Lessons of United 93

[Jim]

I saw the movie today and am still shaky from it. I've long believed that movies which portray actual historical events faithfully, without embelishment and without a political axe to grind make potent cinema. With United 93 there is no attempt to understand causes yet the movie treats all of the people as flesh and blood.

 

For those that have seen the movie, what did you take away from the experience?

 

Beyond the emotional wreck it made of me, hours later, I draw the following lessons:

 

1. We do live in a different world post 9/11. Now connections would be made instantly but at the time they were hard to draw even after one plane had hit the WTC. There wasn't even an ironclad method of protecting the nation's capital. There is no going back to the pre-9/11 mind set.

 

2. Victor Hanson's central thesis is correct. Hanson argues that Western citizen soldiers have dominated non-western military forces for reasons of culture - citizen soldiers, able to dissent, use initiative and subject to audit after the conclusion of a battle, are far more effective than conscripts, unable to bring new ideas to their leaders, use initiative and whose leaders are immune to consequences of failure.

 

 

On United 93, ordinary men and women were faced with a surprise bloody assault by a group of men who had been trained for years to complete this one job. By the time the passengers could even begin to think of a response, the pilots were dead as was a stewardess and another passenger. The terrorists were locked in the cockpit and lowered the plan to a very low flight path and another terrorist had a very realistic looking fake bomb strapped around his stomach with the trigger in his upraised hand.

 

The strengths of western culture Hanson describes became apparent. Leaders emerged, information was gathered, possibilities were discussed, and a decision was made. Weapons were gathered and even a pilot was found. I do not know how much of all of this is known for certain, but they even fashioned siege engine of sorts out of a serving cart to break down the cockpit door. We do know that they made it into the cockpit and could have succeeded.

 

These were not larger than life heroes but were ordinary Americans from a tradition of freedom, dissent and individual action.

 

3. True believers are dangerous but not superior. When you see what the terrorists had to go through to make this happen, walk through the security at an air port, sit down with the people at the gate before entering that narrow air plane. All of the planning and training and, bluntly, courage, not to produce something productive but to destroy symbols and lives of their enemy. It would be a huge mistake to doubt the sincerity of their intent.

 

On United 93, fanatic zealotry was confronted by free men and women taken entirely by surprise and with little military training. Ambrose pointed out that Hitler made the same mistake in believing the spoiled sons of democracy would fold before his fanatics trained from birth.

 

I'm sure I'll think of more. It was a remarkable movie which I doubt I will ever see again. Once is enough.

[Neil9327]

I think you have some good points. I haven't seen the film, nor any reviews, and have no intention of doing so. I just think the whole thing was very sad.

 

2. Victor Hanson's central thesis is correct. ...' date=' able to dissent, use initiative and subject to audit after the conclusion of a battle, are far more effective than conscripts, unable to bring new ideas to their leaders, use initiative and whose leaders are immune to consequences of failure.

 

Leaders emerged, information was gathered, possibilities were discussed, and a decision was made.

.[/quote']

 

These points are the key reasons why the western democratic system was successful over the communist "command economy" of the old soviet union, and other similar regimes. It is simply not the case that the best ideas for any enterprise come from the top of the organisational/society's structure - they often come from the most unexpected people. So an organisation benefits by allowing people to listen to others.

 

Another point: The people on the plane were most likely well above the average in society in terms of smartness, cunning, intelligence, because the rest of society can't afford to travel by air.

So I wonder whether if it had happened on, say, a bus carrying a lower "class" of passenger the passenger revolt might not have been as effective.

[Jim]

I think you have some good points. I haven't seen the film, nor any reviews, and have no intention of doing so. I just think the whole thing was very sad.

 

It's one of those movies you know you won't "enjoy" like typical entertainment fare. Unlike, say, a Braveheart which is manipulatively uplifting, movies which are stone cold factual about events in history have a power that can be as strangely uplifting even as it saddens you. Apollo 13 had a happy ending but is a good example of why movie makers miss the mark when they feel they have to fluff history for the masses.

 

I do recommend seeing the movie but can understand why someone would refrain. It took me a while before I worked up the nerve. In the end, it was the reviews which persuaded me to go - they were uniformly impressed.

 

Another point: The people on the plane were most likely well above the average in society in terms of smartness, cunning, intelligence, because the rest of society can't afford to travel by air.

So I wonder whether if it had happened on, say, a bus carrying a lower "class" of passenger the passenger revolt might not have been as effective.

 

Perhaps. Certainly they were fortunate (almost) to have a judo expert and a small plane pilot on board. However, Hanson's point applies across the classes in free countries. He gives several examples of initiatives by average citizens put into extraordinary circumstances.

 

True, their was a "lucky" mix of passengers on United 93 but they still were caught completely unawares and faced with brutality and bomb strapped around a terrorist's waist. They were distracted by the need to find closure in what remained of their lives - making phone calls to loved ones - and, as far as I could tell, had no military training. They were thrown up against fanatics ready to die. In the end, that's all the fanatics could do.

 

Btw, Hanson's point is not entirely a happy one. He sees more and more of the world becoming "Westernized" and he talks about the carnage that results when west faces west. My only point was that it hit me hard to see this real life example proving the points of this academic.

 

A final point of the movie which hit me hard and which I almost hesitate to mention because it may go more on the philosophy/religion topic.

 

4. The danger of certainty, particularly religious certainty. This can come from religious dogma or from other sources but the movie, while not overtly sympathetic to the terrorists, does present them as human beings who believe in their cause. They are joyous when hearing their brothers hit the WTC. There is even a certain nobility in their courage in overcoming obvious fear. These good feelings evaporate when you see their savagery, but more than any movie I've ever seen it does put a face on "terror."

[Jim]

Here's a Rolling Stones review which says it much better:

 

Doesn't seem to matter that United 93, written and directed with bruising brilliance and healing compassion by Paul Greengrass, is a monumental achievement that stands above any film this year. According to the polls, audiences intend to shun it. It's too soon, we're told, for a movie to take on 9/11. It's too speculative to watch a re-enactment of what might have happened that morning on United Airlines Flight 93 -- departing Newark for San Francisco -- when thirty-three passengers and seven crew members rose up against the four knife-wielding hijackers who killed the pilots and took control of the plane. It's too hard to watch brave people lose their lives as they force the plane to miss its presumed target in D.C. and crash into a Pennsylvania field. To which I ask: Are American audiences always to be coddled by fantasy? Is harsh reality forever out of bounds at the multiplex?

 

If so, we're in a sorry state, doomed to commercial choices -- is it Mi3 or Poseidon? -- and a world where ambition falls victim to a risk-adverse box office. None of that for Greengrass, a British director with a background in documentaries. [snip]

 

Greengrass refused to make United 93 without the support of the families of the passengers and crew. They could not have found a better champion.

 

There's not an ounce of Hollywood bull in this movie's 111 minutes. To achieve authenticity, Greengrass used little-known actors and recruited aviation and military personnel to play themselves, most notably Ben Sliney, who marked September 11th as his first day on the job as chief of air traffic control at the Federal Aviation Administration's command center in Virginia. Images that repetition has burned into our consciousness -- two planes crashing into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon -- flash by as they did on that day, leaving the world in shock and the government unprepared to act.

 

It's then that Greengrass takes us into the fourth hijacked plane, as passengers on cells or plane phones learn of the attacks. Using hand-held cameras and shooting in real time, he captures the staggering horror of that ninety-one-minute flight and how courage emerged from chaos. Some families were worried that the film would focus on the quartet of ex-athletes -- Todd Beamer (David Alan Basche), Mark Bingham (Cheyenne Jackson), Tom Burnett (Christian Clemenson) and Jeremy Glick (Peter Hermann) -- who made calls to loved ones and reported the plan to go down fighting. But Greengrass' gaze takes in everything. Beamer's famous "Let's roll" comment is delivered off-the-cuff, not like a battle cry in a bogus action flick. We will never know whether the passengers actually breached the cockpit. What matters to Greengrass is their collective intent. At the end, he imagines a sea of arms reaching into that cockpit in a way that redefines heroism. Far from being exploitive, the effect is inspiring: This is the best of us.

[ecoli]

Well, what do you guys think about this movie?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/

 

It's directed by Oliver Stone, who's notorious for streching the truth. (IMO)

[Pangloss]

Kinda hard to judge a movie I haven't seen, ecoli, but it is interesting to note the differences between United 93 and WTC, which is already getting blasted by a few "insiders" who saw an early preview.

 

One of the reasons U93 is so powerful is that it shuns the traditional Hollywood approach. There are no "name" stars in U93, no focus on dramatic personal stories, etc. It is not "Airport 2001". There's no elderly grandmother travelling with a sick child who desperately needs a heart transplant at the destination city. There's no newlywed couple in the next row, waiting to start their new life together, with the wife afraid to tell her new husband that she's pregnant. NONE of that nonsense. As Roger Ebert put it, "United 93 is exactly what we would know if we had been on the plane and sitting across from them: nothing, except for a few details of personal appearance."

 

At least one ground control official actually plays himself. The plot follows the general outline provided by the 9/11 Commission Report, so while there is some dramatic license (particularly with regard to the presumed actions of the passengers), accuracy was clearly important to the filmmakers.

 

Universal has done very little marketing, and NO "viral" marketing at all. Even more telling, the film contains NO POLITICS. There's nothing that anybody could point to and say "that's exploitative".

 

Stone's WTC is exactly the opposite. Traditional Hollywood approach, done Oliver Stone style.

 

It's really not hard to see the writing on this wall, is it?

[padren]

I haven't seen the movie, though I might. I had read some horrible reviews on it, but it sounds a lot better on this thread, to the point of sounding worth the watch.

 

 

One of the most amazing things I thought came out of 9/11 was that, the hijackers had all the planes in the air, at a time in our culture's history where universally, when there is a plane hijacking, you are supposed to cooperate and not cause any trouble, just like a bank robbery.

 

In the course of the execution of this terrorist attack, while U93 was still in the air people on that plane, already forced into the back, discovered via calls to their families and the authorities what the terrorists were doing, and responded to it the very best way they could, throwing out the old rules of how to act in a hijacking situation completely.

 

Its a testament to the ease of communication that we have embraced as a culture, in a time when places like China filter out what people can look up on Google.

 

The vulnerability we had at the time those planes took off (in ease of controlling passengers) was no longer present in our culture, including on one of the very hijacked planes before their attacks could be completed.

 

Somehow that fact chokes me up whenever I think about it. Any biological creature in the world would envy such a immunilogical response time in dealing with a completely new threat.

[bascule]

Well' date=' what do you guys think about this movie?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/

 

It's directed by Oliver Stone, who's notorious for streching the truth. (IMO)[/quote']

 

Oliver Stone is a conspiracy theory nut. I'm guessing this will be all about the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the same way JFK was all about the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.

 

I've seen virtually every argument made in JFK systematically debunked. Watching JFK is like getting hit with a shit tornado. I expect this movie will be much the same way.

[Jim]

I haven't seen the movie, though I might. I had read some horrible reviews on it, but it sounds a lot better on this thread, to the point of sounding worth the watch.

 

I cannot honestly fathom how anyone would give this movie a bad review. The lowest I can find is a B- which makes the following comment after several favorable statements:

 

But that narrow focus, along with the lack of fully realized characters, and the absence of any historical or political context, raises the question of why, notwithstanding the usual (if shaky) commercial imperative, this particular movie was made. To jolt us out of complacency? Remind us of those who died? Unite us, as even the film's title seems to urge? Entertain us?

 

How about: To take us there without deciding for us who was the hero, whose loss mattered most or who was, politically, at fault. There is value in presenting without sentimentality, or judgments, the facts of the defining moment, thus far, of this new born century.

 

For some it may be cathartic. For others it will make them search the United 93 transcripts to try to understand what happened. No one response is valid but this is an event that shapes us all and I can't see any downside to presenting the facts without a Hollywood gloss and without letting an egocentric director's (e.g. Stone) judgment color the event. There are times a movie maker should just get the hell out of the way and tell the story.

 

One of the most amazing things I thought came out of 9/11 was that, the hijackers had all the planes in the air, at a time in our culture's history where universally, when there is a plane hijacking, you are supposed to cooperate and not cause any trouble, just like a bank robbery.

 

In the course of the execution of this terrorist attack, while U93 was still in the air people on that plane, already forced into the back, discovered via calls to their families and the authorities what the terrorists were doing, and responded to it the very best way they could, throwing out the old rules of how to act in a hijacking situation completely.

 

Its a testament to the ease of communication that we have embraced as a culture, in a time when places like China filter out what people can look up on Google.

 

The vulnerability we had at the time those planes took off (in ease of controlling passengers) was no longer present in our culture, including on one of the very hijacked planes before their attacks could be completed.

 

Somehow that fact chokes me up whenever I think about it. Any biological creature in the world would envy such a immunilogical response time in dealing with a completely new threat.

 

What a great point and this is exactly what I'm talking about. If the directors had tried to draw conclusions this message, I'm 99.9% certain, would not have been made. However, by deferring to the viewer to apply his own insight, Paul Greengrass does a service to us all.

 

Since we are talking about movies, FINALLY, Sophe Scholl has come to my little backwater and I'm looking forward to seeing it as well. Does anyone have any previews for me?

 

PS: Were the negative reviews fearful that the movie might prompt the US to become ravenously outraged and inspired to more military adventurers? Speaking as a political moderate, the movie did not outrage me in any greater degree about the actions. If anything, it humanized the face of the enemy.

[Jim]

Oliver Stone is a conspiracy theory nut. I'm guessing this will be all about the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the same way JFK was all about the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.

 

I've seen virtually every argument made in JFK systematically debunked. Watching JFK is like getting hit with a shit tornado. I expect this movie will be much the same way.

 

It sounds like typical Hollywood gloss but I'm prepared to be proven wrong. I've seen Sgt. McLoughlin interviewed and Stone has an opportunity to perform a similar service.

 

I'll forgive him a few inevitable "stones" thrown at Bush if he, more or less, sticks to the facts.

[padren]

PS: Were the negative reviews fearful that the movie might prompt the US to become ravenously outraged and inspired to more military adventurers? Speaking as a political moderate, the movie did not outrage me in any greater degree about the actions. If anything, it humanized the face of the enemy.

 

What I read, and I really can't recall where I read it...was more on the lines that it was an exploitive attempt to bleed out as much emotional saccharin as can be squeezed from a horribly tragic event under the pretense of honor and patriotism.

 

In other words, its 100% opposite of the Rolling Stone review, and what everyone here has said. I don't put any faith in that bad review on account that it appears to be an anomoly, and could easily be the reviewer's preconception before ever walking into the theatre.

There have been a few made-for-tv movies on 9/11 that apparently (I never saw any) that were bad and perhaps the bad reviewer biasedly lumped it in as being of those ilk.

 

 

I am actually curious how they "humanized the enemy" now, because frankly most American cinema tends to work of polarized points of view, and since I am sure they didn't inhumanize the passengers I am curious what they did do.

 

I may just have to see it now.

 

Side note: I definately think that the events on that plane had more to do with why we haven't had any follow up attacks of that nature than all the confiscated nail clippers put together.

Terrorists could pull machine guns from under their seats, and they still wouldn't get control of a plane today.

[Pangloss]

Padren that was a nice post back there. At risk of sounding maudlin, I've thought along similar lines myself, wondering what I would have done had I been in that situation. It's easy to say that we would have done the same, and maybe we would have, but in their pre-9/11 world we can't help but be in awe of their efforts. It must have something to do with the confluence of the unifying experiences of both air travel and the 9/11 tragedy itself.

[Jim]

What I read, and I really can't recall where I read it...was more on the lines that it was an exploitive attempt to bleed out as much emotional saccharin as can be squeezed from a horribly tragic event under the pretense of honor and patriotism.

 

Whether you decide to see the movie or not, do not make the decision based on any review which characterizes this as an exploitive attempt. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

I am actually curious how they "humanized the enemy" now, because frankly most American cinema tends to work of polarized points of view, and since I am sure they didn't inhumanize the passengers I am curious what they did do.

 

It's not so much that they made any overt attempt to humanize the enemy. It's just what happened, in my view, when I saw the terrorists pray in the beginning and their fear was palpable. In this context the simple words, "it's time" understated and matter of fact came like a blow.

 

Then, you see the actual layout of the airplane. You can see before it happens, how it has to happen. As has been said, the terrorist pilot has a GQ look to him and the over all impression is that of a human being doing something he doesn't want to do but is convinced is the right thing.

 

The movie doesn't flesh out the characters any more than they do the Americans but, at the same time, they aren't inhuman caricatures. If I had seen them on board pre 9/11, I wouldn't have taken notice.

 

Side note: I definitely think that the events on that plane had more to do with why we haven't had any follow up attacks of that nature than all the confiscated nail clippers put together.

Terrorists could pull machine guns from under their seats, and they still wouldn't get control of a plane today.

 

There are a myriad of reasons why why they can't go after planes anymore. I wasn't wondering why the attack didn't come from that direction. I'm still amazed that we've not been kicked hard in a soft target given the porosity of our southern border.

[Pangloss]

Actually I follow the air industry pretty closely, and I can't think of a single reason why they "can't go after planes anymore". The approach has a little less appeal than it used to, a kind of passive discouragement, but that's about all you can really say that we've accomplished in that area.

[ecoli]

Actually I follow the air industry pretty closely, and I can't think of a single reason why they "can't go after planes anymore".

 

I'm thinking 'can't' in terms of airport security. It's a lot tighter these days, and if you don't agree, then you've probably haven't been to an airport since 9/11.

[Mokele]

I'm thinking 'can't' in terms of airport security.

 

IIRC, there've been several publicized incidents when TSA people tested the system by trying to sneak stuff on board, and almost all got through, to the embarassment of the local TSA.

 

I say we all just fly naked.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

test

[ecoli]

exactly... the tests only serve to improve security.

[Pangloss]

(hehe) I'm having a little trouble posting my reply. I think it's getting hung up on the way you single-quoted something earlier, i.e. when I include that single-quote text in my reply it's getting confused (or something). I'll figure it out in a sec.

 

(Edit: It definitely wasn't getting hung up on your single-quotes, which I would have realized had I just looked at Mokele's post above. Oh well.)

[Pangloss]

Well I'm not sure what the problem is, but it seems to be coughing on my reply. I'll break it into two parts.

 

I'm thinking "can't" in terms of airport security. It's a lot tighter these days, and if you don't agree, then you've probably haven't been to an airport since 9/11.

 

In fact I fly fairly often. As I said above, it's probably less appealing to terrorists than other avenues of achieving destruction. Changes in security procedures make it less convenient for both travellers and potential troublemakers.

 

(continued below)

[Pangloss]

But frankly the main reason why they're probably not interested in that approach today is the increased passenger and flight staff awareness. That was, after all, the only reason Richard Reid was caught. He certainly had no problem waltzing past that "increased security" wearing shoes packed with PETN. And incidents of passengers and flight attendants "taking care of business" are on the increase.

 

But increased airport security stopping terrorists? No, that's just not the case. We're not even close to where we need to be. Too much baggage still goes unchecked, terminals have gone back to more emphasis on passenger comfort/convenience than security, and the air marshall program, as has recently been reported on extensively, is a bad joke.

[Pangloss]

(TOO strange. I wonder why it wouldn't let me post all of that together?)

[Jim]

Actually I follow the air industry pretty closely, and I can't think of a single reason why they "can't go after planes anymore". The approach has a little less appeal[/i'] than it used to, a kind of passive discouragement, but that's about all you can really say that we've accomplished in that area.

 

I do not purport to be expert but I would think the hyper alertness of passengers and crew would make a huge difference if terrorists tried the box knife approach. As was mentioned in an earlier post, few are immediately going to just submit to a hijack as they once did now that the use of the airplane as a bomb has been established. Now that everyone knows what happened, I'd doubt if terrorists would risk all on a fake bomb. Without a convincing bomb, a few box knifes aren't going to keep back 100+ passengers.

 

Also, whether anyone admits it or not, there is profiling going on by everyone. A group of 4-5 young arab men sitting in first class is going to get some extra attention. I have to think that their positioning would be considered and passed by stewardesses to the pilot.

 

Another point of vulnerability in this same attack plan, would be whether the stewardess would give out the entrance knock or whether the pilot would allow entrance to the cockpit on threat of death to a stewardess. The potential damage that could be caused by entry would likely cause the pilot to be more willing to sacrifice the stewardess.

 

If they do get control of an airplane, I would think that reducing the flight path to less than 1,000' altitude, would be a good signal that this is not a normal hijack.

 

The willingness to shoot down an airplane would be much higher post 9/11 now that we have the potential damage ingrained in our Psyche. That fact would not be lost on terrorists.

 

I can't imagine flight instruction schools not doing some profiling as well. This was a long drawn out exercise which would be much more likely to have been caught with the post 9/11 mentality. Whatever they would be contemplating, it would need to be a quick in & out strike.

 

I'm not so much talking about technical improvements in procedures (although surely they've made it harder to get in the cockpit?), as the impact of the post 9/11 mindset. I would hope they've made technical improvement regarding the ability of the terrorists to turn off the transponders, communication chain to get authority to shoot, etc etc.

 

If they haven't, well shame on them but would the terrorists bet their plan on such negligence?

[Jim]

But frankly the main reason why they're probably not interested in that approach today is the increased passenger and flight staff awareness. That was' date=' after all, the only reason Richard Reid was caught. He certainly had no problem waltzing past that "increased security" wearing shoes packed with PETN. And incidents of passengers and flight attendants "taking care of business" are on the [i']increase[/i].

 

But increased airport security stopping terrorists? No, that's just not the case. We're not even close to where we need to be. Too much baggage still goes unchecked, terminals have gone back to more emphasis on passenger comfort/convenience than security, and the air marshall program, as has recently been reported on extensively, is a bad joke.

 

Heh, I see after posting that last one that you've already mentioned the main thrust of my reason why this would be a difficult tactic post 9/11.

 

I saw MI3 today. I have to admit, it was more enjoyable. Cruise may or may not be a flake but he can make a great action movie.

[Pangloss]

These things are subject to opinion, of course, and "more difficult" is a reasonable point. The main concern I have (which isn't necessarily directed at you) is that airport security is not something we should view in a mission-accomplished manner. The key ingredients of passenger and baggage screening, and the air marshall program, are in poor condition and not only aren't improving, but are giving us a false sense of security. We're better-protected from madmen and irate businessmen, but terrorist are neither of those.

 

I'm an optimist, though, and I think you have to take these things in steps. Continued focus can lead to improvement. This was, IMO, the primary benefit of the 9/11 Commission Report, more than the specific recommendations it made.