Twin Towers in Armageddon movie

I don't know if this has been touched on before, but I thought it was interesting.

I was watching the movie Armageddon (yes - that one with Bruce Willis) when I noticed, for the first time, that they briefly show a scene of the Twin Towers after being hit by multiple Meteors.

In the depicition of the towers one of them has a huge hole in its side (much bigger than that which the plane caused) and the other has its top floors destroyed and is actively burning...

Now, I know this is just a movie - but don't directors normally consult with actual building experts when producing Blockbuster movie effects like this?

If so - it would be interesting to see what experts they consulted with regarding these scenes - and what their opinion is about the fall of the towers on 9/11.

Because to me - clearly - they depicted that these two Towers could take substantial damage without tipping or crumbling to the ground.

On a similar note I do not know if anyone has linked to the article today on PrisonPlanet:

Landmark Implosion Looks Like WTC Collapse
www.prisonplanet.com...

This seems like a pretty good example, imho, of why the Twin Towers looked like controlled implosions.

I especially find interesting the multiple flashes that are easily seen in this video as they are similar to eye witness accounts on 9/11, and to the flashes seen in some movies of the Twin Towers fall.

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
I don't know if this has been touched on before, but I thought it was interesting.

I was watching the movie Armageddon (yes - that one with Bruce Willis) when I noticed, for the first time, that they briefly show a scene of the Twin Towers after being hit by multiple Meteors.

In the depicition of the towers one of them has a huge hole in its side (much bigger than that which the plane caused) and the other has its top floors destroyed and is actively burning...

Pssst don't tell the debunkers though... it may cause some of them to lose their jobs. Although they will argue that the reason is the jet fuel which burned and caused the heat that melted the superstructure. But jet fuel despite their assertions does not easily burn.

Mod edit: Big quote

[edit on 20-3-2006 by parrhesia]

I have to tell you i saw the movie again and wondered the same thing.

Only the government knows for sure.

Sometimes all of us try to find things that are just not there to prove our beliefs. Armageddon was a movie, a Hollywood film intended to "entertain", to suspend ones disbelief for a brief time and to simply serve as a diversion from our every day lives. To, somehow, equate a film -- a science fiction film at that -- with any aspect of reality is , in my mind, searching for "bogey men" under the bed. You can suspect that one is there but no matter how hard one searches, you only come up with "dust bunnies".

9/11 was a tragedy without comparison. By somehow equating this sad day with speculation about whether the twin towers could take fictional meteor strikes and remain standing, yet, be brought down by two very real airplanes is ludicrous and it is an insult to ones intelligence.

Benevolent, i dont think that is what the author is trying to do.

I just see it as another conspiracy and either it will be debunked or it will die a normal death. Nothing to worry about.

benevolent tyrant:

thanks for that, it is obvious to me that two planes did not bring down the towers too.

even Hollyweird believes that it seems and they know about these kind of things.

So, you won't believe a 3 year effort by the NIST to come to a conclusion on the WTC, but you will look at a movie for the answers? Are you serious?

The bottom line is that there is no evidence of implosion, but we do have the law of gravity. There is no evidence to prove that this was an implosion. No trace elements left behind, nothing.

Did you know that the fireproofing was not up to code(according to 1969 standards since it was an interstate company and did not have to adhere to NY city code), and for a truss the length of the WTC, they would not have survived 2 hours, since they were so wide and supported so much weight for each floor. This is proven in the NIST report. Multiple Police helicopters reported the sliding of the Building minutes prior to collapse, they did not report explosions.

The building shook for 4 minutes after the planes made impact. This was for real. 3000 people died because terrorists attacked and finished what they started in 93.

Is it not possible that the NIST report is part of the cover up? How is that so difficult to believe? In terms of the buildings coming down I have never said that demo was needed to do this in and of itself, only that demo would have ensured that the buildings came down the way they did. Otherwise I see no scientific nor logical reason to believe that the buildings collapsed so neatly by themselves. This defies logic frankly. Unless of course they were designed to do this in the first place?

Originally posted by esdad71
So, you won't believe a 3 year effort by the NIST to come to a conclusion on the WTC, but you will look at a movie for the answers? Are you serious?

The only conclusion NIST came to was that the first floor to fail failed because of the jet impacts and subsequent fires. That's really all it says. And even that much has been hotly disputed among scholars, as you would know if you keep up with both sides of the issue.

NIST doesn't offer any other information regarding the collapses, except to use words such as "inevitable" when discussing the collapses of every single floor under the first to fail. Reread the report yourself and prove me wrong if you don't believe me.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence of implosion, but we do have the law of gravity. There is no evidence to prove that this was an implosion. No trace elements left behind, nothing.

