Saturday, 20 May 2017

9/11 “No-Plane” Perception Management "More to the Story"

By Mark Conlon 20th May 2017

The reason for writing this following-up article, following-on from my earlier one I wrote – (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.

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

The main direction and focus of the “perception management” is surrounding “no planes” and whether “video fakery” was used to insert planes into the video evidence footage, which would explain all the observational anomalies captured in the videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower.

Also the “no-planes” discussion is also controlled by managing the perceptions of people to the idea of planes being involved on 9/11, even though strong evidence suggests no planes crashed at any of the four crash sites on 9/11.

Video fakery has been the most widely “accepted” theory which emerged as early as 2003. In 2008 when I first became aware of the issues in relation to the Flight 175 videos I personally observed that most people “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. I myself had first knowledge of this because for six years I took 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 on the internet called September Clues, released in 2007, made by a person who went under the alias Social Service. The person was later known as Simon Shack, later finding out his real name was Simon Hytten. The film mainly promoted what can only be described as convincing evidence of “video fakery” on 9/11. The film was so convincing, I didn't question the authenticity of the claims made in it for Six years.  
In 2012 Richard D. Hall released his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis video which seriously challenges some of the claims put forward by the “video fakery” theory promoter’s such as; Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Markus Allen 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 observed and reported along with videographers and photographers videoing and photographing the plane.

After watching Richard’s Analysis and his hypothesis he puts forward I found it answered many more questions which were left "unanswered" that the “video fakery” theory failed to sufficiently answer such as; the plane flight path in the different videos, where Richard was able to compare 26 videos out 52 showing the plane’s flight path, proving sufficiently that all the plane’s flight path matched-up in each of the 26 videos he analysed. See his video below:


The hypothesis put forward by Richard D. Hall in his 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis was met with much resistance by many "video fakery" promoter's and supporter's as it disproved the “video fakery” theory which is the most "favourable" promoted theory to explain all the strange anomalies captured in the Flight 175 videos. Richard’s hypothesis also proposed the use of some type of advanced “image projection” technology, which could've been technology on-board or attached to a missile, which cloaked an image of a plane around the missile which travelled at 585mph. Because of the advance technology that could be involved I strongly suggest this is why “video fakery” has been put-out as a “psychological operation” and cover-story to manage people’s perceptions, with an intension to conceal knowledge of a secret “image projection” technology system.

On the 11th September 2013 on the 12th anniversary of 9/11 a video surfaced on the YouTube by a 9/11 no-plane’s researcher called Markus Allen.


After watching Markus Allen’s video I quickly became aware that something was not right with his explanation he was proposing in the video, especially regarding the plane’s wing disappearing behind the building in the foreground, which he claimed “should not” happen, and going-on to explain that it was evidence of a computer “CGI glitch” and evidence of “video fakery” in the Michael Hezarkhani video.

After thoroughly studying and analysing the video I wrote an article correcting the mistakes he made in his video. My article was published at Andrew Johnson’s “Check the Evidence” website.
It was this video with all the "false" claims in it that four years on put me on course to learn and understand of a clever “psychological operation” that was managing people’s perceptions in relation to the discussion of “no-planes” and “video fakery”.

Prominent researcher’s such as; Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Markus Allen and others too many to name here, appeared to be “deliberately” promoting "false" points in their videos, which I have written about on my blog-page, also documenting how “video fakery” does not explain all the anomalies captured in the videos of Flight 175.

For six years I'd "unknowingly" had my own perceptions managed, even to the point of repeating “video fakery” as the answer to all the issues within the Flight 175 video footage, now realising how it had prevented me from looking too closely at the video evidence in the Flight 175 videos, thus in the process “disinformation” was allow to thrived. Over one million people watched Markus Allen’s video, and a considerable amount shared the video across the internet, which was proposing “false” explanations of a computer “glitch” and a “CGI Plane”, thus demonstrating how easily on a mass scale to manage the people’s perceptions of not just the few but the many, including myself for six years. who considered myself to be awake an knowledgeable to the truth, especially in this subject area of 9/11.

