Flight 175 - Still in the Air After Crashing into the South Tower on 9/11 - MSNBC

By Mark Conlon

This is a screen-shot of Flight 175 still in the air after crashing into the South Tower on 9/11 on MS-NBC's news coverage approximately one hour after Flight 175 was reported as crashing into the South Tower. In the news coverage they go to their real time 'flight explorer' tracker whereby they hover over different planes being displayed on the flight explorer screen-shot which displays information about the planes which are still in the air-space from the FAA Radar System. As they hover-over one of the planes an information text box appears next to the plane. What was displayed in one particular information text box next to the plane was the Flight - UAL 175, Departure - BOS and Arrival LAX, clearly indicating that Flight 175 was still in the air flying after it was reported as crashed into the South Tower. Flight 175 appears to be flying away from New York (if it ever was over New York) and towards Connecticut one hour after the crash?

Below: Enlargement, along with 'additional' inverted colour version comparison:

Clearly in the above image 'Flight 175' Departure from BOS 09:15a and Arrival LAX 01:44p.

See My Short Video Below:

See Full Coverage Videos Below:

(Part 1) MSNBC Live Coverage of September 11, 2001 https://youtu.be/dd5QL6oY8fQ
(Part 2) MSNBC Live Coverage of September 11, 2001 https://youtu.be/5UGB1jjcVK8

The official radar flight path does not correspond with any position location in the MS-NBC News coverage, which is an official FAA Radar System, so this can rule-out any real-time delays, plus Flight 175 was located North-West of Connecticut in the official radar positioning when departing from Boston Logan Airport for Los Angeles LAX when making its detour towards New York. The MS-NBC radar position has Flight 175 more South-West of Connecticut one hour after the plane crash. 

Official Flight 175 Path Below:

The question has to be asked. If Flight 175 was still in the air one hour after the alleged crash at the South Tower, where was it heading to...? Clearly it did not crash into the South Tower, but was en-route to somewhere? The question is where? Possibility... Was it heading back to Boston Logan International Airport to be grounded, as the direction it seemed to be heading could suggest that? Or was it directed to another location? Again I'm speculating here. 

Another possibility could be: Flight 175 was part of the training exercises taking place that morning and was a phantom flight blip on the radar system which didn't exist at all..?

More research needs to be conducted to gather more information and evidence before making assumptions so these questions can be sufficiently answered. 

This is an on-going article which is being updated as I gather more information about this research. I will be having more to discuss about this so check back soon.

Thanks for reading & caring! 

Did CNN Use the Same Girl in Three Different Refugee Crisis Pictures?

By Mark Conlon

This was an article I first published back in December 2016. I believe this article is even more relevant today than ever, and related to activities involving some characters in the 9/11 research community.

A new ‘crisis actors’ misinformation has been circulating on the internet, which claims that CNN used photographs of the same girl to represent three different refugee crises. See below:

The social media post comprises of photographs of a little girl being carried by three separate rescue workers began circulating 26th December 2016 (https://archive.is/L8Gvo) on social media, along with text asserting that CNN had been caught using images of the same girl to illustrate three separate reports of refugee crises in different areas, with the girl dressed in the very same outfit in each photograph.

The caption accuses CNN of falsifying their reporting with phony images in order to exaggerate the human toll of violence in three different (unidentified) areas.

With a simple reverse image search it revealed this to be more nonsense. The middle photograph in the three was easy to locate, with many of results returned via image searching: https://archive.is/slSLj

According to a report from NBC News, this photograph was taken in the aftermath of the bombing of a funeral in Aleppo, Syria, in August 2016.

In a related search for the right-hand photograph revealed that it indeed depicted the same girl, being carried by a rescuer after the same 27 August 2016 bombing in Aleppo:

The left-hand photograph was cropped for the “same refugee girl” meme, but it was also a widely published photograph taken immediately after the August 2016 Aleppo funeral bombing. The original photograph depicted a rescuer carrying the girl along with several other children at the site of the attack:

A separate photograph not included above captured the same girl sitting in the back of a van after the Aleppo funeral bombing:

So, rather than presenting three images of the same girl (in the same clothing) supposedly being carried by rescuers after three different “refugee crises” in separate times and places, the reality is it captures one girl being passed around from one rescuer, caretaker, or family member to another in the same disaster zone as part of humanitarian efforts undertaken after the same single bombing event in Syria that left 16 people dead. There is no evidence that CNN ever used any of these photographs to represent anything other than that one event.

