I really think that people overuse terms like
"miracle", "beautiful" and heroic", and many comments I've read about
this film demonstrate that. It is very important that these words not
be taken lightly, since their careless use denigrates the truly
beautiful, the genuinely miraculous, and the inarguably heroic. In the
case of the flight 93 passengers, I think the correct term to describe
them would be "brave", but they are definitely not heroes.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who will have a knee jerk
outrage reaction to what I've just said, so let me clarify my
statement. I think that the passenger's revolt was an act of desperate
self preservation, and really nothing more. True heroism is assuming an
unnecessary risk to accomplish something selfless, often with an
uncertain outcome. For example, imagine if the people on flight 93 had
the option of parachuting out of the back of the airplane to safety,
but instead decided to risk death by staying behind to wrest control of
the plane from the hijackers. They certainly knew of the hijacker's
intentions because of cell phone conversations, so a decision to forgo
safety in an effort to prevent the plane from destroying another
building would definitely be heroic. Unfortunately, given the absence
of a safe alternative(the parachute), the passengers' decision to fight
back is merely "brave". Now, bravery isn't a bad thing, and it's a hell
of a lot better than sitting in a seat paralyzed with fear, but it's
also a far cry from heroism. The firefighters who climbed up into the
burning towers at tremendous risk ARE genuine heroes, and their
sacrifice was altruistic. We'll never really know the concrete details
of what happened on flight 93, but we shouldn't cheapen the term
"heroic" by assigning it to some brave individuals who fought back when
there was no other option.
To quote Gimli: "Certain death? Small chance of success? What are we waiting for?"
Your thoughts are welcome, and thanks for reading.
|
|
|
 by -
CorranH96
2 days ago (Sat Apr 29 2006 01:34:02 )
|
|
they saved the plane from killing other civilians they where heros
|
|
|
That's a very simplistic way of viewing what I've
said though. What if when they brought the plane down they brought it
down inside a full basketball arena and killed 15,000 people? Would
they have still been heroes?
You see my point? Heroism is about intention and altruism, it's not about the accidental consequences of self preservation.
|
|
|
Except you have no way of knowing their intentions.
Moreoever, it's documented that one of the passengers said on a
call to his wife that they were waiting to be over a rural area before
trying to take the plane.
I'm not saying that they were heroic. But you seem so sure of their
intentions. I think the smartest thing to do is not argue this matter
in either direction.
Try and look at things from more than just your own perspective.
|
|
|
They are def. heros. Think about it. Some of the
guys talking to their wives on the p hone said that if they dont do
something, somethign very bad can happen. They knew that they intended
to hit a buildong of some sort. They knew that the towers were hit and
pentagon so obviously they would be hitting a building. I am bet you
that about 95% of the passangers and crew knew that they wouldnt make
it. They knew that something terrible was gonna happen to them no
matter what. But instead of thm sitting down and letting themselves die
by having those terrorist fly into a building, they fought (probably
hoping to suceed in taking over the plane and landing it safely) but
knowing that they would be stopping them from hitting a possibly
target. Its true heroism. they did it together and not just for
themselevs. I believe that bravery and heroism is def. apart of it all.
So your point doesnt help you at all. You need to think about heroism
being a feeling of doing something for the sake of others and safety.
Bravery is walking across a lanky bridge to get to the oother side. You
dont have to do it but you did. heroism is walking across that lanky
bridge with intentions of doing somethign on the otehr side. You take
risks to help those around you. Those people on that plane took a risk.
They didnt have to try to fight back. Its either die by having the
plane just crash into a building intentionally or die fighting those
who are enemies and knowing that they would never make that target.
They didnt plan on being heros that day but they certainly did become
ones. They were real Americans. Or hispanics or italians or jewish. But
they showed the true spirit of America.
|
|
|
| by -
forex73
12 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 16:17:01 )
|
|
What doesn't pass for heroism in America these days.
|
|
|
I definantly agree. What these passengers did is bravery not heroism.
|
|
|
| by -
oft_I_am
2 days ago (Sat Apr 29 2006 01:44:15 )
|
|
In order to be a hero there is an element of
altruism that is attached to it. If I ran into a burning building to
get someone because there was an award for their safety, that would not
be heroic would it? However, if I went back in to save someone because
their life was in danger, different story. Not exactly a perfect
analogy, but in this case, desperation does not play out to heroism.
They were not doing it to save others lives, they were doing it to save
their own, regardless of the outcome.
I always thought the term "hero" was a bit strong, and your post
articulated why. Brave sounds much more fitting. I think I have to
agree with you. Well played.
"I have an easier time believing that Paris Hilton is a virgin."
|
|
|
| by -
insom187
17 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 11:36:42 )
|
|
Intentions have nothing to do with heroism.
Whether or not you did it for a reward should not take away from the
fact you risked your own life to save another. In the case of United 93
even if they were doing it to save their own life, which it seems was
their goal, they prevented the possible deaths of hundreds more so
regardless of why they did it, the outcome should make them heroic. I
wouldnt even consider it "accidental heroism" either because most of
the passengers did recognize hey were not going to survive no matter
the outcome. That is just the way I see it but it is no regards the
final word.
|
|
|
| by -
chiddick
16 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:27:50 )
|
|
But they DIDN'T risk their lives. They were already doomed, and KNEW IT.
Can't you grasp this?
|
|
|
| by -
rburke-1
13 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 15:00:34 )
|
|
They were already doomed, and KNEW IT.
I'm not sure that's true. From the 9-11 Commission Report (p.14):
At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said,“In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!”
The
plane crashed only three minutes later, so it would appear at least
this passenger held out the hope -- vain, to be sure, and maybe he knew
it -- that by regaining control of the plane they could save themselves.
|
|
|
| by -
scar1000
12 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 16:02:47 )
|
|
This is the dumbest arguement ever. Trying to define "Hero" is like trying to define "Good."
|
|
|
scar1000-This is the dumbest arguement ever. Trying to define "Hero" is like trying to define "Good."
You are quite possibly the smartest person on this board.
|
|
|
| by -
tlgonzal
7 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 21:06:17 )
|
|
I think I'm going to have to agree with you
JPSchmits...scar1000 hit it right on the nose. I was surprised to even
read the title of this thread. It's a pointless argument really.
|
|
|
| by -
chiddick
10 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 18:09:40 )
|
|
I meant doomed if they did nothing.
Hence they had no lives to sacrifice.
They sacrificed nothing they had not already lost.
|
|
|
-- Intentions have nothing to do with heroism.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. So if I aim to shoot a
little kid and thus my intention is to kill the kid and I end up
shooting a person behind the kid who was going to kill the kid himself
then I'm a dman hero. Moron. Intentions change everything and affect
everything.
|
|
|
| by -
cby7
17 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 11:39:56 )
|
|
Honestly, I think what they did was really their
only option. Nothing more. Their choices were to eithr to allow the
terrorists to crash the plane and kill the passengers and other
civilians, or to desperately try to stop them
It's not that difficult to decide what to do. I mean, good
decision, wouldn't anyone who didn't want to die have done the same
thing? If you try to stop them and they kill you, then you die. If you
do nothing, you die. The worst case scenario remains the same, so why
not create a positive possibility?
|
|
|
I find it somewhat disheartening that all 4
planes didn't rise up. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't in that situation
and I can never imagine how horrifying it must have been, but it must
have been clear towards the end what was going to happen. I couldn't
have just sat there. If all planes had pulled a 93 then perhaps 9-11
itself could have been transmuted into a lesser tragedy. Maybe they
weren't heroes, but they were able to push themselves past the
fear-paralysis and defend themselves, which is worth a hefty degree of
admiration in and of itself. I hope that everyone who ever flies on a
plane remembers 93. If so, then American airliners will literally
become uncapturable, as an hijacker will be attacked by the entire
passenger complement within moments of announcing their intentions. I'm
not sure I have that much confidence in the selflessness of my fellow
Americans, but it's wonderful to hope.
|
|
|
The passengers on the other flights were
convinced that it was just a regular hijacking, they didn't know they'd
be crashing into buildings.
|
|
|
You see, you can't blame the passengers in the
other planes for not rising up. Before that day, the rule of thumb was
to cooperate.
Terrorists just didn't do that sort of thing from September
10th on back. They always landed and demanded something. Land and
demand. Land and demand. Everybody knew that.
In fact, if someone on those other planes had tried to rise
up, likely the other passengers would have told him or her to sit the
heck back down before he got everybody killed. That was how people
thought back then.
It was only after 9-11 that we have become as we are today. And it
took us all of an hour to make the switch. That's the point of this
film.
Terror with napalm
I want ya'll to STAY calm! 
|
|
|
| by -
donut44
9 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 19:03:53 )
|
|
You make a good point and one that certainly
helps to throw a wrench in the idea that the passengers on 93 were not
hereos, but just brave. The passengers on 93 did something that until
this moment, would have seemed outrageous and possibly even got them in
trouble for disrupting the status quo of hijaking. Sounds stupid, but
in America we believe in rules and laws and for the most part follow
them.
|
|
|
| by -
rburke-1
14 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 14:43:31 )
|
|
The passengers on the other flights were convinced that it was just a regular hijacking
Regular hijacking? Regular hijacking? Regular hijacking?!?
|
|
|
| by -
forex73
12 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 16:33:23 )
|
|
Some people watch Passenger 57 and think they're experts on commercial aircraft terror.
|
|
|
Brainweiss, you make a good point on the
difference between a last-ditch effort to thwart the certain deaths of
government and civilian personnel in DC, versus deciding to walk into a
collapsing, burning building to help minimize casualties inside. The
latter group could just as easily decided to walk to the metro and go
home, and catch the rest on CNN.
So there are heroes who died in the face of dying anyway, and
heroes who perished by voluntarily putting themselves in peril. Agreed,
there are definitely two types of heroes on that day, but I still say hero is the correct word.
