9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

A Most Interesting Post about How 9/11 May Have Been Done


Tuesday, December 28, 2010

How the WTC Demolitions Were Set Up

Tuesday, December 28th, 9-10 a.m. Pacific (noon - 1 pm Eastern) on http://NoLiesRadio.org, to be archived here a few hours after broadcast...

Guest: Evelien Gilbert (check out 
her blog!), special effects expert & computer simulations professional.

Evelien recently sent Richard Gage and me a paper, still in the beta stage, entitled 
"Demolition sequences and the willful suspension of disbelief: Analyzing the 911 storyboard." Below are some excerpts:


When the events of 911 took place I was working as a Special Effects model maker and engineer in Europe. Together with my husband I owned a small
Special Effects company with max. 15 employees at times and as such was
very involved with the analysis and translation of literally hundreds of
story boards. Storyboards are a series of little drawings showing key
frames in a film in order to tell the intended story to prospective
clients, film crew etc. ...

This paper attempts to analyze the events of 911 from a SFX professional point of view based on 18 years of
experience in storyboard analysis, real world Special Effects
preparation and film experience...

1. The demolition sequences of 911 were based a story board.

The sequence of events after the artist conceives of an idea like this is as follows:
a. Storyboard drawing attention to key frames. (setting up the storyline)
b. Analysis by SFX team
c. Translation into real world possibilities
d. Preparation
e. Execution on film set, in theatre or as the case may be in New York and Washington

* * *

2. The preparation of the demolition sequences of the three towers was
done with software I believe to have been available before 2001 reducing
the need for huge numbers of planners and making a number of different
demolition sequences available on the day itself...

Blastcode is a software package advertised curiously enough as a module for Maya
specialised in the virtual simulation of demolitions and destruction
sequences for clients as diverse as: Motion picture, Broadcasting, Video
game, Military and defence industries. It's tagline is: Destruction at
your finger tips!

I don't know when Blastcode was conceived and it only was presented to the civilian world in 2004 but that does not
mean that the software wasn't in existence before that day... 
* * *

Kevin Barrett
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

Views: 119


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Mehmet Inan on December 30, 2010 at 5:56pm

Thoth said: "It just underscores why we need the scientific method to proceed:  we now have a procedure that can be applied to 911 and get us closer to the "truth"."
The method should only be logics. If the theory is defendable against all critical logic questions, the theory should be supported.
Thoth said: "What is maybe ironic is that many of the people involved in this op did not really have much of the puzzle, just their little pieces of it, and someday truthers will know more than they did."
You are true for most of the 9/11 truth theories who are individual small theories. But sorry, in my case, I have most of the puzzle! I considered all technical aspects and explained the flights, the Pentagon strike, and the collapse of the towers by using interconnected evidence. Since the beginning I always looked for interdependent evidence to build the whole puzzle.
But you are right; the simulation software will lead nowhere. Software is only a tool; its result depends on what one enters into. In that case of the collapses of the twin towers, the collapse happened within less than 15sec, this is not a consequence of overload, its demolition. That will not be revealed by any simulation software designed for overload kind calculation.

Comment by Thoth II on December 29, 2010 at 12:42pm

Yes, I also respect Kevin's work.  He has been a tireless fighter for truth.  I have a feeling that many people like him have very strong backgrounds in humanities, in his case he has a good knowledge of Islam, that they are very weak in the basic sciences.  When they see, for example, a cartoon video, like the Fairbanks film, they cannot recognize it for being cartoon physics.  To people like many of us, the cartoon physics nature of these films is so very obvious that I wonder why I myself even thought they were authentic for more than a day after 911.  I do remember, however, that by the end of the day 911, I myself was very very skeptical of the official story.  The inconsistent reports, such as McIntyres report about no debris at the Pentagon and Peter Jennings remarks about Building 7, already that day jogged my suspicion feelers up.  As my mind perculoated the events of the day, and about a week later, I believe CNN was still replaying some of the plane hits on the tower, I could see intuitively in the video that it was a fake, it looked like probably video compositing.  


