portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation | imperialism & war

Advance Review of Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" by a 9/11 Truth Activist

Having gotten an invitation to an advance screening of Oliver Stone's latest film 'World Trade Center' in San Francisco last week, I gladly took up the offer to see this much-anticipated film two weeks before its offical release.
Official movie poster
Official movie poster
As a 9/11 Truth activist and I was going to take a decidedly different approach in reviewing the film than other sources. Instead of analyzing the acting, the plot or by speculating on how well it would do at the box office, I instead was going to look at the film for clues that Oliver Stone was aware of problems with the official story and, hopefully, enlighten the viewing audience in his cinematic narrative. Was the Oliver Stone that politically transformed a generation by exposing us to an alternative understanding of the way the world works, like he did in 'JFK', still out there? Would he mention Building 7, the explosions heard by rescue personnel going off within the building and other strange anomalies? This is what I had my eyes and ears out for.

The film is based on a true story of two Port Authority policemen, Police Chief John McCloughlin (played by Nicholas Cage), and Rookie William Jimeno (played by Michael Pena) and depicts their harrowing story on 9/11. After a brief introduction to their families, we soon follows the two officers through their routine morning foot patrol, and just a short while later, into to an earth shattering chaos that happens when the planes hit the towers.

After calls for the evacuation of the towers, Port Authority Chief McCloughlin rushes to organize a team of officers to assist people who are trying to get out of the building. As the team of volunteers moves through Tower 2, one can hear the very audible sound of explosives going off all around them. The rookie Jimeno comments on these sounds only to be told by McCloughlin, "Don't Think, Just Move." Sound familiar?

Soon, the explosions get more powerful and with a terrible roar Tower 1 comes crashing down leaving the two men buried in the concourse elevator shaft, along with their dead, or soon to be dead, colleagues.

(I would like to stop here in the narrative and give Stone credit for emphasizing the explosions. They were very noticeable and corroborate eyewitness testimony by emergency personnel. 1 point for Stone.)

The drama continues to unfold with interspersed sounds of explosions and another harrowing escape from death as Tower 2 falls down with a crashing roar around the pinned men. After both towers fall, there is an inexplicable scene of more explosions, coupled with hissing sounds and then a scene from Dante's Hell flaming boulders fall and molten steel pours on the men to their astonished horror. Once again, the rookie screams in puzzlement and frustration as to what could cause such a thing to happen.

(Here I believe that Stone trying to convey a termite reaction on steel. Another point if he was. (See Stephen E. Jones paper on Thermite and the World Trade Center buildings at www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Unfortunately, the officers do not get a reprieve from the horror as many hours later they are rocked once again as Building 7 comes crashing down near them. Here Stone shows a TV news clip, you know that frontal shot of the building that looks like an unmistakable demolition. The puzzled faces on the port Authority officers at headquarters as they view this scene on the television conveys just how incredulous the thought this event was.

(Another point for Stone for showing that Building 7 clip coupled with the incredulous faces of the officers. See WTC7.net for video clip. 3 points in total so far for Stone for showing obvious anomalies in the official story.)

But, having acknowledged that there were attempts of daring on Stone's part with this film, I am also aware that some of these clues might be too subtle for those who bought hook, line and sinker the official story. The critical details of the explosions and the melting steel (something a regular carbon-based fire cannot do) and Building 7's collapse tends to get lost by the intense human drama and dialogue unfolding on the screen.

To sum it up, Stone not only did a good job in relating the story of these men and for conveying the emotional and psychological trauma that occurred to them and their families, but for also conveying the message that there are problems with the official story. By emphasizing the explosions, showing the collapse of Building 7 and implying Thermite usage, I believe that he was trying to wake people up to these important issues.

My friend, however, felt that Stone did not go far enough in exposing the evidence and was generally disappointed with the film.

But, in all probability, Stone's hands were tied as he is basically talking about an event were the perpetrations are still in charge and a studio (Paramount) who did not want to be too adventurous. There was probably only so far he could go.

I know I am being presumptuous by assuming Stone is a disbeliever of the official story of 9/11, but I believe he has giving us enough cinematic clues to conclude that is the case. Will the audience notice is the question.

The movie ends with Dave Karnes (Michael Shannon), a retired Marine who helped rescue the officers saying, "This must be avenged... if only we are brave enough to do so."

That is a good question. Are we brave enough?
Big Relief 26.Jul.2006 21:50

jaded

The people who refuse to question authority are a minority. Stone's film opens the door for questioning minds. With information awareness actions near the theaters showing Stone's film, we should gain some new opened minds.

he's beeen paid 26.Jul.2006 23:07

wonder woman's daddy

he's been paid off by Bush/Hillary camp. i expect no truth out of this movie. i rather watch "9/11: The Great Illusion End Game of the Illuminati, Our Choice: Fear or Love?".

factual errors & hardly overwhelming it sounds compared to JFK film, why? 27.Jul.2006 09:17

notice to whom it may concern

"As the team of volunteers moves through Tower 2, one can hear the very audible sound of explosives going off all around them. The rookie Jimeno comments on these sounds only to be told by McCloughlin, "Don't Think, Just Move." Sound familiar? Soon, the explosions get more powerful and with a terrible roar Tower 1 comes crashing down leaving the two men buried in the concourse elevator shaft, along with their dead, or soon to be dead, colleagues."

Actually, reality is inverse here. If they were in tower 2 they would be dead already in the film. Perhaps you got the film review wrong or perhaps Stone really got it wrong, more information?

WTC2 fell first--despite being hit second. WTC1 fell second--despite getting hit first/earlier.

"...with a terrible roar"

Some people's testimony I have read (in WTC1) said they heard nothing as WTC2 fell first, and they were shocked to find it gone. That is how the loudspeakers could tell people "please stay in the building" after WTC2 had already collapsed: those people in WTC1 were completely unaware for the most part that WTC2 was already demolished.

"(I would like to stop here in the narrative and give Stone credit for emphasizing the explosions. They were very noticeable and corroborate eyewitness testimony by emergency personnel. 1 point for Stone.)"

Well, if he really got the building demolition order wrong, that's troubling already. Points for the explosions which are real though left out of the Bush lies about 9-11.

"The drama continues to unfold with interspersed sounds of explosions and another harrowing escape from death as Tower 2 falls down"

--should be tower 1?..

"...with a crashing roar around the pinned men. After both towers fall, there is an inexplicable scene of more explosions, coupled with hissing sounds and then a scene from Dante's Hell flaming boulders fall and molten steel pours on the men to their astonished horror. Once again, the rookie screams in puzzlement and frustration as to what could cause such a thing to happen."

Interesting that he has the guy vocally ponder that to the audience. Yes, Stone references thermate. Flaming boulders though? what is that?

"Unfortunately, the officers do not get a reprieve from the horror as many hours later they are rocked once again as Building 7 comes crashing down near them. Here Stone shows a TV news clip, you know that frontal shot of the building that looks like an unmistakable demolition. The puzzled faces on the port Authority officers at headquarters as they view this scene on the television conveys just how incredulous the thought this event was. (Another point for Stone for showing that Building 7 clip coupled with the incredulous faces of the officers. See WTC7.net for video clip. 3 points in total so far for Stone for showing obvious anomalies in the official story.)"

Yes, good point of putting in WTC7.

"But, having acknowledged that there were attempts of daring on Stone's part with this film, I am also aware that some of these clues might be too subtle for those who bought hook, line and sinker the official story. The critical details of the explosions and the melting steel (something a regular carbon-based fire cannot do) and Building 7's collapse tends to get lost by the intense human drama and dialogue unfolding on the screen."

Yes, it sounds like it was a film for some 'in crowd' hardly really all that useful, though we will see. Alex Jones films are still more important here.

"But, in all probability, Stone's hands were tied as he is basically talking about an event were the perpetrations are still in charge and a studio (Paramount) who did not want to be too adventurous. There was probably only so far he could go."

Er, then can you explain why he made the JFK film when it links back to the Bushes in reality, and that version of attacking the Bushes for their crimes was much more hard hitting?

Don't be naive. Of course Stone thinks Bush did 9-11. And he knows he was in on the JFK assassination as well, though cowardly failed to say it then as well in the JFK movie.

Stone knows enough about JFK. He's hardly going to fall for the same familiy doing that one twice over. Stone would know its the same same criminal dynasty in control through hook and crook destroying the U.S.

Title: VIDEO: Bush Link to Kennedy Assassination Alex Jones 911 Conspiracy
Author: repost
Date: 2006.04.10 02:03
Description: Bush Senior kills JFK. Bush Junior kills JFK, Jr.; more All in all a through film of the evidence at hand: a small network of CIA assassins, all interlinked in Skull and Bones, created a criminal shadow government that became a major force in U.S. history. The people involved in the Kennedy assassination still run the United states in 2005. These groups took control of the Presidency in November 1963, keeping it ever since.

Watch the google film linked here, comment if you want where it still failed to go far enough or had some things that were oddly wrong:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/04/337455.shtml

Stone's film still sounds rather paltry if that is all that he shows. What about showing the "President" sitting still in Florida while all this was going on.

numb 27.Jul.2006 12:48

filmaddict

At least Americans will be reminded how horrible a crime was committed that day. We're all numb after 5 years of Bushitis. Maybe Stone is just making sure we truly "never forget". It's going to cause a sensation either way. It'll be hard to miss those bomb sounds in Surround-Sound.

How about W. Rodriguez's story Indy film makers? 28.Jul.2006 07:38

Maya

Yes, if anything Stone's film serves as a reminder to the horror that happened that day. Maybe it will get more people on the web to investigate the officers and then maybe they will see all of the other websites debunking the official story.

I think William Rodriguez 's story would have be the one Stone should have used. A much more interesting story anyway.

 http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/Rodriguez.htm

P.S. Sorry about the confusion on the buildings. Yes, you are right WTC 2 came down first.

The 9-11 Research companion to Oliver Stone's film 'World Trade Center' 07.Aug.2006 11:48

repost

The 9-11 Research companion to the film World Trade Center
by Jim Hoffman

The film World Trade Center set to debut on August 9, 2006, relates the true story of two of the last survivors rescued from Ground Zero, John McLoughlin and William J. Jimeno.

The film is being produced by Paramount Pictures, and directed by Oliver Stone, recipient of three Academy Awards. Like many of Stone's previous films, World Trade Center takes as its subject traumatic events in recent history. But this film's approach is decidedly different from Stone's most controversial film, JFK.

JFK introduced a generation to evidence that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was not the work of a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, but involved a conspiracy reaching the highest levels of the US government. Stone does this by recounting the struggle of District Attorney Jim Garrison to win a conviction of suspects in that conspiracy.

Unlike JFK, World Trade Center does not directly address the many challenges to the official story of the attack. However, like JFK, it may have a profound effect on the public's understanding of the film's subject by depicting events that have been ignored by the mainstream media, such as sounds of explosions as the Towers came down, molten metal in the rubble pile, and the precipitous collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 in the afternoon.

World Trade Center follows McLoughlin (played by Nicholas Cage) and Jimeno (played by Michael Pena), and their families, on the day of the attack. The two men, who had never met each other, are in other parts of the city as the attack begins. Neither see the plane crashes, and World Trade Center doesn't show them, keeping the movie focused on events that the men and their families witnessed.

 http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/world_trade_center/index.html