Simon Shack "Misrepresents" Plane Flight Path in 9/11 Video

By Mark Conlon

In this "brief" analysis I shall demonstrate Simon Shack's "misrepresentation" of Flight 175's "alleged" flight path at 26:10 in his September Clues. 

See below: screen-shot from 26:10 in September Clues.

 

  

Simon Shack suggests the plane's flight path is "rising" in the video? After past research conducted into Simon Shack's claims and methods of his presentation of evidence, I questioned whether or not Simon Shack had "accurately" represented the plane's flight path in this video.

Checking the Evidence:

I decided to try and track the plane's "actual" flight path (and not the plane flight path as suggested by Simon Shack in his film). I did this by "overlaying" two different video frames using an "earlier" time-frame and a "later" time frame as the plane travels towards the South Tower. See two screen-shot images below: 

In the two screen-shot images above I have "highlighted" the two white boxes in two separate video frames, which I decided to overlay the two video frames on top of each other so we could track the plane's flight path more accurately and have a greater idea of the plane's flight path. See the result below of the two overlaid images:

In the image above I added "red" lines to represent and highlight the plane's angle as it banks when it continued forwards in its flight path. I also added two "yellow" lines to track the plane's engines which helped to "distinguish" clearer the plane's flight path. 

In the image below, I needed to add some more information such as a Datum line (orange/black), which would give a "true" representation and angle to work off, by striking a line through the two buildings in the foreground. I also put a "red" line through the centre of the plane, which also helped to highlight the plane's flight path. See image below:

In the image above it gives us more information to work with which can help determine whether or not the plane's flight path is in a descent or whether it is "rising" as Simon Shack suggested in his film. 

What I did next was to find another video from a different angle which I could apply the same set of highlighting lines to along with a "Datum" so I could compare. See image below: Please see the highlighting lines Colour Key in the top left corner also in the image.

As you can see from the image above the plane is in a descent, and clearly from the (orange/black) Datum line we can also see that the plane tilts and banks sidewards. See both images for comparison below:

See below: Short video showing the plane's trajectory flight path to be descending NOT elevating like shack will have us believe in his September Clues film.

Analysis Conclusion:

As we can see the plane's flight path was not "rising", but was in a "descent", which has been completely "misrepresented" by Simon Shack in his September Clues film. We can clearly see that comparing both images together with the extra informational lines, we see the plane tilting and banking as it closer to the South Tower before impact, which can be seen consistently in both images above. 

Simon Shack appears to be "exploiting" parallax which is a continuous theme throughout his September Clues films regarding the plane's flight paths. Richard D. Hall's "Flight 175" 3D Radar Analysis proved conclusively that all the plane's flight paths matched in each of the 26 videos sufficient to be analysed from the 53 videos available, thus proving Simon Shack's claims to "false". 

Again, questions are raised about Simon Shack’s presentation of video evidence and the methods he uses in his film September Clues. 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. From my past analysis, where I have disproved 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. 

 
It appears 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 personally happened to me for several years, and in that respect, Simon Shack’s "Psychological Operation" worked, as I didn’t continue to study closely, because I thought I had the answers… How wrong I was.

For further information regarding Simon Shack read this article by written by Andrew Johnson in May 2012:  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

9/11 Airplane Video Compositing & Luma Key Theory DEBUNKED!

By Mark Conlon

In this analysis I’m going to explore Ace Baker's theory he proposes in his blogspot article video he published on the 27th May 2008, entitled - "Theory of Live 9/11 Airplanes Composites" and also in a later version which he included in his 2012 film entitled - "9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera". They both explain how he believes video compositing was used on 9/11 to "insert" in real-time, a flying airplane into the Fox News "Chopper 5" video. I will primarily be focusing my analysis on his later film - Chapter 7, called "The Key" from "9/11 The Great American Psy-Oprah".

http://acebaker.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/theory-of-live-911-airplane-composites.html

See below: Ace Baker's Theory of Live 9/11 Airplane Composites video:

In Ace Baker's 2012 film 'The 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera' - Chapter 7 "The Key", he explains how he believes a "fake" airplane was "inserted" into the Fox News "Chopper 5" footage using live video compositing layering techniques and "Luma Keying".

Ace Baker also explains what went wrong with the infamous "nose-out" anomaly captured in the Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage, as (Flight 175) plane's nose "exits" the South Tower building still "intact", which is physically impossibly. See below: The famous "nose-out" shot.

