Humint Events Online: 2nd Hit Video Anomalies: Sloppiness, Miscommunication or Intentional?

Thursday, June 22, 2006

2nd Hit Video Anomalies: Sloppiness, Miscommunication or Intentional?

I think the hypothesis that the 2nd hit videos are fake is fairly well supported at this point, primarily because there are a number of errors between the videos and anomalies within videos-- conflicting plane paths and malformed plane images are the most striking examples of these "mistakes". Other people like Webfairy believe that the 2nd plane images simply LOOK cartoonish and that the Ghostplane footage of the plane sliding into the tower seals the deal that the images are "cartoons". Then there are also scientific reasons for believing the 2nd hit footage is faked (such that fragile aluminum wings should not bust through 13/16 inch steel box columns, that a plane should slow and visibly crumple upon impacting a steel and concrete building and that tail sections can't magically disappear upon hitting a steel wall).

In any case, the big question is-- why are there so many "mistakes" in the videos? After all, if they had done a better job aligning plane paths and conforming to a standard model of the plane, then people like me might never have completely caught on to their scam.

There are three basic explanations for the "mistakes":
1) the animators were just sloppy in their animation, perhaps from rushing to get the videos on air
2) the animators worked in different groups (after all, they had a LOT of videos to make from many different angles) and didn't coordinate very well about the exact plane path and what the plane should look like
3) the animators left these "mistakes" as purposeful clues to what they had done-- as a tip off to people willing to look carefully at the evidence or as deliberate misinfo (i.e. the pod).

I suspect the answer is a combination of all three. The "pod" is too obvious to be a simple mistake and was meant to be probably deliberate misinfo, but other anomalies are probably real mistakes, either from sloppiness or miscommunication.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about the eyewitnesses?

10:27 AM  
Anonymous shep said...

What about those eyewitnesses anon?

Spooked has some solid research behind these ideas, regardless of how unbelievable they are. Follow the evidence with an open mind.

10:41 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

anon-- you mean the eywitnesses who saw no plane?

Yeah, there were some.

12:48 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

and thanks for the links, Shep!

12:50 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

as for "plane" eyewitnesses-- I wonder if they saw the plane that descended 200 feet coming from the SSW, or saw the plane only descending 50 feet coming from the SW, or saw the plane that came from the SSW but didn't descend?


Or maybe they only saw the building explode, or maybe they saw the plane on TV later and thought they saw the plane.

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There were thousands of us on the ground who saw the plane. I cannot believe that there are people who dispute the obvious. No wonder the world laughs at you people.

1:22 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...


Did you see it?

If so, what did you see?

2:57 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

In other words, please give details if you saw the second plane.

2:58 PM  
Anonymous james ha said...

There were thousands of us on the ground who saw the plane.
I cannot believe that there are people who dispute the obvious.

oh were you there and saw the plane? right.
i can't believe that people continue to dispute the obvious either.

3:04 PM  
Anonymous pinch said...

"Solid" research? Shirley, you must be joking. Whatever research he has done ranks right up there with his chicken-wire fire experiments and his "proof" a plane didn't hit the WTC because he built a wooden plane and couldn't cram it into a wooden wall.

I'll say it again - it is *still* hilarious how when you moonbat wackos don't understand something, you just make shit up. Heckuva scientific method, Brownie!

You won't hear ME calling for you to stop, though! I love the shit you come up with!

3:07 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:18 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

you know, any of you are welcome to disprove my allegations. All you have to do is show some analysis that reconciles the plane paths. In fact, I see no need to take any of YOU seriously if you cannot disprove my findings.

The plane paths do not align. I have provided analysis and documentation for this. If you think I am wrong, prove it.

Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

11:21 AM  
Anonymous Rob said...

That's all paid government SHILLS like "pinch" CAN do...blow smoke.

Out of every orifice they have.

They toe the ridiculous gov't story of 9/11 'till the bitter end.

12:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger