Tuesday, 7 August 2018

Updates, 9/11 Film and ACARS of UAL175 & UAL93

By Mark Conlon


A few words about Flight 93 Evidence...

During my research of "Flight 93" and the landing at Reagan Airport at 10:28am, it was apparent that the time-line and supporting evidence can only reach this hypothesis. A lot of the evidence I used to reach this conclusion was based on evidence in the public domain, however mainly ignored or omitted by the truth community, especially 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth' who I am very sceptical of now. 

Below is an interesting clip showing how 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth' edited information from the Air Traffic Control (ATC) communication audio. This is what I call Simon Shack tactics, by only giving the viewer half the information.

I have major concerns involving their omissions of vital evidence of 'Flight 93' which I alluded to earlier. 

It was over 2 years worth of research which led me to this conclusion that "Flight 93" landed at Reagan National Airport at 10:28am. I intend to fully document in detail this research in due course. I shall also be addressing the ACARS data in relation to Flight 93, as great weight was placed on this evidence by 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth' and others. I will hopefully be able to shed more light on this evidence.

ACARS Evidence Flight175 & Flight 93 

I am also in the process of conducting "new" research studies into the other 3 flights 11, 175 and 77. I would also like to address areas such as the passengers and phone calls and reach a hypothesis based on all the evidence and information where ever that leads. 

Thanks for reading and caring... 

Tuesday, 24 July 2018

Simon Shack's - 9/11 September Clues Forum "Disinformation" Psy-Op Network

By Mark Conlon

I edited this short video together which was made by someone else which was a much longer version. The creator exposes Simon Shack promulgating "false" disinformation in his September Clues forum. Shack claims the video and photographs are all fake on 9/11, however this video shows how he exploits parallax and different viewing perspectives and also different times in motion to promote video and photographic fakery.

Shack even tries to claim that a piece of video footage from the Bataclan had a "missing door" in it, which was false. 

This video clearly demonstrates the deliberate atempts by Simon Shack to implant and promote disinformation. Shack also appears to be embedded with a network of other "video fakery" promoters such as Fakeologist, Markus Allen, OBF and Hoax Busters. 

See video below:    

Thank you for watching!

Sunday, 22 July 2018

9/11 Alchemy "Facing Reality" - (Full Updated Version - 720p) By: Chris Hampton of Wolf Clan Media

By Mark Conlon
I would like to personally thank Chris Hampton of Wolf Clan Media for taking the time to make this film. Also thanks for including my research and to all the other researchers involved in the project. Chris is a skilled researcher in his own right, and not just a film-maker which shows through in his film. Chris didn't have an easy task collating all the information and research, yet made a film which effortlessly combines a great deal of research information into a watchable easy to follow format. Credit to him for achieving this.
9/11 Alchemy "Facing Reality" - Full Version - 720p
Chris has made this film available for free, however by buying a DVD HQ version you can help him recover some of the costs, as he injected a lot of his own money into the making this film. Plus this will help him expand on future research films he will be embarking on in the future. See details below: 
Pre-order the HQ DVD here: https://wolfclanentertainment.com 
"9/11 Alchemy", by Wolf Clan Media. Expanding on the evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood in "Where did the towers go? Evidence of directed free energy technology on 9/11. Exposing the use of advanced 'Image Projection' technology used in conjunction with DEW to create the illusion of airplanes on 9/11.
Many thanks for watching! Please spread this film far and wide....

Wednesday, 11 July 2018

Gary Welz is 'NOT' Tony Arrigo - (Crisis Actors & "Psychological Operations")

By Mark Conlon

I felt compelled to write this article to address accusations by so-called 9/11 researchers in relation to two witnesses on 9/11. After 9/11, and in the subsequent terror events that followed around the world, 

we began to hear more and more talk of "crisis actors" involvement in terror events in the alternative media. This started around 2007 with claims being made by two prominent 9/11 "No-Planes" researchers called Killtown and Simon Shack. 

One such claim which was circulated widely across the internet claimed that an actor called Gary Welz was playing a "fake" plane eyewitness in New York who appeared on MSNBC news media coverage on the day of 9/11. See below: 

This was also being circulated at Simon Shack's 'September Clues' forum. 

