Author Topic: WTC.  (Read 5339 times)

Offline sparkle_motion

  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 432
  • Stacey.
WTC.
« on: August 03, 2006, 08:57:24 pm »
I haven't been around lately so I don't know if this has already been discussed...
But I saw a sneak peek of the World Trade Center movie last night and guess who plays Maggie Gyllenhaal's father? Go on, guess.
...then you ask me about Mexico and tell me you'll kill me for needing somethin' I don't hardly never get.

Offline David

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,097
Re: WTC.
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2006, 09:48:18 pm »
I honestly don't know.   I have only seen the TV previews and they only specify Nick Cage as the lead actor.     And just the 30 second TV spot gives me goosebumps.

Who plays Maggies Dad?    I'm going to guess the absurd.....Randy Quaid? 


OK,  now you've made me curious.  I'll have to go over to IMDb and look.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2006, 10:55:02 pm by DavidinHartford »

Offline David

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,097
Re: WTC.
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2006, 10:53:55 pm »
OMG NO!       That is twisted!

Offline Katie77

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,998
  • Love is a force of Nature
Re: WTC.
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2006, 11:37:37 pm »
I saw a short of it and I think I saw the bloke who played Old man Twist...


Is that right?
Being happy doesn't mean everything is perfect.

It means you've decided to see beyond the imperfection

Offline Aloysius J. Gleek

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,011
Re: WTC.
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2006, 01:07:19 am »
You're all so clever. Peter McRobbie, of course.

Here's more WTC IMDb trivia:

After seeing his performance in the film, Crash (2004/I), Maggie Gyllenhaal recommended Michael Pena for the role of Officer William Jimeno.


As part of his research, Michael Pena moved into Officer William Jimeno's home in New Jersey.


Due to her infamous quote that "America is responsible in some way" for the 9/11 attacks, Maggie Gyllenhaal personally offered to withdraw from the project to Officer William Jimeno and his wife Allison Jimeno. They both declined and gave their blessing for Gyllenhaal to take the role.
"Tu doives entendre je t'aime."
(and you know who I am...)


Cowboy Curtis (Laurence Fishburne)
and Pee-wee in the 1990 episode
"Camping Out"

mvansand76

  • Guest
Re: WTC.
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2006, 07:11:47 am »
Due to her infamous quote that "America is responsible in some way" for the 9/11 attacks, Maggie Gyllenhaal personally offered to withdraw from the project to Officer William Jimeno and his wife Allison Jimeno. They both declined and gave their blessing for Gyllenhaal to take the role.[/i]

I also read in an interview in EW that she kind of took that quote back and made it into something more subtle, but it feels like she was told to take it back. This is an interesting discussion, do you guys think she was wrong in saying that? Or do you feel she was right?

Offline David

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,097
Re: WTC.
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2006, 07:43:41 am »
Are we responsible?   Well, not directly, but if you read about how the Government missed so many clues or the different agencies didn't share info to what the terrorist were up to, then yes, we are a little responsible due to complacency. 

It all reminds me so much of the Titanic sinking.   Biggest ship in the world sailing into known trouble.  It was built to withstand the worst possible collision. So many people had clues to what could happen that night, but none were connected.    The horrible event shocks the world and brings people together.   After a big inquiry changes are made to future ships to prevent such a loss.  The Coast Guard is formed to protect the shipping.

WTC?   Biggest building in the world is a target for terrorist.  It was built to withstand the worst possible collision.  So many people had clues to what could happen that day, but none were connected.   The horrible event shocks the world and brings people together.  After a big inquiry changes are made to future buildings to prevent such a loss.  The Department of Homeland Security is formed to protect the borders.


Yes, an Iceberg sank the Titanic.   Yes Terrorists brought down the Towers.     Are we guilty for letting it happen in either case?   NO.   nobody in either timeline ever thought these situations would play out.

Did communication issues and design flaws contribute to the failure of both the ship and the towers?  unfortunatley YES.

Are we Guilty?    No, because nobody wanted to see any of this happen.  The Crew of the Titanic didn't steam into an iceberg intentionally figuring the ship wouldn't sink and it would be good publicity to prove how safe she was.

No more than the agents at the FBI or CIA would have tossed important memos in the waste basket so they could go on vacation with a clean desk. 

  Hindsight is 20/20.   The dots connect visably now.   Just as then in the Titanics case, we are guilty of complacency.  The failure of over confidence in a system with flaws.  Flaws that are not known until a tragedy happens unfortunately.


