With United 93 coming out today, I thought it would be appropriate to post a trio of video clips of the 9/11 attacks (specifically, the World Trade Center attack) that I don’t believe I had seen before until I found them on YouTube last night. I might have seen the first one before, but the second and third ones, I definitely hadn’t. All three are worth watching, if only to remember the true horror of that day and the true nature of the threat we face — a threat which is not, contrary to an IM conversation I had the other day with a liberal commenter on his blog who shall remain nameless unless he wishes to identify himself, invented or exaggerated or trumped up by the Bush Administration to scare us*, but which in fact is frighteningly real and ever-present. If you don’t occasionally watch video clips like these (or movies like United 93), it’s easy to allow the shock and horror of 9/11 to recede into the backgrounds of our memories, and be replaced by a sort of dull sense of anger and sadness. But if you watch these clips, that becomes impossible… absolutely impossible. And I think that’s a good thing.
The first clip, as I said, I might have seen before; I’m not certain. At any rate, it’s quite similar to a whole bunch of other amateur videos of the WTC attack, taken from miles away (e.g., from New Jersey or Brooklyn), that we all saw endlessly replayed in the immediate aftermath — and then endlessly not replayed in the years since. Regardless, it is stirring and horrifying because of what it shows and because of the memories it brings back. You listen to the cameraman and his wife/girlfriend talking as the attack happens (warning: there is a lot of profanity), and you remember how you felt when first saw what had happened. Among other things, it’s a reminder of how incredible it seemed that we were actually being attacked: “Oh, Jesus Christ, is that what that means?” the woman asks, 40 seconds after the second plane hit. “Yeah. That was a f***ing attack,” the man responds, a statement that now seems obvious but at that moment seemed completely unbelieveable.
The second clip is labeled on YouTube as “never before seen video,” and I believe that must be accurate, because I know I’ve never seen it before, and it’s such amazingly good footage that I’m certain it would have been one of the most frequently replayed videos of the second WTC plane crash if the media had gotten a hold of it in the attack’s immediate aftermath. What makes it amazing, in contrast to other footage of the attacks, is how sterile it is: the camera is obviously sitting on a tripod or something similar, and there are no people within earshot of the camera, so all you can hear are the sounds of the explosion and the distant sirens, and the view of the crash is totally unflinching — literally. There is no startled flinch, no abrupt camera movement: the camera simply stares directly at the South Tower, totally and literally unmoved, as it is blown up by terrorists. The total lack of any visible or audible human reaction whatsoever makes the video positively eerie. It could be a great Hollywood special effect, if only it wasn’t so horrifyingly real.
The third and final clip (also here) is, without question, the hardest to watch. It brings back the awful feeling I felt in the pit of my stomach all day on September 11, 2001. Why? Because it’s the exact opposite of the second clip — it’s anything but “sterile.” It shows the South Tower collasing, and it was shot somewhere in southern Manhattan, but outside the immediate surrounding area of the WTC, at street level. As a result, you can hear the raw human emotions of literally dozens or hundreds of people, all reacting simultaneously to the same incomprehensible, inconceiveable sight: the collapse of one of the 110-story World Trade Center towers. What sets this video apart from so many other videos of the tower collapses is that it was obviously shot from a considerable distance, so the primary reaction of people all around isn’t immediate fear for their lives, like the folks right near Ground Zero who had to run like hell to escape the dust cloud. The people in this video were, in that particular moment, physically safe. So the emotion you’re primarily hearing isn’t fear; it’s a combination of utter shock, horror, revulsion, and inexpressible sadness. These people knew they were actually watching countless human lives snuffed out before their eyes. What stands out most is one male voice, apparently coming from a guy standing somewhere behind the cameraman. He is completely overcome, saying “Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God” over and over again. If this video doesn’t make you feel like you’ve been punched in the gut, you’re not human.
What makes all three videos even more horrifying, if that’s possible, is the realization that there are people in this world who could watch them and be happy about what they’re seeing. People so evil, this ghastly carnage would actually make them smile, laugh, and even praise God. That is the enemy we face — and we must never forget it until they are utterly defeated.
*For the sake of accuracy, said liberal commenter’s exact words were: “Honestly, the conflict is several parts boogy man overblown by Bush.” The commenter went on to admit, “Not to say Al Qaeda is not a serious problem” — but when I said, “All it takes is one successful WMD attack to throw everything into chaos… all it takes is one successful attack. We have to succeed in stopping them every time,” the commenter replied, “Right, because McCarthy was so right… There really were 500 communists in the State Department… honestly, this is standard Republican scare the crap out of people sh*t where we are all at war.” I responded with a list of the various terrorist attacks that have already happened and concluded “WE ARE AT F***ING WAR,” to which the commenter replied “Yes Brendan, these things actually happened…. you know what, these things always happen. They have been happening since before the Persians thought about attacking Greece… to say that this is some kind of mass paradigm shift is crap. You deal with domestic issues with a police power and you deal with foreign issues in a lot of ways which does include but is not limited to the military.” So there, nobody can accuse me of misrepresenting anyone else’s words now.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:39:38 pm
It still always bugs me why so much went perfect for those freaks, even aside from United 93. As to the WTC and Pentagon, it seems like the day couldn’t have gone better, absent the WTC timbering laterally and crushing other buildings or starting a citywide fire. What, these guys trained at like a Cessna academy and they have the aptitude to suffer two direct hits on each tower going what, 200+ miles per hour (ibid on the pentagon). And the, Dear Lord, both buildings totally collapse. The Psychological victory could not have been worse for us. Our economic Statue of Liberty crumbled in about 40 minutes. I’m not trying to solicit some sick conspiracy theory or anything. It just bugs me.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:41:47 pm
Truly these men were evil and hopefully they are burning in hell for what they did.
Those videos, now nearly 5 years old, still chill me to the bone…
April 28th, 2006 at 6:43:12 pm
Absolutely horrifying.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:46:19 pm
I wish I could see the look of realization on someone’s face (err. soul) when at that moment of passing and truth, they realize the sin of their hatred malice and willful violent shedding of innocent blood, that it did not purchase for them paradise at all.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:46:46 pm
but I imagine, that look on their face would in fact inspire great pity for them.
April 28th, 2006 at 6:49:22 pm
I am less charitable than David - I would prefer the perpetrators to be in some form of unstimulated limbo, where their only input is the successes their acts stimulated against their murderous cause … where they cannot even *feel* that they are martyrs, but instead only have the realisation seeping into their very beings that they were not just passive failures but they contributed actively to the failure of their cause … where they get to watch the continuing growing prosperity of the US, in spite of those who try to hide that reality … where they can see first Afghanistan, then Iraq, then wherever and whoever is next escape from under the murderous control of their cause … where their ‘fellow travellers’ fail again and again when they try to demoralise the Will of the free peoples of this world … and in perpetuity …
April 28th, 2006 at 7:18:32 pm
I was never a fan of black and white thinking. Black and white thinking is what led to these attacks. I can imagine the thought of the terrorists would be that the infidels have committed some crimes against us; therefore, they are evil and deserve to die. This illogical jump to conclusions could be what would lead someone to justify mass murder.
I do not believe that all of the terrorists were inherently evil just like I don’t think German soldiers or kamikaze pilots were inherently evil. I believe the acts were truly evil and wonder what led these confused individuals to believe their actions were justified.
Our fight isn’t just against individuals that would kill us. Our fight is against the idea the flawed logic that killing civilians is justified.
April 28th, 2006 at 8:15:34 pm
You know Brendan, its not mutually exclusive to believe that there IS a serious threat AND that Bush and co are using that as a scare tactic. Whether you agree with that of course is your opinion but I don’t think it has to be one or the other.
April 28th, 2006 at 8:33:22 pm
All I know is tens of thousands of people have died since the morning of 9/11 as a result of these attacks and in response to them. Yet Osama Bin Laden is still alive. Where is the justice in that?
April 28th, 2006 at 8:43:39 pm
David, of course it’s not, but there’s a significant difference between saying that Bush & co. are “using” the “serious threat” of terrorism to achieve certain ends, and saying that the threat itself is “several parts boogy man overblown by Bush,” and then proceeding to compare the war on terror to McCarthyism. It’s the difference between saying Bush is using a legitimate problem for political advantage and saying that Bush is exaggerating the problem. And especially when the argument proceeds that 9/11-style mass terrorism is nothing new and does not require a new or different approach to dealing with it, I think I’m justified in condemning this opinion.
April 28th, 2006 at 8:54:32 pm
My problem with Bush is that terrorism is a serious threat, but we don’t seem to be doing much about except creating an environment where more people want to be terrorists.
April 28th, 2006 at 10:00:46 pm
My wife and I saw the film United 93 tonight.
A very very good movie, as you have surely heard. Very tasteful, very balanced, you will easily understand why the families of the passengers endorsed it, for it made the passengers all look quite good.
There is one overwhelming impression, however, that I cannot shake coming out of the film. I have not read this response anywhere else, nor do I expect to. The lack of outcry on the following topic WORRIES ME DEEPLY about this country:
HOW THE F*** DOES BEN SLINEY NOT ONLY GET TO PLAY HIMSELF, BUT BE A PROTAGONIST IN THE FILM?
Ben Sliney, you say? He was the national air controller, you know, the guy who was his first day on the job, who (in the film, but NOT in real life) called the national ground stop.
He looks like quite a sympathetic character in this film. Which upsets me TREMENDOUSLY.
We live in America in the 21st century, so inevitably there will be several folks readying their keyboards for the inevitable “Ben Sliney excuses”, which concept (the excuse) will soon become our official national American motto.
“Hey, Jazz, you think you would have done better?” (No).
“You think its easy making good decisions your first day on the job?” (No).
“You think you would have handled the unimaginable pressure of that morning well?” (No).
BUT IF I DIDN’T, THEN IN A WORLD OF RESPONSIBILITY, I WOULD STAND UP LIKE A MAN AND TAKE THE BLAME. Here’s a sentence from an earlier era in America, you NEVER hear this in the 21st century: THE BUCK WOULD STOP AT MY DESK.
I mean, this film, accurately, I imagine, portrays scenes of controllers relaying to Sliney the fact that more than one airplane ‘appears’ to have been hijacked, yet no 7500 code has been called (the standard communication for a hijack).
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that if there is a) a (suspected) hijack and b) no distress call, probably c) the pilots aren’t flying the plane.
I get it, hey Jazz, shut up, that’s revisionist history, no one dreamed anything like this would happen! No? The 9/11 Commission Report tells us “The system was blinking red”, but they don’t tell us which system exactly. I personally flew over Labor Day 2001 on a route that one suspected terrorist had been scoping, and the security that weekend was immense, in fact much greater than anything I have experienced since.
Yet, one week later, there are the air traffic controllers saying “What the f*** is going on here?” with Sliney sympathetically working the room saying “A hijacking? A hijacking? Who could believe it!”
But maybe the system wasn’t REALLY blinking red. Maybe the excessive security I saw on Labor Day was just a function of holiday travel…
…it nevertheless remains a fact, not even glossed over by this film, that while Sliney et. al. are staring at a jumbo jet-sized hole in the WTC North Tower, watching another plane hit the South Tower, 93 is on the runway in Newark AWAITING TAKEOFF.
Sliney a sympathetic character? Un-fricking-believable.
If you asked me, which you didn’t, why America will have trouble winning the WOT, its because our culture, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. have become a nation of excuses.
Rumsfeld had an incompetent battle plan? He’s trying.
Mike Brown directing the Katrina effort?
He’s trying, doing a heckuva job.
Don’t tax and overspend Congress/White House? Contingencies everywhere.
Does anyone take responsibility for anything anymore?
Of course not. Look around, see if you find any other reference, either from the MSM or even a random blogger, to the obnoxiousness of Sliney’s role in this film, to say nothing of history.
Yeah, you know? If this movie was made on September 12, 2001, maybe we in our confusion would have looked at Sliney with sympathy.
But five years later we were supposed to be tough, ready to fight our enemies, Mossad-like.
I am quite confident that Mossad agents will laugh their asses off at the sympathetic treatment of the bungling at the National Air Traffic control center.
Aired…in 2006.
Your heart goes out to the families of the victims, surely they were heroic. That Sliney was also shown to be sympathetic…distressing.
April 28th, 2006 at 11:30:42 pm
Jazz -
A little all over the place with that post, but two parts just leap out:
“If you asked me, which you didn’t, why America will have trouble winning the WOT, its because our culture, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. have become a nation of excuses.”
“But five years later we were supposed to be tough, ready to fight our enemies, Mossad-like.”
Somewhere after Vietnam, the definition of a War hero turned from who was the most successful, one the most battles, or, in short, killed the most enemies to who suffered the most in their duty. Absurd.
I really question at times if the US is up for an extended war/action/occupation anymore that is outside its own borders.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:23:59 am
Lojo,
You’re right, my post had a bit of incoherent ramble….
…so leave out the part about the guy from my hometown who had the Islamic extremist propaganda in his apartment, pictures of the WTC, and was scoping the route that I flew with immense security the first weekend of September 2001.
…also forget about the 9/11 Report, the system blinking red, who knows which system that really was.
I am not for conspiracy theories.
The VERY simple, unassailable, facts are these:
1) For well over a half hour after AA 11 was hijacked, United 93 sat first at the gate and then on the runway in a NYC-area airport, awaiting takeoff.
2) Sliney empirically NEVER called a national, or even NYC-regional, ground stop that morning.
3) Apparently, any negative personal consequences of fact #1 above are so inconsequential that five years later he agrees to play himself in a movie about that day’s events, and
4) He even goes so far as to fictionalize his ‘heroism’ on that day, in an obviously, and easily verifiable, false account of his actions (i.e. calling for the national ground stop).
Then go over to Rottentomatoes.com, read the reviews, and notice
5) Facts 1-4 bother virtually no one.
TO REITERATE: Would I have done better?
Oh I don’t think so.
But I guarantee you, dear God, I guarantee you, if some inaction of mine is associated with several dozen deaths of my fellow citizens, I would NOT show up in a film about the events that not only
a) makes me look good, but
b) embellishes the record to make me look better.
I apparently am alone in this feeling.
What’s weird is that I don’t consider myself a particularly honorable or brave person. I am not a Pat Tillman type.
Frighteningly, it appears that there are vanishingly few Pat Tillman types in the USA.
God help us.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:35:40 am
Jazz -
Calm down, I wasn’t ignoring your statements on Sliney, I just have no opinion on it because I haven’t read enough nor seen the movie. If I have nothing constructive to add, I usually refrain from adding crap. :-)
As the man once said, ‘Virtue is what you do when nobody is watching.’ Or another one I like is, ‘It is not a virtue until you have suffered for it.’
April 29th, 2006 at 12:57:24 am
Lojo,
‘Calm down’ as in ‘be resigned to our collective American fate’? I guess.
Maybe its not quite as bad as I think.
In fact, if you can ignore the scariness of the WOT, Sliney’s portrayal is almost amusing.
At one point, the non-responsive AA 11 is flying toward NY, and its dot seems to be following the Hudson River, in this scene around Albany.
AA 11 barely misses a Delta plane in midair, and Sliney heroically says,
“I want every plane in the route of that flight to be kept away from it!!!”
Of course, that doesn’t translate to any groundings, (obviously).
But it does beg the question:
If you just ordered that all planes be kept out of the way of a hijacked, off course aircraft heading in the direction of NYC…
…though possibly for Philly, or maybe DC…
…then it might follow that any plane in a major nearby airport, scheduled, but not yet ready for takeoff…
…whose flight path takes it West-Northwest, potentially crossing paths with the renegade flight…
…maybe you would prevent any such plane (United 93) from taking off?
I’ll stop. Makes people uncomfortable. Of course we’ll win this and any war we fight. Sean Hannity said so.
April 29th, 2006 at 1:53:09 am
Just saw the movie…BRAVO to all
April 29th, 2006 at 7:38:50 am
Same old territory….
Terrorists attacks have increaed since invading Iraq.
17 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.
There was no Iraq Al Qaeda link.
Facts just don’t sink in.
But what does amaze me is that with this attack happening in the heart of New York City, a majority of New Yorkers — I would wager– are against the Iraq war. And a vast majority of New Yorkers voted against Bush.
Bush used the attacks to make it seem as if all America was united behind his opolicy decisions. (Afghanistan invasion was supported…) But not even New Yorkers support/supported Bush in the way he claimed.
April 29th, 2006 at 7:39:28 am
Terrorist attacks have increased** since invading Iraq…
April 29th, 2006 at 9:54:57 am
On the next day, this thought occurs to me:
In another culture (Japanese), if you were someone in a position of responsibility with the populace depending on you (Samurai), and you made a mistake that cost your fellow citizens their lives, you would take dramatic action (you would fall on your sword).
In our culture, if you are in a position of responsibility with the populace depending on you, and you make a mistake that costs your fellow citizens their lives, you ALSO take dramatic action.
You play yourself in a movie that not only disregards your mistake, but actually lies about extraneous details to make you look more heroic than you actually AREN’T.
Channelling Parker and Stone…
America, F*** yeah!
April 29th, 2006 at 10:01:55 am
It is possible, though by no means certain, that -
- when a nation ceases to be a “Home of the Brave” -
- it is only a short journey to no longer being a “Land of the Free” -
let’s either hope
a) the positive reaction to Sliney is not an indication of general lack of national bravery, or
b) the sentiment in this post is incorrect.
April 29th, 2006 at 12:45:37 pm
A Nun Mouse, New York is an incredibly liberal city. Of course a majority of New Yorkers oppose the Iraq war. That fact has nothing to do with anything, least of all whether the war is right or wrong. If terrorists attacked a conservative town in the middle of Wyoming, I bet a majority of its residents would support nuking the shit out of whoever did it, or for that matter, anyone who might have even a tenuous connection to whoever did it. Does that mean we should do it? Of course not. Our national policy should not be dictated by the political beliefs of any particular region of the country, even if that particular region was attacked by terrorists. Besides, 9/11 wasn’t an attack on New York, it was an attack on America. So really, your argument has no merit. If you think the Iraq war is wrong, fine, but stick to the facts and don’t bring irrelevant and obvious facts like “New Yorkers oppose the war” into it, as if that’s actually relevant.
April 29th, 2006 at 2:26:05 pm
David Kreutz, you still have not grown-up.
How the fuck can you possibly believe to this day that Iraq, 9/11 and our soldiers dying in combat is for political gain by the fucking Republicans?
That is fucking sick.
BUSH ALMOST LOST HIS SECTION BECAUSE OF THE WAR
Man, as I have told you many times, David, I have been a soldier and I have worked in the House Of Representatives. You don’t have a war on a whim. If the generals don’t want it and your people don’t want it, then The President and his minions can’t just order it.
You are just plain nuts.
When you grow up and have some responsibilities, sensablities and a positive track record of working with other people, then you will know that a conspiricay that you think is the basis of the Iraqi war is im-fucking-possible.
America did not start this WAR, David.
The fucking Republicans did not start this fucking WAR, David!!
But we are finally dealing with an evil enemy that has been attacking us steadily for the past thirty fucking years.
For Crying Out Loud, David, get with the fucking reality of reality.
April 29th, 2006 at 3:34:10 pm
Just saw the movie…EVERYone should see it, it is VERY good.
Jazz, I understand your frustration regarding Sliney and the all-too-frequent excuses that we hear from Washington, but I do not believe that the inclusion of Sliney in the film is a small indicator of a larger problem that will keep us from winning this war.
And although he didn’t order the groundstop…even if he had, he wouldn’t have saved lives unless he ordered it before Flight 93 took off. But that means you think he should have ordered the groundstop BEFORE single plane reached a target. Unlikely ANYONE would have had the foresight to to do that.
David, I understand your point. But what would you prefer, that Bush DOWNPLAY the threat? The threat is real. It was real before 9/11 and its a threat after 9/11. You don’t need to listen to Bush to know that there’s a threat and that 9/11 could have been worse.
Nun Mouse, why am I supposed to care what New Yorker’s think in regards to national defense? And what’s your point about the hijackers being from Saudi Arabia? Are you suggesting that the nation-state of Saudi Arabia poses a threat to the United States? Are you suggesting that because the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, that only Saudi Arabi can pose a threat? That no other country, Iraq included, could potentially pose a threat, because the hijackers weren’t born in their country? Are you suggesting that our only response to terrorism should be to close the barn door AFTER the animals have already gone loose? (In other words: because the hijackers on 9/11 were primarily from Saudi Arabia, we should only focus on Saudi Arabia and not on future threats?)
By the way, Mouse, please don’t respond. I always get angry when people ask you to respond. It’s like asking a child to talk about sex. You don’t have a clue and we’re all dumber for having listened.
April 29th, 2006 at 5:32:41 pm
Charles, what the HELL are you talking about? When did I ever say any of what you are claiming I said. Get a grip man. All I have said in this entire post is that its not unreasonable to believe that there is a very real threat from terrorism, something i very much believe, and that Bush and co have used it as a scare tactic for political reasons.
What you need to do is take the stick out of your ass and re-read this post. The claims and accusations you make against me are absolutely baseless.
I have never said, not once that 9/11, Iraq, etc were done for the gain of the GOP. What I have said and do believe is that Bush and co have used scare tactics to further their own agenda, but I never claimed they caused the events like 9/11 to occur.
And yes Charles, America DID start the war in Iraq. You can argue all you want about humanitarian needs, and getting rid of Saddaam, but there were NO WMD’s in Iraq and the intelligence beforehand was there to show that. There was NO connection to any of the acts of 9/11 to Iraq. NONE. As Nun pointed out above most of the terrorists were Saudi’s. Iran and North Korea actually have or are trying to get WMD’s, and Osama bin Ladin is still out there.
Oh I believe that we need to fight against terrorism, I supported the war in Afghanistan because it was doing exactly that. But Iraq? Sorry Bush lost my support on that one (which I did support initially) because he ignored intelligenece he didn’t want to hear (or if not him his advisors never let him see it, he ignored the advice of his generals, and he continues to ignore the realities of the situation.
Yes there is a very real threat Charles and we need to take it very seriously, because frankly I don’t want another 9/11 to happen. Unlike you however I believe that the things Bush are doing aren’t helping, in fact they might be hurting that cause.
If you can’t see the difference between that, and what you are accusing me of than there is absolutely no way anyone can have a rational discussion with you.
Bottom line, for your outrageous accusations I think the least you can do is offer a retraction, and I think an apology is in order as well.
April 29th, 2006 at 5:34:26 pm
thebeef said
And although he didn’t order the groundstop…even if he had, he wouldn’t have saved lives unless he ordered it before Flight 93 took off.
That isn’t obviously true.
Greengrass makes a believable case that the terrorists were nervous; he shows them being uncertain about attack (empirically they were, all the way from Newark/NYC to Cleveland).
If the pilot had come over the intercom over, say, Harrisburg PA and said “Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a national emergency in the US today. Two airliners have struck the world trade centers. We are heading immediately to the Harrisburg Airport, please do not leave your seats. Flight attendants, please lock the cockpit cabin…no passengers may get up for any reason until we have landed.”
Would the terrorists have jumped to action in that case? Maybe, but one can make a plausible case that they would have been spooked by the suddenly more challenging circumstances on board.
Indeed, here’s a question for anyone reading this who will see the movie:
1) What do you think you would have done, and when would you have done it, if you were in Sliney’s shoes?
