Monday, 14 January 2019

Conspiracy Cuber & Christian Hampton of Wolf Clan Media - 9/11 Interview/Conversation

 By Mark Conlon

This was formerly unlisted for nearly a year until Chris came out with the film; finally decided to make it public a year after we did it. I cut out some of the beginning and ending parts that were us working out technical glitches and contained personal information on Michael Hezarkhani.

ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION: I was given the opportunity on 1/13/18 to talk about 9/11 related issues with Christian Hampton for his upcoming film. We discussed a wide range of topics including the myth of video fakery, Steve De'ak and his disinformation, holographic technology existing in decades past, the missing wing, the Gelatin group, witnesses and videographers/photographers, audio issues, UFOs, and more. Thank you to Chris for the opportunity and the information. Sorry about the bad audio quality, I screen recorded the whole thing on my laptop, but only 14 minutes of me working out technical issues were recorded. Fortunately, I had another camera set up in the room as a backup, and I was forced to use the audio from that.

Thanks for listening!

Sunday, 6 January 2019

"New" Video From 'Conspiracy Cuber' - UA93 Memorial + All Things Related

By Mark Conlon

I am pleased to see that 9/11 researcher 'Conspiracy Cuber' has made a new video, where he documents his trip to Shanksville 'United 93' memorial site. He also discusses some related areas of 9/11 research regarding the occult, symbolism, numerology and spiritual elements involved, which I found very enlightening indeed. Excellent video, and well worth a watch. 

See below:

Video - Published on Jan 5, 2019

Video notes & links below:

Thank you all for your patience over these past nine months. Please let me know what you think of the material presented in this video, and any and all suggestions/additions/improvements/logical refutations/refinements/etc. are always appreciated, welcomed, and desired. I forgot to mention the BTS DB and PSA1771, but Mark has a paragraph about it here:

Sources and more information to explore:

9/11 Alchemy-Facing Reality:
(and in case of future censorship, try these: part 1 of 7 by Richard)

Mt. Ararat Lookout Point Info:
2. Interestingly enough there was a hotel here that burned down on 10/26/2001. See more here: and here: 

PSA1771 Info:
2. Random witness (onasphere): 
3. Debris spread over 20 acres: (archived:

And as always...

Thank you for watching, reading and caring...

Friday, 28 December 2018

The NORAD tapes are proof 'Delta 89' was not 'Delta 1989' on 9/11.

By Mark Conlon

Three minutes after the Pentagon was hit, a strange aircraft with call sign "Delta 89" popped up on the radar screens of air defence Commander Kevin Nasypany's crew. It signaled a hijacking and was tracked by NEADS for three minutes before it suddenly disappeared again.

In the “official” story, Delta 89 doesn't exist. Better to say, for the 9/11 Commission as well as authors Michael Bronner and Lynn Spencer ("Touching History"), the plane tracked by NEADS as Delta 89 was in fact Delta 1989, and nothing more than a case of sloppy communication, however, this is impossible. It is easy to show that, apart from the different call sign, Delta 89's transponder code, flight plan and flight path differed from Delta 1989. The evidence is present on the NORAD tapes, a source of impeccable authenticity because you can virtually look over the shoulder of NEADS technicians while they're tracking Delta 89 on their displays. 

To demonstrate why Delta 89 was not identical with Delta 1989, I shall go through the NORAD tapes step by step and comment on them, however before starting the analysis, we need to get a rough understanding how NEADS radar works, as it is quite different from the FAA radar. Lynn Spencer explains in her book "Touching History" (Pg.32).

Slow and cumbersome, and not nearly as user friendly as more modern equipment, the NEADS monochromic radar displays are not designed to take internal FAA radar data or to identify radar tracks originating from inside the United States. The system offers little, if any, such low-level coverage over the country.

Their radar scopes are filled with hundreds of radar returns not just from aircraft but from weather systems, ground interference. and what's called anomalous propagation - false returns caused by conditions in the atmosphere, or by such obstruction as flocks of birds.

So the NEADS radar screen is filled with countless radar blips from planes - without the identifying data block common to FAA radar, however - as well as irregular radar returns. Only on special occasions like emergency cases, a plane's blip is highlighted and provided with a data tag. Lynn Spencer (Pg. 25/26).
Pilots have three special transponder codes that they can dial in: 7500 for hijacking, 7600 for loss of radio, and 7700 for other emergencies. Any of them will cause the airplane's tag to light up on his radar screen, but he doesn't see any such tag.

Now we are ready to start with the analysis. The complete transcripts are here. It is highly recommended to listen to the "original" audio file of the following channels (scroll forward to the respective time).

Channel 4   - 1:14:00
Channel 7   - 1:09:00
Channel 21 - 1:09:00

(Channel 7)
9:39:31 Colin Scoggins, Boston Center military. Hijacked aircraft Delta nineteen eighty-nine. I give you the code 1304, presently due south of Cleveland, heading westbound, destination Las Vegas. And is this one a hijack, Sir? We believe it is. Didn't it squawk hijack? We don't umm...I don't know - it's squawking 1304 if you want to crank him up. 767, altitude 350. Where did it take-off? Out of Boston. We're trying to get a tail number on that if you want to get someone up.

90 seconds before Delta 89 appears on stage, NEADS receives a verbal message from Colin Scoggins, the military liaison controller at Boston Center, regarding Delta 1989. The message is affirmed with professional calm. NEADS knows now that one of the many anonymous radar blips near Cleveland is a possible hijack. Note that Scoggins is wrong on the destination of Delta 1989: that was Los Angeles, not Las Vegas.
(Channel 4)
9:41:00 - Delta 89 is a hijack, they think it's a hijack, south of Cleveland, we have a code on him now

9:41:05 - Good! Pick it up! Find it!

9:41:05 - Another one. I hear someone going from Boston going to Las Vegas - another one

9:41:13 - Eight-nine. Boeing 767 Boston-Las Vegas. Another one - same place - Las Vegas

In striking contrast to Delta 1989, the appearance of Delta 89 causes big excitement among the NEADS crew. It is echoed through all of the channels. Lynn Spencer interprets this passage as a prompt reaction to Scoggins's message, but there are several reasons why this cannot be the case.

The different call sign: needless to say, transmitting the correct call sign of an aircraft is an absolute must in aeronautic communication. No air traffic controller would ever get the idea to abbreviate a flight number by omitting the first two digits because that will automatically lead to massive confusion.

"We have a code on him now" - obviously, the plane has squawked a special emergency code that causes its blip to lighten up on the NEADS radar displays - just as explained above. This is immediately noticed by the NEADS crew and leads to their excited reactions. The data tag informs them about the call sign (Delta 89), the flight plan (Boston-Las Vegas), the type of the plane (Boeing 767) and the cause of the emergency: a hijacking.

"Another one - same place - Las Vegas" - NEADS is already aware of Delta 1989 which was reported 90 seconds ago by Colin Scoggins. Now Delta 89 - "another one" - appears in the same vicinity. So NEADS does not identify Delta 89 with Delta 1989, but views it as a different plane. Delta 89's blip suddenly flashes on the NEADS screens - making it easy to follow - and indicates a hijacking. In contrast, Delta 1989's blip is not spotted yet. 
(Channel 21)

9:41:05 - Another one. I hear someone going from Boston going to Las Vegas - another one

9:41:30  - As before is one missing. Start a search. Range 53

9:41:35  - 288 for 92 miles search only

9:41:46 - I have a 280 for 97
9:41:58 - I have a 287 for 97

9:42:23 - The two really close together. One used - one has a code of 7112 - the one we are next to him

To understand what's going on here, I cite Lynn Spencer again (Pg. 32).

To identify American 11, the surveillance and ID techs must go through a gruelling process. The technicians must first determine which radar data on their screens is for aircraft, which they do by monitoring its movement, which is distinctive for planes. The technician must observe for at least 36 seconds to a minute just to confirm that a blip is in fact an aircraft track. The tech must attach what's called a tactical display number to it, which tells the computer to start tracking and identifying the target. If the target is in fact a plane, then over a period of 12-20 seconds, the computer will start to generate information on the track: heading, speed, latitude, longitude, and the identifying information being transmitted by the transponder.

The NEADS technicians start a "search" for Delta 89, described by Lynn Spencer as a gruelling process. But in contrast to American 11, which had turned the transponder off, Delta 89 is tagged, enabling them to curtail the procedure. In the course of the search, they detect two planes "really close together" - Delta 89 and Delta 1989 -, and obtain the squawk code of one of them: 7112. This is not Delta 1989's code, which is 1304, so it must be the code of Delta 89. The first digit "7" indicates that it's not the ID code of a usual civilian airliner - they never begin with a 7. Instead, the 7 is reserved for emergency cases like 7500, 7600, or 7700. By squawking 7112, Delta 89 manages to pop up on the NEADS radar screens and signals a hijacking.

(Channel 4)

9:42:43 - Indy Center? Indianapolis Center: Delta eight-nine have you information on that aircraft? I want to give you a heads-up. This is another hijacked aircraft, Boston to Las Vegas with a Mode 3 of 1304. We do have contact. ((Repeats information)).

9:43:04 - I give you a latlong if you need that. Go ahead. 4121 North 08215 West. I'll give you a heads-up that's all we have right now, but he's a confirmed hijack

9:43:16 - (Indianapolis Center) We don't show him in our system at this point - you are tracking him, you say? We have him on the radar, Sir - he's headed your way. He's headed our way, okay.

9:43:35 - (Indianapolis Center) Boston to L-A-S, right? L-A-X. L-A-X? I've got Vegas, Sir, whatever Vegas says. L-A-S, okay, Las Vegas. Okay, cause we don't show him in the system anywhere. Do you have Mode 3 capability or anything? He's on a 1304 code? Okay, we bring that up.

Now NEADS contacts Indianapolis Center to inform them that Delta 89 is heading for their airspace. This is evidence that Delta 89 is flying southwest- or southbound at that point because the boundary to Indianapolis Center runs 40 miles south of Cleveland. In contrast, Delta 1989 never goes south, and especially at 9:43, it is flying westbound (direction 285) according to the Cleveland Center/Delta 1989 transcript:

9:40:57 - (Lorain Radar) delta nineteen eighty nine fly heading two eight five

9:41:00 - (Delta 1989) two eight five delta nineteen eighty nine

The next radio transmission between Cleveland Center and Delta 1989 occurs at 9:44am. In between, there is no order to change the direction, which is proof that Delta 1989 is not heading towards Indianapolis Center at 9:43am like Delta 89 (according to Stacia Rountree from NEADS). 
Back to NEADS:

(Channel 4)

9:44:03 - Where did it go? Somebody dropped the aircraft. Who dropped the aircraft? I DON'T KNOW!

(Channel 21)

9:46:25 - (?)52 on a 49 for 59 miles searching. We got a 1304 squawk this time

9:46:53 - The 1304 guy. That's not the guy then

At 9:44, Delta 89 is suddenly "lost". NEADS doesn't know where it's gone and is unable to track it. Obviously the pilot has turned off the transponder, making himself virtually invisible. The radar technicians resume the search. At 9:46:25, they are able to identify an eligible blip, but it's Delta 1989 this time. Their comment: "that's not the guy then" - the 7112 guy they lost and were looking for.

Now it's time to sum up the data:

Did the 9/11 Commission overlook these discrepancies? Unlikely. Did Commission staffers not check Channel 21 with the "code 7112" message? Oh yes, they did! On January 23, 2004, Miles Kara, Kevin Schaeffer, and Geoffrey Brown interviewed Sgt. Susan Marie Rose, whose voice is recorded on Channel 21 as she spots "code 7112":

Commission staff asked Rose is she recalled details on tracking Delta Airlines Flight 1989 or United Airlines Flight 93 (UAL 93). She replied that she and LaMarche tracked a specific suspected hijack that they believe was flight planned from Boston to Las Vegas through Cleveland and Minneapolis Center airspace. This flight, she believed, was headed to a specific airport, and he was manoeuvring to turn into the airport to land.

