Thursday, 25 January 2018

1978 Movie Mocks 9/11 "CRASH PHYSICS" & The "Video Fakery" Psy-Op Gets Nasty


By Mark Conlon

Below is a video clip from 1978 from a film called 'The Medusa Touch'. When you consider even back in 1978 this film depicts a more realistic portrayal of what we would observe if a plane crashed into a building, with a collision between the building and the plane. 

Even in today's movies they appear to portray "impossible physics" between building and the plane. For example, in the film SULLY, they show a plane disappearing into a building similarly to what we observe in the Michael Hezarkhani video. The only "real" depiction in the SULLY movie is the explosion as the plane impacts the building as the fuel tanks collide with the building's face, which was not present in Michael Hezarkhani's video, with the plane entering the South Tower building without any explosion until the plane was fully inside the building, which is impossible according to "Newton's Third Law".  

See Below:

  
Michael Hezarkhani Video:


No Explosion is present as the plane's fuel tanks collide with the South Tower in the Hezarkhani video...

In the 1978 video clip below from the 'The Medusa Touch' they were able to accurately portray what we would have expected to see when a plane collides with a building, and they did so without the type of video CGI technology which is around today and also back in 2001. Surely if they could produce this accurate portrayal in 1978, then surely the "alleged" perpetrators could have done a better job in 2001 with the Michael Hezarkhani video if you believe "video fakery" was deployed and used in the 9/11 videos of "Flight 175". When we consider people who promote "video fakery" this casts serious doubt on "video fakery" as the explanation for the anomalies captured in the Michael Hezarkhani video, which has been targeted since 2004-5 by "video fakery" promoters, who's apparent intent appears to be to cast doubt in peoples' minds regarding the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence record of "Flight 175". 

What are they trying to "hide" or conceal by promoting such a "falsehood" as video fakery...?


Note: how this film show parts of the plane falling to the ground, such as, tail section and wings and an explosion on impact... 

The "video fakery" Psy-Op Gets Nasty...
As many may know we have already established with research by Richard D. Hall and his 3D Radar Analysis and other researchers; Andrew Johnson, Conspiracy Cuber, Chris Hampton 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, BS Registration, 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. And there are those such as Steve De'ak who continue to "ignore" or are in denial that such technology even exists to create such powerful images. See below:


Steve De'ak relies on "video fakery" because without it his "multiple missiles" theory cannot be valid, and the fact we have now "proven" and "exposed" the "video fakery" psy-op over and over again, he does not want to discuss it any longer and has subtly shifted the debate to his "multiple missile" theory which is based on just 9 people's accounts from the mainstream media reports, which is a "contradictory" position by Steve De'ak as according to him the media where complicit on 9/11, and according to Steve De'ak they produced "fake" videos and live coverage on 9/11? Yet he has no issues "cherry picking" mainstream media accounts as truth regarding missiles hitting the North Tower, while ignoring all the other evidence of eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers accounts, who seen a PLANE. De'ak  would rather make wild accusations against those people calling them liars, and fabricators of their video evidence and being part of a giant conspiracy on 9/11 without a single shred of evidence to support his bizarre theories. "Does "PEOPLE BASHING" come to mind"?

So the "real" debate which Steve De'ak is avoiding is "video fakery" and it is now clear why, as without "video fakery" De'ak's "multiple missiles" theory causing the plane shaped holes in the WTC buildings falls apart, which makes it invalid. This explains why he avoids the debate with myself and Conspiracy Cuber regarding "video fakery", as he has had to publically "retract" certain theories in the past he put-out about the Hezarkhani video, and has now tried to get myself and others into a "false" debate using a "phony-bone of contention" of a "multiple missiles" theory causing of shaped plane holes. Something which I and others will discuss if he can get past his sheer childish rudeness and bad attitude when questions are put to him. 

I will be addressing several "lies" and inaccuracies told by Steve De'ak about myself, which he learly has knowingly put-out, such as myself "deleting" YouTube comments from his YouTube comments thread. Twice he has told this lie, as he was informed twice about why my comments were removed due to YouTube's termination of my YouTube channel (I have evidence to prove it). 

Plus, I will be documenting comprehensively the lies and other distortions he has told regarding comment exchanges between each other. Perhaps an indication why he did not want the "accurate" archive of comments exchanged between us which 'Conspiracy Cuber' offered to him which he outright rejected. Perhaps if he had, he might of accurately reported or reflected the true nature of the comments exchanged between us, and maybe reflected truthfully what was said, instead of distorting it to suit his false memory of what was said, where he'd rather play the man and not the ball with personal attacks about me and not the my research or analysis. There will be a full report with evidence demonstrating what has taken place, and the reader can decide for themselves whether or not Steve De'ak was being completely "truthful" and "honest" in what he said about me and his own comments and responses. 


Thanks for reading... and caring.



   

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.