Saturday, 30 December 2017

Setting The Record Straight About The Michael Hezarkhani Video


By Mark Conlon

In the video below, I explain some of the misconceptions and disinformation which has been circulated over the years by various 9/11 researchers' in relation to the "historical" Michael Hezarkhani video, where they have incorrectly claimed it to be a fake video.


The reason I believe "falsehoods" have been put-out about the Michael Hezarkhani video is to cast doubt in people's minds as to what was really captured in the video, thus to "discredit" the video visual evidence contained within it, such as; impossible plane speed and impossible crash physics. This video could potentially reveal the use of an advanced "image projection" technology, if people were to believe the video is authentic, thus ruling out video fakery. This appears to be why "video fakery" was introduced around 2003-4 as a clever "Psychological Operation" to create enough doubt in people's minds regarding the 9/11 visual evidence record through subtle perception management, thus to conceal an advance "image projection" technology. 

A Brief History Lesson: 
It was Thierry Meyssan in October 2001 who first discovered evidence that "No-Plane" was involved in the Pentagon attack, which he wrote about in his two books; 9/11 The Big Lie - released in March 2002 and Pentagate - released in June 2002. 
 
Meyssan's hypothesis contends a missile hit the Pentagon not a plane. Something which I agree with. It was following Meyssan's revelations that around 2003-4 that the "No-Plane" theory was born and carried over to the WTC New York event, which was promoted by Rosalee Grable AKA "The Webfairy" and Gerrard Holmgren. (Sadly both are no longer with us). A list of other "video fakery" promoters can be seen below:


Please find links to articles & information I refer to in my video below: 


*NEW VIDEO EVIDENCE* UPDATED: 03/01/2018
I feel this is important new evidence discovered by 'Conspiracy Cuber', who posted this video evidence of the ferry boat docked in Battery Park which Michael Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor were stationed on when they documented the 2nd WTC event. See Below:

 Video Published on 24th Dec 2017 by Conspiracy Cuber




Please follow me to keep track of new articles I post at my blog by pressing the "Follow-Me" button. Or you can contact me using the "Contact Form" at the bottom of the side-bar located on the right hand side of the blog page. 


Thank you for reading and watching!


***********IMPORTANT NEW UPDATE 7th Jan 2018**************

It now appears that Steve De'ak is now responding to this article I wrote by calling me a "Con"? So he is now reverting to name calling, and not talking about the actual content of my video analysis I produced. 


He admits in his latest Facebook comment that he didn't read or listen to what I was saying in my video, as he only read a so-called apparent "frauds" list. This is an inaccurate reference in his comment, as I make no reference to the list being a "list of frauds" in my article, which he would reliese if he had read the article or watched the videos. In the paragraph I provide a "brief" history of "No-Planes", then show a list of people who have promoted video fakery, No-Planes and also holograms.


Please Note: The two people I refer to in my article above Rosalee Grable AKA (The Webfairy) and Gerard Holmgren are no longer with us on this planet.. which I reflected in the article saying "Sadly both are no longer with us".. 

If you read through all my previous blogs, there is no reference to either Rosalee Grable or Gerard Holmgren, and certainly NOT in a "negative" light, or being called "FRAUDS" in my blog articles, I merely quote a fact that both believed "No-Planes" were involved in the WTC attacks, and also believe TV Fakery/Video Fakery was involved, which I disagree with. Rosalee herself has many times made clear during many interviews her position on the subject, and archive history is the same for Gerard Holmgren. I just state their last known position on the subject which is factual.

Please Note: The list accurately states that Steve De'ak has promoted Video Fakery, No Planes and Crash Test. At no-point is he called a "fraud" or was the list called a "frauds list". In my articles I have always been respectful towards Steve De'ak, and expressed why I disagree with his findings or theories regarding "video fakery" and the Hezarkhani video. 


In fact I showed Steve De'ak credit for showing "humility" twice and admitting when he was wrong about two theories he had changed his position on after observing new evidence. So I am not quite sure as to why he feels this is bad to document people's inaccurate theories, or make light of the changes in their positions once held.



