It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I’ve said all along that I don’t know how I’ll feel about this movie until I see it for myself. But from what I have heard and can see now it appears that they have at least done it with dignity and honour and aren’t pushing sensationalism. I think it will be a while before we see 9/11 producer character of moral abiguity. Although isn’t there a Maggie Gyllenhaal movie where she plays a 911 widow who spends all the money…? Or am I imagining things.
I wanna know if the transcripts that have recently been released were released to the filmmakers beforehand. If so there’s a fact that will be glaringly ignored (i haven’t read the transcripts so I don’t know how specific they are). But, still…
Camel, I think a film such as this does not need one to hesistate to state something, in fear that it might be a spoiler. So if you can explain that last sentence, then it would be appreciated. With this film, I watched the Kiefer narrated film/family member involved Flight 93. While, that film, remained even more depressing due to the family members being involved, and sharing the stories of those on the plane. Something still gets to me about the valor of those passengers. Which, while I am not looking forward to this film, that part of this story might get me into the theatre to see how Greengrass puts it on screen.
Du?o rozumiem :].
I am evil because I have no interest at all in any of these 9/11 movies? I’m all 9/11’d out, have been for a couple years now.
they blew it by not having Steven Seagal in this film. Once again Dave hedges his bets and gives us a non-review. What was the point of this article and how was it different from the last piece we had up on Flight 93? You dishonor the dead by milking this – tell us about the film please.
Yeah, I had to read this article very carefully to find the buried opinion in it, which I think is “it’s not bad but it’s not great either’. This is Jeff Wells’ fault for springing his early review and making Poland need to respond.
TheManWho I meant that the recently released transcripts may state something as fact that the filmmakers didn’t know about and so now it’s gonna be like “well, that’s not true”
Between this “Hey-I’ve-seen-the-movie-and-you-haven’t” non review and Wells’ “All UNITED 93 all the time” stance on his site, I am quickly getting to the “I don’t give a flying fuck” about this film. Wasn’t the time to discuss whether or not it was too soon for 9/11 movies when they announced production?
I would say that “they” said to themselves, “five years is enough time.”
And as I wrote – which was the point of writing this entry – I think the people who were least ready to do this were the filmmakers, who clearly felt forced to pull punches out of respect… good for the families, not as good for the drama.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some young, brash German director did this story next year, loaded with the tricks of a thrill ride, and had a big hit overseas only to be attacked by Americans for having made the film.
Paul Greengrass is trying to stay true to what’s on record, including whatever gaps forced him to use conjecture, so it sounds like Poland is asking that we rewrite history to make it more ambiguous or classically dramatic. The fact that he concedes a need to see it again attests to some power the film had, as well as the fact that he wrote his review “too soon.”
I hope I can handle this one, because I really like Greengrass’ “Bloody Sunday” … I guess it will at least be impossible to be neutral about it
I must say reguardless of the film being early for Americans, Greengrass did stick to his priniciples and respected the families wishes while making the film. I do feel that the movie is not too early but at perfect time because it gives Americans a chance to relive a moment of honor, courage, and facing fear in a time of chaos. This film will show Americans the true meaning of courage, and thats what America is about and we as Americans should learn from those who really showed us the reality of showing courage in times of peril.
Doesn’t anyone see this as propaganda?
Was there anyone on that plane who survived, who we can talk to about what actually happened on that plane? If not, this is just a way to stick a knife in the emotional heart of America and only serves to distract American people from finding out the truth.
Ignore this film and it will go away. Do not throw your money at this.
To actually watch it as entertainment without demanding a real investigation is a sad state of affairs.
Ask questions about the media.
Just because its on film, or tape, or whatever, doesn’t make it legit.
The digital age has changed the validity of the message.
History can, and is, being re-written.
Get Wise to the tools, before the tools get wise to you.
Peace
Is it your (Luvul’s) belief that the events depicted in the film are suspect? I personally disagree for the simple fact that on that particular day, it did not seem like the American govt. was capable of getting anything done, much less orchestrate a cover-up.
The film may or not be propaganda even if it depicts events exactly as they happened; that’s the filmmaking art. Greengrass has so far proven himself able to make films that don’t cater to the lowest common denominator, so the film’s value remains to be seen. But the point is, he deserves the chance.
“History can, and is, being re-written.”
This is a true statement.
How do you know it is not you who is re-writing it?
I bet he started to rub his chin and stare into the abyss when he read that.
“Was there anyone on that plane who survived, who we can talk to about what actually happened on that plane? If not, this is just a way to stick a knife in the emotional heart of America and only serves to distract American people from finding out the truth.”
If they’re all dead, then it will be pretty hard to find the truth as well. We have the cockpit recording, which as far as I know corroborates what United 93 will generally be about.
Who is making money on this? This is sick and explotation of the worst kind – why can’t this guy just make some decent porn instead – at least the exploited are getting paid that way.
This movie deserves a chance; we don’t know if it’s cheap exploitation yet, and Greengrass certainly has enough credibility to be have made an honest piece of art. Peoples’ feelings are blinding them here.
Thank you for taking the time to raise important points about the “mythology” of the United 93 film to be released April 28.
We can agree that the re-creation of the events as depicted in the film can only be based on the thinnest of conjecture. Although many Americans hold a strong EMOTIONAL belief in the possible heroism displayed by the passengers, more and more Americans are waking up to a FACT-BASED belief that what happened to Flight UA93 is far different than the account given to us in this film, by the media, by the 9/11 commission, or the recent trial.
Let me point out some major problems with the 93 story:
1) there is NO PLANE at the alleged crater site in Shanksville
2)there are NO ARAB NAMES on the Flight 93 manifests
3) UA 93 was reported to have LANDED in Cleveland (announced by United Airlines)
4) the phone call record is fraught with contradictions and absurdities — see the result of years of important work by JohnDoeII and other careful 9/11 researchers below.
http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1212
—
It is highly probable that the 9/11 attacks were an INSIDE JOB perpetrated by CRIMINALS WHO HAVE YET TO BE IDENTIFIED. Unless we can explain why a 47 story skyscraper fell to the ground in a controlled-demolition style — WTC7 — and a hundred other massive, glaring, anomalies of the 9/11 ‘myth’ — we must continue to regard the 9/11 story — and this film — as nothing more than mythology. Perhaps entertaining cinema — but based on the most massive fraud that the american people have been subjected to.
For those unfamiliar to false-flag terror operations, I suggest you read the Operation Northwoods document:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood
or see the LooseChange video by Dylan Avery and Korey Rowe.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
Thanks again,
Jack D. Yolam
Does anyone buy any of this?
Interesting theory…but how does it apply to United 93? Does that mean the people on that flight were rebelling against the U.S. government?
For those keeping count, THR reports that 10% of the opening weekend gross for U93 will go to a memorial fund. Is Uni doing enough to keep the “exploitation” accusers at bay?
The sad thing about conspiracy theorists is that, because they are not based in empirical reality…they cannot be debunked with ration, logic and reason.
Conspiracy theories are rooted in paranoia, ignorance and predjudice.
Every extreme situation may have some elemental factor that does not conform to standard logic.
It is those elements that the conspiracy theorists latch onto to prove their point. There are people that really do believe that Paul McCartney is dead.
With regards to Flight 93 or 9/11, this is like JFK, the DaVinci Code or the Illuminati.
If people choose to believe it, you cannot tell them otherwise.
Look at people like Alex Jones or listen to George Noory late at night.
People can only hear truth when they are ready to hear truth. Until then, all the logic in the world will not affect them.
Again, based on everything I have read, it seems like Greengrass has really achieved excellence with this. A film about 911 that both the left and right can appreciate.
Matt Zoller Seitz’s review in the NY Press is an interesting non-rave:
http://www.nypress.com/19/17/news&columns/MattZollerSeitz.cfm
But I agree with Nicol: we all want to see the truths that are most in-line with our own previously determined belief systems. Personally, I don’t believe any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories because I don’t believe in the govt’s competency on that day. JFK is another story 🙂
Saw the Loose Change video and found it very compelling…in the same way I found the Dave Chappelle conspiracy compelling (ie freaky but not totally believable). It is presented with lots of facts thrown out like, well, loose change. The problem is that most of its arguments are rhetorical (if the government had nothing to hide, why don’t they prove us wrong?), not logical. In the end, few official explanations would satisfy this lot.
