This video analysis has been made in response to a video that was uploaded to YouTube by "No Planer TV" - Ryan Rodrigues. My video analysis rebuttal is intended to "point-out" errors in a video posted by Ryan Rodrigues by some called BS Registration, whereby the video claims the Michael Hezarkhani video is fake. The errors I'm pointing-out are factual errors, and not fiction, unlike the ones suggested in BS Registration's video, which I believe was made sometime in 2007. I am also questioning the veracity of both Peggy Carter (also known as, Pearl Vasudha Chanter) and Ryan Rodrigues, because both of them say, Simon Shack's September Clues film "is the bestevidence to prove fraud". I address this also in my analysis and rebuttal video below.
I also deal with this image and comment posted by Ryan Rodrigues below:
Ryan Rodrigues posted this image on 2nd October 2017, 2 days after being told by Andrew Johnson (Admin) not to post anymore comments "off-topic" in the 'Real 9/11 Truth-Movement' Facebook Group, on the 30th Sept 2017. Question: Why did Ryan post "off-topic" again two days later asking for a response to his image above?
Please watch my video analysis rebuttal below: Viewing in "full-screen" mode is suggested to see smaller details.
See reference: to my comment in my video regarding Ryan Rogrigues' comment saying he has "respect" for Simon Shack's work:
It appears "factual" evidence pointing-out flaws in the BS Registration video and Simon (Hytten) Shack's claims are being ignored, because of a continued persistence to post "old" videos such as this one by BS Registration, who's aim was to be to cast doubt over the authenticity of the Michael Hezarkhani video. A pattern which I am all too familiar with, and have documented in a number of blog articles. Sadly it seems to be raising its ugly head once again.
In this blog-postI'm going to share an important conversation I had with Jim Huibregtse, a first hand 9/11 eyewitness and videographer in NYC at the time of the first plane strike and the rest of the events in NYC. Jim Huibregtse captured the North Tower's damage roughly 5 to 10 seconds after the first plane hit. The reason for my contacting him was because I had cited his video as evidence against Simon Shack's claims regarding the plane shaped hole being made bigger using photo-shopping in Richard D. Hall's show and my blog articles. Jim's video proved that Simon Shack was wrong. I also wanted to know what video camera he was using, when he videoed the North Tower's damage. (Brief clip of Jim Huibregtse video) below:
I also expressed my concern that people who videoed the plane hitting the South Tower were accused of fabricating their videos, something which I do not believe after studying most of the video evidence involved. I want to thank Jim Huibregtse for answering my question, but also thank him for offering "extra" information which I did not ask him about, out of respect really because of the sensitive nature of the event and being only a week after the anniversary. Also I'd like to thank him for letting me share this conversation publicly, as his eyewitness account is helpful to help us all understand what may or may not have hit the towers.
Conversation: 18th September 2017
Mark Conlon: Hi
Jim. I'm contacting you to ask if you could tell me what type of video camera
you videoed your 9/11 footage with if you can remember? I have been doing
research into some of the videos of 9/11 you see. Just to be transparent with
you, I believe all the videos and photographs are real, and I have always been
against people who suggest otherwise and challenged people who say so. I would
be grateful for any information that you could help with. If I've offended you
in anyway contacting you out of the blue like this, then I apologise for that,
it wasn't my intentions, and would understand if you do not reply back. Kind
regards, Mark Conlon.
Jim Huibregtse: Mark
the camera used was a Sony DCR-PC1, with an external microphone, with a suspect
cable. At times I forgot to turn the microphone on, hence the silence on some
of the footage, and at other times, the cable added some clicks and pops as my
hands moved about the camera. There's been no alteration of the original
footage, it's straight from my original footage. Hope this helps.
Mark Conlon: Hi
Jim, thank you very much for responding and answering my question, I really do
appreciate you taking the time to do that. Yes that answers my question. Just
to ask, can I refer to what you have told in this message, as this is a private
message? Regards, Mark.
Jim Huibregtse:
By the way, I just watched Part One of the "Layers of Deception". My
last name is pronounced "hugh-brex". Also, I had (unfortunately) just
shut off the camera seconds prior to the first plane flying directly over my
head, and, as the Sony camera took several seconds to turn 'back on', I missed
the plane directly overhead, which I would have been able to shoot with ease
had I happened to have my camera running. A fact I'll take to my grave.
However, with that said, and being a bit of an airplane enthusiast, I can
plainly, and without hesitation, confirm that it was an airplane that hit the
North Tower. It roared 700 feet above my head, and I got a full 3 or 4 second
view of it passing directly overhead. Whether or not it was the plane in
question, or some 'other' plane I obviously can't confirm, but it was a large
'commercial style' aircraft, without a doubt. Also, a friend of mine visited
the Shanksville site sometime after the event for an editorial photo shoot, and
he collected some bits of the aircraft, that were merely scattered about, and
gave me a couple of (apparently) engine parts, postage stamp in size which I
have somewhere, likely in storage. I'm sure any capable aircraft engineer could
identify the part, and what aircraft it came from, unless of course, the items
were planted there. To me, the evidence of a thermite fire, and molten rivers
of melting steel supposedly from a fire of insufficient heat would be the
avenues I'd like to see investigated. Also, the many eyewitnesses in the sub
levels of the Trade Center who witness explosions prior to their collapse. To
say nothing of the video evidence of "squibs". A spectacular event to
say the least. Good luck with your investigations.