I even quoted where I had changed my own position on the Fox News - Chopper5 "Nose-out" sequence because of new evidence presented to me. So Steve's issues towards myself pointing-out when people are wrong in their theories, according Steve De'ak makes me a "CON", which doesn't really quite sit with the investigative research method, as after all my main body of research has proven conclusively the many flaws in Simon Shack's - September Clues film. Is this something I should not have talked about or pointed out regarding the "incorrect" points which are made by Simon Shack, or should I have kept quite about it so we can all still believe the inaccurate points proposed by Simon Shack in his September Clues film? Would this bring around progress in finding the truth, just so people can feel nice and comfortable in their "comfort zone"... NO! So why does Steve claim this is a dishonest practice, and not someone looking to find the truth...?

Please Note: I have not called Steve De'ak a "fraud", as he claimed I have in his latest Facebook comment. I would ask him to produce evidence of me calling him personally a FRAUD...?


I also corrected Steve's claim that I had deleted my YouTube comments, which I addressed in my recent response 19/12/2017 to Steve's De'ak's questions to me on his blog/website 17/12/2017. As I explained my 'YouTube Channel' was closed down by YouTube, thus deleting all my comments in the thread, not by myself deleting my comments which he again has "inaccurately" repeated in his latest Facebook comments. 

On a final note, what is clear all this diverts attention away from the "original" findings of the analysis I did regarding the Hezarkhani video, thus pointing-out the incorrect claims made about the Michael Hezarkhani video and also my analysis of Steve De'ak's claim about Michael Hezarkhani fuzzing-out, blurring and fabricating his video evidence to conceal the plane gash, which I believe to be incorrect, and based on no evidence offered other than what Steve De'ak says Michael Hezarkhani did to his video.  

So I will leave it to the viewer/reader of the article and update to make of Steve De'ak's claims about me and to draw their own conclusions...


Thank you for reading and caring...



Friday, 29 December 2017

Analysis of Steve De'ak's Claim Regarding the Michael Hezarkhani Video "Plane Gash"


By Mark Conlon


This is a short video I made addressing Steve De'ak's claim on Jim Fetzer's show on the 16th June 2017. Steve De'ak claimed that Michael Hezarkhani fabricated and manipulated his video footage of the plane shaped gash in the South Tower building. In this analysis I demonstrate that Michael Hezarkhani did not manipulated his video by adding smoke or blurring-out the plane hole gash, as Steve De'ak claims. 

   

This video has not been made to discredit Steve De'ak, it has been made to point-out what I believe to be an "invalid" theory that Steve De'ak presented on Jim Fetzer's show. 

As I have already stated in my response on 19th Decemeber to Steve De'ak's blog post on the 17th December 2017, I would be happy to point-out any areas where I felt Steve is correct in his analysis of the plane gash damage in the North Tower which he presents in his videos. I have not fully researched this area to reach any conclusion regarding Steve's ideas/theories. My main focus and contention has been analysing the claims regarding the video footage which many 9/11 researchers present as "video fakery". I felt this was a valid example which needed addressing and correcting. I welcome any feedback through the "Contact Form" located at the bottom of the right-hand side-bar of my blog page. 


Thank you for reading, watching and caring...



      

Friday, 22 December 2017

9/11 Holding the Truth "Chapter 18" Methodical Creation of a Methodical Illusion


 By Mark Conlon


Here's another chapter I'm featuring from Andrew's new book '9/11 Holding the Truth' which Andrew has converted into audio format. I feel this is an important chapter to feature.

9/11 Holding the Truth "Chapter 18" Methodical Creation of a Methodical Illusion - (Rebekah Roth).


To hear all 29 chapters from Andrew Johnson's "New" Book: 9/11 Holding the Truth, visit his 'Playlist' on his YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX_9c2xy6YwGr7fycx1Kcb4G71zCHwYf8

Or you can download all the 29 chapters in MP3 file format here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/index.php?dir=911%20Holding%20the%20Truth%20-%20Audio%20Book/

Or purchase a hardcopy of the book here:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/http://www.lulu.com/shop/andrew-johnson-and-nick-buchanan/911-holding-the-truth/paperback/product-23439896.html
The truth about what happened to the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001 was discovered by Dr Judy Wood, through careful research between 2001 and 2008. The author of this book, Andrew Johnson, had a “good view” of how later parts of Dr Wood’s research “came together.” Not only that, he was also involved in activities, correspondence and research which illustrated that this truth was being deliberately covered up. This book is a companion and follow-up volume to “9/11 Finding the Truth” – and documents ongoing (and successful) efforts to keep the truth out of the reach of most of the population.

