Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

or so their marketing team attempted to enforce. read on:
http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/35613/

--------------------------------------------------------------------
United Flight 93, the film depicting the events of the thwarted 9/11 hijacking has become the subject of a curious controversy.

After Crooks and Liars' John Amato first noticed that the film's marketing team purchased ads on every blog in the Conservative blog network -- and none from the liberal counterpart -- Chris Bowers got rolling.

In a heartfelt post on the film and the curious marketing campaign, the blogger and manager of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network asked:

"Why did the marketers of United Flight 93 decide to only advertise on conservative political blogs? The Liberal Blog Advertising Network is four times as large, and is even a 20-30% better deal per page view (or CPM, to use the relevant industry term). Do they think that attack is only relevant to red America? Do they think that only Republicans were attacked on 9/11? Do they think that only conservatives remember that day? Do they think that the only people who took action on United Flight 93 had voted for George Bush one year earlier?"

He continues:

The Americans aboard Flight 93 were red and blue, male and female, white and not, gay and straight. They were all heroes, and all Americans recognize them as such. All of America was attacked on that day, and all of America worked to save lives that day. There have clearly been, and continue to be, disagreements about the appropriate course of action for us to pursue as a nation in response to that day. However, on September 11th itself, we were all united, including on United Flight 93.

RESULTS! Shortly after posting the blog and questioning the film's marketing team, Bowers reports that, "Ads will be purchased on liberal blogs now. Thank you. I will watch the move on Sunday and post a review." (MyDD)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

sickening to say the least. i just hope this film lives up to what it represents and is not yet another example of a national catastrophy which traumatised all america--dragged through political shit and painted red. i hope its just certain members/executives of their marketing team that are lowlifes, and that it has no reflection at all on the film. .....i hope

good, everyone should see that film.

Wow that's dodgy.

Don't worry.

We'll get those Muslim Extremist bastards, and keep all the rest of you safe.

GO DUBYA!!

Was that sarcasm?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Was that sarcasm?

Nope, not at all.

GO DUBYA!!!

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Nope, not at all.

GO DUBYA!!!

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6802/geniusinchief0yn.jpg

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4707/militarismterrorism0xb.gif

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2828/read9vj.jpg

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/5345/bushworstdisaster4ad.jpg

Yes, go Dubya...

Silence hippie!

GO DUBYA!!!

Such anger here.

Nice Janus, ****ing pwnt

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Silence hippie!

GO DUBYA!!!

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2738/bush20the20pimp3mv.jpg

Here's your pimp, fanboy.

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/8673/iim8ox.jpg
Oh, here's that replacement White House secretary: "Bush is a good president. The economy is booming! The people are happy! We have plenty of food, water, and ammunition!"



Hell yeah.

GO DUBYA? this is a film about citizens who were brave enough to take control (almost it would seem) of a hijacked plane and could very well have saved whichever building they planned on attacking in DC

this has NOTHING to do with 'dubya' and only bleeting idiot sheep would tie the two together and actually have the nerve to try to give him any sort of credit. piss off DB.

I still have too many questions in my mind to believe that these were the actual incidents that occurred on that flight (I hope I didn't sound too Deano'ish there) and I doubt I'll ever see this movie. I am actually surprised that it was even made. I hoe that it does not become just a "rally 'round the flag" movie, for that would be in very bad taste.

Everyone knows Liberals are anti-american and unpatriotic....obviously a movie made about brave good Americans can not be aimed at those coward liberals.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I still have too many questions in my mind to believe that these were the actual incidents that occurred on that flight (I hope I didn't sound too Deano'ish there) and I doubt I'll ever see this movie. I am actually surprised that it was even made. I hoe that it does not become just a "rally 'round the flag" movie, for that would be in very bad taste.

I have to say I agree.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I still have too many questions in my mind to believe that these were the actual incidents that occurred on that flight (I hope I didn't sound too Deano'ish there) and I doubt I'll ever see this movie. I am actually surprised that it was even made. I hoe that it does not become just a "rally 'round the flag" movie, for that would be in very bad taste.

my heart wants desperately to believe it....but my gut tells me the jet was just shot down by f-16's as a last resort. but alas, if it is a lie, some lies are better and far more helpful than the truth imho.

:edit: what makes it believable for me though, is the idea that passengers recieved news of the other attacks, knew what was in store, and thus had nothing to lose other than what they would lose already. once that knowledge is on the table, anything is possible. i'm certain that had passengers on all the planes knew what was going to happen, the towers would still be there.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Don't worry.

We'll get those Muslim Extremist bastards, and keep all the rest of you safe.

GO DUBYA!!


You can't be that naive, can you? You(Bush fans, christian rightists, oblivious poll-fodder) can't honestly think this man has the bible in mind while not practicing what he preaches. Are you really that brainwashed?

Originally posted by PVS
my heart wants desperately to believe it....but my gut tells me the jet was just shot down by f-16's as a last resort. but alas, if it is a lie, some lies are better and far more helpful than the truth imho.

:edit: what makes it believable for me though, is the idea that passengers recieved news of the other attacks, knew what was in store, and thus had nothing to lose other than what they would lose already. once that knowledge is on the table, anything is possible. i'm certain that had passengers on all the planes knew what was going to happen, the towers would still be there.


Hey, I've said before there was something off about 9/11. And I'm not trying to take away from those people who died in that plane on that day. But, this administration knew a hell of a lot more than they've ever...or will ever...admit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Everyone knows Liberals are anti-american and unpatriotic....obviously a movie made about brave good Americans can not be aimed at those coward liberals.

I guess they just gonna consider United 93 the Brokeback Mountain for Republicans...

There seems to be some confusion as to what did/didn't happen in this real life tragedy. So here's what IS known.

The black box made it clear that the passengers did not breach the cock pit, they never made it in. However, the pressure they put on the hijackers did more or less force the hijackers to crash the plane early.

In short, while the passengers didn't physically crash the plane, they are the reason it did crash. This is supported by statements from the US Government, people who spoke to the passengers on the phone while they were on the flight, and people doing flight control on the ground, and as I said, the Black Box. Like it or not, for those who are skeptical, this IS evidence, and this scenario has more backing than any of the other scenarios that have been suggested, which have nothing to back them up other than strange and questionable reasoning.

Originally posted by BackFire
There seems to be some confusion as to what did/didn't happen in this real life tragedy. So here's what IS known.

The black box made it clear that the passengers did not breach the cock pit, they never made it in. However, the pressure they put on the hijackers did more or less force the hijackers to crash the plane early.

In short, while the passengers didn't physically crash the plane, they are the reason it did crash. This is supported by statements from the US Government, people who spoke to the passengers on the phone while they were on the flight, and people doing flight control on the ground, and as I said, the Black Box. Like it or not, for those who are skeptical, this IS evidence, and this scenario has more backing than any of the other scenarios that have been suggested, which have nothing to back them up other than strange and questionable reasoning.

How does banging on a secured cockpit pressure the Terrorists to crash the Plane? Not at all? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Just because they didn't get in doesn't mean they wouldn't have eventually. Hence why they crashed the plane.

Originally posted by BackFire
Just because they didn't get in doesn't mean they wouldn't have eventually. Hence why they crashed the plane.

Makes not much sense. If you are ging to die anyways, why would you crash it somewhere where nobody is?

Because they were pressed for time.

Again, the black box supports that that the hijackers were being pressured by the uprising from the passengers and were forced to crash the plane prematurely before they broke through the cockpit.

It makes perfect sense if you're reasonable. They didn't breach the cockpit, that doesn't mean that they weren't very close to breaching the cockpit.

Originally posted by BackFire
Because they were pressed for time.

Again, the black box supports that that the hijackers were being pressured by the uprising from the passengers and were forced to crash the plane prematurely before they broke through the cockpit.

It makes perfect sense if you're reasonable. They didn't breach the cockpit, that doesn't mean that they weren't very close to breaching the cockpit.

But what if they had breached it? If you are a suicide bomber, why would you abort your mission? You have nothing to lose. It makes no sense.

You keep saying it makes no sense...it does, and I've been explaining why for the past few posts.

What do you mean "what if they had breached it?" They didn't, this is a pointless question.

They have a lot to lose. These men wanted to die, they wanted to suicide and control their own deaths. Had they been overwhelmed they'd no longer be in control. For all they knew one of the passengers may have known how to land a plane, in which case they'd be absolutely screwed, they wouldn't have killed themselves, or the passengers, they would be put in prison, which isn't what they wanted. They wanted to die. I've also heard that the black box supports that one of the pilots was actually left alive, in which case it makes even more sense.

Originally posted by BackFire
You keep saying it makes no sense...it does, and I've been explaining why for the past few posts.

What do you mean "what if they had breached it?" They didn't, this is a pointless question.

They have a lot to lose. These men wanted to die, they wanted to suicide and control their own deaths. Had they been overwhelmed they'd no longer be in control. For all they knew one of the passengers may have known how to land a plane, in which case they'd be absolutely screwed, they wouldn't have killed themselves, or the passengers, they would be put in prison, which isn't what they wanted. They wanted to die. I've also heard that the black box supports that one of the pilots was actually left alive, in which case it makes even more sense.