On the plane, everybody could have sat tight- whether they decided
to, or just couldn't make themselves get up. And none of us could fault
them for it. Because who knows what you'll do until you're there. But
these people were there, and they did get up and make a
difference. So I'm putting them on the hero pedestal, and I daresay the
WTC and Pentagon heroes up in Heaven have gladly accepted the United 93
civilians in their group.
Terror with napalm
I want ya'll to STAY calm!
|
|
|
| by -
lalala07
16 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:11:00 )
|
|
well, I consider the passengers of Flight 93 to
be brave, courageous, determined, everything but heroes. The fact that
they saved the many lives in danger on the ground doesn't mean they are
heroes. They tried to save themselves first, but failed, but on the
bright side, happened to save other people on the ground. To be a hero,
you must sacrifice or jeopardize your life for some unselfish reason to
others-not to say that the Flight 93 passengers were selfish-they had a
right to naturally want to save themselves first.
|
|
|
| by -
berztfc
16 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:19:59 )
|
|
 UPDATED Sun Apr 30 2006 12:21:48 |
Heroes or brave either way they did they right
thing, even if they had manage to take over the plane, who would fly
it? Pilot and the rest of the crew are dead, I doubt any of the
passengers knew how to control or fly a plane. So deep down they all
knew the chances of survival was slim. to compare them to firefighters
makes no sense a firefighter is train to go in a burning building and
saved people. it don't mean his not a hero but he just doing his job.
if it makes you feel better about yourself calling the passengers
selfish go right ahead, i just think your been very ignorant. 33 or
1000 innocent people dead either way u look at it it's still a tragedy,
if someone wants to called them heroes they have every right to do so.
Whether is the right meaning or not. Saying that you have every right
to have your opinion as ignorant as it might be, them been portrayed as
brave or heroes won't bring them back to life, won't change anything
about that day. I'm my opinion there's is more important events to be
look at and discuss, than whether the passengers are heroes or brave.
|
|
|
| by -
perazzitms
16 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:14:30 )
|
|
By your own logic, the firefighters were not
heroes either. Not a one of them knew the buiding was going to
collapse. They were simply stuck in it when it did.
How many do you think would have rushed in if you had told them
"the building is going to collapse in 40 seconds, you won't be able to
rescue anybody, and your children will be left fatherless..." I'll bet
nobody.
Who on board actually knew how to fly the plane. Forget this
Holywood crap about somebody 'talking down' a 767 while Joe Moron
pipefitter up front flies it. It wasn't like they knew "if we stop the
Terrorists, everything will be OK".
They stopped their plane from becoming a guided missle. They didn't do it trying to be home for dinner.
|
|
|
A hero is someone who is looked up to by someone
else, if you think someone is a hero they are a hero. If someone else
doesn't think so they can *beep* off they are still a hero to someone
else. End of story.
|
|
|
| by -
lalala07
16 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:24:09 )
|
|
By your own logic, the
firefighters were not heroes either. Not a one of them knew the buiding
was going to collapse. They were simply stuck in it when it did.
...at least the firefighters knew there was some danger, e.g. being
burned by the fire or killed in the building. They know how dangerous
their jobs are every day and knew how dangeous it would be
climbing the 1,368 ft. building to save people from the fire on 9/11.
They are true heroes-not only on 9/11-but every day of their jobs.
They stopped their plane from becoming a guided missle. They didn't do it trying to be home for dinner.
...Stopping the plane from becoming a "guided missle" was pretty much secondary at the time. The first thing on their minds was
landing safely and getting home to their families. That is why they
revolted against the hijackers-they even tried to get a pilot passenger
to the cockpit, so he could have it land safely. Naturally, saving
themselves first was the first priority. Saving others is just what had resulted in their failure to save themselves.
|
|
|
| by -
donut44
9 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 19:21:54 )
|
|
It is definitely your opinion that they were not
hereos and you can stick with that, as it is obvious no one is going to
change your opinion on the matter. However, your a little off here and
now you are assuming to know what was on the minds of the passengers as
well.
A hereo goes about being so by being brave and courageous. You have
added in that a hereo can not be selfish. However, a hereo should be
self-sacrificing, but this is not the same thing as unselfish. The fact
that some of them wanted to rescue the plane, and thus themselves does
not negate the reality of what happens if they do not or negate the
other alternatives.
Saving oneself in the process of saving others, no matter the
motive does not take away from what one has done. 93 sacrificed
themselves willingly, even if they also wanted to go home. The
sacrifice occurs when they get themselves out of their seats and head
down the aisle.
From here,you believe this is just brave and I believe it to be a hereo, different opinions.
|
|
|
| by -
chiddick
16 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:33:26 )
|
|
Correct!
They were no more heroic than every other firefighter. The last
thing anyone expected was for the buildings to collapse so fast. The
firefighters had no idea their lives were in such severe jeopardy.
Heres the thing - the victims were not heroes, and the killers were
not cowards. Indeed, the killers were the ONLY people on 911 who
deliberately sacrificed their lives.
