Monday, 20 November 2017

New Book Released By: Andrew Johnson "9/11 Holding the Truth"

By Mark Conlon

This week has seen the release of a new book called '9/11 Holding The Truth' by Andrew Johnson which follows-on from his 2008-9 book '9/11 Finding The Truth'. 

This book is based mainly on articles that have appeared on since about 2006. The articles have been edited, revised and links updated. I have added chapters about my experiences in the UK 9/11 Truth Scene since I got involved in 2005, which have not been published on this website before. I have also included a couple of short chapters on some of the wider and more esoteric aspects of 9/11.The result is a 244-page 6x9 book with a cover graphic design by Nick Buchanan. Feel free to re-post this on blogs, websites etc.

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 Holding 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.

A brief video from Andrew Johnson talking about the his new book. 


To order the book or to download a "free" PDF version copy, please visit this page on Andrew Johnson's website:  

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Andrew Johnson for the inclusion of some of my research from in his book. I was personally very humbled that he did. Please consider reading the book to inform you of the new information that has been included and his new book. 

Thanks for reading and caring... 


Thursday, 16 November 2017

Richard D. Hall's - 9/11 'Flight 175' Video 3D Radar Analysis - October 2016 UPDATE!

By Mark Conlon
In today's blogpost, I'm encouraging people to study Richard D. Hall's - 9/11 'Flight 175' Video 3D Radar Analysis which he updated in October 2016. Richard analysed 26 out of the 52 videos available to him at the time which were suitable, showing the flight path for a long enough period of time to be analysed against the radar data imputed into his 3D Model. One of the conclusions in this video analysis conclusively shows that the flight paths were all the same in each of the 26 videos analysed, disproving Simon Shack's claims that the flight paths were different in the 'Flight 175' videos.

Thank you for reading, watching and caring. If you would like to keep informed about future blogs, please consider pressing the "Follow-Me" button in the right-hand side-bar of the blog-page. Or if you would like to contact me, please use the "Contact Form" at the bottom of the side-bar, and I will do my best to get back to you.

Thank you for reading and caring!


Monday, 13 November 2017

Richard D. Hall & Andrew Johnson - Comparing Video & Radar Evidence on 9/11

During the 9/11 "attacks", the flight 175 "impact" was recorded by between 50 and 60 different video cameras, each having a different viewing perspective of the same event. Even though there are so many recordings of what happened, the evidence in these videos casts huge doubt over whether boeing 767s were used in the attacks. Other non video evidence also supports the "no planes" hypothesis. 

Andrew Johnson joins Richard D. Hall to discuss the 3D radar analysis evidence and the 9/11 video evidence. 

Please consider following my blogs by pressing the "Follow-Me" button in the side-bar to follow future blog articles. 

Thank you for watching and reading, and also thank you for caring!

Friday, 3 November 2017

September Clues - BUSTED! - By: Anthony Lawson - Nov 2007

By Mark Conlon

This is an excellent analysis of Simon Shack's film September Clues by the late Anthony Lawson, who made some great observations in relation to Simon Shack's presentation of "alleged" evidence of TV Fakery on 9/11. 

Disclaimer: I "disagree" with Anthony Lawson's final point he makes at the end of his video in relation to the "impossible plane speed" that a 767 Boeing plane can travel at 572mph at sea level.   

As we can see yet again, Simon Shack uses very deceptive means to present his evidence. This has been a common theme with Simon Shack throughout all his September Clues films, which can no-longer be trusted to present 9/11 video evidence in a fair and balanced objective manner. 

Simon Shack appears to lack any "real" credibility anymore, and has proved himself to be extremely poor at conducting research analysis, or he is simply setting-out to deceive his viewers of his films. 

What exactly is Simon Shack's mission? 

Is Simon Shack promoting the idea of ‘video fakery’ to discredit the video evidence record of 9/11? When studying Simon Shack’s presentation in his film, it becomes clear that he has continually omitted or misrepresented evidence – by using cleverly timed editing.  This has therefore concealed evidence which shows a number of his claims are false. From my past analysis, where I have disproven other claims he makes in his film, it is now appearing to be a deliberate pattern of deceptive and misleading behaviour, rather than poor research skills, suggesting an agenda to promote disinformation about the video record on 9/11. Is Simon Shack promoting the idea that ‘video fakery’ explains anomalies in the behaviour of Flight 175 when it crashes into the South Tower? Is Simon Shack attempting to discredit the 9/11 videos to help conceal what was really captured in the videos? Again, I ask the question - is Simon Shack disseminating disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that advanced image projection technology was used to create the illusion of plane crashes?

