United 93

![][1]It's been nearly five years since I got in my car and started driving to the East Coast, intending to see for myself what had happened on 9-11, and what it was going to mean for all of us.I ended up in a Pennsylvania funeral home owned by Wallace Miller, who was also the coroner in Somerset County, where United Airlines Flight 93 had crashed. A few weeks had passed since the disaster, and most of the federal investigators had left town, but Miller was clearly still exhausted. He sat in stocking feet while we talked.What he told me was this: That such a disaster had never before happened in Somerset County. That the number of deaths was so huge that he had to scramble to find a freezer big enough to hold the remains of more than 40 people. And that he still had his hands full, trying to identify crash victims from their DNA and dental records."We're just basically trying to put things back together," he told me.A couple of days later, I was in New York, standing right outside the fence that kept onlookers from getting too near Ground Zero.The crushed metal facade of the towers still rose stories above the street. And deep underneath the rubble, the fire started by the two planes continued to burn. Smoke wafted beyond the fence; I will not try to describe the odor.All of this is to explain why I do not plan to see "United 93" when it comes out on Friday. Nor do I plan to see other 9-11 movies coming out after that - one starring Nic Cage, the other directed by Oliver Stone. I am not yet ready to be entertained by this particular disaster.And that's what movies are, even the ones "based on a true story." They're entertainment. They're pretend. And, where 9-11 is concerned, make-believe seems awfully cheap.Perhaps I'm being unfair.After all, thousands of journalists - including me - have printed millions of pages, shown hundreds of photographs, aired God-knows-how-many hours of videotape, all depicting what actually happened that day. And, perhaps like you, I've consumed a lot of that information. Maybe it's hypocritical to cringe when another medium tries its hand at the story.But I suspect we just need more time."JFK," while irresponsible in its version of history, came out nearly 30 years after John Kennedy's assassination. "Titanic" needed 80 years to become an inspiring love story. Maybe 9-11 - and before it, Oklahoma City - needs a decade or two more before it becomes a diversion, a way to spend a Saturday afternoon in the dark.Even then, I'm not sure I'll be in the audience. Sometimes, real life is enough. [1]: http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2006/03/29/united-93.jpg


OtherJoel 16 years, 3 months ago

I know exactly what you mean. I first saw the preview for that movie a couple of weeks ago and without thinking, said aloud "Does this really need to be a movie?" -- which prompted some dirty looks in the theater.

I agree that it hasn't been long enough. Almost all of us know the story and admire the courage of the passengers on Flight 93, but I still think using a movie to tell it cheapens it somehow. It commercializes tragedy, and while it wouldn't be the first time, this seems like a particularly blatant example. Like whenever some kid goes missing and suddenly his or her story becomes some made-for-TV movie two months after media coverage slips off.

scary_manilow 16 years, 3 months ago

I wonder if the movie includes the part where US fighter jets shoot the plane down to keep it from flying into the capital building?

Eric Melin 16 years, 3 months ago


you wrote: "needs a decade or two more before it becomes a diversion, a way to spend a Saturday afternoon in the dark."

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that a good movie, responsibly told, could illuminate something about the story that you may not have considered without seeing a film "based on true events." Art is made exactly for this reason, and, although commerce is involved here, commerce is involved in everything. So implying that because someone is making a buck off of it makes it irredeemable as art is a not a good reason. If you don't want to see it, that's fine. I saw the wreckage in NYC soon after and was deeply affected as well. But if the movie is responsibly told, it may help deepen one's idea of what happened that day. I'll be seeing it Wednesday night, and, although I'm approaching with caution, I have high hopes from the background I've read on how and why it was made.

thetomdotdot 16 years, 3 months ago

Scary - It's got to be part of a dream sequence showing this admistrations competence in keeping secrets.

Melin - Sounds good. Little fluffy, little arrogant, but you might be right that some artist will help deepen our understanding of events. In the context that my understanding deepens a little even when I discuss it with my 4 and 7 yr olds, I'll buy it. Beyond that, I only say that the depth of that deepening better be way (uhhh) deep to counterbalance the profanity of making this fillm at this time. Look forward to your review.

Chris Tackett 16 years, 3 months ago

I can't believe this movie has been made either. It's understandable that 911 would eventually make it to the big screen, most tragedies do. But it's just too soon.

And we still do not really know what happened, so any film is simply speculation and/or propaganda trying to convince the public that one explanation of events must be true.

I really can't believe so many people believe the conspiracy theories about 9-11.

I mean, how can people seriously believe that a plane could crash, but leave no substantial wreckage? http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#flight93

And we're supposed to believe that the plane disintegrated, but somehow one of the hijackers Visa's was found? Gimme a break.

Joel 16 years, 3 months ago

Eric: You misunderstand me. I'm not against filthy lucre -- I love "The Godfather," and it doesn't bother me that it made millions for Paramount and Coppola and everybody else. Same for the original "Star Wars." Art and commerce are, for the most part, inextricable - nobody wants to be a starving artist - and I accept that.

What bothers me, though, as I said, is using tragedy - fresh tragedy, anyway - as entertainment. You might be right that a well-made movie (and, hell, I'll concede that given the pressures involved, the studio and director wouldn't release it unless it was well-made) can deepen our understanding. But I don't want to see it.

Let me clarify: I'm not setting rules here. I'm not telling anybody they can't make the movie they want to make, and I'm not telling anybody not to see the movie they want to see. I'm explaining why I, personally, won't see it.

Michael Austin 16 years, 3 months ago

I just can't watch a film that is based on speculation. We really don't know anything about the plane, or really how the people acted. How many were heroes that rushed the door, how many that weren't. I would much rather leave it as it is.

How about a war movie covering the harsh realities of what our troops are facing in Iraq. What we are doing to these men, and children by putting them in the way of fire and life or death situations day by day. There is much more out there that can be made that would be more appropriate at this time.

I am still tainted from Crash...

Terry Bush 16 years, 3 months ago

The thing about massive consipiracies is this....Keeping a secret is hard enough to do between two people, let alone any more people. Especially in a nation that has spawned so many scandal rags.

If it took 50-1000 people to keep anything really unknown, the odds are pretty good it couldn't be done. Absent the little "flashy things" in MIB (Men in Black) for erasure of memories, you can bet there'd be several folks blabbing about any attempt to repress all the stories (and not just the facts or embellished versions).

I too think it is FAR too soon for film makers to take try to re-tell the 911 stories. They're not entertainment (yet). I could be wrong though; I'll be interested in seeing the ratings/viewer numbers this show gets. The results of this attempt could determine what we are offered (on TV and the big screen) for decades to come.

Joel 16 years, 3 months ago

Incidentally, I watched "Capote" recently, and still found myself startled when they showed Herb Clutter's throat being cut. I think it worked - it helped shock the viewer (or, at least, this viewer) into the realization that this book Capote was crafting as art was based on something very real. But I still couldn't help but wonder if any surviving Clutters, or their surviving friends, had seen the movie, and what they felt upon viewing that scene.

Art, in other words, doesn't exist in a vacuum, particularly when it reflects real-life events. I don't deny artists the right to create anything, but saying "it's art" doesn't make an artist immune from negative feelings his-her work might arouse. I have the right of free speech, and as a reporter, I use it quite often ... and sometimes I make people angry.

But maybe I'm babbling now.

Michael Austin 16 years, 3 months ago

What about all the TV movies that come out the same year as big stories?

Should there be an automatic moritorium on movies based on events?

I think the problem with this film is it is based on conjecture and the "war" is still going on. It is too fresh.

Capote was a great movie. Much better than that Crash thing.

Aufbrezeln Eschaton 16 years, 3 months ago

Interesting, Joel. I, too, won't be seeing that particular film. You all know that I'm crass and tasteless and see ANYTHING as fodder for the laugh mill. I'll admit it; in December of '01, I came this close to buying the "I (plane) NY" shirt from Tshirthell.com .

But I can't joke about Flight 93. Still. And I think it's pretty telling that no one else can, either. There are 9/11 and Twin Towers jokes, parodies, crass Tshirts, photoshops, Flash animations--it's all over the web, people have been turning that shit into bad humor since it happened. Try finding a Flight 93 satire. Try finding a Tshirt that makes light of it. You won't. It's just not out there. Apparently, I'm not the only sick sonofabitch who thinks that's an uncrossable line. There's not a goddamn thing about it that's funny, and in my book, that means there's not a goddamn thing about it that's entertaining. This feels an awful lot like corpse pimping, to me.

Terry Bush 16 years, 3 months ago

Little known fact about to be blabbed - on the Capote thing. There were things/evidence not used at that trial - things not needed to convict these guys - that the cops still possess but still haven't released and will not release until after the deaths (or permission) of the members of the surviving family. (And yes, it's legal to do that, using KSA 45-221(a)(30) protection of personal privacy). The point being that while the general public may like to watch Court TV and such things, (or read scandal magazines) and generally obsess over the awful details or someone else's life, the real life people who were personally impacted by the events do not find it very entertaining or fun.

At the risk of sounding like an old fuddy duddy, I think a lot of what is "wrong" with society today comes down to lack of civility and bad manners. Heck, reading the comments after the news articles tells me that people are becoming less and less tolerant of other people or their view points.

It is simply good manners to respect the wishes and sensibilities of people who've already suffered a grievous tragedy. Not only is it in poor taste to violate these people's privacy, I am hoping that there are few people interested in helping the network to do so. I hope no one watches this show, even if people could enjoy hearing more about the true heroism displayed by some on that plane.

However, given the general decline in good manners (my opinion), I'd not be surprised to see this made for TV movie do well in the ratings...I hope it doesn't, but I wouldn't be surprised. Look how popular the trash rags are! People love watching someone else's pain..... Why else are shows like "Punked", "Jackass" etc. so popular?

And it's nothing all that new. The 3 Stooges may have been the first version of watching "other people in pain is fun/interesting"!

Joel 16 years, 3 months ago

While I'm thinking about it, though, I want to give Eric fresh ammunition to use against me.

Last year I read -- and liked -- "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" by Jonathan Safran Foer. It's about a young boy's attempt to come to grips with the death of his father on 9-11. Very few books have ever moved me to tears, but this book did ... repeatedly. You can argue, I suppose, that I have been "entertained" by 9-11 in that sense.

I've got some thoughts about why that experience is different from "United 93" - thoughts that I think would stand even though I haven't seen the movie. But I want to ask you guys: Am I wrong or right to see a difference?

balance71 16 years, 3 months ago

I plan to see it. From what I've heard, it's repsectful, powerful, and not a bit exploitative. I sometimes wonder what I'd do in a similar situation, and I hope this movie will help me think about that question. I'm sure it will be difficult to watch, though.

greyhawk 16 years, 3 months ago

Joel, I think it has to do with your premise that movies equal entertainment and implied premise that books occupy a broader place in the world.

With those definitions, your differentiation makes sense. But these neat categories/pigeonholes have lots of overlap in the real, messy world. I won't be going to see this film either but I acknowledge Melin's viewpoint. Art helps us interpret events and our existence.

balance71 16 years, 3 months ago

I would be easier to comment on the difference if you'd explain it.

Joel 16 years, 3 months ago

Greyhawk: Actually, I see books (novels at least) as entertainment as well. I wish they occupied a broader place in the world, but I'm not so sure.

Still, perhaps I'm wrong to do movies=entertainment.

Here's where I see the difference: ¢ Movies, in some ways, are more "real" than books. Books occupy one's imagination -- as limited or as creative as the reader in producing sensation. Movies, though, offer both the sight and sound of a situation, creating more of a "you are there" sense. Mostly, this is useful. In this situation, though, I admit to preferring the sensory distance of a book, if only as a means to not be utterly wrecked by the emotion evoked by the events depicted. ¢ Also, "EL&IC" takes place in the aftermath of the tragedy. It's not make-believe about the tragedy itself.

Of course, I might apply the second observation inconsistently. The new "New Yorker" has a fiction short-story in the current issue called "The Last Days of Mohammed Atta." Not sure if I'll read it or not.

lazz 16 years, 3 months ago

Films gain much more attention than most other forms of creative outlet in our current world, and therefore attract these sorts of comments, but I don't agree with your assessment, Joel, that pre-viewing censorship (even if at only the personal level) is therefore more appropriate than for other outlets. If you don't want to see the movie, then definitely don't. But I think it's disengenuous to draw these distinctions. "Too soon" seems a bit inaccurate; it's been nearly five years now. We have many ways to come to grips with that terrible day, and one of them is certainly movies. I respect Paul Greengrass' work, and I have no fear that he will unnecessarily sensationalize these events. I think it's perfectly proper for a director, screenwriter and actors to pursue this dark day in a respectful manner. Joel, you dash across the aspect of journalists' role in this matter. If we want to discuss disrespect and sensationalism, I think TV coverage at the time hit both sour notes repeatedly. It all needs to be taken together as a whole. It's impossible and unrealistic to expect that filmmakers wouldn't step in, either. and I think it's vastly unfair to pass any sort of judgment -- even if you qualify it, as you do, as only personal -- without first seeing the film.