Evidence in this book, gathered over a period of 12 years, shows that the cover up is “micro-managed,” internationally and even globally. The book names people who are involved in the cover up. It illustrates how they often stick to “talking points” and seem to have certain patterns of behaviour. It attempts to illustrate how difficult it is to prevent the truth from being marginalised, attacked and “muddled up.” Additionally, other evidence pertaining to the events of 9/11 is studied in an attempt to show the vast implications of what is now known. The book aims to open the reader’s mind to the power of the group or groups that perpetrated this enormous deception. At the same time, it is shown that the secrets revealed contain the knowledge for positively transforming the world we live in.


I encourage all of you to read or listen to this book to understand the "cover-up" perpetrated by so-called 9/11 researchers who claim to want the truth who's mission appears to conceal the truth and the use of an "image projection" technology to create a powerful illusion of a plane impacting the South Tower and also the use of a "directed energy weapon" which turned the towers to dust.


Thanks for reading and caring....



Wednesday, 20 December 2017

9/11 Holding the Truth "Chapter 08" 9 or 11 Clues about Simon Shack and a 3D Analysis of Flight 175


By Mark Conlon

Here's an audio version of "Chapter 08" from Andrew Johnson's new Book. "9/11 Holding the Truth". 

Here's another chapter I'm featuring from Andrew's new book, which he has converted into audio format. I feel this is an important article he wrote which he included in his book in relation to Simon Shack. 

9 or 11 Clues about Simon Shack and a 3D Analysis of Flight 175 

 
To hear all 29 chapters from Andrew Johnson's "New" Book: 9/11 Holding the Truth, visit his 'Playlist' on his YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX_9c2xy6YwGr7fycx1Kcb4G71zCHwYf8

Or you can download all the 29 chapters in MP3 file format here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/index.php?dir=911%20Holding%20the%20Truth%20-%20Audio%20Book/

Or purchase a hardcopy of the book here:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/http://www.lulu.com/shop/andrew-johnson-and-nick-buchanan/911-holding-the-truth/paperback/product-23439896.html

I encourage all of you to read or listen to this book to understand the "cover-up" perpetrated by so-called 9/11 researchers who claim to want the truth who's mission appears to conceal the truth and the use of an "image projection" technology to create a powerful illusion of a plane impacting the South Tower and also the use of a "directed energy weapon" which turned the towers to dust.


Thanks for reading and caring....
 

Tuesday, 19 December 2017

My Open Response to Steve De'ak's Blog Post - 17th December 2017


By Mark Conlon


Hello Steve,

Thanks for contacting me so to speak. Sorry you couldn’t leave a comment on my blog site. Yes, you correctly state that I block comments. I do this because of the amount of "anonymous" spammers who refuse to identify themselves. I do have a “contact button” in the side-bar of my blog where people who are serious in this subject can contact me directly if they wish. People seem to contact me this way who have serious comments or questions to ask, rather than people who just continually spam blog posts under “false” names.

As you may know my main body of research initially has been exposing “falsehoods” put-out by Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Markus Allen, BS Registration and others too many to name here, where I have demonstrated how they have promoted “false” arguments of “video fakery” in order to discredit or cast doubt over the 9/11 video evidence. I have proven this conclusively, and there can be no other way to draw inference and hypothesise from the facts and evidence I have presented over the past 4 years. This is why I analysed your “frozen smoke” theory claims in the Michael Hezarkhani video, because it was related to an area of research I have been doing around “video fakery”, especially in relation to the Michael Hezarkhani video in particular. This is why I particularly pointed-out errors in your theory. If you remember you revised your position regarding the “frozen smoke” which I reflected at the end of the blog article I did, and felt that was only fair to you. http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/analysis-of-steve-deaks-frozen-smoke.html 

I also felt it right to post a blog acknowledging when people correct or are open to re-evaluating previous hypothesis because of new evidence. I have recently done this myself regarding the Fox News “nose-out” sequence, because of clearer video evidence proving it to be a “dust cloud”. It was only right to update my own position or thoughts about that video footage, which I have done and posted on my blog.  http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/new-evidence-analysis-proves-911-nose.html 

