The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

anyone going to see it in theaters when it comes out

this is the description of the movie.   A drama that tells the story of the passengers and crew, their families on the ground and the flight controllers who watched in dawning horror as United Airlines Flight 93 became the fourth hijacked plane on the day of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil: September 11, 2001. 'United 93' recreates the doomed trip in actual time, from takeoff to hijacking to the realization by those onboard that their plane was part of a coordinated attack unfolding on the ground beneath them. The film attempts to understand the abject fear and courageous decisions of those who--over the course of just 90 minutes--transformed from a random assembly of disconnected strangers into bonded allies who confronted an unthinkable situation.

I'll be the first to see it.

hell no, what a fake piece of propoganda....the families and those passengers dont deserve this....

I normally love anything that's "Ra! Ra! USA! USA!".  But this movie seems a little strange to me.  How the hell do they know exactly what happened on that plane?

So it's really more of a fictional tale, loosely based off of actual events (like the plane crashing down, and that's about it)

they dont know what happened on the plane; they gave the director a LOT of liberty to do what he wished....and besides this movie being total bullshit, even if it were true, i think its WAY too soon for a movie to come out

I have zero interest in seeing this.  ...less than zero.  The trailer for it make me sick.  It's way too soon.  Waaaay too soon.

No way.  Money should never be made off this event, unless 100% of the profits are going to those victim's families.

After hearing and watching all of the conspiracies behind this event,  it kind of takes away from what this movie is supposed to be about.  Rendering it all fiction like Jtex and TBod said.

If this were the case, then Pearl Harbor, the San Francisco Earthquake, the John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations would be off limits, too.


So, Carlos, you now believe the "conspiracy" theories from the 911 Scholars for Truth or whatever they're called?  Yeesh.  They have some compelling arguments, maybe.  But fact?  I don't think so.

EDITED TO AMEND:  I am interested in watching this movie, but I think I'll find it emotionally overwhelming.  September 11, 2001 was probably the worst day of my life, and I wasn't even "directly" affected. (Don't go all political consequences on me, I mean that I wasn't anywhere near the action, and no one I knew died.)

Yes.  And a nice documentary (not from ST911) I recently saw with "evidence" helps too. 

Yeah, the 13-30 cell phone calls from Flight 93 probably didn't help investigaters/script-writers piece together/approximate what happened.

...supposedly

Really, dude?  So, what's the deal?  Our government did this so they could invade Iraq?  Is that the short of it?  They killed thousands of our people, threw our economy into a two-year free fall, which partially resulted in some of the greatest corporate scandals of the past fifty years, attacked their own military (?!?) so that oil prices would only go HIGHER, and somehow convinced Bin Laden to take credit for the attacks. ("hey, buddy, I know we're not pals or anything, but, uh, could you just take credit for blowing up the Twin Towers?  C'mon, Binny...be a pal...").  And all this was masterminded by the President that many people consider to be an idiotic imbecile?  Wait, I've seen this before...on this season of 24!

I don't mean to mock, but consider:  the documentary makers have their slant and bias.  They have the ability to present facts in whatever format they choose so as to be as convincing as possible, and they get the last word on any argument.  Before believing that a massive US conspiracy is behind September 11, independently research what you've read and seen.  There will be people out there that refute the "facts" you mentioned.  Are the documentary makers credible?

Would it help you, Carlos, if I told you my sister knew Mark Bingham?  I KNOW that part of the story's true, because I got to hear about it that same day, from my sister.

No interest in seeing this and I would be disappointed in anyone I know watching it as well.

Why disappointed?  If the subject matter is treated fairly (I understand that even the hijackers are "treated fairly"), and the person watching the movie is emotionally ready to handle it, I say go on and watch it.

Um, ok.

Dude, I'm not trying to convince you or any republican monk of anything,  so relax guy.  You asked, I responded.  If you want to know about the  "theories"  be my guest.  Although it's pointless because people like you won't hear of it and will always retaliate with "Why would they do this to our own people".  Who knows.  Some people believe in the bible,  some don't.  In this case,  I am a turned atheist.

Hey, from what you say, sounds like "24" got pretty interesting as of late.   ;)

'Los:
First: ya know I'm not a Republican, I'm an independent.  I hold no strong allegiance to one side or the other, evidenced by the fact that I have voted Republican, Democrat, and Independent in my 3 presidential elections. 
Second:  "Why would they do this to their own people" is not a dumb question.  It's THE question.  It's called motive.  Ask any cop and he (she) will tell you:  You want to peg someone for murder, it REALLY helps to have motive.  You've just up and decided that the U.S. Government killed a slew of its own people but apparently don't care to know why?  You call me a "Republican Monk" because I won't be swayed by ineffectual arguments that don't answer the difficult questions such as WHY.  You fall in line with gibberish thinking that purports to prove that we're our own enemies but gives no reason as to why our government, for one day, apparently declared war on its own citizens.  You see a grainy photo of a jet with a shadow underneath and see conspiracy.  A LONE witness describes a "windowless jet" striking one of the towers, but only he's heard because everybody else saw an airliner, so their story's not interesting.  And you buy this.
I don't dismiss the ST911 stuff because I'm a rah-rah American, I do so because it defies all logic.

Never called you a republican monk I know you aren't.  I said ..."OR ANY republican monk",  not "AND your republican monks". I tried to separate you and them,  dunno,  sounded right when I wrote it. 

Anyhoo,  the answer to your question IS there (according to their theories),  you just won't want to hear it,  because it's retarded to you. 

Because i feel the only reason it is being made so soon is to exploit the public and line the pockets of the film makers. That is just a personal opinion though.

Yeah, I can see that.  Maine mentioned that earlier, too.  I just don't know where that "line of demarcartion" lies.  Is it OK after 5 years?  10?  20?  I don't know.  As I said, I'll probably find it too tough to watch, but some may be ready. 

Not retarded; just really, really far-fetched.  Anyway, you know where I'm at with this, I know where you are, and we've known each other long enoug to know neither one of us id budging.  Let us never speak of this again!   :D

When I say it's too soon....I mean it's like 20 years too soon.

This story is fresh in our memories...we saw it unfold, through interviews and stuff on the news.  ...and the conflict is still ongoing.  I am not even healed from this event yet, and I am not involved.  I can only imagine what it's like for people who actually are close to the tragedy.

yeah the cell phone calls that were made, because on that day the laws of physics were suspended (this would be the only possible explanation as to all of the events according to the "official story".  we ALL know cellys dont work on airplanes ::)

That depends on what level the plane is at. Once you drop below a certain altitude they do work.

Here's the thing about the great quake (San Fran), Titanic, other older disasters -

One:  those were either natural or mistake (Titanic).  Those were what is paramount to murder.  Two, those events are so long in the past - who would the proceeds go to help?

9/11 was our generation.  If this movie were made 50 years from now I wouldn't be as concerned with the profits.  But it's still so close that it feels like a direct attempt to exploit what are still super raw emotions from that terrible day.  So make the movie - and line the families pockets.  There are kids growing up without parents because of that flight, husbands without wives, wives without husbands, etc.  There are still people that could benefit from that financial help.  My humble, honest opinion.  No one else should make money off this event.

I hope Michael Moore gave back every last cent he pocketed after Fareinheight 9/'11, because a lot of people went to see that.

Hell yeah, I'm going to see it. Maybe even twice. I'll buy it on DVD. WHy? I want this movie to be a blockbuster. I want certain Americans to pull their heads out of the sand and remember the reason we are in the War on Terror.

He sure did!  He helped revitalize the economy by spending every last penny at McDonalds!

Try reading the "official" story someplace other than a conspiracy website.

Another conspiracy theory based on misinformation.
(http://phinzmania.com/forums/Smileys/default/rofl.gif)

riiiiiiight.....the "9/11 commision report" that has SO many holes, lies, and unanswered questions, and was written by a group of hand-picked bush-ites, after they were beaten and had lawsuits filed against them to force them to look into it....and the companies hired to provied the "research" and "facts" were all recipients of massive gov't grants and contracts.....you're right....i guess it all HAS to be true just cuz they say so!

I really have no interest at all in watching this movie.

...and I really don't believe that our government set anything about 9/11 up...they just screwed up the response on a major scale.

Hand picked Bush-ites? Are you kidding me? That commision ripped President Bush, Condeleeza Rice, etc apart. That commision was made up of Democrats who were hell bent on doing what couldnt be done in 2000 and 2004. President Bush wanted to hold off on the commision and the Democrats nailed him to the wall in the media.

If there is a conspiracy, I guess it is real. Its 100% real to you in your mind, and no where else.

Do you ever do any research yourself or do you just rely on conservative talk shows to force feed answers to you? That was a bipartisan commission (five Republicans & five Democrats) with the chairman being a Republican. Thomas Kean (the chairman) was appointed by Bush himself, so don't give me that crap about the commission being made up of Democrats.

Actually, I recall seeing them throw Rice under the bus on CNN. They grilled her, and interrupted her, and made personal attacks, and everyone in attendance gave them a standing ovation. Maybe I was wrong about the bi partisan commision, but I was not wrong about them raking Rice and Bush over the coals. That was on CNN, and they were praising them for doing it.

I don't have much of a problem with conspiracy theories about 9/11, there just hasn't been any evidence FOR it that I have seen that is anything more than tinfoil hat.

Ok, I did some research on the commission. It was a while ago, and I did forget some things.

Research on this bipartisan commitee...

