For many years, falsehoods have been circulated attributed to the Michael Hezarkhani video, which has cast doubt in peoples minds over the authenticity of what was really captured in the video in relation to the plane. The video captures a number of strange anomalies, such as, impossible plane speed and impossible crash physics. Theories such as video fakery and CGI compositing have been suggested to explain why the anomalies exist in the video, however hundreds of people did witness the plane in sky and crashing into the building. Also, many researchers have claimed the location where Michael Hezarkhani took his video, doesn't exist.
Below, is a still image from the Michael Hezarkhani video:
In the video below, I discuss the misconceptions which have been circulated over the years by various 9/11 researchers, which I show are incorrect.
To begin with, I will be addressing several “lies” and inaccuracies told by
Steve De’ak about myself, which he has knowingly put-out, such as myself
“deleting” YouTube comments from his YouTube comments thread. Twice he has told
this lie, even though he was informed twice about why my comments were removed due to
YouTube’s termination of my YouTube channel on 6th October 2017 (I have evidence to prove it).
Plus, I will be documenting comprehensively in a follow-up blog posting the lies and
other distortions he has told regarding comments exchanged between each other.
Perhaps an indication why he did not want the “accurate” archive of comment exchanges between us both, which ‘Conspiracy Cuber’ offered to him which De'ak outright
rejected. Perhaps if he had, he might of accurately reported or reflected the
true nature of the comments exchanged between us both, and maybe reflected
truthfully what was said, instead of distorting to suit his false memory of
what was said, where he’d rather play the man and not the ball with personal
attacks about me and not the my research or analysis. I will be writing a full
report with evidence demonstrating what has taken place, and the reader can
decide for themselves whether or not Steve De’ak was being completely truthful and honest in what he said about me and his own comments and
responses.
The “real” debate which Steve De’ak is avoiding is “video fakery” and it is now clear why, as without “video fakery” De’ak’s “multiple missiles” theory which he cites as causing the plane shaped holes in the WTC buildings falls apart, making it invalid. This explains why he avoids the debate with myself and Conspiracy Cuber regarding “video fakery”, as he has had to publicly retract certain theories in the past he put-out about the Hezarkhani video, and has now tried to get myself and others into a false debate using a phony-bone of contention of “multiple missiles” causing of the plane shaped holes. Something which I and others will discuss if he can get past his sheer childish rudeness and bad attitude when questions are put to him.
Like De'ak, I have researched the Gelatin art students,
although we may differ greatly on their role if any they played or didn’t play.
I will discuss more in my future blog article covering all the research I have
done into the plane shaped holes and Gelatin and other new evidence which may
shed light on this story and why it was released by the mainstream media.
From my own research I have exposed various 9/11 researchers who have falsely
promoted “video fakery” as the answer to many anomalies captured in the 2nd
plane impact videos. The promotion of “video fakery” was a clever psychological
operation which was circulated to cover-up the existence of advanced image
projection technology. It has been the aim of those "alleged" 9/11 researchers, such as;
Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Killtown, BS Registration, Markus Allen and many others to
promote this false explanation to conceal the 3D illusion technology, something which I
have written about in the past in my blog articles. And there are those such as
Steve De’ak who continue to ignore or are in denial that such technology even
exists to create such powerful images. See below:
Steve De’ak relies on “video fakery” because without it his “multiple missiles”
theory cannot be valid, and the fact we have now proven and exposed the
“video fakery” Psy-op over and over again, he does not want to discuss it any
longer and has subtly shifted the debate to his “multiple missiles” theory which
is based on just 9 people’s accounts from the mainstream media reports, which
is a contradictory position by De’ak, as according to him the media
where complicit in 9/11, and according to De’ak they produced “fake”
videos and live coverage on 9/11? Yet, he has no issues cherry picking mainstream media accounts as truth regarding missiles hitting the North Tower,
while ignoring all the other evidence of eyewitnesses, videographers and photographer accounts, who seen a PLANE. De’akwould
rather make wild accusations against those people, calling them "liars", and "fabricators" of their video evidence, and being part of a giant conspiracy of 9/11, without a single shred of evidence to support his bizarre theories. Does
“PEOPLE BASHING” come to mind”?
Also, a question which I can never get a straight answer to
with most “video fakery” promotors is, how did they control every video in NYC
of the event without at least one or two slipping through the net showing a
missile or no-plane hitting the South Tower? How did they control all the witnesses who
did see a plane and hear a plane? What was they seeing if they did see the
image of a plane in the sky with their own eyes and also how did videographers
actually follow the plane through the sky if nothing was there? This cannot be
just put down to implanted media reporting after the fact. I have spoken to Jim
Huibregtse who seen and heard the first plane? Is Mr. Huibregtse a liar?
Finally, to answer De'ak's main question, the reason I haven’t written
about “errors” in your other videos is because at this point in time I am still
researching this whole area of the plane holes and what may or may not have
made the plane holes. It would be unfair of me to put something out unfinished
or not fully researched. If at the end of this research I felt your theory or
evidence was correct or relevant, then be sure I would reflect that also. Just
to clarify, it was not you who was being discussed in my future article.
What I can say is, and will be noted is the behaviour in
this matter of the both stories put-out by Shack and Baker of how they believe
the hole was made. I am still looking into the Pentagon and Shanksville events
and I will publish new evidence on “Flight 93” in the new year. As you already
know, I do have issues with some of your other theories around the Hezarkhani
video, but that’s for another day.
In the video below, it shows some type of fumes rising and a mysterious flash, along with some small flying objects at very low altitude, which don't appear to be either a helicopter nor birds. It appears some type of electrical static interference was happening near the Woolworth building on 9/11.
Also captured was two other mysterious flashes. See below:
In the image below, it shows some type of trail, whether it is fumes of some kind is hard to tell?
Again, in the image below, it shows another trail. Again whether it is fumes of some kind is hard to say?
Conclusion:
Could this be part of the electrical static interference from the directed energy weapon, which was used to destroy the World Trade Center Towers? What is observed in the video and the GIF images are very strange.
Were the mysterious orbs captured in videos and photographs, which I wrote about in a previous article, connected to what we are observing here in the video and GIF images?
This is an excellent analysis of Simon Shack's film September Clues by the late Anthony Lawson, who made some great
observations in relation to Simon Shack's presentation of "alleged" evidence of TV Fakery on 9/11.
Disclaimer: I "disagree" with Anthony Lawson's final point he makes at the end of his video in relation to the "impossible plane speed" that a 767 Boeing plane can travel at 572mph at sea level.
As
we can see yet again, Simon Shack uses very deceptive means to present his
evidence. This has been a common theme with Simon Shack throughout
all his September Clues films, which can no-longer be trusted to present
9/11 video evidence in a fair and balanced objective manner.
Simon Shack appears to lack any "real" credibility anymore, and has proved himself to be extremely poor at conducting research analysis, or he is simply setting-out to deceive his viewers of his films.
What exactly is Simon Shack's mission? 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 – by using cleverly timed editing. This has
therefore concealed evidence which shows a number of his claims are
false. From my past analysis, where I have disproven 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. Is Simon Shack promoting the idea that ‘video fakery’
explains anomalies in the behaviour of Flight 175 when it crashes into
the South Tower? Is Simon Shack attempting to discredit the 9/11 videos
to help conceal what was really captured in the videos? Again, I ask
the question - is Simon Shack disseminating disinformation in an
attempt to hide the fact that advanced image projection technology was
used to create the illusion of plane crashes?
Is 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 is a great analysis by the late Anthony Lawson. R.I.P, who really "BUSTED" Simon Shack along time ago and should be credited for his efforts to expose the "falsehoods" contained in Shack's film, although I completely "disagree" with Anthony Lawson's final point at the end of his video in relation to the "impossible plane speed" that a 767 Boeing plane can travel 572mph at sea level. I have posted his video purely on merit for the September Clues analysis.
To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission and his unusual connections, read this article by Andrew Johnson: 9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175
Strange anomalies were captured in the second plane
crash videos of United Airlines - Flight 175, such as, disappearing wings, impossible plane speed for Boeing 767, no collision on impact with the building, explosion
happening after the plane had already entered the building and no apparent
debris falling to the ground of the plane along with no breakage of the tail
section on impact.
Explaining
these anomalies has always been promoted as video fakery, and planes being inserted or composited into the video footage, which creates several issues in itself. Video fakery or CGI does not explain how
eyewitnesses observed the plane in the sky, and also how they were able to
track a non-existent plane with their video cameras? A more plausible
hypothesis put forward by Richard D. Hall in his 2012 radar analysis, where he asserts a drone flying parallel projected the image of the plane, which was observed and captured by people with their
cameras. This hypothesis does provide some answers to the anomalies captured in the videos.