Does this make them heroes? It does to some, but to me this proves that it takes both bravery AND a good motive to be a hero.
The terrorists had evil motives, even thogh they were not cowards.
The passengers on Flight 93 had perfectly natural selfish motives, but
were not cowards.
No heroes - on either side. In real life heroes are very very rare.
|
|
|
| by -
dust-7
16 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:17:16 )
|
|
You complain that they are not heroes because
heroism requires a choice. And they faced no choice. Dead at hands of
the knife wielding manians on the plane - or dead when they were flown
into the target. Either way. There was no choice, no risk, only the
certainty of death. They were copilots to kamikazes, only wondering if
they could overpower the pilot, turn the plane around, and save those
at the target from death.
Well, if phrased like that, I wonder how you could say they had no
choice. They had the choice to let the kamikaze crash into the
'carrier', or try to wrestle away the controls so that they might
either crash into the water, or perhaps even gain control themselves
before too late. Such would be an heroic act.
They placed themselves in danger of being blownup on the spot, of
being knifed on the spot, when they thought they might have a chance to
rescue themselves and the intended other victims of the kamikazes. But
even if it meant they had no chance themselves, they heroically decided
to rush the terrorists, then the terrorists in the cockpit, because
what mattered was saving the lives of those on the ground.
Give them their due credit.
|
|
|
its rediculous that Americans cant face the incident as a tradgedy and not try to spin it into a triumph
Last Film I Watched:
United 93 - Paul Greengrass(5/10)
|
|
|
I couldn't agree more with your comment.
"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone."
|
|
|
| by -
dust-7
11 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 17:24:33 )
|
|
That Americans are fools, and can't recognize tradgedy, etc?
That's a rather hysterical reaction to what I suggested, in my opinion.
Give the passengers their due. They were heroes that day.
|
|
|
| by -
Cartman86
16 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:27:19 )
|
|
We are getting stuck on english words here people. Language is a wierd thing.
|
|
|
| by -
lalala07
16 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:37:04 )
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Apr 30 2006 12:37:44 |
Heroes or brave either way they
did they right thing, even if they had manage to take over the plane,
who would fly it? Pilot and the rest of the crew are dead, I doubt any
of the passengers knew how to control or fly a plane.
There was a passenger on board who was a former pilot. With him,
they could have a safe landing or maybe a slight crash, but at least
some people would survive. And they could get help from the Air Control
centers.
|
|
|
| by -
hairgut
15 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:51:49 )
|
|
I think turning tragedy into triumph is what we
Americans do best. And also,we love vengeance. We tend to be mean
spirited and violent, and xenophobic. So when I heard that the Flight
93 passengers had revolted, I fantasized about them smashing the
terrorists' head into the consoles in the cockpit, and it comforted me.
We have many, many citizens who would joyfully pump bullets into
jihadists if we were given a chance. In fact, we have quite a few who
are doing that right now in Iraq. Anyone who hastens the death of a
terrorist is a hero to most Americans. If you hate America, or hate
President Bush, we really don't care. We are here to stay. Deal with
it. The little fags may delete this, but I have had my say.
|
|
|
| by -
forex73
12 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 16:40:09 )
|
|
Too bad the real 'heros' said 'let's roll' just in time to watch the sidewinder missile blow through the cabin.
|
|
|
| by -
dust-7
7 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 21:04:40 )
|
|
Those passengers behaved heroically, as explained to you, before.
These leftwing tinfoil conspiracy theories are really uncalled for.
Give those passengers due credit. It's only right.
|
|
|
| by -
forex73
3 hours ago (Mon May 1 2006 00:53:52 )
|
|
Honor them with the truth, not some right wing agenda propaganda crap.
|
|
|
Agreed. The firefighters are no heroes either.
They get paid to take calculated risks. Like for instance stuntmen.
Whom you wouldn't call heroes, would you? On top of that, none of the
firefighters knew the building would come down. Going into a building
that will come down for sure doesn't make you a hero, it makes you an
idiot.
|
|
|
| by -
todd24sc
15 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 12:54:25 )
|
|
Their actions, in trying to take back the plain,
showed an enourmous amount of bravery. People are free to place the
label of "heroe" on whomever they choose. Their bravery is absolutely
insperational to me, and because of that, I feel they are heroic. They
are my heroes. That may not be the case for others.
|
|
|
| by -
iamtiger82
15 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 13:03:02 )
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Apr 30 2006 13:03:33 |
hero
he·ro
(plural he·roes)
noun
1. mythology legendary man with superhuman powers: in classical
mythology, a man, especially the son of a god and a mortal, who is
famous for possessing some extraordinary gift, for example, superhuman
strength
the Greek heroes
2. remarkably brave person: somebody who commits an act of
remarkable bravery or who has shown great courage, strength of
character, or another admirable quality
a war hero
3. somebody admired: somebody who is admired and looked up to for outstanding qualities or achievements
heroes of the war against poverty
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
| by -
normandee
15 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 13:18:29 )
|
|
I remember my grandmother telling me a story
about a group of soldiers in WWII who were resting in a hut. A german
threw a genade into the hut and one of the soldiers dived upon it. It
killed him but the others were saved. He won a medal posthumously. He
was a hero. So were the people on that plane.
|
|
|
| by -
toldyousew
14 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 14:16:26 )
|
|
normandee,
no, your last sentence does not follow logically from all of the discussions in post above.
