Wednesday, 7 November 2018

Analysis of Steve De'ak's - Shanksville Plane Crater Recreation


By Mark Conlon


This is a video analysis of Steve De'aks theory regarding how the plane shaped crater was made in Shanksville on 9/11. In my video and blog below I show that his "alleged" reproduction comparisons using NASA's lab test impact craters and also his own recreation experiments do NOT sufficiently explain how the engine crater or tail section impression were made at the Shanksville crash site. I just want to make it clear to anyone reading this blog post, this is not a personal issue with Steve, it is merely points I wanted to raise which I feel are unamswered in his theory he proposes. It is meant to help rather than discredit him.  
 
Background information: Steve De'ak believes "multiple missiles" were used to create the plane shaped hole crater in Shanksville.


Steve has attempted to recreate the plane crater below (Fig A) and (Fig B), however in my opinion doesn't fully explain the observerable crater hole in relation to how the plane's engine and tail section impressions in the ground happened in his recreations or with his "multiple missile" theory explanation? See below:

(Fig A) (No angle shown)
 
(Fig B) (6.6 Degrees)
 

The issues I observe with his recreation of the crater is, it does not account for the plane's engine crater or tail section impression which are observed in the crater images in Shanksville. Also there are issues with the angle trajectories Steve uses in his recreations seen in (Fig A) with NO angle trajectory clearly stated although in previous images there is cited - 9.2 degrees shown, and also in (Fig B) a 6.6 degree angle trajectory.

The confusion here arises because Steve cites some NASA lab experiments, where their results which Steve uses for "supportive" evidence of how the craters were created according to NASA using a 4.75 degree angle trajectory. See screen-shot from Steve De'ak's website below: 


Steve didn't state this information about the 4.75 degree angle trajectory in the NASA experiments in his articles and vaguely states 10 degrees under horizontal, which I ddin't feel was helpful. See NASA's information below stating a 4.75 degree angle trajectory to achieve their crater which Steve uses in his articles and videos, however NOT mentioning this "specific" information. WHY?


This in the main part would make it very difficult in reality at the Shanksville crash site due to the treeline being far too tall to achieve such a low trajectory such as 4.75 degrees to create at least one side of the plane crater hole from a missile. There is also NO evidence of any damage or disturbance to the adjacent trees from a low angled trajectory such as JASSM missile which Steve "alleges" caused the hole crater. See below:



Comparison studies with the Steve's recreations and the "real" Shanksville crash site crater below:

 Steve's Recreation 1 below:
 Steve's Recreation 2 below:

 Shanksville Crater Image 1 below:
Shanksville Crater Image 2 below:
Shanksville Crater Image 3 below:
Another view from the ground:

The comparisons above using Steve's recreation attempts of the impact craters does NOT sufficiently explain how the engine crater or tail section impression were made at the Shanksville crash site. His comparisons do not contain these two distinct areas in his recreations to be accepted as adequate recreations as he claims. The same can be said for the NASA lab experiments comparisons which he uses to support his theory, as these are NOT sufficient for comparison purposes, alhough the idea is.

If "multiple missiles" were used to create the Shanksville plane crater then this would not be consistent with overwhelming eyewitness testimonies who speak of witnessing a "large" plane crash into the ground, not missiles? Steve does NOT address this evidence, and has been quite misleading about the eyewitness accounts, by saying that people both "heard" and "seen" missiles in Shanksville. See the screen-shot below from Steve De'ak's article.


There is no evidence of any eyewitnesses "SEEING" a missile or missiles. The only reports of missiles from witnesses is, what they "interpreted" to be a missile from only hearing the sound. No one actually observed anything with their eyes who report seeing a missile or missiles. Susan McElwain did see something small, however she did not reference the object to be a missile. The object she described flew over her vehicle and over the treeline, although it didn't disturb the trees or make any sound, and she didn't recall the sound of an explsoion, which I find strange. I am still open to the possibility that it could be a missile.  

I have raised this several times with Steve during our comment exchanges on his website, however he seems reluctant to amend this in his articles or videos, even for the sake of accuracy, which I feel is a shame as it could be seen in a bad light and unhelpful for him, but I respect his choice not to. 

In conclusion:

For Steve De'ak to claim he can recreate the crater in Shanksville, he must first demonstrate that he has recreated enough of the observed features with some reasonable high degree of accuracy based on the observable evidence at Shankville crash site crater. This is NOT the case with any of Steve's comparison recreations or the comparison NASA lab experiments. He must recreate the crater showing a tail section impression and also an engine crater, preferably using videos and not photos, and also at the correct angles so we can see how it was achieved. He can also explain thoroughly how no treeline damage or disturbance to the trees adjacent to the crash crater in Shanksville was achieved. This has NOT been done up-to-now by Steve De'ak on all. On a final note. This is NOT a personal attack on Steve De'ak, I am hopeful he may adjust or add to his test experiments the information I provide here.

I am happy to update this article when Steve conducts new experiments and tests which solve the issues raised in this analysis. I am not saying he is promoting disinformation, as this would be unfair to say and unhelpful and an easy cheap shot, this, as he is trying find answers to how the crater was made. This sometimes can take several attempts to fully reach a sufficent answer or recreation in this case. I wish him well in future experiements.


Thanks for reading and caring.

  

Friday, 26 October 2018

Continuous Pieces - 9/11 (Version 2) Film made by Jeffery Hill (2010)



 By Mark Conlon


I have decided to share a 9/11 documentary film in this blog. Continuous Pieces - 9/11 (Version 2) was a film made in 2010 by Jeffery Hill a Canadian 9/11 researcher who investigated the "no-planes" theory and video evidence of 9/11.
 
Jeff was best known for his phone calls to a lot of eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers in relation to the no-planes theory in an attempt to get to the truth of whether to what hit the World Trade Center buildings, the Pentagon and Shanksville. An archive I put together of Jeff's phone calls which Andrew Johnson (checktheevidence.com) kindly hosts at his website, which can be found here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/?dir=911%2FJeffHillsPhoneCalls

Towards the end Jeff was leaning towards the "hologram theory" because of the conversations he had with many people who observed the planes hitting the towers. However Jeff changed his position about this, and to my understanding he now believes "real" planes hit the towers, althought doesn't believe the official version of events. Jeff still has a website called pumpitout.com, however doesn't really have much there in relation to the planes issues anymore.

I feel Jeff made some good contributions in this area of research, especially through his pumpitout forum where he had a number of good researchers who were also doing good research. I was personally disappointed that his stopped investigating this area of 9/11 and changed his stance on the evidence, however he has his reasons I guess and I respect those. Another disappointing change of stance Jeff took was his withdrawal of support for Dr. Wood's and Morgan Reynolds' evidence, along with their Qui Tam court case in 2007.


Disclaimer:
I am not saying I agree with everything in this film, and we must remember it was made some years ago now, and new evidence has come to light which supersedes what is contained in the film, however overall this film is an excellent compilation of information, which is why I feel compelled to share it. Jeff's contributions definitely moved our understanding into the right areas regarding the 9/11 planes and video evidence.


Thanks for reading and watching....


Thursday, 25 October 2018

The 9/11 Airplane Cell-Phone Calls


 By Mark Conlon


This short video it explains why it was impossible in 2001 for the nine FBI reported cell phone calls to have been made from the jetliners in flight. Prior to 2004 cell phone calls from fast high flying aircraft were impossible because of the technology then in use. If the cell phone calls could not have been made from the planes in flight the "official" story is false.

In 2004 Qualcomm Incorporated announced in a July 15, 2004 press release:"American Airlines and Qualcomm Complete Test Flight to Evaluate In-Cabin Mobile Phone Use" https://www.qualcomm.com/news/release "Qualcomm Incorporated and American Airlines today successfully demonstrated in-cabin voice communication using commercially available CDMA mobile phones on a commercial American Airlines aircraft. The proof-of-concept demonstration flight originated out of the Dallas/Fort Worth International airport. During the approximate two-hour flight, passengers were able to place and receive phone calls and text messages on their mobile phones. 'We are pleased to have worked so closely with American Airlines to complete this proof-of-concept demonstration for the in-flight use of 3G CDNA technology,' said Dr. Irwin Jacobs, chairman and CEO of Qualcomm."

On 9/11, people receiving cell calls "allegedly" from the hijacked aircraft reported the unusual clarity of the calls, as if they were calling from the next room. However, cell phone calls in the Qualcomm demonstration, "was about the same as a regular cell call on the ground, other than the loud background noise on the MD-80 jet." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/w

This lack of background noise could make one wonder if those cell calls were really being placed from?

 "The Race To Allow Airborne Cell Phone Use" (Oct 1, 2004) - http://www.aviationtoday.com/2004/10/ "Several companies are racing toward a solution that combines satellite communications and onboard networks, from mid-2006, passengers should be able to begin using their own mobile phones for calls and text messaging. This service will be provided via the well-established Inmarsat constellation of geostationary satellites."


My Thoughts...

At this moment in time from my own research, I believe the phone calls were made from the ground and not from any of the four airplanes. I shall explain more about what I think the evidence indicates and teels us in my future blog posts, however I do now think some passengers and flight attendants were part of the training exercises taking place that morning on 9/11 simulating hijacking situations of planes.


Thank you for watching, reading and caring...



Wednesday, 24 October 2018

Dr. Judy Wood Discusses Evidence Relating To The 9/11 Airplanes


By Mark Conlon


Dr. Wood points out impossible physics, considering the evidence of what happened to American Airlines Flight 587. The audio excerpts are from a radio interview with Dr. Judy Wood on Conspiracy Unlimited - "Following The Truth Wherever It Leads" Hosted by: Richard Syrett. Full interview can be heard here at this Source: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/syndication-networks/conspiracy-unlimited

Other credits: Mayday (Air Crash Investigation, Air Emergency, Air Disasters in other places) for the video clips of the tail separation, crash, and aftermath! 

Also see Chris Hampton's latest documentary film regarding to this area of research - 9/11 Alchemy - Facing Reality. The film is also available through Richplanet TV .




Disclaimer: 

I not suggesting or implying from this blog-post that Dr. Wood agrees with all information expressed by myself on my blog website regarding the planes on 9/11. I want to make this very clear! I am merely re-posting information expressed by Dr. Wood herself which she states in her recent interview, nothing else, because of her expertise, knowledge and evidential value she provides in this interview extract. 

Chris Hampton put together this video over the interview audio of  Dr. Wood. Chris merely re-posted information expressed by Dr. Wood herself which she states in the interview without any intentions of implying or attaching her name to anything else other than what Dr. Wood states in the interview extract here.  


Thank you for reading, watching and more importantly caring... 


Monday, 22 October 2018

MUDDLE-UP ALERT!!! - No Planes on 9/11? What Struck the Towers James Perloff and Jason Goodman


     By Mark Conlon 


Also, featuring reflective thoughts and observations from Julia Ratsey.


MUDDLE-UP ALERT!!!!

I see the "muddle-up" has now began after a somewhat deafening silence from the '9/11 Research' community in response to the 9/11 Alchemy "Facing Reality" film...

I came across a video uploaded to YouTube titled - No Planes on 9/11? What Struck the Twin Towers? With Special Guest James Perloff, by a YouTube channel called 'Crowdsource the Truth 2'. 

What I noticed throughout the the discussion between James Perloff (JP) and Jason Goodman (JG) was the "phony bones of contentions" they create. What the video does demosntrate is, that both men have NOT fully investigated the subject matter to which they are discussing, especially surrounding holographic technology or the links to the contractors who were directly involved in the investigation of  9/11, who have also developed such holographic 3D image projection technology which played a major role in the 9/11 airplane crash events.

Neither appear to have researched all the plane crash crime scenes sufficiently or understand the connection of directed energy to all four crash events, or studied the video evidence enough to offer any thoughtful insight or reflections regarding the disappearing wing of the airplane or the actual plane crash crime scenes evidence. Neither explored this area in any "real" depth. 

I also noticed the type of language being used by Jason Goodman like "ridiculous" and also the inclusion of theories, not evidence is quite misleading throughout the video. Another telling area is the inclusion of already disproven claims of thermite, mini nukes and controlled demolition being used to destroy the towers.

Also note where JP claims the Hezarkhani video was shown on the day of 9/11, which is incorrect. It was shown on 12/9 at 12:15am.

Another area where the viewers are being is to choose between drones vs real planes, leading leading the viewer to make a choice between two "false" options, as neither are based any evidence, and certainly NOT based on the video evidence. Even if "real" drones were used they still did not account for the visual issues captured in the video evidence of the "alleged" second plane UA175. This was completely over-looked by both JP and JG.

Whether a "real" plane or drone hit the towers, you would not have six frames of the plane wing disappearing...See my analysis of 6 frames of missing Naudet video & the disappearing and re-appearing wing study. 


Note: JP talks about "Pinocchio's Nose" in the Chopper 5 Fox News coverage. Interestingly, it was Ace Baker who named the nose-out "Pinocchio's Nose". Unfortunately again this show that both JP or JG have not fully investigated this subject area, because it has long been shown by 9/11 researcher 'Conspiracy Cuber' that the "alleged" "Pinocchio's Nose" is a dust ejection, captured in multiple video camera sources. See below for Conspiracy Cuber's "nose-out" analysis. 


Also noticeable JG attempts to re-write Newton's Laws of physics with some very poor examples.

Also JP mentions the ACARS data, which he cites 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth'. After many years of analysis of their findings  I suggest this organisation can no-longer be trusted to present the evidence objectively. See my ACARS Data article, which is why I can say this with such conviction.

We also have the suggestion of pre-planted explosives, yet no mention or exploration of the magnetometer data readings with all 4 crashes, or seismic evidence. This is extremely revealing evidence which has been completely over-looked... WHY?





New York  AA11 UA175 "alleged" plane crash events at 8:46am & 9:03am disturbances in the earth's magnetic field. 

 
Pentagon AA77 "alleged" plane crash event at 9:37am disturbance in the earth's magnetic field.


Shanksville UA93 "alleged" plane crash event at 10:03am & 10:06am, disturbance in the earth's magnetic field.

Also we have the subtle comment saying that Richard D. Hall did a "pretty good job" with his 'Flight 175 3D Radar Model'. The use of the words "pretty good" is used to create doubt towards the research that Richard did. Note, he speaks as though he is the "expert" or in a position of authority to critique Richard's research, when in reality JP has NOT attempted to undertake such research to create a 3D model himself. I suggest this is NLP at it's best in the way he used the phrase, to get the desired effect of doubt, suggesting that maybe Richard's research wasn't quite good enough or incomplete or was somehow lacking... which is NOT, however it is very thorough. 




I would say this is a demonstration of a more "passive" muddle-up, leading the viewer to buy into as though both men are really looking for the truth, while being very leading to guide the viewers down the wrong paths with "false" choices to make that leads to nowhere, which is what we have had for the last 17 years.

Also an interesting note is, JP used information about Flight 11, which I only just put-out a few days ago.... Very interesting! 
  
Reflective insights and observations from Julia Ratsey...

What a supreme muddle up. Everything but the kitchen sink thrown into the mix as they call everything a "theory", indulge in speculation, and kick the can down the road and blame Israel ... or not. The timing is right for a hologram debunk given the popularity of Chris's film.

Jason Goodman is such a smoothie. I wouldn't trust him an inch. No mention of zero deceleration evident as the "planes" impact, but plenty of collaborative speculation to muddy the water. Of course they don't mention Chris's film and the new evidence of 3D image projection and SAIC's connection to that technology that he has presented. Nobody, including these two, names SAIC except the few who are aware of this highly secretive multi-billion dollar defence contractor's involvement in 9/11 through WDTTG and Dr Wood's Court case and thereby can rationalise the SAIC/DEW connection to the WTC destruction and the existence of weaponised free energy technology. That has to be the litmus test for any genuine 9/11 truther from now on given that SAIC and its affiliates' capability to supply both of the major technologies deployed on 9/11 has now been made public on the internet. This capability also makes them the best qualified to provide the strategy and the tactics for the cover ups and any necessary damage limitation arising from the WDTTG etc revelations.

They specifically damn at least three pieces of evidence from Chris's film: the airborne holographic projectors, the jet plane crash test and the Gulf War "Allah" hologram. Operation Northwoods and "pods", also in Chris's film, are brought up.

They have engaged in a character assassination of John Lear, for piloting the CIA drugs trafficking, who contributed to Morgan Reynolds Court case which was also in Chris's film.

Seems like Jason Goodman has a lot of technical knowledge about holograms, DEW's, the causes of plane wings disappearing from slo-mo videos, but it may all be nonsense, like Newtonian physics alternative theories involving ping pong balls and pillows. Apart from the attempts to debunk Newton, I wonder if SAIC are feeding them counter arguments for the use of their advanced technology; no-one could do that better than them; or are they just improvising with any old bunk?

I know about the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Auto Pilot because I used to watch McConnell and Hawkins live-streams a few years back when they talked about it. Again, it's used by Perloff and Goodman for more speculation. For a smart guy Goodman often projects an image of innocence which I find unconvincing.

They make a point of stressing their differences of opinion over "popular theories" so that one is left feeling that it's normal and OK, even for truth opinion leaders, to have conflicting views of these theories (most of which have been concocted by the members of the controlled opposition, anyway) . That seems to me to be the main function of the "truth movement", ie to keep the truth train from ever arriving at its destination by taking our train of thought back again and again to cover old ground and reinforce worn out theories speculate with new ones and end up going nowhere .... at least for "50 to 100 years" anyway according to Goodman, by which time the train will have run out of steam. But at least they know "who did it" and we are told that is more important for us than "what did it", because to know what did it would lead to knowledge of the existence of free energy technology, what this whole charade is designed to prevent from entering into the global consciousness.


I'd like to thank Julia Ratsey for her reflections and observations about this discussion between Jason Goodman and James Perloff.

Thank you for reading and caring...


Wednesday, 17 October 2018

9/11 Plane Passengers and the Victims Compensation Fund



 By Mark Conlon


9-11 Victims Compensation Fund:
 

This is where the US government opened up the Treasury and gave family members of those who lost their lives that day lots of money. In return, these families were basically told to shut-up about anything else concerning 9-11. (Considering all the lies surrounding this horrific event, you can see why.) Here are the results below:

Flight 11: of the 92 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 20 are listed in the SSDI (22%)
Of these 20 people, only three are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

Judy Larocque
Laurie Neira
Candace Lee Williams
 

  
===================================
 
Flight 77: of the 64 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 14 are listed in the SSDI (22%)
 
Of these 64 people, only five on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

William Caswell
Eddie Dillard
Ian Gray
John Sammartino
Leonard Taylor

===================================
 
Flight 175: of the 65 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 18 are listed in the SSDI (28%)

Of these 65 people, only three are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

Michael C. Tarrou
Gloria Debarrera
Timothy Ward

===================================

 
Flight 93: of the 45 people who are listed as dying on this flight, only 6 are listed in the SSDI (13%)

Of these 45 people, none are on the 9-11 Compensation Fund list:

Not one!

===================================
 

Have you noticed anything strange yet? Of the passengers and crew of Flight 11, 77, 175 & 93, only 22%, 22%, 28%, 13% respectively are in the SSDI.  

Of the 266 people that we were told died on these jets, only 11 relatives applied for compensation. Can you believe that not a single relative from Flight 93 applied for compensation? Were all the relatives of the victims so rich that they weren't eligible to receive compensation? No, that's not it. (The minimum federal award was $250,000, and the average pay-out was about $1.8 million. The recipients only had to make agreement: they couldn’t sue the airlines.)
 
You should also know that most lawyers told their clients to take the money and run (which is what most lawyers would do - take the sure money). Ellen Mariani clearly elaborated on this point during her appearance on the Black Op Radio show edition 156.
 
Oddly, but consistent with everything concerning 9-11, the actual complete list of the people who benefited has been omitted from this report. Even without this, it does contain an interesting fact. According to the report, 98% of all the people who suffered a loss on 9-11 took the fund money. The average payment was $1.8 million.
 

But here's where it gets strange. According to the government, here are the number of people who accepted the compensation fund:

Out of a total of 92 people on Flight 11, only 65 accepted the 9-11 fund (71%)
Out of a total of 65 people on Flight 175, only 46 accepted the 9-11 fund (71%)
Out of a total of 64 people on Flight 77, only 33 accepted the 9-11 fund (52%)
Out of a total of 45 people on Flight 93, only 25 accepted the 9-11 fund (56%)

 
Does any of this seem a little odd to you?


So there you have it; yet another glaring 9-11 inconsistency invoving the planes and passengers. 

Disclaimer:
I am just stating figures and in no way implying that passengers didn't exist. I simply don't know what happened to the passengers, but I still believe the 4 flights took off on 9/11. This blog post is no way meant to point fingers at the relatives or bee disrespectful of those who lost their lives on 9/11. My commintment to finding out what happened is to those who lost their lives on 9/11 is meant in highest form of respect to find the truth, as I don't believe we have been fully informed of what happened.


Thanks for reading and caring! 

 

Flight 11 and the BTS Data-Base Discoveries Before 9/11



By Mark Conlon



The "unknown" statistic logged in relation to Flight 11 on 9/11 in the BTS data-base is often used as proof it never took off on 9/11, yet there is other instances showing the same statistic of "unknown" during the year of 2001 involving Flight 11.

(Flight 11 appears as a regular flight between BOS and LAX also on Tuesdays).

The BTS system returns "UNKNOWN" along with the usual 00:00 data for September 4 and July 10, 2001. Also, there are no data at all available for August 7, 2001. In all other instances AA-11 appears to have flown on all Tuesdays before 9/11.

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

AA 07/10/2001 11 UNKNOWN LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 08/07/2001 11 N/A LAX N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
AA 09/04/2001 11 UNKNOWN LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Did Gerard Holmgren check these other flights, or mention them as being "unknown" with Flight 11 on different dates before 9/11? Please let me know if anyone knows the answer to my question. Thanks!

Regards,
Mark Conlon.