Guest Stephen Turner Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Before we lose sight of it, the question here is does this person have a right to the title "explosives expert" or not. And further have their views been examined by peers and validated. It is really that simple. It is a title NEVER claimed by the unnamed author, that part was Jack embellishing. AFAIK no explosives experts have said the TOWERS were demo'd thought there is one who thinks 7 was his opinion seems to only be based on having seen video clips. Thanks Len. So the short answer to my questions is, NO, and NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 Go to:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html False advertising Jack, the anonymous author of that article only claimed that he (or she) " work(ed) in special effects." A special effects expert IS an EXPLOSIVES EXPERT. Quote: SPECIAL EFFECTS - PYROMANIA Rolling through a war torn industrial area, the tank’s turret rotates until it finds a target. The main gun fires. Through the muzzle flash, we see the shell strike the front of a building: "BOOM!" --an enormous explosion ensues, as the building takes a direct hit. Instantly, the building disintegrates into a huge fireball and burning debris rains down on the street. Soldiers run out of another building, firing assault rifles in the direction of the tank. One soldier shoulders a rocket launcher. Amid the action and chaos, he carefully aims the launcher at the tank. As bullets from the tank's machine guns rake the ground around the soldier, he fires the anti-tank rocket. We see it streak towards the tank. IMPACT. The tank explodes, and shudders to a stop. As the soldier runs away from the burning tank, we hear a voice: “CUT!” A group of special effects technicians run into the scene with fire fighting equipment. Within a few minutes, the fires are under control, and the director is watching a video playback of the battle. For the effects technicians, it is just another day of creating spectacular visual sequences for another action adventure film. When audiences watch a blockbuster action movie, it is the special effects and stunts that become the focal point of the film. Movies like the Matrix Reloaded, Terminator 3, or Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle use special effects as central elements in their stories, to provide the thrills that make these movies box office winners. Explosions are an important visual effect in these action movies. The image of cars violently exploding, or buildings disintegrating in a ball of fire are not only the most spectacular effects, but provide a sense of danger that keep audiences on the edge of their seats. To create these spectacular explosions, special effects technicians use specialized skills, explosives, and techniques. The result is movie magic: the creation of exciting explosions, close to stunt performers or actors, with complete control and safety. So how do they create spectacular explosive sequences? The key is how the explosions are designed, how the explosives are rigged, and the type of explosives that are used by special effects technicians. The design of the explosion is a critical safety factor. Typically, stunt performers, camera crew, and other essential crew-members are close to the explosion. This creates special safety considerations for effects technicians that are not present for other explosive users. The Most Important Skill For example, when blasting engineers demolish a structure they establish a generous safety zone around the area. Normally, no personnel are allowed within thousands of metres around the blast. However, to get spectacular action shots for a movie, the camera crews will usually be 100 metres from the explosion- OR LESS! Stunt performers will even be closer! Managing this risk is the most important skill a technician brings to the craft of special effects. Risk management begins with good explosive design. The Art of Design The design of a special effects explosion starts with the first reading of the script, and evolves during meetings with the director and stunt coordinator. For example, if the script requires a car to be blown up, the setting and location are essential factors in the design of the explosion. If the car is located in an open field, and the script doesn’t require stunt performers to be near the car, there is lower risk involved in creating a spectacular, safe explosion. However, if the director wants a stunt performer to run from a car as it explodes, this increases the risk. These parameters define the visual, and determine the design of the explosion. Similarly, if the car is located on a city street, close to power lines or buildings that can’t be damaged, these factors directly influence how the explosion will be rigged. The direction and intensity of the explosion, plus the materials used, become critical factors in the design. A successful visual is one that satisfies the creative vision of the director. However, other personnel--art director, the director of photography, and the location manager--will have specific requirements that have to be factored into the design. The authorities will also impose requirements that have to be considered in the design. Obtaining a film permit involves satisfying their safety concerns while complying with all legal or regulatory requirements. Often these collective requirements result in contradictory demands, which have to be resolved. But in the final analysis, the effects technician must deliver the visual required by the director. Once the design has been finalized--for example the size of the explosion, type of fireball, direction, duration, location of stunt performers, and safety parameters--the effects technician selects the materials required to achieve the visual. The best way to visualize this process is to follow the sequence of events involved in rigging a car explosion. A car explosion normally involves creating a fireball, and blowing off pieces of the car-hood, trunk or doors--to create a catastrophic explosion. This simulates what occurs when a car is blown up with high explosives. Tools of Design Creating the fireball begins by placing metal pans, called mortars, inside the car. Mortars are constructed from thick metal and are available in a variety of shapes and sizes. The shapes will vary from round to trapezoid; mortars are available in a variety of angles, from 30 to 60 degrees. The angle of the mortars provides technicians with an important design tool. By using wider mortars, the fireball will be more dispersed, while 60-degree trapezoid mortars will create a narrower fireball that is very directional. A straight-walled mortar is very directional: it creates a very violent