My final thoughts

There seems to be a concerted effort to promote the “crisis actors” conspiracy scenario involving different events of late, where it seems deliberate misinformation is being propagated to get truth-seekers recirculating misinformation. Is this being done to discredit truth-seekers who are getting on board with “crisis actor” conspiracy theory? This seems very reminiscent of Simon Shack’s Vic-Sims, which he has promoted at his Clues Forum. I would urge people to really check what they are being told, and verify as much as possible.

Thanks for reading & caring!

September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Five)

By Mark Conlon

This is a short study regarding claims made by Simon Shack, (real name Simon Hytten) in his September Clues film regarding the segment “The Matrix”. Shack claims the backdrop is gone, and was erased. See below:

Shack also claims that there’s two different airplane paths, asserting that the airplane was inserted into the video. See below:

Shack has conveniently cropped the video footage and altered the ratio of the video, along without showing the viewer any zoomed out perspective of the two videos, which makes his claims convincing. However it is not convincing when the zoomed-out video perspectives are observed, and ultimately Shack’s claim is proven false. See below:

The two zoomed out perspectives show that it was two different pieces of news video coverage. Thus, showing that the video on the right has no background due to the elevation and perspective, and looks as it should look, and was not “erased” as Shack claims. See below:

Also, the video footage on the left shows a different elevated perspective of the Hudson River, which is what you would expect to see at that altitude from which the helicopter was videoing from. Additionally, Shack’s argument regarding two different airplane paths is also self-explanatory, as you would expect with different perspectives of the airplane path. So again, Shack makes a false claim.

See short video study below:

Conclusion

Shack portrays two different pieces of news video as the same, when they are not. With the cropping of the two pieces of video footage makes the videos misleading and eliminating the full perspectives of each video, which can deceive viewers who are not as discerning in their due diligence when presented with false conclusions.

Thanks for reading and caring! 

September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Four)

By Mark Conlon

In this article I am going to study the veracity of the claim made by Simon Shack (real name Simon Hytten) in his September Clues film, where Shack asserts that the plane is not visible in the wide zoom-out sequence in the NY Good Day news coverage video.

Firstly, I want to begin by prefacing the fact that Shack’s analysis he used in his September Clues film was most commonly Flash Video (FLV) format, which was used on the internet, particularly for online streaming and embedded video content on platforms like YouTube, Hulu, and Vimeo. This is reflected in his film, as you can observe the video footage he uses is of low quality, and lacked finer details. Flash video quality was not inherently poor, but its perceived quality depended heavily on encoding practices, source material, and playback environment. However this does not excuse Shack’s presentation of the video evidence, and his assertions he promotes.

Shack’s Starting Point

At 7:40 minutes into the September Clues film, Shack investigates the final zoom-in and out sequence in the NY Good Day, where the plane makes its appearance. Note, Shack’s starting point where he begins his analysis of the zoomed-out shot. See below:

I want to draw attention below of the starting point where Shack begins his analysis of the zoom sequence. Here Shack is not being totally honest with his viewers, as he is not showing the full zoom starting sequence point, and by doing so Shack has already created a phony bone of contention, which I will highlight as we progress. See below:

Note above, in Fig A, Shack’s starting point is much more zoomed in than Fig B, which is the correct starting point where the zoom sequence begins, and it is for good reason that Shack has omitted this part from his viewers. 

Let’s continue. Shack implies in the video that the plane makes its appearance only in the zoomed-in close-up sequence, showing the WTC towers. See below:

To reinforce his point for “no-plane” in the wide shot, Shack now reverses the video. See screen-shot sequence below:

Below, Shack stops the video at this point of the zoom-out sequence. See below:

Below, Shack claims there was “no-plane” after 6 seconds before impact. Note, Shack has not reversed the Zoom all the way out, but has stopped short. WHY?

Below, it is notable, that for some reason, Shack does not take the video zoom-out sequence all the way back to show the full zoomed-out wide shot, (which was not the full zoomed-out shot sequence either, as I explained at the beginning). This can be observed by the banner writing running along the bottom of the screen, whereby the 9MPH is to the left of the NY Good Day logo, instead of the right? I have done a comparison showing the video still on the left showing the full zoomed-out shot compared to the video still on the right. See below:

The question is, why has Shack stopped short of showing the wide zoomed-out shot? The answer is simple, that if Shack had of continued his search for the plane in the wider zoomed-out shot, he would have found the plane present in the wide shot. See video clip below showing what Shack has omitted in his film showing the plane in the wide zoom-out shot.

I have deliberately used lower quality video, similar to what Shack used, which does show the plane, and I have isolated the area to highlight the plane in the video. So Shack cannot claim that the video has been tampered with or it is a later better quality video and had the plane inserted.

An even better quality video which was put on the archives website shows the plane much more clearer in the wide shot. See below:

Below, I have synched the video to show the plane was indeed visible in the wide shot, and also synched perfectly with another video, showing the plane’s exact location.

The question now remains, why Shack omitted earlier video footage of the wide zoom-out sequence from his viewers, and thus to falsely lead them to a wrong conclusion, that the plane was “not visible” in the wide zoom-out shot?

Shack’s presentation is questionable, and if it is a simple error, then this would be okay, however, Shack has made no attempt to correct this mistake/error, or for that matter, Shack has not made any attempt to update any of a number of other mistakes/errors since the making of his film. Moreover, Shack has doubled-down to keep promoting his false assertions about the 9/11 plane videos. I have written many articles highlighting Shack’s claims to bogus, and showing that he seems to be on a mission to deceive people rather than expose the truth.

Even Ace Baker, who also promotes a similar position to Shack regarding the videos of the plane later admitted he was wrong, in a blog posting in 2009. See below:

Source: https://acebaker.blogspot.com/2009/08/plane-in-wide-shot-strengthens-case.html

Finally, I will leave the reader to decide and draw their own conclusions. The question is, did Shack do this deliberately? In my opinion his September Clues documentary is full of disinformation, and the movie should be discarded as a propaganda piece. There is more than enough evidence to support my position to call it what it is.

Please see below, further reading of my other analysis articles covering Shack’s deceptions.

Thanks for reading, watching & caring!

September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Three)

By Mark Conlon 

Edited by Andrew Johnson

The reference material used in this analysis is from Simon Shack’s film September Clues, which is from Simon Shack’s YouTube Channel: https://youtu.be/gORu-68SHpE

In part three of this analysis I’m going to explore two claims made by Simon Shack, starting at 100:22 into his film September Clues. He claims Pavel Hlava’s video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage of the same event. Simon Shack also claims at 100:51 in his film that the Rector St building is missing in the Pavel Hlava video. This isn’t the first time that the “absence” of this building has been wrongly presented in a video. Another ‘video fakery’ promotor named Markus Allen also made a claim about Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage having the Rector St building missing, which I proved to be a false claim, follow link below for article:

http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/markus-allens-disappearing-buildings-on.html

At 100:22 in September Clues, Simon Shack claims Pavel Hlava’s video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage.

At 100:30 - Simon Shack then uses a comparison split screen / side-by-side shot of Pavel Hlava’s video footage and Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage, suggesting that a “Similar Gentle Zoom-out” and “Similar Angle of WTC and Airplane”.

If this was a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage, the perspectives and angles would be the same, as they would have been taken from the same location or in very close proximity. Simon Shack says they are “similar”, which implies they are not the same! This is a key point, because looking at the two videos suggests that they were captured from two different locations, and would prove that Pavel Hlava’s video footage is genuine and not a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s.