While I do agree that it is a physical impossibility for the plane's nose to exit the South Tower building with its nose still "intact", I do NOT agree with Ace Baker's explanation of this impossible anomaly captured in the Fox News video footage, because of the "technical issue" which Ace Baker has chosen to "omit" which makes his explanation invalid.  

So we can thoroughly understand why the "technical issue" arises, which makes his theory invalid, I will first briefly explain Ace Baker's "theory". 

Firstly, Ace Baker proposes that there are some "necessary" attributes which would make live video compositing possible and allow the insertion of a "fake", computer animated, airplane into the live video.
 
The attributes are:

• High contrast between tower and sky
• Steady camera with no panning, tilting, or zooming
• Airplane path is across sky only
• Airplane disappears across straight vertical edge
• "Impact" wall is hidden
• No shadows required  

Ace states that, "Absent any one of these attributes, inserting a "fake" airplane becomes "impossible".

See short video excerpt below from Ace Baker's film explaining Compositing, Layering and Luma keying.

Now we are familiar and understand Ace Baker's theory and explanation he proposes in his film of how they "inserted" a fake airplane into the Fox News "Chopper 5" video, we can look at the "technical issue" which makes his theory invalid. 

Technical Issue Explained...

The "technical issue" in Ace Baker's theory is the use of a "Luma Key" for the purpose of adding a "fake" plane into the live video footage, which cannot be reproduced as seen in the live Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage of the 2nd plane impact. The technical issue proves that "Luma Key" was NOT used in the live Fox News "Chopper5" footage as Ace Baker has "alleged". Please refer to the images below as I continue to explain the technical issues. 

If a Luma Key had been used in the live Fox News "Chopper 5" video, the exiting "nose" of the alleged "inserted" fake airplane in the 2nd (middle) composited layer would be "visible" on top of (and in front of) the "explosion" exiting the tower which is the 3rd (bottom) layer, which is the "original" Fox News video.

 
The reason for this is, the "Luma Key" works off of the luminance (brightness) within the video signal. In order to see an airplane animation that has been sandwiched in between two duplicate layers of video from the same camera feed (3 layers altogether), the (top) 1st layer would require portions of the image to be cut out, revealing the added airplane layer underneath in the 2nd (middle) layer. When this is done using a "Luma Key", a predetermined luminance (brightness) threshold (limit) is set which will prevent any portion of the video image from showing that is brighter than that brightness threshold setting, making those brighter portions disappear completely, and in this case, the brightness threshold would have to be set to a point where it would eliminate the entire sky background (of the 1st (top) layer only) while leaving the darker Twin Towers intact to act as the mask for the plane to disappear behind.

The biggest issue here is that the explosion that erupts from the opposite side of the South Tower, is as bright as the sky threshold Luma Key setting, which means that the explosion would "disappear" just as the sky does because of "Luma Key" threshold setting on that 1st (top) layer, which would reveal the 2nd layer behind it which supposedly contains the fake "inserted" plane and its protruding nose. Which should've looked like this image below:

The fact that the explosion does "NOT" disappear, and we observe it covering and obscuring the plane's "nose", is conclusive proof that a "Luma Key" was not used in the Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage

Below: is a video made by someone who goes under the name Saul Train. He explains "excellently" far better than I can why the South Tower explosion should "disappear" in the Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage if a "Luma Key" was used to "insert" a fake plane using compositing and layering. The fact the explosion didn't disappear in the news footage demonstrates thoroughly that Ace Baker's "Luma Key" theory is invalid.

This case is now closed!!! 

 

The "POD" Theory - Real or Perception Management to Cover-up "No-Planes" on 9/11...?

By Mark Conlon

Here's an analysis I have done in relation to the alleged "POD" attachment theory of an "external" piece of equipment attached to the belly of the "Flight 175" plane, captured in many of the 9/11 videos before impacting the South Tower. This was first suggested by some prominent 9/11 researchers in 2003-04 and over the years it has become a hot topic for debate, and still is today in 2017. 

My reasons for my analysis:

Over the last 4 years of investigating the "no-planes" theory and video evidence of 9/11, I have come to learn and understand of a "Psychological Operation" which appears to involve certain 9/11 researchers whose aim is to cast doubt in people's minds over the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence, especially in relation to the videos of "Flight 175" crashing into the South Tower, in particular the Michael Hezarkhani video. It has been my quest to expose those "falsehoods" which have been circulated far and wide across the internet by various 9/11 researchers' "past and present" and highlight the disinformation which they have been promulgating and unravel the "Psy-Op" and expose it for what it is.

