|
Home > Archive > Home Repair forum > April 2006 > OT: United 93
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Shopdog 2006-04-28, 10:21 pm |
| Saw the movie today, very Very emotional. Grown men were crying women were
in tears. As a Former United employee I thought the movie was well done down
to even minute details. I can't say that I recommend it to everyone as like
I
said it was very emotional, I live in PA so that is twice the emotion for
me, having lost two close friends in the aircraft.
Anyone else seen it, goin to see it what are the thoughts here?
Searcher
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2006-04-28, 10:21 pm |
| I think it was too soon, and much was fiction anyway. they are trying
to cash in on a tradgery.
i doubt i will see it, not wanting to enrich them
| |
| Shopdog 2006-04-28, 11:21 pm |
| I don't feel any fiction was placed in the movie. Unless of course there is
conspiracy therorists out there that think otherwise. Everything happend in
real world as it did in the movie as far as I am concerned. Remember I was
there and in the heat of things as this event took place. Watching the scope
as the planes were disapearing. Every little detail in the movie was factual
down to the water served on the planes. I can't say what happened at NORAD
but in the beginning when FAA said that light civilian aircraft hit the
Trade Center, well thats what my tower was telling us at the same time.
Searcher
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2006-04-28, 11:21 pm |
| the producers admit that the actors suggested likely dialogue etc.
there is / was no complete documentation of exactly what occured
fictionalized recreation of a sad tradgery for $
| |
| Shopdog 2006-04-28, 11:21 pm |
| Granted we will never know exactly what was said or happened on that flight,
BUT, you have to understand that many passengers were on phones at the time
and what had happend was told to family/friends/911 dispatchers and UAL base
operations, so we DO know alot of what occurred on the flight. Thats how the
movie was made based on reports that came directly from the aircraft in
flight.
Searcher
| |
|
|
Shopdog wrote:
> I don't feel any fiction was placed in the movie. Unless of course there is
> conspiracy therorists out there that think otherwise. Everything happend in
> real world as it did in the movie as far as I am concerned. Remember I was
> there and in the heat of things as this event took place. Watching the scope
> as the planes were disapearing. Every little detail in the movie was factual
> down to the water served on the planes. I can't say what happened at NORAD
> but in the beginning when FAA said that light civilian aircraft hit the
> Trade Center, well thats what my tower was telling us at the same time.
>
> Searcher
I haven't seen this movie but did see the A&E? version, how can you say
none of it was fictional? From what I saw the only "facts" that they
have are from a few cell phone calls.
Nobody lived to tell the *real* story.
| |
| Shopdog 2006-04-28, 11:21 pm |
| go back and read my last post..
Searcher
| |
|
|
Shopdog wrote:
> go back and read my last post..
>
> Searcher
Just did....The fact is, it was shot outta the sky by a missile from an
F-16 : )
| |
| Shopdog 2006-04-28, 11:21 pm |
| Sorry, lets look at facts. First the evidence: the plane how many pieces
were found? What size were they? what area were the aircraft pieces found
on?
Answers MANY pieces of aircraft were found over an area of lets say 10
acres, the pieces were all very small and unrecognizable as an aircraft. Now
lets look at weapons that can do this type of destruction to an airborne
aircraft and then have all the pieces land in a small area such as 10 acres.
Hold on I'm looking
Still looking
Still looking
Ah lets see here we go Um theres nothing , a missle laden F-16 has nothing
onboard that could destroy a commercial aircraft then make all the pieces
land in a specific area of that size.
BUT an aircraft at terminal velocity into the Earth will cause what we know
to have happened.
Searcher
| |
|
|
Shopdog wrote:
> Sorry, lets look at facts. First the evidence: the plane how many pieces
> were found? What size were they? what area were the aircraft pieces found
> on?
>
> Answers MANY pieces of aircraft were found over an area of lets say 10
> acres, the pieces were all very small and unrecognizable as an aircraft. Now
> lets look at weapons that can do this type of destruction to an airborne
> aircraft and then have all the pieces land in a small area such as 10 acres.
>
> Hold on I'm looking
>
> Still looking
>
> Still looking
>
> Ah lets see here we go Um theres nothing , a missle laden F-16 has nothing
> onboard that could destroy a commercial aircraft then make all the pieces
> land in a specific area of that size.
>
> BUT an aircraft at terminal velocity into the Earth will cause what we know
> to have happened.
>
> Searcher
I put a : ) there for a reason.
| |
| badgolferman 2006-04-28, 11:21 pm |
| Ron, 4/28/2006,9:36:54 PM, wrote:
>
> Shopdog wrote:
>
> Just did....The fact is, it was shot outta the sky by a missile from
> an F-16 : )
If you are going to state this as a fact then I ask you to present some
evidence.
| |
| RobertM 2006-04-29, 12:21 am |
|
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0elizm7dsl3a002@news.readfreenews.net...
> Ron, 4/28/2006,9:36:54 PM, wrote:
>
>
> If you are going to state this as a fact then I ask you to present some
> evidence.
I don't think it was stated as fact even though he used the word, "fact". I
understood the smiley
:-) as meaning he was not serious and was not presenting it as fact.
Bob
| |
|
|
RobertM wrote:
> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0elizm7dsl3a002@news.readfreenews.net...
