Even though it's been 4 1/2 years since 9/11, I'm wondering if folks are quite ready to see a movie like this...the wounds for some are still too fresh.. What do you think?

Peace stepintov23:

what's sick about it?  90 percent of the movies we see are based on actual events that have happened.  This is just another actual event that happened.

peace

your sister

h

I really don't think we'll EVER know the truth.

"They were walking around here wanting celebrity treatment and thinking they were gonna call shots on the building of the new Trade Center."

Say WHAT??? I realize they're trying to make sure that something befitting their lost loved ones is built, but they really don't have a say in it.

(BTW, I'm sorry for your losses...)

Why would anyone think we wer immune to terrorist attacks ? The WTC was bombed in 1993, flight 800 was shot down by a missile, Oklahoma city was attacked by terrorists, both domestic and foreign.....only people with their heads in the sand thought were were immune.  the REAL problem is that had anyone...bush, Clinton, congress...done anything like the type of checking done at airports or anything that would impinge on freedoms (can you imagine the uproar from the left had we denied Arabs the right to attend flight schools in this country ?   "Racial profiling" would have been blasted on every front page).

Our real problem is that people are cowed by the extreme leftwing fringe into not protecting ourselves.   If they gain any real power, we can expect to see many such attacks.

Why would anyone think we wer immune to terrorist attacks ? The WTC was bombed in 1993, flight 800 was shot down by a missile.

True!

- Oklahoma city was attacked by terrorists, both domestic and foreign.

True again. But the whole foreign terrorist aspect of this attack was severely played down. The U.S. Gov worked diligently to squelch the notion that we were vunerable to an attack on U. S. soil by foreign terrorist. What was reported with any consistency- was information on Timothy...the person...the American. He was the focus...his profile was that of someone who had simply lost all touch with reality. Similar to the teens at Columbine (sp chk). His actions...albeit terrorist acts- were sanitized to the point of giving them the appearance of anything but terrorism.  The label of terrorist simply wasn't something that many associated with him because [or so I believe] there was no real fan fare that preceded his acts. 

Prior to 9/11 [and with exception to Pearl Harbor] there were no such attacks of this magnatiude. In truth- I've never heard of Pearl Harbor being referred to as a terroist attack. And in relationship to the other Super Powers of the World- the U. S. sent a clear and present message with the response to the attack on Pearl Harbor. A response that kept others in check. For lack of a better term...    

....only people with their heads in the sand thought were were immune.

Prior to 9/11 [and with exception to Pearl Harbor] there were no such attacks of this magnatiude. In truth- I've never heard of Pearl Harbor being referred to as a terroist attack. And in relationship to the other Super Powers of the World- the U. S. sent a clear message with the response to the attack on Pearl Harbor. A response that kept others in check. For lack of a better term...  

the REAL problem is that had anyone...bush, Clinton, congress...done anything like the type of checking done at airports or anything that would impinge on freedoms (can you imagine the uproar from the left had we denied Arabs the right to attend flight schools in this country ?   "Racial profiling" would have been blasted on every front page).

Here you go again with that leftwing/rightwing thing again. I know of more than a few right-wing thinking individuals who would have taken issue with the inconvenience of any real crack down with security measures during travel. Especially domestic travel... Your attempts at drawing such conclusions with such generalizations is part in parcel the problem. America, and Americans as a whole were/are vulnerable. And if one individual or group had determined that we were truly at risk of such an attack it was their duty as an American to bring it to the forefront of discussion. If another individual or group sat in disagreement- it was still the individual's/group's with proof that we were at risk duty to push their argument through. Regardless of the potential uproar!

Folks get it twisted with the inferences...and lumping together others [their ideologies, and principles] all on the basis of which political party they choose to support. My support of a particular political party- is never blind support. And will never be blind support. If it's wrong...it's wrong. I don't give a damn who presents the issue. Each party has something of value to say- what's key for those of us who care enough about the good of all America/Americans- is to review each side, and make intelligent decisions on individual [issues] basis. Making racial generalizations is equally as dangerous. But some will never get that! For them- what's important is to follow along blind making decisions, casting votes all because of what ONE party tells them to do. To that way of thinking I say- ignorance begets ignorance!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_UNITED_93_PREMIERE_BAOL-?SITE=NYNYD&SECTION=MIDEAST&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Apr 25, 6:06 PM EDT

Big-screen version of Sept. 11 hijacking premieres in Manhattan

By SARA KUGLER
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- The first few hours of the Sept. 11 attacks have been imagined and replayed countless ways in the minds of many, but on Tuesday a movie of that nightmare was to premiere on the big screen.

"United 93," the first feature film to dramatize the Sept. 11, 2001, story, was to open the Tribeca Film Festival, which was created to help downtown Manhattan heal after the disaster.

The 90-minute movie takes place in real time and portrays the gripping story of the flight that left Newark, N.J., and crashed in a Pennsylvania field after passengers rallied against their hijackers and tried to recapture control of the jet.

People who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center attack were expected to attend the Manhattan premiere, along with relatives of the 40 passengers and crew who died. Flight 93 was the fourth plane hijacked that morning, crashing near Shanksville, Pa., minutes after the first trade center tower collapsed in lower Manhattan.

In the film, the Flight 93 story is juxtaposed with that of the air traffic controllers, who watched with disbelief as four planes were seized and crashed by 19 terrorists. American Airlines Flight 11 slammed first into the north tower, United Airlines 175 hit the south tower and United 77 went down at the Pentagon.

Officials believe Flight 93 was headed for the White House or the Capitol. The film uses that to suggest that the passenger uprising might have saved lives - a subtle bright spot amid the heartstopping devastation.

Relatives of people who were on Flight 93 collaborated with writer-director Paul Greengrass to lend authenticity to the characters and story of the movie, which opens nationwide Friday.

For some, the reminders were too disturbing. A few theaters in the New York area pulled the film's trailer this spring after moviegoers complained about the upsetting images.

Greengrass and film festival founders acknowledge that the film stirs powerful emotions but say the Tribeca gathering is appropriate for its world premiere. The festival, which runs through May 7, was created to help lower Manhattan recover economically from the 2001 attacks.

"'(United) 93,' if it was not opening the festival, it would seem strange," said Robert De Niro, who lives and works in the neighborhood and co-founded the festival with his producing partner, Jane Rosenthal.

"You can't not be touched by it, honestly," De Niro said Monday. "It's direct, simple. It's important to see because it's kind of a playback of what happened."

You also have to remember that the media wa actively engaged in tell ing the American people that, with Bill Clinton in the WH, this country wa heaven on Earth, and talking about the vulnerability of this countr y to foreign attack would not have been in Clinton's best interest.....why do you think the media went along like sheep when the govt came up with that "tank exploded" nonsense ?    No one in the media bothered to investigate anything.....too bad Mike Wallace did not put the same effort into that story as he did trying to palm off the nonsense about Bush' military record.

We are still vulnerable, and I suspect that we are going to get hit again.