fireball that is a straight column of flame. The positioning of the mortars inside the car is another important design tool. The fireball can be directed out of one side of the car (out of the front and back of the car) by the careful placement of the mortars. If the car is close to a building, this permits technicians to direct the main fireball away from the structure. If stunt personnel are running from the car, the mortars can be placed so the fireball is not directed towards them. The positioning and shape of the mortars, directly influences the design of the explosion. By using these variables, the effects technician can control the direction, dispersion, and shape of the fireball. To create the actual fireball, a small quantity of explosives is placed in the mortars, and a measured amount of flammable liquid is place on top of the explosive. When the explosive is triggered, the flammable liquid violently sprays out of the mortar. As the liquid reaches the right air/fuel mixture, it catches fire, and a fireball is created. Size Does Matter Another design variable is the quantity of flammable liquid used, and the size of the explosive charge. This directly influences the characteristics of the fireball. By using a large quantity of flammable liquid, and a smaller explosive charge, a large, slower developing fireball is created. If a larger explosive charge is used, and a smaller quantity of flammable liquid is placed into the mortar, a more violent fireball will develop. To complete the visual, the doors, hood or trunk are rigged. Effects technicians remove the hinges from these components, and disable the latches. Pipe mortars--lengths of pipe with a cap welded on one end--are strategically placed inside the car. Small explosive charges are place in the mortars, and the mortars are filled with sand. The doors, trunk and hood are placed back in position, and the pipe mortars are rigged so the sand is blown against these objects. When the explosives are triggered, the doors, hood and trunk are blown away from the car at high velocity. When combined with the fireballs, the car seems to “blow apart” violently. Managing Risk Car doors (or hoods/trunks) can become deadly projectiles, presenting a danger to anyone on the set. To manage this risk, safety cable is attached to anything that will be blown off the car and anchored to a secure point on the car. The length of the safety cable controls how far these items can travel. This ensures that car doors, trunks, or hoods cannot become uncontrolled missiles, endangering personnel on the set. Similar techniques are used to simulate the effect of a building being blown apart. Effects technicians pre-weaken the building so the minimum amount of explosive is required to create the visual illusion. When the explosion takes place, only the pre-weakened portions are actually ejected out of the explosion. The walls of the structure are similarly pre-weakened to ensure a safe, predictable outcome as the building disintegrates. To complete the effect of a catastrophic explosion, huge fireballs are created inside the building, using explosives, mortars, and flammable material. In some cases cement dust is placed in mortars, which creates large dust plumes. The result is a visually spectacular explosion that is controlled, safe, and predictable. Further Protection However, no matter how carefully the building is prepared for an explosion, there is always a chance that a hard object will be driven out of the explosion at high velocity. As a result, camera crews are protected in “hides”, small temporary shelters covered with plywood, and shielded by lexan, a tough plastic resin material. Stunt performers are positioned either behind objects for protection, or filmed so they are away from the pre-weakened areas, which represents the greatest area of danger. If they are required to be directly in front of the explosion, they are placed a safe distance from the explosion. By using long lenses on the cameras, the Director of Photography can make it appear that the stunt performers are very close to the explosion. 12th Century Technology The type of explosives used by FX technicians is one of the key factors in creating a safe explosion. Surprisingly, special effects technicians use an explosive, invented in the 12th century, to create visual magic. When people think of explosives, they usually think of high explosives-dynamite, TNT or plastic explosives. However there is another class of explosives called low order explosives. Low order explosives are used as the explosive in air bags, fuel for the space shuttle, and the powder (actually called propellant) used in small arms cartridges. But the most common low order explosive is black powder. Fireworks manufacturers are the largest commercial users of black powder. Anyone who has seen a fireworks show, is watching the creative potential of black powder! Special effects technicians utilize the unique characteristics of this low order explosive to create stunning explosions in movies. In fact, it is the most important explosive used in the special effects industry. To understand why black powder is so useful to technicians, it is necessary to understand explosive theory. When a high explosive is detonated, it turns from a solid to a gas, almost instantly, creating heat, pressure and a significant shock wave. The shock wave breaks apart objects near the explosion, creating fragments. In addition, the blast wave can cause damage to anything in the vicinity of the explosion. Depending on how much high explosive is detonated, the damage from a blast can be devastating to objects hundreds of metres away. Low order explosives change from a solid to a gas, but it does so differently. Instead of creating a shock wave, it generates large quantities of hot gases. While this is a still a very violent reaction, low order explosives do not produce shrapnel like fragments that are associated with high explosives. Further, the explosion does not cause damage to structures in the vicinity of the explosion. This makes black powder an ideal explosive for special effects. “Smoke & Mirrors” Effects technicians, as we have seen, create the illusion of destruction by disassembling the car, or pre-weakening the structure. This minimizes the amount of power required to achieve the effect. To create a car explosion, only a few ounces of explosives are used to create the illusion of a catastrophic explosion. A building that is properly weakened can be destroyed with a minimum amount of explosives, instead of cases of high explosives. Of course, high explosives are used in certain applications. When preparing a building explosion, it is common practice to use high explosives to create the shattering that