Showing posts with label Check The Evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Check The Evidence. Show all posts

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:

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. 


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! 

Friday, 16 June 2017

Perception Management "More to the story"

By Mark Conlon
Edited by Andrew Johnson (
16 June 2017

The reason for writing this following-up article to “9/11 ‘No Planes’ Perception Management Past & Present” was to document recent activities which I consider to be attempts of “perception management” in relation to the planes, no-planes on 9/11 discussion.

The control of the discussion and people’s perceptions is being done through the control of information to which they are exposed, to steer their thoughts and observations in a desired direction in relation to the discussion, in this case the issue of  “no planes” (or “no real plane crashes”) on 9/11.

The main direction and focus of the perception management  surrounding “no planes” is whether “video fakery” was used to insert planes into the video footage, which would explain all the observed anomalies captured in the videos of ‘Flight 175’ hitting the South Tower.  Additionally, the perpetrators need to manage the perceptions of people regarding the strong evidence that suggests no planes crashed at any of the four crash sites on 9/11.

Video fakery has perhaps been the most widely accepted alternative theory which emerged in the alternative knowledge community as early as 2003-04. Since 2008, when I first became aware of the issues in relation to the Flight 175 videos, I personally observed that most people in the alternative knowledge community “repeated” the “video fakery” theory when discussing “no-planes” on 9/11. Most, if not all people were quick to site “video fakery” as the answer to the anomalies in the videos of Flight 175. For 6 years, I myself took it for granted that “video fakery” was the answer to all the questions I had about the anomalies in the Flight 175 videos. I was even handing-out copies of a prominent film (released on the internet in 2007) called September Clues, made by a person who went under the alias Social Service. The person was later known as Simon Shack, real name Simon Hytten. The film mainly promoted what can only be described as convincing evidence of “video fakery” on 9/11.

About 5 years later, In 2012 Richard D. Hall released his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis video, which seriously challenges some of the claims put forward by “video fakery” theory promoter’s such as; Simon Shack, Ace Baker and others. Richard’s hypothesis proposes the use of some type of advanced “image projection” technology that was able to create an image of a plane flying through the sky which many eyewitnesses who saw and reported with videographers and photographers videoing and photographing. Richard’s hypothesis addressed many more of the questions which the “video fakery” hypothesis failed to answer.  For example, within a 3D-model of the WTC area, Richard D. Hall compared 26 out 52 possible videos of alleged Flight 175 “crashing” into WTC 2 and showed the plane’s flight path matched, very closely, in each of the videos analysed.

The evidence and hypothesis put forward by Richard D. Hall in his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis is dangerous to the perpetrators of 911, because it disproves “video fakery” theory – favoured by many people who have closely studied the 911 “plane crash” stories and evidence.

As mentioned above, Richard’s analysis implies that some type of advanced “image projection” technology was used to create fake planes. He also touches on the idea that “video fakery” has been put-out as a “psychological operation” to manage people’s perceptions and knowledge regarding this secret “image projection” technology.

On the 12th anniversary of 9/11 a video surfaced on the YouTube by a 9/11 “no-planes” researcher called Markus Allen. It was an “analysis” of the amateur Michael Hezarkhani video.

After viewing Markus Allen’s video, I quickly became aware that something was not right with his explanation. He stated that the disappearance of the plane’s wing, behind a certain building, should not have happened. He said that this was then evidence of a computer “CGI glitch” i.e. evidence of “video fakery”.

After thoroughly studying and analysing his video, I wrote an article correcting the mistakes made in the video by Markus Allen. My article was published at Andrew Johnson’s “Check the Evidence” website. Little did I know at that time, from ongoing research over the next 4 years, I would come to learn and understand the nature of a clever “psychological operation” (psy-op) It was a psy-op to manage people’s perceptions “no-planes” and “video fakery” in relation to the events of 911. 