Offline chefjudy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Brokeback Got Me Good
  • *****
  • Posts: 339
  • "a pair a deuces"
Re: WTC.
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2006, 08:08:25 am »
 :) very insightful, David - thanks...........................
Judy


"it could be like this, just like this, always......" Jack Twist

mvansand76

  • Guest
Re: WTC.
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2006, 08:32:48 am »
I'm not sure if it's just complacency. I am baffled by the number of questions about 9-11 that remain unanswered by the government. There are hundreds of organisations that have asked the government for answers to questions such as Why did building 7 collapse? I know this goes a bit further than saying that the government is in a way responsible for the 9-11 attacks, but I think the government is holding back a lot of information about what happened that day and people are starting to wonder about those things. It's natural for people to start wondering about things like this, because they are not told the whole truth. Is it arrogance, do they just not care, or do they really have something to hide? 

Offline David

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,097
Re: WTC.
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2006, 08:52:09 am »
Why did building 7 collapse?

PBS had a special show on about the structural failures of 9-11.    They did show the failure of Building 7.    Basically all structural steel will fail from high heat if left exposed too long.   And like a deck of cards, if you pull one out from the bottom at the wrong place the whole thing collapses.  And that is what happened at WTC#7.

Why was the fire left to burn?   Well, think about it.   The building was severely damaged by the falling debris of the towers.   200+ firefighters were just killed and the remaining ones were trying to put out the fire at WTC 1 and 2 so they can rescue anyone trapped there.    It was known that WTC#7 was empty when it was burning.   Authorities figured the building was a total loss, so they concentrated on WTC 1 and 2.
Nobody at the time was thinking about structural failure due to the fires.   


What amazes me is how after towers one and two failed, nobody even flinched when WTC#7 collapsed.    The day before if a 50 floor building caught fire and collapsed it would be big news.  But as it happened 8 hours after #1 and 2 fell, peole were just too numb to be surprized.     Even the media was like: "oh, and there goes building #7" and they turned the cameras back to other things.

mvansand76

  • Guest
Re: WTC.
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2006, 09:25:55 am »
I know that in the days after 9-11 scientist and researchers did start to question why building 7 collapsed and after the offical report came out they came to the conclusion that on several major points questions were not answered in the report and that they had made different conclusions, but weren't allowed access to research material. Building 7 was never hit by a plane and yet it collapsed. There was no evidence for heavy fire or heavy structural damage to the building, and there were buildings closer to the two WTC towers that also had only minor damage (considering what happened quite near to them). Even if there had been evidence of major fire, according to these scientists, steel buildings do not collapse from fire, see what happened to the building in Madrid more than a year ago (don't remember the exact date), it burned out completely, yet remained standing because the temperature of normal fire does not reach the meltin point of steel.

So, I'm not a scientist but when I read articles about this, I don't necessarily take it as the absolute truth, but it does make me wonder, and makes me want to investigate it more, read more about it, and that's just what a lot of people have started doing, and I was actually expecting Oliver Stone to be doing that as well!  ;D ;)

I am not fond of conspiracy theories, but I AM fond of the truth. On wikipedia there is a list of organisations and people who are doing independent research into 9-11, including the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, you can see the list here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11#9.2F11_Family_Steering_Committee




Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: WTC.
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2006, 11:21:49 am »
I think we're responsible *in a way* and not just due to complacency.  Look at our politics in relation to the Muslim/Arab world for many years prior to it.  To fundamentalist Christians, the Jews are wrong but the Muslims are moreso.  If we are forced to choose between them, we choose the Jews.  That is how they see our politics.  Right or wrong, we know it's how they see them, and what have we done in all the years leading up to 9/11 to assuage that view?  Nada.  Maggie was right.  And power to her for saying something about it.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2006, 04:14:24 pm by ednbarby »
No more beans!

mvansand76

  • Guest
Re: WTC.
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2006, 11:40:53 am »
That is how they see our politics.  Right or wrong
 

Exactly, Good versus Evil!

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: WTC.
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2006, 12:40:33 pm »
Exactly, Good versus Evil!

Yep.  And it doesn't help matters that we have a president who says things publicly like he is on a mission from God to fix things in the Middle East and that if you aren't with us, you're against us.  But he's a uniter, not a divider.

 ::) >:(
No more beans!

Offline YaadPyar

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,668
Re: WTC.
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2006, 02:05:05 pm »

But he's a uniter, not a divider.


Wow!  Can you imagine if he wasn't a uniter?  What would else would be destroyed in the name of democracy!?!
"Vice, Virtue. It's best not to be too moral. You cheat yourself out of too much life. Aim above morality. If you apply that to life, then you're bound to live life fully." (Harold & Maude - 1971)

Offline ednbarby

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,586
Re: WTC.
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2006, 02:16:38 pm »
Wow!  Can you imagine if he wasn't a uniter?  What would else would be destroyed in the name of democracy!?!

I just tried to think of something he hasn't already destroyed (or certainly started on its way) and couldn't.  I really don't think there's anything left.
No more beans!

mvansand76

  • Guest
Re: WTC.
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2006, 11:20:32 am »
Wow!  Can you imagine if he wasn't a uniter?  What would else would be destroyed in the name of democracy!?!


I don't want to know!  :o