Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
baronofhell

World Trade Center

Recommended Posts

Agreed. I fucking hate Hollywood for this reason.

They made a movie about the prostitute serial killer that fed 'em afterwards to his pigs, this guy did this shit right down the road from me, and they made a fucking movie about it. This was only a couple years ago?

Y'know, atleast wait 30 years and make it a bullshit Pearl Harbour thing. Where it's more or less just the 'setting' for the movie not what the movie is all about. I love watching terrible movies where people get fucked up in terrible and grisly manners, I do not enjoy knowing it really happened to someone. I don't care how patriotic you make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Darkfyre said:

Y'know, atleast wait 30 years and make it a bullshit Pearl Harbour thing.

Please don't grow to be a Hollywood producer.

Share this post


Link to post

Heh, I'm surpriced they are releasing it on August 9 instead of waiting a month for 9/11. But maybe that would be too poor taste even for them.

Anyway, the trailer looks discustingly sappy sentimental and super american. Atleast I didn't see someone proclaiming how awesome america and americans is. Still leaves some hope for the movie to actually have something to say. But what that would be I dunno.

Don't crash planes into towers.. Mmm'kay?

Share this post


Link to post

One of the first things that went through my mind on September 11th was, "I wonder how long it will take for Hollywood to make a movie about this!" Almost five years. Now if money made from the film will be donated to the victim's intermediate families, then this movie won't be such a bad thing at all. But for some reason, I don't think it's gonna be a cash cow anyways. A lot of people probably will refuse to go see it, seeing it's not exactly a good way to spend an evening, being reminded of that horrible day.

Share this post


Link to post

I absolutely adored the underdog film Flight 97. But this looks like an exaggeration peril harbor shit. Only America can still profit from a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post

i heard a few days after 9/11 happened, that it only took like 3 hours for people to start applying for rights and money to make a 9/11 film.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a hard time taking Nicolas Cage seriously. I hope to never see that movie.

Share this post


Link to post

exp(x) said:
I have a hard time taking Nicolas Cage seriously.

Well, he's usually ironic; plus why should "seriousness" matter much? American politics-related films that aim to be too serious usually fail it, at least to a degree. I'm not saying that they should be frivolous, but that they are best when they are somewhat whimsical.

Not sure what Oliver Stone is attempting with a movie about this subject at this point; he's a New Yorker, though, so at least should be "at home" doing it.

Share this post


Link to post

...and you know this film isn't going to contain an ounce of vital Truth...

...and many United Statesians are going to walk out of the theatres feeling moved, praying to there imaginary gods, assuming they just had a glimpse into what really happened.

If Hollywood is good at anything it is amusing. It is because of Hollywood that so many people actually believe that planes are what collapsed the buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
XDelusion said:

...and you know this film isn't going to contain an ounce of vital Truth...

...and many United Statesians are going to walk out of the theatres feeling moved, praying to there imaginary gods, assuming they just had a glimpse into what really happened.

If Hollywood is good at anything it is amusing. It is because of Hollywood that so many people actually believe that planes are what collapsed the buildings.

I'm pretty sure firefighters and police officers went in, saved a bunch of people, got trapped by debris, and were later recovered by rescue dogs and bulldozers. Either that or Reuters and AP have an amazing CG department.

As far as I can tell from their trailer, the movie makes no assumptions regarding the effect of the planes (only portrays them crashing), nor the directly responsible for the incident.

And you sound like an idiot, but that goes without saying really.

Share this post


Link to post
XDelusion said:

If Hollywood is good at anything it is amusing. It is because of Hollywood that so many people actually believe that planes are what collapsed the buildings.

The only thing more retarded than a WTC film is WTC conspiracy theories.

Share this post


Link to post

Eh, there are certain inconsistencies in the way the towers collapsed that lead me to believe there are a few missing pieces.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't recall saying it never happened, or that fire fighters and police officers did not go in and try to save lives...

...how you read that into what I typed is beyond me.

One thing you can bet on though, is that none of the people acting as fire fighters or police men will have a line in the movie that refers to sounds of explosions while on the bottom floor of the buildings.

On the other hand, in real life, a lot of peole did mention hearing explosions.

ANyhow, anyone ever watch National Treasure.

If you want to see how well Hollywood can butcher up the truth, then watch that one.

Of course you'd have to know your American History pretty in depth to see what I'm complaining about in the first place...

Share this post


Link to post

I think the film looks alright. I've always had a sick fascination with 9/11 even though for some reason you're not supposed to. The only thing that will probably be hard to swallow about this and other american triumphalism movies is the whole "Gawd bless America" thing.

Share this post


Link to post
XDelusion said:

One thing you can bet on though, is that none of the people acting as fire fighters or police men will have a line in the movie that refers to sounds of explosions while on the bottom floor of the buildings.


What the fuck are you talking about? Since the day it happened there were reports that huge explosions ripped through the lobbies when the planes hit from the elevator shafts.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm gonna stick with my original assumption that what I was told is true. It doesn't seem hard to believe that bomb-rigged, commercial airliners could structurally weaken the towers to a point of collapse.

Would you care to explain your theory XDelusion? :\

Share this post


Link to post

Eh, there are certain inconsistencies in the way the towers collapsed that lead me to believe there are a few missing pieces.


Yeah, missing peices of your brain perhaps.

It's sort of like people who think the moon landing was a hoax. Since they know nothing about physics or photography, they observe things that are unusual and assume there is a conspiracy behind it.

Yes it was odd that the towers collapsed into their footprint... but that's what happens when the the structure is weakened by the intense heat and the above floors fall down causing the floors below to follow under the same momentum.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, the fire weakened every support equally at the same time, because planes hitting buildings always weaken the structure symmetrically. In three separate buildings. On the same day.

I never cried conspiracy, so don't presume to know what I think. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that all three buildings should have collapsed that way. Maybe one, but all three in an identical fashion?

And please don't insult my intelligence. Perhaps you can explain this magical "physics" to me, rather than pulling opinions out of your ass and stating them as fact. Ooh, momentum! Physics!

Share this post


Link to post
KennyJC said:

Yeah, missing peices of your brain perhaps.

KennyJC also said:

Yes it was odd that the towers collapsed into their footprint... but that's what happens when the the structure is weakened by the intense heat and the above floors fall down causing the floors below to follow under the same momentum.


Hey alex I've found a piece of someone's brain... oh wait, it has Kenny's name on it.

Congrats, you've solved the mystery by 'explaining' a single piece of the puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post
alexz721 said:

Yes, the fire weakened every support equally at the same time, because planes hitting buildings always weaken the structure symmetrically. In three separate buildings. On the same day.

Ok, if you wish to walk the path of logic, explain and back up with proof those statements.

What supports exactly?
What specifications were they designed with in mind?
Does it take equal weakening to all supports for the collapse we observed?
How weakened are the supports under actual observation?
What does kinetic energy do to these supports as a lateral, puncturing force?
What does high temperatures do to the affected materials according to their specifications?
How did the volatile fuel propagate given its momentum, spill focal point(s), available volume and any other architectural point of remark?
What ignited the fuel?
Where did the reaction began?
Does the perceived destruction correspond to our theorical firewave?
How do we judge destruction based on remaining, catalogued debris?
Is this system faithful to the true conditions of the towers pre-collapse, does it give meaningful data?
Do we possess enough data, basic theory and computing power to recreate with the elements we know and find discrepancies with real life?
What happened to the ignited structure post-crash? What's the timeline for the basic skeleton, trusses and auxiliary/aesthetic engineering?
Are there any significant unexplainable events?
Are there no simpler theories that involve less factors to coincide at the same time?
Was there a simpler way to achieve what you manifest really happened?

Unless you can give solid, sound statements and meaningful proof, don't expect me to see you any less of a retard than your average terrist-fearing hillbillie.

Tell me a fish flies and spits fire, I'll sneer. Give me proof and I'll happily oblige. They're more fun that way. Same for this.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

The only thing more retarded than a WTC film is WTC conspiracy theories.


thank you and thank you. agree with both.

XDelusion said:

ANyhow, anyone ever watch National Treasure.

If you want to see how well Hollywood can butcher up the truth, then watch that one.


that movie never claimed to be anything other than adventure fantasy based on some historical facts and some conspiracy theories with some invented ephemera thrown in for the fun of it. it was never meant to be taken as a serious historically accurate tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Zaldron said:

Ok, if you wish to walk the path of logic, explain and back up with proof those statements.

