The Disappearing and Reappearing Wing Study

By Mark Conlon

In this study analysis I am going to compare two videos which captured an anomaly involving "alleged" Flight 175's plane wing briefly disappearing before impacting the South Tower. I will also explore some of the most common explanations which have been put forward to try and explain these anomalies. 

Many 9/11 researchers have tried to explain away some of the anomalies captured in the "Flight 175" videos. One such case is the video footage showing the plane wing disappearing in some of the videos.

Some researchers believe that video compression was responsible for the plane wing's disappearance, while others say it is because of the background and the sky. To some degree these can be valid arguments put forward. To demonstrate these two points I have used below two videos taken of regular planes in the sky to demonstrate how these two factors affect the video camera's ability to register the "real" plane's wings and tail section depending on the colour of the sky and also the colour of the plane itself. See below:

As you can see in the image above taken of a "real" plane, the sky is grey and the colour of plane is similar in colour which makes it difficult for the video camera to differentiate, however we still see the wings and tail section in the video.

In the video below taken of a "real" plane you can see that for one frame the tail section's left-hand wing looks transparent, almost disappearing. The merging against the blue sky demonstrates a natural transparent looking plane wing for one video frame. So it is possible for this anomaly to happen in video footage and give the appearance that the tail section wing has disappeared, so this is a natural anomaly, laws of optics, not a fake video or CGI plane. 

The difference in the next two examples below is, it shows neither of those two explanations above can account for the disappearance of the plane wing documented in the two pieces of 9/11 video footage below:

The difference with this study is the videos are taken from two different directions and using two different video cameras both capturing the same missing wing anomaly. This proves that this was an anomaly captured from the "perceived" object in the sky and not an anomaly or malfunction of the video camera recording equipment itself. So then explanation of compression or sky backdrop and light can be ruled-out. Not in (Fig A & B) this was captured using high quality video camera equipment, and in (Fig C & D) the video camera was of a lower quality, and only captured the missing wing for one video frame only.  

In the 6 still images below taken from the Naudet video second plane hit, they captured the "alleged" plane for 6 frames in sequence where it shows the "alleged" plane's wing to be missing. See below:

See enlarged image below: Plane wing missing!

Over the 6 frames it shows no wing after the plane engine. The footage was taken using high quality video equipment. Was this why it picked up the missing wing for 6 frames instead of only one frame in the lower quality other video camera footage showing the plane wing missing? Was the high quality video recording equipment key to capturing this anomaly of the "perceived" object in the sky? Was this why we have never seen any professional news camera crew footage of the plane from the ground on 9/11? Were the news camera teams kept away in case they captured more anomalies like this of the plane in their higher quality equipment?

Below: Luc Courchesne was using professional video camera recording equipment and he also captured the missing wing anomaly in several frames in his video footage.

Luc Courchesne - Missing Wing Video:

In this case it could be that the shutter speed of the video camera was open for a shorter period of time, example 1/60th of a second as the video camera was facing into the sunlight on the east-side of the sky. Because of the camera's shutter being open for a shorter time-frame did it catch the "image projection" of the plane in mid drawing of the projection, thus "not" displaying a full image of the plane in the sky? (Example, if you imagine a strobe light, which flashes quickly and capturing it in between cycles of light and dark phase). 

Also we must take into account the high quality of the video camera used, which would have played a major role in capturing the anomaly, as it captured several frames not just one frame of the missing wing like other video camera's of a lower quality and with a longer open shutter speed exposure.  

Conclusion:

What I can positively conclude is, we are NOT looking at a "real" plane captured in the 9/11 video footage, and the anomalies were NOT caused by compression artifacts or video malfunctions. The anomaly issues are with the object itself in the sky which were captured by numerous video cameras from different locations, thus depending on the quality of the video camera and the location perspective of the video camera would explain to some degree how the anomaly (missing wings) would have been captured in the video footage.