See Below: Image created by Richard D. Hall.
Richard's hypothesis isn't without its issues though, as he explained, because the military radar data showed radar
coordinates 1500 feet to the side of the civilian radar flight path coordinates, which could’ve been the result of a fixed offset error. In October 2016, Richard D. Hall updated his radar analysis and hypothesised that it
could've been a Tomahawk missile, which was cloaking an image of a plane
around itself. This hypothesis seems more plausible, and does go someway to provide answers to all the anomalies captured in the videos.
John Lear spoke of about the Airborne
Holographic Projector, which has been talked about in various manuals and
articles. See below:
Also there is a 'Washington Post' article which describes a secret program established in 1994 to pursue technology of a "holographic projector" for deception purposes. The article certainly gives us a glimpse into the thinking in the military circles for weaponry of a different kind. See below:
And again also discussed in this article below:
Closing Note:
I believe this is a valid area for further in depth research, which could go some way to
explaining the anomalies captured in the Flight 175 plane crash videos.
What we can determine is, video fakery cannot explain all the anomalies sufficiently which I have outlined above and in
several blog articles. In some cases it appears to me that the video fakery and CGI theory has been used as a
distraction, or some type of psychological operation, by the likes of
Simon Shack, Killtown and Ace Baker, to lead people away from knowing about the image projection technology. Also, video fakery cannot account for how hundreds, if not thousands of people observed the plane in the sky, and crashing into the South Tower. Plus, how did the perps have complete control over all the videos and photographs in the NY area without the possibility of at
least one or two videos/photographs slipping through the net showing no-plane
hitting the South Tower at all? This has never been fully explained by Simon Shack, Killtown or Ace Baker when promoting the video fakery theory.
Image projection technology, would not need to have complete control over any of the
eyewitnesses, photographers or videographers, which would limit the people
involved in the operation. By carrying it out this way
using image projection technology it can explain the lack of plane crash
physics and impossible plane speed. The image projection hypothesis explains all the anomalies far better than does the video fakery theory.
Finally, the question I am left with is, was the video fakery theory deliberately circulated to explain the anomalies, but also to act as a cover to help keep the image projection technology a secret, because the powers-that-be intend to use the technology again in a Project Blue Beam style operation in the future? Was the planes on 9/11 a trial run to see if the people could tell the planes were not real? All legitimate questions.
In this short blog post I want to draw attention to some strange anomalies captured in various videos and photographs during Flight 175's approach towards the South Tower before it crashed. Please see a selection of the video still images and photographs below showing the anomalous looking orbs. To begin my analysis please see the Park Foreman video still image below:
Many people have tried to explain these strange white anomalies as paper which was ejected from the North Tower after it got its damage from the "alleged" first plane. However if you look at the size of the "alleged" plane in this still video image the anomalous objects would have to be far too large to be pieces of paper flying around in the air. Plus, the anomalous objects, if indeed they are solid objects are showing-up in different frames of the video as the "alleged" plane approaches the South Tower.
Here's a closer look at the Park Foreman video still image capturing two anomalous features in the video footage. See below:
In the video still images above this does not appear to be light reflections from the video camera. Plus in this later frame the anomalies appear to be quite large in comparison to the "alleged" plane. Also, there is a photograph which also picks-up these the anomalies from a different angles and directions.
Here's a a comparison of both Park Foreman video with photograph inlay below:
Here's another view from another camera location which show more of the anomalous looking orbs before the South Tower receives the plane shaped hole.
The fact we are seeing these anomalies from different directions and camera angles can rule out reflections from the sunlight into the cameras, as the sunlight direction is behind from a south west position, however could indicate something else such as orbs which are periodically being captured by the cameras, which may not be visible to the naked eye. This needs further investigation and research as to what indeed these strangle anomalies are, as they are definitely NOT paper as suggested by many researchers.
Update: 20th December 2019 - Orbs spotted in this photograph below
Update: 10th March 2020 - Orbs also captured in Rob Howard's photograph below
He's a short video made by the late Anthony Lawson, who made some great observations in relation to Simon Shack's presentation of evidence regardng the plane "nose-out" comparisons which Simon Shack produced in his September Clues film, to prove the nose of the plane exited the South Tower in the Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage.
As we can see Simon Shack has used a very deceptive way to present his evidence. This has been a common theme with Simon Shack throughout all his September Clues films, which can no longer be trusted to present video evidence objectively. Great work by the late Anthony Lawson. R.I.P.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
