September Clues - Addendum "Deceptions" - Part One

By Mark Conlon

In this analysis I’m going to study 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. I will also study Simon Shack’s methods which he uses to support his claims. 

  

Reference: You can find Simon Shack’s Addendum film here on his official YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/UGyW-0MeBOU Which I have used and referenced as part of my analysis.

Analysis of September Clues - Addendum:

At 1:00 into the film, Simon Shack attempts to establish the presence and movement of (PAT) the helicopter using three different videos from three different views. The first video he uses is an amateur video taken by Devin Clark, which was taken from 1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2401, 34^th Street. See the screen-shot below where I have circled in red (PAT) the helicopter.  

Note: This was not live news footage

Below: At 1:14 to 1:19, Simon Shack uses Devin Clark’s video footage to establish ‘PAT’ the helicopter’s position and the direction as the helicopter flies away during the South Tower’s destruction.  

At 1:30 to 1:46, Simon Shack uses a second video, known as the Spiegel video, which was located at: 1 Plaza Street, Brooklyn, which shows an “Eastern View” of the towers and establishes the helicopter's location 5 seconds before the South Tower’s destruction. Note: This was not live footage.

In the screen-shot below at 1:52 in the film, Simon Shack uses a third amateur video taken by Ilse Fernandez. Her video was taken from the north and establishes the helicopter’s location, before the South Tower’s destruction.

So far, Simon Shack has used three amateur videos (which were not live video footage) to demonstrate ‘PAT’ the helicopter’s location and movements around the South Tower before the destruction and also during the destruction of the South Tower. If we look at all three videos they appear to correspond with each other regarding ‘PAT’ the helicopter’s location and movements.
 

At 1:57 into his film, Simon Shack uses the Ilse Fernandez video "zoom-out" sequence to make his first point to challenge the authenticity of the Ilse Fernandez video footage by showing ‘PAT’ the helicopter disappearing during the “zoom-out” sequence in her video. See below:

In the series of screen-shots above it shows the Ilse Fernandez video as she is “zooming-out”. Simon Shack claims that ‘PAT’ the helicopter disappears during the “zoom-out” sequence in her video, thus implying that her video is fake? He highlights this by freezing the video frame and inserting the word “gone”. See the bottom right hand corner image above.

In the video ‘PAT’ the helicopter does seem to disappear, however this is Simon Shack’s version of the Ilse Fernandez video which is a copy and not the original source video. 

I checked this first point that Simon Shack makes in his film at 2:01 by finding Ilse Fernandez’s original video which was uploaded on her YouTube channel on the 20^th September 2007. See screen-shot below:

  
Note: The Ilse Fernandez “original” video was uploaded to her YouTube channel before Simon Shack’s version of her video appears in his September Clues - Addendum film uploaded to his YouTube channel on the 23rd March 2009. This is 18 months after Ilse Fernandez uploaded her original video to her YouTube channel on 20^th September 2007.  

Below: Simon Shack's video uploaded 23rd March 2009

The first point I analysed was where Simon Shack claimed ‘PAT’ the helicopter disappears in the “zoom-out” sequence in the Ilse Fernandez video. I have used the Ilse Fernandez “original” video to compare “identical” video frames. See Below:

 

See below: Enlargement of 'PAT' the helicopter visible in the Ilse Fernandez video on the right, but "missing" in Simon Shack's version on the left.

The question is: Why is ‘PAT’ the helicopter “missing” in Simon Shack’s version of the Ilse Fernandez video, yet visible in Ilse Fernandez’s “identical” frame “original”? 

I decided to check further-on into the “original” Ilse Fernandez “zoom-out” sequence to see if ‘PAT’ still remained in the video. See below:

As we can observe in the screen-shot above, ‘PAT’ the helicopter is still visible in the continued "zoom-out" sequence well after the “identical” frame by frame comparison analysis, however ‘PAT’ the helicopter is “missing” at a much earlier time in the “zoom-out” sequence in Simon Shack's version?

Does this indicate that ‘PAT’ the helicopter has been removed from the video footage in Simon Shack’s version in his Addendum film, because in the “original” version ‘PAT’ is visible for a much longer time period in the “zooming-out” sequence, which cannot be accounted for by mere copying of the Ilse Fernandez video, or even the video quality loss because of compression, thus strongly suggesting a “deliberate” removal of the helicopter from the video by someone or Simon Shack himself.

 

Important technical facts and laws of optics which Simon Shack ignores which should be discussed and understood.  

In reality we would eventually expect ‘PAT’ the helicopter to disappear when the camera’s lens is fully “zoomed-out” especially when videoing from faraway distances like Ilse Fernandez was on Thompson Street.

In the screen-shot above taken from the Ilse Fernandez “original” video, we would expect ‘PAT’ the helicopter to disappear from view as the video camera’s lens fully “zooms-out”. This is completely normal. At faraway distance the camera’s lens cannot register the small object (‘PAT’ the helicopter), which is correct with laws and principles of camera optics, and is nothing to do with ‘video fakery’ as suggested by Simon Shack.

To demonstrate “laws of optics” I have included a video example of a police helicopter disappearing in some video camera footage, demonstrating how smaller objects like helicopters cannot be registered from faraway distances when the video camera’s lens is fully “zoomed-out” reaching its threshold limit, thus not being able to register the small object (helicopter) at distance. See short video below:

In the short video below, I show an example where a news video camera reaches its "zoom-out" threshold limit during the "zooming-in" sequence in the Fox News 11 'Chopper 5' video footage on 9/11. This demonstrates how smaller (Police helicopter) objects do not register in the video camera's lens when "zoomed-out" at a far distance, which can give the distinct impression that the Police helicopter just disappears or appears during in the 9/11 Fox News 'Chopper 5' video footage, which has been "exploited" by many 9/11 researchers' who claim this is evidence for "video fakery", when in reality it is not, and is basic "laws of optics", and is legitimately explainable. See below:

My reasons for exploring this important technical information (laws of optics) is to expose how Simon Shack has chosen to “ignore” and "exploit" this technical information (laws of optics), which allows him to continually use this “false” point throughout his film and make false statements such as the one below in the screen-shot from his film at 3:49 - (“Note: on 9/11 TV, choppers are always visible at great distance”.) See screen-shot below:

 
Simon Shack’s statement above is completely false, as choppers are "NOT" always visible at great distances, as I have demonstrated in my two video examples above. This demonstrates Simon Shack’s willful neglect to include or consider vital information pertaining to video camera optics and technical factors which allows Simon Shack to promote a “false” explanation as evidence of ‘video fakery’. 

At 3:20 in his film Simon Shack uses a comparison split-screen between two videos, with the video on the left hand side of the screen showing where ‘PAT’ the helicopter is located as the South Tower is destroyed, and the other video (NBC Live) on the right during the South Tower's destruction, which Simon Shack claims, does not show ‘PAT’ the helicopter in the NBC live news shot. See screen-shot below:

   

Note: Simon Shack attempts again to exploit the video camera's lens "laws of optics" in the NBC live news coverage "distance" shot above, where the video camera was not able to register the small object ('PAT' the helicopter) when the video camera is "zoomed out" at such a faraway distance from the Twin Towers, thus allowing Simon Shack to exploit and promote "false" evidence for 'video fakery'.  

The question is, what video evidence is Simon Shack "NOT" showing to the viewers of his film, when he asks the question “where is PAT on Live TV” at 3:31 in his film.

It is revealing the methods used by Simon Shack to convince the viewers that ‘PAT’ the helicopter is "missing" in the NBC live coverage.

Below is a series of screen-shots and video clips taken from the NBC live news coverage 42 seconds prior to the South Tower’s destruction, which Simon Shack has completely omitted, which shows 'PAT' the helicopter. Screen-shots below: 

Clearly ‘PAT’ the helicopter is indeed visible in the “zoomed-in” shot in the NBC live news coverage as ‘PAT’ the helicopter approaches the North Tower moments before the South Tower’s destruction. See video clip below:

As the video camera is slowly “zooming-outwards” and as the video camera continues to “zoom-outwards” the video camera’s lens struggles to register ‘PAT’ the helicopter at a faraway distance, thus giving the impression of ‘PAT’ simply disappearing in the video footage. Again this is perfectly normal and is not attributed to ‘video fakery’ as Simon Shack “falsely” promotes and exploits again here in his film.

Serious questions have to be asked why Simon Shack didn't show this “earlier” piece of important video evidence showing ‘PAT’ the helicopter in the NBC news footage? This video evidence was broadcast live on NBC, so there is no excuse Simon Shack can make as to why he didn't include it in his film. This is either at "best" shoddy research, or at "worst", a conscious effort to deceive his viewers, thus allowing him the opportunity to once again promote a "false" explanation of the video being fake.

Below, in the next set of screen-shots they show a sequence shown at 4:02 through to 4:23 in Simon Shack's film. Simon Shack again claims that ‘PAT’ the helicopter is “missing”. This is again "false", as the camera is quite some distance away from the Twin Towers, so the video camera would not be able to register ‘PAT’ the helicopter from the faraway distance when the camera’s lens is “zoomed out” as I have discussed earlier-on and demonstrated in my earlier two video examples above with the police helicopters. 

At 4:23 in the screen-shot located in the bottom right hand corner, Simon Shack cuts-away from the NBC live news “play-back” of the South Tower’s destruction. Simon Shack does not pursue or investigate any further to try and locate the NBC live news video feed footage to see if we would see ‘PAT’ the helicopter as the camera starts to “zoom-inwards” towards the South Tower.

I was able to ascertain that it was ‘Chopper 4’ who was delivering the live video feed for the NBC news stations, and I was able to locate a complete live feed version which was broadcast live in full through NBC 4 - New York’s news station, which showed the full “zoom-in” sequence shot which Simon Shack decided to cut-away from at 4:23 in his film, giving up his search for further video evidence which might have proved PAT's existence.

 See below: NBC 4 - New York ‘Chopper 4’ live camera feed screen-shots 

Also video clip below:

  

Question: Why didn’t Simon Shack investigate further and show his viewers this NBC live news feed footage, which was available at the time when he made his Addendum film? Simon Shack knew it was 'Chopper 4' who was delivering the live video coverage for NBC stations because he pointed it out in his film at 7:04. See below:

 
A TV Programme called Galileo Mystery investigated the 9/11 attacks and used the NBC live news coverage in their documentary which was broadcast on the 2nd March 2007, which was two years before Simon Shack posted his September Clues - Addendum film on the 23rd March 2009 on his YouTube channel. My reasons for raising this point is, this provides conclusive proof that this video evidence was available at that time which Simon Shack could've used, which would've shown the visible presence of 'PAT' the helicopter in the NBC live news coverage. See screen-shot below:

Simon Shack's misdirection and the NY1 live news footage... 

At 5:05 into Simon Shack's film he now turns his attentions to the NY1 live news coverage.

At 5:11 in the film he points-out 'PAT' the helicopter's approach towards the Twin Towers. See still image below:

Above, in the NY1 live news coverage footage above shows 'PAT' the helicopter approaching the towers. As 'PAT' disappears behind the North Tower briefly before the South Tower turns to dust, what Simon Shack does next in his video can only be described as "misdirection". Simon Shack misdirects the viewers of his film to look for 'PAT' in the "wrong" place as 'PAT' begins to fly away as the South Tower is destroyed (which I've highlighted with a red circle) in the NY1 live news coverage still image below from Shack's film. 

Below, as 'PAT' the helicopter begins to fly away as the South Tower is destroyed 'PAT' comes back into view from being obscured behind the North Tower briefly, Simon Shack says: "On NY1 TV PAT simply VANISHES", however Simon Shack is not pointing out 'PAT' helicopter's true flight path as he flies away. See below:

Again, Simon Shack's methods are called into question regarding the treatment and presentation of this NY1 news video evidence. The question is, why has Simon Shack pointed out 'PAT' in the "wrong" place in the video? 

In the screen-shots below, 'PAT' the helicopter can be seen flying away as the South Tower is destroyed which I have shown with the arrow correctly showing 'PAT' the helicopter's true flight path which Simon Shack misrepresented.