simulates a building being blown apart. However, when high explosives are used to create an effect, specifically to shatter objects, it increases the danger for personnel on the set. High explosives can cause a fragment to blow out of the explosion at lethal velocities. In the past 10 years, this has resulted in 2 fatalities, which are directly the result of using high explosives to create an effect. That is why camera crews are protected in hides when a building is blown apart, and additional safety procedures are required to protect stunt performers when high explosives are used to destroy an object. Know Your Outcome Special effects technicians utilize a number of innovative techniques to create spectacular special effects. But to create a safe explosive effect, they observe two basic rules: 1. Use the minimum amount of force necessary to create the effect. Nothing is gained by using an excessive amount of explosive force, and control is usually compromised when too much power is used. 2. Know what will occur before you create the effect. Professionals have the experience necessary to establish safety distances, protect personnel and minimize the chance of damage. When possible, they do tests to establish limits, and ensure control. Safety is the single most important consideration when creating an explosion for a movie. By using innovative techniques, materials and procedures, effects technicians are able to create extraordinary explosions. But unless the explosion is safe and controlled, the explosion cannot be regarded as a success. When the proper techniques, explosive materials and design skills are applied to a creative problem, virtually any visual can be created. Effects technicians are able to use explosives to convince audiences they are watching an intergalactic battle in space, or a desperate battle that took place in the Second World War. This is the magic of special effects: by using a material that was invented over 500 years ago, plus techniques that were pioneered in the earliest days of films, technicians create modern visual magic. Copyright 2003 by Ron C. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 Go to:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html False advertising Jack, the anonymous author of that article only claimed that he (or she) " work(ed) in special effects." A special effects expert IS an EXPLOSIVES EXPERT. Quote: SPECIAL EFFECTS - PYROMANIA Rolling through a war torn industrial area, the tank’s turret rotates until it finds a target. The main gun fires. Through the muzzle flash, we see the shell strike the front of a building: "BOOM!" --an enormous explosion ensues, as the building takes a direct hit. Instantly, the building disintegrates into a huge fireball and burning debris rains down on the street. Soldiers run out of another building, firing assault rifles in the direction of the tank. One soldier shoulders a rocket launcher. Amid the action and chaos, he carefully aims the launcher at the tank. As bullets from the tank's machine guns rake the ground around the soldier, he fires the anti-tank rocket. We see it streak towards the tank. IMPACT. The tank explodes, and shudders to a stop. As the soldier runs away from the burning tank, we hear a voice: “CUT!” A group of special effects technicians run into the scene with fire fighting equipment. Within a few minutes, the fires are under control, and the director is watching a video playback of the battle. For the effects technicians, it is just another day of creating spectacular visual sequences for another action adventure film. When audiences watch a blockbuster action movie, it is the special effects and stunts that become the focal point of the film. Movies like the Matrix Reloaded, Terminator 3, or Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle use special effects as central elements in their stories, to provide the thrills that make these movies box office winners. Explosions are an important visual effect in these action movies. The image of cars violently exploding, or buildings disintegrating in a ball of fire are not only the most spectacular effects, but provide a sense of danger that keep audiences on the edge of their seats. To create these spectacular explosions, special effects technicians use specialized skills, explosives, and techniques. The result is movie magic: the creation of exciting explosions, close to stunt performers or actors, with complete control and safety. So how do they create spectacular explosive sequences? The key is how the explosions are designed, how the explosives are rigged, and the type of explosives that are used by special effects technicians. The design of the explosion is a critical safety factor. Typically, stunt performers, camera crew, and other essential crew-members are close to the explosion. This creates special safety considerations for effects technicians that are not present for other explosive users. The Most Important Skill For example, when blasting engineers demolish a structure they establish a generous safety zone around the area. Normally, no personnel are allowed within thousands of metres around the blast. However, to get spectacular action shots for a movie, the camera crews will usually be 100 metres from the explosion- OR LESS! Stunt performers will even be closer! Managing this risk is the most important skill a technician brings to the craft of special effects. Risk management begins with good explosive design. The Art of Design The design of a special effects explosion starts with the first reading of the script, and evolves during meetings with the director and stunt coordinator. For example, if the script requires a car to be blown up, the setting and location are essential factors in the design of the explosion. If the car is located in an open field, and the script doesn’t require stunt performers to be near the car, there is lower risk involved in creating a spectacular, safe explosion. However, if the director wants a stunt performer to run from a car as it explodes, this increases the risk. These parameters define the visual, and determine the design of the explosion. Similarly, if the car is located on a city street, close to power lines or buildings that can’t be damaged, these factors directly influence how the explosion will be rigged. The direction and intensity of the explosion, plus the materials used, become critical factors in the design. A successful visual is one that satisfies the creative vision of the director. However, other personnel--art director, the director of photography, and the location manager--will have specific requirements that have to be factored into the design. The authorities will also impose requirements that have to be considered in the design. Obtaining a film permit involves satisfying their safety concerns while complying with all legal or regulatory requirements. Often these collective requirements result in contradictory demands, which have to be resolved. But in the final analysis, the effects technician must deliver the visual required by the director. Once the design has been finalized--for example the size of the explosion, type of fireball, direction, duration, location of stunt performers, and safety parameters--the effects technician selects the materials required to achieve the visual. The best way to visualize this process is to follow the sequence of events involved in rigging a car explosion. A car explosion normally involves creating a fireball, and blowing off pieces of the car-hood, trunk or doors--to create a catastrophic explosion. This simulates what occurs when a car is blown up with high explosives. Tools of Design Creating the fireball begins by placing metal pans, called mortars, inside the car. Mortars are constructed from thick metal and are available in a variety of shapes and sizes. The shapes will vary from round to trapezoid; mortars are available in a variety of angles, from 30 to 60 degrees. The angle of the mortars provides technicians with an important design tool. By using wider mortars, the fireball will be more dispersed, while 60-degree trapezoid mortars will create a narrower fireball that is very directional. A straight-walled mortar is very directional: it creates a very violent fireball that is a straight column of flame. The positioning of the mortars inside the car is another important design tool. The fireball can be directed out of one side of the car (out of the front and back of the car) by the careful placement of the mortars. If the car is close to a building, this permits technicians to direct the main fireball away from the structure. If stunt personnel are running from the car, the mortars can be placed so the fireball is not directed towards them. The positioning and shape of the mortars, directly influences the design of the explosion. By using these variables, the effects technician can control the direction, dispersion, and shape of the fireball. To create the actual fireball, a small quantity of explosives is placed in the mortars, and a measured amount of flammable liquid is place on top of the explosive. When the explosive is triggered, the flammable liquid violently sprays out of the mortar. As the liquid reaches the right air/fuel mixture, it catches fire, and a fireball is created. Size Does Matter Another design variable is the quantity of flammable liquid used, and the size of the explosive charge. This directly influences the characteristics of the fireball. By using a large quantity of flammable liquid, and a smaller explosive charge, a large, slower developing fireball is created. If a larger explosive charge is used, and a smaller quantity of flammable liquid is placed into the mortar, a more violent fireball will develop. To complete the visual, the doors, hood or trunk are rigged. Effects technicians remove the hinges from these components, and disable the latches. Pipe mortars--lengths of pipe with a cap welded on one end--are strategically placed inside the car. Small explosive charges are place in the mortars, and the mortars are filled with sand. The doors, trunk and hood are placed back in position, and the pipe mortars are rigged so the sand is blown against these objects. When the explosives are triggered, the doors, hood and trunk are blown away from the car at high velocity. When combined with the fireballs, the car seems to “blow apart” violently. Managing Risk Car doors (or hoods/trunks) can become deadly projectiles, presenting a danger to anyone on the set. To manage this risk, safety cable is attached to anything that will be blown off the car and anchored to a secure point on the car. The length of the safety cable controls how far these items can travel. This ensures that car doors, trunks, or hoods cannot become uncontrolled missiles, endangering personnel on the set. Similar techniques are used to simulate the effect of a building being blown apart. Effects technicians pre-weaken the building so the minimum amount of explosive is required to create the visual illusion. When the explosion takes place, only the pre-weakened portions are actually ejected out of the explosion. The walls of the structure are similarly pre-weakened to ensure a safe, predictable outcome as the building disintegrates. To complete the effect of a catastrophic explosion, huge fireballs are created inside the building, using explosives, mortars, and flammable material. In some cases cement dust is placed in mortars, which creates large dust plumes. The result is a visually spectacular explosion that is controlled, safe, and predictable. Further Protection However, no matter how carefully the building is prepared for an explosion, there is always a chance that a hard object will be driven out of the explosion at high velocity. As a result, camera crews are protected in “hides”, small temporary shelters covered with plywood, and shielded by lexan, a tough plastic resin material. Stunt performers are positioned either behind objects for protection, or filmed so they are away from the pre-weakened areas, which represents the greatest area of danger. If they are required to be directly in front of the explosion, they are placed a safe distance from the explosion. By using long lenses on the cameras, the Director of Photography can make it appear that the stunt performers are very close to the explosion. 12th Century Technology The type of explosives used by FX technicians is one of the key factors in creating a safe explosion. Surprisingly, special effects technicians use an explosive, invented in the 12th century, to create visual magic. When people think of explosives, they usually think of high explosives-dynamite, TNT or plastic explosives. However there is another class of explosives called low order explosives. Low order explosives are used as the explosive in air bags, fuel for the space shuttle, and the powder (actually called propellant) used in small arms cartridges. But the most common low order explosive is black powder. Fireworks manufacturers are the largest commercial users of black powder. Anyone who has seen a fireworks show, is watching the creative potential of black powder! Special effects technicians utilize the unique characteristics of this low order explosive to create stunning explosions in movies. In fact, it is the most important explosive used in the special effects industry. To understand why black powder is so useful to technicians, it is necessary to understand explosive theory. When a high