The North Tower Airplane Wing Gash and the Gelatin PSYOP

By Mark Conlon

In this short analysis of the first "alleged" plane impact explosion on the North Tower, I am going to demonstrate once and for all, that it was not a secondary explosion, or cutter charges that caused the plane wing gash 6 seconds after the initial explosion captured in the Naudet video footage at 8:46 a.m. on 9/11.

This suggestion has been made by countless 9/11 researchers over the years, and it is my belief that this idea has been deliberately put-out to ostensibly cover-up and conceal something else which took place during the time when the North Tower got its plane shaped hole.

Below, Simon Shack suggested in his short film - 9/11 Amateur film - Part 2, that a secondary explosion or cutter charges caused the plane wing gash 6 seconds after the initial explosion.

Below, Shack claims that the secondary linear explosion is made 6 seconds after initial impact using pre-placed charges.

When we study the Naudet video closely, this isn't what we observe regarding the behaviour of the explosion, which Shack, Ace Baker Jim fetzer and others have ostensibly claimed was a secondary event.

Detailed analysis and short video below:

Below, we can observe how the wind drifts the bright ball of glowing fumes across the North Tower face, in a westerly direction.

Below we can see how the glowing ball of fumes conceals the initial impact area, but as the wind drifts the glowing fumes across the face of the North Tower it begins to reveal the wing gash and plane shaped hole.

As wind continues to drift the fumes across the North Tower face it exposes the already made but hidden plane shaped hole, thus creating the illusion that the wing gash was created 6 seconds after the initial impact. It is the behaviour between the wind and the glowing fumes combined which creates the illusion of the appearance of the wing gash. This proves the plane wing gash was NOT made 6 seconds later, as suggested by various 9/11 researchers, however was simply an illusion.

Here's a short video below, highlighting the behaviour of the fireball and the reveal of the wing shape:

This video demonstrates without a shadow of doubt, that the plane wing shaped gash did not appear 6 seconds after the initial impact time. It was just concealed by the fumes which eventually drifted westwards across the face of the North Tower revealing the plane wing gash.
  
The Gelatin Art Students PSY OP & Cover Up of Advanced Technologies...

The Naudet video footage above has been cited by many 9/11 researchers such as, Ace Baker, Jim Fetzer and later Rebekah Roth, as evidence of proof of involvement of the Israeli art students group called Gelatin, who they allege are responsible for pre-planting the cutter charges and explosives in the North Tower to create the plane shaped holes. It is my belief (based on evidence) this story is a convenient cover story to conceal more significant evidence involving more "unconventional" means to create the plane shaped holes and also the illusions of the planes in the sky in New York.

Firstly, the Gelatin art students were not Israeli, they were Austrian. Secondly, they were not in the South Tower, so this does not account for the creation of the plane shaped hole in the South Tower building. Thirdly, the Gelatin art group were housed on the 91st floor of the North Tower, and the North Tower damage was between the 93rd - 97th floors. Finally, at the time of "alleged" impacts in the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. and the South Tower at 9:02 a.m. the earth's magnetic field fluctuated and spiked. As far as I am aware, bombs, explosives or plane crashes cannot cause the earth's magnetic field to fluctuate and spike in this fashion. This evidence has been concealed from public knowledge. See below:

 

The magnetometer fluctuations are indicative of some type of field interference taking place on 9/11, which happened during every event on 9/11. All 4 plane crashes and the destruction of the North Tower, South Tower and WTC 7.  Please watch this short segment taken from the - 9/11 Alchemy "Facing Reality" film below:

 
Watch Film Here: 9/11 Alchemy "Facing Reality"

It is my belief after carefully studying the Gelatin art student story, that the story was created and used to conceal the evidence I have cited above, thus to aid the promotion of "conventional" means to explain the creation of the plane shaped holes in the buildings, and also cover up the use of a sophisticated holographic "image projection" technology to create planes in the sky, which many people observed, photographed and videoed on their camcorders, thus why the "video fakery" PSY OP cover story was invented and introduced to conceal anomalies captured in the video and photographic evidence record - example, missing wings on the planes and lack of crash impact collision physics between the building and plane.

The name 'Gelatin' also implies explosives if you check the dictionary. 
 

