alexander]

Is self defense heroism?

Just wondering, because I think this thread needs a definition before any further assumptions are made. The way I understand it, a person who rushes into a burning building and and rescues someone is a hero; a person who runs out of a burning building is not.

If I am wrong, I hope someone will set me straight.

What about a person who, while running out of a burning building, helps an elderly person escape or brings a baby with him? That's more apt a comparison to what happened on board that plane. They were hoping to save BOTH their own lives AND stop the attack. I really believe that in their heart of hearts, they wanted to do both...

[skeith]

This whole exchange is pretty pathetic, imo.

so enlighten us please.

It's pretty simple. Nobody knows exactly what when on up there, including whether they were trying to save themselves or save the Whitehouse or whatever, except the people who were there. And they are all dead.

And in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not they were trying to save their own lives, the lives of people on the ground, or the Whitehouse. The simple fact is they recognized they were not going to be held hostage but instead they were dead meat and decided to do something about it, instead of passively allowing a few men to control their collective destiny. And for that they are heroes.

Not exactly true that only the passengers knew what went on up there , because a number of the passengers were having conversations with relatives and others on the ground about what had occurred at the Trade Center, etc. and about what the passengers were planning to do

So one issue is that the United 93 passengers had a big advantage over the passengers who crashed into the Trade Center because those passengers had no warning that these were suicide flights. those passengers should not be denigrated for letting others control their destiny because they probably really believed if they did not resist, they would return to the airport.

Furthermore, I think it does matter whether they were trying to save just themselves or others. Saving yourself is not usually a heroic act, saving others is.

But what do I know, I am just pathetic right?

Edited May 2, 2006 by skeith

[Jazzmoose]

crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch

[Jim Alfredson]

This whole exchange is pretty pathetic, imo.

so enlighten us please.

It's pretty simple. Nobody knows exactly what when on up there, including whether they were trying to save themselves or save the Whitehouse or whatever, except the people who were there. And they are all dead.

And in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not they were trying to save their own lives, the lives of people on the ground, or the Whitehouse. The simple fact is they recognized they were not going to be held hostage but instead they were dead meat and decided to do something about it, instead of passively allowing a few men to control their collective destiny. And for that they are heroes.

Not exactly true that only the passengers knew what went on up there , because a number of the passengers were having conversations with relatives and others on the ground about what had occurred at the Trade Center, etc. and about what the passengers were planning to do

So one issue is that the United 93 passengers had a big advantage over the passengers who crashed into the Trade Center because those passengers had no warning that these were suicide flights. those passengers should not be denigrated for letting others control their destiny because they probably really believed if they did not resist, they would return to the airport.

Furthermore, I think it does matter whether they were trying to save just themselves or others. Saving yourself is not usually a heroic act, saving others is.

But what do I know, I am just pathetic right?

I never said anyone was pathetic. I said the conversation was. That's a big difference.

Also, by trying to save themselves they inherently were saving other people, since they were all aboard the plane together, no?

[skeith]

crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch

Not sure what this means as I am not up on cybertalk.

these people on those planes were friends, neighbors, relatives of close friends.

sorry if you are bored.

[skeith]

This whole exchange is pretty pathetic, imo.

so enlighten us please.

It's pretty simple. Nobody knows exactly what when on up there, including whether they were trying to save themselves or save the Whitehouse or whatever, except the people who were there. And they are all dead.

And in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not they were trying to save their own lives, the lives of people on the ground, or the Whitehouse. The simple fact is they recognized they were not going to be held hostage but instead they were dead meat and decided to do something about it, instead of passively allowing a few men to control their collective destiny. And for that they are heroes.

Not exactly true that only the passengers knew what went on up there , because a number of the passengers were having conversations with relatives and others on the ground about what had occurred at the Trade Center, etc. and about what the passengers were planning to do

So one issue is that the United 93 passengers had a big advantage over the passengers who crashed into the Trade Center because those passengers had no warning that these were suicide flights. those passengers should not be denigrated for letting others control their destiny because they probably really believed if they did not resist, they would return to the airport.

Furthermore, I think it does matter whether they were trying to save just themselves or others. Saving yourself is not usually a heroic act, saving others is.

But what do I know, I am just pathetic right?

I never said anyone was pathetic. I said the conversation was. That's a big difference.

Also, by trying to save themselves they inherently were saving other people, since they were all aboard the plane together, no?

well it was not made clear to me why the conversation was pathetic, unless your point is that since we don't know what happened up there, it is a useless argument.

Well I reject that premise, because as I said before, we know a lot about what went on up there because of the numerous conversations of United 93 passengers with those on the ground.

Your last sentence is of course correct but not clear - I was referring to people saved who were not on the plane, but that means that they were much less heroic. And as I have stated many times in this thread , I am not convinced, based on the facts that we do know, they thought they were saving themselves.

[Christiern]

That's a good point, Alexander. We will, of course never know what any of the passengers were thinking. The phone conversations (and only 3 or 4 passengers had them, as I understand it) were mostly about saying goodbye and letting people on the ground know that a hijacking had occurred and the chances of survival were slim. Is there any recorded phone conversation that indicates a need/desire to circumvent disaster, other than the immediate one?

It seems reasonable to assume that, given the tension aboard and the high prospect of the aircraft not making it safely to the ground, people had very real, immediate problems to deal and did not give much thought to saving someone on the ground. Remember, too, that we are probably only talking about a few people--there has been no indication (that I know of) that all 40 passengers were told of the WTC attacks. The human instinct is to save one's own skin, whether it be for the sake of loved ones or just an urge to live.

I also agree that we cannot assume that everyone aboard had the same thoughts, the same motivation for at least attempting survival--of course they didn't. Does anyone know if the pilot and copilot were killed? If not, there was at least a chance of survival if the hijackers could be overpowered. And, if they were killed, did the passengers in the cabin know? In other words, I don't think we can say that they must have had a patriotic motive, because none knew how to operate a large aircraft and, ergo, there was no hope of landing the plane. As I read some of the above posts, that is the basis for one of the "heroes" conjectures.

I am just being realistic in my surmising--apparently too realistic for some.

So I let my guard down and continued--sorry, I really should bow out before I am crown king of the pathetic posters.

[Jazzmoose]

crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch

Not sure what this means as I am not up on cybertalk.

these people on those planes were friends, neighbors, relatives of close friends.

sorry if you are bored.

You're not sure what it means, but your paranoia can be trusted, eh? It must have been posted simply to annoy you, after all...

[7/4]

crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch

Not sure what this means as I am not up on cybertalk.

these people on those planes were friends, neighbors, relatives of close friends.

sorry if you are bored.

They're entertained and eating popcorn.