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.


Wednesday, 12 April 2017

9/11 "No-Planes" Perception Management Past & Present

By Mark Conlon - 12th April 2017
(Edited By Andrew Johnson) 
In recent months, there has been a noticeable increase of material being removed by social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook. In October 2016 Richard D. Hall Released his latest version of his 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis. Some months later YouTube decided to block the 3D Analysis video for some unknown reason? Strangely this week the video has been "unblocked" by YouTube, again for no apparent reason? Was this a timely decision in light of Richard D. Hall's UK Tour, where no doubt Richard would've spoken about this? The video was still blocked as of the 1st April 2017 when I last checked it on his YouTube channel, just after the FBI released an alleged set of new 9/11 images from the Pentagon attack, which just happens to show plane wreckage after the alleged plane crash. 
In the 2012 version of Richard's 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis, he made the case that the flight paths in each video matched up correctly in each of the 26 suitable videos (from the 50 available) videos that he analysed. (Suitable videos needed to show the plane's path for long enough.) This demonstrated that the prevailing theory that the videos contained an ' inserted CGI Plane,' was almost certainly incorrect. This seriously challenged the analyses put forward by two well known “no-plane” theorists and 'video fakery' promoters; Simon Shack and Ace Baker. 

This new evidence and hypothesis from Richard D. Hall's 3D Radar Analysis findings met with great resistance from no-planes 'video fakery' researchers.

Why is the 3D Radar Analysis findings so dangerous...?
Videos of the WTC “plane impacts” show impossible crash physics (further discussion below) - including disappearing wings, impossible speed and damage not consistent with real plane crashes. Hence, the videos demonstrate that we was not seeing a 'real' plane in the videos. RDH’s analysis essentially shows this was not because of 'video fakery' – rather, it tends to confirm that some type of 'image projection' of a plane was captured in the videos. Is it then the case that this conclusion has had to be covered-up – in order to conceal the existence of an advance technology? Was 'video fakery' introduced as a clever cover story to help lead people away from the discovery of this advanced technology 'image projection' system, just like the "thermite" explanation which was introduced as a cover story by Steve E. Jones to cover-up the 'real' evidence of the destruction of the twin towers from an advanced directed energy weapon. Exposing 'video fakery' as a cover story makes Richard D. Hall's findings so devastating to the cover-up of the advanced technology used to destroy the WTC and create a sophisticated cover up. I now consider the 'video fakery' explanation to be a “cover story”. This has led me to notice an attempt to promote the idea of planes on 9/11 when the evidence is to the contrary. An example of this was a recent release of images on 31st March 2017 by the FBI.

The alleged “new images” of the 9/11 event at the Pentagon include 3 of plane wreckage. This release may have therefore been because questions being continually asked about the lack of physical evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11. 

Out of the 16 images released, 3 show plane wreckage which is allegedly from 'Flight 77' at the Pentagon crash site.

Perception Management:

Is this the subtle promotion in this news headline to reinforce the idea that planes crashed on 9/11..?

Daily Mail Online Article Below:

In Thierry Meyssan's 2002 book called Pentagate, Meyssan states that the attack on the Pentagon was not carried out by a commercial airliner but a missile. The central thesis of the book is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. This conclusion was heavily criticised by other prominent 9/11 Truth Movement members such as Jim Hoffman (himself a supporter of Steven E Jones). 

It is my opinion that Meyssan's astute observations of “no-plane” at the Pentagon event also led to early observations of no-planes at the crashes in New York, which then led to the introduction of a clever "psychological operation" called 'video fakery' to conceal what really happened.   

Thierry Meyssan also challenged the idea that piece of wreckage shown in the 2 out the 3 images released by the FBI above, came from the alleged airplane (Flight 77). Meyssan concluded it was more likely to have been planted debris wreckage from another plane because the piece of wreckage did not match any part of an American Airlines plane.

Image from Thierry Meyssan's book Pentagate - Page XVI


Meyssan stated that the piece of wreckage in this image does not match any piece of a Boeing 757-200 painted in the colours of American Airlines. He also mentions, that this wreckage was never inventoried by the Department of Defence as coming from Flight 77.

Is the release of these new images a subtle attempt to promote and reinforce the idea of planes being involved in the 9/11 attacks because of the growing doubts by many people regarding of the lack of evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11...?

See the new images at this Yahoo news link below. Note: In the online yahoo article they have ordered the set of 16 images starting with the 3 images of plane's (Flight 77) alleged wreckage.

Perception Management: Cover-ups, Muddle-ups and Psychological Operations:

The video evidence of 'Flight 175' allegedly impacting the South tower demonstrates a contradiction of Newton's 3rd Law, as if there's no real collision between the South tower and the plane. Also contained in the videos are some very strange anomalies regarding the disappearance of the plane's wings as it approaches the South tower before impact.


It must be 'video fakery' and 'CGI planes'...? REALLY, or something else..?

From my own research which I have conducted into the September Clues film and the explanations proposed within it to explain the anomalies, which I have written about and posted here on my blog, I have proved that many of the points that Simon Shack makes are without doubt incorrect at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, and appears that the 'video fakery' idea was put-out deliberately as a psychological operation (psy-op) to lead people away from studying the video and photographic evidence. Thus, 'video fakery' has been used as a cover story to conceal the use of some type of advanced 'image projection' technology to put an image of a plane in the sky, an image  which was then videoed and photographed by many eye witnesses. This explains why the 'crash physics' was not consistent with a 'real' plane colliding and crashing into a steel and concrete building and also the impossible speed which the plane was travelling at as it approached the South tower in the videos. 

September Clues, Perception Management..?


Another point which has been observed in my analysis of the September Clues film surrounding 'video fakery' is that Simon Shack makes false claims about certain videos such as the Michael Hezarkhani video, where in one example he claims the Pavel Hlava 2nd strike video is a "re-edit" of the Michael Hezarkhani video footage. This is provable disinformation which appears to be deliberately put-out by Simon Shack to promote 'video fakery' and to also to discredit both videos as fake which is the main objective - to cast doubt regarding the video evidence record. I suggest this is done to conceal the advanced technology 'image projection' used which was captured by the many videographers and photographers in New York.

Read my blog article demonstrating Simon Shack's false claims about the Michael Hezarkhani video and the Pavel Hlava video. Link below:

The films and the prominent 'video fakery' so-called researchers did a good job, as I didn't check their theories/hypothesis and I took it for granted for over 6 years that they had given me all the correct answers to the anomalies which I observed such as, no crash physics and disappearing wings in the videos, thus believing 'CGI planes' were inserted or composited into the videos which led me to believe all the videos and photographs were faked.

How wrong I was when I did eventually check their claims which turned out to be grossly incorrect. Initially, I thought this was because they had made genuine errors in their research but soon, I could see an emerging theme and behaviour pattern of deliberate, deceptive means of clever misdirection and editing to falsely promote to the viewers a false answer to all the anomalies in the videos.

I now consider 'video fakery' to be a psy-op in itself. Perhaps this answers why the latest set of FBI images have been released as part of the perception management, as more people are starting to see that 'video fakery' doesn't sufficiently answer all the questions surrounding the anomalies captured within the videos. Simon Shack is concealing the truth instead of exposing it along with managing people's perceptions.

Perhaps this is why recently, the censorship and perception management of any discussion of the no-planes evidence on 9/11 has been stepped-up, so I consider this timely release of these FBI images showing the plane wreckage at the Pentagon to be “damage control and perception management” because of the failings in their psychological operation cover story that is 'video fakery'.

To find out more about Simon Shack (Hytten), please read Andrew Johnson's research article here: 9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175. 


Sunday, 26 February 2017

Flight 175 - Still in the Air After Crashing into the South Tower on 9/11 ~ MSNBC

This is a screen-shot of Flight 175 still in the air after crashing into the South Tower on 9/11 on MS-NBC's news coverage approximately one hour after Flight 175 was reported as crashing into the South Tower. In the news coverage they go to their real time 'flight explorer' tracker whereby they hover over different planes being displayed on the flight explorer screen-shot which displays information about the planes which are still in the air-space from the FAA Radar System. As they hover-over one of the planes an information text box appears next to the plane. What was displayed in one particular information text box next to the plane was the Flight - UAL 175, Departure - BOS and Arrival LAX, clearly indicating that Flight 175 was still in the air flying after it was reported as crashed into the South Tower. Flight 175 appears to be flying away from New York (if it ever was over New York) and towards Connecticut one hour after the crash?

Below: Enlargement, along with 'additional' inverted colour version comparison:
Clearly in the above image 'Flight 175' Departure from BOS 09:15a and Arrival LAX 01:44p.
See My Short Video Below:
See Full Coverage Videos Below:

(Part 1) MSNBC Live Coverage of September 11, 2001
(Part 2) MSNBC Live Coverage of September 11, 2001

The official radar flight path does not correspond with any position location in the MS-NBC News coverage, which is an official FAA Radar System, so this can rule-out any real-time delays, plus Flight 175 was located North-West of Connecticut in the official radar positioning when departing from Boston Logan Airport for Los Angeles LAX when making its detour towards New York. The MS-NBC radar position has Flight 175 more South-West of Connecticut one hour after the plane crash. 
Official Flight 175 Path Below:
The question has to be asked. If Flight 175 was still in the air one hour after the alleged crash at the South Tower, where was it heading to...? Clearly it did not crash into the South Tower, but was en-route to somewhere? The question is where? Possibility... Was it heading back to Boston Logan International Airport to be grounded, as the direction it seemed to be heading could suggest that? Or was it directed to another location? Again I'm speculating here. 
Another possibility could be: Flight 175 was part of the training exercises taking place that morning and was a phantom flight blip on the radar system which didn't exist at all..?
More research needs to be conducted to gather more information and evidence before making assumptions so these questions can be sufficiently answered. 
*IMPORTANT* This is an on-going article which is being updated as I gather more information about this research. I will be having more to discuss about this so check back soon...