>
> I don't think it was stated as fact even though he used the word, "fact". I
> understood the smiley
> :-) as meaning he was not serious and was not presenting it as fact.
>
> Bob
Thanks for taking care of my light-work, Bob.
| |
|
| I think it's sad. Sad that there are people who gulp up whatever scum
comes out of hollywood's teet.
I can understand the greed to make such a movie - but for someone to
pay to SEE it is beyond comprehension.
| |
| Banty 2006-04-29, 11:21 am |
| In article <1146275202.466662.58690@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ron says...
>
>
>Shopdog wrote:
>
>I put a : ) there for a reason.
>
No - "grin, duck, run"? 
I dunno, when I read that, I thought "yeah, he's kidding, but with sooo many
folks just totally geared to want to believe a conspiracy theory, especially
THIS one, I wouldn't have ventured that joke.."
So stop that or I'll take your tapes of the Making of the Moon Landing from you
;-)
Banty
--
| |
|
| On 29 Apr 2006 06:26:12 -0700, Banty <Banty_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <1146275202.466662.58690@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ron says...
>
>No - "grin, duck, run"?
>
>I dunno, when I read that, I thought "yeah, he's kidding, but with sooo many
>folks just totally geared to want to believe a conspiracy theory, especially
>THIS one, I wouldn't have ventured that joke.."
>
>So stop that or I'll take your tapes of the Making of the Moon Landing from you
>;-)
When I was hitchhiking in Mexico in late 1970 one of the guys who
picked me up said the thought the moon landing was shot in Alaska.
At the time, I thought it would be almost as hard to shoot up a rocket
and land in Alaska, as to do so on the moon, but as I get older, I
realize why he was so suspicious.
It would be even harder to take off from Alaska with that little
rocket, but maybe that part was animated.
>Banty
| |
|
|
First, in seriousness, I probably won't go see the movie, because I
have had enough troubles in the last 10 years and I don't want to
watch that of others. I already feel bad enough about those people,
and the others that day.
More below.
On 28 Apr 2006 19:49:26 -0700, "Ron" <BigELilE05@msn.com> wrote:
>RobertM wrote:
I took this as a joke, because of the smiley, but I probably would
have anyhow. I looked for a smiley, after I read the text.
OTOH, I've often said that smileys are not all-powerful. They can be
used to weaken an insult when the insult is still intended, and other
kinds of grin, duck, run that banty calls it.
OT3H, I don't like putting in smileys with some jokes. That's what
makes jokes funny, the double take that some rely on. I learned when
I was about 8 that if I had to get my mother to explain the joke, it
wasn't funny anyhow. It was only funny if I got it myself. Putting
in a smiley to tell people it's a joke, I think, takes most of the
humor out of it.
(btw, in the original, there were no spaces, just F-16 They just
showed up but I didn't put them in, but maybe my software did. I have
a feeling they won't be there after I post and read my own post.)
[color=darkred]
>
>Thanks for taking care of my light-work, Bob.
| |
| Doug Miller 2006-04-29, 6:21 pm |
| In article <ssh75253mq2v74uaq9r6j1c5elsgc2s2pb@4ax.com>, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>When I was hitchhiking in Mexico in late 1970 one of the guys who
>picked me up said the thought the moon landing was shot in Alaska.
That's ridiculous. Everybody knows it was filmed in Arizona.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
| |
| spartacus 2006-04-29, 7:21 pm |
| "hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in
news:1146273190.939704.318690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> I think it was too soon, and much was fiction anyway. they are trying
> to cash in on a tradgery.
>
> i doubt i will see it, not wanting to enrich them
>
Family members of the plane passengers said they approved of the movie.
| |
| Edwin Pawlowski 2006-04-30, 12:21 am |
|
"spartacus" <spartacus@nodule.spammer.net> wrote in message
news:4453d944$0$13346$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> "hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in
> news:1146273190.939704.318690@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Family members of the plane passengers said they approved of the movie.
If the story is done well and credible, it should be required viewing so
people truly understand what took place that day.
| |
| trader4@optonline.net 2006-04-30, 10:21 am |
|
JohnH wrote:
> I think it's sad. Sad that there are people who gulp up whatever scum
> comes out of hollywood's teet.
>
> I can understand the greed to make such a movie - but for someone to
> pay to SEE it is beyond comprehension.
There are two points of view to this. One is yours, that it's just
Hollywood making money, it's too soon after the event, and there are no
positives.
The other is that just about all the families of the victims, who were
consulted during filming of the movie, don't have a problem with it.
And it's important that people keep fresh in their minds what happened
to the US that day, so that the public realizes what more can happen to
us if we don't deal with the threats posed by radical Islamic
extremists. The movie does just that.
I say let everyone decide for themselves. Personally, I'm in no rush
to go see it. When it shows up on TV I may watch it. However I have
no problem with those that choose to go see it. And this certianly
isn't the first time Hollywood has made films depicting war related
events.
| |
| hallerb@aol.com 2006-04-30, 11:21 am |
| i think its just too soon, and besides much of it is fictionalized. we
know lets roll but most details are sketchy at best and likely few
recordings of peoples calls that have significant details.
if such documentation exists it would be interesting to compare them
with the movie for accuracy.
its not just islam idiots that aree the risk, any pervert can screw
with our world in many ways
|
|
|
|
|