Please see short video below where I point-out 'PAT' the helicopter in the NY1 live news coverage.

QUESTION....

I have demonstrated how Simon Shack attempts to "misdirect" the viewers' attention away from 'PAT' the helicopter's "real" flight path location in the NY1 live news coverage video, thus allowing Simon Shack to promote a "false" claim of 'PAT' the helicopter "vanishing" in the video, when in reality 'PAT' is visible in the video footage if you look in the correct location and ignore Simon Shack's misplacement of where 'PAT' should be. The question is, was this deliberately done? I can only conclude this to be "deceptive" and "deliberate". I base my opinion from all my past and current analysis of Simon Shack's films, where there appears to be a pattern to his methods of presenting evidence in his films. 

Conclusions:

A question to consider is, can we really trust Simon Shack's 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

Thanks for reading!  
    

Perception Management "More to the story"

By Mark Conlon
Edited by Andrew Johnson

The reason for writing this follow-up article to “9/11 ‘No Planes’ Perception Management Past & Present” was to document recent activities which I consider to be attempts of “perception management” in relation to the planes, no-planes on 9/11 discussion.

The control of the discussion and people’s perceptions is being done through the control of information to which they are exposed, to steer their thoughts and observations in a desired direction in relation to the discussion, in this case the issue of  “no planes” (or “no real plane crashes”) on 9/11.

The main direction and focus of the perception management  surrounding “no planes” is whether “video fakery” was used to insert planes into the video footage, which would explain all the observed anomalies captured in the videos of ‘Flight 175’ hitting the South Tower.  Additionally, the perpetrators need to manage the perceptions of people regarding the strong evidence that suggests no planes crashed at any of the four crash sites on 9/11.

Video fakery has perhaps been the most widely accepted alternative theory which emerged in the alternative knowledge community as early as 2003-04. Since 2008, when I first became aware of the issues in relation to the Flight 175 videos, I personally observed that most people in the alternative knowledge community “repeated” the “video fakery” theory when discussing “no-planes” on 9/11. Most, if not all people were quick to site “video fakery” as the answer to the anomalies in the videos of Flight 175. For 6 years, I myself took it for granted that “video fakery” was the answer to all the questions I had about the anomalies in the Flight 175 videos. I was even handing-out copies of a prominent film (released on the internet in 2007) called September Clues, made by a person who went under the alias Social Service. The person was later known as Simon Shack, real name Simon Hytten. The film mainly promoted what can only be described as convincing evidence of “video fakery” on 9/11.

About 5 years later, In 2012 Richard D. Hall released his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis video, which seriously challenges some of the claims put forward by “video fakery” theory promoter’s such as; Simon Shack, Ace Baker and others. Richard’s hypothesis proposes the use of some type of advanced “image projection” technology that was able to create an image of a plane flying through the sky which many eyewitnesses who saw and reported with videographers and photographers videoing and photographing. Richard’s hypothesis addressed many more of the questions which the “video fakery” hypothesis failed to answer.  For example, within a 3D-model of the WTC area, Richard D. Hall compared 26 out 52 possible videos of alleged Flight 175 “crashing” into WTC 2 and showed the plane’s flight path matched, very closely, in each of the videos analysed. See Below:

The evidence and hypothesis put forward by Richard D. Hall in his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis is dangerous to the perpetrators of 911, because it disproves “video fakery” theory – favoured by many people who have closely studied the 911 “plane crash” stories and evidence.

As mentioned above, Richard’s analysis implies that some type of advanced “image projection” technology was used to create fake planes. He also touches on the idea that “video fakery” has been put-out as a “psychological operation” to manage people’s perceptions and knowledge regarding this secret “image projection” technology.

On the 12^th anniversary of 9/11 a video surfaced on the YouTube by a 9/11 “no-planes” researcher called Markus Allen. It was an “analysis” of the amateur Michael Hezarkhani video.

After viewing Markus Allen’s video, I quickly became aware that something was not right with his explanation. He stated that the disappearance of the plane’s wing, behind a certain building, should not have happened. He said that this was then evidence of a computer “CGI glitch” i.e. evidence of “video fakery”.

After thoroughly studying and analysing his video, I wrote an article correcting the mistakes made in the video by Markus Allen. My article was published at Andrew Johnson’s “Check the Evidence” website. Little did I know at that time, from ongoing research over the next 4 years, I would come to learn and understand the nature of a clever “psychological operation” (psy-op) It was a psy-op to manage people’s perceptions “no-planes” and “video fakery” in relation to the events of 911. 

In this article, I attempt to illustrate that in the past, researchers such as; Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Markus Allen and others too numerous to mention, appeared to be deliberately promoting false information, which is easily been disproved. This is especially true in relation to the Michael Hezarkhani video - I’ve documented how “video fakery” does not explain all the anomalies captured in this and other videos of ‘Flight 175’.

I had the realisation that I had unknowingly had my “perceptions managed” for 6 years in relation to this issue. I had been repeating “video fakery” as the answer to all the problems within the video footage of ‘Flight 175.’ The perception management worked perfectly in my case - because it stopped me looking too closely at the video evidence or reaching a more truthful answer regarding the anomalies in the ‘Flight 175’ videos.  Hence, in the process, “disinformation” thrived. For example, more than 1 million people shared Markus Allen’s video (mentioned above), which was factually incorrect. Allen had promoted an obviously false explanation of a poorly made “CGI Plane” in Michael Hezarkhani’s video. This demonstrated to me how easy it was, on a mass scale, to manage the people’s perceptions of “the few and the many” - including myself - for 6 years! That is, I thought I was awake and knowledgeable to the truth, in this subject area, but I, too, was deceived.

So, to move away from this deception, I have conducted into the September Clues film. I have proven that many of the claims made by Simon Shack regarding the anomalies captured in the ‘Flight 175’ are incorrect at best, and deliberately deceptive at the very worst. Further research reveals the whole “video fakery” idea/explanation was started deliberately as a cover story. It was used as a part of a “psychological operation” to prevent people (such as myself) from studying more closely the video and photographic evidence.  The intent behind this “psy-op” was to conceal the use of an advanced “image projection” technology – a secret which must be kept from the public’s knowledge. This scenario is very similar to how the "thermite" explanation - introduced as a cover-story by Steven E. Jones – was used to cover-up the real evidence which proved that an advanced “directed energy weapon” destroyed the WTC Complex. Andrew Johnson talks about in his 9/11 Finding The Truth book.

There appears to be two vital areas of the “psychological operation”. One, is to promote the idea that all the 9/11 videos are fake, to account for the anomalies captured in the 9/11 videos of ‘Flight 175’ such as, disappearing wings, impossible speed and the damage not consistent with real plane crash. The other layer is to promote the idea of real planes being used on 9/11. More and more people are becoming aware that “no-planes” crashed on 9/11. Thus, there is a need to manage people’s perceptions regarding the physical evidence of plane crashes on 9/11. One technique is to move the discussion away from analysis of any wreckage, debris or physical damage to the towers. 

Characteristics: The discrediting of the video evidence - Michael Hezarkhani video

A psychological part of this operation is to repeatedly single-out and try to discredit the Michael Hezarkhani video as a fake video. The Michael Hezarkhani video is undoubtedly the most famous and clearest view of the plane impacting the South tower, which captured a number of strange anomalies within it. It came as no surprise to me to discover how this figured in the recent timeline of events in the “perception management” of this evidence. 

In the early part of 2017, there seems to have been a sharp increase of material being removed by social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook regarding the discussion of “no-planes” on 911. This seems to be a well-coordinated and well thought-out response to reduce the impact that the afore-mentioned RDH  October 2016 ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis was having on the “9/11 video fakery psychological operation”. It appeared that what I was witnessing was not just a set of unrelated timely coincidences, or random acts.

Below I have outlined a “timeline” of events which were not immediately obvious to me when I wrote an earlier article on the subject.  Now, having collected more information, the timeline to manage people’s perceptions, becomes more visible, so I felt the need to include this information here.

Timeline: “Perception Management”

Early February 2017: 
Richard D. Hall’s ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis “Update” October 2016 - is blocked by YouTube for no apparent reason? Viewing figures showed it had reached over 300,000 views and rising. (Edit: It appears this video, mysteriously, was unblocked). Again, this video exposes how “video fakery” does not reasonably answer all the anomalies in the ‘Flight 175’ plane videos, thus presenting the hypothesis of an unknown advanced “image projection” system, possibly a cloaked missile.

18th February 2017: 
Andrew Johnson appears on Conscious Consumer Network’s show Reclaiming perception with Jo Lomax to discuss how people have been manipulated by lies about 9/11. Andrew talks about some of elements of the “9/11 Truth Movement” who seem to be trying to cover-up a secret which has the potential to transform the future of mankind. Andrew also spoke about the plane crashes and the lack of any real evidence to support any crashes at WTC towers. Andrew also spoke about “video fakery” and the researcher’s such as; Ace Baker and Simon Shack – he mentioned how Simon Shack’s film September Clues was quite deceptive.

20^th February 2017: 
At approximately 10:00am - Andrew Johnson’s website suffered a cyber-attack which took his website down for 2 to 3 days following his interview on Conscious Consumer Network’s where Andrew stated emphatically how trolls should be ashamed of themselves for covering up what happened on 9/11.

26^th March 2017: 
Jim Fetzer interviews Steve De'ak on his "The Real Deal" show and the subject areas covered are how the gashes in the Twin Towers were made, and also “video fakery” and they also discuss the Michael Hezarkhani video.

Note: An attempt was made by Jim Fetzer and Steve De’ak to cast doubt over the Michael Hezarkhani video footage and try and portray it as a fake video. False points are made repeatedly by Steve De’ak. Jim Fetzer does not challenge Steve De’ak’s points, as Fetzer claims he hasn’t studied the Michael Hezarkhani video enough. This statement is also false,  as Jim Fetzer has conducted many radio shows in relation to the Michael Hezarkhani video anomalies. Fetzer has a history of promoting “video fakery” by prominent researchers such as; Ace Baker, Killtown, Rosalee Grable (The Webfairy), Peggy Carter, CB Brooklyn and One Born Free on his radio show. Jim Fetzer has also written an article on the subject of video fakery and no-planes.  http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/planesno-planes-and-video-fakery.html

30th March 2017: 
Richard D. Hall’s – “Fake Reality” 2017 Tour kicks-off in Newcastle. Richard mentions the recent action taken by YouTube regarding the “blocking” of his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar.

31st March 2017: 
(International News Story Breaks) Daily Mail Online UK Releases Article:

FBI pictures reveal fiery aftermath and appalling destruction at the Pentagon on 9/11 - including remains of the plane hijacked by bin Laden's attackers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4365662/FBI-pictures-reveal-aftermath-9-11-attack-Pentagon.html?ito=social-facebook

This news headline in the Daily Mail Online UK article is incorrect, they were re-released images - not new ones. There were 27 images, not 16 as reported by some UK news outlets. The FBI spokeswoman Jillian Stickels said the pictures were first posted online in 2011. A technical glitch caused them to disappear from the site for an undetermined period of time, she added. They were restored in recent days to public view once the FBI learned they were missing, according to the FBI spokeswoman.

We can note that the worldwide release of this story, promoting the idea of planes being involved on 9/11, just happens to come one day after Richard D. Hall starts his UK tour. Perhaps this is because he was discussing the revised version of is 9/11 ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis... Is this all a coincidence?

Below: samples of news headlines on 31^st March 2017 and the release of FBI 9/11 Pentagon images: Please Note: I’ve highlighted in “red” font the instances of references to the plane story.  

31st March 2017: BBC News US & Canada

FBI re-releases 9/11 photos of Pentagon:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39461005

The article says:

Photos taken after the attack on the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 have reappeared on the FBI's website six years after they were first released. The 27 images show fire crews battling the blaze, as well as recovery teams and investigators searching the rubble. American Airlines Flight 77, travelling from Virginia to LA, slammed into the building at around 09:37 local time. US authorities said the plane struck between the first and second floors of the Pentagon, killing 184 people. It was previously thought that the images had been newly released because of the fresh date stamp. But FBI spokeswoman Jillian Stickels said the pictures were first posted online in 2011. A technical glitch caused them to disappear from the site for an undetermined period of time, she added. They were restored in recent days to public view once the FBI learned they were missing, according to the FBI spokeswoman.

31st March 2017: Yahoo News UK

FBI releases harrowing pictures showing the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/fbi-releases-harrowing-pictures-showing-slideshow-wp-102643014.html

The article says:

The FBI has released a series of chilling photos of the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks for the first time. The never-before-seen images show the headquarters of U.S. military in ruins, after Al-Qaeda terrorists flew an American Airlines plane into the building, killing 125 people inside and the 59 people on board. The pictures, taken in the days following the atrocity, show emergency services battling huge fires, yawning holes in buildings and the tangled wreckage of the plane that smashed into the Pentagon. Forensic specialists are pictured looking through the wreckage; the FBI has obscured their identities in the release of images. One picture shows a twisted shard of metal bearing the American Airlines logo lying in the grass, torn from the hijacked plane upon impact.

31^st March 2017: Washington (CNN)

Photos show Pentagon during wake of 9/11:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/fbi-9-11-pentagon-terror-attack-photos/

The article says:

The FBI has re-released a series of photos that document the horrific terror attack at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, which left 184 people dead. The 27 photos document the aftermath of the attacks, including images of the building's exterior, the overhead and images of first responders, who rushed to the scene. American Airlines Flight 77, traveling from Dulles, Virginia, to Los Angeles, was hijacked by al Qaeda terrorists, who struck the building at 9:37 a.m. ET on September 11, killing both passengers and Pentagon workers.

1st April 2017: 
Richard D. Hall’s October 2016 updated version of his ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis video is “unblocked” by YouTube after previously being “blocked” in late January early February 2017 for “alleged” copyright infringement.

Again, was this international news release timed deliberately, the day before Richard D. Hall’s ‘Flight 175’ 3D Radar Analysis Video was being “unblocked” by YouTube with an intention of controlling information?  Were they reinforcing the 9/11 plane crash story to counteract any effects of Richard’s video? After all, YouTube “blocking” his video brought more attention to it - and the hypothesis suggested in it. (Note: during this time period YouTube allowed 9/11 “video fakery” promotion videos to remain up on their platform.)

11th April 2017: 
Steve De’ak releases a short YouTube video called – 9/11 Amateurs Were Using Tripods. The video attempts to discredit the Michael Hezarkhani video and cast doubt over the 9/11 video evidence. Steve De’ak claims in his video, the Michael Herzarkhani footage was allegedly filmed from the deck of a boat but there are fifteen frames that prove it was filmed on a tripod or dolly on dry land. Steve De’ak is creating false points which have been completely disproven, but he attempts to rehash them in his video. https://youtu.be/2Gpr-jtWCNc

Note: This is an attempt by Steve De’ak to promote the idea that “video fakery” was used in the Michael Hezarkhani video. This is, again, to cast doubt over the authenticity of the video footage. I would argue this is done to to conceal the use of some type of advanced “image projection” technology, which was what the Michael Hezarkhani video actually recorded. So, Steve De’ak is acting to help manage more the curious people’s perceptions that ‘video fakery’ is the answer to all 


Closing Notes:

As you can see above there has been censorship and perception management in relation to the discussion of the “no-planes on 9/11” evidence. There has been an attempt to promote the “official” plane crash stories (within the mainstream) and the “video fakery” stories in the alternative knowledge community. The former is indicated by the timely release of the FBI Pentagon Wreckage images and the latter is indicated by the release of things like Steve De’ak’s video, with related discussion by people like Jim Fetzer – who is already heavily implicated in the cover up of the technology which destroyed the WTC. I suggest that the censorship attempts involving Richard D Hall’s video and Andrew Johnson’s website are an indication of the failings of the 'video fakery' psychological operation.

Perhaps this is indicative that the perpetrators of 9/11 are still worried - that a few more people are waking up and questioning the evidence and stories about the true nature of the alleged plane crashes, on that terrible day.