Below I outline how the "POD" theory has been managed and promoted in its early conception, thus implanting into peoples' minds a "false" debate but also misdirecting their attention away from some very important evidence contained in the videos.

"Perception management" - What does history tell us...?

For a long time, I didn't pay attention to what was happening in the 2nd plane videos because initially my attention was drawn and focused on the suggestion of a "POD" attachment on the plane, put forward by the various 9/11 researchers' such as, Phil Jayhan at his "Let's Roll" forum, and also Dave Von Kleist who promoted it in his film "In Plane Site" in 2004.

Phil Jayhan - was an early promoter of the "POD" theory in 2003. 

Interestingly, Phil Jayhan was against any talk of the "no-plane" theory, and would often exclude people from his forum for suggesting such a theory according to James Sloan of The Real News Online.Com. Yet Jayhan later went on to support Simon Shack and his September Clues film, believing the 9/11 videos were CGI and Fake. Jayhan wrote on his forum posted; 17 May 2012 , 02:54 AM - "I want to thank Simon Shack for his time and dedication in making this most astounding 9/11 video. It is a compilation of his own research and his forum members, and other 9/11 Illuminaries who saw the hoax of 9/11 long before I, and long before most".

  
Dave Von Kleist - 9/11 In Plane Site: Director’s Cut Film 2004

Dave Von Kleist promoted the "POD" theory in his film as early as 2004 and also in his later film in 2007 - 9/11 Ripple Effect. He was also against the possibility of "no-planes" being involved on 9/11. (Disclaimer: I am not suggesting DVK was circulating disinformation).

Loose Change: 1st Edition - Promoting the "POD" Theory in 2005  

Dylan Avery promoted the "POD" theory in his 1st Edition of the "Loose Change" film but didn't include it in the 2nd edition of the film. Also out of bounds for discussion on the "Loose Change" forum was the topic of "no-planes". 

 

The "POD" theory was also accepted by many in the 9/11 Truth-Movement, which turned-out to be managed and "controlled" which was also being steered in a direction by various people who have been shown to be concealing truths rather than exposing them such as; Alex Jones, Steve E. Jones, Richard Gage and Jim Fetzer. 

Rebekah Roth: "POD" & "Trick Photography" 

Even today we still hear people implanting the idea of a "POD" attached to the plane and also "video fakery" to explain the strange and unusual lack of "crash physics". Here's Rebekah Roth during an interview on "Coast to Coast AM" talking about a "Pod" attached to the plane, however also suggesting "video fakery" ("Trick Photography") as the answer to explain the now obvious lack of "crash physics" as the alleged plane impacted the South Tower building. Here is the excerpt from interview: https://vid.me/IbSKZ

Rebekah Roth's comments contradicts her own theory that "remote controlled" planes were used to strike the towers because she still cannot explain the lack of "crash physics" other than say she thought it was "Trick Photography" which still does not explain the many eyewitnesses who seen the plane hit the South Tower. Plus, how would they control every video and photograph taken of the event in NYC? Or is Rebekah Roth like many others I've written about, intending to implant the idea of the planes story on 9/11 along with the "video fakery" psy-op to "cover-up" a secret advanced "image projection" technology, which could reasonably account for all of the relevant anomalies mentioned above, and the eyewitness accounts who observed a plane hitting the South Tower? 

Image Projection Vs Video Fakery: Pros & Cons...

Using an "image projection" technology would solve any issues around needing to control "all" of the video and photographic evidence, as there wouldn't be any need, as people would've videoed and photographed the image of a plane, rather than the theory of using "video fakery" which would need to have control over all the videos and photographs along with the inserting the plane into every video and photograph. Plus, there is always a possibility that a "rogue" video or photograph could slip through the net showing no-plane at all. Something which hasn't happen up to now 16 years on.  

Don't look there, look over here....

Effectively I was prevented from observing such anomalies in the surrounding peripheral areas of the video footage of 2nd plane videos, because of the initial emphasis placed upon the "POD". I consider this a "deliberate" distraction which worked well on me and many others for a long time. 

See my analysis below:

After conducting extensive analysis on many videos and photographs I now have reached the conclusion that we were observing the "wing fairings" on the plane, and not a "POD" as suggested by many 9/11 researchers'.

A major flaw which needs to be considered is the "Landing Gear"...

There is one vital flaw in the argument for the "POD" theory attachment which is never acknowledged or really discussed, and that is the "storage area" of the "Landing Gear" which is the area around by the wing fairings and the alleged "POD" attachment. If the "POD" was attached it would've prevented the landing gear to extend and retract when landing and taking-off. See video below showing the landing gear's location and the retraction phase, when the plane is taking-off. 

The fuselage bulges out where the wings join it. This is called the wing fairing. The landing gear assembly folds into this area when it is retracted, which causes a problem if the alleged "POD" is a "missile" launcher as suggested by some 9/11 researchers. See Images below:

Conclusion: 

After extensive analysis into the "Pod" theory and finding-out its origins and analysing the videos and photographic evidence, I am now of the opinion at this current time, that the "POD" theory was put-out to distract peoples' attention away from studying all of the video content contained in the 2nd plane videos, thus, having the desired effect to "misdirect" peoples' attention away from studying or noticing the surrounding areas of the videos where anomalies such as the "disappearing wings" were visible and the lack of any noticeable plane "crash physics". This is "classic misdirection", look over here so to speak, done to conceal other damming evidence contained in the videos which needed concealing because it might have exposed that "no-planes" were involved on 9/11, hence why "video fakery" was introduced around 2004 as another "cover-story" to manage anyone who questioned the anomalies in the 2nd plane videos. My question still remains; what were we seeing in the videos of "Flight 175"?


Thanks you for reading!

9/11 Planes, Layers of Deception

By Mark Conlon

I appeared on Rich Planet TV show to talk about my 9/11 planes research into the "alleged" video fakery of Flight 175 videos. This show was broadcast on 9/9/2017.

You can watch the show here, which is in three parts, see below: 

Part One: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=244&part=1&gen=99

Part Two: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=244&part=2&gen=99

Part Three: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=244&part=3&gen=99

Show Notes:

9/11 was a global psychological operation which deceived over half of the world, in which the effects on display were not caused by what most people were lead to believe. If you believe the official story, then you really need to leave the human race and go and live in a flange of baboons. Working out what really happened has been a difficult journey for most honest researchers. This is because there are as many "muddle up merchants" operating in 9/11 research as there are genuine truth seekers. The muddle up merchants have been trying to discredit all of the video footage, some of which provides clues to what really happened. Evidence that passenger jet planes were used in any of the four attacks is slim to non existent. Today Richard is joined by Mark Conlon and Andrew Johnson who dispel some of the dis-information and hence get closer to the truth on the 9/11 plane issue.

Many thanks for watching! 

Sunday Express: Project Blue Beam "Perception Management" Article

By Mark Conlon

A news article was published online in the Sunday Express, a UK based online newspaper, where they managed to turn a landslide disaster which killed 17 people in Colombia into a "conspiracy theory" hit piece. 

    

The article made ridiculing references about "conspiracy theorists" in relation to advanced technology "Holograms" and "Project Blue Beam".  

Jon Austin the author of this article felt the need to take the opportunity from this terrible landslide disaster (which killed 17 people and displaced many from their homes), by turning the survivor's religious beliefs towards a "light formation" which they interpreted to be an apparition of Jesus, to make a "mockery" of the disaster, by portraying anyone who believes in the existence of "Holograms" or "Project Blue Beam" as some sort of tin-foil hat wearing nut-case. I think this says far more about Jon Austin's state of mind than any conspiracy theorists. 

I think Jon Austin should examine his own values and beliefs of what really matters when a disaster like this happens and consider the people who have lost their lives and the poor family members left behind who are grieving, whether they believe in Jesus or not, or whether a formation of light brought comfort to them in their time of grief from their interpretation that it was Jesus, rather than his own heartless agenda to focus on "conspiracy theories" instead.

Is there more to the article than meets the eye? "Managing Perceptions"

Was the article combined deliberately to manage people's perceptions when it comes to advanced image projections technologies? Was the specifically article produced because of the growing numbers of people who are now believing that an advanced "image projection" or "hologram" was used on 9/11 to create the planes in the sky which hit the towers, thus to control people's perceptions regarding anyone who might question the veracity of the 9/11 video evidence of the "planes", implanting a sense of discouragement to believe in such technology, by already deliberately "implanting" a negative perception? As we know the "video fakery" Psychological Operation was used to conceal such "image projection" technology, and has now been exposed, along with those behind it. Are articles like this one above early interventions and damage control because more people are questioning "video fakery" and are now seeing that some type of "image projection" was used on 9/11? 

There seems no other reasonable explanation for this article of a landslide disaster to have been subtly combined with "conspiracy theories", other than to discourage questioning minds and control people's perceptions in relation to the advanced technology of holograms or image projections and 9/11. 

"No-Plane, It Was A Bomb" - Fox News Eyewitness Account - Analysis

By Mark Conlon

On 9/11 at 10:05am Fox News showed an eyewitness giving his very brief account that "it was not a second plane it was a bomb, no second plane" to Rick Leventhal. Many 9/11 researchers' have claimed this is evidence of a "real" eyewitness interrupting a "staged" news event. This video has been widely circulated across the Internet as evidence of "No-Plane at All" hitting the South Tower.  

While I believe this eyewitness's account, I doubt the claims made by some 9/11 researchers that this is evidence for disruption of a "staged" news event. I also question whether this can be used as "absolute" evidence for the "no-plane at all" hit the South Tower building theory. While I do "not" believe the planes we were told hit the North Tower, South Tower, Pentagon or in Shanksville, I "do" believe some type of "object" hit the North and South Towers which people witnessed and believed to be a plane, which they videoed and photographed. 

My reason for questioning the "No-Plane at All" Theory:
   

Because people such as; Simon Shack and Ace Baker have promoted this theory and produced very dubious research findings in relation to these types of claims, thus to promote the use of inserting and compositing "fake" planes into the television news coverage. It appears from my research that this was deliberately done to cast doubt over the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence, which has been used to discredit the work of Dr. Judy Wood and also to act as cover-story to conceal the use of some type of advanced "image projection" technology system, which created the image of a plane in the sky which many people witnessed, photographed and video taped. 

Strange anomalies were captured, especially the South Tower crash videos, such as; disappearing wings, impossible speed of the (Flight 175) plane, and also a lack of crash physics of the plane impacting the South Tower building, which is why "video fakery" was promoted as the answer and to explain the strange anomalies within the videos and photographs.   

Logical questions should be asked to establish the veracity of this eyewitnesses account. Unfortunately this is never considered by the 9/11 researchers' who use this eyewitness's account as evidence of "no planes at all".

Some logical questions:

Where was the eyewitness located when he didn't see the plane hit the South Tower, which led him to believe it was a "bomb" he witnessed?

1. Where was the eyewitness located when the explosion happened?
   
   
2. Was he located on the "North side" of the face of the South Tower?
       
3. What view of the sky or building did the eyewitness have which led him to determine "no-plane" hit the South Tower and believe it was a bomb? 

These are all legitimate questions to be considered before concluding that "no-plane at all" hit the South Tower. The simple answer is we don't know where the eyewitness was located at the time of second plane impacting the South Tower building. We know Rick Leventhal was located further-up by Church and Murray St, which is on the North side of the South Tower not far from the alleged plane engine which exited the South Tower and landed on Murray St. If this was the case that this Fox News eyewitness was located on the North side of the South Tower, then one might expect he didn't see the plane's approach and impact into the South Tower building, which might be why he genuinely thought it was a "bomb" going-off in the South Tower. There were many eyewitness accounts of "no-plane" regarding the South Tower event which were broadcast live on 9/11, however frustratingly we don't have their initial locations to determine exactly where their locations were and also their vantage points to the event of what they witnessed, as in the case of the Fox News eyewitness. 

Conclusion:

Can we determine that this was a disruption of a "staged" news report? In my personal opinion "NO", because of all the reasons I raise above and the insufficient answers to the questions I've asked, however I do believe the news report was "genuine" not "staged", with a genuine eyewitness account who didn't see the plane who was possibly located on the North side of the South Tower where Rick Leventhal was located, which is why the eyewitness believed there was "no-plane at all" and it was a "bomb" exploding from inside the South building.

I am very sceptical of the person (Dimitri Khalezov) who posted this particular video which I have posted above of the Fox News "no-plane" eyewitness account. Much exposure was given to Dimitri Khalezov and his “nuclear demolition” of the WTC buildings on 9/11. Dmitri cannot explain Hurricane Erin's presence, nor the silent disappearance of the WTC buildings. Looking at his theories of a "nuclear furnace" created beneath the WTC which as he says "melted down into" is pure nonsense. We saw the steel turning-to-dust and empty basement levels at the bottom of the WTC!! 