And was also being discussed at Phil Jayhan's 'Let's Roll' forum, where it was also promoting Gary Welz to be a "fake" plane eyewitness in 2011, although the post originally was started in 2010 by another anonymous person called Equinox who was also a member of the 'September Clues' forum. See below:

So we have evidence of three prominent 9/11 researchers who were encouraging the promotion and circulation of unfounded claims on their forum and blog platforms, without any concerns for the truth about the people they have publically named who are said to be actors or "fake" eyewitnesses.

In many videos which were circulated across the YouTube platform the "fake" plane eyewitness was named as Tony Arrigo, which the researchers said was actor Gary Welz. See below: 

Tony Arrigo also rang into MSNBC at round 8:51am after the 1st plane struck the North Tower. See below: (Note: start video at the beginning).

Tony Arrigo & Gary Welz at a glance....

Not even from a first glance when I first observed this story in 2008 did I begin to think that the two men were the same person, so why was this promoted? See Below:

One major distinct difference in the two men's appearance is their eyesight. Tony Arrigo has quite severe hyperopia (long-sighted), whereas Gary Welz is myopia (short-sighted), which we can see the differences in their eye-glass lens prescriptions. Another difference is Gary Welz's ears are more outwardly noticeable compared to Tony Arrigo's ears which are more sat back to his head. 

The hair style is similar, however Welz's parts his hair on the right as we look at him in the image above whereas Arrigo parts his on the left. Plus, Gary Welz's hair is above the ears and is cut shorter and is grey, whereas Tony Arrigo's is much longer above the ear and sits over the ears, compared to Gary Welz's which is cut neatly above his ears. Both Arrigo and Welz have different shaped noses also, Welz's is much wider than Arrigo's, and also note the different eye colours, Arrigo's are lighter than Welz's. 

So as we can observe there are significant differences between the two men which should have been obvious to well schooled 9/11 researchers, unless they had an agenda to run with this "false" plane eyewitness actor story.

A Canadian 9/11 researcher called Jeff Hill contacted Tony Arrigo to clarify his eyewitness account and also his location. See the video below: 

Below: Tony Arrigo's location view on 31 East 12th Street  

Below, in a phone conversation with Jeff Hill, Gary Welz discusses the claims made against him and reveals the strange interest he was receiving from various anonymous 9/11 researchers, such as Killtown and Ozzy Bin Oswald.

Hear the phone at this link below:


People have tried to claim Gary Welz lied about seeing the plane from his location in a news interview. As Welz explained in the phone call, the way the interview was edited it made it imply as though he said he seen the 2nd plane, when in reality he did not as he only heard it. Welz also discusses the claims that were made against him about being the "fake" plane eyewitness on MSNBC News.

New evidence emerges...

After writing this article which I posted in a Facebook group, I was contacted via the thread by 9/11 researcher 'Conspiracy Cuber'. He was confused how Tony Arrigo who is the person named in the image below was able to be on the phone talking to MSNBC giving his eyewitness account of the 1st plane crash into the North Tower within maxium of 10 minutes at 8:56am was also able to make it across New York to the 56th Floor of the Woolworth building to witness the 2nd plane striking the South Tower?

Conspiracy Cuber wrote:

"At 8:46 he was at 31 E 12 street, but now at 9:03 he's all of the sudden on the 56th floor of the Woolworth Building? Google Maps says it's a 13 minute drive. Are we sure this other guy is Tony Arrigo?"

See video below:

'Conspiracy Cuber' also noticed that the man who has been known for many years as Tony Arrigo had a name on his workshirt which says Robert. Was this the man's name? One thing seems possible, he may have worked in the Woolworth building?  

See Below:

This led 'Conspracy Cuber' and myself to the conclusion that this man was "NOT" Tony Arrigo because he didn't have enough time to make the journey from his location on 31 E 12 street at 8:46am to the 56th Floor of Woolworth Building by 9:03am to witness the 2nd plane crash. I have to agree with this conclusion.

Also note: Tony Arrigo was still at his location during his call to MSNBC at 8:51am approximately as referenced in the video, which made it more impossible to make the 13 minute drive across New York within that time-frame to witness the 2nd plane crash.

Also with the name on his shirt (Robert), one has to conclude that this person's name was Robert, and not Tony, which reinforces the conclusion.

Another interesting note is: The YouTube channel which uploaded the video above is called "Ozzy Bin Oswald", and it is this person who Gary Welz referred to in the phone call with Jeff Hill who Welz was weary of, along with other blogger Killtown.   


