FontStruct | FontStruction Feed: The Two Towers

Comment from Frodo7

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Comment from cayo

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Nice trubute! I was wondering: is the 9 representing building 7? Because a lot of people don't realize that actually 3 buildings collapsed that day. I'm kind of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to 9/11 and as Dubya Bush said when his dad was in office: Access to information is power. I'm going to share another interesting fact: These were the first steel based buildings to have collapsed the same day the were on flames AND the architect that designed them said once that they would even withstand a plane impact. I could go on naming more, but that would take the conversation thread to leave the font topic. Still I think to doubt is better than to accept half truths in respect of the memory of those who perished that day.

Comment from Frodo7

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Thank you for your comment. While I have to admit I don't have all the knowledge available on this serious issue, I did some research on the matter only to conclude that the official story just does not add up. It bleeds from many wounds. I'm not here to discuss that, but to make fonts, that make some people pause, or think, or start scrutinize the facts. My message here is twofold: 1. to keep the issue alive, make people remember of that day, and of those who died; 2. to demonstrate that type could be a powerful weapon, shaper than steel, and as a designer I intend to use it. This is a work in progress, you'll see more soon.

Comment from funk_king

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

excellent work and excellent sentiment. you have true vision, frodo. thank you for sharing The Two Towers and Bombs and Men. i look forward to your upcoming releases.

Comment from SquarePeg

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

It's a nice homage, Frodo. And Cayo, I suggest you read this before believing conspiracy theories...

Comment from PhaistosDisk

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I think you should read this Popular Mechanics feature where they debunk many of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Comment from Frodo7

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

@PhaistosDisk: thank you for your comment. I used to be an avid reader of Popular Mechanics (as well as Popular Science). I've seen that piece of journalism and a copy of The 9/11 Commission Report by Philip Zelikow et al. They both stand by the official version, both attempt to make an impression of competence and thoroughness. However, they fall short to explain key facts, e.g. the collapse of Building 7 (or was it a controlled demolition as Larry Silverstein have admitted on TV?); how can you melt reinforced steel with burning jet fuel (hint: check the melting point of steel and compare it with the sustained temperature of burning kerosene), etc. They went so far as to create a "pancake theory" which casually ignores the basic laws of physics, except gravity, and key facts of structural engineering. I wonder, could those guys become any more shameless... I also watched the following debate on YouTube: 9/11 Debate Loose Change Vs. Popular Mechanics. While I can not endorse Loose Change, I simply have no way to confirm their claims, those guys looked very convincing. They've refuted the official arguments point after point using evidence they've collected and meticulously pieced together. The Loose Change guys were well prepared, sharp, and armed with a plethora of data in their heads, they've virtually moped the floor with those "experts". All in all: a lot of questions remained unanswered. Since the Bush administration used 9/11 as a pretext to launch war against Afghanistan, with civilian casualties already in the tens of thousands, I think it is important to seek real, satisfactory answers.

Comment from SquarePeg

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Frodo, the article I linked to above debunks the "Loose Change" movie.

Comment from cayo

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

@SquarePeg I don't think cracked.com is a reliable source. I don't believe blindly on conspiracy theories, I just doubt the official statement. @Frodo7 I agree. The use of this incident as pretext to go to war, makes me doubt even more about the official statement. There's a spanish song from Mocedades (1970's) that's called "el Vendedor": En la plaza vacia, nada vendia el vendedor. Y aunque nadie compraba no se apagaba nunca su voz. ... Quien quiere vender conmigo la paz de un niño durmiendo, la tarde sobre mi madre y el tiempo que estoy queriendo. ---------------------- In the empty marketplace the vendor sells nothing. Though nobody buys him anything, his voice would never extinguish. ... Who wants to sell with me the peace of piece of a sleeping kid, the afternoon held by my mother, the time when I love. War is always business, Peace doesn't sell.

Comment from cayo

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

correction: the peace of a sleeping child.

Comment from SquarePeg

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I don't think cracked.com is a reliable source But did you read the article? :-) I think it's important to have an open mind... I also favor the principle of Occam's Razor. That is, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Don't get me wrong... I think that the 9/11 attack was used as an excuse for the war in Iraq... But that doesn't mean that the U.S. government destroyed the twin towers! Those planes were carrying loads of fuel, which is why they were able to destroy the buildings.

Comment from Frodo7

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

This whole discussion should not be here on FS. I feel guilty about it, I should have forseen this coming.

Comment from Frodo7

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Fuselage, tail section and wings have been adjusted. We agreed with SquarePeg to mutually withdraw some of our recent comments not related to fontstructing. We may continue our discussion on 9/11 somewhere else.

Comment from SquarePeg

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

This whole discussion should not be here on FS. Yeah, I agree, Frodo. I regret posting my comments as well, as I feel that FontStruct comments should be about FontStructions, font-building issues, and FontStruct issues. On the other hand, I feel that if the people behind that documentary are white suprematists or right-wing groups, then everybody needs to be aware of that. Frodo, I don't want to get into any kind of political argument with you or any other FontStructor either, so I will not make any further comments on this issue here.

Comment from neurone error

Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I used the shift + PXL clicking and Fullscreen function and i completely rediscovered this gem of yours i only viewed small the first time. This is a true piece of art, the details and patterns are extraordinary. Even if the 9/11 would have never existed, this would have had an incredible power by itself. If i were you, maybe i would try to exhibit high resolution big prints of it, it deserves really better than the Fontstruct Viewer !