Also a question which I can never get a straight answer to with most “video fakery” promotors is, how did they control every video in NYC of the event without at least one or two slipping through the net showing a missile or no-plane hitting the South Tower? How did they control witnesses who did see a plane and hear a plane? What was they seeing if they did see the image of a plane in the sky with their own eyes and also how did videographers actually follow through the sky the object if nothing was there? This cannot be just put down to implanted media reporting after the fact. I have spoken to Jim Huibregtse who seen and heard the first plane? Is Mr. Huibregtse a liar?

It was his video evidence I used to point-out Simon Shack’s "false" misrepresentation of an “alleged” gash which Shack claimed was photo-shopping done to the Naudet video footage to increase the 1st plane shaped impact hole. That video evidence was swiftly removed from my YouTube Channel. My conversation with Mr. Huibregtse: http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/my-conversation-with-911-eyewitness.html

Regarding the deletion of my comments from Conspiracy Cuber’s comments thread on your YouTube Channel. Most likely by the sound of it you are unaware that my YouTube Channel was terminated after my appearance on Richard D. Hall’s show by Google/YouTube, so all my comments and videos were removed, so my comments would’ve also been removed from that thread. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ba15o


I shall be writing a lot more about this set of circumstances and events surrounding what led-up to this very swift “unnecessary” action to silence me by YouTube, and the double standards they imposed on me by removing videos which they still promote on their platform today which are against their own community guidelines, which I informed them about on several occasions, however they seem happy to promote "video fakery" material, even though it could still be classed as graphic content according to their own guidelines?


I am aware of your videos you have made regarding the “plane shaped hole”. The reason I have not pointed-out any errors is because I am still researching this area at the moment. I have put-out a video regarding the 1st plane impact fire-ball explosion study and behaviour, but this is only a small part of the research. I feel some “falsehoods” about that explosion fire-ball were promulgated by Simon Shack, regarding a 6 second delay and secondary explosion to create the plane shaped hole, which from the new research I have done is incorrect, and is another distraction and misdirection ploy by Simon to lead people away from what really caused the hole. https://www.bitchute.com/video/eCVlmYFKv4O9/  



Evidence which people really do not want to talk about, similarly like Ace Baker who also put-out a narrative which keeps it (like Simon does) to the conventional sense of “pre-planted” explosives where other evidence suggests otherwise, like the "magnetometer" readings spikes, which you don’t address in your videos? As far as I am aware plane crashes or missiles do not cause the earth’s magnetic fields to spike in such a fashion as they did on 9/11.


Like you, I have researched the “Gelatin” art students, although we may differ greatly on their role if any they played or didn’t play. I will discuss more in my future blog article covering all the research I have done into the plane shaped holes and "Gelatin" and other new evidence which may shed light on this story and why it was released by the mainstream media.

To answer your main question, the reason I haven’t written about “errors” in your other videos is because at this point in time I am still researching this whole area of the plane holes and what may or may not have made the plane holes. It would be unfair of me to put something out unfinished or not fully researched. If at the end of this research I felt your theory or evidence was correct or relevant, then be sure I would reflect that also. Just to clarify, it was not you who was being discussed in my future article. What I can say is, and will be noted is the behaviour in this matter of the both stories put-out by Shack and Baker of how they believe the hole was made. I am still looking into the Pentagon and Shanksville events and I will publish new evidence on "Flight 93" in the new year. As you already know, I do have issues with some of your other theories around the Hezarkhani video, but that's for another day. 

I hope this answers some of your questions in relation to your blog post? You can always contact me through the "Contact Form" in the side-bar of my blog. I may post this response at your blog/website also.  

And finally, Andrew Johnson told me, if you want to contact him directly then you can e-mail him, there’s no need to go via myself to ask him questions.


Kind regards and best wishes,


Mark Conlon. 



 

Thursday, 14 December 2017

9/11 Holding the Truth "Chapter 25" Video Fakery – Another Component of the Second Tier 9/11 Cover Up


By Mark Conlon


Here's an audio version of "Chapter 25" from Andrew Johnson's new Book. "9/11 Holding the Truth".