It is clear that Gary Welz was not Tony Arrigo, or a 9/11 actor playing any role on 9/11 to deceive people. This was "false" information which was promulgated around the internet by various well known 9/11 researchers and in their forums and blogs.

There does seem to be an agenda involved or a "Psy-Op" behind the idea of "fake" witnesses, as from these initial claims in 2007 the whole "crisis actors" scenario was born, which is at the forefront of most of the following events after 9/11. I have written about claims regarding the "Harley Guy" Mark Walsh being part of the conspiracy. I concluded they were unfounded accusations, as he was most likely used "unknowingly" to promulgate the "official" narrative, I conclude his own eyewitness accounts from his 43rd floor apartment on Duane St of the 2nd plane impact was an accurate account and appears to be his own eyewitness experience.

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

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

Other "false" accusations to identity of the "Harley Guy"...

Also bear in mind how 9/11 researchers have incorrectly accused another "real" actor named Mark Adrian Humphery for being the "Harley Guy", which led to Humphery having to defend himself against these "false" accusations from 9/11 researchers. See below, Simon Shack's 'September Clues' forum screen-shot below: 

A blog by someone called "Ozzy Bin Oswald" and someone who I mentioned earlier-on in this article accused Mark Adrian Humphery of being the "Harley Guy" in 2009 where he is still promoting this "false" information about the actor still, as his blog article is left uncorrected or updated. See below:


This is disgraceful that people just repeat the lies as truths, with total disregard for the person they accuse of such acts, while hiding behind false, fake or anonymous identities on the internet. This is a forgotten area regarding the accuracy of the information when people are accusing people of being part of a conspiracy, especially without any credible evidence to back-up the claims to which they are making, while cowardly concealing their own identities.

The "Psy-Op" Crisis Actors...

The whole "fake" crisis actors was created it appears for future "Psy Ops" which were to play-out in future events which would create "false" leads for researchers to keep them busy, while they discuss who was, or who was not a crisis actor. 

An example: Below shows this isn't the same girl in the four attacks, yet this is being promoted across the internet as if she is, and people are readily accepting it as the truth and then re-circulating it across the internet, thus further muddling-up and concealing the truth by unknowingly promoting a lie. 

Another example: Below shows a deliberate attempt to deceive people to share the "false" crisis actors narrative in relation to the bombing in Aleppo in Syria in 2016, and a little girl who they claimed was used by CNN in 3 different staged events.

This banner is completely "false" and is not three separate events, they are all the same event. Again the aim is to create a "false" crisis actors scenario in peoples minds.

I am not saying that crisis actors are "NOT" used, as we do have legitimate evidence of staged events where actors have been used in terror events. One such provable event is the "fake" 2016 car bomb attack in Baghdad. See video below:

Also see the article investigating this staged event published by: Christian Triebert in November 2016 called: The Remarkable Case of an Iraqi Car Bomb.

My belief which I have formed from the evidence I have been studying at this stage indicates to me that a "Psycological-Operation" (Psy-Op) is running to promote "false" leads to crisis actors, while at the same time events are being carried out and staged using crisis actors. So I am not saying crisis actors aren't real, however the examples on the internet which are cited as evidence seem to be unfounded at best, and a "Psy-Op" at worst.

I hypothesize that the false "Psy-Op" of crisis actors and people being accused as crisis actors will be used to help bring-in measures or laws on reporting on the internet, thus highlighting the injustice of people being "falsely" accused of being part of a conspiracy which will allow laws to be introduced. Is this coming from the intelligent services, who are implanting this "false" information, or J-TRIG, who Neil Sanders spoke about where they implant "false" information onto the internet. 

This would help to conceal the "legitimate" evidence of staged events, as people may dismiss any suggestions of "staged" events after the exposure of people "allegedly" putting-out "false" information which can easily be discredited by people, but in the process allows fingers to be pointed by the people who want to regulate the internet, which is why the introduction of the new buzz phrase "FAKE NEWS". This will be used in the future to censor the internet while mainstream media will be hailed as the "trusted" sources for news reporting again, as an end result and goal from the "Psychological-Operation". 

Thanks for reading! 

Tuesday, 10 July 2018

The Disappearing and Reappearing Wing Study

By Mark Conlon

In this study analysis I am going to compare two videos which captured an anomaly involving "alleged" Flight 175's plane wing briefly disappearing before impacting the South Tower. I will also explore some of the most common explanations which have been put forward to try and explain these anomalies. 

Many 9/11 researchers have tried to explain away some of the anomalies captured in the "Flight 175" videos. One such case is the video footage showing the plane wing disappearing in some of the videos.

Some researchers believe that video compression was responsible for the plane wing's disappearance, while others say it is because of the background and the sky. To some degree these can be valid arguments put forward. To demonstrate these two points I have used below two videos taken of regular planes in the sky to demonstrate how these two factors affect the video camera's ability to register the "real" plane's wings and tail section depending on the colour of the sky and also the colour of the plane itself. See below:

As you can see in the image above taken of a "real" plane, the sky is grey and the colour of plane is similar in colour which makes it difficult for the video camera to differentiate, however we still see the wings and tail section in the video.
In the video below taken of a "real" plane you can see that for one frame the tail section's left-hand wing looks transparent, almost disappearing. The merging against the blue sky demonstrates a natural transparent looking plane wing for one video frame. So it is possible for this anomaly to happen in video footage and give the appearance that the tail section wing has disappeared, so this is a natural anomaly, laws of optics, not a fake video or CGI plane. 

The difference in the next two examples below is, it shows neither of those two explanations above can account for the disappearance of the plane wing documented in the two pieces of 9/11 video footage below:

The difference with this study is the videos are taken from two different directions and using two different video cameras both capturing the same missing wing anomaly. This proves that this was an anomaly captured from the "perceived" object in the sky and not an anomaly or malfunction of the video camera recording equipment itself. So then explanation of compression or sky backdrop and light can be ruled-out. Not in (Fig A & B) this was captured using high quality video camera equipment, and in (Fig C & D) the video camera was of a lower quality, and only captured the missing wing for one video frame only.  

In the 6 still images below taken from the Naudet video second plane hit, they captured the "alleged" plane for 6 frames in sequence where it shows the "alleged" plane's wing to be missing. See below:

See enlarged image below: Plane wing missing!

Over the 6 frames it shows no wing after the plane engine. The footage was taken using high quality video equipment. Was this why it picked up the missing wing for 6 frames instead of only one frame in the lower quality other video camera footage showing the plane wing missing? Was the high quality video recording equipment key to capturing this anomaly of the "perceived" object in the sky? Was this why we have never seen any professional news camera crew footage of the plane from the ground on 9/11? Were the news camera teams kept away in case they captured more anomalies like this of the plane in their higher quality equipment?

Below: Luc Courchesne was using professional video camera recording equipment and he also captured the missing wing anomaly in several frames in his video footage.

Luc Courchesne - Missing Wing Video:
In this case it could be that the shutter speed of the video camera was open for a shorter period of time, example 1/60th of a second as the video camera was facing into the sunlight on the east-side of the sky. Because of the camera's shutter being open for a shorter time-frame did it catch the "image projection" of the plane in mid drawing of the projection, thus "not" displaying a full image of the plane in the sky? (Example, if you imagine a strobe light, which flashes quickly and capturing it in between cycles of light and dark phase). 

Also we must take into account the high quality of the video camera used, which would have played a major role in capturing the anomaly, as it captured several frames not just one frame of the missing wing like other video camera's of a lower quality and with a longer open shutter speed exposure.  
What I can positively conclude is, we are NOT looking at a "real" plane captured in the 9/11 video footage, and the anomalies were NOT caused by compression artifacts or video malfunctions. The anomaly issues are with the object itself in the sky which were captured by numerous video cameras from different locations, thus depending on the quality of the video camera and the location perspective of the video camera would explain to some degree how the anomaly (missing wings) would have been captured in the video footage.

Impossibility of Video Fakery, CGI Planes & Compositing...?
This also definitely rules-out any suggestion of inserted CGI graphic planes or composited planes into the TV media footage or the amateur video footage later. Why would the perpetrator's insert CGI planes which were NOT convincing enough or full of glitches? this is just not logical. Also how did they control all of the eyewitnesses in NYC of those who witnessed a planes hitting the buildings, and please note; before even seeing anything on TV or media coverage? Impossible. Yet we have NOT seen any videos put into the public domain showing no plane at all in the video footage, one would have thought at least one video over the last 17 years would of surfaced or slipped through the net of control depicting such claims made by the "video fakery" promoters. No matter what anybody tells you their are reliable witnesses who seen what they took to be a plane in the sky and hitting both buildings. The "video fakery" promoters never confront this issue, only to make empty accusations calling all the eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers liars or being part of the a big conspiracy. They provide no credible evidence to support their "bogus" claims. Please note: People who suggest this are dis-informers who are acting to cover-up the "image projection" technology which explains all the evidence of the lack of crash physics, eyewitness accounts and video and photographic evidence. As I have demonstrated in my previous blog articles since 2013 I have exposed the "alleged" 9/11 researchers who insist on covering-up and muddling the evidence. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with who they are, so you can set yourself free of their despicable behaviour.
Thanks you reading and caring!

Friday, 6 July 2018

New Attempts To Circulate "Disinformation" About The Michael Hezarkhani Video...

By Mark Conlon

In past blogs I have highlighted the attempts being made to promulgate disinformation about the Michael Hezarkhani video of "alleged" Flight 175 impacting the South Tower. I have documented those who are doing this over the last 5 years or so, however in more recent months I have noticed another sharp increase of "new" 9/11 researchers' arriving on the scene to promote the "video fakery" argument while ignoring evidence to the contrary which I have documented because of their unwillingness to study it. 

The Hezarkhani video has been targeted through the years and has been subjected to serious "perception management" control to conceal vital evidence captured within the video itself, which is why the lies and disinformation keep resurfacing and the "Perception management" is their to keep people on the wrong path. 

I am going to highlight a new example of "false" information doing the rounds about the Michael Hezarkahni video to implant doubt over its authenticity, while implying through a subtle "psychological operation" that the video is fake. 

The new theory which surfaced recently attempts to cast doubt by claiming the sunlight and shadow direction on the south face of the South Tower building in the video is wrong.

Below is a short explanation showing how "false" information is implanted into the mind to create doubt over the video evidence...

Disinformation Banner doing the rounds on Facebook below:

Analysis below:

The fact is the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. But at New York's latitude, that's not quite the case. On the summer solstice, the sun rises in the northeast and sets in the northwest, while on the winter solstice, the angle changes and the sun rises in the southeast and sets in the southwest, so what we are seeing regarding the shadow in the Michael Hezarkhani video is correct, the person who has produced this banner is misleading people regarding the sun-rise and sun-set locations in relation to the time of year. I believe this is done deliberately, however implants early-on doubt by telling the reader that the shadow is wrong, when clearly it is correct.

Please consider before sharing information on Facebook...
Please check the veracity of the claims before accepting it as a truth, as you yourself could be party to re-circulating this type disinformation as a truth... when in reality it is LIES!

Thanks for reading!


Thursday, 5 July 2018

"Alleged" Plane Crashes and the Earth’s Magnetic Field on 9/11…

By Mark Conlon

A brief study and outline of the magnetometer evidence in relation to the "alleged" plane crashes on 9/11...

Something strange was happening to the Earth's magnetic field at the exact time the 'airplane shaped' holes were created in NYC, The Pentagon and Shanksville on 9/11.

Between 8:15am and 5:20pm the earth’s magnetic field shows a continuous disturbance:

The disturbance started around 8:15am and was deflecting downwards reaching its minimum point at 8:46am, then begins to rise upwards again and recovers, then continues upwards reaching a maximum at 9:02-03am. There is also disturbances at 9:37am and also 10:03am and 10:06am, all correlating with the four plane crash events.

North Tower: 8:46am & South Tower: 9:02am
Pentagon Event: 9:37am

Shanksville Event: 10:03am – 10:06am
The Earth’s magnetic field data was measured by 6 different instruments run by the University of Alaska. Dr Judy Wood downloaded the raw data from the magnetometers and put it into an excel spread sheet.

A question which needs to be considered is... Do you think that plane crashes can affect the Earth’s magnetic field? The instruments were based approximately 3500 miles away from the events.

We are talking about energy effects… All of the evidence points to energy effects! None of it points to traditional explosives, nukes or bombs… Or ‘THERMITE’.
Dr Judy Wood has outlined the same disturbances when the North and South Tower's were destroyed, and also WTC 7. All 7 events of the day show fluctuations and spikes during the event as a whole.
Plane crashes do not cause the Earth's magnetic field to behave like this...
In my future blogs:
I will show evidence demonstrating that the plane shaped holes were NOT created by conventional means (explosives or thermite), which is why this evidence has been concealed and not talked about by certain 9/11 researchers, who claim to be looking for truth.
Thanks for reading!