Aileen Dingus 16 years, 3 months ago

I was given a copy of "Their Darkest Day" a few years back- I'd say maybe 11 years ago? It's a book about "what really happened" to the Pan Am flight that was blown up over Lockerbie Scotland. A friend of mine was on the plane, and when a coworker found that out, she gave me the book. (weird gift, but she was a bit of an odd one anyway)

I read the book, sobbing in some parts, furious in others, but I can say with absolute surety, that I was never entertained. I think it was easier to read of my friend's death in that manner than it would have been to "see" my friend's death on the big screen. A book is intimate, it lets you digest at your own speed, never forcing itself upon you. It was just me and the information. A movie would have thrust itself upon my senses, with the noise and the sights...

I worry that this coming movie will portray the action, while not inaccurately, somewhat skewed. "Let's roll!" and all that make for great copy, great sound bites, but I'm pretty sure there was more to it than that, and how can anyone KNOW how to put that on film?

Chris Tackett 16 years, 3 months ago

While i haven't seen the movie either, I'm pretty certain United 93 does not end with the plane being shot down.

The fact is, we don't have ABSOLUTE proof that the "let's roll" scenario actually happened or that the plane wasn't shot down.

With those questions still unanswered, to me, it seems irresponsible to make a movie "based on true events" when for all we know, it's based completely on false events.

I think the truth Will eventually come out, and until that point, I'd say any 911 movie will be coming too soon. Unless it's a documentary detailing the events and delving into the unanswered questions.

United 93 at this point in history is simply going to be a white-wash.

Chris Tackett 16 years, 3 months ago

And Joel,

I tend to agree with you that there is a difference between being entertained by that book or this film. It is still technically "entertainment", but the book is much more justifiable because of it's first-hand account. This film is an interpretation of a possibly true, possibly false storyline.

The only 911 film I think I'd be okay being "entertained" by would have to be LooseChange, not because i agree with everything the film discusses, but because it is actually making an attempt to answer some questions. Whereas United 93 is simply a re-inactment.

Joel 16 years, 3 months ago

Lazz: You make excellent points, all told, although I'm always loathe to use the word "censorship" to describe the act of not seeing something. "Censorship" is when somebody powerful stops you from expressing something -- and I don't think that fits here.

I also disagree with you, I think, on this point:

"I think it's vastly unfair to pass any sort of judgment -- even if you qualify it, as you do, as only personal -- without first seeing the film."

Well, no.

Everybody judges a film before they see it - if only by the acts (or act of omission) of buying or not buying a ticket. With the exception of critics, who see pretty much everything that comes down the pike, we all judge whether a movie is worth our time and money before we've even entered the theater. There are thousands of details that affect those decisions; it's just that in this case, the elements that go into the viewing decision are a good bit more visceral than, say, how much I like Ashton Kutcher's acting.

You make an interesting point regarding TV sensationalism. I'm not prepared to argue about that right now, except to ask this: Is it possible to sensationalize 9-11?

I know I'll get an answer. :)

Joel 16 years, 3 months ago

(Incidentally, I love that I wrote about something serious and that people are actually talking about it. Usually the serious posts draw two comments, so that everybody can keep their powder dry for my much-loved posts about cleavage.)

Eric Melin 16 years, 3 months ago

The new "New Yorker" fictional short-story and the Foer book are probably both examples of somebody channelling their feelings about 9/11 through their art. I have an Art Spiegelman book called "In the Shadow of No Towers." It' s really good, brutal, honest, etc.

Movies are certainly percieved as a more "popular" entertainment, and that is why, I think, people have a knee-jerk negative reaction to this. Plus, seeing is believing for some people. Hopefully, though, in this media-savvy country these days where people take for granted that "reality" shows are basically scripted, they will also be savvy enough to consider that this is just one story from one point of view.