In 2014 I started to research the claims made by Simon Shack in his September Clues film, thoroughly analysing his explanations he proposed. What I come to learn and understand from my research was a number of "false" claims were being made which were not backed-up with any "real" evidence or facts to support his claims, and in most cases (which I have written about and demonstrated) Simon Shack was incorrect at best and deliberately deceiving at the very worst. My research suggested the later.

Because of my research and Richard D Hall’s ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis, ikt became apparent to me that “video fakery” seemed to be put-out "deliberately" as a cover-story and was being used as a “psychological operation” to prevent people (such as myself) from studying closely the video and photographic evidence, thus with the intent to conceal the use of an advanced “image projection” technology which must be kept secret from the public’s knowledge. This seemed to have correlation to 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”, which Andrew Johnson talks about in his 9/11 Finding The Truth book.


There appears to be two vital areas to the “psychological operation”. One, is to promote the idea that all the 9/11 videos are fake, which accounts for all the anomalies captured within 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 planes on 9/11, because more and more people are becoming aware that “no-planes” crashed on 9/11, thus needing to manage people’s perceptions to the fact of the lack of evidence of a plane crash due to the lack of any "real" physical remains of plane wreckage debris. The Perception management works so if anyone questions "no-planes" on 9/11 they are quickly provided with a cover-story which is "video fakery" which is well-managed and promoted regularly. The layer is to subtly promote the opposite, which is giving a perceived "idea" that plane's crashed did on 9/11, as you will see later in this article. 

Discrediting the video evidence - Michael Hezarkhani video
A psychological part of this operation is to repeatedly single-out and discredit the video evidence. There is no better example than the Michael Hezarkhani video, which has been repeatedly accused of being “fake”. A number of prominent “no-plane” researcher's have all put-out “false” disinformation about this video which I have written about and documented involving Simon Shack, Ace and Markus Allen. The Michael Hezarkhani video is undoubtedly the most famous and clearest view of the second "alleged" plane impacting the South Tower. The video captured a number of strange anomalies, so it came as no surprise to me to discover how this figured in the recent 2017 timeline of events of "no-planes" perception management. 

Recent "No-Planes" Perception Management

In recent months prior there has been a sharp increase of material being removed by social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook regarding the discussion of “no-planes” following the release of Richard D. Hall’s latest version of his 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis in October 2016.

I have closely observed recent activities over the last three months which appears to be well-coordinated and well thought-out responses to reduce the “impact” that Richard’s ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis Video was having on what I now considered, a very clever “psychological operation” which is called “video fakery”. What I was witnessing was not just a set of “unrelated” timely coincidences or random acts, rather ones which were much more coordinated.
Below I have outlined a “timeline” of events which were not immediately obvious to me at the time of writing my original article, which is why I felt the need to include it here, having collected more information relevant in relation to all the dates outlined in the timeline, which appears to be an attempt to manage people’s perceptions, which becomes more visible when you connect the dots.
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? No copyright infringement, as all music was licenced and paid for in his film. Viewing figures showed it had a big impact, reaching over 300,000 views and rising.
Note: This was an attempt by YouTube to "block" anyone from watching this video, which 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? Note, no "video fakery" videos were removed by YouTube to my knowledge at this time.
February 8th 2016: An alleged 9/11 "Flight 175" attendant at a 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 about the planes on 9/11 just in case someone shows Trump the “real” evidence, also using this opportunity to promote the idea of planes on 9/11 because growing numbers of people are now questioning the videos and are doubtful of the plane crashes story 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 911. 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, along with how Simon Shack’s film September Clues was quite deceptive.
Note: At approximately 10:00am on the 20th February 2017 - 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 911. Is this a warning to anyone who suggests that "video fakery"  does not answer explain the anomalies in the Flight 175 videos, or to anyone who suggests there's no "real" evidence of any plane crashes 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 the Michael Hezarkhani video
Note: An attempt 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 which is promoted by Jim Fetzer who does not challenge Steve De’ak’s points. Fetzer claims he hasn’t studied the Michael Hezarkhani video enough, which is false as Jim Fetzer has conducted many shows in relation to "video fakery" and the Michael Hezarkhani video anomalies and has a history of promoting “video fakery” by prominent researcher's such as; Ace Baker, Killtown, Rosalee Grable (The Webfairy), Peggy Carter, CB 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 Video “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
Note: 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.
The timing of this world wide news feed release story is in-directly planting the idea of planes being involved on 9/11. This news story is released one day after Richard D. Hall starts his UK tour, especially when we consider Richard would have spoke about his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis video being “blocked” by YouTube in February 2017, which was later coincidently “unblocked” the following day on 1st April 2017 after the FBI re-releases it’s images of the 9/11 Pentagon attack, where the news headline in article above specifically talks about and mentions “plane remains” in its news headline banner. Is this all a coincidences?
Below: samples of the news headlines released on 31st March 2017.
Please note: I’ve highlighted in “red” font the instances to 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.
1st March 2017: Washington CNN
Photos Show Pentagon in 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.

Note: The news article headlines and stories above all appear to be an in-direct "subtle" promotion of the idea of a plane crash at the Pentagon through a contrived story of the "disappearance" of the 9/11 images on the FBI's website. This allowed the so-called re-release of the 9/11 images to enter the public domain showing some alleged "plane wreckage" and a rehashing of the "alleged" plane story in the write-ups. Subtle "perception management" in-directly of a plane crash into the public consciousness.  
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 February 2017 for “alleged” copyright infringement, even though all music in the video has been licensed and paid for by Richard D. Hall. Is this a coincidence? Two days after Richard’s tour starts YouTube “unblock” his video? Just another coincidence?
Note: 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 while reinforcing the 9/11 plane crash story to counter-act Richard’s video. After all by YouTube “blocking” his video it brought more attention to the video itself and his hypothesis suggested in it. Note: during this time period YouTube allowed “video fakery” promotion videos to remain on their platform. Another question to consider is, was it just a coincidence that it was the Pentagon event which was focused on, in the news story, as there is very little visual evidence in relation to this event when compared to the 2nd plane crash in NYC. Was this to prevent anyone challenging the plane crash story, as it is far easier to argue and convince people that there was a plane crashed at Pentagon due to the absence of evidence to question it?  
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 casts doubt over the 9/11 video evidence. Steve De’ak claims in his video, that Michael Hezarkhani video footage was taken from the deck of a boat, claiming that there are fifteen frames that prove it was videoed using a "tripod or dolly on dry land". Steve De’ak is creating “false” points which have been completely disproven, but attempts to rehash them in his video.
Note: This is yet another attempt by Steve De’ak to promote the idea that “video fakery” was used in the Michael Hezarkhani video, thus portraying video as a “fake” so it casts doubt over the video footage. This is done to perpetuate the “cover-up” to conceal the use of some type of advanced “image projection” technology which was captured within the Michael Hezarkhani video, managing people’s perceptions that "video fakery" is the answer to all the anomalies captured in the Michael Hezarkhani video.
Closing Notes:
As you can see above there has been activity of "censorship" involved in this perception management of the “no-planes” on 9/11, however timely discussions pertaining to “video fakery”. We also have the in-direct "subtle" promotion of the idea of a plane crash at the Pentagon through a story of "disappearance" of images on the FBI's website, which provided the opportunity for the so-called re-release story to enter the public domain. The timeline of activity demonstrates a “stepping-up” to steer and control people’s perceptions through the management of information to which people are allowed to receive in relation to the 9/11 “no-planes” subject, which is why I consider this timely release of the FBI's 9/11 images showing the alleged "plane wreckage" at the Pentagon to be “damage control and perception management” because of the failings in their "psychological operation" cover-story which is "video fakery".  
Perhaps this answers why the latest set of FBI images have been re-released, as more people are starting to see that "video fakery" does not sufficiently answer all the questions surrounding the anomalies captured within the Flight 175 plane crash videos, which has led to the “unjustified” blocking by YouTube of Richard D. Hall’s ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis Video without any sufficient reasons offered, other than to prevent access to information which would expose the advanced “image projection” technology which they are desperate to conceal, thus why a “rehashing” of the 2011 Pentagon images were re-released to enable an international news story to be circulated to promote the idea of plane crashes on 9/11 on a much wider consciousness scale to prevent others from waking-up and questioning the 9/11 plane crash story and the lack of evidence.    


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...