American Airlines to ‘Path to 9/11′ Producers: That Was US Airways, You Jackasses

American Airlines is foaming at the mouth about its depction in the recent ABC telewhatever, The Path to 9/11

According to ABC’s movie, one of the September 11th terrorists — Mohammed Atta — as having been flagged as a security risk at Boston’s Logan Airport by American Airlines personnel. According to The Path to 9/11, the personnel then shrugged and chipperly let him on the plane anyway.

Even if that were true, it likely wouldn’t have made any difference: there were other terrorists on that flight. It wasn’t manpower that allowed Al Qaeda to fly the planes into the World Trade Center: it was a couple decades worth of indoctrination into a mindset that if your plane was hijacked, you just sat back and enjoyed your free side trip to Cuba. Terrorists would not be able to take over a plane with the same tactics anymore.

But, of course, it wasn’t true. It wasn’t American Airlines personnel at all that allowed Mohammed Atta on the plane; it was US Airways personnel. And it didn’t happen in Boston, it happened in Maine. This is all clearly documented in the 9/11 Commission’s report.

American Airlines are so pissed, they’re threatening to withdraw all advertising from the ABC network, and are also murmuring ominously about lawsuits.

AA Prepared to Pull Ads From ABC [Mediaweek]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. mfergel says:

    Good. This show is so full of holes/inaccuracies. Of course, ABC simply says they make it clear it’s a docudrama and not a representation of the facts…..bull. A quick blurb at the beginning of the show. The problem is there are way too many stupid sheep in this world that use shows like this to decide which way they should vote………I saw it on TV, it must be true.

  2. homerjay says:

    I agree. American should really slam them for this. Just because you put a disclaimer at the end of the movie doesn’t mean you can say that the president molests children on a biweekly basis.

  3. junkmail says:

    Yeah, I hate it when someone makes a movie “based on fact”, that is actually full of half-truths, misconceptions, deceptions, and outright lies…

    (coughcoughmichaelmoorecoughcough)

    I’m not saying either party (MM or ABC) was right, wrong, or otherwise, it’s just a little ridiculous how reactionary the “other side” gets over the whole situation.

  4. Mary Marsala with Fries says:

    Good god, did they hire a second-grader to do their research for this or what?

    (Though it *would* make sense if a second-grader came up with “docudrama”…)

  5. B says:

    I’ll have to check the constitution, but I’m pretty sure the first amendment protects my right to say the President molests children on a biweekly basis. That is, as long as I say it in a humourous or satirical context. Maybe ABC should just reclassify the minisereies as a satire of 9/11. Then everybody will be unhappy.

  6. Pelagius says:

    Does he molest the children before or after Laura begins eating them?

  7. BostonBum says:

    After. No child left behind.

    The entire show is a mess — they were madly trying to fix factual errors just days before the program aired.

    Skip this miniseries and read COBRA II if you want to really find out about the path to 9/11.

  8. Ben Popken says:

    Dennis writes:

    “Uh, the person who processed Atta at Logan later committed suicide. That Atta had to even go to the ticket counter at Logan for his seat on the departing Boston flight had to do with the ticket agent in Portland getting spooked by Atta’s appearance and demeanor.

    This guy was recently profiled in Yankee magazine:

    http://www.yankeemagazine.com/thisissue/features/fiveyears

    I would have thought that the Path to 911 would only occur in a Mike Judge movie. “

  9. Chris V says:

    Exactly. We were ALL told that if you sit back and do whatever the highjackers wanted, that you would be fine and get out of it ok. BS!

    Flight 93 is a testament to what would happen today if ANYONE even ATTEMPTED to highjack a plane. All these extra security precautions are completely worthless given that this could never happen again anyway!

  10. GenXCub says:

    I don’t think that’s a good way to handle it, Chris. If passengers are seen as being a liability, they will merely be disposed of first. Bring on the security, as long as it actually has a real impact as opposed to the TSA bozos who are just wasting time and money.

  11. homerjay says:

    Slander is not protected by free speech laws, B.

  12. dorf says:

    I often wonder if the genius’ they hire to enforce security, actually know what they are doing…Some of them seem to have a real ‘I could care less attitude and am just here for the paycheck.’ I mean grandma getting stopped and searched ?? She is about as much of a threat on a plane as the man in the moon.