From previous research I conducted into Michael Hezarkhani’s video, it can be shown that his location was on the top deck of a ferry which was stationed in Battery Park.
http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/flight-175-and-truth-about-truth-in-7.html
 

This corresponded with Carmen Taylor’s location, where she took her photographs – and they too show something very similar to Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage. Carmen Taylor disclosed her location to Canadian researcher Jeff Hill in a phone call (at a time code 1 minute 44 seconds into the conversation).

Carmen Taylor phone call here below:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/JeffHillsPhoneCalls/Pumpitout.com%20-%20Carmen%20Taylor%2014%20Oct%2007.mp3

To prove that Pavel Hlava’s video is different, and not a re-edit of the Hezarkhani video I set-out to find exactly where Pavel Hlava was located when he took his video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower.

Please see location images below:

Using the Google Street view images above, we can now determine that Pavel Hlava captured his video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower when he was at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel entrance.  To understand the difference in locations of Michael Hezarkhani and Pavel Hlava I plotted their locations on a map.

See map below:

As we can see from their locations above on the map, Pavel Hlava and Michael Hezarkhani were quite some distance away from each other. Simon Shack fails to point this out when making his claim that Pavel Hlava’s video is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s.

Another thing which Simon Shack doesn’t take into account is the camera’s zoom level in Michael Hezarkhani’s video, which can give you a false perspective of his location compared to Pavel Hlava’s location, which was closer to the South tower.

See example below:

This comparison screen-shot above in the September Clues film at 100:30 looks quite convincing in backing up Simon Shack’s claims regarding a re-edited version of Michael Hezarkhani’s video. Also note how Simon Shack has squashed the Hezarkhani video, which makes it appear more like Pavel Hlava’s video.

When watching complete versions of both videos, you can see the zoomed-out sequence in the Michael Hezarkhani video gives you a completely different perspective from Hlava’s, demonstrating perfectly that they were taken from two different locations.

See below: camera zoom analysis comparisons

Simon Shack also fails to explain that the Hezarkhani video was zoomed-in when he captured the plane in his video footage, whereas Pavel Hlava’s was already zoomed-out when he captured the plane in his video footage. In the Michael Hezarkhani zoomed-out sequence it shows a different foreground, compared to Pavel Hlava’s already zoomed-out sequence. This proves conclusively that the two videos were taken in different locations to each other! We can even see different buildings in the (real) foreground, as shown in the two images below!

 

I have shown that Pavel Hlava’s video was taken from the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, and the foreground is genuine in his video, so we can now see that Simon Shack is clearly wrong in his suggestion of one or more “missing” buildings, to support his claim of ‘video fakery’ . This is shown at 100:51 in his film.

Again when analysing Simon Shack’s claim, it becomes clear that he conceals evidence – for example by not showing the viewers the full Pavel Hlava video sequence. Instead, Simon Shack decides to show a still image, thus concealing clear evidence about one or more of the “missing” buildings – which are, in fact, visible in the both videos!

See below: video evidence of the "Banker's Trust" building, which Simon Shack claimed was missing.

The screen-shots above were taken from this link here: https://youtu.be/ryl-o6XzL7s


See Below: Supporting evidence using a computer 3D model of the "Banker's Trust" building location in the Pavel Hlava video.

In conclusion:

Again questions are raised about Simon Shack’s presentation of video evidence and the methods he uses in his film, September Clues. Why did Simon Shack not show the full video sequence of the Pavel Hlava video? This would have proved there was no “missing building” ! Why did Simon Shack claim Pavel Hlava’s video was a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video, when clearly both videos are taken from two different locations, which was easily established when researched correctly?

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 the ‘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?

It appears Simon Shack is overseeing a Psychological Operation to promote ‘video fakery’ to lead people away from closely studying other explanations for the 9/11 video evidence. When people believe they have an explanation for the anomalies, it stops them studying the evidence any further. This personally happened to me for several years, and in that respect, Simon Shack’s Psychological Operation worked, as I didn’t continue to study closely, because I thought I had the answers… How wrong I was.

For further information regarding Simon Shack read this article by written by Andrew Johnson in May 2012:  9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175 - http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60
  

This case is now closed.

