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: https://youtu.be/gORu-68SHpE
 
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:
http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/markus-allens-disappearing-buildings-on.html

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.
http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/flight-175-and-truth-about-truth-in-7.html
 

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:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/JeffHillsPhoneCalls/Pumpitout.com%20-%20Carmen%20Taylor%2014%20Oct%2007.mp3

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: https://youtu.be/ryl-o6XzL7s


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 - http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60
  


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: https://youtu.be/gORu-68SHpE

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?


 
 

Tuesday, 9 August 2016

September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part One)


In part one of this analysis I’m going to explore video footage which was broadcast live on September 11th 2001. The Good Day New York Chopper 5 live news coverage captured United Airlines Flight 175 impacting the South World Trade Tower. This particular live news coverage captured anomalies within it which has been highly controversial. The particular area I want to explore in the live video coverage is the famous ‘nose-in’ ‘nose-out’ footage. The video captured the plane’s nose of United Airlines Flight 175 exiting from the South Tower with its nose intact, without any apparent damage done to it.

 

Let’s all agree from the outset that this is an impossibility which defies laws of physics as we know it. The question is: How did the Boeing 767 plane’s nose, (where the electronics are situated) penetrate through the steel wall columns and internal central core columns of the South Tower?
When September Clues surfaced on the internet in 2007 it offered answers to my many questions concerning this unusual anomaly captured within the ‘Chopper 5 news’ footage. Simon Shack’s explanation claimed that a ‘CGI plane’ was inserted and layering was used which accidentally drifted off centre, allowing an inserted CGI plane’s nose to accidentally poke-out of the other-side of the South World Trade Centre building, which was followed by a blank black screen for 15 frames to conceal the “error“ activated by a television supervisor, which became commonly known as the ‘fade to black’ sequence, which tried to quickly cover-up the mistake made by the perpetrator’s.

For many years I was satisfied with Simon Shack’s hypothesis in his film September Clues and the explanation of video fakery in the Chopper 5 news footage with the plane’s nose-in, nose-out anomaly sequence. I was also influenced by another character named Ace Baker regarding the use of video fakery in the Chopper 5 news footage, which also led me to sit back and accept video fakery was most likely to have been used in the news videos on 9/11.  After studying more closely Simon Shack’s other claims regarding video fakery in other 9/11 videos I began to see a pattern emerging where information was being omitted by Shack in his film to make his case of video fakery. I found this very deceptive and extremely misleading. It appears he successfully mislead many viewers to believe that the chopper 5 news footage was fake, thus discrediting the video footage. This conveniently created a division and distraction away from what the live Chopper 5 news footage really showed.

To illustrate the omissions made by Simon Shack in his film September Clues I will first demonstrate his hypotheses so we can understand the bigger picture.

Shack believes a centre layer was added to the video footage which a graphic inserted plane would disappear behind to prevent the plane exiting the South Tower. See pictures below taken from September Clues video.



 




The picture below shows how Shack believes a ‘Luma Key’ and contrast was used to wash out the Sky-line in the Chopper 5 news video. As I discuss later in this analysis the technique of using ‘Luma Key’ in this video footage creates a major flaw in Shack’s hypothesis, which completely discredits it. 




The picture below shows the reference centre layer-line (in yellow) which creates a layer to the side of the building which would conceal the plane’s nose, but according to Simon Shack the Chopper 5 news helicopter fitted with the F.I.R Camera system drifted slightly to the side which off-set the centre (yellow) layer-line, which is why the plane’s nose was able to be inadvertently be revealed and intact. 

Please note: Still image from September Clues. Centre layer line is set perfectly in this shot before the camera drifted to the side. 

 


 

The picture below shows the centre layer-line (in red) drifting off centre which off-set the centre (red) layer-line allowing the plane’s nose to appear out of the side of the building.
Please note: how the (red) layer line has drifted to the side which allows the nose to be revealed of the plane. 
 
 
As we can see Shack’s hypotheses in the above pictures seemed to offer a convincing answer to the plane’s nose anomaly which I found to be very plausible for many years. At the time ‘video fakery’ and the ‘no planes’ debates were dividing researchers in the 9/11 Truth-Movement which has the effect of playing one faction off against the other.
Let’s take a closer look at Simon Shack’s (CGI and Layering) hypotheses and study the evidence closely so we can see what has been deliberately ‘omitted’
To achieve the layering of the plane going into the building you would need a layer for the plane’s ‘entrance’ into the building so the plane would disappear behind the building on ‘entrance’. This has been completely omitted by Simon Shack. The question is; why has he omitted this from his hypotheses? The ‘entrance’ layer line should have also drifted if the ‘exit’ layer line of the building drifted… “This did not happen”.
See the picture below:
I have highlighted the ‘entrance’ layer line and ‘exit’ layer line in red.
 


The picture below shows the ‘nose-out’ of the plane because of the drifting of the ‘exit’ layer line off centre. Shack makes no explanation regarding the off-set of the ‘entrance’ layer line only the centre ‘exit’ layer line? Note: read captions for more details.


 
The plane’s ‘entrance’ layer line being off-set in the picture above should have visibly affected the plane’s ‘entrance’ into the building in the ‘chopper 5’ video footage. ‘THIS DID NOT HAPPEN’. This rules-out any possibility of layering because the plane in the video “entered” the building correctly.
The fact Simon Shack ‘omitted’ the ‘entrance’ layer line is quite confusing to me, because ideally it is only necessary for one layer line to be applied at the ‘entrance’ of the building if the perpetrators were to use such a layering technique. This would have avoided the problem altogether of a nose-out issue, but would have still potentially created problems with the drifting and the off-set of the ‘entrance’ layer line, especially with the camera being situated on the helicopter.
Conclusion:
The fact the plane “entered” the building correctly in the ‘chopper 5’ video contradicts Simon Shack’s ‘layering and CGI’ hypotheses completely. Other video evidence of live news broadcasts also captured the plane’s nose ‘exiting’ from the South Tower.
See pictures below:
 
 


Shack’s layering glitch hypothesis in the chopper 5 video does not explain the video evidence, but acts merely to lead us away from studying the evidence more closely to establish what really was captured hitting the South Tower in the 9/11 videos and photographs.

Simon Shack’s promotion of video fakery has provided a cover-story to distract many researchers (including myself) away from actually studying the video evidence. I believed Shack’s hypothesis answered the anomalies in the 9/11 plane videos, only to discover the use of deceptive means to prove his claims of video fakery.
In part two of this blog I will deal with an in depth analysis of the nose-out sequence that Simon Shack uses for his evidence in his film September Clues, where clear manipulation has been used to deceive his viewers...


 
 
 
 




Thursday, 28 July 2016

Simon Shack’s ‘Amateur’ Effort of Video Fakery





By Mark Conlon 15th Nov 2015



In this analysis I will clearly demonstrate how Simon Shack attempts to mislead viewers with claims of evidence of video fakery in the Naudet video. In Part 2 of his video ‘9/11 Amateur’ he claims that the ‘Naudet’ video footage which captures Flight 11 impacting the North Tower contains evidence that photo-shopping had been used to create a (black gash) in the North Tower to increase the plane’s wing size  15 seconds after the plane’s impact into the building. Shack claims this was done because the hole in the building was only 130 feet across the building, when the boeing plane should have measured 160 feet across the building, thus according to Shack needed correcting by photo-shopping the video with a ‘black gash’.

See still image below taken Simon Shack’s video:

 


While I agree that the ‘black gash’ wasn’t there in the video footage after 6 seconds and the ‘black gash’ starts to appear from 12 seconds onwards after the impact of the plane, I do NOT agree with Shack’s theory that it was created by someone using photo-shop or was created to increase the size of the plane shape hole in the building.  Please see the two pictures below taken from Shack’s video, where he claims photo-shopping was done to fix the problem of the plane hole size from 130 feet to 160 feet.





  
Shack proceeds in his video to ask the question; “Can we verify that this black tip has been painted in?” Which Shack answers “Yes, we can”.
See the two images below:
 

Shack then proceeds in his video by comparing another piece of 9/11 video footage taken 11 minutes after the impact of Flight 11 without any appearance of any ‘black gash’ to prove his theory that the ‘black gash’ had indeed been painted in using photo-shop, thus demonstrating video fakery in the Naudet video footage.  

See the two image below:





While I agree with Shack that there is NO appearance of any ‘black gash’ in the 9/11 video footage 11 minutes later he uses above, questions started to arise for me as to why he has used a piece of 9/11 video footage 11 minutes after the plane’s impact into the North Tower as a comparison to prove his theory? This prompted me to look closer and conduct some research of my own. I found it strange as to why he has used a comparison with 11 minutes difference? The answer became clear!

I managed to find two pictures which were taken 15 seconds after the first impact on the North Tower. In both pictures below the ‘Black Gash’ can be clearly seen, just as it can in the Naudet video footage.






I was also able to find and analyse a video below taken by Jim Huibregtse who started videoing approximately 15 to 19 seconds after the first plane’s impact and at approximately the same time as the still images above.




Again the ‘black gash’ can be clearly seen in the video still images above. But what does the video reveal when we continue to watch?


 
As you continue to watch the video we can observe the ‘black gash’ which is fumes which start to dissipate as the video progresses. We are clearly observing black fumes escaping from a broken window, which change in colour to a grey/white colour fumes, which eventually dissipate completely. Please view the Jim Huibregtse video below to observe the (‘Black Gash’ as Simon Shack named it) black fumes turning to grey/white fumes which are originating from the broken window. For a higher qualitly version to watch click on the link here: https://vid.me/TKRvn

video

The question now has to be asked: Why did Simon Shack use a video which was 11 minutes later after the plane’s impact to claim that ‘video fakery’ was used in the Naudet 9/11 video footage of the first plane impacting the building? From my analysis above Simon Shack’s evidence for ‘video fakery’ is clearly very deceptive and very misleading for viewers. Again the message is legitimate explanations can explain the ‘black gash’ in the Naudet 9/11 footage which clearly had nothing to do with 'video fakery' as Simon Shack maintains. 



This case is now closed...