Rose noted that she is uncertain whether the aircraft reflected in Commission staff's recording was one that was search only or one that was a mode three. She surmised there being two aircraft that they followed based on listening to the tapes in which she pointed out a mode three squawking code 1304. The "surmise" of Susan Marie Rose is certainly correct, but squawk code 7112, evidence for a second plane is simply omitted in the report. Miles Kara and his colleagues don't seem to be interested in this other aircraft, despite the strange code and the fact that it was considered a hijacking. Code 7112 and Delta 89 were simply glossed over.
The NORAD tapes belong to the most authentic sources for the events of 9/11, and they are certainly not faked, as everyone will attest who has listened to them. As matters stand, the tapes provide watertight proof that Delta 89 was NOT Delta 1989, Delta 89 being defined as the aircraft that was tracked by NEADS between 9:41 and 9:44.

The analysis must not stop at this point. What kind of plane was this Delta 89? Discarding exotic scenarios like a drunken pilot or a foreign intruder playing games with the air defence, the plane's known attributes allow only one reasonable explanation - Delta 89 was a simulated hijacking as part of a military exercise:

- "Delta 89" was a fake call sign. The regular Delta Airlines Flight 89 was sitting at JFK airport and scheduled to depart for Los Angeles at 3:00 p.m.

- The behaviour of Delta 89 reminds of a hide-and-seek game. To facilitate the catcher's job, it left its cover and "cuckooed" for three minutes before disappearing in the dark again. Note that military exercises are often termed "war games".

- Delta 89 didn't squawk 7500, the emergency code for a "real world" hijacking, but another irregular code - 7112 - that was immediately interpreted as a hijacking by NEADS technicians.

- According to FAA directive 7110.65, certain beacon codes are regularly assigned to planes taking part in NORAD exercises - "7112" seems to have been one of them:
- NORAD will ensure exercise FAKER aircraft flight plans are filed containing discrete beacon codes from the Department of Defence code allocation specified in FAAO 7610.4, Special Military Operations, Appendix 8. 

Delta 89 fulfils all conditions for an "exercise faker aircraft" whose job was to simulate a hijacking. Alternative explanations are hard to imagine. Therefore it's time now to establish the central thesis of this text: Delta 89 was a faker hijack exercise.

So what - the interested reader might ask - what impact has this insight on the official story of the 9/11 attacks? Indeed, Michael Ruppert has already pointed out the existence of at least one "live-fly exercise" (with real aircraft involved) in his book Crossing the Rubicon. Lynn Spencer notes: 

"Today's training exercise runs a number of scenarios, including a simulated hijacking in which the perpetrators overtake an aircraft for political purposes, directing it to an island in order to seek asylum". (Pg.24) So is the case of "Exercise Delta 89" important at all?

Yes, it is, because of Delta 1989, which was kind of a "doppelganger" plane with nearly identical call sign (promptly leading to confusion), identical aircraft type (Boeing 767), identical origin airport (Boston), and flying in close vicinity when Delta 89 exposed itself at 9:41. Clearly the designation "Delta 89" was carefully chosen by the wargame designers to create a mix-up with Delta 1989. This is the first indication that the on-going exercises interfered with regular civilian air traffic.

In other words: Delta 1989, in spite of being a regular airliner, played a peripheral role in the exercise. It served as a cover-up for Delta 89. At first, NEADS was alerted by Delta 89, and when this plane stopped squawking and disappeared, the attention shifted to Delta 1989, which was closely observed until its landing in Cleveland.

Half an hour after Delta 1989, another mysterious airliner in distress landed at Cleveland Airport. Just like Delta 89, its existence seems to have been covered-up through "merging" it with Delta 1989 - a doppelganger case again. This naturally leads to the question whether the eerie Cleveland plane was identical to Delta 89. Indeed, there are surprising congruencies:

- Both planes were reportedly a 767
- Both planes were reportedly coming from Boston
- Both planes were suspected of being hijacked
- Both planes were covered-up by Delta 1989

Thanks for reading and caring....

Thursday, 27 December 2018

The Mysterious United Airlines "Flight 177" On 9/11

By Mark Conlon

On 9/11, Mark Randol was manager of the Civil Aviation Security Field Office (CASFO) in Washington, DC, a subdivision of the FAA. He reported to the Commission.

By 9:25am, Marcus Arroyo (Regional manager) called to report several hijackings, including AAL77, UAL175 and UAL177.

He made it clear that this was a terrorist act. Randol then immediately tasked his staff to find out everything they could about the flights. Randol remembers that the whole day was hectic and by 9:45am, they had identified that AAL77 had departed from Dulles, but they could not confirm whether it had been hijacked, while they discovered that UAL177 was being held at the gate in Boston.

The BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS (BTS) database tells us that UA177 was scheduled to depart at 6:55pm from Boston, destination Los Angeles.

This raises two important questions:

  1.     Why was it reported hijacked?
  2.     Why was it reported "held at the gate" if its departure was only in the evening?

Most remarkably, the hijacking of United 177 was reported at 9:25am, two minutes after Ed Ballinger, United flight dispatcher, sent the last message to 'Flight 175' while it was over Pittsburgh.

Research source:

Thanks for reading and caring...

Monday, 10 December 2018

The Strange Encounter of Anthony F. Mazza at Newark Airport on 9/11...

By Mark Conlon

On 9/11, Anthony F. Mazza was working at Newark Airport as a fuelling technician. One of the planes he provided with fuel was United Airlines 'Flight 93'. In the cockpit of the plane he met a person who was apparently neither Leroy Homer, Jr, the co-pilot, nor Jason Dahl, the pilot. 

Leroy Homer, Jr

Jason Dahl

On Oct. 19, 2001, he was interviewed by the FBI. Here's the FBI report below: 

Anthony F. Mazza, Mazza has worked as a fueler for Ogden Aviation Services at Newark International Airport since 1973. Mazza fueled United Airlines flight 93 on September 11, 2001 prior to its departure and crash in western Pennsylvania. Mazza stated that everything seemed normal on the flight including the amount of fuel that was pumped into flight 93's tank.

Mazza stated that prior to the passengers boarding flight 93, he had completed fueling the plane and proceeded to the cockpit to inform the co-pilot of the completed task. This has been the standard operating procedure for United flights out of Newark for many years. Mazza entered the cockpit where he handed the fueling sheet to a young Caucasian male, well groomed, brown hair and a white shirt, who was sitting in the co-pilot's seat. The male responded to Mazza by saying thank you and taking the paper from him. Mazza then departed flight 93 prior to the passengers boarding. Mazza stated that this was approximately 30 minutes prior to the scheduled departure time.

Mazza was interviewed by FAA employee John Patani shortly after the crash in western Pennsylvania. Mazza stated that he reported that there was nothing unusual on the day of the flight and that the plane had been fueled without incident.

On Friday, October 12, 2001 Mazza saw a memorial for the crew of flight 93 and saw pictures of the co-pilot of flight 93. The picture was the actual co-pilot of flight 93, who was Leroy Homer. Mazza stated that he was certain that the co-pilot he spoke with was not Mr. Homer.

My Thoughts...
The FBI report ends here and leaves the reader to question - Who was the "male" in the co-pilot's seat, if it wasn't neither Leroy Homer or Jason Dahl, the pilot? 

After seeing the memorial, Mazza obviously took the initiative to contact the FBI. Had he identified Dahl - whose picture he certainly saw, too - as the "male", he would not have felt compelled to call the FBI? When interviewing Mazza, the FBI surely asked him about this possibility and probably showed photos of Dahl again. In any case, the absence of Dahl in the report makes it clear that he was not the "male" either, and Dahl was 43 years old, not really a young man like the "male" as described by Mazza.

Jere Longman describes the United Airlines routine pre-flight procedures. Before the passengers board a plane, it has to be checked, of course. Basically the captain looks after the cockpit instruments along a pre-flight checklist while the first officer checks the plane outside (tires etc.)

The fact that Mazza met neither Dahl nor Homer is even more compelling than the presence of the "male".

A question that comes to mind is: Were there duplication planes involved?

It is known that according to United Airlines ACARS messages, UA Flight 93 took-off at 8:28am, in contradiction to the "official" take-off time of 8:42am. There also appears to be two different accounts of passengers boarding the plane taking place of Flight 93. One of the boarding was from the tarmac. I will be addressing more about these points in future blogs.

Research source:

Thank you for reading and caring.