Saturday, 22 April 2017

Why the Need for this Blog Website? "Mission Statement"

Dear Friends, I am currently investigating the "No-Planes" theory and the video evidence of 9/11. I have come to understand and learn from my research of a deliberate effort by some 9/11 researchers to promulgate false claims that all the 9/11 videos are fake. I have been exposing and documenting this deliberate effort by certain researchers to cover-up information and discredit the 9/11 video evidence record. This has been a 'psychological operation' known as 'video fakery' which has been promoted to explain the anomalies such as: no crash physics, disappearing wings, impossible plane speed, and impossible nose-out captured in the 'Flight 175' videos. The reason for this 'psy-op' is to conceal an advanced "image projection" system which was used to create the image of plane travelling through the sky which was videoed and photographed by many eyewitnesses. It has been my quest to unravel the ‘psy-op’ and expose the false claims which have been put-out by various researchers past and present such as: Simon Shack and Ace Baker.

Many eyewitnesses have been accused of fabricating their videos and being party to a conspiracy by inserting 'CGI Planes' into their video footage. This has caused great distress to many videographers to be accused of this by people such as Simon Shack, Ace Baker and others. This has been a distraction and misdirection to point the finger in the wrong direction, and in the process getting many people to not study the video evidence closely to see what was really captured in the 9/11 'Flight 175' video evidence.

"Please help me raise awareness of this disgraceful cover-up"... Thank you!

Mark Conlon.


Wednesday, 12 April 2017

9/11 "No-Planes" Perception Management Past & Present

By Mark Conlon - 12th April 2017
(Edited By Andrew Johnson) 
In recent months, there has been a noticeable increase of material being removed by social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook. In October 2016 Richard D. Hall Released his latest version of his 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis. Some months later YouTube decided to block the 3D Analysis video for some unknown reason? Strangely this week the video has been "unblocked" by YouTube, again for no apparent reason? Was this a timely decision in light of Richard D. Hall's UK Tour, where no doubt Richard would've spoken about this? The video was still blocked as of the 1st April 2017 when I last checked it on his YouTube channel, just after the FBI released an alleged set of new 9/11 images from the Pentagon attack, which just happens to show plane wreckage after the alleged plane crash. 
In the 2012 version of Richard's 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis, he made the case that the flight paths in each video matched up correctly in each of the 26 suitable videos (from the 50 available) videos that he analysed. (Suitable videos needed to show the plane's path for long enough.) This demonstrated that the prevailing theory that the videos contained an ' inserted CGI Plane,' was almost certainly incorrect. This seriously challenged the analyses put forward by two well known “no-plane” theorists and 'video fakery' promoters; Simon Shack and Ace Baker. 

This new evidence and hypothesis from Richard D. Hall's 3D Radar Analysis findings met with great resistance from no-planes 'video fakery' researchers.

Why is the 3D Radar Analysis findings so dangerous...?
Videos of the WTC “plane impacts” show impossible crash physics (further discussion below) - including disappearing wings, impossible speed and damage not consistent with real plane crashes. Hence, the videos demonstrate that we was not seeing a 'real' plane in the videos. RDH’s analysis essentially shows this was not because of 'video fakery' – rather, it tends to confirm that some type of 'image projection' of a plane was captured in the videos. Is it then the case that this conclusion has had to be covered-up – in order to conceal the existence of an advance technology? Was 'video fakery' introduced as a clever cover story to help lead people away from the discovery of this advanced technology 'image projection' system, just like the "thermite" explanation which was introduced as a cover story by Steve E. Jones to cover-up the 'real' evidence of the destruction of the twin towers from an advanced directed energy weapon. Exposing 'video fakery' as a cover story makes Richard D. Hall's findings so devastating to the cover-up of the advanced technology used to destroy the WTC and create a sophisticated cover up. I now consider the 'video fakery' explanation to be a “cover story”. This has led me to notice an attempt to promote the idea of planes on 9/11 when the evidence is to the contrary. An example of this was a recent release of images on 31st March 2017 by the FBI.

The alleged “new images” of the 9/11 event at the Pentagon include 3 of plane wreckage. This release may have therefore been because questions being continually asked about the lack of physical evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11. 

Out of the 16 images released, 3 show plane wreckage which is allegedly from 'Flight 77' at the Pentagon crash site.

Perception Management:

Is this the subtle promotion in this news headline to reinforce the idea that planes crashed on 9/11..?

Daily Mail Online Article Below:

In Thierry Meyssan's 2002 book called Pentagate, Meyssan states that the attack on the Pentagon was not carried out by a commercial airliner but a missile. The central thesis of the book is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. This conclusion was heavily criticised by other prominent 9/11 Truth Movement members such as Jim Hoffman (himself a supporter of Steven E Jones). 

It is my opinion that Meyssan's astute observations of “no-plane” at the Pentagon event also led to early observations of no-planes at the crashes in New York, which then led to the introduction of a clever "psychological operation" called 'video fakery' to conceal what really happened.   

Thierry Meyssan also challenged the idea that piece of wreckage shown in the 2 out the 3 images released by the FBI above, came from the alleged airplane (Flight 77). Meyssan concluded it was more likely to have been planted debris wreckage from another plane because the piece of wreckage did not match any part of an American Airlines plane.

Image from Thierry Meyssan's book Pentagate - Page XVI


Meyssan stated that the piece of wreckage in this image does not match any piece of a Boeing 757-200 painted in the colours of American Airlines. He also mentions, that this wreckage was never inventoried by the Department of Defence as coming from Flight 77.

Is the release of these new images a subtle attempt to promote and reinforce the idea of planes being involved in the 9/11 attacks because of the growing doubts by many people regarding of the lack of evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11...?

See the new images at this Yahoo news link below. Note: In the online yahoo article they have ordered the set of 16 images starting with the 3 images of plane's (Flight 77) alleged wreckage.

Perception Management: Cover-ups, Muddle-ups and Psychological Operations:

The video evidence of 'Flight 175' allegedly impacting the South tower demonstrates a contradiction of Newton's 3rd Law, as if there's no rea; collision between the South tower and the plane. Also contained in the videos are some very strange anomalies regarding the disappearance of the plane's wings as it approaches the South tower before impact.


It must be 'video fakery' and 'CGI planes'...? REALLY, or something else..?

From my own research which I have conducted into the September Clues film and the explanations proposed within it to explain the anomalies, which I have written about and posted here on my blog, I have proved that many of the points that Simon Shack makes are without doubt incorrect at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, and appears that the 'video fakery' idea was put-out deliberately as a psychological operation (psy-op) to lead people away from studying the video and photographic evidence. Thus, 'video fakery' has been used as a cover story to conceal the use of some type of advanced 'image projection' technology to put an image of a plane in the sky, an image  which was then videoed and photographed by many eye witnesses. This explains why the 'crash physics' was not consistent with a 'real' plane colliding and crashing into a steel and concrete building and also the impossible speed which the plane was travelling at as it approached the South tower in the videos. 

September Clues, Perception Management..?


Another point which has been observed in my analysis of the September Clues film surrounding 'video fakery' is that Simon Shack makes false claims about certain videos such as the Michael Hezarkhani video, where in one example he claims the Pavel Hlava 2nd strike video is a "re-edit" of the Michael Hezarkhani video footage. This is provable disinformation which appears to be deliberately put-out by Simon Shack to promote 'video fakery' and to also to discredit both videos as fake which is the main objective - to cast doubt regarding the video evidence record. I suggest this is done to conceal the advanced technology 'image projection' used which was captured by the many videographers and photographers in New York.

Read my blog article demonstrating Simon Shack's false claims about the Michael Hezarkhani video and the Pavel Hlava video. Link below:

The films and the prominent 'video fakery' so-called researchers did a good job, as I didn't check their theories/hypothesis and I took it for granted for over 6 years that they had given me all the correct answers to the anomalies which I observed such as, no crash physics and disappearing wings in the videos, thus believing 'CGI planes' were inserted or composited into the videos which led me to believe all the videos and photographs were faked.

How wrong I was when I did eventually check their claims which turned out to be grossly incorrect. Initially, I thought this was because they had made genuine errors in their research but soon, I could see an emerging theme and behaviour pattern of deliberate, deceptive means of clever misdirection and editing to falsely promote to the viewers a false answer to all the anomalies in the videos.

I now consider 'video fakery' to be a psy-op in itself. Perhaps this answers why the latest set of FBI images have been released as part of the perception management, as more people are starting to see that 'video fakery' doesn't sufficiently answer all the questions surrounding the anomalies captured within the videos. Simon Shack is concealing the truth instead of exposing it along with managing people's perceptions.

Perhaps this is why recently, the censorship and perception management of any discussion of the no-planes evidence on 9/11 has been stepped-up, so I consider this timely release of these FBI images showing the plane wreckage at the Pentagon to be “damage control and perception management” because of the failings in their psychological operation cover story that is 'video fakery'.

To find out more about Simon Shack (Hytten), please read Andrew Johnson's research article here: 9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175. 


Sunday, 26 February 2017

Flight 175 - Still in the Air After Crashing into the South Tower on 9/11 ~ MSNBC

This is a screen-shot of Flight 175 still in the air after crashing into the South Tower on 9/11 on MS-NBC's news coverage approximately one hour after Flight 175 was reported as crashing into the South Tower. In the news coverage they go to their real time 'flight explorer' tracker whereby they hover over different planes being displayed on the flight explorer screen-shot which displays information about the planes which are still in the air-space from the FAA Radar System. As they hover-over one of the planes an information text box appears next to the plane. What was displayed in one particular information text box next to the plane was the Flight - UAL 175, Departure - BOS and Arrival LAX, clearly indicating that Flight 175 was still in the air flying after it was reported as crashed into the South Tower. Flight 175 appears to be flying away from New York (if it ever was over New York) and towards Connecticut one hour after the crash?

Below: Enlargement, along with 'additional' inverted colour version comparison:
Clearly in the above image 'Flight 175' Departure from BOS 09:15a and Arrival LAX 01:44p.
See My Short Video Below:
See Full Coverage Videos Below:

(Part 1) MSNBC Live Coverage of September 11, 2001
(Part 2) MSNBC Live Coverage of September 11, 2001

The official radar flight path does not correspond with any position location in the MS-NBC News coverage, which is an official FAA Radar System, so this can rule-out any real-time delays, plus Flight 175 was located North-West of Connecticut in the official radar positioning when departing from Boston Logan Airport for Los Angeles LAX when making its detour towards New York. The MS-NBC radar position has Flight 175 more South-West of Connecticut one hour after the plane crash. 
Official Flight 175 Path Below:
The question has to be asked. If Flight 175 was still in the air one hour after the alleged crash at the South Tower, where was it heading to...? Clearly it did not crash into the South Tower, but was en-route to somewhere? The question is where? Possibility... Was it heading back to Boston Logan International Airport to be grounded, as the direction it seemed to be heading could suggest that? Or was it directed to another location? Again I'm speculating here. 
Another possibility could be: Flight 175 was part of the training exercises taking place that morning and was a phantom flight blip on the radar system which didn't exist at all..?
More research needs to be conducted to gather more information and evidence before making assumptions so these questions can be sufficiently answered. 
*IMPORTANT* This is an on-going article which is being updated as I gather more information about this research. I will be having more to discuss about this so check back soon...


Thursday, 23 February 2017

Richard D. Hall ~ Discusses the No-Planes Theory and the Video Evidence of 9/11

This is a short video segment of Richard D. Hall discussing the no-planes theory and the video evidence of 9/11. Some of the areas covered are: Impossible Speed of a Boeing 767 Airplane, Crash Physics and the Video Evidence.

I'm posting this video so people can get a heads-up and understanding regarding the no-planes theory on 9/11, and also the video evidence, and why the videos are 'real', not 'fake' as some people like Simon Shack, Ace Baker and Markus Allen promulgate to people.

Please visit Richard D. Hall's website: for more information.

Monday, 31 October 2016

September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Three)

By Mark Conlon (Edited by Andrew Johnson)
29th Oct 2016

The reference material used in this analysis is from Simon Shack’s film September Clues, which is from Simon Shack’s YouTube Channel:
In part three of this analysis I’m going to explore two claims made by Simon Shack, starting at 100:22 into his film September Clues. He claims Pavel Hlava’s video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage of the same event. Simon Shack also claims at 100:51 in his film that the Rector St building is missing in the Pavel Hlava video. This isn’t the first time that the “absence” of this building has been wrongly presented in a video. Another ‘video fakery’ promotor named Markus Allen also made a claim about Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage having the Rector St building missing, which I proved to be a false claim, follow link below for article:

At 100:22 in September Clues, Simon Shack claims Pavel Hlava’s video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage.

At 100:30 - Simon Shack then uses a comparison split screen / side-by-side shot of Pavel Hlava’s video footage and Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage, suggesting that a “Similar Gentle Zoom-out” and “Similar Angle of WTC and Airplane”.

If this was a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage, the perspectives and angles would be the same, as they would have been taken from the same location or in very close proximity. Simon Shack says they are “similar”, which implies they are not the same! This is a key point, because looking at the two videos suggests that they were captured from two different locations, and would prove that Pavel Hlava’s video footage is genuine and not a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s.
From previous research I conducted into Michael Hezarkhani’s video, it can be shown that his location was on the top deck of a ferry which was stationed in Battery Park.

This corresponded with Carmen Taylor’s location, where she took her photographs – and they too show something very similar to Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage. Carmen Taylor disclosed her location to Canadian researcher Jeff Hill in a phone call (at a time code 1 minute 44 seconds into the conversation).
Carmen Taylor phone call here below:

To prove that Pavel Hlava’s video is different, and not a re-edit of the Hezarkhani video I set-out to find exactly where Pavel Hlava was located when he took his video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower.
Please see location images below:
Using the Google Street view images above, we can now determine that Pavel Hlava captured his video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower when he was at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel entrance.  To understand the difference in locations of Michael Hezarkhani and Pavel Hlava I plotted their locations on a map.
See map below:
As we can see from their locations above on the map, Pavel Hlava and Michael Hezarkhani were quite some distance away from each other. Simon Shack fails to point this out when making his claim that Pavel Hlava’s video is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s.
Another thing which Simon Shack doesn’t take into account is the camera’s zoom level in Michael Hezarkhani’s video, which can give you a false perspective of his location compared to Pavel Hlava’s location, which was closer to the South tower.
See example below:

This comparison screen-shot above in the September Clues film at 100:30 looks quite convincing in backing up Simon Shack’s claims regarding a re-edited version of Michael Hezarkhani’s video. Also note how Simon Shack has squashed the Hezarkhani video, which makes it appear more like Pavel Hlava’s video.
When watching complete versions of both videos, you can see the zoomed-out sequence in the Michael Hezarkhani video gives you a completely different perspective from Hlava’s, demonstrating perfectly that they were taken from two different locations.
See below: camera zoom analysis comparisons


Simon Shack also fails to explain that the Hezarkhani video was zoomed-in when he captured the plane in his video footage, whereas Pavel Hlava’s was already zoomed-out when he captured the plane in his video footage. In the Michael Hezarkhani zoomed-out sequence it shows a different foreground, compared to Pavel Hlava’s already zoomed-out sequence. This proves conclusively that the two videos were taken in different locations to each other! We can even see different buildings in the (real) foreground, as shown in the two images below!
I have shown that Pavel Hlava’s video was taken from the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, and the foreground is genuine in his video, so we can now see that Simon Shack is clearly wrong in his suggestion of one or more “missing” buildings, to support his claim of ‘video fakery’ . This is shown at 100:51 in his film.

Again when analysing Simon Shack’s claim, it becomes clear that he conceals evidence – for example by not showing the viewers the full Pavel Hlava video sequence. Instead, Simon Shack decides to show a still image, thus concealing clear evidence about one or more of the “missing” buildings – which are, in fact, visible in the both videos!
See below: video evidence of the building in the video, which Simon Shack claimed was missing.
The screen-shots above were taken from this link here:

See Below: Supporting evidence using a computer 3D model of the Rector Street building location in the Pavel Hlava video.

In conclusion:
Again questions are raised about Simon Shack’s presentation of video evidence and the methods he uses in his film, September Clues. Why did Simon Shack not show the full video sequence of the Pavel Hlava video? This would have proved there was no “missing building” ! Why did Simon Shack claim Pavel Hlava’s video was a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video, when clearly both videos are taken from two different locations, which was easily established when researched correctly?
Is Simon Shack promoting the idea of ‘video fakery’ to discredit the video evidence record of 9/11? When studying Simon Shack’s presentation in his film, it becomes clear that he has continually omitted or misrepresented evidence – by using cleverly timed editing.  This has therefore concealed evidence which shows a number of his claims are false. From my past analysis, where I have disproven other claims he makes in his film, it is now appearing to be a deliberate pattern of deceptive and misleading behaviour, rather than poor research skills, suggesting an agenda to promote disinformation about the video record on 9/11. Is Simon Shack promoting the idea that the ‘video fakery’ explains anomalies in the behaviour of Flight 175 when it crashes into the South Tower? Is Simon Shack attempting to discredit the 9/11 videos to help conceal what was really captured in the videos? Again, I ask the question - is Simon Shack disseminating disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that advanced image projection technology was used to create the illusion of plane crashes?
It appears Simon Shack is overseeing a Psychological Operation to promote ‘video fakery’ to lead people away from closely studying other explanations for the 9/11 video evidence. When people believe they have an explanation for the anomalies, it stops them studying the evidence any further. This personally happened to me for several years, and in that respect, Simon Shack’s Psychological Operation worked, as I didn’t continue to study closely, because I thought I had the answers… How wrong I was.
For further information regarding Simon Shack read this article by written by Andrew Johnson in May 2012:  9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175 -

This case is now closed.


Wednesday, 5 October 2016

September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Two)

By Mark Conlon (edited by Andrew Johnson)

In this analysis I will focus on Simon Shack’s claim in his film September Clues regarding the plane’s nose bumping into a ‘layering-line limit’ as the plane’s nose exits from the WTC South tower building in the Fox News ‘Chopper 5’ live coverage. In particular I will focus on the abrupt cut-off of the plane’s nose, closely studying the following preceding frames leading up to the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence, so I can verify whether there is evidence to support Simon Shack’s claims of the plane’s nose being cut-off by a ‘layering-line limit’ and also whether a ‘layering-line limit’ is present at all in the Fox News ‘Chopper 5’ live coverage?  

My reference material link from which I conducted my video analysis of Simon Shack’s video is from his official YouTube channel:

Abrupt cut-off of the plane’s nose analysis:
At 6:54 in the September Clues film Simon Shack asserts that the graphic inserted CGI plane’s nose visibly bumps into the layer-limit in the Fox News ‘Chopper 5’ live coverage. See below image screen-shot taken at 6:54 in September Clues film where the plane’s nose is abruptly cut-off.

Clearly in the above screen-shot image at 6:54 in September Clues, Simon Shack shows the plane’s nose appearing to be abruptly cut-off by an alleged ‘layering-line limit’.
I found this theory confusing because in the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ video sequences Simon Shack uses in his September Clues film at 7:14 and 7:23 do not show an abrupt cut-off of the plane’s nose in the identical frames. Additionally, the plane’s nose appears to be intact in proceeding frames as the plane’s nose continues forward before the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence. How can this be if the plane’s nose according to Simon Shack is disappearing behind a ‘layering-line limit’?
I decided to compare two Fox News ‘chopper 5’ nose-out identical frames taken from Simon Shack’s film September Clues.

See below: Identical frame screen-shots at 6:50 and 7:14 in September Clues 


When analysing the two “identical” frames of the plane’s nose they did not appear to be identical at all! Consider the plane nose which Simon Shack presents at 6:50 in his film, compared to the plane’s nose in the identical image at 7:14 in his film. The 7:14. The second image is different to the first. I decided to take a closer look and do a pixel analysis of the two planes' noses.

See below:  Pixel Analysis

In the identical frame at 7:14 in the September Clues film, softer pixels of the end of the plane's nose are present. How can this be if the plane's nose has allegedly bumped into a ‘layering-line limit’ as Simon Shack claims in the earlier identical frame at 6:50? Inverting the images seems to make these differences clearer (see below)
Inverted Colour Pixel Analysis:
I then looked at another “identical” frame showing the “Nose out” from 7:23 in Simon Shack’s film

See below: Analysis identical plane ‘Nose-out’ frame at 7:23

Again softer pixels are observed with the end of the plane’s nose which was intact and not abruptly cut-off, like we see in the 6:50 identical frame showing the plane’s nose cut-off. Again, how can this be? According to Simon Shack’s theory, the plane’s nose is bumping into the ‘layering-line limit’. We now have two identical frame images showing the plane’s nose ‘intact’ and not abruptly cut-off.

See below: Example highlighting Simon Shack’s theory of the ‘layering-line limit’

If the ‘layering-line limit’ was in place as Simon Shack claims at 6:50 in his film we would not be observing any pixel soft edges of the plane’s nose in the other two identical frames he uses in his film at 7:14 and 7:23.

See all three identical frames - 6:50, 7:14 and 7:23 of the planes’ noses for comparison below:  

In the pixel analysis it appears that pixels have been removed off the end of the plane’s nose in the 6:50 frame, compared to the other two identical frames of the plane’s nose pixels, which show no abrupt cut-off of the plane’s nose.

This now calls into question whether a ‘layering-line limit’ is present at all in the video footage as Simon Shack claims, because the other two plane noses in 7:14 and 7:23 would not be ‘intact’ if they were meant to be disappearing behind a ‘layering-line limit’ as Simon Shack suggests.