I have alot of comments about the day Flight 93 had to offer to me & few of my friends & family in my hometown of Philipsburg-Osceola, Pennsylvania, USA. Around the time Flight 93 was chartered from New York to Los Angeles between 8am-3pm in that range, the flight was sidewinded to New Jersey, then over flown passed Philadelphia, and overtook passed my hometown over the Clearfield/Centre Counties, which thank the lord they didn’t land here. But the reason I wanted to add that in there, was before it had to make a clean sweep to what could have been Camp David, The White House, or most of Washington, D.C., landed no closer to what is about 4-7 hours away from home. I have a very excellent detail as to what the full aspects of the day of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, goes, and how it effected the town that I live. At the time, I was in 10th grade, and I only had 9 good days of the school year put in, and when this happened, it was more pandemonium then there, then it was in New York, Somerset County (Franksburg), & Washington, D.C., put together. Most of my peirs wanted to breakout of the building so they could run home & hide, while others were in a state of fear, & on this day, was the very first time I took a look at the world around me, and saw what chaos, destruction, & violent terror had this world had to deal with. I said to myself, “I can’t believe I’ve wasted 2years, 8months, 2weeks, & 3days of my life on my GameBoy, just to think that the world would be the same as always, when our country is in total panic, and I’d bury what time to look for 251+ game characters, while my life was in jeopardy.” That is what I really said on that day, and I took a fragment of my life as if it was a joke. So as I get back on the subject of others than myself, my best friend Eric, who was with me at the time, back in his Senior Year, on that day at lunchtime. He had a very profound site of shock & total focus. Were my friend Ken had a different lunch schedule, & my other friend (to whom I’d know better until College) Cory, he had no Vocational Study today, and he was speechless, & rather upset in the long run. Most of my classes from Science (to where it all started), to Choices & Economical Studies, to English 2, to Gym which we stood in the locker room the whole time, as a form of hiding in a fallout shelter, to Health, to Geometry, & finally Band, which I’m a percussionist, we had done nothing in school the whole day, other than Homeroom & U.S. History 2, it was a day that would infest my mind forever. The worst part of leaving school that day, was the thought of staying inside so there was nothing to worry about, walking outside my house & find a rouge mercenary of hire to off me & my family, or the true fact of the matter, was actually watching alot of news reporters talking about how much disaster there was in the 3 locations of the Eastern Time Zone. Every channel, except Nickelodeon (Slime Time Live was cancelled due to this), Disney, & Cartoon Network (which shown DragonBallZ with the episode that debuted that day called “The Other World Tournament”), in my prior knowledge had the fastest documentaries on people who faced death head on, while others survived. But when I was going to the store with my parental advisory, IT WAS TOTAL ANARCHY, in which people had absolutely no idea what they’re doing. It was like trying to stock up for Y2K all over again, but with a sense of awareness. Heading home, & with a bit of look out in our way, this day was the most depressing event I’ve ever witnessed. I just about told how this day affects me & those around, instead of the Flight 93 tragedy. But this is was just an in-depth view of one person’s sight to a day that shattered his sense of trust, disbelief, & a few shots of nerd-like retrospect in his life. My quote is this. “Some people can trust other strangers of certain cultural boundaries, and give them the gift of gold. While strangers of different political views turn that of what we give, into that of heartbreak & depression. As hard as other international problems start, other countries later take the blame for what the one did. As much as how we try to make peace with one country, others lead them astray, and say we’re giving them the short end of the rope. Even 1 of 7 areas of the world can say we’re not perfect, while 5 of 7 say they want the same justice, but abuse the power to do it, and the other 1 of 7 is nothing but what is compared to a future of frozen silence & limited activity. In the first year of the millennium, the country of free speech was in trouble, but as the 9th year comes around, the terror will vanish, and someone of greater & popular power will ascend and keep order in not only our own, but those of the outside, and for that, about 4/5 of the decade was lost, due to a 23rd initial point of hierarchy, that was compared to an infantile mind, that had the same IQ of that being his next number in line, while somebody he really knows, was 2 steps back of being the square root of 1681.” But I’m starting to waste your time, or if any, made you upset at what I said, or made you laugh at any unintelligible nonsense I thought was an opinion to the last part of 9/11. Anyway, thank you for your time, and patience, if any, and have a great life.
West Decatur, PA, USA
Jon V., Age 20
Hang on, are there really that many people who buy ANY of the “Let’s Roll” myth?
Someone shot Flight 93 down, kids.
There’s no other way to explain the fact that the plane was pulverized. Crashed jets don’t disintegrate into a big black smudge. You’ve watched enough news clips over the years to realize that, right?
And in 2001 cell phones didn’t function at 30,000 ft. – do people really and truly forget that? or are they just so desperate to be dupes? They just didn’t work, you couldn’t place such a call, period. The equipment wasn’t in place. How else can I put it? No one alive today can claim to have successfully placed a cell phone call in the United States from a aircraft flying above 15,000 before around mid-year 2003.
I find it sad, finally, to note that the only 9/11 “black boxes” officially recovered came from flight 93.
No blackboxes from the WTC strikes, none from the Pentagon hit – but from an otherwise vaporized Flight 93? Sure: and here it is.
And so about a year and a half after the “crash,” the federal government dutifully trots out that wonderful black box and, in a no-press venue, they play it for the families of Flight 93’s passengers – and would you believe it? The families of the victims say that recording up and confirms every scrap of media-mythologizing built up around Flight 93 since the fateful day itself. Uncanny. Let’s roll! America the beautiful where even a planeload of half-awake middle thwart the schemes of Al Qaeda – or was it Iraq? Iran? Evildoers, anyway.
God bless those who passed away that day. May the cause of their deaths come to light, and their murderers be brought to justice.
Well, if I remember correctly, the black box actually confirmed that the passengers were not able to breach the cockpit, which was a pretty big repudiation of the conventional wisdom.
David O., are you actually saying that the loved ones on the ground who took those cell phone calls are lying, and that they organized these massive lies within only a few hours of the crash? The government can’t figure out an exit strategy for Iraq, but it can pull off the most massive, airtight conspiracy involving hundreds of normal families the world has ever seen?
I can not account for those “who took those phone calls,” as you put it.
I just know that the calls they claim to have received were not placed from a commercial aircraft flying at or around 30,000 ft.
Just look at the wreckage of Flight 93 and then compare it to other crashes, even those from great heights – it’s a grease mark, a charred smudge.
Flight 93 was blown up. I don’t know how or why or by whom.
David O,
Can you please tell us what you do believe happened to Flight 93 and why?
James is right. Do you suggest a conspiracy amongst every person who says they received a call?
What about the voices on the box? Are these all actors in an elaborately raised hoax?
If so, did they have to pay union dues to SAG?
Please tell us more as to who you think the ‘murderers’ were. Obviously you do not think it was Al Qaeda…who do you suggest and why?
Don’t give him a platform or any attention, it just feeds the delusion.
I did a little research, I’m guessing that what David O is hinting at is the theory that the plane was shot down by a fighter jet. Don’t be coy, man, if you’re going to crawl out of the woodwork for your single-issue posting, spell it out!
I would guess that if the wreckage looks different from most plane crashes, it’s because in most crashes the pilot is deliberately trying to maintain hull integrity and save the aircraft, as opposed to plowing full-speed, head-on, into the ground.
Guys, it’s all in that Loose Change video which Mr. Poland even provided the link to in his email of the day part of his column. As I posted, it’s pretty entertaining stuff. Really, if you really want to debunk these theories, then at least know what they are arguing.
For example, the conspiracy is not that the families are lying, but that the voices those families heard on the cell phone were voice imitations created by technology from Los Alamos.
“Really, if you really want to debunk these theories, then at least know what they are arguing.”
I do not believe it is up to us to debunk them. The onus is on the conspiracy theorist to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the conspiracy took place.
That means answering plenty of our questions. I am not going to do their work for them…nor should I.
For too long the conspiracy theorists (hey you Mr. Moore) get a free ride in our culture while others spend too much time explaining truth to people who do not want to hear it.
Of course most of these theorists would rather speak in vagaries because once they say what they believe in words…they sound like the paranoid delusionals they are (hey you Mr. Moore).
I find it interesting that if you go to the website for Rush Limbaugh today he has on it an endorsement for United 93 and an interview with the director Paul Greengrass, who is a liberal.
If you go to ‘man of the people’ Michael Moore’s website, you’ll find an endorsement for Neil Young’s song Impeach the President and V for Vendetta.
Shouldn’t ‘man of the people’ Michael Moore be the one talking about United 93? If he is ‘man of the people’ after all.
Peter Howell’s article today in the Toronto Star that is linked to on MCM is wonderful at taking down some Moore myths re: Bush. And Howell doesn’t even like Bush…he just refuses to reduce him to a stereotype of evil and stupidity. I recommend reading it.
“That means answering plenty of our questions. I am not going to do their work for them…nor should I.”
Nicol, sounds very similar to people not wanting to look into the theories you were suggesting. All I’m saying is that the conspiracy theorists are making a specific case with very specific evidence, not vagaries, as evidenced in the film (which is about 80 minutes and about 10 minutes on flight 93). If you want your questions answered, then watch it (there’s a link in a post above).
Faulty logic again. How does Moore _not_ having a review of a movie prove that he’s not a ‘man of the people’? I’m not the biggest Moore fan, but what kind of ridiculous standard is he being held to? Anyway, V for Vendetta grossed over $70m, so it’s hardly an obscure indie film.
Section 3 up above is amusing considering all the times Nicol has been asked to provide links or evidence to back up his statements and has demurred, using “if you’re really interested, you’ll do the research yourself” excuse.
Whoops, Palmtree, you beat me to it.
I seem to remember a certain crash site from the Value Jet crash in Florida several years ago. Certainly didn’t look like any sort of plane crash. If the plane was flown full speed into the group on purpose there certainly wouldn’t be anything to see. Most plane crashes have occured with pilots attempting to stop the crash from happening, not helping the crash occur.
I never said I did not watch Loose Change.
Using logic when reading my post would have allowed that to be seen.
As for Moore…I am not going to make a big deal about it. Either you get it or you do not.
Obviously, you do not.
When in doubt, belittle your opponent, but make sure to do it in a snobbish, nose-upturned way, it’s less crude and it makes you feel superior.
Based on the questions you were asking about the conspiracy theory, it was more than a little obvious you didn’t watch it or know an inkling of what was actually being argued. I came to that conclusion using logic.
Remember one of the first things they teach students in law school…never ask a question you do not know the answer to.
This is not a court of law, Nicol. Your constant habit of asking rhetorical questions to which you already ‘know’ the answers is the primary cause of my perception of you as smug, arrogant, and intellectually shifty.
“…my perception of you as smug, arrogant, and intellectually shifty.”
Really? Based on your posts I would describe you as…
…cuddly, warm, effervescent, always humble and definitely the smartest man in the room!
That’s good, now you’re not acting like a prig.
Seriously, though, Socratic monologues are not the best way to make friends and influence people. If you really want people to think about your views, I strongly recommend different tactics.