explosive is detonated, it turns from a solid to a gas, almost instantly, creating heat, pressure and a significant shock wave. The shock wave breaks apart objects near the explosion, creating fragments. In addition, the blast wave can cause damage to anything in the vicinity of the explosion. Depending on how much high explosive is detonated, the damage from a blast can be devastating to objects hundreds of metres away. Low order explosives change from a solid to a gas, but it does so differently. Instead of creating a shock wave, it generates large quantities of hot gases. While this is a still a very violent reaction, low order explosives do not produce shrapnel like fragments that are associated with high explosives. Further, the explosion does not cause damage to structures in the vicinity of the explosion. This makes black powder an ideal explosive for special effects. “Smoke & Mirrors” Effects technicians, as we have seen, create the illusion of destruction by disassembling the car, or pre-weakening the structure. This minimizes the amount of power required to achieve the effect. To create a car explosion, only a few ounces of explosives are used to create the illusion of a catastrophic explosion. A building that is properly weakened can be destroyed with a minimum amount of explosives, instead of cases of high explosives. Of course, high explosives are used in certain applications. When preparing a building explosion, it is common practice to use high explosives to create the shattering that simulates a building being blown apart. However, when high explosives are used to create an effect, specifically to shatter objects, it increases the danger for personnel on the set. High explosives can cause a fragment to blow out of the explosion at lethal velocities. In the past 10 years, this has resulted in 2 fatalities, which are directly the result of using high explosives to create an effect. That is why camera crews are protected in hides when a building is blown apart, and additional safety procedures are required to protect stunt performers when high explosives are used to destroy an object. Know Your Outcome Special effects technicians utilize a number of innovative techniques to create spectacular special effects. But to create a safe explosive effect, they observe two basic rules: 1. Use the minimum amount of force necessary to create the effect. Nothing is gained by using an excessive amount of explosive force, and control is usually compromised when too much power is used. 2. Know what will occur before you create the effect. Professionals have the experience necessary to establish safety distances, protect personnel and minimize the chance of damage. When possible, they do tests to establish limits, and ensure control. Safety is the single most important consideration when creating an explosion for a movie. By using innovative techniques, materials and procedures, effects technicians are able to create extraordinary explosions. But unless the explosion is safe and controlled, the explosion cannot be regarded as a success. When the proper techniques, explosive materials and design skills are applied to a creative problem, virtually any visual can be created. Effects technicians are able to use explosives to convince audiences they are watching an intergalactic battle in space, or a desperate battle that took place in the Second World War. This is the magic of special effects: by using a material that was invented over 500 years ago, plus techniques that were pioneered in the earliest days of films, technicians create modern visual magic. Copyright 2003 by Ron C. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 (edited) Let's not be silly now Jack, Yes I'm sure that many special effects people work with explosives but that doesn't mean that they all do. There are many types of special effects some are done entirely on computers or in the editing process some involve building models others involve make up other robotics etc. Types of special effects There is a website called http://www.fxsupply.com/ they sell many types of supplies but no explosives. Nova made an IMAX documentary about special effects and very little if any mention is made of explosives on the website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/specialfx/effects/makingof.html . There is a company in Hollywood called Special Effects Unlimited, Inc on a page of their site they list their recent projects and some the types of jobs they do: Physical propsRain Jobs Snow Jobs We Now Carry Balsa Wood Wind of all kinds from a breeze to a hurricane Building a freestanding ice skating rink for a 7up commercial. Causing an angel to fly and carry a person for TV Global in Brazil. Building two automobile turntables for mounting inside the General Motors Design Center. Building a robotic arm for a Chrysler Commercial. http://www.specialefxunltd.com/recent_projects.htm Another page lists the types of products they sell "[ CONFETTI ] [ Air Mortars ] [ SFX Specialty ] [ Rain ] [ Foggers ] [ Equipment List ] [ Expendables ] [ Wind ] [ Snow ] [ Turntables]" On another is says We have a full line of special effects equipment, including such hard to find items as: Decelerators Air mortars of all sizes Gimbals Hydraulics Winches Fog curtains Car Flippers Jumping jacks Flying Harnesses Another page mentions some of the movies they are working on including "Charlotte's Web" somehow I don't think there's going to be a lot of pyrotecnics in that one. Another special effects company make very little mention of explosives on their site http://www.lemaitrefx.com/indexx.php . The site How Stuff Works has numerous articles about special effects some of which run several pages explosives are only part of the picture http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/search.php?terms=%22special+effects%22++movie&sitename=HSW&server=entertainment.howstuffworks.com&server=entertainment.howstuffworks.com&search=%22special+effects%22+%2Bmovie&hsw=Search&pg=1 Conclusion Calling a special effects person an explosives expert is like calling a cattle rancher a veterinary expert. I'm sure many (but not all) have taken courses in bovine medicine and take care of the basic veterinary needs of their herds. Jack's expert never claimed to work with explosives and didn't say anything technical that could not be picked up from a few minutes Googling. Another problem is explosions for film are very different from CD as even both of Jack's "experts" point out. Special effects explosions use "low order" explosives are design for maximum visual and auditory impact and normally for minimal destructive power because as your own source points out people often have to get very close to them. Demolitions explosions are the opposite they are design for maximum destructive power and I'm efforts are made to reduce noise high order explosives are used, in other words its not "apples and oranges" its grapes and watermelons. So citing a special effects person's opinion about the CD theory is about as valid as citing a cattle ranchers opinion about bird flu. The author is anonymous and never claims to be a special effects technician only to work with special effects she (or he) could be the person who runs the stock room of a special effects company/department. So calling the author of that article an explosives expert and citing her (his) opinion about the collapse of the WTC is like calling the anonymous author of an article who claims to work with cattle ranching a veterinary expert and citing her (his) opinion regarding bird flu. Len PS Jack please erase the distracting double post. Edited October 30, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 WORLD EXCLUSIVE Daniel Hopsicker Venice, FL November 6, 2006 40 years ago one courageous American exposed the names of some of the people involved in the Kennedy Assassination. Thanks to New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, we first heard of David Ferrie, and Guy Bannister, and Clay Shaw. Four years ago we moved to Venice, FL and began poking around on-scene at the site of the biggest Sept 11 crime scene that wasn’t reduced to rubble. History has proven Jim Garrison right. He made a difference that still matters. And we have complete confidence that what we’ve done in Venice will be valuable to future historians of our time, and that —40 years from today— the names Rudi Dekkers, Wally Hilliard, Makram Chams, et al, will be as familiar to those interested in the story behind the 9/11 attack as those of Ferrie, Banister and Shaw in the secret history of the JFK assassination. Now that we’ve been sued by Makram Chams, we need big-time support if we’re going to fight his lawsuit, and gain the ability to question him under oath. We need your help, and we need it now, within the next week. If we are unable to raise $5000. to pay an attorney to represent us, we will be forced to settle, or risk being silenced altogether. But this is not about you supporting us… The lawsuit filed against us by Makram Chams presents a unique opportunity to learn more about the intrigue swirling around Mohamed Atta and his fellow terrorists while they lived in this country. And if, for lack of resources, we’re forced to settle, and the name “Makram Chams” is forever banished from our lips and from our website, life will most assuredly go on. Full article: http://www.madcowprod.com/11072006c.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 WORLD EXCLUSIVEDaniel Hopsicker Venice, FL November 6, 2006 40 years ago one courageous American exposed the names of some of the people involved in the Kennedy Assassination. Thanks to New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, we first heard of David Ferrie, and Guy Bannister, and Clay Shaw. Four years ago we moved to Venice, FL and began poking around on-scene at the site of the biggest Sept 11 crime scene that wasn’t reduced to rubble. History has proven Jim Garrison right. He made a difference that still matters. And we have complete confidence that what we’ve done in Venice will be valuable to future historians of our time, and that —40 years from today— the names Rudi Dekkers, Wally Hilliard, Makram Chams, et al, will be as familiar to those interested in the story behind the 9/11 attack as those of Ferrie, Banister and Shaw in the secret history of the JFK assassination. Now that we’ve been sued by Makram Chams, we need big-time support if we’re going to fight his lawsuit, and gain the ability to question him under oath. We need your help, and we need it now, within the next week. If we are unable to raise $5000. to pay an attorney to represent us, we will be forced to settle, or risk being silenced altogether. But this is not about you supporting us… The lawsuit filed against us by Makram Chams presents a unique opportunity to learn more about the intrigue swirling around Mohamed Atta and his fellow terrorists while they lived in this country. And if, for lack of resources, we’re forced to settle, and the name “Makram Chams” is forever banished from our lips and from our website, life will most assuredly go on. Full article: http://www.madcowprod.com/11072006c.html I know nothing of what you're talking about - however if it is really so profound and earth-shattering, can you not re-mortgage your home to raise what is in the great scheme of things quite a small amount? Just a suggestion. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 It seems some experts in the building demolitions industry have commented on 9/11. Very interesting read: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Phillips Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Go to:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html Good link Jack, by now I should think that most free thinking open minded people wouldve realised that the towers were braught down by explosives and if a green grocer would have noticed those flashes and pops the fact that theyre not explosives experts doesnt weaken their evidence one tot. Some of your critics Jack, are so used to circumlocuting around the minutia they seem to be blissfully unaware of the main point of your link; pyrotechnics were explosives last time I checked so a pyrotechnics expert is an explosives expert but some of your critics would have us believe you are calling a make up artist an explosives expert, of course all of this is irrelevant to the point you were making; I suspect your detracters are simply fluffing with you to instill you with that `is it all worth it` feeling. Keep up the good work Jack, its not your job to inform the ignorant and educate the gullible but at least some of us out here apreciate what you have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Steven, Have a read of the report by the demolition experts before you commit yourself to the CD theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Steven,Have a read of the report by the demolition experts before you commit yourself to the CD theory. You might also ask yourself why if the towers were demoed why out of tens of thousands of people who were there between the time of the impacts and collapses only 4 have said publicly that they thought after 9/11 that bombs had been set of.Note of the four made any such allegations till long after the fact. The most famous of them William Rodriguez was interviewed on 9/11 by CNN and he said nothing about feeling an explosion from below http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/new.york.terror/ The CD proponents have yet to find a structural engineer with expertise in highrises to back their theories. They have AFAIK 2, one whose area of expertise is oil rigs and another who is a specialist in shopping malls they also have a civil engineer in Vermont a state whose tallest building is 12 stories tall and wass built in the 60's or 70's. While about 10% of the general population thinks CD was "very likely" only a miniscule fraction of a percent of the people who were there or with relevant expertise publicly back such theories. Why is there an inverse realtionship between having direct knowledge of the events and believing in CD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Phillips Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 You might also ask yourself why if the towers were demoed why out of tens of thousands of people who were there between the time of the impacts and collapses only 4 have said publicly that they thought after 9/11 that bombs had been set of.Note of the four made any such allegations till long after the fact. The most famous of them William Rodriguez was interviewed on 9/11 by CNN and he said nothing about feeling an explosion from below I find that hard to believe that only 4 people have said they heard bombs going off, I have heard more people than that refere to explosions in some of the documentaries ive watched even the official news reels report eye witnesses reporting secondary explosions in the building. Molten metal in the ruins tells your common sense that explosives were used, angled shearing on some of the steel beams demonstrate explosives were used, the fact that great steel beams were shot hundreds of feet across the streets in all directions to impale themselves like giant arrows into nieghbouring building is evident that explosives were used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 You might also ask yourself why if the towers were demoed why out of tens of thousands of people who were there between the time of the impacts and collapses only 4 have said publicly that they thought after 9/11 that bombs had been set of.Note of the four made any such allegations till long after the fact. The most famous of them William Rodriguez was interviewed on 9/11 by CNN and he said nothing about feeling an explosion from below I find that hard to believe that only 4 people have said they heard bombs going off, I have heard more people than that refere to explosions in some of the documentaries ive watched even the official news reels report eye witnesses reporting secondary explosions in the building. Molten metal in the ruins tells your common sense that explosives were used, angled shearing on some of the steel beams demonstrate explosives were used, the fact that great steel beams were shot hundreds of feet across the streets in all directions to impale themselves like giant arrows into nieghbouring building is evident that explosives were used. While it true that several witnesses said that they thought AT THE TIME explosives had gone off in the towers Rodriguez and his co-workers are the only people who were there that I know of who said AFTER 9/1 1 they still thought so. Also many of the people quoted by CD theorists said thing like "I heard an explosion" or "it sounded like a bomb" which doesn't mean they thought at the time bombs had gone off lots of things in a building fire or collapse can explode of make explosion like noises. Many compared the sound of the collapse to an explosion. Elsewhere on this forum I quote people saying bridge collapses, earthquakes, typhoons and tree being struck by lightning "sounded like a bomb". There reports of explosions during the Windsor building fire in Madrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Phillips Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 http://freepressinternational.com/911-mysteries Have a look at this link about the collaps of the three towers the facts presented are undeniable and when juxtaposed with the conspiracy theory about 19 arabs and pancakes it becomes obvious which version of events is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 http://freepressinternational.com/911-mysteriesHave a look at this link about the collaps of the three towers the facts presented are undeniable and when juxtaposed with the conspiracy theory about 19 arabs and pancakes it becomes obvious which version of events is correct. Steve that film has come up before and many of its claims have already been debunked. IIRC John McCarthy started a thread about it has numerous errors just in the few minutes. 1) It quotes Leslie Robertson, the lead structural engineer of the WTC, as saying they designed the towers to withstand the impact of “a slow flying 707” but ignores the “slow flow flying” part. They calculated for a slow flying plane because they presumed it would be a plane on approach lost in the fog. Approach speed is about 180 MPH. The planes that hit the towers were flying much faster and thus impacted with far greater force. They cite the maximum cruise speed of 707 but this is irrelevant because their source did say the calculated for such speeds. Later on it mocks Robertson’s claim that they hadn’t calculated the effects of the jet fuel fires. Robertson is either credible or not he can’t be both just to suit the needs of the filmmakers. It also fails to mention that Robertson said "didn't know whether they would fall or not fall" due to the fires while watching them on TV http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html 2) It uses the Chief Orio Palmer quote about seeing small fires out of context. a)Palmer was in a stairwell his comments are no indication of the situation anywhere else in the building he was on the 78th floor NIST said ““there was only light fire activity observed on the 78th floor” http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html 3) It compares the 2001 fire to a 1975 fire on the 11th floor which did little structural damage but ignores important differences. a) there wasn’t any pre-fire structural damage the fire-proofing was only a few years old in 1975 and was presumably undamaged. c) the fireproofing above the 64 floor was different from that used below the inventor of the fire proofing used on the lower but not the upper floors of the towers said with uncanny prescience, "If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down," http://www.npri.org/issues/issues01/i_b0121101.htm 4) It cites the Windsor building in Madrid as a steel framed building that survived. The Windsor’s frame was concrete. The only steel part of the Windsor’s frame was its unprotected perimeter columns some of which started to collapse after and hour or two. It also shows a picture of the Parque