Humint Events Online: Cataloging the WTC2 Hole Anomalies, Part 1

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Cataloging the WTC2 Hole Anomalies, Part 1

(image can be enlarged by clicking on it)

Notes on the numbered circles:
1. Large debris, apparently outer steel columns, are clogging the main hole. How could a plane smash inwards here without slowing, and not push these inwards more?
2. Indentation supposedly made by the tail of the plane -- where did the tail go? It couldn't have gone in.
3. This is where the port horizontal stabilizer would have impacted-- but no mark is here. Where did this large piece of the plane go? It couldn't have gone in.
4. This little hole is supposedly where the engine went in
5. This large and very irregular hole is supposedly where the outer part of the wing smashed in the wall-- why is it so much larger than where the engine hit?
6. This line of indentations supposedly marks where the wingtip hit. But if you extend this line of wing towards the center hole, the wing should have knocked in more of the region on the upper part of circle 4.

There are many more anomalies in this photo below, but I will deal with this in part 2.


Blogger nickname said...

Given a choice between "debating" with the shills at DU, wouldn't it be
more interesting and enlightening to
explain what your differences are with the conclusions of S. Clues?

You're willing to engage with the
lightweight propagandists at DU, so
why not present your views on where
you differ with S. Shack...and WHY?

A little substance would go a long
way, you know.

8:58 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

I'm not sure why you care so much about Simon Shack, and my criticism of him. But nonetheless I found some old point-by-point critiques I made of his work here:

The major disagreement I have is that Shack promotes the idea that everything is fake in the 9/11 videos, and also that even victims were fake. I just don't find those arguments or his evidence that I've seen convincing.

6:05 PM  
Blogger nickname said...

Thanks. If you ever feel up to
rebutting anything specifically that
he is on record as being in support
of, I'd be very interested in what
you have to say about it.

The research I'm familiar with
supports his claims about the
videos and the victims.

7:12 PM  
Blogger spooked said...


In the post I linked to, I gave specific examples of things I didn't agree with.

If you want something more, why don't you show me something specifically?

7:17 AM  
Blogger nickname said...


Is that all there is? Minor, unimportant quibbles.

Good to know that your differences seem to be nothing more than "splitting hairs".

I had gotten the idea that you had
substantial disagreements with his

9:51 AM  
Anonymous muebles en tres cantos said...

The guy is totally just, and there is no skepticism.

9:08 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger