Analysis of Steve De'ak's - Shanksville Plane Crater Recreation

By Mark Conlon

This is a video analysis of Steve De'aks theory regarding how the plane shaped crater was made in Shanksville on 9/11. In my video and blog below I show that his "alleged" reproduction comparisons using NASA's lab test impact craters and also his own recreation experiments do not sufficiently explain how the engine crater or tail section impression were made at the Shanksville crash site. I just want to make it clear to anyone reading this blog post, this is not a personal issue with Steve, it merely points out issues I wanted to raise which I feel are unanswered in his theory he proposes. It is meant to help rather than discredit him.
   

 

Background information: Steve De'ak believes "multiple missiles" were used to create the plane shaped hole crater in Shanksville.

Steve has attempted to recreate the plane crater below (Fig A) and (Fig B), however in my opinion doesn't fully explain the observable crater hole in relation to how the plane's engine and tail section impressions in the ground happened in his recreations or with his "multiple missile" theory explanation? See below:

(Fig A) (No angle shown)

 

(Fig B) (6.6 Degrees)

 

The issues I observe with his recreation of the crater is, it does not account for the plane's engine crater or tail section impression which are observed in the crater images in Shanksville. Also there are issues with the angle trajectories Steve uses in his recreations seen in (Fig A) with NO angle trajectory clearly stated although in previous images there is cited - 9.2 degrees shown, and also in (Fig B) a 6.6 degree angle trajectory.

The confusion here arises because Steve cites some NASA lab experiments, where their results which Steve uses for "supportive" evidence of how the craters were created according to NASA using a 4.75 degree angle trajectory. See screen-shot from Steve De'ak's website below: 

Steve didn't state this information about the 4.75 degree angle trajectory in the NASA experiments in his articles and vaguely states 10 degrees under horizontal, which I didn't feel was helpful. See NASA's information below stating a 4.75 degree angle trajectory to achieve their crater which Steve uses in his articles and videos, however NOT mentioning this "specific" information. WHY?

This in the main part would make it very difficult in reality at the Shanksville crash site due to the treeline being far too tall to achieve such a low trajectory such as 4.75 degrees to create at least one side of the plane crater hole from a missile. There is also NO evidence of any damage or disturbance to the adjacent trees from a low angled trajectory such as JASSM missile which Steve "alleges" caused the hole crater. See below:

Comparison studies with the Steve's recreations and the "real" Shanksville crash site crater below:

 Steve's Recreation 1 below:

 
Steve's Recreation 2 below:

 Shanksville Crater Image 1 below:

 Shanksville Crater Image 2 below:

 Shanksville Crater Image 3 below:

 Another view from the ground:

The comparisons above using Steve's recreation attempts of the impact craters does not sufficiently explain how the engine crater or tail section impression were made at the Shanksville crash site. His comparisons do not contain these two distinct areas in his recreations to be accepted as adequate recreations as he claims. The same can be said for the NASA lab experiments comparisons which he uses to support his theory, as these are not sufficient for comparison purposes, although the idea is.

If "multiple missiles" were used to create the Shanksville plane crater then this would not be consistent with overwhelming eyewitness testimonies who speak of witnessing a "large" plane crash into the ground, not missiles? Steve does not address this evidence, and has been quite misleading about the eyewitness accounts, by saying that people both "heard" and "seen" missiles in Shanksville. See the screen-shot below from Steve De'ak's article.

There is no evidence of any eyewitnesses "SEEING" a missile or missiles. The only reports of missiles from witnesses is, what they "interpreted" to be a missile from only hearing the sound. No one actually observed anything with their eyes who report seeing a missile or missiles. Susan McElwain did see something small, however she did not reference the object to be a missile. The object she described flew over her vehicle and over the treeline, although it didn't disturb the trees or make any sound, and she didn't recall the sound of an explosion, which I find strange. I am still open to the possibility that it could be a missile.  

I have raised this several times with Steve during our comment exchanges on his website, however he seems reluctant to amend this in his articles or videos, even for the sake of accuracy, which I feel is a shame as it could be seen in a bad light and unhelpful for him, but I respect his choice not to. 

In conclusion:

For Steve De'ak to claim he can recreate the crater in Shanksville, he must demonstrate that he has recreated enough of the observable features to a reasonable high degree of accuracy based on the observable photographical and video evidence at the Shankville crater crash site. This is not the case with any of Steve's comparison recreations or the NASA lab experiments comparisons he cites. He must recreate the crater showing a tail section impression and also an engine crater, preferably using videos and not photos, and also at the correct angles so we can see how it was achieved. He also has to explain thoroughly how no treeline damage or disturbance to the trees adjacent to the crash crater in Shanksville was achieved. This has not been done up-to-now.

On a final note, this is not a personal attack on Steve De'ak, I am hopeful he may adjust or add to his test experiments with the information I provide here.

I am happy to update this article when Steve conducts new experiments and tests which solve the issues I raise in this analysis. I am not saying he is promoting disinformation, as I believe this would be unfair to say, and unhelpful. That would be an easy cheap shot, as he is trying to find answers to how the crater was created. This sometimes can take several attempts to fully reach a sufficient answer or recreation in this case. I wish him well in future experiments.

Update: 11th November 2018

After exchanges between me and Steve on his website comments section regarding the evidence of more than one crater in the Shankville plane crash crater, I believe Steve could eventually see I was being genuine in what I was pointing out to him with the extra craters in the plane shaped hole. His apology is welcomed and accepted. My video is no way a personal attack on Steve, I merely pointed out areas which I felt had been overlooked by Steve in his attempts at recreating the crime scene.

Myself and Steve differ greatly with our views of the evidence, however I wouldn't want that to prevent us from having any reasonable debates in the future. 

 Thanks for reading and watching the video.

Nothing Unusual About UA175 & UA93's Deregistration?

By Mark Conlon

A lot has been made of the deregistration process of UA175 and UA93, because of the process taking up to 4 years for both of the planes to be deregistered on 28th Sept 2005. In reality this is nothing out of the ordinary, although some 9/11 researchers cite this as unusual, when in fact it is not.

One only has to take a look through the FAA Government Records to see it is not unusual for an aircraft to be deregistered many years later of its initial retirement of certification. 

I have listed some case study examples below of planes which have taken a long period of time to be deregistered. Anyone can checkout tail numbers at the FAA Registry - Aircraft - N-Number Inquiry: https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnum_inquiry.aspx

Example 1:

28 December 1978; United Air Lines DC8; N8082U, flight 173; Portland, OR: This was a scheduled domestic flight from Denver, CO to Portland, OR. After the landing gear was lowered, there were several indications of a landing gear - problem, including unusual noises and no indication that one of the landing gear had deployed properly. The crew went into a holding pattern while investigating the problem. The aircraft ran out of fuel while holding for landing and crashed in a residential area. Two of the eight crew members and eight of the 181 passengers were killed. No one on the ground was injured or killed. This plane was cancelled on Oct 13th 1981... nearly 3 years later.

https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N8082U

Example 2:
  
Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 was a scheduled flight from Los Angeles, California, to San Francisco. On 7 December 1987, the British Aerospace 146-200A, registration N350PS, crashed in Cayucos, California, as a result of a murder–suicide by one of the passengers. It was not cancelled until 14th April 1993. (Thanks to 'Conspiracy Cuber' for this "excellent" case example).

 
https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N350PS&fbclid=IwAR0vXW5CzhNTscbkrX7tpBFt-3AhL070Zjay9Ln9IpYGm2Pezi4kfeVu204

Example 3:

On July 26, 2002, FedEx flight 1478, a Boeing 727-232F (N497FE) struck trees on final approach to Tallahassee Regional Airport at 5:37 a.m. The flight had originated in Memphis, Tennessee. The captain, first officer and flight engineer were seriously injured, and the airplane was destroyed by impact and resulting fire. www.aviationattorneys.com/national-content.cfm/Article/6366/Fed-Ex-Aircraft-Crash-Caused-By-Crew.html

