Flight 93

I have always worried that a movie titled Twin Towers would become inevitable at some point. A woman working in Tower 1, say, with her fiance in Tower 2. Together with his brother the fireman, they hurry up the steps when everyone else is rushing down… starring Ben Affleck, and an array of computer generated reconstructions of the destruction.

I have always worried that a movie titled Twin Towers would become inevitable at some point. A woman working in Tower 1, say, with her fiance in Tower 2. Together with his brother the fireman, they hurry up the steps when everyone else is rushing down… starring Ben Affleck, and an array of computer generated reconstructions of the destruction.

Flight 93 is a different sort of film, I hope. It is the story of the people who overcame the hijackers of the plane which was on its way to Washington and the Capitol Building. However, The Daily Dish thinks it is too soon for a movies about their actions:

Sometimes, the greatest deeds, like the most monstrous acts, are best left unrepresented. They stand alone. They demand to be left alone. One day, commemmorate. But do not so swiftly represent. Shakespeare often left the greatest moments in his plays off-stage. They have more power there.

I imagine that one impact of their actions is that it is now virtually impossible to use a passenger aircraft to perpetrate an act of mass terrorism. This is not because of increased security on the planes, or better, tougher surveillance at the airports. Rather, it is because the fact of 9/11 changes the attitudes of the people on board hijacked planes. While the passengers of Flights 11, 175 and 77 believed that they might escape unharmed if they sat tight, the passengers on Flight 93 were under no illusion as to their fate. Using aeroplanes as a weapon of mass destruction became obsolete at half past nine that morning, while Flight 93 was still in the air.

5 thoughts on “Flight 93”

  1. I recently saw a very convincing documentary investigating the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were not acts of islamic terrorism but a war-mongering pr stunt staged by the us government. Some of the evidence was circumstantial, but a lot of it was quite convincing.

  2. Yes, there are a lot of conspiracies around. Part of the reason they flourish is that there is a lot of secrecy surrounding the investigation into 9/11. I would suggest this secrecy is covering up governmental blunders rather than conspiracy, however.

  3. Well. There is the fact that mobile phones demonstrably do not work at 30,000 feet. There is the fact that no skyscraper has collapsed because of fire before or since, yet three collapsed all the same day. The twin towers fell faster than the max. speed possible without deliberate demolition. The position and timing of explosions throughout the buildings are consistent with deliberate demolition and not with the aircraft impact. The fact that certain people stood to benefit from the collapse of building seven (which was the only other building in the vicinity destroyed). The fact that anomalous share-dealing activity took place immediately prior. The fact that ground zero was destroyed before it could be independently investigated and vital evidence was destroyed. The fact that the hole in the pentagon is not consistent with the alleged impact, and the “wreckage” is the wrong kind of engine for that kind of plane. The fact that it is not chemically possible for an entire aircraft to be vaporised as is claimed. The fact that there is a precedent for such a deception. I could go on, but it just seems like rather a lot of coincidences if you ask me.

  4. Being an engineer and all that, and having watched a very good geeky documentary detailing the failure mechanisms which led to the towers’ collapse with several civil engineer colleagues, I have no doubt whatsoever that the cause of the collapse was fire resulting from the planes crashing into the buildings.

    I have yet to come across any self-respecting engineer who believes otherwise, and believe me, my company was party to all the industry talk on the subject (our NY office was in one of the towers, and the crash was witnessed by two of our staff, who both escaped in time). Clarice’s facts listed above are in some instances not facts at all, and can be dismissed by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of civil and mechanical engineering.

    If anyone wants, I will meticulously explain how and why each tower collapsed, but it’s not an exercise I would take on a whim given the time and effort involved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *