Thursday, 14 December 2017

9/11 Holding the Truth "Chapter 25" Video Fakery – Another Component of the Second Tier 9/11 Cover Up


By Mark Conlon


Here's an audio version of "Chapter 25" from Andrew Johnson's new Book. "9/11 Holding the Truth".


In Chapter 25: "Video Fakery" – Another Component of the Second Tier 9/11 Cover Up, covers some of my research from my early blog articles in relation to the "video fakery" Psy-op. 


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


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.... 


 

Monday, 4 December 2017

Conspiracy Cuber's "New" Analysis Location of 61st Video of the Alleged UA175


 By Mark Conlon

Here's an interesting new study by 'Conspiracy Cuber' who is clarifying the location of a new video that surfaced of "Flight 175". 

Short intro from 'Conspiracy Cuber' about his new study...
Just felt like broadcasting my discovery I came across last night. I found the location of the video at 7:52 uploaded by CameraPlanet on 5/14/2016 (I accidentally said 24; it's 14) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0kgv... Filmed at 55 W 13th Street on the roof. The building holds multiple tenants (I think).
 

40 44' 11.41" N
73 59' 48.16" W
 

Altitude, about 47 meters or so.

 


A valid piece of research here showing that the actual location exists and is a "real" video, not as some disinformationists claim is fake.


Thank you for watching....



"IMPORTANT NOTICE" About Changes Regarding the Videos On My Blog


By: Mark Conlon

After swift aggressive censorship of my YouTube Channel back in October because of the research and critique of various 9/11 disinformation I exposed surrounding false "video fakery" claims by various 9/11 researchers, left me no option to use another video hosting platform to host videos for this blogsite. This took me quite a bit of time to transfer all my videos over to a new video hosting platform called Vidme. 


Unfortunately I received notice yesterday that Vidme is no longer going to be operating from 15th December 2017. 

Vidme say - "We’re sad to announce that Vidme will be shutting down on December 15th".

So a process of finding a new platform and transferring all the videos back onto my blog will have to be done and not something I can do overnight, and certainly not as quick as I did with Vidme. Due to time constraints this will be a much slower process this time around, so I hope you can appreciate if you see videos disappearing from my blog articles, it is not due to anything sinister like I believe was done with my YouTube Channel in October, something which Andrew Johnson talked about briefly to Richard D. Hall in his latest 10th Anniversary Show - Part Three. See below:


I wont be posting any new research articles this year due to this unforeseen circumstance, as I will work on getting the transition of the videos complete so the blog-site is back in normal operation again, and then will be posting new research next year. I will make brief posts though and share valid research by others to keep everyone in the loop of things. 

I hope I have your understanding and patience with this transition period. 

I would like to thank everyone personally for the support you have shown to me, and for even stopping by to read the articles, even if you don't agree with my findings. Also thanks to the three people who have decided to "Follow" my blog. Anyone interested in following my blog, please hit the "Follow Me" button at the bottom of the side-bar on the right of the page. 

And finally, I wish you all a happy seasonal break.


Mark Conlon.


 

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 2009 book '9/11 Finding The Truth'. 


This book is based mainly on articles that have appeared on http://www.checktheevidence.com/ 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.

Summary:
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: http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=463&Itemid=60  

Personal Message of Thanks to Andrew Johnson...
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Andrew Johnson for the inclusion of some of my research in his book. I am personally very humbled. Please consider reading the book to inform yourself of the new information that Andrew has included, following-on from his previous 2009 book. 

 
Thanks 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/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 techonlogy 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. By 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!    



Monday, 23 October 2017

The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - "New" Analysis Series by: Conspiracy Cuber

This is the first in a series of "new" analysis into the impossibility of Live TV Fakery in the 9/11 video by someone on Youtube called 'Conspiracy Cuber'. The analysis seriously challenges claims made by 9/11 researchers' such as, Simon Shack, Ace Baker and others to many to name here. 


Video description below:  

Ace Baker's Deceptions and WNYW Chopper 5 - is the beginning of a series where the live shots are examined and judged according to Ace Baker's 9 traits. In this one I cover Ace's contradictory logic and the Chopper 5 video.


The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - Part 1



The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - Part 2 



The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - Part 3



 The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - Part4
 


 The Complete Impossibility of Live TV Fakery - Part 5



To find out more, please visit Conspiracy Cuber's YouTube Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3rgxhxZ3tS38Jcw7fB6EKQ



Thank you for watching and caring! 




Thursday, 12 October 2017

New Evidence Analysis Proves 9/11 "Nose-Out" Videos are a Dust Explosion


By Mark Conlon

For sometime now I have been unsure about the Fox News "Chopper 5" nose-out video footage showing a plane's nose "exiting" the South Tower building. My initial reasons for my doubts were firstly alerted when Richard D. Hall did a comparison study on the plane's nose before it entered the South Tower building and afterwards as it exits the building. Richard's study comparisons were in contrast to what Simon Shack presented in his September Clues film, which led me to be not as convinced regarding it being a plane's nose exiting the South Tower. I referenced this video clip in an article called: September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Two) - Published Wednesday, 5 October 2016 http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/september-clues-layers-of-deception.html

See video clip below:


My article I link to above does discuss differences in the plane shaped nose, and I suggest some type of manipulation took place of the plane nose shape compared to Simon Shack's versions in his September Clues film, although when I wrote the article I still interpreted the shape to be a plane's nose not a dust cloud, but felt something wasn't quite right, hence the inclusion of Richard's comparisons he did. 

Over the past few months I have spoken to someone who has decided to conduct in depth research into this area of the 9/11 plane videos, and analyse exactly what we were seeing, not just the Fox News "Chopper 5" video, but all the relevant plane videos of the alleged "nose-out". I believe this "new" analysis and findings to be of the utmost value in determining what we were really observing in the 9/11 "Flight 175" plane videos of what was "exiting" the South Tower. 

Please watch this new video analysis below and consider carefully the evidence presented in it, and also be aware of how your views on this subject have been shaped by people such as; Simon Shack and Ace Baker. Consider this new evidence!!!

Analysis below is conducted by someone who goes under the name "Conspiracy Cuber" on YouTube...



Conclusion:

Considering new information and evidence during an investigation should be an on-going exercise if we are to get closer to the truth. Remaining open to it is imperative. After seriously considering this new evidence it has "confirmed" earlier doubts that we was "not" looking at a plane's nose "exiting" the South Tower building, but a dust cloud which resembles the shape of the plane's nose in a lot of the "lower" quality videos. Also remember the suggestion that we were seeing a plane's nose was something continually told to us by Simon Shack and Ace Baker. Did this cause many people including myself to not fully study this video evidence carefully and objectively, because I had already along with many others had my observations shaped by such suggestions, something which I have spoken about many times in my previous articles. Misdirection has been a key to misleading many of us from observing the videos and what is actually contained in them. This is convincing new evidence, and I ask all of you to seriously consider it before hanging-on to such suggestions from the likes of Simon Shack and Ace Baker. 


Excellent Analysis by Conspiracy Cuber...




Wednesday, 4 October 2017

Analysis & Rebuttal To - Hezarkhani - BS Registration Video Posted by "No Planer TV"


By Mark Conlon


This video analysis has been made in response to a video that was uploaded to YouTube by "No Planer TV" - Ryan Rodrigues.

My video analysis rebuttal is intended to "point-out" errors in "BS Registration's" claims he raises in relation to the Michael Hezarkhani video being fake. The errors I'm pointing-out are "factual" errors not fiction, unlike the ones suggested in "BS Registration's" video. I'm also questioning the veracity of the weight both Peggy Carter "AKA" Pearl Vasudha Chanter and Ryan Rodrigues place in Simon Shack's September Clues film as the "best" evidence to prove fraud" as Peggy Carter says in Ryan Rodrigues' video which I address in my analysis and rebuttal video. 

I also deal with this image and comment posted by Ryan Rodrigues below:


Ryan Rodrigues posted this image on 2nd October 2017, 2 days after being told by Andrew Johnson (Admin) not to post anymore comments "off-topic" in the 'Real 9/11 TruthMovement' Facebook Group, on the 30th Sept 2017. Question: Why did Ryan post "off-topic" again two days later asking for a response to his image above?  

Please watch my video analysis below: Viewing in "full-screen" mode is suggested to see smaller details.


See reference: to my comment in my video regarding Ryan Rogrigues' comment saying he has "respect" for Simon Shack's work:


It appears "factual" evidence pointing-out flaws in the BS Registration video and Simon (Hytten) Shack's claims are being ignored, because of a persistance to post "old" videos such as this one by "BS Registration" who's aim appears to be to cast doubt over the authenticity of the Michael Hezarkhani video. A pattern which we are all too familiar with as documented in other blog articles, but sadly seems to be raising its ugly head once again... 


Thank you for reading and watching!



Sunday, 1 October 2017

My Conversation with 9/11 Eyewitness & Videographer Jim Huibregtse



By Mark Conlon


Short introduction:

In this blog-post I'm going to share an important conversation I had with Jim Huibregtse, a first hand 9/11 eyewitness and videographer in NYC at the time of the first plane strike and the rest of the events in NYC. Jim huibregtse captured the North Tower's damage roughly 5 to 10 seconds after the first plane hit. The reason for my contacting him was because I had cited his video as evidence against Simon Shack's claims regarding the plane shaped hole being made bigger using photo-shopping in Richard D. Hall's show and my blog articles. Jim's video proved that Simon Shack was wrong. I also wanted to know what video camera he was using, when he videoed the North Tower's damage. (Brief clip of Jim Huibregtse video) below:

 

I also expressed my concern that people who videoed the plane hitting the South Tower were accused of fabricating their videos, something which I do not believe after studying most of the video evidence involved. I want to thank Jim Huibregtse for answering my question, but also thank him for offering "extra" information which I did not ask him about, out of respect really because of the sensitive nature of the event and being only a week after the anniversary. Also I'd like to thank him for letting me share this conversation publicly, as his eyewitness account is helpful to help us all understand what may or may not have hit the towers. 