Impossibility of Video Fakery, CGI Planes & Compositing...?
This also definitely rules-out any suggestion of inserted CGI graphic planes or composited planes into the TV media footage or the amateur video footage later. Why would the perpetrator's insert CGI planes which were NOT convincing enough or full of glitches? This is just not logical. Also how did they control all of the eyewitnesses in NYC of those who witnessed a planes hitting the buildings, and please note; before even seeing anything on TV or media coverage? Impossible. Yet we have NOT seen any videos put into the public domain showing no plane at all in the video footage, one would have thought at least one video over the last 17 years would of surfaced or slipped through the net of control depicting such claims made by the "video fakery" promoters. No matter what anybody tells you there are reliable eyewitnesses who seen what they took to be a plane in the sky and hitting both buildings. The "video fakery" promoters never critically analyses this accounts, yet make accusations calling all the eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers liars or being part of a big conspiracy. They have provided no credible evidence to support their claims.

Thanks you reading and caring!

Update: 12/12/19

Here's another study I have done. The video shows the wing disappearing for 6 frames.

This is now 3 videos showing a consistent missing "right" wing for 6 frames. This cannot be explained as digital artifact fault of the camera because we have two other videos showing exactly the same issue with the wing disappearing for 6 frames. 

"Alleged" Plane Crashes and the Earth’s Magnetic Field on 9/11…

By Mark Conlon

This is a brief study and outline of the magnetometer evidence in relation to the "alleged" four plane crashes on 9/11...

Something strange was happening to the Earth's magnetic field at the exact time the plane crashes took place in NYC, Washington D.C and Shanksville P.A. on 9/11.  

Between 8:15am and 5:20pm the earth’s magnetic field shows a continuous disturbance:

The disturbance started at approximately 8:15 a.m. and was deflecting downwards reaching its minimum point at 8:46 a.m. (at the time of the first plane crash at 8:46 a.m.), then begins to rise upwards again and recovers, then continues upwards reaching a maximum at 9:02 a.m. (the time of the second plane crash at 9:02 a.m.). There is also disturbances at 9:37 a.m. (at the time of the plane crash at the Pentagon), and also another disturbance at 10:03 a.m. and 10:06 a.m. (at the time of the plane crash in Shanksville P.A.). They all correlate with the four alleged plane crash events. 

North Tower: 8:46 a.m. & South Tower: 9:02 a.m.

    

Pentagon Event: 9:37 a.m.

   

Shanksville Event: 10:03 a.m. - 10:06 a.m.

  

The Earth’s magnetic field data was measured by 6 different instruments run by the University of Alaska. Dr. Judy Wood downloaded the raw data from the magnetometers and put it into an excel spread sheet.

A question which needs to be considered is. Do you think that plane crashes can affect the Earth’s magnetic field? The instruments were based approximately 3500 miles away from the events. We are talking about energy effects. All of the evidence points to energy effects! None of it points to traditional explosives, mini nukes, nukes or bombs. Or ‘THERMITE’.

Dr. Judy Wood, author of 'Where Did The Towers Go?' Book has outlined the same disturbances when the North and South Tower's were destroyed, along with WTC 7. All seven events of the day show fluctuations and spikes during the event as a whole. 

Once you accept that airplane crashes do not cause the Earth's magnetic field to behave like this you have to ask yourself a question as to what really caused these disturbances. I have outlined documented data/evidence, so this is not a theory. Some else was at happening on 9/11, and it had nothing to do with airplane crashes, or bombings in the building or thermite. 
 

Killtown & Ace Baker's Michael Hezarkhani Video "Audio Fakery" DECEPTIONS

By Mark Conlon

I have done a video analysis of claims made by 9/11 researchers - Killtown and Ace Baker, in relation to "alleged" audio fakery in the Michael Hezarkhani video. I will demonstrate in my analysis that their was a deliberate attempt to mislead people towards the wrong conclusion and cast doubt in peoples minds over the authenticity of the Michael Hezarkhani video.

It has takes some explaining because of the nature of their deception, however I thought it was best to explain it using video format rather than writing it in an article format. I didn't find it easy to present this analysis and it took me half an hour to explain it all in the video, however I have known about this deception for 4 years and thought it was time to put the record straight and expose those two shills for what they are. I know I'm not the best film editor, but hey my message and analysis is honest.

I may consider adding some written notes to this post in the future to add more information, however for now I think the video explains the deception and misdirection carried out by both Killtown and Ace Baker. 

Who is Alexander Ace Baker (Colin Alexander)...?

By Mark Conlon

I came across this fascinating video called "Who is Alexander Ace Baker". As part of my research I have been studying some of the background connections Ace Baker has... His arrival and presence in the "No-Planes" movement is somewhat dubious following the strange behaviour that followed involving him "faking" his own suicide on Jim Fetzer's show, while causing division in the "No-Planes" community. 

It has also has been shown that he was deliberately promoting "false" video fakery misinformation, thus consequently casting doubt in people's mind over the authenticity of the video evidence record of "Flight 175". He also denounced the use of holographic technology. 

Video information below:

Published on 14 Jul 2009: Who is Alexander Ace Baker

Alexander "Ace" Baker AKA Alexander Collin derives his YouTube name from Alexandra Kollontai http://www.youtube.com/collinalexander Reilly, Ace of Spies:

This British adventure series is a dramatisation of the fantastic real-life adventures, from 1903 until the mid-1920s, of the Russian-born British agent Sidney Reilly AKA Sidney Rosenblum, who worked for MI6 (British Military Intelligence) as Agent ST-1.

The programme is based on books by Robin Bruce Lockhart - "The amazing true story of the world's first international super spy."

Other background information about Ace Baker:

Ace Baker and his wife work extensively for the media, both TV and Hollywood. Ace and his wife Claire Marlo, also have a production company called “Invisible Hand Production”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Marlo

https://www.clairmarlo.com/

https://www.antiwarsongs.org/artista.php?id=10948&lang=en&rif=1

They have worked for companies such as: NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS and Paramount, Columbia, Disney, Franchise. Hollywood was busy paving the minds for the 911 attacks! What is Ace doing among them? Ace Baker has produced the musical scores mostly for films by Fred Olen Ray and John Puch - Franchise Phoenician Entertainment. Some films below produced by Phoenician Entertainment, note: the themes of these films; involving plane crashes, hijackings and terrorism.

  

He has also awarded a gold medal for his beat programming of ICE-T records. Ace also works with Reality Check Studios who is a software partner of Vizrt.

Vizrt’s product suite is used by the world’s leading broadcasters including: CNN, CBS, Fox, BBC, Sky, ITN, ZDF, Star TV, TV Today, CCTV and NHK. Also, many world-class production houses and corporate institutions, including both the New York and London Stock Exchanges, utilise Vizrt solutions. The 2002 VIZRT- Missile Defence Agency Connection which also works with Directed Energy Weapons, is confirmed since 1996. Vizrt are also connected to 3D holographic imaging. The type of technology Ace Baker was trying to steer people away from being involved on 9/11. Other research shows that Vizrt/RealityCheck/realityx is actually an Israeli Defence Company: http://www.vizrt.com/news/press_releases/article1347.ece.  

Does this show indirect links to holographic technology and directed energy?

My conclusion:

Does this suggest Ace Baker’s role was to infiltration the “No-Planes” community, and smoothly gain confidence and trust from the 9/11 research community. Jim Fetzer played a major role in helping Ace Baker promote the idea of “video fakery” using compositing through his radio shows - The Dynamic Duo and later the The Real Deal. Ace Baker claimed that compositing techniques such as 'Luma Keying' was used to insert a fake plane into the live TV coverage of 9/11. However there is one problem with this theory. Luma keying was shown to not be possible in the Chopper 5 video, plus not ALL eyewitnesses could be faked or actors. There would be no way of controlling all the photographers and videographers in the New York area who really captured what they took to be a plane crashing into the towers. 

Does it also suggest Baker's role was to create a cover story by providing an explanation to explain all the anomalies captured in the video footage such as, disappearing wings and the non-existent collision defying Newtonian Physics between the South Tower building and the plane, captured in the video evidence footage. Was the “video fakery” explanation used as a form of perception management to cover up the use of an advanced 3D Volumetric image projection hologram, which was potentially captured by many photographers, videographers and seen by the eyewitnesses?

It is not known to many people that Ace Baker was also hired to produce his film (The Great American Psy Opera) promoting "video fakery" while also discrediting Dr. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds and other 9/11 researchers. This information came to light due to the late Gerard Holmgren disclosing Ace Baker's e-mail asking Holmgren to be involved in his film. Ace Baker has since disappeared after faking his own death on Jim Fetzer's radio show, in a bizarre fake suicide. It was established that Baker was still alive and did the stunt as a piece of "art performance". 

I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about Ace Baker's role in the 9/11 research community.  

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