Monday, 18 September 2017

Questioning - 9/11 No-Planes "Video Fakery" and YouTube Censorship?


By Mark Conlon

This is a short video to explain what I believe to be censorship in relation to anyone who decides to thoroughly question the veracity of the 9/11 - No-Planes "Video "Fakery" subject, or present video evidence that contradicts claims by certain 9/11 researchers' who I consider to be putting-out disinformation. 

 
YouTube seem quite happy to leave-up videos like Simon Shack's which promotes "video fakery" on their platform, yet remove my uploaded short version of the Jim Huibregtse video which proves that Simon Shack was promoting a "false" point in his 9/11 Amateur - Part 2 video, which I did say in my appeal, so youTube cannot say they didn't know about Simon Shack's video on their platform, which contradicts their own community policies guidelines which they removed my video for citing the (Jim Huibregtse) which they considered contains; violent or graphic content that appears to be sensationalised or disrespectful manner. Consider the video I uploaded was in it's original form and didn't show the plane crash, just the edited sequence from the video to demonstrate my counter-point to shack's claims in his video. 

See below Simon Shack's graphic content material including the "plane crash" which could be deemed under YouTube's own policies as a "violent" or "graphic" in nature. Simon Shack's appears to be excluded from YouTube's policies and community guidlines and is freely allow to promote "video fakery" which could also be deemed "disrespectful" which is also mentioned in YouTube's guidelines. So WHY isn't YouTube following their own policies and community guidelines?  

  
Also Steve De'ak's clips of the same Jim Huibregtse video I uploaded on my YouTube channel still remains on YouTube's platform. Again "ignoring" their own policies and community guidelines? Yet again Steve De'ak is a promoter of "video fakery". Is there a pattern here? See below:


Yet YouTube also felt the need to remove Richard D. Halls 3D Radar Analysis video earlier-on in the year. Yet Richard did not appeal this decision by YouTube to my knowledge and his video was put back-up some months later without his knowledge until I alerted him to it during his 2017 "Fake Reality" tour.

Again Richard's video seriously challenged the "video fakery" Theory. Is this a coincidence...?

 
Was Richard's 3D Radar Video Analysis hitting a nerve...? 
 
I believe my video was removed after a recent appearance on Richard D. Hall's Show after citing a video by Jim Huibregtse, see here: https://vid.me/TKRvn which contradicted Simon Shack's theory regarding a "Black Gash" having been photo-shopped into the Naudet video footage of the plane impact hole. Shack suggested that this was done to increase the plane shaped hole in the building as it was too small initially. It seems you cannot use the YouTube platform anymore to question "video fakery" claims by such people. Did I hit a nerve with someone for exposing their disinformation?


Thank you for reading!





Friday, 15 September 2017

The "POD" Theory - Real or Perception Management to Cover-up "No-Planes" on 9/11...?


By Mark Conlon


Here's an analysis I have done in relation to the alleged "POD" attachment theory of an "external" piece of equipment attached to the belly of the "Flight 175" plane, captured in many of the 9/11 videos before impacting the South Tower. This was first suggested by some prominent 9/11 researchers' in 2003-04 and over the years it has become a hot topic for debate, and still is today in 2017. 

My reasons for my analysis:
Over the last 4 years of investigating the "no-planes" theory and video evidence of 9/11, I have come to learn and understand of a "Psychological Operation" which appears to involve certain 9/11 researchers' who's aim is to cast doubt in peoples minds over the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence, especially in relation to the videos of "Flight 175" crashing into the South Tower, in particular the Michael Hezarkhani video. It has been my quest to expose those "falsehoods" which have been circulated far and wide across the internet by various so-called 9/11 researchers' "past and present" and highlight the disinformation which they have been promulgating and unravel the "Psy-Op" and expose it for what it is.

Below I outline how the "POD" theory has been managed and promoted in its early conception, thus implanting into peoples' minds a "false" debate but also misdirecting their attention away from some very important evidence contained in the videos.

"Perception management" - What does history tell us...?

For a long time I didn't pay attention to what was happening in the 2nd plane videos because initially my attention was drawn and focused on the suggestion of a "POD" attachment on the plane, put forward by the various 9/11 researchers' such as, Phil Jayhan at his "Lets Roll" forum, and also Dave Von Kleist who promoted it in his film "In Plane Site" in 2004.


Phil Jayhan - was the first person to promote the "POD" theory in 2003. 


Interestingly, Phil Jayhan was against any talk of the "no-plane" theory, and would often exclude people from his forum for suggesting such a theory according to James Sloan of The Real News Online.Com. Yet Jayhan later went on to support Simon Shack and his September Clues film, believing the 9/11 videos were CGI and Fake. Jayhan wrote on his forum posted; 17 May 2012 , 02:54 AM - "I want to thank Simon Shack for his time and dedication in making this most astounding 9/11 video. It is a compilation of his own research and his forum members, and other 9/11 Illuminaries who saw the hoax of 9/11 long before I, and long before most".
  
Dave Von Kleist - 9/11 In Plane Site: Director’s Cut Film 2004



Dave Von Kleist promoted the "POD" theory in his film as early as 2004 and also in his later film in 2007 - 9/11 Ripple Effect. He was also against the possibility of "no-planes" being involved on 9/11.

Loose Change: 1st Edition - Promoting the "POD" Theory in 2005  


Dylan Avery promoted the "POD" theory in his 1st Edition of the "Loose Change" film but didn't include it in the 2nd edition of the film. Also out of bounds for discussion on the "Loose Change" forum was the topic of "no-planes". 

 
The "POD" theory was also accepted by many in the 9/11 Truth-Movement, which turned-out to be managed and "controlled" which was also being steered in a direction by various people who have been shown to be concealing truths rather than exposing them such as; Alex Jones, Steve E. Jones, Richard Gage and Jim Fetzer. 

Rebekah Roth: "POD" & "Trick Photography" 
Even today we still hear people implanting the idea of a "POD" attached to the plane and also "video fakery" to explain the strange and unusual lack of "crash physics". Here's Rebekah Roth during an interview on "Coast to Coast AM" talking about a "Pod" attached to the plane, however also suggesting "video fakery" ("Trick Photography") as the answer to explain the now obvious lack of "crash physics" as the alleged plane impacted the South Tower building. Here is the excerpt from interview: https://vid.me/IbSKZ

Rebekah Roth's comments contradicts her own theory that "remote controlled" plane's were used to strike the towers because she still cannot explain the lack of "crash physics" other than say she thought it was "Trick Photography" which still does not explain the many eyewitnesses who seen the plane hit the South Tower. Plus, how would they control every video and photograph taken of the event in NYC? Or is Rebekah Roth like many others I've written about, intending to implant the idea of the planes story on 9/11 along with the "video fakery" psy-op to "cover-up" a secret advanced "image projection" technology, which could reasonably account for all of the relevant anomalies mentioned above, and the eyewitness accounts who observed a plane hitting the South Tower? 

Image Projection Vs Video Fakery: Pros & Cons...
Using an "image projection" technology would solve any issues around needing to control "all" of the video and photographic evidence, as there wouldn't be any need, as people would've videoed and photographed the image of a plane, rather than the theory of of using "video fakery" which would need to have controll over all the videos and photographs along with the inserting the plane into every video and photograph. Plus, there is always a possibility that a "rogue" video or photograph could slip through the net showing no-plane at all. Something which hasn't happen upto now 16 years on.  

Don't look there, look over here....
Effectively I was prevented from observing such anomalies in the surrounding peripheral areas of the video footage of 2nd plane videos, because of the initial emphasis placed upon the "POD". I consider this a "deliberate" distraction which worked well on me and many others for a long time. 

See my analysis below: After conducting exstensive analysis on many videos and photographs I now have reached the conclusion that we were observing the "wing fairings" on the plane, and not a "POD" as suggested by many 9/11 researchers'.


A major flaw which needs to be considered is the "Landing Gear"...
There is one vital flaw in the argument for the "POD" theory attachment which is never acknowledged or really discussed, and that is the "storage area" of the "Landing Gear" which is the area around by the wing fairings and the alleged "POD" attachment. If the "POD" was attached it would've prevented the landing gear to extend and retract when landing and taking-off. See video below showing the landing gear's location and the "retraction" phase when taking-off.  



The fuselage bulges out where the wings join it. This is called the wing fairing. The landing gear assembly folds into this area when it is retracted, which causes a problem if the alleged "POD" is a "missile" launcher as suggested by some 9/11 researchers. See Images below:


Conclusion: 

After extensive analysis into the "Pod" theory and finding-out its origins and analysing the videos and photographic evidence, I am now of the opinion at this current time, that the "POD" theory was put-out to distract peoples' attention away from studying all of the video content contained in the 2nd plane videos, thus, having the desired affect to "misdirect" peoples' attention away from studying or noticing the surrounding areas of the videos where anomalies such as the "disappearing wings" were visible and the lack of any noticeable plane "crash physics". This is "classic misdirection", look over here so to speak, done to conceal other damming evidence contained in the videos which needed concealing because it might have exposed that "no-planes" were involved on 9/11, hence why "video fakery" was introduced around 2004 as another "cover-story" to manage anyone who questioned the anomalies in the 2nd plane videos. My question still remains; what were we seeing in the videos of "Flight 175"?


Thanks you for reading!


Friday, 8 September 2017

Richard D. Hall's Show with Myself & Andrew Johnson to Discuss "No-Planes" Theory and the Video Evidence of 9/11

                                               
By Mark Conlon

I'd like to thank Richard D. Hall for inviting me onto his show to discuss my research into the "No-Planes" Theory and the Video Evidence of 9/11. I would also like to thank Andrew Johnson who I shared the discussion with during the show.


Working out what really happened has been a difficult journey for most honest researchers. This is because there are as many "muddle up merchants" operating in 9/11 research as there are genuine truth seekers. The muddle up merchants have been trying to discredit all of the video footage, some of which provides clues to what really happened. Evidence that passenger jet planes were used in any of the four attacks is slim to non existent. Today Richard is joined by Mark Conlon and Andrew Johnson who dispel some of the dis-information and hence get closer to the truth on the 9/11 plane issue.

 Part One:

Part Two:

Part Three:



Thanks for watching! 



Monday, 28 August 2017

No-Planes "Video Fakery" Disinformation On FACEBOOK & Sunday Express "Perception Management" Article


By Mark Conlon 
 
I would like to draw people's attention to a couple of recent developments regarding "no-planes" theory on 9/11. There appears to be a video being circulated widely across the FACEBOOK platform which portrays the "no-plane" theory anomalies within the 2nd plane videos as "video fakery", going-on to promote inserted "CGI planes" into the 9/11 video evidence.


As many may know we have already established with research by Richard D. Hall and his 3D Radar Analysis and other researcher's; Andrew Johnson and myself, that it is most likely that the planes were some type of advanced "image projection" technology which were videoed and photographed by various eyewitnesses to the 2nd plane impact event in NYC.

From my own research I have already exposed various 9/11 researchers' who have "falsely" promoted "video fakery" as the answer to many of the anomalies captured in the 2nd plane impact videos. The promotion of "video fakery" was a clever "Psychological Operation" which was circulated to "cover-up" the existence of the "advanced" image projection technology. It has been the aim by those 9/11 researchers' such as; Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Markus Allen and many others to promote this "false" explanation to conceal such technology, something which I have written about in the past in my blog articles. 

I would urge anyone NOT to "Like" or "Share" this FACEBOOK video, as it is perpetuating the promotion of disinformation. If possible link our research material to counter such videos "falsely" promoting "video fakery" or "CGI Planes". 

Secondly, a news article was published online in the Sunday Express, a UK based online newspaper, where they managed to turn a landslide disaster which killed 17 people in Colombia into a "conspiracy theory" hit piece. 


    
The article made ridiculing references about "conspiracy theorists" in relation to advanced technology "Holograms" and "Project Blue Beam".  


Jon Austin the autor of the this article felt the need to take the opportunity from this terrible landslide disaster (which killed 17 people and displaced many from their homes), by turning the suvivour's religious beliefs towards a "light formation" which they interpreted to be an apparition of Jesus, to make a "mockery" of the disaster, by portraying anyone who believes in the existence of "Holograms" or "Project Blue Beam" as some sort of tin-foil hat wearing nut-case. I think this says far more about Jon Austin's state of mind than any conspiracy theorist's. 





I think Jon Austin should examin his own values and beliefs of what really matters when a diaster like this happens and consider the people who have lost their lives and the poor family members left behind who are grieving, whether they believe in Jesus or not, or whether a formation of light brought comfort to them in their time of grief from their interpretation that it was Jesus, rather than his own heartless, unempathic agenda to focus on "conspiracy theories" instead.

Is there more to the article than meets the eye? "Managing Perceptions"
Was the article combined deliberately to manage people's perceptions when it comes to advanced image projections technologies? Was the specifically article produced because of the growing numbers of people who are now believing that an advanced "image projection" or "hologram" was used on 9/11 to create the planes in the sky which hit the towers, thus to control people's perceptions regarding anyone who might question the veracity of the 9/11 video evidence of the "planes", implanting a sense of discouragment to believe in such technology, by already deliberately "implanting" a negative perception? As we know the "video fakery" Psychological -Opperation was used to conceal such "image projection" technology, and has now been exposed, along with those behind it. Are articles like this one above early interventions and damage control because more people are questioning "video fakery" and are now seeing that some type of "image projection" was used on 9/11? 

There seems no other reasonalble explanation for this article of a landslide disaster to have been subtly combined with "conspiracy theories", other than to discourage questioning minds and control perceptions in relation to the advanced technology of holograms or image projections and 9/11. 

Here's a video of the type of image projection, holographic technology which exists today.

 
Is it beyond the stretch of our imagination that this type of image projection, holographic technology could've been used on 9/11?  See video below:




 Thanks for reading!



    

Sunday, 27 August 2017

"No-Plane, It Was A Bomb" - Fox News Eyewitness Account - "QUESTIONS"


By Mark Conlon

On 9/11 at 10:05am Fox News showed an eyewitness giving his very brief account that "it was not a second plane it was a bomb, no second plane" to Rick Leventhal. Many 9/11 researchers' have claimed this is evidence of a "real" eyewitness interupting a "staged" news event. This video has been widely circulated across the internet as evidence of "No-Plane At All" hitting the South Tower.  


While I believe this eyewitnesse's account, I doubt the claims made by some 9/11 researchers' that this is evidence for disruption of a "staged" news event. I also question whether this can be used as "absolute" evidence for the "no-plane at all" hit the South Tower building theory. While I do "not" believe the planes we were told hit the North Tower, South Tower, Pentagon or in Shankville, I "do" believe some type of "object" hit the North and South Towers which people witnessed and believed to be a plane, which they videoed and photographed. 

My reason for questioning the "No-Plane At All" Theory:  
Because people such as; Simon Shack and Ace Baker who have promoted this theory and produced very doubious research findings in relation to these type of claims, thus to promote the use of inserting and compositing "fake" planes into the television news coverage. It appears from my research that this was delieberately done to cast doubt over the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence, which has been used to discredit the work of Dr. Judy Wood and also to act as cover-story to conceal the use of some type of advanced "image projection" technology system, which created the image of a plane in the sky which many people witnessesed, photographed and video taped. 

Strange anomalies were captured, especially the South Tower crash videos, such as; disappearing wings, impossible speed of the (Flight 175) plane, and also a lack of crash physics of the plane impacting the South Tower building, which is why "video fakery" was promoted as the answer and to explain the strange anomalies within the videos and photographs.   

Logical questions should be asked to establish the veracity of this eyewitnesse's account. Unfortunately this is never considered by the 9/11 researchers' who use this eyewitnesse's account as evidence of "no planes at all".

A logical questions: Where was the eyewitness located when he didn't see the plane hit the South Tower, which led him to believe it was a "bomb" he witnessed?

  1. Where was the eyewitness located when the explosion happened?
  2. Was he located on the "Northside" of the face of the South Tower?    
  3. What view of the sky or building did the eyewitness have which led him to determine "no-plane" hit the South Tower and believe it was a bomb? 
 


These are all legitimate questions to be considered before concluding that "no-plane at all" hit the South Tower. The simple answer is we don't know where the eyewitness was located at the time of second plane impacting the South Tower building. We know Rick Leventhal was located further-up by Church and Murray St, which is on the Northside of the South Tower not far from the alleged plane engine which exited the South Tower and landed on Murray St. If this was the case that this Fox News eyewitness was located on the Northside of the South Tower, then one might expect he didn't see the plane's approach and impact into the South Tower building, which might be why he genuinely thought it was a "bomb" going-off in the South Tower. There were many eyewitness accounts of "no-plane" regarding the South Tower event which were broadcast live on 9/11, however frustratingly we don't have their initial locations to determine exactly where their locations were and also their vantage points to the event of what they witnessed, as in the case of the Fox News eyewitness. 

Concusion:
Can we determine that this was a disruption of a "staged" news report? In my personal opinion "NO", because of all the reasons I raise above and the insufficient answers to the questions I've asked, however I do believe the news report was "genuine" not "staged", with a geniune eyewitness account who didn't see the plane who was possibily located on the Northside of the South Tower where Rick Leventhal was located, which is why the eyewitness believed there was "no-plane at all" and it was a "bomb" exploding from inside the South building.

I am very sceptical of the person (Dimitri Khalezov) who posted this particular video which I have posted above of the Fox News "no-plane" eyewitness account. Much exposure was given to Dimitri Khalezov and his “nuclear demolition” of the WTC buildings on 9/11. Dmitri cannot explain Hurricane Erin's presence, nor the silent disappearance of the WTC buildings. Looking at his theories of a "nuclear furnace" created beneath the WTC which as he says "melted down into" is pure nonsense. We saw the steel turning-to-dust and empty basement levels at the bottom of the WTC!! 

I suggest reading this chapter; “Re-incarnated” WTC Nuke Theory
and Dimitri Khalezov, in Andrew Johnson's "free" book: 9/11 Finding The Truth  

I can only conclude that Dimitri Khalezov has put-out "disinformation" in attempt to "muddle-up" or to distract people away from Dr. Judy Wood's evidence she presents in her book; Where Did The Towers Go? Plus, by posting the Fox News eyewitness account of "no-plane at all" suggests in people's minds the possiblity of the use of "video fakery" and "staged" news media broadcasts which calls into question the 9/11 video evidence record, something heavily promoted by Simon Shack to discredit Dr. Judy Wood and to cover the use of a "Directed Energy Weapon" to destroy the WTC buidings, and also to conceal the use of an advanced "image projection" technology system which was captured in the videos and photographs of the plane impacting the South Tower, thus not by use the of "inserting" fake CGI planes into the 9/11 video footage. 

Other article of interest regarding eyewitness accounts is Andrew Johnson's Going in Search of Planes in NYC

 
Thank you for reading!




Friday, 25 August 2017

Who Is 9/11 Harley Guy..? "Seeing Through The Disinformation"

 
By Mark Conlon
 
Much has been made in recent years of the use of "crisis actors" involved in relation to 9/11 and a number of "staged" terrorist attacks that followed. Much of the early promotion of "crisis actors" originated and was heavily promoted by Simon Shack, along with other so-called 9/11 researchers'. 

One of the most famous 9/11 cases was the "Harley Guy" on Fox News who gave an account of the "official" 9/11 WTC building collapse story from the get-go, or did he?

There has been many people who believe the "Harley Guy" to be actor Mark Adrian Humphries. Of course Mark Humphries denies any involvement on 9/11, and claims he was in Los Angeles at the time the 9/11 events were happening.

See image below: Taken from Simon Shack's - September Clues forum. 

 

So who is the "Harley Guy"? I still see and hear people accusing Mark Humphries of being the "Harley Guy". From research which doesn't get much attention around the internet it appears that the "Harley Guy" is actually Mark Walsh, who worked freelance for Fox. 

See Image below:

  
  
The video below is two short excerpts from "Psycho Mark" Walsh and Ben Sparks' radio broadcast on May 5, 2011. Mark and Ben and callers discuss 9/11 and the 10th anniversary of the WTC attacks following Osama bin Laden's capture. Mark Walsh speaks of his experiences on 9/11, and the discussion returns to 9/11, and Mark Walsh is informed that he's known as the infamous "Harley Guy" from 9/11 on YouTube, much to his surprise. (Walsh has been nicknamed "Harley Guy" on the internet, because he was wearing a Harley Davidson shirt during his 9/11 Fox News interview.)


Here is the Google Earth link which shows the proximity of Mark Walsh's building to the WTC towers (satellite view). http://g.co/maps/mkr7w

The full length original broadcast can be found on this link: http://podbay.fm/show/277283542/e/130...

Also, Sept. 11, 2001

Here is a clip from the Opie & Anthony Show from 9/11/01 where they talk about Mark Walsh living near the WTC and him witnessing the attacks from his apartment and appearing on TV with Fox News that morning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYKqBC...


Below is an excellent video made by "conspiracy theorista" exposing more "false" disinformation which was circulated saying; that Mark Walsh "Harley Guy" was really Nick Pugh. See Video analysis below:



In conclusion:
It is clear to see that "Harley Guy" is in fact Mark Walsh and not Mark Adrian Humphries the actor, or Nick Pugh. Clearly, disinformation is being circulated by certain so-called 9/11 researchers. Was this done to help create a later "Psy-Op" regarding crisis actors, which seems to play a prevalent role in many of today's "conspiracy theories" involving "fake" terrorist attacks?  

Another note to consider: Most people have said how cool Mark Walsh looks when delivering his lines on 9/11. I don't recognise this, I see someone who was quite anxious, who couldn't stand still, and was talking quite quickly and looks flustered. 

Also, because Mark Walsh was working freelance for Fox News that day, is it possible that he got his "official" information regarding the WTC building's collapses straight from Fox News and inadvertently repeated what he had been informed had happened to the WTC buildings into his own recollections of his own experience during the interview unknowingly, thus,inadvertantly describing the "official" collapse story perfectly.

Evidence for this is Mark Walsh's use of the term "Ground Zero", which later became the "official" term of the destruction area. Was this a coincidence that Mark Walsh called it "Ground Zero", or does this suggest the information came from an official organisation such as Fox News, who might have had scripted information fed to them and communicated to their reporters' and freelancers' at the scene, such as Mark Walsh, who unknowingly repeated the "official" collapse story? This is never an option of consideration in the conspiracy theory community. Does this make Mark Walsh a conspirator, or unknowingly used in a conspiracy?

I believe this could be a possibility and should be considered before accusing people of being part of a conspiracy, especially the "wrong" people such as Mark Adrian Humphries or Mark Pugh. Another question raised is; Was this just a this a follow-up "Psy-Op" in itself to implant the idea of the use of "crisis actors" in all terrorist attacks that followed, which seems to have now attached itself to every terrorist attack event without thorough inquiry of evidence first?


Thanks for reading!


 

Tuesday, 18 July 2017

Michael Hezarkhani Video - Plane Wing & North Tower Anomaly - "EXPLAINED"


By Mark Conlon

In this short analysis I will explore a theory that has been circulating the internet regarding Flight 175's plane wing briefly passing behind the edge of the North Tower Building in the Michael Hezarkhani video footage. Many people have thought that this was proof and evidence that the Michael Hezarkhani's video was fabricated. See image below:


To briefly explain why the plane's wing appears to be going behind the North Tower's edge in this version above of the Michael Hezarkhani video, is because the video has been converted into "super" slow-motion. This is a process which takes a normal video recording at 30fps and makes it into 60fps or even 90fps using some computer software. This is so the video runs smoother when viewed in slow-motion. 

The process to create a "super" slow-motion effect basically creates interpreted frames between the "original" frames. So the frame being created is not entirely a genuine frame, as it is an interpreted creation of two frames which is known as "motion interpolation", also known as: Inbetweening or tweening which is the process of generating "intermediate" frames between two images to give the appearance that the first image evolves smoothly into the second image, which is why we see the anomaly circled in red in the video image above, where the plane's wing appears to disappear behind the edge of the North Tower building. This anomaly is no-way attributed to "video fakery" as suggested by many researchers. Just an artefact of the software to create the video to appear in "super" slow-motion. 

The process of creating super slow-motion video: 



As we can see the plane's wing is very similar in colour to the North Tower's edge colour. The computer software struggles to separate the two colours, especially when trying to convert and create a lower quality compressed version of the of Michael Hezarkhani video, which is why we see the visual separation effect between the plane's wing and building. See the image on the right below:


As we can observe in the two comparison images above, the image on the left shows the plane's wing is not separated between the North Tower's edge, however they do merge together, because the plane's wing passes in front of the North Tower's edge, however the image on the right demonstrates how the computer software interpreted the frame, thus creating the appearance of the wing disappearing behind the North Tower's edge in the "super" slow-motion video version when compared to the "original" frame on the left.

See below "original" 3 x frames of the Michael Hezarkhani video showing that the plane's wing does "NOT" pass behind the North Tower's building edge...


Conclusion:
As we can see, legitimate explanations explain the anomaly in this case, and it cannot be attributed to "video fakery" as suggested by many researchers. Any analysis of the Michael Hezarkhani video should be conducted with the best quality video possible, and not in super slow-motion.


Thank you for reading! 




Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Analysis of Steve De'ak's "Frozen Smoke" Claim in the Michael Hezarkhani Video


By Mark Conlon

This is a short analysis of Steve De'ak's claim which he made during an interview with Jim Fetzer on the 26th March 2017, where Steve De'ak claimed the smoke/fumes plume in the Michael Hezarkhani video "freezes". After hearing this claim I decided to conduct a short analysis on the 13th April 2017 and I am publishing the finding here today after clarifying some information from Steve De'ak on the 10th July 2017.

See below: for my short analysis of the smoke/fumes plume

I have clarified from Steve De'ak the "time-frame" which he was referring to regarding the frames which that were "allegedly" frozen in the Michael Hezarkhani video in his interview with Jim Fetzer. He confirmed to me on the 10th July 2017 that it was when the plane "enters" the video shot until the plane "impacts" the South Tower. The reason for asking Steve De'ak for clarification was because I was unsure of the exact time-frame he referred to in the video footage. This is what lead me to conduct two different time-frame studies of the video footage smoke/fumes plume. See the 2nd analysis findings below.



See below: "close-up" comparison of the smoke/fumes plume characteristic differences in the different frames, from just before the plane "crashes" into the South Tower to when the plane "impacts" the South Tower.


The two analysis studies above "conclusively" demonstrate that the smoke/fumes plume in the Michael Hezarkhan video footage was "NOT" frozen in the frames as Steve De'ak claimed. 

Information update:
I can now update some new information after my many back and forth comments with Steve De'ak through his YouTube channel. I can now confirm on 10th July 2017 that Steve De'ak told me he has "retracted" his claims for "frozen" smoke/fumes in the Michael Hezarkhani video. 

See below: 


Although this might solve this matter of frozen smoke/fumes, it doesn't solve the "new" claims which Steve De'ak is proposing about the Michael Hezarkhani video, which I will be addressing in another blog soon. What I can say is, it appears yet again that "false" claims are being made and circulated across the internet about the Michael Hezarkhan video footage which has been a characteristic over a long time period with an apparant focus to "discredit" the video fooatge and portray it as "video fakery", something which I speak about at length in other blogs. The question that has to be aksed is: Why is it so important to discredit this piece of video footage?

Characteristics: The discrediting of the video evidence - Michael Hezarkhani video


Please read this interesting article written by Andrew Johnson of checktheevidence.com regarding Steve De'ak's 9/11 Crash Test. Link below:
 

This case is now closed...



Saturday, 8 July 2017

'One Born Free' and the Hezarkhani Video "Deceptions"


By Mark Conlon

In this analysis I would like to draw attention to a blog article which was published on 16th February 2014 by an "anonymous" 9/11 researcher who goes under the pseudonym 'One Born Free' (OBF). Article link: http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/911-scams-why-jim-fetzerace-baker-and.html


The thrust of the article states that the Michael Hezarkhani video of 'Flight 175' impacting the South Tower is a "100% digital fabrication", defining that a plane was not inserted into a real piece of video footage, and neither a hologram was captured in the videos and photographs. 

In the article the author is not shy of naming people and organisations who he believes lack "imagery analysis" skills to conduct research of the video and photographic evidence of 9/11. Does this suggest he believes he does possess such "imagery analysis" skills? One might interpret his comment that he does consider himself to possess such "image analysis" skills, especially after naming those who he believes are "guilty" of not possessing such "image analysis" skills. Note, the author has not disclosed his "real" name or share his identity, considering the people he has named so far in his article have. This is something which has to be considered, especially if you are going to present research which you cannot put your name to, or identity.   

Judging by the author's assertive intro in his article, one might expect the piece of video evidence which he submits as conclusive proof of the Michael Hezarkhani video being "100% fabrication", should stand-up to serious "image analysis" scrutiny. 

My Analysis of OBF's Evidence:

According to the author he cites a gif image of the Michael Hezarkhani video where he claims the plane in the video remains "stationary" while the South Tower building moves across towards the plane. Note, the gif image which OBF cites as his evidence is from an "anonymous" source. The only referenced is from someone called teardrop - " The teardrop analysis". The person has not identified themselves who created this gif image. 

When watching the video gif image below it has a red line centred in the middle of the video frame, this allegedly demonstrates that the plane is stationary and the building is moving. It does appear quite convincing evidence at first glance, as it does look like the plane is "stationary" and the building does appear to be moving to the left in the video.


When studying the above gif image closely there appears to be one glaring flaw which really stands-out, which needs to be discussed and thoroughly explained if we are to understand how this deceptive "illusion" was created.

The first important point to make is, we are "NOT" looking at the complete video frame perspective of the Michael Hezarkhani video. The gif image has been "re-framed" to fit around the plane. The outer peripheral view has been cropped out. I've highlighted this by inserting a "white box" in the image below, which illustrates what we are not seeing outside of the "white box"

   
So I can thoroughly analyse the video evidence I've also inserted some coordinate marker lines into the video image, this is to help me with my analysis so I can determine whether or not the plane is stationary, or the building is moving as alleged, and also to assess the panning of the video camera. What we can determine so far is, we are NOT seeing the "complete" frame image in the gif images which the author cites as his evidence.   

Proving the plane is moving and the building is stationary...
Firstly, I'm going to use the first video frame to plot some "marker" points on the first still video image below. This will consist of a "centre" yellow line set in place in the centre of the frame, along with a red line positioned where the plane is located in the gif image cited by OBF. I have run the rie line straight through to the top of the frame and positioned a "white box" as re-framed in the gif image around the plane. I also placed an orange line positioned on the left hand side of the South Tower's top edge. I can then use these three plotted reference marker points when I overlay them onto each of the following proceeding frames. This will allow me to determine any movement within the following video frame images. This will prove whether or not the plane is "stationary" or the plane is "moving" and also check to see if the building is moving, or if in fact if it is the videographer who is panning his video camera.


Below: I have overlaid the marker reference points from the first frame still image onto the "top" of proceeding frame. What are we observing and what can we determine from this? Note: I have also moved the "white box" which has the plane equally place in the centre.


I can determine that the South Tower is "stationary" in the frame, although note the orange marker line on the South Tower's edge has shifted to the left of the yellow central marker line. What does this prove? It demonstrates that the videographer is panning the video camera to the right. I can also determine that the plane is moving towards the South Tower because the red "plane" marker reference point does not line-up with the overlaid top red marker reference point, as it has shifted to the right when compared to the red marker on the "original" frame overlay. This conclusively proves that the plane is "not" "stationary" as suggested by OBF, and is travelling towards the South Tower. Please also note how the "white box" which is centred (re-framed) around the plane with the red line in it, looks like the gif image, which gives the "false" impression that the plane remains central and stationary. (Nice illusion until you observe the "outer" information in the full video frame, where the red line has shifted out of alignment with the red line outside of the "white box").

The same shift out of alignment can be observe in the other proceeding frames, when the "original" frame marker reference point lines are overlaid, See below:




An important point to make is that the two re-framed images above show that the centre red line in the re-framed "white box" perspective appears to be following the plane. This is how the illusion (deception) is achieved, making it look as though the plane is "stationary" and the building to be moving to the left, when in reality this is not the case, as it is the re-framing "white box" which is tracking the plane. You can only create this illusion if you don't see the surrounding peripheral information of the "full" video Michael Hezarkhani frame which shows that the red line on the proceeding frames shifts out of alignment, which is why you have to "re-frame" the video image and remove the outer viewing information, or else this illusion will not work. It is the information we don't see outside of the "white box" that is the key to creating such an illusion and deception. See below:     

  

Above are four images taken from my proceeding frames analysis. When you observe these four images "without" the outer information outside of the "white box" it appears like the plane remains "stationary" and tracked prefectly with the red line, yet the information outside the "white box" in the full video frames tell a different story. 

The illusion is created by "re-framing" the frame to follow and track the plane, and then inserting a red line to give the impression that the plane is remaining central in the re-framed image. In simple laymans terms, the full view video frames have been "cropped" to follow the plane and keep it central in the new "re-framed" gif images, to create this clever illusion.    
 

The only conclusion that can be reached for creating this deception and motive behind this disinformation is to cast doubt in people's minds that the Michael Hezarkhani video is fake. This deception can only be interpreted as a "deliberate" act to which to create such an illusion and go to such lengths to re-frame the video perspective shot to follow the plane's path and by inserting the red line which merely acts to increase its plausibility in the deception. 

The fact is, the plane was "moving" and the building was "stationary", which is proven in my analysis above. I have also demonstrated how this "illusion" was achieved. This was not hard to find out how this was done. My question is, why has OBF cited such a poor deceptive "hoax" as evidence?  Surely his high standard image analysis should've unpicked this illusion deception, just like I have.

Another "false" claim presented as fact by OBF...
 
Another point to address in OBF's article is the statement he makes as a fact, that people with hand held video cameras cannot track and video an object travelling at 500mph. This is again "false", and is not fact, especially when we apply this alleged fact to the Michael Hezarkhani's video. 

In my short analysis below I'm going to plot Michael Hezarkhani's reaction to the plane as it enters his video camera's lens. I have applied the same principles by plotting a reference point in the first frame, then overlaying the reference point onto the proceeding frames. See analysis below:



What I can determine from this analysis is, that Michael Hezarkhani does not react immediately as the plane enters his video camera lens view. I have highlight this by plotting Point (A) to Point (B). What we do observe is minor movement of his video camera, as the plane travels from point (A) to point (B). This is demonstrated because the yellow centre line overlaid onto the following frame shows that the South Tower remains steady in the shot, and the distance between yellow marker line and the South Tower slightly narrows. We do observe the video camera being raised slightly though. 

Michael Hezarkhani only begins to react to the plane as it is right in front of the South Tower, as there little react from point (A) to point (B). Only from point (B) onwards do we observe a minor reaction because the yellow centre line and the South Tower gap begins to narrow, as the videographer begins to pan the video camera to the "right" to track the plane. This happens as the plane is just in front of the South Tower building, is when we see video camera movement as the plane enters the South Tower, thus the South Tower crosses the yellow centre line marker, which I have highlighted with red circles on two of the still image frames below. 

   
This shows there is very little panning in the camera shot to track the plane, as the video camera remains almost centred throughout the video footage sequence, and only do we observe Michael Hezarkhani attempting to track the plane at the very last second as the plane is in front of the South Tower building in his video footage. 

So it appears that a "false" point has been raised here by OBF. Surely if OBF has studied the video footage correctly he would also reach the same conclusion as I did which I've demonstrated in the still images above. 

Another point raised by OBF but one that has been dealt with by myself some years ago is Michael Hezarkhani's location. An interesting note, I could only get Michael Hezarkhani's video location to match-up in Google Earth by being on the top deck of the ferry boat docked in Battery Park: See details below:

  
Also OBF talks about an unstable platform. This is exactly what we observe in the Michael Hezarkhani video, the slight rocking of the ferry boat. See below: 


As we observe in the two frames above, the video footage is unstable and shows slight tilting of the camera shot, which is from being on-board the ferry boat, which is what one might expect from being situated on a boat. 

Conclusion:

There are two distinct areas which really stand-out in the conclusions of my analysis. We had an intro by the blog author OBF, where he named names of 9/11 researchers' who he believed "lacked" any real skills in simple "imagery analysis". What has really stood-out in my analysis here is, he "himself" has demonstrated a complete lack of "image analysis" skills, by not knowing that he has cited fraudulent evidence of a "stationary" plane and "moving building" in the Michael Hezarkhani gif image which OBF endorses in his article. 

As you can see from analysis, this was merely a "deceptive" piece of gif imagery made by someone called teardrop in 2007-8 which was easily debunked when I demonstrate how the illusion is created. There's no doubt that the gif he has provided as evidence was "deliberately" made to deceive people. The questions which now have to asked are, did this "creative" deliberate illusion deceive OBF himself? Or, was he party to promulgating disinformation?

Again it is clear, the main thrust of OBF's article is to cast doubt over the Michael Hezarkhani video footage, something which has become a characteristic over the years for promotor's of "video fakery" to do. Is this because the videos are actually real and show an image of something which was not a real physical plane, thus disseminating disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that an advanced "image projection" technology was used to create the illusion of plane crashes?  It is clear that Simon Shack has been promulgating falsehoods in his September Clues films, so one must consider carefully OBF's close alignment with Simon Shack, or should I say Simon Hytten.


This case is now closed!