The Flight 93 happening and your war story do not have the same merit.
The soldier in your story wasn't guaranteed to die in the hut, but
chose to sacrifice himself for the rest of the group, which was heroic.
As was already pointed out, certain passengers made their moves, their whole group wound up dying.
Your war story and the Flight 93 deal is an apples and oranges comparison.
|
|
|
| by -
Holy_Smoke
10 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 18:03:28 )
|
|
You may have missed the point of Normandee's
story. Once the grenade was in the hut it was going to go off no matter
what, it could have killed either all of them or one of them who was
brave enough to dive onto it. So instead of numerous deaths there was
only one.
Once the hijackers got on that plane it was always going to 'go
off' as it were, the passengers decision was identical to the
soldier's. They threw themselves onto the grenade to lower the number
of deaths. instead of the passengers AND people on the ground dying,
only the passengers did.
|
|
|
Your comments are based on an assumption that you
know "why" people stormed the plane. Any action can be heroic
regardless of intent. The question is are the intentions heroic, and
that's not a question we can answer. Furthermore, people are dead.
Innocent people. Not soldiers who've invaded a foreign land, or
terrorists who've taken over a plane of innocents to crash. We can't
argue and debate righteousness.
Innocent people died, and through their actions, other innocent
people were potentially saved. Potentially because lets face it, planes
crash now and then without terrorists on board, there's no guarantee
this flight would've made it to it's intended destination otherwise.
You're question about their intentions is an relevant as a question
about whether or not the terrorist mission would've been accomplished
had they not stormed the cockpit.
Consider an oft-discussed myth regaring UAL 93. What if it had been
shot down by US fighter aircraft? Would the pilot of the fighter plane
be a hero? He would have acted selflessly to save human lives. But the
question would also be, was it necessary? Perhaps these were unrelated
terrorists who would've asked for ransom. Perhaps something may have
occured and the terrorists would've given up control.
Would have, could have and might have don't belong when discussing
the term "hero". It's up to the individual to decide for themselves if
they feel these people were heroes or not. And no amount of logical
reasoning on either side of the argument will change anyone's opinion.
|
|
|
| by -
dillbill7
14 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 14:06:53 )
|
|
exactly
|
|
|
| by -
deeb0
14 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 14:35:00 )
|
|
Heroes, nah. A hero is someone who shows
exemplarary selflessness. Courageous beyond a doubt, more than most
other people, yup.
And yes, many soldiers and Marines, jump on grenades. That is hardly an uncommon occurrence.
|
|
|
| by -
donut44
9 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 19:27:26 )
|
|
I didn't realize jumping on grenades was a common occurrence, but if you say so, I must believe you.
So does how often it happens have baring on the bravery of such an action?
|
|
|
| by -
trollinontheweb1999
12 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 16:24:44 )
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Apr 30 2006 16:29:54 |
Congratulations Brian, you've made the only post
that I've read on this board that makes perfect sense.(except for my
own) The firefighters, police officers and priests who went into the
Twin Towers are the real heroes of this story, why didn't they make a
movie about them?
But then again, I'm not sure if the men who went back into the
building knew the Towers would collapse, Maybe they figured the danger
was over. I guess we'll really never know for sure.
|
|
|
"The firefighters, police officers and priests
who went into the Twin Towers are the real heroes of this story, why
didn't they make a movie about them?"
They did. It's called "World Trade Center" and it comes out later this year.
|
|
|
Your message is remarkably stupid. You are the
kind of moron who criticizes everything, even the most impressive and
horriblly unfortunate, to compensate for your lack of "heroism",
"distinguishment", and obviously attention.
If that story was true, they are hero's, they didn't wait, they
ACTED, they could've acted on FAITH that nothing was going to happen,
but instead took a risk to suffer more from pain of a slow death
instead of a quick smash; they took over the plane and got hurt in the
process, and took it down taking their own lives.
However I believe the plane was destroyed by Air Force heros which I feel is obvious.
But that is besides the point; the point is you are an internet
*beep* filling message boards with brtually illogical and unnecessary
logic to suck attention and warmed-hearts away from places that always
deserve more attention than they get, like this flight and the true
victims of 9/11, and direct it toward you and your petty, nonsensical,
and worst of all SELFISH ends like the rest of you uber-pansy *beep*
that create false impressions for attention.
You are a sad walk of like and I hope you die; and I mean it. This
world is overpopulated and there are WAY too many *beep* walking around
bother people on a massive level for no good reason at everyone's
expense. You are the guy on the flight who would trip a man bum-rushing
the terrorists.
You are a fool.
You are a *beep*
And I really think you should end your miserable self, yourself, before something else more painful does.
There are few people I say this to, but I hate people like you. I
really encourage the worst for you for the sake of every logical soul
bumbling around out away from your little *beep* room with your little
douchebag computer than unfortunately gives you a false sense of
empowerment to comment when issues are raised like this movie.
|
|
|
A hero kills people...people who wish them harm.
A hero is part human and part supernatural. A hero is born out of a
childhood trauma or out of a disaster that MUST be avenged.
|
|
|
| by -
theelloworm
12 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 16:36:12 )
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Apr 30 2006 16:36:31 |
Your message is remarkably stupid.
if the official story is tru, they are not heroes.
they were trying to land the plane and save their
own lives.
geocities.com/whocaresaboutflight93
|
|
|
However I believe the plane was destroyed by Air Force heros which I feel is obvious
You believe that and have the audacity to call someone else a fool?
Who's the real *bleep*, Troll?
|
|
|
bravery and heroism Do go hand in hand!!!!!!
|
|
|
| by -
theelloworm
12 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 16:37:46 )
|
|
so do ignorance and bliss.
geocities.com/whocaresaboutflight93
|
|
|
A hero kills people...people who wish them harm.
A hero is part human and part supernatural. A hero is born out of a
childhood trauma or out of a disaster that MUST be avenged.
|
|
|
| by -
girac44
11 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 17:33:57 )
|
|
the passengers indirectly became heroes because they defended their country, whether it was by choice or not is not important
|
|
|
| by -
fenster89
11 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 17:36:50 )
|
|
no offense to anybody on this board-
who are any of you to say that these people weren't heroes? despite
any of the grossly analytical points made on the board, I still think
they were. why would you go out of your way to state that these people
(who gave their lives for others) were especially NOT heroes? I think
that some of you like observing and criticizing things you know nothing
about from a safe distance. These people died and I think that you
should have a bit of respect for them.
He's taken off his shoes and one of his socks and... actually, I think he's crying.
|
|
|
It's just that the term "Hero" is used so much
that it becomes meaningless. The media constantly calls someone a hero
who did nothing great. Take Jessica Lynch, for example. She went into
battle and her rifle jammed, she passed out from all the stress and
woke up in an Iraqi hospital where she couldn't remember if she had
been raped or not, then she was rescued by American troops and the
media have a field day. They make a dumb movie about her and parade her
through the streets as if she was some kind of hero, instead of the
airhead soldier she really was.
There is a difference between a "hero" and a "victim" of circumstances.
Just because they died does not make them "Heros".
And by the way, they only accidentally saved the Capitol building, that was not their aim.
|
|
|
| by -
dust-7
4 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 23:57:06 )
|
|
What is meaningless is to deny these brave and heroic passengers their due.
They were heroes that day. They may have thought to gain control of
the aircraft. But even failing that, they knew that if they brought
down the plane, inadvertently, or by forcing the hand of the hijackers,
lives would be spared.
For all the people so eager to take away from the heroism of these folks - give them their due credit.
|
|
|
How about instead of debating whether someone is
a hero or just brave...let's just remember that these people died
trying to do what was right-and intentions and such aside-that makes
them heroes in my book. It's pretty easy to judge the heroism of
someone from behind your computer screen, so correct me if I'm wrong,
but none of us have been in a situation remotely similar to the one
they were in, so maybe we should just admire them for doing whatever
they could.
|
|
|
Forget admiring them, let's just avenge them.
|
|
|
| by -
chiddick
10 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 18:15:16 )
|
|
Nobody on that plane deliberately sacrificed their life to save anybody.
They wanted to live.
Life is better than death, martyrdom is stupid. Its as wrong to celebrate American martyrs as it is to celebrate Arab ones.
They tried to gain comtrol of the plane because they knew that if
they didn't, they were dead. The passengers on 93 knew their fate and
tried to change it. Smart, but not heroic. It cannot be heroic if your
motive in basically self-preservation.
The can only be said to have 'given their lives to save others' if
by doing nothing they would have survived, which is not the case.
|
|
|
| by -
lalala07
10 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 18:31:40 )
|
|
no offense to anybody on this
board-who are any of you to say that these people weren't heroes?
despite any of the grossly analytical points made on the board, I still
think they were. why would you go out of your way to state that these
people (who gave their lives for others) were especially NOT heroes? I
think that some of you like observing and criticizing things you know
nothing about from a safe distance. These people died and I think that
you should have a bit of respect for them.
...I never said I had no respect for them. I have a ton of respect
for them as unfortunate victims- but that doesn't mean I'm going to
praise them and honor them as heroes. They were brave and determined-
just not quite "heroes". That doesn't show any disrespect for them at
all.
And they didn't give their lives for others. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO
GIVE THEIR LIVES UP-They wanted to live and go back to their families.
Who wouldn't?
If they had a chance to safely get off the plane-most of them would
do so-only a small number of them would probably still stay on the
plane to fight the hijackers-if that was the case-the people who stayed
on the plane to save others at the target-they would be heroes.
|
|
|
And they didn't give their lives for others.
What if, to flip around the oringinal argument, the plane was
headed for a full basketball arena of 50,000 people (even though it was
probably going for the White House, etc.). Then they did give their
lives for others.
|
|
|
| by -
chiddick
8 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 20:44:46 )
|
|
The reason they didn't give their lives is because they knew they were going to die anyway.
You can't give something you've already lost.
|
|
|
| by -
drkglass01
6 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 22:37:40 )
|
|
My 2 cents:
Sometimes a hero is someone who just gets tired enough or fed up enough to get up and do something when all seems lost.
To me this discussion is ridiculous. From the accounts of flight 93
that I have heard, the people on board knew about the twin towers and
realized they were the next "bomb". If only half the people on board
stood up to try and save the plane, would they be "heroes" for trying
to save everyone on the plane? For trying to foil whatever plan those
lunatics had in mind? Yes, this might have also saved the brave
passengers. Does being labeled a hero mean you have to commit suicide?
|
|
|
| by -
cvnataku
10 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 18:27:42 )
|
|
One thing I've noticed about the American people
lately (and I'm American, so I'm *admitting* a flaw, not condemning) is
that we believe we know the whole story every time we hear a part of
it.
We don't know the whole story about the events on United 93. We
know tidbits, pieces, and from that, we have a good *idea* of what
happened...but certainly not a detailed, chapter-to-chapter script.
If you and I keep our ignorance (and IMAGINATION) in check, insulting threads such as this one wouldn't rise.
The debate regarding the definition of "hero" is an intriguing one--but highly inappropriate given this context.
|
|
|
| by -
dlcorson
10 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 18:34:53 )
|
|
Is anyone else hungry for a Cheeseburger?
|
|
|
| by -
bek-12
9 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 19:14:18 )
|
|
I've heard people call anyone killed in 9/11 a
"hero". Personally, I think a more accurate term would be "victim",
rather than hero. With that said, I believe the act of the flight 93
passengers fighting their attackers qualifies them as real heroes.
Basically, I think you're nit-picking what a hero should be.
|
|
|
I have to say, I'm a little disturbed by your
post. Not because you're saying that the passengers on flight 93
weren't heroic, but because you seem to want to make such a strong case
for it.
MetaCritic.com, just plain better than RottenTomatoes.com
There...are...four...lights!
|
|
|
| by -
mj-stout
8 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 20:01:15 )
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Apr 30 2006 20:18:47 |
Ok, so are you a semantics professor or did you
write the movie "Saw"? Why do we have to spend time debating whether
these poor people were "heroes" or God forbid just "brave"? Why do we
have to scrutize and criticize the choices they had to make in the last
hour of their lives. Choices that I can only pray that neither myself
nor my worst enemy has to make in the final moments on earth. Why is
the label of bravery or heroism such an important distinction? Can't we
just watch the movie as humanists and not cheapen their lives and
deaths by debating semantics?
Whatever their label, these people gave the rest of us the gift of
inspiration and introspection. Faced with such horrific choices, I can
only hope that I would be brave enough, heroic enough, or at the very
least, filled with enough "desperate self-preservation" to do the right
thing.
Sir, I'm certain you can counter everything I've said with some
philosophical "what if" scenario. It's obvious that you're articulate,
well-spoken and probably well-educated. Might I suggest you use your
gift of intellect to debate the semantics of President Bush's famous
"Mission Accomplished" speech a couple years ago after "major combat
operations ended" in Iraq. That would be a good semantical debate.
|
|
|
and are quoting a fictional dwarf?
|
|
|
| by -
oss103
8 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 20:29:35 )
|
|
I've considered your post. One thing that you
seemed to have glanced over is the fact that bravery is a by-product of
heroism. One could not exist without the other.
Lastly, why draw a divide between the two? What do you, if
anything, hope to ascertain from this post? Furthermore, I wouldn't in
this instance use the word "cheapen", I think the events of United 93
extend beyond the reach of such terminology...extend beyond the
passengers on the plane, beyond those who control the airways, and into
a realm of political silence that threads our nation.
"Leap, fall or get out of the way."
"Life is a daring adventure or nothing."
|
|
|
| by -
chiddick
7 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 21:09:30 )
|
|
One can be brave without being heroic.
The 911 hijackers were brave - they were also evil.
No, they were not cowards. They sacrificed their lifes for their beliefs. Its just thatvtheir beliefs were dreadful.
|
|
|
| by -
rack_focus
8 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 20:37:59 )
|
|
How exactly does it "cheapen the term 'heroic'"?
Mocking Greenly Productions
|
|
|
| by -
MAFishman1
7 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 21:48:56 )
|
|
I think you have all missed the point. These
people don't need a label, whatever it may be, they simply need to be
respected for doing the right thing and for dying an undeserved death.
Beyond that, there is no argument...period. Respect them and everyone
else who died on 9/11 and those who worked to save lives that day.
Hero, brave, etc. are all just words.