Conversation:  18th September 2017
Mark Conlon: Hi Jim. I'm contacting you to ask if you could tell me what type of video camera you videoed your 9/11 footage with if you can remember? I have been doing research into some of the videos of 9/11 you see. Just to be transparent with you, I believe all the videos and photographs are real, and I have always been against people who suggest otherwise and challenged people who say so. I would be grateful for any information that you could help with. If I've offended you in anyway contacting you out of the blue like this, then I apologise for that, it wasn't my intentions, and would understand if you do not reply back. Kind regards, Mark Conlon.


Jim Huibregtse: Mark the camera used was a Sony DCR-PC1, with an external microphone, with a suspect cable. At times I forgot to turn the microphone on, hence the silence on some of the footage, and at other times, the cable added some clicks and pops as my hands moved about the camera. There's been no alteration of the original footage, it's straight from my original footage. Hope this helps.


Mark Conlon: Hi Jim, thank you very much for responding and answering my question, I really do appreciate you taking the time to do that. Yes that answers my question. Just to ask, can I refer to what you have told in this message, as this is a private message? Regards, Mark.


Jim Huibregtse: By the way, I just watched Part One of the "Layers of Deception". My last name is pronounced "hugh-brex". Also, I had (unfortunately) just shut off the camera seconds prior to the first plane flying directly over my head, and, as the Sony camera took several seconds to turn 'back on', I missed the plane directly overhead, which I would have been able to shoot with ease had I happened to have my camera running. A fact I'll take to my grave. However, with that said, and being a bit of an airplane enthusiast, I can plainly, and without hesitation, confirm that it was an airplane that hit the North Tower. It roared 700 feet above my head, and I got a full 3 or 4 second view of it passing directly overhead. Whether or not it was the plane in question, or some 'other' plane I obviously can't confirm, but it was a large 'commercial style' aircraft, without a doubt. Also, a friend of mine visited the Shanksville site sometime after the event for an editorial photo shoot, and he collected some bits of the aircraft, that were merely scattered about, and gave me a couple of (apparently) engine parts, postage stamp in size which I have somewhere, likely in storage. I'm sure any capable aircraft engineer could identify the part, and what aircraft it came from, unless of course, the items were planted there. To me, the evidence of a thermite fire, and molten rivers of melting steel supposedly from a fire of insufficient heat would be the avenues I'd like to see investigated. Also, the many eyewitnesses in the sub levels of the Trade Center who witness explosions prior to their collapse. To say nothing of the video evidence of "squibs". A spectacular event to say the least. Good luck with your investigations.


Mark Conlon: Hi Jim, thank you so much for this information. It really helps in the research I'm doing. Because of the sensitive nature regarding that day and what it left on people in NYC and around the US, I was debating whether to contact you or not. It was your video evidence which made me see through the "conspiracy theories" doing rounds on the internet surrounding the "video fakery" suggestions from Simon Shack and his September Clues. Obviously, your video was the first discussion area with Richard D. Hall in his show regarding Simon Shack. Regarding the plane, I'm glad you have provided this additional information to me. I believe people seen a plane, and I believe the videos are real. although have felt perplexed regarding the impact "crash physics" and some of the other anomalies in some of the plane videos, like disappearing wings which I've struggled to reconcile with myself and what it could be. I've hypothesised but cannot explain it. I'm very open-minded and explore or all areas, maybe they were "real" planes, however like you say not the ones we were told to us in the official narrative. Very interesting about the "Flight 93" debris which your friend found and what you have. Thanks also for letting me know about that evidence. I felt quite bad for the (videographers & photographers) who got accused of fabricating their videos and photographs. I started to expose the misinformation surrounding it all, hopefully to set the record straight. As for the thermite, there's been quite a bit of a back story to it and the person who introduced that theory - Prof Steve E. Jones in relation to the Cold Fusion "cover-up" in 1989. It's a bit much to go into, but if ever you get time or an interest in this area I will pop a couple of links which will explain it far better than I can. Also Dr. Judy Wood's presentation, again just in case if you ever have an interest in this area. Anyway, I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to speak to me, I do appreciate it and also how to pronounce your surname name Lol. Best wishes for now Mark. PS: Links I mentioned will be in a separate message below:


Mark Conlon: Dr. Judy Wood - Breakthrough Energy Movement conference in Holland, 2012 https://youtu.be/T1NbBxDGSkI


Jim Huibregtse: Thanks, I'll have a look.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Closing Note:
I'd like to thank Jim Huibregtse for his time and honesty in this conversation. His account is so valuable in helping us get to the bottom of the "no-planes" saga and to cut through the "disinformation" put-out by Simon Shack and others' too many to name here, regarding the 9/11 video evidence. I'm sure we can all agree, the videos are "real" and they were definitely not fabricated by the videographers. An object (plane) was observed and heard in the sky hitting the North Tower. I think "video fakery" is being exposed for what it really is which is disinformation.


Thanks for reading.... and caring!