Sep 15 2015
So, it would seem that 3 or 4 people were up in arms about my first installment of the Shoreham air crash report.
And naturally, all of those numpties knew someone involved and as such they all feel that I deserve to die whilst not even making a half hearted attempt to deny or refute the evidence that I put forward… Which convinces me all the more that the Hawker Hunter crash was a load of old fanny.
Not that I wasn’t convinced when I first started writing that first report.
So, let’s upset the useful idiots some more by getting straight on with it.
And I rather think that I will kick off round two by looking at the traffic situation on the day of the Flight Fright Shite… Photos please.
And like I stated in the above photo batch, neither does the lack of damage to the central reservation crash barrier make any sense… Or the lack of damage to the road for that matter.
In fact matey who shot the above footage also filmed the damage to the road, or at least he filmed the lack of it.
Indeed it is a fucking big jet, so how it managed to come down without taking out a single traffic light or sign post – and there are in fact untold at the two junctions – is beyond me.
Yet I am still getting people saying that they think the plane crash was genuine albeit the MSM has sexed up the event!
So let’s get this straight. Someone saying “you’re talking shit Spivey, I was there and saw it happen” does not constitute proof.
Someone even had the front to write something along the lines of: “My friends dad is a coroner and he said it was one of the worst scenes of devastation that he had ever seen”!
Course, I am not sure exactly which crash these cretins are referring to as being the one that “really happened”.
I mean, are they talking about the one where the plane came in from a south-east direction, having levelled out from the loop after which the plane dropped like a stone onto the tent/caravan thingy – which sustained no damage whatsoever – whereby the plane then inexplicably turned right and followed a path parallel to the A27?
Is that the real plane crash that those odd people who suffer from selective reading are referring too?
Or are they referring to the real crash where the cars are going backwards into the fireball as the plane wreck hurtles towards them – before the wreck presumably does a 45° turn up the A27?
Or would it be the real plane crash where the jet follows a route in line with the A27, overshoots the crash spot, reverses and then drops to the ground trailing a line of fire along the A27 which continues as the wreckage rams itself into the dense, undamaged trees that suddenly disappear four days after the wreckage has been cleared by 3 different cranes, to reveal a crater where the plane impossibly buried itself, despite the photographic evidence saying different?
I mean was the real crash the one with just the one explosion? Or was it the one with two?
And don’t think that my curiosity ends there… Ohhhh Noooo.
I wanna know if the real crash was on the S-bend A27 or the straight road A27?
Do you see the dilemma that these people cause when telling me that I’m wrong and the crash really happened when conveniently neglecting to tell me which crash they are talking about?
I mean what good is it to me, them saying that the crash was real when they don’t even tell me if they are referring to the one close to the bridge or the one quite a way away from it?
Moreover, are those who are telling me that “not everything is a government hoax, ya mental cunt”, going to tell me if the real crash happened on the short length of road leading up to the Coombes Road traffic lights or the long stretch of road?
Its a fuckng good job that I’m not sarcastic.
I mean, there was me thinking that there was no plane hitting the deck – like many claim there were no planes hitting the towers on 9/11 – and the tent/caravan that the CGI, Hawker Hunter landed on top of was where some mush triggered a controlled explosion from, leading to all of the spectators at the airshow hearing a loud bang and seeing a big ball of fire appear above the tree tops… Kinda like the Boston Bombs
Meantime, the MIT would have had the traffic control in order by creating a bottleneck under the guise of roadworks, with cars backed right up to the bridge, travelling at 5-10MPH, and no doubt with around a dozen or so MIT men timed to be driving the cars at the front of the queue.
And don’t forget that there were also a number of other planes in the air which is obvious from the way that the explosion and the (decoy) Hawker Hunter were filmed from above – think 9/11 pentagon where the low flying Jumbo was seen leaving the area as the Cruise Missile did its damage.
The decoy Jet would then fly away very fast, flying very low hence the reason that there was no build up of traffic on the other side of the [closed off] road… that is to say there was no build up of traffic until they came to do the ground shots anyway… And remember, all eyes would be looking at the fireball.
That MIT wagon comes into play shortly.
Meanwhile the other planes would have added further confusion amidst the chaos to the minds of the spectators… And besides, no one pays that much attention at airshows anyway.
But sadly my take on things is apparently well wide of the mark since those experts now tell me that the crash was “real” with their opinion largely based on a quick misread of my report, which took me weeks to research… Ho-Fucking-Hum.
And another thing – I love saying that – it should be taken as read that I know that not everything is a hoax, hence I only report on the stories that are.
In fact it seems to me that “not everything is a false flag”, is fast becoming a buzz line in keeping with “keep wearing the tinfoil hat mate”. Then again, “not everyone is a troll”… See what I did there – that is not a question either.
Nevertheless, there is no point in me quitting now else the clever cunts will have nothing to shout at me about will they.
So lets have a look at some more video evidence, starting with that mysterious caravan that the [CGI] jet landed on. You see it would appear that after the explosion whoever was in the caravan began to signal to the fella shooting the film – who is supposedly an amateur photographer.
I think you get the idea, although the signaling goes on for quite a while longer until he gets out of the caravan and fucks off.
Course, those screen grabs then beg the question: Where is the burnt out Jaguar?
The Jag – a wedding car driven by Maurice Abrahams – isn’t there is it?
Mind you, that isn’t surprising because you would then have to ask yourself how it got to where it ended up in the first place.
I mean it is absolutely ludicrous to have us believe that the Jag was knocked right across the road on to the opposite carriageway, but that is nevertheless what the scriptwriters are asking us to do:
Michael Sturgess told how Abrahams, who had been on his way to pick up a bride for her wedding ceremony, let him on to the busy road. He told the BBC: “I had come on to the A27, and then he let me in because the traffic was so bad. We went through the traffic lights, the traffic lights went red and that’s when he got hit.”
Sturgess said his eight-year-old son, Louis, watched as the plane crashed on to the busy road and exploded into flames. He said: “My little boy saw it all happen … as I went around the bend the plane came down and he saw everything” Source
There is no traffic build up on the right hand side carriageway so Abrahams must have let Sturgess in on the bridge.
Course, if Abrahams was stuck at the traffic lights you have to ask yourself: Given the state of the Jag, why were only four cars damaged (including the Jag), one of which was on Old Shoreham Road at the time?
Moreover, why is the damage to the vehicles inconsistent with being hit by a Jet Plane?
And of course, how the fuck did the Jag end up on the right hand side carriageway?
So, an impossibility then!
Nevertheless, lets have a look at some more – alleged – amateur video, this time from the other side of the accident, heading towards the bridge.
And of course, the big white van in the top photo would never, ever, ever be a MIT wagon would it… Would it?
And neither does it end there.
Now, remember those two white vans (MIT wagons) that I told you to keep in mind at the beginning of the above photo batch?
You do? Good show because the owner of the bigger one of the two vans – allegedly an amateur film maker, in tights – also made a Youtube video.
Now whilst that last batch of photos isn’t the most compelling of the evidence that I have put forward so far, with a lot more still to come in Part 3, there is certainly a lot of strange behaviour going on so I thought it definitely worth including.
Likewise, neither is the photo of the little red car and silver flat back motor conclusive of a hoax taking place.
But then again, little red cars and silver estate cars do seem to feature an awful lot in these hoaxes… Just sayin’.