I'm afraid that people like Kevin, without this intiutive science background, are maybe never going to be able to overcome their cognitive dissonance about the planes.  Yes, they can get around the official story about the buildings falling, but they just can't overcome those first memories they have of that plane hitting the south tower they obviously saw firstly on CNN or some news show that day.  No matter how much physics they are presented, they are going to resist it with all their might, and fall back on their first impression.  I have no doubt the ops consulted their propoganda people in advance of 911 and made a calculation about this cognitive dissonance factor and judged it would influence enough people to where they could do the almost unthinkable: actually fake the video on live TV!!!  


Of course, we see the same type of thing with the Z-film in JFK.  People just can't get beyond seeing is believing and cling religiously to the Z-film when it so very obviously is cartoon physics .  

Comment by James H. Fetzer on December 29, 2010 at 9:41am
Kevin, of course, is a dear friend of mine, but I have been unable to move him on some of these positions.
Comment by Thoth II on December 29, 2010 at 9:29am
I found the part of the show about Blastcode serving as a possible storyboard in advance of the actual demolitions the useful part of this show.  Shallel is right on in his criticism of Kevin Barrett and his gearing his approach for Sarah Palin voters (if they vote for her for prez, they really need to get their heads examined), and not for people who make an effort to understand basic physics.  I am also impatient with these planehuggers , now after so much evidence to the contrary has come in, and I think if thermite was painted on floors, it was only a detail of the demolition, not the major destructive force.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on December 28, 2010 at 9:25pm
Thanks, Shallel.  I appreciate this critique.  I will have to find the time to listen to the show.  Many thanks! Jim
Comment by Shallel Octavia on December 28, 2010 at 8:58pm

I appreciated the idea that this was planned using software simulation, however,

DU pods on the planes, thermate painted floor pans, and missiles are long disproved. We don't need to model planes hitting steel buildings to know that it is impossible to use real planes and have any control of the outcome. If they had sophisticated simulations they would know that 767s cannot fly at 500+ knots at sea level.


There is too much concern on Barrett's part about "scaring the straights". Who cares what unreachable dimwits think. I am more concerned that we reach people who understand basic physics, not Joe Six Pack or potential Sarah Palin voters.


"Giant planes blowing up with huge flashes, so lets load up those planes with extra

extra explosives or fuel or whatever to make those planes blow up even more spectacular that even real ones would." - KB


He even apologizes to the Naudet brothers! Evelyn talks about the Fairbanks video as "so clear  and so the video made". 


I suggest you listen to the show. There are good points made, but really we are so

far past planes. It was a "bad special effect". If they did model this event with  Blastcode or whatever, they would know that using real planes would not cause the desired effect of a cause of the Tower's demise.


Sorry, Kevin, http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/ is not one of the best 9/11 truth sites out there.

Comment by James H. Fetzer on December 28, 2010 at 6:06pm
Shallel, I have not listened to the show, which I gather motivated your remarks.  Please tell us more.  Thanks.
Comment by Shallel Octavia on December 28, 2010 at 6:02pm

This is bullcrap - pure and simple. I give up on plane-hugging Barrett. He is a useless dupe. 

Flight 93 was supposed to hit WTC 7? Come on! Absolute rubbish. This takes us no nearer to the truth than

the 9/11 Commission report. What a shame that intelligent "scholars" like Thoth fall for this idiocy.

You think you're angry? Take a good look at my head. I am all for exploring all the data, so check out this

interview and come to your own conclusions, but Evelyn and Kevin are not getting us anywhere with this plane

hugging nonsense. 

Comment by Thoth II on December 28, 2010 at 3:40pm

this is a good show, people should listen to it.


My guess is that 911 will go down the route of more and more forensic evidence being revealed over time, and we'll get a clearer and clearer view of what happened:  the hypotheses will continue to be proposed and evaluated and it'll get closer and closer to the mark.  It just underscores why we need the scientific method to proceed:  we now have a procedure that can be applied to 911 and get us closer to the "truth".  What is maybe ironic is that many of the people involved in this op did not really have much of the puzzle, just their little pieces of it, and someday truthers will know more than they did.  


As the truth of JFK, 911, etc. continue to be revealed, in all their gory complexity, I just get more and more angry at how hard these monsters have worked to manipulate the public for, what , 1% or much much less of the population at the top benefiting from all this?


© 2024   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service