In Chapter 25: "Video Fakery" – Another Component of the Second Tier 9/11 Cover Up, covers some of my research from my early blog articles in relation to the "video fakery" Psy-op. 


To hear all 29 chapters from Andrew Johnson's "New" Book: 9/11 Holding the Truth, visit his 'Playlist' on his YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX_9c2xy6YwGr7fycx1Kcb4G71zCHwYf8

Or you can download all the 29 chapters in MP3 file format here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/index.php?dir=911%20Holding%20the%20Truth%20-%20Audio%20Book/

Or purchase a hardcopy of the book here:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/http://www.lulu.com/shop/andrew-johnson-and-nick-buchanan/911-holding-the-truth/paperback/product-23439896.html


I encourage all of you to read or listen to this book to understand the "cover-up" perpetrated by so-called 9/11 researchers who claim to want the truth who's mission appears to conceal the truth and the use of an "image projection" technology to create a powerful illusion of a plane impacting the South Tower and also the use of a "directed energy weapon" which turned the towers to dust.


Thanks for reading and caring.... 


 

Monday, 4 December 2017

Conspiracy Cuber's "New" Analysis Location of 61st Video of the Alleged UA175


 By Mark Conlon

Here's an interesting new study by 'Conspiracy Cuber' who is clarifying the location of a new video that surfaced of "Flight 175". 

Short intro from 'Conspiracy Cuber' about his new study...
Just felt like broadcasting my discovery I came across last night. I found the location of the video at 7:52 uploaded by CameraPlanet on 5/14/2016 (I accidentally said 24; it's 14) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0kgv... Filmed at 55 W 13th Street on the roof. The building holds multiple tenants (I think).
 

40 44' 11.41" N
73 59' 48.16" W
 

Altitude, about 47 meters or so.

 


A valid piece of research here showing that the actual location exists and is a "real" video, not as some disinformationists claim is fake.


Thank you for watching....



"IMPORTANT NOTICE" About Changes Regarding the Videos On My Blog


By: Mark Conlon

After swift aggressive censorship of my YouTube Channel back in October because of the research and critique of various 9/11 disinformation I exposed surrounding false "video fakery" claims by various 9/11 researchers, left me no option to use another video hosting platform to host videos for this blogsite. This took me quite a bit of time to transfer all my videos over to a new video hosting platform called Vidme. 


Unfortunately I received notice yesterday that Vidme is no longer going to be operating from 15th December 2017. 

Vidme say - "We’re sad to announce that Vidme will be shutting down on December 15th".

So a process of finding a new platform and transferring all the videos back onto my blog will have to be done and not something I can do overnight, and certainly not as quick as I did with Vidme. Due to time constraints this will be a much slower process this time around, so I hope you can appreciate if you see videos disappearing from my blog articles, it is not due to anything sinister like I believe was done with my YouTube Channel in October, something which Andrew Johnson talked about briefly to Richard D. Hall in his latest 10th Anniversary Show - Part Three. See below:


I wont be posting any new research articles this year due to this unforeseen circumstance, as I will work on getting the transition of the videos complete so the blog-site is back in normal operation again, and then will be posting new research next year. I will make brief posts though and share valid research by others to keep everyone in the loop of things. 

I hope I have your understanding and patience with this transition period. 

I would like to thank everyone personally for the support you have shown to me, and for even stopping by to read the articles, even if you don't agree with my findings. Also thanks to the three people who have decided to "Follow" my blog. Anyone interested in following my blog, please hit the "Follow Me" button at the bottom of the side-bar on the right of the page. 

And finally, I wish you all a happy seasonal break.


Mark Conlon.


 

Monday, 20 November 2017

New Book Released By: Andrew Johnson "9/11 Holding the Truth"


By Mark Conlon

This week has seen the release of a new book called '9/11 Holding The Truth' by Andrew Johnson which follows-on from his 2009 book '9/11 Finding The Truth'. 


This book is based mainly on articles that have appeared on http://www.checktheevidence.com/ since about 2006. The articles have been edited, revised and links updated. I have added chapters about my experiences in the UK 9/11 Truth Scene since I got involved in 2005, which have not been published on this website before. I have also included a couple of short chapters on some of the wider and more esoteric aspects of 9/11.The result is a 244-page 6x9 book with a cover graphic design by Nick Buchanan. Feel free to re-post this on blogs, websites etc.

