All NORTH Americans must see "United 93"

All Americans must see "United 93"
By Dennis Prager
Apr 18, 2006

Universal's new movie, "United 93," is about United Airlines Flight 93, hijacked on 9-11 by Islamic terrorists shortly after leaving Newark, N.J., for San Francisco. The terrorists intended to fly the plane to Washington, D.C., and crash it into the Capitol. Instead, the passengers fought back and forced the plane down in Pennsylvania, thereby saving the lives of any number of people on the ground in Washington and saving America from a devastating blow to its image.

Incredibly there is some controversy about this film. Apparently many Americans are not "ready" to see a film about 9-11 "so soon" after 9-11.
If this is so, it is an ode to the weakening of the American people.
Five years after the most devastating attack on American soil, people are asking if Americans are ready to see a film -- not some fictional, politically driven, reality-distorting film by Oliver Stone, but a film based on the phone conversations of the passengers and flight attendants, on the flight recorder tape, and approved by the families of all 40 passengers -- one of the most terrible and heroic events in American history.

Did anyone ask in 1946, five years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, whether Americans were prepared to see a film about the Japanese attack?
If anything should be controversial, it is Hollywood going AWOL while its country fights the scourge of our time, Islamic totalitarianism. For five years, America has been battling people who are dedicated to destroying every value that Hollywood claims to care most about -- freedom, tolerance, women's rights, secular government, equality for gays -- and Hollywood has yet to make a film depicting, let alone honoring, this war.
Finally, a major studio comes out with a film reminding Americans about the nature of our enemy, about what really happened (to the best of our ability to reconstruct) on one of the 9-11 planes, and the press wonders if Americans are "ready" to see the movie.

Universal invited me to see a preview, and unless they change it (or don't drop a few gratuitous, politically inspired words that appeared right after the film ends), I believe it is just about every American's duty to see this film. There is no gratuitous violence -- if anything, Universal went out of its way to prevent us from seeing the reality of the throat-slashing of passengers and crew -- but there is unremitting tension and sadness, since we all know what will happen to these unsuspecting people, and we know this is real, not fiction.
There is also American heroism. People completely unprepared for an airplane flight to become their last hour alive rise to the occasion and save fellow Americans from death and from the humiliation of having their nation's capitol building destroyed.
The only people likely to object to this film are those who don't want Americans to become aware of just how conscienceless, cruel and depraved our enemy is, or those who think that our enemies can always be negotiated with and therefore object to depicting Americans actually fighting back.
Teenage and older children in particular should see this film. If the younger teens have nightmares, comfort them. But young Americans need to know the nature of whom we are fighting. If they are attending a typical American high school or college, they probably don't know.

Congratulations to Universal Studios on making this film (presuming that, as assured to me, they removed the post-film politically inspired message). And shame on Hollywood for only making one such film in five years.
Perhaps if "United 93" turns out to be the unforeseen box office success that Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was, the lure of major profits will exert more influence over Hollywood than even Hollywood leftists do.
In the meantime, go and see "United 93," to see why some Americans still take "Home of the brave" seriously; and to see why we have to win this war more than any since World War II. That's how bad our enemy is. You have an unfortunately rare chance to see that enemy at work when you see what happened to everyone who boarded United Airlines Flight 93 that left Newark on September 11, 2001.

--

Quote:

All Americans must see "United 93"
By Dennis Prager
Apr 18, 2006

Universal's new movie, "United 93," is about United Airlines Flight 93, hijacked on 9-11 by Islamic terrorists shortly after leaving Newark, N.J., for San Francisco. The terrorists intended to fly the plane to Washington, D.C., and crash it into the Capitol. Instead, the passengers fought back and forced the plane down in Pennsylvania, thereby saving the lives of any number of people on the ground in Washington and saving America from a devastating blow to its image.


--

I don't plan on seeing it either. I just don't like how their deaths have been turned into a piece of entertainment. Maybe it's wierd, but I go to movies to be entertained. I don't need to see one more replay of "Let's roll".

Quote: Originally Posted by zoofer

Quote:

All Americans must see "United 93"
By Dennis Prager
Apr 18, 2006

Universal's new movie, "United 93," is about United Airlines Flight 93, hijacked on 9-11 by Islamic terrorists shortly after leaving Newark, N.J., for San Francisco. The terrorists intended to fly the plane to Washington, D.C., and crash it into the Capitol. Instead, the passengers fought back and forced the plane down in Pennsylvania, thereby saving the lives of any number of people on the ground in Washington and saving America from a devastating blow to its image.


--

Reason not to see it?

United 93, was shot down.

--

darkbeaver, with all due respect, I don't think the onus is on the authorities to prove the authenticity of the tapes — rather, I would think that it would be the prerogative of those opposed to the current inrepretation of events to prove any sort of "faults" in the recording.

Johnny Utah how do you know the tapes are real?

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Johnny Utah how do you know the tapes are real?

The tapes from the cockpit from Flight 93 have been proven to be real. Family members from the victims of Flight 93 have heard the tapes themselves. There is no question what so ever except for the Conspiracy Theory Moonbats who have nothing better to do.

But hey if you want to try to come up with a Conspiracy Theory saying the Family Members who heard the tapes were in on a Conspiracy concerning the tapes go for it, I dare you.

darkbeaver, with all due respect, I don't think the onus is on the authorities to prove the authenticity of the tapes — rather, I would think that it would be the prerogative of those opposed to the current inrepretation of events to prove any sort of "faults" in the recording.

I prefer to believe direct eyewiteneses than people who are constantly lying on everything to us, and i mean everything.

"It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."

Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."

A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball."

Quote: Originally Posted by aeonI prefer to believe direct eyewiteneses than people who are constantly lying on everything to us, and i mean everything.Ah ok then, good point. Regarding the Pentagon plane:
Quote: "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."Quote: Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."Quote: A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an American Airways 757. "It added power on its way in," he said. "The nose hit, and the wings came...

Quote has been trimmed

I'm worried Aeon might turn into a suicide bomber.

I am actually watching you conservative guys.

I am actually watching you conservative guys. Islamicfascist guys, they are right wing guys just like the right-wing Americans or Europeans or Canadians so I will be watching you guys closely.

I'd say that the whole story was fabricated. The family members claiming to have been called by their family members from their cell phones were lieing. How do I know this? North American cellphones can't work from an airplane. The whole story is total crap because of this fact. If you don't believe me, try and make a call next time you fly. I turned mine on during a flight to see if it was true, it said no signal. Those family members lied. Those passengers, just like the ones on the other flights were probably oblivious to what was going on. Even if they were aware the plane had been hijacked, they would have just sat there believing that the situation was going to be worked out and they'd get to go home, like on TV. Those passengers had no clue where that plane was heading unless the terrorists told them, which they wouldn't, as it's not a James Bond movie. People are soo gullible.

GPS Cell Phones
by Sandy Berger
Today’s tech vocabulary includes words like e-files, e-shopping, and e-learning. Soon you will be hearing a new phrase, E-911.
E-911 is the high-tech label for a federal mandate known as Enhanced 911 that requires all US wireless phone companies to begin offering improved location capabilities on their networks. This mandate is a response to a large number of emergency calls being made on cell phones. When 911 emergency calls are made from a landline, an address appears on an operator’s screen. However, if the call comes from a mobile phone, the 911 dispatcher cannot locate the position of the caller. Therefore, the FCC is now requiring wireless companies to accurately locate mobile 911 callers. Carriers will be required to have 100 percent of all new handsets able to provide location information by the end of 2002.
The first segment of the FCC’s phased program had a deadline of October 1. Due to difficulty in obtaining the necessary technology and handsets, many wireless companies have not met that target and have requested an extension. Sprint is the only carrier to meet the October deadline. This week Sprint PCS began selling mobile telephones with a location capability. Sprint is offering a $149.00 Samsung Electronics’ mobile phone, the SPH-N300 that uses the global position system network of satellites to pinpoint a caller’s precise location. Although Sprint’s phones are on the market,...

Quote has been trimmed

Friday, April 07, 2006
Can Cell Phones on Planes Be Dangerous?
Studies continue on the safety of using cell phones on airplanes, while most experts agree that concerns are overblown.

By Daniel Turner
A few years ago I was caught in the roughest descent I'd ever experienced in a commercial airplane. As the pilot's voice came on, informing us that San Francisco was unapproachable and we were being redirected to Oakland, passengers began making cell-phone calls to their rides -- hiding the phones from flight attendants, of course, since a federal law prohibits cellular calls on an airplane.

After some jarring and tense minutes, we landed: in San Jose. Once again, the cell phones came out -- still in violation of the regulations -- as people called to apologize to loved ones.

But soon these furtive maneuvers might not be necessary. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently reviewing a proposal to lift the ban on using cell phones in flight. Although there is no date set for its decision, both telecommunications companies and airlines are anxious to provide more services.

So why not allow cell phones anyway? Are they actually a danger? The FCC is evaluating the possibility that cell phones could either block satellite signals or disrupt ground-based towers. To most observers, though, other potential safety issues are more worrisome. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is concerned that cell phones might produce significant radio frequency interference, possibly disrupting avionics, including a plane's Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver.

These worries were inflamed recently by an article in the March 2006 issue of IEEE Spectrum, the monthly publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The article, "Unsafe at Any Airspeed?", by Bill Strauss, M. Granger Morgan, and Daniel Stancil, researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), recapped Strauss's 2003 PhD thesis, which revealed that people do sneak cell-phone calls during flight -- and that it could, in some circumstances, lead to interference with avionics systems through a process known as intermodulation.

Intermodulation occurs when two radio signals of different frequencies interact, potentially causing spikes in new frequency ranges. As Strauss and his colleagues pointed out in their article, signals within the two main cell-phone frequency ranges used in the United States (the cellular band at 824 to 849 megahertz range, and PCS at 1850 to 1910 megahertz) do not interfere with those used by most aircraft navigation aviation systems. Yet Strauss, who carried radio-monitoring equipment on several commercial flights, reported seeing intermodulation effects from cell-phone signals "in the frequency bands used by an aircraft's GPS and distance-measuring equipment."

However, according to David Carson, a lead engineer in cabin systems engineering at Boeing, the CMU report does not justify the hysteria evident in some articles on the topic. Carson is also co-chair of a special committee on portable electronic devices for RTCA, a private, nonprofit aviation consulting organization in Washington, DC. The FAA has commissioned the RTCA committee to produce a report on the inflight use of cell phones and other portable devices. The report, which examines "intentionally transmitting" devices, including cell phones and computers with Wi-Fi cards, will be completed in December 2006.

Carson notes that Strauss was a founding member of the special committee in 2003, and that part of his work there became his PhD thesis. "The thesis was an inflight study of whether transmissions from cell phones occurred," Carson said. "And the conclusion was, yeah, people do use cell phones on airplanes despite the ban."

Carson says that "the potential to have interference with airplane systems is real." But he adds that the few airplane systems that could be affected by radio frequency interference, such as the public address system and wireless tire pressure gauges, are not critical to flight safety. The RTCA released studies of earlier portable-electronics technologies in 1963, 1988, 1996, and 2004, Carson says, and each time the airline industry responded by placing better shielding around airplane electronics and adopting other mitigation strategies. As a result, no airline crash has ever been attributed to radio emissions from devices brought onboard by passengers.

--