Is Simon Shack is overseeing a "Psychological Operation" to promote ‘video fakery’ to lead people away from closely studying other explanations for the 9/11 video evidence. When people believe they have an explanation for the anomalies, it stops them studying the evidence any further.

This is a great analysis by the late Anthony Lawson. R.I.P, who really "BUSTED" Simon Shack along time ago and should be credited for his efforts to expose the "falsehoods" contained in Shack's film, although I completely "disagree" with Anthony Lawson's final point at the end of his video in relation to the "impossible plane speed" that a 767 Boeing plane can travel 572mph at sea level. I have posted his video purely on merit for the September Clues analysis.  
To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission and his unusual connections, read this article by Andrew Johnson:
9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175

Thank you watching and caring!

Monday, 30 October 2017

Simon Shack's - Great Nose-In & Nose-Out Hoax - By: Anthony Lawson - Nov 2007

By: Mark Conlon

He is a short video made by the late Anthony Lawson, who made some great observations in relation to Simon Shack's presentation of evidence regardng the plane "nose-out" comparisons which Simon Shack produced in his September Clues film, to prove the nose of the plane exited the South Tower in the Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage.

As we can see Simon Shack has used a very deceptive way to present his evidence. This has been a common theme with Simon Shack and throughout all his September Clues films, which can no longer be trusted to present video evidence objectively. What is Simon Shack's mission? Great work by the late Anthony Lawson. R.I.P.

To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission, read this article by Andrew Johnson:  
9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175

Thank you watching and caring!


Thursday, 26 October 2017

Simon Shack's "King Kong Man" in North Tower Window - DEBUNKED!


By Mark Conlon

In this blog I want to draw attention to a video posted at Steve De'ak's YouTube channel in 2015, where he admitted that he was wrong about his North Tower "Tiny Windows" theory. However the same cannot be said for Simon Shack with his "King Kong Man" in the window theory. 

The video below proves that it was not "video fakery" or people being giants or small windows in the video footage, or anything wrong with the video. Again it is down to perspectives and the angles, something that Simon Shack does NOT understand including parallax, as demonstrated in my previous blog artices. 

See below: Steve De'ak's apology video for his mistaken "Tiny Windows" theory 

See below: Simon Shack's comment to this video from Steve De'ak's YouTube channel.

While Steve De'ak shows humility for his mistake, Simon Shack reverted to using disrespectful names in his comment by calling people "clowns" and "goons" and would rather accuse people of being shills. 

Please note: Simon Shack doesn't say the video isn't wrong in its proof that it was not "video fakery", however would rather avoid that point by promoting another "false" video about an "alleged" 21-ft tall jumper video. 

This is classic avoidance by Simon (Hytten) Shack, which speaks volumes as to what Shack's role is by promoting "falsehoods" while accusing others of doing the same as he has been doing since 2007 in his films. I have been quite sceptical of Steve De'ak's points he has promoted in the past, but he has admitted his mistake in this case, and also about his "Frozen Smoke" theory in the Hezarkhani video. This is something that Simon Shack never does, which speaks volumes about his mission and goals to find the truth. 

To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission, read this article by Andrew Johnson:  
9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175

Thank you for reading and caring!


Wednesday, 25 October 2017

Mystery Planes Over NYC During the "Flight 175" South Tower Impact on 9/11

By: Mark Conlon

An area of research we never hear too much about anymore is the two "mystery" planes flying in and around the vicinity during the second "alleged" plane event where allegedly "Flight 175" impacted the South Tower in NY. The FBI were aware of at least one of those two "mystery" planes, as reported by Jennifer Spell a videographer who captured the "mystery" plane in the background as "Flight 175" crashed into the South Tower in her video footage. She provided the FBI with a copy of her video which showed a "second" plane parallelling the "alleged" United Airlines "Flight 175" plane. To my knowledge nothing more was ever disclosed to Jennifer Spell by the FBI (during their visit for a viewing at her home of the video footage) as to what the second plane was doing in that area at the time of the plane crash into the South Tower.

Jennifer Spell Video (2nd Mystery Plane)

Other videos also captured the 2nd mystery plane parallelling the alleged "Flight 175" Plane. See below:

A 'Camera Planet Archive' video also captured a close-up of the "mystery" plane. See below:

Many researchers have tried to explain this mystery airplane as the "Doomsday" airplane. The "Doomsday" airplane was a different shape and and was mainly white in colour with a black stripe running down the middle of the plane, and without any black markings on the wings or tail section of the airplane as seen in the mystery plane images above captured in the South Tower event in NYC. 

The fact that the "mainstream media" made a big story about a mystery plane in the Washington area, where they correctly reported it as the "doomsday" airplane could indicate some type of "perception management" to play down second "mystery" plane's presence in NYC.

Doomsday Airplane:

See Video from 12th September 2007 from Anderson Cooper's 360 program, where they re-visit the "mystery plane" that flew over the white house on 9/11.

As stated in the news report '9/11 Commission' co-chairman Lee Hamilton said, "he had a vague recollection of someone mentioning of a mystery plane" however yet the staff who looked into it didn't raise it as an important issue to investigate it, and wasn't raised for discussion. Was they referring to the Washington mystery plane, or mystery airplanes in NYC also, as there was at least two mystery airplanes in the vicinity during the South Tower event. See images below:


So we have two mystery planes that were captured in other videos and photographs in and around the NYC area during the second "alleged" plane impact into the South Tower.

Why didn't we hear anything about the existence of these mystery planes in NYC? Was the story used by CNN to confuse or play down the issue in relation to the existence of the mystery planes in NYC, or to confuse people with the Washington "Doomsday" airplane sightings, which one might of expected in light of the events in NYC, that such a "Doomsday" plane would be flying around in the Washington area? 

"Image Projection" & "Holographic Projector" Techology...
Hypothesising: Because of all the "strange" anomalies captured in the second plane crash videos of the "alleged" Flight 175 airplane, such as; disappearing wings, no collision on impact with the building, explosion happening after the plane had already entered the building and no apparent debris falling to the ground of the plane allong with no breakage of the tail section on impact and impossible plane speed. 

Explaining these anomalies has always been promoted via way of "video fakery", which has several issues in its theory. My personal hypothesis suggests similar to a hypothesis first put forward by Richard D. Hall in 2012, regarding a drone flying parallal to Flight 175 projecting an airplane. This was mainly suggested because of the anomalies in the miltary radar data which showed the plane's coordinates 1500 feet to the side of the civilian radar data plane path. 

My suggestion to the drone theory flying to the side of Flight 175 would be to ask the question; were those two unidentified "mystery" planes involved in some way deploying some type of "image projection" of a plane, which is why the existence of the two "mystery" planes was never investigated fully or discussed publically by the 9/11 Commission? 

Image By: Richard D. Hall

Airborne Holographic Projector which has been talked about in various manuals and articles. See below: 

Also this 'Washington Post' article talks about a secret program established in 1994 to pursue technology of a "holographic projector" for deception purposes. The article certainly gives us a glimpse of the thinking in military circles for weaponry of a different kind. See below:

Closing Note:

I believe this is a valid area for research in relation to the alleged "Flight 175" plane crash at the South Tower, and could go some way to explaining far better the anomalies captured in the "Flight 175" plane crash videos. 

Video fakery cannot explain the anomalies sufficiently which I have pointed in several articles in the past, and in some cases appears to be used as a distraction or some type of "psychological operation" by the likes of Simon Shack and Ace Baker. Video fakery cannot account for how they could control the many hundreds of people who seen a plane in the sky hit the South Tower. Plus, how did the perps have "complete" control over the video and photographic record in the whole area of NYC without the possibility of at least one  or two videos or photographs slipping through the net showing no-plane hitting the South Tower? This has never been fully explained by Simon Shack or Ace Baker when they are promoting the "video fakery" theory. With "image projection" technology such as those mentioned above, the perps would not need to have "complete" control over any of the eyewitnesses, photographers or videographers, which could limit the people involved to a small few in carrying out the event. Carrying it out this way using such technology can also explain the lack of plane "crash physics". I think the possible use of an "image projection" technology explains the anomalies far better as a hypothesis than does "video fakery", especially with the possible involvement of the two mystery planes which has not been fully explained to this day. I'm not saying this is how it was done, or if they were even involved, it is just a hypothesis put forward and I'm open to change it as and when I gather new evidence in my investigation and research.

Thank you for reading and caring!