What supports exactly?
What specifications were they designed with in mind?
Does it take equal weakening to all supports for the collapse we observed?
How weakened are the supports under actual observation?
What does kinetic energy do to these supports as a lateral, puncturing force?
What does high temperatures do to the affected materials according to their specifications?
How did the volatile fuel propagate given its momentum, spill focal point(s), available volume and any other architectural point of remark?
What ignited the fuel?
Where did the reaction began?
Does the perceived destruction correspond to our theorical firewave?
How do we judge destruction based on remaining, catalogued debris?
Is this system faithful to the true conditions of the towers pre-collapse, does it give meaningful data?
Do we possess enough data, basic theory and computing power to recreate with the elements we know and find discrepancies with real life?
What happened to the ignited structure post-crash? What's the timeline for the basic skeleton, trusses and auxiliary/aesthetic engineering?
Are there any significant unexplainable events?
Are there no simpler theories that involve less factors to coincide at the same time?
Was there a simpler way to achieve what you manifest really happened?

Unless you can give solid, sound statements and meaningful proof, don't expect me to see you any less of a retard than your average terrist-fearing hillbillie.

Tell me a fish flies and spits fire, I'll sneer. Give me proof and I'll happily oblige. They're more fun that way. Same for this.


First off, I do not have proof, but then again, I never claimed to have any proof. You're being a tad presumptuous. However, I will attempt to generally answer your questions, though I won't focus specifically on each one, as there is some overlap.

Supports. Well, there was the main core of the buildings, which supported the main weight, and then there were smaller perimeter steel columns as well as a number of them scattered throughout the buildings. Naturally, if the core itself goes, the building cannot support its own weight, but a significant amount of those columns would also have to have been weakened for the entire structure to simply collapse downwards.

Specifications. The buildings were designed to withstand strong fires and winds of hurricane force, though it has been said numerous times in the past by engineers that a plane could literally hit the buildings and they would not fall down. I do not know if the people actually involved with the construction of said towers said this. Obviously, I will concede that they were not specifically designed with that particular scenario in mind, though with any skyscaper, that is a consideration.

Does it take equal weakening to the supports? Not necessarily, of course. But you would expect to see the building lean, rather than fall straight down, if for example, one side of steel columns on the perimeter were gone (likely, as the plane crashed through many of them on its way into the building). If you watch the video, you actually do see the top of the first tower lean and break off, but oddly enough, the rest of the building crumbles straight down. As for the second tower, it just collapses straight in on itself. And WTC 7 just went straight down. If I didn't know any better, it seriously looked like a controlled demolition. It all depends what went first in each building, the core or the supports. This I do not know, nor have I run across any reports that can confirm the way each structure broke down.

High temperatures. Steel melts at around 2500 degrees F or above. However, the temperature of the flames burning in the WTC (including the jet fuel) was estimated not to have exceeded at best approximately 2000 degrees F at the most furious points. I will grant you, that may have been enough to weaken the structure. After all, steel is weakened by at least 50% at temperatures of a bit more than half that, so in fact I would be quite willing to accept that the structure was weakened significantly, but keep in mind that the jet fuel itself burned out very fast, and the remaining fires once it was gone would have probably been somewhere between 1000 and 1500 degrees F (I'm trying not to pull these numbers out of my ass; I did some research on average temperatures of various types of blazes in buildings). Of course, steel is still very strong, even when weakened, and this is of course where speculation comes in whether the fire did weaken the steel enoughto cause the collapse. However, I refuse to believe it was hot enough to melt those supports.

I made a statement that I believe there were pieces of the puzzle missing, simply because the towers' destruction have been explained with blanket statements. I do not wish to accuse anyone else besides terrorists of taking down the buildings or cry conspiracy. I loathe conspiracy theories as much as the next guy. My main question is how two separate crashes could cause both structures to collapse in a very similar fashion, and even more bizarrely, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed in a similar and even more suspect way. Really, I would just love it if someone who was intimately familiar with the architecture of the buildings explained exactly what would have to happen to each tower for it to fall (how much damage to the central core, minimum amount of lesser supports needed, weak points, etc.). I am not an expert on this, and I will not portray myself as one. But I am still waiting for a satisfactory explanation. And I would accept the theory that the upper floors crashing on the lower ones caused such a neat collapse, if the bottom wasn't already collapsing before all the debris at the top had a chance to hit it, and even more strange, the top half of the first tower completely broke apart before it hit the ground, and in the case of WTC 7, the bottom was what went first.

To put it simply, I believe there is something odd with the collapse based on several factors. My main points of interest are if the fires were strong enough to weaken the towers, and how much of the structure support was taken out by the initial plane crashes.

And as I said to Kenny up there, don't insult me. I like to legitimately discuss things, and I'll easily sway to your point of view if I feel it is valid, so don't feel the need to deride me. I ain't just another conspiracy nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×