Jamie Gorelick... You  probably know that she was an Assistant Attorney General in the Clinton Administration  And .. you might know that she is the Clinton official who wrote that memo that pretty much eliminated any possibility that the CIA and the FBI would cooperate and share intelligence on terrorism.  But .. do you know why Gorelick wrote this memo?  Simple.  To protect Clinton from an investigation into Chinese involvement in his campaign finance scandal.


Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey asked Dr. Rice why there had been no response to the attack on the USS Cole...Uhh...If memory serves, that happened under Bill Clinton's term. Why the hell didnt Slick Willy do anything about it? But On the floor of the U.S. Senate, on October 19, 2000, immediately following the attack on the Cole, Bob Kerrey said:

"In my opinion [the attack on the Cole] is part of a military strategy designed to defeat the United States as we attempt to accomplish a serious and vital mission.  I hope we will direct the anger and desire for vengeance we feel away from Yemen and towards Saddam Hussein ... I can think of no more fitting tribute to the 17 sailors lost on-board the Cole than completing our mission and helping the Iraqi people achieve freedom and democracy."


Lee Hamilton..."We feel there's a real urgency here," said Hamilton, who has argued before that Congress and President Bush are not moving fast enough to protect the nation from terrorist attack..(we could move faster if these jackasses would stop slandering our military.)

Once the commission held hearings, it was the partisan liberal Democrats like Richard Ben-Veniste, Jamie Gorelick and Timothy Roemer that carried the water for the DNC and the Kerry campaign in nailing the Bush administration to the wall.  Clinton was in office for 8 years before the attacks and Bush 8 1/2 months...but we all know who they were blaming

Maybe that's why I forgot it was bi partisan. All the lies and flip flopping by the 5 democrats, it sure didnt seem bipartisan.

And, want to know what really caused 9/11?

Here's a timeline....

PRESIDENT CARTER, DEMOCRAT

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

PRESIDENT REAGAN, REPUBLICAN

The day of Reagan's inauguration, the hostages were released.

In 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Muslim extremists.

President Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Beirut.

In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by Muslim extremists.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

PRESIDENT BUSH I, MODERATE REPUBLICAN

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, DEMOCRAT

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

Months later, Saddam attacked the Kurdish-controlled city of Erbil.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

In October 2000, our warship, the USS Cole, was attacked by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Dick Clarke, did nothing.

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, REPUBLICAN

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

The glaring sarcasm in lines such as "damaging a camel and an aspirin factory" show that is as much propoganda as fact. Do you have a source for this wonderful piece?

Oh, so if sarcasam is involved, it is propaganda? You want a source for everything I listed? It will take a while, but I'll do it.

This was in a search engine for August 20, 1998, and it was from a Yahoo news story. The link and header was there, but the story was likely taken down years ago.

http://dc.yahoo.com/external/wjla/feature/19980821.html


Shall I continue digging?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

Whoever hasn't made up their mind about it already,  and can kill about an hour, sit back and watch.  Please no flamin' on me,  I'm just a messenger.  You make up your own mind about it.  We all have our own beliefs,  and we're all still brothers as Dolphins fans here.  Let's keep it like that.   :)

^^^

No worries here. I have nothing against anybody who thinks differently than me. I can get heated, but I try not to stoop to name calling or anything like that.

As far as I'm concerned, we'll all tailgate at the Vikings game, hope it gets moved to Sunday night, eat hot wings and drink beer. I won't talk politics there. Dont worry. lol

The USA captured about 36,000,000 pages of Iraqi documents. Having roughly only 190 translators, that works out to 180,000 pages per translator.

Overwhelmed, the government posted documents on the internet (Boston Globe article (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/03/18/us_puts_iraqi_documents_on_the_web/)). 

People have been translating them.  Since they support just about everything Bush said the mainstream media isn't covering the story.

links on Free Republic (http://www.freerepublic.com/~jveritas/)

Translators personal blog (http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/)

Remember this?  What they're REALLY saying. (http://www.memri.org/)

I totally agree there.  It's not the horrific event that the movie depicts that is the cause for controversy.  It is the fact that the movie was made such a short time after the event took place. 

^^^

5 years? How long is long enough? Who are you to say what is long enough? I think that people want to forget, and this movie is going to remind lots of people. If you're genuinely not over the shock yet, and this movie would reopen a wound, don't go see it. Some people have already forgotten who was responsible for this. What about the people who died? Where's the cries of foul when it comes to all these conspiracy theorists? If you think that these people who put this stuff together arent making money off it, you're sadly mistaken.

<cough> Michael Moore <cough>

The people who were on that flight are heroes. Not telling their stories would be disrespect.

Their story has been told -- on the news and editorial shows.  If this were a documentary on the History Channel or something, I'd be fine with it.

I don't have a problem that it's being made, really.  I don't think it's disrespectful, so much, as that I'm personally not done healing to re-open that wound yet.  I saw a preview for it in the theater and it literally made my stomach turn.