Specifically I mean: if you were the national air controller, and its 9:03 AM, and you just watched a jumbo jet fly into a skyscraper, in the background of a scene who’s foreground has another skyscraper with smoke billowing from a jumbo jet shaped hole…
…what do you think you would do? and how quickly do you think you would have done it?
Of course, you can’t know for sure, but its okay to imagine, after all your job is to ensure domestic aviation safety, and these two inexplicable, very unsafe things have occurred in front of your eyes - how would you react?
Because clearly, you HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.
Once you have decided what you think you would do, and when, check out what Sliney ACTUALLY did (and when).
Ask yourself: is there a difference between what I think I would have done (and when), and what Sliney did (and when)?
If yes, then the next question is the money question:
DID THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT I THOUGHT I WOULD DO AND WHAT SLINEY ACTUALLY DID COST LIVES?
I say the answer is obviously yes. Now - in the heat of the moment, you may not have acted as you hoped. True. But that would mean you f***ed up, plain and simple.
Sliney pretty obviously f***ed up. But I am pretty obviously causing myself an ulcer over just another instance of the national epidemic of non-accountability about which nobody cares.
April 29th, 2006 at 5:38:51 pm
thebeef
As I just said in my above post, I do believe the threat and potential consequences of terrorism are very very real. And I don’t think that downplaying the threat is in anyones best interests. My opinion however, is that Bush and his administration have used scare tactics to push forward their political agenda without actually doing what needs to be done to confront that threat.
Now I’m not some left wing nutjob who believes that they let 9/11 happen, or that the only reason we went to war in Iraq was for oil. But I do believe that he scared the country or atleast part of it into re-electing him, i believe he is using the spectre of terrorism to justify unreasonable behaviors like the warrentless wiretaps, etc. Obviously there are people who are going to disgree on the specifics, but I think that abusing that power in the name of protecting freedom is very very wrong.
We absolutely must take the threat of terrorism seriously, but using fear to reduce our freedoms and increase his power is not taking terrorism seriously, its giving in to terrorism, and while it may be well intentioned it is still very very bad.
April 29th, 2006 at 6:20:46 pm
I wish this fucking idiot — a New Yorker, no less — would watch these videos.
April 29th, 2006 at 7:02:55 pm
Everyone,
It occurs to me that, having ranted at length about Sliney’s role in the film, I spoke too little about the movie in general.
Like Toni and thebeef, I HIGHLY recommend it. I think just about everyone with the stomach should see it. Not only is it well done and well acted, but it sheds light on several aspects of that day.
For example, in the months following 9/11, there was speculation about why the hijackers allowed so many phone calls to be made on Flight 93. Watching the movie makes the answer to that question obvious.
You realize that the scene in the body of the plane was just two young barely-beyond-teenagers facing 40 scared passengers, and the only thing the hijackers have is a fake bomb and two small knives. It becomes obvious why they didn’t prevent the phone calls, the plotting…they didn’t have the appropriate firepower to hold off the passengers in a confrontation, which they clearly hoped to avoid at all costs.
The anonymous actors do a wonderful job recreating what it must have been like in the plane (my personal favorite was the guy who played Mark Bingham, the Cal rugby player).
The action is so emotional that when the film finally ends, many folks, myself included, broke into tears. You will surely never think about the events on the planes that day without reference to this film.
And in conclusion, maybe that’s part of my outrage at Sliney’s slimy presence in this film. Our hearts break at the tragedy for the folks on that plane, and their loved ones left behind.
That Sliney’s inaction may have played a role in their deaths makes his sympathetic, and misrepresented, role in this movie difficult to handle.
April 29th, 2006 at 7:12:46 pm
I just did a Google search for Mark Bingham, and came across this article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from September 13, 2001:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp
This quote is from the bottom of that article:
“Betty Ong, an American Airlines flight attendant aboard Flight 11 that slammed into the World Trade Center, called her airline supervisor to report that she had seen at least three hijackers with weapons and that more than one person aboard the plane had been stabbed, law enforcement sources said.
The hijackers also told people on the plane that they planned to crash the aircraft in New York City, the sources said.
It is unclear how that telephone call ended.”
I never realized that anyone on AA 11 knew there was going to be a crash.
Given that Barbara Olsen on AA 77 knew that plane would likely crash, the United 175 passenger thought they would crash into the Sears Tower, and United 93 knew what was happening…
…the Ong quote above, if true, means that at least someone on all four planes knew their fate.
April 29th, 2006 at 8:04:57 pm
Jazz,
The story about Ong is almost certainly false. Both Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong, flight attendants on Flight 11, were reporting that the passengers were calm. Indeed, Sweeney reported that the passengers in coach were silent. She was on the phone at the time of impact. Seconds before impact, she began to breath heavily and said: “Oh my God!” If they were told, at all, that they were going to crash into NYC, it was while they were already over NYC.
As for Sliney…he wasn’t even aware that there were multiple hijacks at the time Flight 11 crashed. And by that time, Flight 93 had already taken off. And you have no way of knowing that the pilots of Flight 93, had they been ordered to land, would have notified the passengers that the WTC had been hit. In other words, your criticism seems a little hypercritical.
David, I know you’re not suggesting any of the things that Charles accused you of. I agree that Bush used the War on Terror to his advantage, but I don’t see why he should not have done so. When you’re running for re-election, you want to show the country how well you have performed and why it’s still important that you remain at the helm. Why/How could Bush have ignored his role as the commander in chief in a time of war during the 2004 election? It would have been absolutely ridiculous of him to have pretended that his leadership in the WOT was unimportant. The role of commander and chief and national security was the central issue of the campaign, and rightfully so.
April 29th, 2006 at 8:17:44 pm
thebeef,
You may be right about being hypercritical…follows are facts:
At 9:03, Sliney watched 175 drive into the South Tower of the WTC, in the background of a burning, jumbo jet-attacked North Tower.
At 9:24 (21 minutes later), the ATC center sent a message to United 93 (shown on the film).
It was not, as you know, a message immediately to land.
Not to be a spoiler, but as you also know, the message in fact gave no specific instruction to 93 at all.
Is 21 minutes acceptable? Is the content of the message to United 93 acceptable? Again - not asking if it is ‘understandable’, I mean is it ‘acceptable’?
After all, simple geography tells us that if you are leaving from NYC, on your way to San Fran (by way of Cleveland), every mile that you travel beyond about Allentown puts you further and further from your goal (DC).
The fact that the plane was not overtaken until Cleveland, when the hijackers also knew they were leaving late and losing the element of surprise, is good evidence that they had a hard time getting up the nerve to carry out the attack (which Greengrass rightly suggests).
Therefore, a command at 9:05 AM from Sliney, a different command, translated to that plane travelling over Harrisburg or York or maybe even Pittsburgh,
could very well have led to a different outcome for the people on board that plane.
Is that too much too expect of Sliney? Probably in 21st century America it is. There are no more mistakes here, nothing anymore to be ashamed of.
It breaks your heart to watch those people face their doom. Sorry man, I don’t let Sliney off that easy. Certainly not in a movie about the tragedy of those who died in large part because, understandable or not, he didn’t act when circumstances said he must.
April 29th, 2006 at 8:30:35 pm
David, you write: “We absolutely must take the threat of terrorism seriously, but using fear to reduce our freedoms and increase his power is not taking terrorism seriously, its giving in to terrorism, and while it may be well intentioned it is still very very bad.”
I know you’re well intentioned, but I think you and people who think like you are missing something very important.
This whole concept of “giving into terrorism” is wildly off the mark, IMHO. I think we can both agree we are at war. As such, part of our response must be to take certain defensive postures to reduce the exposure of our weak points.
We know that our enemy seeks to attack us from within–by infiltrating our society and attacking our infrastructure. We know what their goal is: to weaken the United States, disabling it from obstructing the creation of an Islamic “superstate.” Bin Laden and his ilk have made this intention very clear. Indeed, Bin Laden has written a declaration of war, stating this very goal. Their intention is to remove the “zionist-crusader alliance” from the middle east, to topple the current regime in Saudi Arabia, and establish an Islamic state.
Therefore, the concept of “giving in” to terrorism only makes sense if we are speak in the context of the terrorists’ goals. Nowhere does Bin Laden or anyone else talk about a desire to weaken the civil liberties of Americans. Instead, they have talked about exploiting the open society of the United States to destroy our capability of influencing events in the middle east.
Therefore, our open society is a weak point. Now, I’m certainly not suggesting a police-state. Not hardly. I think we should guard our rights dearly. However, I think measures like the Patriot Act correctly identify the terrorists’ avenue of attack and seek to fortify this weak point.
The Patriot Act is not “giving into the terrorists.” Ethnically profiling Arabs/Muslims at airports isn’t “giving into the terrorists.” Those are defensive measures designed to keep the terrorists from winning. Don’t forget, one attack could drastically weaken the United States, particularly if it is made with WMD.
The only way we could “give in” to terrorism is if we: 1) pull out of Middle East, therefore legitimizing their tactics; 2) continue to operate at a pre-9/11 posture, allowing the terrorists to exploit a weak security system to our detriment; 3) doing something that legitimizes their assertion that the United States is at war against Islam. Thus far, i dont’ think we’ve legitimized their assertions that we’re at war with Islam. But, if we do something rash…like say, pre-emptively nuke Iran…well, even if we don’t intend to start a war with Islam, we could be reasonablyperceived as having started such a war.
April 29th, 2006 at 8:40:16 pm
Jazz, I’m not arguing that had Sliney acted differently those on Flight 93 could not have potentially been saved. I’m saying that, because of the variables, it is unfair to say that it is LIKELY he would have saved their lives.
You’re guessing that had they ordered the grounding of Flight 93, the hijackers wouldn’t have done anything. I could just as easily guess that had Flight 93 been ordered to land at Cleveland, the hijackers would have sprung up immediately and taken over the plane.
Should Sliney have ordered a groundstop immediately after the second impact? Yes.
Could it have potentially saved Flight 93? Probably
Is it LIKELY to have saved Flight 93?
No. Maybe it could have saved the flight, maybe it couldn’t have. No one can say, and it is therefore unfair to say that it LIKELY would have saved lives. You just don’t know.
Would anyone else have acted differently than Sliney? You don’t know.
Unfortunately, this is the process of learning. And in war, you have to learn quick, because lives are at stake. Next time (God forbid), I don’t think the mistake will be repeated
April 29th, 2006 at 9:45:15 pm
thebeef,
Interesting you bring in the ‘learning’ aspect of Sliney’s failure. As in: he didn’t know better, now that he knows better, he certainly would have acted differently.
With all due respect (and much is certainly due!) I think you are citing one of the most abused memes about this war - the fact that “we just didn’t know”.
Its true that “We just didn’t know”.
What is misleading is the implication that “not knowing makes inaction understandable”.
Here’s a chestnut that has been tossed around a million times as a reason to justify guys like Sliney: “It was a very different world when we woke up on 9/11″.
Yup. You know what else? Between today and, I don’t know, call it 9:04 AM on 9/11, its also a very different world.
Between today and 9:04 AM on 9/11, the action of our enemies in this WOT seem
a) less immediate
b) less vast
c) less likely to cause the death of any random citizen, and
d) less directly terrifying.
So - if you would hold Sliney to a higher standard of making an aggressive decision, today, when the war is less a)immediate, b) vast, c) likely to cause your death, and d) directly terrifying, that’s kind of weird, right?
April 29th, 2006 at 9:48:35 pm
In the sentiment of that cheesy country song “Do you remember that day?”
I remember. I remember being outside the cafeteria of the headquarters of my company, a Fortune 100 company, at 9:04 AM while the World Trade Centers burned.
I remember that several of the gathered employees made the decision to leave, since it seemed like our building might be in jeopardy. Many people thought so on that day. Many were gone by 9:15 AM.
Today, I bet substantially no employee thinks there’s a chance of our building being attacked.
To repeat - the WOT seemed much vaster, much more dangerous, and much more terrifying at 9:04 AM on 9/11 than it does today.
April 29th, 2006 at 9:51:15 pm
More: this war seemed a lot more immediate, vast, and devastating at 9:04 AM that day for the ATC as well.
At 9:04 AM on 9/11/01, it looked like there were 1-2 dozen planes, maybe more, that were potential hijack candidates. Given the circumstances of that morning, the fact that they had radio contact with the pilots was not at any point conclusive…as you know, United 93 was hijacked 20+ minutes later, from the perspective of the ATC, there could have been 1, 2, 3 dozen United 93s up in the air.
April 29th, 2006 at 9:53:16 pm
So, with that as the true history, with 12-24 possible suicide planes in the air, and with the first two of them having destroyed the World Trade Centers, Sliney did…
…nothing.
At 9:05 AM, he did nothing.
9:10? Nothing.
9:15? Still nothing.
9:20? Even more nothing.
9:24? Finally a transmission.
April 29th, 2006 at 9:58:30 pm
One last one for you thebeef, as well as maybe Max, Joe Loy and the others who have been around the block a few times.
The transmission Sliney FINALLY put out at 9:24 has the unmistakable stench of government bureaucracy. It was the classic “non-order” order. He was telling the pilots what to do without given them anything constructive to do about it.
Indeed, it was the sort of non-command command that seems typical of someone covering their ass. You can imagine that the pilots grew increasingly nervous as the morning unfolded, first hijackings, then rumors of planes flying into skyscrapers?
Sliney had to say something! Which he did.
And the thing he said didn’t say shit.
Its the age of excuses, I know, but at least we should stop with the stupidity of saying that on 9/11/01 “we just didn’t know”.
That’s true - at 7 AM that morning the threat of Islamic fascism seemed much less immediate than it does today.
But by 9 AM the threat seemed far MORE immediate than it does now.
April 29th, 2006 at 10:39:21 pm
Jazz, stop being so quiet and tell us how you really feel ;-)
April 29th, 2006 at 11:29:45 pm
Jazz, I understand your point. I’m not trying to defend anyone. Not only were we not prepared for what we should have been prepared for, but we were slow to make the right decisions. Sliney moved too slow. Judging from his self-serving appearance in “United 93,” it appears as though he is not admitting his mistake. Fine.
Nonetheless, you cannot plausibly say: “Had he immediately grounded all flights after the second impact, it is LIKELY that those on Flight 93 would have been saved.” All anyone can say is: “If he had grounded all flights after the second impact, MAYBE United 93 would have landed safely IF the hijackers didn’t attempt a takeover, OR if they did attempt a takeover, IF the pilots notified the passengers beforehand that two planes had crashed into the WTC, AND the passengers were able to stop the hijackers without crashing the plane.”
That’s a lot of “maybes” Jazz. And considering that you’ve been critical of passengers on OTHER flights, who DID NOT KNOW that they were on suicide missions…forgive me for finding your criticisms a little hyper
April 29th, 2006 at 11:37:38 pm
Actually, thebeef, I have never criticized any of the passengers on any of the flights.
I can’t recall who it was, but I think it was maybe 4-7 criticizing the 175 passengers for not fighting back, and I came strongly to their defense. I have nothing harsh to say about any of the passengers on any of the planes. In other threads I have defended the hero story for 93 passengers; on this thread I have said several times that they look quite good in this movie (best reason to see it, in fact).
You are right too that I don’t know if Sliney had acted differently if those passengers would have survived. Indeed, your scenario of the hijackers leaping up in Cleveland is plausible - maybe the flight was doomed anyway?
But as you surely can see from what happened in that movie, the possible inevitability of the passengers doom doesn’t at all change what Sliney didn’t do. He f’ed up. He should have done something, and he did nothing. That’s it.
April 30th, 2006 at 12:38:10 am
Sorry Jazz–I guess I had you confused with 4-7, my bad. And yes, you’re right: although the passengers of Flight 93 were likely doomed at take-off, it doesn’t change the fact that the response was inadequate
April 30th, 2006 at 1:02:36 am
Actually, thebeef, I regret the excessiveness of my rants on this thread, which David rightly parodied as being over the top.
As someone who has seen the movie, perhaps you would agree (if not as strongly!) that a film about the heroism of the passengers on United 93 should not have Sliney hamming it up, when his poor decisions may have been a contributing factor in their deaths. Feels wrong.
And if I had one other quibble with the film, its that Greengrass, in the interest of objectivity, didn’t call out the passengers’ heroic intentions ENOUGH.
For example, we know that Bingham told his mother that they knew they were going to die, but there was no way they would let the bastards get away with it.
Seems like Burnett said something similar to his wife.
You didn’t really get that from the movie, though this is a minor flaw in an otherwise impressive retelling.
April 30th, 2006 at 3:52:57 am
I finally watched these three videos today. The second one clearly disturbed me the most, because it was the most inhumane video of the three. The wails and screams of the other two echoed my own reactions and experience, so in a way it was comforting. The second video, in contrast, was as Brendan said, “sterile”; it contained no perspective, no voice, just pure recording in the classical sense, as if the video was a surveillance or weather camera simply capturing minutes gone by. Minus the zooming in and out, minus the shaking of the camera, minus the tracking of the plane, the violent mechanical force of the plane slamming into the WTC tower is so sudden and overwhelming, it’s almost impossible to comprehend.
I fucking hate those bastards.
April 30th, 2006 at 10:44:14 am
thebeef,
Something else occured to me this morning re: Sliney and the impact of his incompetence.
Suppose Sliney had responded to
a) two planes in the WTC
b) 10-20-? others aimed as missiles at other sites.
by calling the immediate ground stop at 9:05 AM (the logical move).
In that case the pilot on United 93 would have announced the situation over the intercom, and that the plane was immediately landing in Harrisburg, and no one would leave their seat.