No, those people wanted to die as suicide bombers. Not as people who wanted crashed a plane into a field. I am not saying that it didn't happen that way, just that it was very stupid of the Terrorists if it did. Also, what exactly is the Black Box showing?

The black box records sounds, specifically, it recorded the sounds of the hijackers while they were in the cockpit. The recordings on the black box support that the hijackers were pressured into crashing the plane early because of the uprising of the passengers.

Yes, they wanted to die as suicide bombers and kill people many many people. They however realized that this had become an impossibility, and were forced to crash the plane into the field to ensure their deaths and the deaths of the passengers. Which was all they could hope for at that time.

Originally posted by BackFire
The black box records sounds, specifically, it recorded the sounds of the hijackers while they were in the cockpit. The recordings on the black box support that the hijackers were pressured into crashing the plane early because of the uprising of the passengers.

Yes, they wanted to die as suicide bombers and kill people many many people. They however realized that this had become an impossibility, and were forced to crash the plane into the field to ensure their deaths and the deaths of the passengers. Which was all they could hope for at that time.

But how does it support that?

What the hijackers say before they crash the plane is supposed to support that they had to bring the plane down because of the passengers.

Of course, I don't have specifics, they haven't released the black box to the public, but according to the US government it does support it.

Originally posted by BackFire
What the hijackers say before they crash the plane is supposed to support that they had to bring the plane down because of the passengers.

Of course, I don't have specifics, they haven't released the black box to the public, but according to the US government it does support it.

Okay, the US government. I trust the US Government there....really...

They said "Let's roll!"

Originally posted by Janus Marius
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6802/geniusinchief0yn.jpg

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4707/militarismterrorism0xb.gif

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2828/read9vj.jpg

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/5345/bushworstdisaster4ad.jpg

Yes, go Dubya... Exellent stuff, my friend. Exellent stuff.Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Silence hippie!

GO DUBYA!!! And just because someone does not agree with Mr. Bush, they are condoned as hippies Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I guess they just gonna consider United 93 the Brokeback Mountain for Republicans... well put. to quote Frank Zappa

"Yowza yowza yowza"

Originally posted by BackFire
There seems to be some confusion as to what did/didn't happen in this real life tragedy. So here's what IS known.

The black box made it clear that the passengers did not breach the cock pit, they never made it in. However, the pressure they put on the hijackers did more or less force the hijackers to crash the plane early.

In short, while the passengers didn't physically crash the plane, they are the reason it did crash. This is supported by statements from the US Government, people who spoke to the passengers on the phone while they were on the flight, and people doing flight control on the ground, and as I said, the Black Box. Like it or not, for those who are skeptical, this IS evidence, and this scenario has more backing than any of the other scenarios that have been suggested, which have nothing to back them up other than strange and questionable reasoning.

Backfire, don't you think that if the terrorists intentionally crashed the plane that they (as terrorists) would have chosen a target instead of an open field? I understand that what you are saying is a possibility, but it is also speculation not fact. I would think that if they were going to intentionally crash the plane, why would they not take something out with it, that was the plan.

Also, I believe that eyewitness reports mention that the plane was upside down before impact, why (if this is true) would the terrorists intentionally invert the plane before impact?

Finally, looking at every crash previous to flight 93, why did all those planes leave post crash debris of considerable size such as entire tail sections, nose sections or body sections of the plane whereas flight 93 seems to have left nothing on the ground larger than a 3x3 section.

It seems very odd, and irresponsible, to have so little information regarding a national tragedy (odd also due the numerous conflicting eyewitness reports) and make a movie based on such information and speculation.

I'm sure if they were able to choose a better target, they would have. The fact that the plane crashed in an open field merely suggests that they didn't have time to go and look for a better target, and that they were greatly pressed for time, which again, is supposedly supported by what was recorded on the black box.

I've not heard of those eyewitness accounts. Assuming it's true, it could just mean they completely lost control of the plane in their panic and haste to crash it before the cockpit was breached, keep in mind these guys supposedly weren't the best pilots around. Also keep in mind, eyewitness reports should always be met with skepticism, the power of suggestion is great with people and you can't always trust what people think they've seen.