In this article, I attempt to illustrate that in the past, researchers such as; Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Markus Allen and others too numerous to mention, appeared to be deliberately promoting false information, which is easily been disproven. This is especially true in relation to the Michael Hezarkhani video - I’ve documented how “video fakery” does not explain all the anomalies captured in this and other videos of ‘Flight 175’.

I had the realisation that I had unknowingly had my “perceptions managed” for 6 years in relation to this issue. I had been repeating “video fakery” as the answer to all the problems within the video footage of ‘Flight 175.’ The perception management worked perfectly in my case - because it stopped me looking too closely at the video evidence or reaching a more truthful answer regarding the anomalies in the ‘Flight 175’ videos.  Hence, in the process, “disinformation” thrived. For example, more than 1 million people shared Markus Allen’s video (mentioned above), which was factually incorrect. Allen had promoted an obviously false explanation of a poorly made “CGI Plane” in Michael Hezarkhani’s video. This demonstrated to me how easy it was, on a mass scale, to manage the people’s perceptions of “the few and the many” - including myself - for 6 years! That is, I thought I was awake and knowledgeable to the truth, in this subject area, but I, too, was deceived.

So, to move away from this deception, I have conducted into the September Clues film. I have proven that many of the claims made by Simon Shack regarding the anomalies captured in the ‘Flight 175’ are incorrect at best, and deliberately deceptive at the very worst. Further research reveals the whole “video fakery” idea/explanation was started deliberately as a cover story. It was used as a part of a “psychological operation” to prevent people (such as myself) from studying more closely the video and photographic evidence.  The intent behind this “psy-op” was to conceal the use of an advanced “image projection” technology – a secret which must be kept from the public’s knowledge. This scenario is very similar to how the "thermite" explanation - introduced as a cover-story by Steven E. Jones – was used to cover-up the real evidence which proved that an advanced “directed energy weapon” destroyed the WTC Complex. Andrew Johnson talks about in his 9/11 Finding The Truth book.

There appears to be two vital areas of the “psychological operation”. One, is to promote the idea that all the 9/11 videos are fake, to account for the anomalies captured in the 9/11 videos of ‘Flight 175’ such as, disappearing wings, impossible speed and the damage not consistent with real plane crash. The other layer is to promote the idea of real planes being used on 9/11. More and more people are becoming aware that “no-planes” crashed on 9/11. Thus, there is a need to manage people’s perceptions regarding the physical evidence of plane crashes on 9/11. One technique is to move the discussion away from analysis of any wreckage, debris or physical damage to the towers. 

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

In the early part of 2017, there seems to have been a sharp increase of material being removed by social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook regarding the discussion of “no-planes” on 911. This seems to be a well-coordinated and well thought-out response to reduce the impact that the afore-mentioned RDH  October 2016 ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis was having on the “9/11 video fakery psychological operation”. It appeared that what I was witnessing was not just a set of unrelated timely coincidences, or random acts.

Below I have outlined a “timeline” of events which were not immediately obvious to me when I wrote an earlier article on the subject.  Now, having collected more information, the timeline to manage people’s perceptions, becomes more visible, so I felt the need to include this information here.

Timeline: “Perception Management”

· February 2017: Richard D. Hall’s ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis “Update” October 2016 - is blocked by YouTube for no apparent reason? Viewing figures showed it had reached over 300,000 views and rising. (Edit: It appears this video, mysteriously, was unblocked). Again, this video exposes how “video fakery” does not reasonably answer all the anomalies in the ‘Flight 175’ plane videos, thus presenting the hypothesis of an unknown advanced “image projection” system, possibly a cloaked missile.

· February 8th 20169/11 ‘Flight 175’ Attendant at Donald Trump rally, supposedly wants to ask a question but does not give her name, nor does she ask a question, however gives an emotional account about being on ‘Flight 175’ the day before 9/11. 