"They put a gun in your face, you still have a choice." -Jack Foley
|
|
|
I like your point mate
but the plane was not carrying anybody and the movie was made up by our Government
with lies
but i like what you said 10/10
But the movie Was BS
|
|
|
| by -
bludcrimson
5 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 23:13:46 )
|
|
Finally someone else who thinks this.
I mean come on. HEROES is overused. A real heroe would take the
"40" passengers and attacked them. One attendent isnt worth the whole
plane.
And am I the only one who f'in hates that, "Lets roll" crap?
I mean common.
|
|
|
| by -
jacelle
5 hours ago (Sun Apr 30 2006 23:26:40 )
|
|
| UPDATED Sun Apr 30 2006 23:51:59 |
911 was horrific and changed the course of history.
I can still remember the first time that I saw images of the planes
crashing into the WTC, people jumping to their deaths from the WTC,
bewildered debris covered people on ground level running for their
lives or wandering aimlessly on the streets in shock.
These assumptions about the motives of the passengers of Flight 93
seem to be based on the premise that all the passengers were acting as
one collective mind.
We don't know why any of "one" of them chose to do what they did.
IMHO it's insulting to the passengers of Flight 93 and their loved ones to argue whether or not they were brave or heroes.
The passengers left behind people who loved them. Who miss them.
Who were traumatized by this event in ways that many will never
understand.
Whether they fought to save themselves, others, or both I'm sure
that they all had someone that they wanted to see again. Someone who
needed them and wanted them to stay alive.
Wouldn't a person fight to see their child, a spouse(partner),
anyone dear to them, and maybe even people that they didn't even know?
It's possible that some or all of them could have been feeling a sense
of patriotism. (Some "Us against them")along with a million others
feelings.
I'm going to assume that most (definitely not all) people posting
here with the focus of debating the distinction between heroism and
bravery and leaning toward "bravery" did not actually lose someone
during the events of 911.
Let's not assume that all people do things for selfish gain.
Please respect their effort.
|
|
|
| by -
vatz
4 hours ago (Mon May 1 2006 00:11:56 )
|
|
I'm not used to an imdb poster actually using logic in their argument. Quite a rarity.
|
|
|
| by -
psycho_sidd
4 hours ago (Mon May 1 2006 00:21:48 )
|
|
forex73 you are a moron. If the plane was shot
down there would have been debris all over the place impossible to hide
or cover up. there wassnt anything but a deep hole with fragments from
the plane due to impact.
So take your conspiracy theories back to the extremist trailer park you grew up in
|
|
|
| by -
Hydroboi
3 hours ago (Mon May 1 2006 01:33:18 )
|
|
Chiddick is correct, they were trying to save
themselves, not anybody else who weren't in the plane. They were brave
in standing up and taking a stance to save their lives, but they're not
heroes.
Reality is wrong, dreams are for real.
|
|
|
These people knew the attacks were going on and
knew they were dead if they didn't do something about it immediately.
Best case scenario is that they stormed the cockpit and somebody knew
how to fly. 2% max chance of success. They saved many lives by what
they did and we should all honor them. They are the bravest of heroes!
|
|
|
| by -
chiddick
7 minutes ago (Mon May 1 2006 04:43:48 )
|
|
No they are not the bravest of heroes.
the bravest of heroes put their lives at risk when the alternative
is safety. The men on Flight 93 had no such choice. It was death
without resisting or fighting for their lives. Thats simply not
heroism. Its not BAD, but its not heroism.
|
|
|
| by -
mexfogel
41 minutes ago (Mon May 1 2006 04:09:39 )
|
|
| UPDATED Mon May 1 2006 04:16:08 |
We don't know what was going on the passengers
mind of flight 93 when they made the decision to act against the
hijackers. Therefore either side defending the "hero" or "brave" label
must be speculating and assuming they know what motives the victims of
this tragedy had for their actions. Whether they were self-preservation
or selfless actions on their behalf is not for you to decide based on a
conjecture achieved solely on your perception and imagination.
I could very well make up the scenario where the hijackers are
blackmailed and forced into doing the suicide mission just to have
their families released from a death threat back at home. Opposite
effect to the parachute scenario and also made entirely up could be
used to show a humane reason behind the actions of the hijackers. My
point is that we don't know all the facts or what really went on their
heads that determined their exact actions. Speculating and making
scenarios like yours based on absolutely no evidence shows the
emotional detachment you have to this tragedy. You can only poke at a
wound that does not hurt and that is what you are doing. You are
senseless to this event therefore can only explore it rationally
disregarding how other people might feel about it. The reason of why
you explore the events in this way is the same reason why you are
disrespectful. Lack of feelings towards the external world around you,
events and people.
Questioning the motives behind the actions of people that passed away without any good reason is simply wrong.
I am from Mexico but I have been living in the US since 2000, I see
myself as a witness to 9/11 and to how it affected the people in this
country. Tonight I saw the movie and at the end some people were
crying. For those people I write this reply.
|
|
|
AMERICA IS GAY AND IT SUKS
|
| |
| | |
company.
Advertise on IMDb.
License our content.