Summary:
The truth about what happened to the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001 was discovered by Dr Judy Wood, through careful research between 2001 and 2008. The author of this book, Andrew Johnson, had a “good view” of how later parts of Dr Wood’s research “came together.” Not only that, he was also involved in activities, correspondence and research which illustrated that this truth was being deliberately covered up. This book is a companion and follow-up volume to “9/11 Holding the Truth” – and documents ongoing (and successful) efforts to keep the truth out of the reach of most of the population.


Evidence in this book, gathered over a period of 12 years, shows that the cover up is “micro-managed,” internationally and even globally. The book names people who are involved in the cover up. It illustrates how they often stick to “talking points” and seem to have certain patterns of behaviour. It attempts to illustrate how difficult it is to prevent the truth from being marginalised, attacked and “muddled up.” Additionally, other evidence pertaining to the events of 9/11 is studied in an attempt to show the vast implications of what is now known. The book aims to open the reader’s mind to the power of the group or groups that perpetrated this enormous deception. At the same time, it is shown that the secrets revealed contain the knowledge for positively transforming the world we live in.

A brief video from Andrew Johnson talking about the his new book. 

 

To order the book or to download a "free" PDF version copy, please visit this page on Andrew Johnson's website: http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=463&Itemid=60  

Personal Message of Thanks to Andrew Johnson...
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Andrew Johnson for the inclusion of some of my research in his book. I am personally very humbled. Please consider reading the book to inform yourself of the new information that Andrew has included, following-on from his previous 2009 book. 

 
Thanks for reading and caring... 


 

Monday, 13 November 2017

Richard D. Hall & Andrew Johnson - Comparing Video & Radar Evidence on 9/11



During the 9/11 "attacks", the flight 175 "impact" was recorded by between 50 and 60 different video cameras, each having a different viewing perspective of the same event. Even though there are so many recordings of what happened, the evidence in these videos casts huge doubt over whether boeing 767s were used in the attacks. Other non video evidence also supports the "no planes" hypothesis. 

Andrew Johnson joins Richard D. Hall to discuss the 3D radar analysis evidence and the 9/11 video evidence. 








Please consider following my blogs by pressing the "Follow-Me" button in the side-bar to follow future blog articles. 


Thank you for watching and reading, and also thank you for caring!



Friday, 3 November 2017

September Clues - BUSTED! - By: Anthony Lawson - Nov 2007



By Mark Conlon

This is an excellent analysis of Simon Shack's film September Clues by the late Anthony Lawson, who made some great observations in relation to Simon Shack's presentation of "alleged" evidence of TV Fakery on 9/11. 

Disclaimer: I "disagree" with Anthony Lawson's final point he makes at the end of his video in relation to the "impossible plane speed" that a 767 Boeing plane can travel at 572mph at sea level.   

 
As we can see yet again, Simon Shack uses very deceptive means to present his evidence. This has been a common theme with Simon Shack throughout all his September Clues films, which can no-longer be trusted to present 9/11 video evidence in a fair and balanced objective manner. 

Simon Shack appears to lack any "real" credibility anymore, and has proved himself to be extremely poor at conducting research analysis, or he is simply setting-out to deceive his viewers of his films. 

What exactly is Simon Shack's mission? 
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 ‘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?

Is 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 is a great analysis by the late Anthony Lawson. R.I.P, who really "BUSTED" Simon Shack along time ago and should be credited for his efforts to expose the "falsehoods" contained in Shack's film, although I completely "disagree" with Anthony Lawson's final point at the end of his video in relation to the "impossible plane speed" that a 767 Boeing plane can travel 572mph at sea level. I have posted his video purely on merit for the September Clues analysis.  
  
To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission and his unusual connections, read this article by Andrew Johnson:
9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175


Thank you watching and caring!




Monday, 30 October 2017

Simon Shack's - Great Nose-In & Nose-Out Hoax - By: Anthony Lawson - Nov 2007


By: Mark Conlon

He is a short video made by the late Anthony Lawson, who made some great observations in relation to Simon Shack's presentation of evidence regardng the plane "nose-out" comparisons which Simon Shack produced in his September Clues film, to prove the nose of the plane exited the South Tower in the Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage.


