As I watch the invasion *I kept thinking how ridiculous everything happening was. I was a little annoyed about how easily the invaders succeeded and how inept the defense by Americans was. Breaking protocol and letting enemies into the bunker was the most stupid act in the movie. Just unbelievable.
shareI'm watching it now and just got past the invasion and couldn't agree more. I kept telling my brother how unbelievable it was. I can't believe our defense on the white house was so weak and unprepared. I know they needed an invasion for the film. I just wish they showed more of a fight before all was lost. It was just too easy.
shareI agree letting the visitors into the bunker was ludicrous - and the plot relied on that to succeed, so that was a double weakness.
But I thought the assault on the WH was quite plausible - the ground force element of it anyway. No idea how big an arsenal they have at the WH but it seemed fairly substantial in the movie - it can't be much bigger in real life can it?
We certainly never see armoured vehicles or any military personnel patrolling the WH grounds, so I suspect the Secret Service are 100% responsible in reality.
The secret service men and women are so highly trained that it would take a force of considerable size to take law much less the house itself.m even if they were defending with 9mm pistols. first, you have to be an insanely good shot. Second, the agents have to be very, very smart.
The agents in the film have very poor battlefield tactics and common sense. When there is a 50cal machine gun blasting the door of the White House, you don't run through that door or line up on the front yard to get gunned down easily.
However, with the exception of Bond films, most other countries shown in movies have crappy militaries. It's time the US had their turn, so I don't see a problem.
I think the ground assault was plausible enough. Even if there's some kind of plan for an organized assault, I doubt there's much actual training for a well-trained, well-organized coordinated assault by a company-sized group of special forces-type troops armed with infantry weapons and a couple of medium machine guns.
The White House doesn't have an infantry company defending it from hardened defense points, and the civilian guards and secret service people aren't really ready for a large number of heavily armed people assaulting all at once.
The defense of the White House and Washington DC airspace was simply awful.
In real life, if terrorists were half as successful as the ones in this film, U.S. citizens must get their tax money back.
The defense of the White House and Washington DC airspace was simply awful.True, but you generally have to suspend disbelief in these sort of films. IRL I just can't imagine an unidentified plane, as we see in the beginning, getting that close to Washington DC airspace.🐭 share
I just can't imagine an unidentified plane, as we see in the beginning, getting that close to Washington DC airspace.
True, but this is 14 years on and steps are supposed to have been taken to reduce this sort of risk. 🐭
shareThere were no problems because it was allowed in to help cover up the controlled demololition of the twin towers obviously. All miltary was conveniently on drills the other side of america haha yeah right
shareSeriously?!? Even in 2016 there's still people soo retarded that they think the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition? *facepalm*
shareLol, the thing is, I think exactly the same about people that think it was anything but, it would be hilarious if not so serious to think a few flames brought it down.how 8n earth can that sound less stupid when seeing a blatant freefall
shareFirstly, it didn't fall freefall as clearly demonstrated by actual footage, secondly steel doesn't have to completely melt, it looses most of its strength even at half the temperature needed to melt it, thirdly it was just a very badly designed structure to begin with and simply not designed to cope with the kind of impact a fully laden large passenger jet could do to it.
Not to mention the fact have you ever seen a demolition of a building done or even work on a floor by floor basis? It doesn't work that way. Not to mention do you have ANY idea what goes into preparing a building for demolition?!? The amount of special cutting and wiring that has to be setup, wires crossing all over the office spaces. In one of the busiest office spaces in the world yet no-one noticed anything unusual in the weeks leading up to it. Not to mention the damage that the plane hitting the building itself would have done to any setup wiring for the explosives and there's no way of perfectly guaranteeing the plane would hit at a precises spot at the start of the explosives level.
Go watch some actual demolition videos and see what goes into that.
You just have to apply some very basic primary school level logic to realise that the idea those 2 main towers were brought down as some per-floor perfectly timed explosive demolition is completeley and utterly ridiculous!
Now WTC7, yes, the way that building dropped looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition, feel free to argue whether that one is suspect or not till the cows come home, but the main twin towers?!? gimme a break!
More strength to your arm. But after a while you will realise it's difficult to argue against 'evidence' that relies totally on paranoid conspiracies, a poor understanding of anything related to engineering and atrocious logic.
amazing that we have the same reaction from opposite views. Yes, Im seriously like how can any rational person think they weren't. simple as that really
sharehow else did they come down then Dick?
shareThey’re not really “people.” Take pleasure in the miserable, withered lives that they lead.
shareWait, what do you mean cover up? Are you one of those tin foil hatted morons?
Herbert West: Who's going to believe a talking head? Get a job in a sideshow.
They weren't supposed to be enemies. They were a South Korean delegation.
sharethat and the military adviser was in on it so their was probable a few key rules rewritten right before the attack
WWJD (read the book and find out J 3:16)
South Korean delegation or not, it was still a ridiculously implausible plot point, because foreign nationals would never ever be allowed into such a bunker during a time of crisis. Utterly defeats the purpose of a bunker being a completely secure location.
shareSame applies for Executive Target (1997). Are these films similar in a way?
shareMaybe not exactly as shown but we've seen from the Paris attacks recently, 9/11 and the London Bombings that a similar situation it isn't too far fetched.
It's immortality, my darlings
Its a movie so just enjoy
shareYep. The idea itself would never work despite people saying it is plausible. You don't have to be an expert in the military to realize the following elements needed to take place for this plan to work.
1) The terrorist was lucky enough for the President who only met him for 2 seconds invited him into the bunker which was against protocol. That was an element of chance that had billion to one chance of succeeding and it worked. Take that guy to Vegas!
2) Someone allowed an AC130 to be stolen or it was flown from North Korea or somewhere outside the US, and if that was the case how did it manage to get as far as DC without anyone noticing it?
3) The US military or personnel guarding the White House were all untrained in such a scenario. I honestly laughed at just how incompetent the people guarding the White House were in defending the place and at combat in general. It seemed the lead character was the only one with any sense and I highly HIGHLY doubt that possible when we are talking about the White House.