So then visit the FAA Registry, enter the number, and this record pops up as of 17th April 2005:

N497FE is Assigned

Assigned/Registered Aircraft

Manufacturer Name BOEING
Model 727-232  Status Valid 

Registered Owner
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

Example 4:

On January 1, 2002, about 1802 eastern standard time, a Piper PA-31-250, N3525Y, registered to Taurus Wings Inc., and operated by Air Taxi Inc., as a Title 14 CFR Part 135 on demand air taxi flight, ditched in the Atlantic Ocean, near Hollywood, Florida. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20020107X00039&ntsbno=MIA02FA048&akey=1

An FAA Registry check on 10th March 2006 tells us:
 

N3525Y is Assigned

Assigned/Registered Aircraft

Model PA-31-350  Status Valid 

Registered Owner: TAURUS WINGS INC  

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=3525Y

Example 5:

On October 18, 2001, at 1543 Alaska daylight time, a Bell 206L helicopter, N400EH, impacted the waters of Cook Inlet about six-tenths of a mile west of the shoreline off the approach end of runway 06 at Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, Anchorage, Alaska. The pilot, who held a commercial pilot's certificate, expired as a result of the accident sequence. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20011026X02150&ntsbno=SEA02FA008&akey=1

And yet the FAA record as of 10th March 2006 says:

N400EH is Assigned

Manufacturer Name BELL

Model 206L 

Status Valid
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=400EH

Conclusion:

Again we have 9/11 researchers not fully checking the facts before promoting "alleged" anomalies in the data which are not valid anomalies at all.

Flight 11 and the BTS Data-Base Discoveries Before 9/11

By Mark Conlon

The "unknown" statistic logged in relation to Flight 11 on 9/11 in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) data-base is often used as proof that Flight 11 never took-off on 9/11, yet there are other instances showing the same statistic of "unknown" during the year of 2001 involving Flight 11.

(Flight 11 appears as a regular flight between BOS and LAX also on Tuesdays).

The BTS system returns "UNKNOWN" along with the usual 00:00 data for September 4 and July 10, 2001. Also, there's no data at all available for August 7, 2001. In all other instances AA-11 (Flight 11) appears to have flown on all Tuesdays before 9/11.

SOURCE: Bureau of Transportation Statistics

• AA 07/10/2001 11 UNKNOWN LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
• AA 08/07/2001 11 N/A LAX N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
• AA 09/04/2001 11 UNKNOWN LAX 07:45 00:00 366 0 0 00:00 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

UPDATE: 29/12/19

DATE CARR. TAIL_No FL_No ORIG DEST CRS_DEP DEPART TAX_OUT W/OFF W/ON TAX_IN CRS_ARR ARRIV CANCLD DVERTD AIR_TIME

AA 09/10/2001 198 N334AA SFO 06:24 06:03 334 314 -21 05:52 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

American Airlines "Flight 198" was the flight number with the plane tail number N334AA, which is a pendulum flight with Flight 11. Flight 198 arrived at Gate 32 in Boston, Logan Airport early in the morning on September 11, 2001. Although the reported date is 9/10/2001, the plane took-off from SFO on the west coast at 21:49 on 9/10 and actually landed at BOS on the east coast at 6:03 the next day on 9/11.

Apparently this detail created lot of confusion among 9/11 researchers, however this is the last tracked Flight for the plane - tail number N334AA before becoming the infamous AA11 on September 11, 2001.

Flight 93's "Transponder On" at 10:05am According to FAA Transcript

By Mark Conlon

In this short analysis I will show through the use of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recording transcripts that Flight 93's transponder was still switched on at 10:05 a.m. after the "official" crash time in Shanksville. I will also touch briefly on other supporting evidence to show that Flight 93 did NOT crash at 10:03 a.m. as stated by the 9/11 Commission and also point-out other supporting evidence which indicates that Flight 93 did NOT crash at all on 9/11, as Flight 93 was located 15 miles past the "official" crash site heading towards the Washington D.C. area.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Transcript below:

1405 (10:05am)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still

doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct

doug: ok buddy

14 06 (10:06am)

ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three

Please Note: This strengthens the case that something took place in Shanksville at 10:06 a.m. NOT 10:03 a.m. the "official" crash time. The question is why was it so important to have the "official" crash time of 10:03 a.m., when all the evidence including the seismic readings place a trace recording in the ground at 10:06 a.m.? See the seismic readings below:

The 9/11 Commission lent on the seismologists to support the 10:03 a.m. official crash time, when clearly the evidence says different. Other evidence which suggests the plane shaped hole was made in the ground at 10:06 a.m. is the magnetometer data readings. See magnetometer readings data below: 

 
Notice the sharp dip fluctuation in the reading from 10:03 a.m. to 10:06 a.m. 

No Electronic Locator Transmitter (ELT) distress signal indicating a plane had crashed was picked-up at the time when Flight 93 "allegedly" crashed.

The FAA’s Cleveland Center, which had the last contact with Flight 93 before it crashed, suggests that no distress signal indicating a plane crash had occurred or was picked-up at the time Flight 93 went down. Flight 93 reportedly crashed in rural Pennsylvania at 10:03a.m. An “ELT” is an emergency locator transmitter, a device carried on most general aviation aircraft in the US that is designed to automatically start transmitting a distress signal if a plane should crash, so as to help search and rescue efforts in locating the downed aircraft The Cleveland Center controller’s information, as an FAA timeline will later state, therefore indicates that “No ELT signal has been picked up in the area where Flight 93 apparently crashed at this time.” Someone at the FAA’s Command Center in Herndon, Virginia, acknowledged the controller’s communication, responding, “Copy that, Command Center.” 

 
Whether anyone will subsequently report picking up an ELT signal in the area where Flight 93 apparently crashed is unclear. Major Allan Knox, who works at the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, which is “the contact for credible” ELT signals, tells the 9/11 Commission that he “does not recall an ELT detection being brought to his attention”. (9/11 Commission, 10/1/2003). 

Also, does this part in the FAA - Air Traffic Control transcription strengthens the case that Flight 93 was close to Washington D.C. as it was west of Dulles, furthermore strengthening the already overwhelming evidence of a landing at 10:28 a.m. at Reagan National Airport.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Transcript below:

14:07 (10:07am)

ntmo-e: sixteen south of Johnstown where they lost united ninety three and it was heading turning one four zero heading

doug: which will put him to what do you think

ntmo-e: uh I guess that put him down coming right just west of Dulles

doug: ok


SUMMARY:
 
Flight 93 switched on the transponder at 10:05 a.m. (two minutes after the "official" crash time), and the transponder indicated an altitude of 8200 ft. It was also heading southeast. One minute later, at 10:06 a.m., radar contact with Flight 93 is lost, at the position 39,51 north, 78,46 west. This point is about 15 miles southeast of the "official" crash site and around 15 minutes flying time from Washington D.C.

All the evidence points to Flight 93 landing at Reagan National Airport at 10:28 a.m. I will outline in more detail evidence to support this in my following blogs about Flight 93.

Simon Shack's - 9/11 September Clues Forum "Disinformation" Psy-Op Network

By Mark Conlon

I edited this short video together which was made by someone else which was a much longer version. The creator exposes Simon Shack promulgating "false" information in his September Clues forum. Shack claims the video and photographs are all fake on 9/11, however this video shows how he exploits parallax and different viewing perspectives and also different times in motion to promote video and photographic fakery.

Shack even tries to claim that a piece of video footage from the Bataclan attack had a "missing door" in it, which was provably false. 

This video appears to demonstrate attempts by Simon Shack to implant and promote misinformation. 

See video below:  

Thank you for watching!

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.