Monday, 15 January 2018

Discussing "9/11 History" On 'Raconteurs News' Radio Show With Jason Holmes

By Mark Conlon

I joined Jason Holmes of 'Raconteur News' earlier tonight for a casual chat about 9/11 history, where we discussed some of the past 9/11 research, films, and early information and characters in the '9/11 Truth-movement'. We also discussed some ufology towards the end of show and a sighting I had in June 2010 and also a compelling case local to the area where I used to live involving a police sighting in January 1995. We also touched on changes in society and how technology has played a part in human behaviour and how it has changed the way people are interacting with each other, or lack of it.


 


To listen from the website: 

I would like to thank Jason and Andy for inviting me on to their Show...

Thanks for listening...

 

Tuesday, 9 January 2018

I Will Be Discussing "9/11 History" On Raconteurs News Radio Show 15th January 2018 - 7PM GMT UK.


 By Mark Conlon

I will be joining Andy Young and Jason Holmes to discuss "9/11 History" on 'Raconteurs News' radio show on the 15th January 2018 - 7PM GMT UK. 


Website: http://raconteursnews.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RaconteursNews1/?ref=br_rs 
Spreaker: https://www.spreaker.com/user/raconteursnews


Thanks for listening...

Monday, 8 January 2018

9/11 Holding the Truth "Chapter 11" Steve De'aks 9/11 Crash Test


By Mark Conlon


Carrying on with my featured chapters from Andrew Johnson's "new" book - 9/11 Holding the Truth, here's the chapter discussing Steve De'ak's 9/11 Crash Test' which I feel is very appropriate in light of recent developments.



To hear all 29 chapters from Andrew Johnson's "New" Book: 9/11 Holding the Truth, visit his 'Playlist' on his YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX_9c2xy6YwGr7fycx1Kcb4G71zCHwYf8

Or you can download all the 29 chapters in MP3 file format here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/index.php?dir=911%20Holding%20the%20Truth%20-%20Audio%20Book/

Or purchase a hardcopy of the book here:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/http://www.lulu.com/shop/andrew-johnson-and-nick-buchanan/911-holding-the-truth/paperback/product-23439896.html
The truth about what happened to the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001 was discovered by Dr Judy Wood, through careful research between 2001 and 2008. The author of this book, Andrew Johnson, had a “good view” of how later parts of Dr Wood’s research “came together.” Not only that, he was also involved in activities, correspondence and research which illustrated that this truth was being deliberately covered up. This book is a companion and follow-up volume to “9/11 Finding the Truth” – and documents ongoing (and successful) efforts to keep the truth out of the reach of most of the population.

Evidence in this book, gathered over a period of 12 years, shows that the cover up is “micro-managed,” internationally and even globally. The book names people who are involved in the cover up. It illustrates how they often stick to “talking points” and seem to have certain patterns of behaviour. It attempts to illustrate how difficult it is to prevent the truth from being marginalised, attacked and “muddled up.” Additionally, other evidence pertaining to the events of 9/11 is studied in an attempt to show the vast implications of what is now known. The book aims to open the reader’s mind to the power of the group or groups that perpetrated this enormous deception. At the same time, it is shown that the secrets revealed contain the knowledge for positively transforming the world we live in.


I encourage all of you to read or listen to this book to understand the "cover-up" perpetrated by so-called 9/11 researchers who claim to want the truth who's mission appears to conceal the truth and the use of an "image projection" technology to create a powerful illusion of a plane impacting the South Tower and also the use of a "directed energy weapon" which turned the towers to dust.


Thanks for reading and caring....



Richard D. Hall's 'Flight 175' 3D Analysis - October 2016 Update



By Mark Conlon


This is Richard D. Hall's October 2016 - 9/11  'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis which sheds light on what most likely caused the damage to the World Trade Centre towers.




This research by Richard D. Hall proves conclusively that the plane paths in each of the 26 videos which Richard analysed demonstrates that the plane paths were the same in each of the 26 videos, thus disproving the theory which has been promoted that the plane paths were different in each of the videos.


Thank you for watching and caring...



Sunday, 7 January 2018

"IMPORTANT NEW UPDATE" 7th Jan 2018 - Steve De'ak's Inaccurate Comments


By Mark Conlon


This update has also been added to the end of an article I wrote. (See link below). The update is a response in relation to Steve De'ak's latest inaccurate Facebook comments about me.

Setting The Record Straight About The Michael Hezarkhani Video

It now appears that Steve De'ak is now responding to an article I wrote by calling me a "Con"? So he is now reverting to name calling, and not talking about the actual content of my video analysis I produced.



He admits in his latest Facebook comment that he didn't read or listen to what I was saying in my video, as he only read a so-called apparent "frauds" list. This is an inaccurate reference in his comment, as I make no reference to the list being a "list of frauds" in my article, which he would have realiesed if he had read the article or watched the videos. In the paragraph I provide a "brief" history of "No-Planes", then show a list of people who have promoted video fakery, No-Planes and also holograms.



Please Note: The two people I refer to in my article above Rosalee Grable AKA (The Webfairy) and Gerard Holmgren are no longer with us on this planet.. which I reflected in the article saying "Sadly both are no longer with us".. 

If you read through all my previous blogs, there is no reference to either Rosalee Grable or Gerard Holmgren, and certainly NOT in a "negative" light, or being called "FRAUDS" in my blog articles, I merely quote a fact that both believed "No-Planes" were involved in the WTC attacks, and also believe TV Fakery/Video Fakery was involved, which I disagree with. Rosalee herself has many times made clear during many interviews her position on the subject, and archive history is the same for Gerard Holmgren. I just state their last known position on the subject which is factual.

Please Note: The list accurately states that Steve De'ak has promoted Video Fakery, No Planes and Crash Test. At no-point is he called a "fraud" or was the list called a "frauds list". In my articles I have always been respectful towards Steve De'ak, and expressed why I disagree with his findings or theories regarding "video fakery" and the Hezarkhani video.



In fact I showed Steve De'ak credit for showing "humility" twice and admitting when he was wrong about two theories he had changed his position on after observing new evidence. So I am not quite sure as to why he feels this is bad to document people's inaccurate theories, or make light of the changes in their positions once held.



I even quoted where I had changed my own position on the Fox News - Chopper5 "Nose-out" sequence because of new evidence presented to me. So Steve's issues towards myself pointing-out when people are wrong in their theories, according Steve De'ak makes me a "CON", which doesn't really quite sit with the investigative research method, as after all my main body of research has proven conclusively the many flaws in Simon Shack's - September Clues film. Is this something I should not have talked about or pointed out regarding the "incorrect" points which are made by Simon Shack, or should I have kept quite about it so we can all still believe the inaccurate points proposed by Simon Shack in his September Clues film? Would this bring around progress in finding the truth, just so people can feel nice and comfortable in their "comfort zone"... NO! So why does Steve claim this is a dishonest practice, and not someone looking to find the truth...?

Please Note: I have not called Steve De'ak a "fraud", as he claimed I have in his latest Facebook comment. I would ask him to produce evidence of me calling him personally a FRAUD...?



I also corrected Steve's claim that I had deleted my YouTube comments, which I addressed in my recent response 19/12/2017 to Steve's De'ak's questions to me on his blog/website 17/12/2017. As I explained my 'YouTube Channel' was closed down by YouTube, thus deleting all my comments in the thread, not by myself deleting my comments which he again has "inaccurately" repeated in his latest Facebook comments.

On a final note, what is clear all this diverts attention away from the "original" findings of the analysis I did regarding the Hezarkhani video, thus pointing-out the incorrect claims made about the Michael Hezarkhani video and also my analysis of Steve De'ak's claim about Michael Hezarkhani fuzzing-out, blurring and fabricating his video evidence to conceal the plane gash, which I believe to be incorrect, and based on no evidence offered other than what Steve De'ak says Michael Hezarkhani did to his video.  


So I will leave it to the viewer/reader of the article and update to make of Steve De'ak's claims about me and to draw their own conclusions...

 
Thank you for reading and caring...




 

Saturday, 30 December 2017

Setting The Record Straight About The Michael Hezarkhani Video


By Mark Conlon

In the video below, I explain some of the misconceptions and disinformation which has been circulated over the years by various 9/11 researchers' in relation to the "historical" Michael Hezarkhani video, where they have incorrectly claimed it to be a fake video.


The reason I believe "falsehoods" have been put-out about the Michael Hezarkhani video is to cast doubt in people's minds as to what was really captured in the video, thus to "discredit" the video visual evidence contained within it, such as; impossible plane speed and impossible crash physics. This video could potentially reveal the use of an advanced "image projection" technology, if people were to believe the video is authentic, thus ruling out video fakery. This appears to be why "video fakery" was introduced around 2003-4 as a clever "Psychological Operation" to create enough doubt in people's minds regarding the 9/11 visual evidence record through subtle perception management, thus to conceal an advance "image projection" technology. 

A Brief History Lesson: 
It was Thierry Meyssan in October 2001 who first discovered evidence that "No-Plane" was involved in the Pentagon attack, which he wrote about in his two books; 9/11 The Big Lie - released in March 2002 and Pentagate - released in June 2002. 
 
Meyssan's hypothesis contends a missile hit the Pentagon not a plane. Something which I agree with. It was following Meyssan's revelations that around 2003-4 that the "No-Plane" theory was born and carried over to the WTC New York event, which was promoted by Rosalee Grable AKA "The Webfairy" and Gerrard Holmgren. (Sadly both are no longer with us). A list of other "video fakery" promoters can be seen below:


Please find links to articles & information I refer to in my video below: 


*NEW VIDEO EVIDENCE* UPDATED: 03/01/2018
I feel this is important new evidence discovered by 'Conspiracy Cuber', who posted this video evidence of the ferry boat docked in Battery Park which Michael Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor were stationed on when they documented the 2nd WTC event. See Below:

 Video Published on 24th Dec 2017 by Conspiracy Cuber




Please follow me to keep track of new articles I post at my blog by pressing the "Follow-Me" button. Or you can contact me using the "Contact Form" at the bottom of the side-bar located on the right hand side of the blog page. 


Thank you for reading and watching!


***********IMPORTANT NEW UPDATE 7th Jan 2018**************

It now appears that Steve De'ak is now responding to this article I wrote by calling me a "Con"? So he is now reverting to name calling, and not talking about the actual content of my video analysis I produced. 


He admits in his latest Facebook comment that he didn't read or listen to what I was saying in my video, as he only read a so-called apparent "frauds" list. This is an inaccurate reference in his comment, as I make no reference to the list being a "list of frauds" in my article, which he would reliese if he had read the article or watched the videos. In the paragraph I provide a "brief" history of "No-Planes", then show a list of people who have promoted video fakery, No-Planes and also holograms.


Please Note: The two people I refer to in my article above Rosalee Grable AKA (The Webfairy) and Gerard Holmgren are no longer with us on this planet.. which I reflected in the article saying "Sadly both are no longer with us".. 

If you read through all my previous blogs, there is no reference to either Rosalee Grable or Gerard Holmgren, and certainly NOT in a "negative" light, or being called "FRAUDS" in my blog articles, I merely quote a fact that both believed "No-Planes" were involved in the WTC attacks, and also believe TV Fakery/Video Fakery was involved, which I disagree with. Rosalee herself has many times made clear during many interviews her position on the subject, and archive history is the same for Gerard Holmgren. I just state their last known position on the subject which is factual.

Please Note: The list accurately states that Steve De'ak has promoted Video Fakery, No Planes and Crash Test. At no-point is he called a "fraud" or was the list called a "frauds list". In my articles I have always been respectful towards Steve De'ak, and expressed why I disagree with his findings or theories regarding "video fakery" and the Hezarkhani video. 


In fact I showed Steve De'ak credit for showing "humility" twice and admitting when he was wrong about two theories he had changed his position on after observing new evidence. So I am not quite sure as to why he feels this is bad to document people's inaccurate theories, or make light of the changes in their positions once held.



I even quoted where I had changed my own position on the Fox News - Chopper5 "Nose-out" sequence because of new evidence presented to me. So Steve's issues towards myself pointing-out when people are wrong in their theories, according Steve De'ak makes me a "CON", which doesn't really quite sit with the investigative research method, as after all my main body of research has proven conclusively the many flaws in Simon Shack's - September Clues film. Is this something I should not have talked about or pointed out regarding the "incorrect" points which are made by Simon Shack, or should I have kept quite about it so we can all still believe the inaccurate points proposed by Simon Shack in his September Clues film? Would this bring around progress in finding the truth, just so people can feel nice and comfortable in their "comfort zone"... NO! So why does Steve claim this is a dishonest practice, and not someone looking to find the truth...?

Please Note: I have not called Steve De'ak a "fraud", as he claimed I have in his latest Facebook comment. I would ask him to produce evidence of me calling him personally a FRAUD...?


I also corrected Steve's claim that I had deleted my YouTube comments, which I addressed in my recent response 19/12/2017 to Steve's De'ak's questions to me on his blog/website 17/12/2017. As I explained my 'YouTube Channel' was closed down by YouTube, thus deleting all my comments in the thread, not by myself deleting my comments which he again has "inaccurately" repeated in his latest Facebook comments. 

On a final note, what is clear all this diverts attention away from the "original" findings of the analysis I did regarding the Hezarkhani video, thus pointing-out the incorrect claims made about the Michael Hezarkhani video and also my analysis of Steve De'ak's claim about Michael Hezarkhani fuzzing-out, blurring and fabricating his video evidence to conceal the plane gash, which I believe to be incorrect, and based on no evidence offered other than what Steve De'ak says Michael Hezarkhani did to his video.  

So I will leave it to the viewer/reader of the article and update to make of Steve De'ak's claims about me and to draw their own conclusions...


Thank you for reading and caring...



Friday, 29 December 2017

Analysis of Steve De'ak's Claim Regarding the Michael Hezarkhani Video "Plane Gash"


By Mark Conlon


This is a short video I made addressing Steve De'ak's claim on Jim Fetzer's show on the 16th June 2017. Steve De'ak claimed that Michael Hezarkhani fabricated and manipulated his video footage of the plane shaped gash in the South Tower building. In this analysis I demonstrate that Michael Hezarkhani did not manipulated his video by adding smoke or blurring-out the plane hole gash, as Steve De'ak claims. 

   

This video has not been made to discredit Steve De'ak, it has been made to point-out what I believe to be an "invalid" theory that Steve De'ak presented on Jim Fetzer's show. 

As I have already stated in my response on 19th Decemeber to Steve De'ak's blog post on the 17th December 2017, I would be happy to point-out any areas where I felt Steve is correct in his analysis of the plane gash damage in the North Tower which he presents in his videos. I have not fully researched this area to reach any conclusion regarding Steve's ideas/theories. My main focus and contention has been analysing the claims regarding the video footage which many 9/11 researchers present as "video fakery". I felt this was a valid example which needed addressing and correcting. I welcome any feedback through the "Contact Form" located at the bottom of the right-hand side-bar of my blog page. 


Thank you for reading, watching and caring...