I don't think it's at all irresponsible to make such a film just because some people are skeptical to what happened. The information is there, it's supported by everyone who was involved in the event that day, including the flight controlers on the ground and the families of the victims who recieved the phone calls. It's also supported by the black box and the government. They have all the information that will ever be available, really, and that information is grounds for a great story about the immense courage and bravery that normal people can achieve even under the most terrible and dire of situations.

backfire, the only problem i have with the "pressured terrorists" idea is that...well...those cockpits are constructed for the sole purpose of that very situation, accept with the terrorists on the other side of the door. but of coarse, they may have paniced and/or not known of this feature, and that the passengers had absolutely no chance of breaking through the door.

i agree that anything is possible, but feel you go to far when you say that the idea that the plane was shot down is based on " strange and questionable reasoning" when even the vice president stated that he regretted not being able to have the planes (wtc) shot down to save many more lives at the wtc.

the fact is that whether or not the terrorists knew of the impenatratble cockpit door, its certain that our commanders in chief knew. so how is it so outlandish to think that they would order the plane shot down before the inevitable happened, AND the deaths of everyone in the white house/capitol building/wherever to top that?

anyway, let me point out again that i dont disbelieve the official story...i just have my doubts.

Omega - It's not a bad idea though, because it's grounds for a great story, and in turn a great film. Which is what this movie is supposed to be.

Whether or not the events are factual shouldn't make a difference when looking at a film, it should be the quality of the movie that is important.

And like it or not, again, the scenario presented in the film is the one that has by far the most back up and evidence supporting it. It may not be entirely factual, but if it's a great story and a respecful movie (which again, it is from what I've heard) than that shouldn't make a difference.

This was the last flight to be in the air that day, the passengers, through phone calls, learned that there was a massive terrorist attack involving planes going on. They knew that they were not hostages and that they would not be released, they knew that if they didn't do anything they would die, which is what caused the uprising. People in the other planes were blind to the grand scheme of the attack, the people in this plane were not, that is the difference.

Originally posted by BackFire
It's not a bad idea though, because it's grounds for a great story, and in turn a great film. Which is what this movie is supposed to be.

Whether or not the events are factual shouldn't make a difference when looking at a film, it should be the quality of the movie that is important.

And like it or not, again, the scenario presented in the film is the one that has by far the most back up and evidence supporting it. It may not be entirely factual, but if it's a great story and a respecful movie (which again, it is from what I've heard) than that shouldn't make a difference.

This was the last flight to be in the air that day, the passengers, through phone calls, learned that there was a massive terrorist attack involving planes going on. They knew that they were not hostages and that they would not be released, they knew that if they didn't do anything they would die, which is what caused the uprising. People in the other planes were blind to the grand scheme of the attack, the people in this plane were not, that is the difference.

its certain that the passengers did take a stand. common sense dictates that. if either of us were in that situation and knew we would die anyway, im sure we would do the same. so im happy with the making of the film (as it seems it will be, hopefully sans republican bullshit)

a thought/fact to ponder: there will never again be a hijacked plane with hostages.
think about that.

Originally posted by PVS
backfire, the only problem i have with the "pressured terrorists" idea is that...well...those cockpits are constructed for the sole purpose of that very situation, accept with the terrorists on the other side of the door. but of coarse, they may have paniced and/or not known of this feature, and that the passengers had absolutely no chance of breaking through the door.

i agree that anything is possible, but feel you go to far when you say that the idea that the plane was shot down is based on " strange and questionable reasoning" when even the vice president stated that he regretted not being able to have the planes (wtc) shot down to save many more lives at the wtc.

the fact is that whether or not the terrorists knew of the impenatratble cockpit door, its certain that our commanders in chief knew. so how is it so outlandish to think that they would order the plane shot down before the inevitable happened, AND the deaths of everyone in the white house/capitol building/wherever to top that?

anyway, let me point out again that i dont disbelieve the official story...i just have my doubts.

Well, those doors obviously aren't THAT great since the terrorists got in themselves. Something else that is supposedly supported by the black box is that the passengers were using a service trolly as a battering ram to try and get teh cockpit door open. With the force of a good number of people, I wouldn't doubt the possibility of them forcing the door open after enough time.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, those doors obviously aren't THAT great since the terrorists got in themselves. Something else that is supposedly supported by the black box is that the passengers were using a service trolly as a battering ram to try and get teh cockpit door open. With the force of a good number of people, I wouldn't doubt the possibility of them forcing the door open after enough time.

c'mon dude, it obviously wasnt locked when they got in or it wouldnt even be an issue and the terrorists would have had their asses dragged out and beaten to death.

Granted, that's probably true. Common sense, right? But really, that's just as much speculation in the same sense that the events in the film are.

Anyways, something from a review I read about this film that seems to be a pretty accurate statement when taking into consideration other reviews I've read; "These aren't American themes, they are human themes".