So - if that had happened, would a necessary step check in terrorist preparation on United 93 been averted? Not going to spoil for everyone else, but would an important part of the terrorists’ threat posture been rendered impossible?
The answer, from Greengrass’ presentation, is definitely yes. Which brings up the next question - would they still have tried to take over the plane without that piece of passenger intimidation? Particularly knowing that all the passengers know, up front, that these are suicide missions?
Under THOSE circumstances, the odds of the terrorists jumping up would be less than 5%. Greengrass’ supposition about the preparation in question is conjecture, but it seems highly likely. I can’t imagine that the attackers would have handled that part of the plot any other way.
True, it is possible that ‘preparation’ was done earlier in the flight - but that too is implausible, since, once you’ve finished that preparation you have to move (can’t just sit in your seat at that point).
In summary, then, what that one fellow did in the bathroom (sounds gross, and is…gross) would not have happened if Sliney had done his job. Without that bathroom activity, it is unlikely that the attack would have occured, especially since the terrorists would lose the benefit of the bathroom preparation, in addition to passenger surprise.
So if Sliney responded to a devastating emergency with immediate emergency measures, I believe there is a far greater than 50% chance that United 93 would have landed safely.
Sliney sucks.
April 30th, 2006 at 11:38:44 am
Indeed, if the pilot of United 93 announced an immediate ground stop at 9:06 AM, told everyone to remain in their seats, and the attackers lacked the output of the work in the bathroom…
…the best the attackers could have hoped for would be maybe to kill a stewardess and one surprised bystander, at which point the rest of the passengers would have immediately jumped them, no plotting or discussion necessary.
As a result, they would not only get the crap utterly kicked out of them on that plane, but they would also have the priviledge of landing in Harrisburg, heading for booking, and an indignity-laden Nuremberg-type trial with prison treatment making Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park.
No way they would have jumped up under those circumstances. No way.
April 30th, 2006 at 12:18:34 pm
Jazz, your posts assume too much.
Had he called for the groundstop, the pilots inevitably would have notified the passengers he was landing the plane, but you HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING whether or not the pilots would have notified the passengers of the terrorist attacks. Indeed, I would suggest that it is likely they would NOT have told the passengers because they would have wanted to keep people calm. You don’t want to start a panic on an airplane.
If the terrorists then jumped up, they would simply begin as they did in real life–stabbing a passenger to death, placing a knife to the throat of the flight attendant, and forcing their way into the cockpit. The sheer terror of the moment would undoubtedly cause all of first class to run back to coach. One hijacker can follow them, beat up on a guy, and terrify the rest of the passengers into submission for a short period at least.
From there on out, it becomes increasingly more difficult to safely land the plane. Even if the passengers immediately retaliate, no one is on the “stick,” and the plane could easily crash–indeed, likely crash.
You keep mentioning the presentation of the Greengrass movie, and the fact that the terrorists were nervous in the movie. While I think its a safe assumption that the terrorists were nervous for the obvious reasons, as well as by the fact that they hijacked the plane really late, you don’t know for sure. Even in the Greengrass movie, the other terrorists were chomping at the bit.
My point is—your position depends upon an escalating number of “if’s.”
-If the pilots notified the passengers of the terrorist attacks
-If the terrorists didn’t attack
-If the passengers were only kept submissive by the fake bomb
-If the passengers would have acted IMMEDIATELY, connecting the dots between what was happening on the plane with what the pilot had reported in the midst of an attack in which people’s throats are being slit, and people are screaming.
-If the terrorists weren’t able to get on the controls immediately.
I just don’t buy it. I think Flight 93 was doomed at take-off, regardless of what Sliney did or did not do.
I’m not defending Sliney–if he acted slow than he made a mistake and should have acted more decisively. But I’m not convinced his mistake ACTUALLY cost any lives—although it potentially could have
April 30th, 2006 at 7:49:42 pm
Charles, too cowardly to own up to your statments i see…
April 30th, 2006 at 7:55:23 pm
thebeef,
I certainly grant you that, if a groundstop had been called at 9:04 AM (as it most definitely should have), the announcement of the pilot on United 93 would make a difference in terms of the nerve of the terrorists.
You are right that the terrorists don’t necessarily need the output of that guy’s work in the lavatory to get on the stick; if the pilot had not announced why they were landing, the knife-in-the-stewardess’ throat may well have been enough to take control.
So we don’t know. You absolutely painted a plausible scenario in which the outcome that happened, would have happened anyway.
Nevertheless, even in the scenario you painted, the following “new” facts would impact whether to jump the plane:
1) No benefit of the lavatory work, making it difficult to hold the plane for any lengthy period of time.
2) You would know that the pilots and possibly the crew were aware of what you were doing - thus they would not relinquish controls readily.
Issue 1 just above means you would be unlikely to make it to your intended target.
Issue 2 means there would be a chance you’d never get the plane at all (and then Nuremberg-type trials, Guantanamo horrors, etc).
So the issue would boil down to:
a) Try to take the plane, and then crash it immediately or very soon (not at the target), or
b) slip back into the population from Harrisburg.
2 posts ago I said there was far better than a 50% chance of the terrorists choosing b) in that case. Maybe “far” was too extreme a modifier. I stick though to the conclusion that the odds of choice b) would be well above 50% (but maybe not FAR above, for the reasons you point out).
Nevertheless, whether “far” or “well” above 50%, the fact that Sliney’s dithering prevented us from finding out makes his sympathetic presence in their movie just. plain. wrong.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:27:52 am
I dont care about the Iraq war and WMD and the need to go there or not because I believe with all of this immigration crap and the fact that this country has gone SOFT we will experince another 9/11 and it will be more devastating than any of us can imagine.
the soft liberal stance in this country is killing the fiber of America and unfortunately 9/11 has emobldened all of our enemies to view us as a target that can be punched in the mouth because we might not punch back.
IRAN will use a nuke against us.
CHINA will use a nuke against us.
Germany will side against us.
Russia will side against.
I have no doubts about that. looking at those videos of 9/11 only reminded me that the war is real and has many faces.