Three Videos, Three Plane Paths
Video 2-- a rapid 200 foot descent and turn and approach from the south:
Video 3-- a flat ascending approach to the south tower from the south.
As far as I am concerned, this is PROOF that all the 2nd plane videos were faked.
If one video disagreed with two other videos that agreed with each other, there is a chance that the one anamalous video was just an isolated fake. But if three videos don't agree on the plane path IN A VERY OBVIOUS WAY (this is not subtle folks), it is clear that all three are fakes. In fact, every known 2nd hit video has something fake about it, and an extremely careful study of all of these 30 videos would reveal scores of anomalies, I am sure.
Perhaps MOST significant is that video 1 and video 2 are from early network footage the morning of 9/11, from "news" helicopters. Yet they are FAKED videos of planes (NOT holograms, but computer animations) that must have been PLANNED IN ADVANCE. So it is clear the networks were in on the 9/11 plot at some level (probably one or more networks were infiltrated by military intelligence; this is known to be true for CNN).
I am now convinced that no real plane hit the south tower on 9/11.
160 foot long planes don't slide into 200 foot buildings without slowing and without showing signs of breakup but then completely disinegrate once inside.
The physics is this-- either the plane slows and breaks up as it hits the building, or it hits intact without slowing and then emerges roughly intact out the other side.
That is simple physics.
I think the reason they did video fakery is because the perps:
1) did not want to use the real UA175 for the attack (for various reasons)
2) knew there were a lot of random cameras pointed at the WTC that would capture a strange plane
3) knew that if the building exploded without a plane flying into it, most cameramen would be taken by surprise and would therefore not film the fact that there was no plane
4) knew they could saturate TV and the internet with videos showing a plane hitting the tower, which would convince most people there was a real plane involved in the attack
I think most people who say they saw the second hit, really only saw the building explode and never saw a plane. Several thousand people probably saw the tower explode with their own eyes. Interestingly, I know of at least four witnesses who specifically say they saw the building explode and never saw a plane (but were in a position to see it). Many witnesses whave been completely corrupted by repititious TV imagery of the plane, and are completely unreliable at this point about what they saw.
If you have a serious critique with this scenario, let me know. Calling me crazy is not a serious critique.