As we can see Simon Shack has used a very deceptive way to present his evidence. This has been a common theme with Simon Shack and throughout all his September Clues films, which can no longer be trusted to present video evidence objectively. What is Simon Shack's mission? Great work by the late Anthony Lawson. R.I.P.

To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission, read this article by Andrew Johnson:  
9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175


Thank you watching and caring!


  

Thursday, 26 October 2017

Simon Shack's "King Kong Man" in North Tower Window - DEBUNKED!

 

By Mark Conlon


In this blog I want to draw attention to a video posted at Steve De'ak's YouTube channel in 2015, where he admitted that he was wrong about his North Tower "Tiny Windows" theory. However the same cannot be said for Simon Shack with his "King Kong Man" in the window theory. 

The video below proves that it was not "video fakery" or people being giants or small windows in the video footage, or anything wrong with the video. Again it is down to perspectives and the angles, something that Simon Shack does NOT understand including parallax, as demonstrated in my previous blog artices. 

See below: Steve De'ak's apology video for his mistaken "Tiny Windows" theory 



See below: Simon Shack's comment to this video from Steve De'ak's YouTube channel.

  
While Steve De'ak shows humility for his mistake, Simon Shack reverted to using disrespectful names in his comment by calling people "clowns" and "goons" and would rather accuse people of being shills. 

Please note: Simon Shack doesn't say the video isn't wrong in its proof that it was not "video fakery", however would rather avoid that point by promoting another "false" video about an "alleged" 21-ft tall jumper video. 

This is classic avoidance by Simon (Hytten) Shack, which speaks volumes as to what Shack's role is by promoting "falsehoods" while accusing others of doing the same as he has been doing since 2007 in his films. I have been quite sceptical of Steve De'ak's points he has promoted in the past, but he has admitted his mistake in this case, and also about his "Frozen Smoke" theory in the Hezarkhani video. This is something that Simon Shack never does, which speaks volumes about his mission and goals to find the truth. 

To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission, read this article by Andrew Johnson:  
9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175


Thank you for reading and caring!


 

Wednesday, 25 October 2017

Mystery Planes Over NYC During the "Flight 175" South Tower Impact on 9/11


By Mark Conlon

An area of research we never hear too much about anymore is the two "mystery" planes flying in and around the vicinity during the second "alleged" plane event where allegedly "Flight 175" impacted the South Tower in NY. The FBI were aware of at least one of those two "mystery" planes, as reported by Jennifer Spell a videographer who captured the "mystery" plane in the background as "Flight 175" crashed into the South Tower in her video footage. She provided the FBI with a copy of her video which showed a "second" plane parallelling the "alleged" United Airlines "Flight 175" plane. To my knowledge nothing more was ever disclosed to Jennifer Spell by the FBI (during their visit for a viewing at her home of the video footage) as to what the second plane was doing in that area at the time of the plane crash into the South Tower.

Jennifer Spell Video (2nd Mystery Plane)

     
Other videos also captured the 2nd mystery plane parallelling the alleged "Flight 175" Plane. See below:



A 'Camera Planet Archive' video also captured a close-up of the "mystery" plane. See below:


Many researchers have tried to explain this mystery airplane as the "Doomsday" airplane. The "Doomsday" airplane was a different shape and and was mainly white in colour with a black stripe running down the middle of the plane, and without any black markings on the wings or tail section of the airplane as seen in the mystery plane images above captured in the South Tower event in NYC. 

The fact that the "mainstream media" made a big story about a mystery plane in the Washington area, where they correctly reported it as the "doomsday" airplane could indicate some type of "perception management" to play down second "mystery" plane's presence in NYC.

Doomsday Airplane:


See Video from 12th September 2007 from Anderson Cooper's 360 program, where they re-visit the "mystery plane" that flew over the white house on 9/11.


As stated in the news report '9/11 Commission' co-chairman Lee Hamilton said, "he had a vague recollection of someone mentioning of a mystery plane" however yet the staff who looked into it didn't raise it as an important issue to investigate it, and wasn't raised for discussion. Was they referring to the Washington mystery plane, or mystery airplanes in NYC also, as there was at least two mystery airplanes in the vicinity during the South Tower event. See images below:








 

So we have two mystery planes that were captured in other videos and photographs in and around the NYC area during the second "alleged" plane impact into the South Tower.

 
Why didn't we hear anything about the existence of these mystery planes in NYC? Was the story used by CNN to confuse or play down the issue in relation to the existence of the mystery planes in NYC, or to confuse people with the Washington "Doomsday" airplane sightings, which one might of expected in light of the events in NYC, that such a "Doomsday" plane would be flying around in the Washington area? 


"Image Projection" & "Holographic Projector" Techology...
Hypothesising: Because of all the "strange" anomalies captured in the second plane crash videos of the "alleged" Flight 175 airplane, such as; disappearing wings, no collision on impact with the building, explosion happening after the plane had already entered the building and no apparent debris falling to the ground of the plane allong with no breakage of the tail section on impact and impossible plane speed. 



Explaining these anomalies has always been promoted via way of "video fakery", which has several issues in its theory. My personal hypothesis suggests similar to a hypothesis first put forward by Richard D. Hall in 2012, regarding a drone flying parallal to Flight 175 projecting an airplane. This was mainly suggested because of the anomalies in the miltary radar data which showed the plane's coordinates 1500 feet to the side of the civilian radar data plane path. 

My suggestion to the drone theory flying to the side of Flight 175 would be to ask the question; were those two unidentified "mystery" planes involved in some way deploying some type of "image projection" of a plane, which is why the existence of the two "mystery" planes was never investigated fully or discussed publically by the 9/11 Commission? 

Image By: Richard D. Hall

Airborne Holographic Projector which has been talked about in various manuals and articles. See below: 




Also this 'Washington Post' article talks about a secret program established in 1994 to pursue technology of a "holographic projector" for deception purposes. The article certainly gives us a glimpse of the thinking in military circles for weaponry of a different kind. See below:



Closing Note:

I believe this is a valid area for research in relation to the alleged "Flight 175" plane crash at the South Tower, and could go some way to explaining far better the anomalies captured in the "Flight 175" plane crash videos. 

Video fakery cannot explain the anomalies sufficiently which I have pointed in several articles in the past, and in some cases appears to be used as a distraction or some type of "psychological operation" by the likes of Simon Shack and Ace Baker. Video fakery cannot account for how they could control the many hundreds of people who seen a plane in the sky hit the South Tower. Plus, how did the perps have "complete" control over the video and photographic record in the whole area of NYC without the possibility of at least one or two videos/photographs slipping through the net showing no-plane hitting the South Tower? This has never been fully explained by Simon Shack or Ace Baker when they are promoting the "video fakery" theory. With "image projection" technology such as techonlogy mentioned above, the perps would not need to have "complete" control over any of the eyewitnesses, photographers or videographers, which could limit the people involved to a small few in carrying out the event. By carrying it out this way using such technology can also explain the lack of plane "crash physics". I think the possible use of an "image projection" technology explains the anomalies far better as a hypothesis than does "video fakery", especially with the possible involvement of the two mystery planes which has not been fully explained to this day. I'm not saying this is how it was done, or if they were even involved, it is just a hypothesis put forward and I'm open to change it as and when I gather new evidence in my investigation and research.


Thank you for reading and caring!    



Monday, 23 October 2017

The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - "New" Analysis Series by: Conspiracy Cuber

This is the first in a series of "new" analysis into the impossibility of Live TV Fakery in the 9/11 video by someone on Youtube called 'Conspiracy Cuber'. The analysis seriously challenges claims made by 9/11 researchers' such as, Simon Shack, Ace Baker and others to many to name here. 


Video description below:  

Ace Baker's Deceptions and WNYW Chopper 5 - is the beginning of a series where the live shots are examined and judged according to Ace Baker's 9 traits. In this one I cover Ace's contradictory logic and the Chopper 5 video.


The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - Part 1



The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - Part 2 



The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - Part 3



 The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - Part4
 


 The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - Part 5



To find out more, please visit Conspiracy Cuber's YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3rgxhxZ3tS38Jcw7fB6EKQ



Thank you for watching and caring!