· Note: I suspect this woman is an actress and I think there is an attempt to plant thoughts in Trump’s head - and the public’s mind - about the planes on 9/11 - just in case someone shows Trump the real evidence. This was also an opportunity for the mainstream media to promote the idea of planes on 9/11, because growing numbers of people are now questioning the videos and physical evidence of the plane crashes on 9/11.  

· 18th February 2017: Andrew Johnson appears on Conscious Consumer Network’s show Reclaiming perception with Jo Lomax to discuss how people have been manipulated by lies about 9/11. Andrew talks about some of elements of the “9/11 Truth Movement” who seem to be trying to cover-up a secret which has the potential to transform the future of mankind. Andrew also spoke about the plane crashes and the lack of any real evidence to support any crashes at WTC towers. Andrew also spoke about “video fakery” and the researcher’s such as; Ace Baker and Simon Shack – he mentioned how Simon Shack’s film September Clues was quite deceptive.

· 20th February 2017: At approximately 10:00am - Andrew Johnson’s website suffered a cyber-attack which took his website down for 2 to 3 days following his interview on Conscious Consumer Network’s where Andrew stated emphatically how trolls should be ashamed of themselves for covering up what happened on 9/11.

· March 26th 2017: Jim Fetzer interviews Steve De'ak on his "The Real Deal" show and the subject areas covered are how the gashes in the Twin Towers were made, and also “video fakery” and they also discuss the Michael Hezarkhani video

· Note: An attempt was made by Jim Fetzer and Steve De’ak to cast doubt over the Michael Hezarkhani video footage and try and portray it as a fake video. False points are made repeatedly by Steve De’ak. Jim Fetzer does not challenge Steve De’ak’s points, as Fetzer claims he hasn’t studied the Michael Hezarkhani video enough. This statement is also false,  as Jim Fetzer has conducted many radio shows in relation to the Michael Hezarkhani video anomalies. Fetzer has a history of promoting “video fakery” by prominent researchers such as; Ace Baker, Killtown, Rosalee Grable (The Webfairy), Peggy CarterCB Brooklyn and One Born Free on his radio show. Jim Fetzer has also written an article on the subject of video fakery and no-planes.

· March 30th 2017: Richard D. Hall’s – “Fake Reality” 2017 Tour kicks-off in Newcastle. Richard mentions the recent action taken by YouTube regarding the “blocking” of his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis “Update”.    

· March 31st 2017: (International News Story Breaks) Daily Mail Online UK Releases Article:
FBI pictures reveal fiery aftermath and appalling destruction at the Pentagon on 9/11 - including remains of the plane hijacked by bin Laden's attackers

This news headline in the Daily Mail Online UK article is incorrect, they were re-released images - not new ones. There were 27 images, not 16 as reported by some UK news outlets. The FBI spokeswoman Jillian Stickels said the pictures were first posted online in 2011. A technical glitch caused them to disappear from the site for an undetermined period of time, she added. They were restored in recent days to public view once the FBI learned they were missing, according to the FBI spokeswoman.

We can note that the worldwide release of this story, promoting the idea of planes being involved on 9/11, just happens to come one day after Richard D. Hall starts his UK tour. Perhaps this is because he was discussing the revised version of is 9/11 ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis... Is this all a coincidence?

Below: samples of news headlines on 31st March 2017 and the release of FBI 9/11 Pentagon images:Please note: I’ve highlighted in “red” font the instances of references to the plane story.  

  • 31 March 2017: BBC News US & Canada
FBI re-releases 9/11 photos of Pentagon:

The article says:
Photos taken after the attack on the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 have reappeared on the FBI's website six years after they were first released. The 27 images show fire crews battling the blaze, as well as recovery teams and investigators searching the rubble. American Airlines Flight 77, travelling from Virginia to LA, slammed into the building at around 09:37 local time. US authorities said the plane struck between the first and second floors of the Pentagon, killing 184 people. It was previously thought that the images had been newly released because of the fresh date stamp. But FBI spokeswoman Jillian Stickels said the pictures were first posted online in 2011. A technical glitch caused them to disappear from the site for an undetermined period of time, she added. They were restored in recent days to public view once the FBI learned they were missing, according to the FBI spokeswoman.

  • 31 March 2017: Yahoo News UK

FBI releases harrowing pictures showing the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks:

The article says:
The FBI has released a series of chilling photos of the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks for the first time. The never-before-seen images show the headquarters of U.S. military in ruins, after Al-Qaeda terrorists flew an American Airlines plane into the building, killing 125 people inside and the 59 people on board. The pictures, taken in the days following the atrocity, show emergency services battling huge fires, yawning holes in buildings and the tangled wreckage of the plane that smashed into the Pentagon. Forensic specialists are pictured looking through the wreckage; the FBI has obscured their identities in the release of images. One picture shows a twisted shard of metal bearing the American Airlines logo lying in the grass, torn from the hijacked plane upon impact.

· 31st March 2017: Washington (CNN)

Photos show Pentagon during wake of 9/11

The article says:
The FBI has re-released a series of photos that document the horrific terror attack at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, which left 184 people dead. The 27 photos document the aftermath of the attacks, including images of the building's exterior, the overhead and images of first responders, who rushed to the scene. American Airlines Flight 77, traveling from Dulles, Virginia, to Los Angeles, was hijacked by al Qaeda terrorists, who struck the building at 9:37 a.m. ET on September 11, killing both passengers and Pentagon workers.

· April 1st 2017: Richard D. Hall’s October 2016 updated version of his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis video is “unblocked” by YouTube after previously being “blocked” in late January early February 2017 for “alleged” copyright infringement.

 Again, was this international news release timed deliberately, the day before Richard D. Hall’s ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis Video was being “unblocked” by YouTube with an intention of controlling information?  Were they reinforcing the 9/11 plane crash story to counteract any effects of Richard’s video? After all, YouTube “blocking” his video brought more attention to it - and the hypothesis suggested in it. (Note: during this time period YouTube allowed 9/11 “video fakery” promotion videos to remain up on their platform.)

· April 11th 2017: Steve De’ak releases a short YouTube video called – 9/11 Amateurs Were Using Tripods. The video attempts to discredit the Michael Hezarkhani video and cast doubt over the 9/11 video evidence. Steve De’ak claims in his video, the Michael Herzarkhani footage was allegedly filmed from the deck of a boat but there are fifteen frames that prove it was filmed on a tripod or dolly on dry land. Steve De’ak is creating false points which have been completely disproven, but he attempts to rehash them in his video.

· Note: This is an attempt by Steve De’ak to promote the idea that “video fakery” was used in the Michael Hezarkhani video. This is, again, to cast doubt over the authenticity of the video footage. I would argue this is done to to conceal the use of some type of advanced “image projection” technology, which was what the Michael Hezarkhani video actually recorded. So, Steve De’ak is acting to help manage more the curious people’s perceptions that ‘video fakery’ is the answer to all the anomalies captured in the Michael Hezarkhani video. Steve De’ak is, therefore, part of the 9/11 cover up.

Closing Notes:

As you can see above there has been censorship and perception management in relation to the discussion of the “no-planes on 9/11” evidence. There has been an attempt to promote the “official” plane crash stories (within the mainstream) and the “video fakery” stories in the alternative knowledge community. The former is indicated by the timely release of the FBI Pentagon Wreckage images and the latter is indicated by the release of things like Steve De’ak’s video, with related discussion by people like Jim Fetzer – who is already heavily implicated in the cover up of the technology which destroyed the WTC. I suggest that the censorship attempts involving Richard D Hall’s video and Andrew Johnson’s website are an indication of the failings of the 'video fakery' psychological operation.

Perhaps this is indicative that the perpetrators of 9/11 are still worried - that a few more people are waking up and questioning the evidence and stories about the true nature of the alleged plane crashes, on that terrible day.