Central tower in Caracas that also is a concrete building and didn’t have a central core design. Some of the buildings shown were steel framed central core buildings (like the WTC towers). But none had their frames or fireproofing damaged before the fires broke out. 5) It says “never before in the history of the world has as steel building collapsed due to fire this incorrect” although no steel framed high-rises have ever collapsed due fire. http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm 6) It says concrete frames stand-up better to fire when infract the opposite is believed to be true. 7) It says that heavy winds (which the towers survived) would have imparted more force on the towers than the plane impacts. This might well be true (no calculations are given). The winds however would act against the entire side (or two sides) of each tower while the force of the plane impacts was concentrated. Perhaps the same could be said about a person withstanding hurricane force winds and another who died because he was shot. That’s just the most glaring errors in the 1st 10 minutes (that's as far as I got this time). If you find any part of the film’s evidence compelling cite it, refuting an entire 90 minute “documentary” is impossible. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 It is important to remember that the Project of the New American Century originally came out of the Democratic Party. Right-wing members of the party became unhappy with the move to the left during the Vietnam War. As a result of the campaigns led by Robert Kennedy, George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy, Democrats like Jeane Kirkpatrick, Midge Decter, Irving Kristol, Max Kampelman and Norman Podhoretz, established the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM). Kirkpatrick later stated that the purpose of this organization was to "reclaim the party from its anti-war, anti-growth and anti-business activists". In 1979 Kirkpatrick wrote an article for Commentary, a publication backed by the CDM and American Jewish Committee, entitled Dictatorships and Double Standards. It argued that right-wing “authoritarian” governments, such as those in Argentina, Chile and South Africa, suited American interests better than left-wing regimes. She criticised the emphasis placed on human rights by Jimmy Carter and blamed it for undermining right-wing governments in Nicaragua and Iran. She went onto argue that right-wing dictatorships were reliably pro-American. She therefore proposed that the US government should treat authoritarian regimes much more favourably than other third world governments. Kirkpatrick added: "liberal idealism need not be identical with masochism and need not be incompatible with the defence of freedom and the national interest". Richard V. Allen, who was working as chief foreign policy adviser to Ronald Reagan, showed him the article. Reagan wrote to Kirkpatrick, where he told her it was the best article he had ever read on the subject. Soon afterwards, Kirkpatrick became one of Reagan's political advisors. Kirkpatrick, more than any other, was the most significant figure in persuading Reagan to support the military dictatorships in Argentina, Chile, South Africa, Guatemala, etc. During the Falkland Islands crisis, Kirkpatrick argued that America should not jeopardise relations with Latin America by backing Britain. She later explained that "I thought a policy of neutrality in that war made sense from the point of view of US interests". However, in reality, Kirkpatrick was not arguing for neutralitry. According to The Times newspaper: "Only hours after the 1982 invasion of the Falklands she notoriously attended as guest of honour a reception at the Argentine Embassy in Washington. She then went on television to assert that if the islands rightly belonged to Argentina its action could not be considered as “armed aggression”. Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, took the side of the British government. He argued that Kirkpatrick was “mentally and emotionally incapable of thinking clearly on this issue because of her close links with the Latins”. Reagan forced Haig to resign on 25th June, 1982. He later complaining that his attempts to help Britain in its conflict with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, was being undermined by Kirkpatrick and some above her in the White House. In his book, Gambling With History: Ronald Reagan in the White House, Laurence I. Barrett argued that this person from the White House was Michael K. Deaver: "At an NSC session... Haig had observed Kirkpatrick passing Deaver a note. Concluding that Kirkpatrick was using Deaver to prime Reagan... Haig told Clark that a 'conspiracy' was afoot to outflank him." Reagan eventually rejected Kirkpatrick's advice and as The Times pointed out: "Had Kirkpatrick prevailed, Britain would have been deprived of American fuel, Sidewinder missiles and other arms, and the vital US satellite intelligence that enabled it to win the war. And Galtieri and his junta would not have been replaced by a freely elected government." Kirkpatrick remained a member of the Democratic Party but once again became disillusioned when Clinton became president. Members of the former CDM now joined up with right-wingers in the Republican Party to form the Project of the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997. This group included Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork, Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Midge Decter, Irving Kristol, Max Kampelman, Norman Podhoretz and Paul Wolfowitz. In September 2000, the PNAC issued a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, And Resources For A New Century, proceeding "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces." The report recommended the forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases in Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia. Permanent bases ease the strain on US forces, allowing readiness to be maintained and the carrier fleet to be reduced. Furthermore, PNAC advocates that the US-globalized military should be enlarged, equipped and restructured for the "constabulary" roles associated with shaping the security in critical regions of the world. The report states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification (for US military presence), the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region". In Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force" it states: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." It is this quote that is used to suggest that the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Many critics also claim the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now