Mark Conlon: Hi
Jim, thank you so much for this information. It really helps in the research
I'm doing. Because of the sensitive nature regarding that day and what it left
on people in NYC and around the US, I was debating whether to contact you or
not. It was your video evidence which made me see through the "conspiracy
theories" doing rounds on the internet surrounding the "video
fakery" suggestions from Simon Shack and his September Clues. Obviously,
your video was the first discussion area with Richard D. Hall in his show
regarding Simon Shack. Regarding the plane, I'm glad you have provided this
additional information to me. I believe people seen a plane, and I believe the
videos are real. although have felt perplexed regarding the impact "crash
physics" and some of the other anomalies in some of the plane videos, like
disappearing wings which I've struggled to reconcile with myself and what it
could be. I've hypothesised but cannot explain it. I'm very open-minded and
explore or all areas, maybe they were "real" planes, however like you
say not the ones we were told to us in the official narrative. Very interesting
about the "Flight 93" debris which your friend found and what you
have. Thanks also for letting me know about that evidence. I felt quite bad for
the (videographers & photographers) who got accused of fabricating their
videos and photographs. I started to expose the misinformation surrounding it
all, hopefully to set the record straight. As for the thermite, there's been
quite a bit of a back story to it and the person who introduced that theory -
Prof Steve E. Jones in relation to the Cold Fusion "cover-up" in
1989. It's a bit much to go into, but if ever you get time or an interest in
this area I will pop a couple of links which will explain it far better than I
can. Also Dr. Judy Wood's presentation, again just in case if you ever have an
interest in this area. Anyway, I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to
speak to me, I do appreciate it and also how to pronounce your surname name Lol.
Best wishes for now Marcus. PS: Links I mentioned will be in a separate message
below:
Mark Conlon:
Dr. Judy Wood - Breakthrough Energy Movement conference in Holland, 2012https://youtu.be/T1NbBxDGSkI
I'd like to thank Jim Huibregtse for his time and honesty in this conversation. His account is so valuable in helping us get to the bottom of the "no-planes" saga and to cut through the "disinformation" put-out by Simon Shack and others' too many to name here, regarding the 9/11 video evidence. I'm sure we can all agree, the videos are "real" and they were definitely not fabricated by the videographers. An object (plane) was observed and heard in the sky hitting the North Tower. I think "video fakery" is being exposed for what it really is which is disinformation.
Here's an excellent video analysis of Simon Shack's September Clues "moving buildings" conducted by: YougeneDebs published 16th September, 2009.
This analysis by YougeneDebs demonstrates how Simon Shack "exploits" parallax views to "falsely" promote "video fakery" in the 9/11 video evidence record. Please see analysis video below:
As we can see in the analysis above, there is conclusive evidence that Simon Shack has knowingly "deceived" people by "exploiting" the parallax perspectives in his September Clues video, even though he was informed about his mistakes regarding the "moving buildings" in his September Clues film. unfortunately Simon Shack ignored this mistake and thus re-issued another version of his September Clues film with same mistake. What more evidence is their to present about Simon Shack's efforts to knowingly "deceive" people with his September Clues film in the name of promoting "video fakery", as it is now clear to see that he has been "deliberately" putting-out falsehoods and disinformation in his videos.
Here is an excellent video analysis of Simon Shack's - September Clues Addendum film, exposing some of the deliberate "falsehoods" put-out by Simon Shack. Details and video below are from "YougeneDebs" YouTube Channel Published on Oct 18, 2009. Update Note: Unfortunately, this video was removed by YouTube, however I have archived it at my BitChute channel here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/0MKKpjLsBHoY/
The video notes below:
This video is an investigation into Simon Shack's claim that a certain helicopter was
absent from network footage during the collapse of WTC2. A claim made in
his September Clues Addendum Chapter 1.
Now that we have more
information about a helicopter in the footage during the collapse of
Tower Two, we can make a better judgment about Simon's claim.
Did Simon cut out inconvenient and potentially contradictory facts? It would seem so! What
about poor research skills or wilful negligence? I see no effort that
Simon tried to find a longer clip of the zoom-in showing a helicopter
during the collapse.
And finally, did someone tamper with the
evidence to bleach out not one, but 2 helicopters? Did Simon have the
means, motive, and opportunity? Simon's methods seem to be very impressive, but for all the wrong reasons!
So,
Simon, himself, presented Pat the helicopter in live footage during the
collapse; completely debunking his own claim; demonstrating once again
that Simon publishes in the auto-debunkery genre. Thank you for watching and caring!
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.
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".
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 short 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.
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.
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"?