Truth is fleeting, and no recollection can ever be truth. Documentaries aren't truth. It's still a point of view. I'm ready to see Greengrass' point of view, and understand if there are those who aren't. Perhaps if I knew someone personally who was involved in the tragedy I would think different.

I too, think it's really cool that people are approaching their reasoning behind what they are thinking rather than purely condeming it with trash talk. This is an ineteresting discussion!

Joel 16 years, 3 months ago

Eric, I agree that movies tend to be a more "popular" entertainment than literature, but that's not really the crux of things for me. Movies are more visceral, ultimately, than other forms of art, engaging several senses at once. That's why we like to see some movies in the theater -- or even on an IMAX screen -- rather than at home, so that we can get the "experience."

Truth is, I think I can't watch "United 93" because I think the pain I'll feel will outweigh any other benefit I might get from seeing the movie - I suspect, in fact, that the pain might be overwhelming. I can always put down a book if it's putting a strain on me. In a theater, you don't have that choice. It's watch or walk out.

And, perhaps I'm a hypocrite. Right now I've got a copy of "Three ... Extremes" sitting in my bag, waiting to be taken home and viewed. It is, I'm told, quite violent. But it's not real, and my empathy and sympathy for fictional characters is considerably less than that I give to actual people.

You're right, though. Good discussion. I imagine it'll shift to your blog when you deliver your review, but thanks for participating here.

Gareth Skarka 16 years, 3 months ago

For most of the country, 9/11 was something that happened on television....and happened in places they've only seen on television or in the movies anyway. Films like this are just going to be added to their fictional experience of the events.

I was living in NYC on 9/11 ... and I remember saying to a friend that I'll know when things get back to normal when the rest of the country goes back to hating New York. What I didn't envision was the "flyover states" holding on to this as "their" tragedy....as if watching it on TV makes them victims.

clayhill70 16 years, 3 months ago

When I was a high school freshman I was being kept home from school because of pnemonia. After about two weeks I had pretty well exhausted my mothers maternal instincts. She had recently finished reading In Cold Blood so she gave it to me to read. To this day I believe the book made more of an impression on me than the movie. I think reading the book made me feel more like a witness to the crime in every detail and the movie a jurist. In the movie Capote I found his motives all most as troubling as Hickock and Smith's.

MyName 16 years, 3 months ago


Movies are certainly percieved as a more "popular" entertainment, and that is why, I think, people have a knee-jerk negative reaction to this.

No, I'll tell you exactly what pisses me off about this sort of thing. Somebody's Wife or Husband or Child is being turned into "Terrorist Victim #3" or "Smiling Stewardess" in scene 32, or what have you. Meanwhile the director or screenwriter gets to decide which of those people's story deserves the most screentime and we as an audience gets to decide whether dashing leading man Cheyenne Jackson truly captured the essence of being on that plane, or maybe he was miscast?

I think catching more of the people responsible for 9/11 will do a hell of alot more to bring this country to grips with the tragedy than a damn Jingoistic drama. I mean can you imagine someone making a movie about the OK City bombing or the Clutter murders with the killers still at large?

UKept 16 years, 3 months ago

So is it a bad time to announce my upcoming production of Abu Ghraib: The Musical?

David Ryan 16 years, 3 months ago

Ha, Will. I nearly spat my coffee out as I read that.

Of course this is prejudging a film I haven't seen, but I've a feeling it'll fall a little short of how Sophocles, or Aeschylus, or Shakespeare, would treat the subject matter.

I'll be surprised if the film turns out to be more than a spectacular (not in the valuative sense: more in the sense of producing filmic eye-candy) reiteration of the narrative everyone's already heard-where "success" from the audiences' perspective is dependent on the degree to which the film touches all the story points that readers already think they know. Emotional and narrative painting by (already existing) numbers, as it were.

(Whether that's what the film will turn out to be is, of course, an open question, until the film actually plays.)

I'm not that interested in an art of simple reproduction and reiteration, where "success" in an artistic sense means being faithful to the narrative already presumed to exist in the audience at large.

What-other than coddling-would be the point of that?

I'll wait till it's on the TV.

Michael Austin 16 years, 3 months ago

Entertainment Weekly has some big articles on Flight 93 the movie (as opposed to the hit Broadway musical Ukept is working towards)

I still don't want to see it.

UKept 16 years, 3 months ago

toredor--I'm so glad you mentioned the Crash thing. That was my favorite movie of all time, because it combined stellar dialogue and subtle nuiance into a piece that was both an in depth study of complex issue of race relations yet Action Packed! Sort of a Do the Right Thing for the Die Hard set.

There's a good McSweeny's piece on Crash--


lazz 16 years, 3 months ago

Joel, you are right to call me out on "censorship" crossing the line here ... But I won't back off it completely; what I intend to imply is, you are close enough to get a whiff of it ... Obviously this is a terribly emotional issue, and one every American will have to approach in his or her own manner, so I'll just leave my publicly stated opinion at this: I'd much rather err on the side of viewing a film, or reading a book, that offends me than the other way around. the other side gets dark and scary and smacks of something our Child President would approve of ... and as for this business about it being too soon, or too emotional, or disrespectful to the families ... folks, 9-11 changed EVERYTHING. At the bare minimum, our Child President has used it to launch us into a war we can neither win nor extracate ourselves from, and to rust through freedoms we once considered sterling, so we gotta get past the fact that 9-11 is too fresh for creative minds to approach ... every tribe of mankind since the invention of the campfire and smores has dealt with collective trauma through storytelling ... we gotta tell this story, and in 2006 our campfire is the movie theatre ...

Joel 16 years, 3 months ago

Lazz: I'm glad you brought politics up, because I've given some thought to the issue of politics and 9-11.

I have two thoughts: ¢ 9-11 has everything to do with politics. ¢ 9-11 has nothing to do with politics.

Stay with me.

I think it's obvious how 9-11 have everything to do with politics. Every decision we've made the last five years has been made with 9-11 in mind.

But there's a chunk of 9-11 that exists entirely outside the realm of politics. There's the grief and pain that thousands of families and friends directly feel about the loss of loved ones. Now that grief has had its political expression, but most of it is experienced simply for what it is: Pain. And I think we're so busy dealing with and thinking of 9-11 in political terms that sometimes we rush fact the simple fact of grief.

Lazz: I'll repeat what I think I said earlier. I'll never tell anybody not to make a movie. I'll never tell anybody not to see a movie. I've read and watched lots of things I believe are offensive. But this movie isn't for me.

lazz 16 years, 3 months ago

Fair enough, Joel, you make your case persuasively.

And if that's where the whole thing stops, I'll cease and desist. You and I both know that's not going to be the case.

The flag-wavers will be out in force, and Greengrass and everybody associated with this movie will be shouted down in shame. That's become our national instinct, and it makes my stomach churn.

Joel 16 years, 3 months ago

Lazz: I think the kind of discussion we've had on this blog the last couple of days -- with people disagreeing on certain points, but respectfully, without questioning each other's motives -- is exceedingly rare.

lazz 16 years, 3 months ago

Yes! Toreador has the right idea! Time for some lyrical Elizabethan insults!

Michael Austin 16 years, 3 months ago

It would seem more the speed for this side of the tracks!

Because it is no TV week, I was flipping through the Entertainment Weekly stack I have, and found those articles on Flight 93, where they try and explain why now and all that, but I couldn't even stand to read them. That is how much I want to distance myself from it.

I guess it is one of those things in my mind, that I really don't want to see presented to me. I remember how it was at the time, what happened, and where we are now. I really don't need to be shown a Hollywood version of it.

I relate this to the same thing I feel about Funerals. I will never go to an open casket showing. I want to remember how they were to me, not the clown-like parody that is on display. Let me keep my memories as they are, don't taint them.

lazz 16 years, 3 months ago

Speaking of "sometimes life really is enough," when you have the strength of stomach and will --- and are in a private space where you can sob --- visit slate.com and view the Magnum photo/audio essay on how the Chernobyl tragedy (20 years ago Wednesday) physically wrecked so many children in such horrible, horrible ways ... "20 Years After Chernobyl," A Magnum Photo Essay by Paul Fusco. I for one will absolutely never forget those images ... heartbreaking. Absolutely heartbreaking.

Chris Tackett 16 years, 3 months ago

Ooh, i saw that photo essay and it was just as emotional as you described. The twin boys were the most heartbreaking.

re: United 93, Just wanted to throw this link out here since it raises some of the unanswered questions that go unaddressed by the movie (and the gov't): http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/14439058.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Commenting has been disabled for this item.