You keep saying this more as if trying to convince yourself than anyone else.

If there's no evidence for a demolition, then there's no evidence for what NIST is suggesting. If you read the actual report, there isn't any supporting evidence that conclusively shows what they're saying. In fact, if you're clever, you'll notice that they pin the failures on the trusses, which couldn't be seen from the outside and thus we can't possibly tell whether or not they glowing hot. We know that the perimeter columns hadn't lost significant strength because they weren't glowing and the aluminum coverings weren't melting. But what about the trusses?

It's your classic conspiracy theory! You can't prove what NIST is suggesting, so you'll just have to assume it's correct.

Did you know that the fireproofing was not up to code(according to 1969 standards since it was an interstate company and did not have to adhere to NY city code), and for a truss the length of the WTC, they would not have survived 2 hours, since they were so wide and supported so much weight for each floor.

Did you know that...

A) The fires didn't burn for 2 hours in either tower (not that it would actually make much difference even if they did).

B) Fireproofing isn't necessary when the steel isn't heated to 600 C and higher, and you're going to come up with something very convincing if you want us to believe that hydrocarbon fires can heat steel to 600 C in conditions like at the WTC. Hydrocarbons max out their sustained temps around 800 C, and if you're honest with yourself you'll allow that those fires weren't going to be pushing max temperatures with the fuel/air ratio they had going on up there. The smoke in each tower even darkened, which is obviously not an ideal burn, and not pushing max temperatures of hydrocarbon fires.

In transferring heat from even the hottest hydrocarbon fire of 800 C, to tons upon tons of steel (to 600 C or higher), which is an excellent conductor of heat anyway, you're going to have problems. Air carries away a lot of heat, for example, as I'm sure you can imagine (especially when the smoke is dark and soot-laden). And that's before reaching the steel and having to heat up any one section of it without the heat being "wicked away," as Steven Jones puts it, and conducted around through the steel to keep it cool. And since you've read the NIST report, you know that no section of either building was exposed to fire the whole time? The fires roamed, and when they left a section of building, that section would most certainly begin to cool off from whatever insignificant temperatures were approached to begin with.

That's why so many people, such as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth team and other professional groups, are raising serious questions over what NIST is suggesting. NIST hasn't even got to the rest of the collapses yet, if they even plan on it at all (I don't think they are). And they're already having a lot of trouble. And on top of all of that, they won't release the full construction drawings, they're withholding thousands of photographs and video recordings, and the information they've released so far has been kept to an absolutel minimum. The whole thing from NIST is just a bad joke.

esdad71,

I know from your previous posts that nothing will ever convinve you that the current Administration is even capable of exageration - let alone deceit - but please be clear of what I was asking.

I was wondering if teh Armageddon director consulted with actual experts regarding thos scenes of buildings being destoryed by meteorites.

I hear this is common practice in blockbuster movies - but I personally have no contacts in that industry.

And - if they did consult building experts - I would be very interested to hear their current opinion on all 3 of the 9/11 Building collapses.

Sheesh!

I think this comic eloquently sums up many of our discussions here at ATS:

www.workingforchange.com...

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
I was wondering if teh Armageddon director consulted with actual experts regarding thos scenes of buildings being destoryed by meteorites.

Well, they sure didn't consult with any space scientists about the asteroid scenes. They were ludicrous and totally against what we know of asteroids.

Since they apparently didn't worry about getting the major scenes right, I sincerely doubt they bothered for what was a very minor scene.

People should not make assumptions, i'll let you fill in the rest.

I know that my government is capable if things that are non-comprehensible. This is not what we are talking about. We are talking about is

1. poor design, innovate architecture and simple physics laws mixed with a fanatical terror organization

or

2. we are talking about the WTC 1,2 and 7 bieng imploded by our our shadow government by untraceable, non detected explosives that left no trace evidence and was not noticed by any of the 10's of thousands of workers an visiotrs who went there each day

I have seen all the videos, I have read all the 911 of truth websites, and personally, I have debunked them not to prove it here, but for myself. There is no hard evidence, only shadows of thought, misrepresentation and misconception.

I find it funny that I get mocked of my views when posting of scholars from MIT who have done their own research, yet aome defend the fact that since a CGI WTC withstood a meteor, 9/11 was pulled of by our government.

Also, please tell me what the difference between a scholar working for NIST and a scholar working for the 9/11 truth campaign? (and I am bieng serious, so you can keep the bs to yourself)