This isn't 5 years old, anyway....even though the hijackings occured then, it's not like we knew everything there was to know on the first day.  ...who was responsible, etc...  It was pieced together over time and the story was unfolding for years.  And it's still ongoing, in my opinion.  Even thought this one incident is over, we're still fighting a war over it.

Frimp, if you think that us liberals need a reminder of why we're at war...we don't.  We know what happened and are as distrought about it as conservatives are about it.  We just see the resolution coming from a different direction.

This isn't a liberals/conservatives thing.  It's a movie. 

I understand that it is a movie. I would never judge anyone for anything. When I made the comment "certain people" the only people I was pointing the finger at were the polititions and media who attempted to pin this on President Bush.

My whole stand on this is as I said before...If you don't think you're ready to see the movie, then don't see it. Some of us are ready to see it, and want to. The only people I see opposing this are attempting to censor it, and say that it is wrong. Why should anyone tell me what I'm ready to see?

If they made a movie based on the conspiracy theory, I wouldn't see it, but I wouldn't tell anyone else that they couldn't see it.

We are all Americans here, and we all are allowed and encouraged to think for ourselves as well as disagree.

(http://67.18.37.14/55/133/emo/clap.gif)

I'm not saying it wouldn't, but look how long it took them to make a movie about Pearl Harbor in comparison to 9-11.  A lot of people around me are the types where their wounds are too fresh.

"Remember Pearl Harbor" 1942
“December 7, 1941”  1943
"From Here to Eternity"  1953
"In Harms Way"  1965
"Tora! Tora! Tora!" 1970

There's quite a few more.

Why is the most controversial aspect of 9/11 coming out first? If any came out it should have been about the 300+ first responders who died trying to save thier bretheren. At least there isn't any false BS propaganda tied behind it. "Lets Roll" anyone? The FBI ignored all the eyewitnesses reports of a smaller aircraft flying behind flight 93 and hearing and seeing an explosion before the plane went down. The best eyewitness the FBI puts up before the public as proof, originally stated he saw another plane behind flight 93 and only after he was "taken" away for further debriefing by FBI agents did he change his story to the current one. Lets not forget the fact the voice/data recorder quit a couple of minutes before the impact was registered by seismic equipment in the area. The recorders only quit due to a massive system wide electronic failure. Also talking about cell phones, why has the call that was recorded to a 9-11 operator in which the caller says he sees a smoke trail as if a missile is headng towards them and them silence been bried?
Look I don't care if our government shot this plane down to prevent it from hitting another target, but I am pissed at the whole truth not being put out to the country. If we did indeed shoot it down, then this doens't lessen the tragedy or the fact they they may have been trying to regain control of the plane.
Also to those of you who think we need constent reminders of who attacked us, chill the fuck out. This attack was the results of the decisions/failures of several administrations going back decades. We are paying and fighting for decisions made years ago, you could even say back to post WWII and the Israel/Palestine issue and our stances on it. You can't address the current conflict today without looking to its roots, and trying to prop up a psuedo democracy isn't going to quench terrorists in that region, it may in fact increase it, as the countries that provide the most support, funding, training are still up and running. But hey go ahead and believe that the trickle of support Iraq provided to terrorist organizations is gong to slow them down now that we have toppeled Saddam.

I heard alot of things that day. Still, I believe that if these "alternative stories" had any truth, the lamestream media would be running these stories 24 hours a day. Look at what CBS did with those Microsoft Word documents from 1970, and that was false.

If there was a way to tear President Bush down, the media would be salivating. This if true would do the trick for them.

I honestly think that I would respect our military's decision to shoot down that plane. I know a lot of people would not agree and would think I am crazy (especially since I am seen as liberal) but a move like that could sve many more lives than it cost.

While I don't think that the plane was shot down, I would understand and support the decision as a last resort.

I saw a review of this movie and they said it was very well done -- no commentary about anything....no statements...it doesn't build up any characters.  It doesn't have any stories.  It is neither pro or anti Bush.  ...neither pro nor anti-war.

I am glad that this is not "hollywood".  I am still not ready to watch this movie, but at least it's done tastefully.

I'm glad it doesn't go one way or the other.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the movie a bit. It is not a documentary and is about the flight, correct? How then could it be about Bush bashing? At that particular time in our country's history we were no where near as divided as we are currently.

Unless the story covers something other than the actual flight, I don't see how it could be politicized.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47730

I keep hearing all hese people saying how we have forgotten what happened that day, and who did it, yet I have seen no proof to back these ludicrious claims up. I would like to see them back these assinine assertions up with evidence. While there is a portion of this country who couldn't find Iraq, or Afghanistan on a map, or much less spell them, you would be hard pressed to find a large portion of citizens who have forgotten who turned civilian aircraft into weapons.