My Open Response To Steve De'ak's Blog

By Mark Conlon

To begin with, I will be addressing several “lies” and inaccuracies told by Steve De’ak about myself, which he has knowingly put-out, such as myself “deleting” YouTube comments from his YouTube comments thread. Twice he has told this lie, even though he was informed twice about why my comments were removed due to YouTube’s termination of my YouTube channel on 6th October 2017 (I have evidence to prove it).

Plus, I will be documenting comprehensively in a follow-up blog posting the lies and other distortions he has told regarding comments exchanged between each other. Perhaps an indication why he did not want the “accurate” archive of comment exchanges between us both, which ‘Conspiracy Cuber’ offered to him which De'ak outright rejected. Perhaps if he had, he might of accurately reported or reflected the true nature of the comments exchanged between us both, and maybe reflected truthfully what was said, instead of distorting to suit his false memory of what was said, where he’d rather play the man and not the ball with personal attacks about me and not the my research or analysis. I will be writing a full report with evidence demonstrating what has taken place, and the reader can decide for themselves whether or not Steve De’ak was being completely truthful and honest in what he said about me and his own comments and responses.

The “real” debate which Steve De’ak is avoiding is “video fakery” and it is now clear why, as without “video fakery” De’ak’s “multiple missiles” theory which he cites as causing the plane shaped holes in the WTC buildings falls apart, making it invalid. This explains why he avoids the debate with myself and Conspiracy Cuber regarding “video fakery”, as he has had to publicly retract certain theories in the past he put-out about the Hezarkhani video, and has now tried to get myself and others into a false debate using a phony-bone of contention of  “multiple missiles” causing of the plane shaped holes. Something which I and others will discuss if he can get past his sheer childish rudeness and bad attitude when questions are put to him.

Like De'ak, I have researched the Gelatin art students, although we may differ greatly on their role if any they played or didn’t play. I will discuss more in my future blog article covering all the research I have done into the plane shaped holes and Gelatin and other new evidence which may shed light on this story and why it was released by the mainstream media.

From my own research I have exposed various 9/11 researchers who have falsely promoted “video fakery” as the answer to many anomalies captured in the 2^nd plane impact videos. The promotion of “video fakery” was a clever psychological operation which was circulated to cover-up the existence of advanced image projection technology. It has been the aim of those "alleged" 9/11 researchers, such as; Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Killtown, BS Registration, Markus Allen and many others to promote this false explanation to conceal the 3D illusion technology, something which I have written about in the past in my blog articles. And there are those such as Steve De’ak who continue to ignore or are in denial that such technology even exists to create such powerful images. See below:

Steve De’ak relies on “video fakery” because without it his “multiple missiles” theory cannot be valid, and the fact we have now proven and exposed the “video fakery” Psy-op over and over again, he does not want to discuss it any longer and has subtly shifted the debate to his “multiple missiles” theory which is based on just 9 people’s accounts from the mainstream media reports, which is a contradictory position by De’ak, as according to him the media where complicit in 9/11, and according to De’ak they produced “fake” videos and live coverage on 9/11? Yet, he has no issues cherry picking mainstream media accounts as truth regarding missiles hitting the North Tower, while ignoring all the other evidence of eyewitnesses, videographers and photographer accounts, who seen a PLANE. De’ak would rather make wild accusations against those people, calling them "liars", and "fabricators" of their video evidence, and being part of a giant conspiracy of 9/11, without a single shred of evidence to support his bizarre theories. Does “PEOPLE BASHING” come to mind”?

Also, a question which I can never get a straight answer to with most “video fakery” promotors is, how did they control every video in NYC of the event without at least one or two slipping through the net showing a missile or no-plane hitting the South Tower? How did they control all the witnesses who did see a plane and hear a plane? What was they seeing if they did see the image of a plane in the sky with their own eyes and also how did videographers actually follow the plane through the sky if nothing was there? This cannot be just put down to implanted media reporting after the fact. I have spoken to Jim Huibregtse who seen and heard the first plane? Is Mr. Huibregtse a liar?

Finally, to answer De'ak's main question, the reason I haven’t written about “errors” in your other videos is because at this point in time I am still researching this whole area of the plane holes and what may or may not have made the plane holes. It would be unfair of me to put something out unfinished or not fully researched. If at the end of this research I felt your theory or evidence was correct or relevant, then be sure I would reflect that also. Just to clarify, it was not you who was being discussed in my future article.

What I can say is, and will be noted is the behaviour in this matter of the both stories put-out by Shack and Baker of how they believe the hole was made. I am still looking into the Pentagon and Shanksville events and I will publish new evidence on “Flight 93” in the new year. As you already know, I do have issues with some of your other theories around the Hezarkhani video, but that’s for another day.

Thanks for reading & caring!