“Remember one of the first things they teach students in law school…never ask a question you do not know the answer to.”
How wrong of me to assume you’d ask a question to learn something new. I should know better.
“Seriously, though, Socratic monologues are not the best way to make friends and influence people. If you really want people to think about your views, I strongly recommend different tactics. ”
I am just not the genius that you are Jeff. Please understand, we cannot all be as witty and wise as you. You emanate a warmth, knowledge and wisdom I can only hope to attain in my lifetime.
Tell me…should I try to emulate you more when we discuss things?
I’ll try to be more like you in our next exchange. Look for it.
I’m being serious now, although I’m also repeating stuff I’ve said before. You’re a smart guy, Nicol, but your rhetorical strategy is alienating to people, because I have never seen you approach a subject in a direct, honest, inquisitive way. If you don’t like me, that’s fine, but if you’re honestly interested in trying to challenge other peoples’ beliefs then you need to try a little more sugar and a little less lofty rhetoric.
I look forward to your savage mockery of myself and my style.
I should add that I’m pretty sure I would say the same things to you regardless of the political spectrum. There are others on the blog I have argued strongly with who have been to the left of me. You missed a nice big argument about a year ago about conservative films vs. liberal films where I argued with the legendarily liberal Chester.
Seriously Jeff…read your posts. Those in glass houses man…those in glass houses.
…you really do not see the irony in you telling me I have to be ‘warm’ before calling me ‘smug’ and ‘arrogant’ do you?
You really do not at all see that while my posts may be fused with a deliberate detachment when discussing controversial topics, yours are laced with sarcasm and condescension.
…you really do not at all get the joke when I say you are warm and cuddly do you?
I suspect in real life you use sarcasm to cut down people a lot.
It doesn’t work on me and you see that as arrogance. When you say you have ‘won’ a discussion you really think I should slink away and defer.
…those in glass houses man…those in glass houses.
Thanks for all your comments.
The Bush admin has been caught in so many lies so far that I’m amazed that anyone believes the official story let alone accepts the incompetence explanation.
If there was no plane to recover then where did the black box come from?
Is the movie based on a black box tape? How do we know the tape is legit (since these people have been caught deceiving us so much already)? And how can that be considered sufficient enough material to base the entire script on?
I still feel that United 93 is total propaganda!
I believe the conspiracy theories are coming from the government. This film is another conspiracy theory.
Does anyone know where Greengrass got the information to create this script? Once you release this kind of stuff to the American public a certain gullible portion of the audience will see it as the truth.
American movies are constantly taking historical events and changing the historical context to suit their storytelling purposes. It
I feel like I’m actually getting through to you, finally. It’s the mutual condescension society!
What I see in you as arrogance is not your ability to shrug off sarcasm (that ability is praiseworthy) but rather your attitude when entering any subject of already having all the answers, and deigning to debate the issues so as to enlighten us lesser mortals with your rays of light, your rhetorical questions which, when answered, will lead the way to enlightenment. Have you ever asked a question on this blog to which you didn’t already have an answer?
This will sound snarky, but it’s not a very Christian attitude that you put forth.
Since I am not a Christian, I do not pretend to be above such fray. You should hold yourself to a higher standard.
“…but rather your attitude when entering any subject of already having all the answers,…”
Do you actually think you come off as someone who wants to hear both sides of a debate?
Really?
“This will sound snarky, but it’s not a very Christian attitude that you put forth.”
Very rhetorical and just geared to get me going. Tell me Jeff, how should a Christian/Catholic conduct themselves…when we are not shopping at Wal-Mart and watching NASCAR, of course.
“Since I am not a Christian, I do not pretend to be above such fray.”
Damn…you should write comedy. Pretension thy username is JeffMCM.
“You should hold yourself to a higher standard.”
This is pure rhetoric, Jeff. In your own words…you can do much better.
You really are scraping the bottom o’ the barrel now with the Christian stuff aren’t you?
I’ll come back in a few hours to read your response. As for now, I have to go bully some school children, push an elderly lady into a busy intersection and try to have lynching reinstated in my county. Just like a good Christian would.
Sheesh.
“Have you ever asked a question on this blog to which you didn’t already have an answer?”
I do not know the answer to this question:
Consider a two-dimensional gas of molecules inside a rectangular box of small width d and very large length. If the box is filled by point-like molecules with density n, then the pressure is p=nkBT. (kB is the Boltzmann constant, and T is the temperature.) If the point-like molecules are replaced by thin linear molecules of length L, then the pressure will slightly increase.
(a) Consider a case when L is smaller (but not much smaller) than d, and the molecules do not interact with each other, but they cannot penetrate the walls of the box.
Calculate the exact pressure in the box.
(b) Consider a case when the molecules of lengths L form rigid circles of diameter L/{pi}.
Calculate the exact pressure in the box.
(c) Note that your answers to (a) and (b) produced corrections to the leading term (nkBT) that are simply related to each other.
