Sunday, 15 November 2015

Simon Shack’s ‘Amateur’ Effort of Video Fakery





By Mark Conlon 15th Nov 2015



In this analysis I will clearly demonstrate how Simon Shack attempts to mislead viewers with claims of evidence of video fakery in the Naudet video. In Part 2 of his video ‘9/11 Amateur’ he claims that the ‘Naudet’ video footage which captures Flight 11 impacting the North Tower contains evidence that photo-shopping had been used to create a (black gash) in the North Tower to increase the plane’s wing size  15 seconds after the plane’s impact into the building. Shack claims this was done because the hole in the building was only 130 feet across the building, when the boeing plane should have measured 160 feet across the building, thus according to Shack needed correcting by photo-shopping the video with a ‘black gash’.

See still image below taken Simon Shack’s video:

 


While I agree that the ‘black gash’ wasn’t there in the video footage after 6 seconds and the ‘black gash’ starts to appear from 12 seconds onwards after the impact of the plane, I do NOT agree with Shack’s theory that it was created by someone using photo-shop or was created to increase the size of the plane shape hole in the building.  Please see the two pictures below taken from Shack’s video, where he claims photo-shopping was done to fix the problem of the plane hole size from 130 feet to 160 feet.





  
Shack proceeds in his video to ask the question; “Can we verify that this black tip has been painted in?” Which Shack answers “Yes, we can”.
See the two images below:
 

Shack then proceeds in his video by comparing another piece of 9/11 video footage taken 11 minutes after the impact of Flight 11 without any appearance of any ‘black gash’ to prove his theory that the ‘black gash’ had indeed been painted in using photo-shop, thus demonstrating video fakery in the Naudet video footage.  

See the two image below:





While I agree with Shack that there is NO appearance of any ‘black gash’ in the 9/11 video footage 11 minutes later he uses above, questions started to arise for me as to why he has used a piece of 9/11 video footage 11 minutes after the plane’s impact into the North Tower as a comparison to prove his theory? This prompted me to look closer and conduct some research of my own. I found it strange as to why he has used a comparison with 11 minutes difference? The answer became clear!

I managed to find two pictures which were taken 15 seconds after the first impact on the North Tower. In both pictures below the ‘Black Gash’ can be clearly seen, just as it can in the Naudet video footage.






I was also able to find and analyse a video below taken by Jim Huibregtse who started videoing approximately 15 to 19 seconds after the first plane’s impact and at approximately the same time as the still images above.




Again the ‘black gash’ can be clearly seen in the video still images above. But what does the video reveal when we continue to watch?


 
As you continue to watch the video we can observe the ‘black gash’ which is fumes which start to dissipate as the video progresses. We are clearly observing black fumes escaping from a broken window, which change in colour to a grey/white colour fumes, which eventually dissipate completely. Please view the Jim Huibregtse video below to observe the (‘Black Gash’ as Simon Shack named it) black fumes turning to grey/white fumes which are originating from the broken window. For a higher qualitly version to watch click on the link here: https://vid.me/TKRvn


The question now has to be asked: Why did Simon Shack use a video which was 11 minutes later after the plane’s impact to claim that ‘video fakery’ was used in the Naudet 9/11 video footage of the first plane impacting the building? From my analysis above Simon Shack’s evidence for ‘video fakery’ is clearly very deceptive and very misleading for viewers. Again the message is legitimate explanations can explain the ‘black gash’ in the Naudet 9/11 footage which clearly had nothing to do with 'video fakery' as Simon Shack maintains. 



This case is now closed...



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.