To be honest, the non-CG crash scene in the snippets that I've seen looked off too. Random fireballs starting in random locations.
Now when reality gets influenced by fiction, ISIS actually used bombs that make a lot of flames, more than necessary for warfare, just to make their propaganda videos similar to the Hollywood movies their recruiting targets have been watching all their life.
I am sure recruiting videos could just as well use CGI if they wanted to. Likely anyway does, skifull editing and manipulation are required for any propoganda content anyway.
All the graphics / VFX knowledge I now have is self-taught (other than learning off colleagues) as well as experience working in the industry.
I'd say learning how to program is a good starting point, if you are really interested in graphics it's probably a good idea move into low-level programming (C,C++,CUDA) that's used in the HPC realm, because often the code will need to be extremely optimised. However, you can still do cool things in a higher-level language.
Thanks a bunch for your output :)
So much iteration time can go into attempting to get the right "shape" of the simulation, as well as "colours" (smoke, combustion, flame), whether via a black-body spectral shader or a more artist-driven one, and it's very difficult to get people to agree on what looks "real" or "right", especially compared to say hard-surface rendering.
Doing it practically (assuming the correct scale, and fuels were used) might (depending on directors and producers' opinions) make people "just" accept that the result is "realistic", and remove a lot of the uncertainty, at the very least just because they can't tweak things afterwards, and what was recorded is the result they get, as opposed to having a team of 10s of people iterating for months (including lots of compute time for simulations and rendering) trying to get something the people at the top are happy looks "real".