What is the reason for that simple relation?
Interesting
While Jeffmcm and Nicol D are having their little one on one argument – my posting, that was actually on the topic of United 93, was censored by the administrator.
I guess three’s a crowd.
Let freedom reign supreme.
luvul
I’ll try and post this again…
Thanks for all your comments.
The Bush admin has been caught in so many lies so far that I’m amazed that anyone believes the official story let alone accepts the incompetence explanation.
If there was no plane to recover then where did the black box come from?
Is the movie based on a black box tape? How do we know the tape is legit (since these people have been caught deceiving us so much already)? And since the families of United 93 passengers weren’t allowed to hear the whole tape, then am I to believe that Mr. Greengrass was the only one priviledged enough to hear the whole thing? And how can that be considered sufficient enough material to base the entire script on?
I still feel that United 93 is total propaganda!
I believe the conspiracy theories are coming from the government. This film is another conspiracy theory.
Does anyone know where Greengrass got the information to create this script? Once you release this kind of stuff to the American public a certain gullible portion of the audience will see it as the truth.
American movies are constantly taking historical events and changing the historical context to suit their storytelling purposes. It
I challenge everyone and anyone to watch the movie United 93 and not feel the pain in your soul and gut of what happened on 9-11. This is not just powerful but it will make you want to stand tall as an American about how selfless, brave and strong The American people are. We cannot become complacent about the events of 9-11 and more than ever we have to bond as Americans to always remember how we were attacked and our lives were changed forever. My generation will never have the peace of your generation and for this we have to stay the course that that we will never be that vulnerable again. Our country was attacked on 9-11 we need to always remember that day and stay behind our American Flag.
Hello folks, back on subject: I also saw United 93 tonight and while I’m still sorting out my feelings about it, one thing that I was unquestionably left with was a deep feeling of compassion for those involves, the passengers, traffic controllers, all the regular people trying to make sense of the situation as best they could. It’s a remarkable film.
In other news…
Nicol, I’m going to give up on you. It’s pointless for me to try and change your behavior. We’re obviously two both very stubborn people who repel each other like magnets. I hope that we can find common ground in the future and I hope you will attempt to do the same.
Hey Luvul, what generation do you belong to and what generation are you talking to?
Anecdotally, the Cinerama Dome was half-full tonight at a prime 8pm screening. I predict a weekend gross under 10m but virtually no drop next weekend.
Hey Jeffmcm
My age or your age or anyones age is of no concern here.
If my comments are going to be censured then I’m out of this conversation.
So much for free speech.
Enjoy the deception.
luvul
I’m sorry Luvul, I meant to address Goodwin re: “my generation…your generation”.
However, I am curious to know what Luvul said that was deemed too controversial to remain posted. I pretty much completely disagree with his stance on the movie, but censorship of his words is exactly the kind of thing to stimulate his conspiratorial thoughts.
JeffMCM,
I’m sad you are giving up. I was so looking forward to a sanctimonious, finger-wagging lecture from my superior on how a good ‘Christian’ should act.
Common ground? I’m not the one who leaves a contentious response to virtually everything you write, friend.
I could write an apolitical post on how the sun was shining in my city today and I know that within a few hours I’ll have a snarky response from you on how I need to get my facts straight and that my views should not be taken seriously.
Here’s a hint for future reference Jeff…
…if you want to find common ground with people and come off as complex and nuanced, answer people with more than just snarky one liners and put downs.
I’ve never resorted to name calling in this Jeff…you have. You seem to accuse me of every single trait that you yourself perpetuate.
I’m also not surprised you backed off of the ‘Christian’ stuff.
I remember seeing a double interview with Meryl Streep and Denzel Washington a year ago when the Manchurian Candidate came out. Of course it got political and Streep made a point of saying a similar smug thing about Christians to take a cheap shot at Bush. Washington (no Bush fan) called her on it and made her look like a fool. It was obvious she didn’t know the first thing about historical Christianity and thought Washington, who is well read on the subject would play along. He did not.
If you want to go and read a few thousand pages of Pliny, Tacitus, Lewis and Aquinas and come back and talk about it I’d love to hear your views on what ‘a good Christian’ is supposed to act like. Until then, you just come off as someone prone to cheap shots to try to gain the upper hand in a debate. When you do not know what you are talking about, that tactic usually sinks you into the mud a lot more quickly.
Also feel free to do some research and answer my question on The Boltzmann Constant at a later date.
Perhaps you should put a few more thoughts into the responses that you give to people. It’s not just me that you are rude to on a constant basis and your rudeness transcends political discussions. Take a cue from your fellow posters.
Many of them have vehement, passionate disagreements with me on many controversial subjects but they never resort to snide remarks or name calling. You do, Jeff. With a lot of posters and on a regular basis.
If you think you come off as warm and compassionate…think again.
Nicol:
I’m glad that I have gotten such a rise out of you, but I gave you and olive branch and you are choosing not to accept it. If you want do discuss anything further you can reach me at jeff@sleepinheavenlypeace.com. Otherwise I consider the discussion over.
I looked up the Loose Change video and was going to watch it when I saw that it was 80 minutes long! Come on guys, package it into something under 5 minutes. Plus, what information I scanned basically seemed to be conspiracy-theory by inkblot. If you look hard enough, you can see what you want to see.
Atonement. That was a theme I got from my viewing in Atlanta today. Atonement: reconciliation between persons who are at variance or at enmityone to another. From the humanist standpoint, this film worked for me. As a Christian, I found a lot of guilt up there on the screen. Guilt that demands punishment. But I saw a lot of self-punishment today.
Speaking here as a Christian…
You really need to read some other books.
Declare Love!
It’s what Jesus asked us to do.
Jeff,
For the record. I will not be contacting you at any private email address.
Quite frankly…I do not trust you.
I’m not surprised (you’ve proven yourself before to be irrationally paranoid), and I don’t think I’m going to miss out on anything.
Best wishes.
Enjoyed reading this very much. Reaffirms my faith that arguing is harmless. Great avenue for venting, but it looks like everyone managed to retain their original viewpoints without sacrificing or gaining much of anything. Thanks for the entertainment.
“And in 2001 cell phones didn’t function at 30,000 ft. – do people really and truly forget that? or are they just so desperate to be dupes?”
Hey, “kid”, why don’t you actually incorporate facts into your so-called theory, instead of ignoring everything that might undermine it?
The fact is, as shown in the film, United 93 was taken down to a MUCH lower altitude after it was hijacked. One of the passengers in the film commented, “Something’s wrong, we’re too low, you shouldn’t be able to see the ground like that.”
Now, we don’t know if a passenger on flight 93 actually said that, but the radar logs clearly show that the flight wasn’t flying at the normal altitude of 30,000, but much lower. It was also the fact that it was flying so close to the ground that the passengers didn’t have enough time to wrest the controls away from the hijacker. The FAA and FBI both think the passengers managed to break into the cockpit based on voice recorder evidence. The 9/11 commission concluded that the passengers were just “seconds” away, but what’s clear is that the plane had been flying too low to the ground for any of that to matter.
The only “kids” here are the conspiracy kooks who think they have some special power of intelligence, while the rest of us are just mere sheep who are content to be misled.
You conspiracy guys just simply ignore every fact that blows holes in your theory:
1) Cell phones don’t work at 30,000 feet? United 93 wasn’t flying at 30K feet after it was hijacked, but taken to a lower altitude!
2) Radar logs show no fighters were within 100 miles? Well, it wasn’t fighters, it was a missile! Or, yeah, the government erased the radar logs! That’s the ticket.
3) It must have been a missile because there were no large pieces on the ground! Physics say that a missile or a bomb in an airplane pulverizes everything into little tiny pieces! When in fact, just look at the Pan Am Lockerbie bombing, where huge sections of the plane literred the ground for hundreds of square miles (because the plane blew up at a high altitude, where “cell phones aren’t supposed to work” which begs the question, why wasn’t the wreckage of United 93 spread around for hundreds of square miles if it blew up high in the air? Oh yeah, the government gathered it all up in secret!) Even the TWA 800 that blew up over the Atlantic had huge section of the fuselage recovered intact, because that’s the result of a bomb or missile hit. Little tiny pieces in a relatively small area is what you get when a plane going 600 mph dives into the ground.
I can’t even begin to list all the ACTUAL laws of physics these conspiracy theories completely ignore, and the pseudo laws of physics they have to INVENT to support their wacky theories.
Geordi LeForge could speal out technical gobblygook about “the phase transmitters were out of flux with the positron emitters by 2 nanometers leading to the power surge” but that doesn’t make what he says any real than using pseudo-science and pseudo-physics to support a shoot-down conspiracy.
That’s all this is, folks. Just a massive ego-stroking by individuals with a lot of misplaced anger issues.
See, you can’t argue against a conspiracy theory because by definition it can only be proved, it can never be disproved because any counter-evidence could have been forged or falsified.
It takes much more work and leaps of logic and faith to explain that the government engaged in a massive cover-up, that they falsified cell-phone calls and the voices of the passengers, than it does to believe in the official versions of events.
Oh yeah, what I really wanted to say was: if people took a fraction of the time that they spent researching conspiracy theories and used that time to get involved in local elections and supported politicians they agreed with, the country would probably be in a better place. (Or not; maybe we’re better off if the gullible don’t vote).
“It’s the filmmakers who are taking the considerable risk of looking stupid by making this film before more facts are known. But that’s a commercial and artistic risk they are fully entitled to take.
Imagine what would have happened if NBC had made its “rescue of Private Jessica Lynch” movie according to the original Official Myth — before it was revealed that the great rescue was, in the words of a BBC expose, “one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived.” (The movie, “Saving Jessica Lynch,” was broadcast November 9, 2003, only seven months after her April rescue.) By the time the movie was made, we even heard from Private Lynch herself, who said of the Pentagon’s efforts to spin her life into heroic war propaganda: “They used me to symbolize all this stuff. It’s wrong. I don’t know why they filmed [my rescue] or why they say these things.”
An awful lot of propaganda and pseudo-patriotic propaganda has built up around 9/11. I hope the makers of “United 93” — and “World Trade Center” and any other of the inevitable fictionalized films based on 9/11 — can deal with their subjects creatively and responsibly, and avoid pandering to or viscerally exploiting audience emotions.”
Roger Ebert
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060406/SCANNERS/60405003
Actually, that was written by Jim Emerson, who is not Roger Ebert (who begins his review “It is not too soon for United 93”).
I agree that the Jessica Lynch thing was stupid and manipulative. But I think now was as good a time as any for United 93, because I doubt that we will ever know more about the events than we do now. It sounds like you’re asking that the movie wait until your particular views have been validated, which may or may not happen.
By the way, Jeffrey Wells’ idea in Emerson’s article is one of the dumber things I’ve heard in quite a while; suggesting filming multiple versions of the ending of the film, Rashomon style, to appeal to all viewpoints.
“Ultimately, “United 93″ is a regurgitation of suspicious media-fueled speculation about events on an airplane that we know very little about. This is a movie that does more to discourage raising questions about what really happened to flight 93 than it does to encourage debate over the bastion of lies that have been fed to the American people.”
Cole Smithey – Film Critic
http://filmcritic1963.typepad.com/reviews/2006/04/united_93_.html
What? A blogger who writes movie reviews AND believes in conspiracy theories?!?
In other news, here’s another link which even Luvul may appreciate.
http://www.news-journal.com/featr/content/shared-gen/ap/asap/Entertainment/asap_Entertainment_United_93.html
By the way, the Jessica Lynch thing is a good thing to cite here for comparison. That was a situation involving a relatively small number of military and media personally spreading a false story. The movie was, as Luvul himself says, almost immediately discredited officially by people who knew exactly what they were talking about.
In comparison, any 9/11 conspiracy would have probably had to involve thousands of people, military and civilians alike, and here we are 4 1/2 years later and the best evidence that can be found is specious or circumstantial. (And I say this as someone who believes that the President lies about virtually everything).
Cell phones BARELY work above 2000 feet anyway, forget below 30,000 feet. All cell sites back then and today are providing optimal radio coverage for GROUND base coverage with “smart antennas”. NOT A SINGLE antenna is aimed intentionally for above low altitude coverage.
I challenge ANY of you to attempt to make a phone call above 2000 feet AGL, and HOLD the call with it being intelligible.
Something in the record of United 93 doesn’t make sense in this regard.
I could clearly understand the GTE/Verizon Airfone’s working, but your standard cell phone WON’T above 2000 feet, PERIOD.
If cell phones don’t work, then the alleged conspirators would have been better off not creating phony cell phone calls that would be so easily debunked by your rational scientific principle. To take the extra step of falsifying the voices of passengers and managing to fool dozens of their loved ones is an even ballsier step.
In other words, it makes more sense for cell phones to have managed to get through, than for the alternative.
Hey, I’m curious to know if anyone out there thinks that United 93 has a spiritual quality to it, which I think I picked up on. That goes for you too, Nicol.
(I’m joking with you, by the way.)
jeffmom – liked your comment regarding the requisite and impracticle complexity of any 9/11 conspiracy. Being in the military, I can tell you from experience that the military as a whole is not NEARLY so closed-mouthed as people believe it to be, and virtually ANY issue that arises that meets with any discord at all finds its way almost immediately to the media. For example, if a person in authority makes a remark that someone finds offensive, and if the command should attempt in any way to sweep it under the rug, it’ll almost certainly be on the news by nightfall. The very idea that the government could pull off something like a 9/11 conspiracy that would necessarily involve hundreds if not thousands of government employees, and somehow manage to keep even ONE from disclosing it is ridiculous. The Kennedy assasination conspiracy (which, by the way, I happen to have a share of belief in) pales in comparison to 9/11 in the amount of people required to pull it off. The President could conceivably have been killed by a small group of people with no outside involvement other than passive intelligence gathering. But 9/11 would have required direct liaison with numerous and huge government agencies in order to fabricate the current explanation. If there was any conspiracy at all, I’d be more inclined to believe that it was simply in WHO gave the order to WHOM – and that it was executed exactly as reported, but simply was directed by someone other than bin Laden. Or more plausibly, that bin Laden DID orchestrate it, but the fact was simply known in advance and events allowed to happen anyway by way of “a blind eye”. I suspect this was what happened at Pearl Harbor, and it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that SOMEONE (or someones) knew it was in the works, and kept their mouth shut. Even though this is obviously deplorable, I think this is the extent of any possible government collusion, if any exists at all.