More Ad hominem Attacks From Steve De'ak

By Mark Conlon

I want to highlight and bring attention to Steve De'ak's response, to a short article I wrote, and video I made. De'ak took to the 9/11 Plane Hoax Facebook page thread, by calling me a "Con"? De'ak, a custom to reverting to his usual name calling, which deflect attention away from actually talking about the content of my video analysis. 

De'ak admits in his Facebook comment that he didn't read or listen to what I was saying in my video, as he only read a so-called apparent "frauds" list. 

This is an inaccurate reference in his comment, as I make NO reference to the list being a "list of frauds" in my article, which he would realise if he had read the article or watched the video. In the paragraph I provide a "brief" history of "No-Planes", then show a list of people who have promoted video fakery, no-planes and also holograms.

Please Note: The two people I refer to in my article above Rosalee Grable AKA (The Webfairy) and Gerard Holmgren passed away.. which I reflected in the article saying "Sadly both are no longer with us".. 

If you read through all my previous blogs, there is no reference to either Rosalee Grable or Gerard Holmgren being disinformation OPs, and they are NOT certainly portrayed in a "negative" light, or being called "FRAUDS" in my blog articles. I have merely quoted a fact that both believed "No-Planes" were involved in the WTC attacks, and also believe TV Fakery/Video Fakery was involved, which I used to believe was correct, although now after extensive research of my own, disagree with both Grable's and Holmgren's assertions. To be clear, I am only stating from observing Grable in her many interviews, Grable's own position on the subject. The same for Holmgren. I just state their last known position on the subject, which is fact.

 Please Note: The list accurately states that Steve De'ak has promoted Video Fakery, No Planes and Crash Test. At no-point is he called a "fraud" or was the list called a "frauds list". In my articles I have always been respectful towards Steve De'ak, and expressed why I disagree with his findings or theories regarding "video fakery" and the Hezarkhani video. 

In fact I showed Steve De'ak credit for showing "humility" twice and admitting when he was wrong about two theories he had changed his position on after observing new evidence. So I am not quite sure as to why he feels this is bad to document people's theories, or make light of the changes in their positions once held. 

I even quoted where I had changed my own position on the Fox News - Chopper5 "Nose-out" sequence because of new evidence presented to me. So Steve's issues towards myself pointing-out when people are wrong in their theories, according Steve De'ak makes me a "CON", which doesn't really quite sit with the investigative research method, as after all my main body of research has proven conclusively the many flaws in Simon Shack's - September Clues film. Is this something I should not have talked about or pointed out regarding the "incorrect" points which are made by Simon Shack, or should I have kept quite about it so we can all still believe the inaccurate points proposed by Simon Shack in his September Clues film? Would this bring around progress in finding the truth, just so people can feel nice and comfortable in their "comfort zone"... NO! So why does Steve claim this is a dishonest practice, and not someone looking to find the truth...?

Please Note: I have not called Steve De'ak a "fraud", as he claimed I have in his latest Facebook comment. I would ask him to produce evidence of me calling him personally a FRAUD...?

I also correct De'ak's accusations, that "I" had deleted my YouTube comments, which I addressed in my recent response published - 19/12/2017 to De'ak's questions to me on his blog/website - 17/12/2017. As I explained, my YouTube Channel was terminated by YouTube, thus deleting all my comments in the thread, and not by me deleting my comments, which De'ak has again "inaccurately" repeated in his Facebook comments. 

On a final note, all this diverts attention away from the "original" findings of the analysis I did regarding the Hezarkhani video, thus pointing-out the incorrect claims made about the Michael Hezarkhani video and also my analysis of Steve De'ak's claim about Michael Hezarkhani fuzzing-out, blurring and fabricating his video evidence to conceal the plane gash, which I believe to be incorrect, and based on no evidence offered other than what Steve De'ak says Michael Hezarkhani did to his video.

So I will leave it to the viewer/reader of the article and my update to make of Steve De'ak's claims about me and to draw your own conclusions.

Thank you for reading and caring...