 

However, 'Gelatin' is also related to holographic technology, as it provides 100% diffraction. Also it is referenced to in a declassified IDA Memorandum - An Israeli document from April 1987 called Critical Technology Assessment - Israel and NATO Nations. See Below:

So could 'Gelatin' be a cryptic clue as to the type of technologies deployed to create the plane shaped holes in the buildings and also the plane illusions in the sky on 9/11? At the same time we have the idea being promoted with a story reported in the New York Times on 18th August 2001 in relation to the Gelatin art students which has gained traction in the alternative media which ideally has created a cover story about them being Israeli art students and "bomb experts" which aids the cover-up of unconventional advanced technologies involved to create the planes shape holes and plane illusion. Ace Baker, Jim Fetzer and later Rebekah Roth have promoted this false story about the Gelatin art student group. They are not bomb experts, or Israeli, neither were they in the South Tower, which Ace Baker claimed in his Film - The Great American Psy Opera. Ace Baker's background is very suspect which I have written about here in this blog post and also Simon (Hytten) Shack's behaviour which Andrew Johnson wrote about in an article. Simon (Hytten) Shack also has usual connections with his brother's (Mario) sponsorship deal with the Bin Laden Group, and Shack's father worked for the United Nations. Shack also confessed to having done paid work for the European Space Agency. It is also interesting how the mainstream media have left the Gelatin art students story up online since 18th August 2001 which has helped to create this misleading "false" story, when more important evidence has been removed online. We have to consider that the story was deliberately put out and left up online for this very reason. Why is Ace Baker, Jim Fetzer and others so trusting of this story, when they know all too well how the mainstream media works; perception management and psychological operations?

Conclusion: 

From my analysis of the plane wing gash formation, it was not made by conventional explosives or cutter charges that were activated 6 seconds later, something which has been promoted by Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker, Simon Shack, Rebekah Roth and other researchers, who are most likely promoting this false information to conceal the involvement of "unconventional" technologies used instead to create the plane shaped holes in the North and South Towers and plane illusion in the sky. The Gelatin art students story has acted as a cover story and perception management mainly in the alternative 9/11 truth groups, which ostensibly introduced a "false" explanation for the creation and formation of the plane shaped holes and promote the use of conventional explosives, while ignoring and concealing evidence of the use of unconventional technologies such as, holographic and directed energy. It is interesting also what role the "video fakery" cover story PSY OP played to explain the anomalies captured in peoples' video and photographic evidence. Something I have written about extensively throughout my blogs.

Setting The Record Straight About The Michael Hezarkhani Video

By Mark Conlon

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. 

Thanks for reading & watching!

September Clues - BUSTED! - By: Anthony Lawson - Nov 2007

By Mark Conlon

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. 

Watch video here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/DTOKSijieKtW/  Also, video embedded below:
  

 
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

9/11 Planes: Image Projection Technology Vs Video Fakery and CGI

By Mark Conlon

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.   

Thank you for reading and caring!    

Unexplained Anomalies in the Sky on 9/11

By Mark Conlon

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

Thanks for reading!

Simon Shack's - Great Nose-In & Nose-Out Hoax - By: Anthony Lawson - Nov 2007

By Mark Conlon

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.

To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission, read this article by Andrew Johnson:  
9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175

Thank you for reading & watching!

Simon Shack's "King Kong Man" in North Tower Window - DEBUNKED!

By Mark Conlon

See below: Simon Shack's comment to this video on Steve De'ak's YouTube channel.

While Steve De'ak admitted his mistake, which I commend him for doing so, Simon Shack reverted to using disrespectful names in his comment by calling people "clowns" and "goons" and would rather accuse people of being shills. See video below:

Please note: Simon Shack doesn't say the video isn't wrong in its proof that it was not "video fakery", however would rather avoid that point by promoting another "false" video about an "alleged" 21-ft tall jumper video. 

This is classic avoidance by Simon (Hytten) Shack, which speaks volumes as to what Shack's role is by promoting "falsehoods" while accusing others of doing the same as he has been doing since 2007 in his films. I have been quite sceptical of Steve De'ak's points he has promoted in the past, but he has admitted his mistake in this case, and also about his "Frozen Smoke" theory in the Hezarkhani video. This is something that Simon Shack never does, which speaks volumes about his mission and goals to find the truth. 

To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission, read this article by Andrew Johnson:  
9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175

Thank you for reading and caring!