To test Simon Shack’s ‘layering-line limit’ theory further I did an analysis of the preceding frames in the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ video footage to see if the plane’s nose disappears behind the ‘layering-line limit’ – as it should, if it was continuing forward behind the ‘layering-line limit’ before the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence.

In the analysis below, I have used a Fox News ‘chopper 5’ sequence which Simon uses in his film at 4:46. This particular sequence which Simon Shack uses contains the ‘abrupt cut-off’ of the plane’s nose. I thought this would be an ideal sequence to test and analyse his theory for evidence of a ‘layering-line limit’ in the video footage. 

From my analysis above it appears that the plane’s nose remains intact in the preceding frames right through to the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence. There is no evidence of the plane’s nose disappearing behind a ‘layering-line limit’. This proves beyond any doubt from the video evidence in Simon Shacks own film at 4:46, that there is no  ‘layering-line limit’ in the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ video footage, because the plane’s nose does not disappear or get abruptly cut-off.
This is also supported by the other video evidence of the preceding frames in Simon Shack’s film at 7:23 where he uses the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ sequence which demonstrates the plane’s nose remaining ‘intact’ throughout the whole sequence, with no ‘abrupt cut-off’ or disappearance behind any ‘layering-line limit’ in the preceding frames to the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence.
See below: Other preceding frames video evidence at 7:23

Conclusion of the Evidence:

We have three different plane noses in the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ sequences used in Simon Shack’s film September Clues. Two of which identical frames 7:14 and 7:23 were analysed to show that both plane’s noses are not abruptly cut-off by a ‘layering-line limit’ as suggested by Simon Shack in the 6:50 identical frame. To further support this evidence of the plane’s noses remaining intact and not disappearing behind any ‘layering-line limit’ is the preceding frames analysis, where I analysed the preceding frames in Simon Shack's Fox News ‘chopper 5’ sequences he uses at 4:46 and 7:23. 

Questions have to be asked and seriously considered…

Does this suggest Simon Shack has manipulated the plane’s nose to suit his theory regarding the ‘layering-line limit? In the Pixel analysis, pixels appear to have been removed from this frame at 6:50 when compared to the other two plane noses in the two identical frames at 7:14 and 7:23 in his film.

From my own analysis using Simon Shack’s own film evidence, it suggests that some type of manipulation has taken place to remove the softer pixels around the plane’s nose in his 6:50 frame. Was this done to support and advance his theory regarding the plane’s nose allegedly bumping into its own ‘layering-line limit’?

As we have seen from all the video evidence in Simon Shack’s film, the preceding frames all show the plane’s nose intact leading up to the ‘Fade to black’ sequence, which would be impossible if there was a ‘layering-line limit’ as Simon Shack suggests.

Other supporting evidence suggesting Simon Shack manipulated the plane’s nose becomes more apparent when you compare the identical frame sequence he uses in his earlier version of his film September Clues.

See the screen-shot comparisons below:

In the earlier version of September clues the plane’s nose isn’t abruptly cut-off by the alleged ‘layering-line limit’ observed in the later film version. The frames are identical, yet the plane noses are very different.  Is this conclusive evidence of manipulation of the plane’s nose by Simon Shack?   

Other researchers have raised questions about Simon Shack’s ‘nose-in’ ‘nose-out’ evidence in the past. There is an interesting video clip here of Richard D. Hall discussing with Andrew Johnson, Simon Shack’s analysis of the plane’s nose that is in his film regarding the Fox News ‘chopper5’ ‘video. It is interesting to note that both Richard D. Hall and Andrew Johnson suggest that some type of manipulation has taken place regarding Simon Shack’s evidence he uses in his analysis of the plane’s nose. Short video clip here below:

Summing-up, I suggest a strong possibility that Simon Shack has removed the end of the plane’s nose in his 6:50 frame to support his ‘false’ theory for a ‘layering-line limit’. The video evidence analysis I have conducted and presented in this article does NOT support any such ‘layering-line limit’ theory as suggested by Simon Shack in his film. Has Simon Shack himself manipulated video frames to promote the idea that the video fakery on a larger scale to explain the anomalies in the behaviour of Flight 175 when it allegedly crashed into the South Tower? Is this because the videos are actually real and show an image of something which was not a real physical plane? I.e. is Simon Shack disseminating disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that an advanced image projection technology was used to create the illusion of plane crashes?