donsu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 10:55 AM
Original message |
anyone know who put up the money for United 93? |
|
movies have a lot of money backers. they have to get the money up or promised before starting work.
I'd bet they are neo cons.
this movie is Kool Aide. the movie will be remembered and the actual reality of the situation will fade away. which is what the criminal bushmilhousegang wants.
|
RaleighNCDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:00 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Yup. Millions of people who never read the papers will eventually |
|
see this movie, and KNOW it's the truth. After all, they saw the movie.
Who needs a Warren Commission when you have Hollywood available?
|
tridim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message |
2. From IMDB.. The producers |
|
Sidney Kimmel Entertainment Studio Canal Universal Pictures Working Title Films http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/companycredits
|
donsu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. not corp. names but people names are needed |
|
the actual people that put up the cash
|
bryant69
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:05 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Is the movie wrong because it doesn't present MIHOP/LIHOP? |
|
I'm given to believe it's reasonably accurate. Bryant Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
|
donsu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. that's the problem "I'm given to believe it's reasonable accurate" |
bryant69
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
I'm certainly convinced now. I mean your failure to present any arguments at all has convinced me totally.
Bryant
|
mmonk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
bryant69
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. Thank you for that contributation. |
|
I'm just overwhelmed by smart well reasoned arguments for why I should believe . . . wait . . . what am I supposed to beleive again?
|
northzax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. it stretches the known facts, as presented by the 911 commission |
|
since that is the most comprehensive record of what happened that morning. for instance, the movie claims the pilots were killed immediately, while the flight recorder has one of the hijackers mention bringing the pilot back into the cockpit later. it also has the target of the plane as the capitol, while that is unknown. it's also unknown if the passengers really managed to enter the cockpit before the plane went down.
overall, it apparently is pretty close to the publically known timeline of events on that particular plane.
but really, there are people here who wouldn't be happy with it unless it showed Dick Cheney and Osama sharing a glass of Absinthe and eating the heads off live chickens while planning the attacks.
|
sinkingfeeling
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message |
7. I was appalled last night when one of the trailers proclaimed, "the |
|
heroes who saved the Capitol". Did anybody find that picture of the Capitol seen being taped in the cockpit? Is there any proof that it was intended for the Capitol?
|
northzax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
says that Atta wanted the Capitol but Osama wanted the White House. But the movie makes the decision to target the Capitol, which frankly makes much more sense. the Capitol is a much better target, it's bigger and less sheltered than the White House. it would be a wicked bit of flying to crash a jet liner into the White House, it's protected on all sides by larger buildings. Your only advance to the White House is from the South, and you'd have to avoid the Washington Monument on your way in. No way would you be sure of hitting anything besides an office building. But the Capitol, nice big building on a hill? much easier.
|
donsu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. the capitol is not on a hill but you are right it is bigger and easier to |
northzax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
but you are incorrect. the capitol is on the highest ground around it (not much of a hill, but it is a floodplain. And the dome of the Capitol, by law, is the second tallest thing in DC (only the National Cathedral is taller)) You have an unobstructed view of the capitol from 360 degrees.
|
donsu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. that is true about the dome but I grew up 8 blks from the capitol |
|
no hill. NW D.C. has hills, Md. has hills but the capitol does not sit on a hill.
|
northzax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
|
from any direction you approach the Capitol on foot, you walk up? Hence all the grand staircases? what's with that? At least when I worked in the Capitol I recall walking up a flight of stairs to approach it.
|
novalib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
17. When I walk from the Botanic Gardens... |
|
to the Capitol, I walk up a hill.
|
novalib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-28-06 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
The Capitol Dome is not the second tallest thing in DC.
It is true that the National Cathedral is the highest thing in DC ( elevation above sea level + the height of the building itself.
But (discounting broadcast towers), the second tallest thing in DC is the Washington Monument.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 01:04 PM
Response to Original message |