September Clues - Addendum "Deceptions" - Part Two

By Mark Conlon

Following-on from my part one analysis, in this short part two analysis I’m going to study more claims made by Simon Shack in his September Clues – Addendum film, where he claims all of the live network television footage depicting the South Tower’s destruction is “fake”. Simon Shack bases his claims on the presence and movements of a helicopter (PAT) flying in the vicinity of the South Tower, prior to the South Tower’s destruction. 

At 6:19 into the film, Simon Shack claims that 'Chopper 2' (CBS) filming from the south behind the towers is no where to be seen on any available 9/11 footage. See below: screen-shot.

I was able to find some MSNBC news coverage footage which shows both 'PAT' the helicopter and 'Chopper 2' filming the South Tower as it is destroyed. Simon Shack claims no footage of 'Chopper 2' exists. See below: screen-shot.

Simon Shack also debunks himself again here below, as he points out 'PAT' in this 'Chopper 2' CBS news footage.

At 6:40 into his film Shack again debunks his own theory by showing another 9/11 video which also shows 'PAT' clearly in the video footage. See below: screen-shots.

At 6:45, Simon Shack tries again to "exploit" some poor quality distance video footage claiming that 'PAT' is not in the video. See below:

I managed to track down the video footage of the video on the "right" in the split screen-shot above in Simon Shack's film, where he implies 'PAT' the helicopter is "missing". See Below: series of screen-shots showing 'PAT' the helicopter flying away as the South Tower is destroyed. (Note: how Simon Shack misrepresents the location in the image above of PAT's location when considering PAT's actual location in the screen-shots below).

See below: enlargement... 'PAT' is clearly visible. 

This is clear evidence that Simon Shack is either mistaken, or it implies he is deliberately trying to deceive his viewers of his film. The pattern throughout the film indicates deception.

 

At 7:32 in his film Simon Shack tries again to imply 'PAT' is missing, by using some very poor low quality video footage. See below:

However if you very look closely at 7:31 'PAT' can vaguely be seen in Simon Shack's version. WHY hasn't Simon Shack pointed 'PAT' out?

Instead at 7:36, Simon Shack flashes this question mark up again trying to "exploit" the poor quality video to promote "video fakery".

I managed to locate some better quality video footage below of the same video above, which shows 'PAT' clearly located in the video. See screen-shot below:

Conclusions:
A question to consider is, can we really trust Simon Shack to fairly present the 9/11 video evidence? The answer for me judging by his "unfair" treatment of the video evidence presented in his September Clues films, is NO. Simon Shack's integrity has been called into question so many times regarding his presentation of the video evidence, because of his clever editing, misdirection and false, misleading statements which he makes without any supportive evidence, other than to conceal evidence which proves the opposite to his claims.

Simon Shack appears to have an agenda with predetermined conclusions where he is prepared to "exploit" legitimate explanations such as, "laws of optics" to present perfectly genuine 9/11 videos as "fake". Simon Shack's intention is to cast doubt in people's minds over the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence, which to some degree has worked as people are still promoting 'video fakery'.

It appears that Simon Shack is overseeing a "Psychological Operation" to  manage people's perceptions. When people believe they have the correct answers it stops them studying the video evidence any further. This personally happened to me for several years, and in that respect, Simon Shack’s "Psychological Operation" and "Perception Management" worked, as I didn’t continue to study the video evidence because I thought I had all the answers… How wrong I was.

To find out more about Simon Shack (Hytten), please read Andrew Johnson's research article here: 9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175. http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60

I may do a 'Part Three' as there are more mistakes and deceptions to be exposed...  

Thank you for reading and caring....