Originally posted by PVS
backfire, the only problem i have with the "pressured terrorists" idea is that...well...those cockpits are constructed for the sole purpose of that very situation, accept with the terrorists on the other side of the door. but of coarse, they may have paniced and/or not known of this feature, and that the passengers had absolutely no chance of breaking through the door.

i agree that anything is possible, but feel you go to far when you say that the idea that the plane was shot down is based on " strange and questionable reasoning" when even the vice president stated that he regretted not being able to have the planes (wtc) shot down to save many more lives at the wtc.

the fact is that whether or not the terrorists knew of the impenatratble cockpit door, its certain that our commanders in chief knew. so how is it so outlandish to think that they would order the plane shot down before the inevitable happened, AND the deaths of everyone in the white house/capitol building/wherever to top that?

anyway, let me point out again that i dont disbelieve the official story...i just have my doubts.

Actually I remember a lot of talk about reinforcing cockpit doors in the aftermath of 9/11. The doors weren't strong enough back then. Tactics were different too. We were used to hijackers that made demands and stalled. That's what everything was set up for.


Originally posted by KharmaDog
Backfire, don't you think that if the terrorists intentionally crashed the plane that they (as terrorists) would have chosen a target instead of an open field? I understand that what you are saying is a possibility, but it is also speculation not fact. I would think that if they were going to intentionally crash the plane, why would they not take something out with it, that was the plan.

Also, I believe that eyewitness reports mention that the plane was upside down before impact, why (if this is true) would the terrorists intentionally invert the plane before impact?

Finally, looking at every crash previous to flight 93, why did all those planes leave post crash debris of considerable size such as entire tail sections, nose sections or body sections of the plane whereas flight 93 seems to have left nothing on the ground larger than a 3x3 section.

It seems very odd, and irresponsible, to have so little information regarding a national tragedy (odd also due the numerous conflicting eyewitness reports) and make a movie based on such information and speculation.

Actually the pensylvania crash was the one with less destruction. They were able to get the black box from that one, but not the others. And black boxes are designed to survive crashes. Which tells you something about the forces involved in crashing into those buildings. (or the buildings crashing in the case of the WTC)

How much time has to pass before the black boxes fall under the freedom of information act?

This movie is propoganda. Plain and simple. Watch it all you want, but don't be so full of yourself because you did.

Originally posted by BackFire
Omega - It's not a bad idea though, because it's grounds for a great story, and in turn a great film. Which is what this movie is supposed to be.
Whether or not the events are factual shouldn't make a difference when looking at a film, it should be the quality of the movie that is important.
I think it does make a great difference whether or not the events are based on facts. Wars have been started in the wake of 9/11, and once a movie has been made, it will somehow cement ONE way of viewing what happened to Flight 93.
I think the question I have to ask you is this: Do you completely rule out the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down?

Originally posted by PVS
a thought/fact to ponder: there will never again be a hijacked plane with hostages.
think about that.
What makes you say that?

Originally posted by The Omega
I think it does make a great difference whether or not the events are based on facts. Wars have been started in the wake of 9/11, and once a movie has been made, it will somehow cement ONE way of viewing what happened to Flight 93.
I think the question I have to ask you is this: Do you completely rule out the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down, given what is now known?


What makes you say that?

the only thing that kept hostages in their seats was the good chance that they would just have to endure sitting in some cell and eating crappy food in lebanon or some other shit hole for a week or so before being returned home safely. thats why they all sat there and did nothing. so...what do you think would happen now if terrorists threatened passengers to stay in their seats and obey, given what is known now?

Originally posted by PVS
the only thing that kept hostages in their seats was the good chance that they would just have to endure sitting in some cell and eating crappy food in lebanon or some other shit hole for a week or so before being returned home safely. thats why they all sat there and did nothing. so...what do you think would happen now if terrorists threatened passengers to stay in their seats and obey, given what is known now?

As soon as the terrorists control teh Airplane it doesn't matter much, does it.

I heard there's nothing political whatsoever in the movie. So I've heard, haven't seen it.

...so its just the marketing team who should be beaten, as i had hoped.

IMO, all marketing teams should be beaten. Especially those damn "message alert" banners that say "You have 2 messages waiting for you." I've got 2 messages for them, actually. Fist and Boot up their ass.

When people start accepting everything movie critics said no marketing team will ever fail. Too bad they just can't go to the movie and judge for themselves. They need tomatometters, thumbs up, and 4 starts to know what movie is about....

or just an indication of what the movie will be, from someone who would likely tell it like it is. but i guess i should run out and see it right now just in case ebert is really a right wing double agent set to mislead everyone on this one point. thanks for the heads up