I suggest reading this chapter; “Re-incarnated” WTC Nuke Theory and Dimitri Khalezov, in Andrew Johnson's "free" book: 9/11 Finding The Truth  

I can only conclude that Dimitri Khalezov has put-out "disinformation" in attempt to "muddle-up" or to distract people away from Dr. Judy Wood's evidence she presents in her book; Where Did The Towers Go? Plus, by posting the Fox News eyewitness account of "no-plane at all" suggests in people's minds the possibility of the use of "video fakery" and "staged" news media broadcasts which calls into question the 9/11 video evidence record, something heavily promoted by Simon Shack to discredit Dr. Judy Wood and to cover the use of a "Directed Energy Weapon" to destroy the WTC buildings, and also to conceal the use of an advanced "image projection" technology system which was captured in the videos and photographs of the plane impacting the South Tower, thus not by use of "inserting" fake CGI planes into the 9/11 video footage. 

Another article of interest regarding eyewitness accounts is Andrew Johnson's Going in Search of Planes in NYC

Thank you for reading!

Who Is 9/11 Harley Guy..? "Seeing Through The Disinformation"

By Mark Conlon

 
Much has been said in recent years of the use of "crisis actors" involved in relation to 9/11 and a number of "staged" terrorist attacks that followed. Much of the early promotion of "crisis actors" was by Simon Shack following his September Clues film and his September Clues forum. 

One of the most famous 9/11 cases was the "Harley Guy" on Fox News who gave an account of the "official" 9/11 WTC building collapse story from the beginning. Or did he?

There has been many people who believe the "Harley Guy" to be a professional actor Mark Adrian Humphries. Humphries denied these claims and of any involvement on 9/11. Humphries claimed he was in Los Angeles at the time of the 9/11 attacks.

See image below: Taken from Simon Shack's - September Clues forum. 

So, who is the "Harley Guy"? I still see and hear people accusing Mark Humphries of being the "Harley Guy". From research which doesn't get much attention around the internet it appears the "Harley Guy" is actually Mark Walsh, who worked as a freelance employee for Fox. 

See Image below:

 

The video below is two short excerpts from "Psycho Mark" Walsh and Ben Sparks' radio broadcast on May 5, 2011. Mark and Ben, including callers discuss 9/11 and the 10th anniversary of the WTC attacks following Osama Bin Laden's capture May 2011. Mark Walsh speaks of his experiences on 9/11. Later in the show the discussion returns to 9/11 and Mark Walsh is informed by a caller that he's known as the infamous "Harley Guy" from 9/11 on YouTube, much to his surprise. Walsh has been nicknamed "Harley Guy" on the internet, because he was wearing a Harley Davidson shirt during his 9/11 Fox News interview on 9/11.

Here is the Google Earth link which shows the proximity of Mark Walsh's building to the WTC towers (satellite view). http://g.co/maps/mkr7w

The full length original broadcast can be found on this link: http://podbay.fm/show/277283542/e/130...

Also, here's a clip from the Opie & Anthony Show from 9/11/01 where they talk about Mark Walsh living near the WTC and him witnessing the attacks from his apartment and appearing on TV with Fox News that morning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYKqBC...

In conclusion:

It is clear to see that "Harley Guy" is in fact Mark Walsh and not Mark Adrian Humphries a professional actor. Clearly, misinformation was circulated by certain so-called 9/11 researchers. Was this done to help create a later "Psy-Op" regarding "crisis actors", which seems to play a role in many of today's "conspiracy theories" involving "fake" terrorist attacks?  

Another note to consider: Most people have said how cool Mark Walsh looks when delivering his lines on 9/11. I don't recognise this, and in my opinion I see someone who was quite anxious, who couldn't stand still, and was talking quite quickly and looks flustered.

Also, because Mark Walsh was working freelance for Fox News that day, is it possible that he got his "official" information regarding the WTC buildings collapses straight from Fox News and inadvertently repeated what he had been informed had happened to the WTC buildings into his own recollections of his own experience during the interview unknowingly? Thus, inadvertently describing the "official" collapse story perfectly.

Evidence for this is Mark Walsh's use of the term "Ground Zero" in his famous interview, which later became the "official" name of the destruction area. Was this a coincidence that Mark Walsh called it "Ground Zero" or does this suggest the information came from an "official" organisation such as Fox News who might have had scripted information fed to them and then communicated to their reporters and freelance employees at the scene in NYC, like Mark Walsh for example, who most likely unknowingly repeated the "official" collapse story? After all, Mark's "initial" account of the "second" airplane crash was accurate and consistent with the observable video evidence and his vantage location where he witnessed it from. This is never an option of consideration in the 9/11 research community. Does this make Mark Walsh a conspirator, or an employee who was unknowingly used in the conspiracy?

I believe this could be a possibility and should be considered before accusing people of being part of a conspiracy, especially the "wrong" people such as Mark Adrian Humphries who had no involvement in 9/11 or was a crisis actor.