September Clues - Layers of Deception - (Part Two)

By 9/11 Mark Conlon 
Edited by Andrew Johnson

In this analysis I will focus on Simon Shack’s claim in his film September Clues regarding the plane’s nose bumping into a ‘layering-line limit’ as the plane’s nose exits from the WTC South tower building in the Fox News ‘Chopper 5’ live coverage. In particular I will focus on the abrupt cut-off of the plane’s nose, closely studying the following preceding frames leading up to the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence, so I can verify whether there is evidence to support Simon Shack’s claims of the plane’s nose being cut-off by a ‘layering-line limit’ and also whether a ‘layering-line limit’ is present at all in the Fox News ‘Chopper 5’ live coverage?  

My reference material link from which I conducted my video analysis of Simon Shack’s video is from his official YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/gORu-68SHpE

Abrupt cut-off of the plane’s nose analysis:

At 6:54 in the September Clues film Simon Shack asserts that the graphic inserted CGI plane’s nose visibly bumps into the layer-limit in the Fox News ‘Chopper 5’ live coverage. See below image screen-shot taken at 6:54 in September Clues film where the plane’s nose is abruptly cut-off.

Clearly in the above screen-shot image at 6:54 in September Clues, Simon Shack shows the plane’s nose appearing to be abruptly cut-off by an alleged ‘layering-line limit’.

I found this theory confusing because in the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ video sequences Simon Shack uses in his September Clues film at 7:14 and 7:23 do not show an abrupt cut-off of the plane’s nose in the identical frames. Additionally, the plane’s nose appears to be intact in proceeding frames as the plane’s nose continues forward before the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence. How can this be if the plane’s nose according to Simon Shack is disappearing behind a ‘layering-line limit’?

I decided to compare two Fox News ‘chopper 5’ nose-out identical frames taken from Simon Shack’s film September Clues.

See below: Identical frame screen-shots at 6:50 and 7:14 in September Clues 

When analysing the two “identical” frames of the plane’s nose they did not appear to be identical at all! Consider the plane nose which Simon Shack presents at 6:50 in his film, compared to the plane’s nose in the identical image at 7:14 in his film. The 7:14. The second image is different to the first. I decided to take a closer look and do a pixel analysis of the two planes' noses. 

See below:  Pixel Analysis:

In the identical frame at 7:14 in the September Clues film, softer pixels of the end of the plane's nose are present. How can this be if the plane's nose has allegedly bumped into a ‘layering-line limit’ as Simon Shack claims in the earlier identical frame at 6:50? Inverting the colour of images seems to make these differences clearer (see below)

Inverted Colour Pixel Analysis:

I then looked at another “identical” frame showing the “Nose out” from 7:23 in Simon Shack’s film 

See below: Analysis identical plane ‘Nose-out’ frame at 7:23

 

Again softer pixels are observed with the end of the plane’s nose which was intact and not abruptly cut-off, like we see in the 6:50 identical frame showing the plane’s nose cut-off. Again, how can this be? According to Simon Shack’s theory, the plane’s nose is bumping into the ‘layering-line limit’. We now have two identical frame images showing the plane’s nose ‘intact’ and not abruptly cut-off.

See below: Example highlighting Simon Shack’s theory of the ‘layering-line limit’

If the ‘layering-line limit’ was in place as Simon Shack claims at 6:50 in his film we would not be observing any pixel soft edges of the plane’s nose in the other two identical frames he uses in his film at 7:14 and 7:23.

See all three identical frames - 6:50, 7:14 and 7:23 of the planes’ noses for comparison below:  

In the pixel analysis it appears that pixels have been removed off the end of the plane’s nose in the 6:50 frame, compared to the other two identical frames of the plane’s nose pixels, which show no abrupt cut-off of the plane’s nose.

This now calls into question whether a ‘layering-line limit’ is present at all in the video footage as Simon Shack claims, because the other two plane noses in 7:14 and 7:23 would not be ‘intact’ if they were meant to be disappearing behind a ‘layering-line limit’ as Simon Shack suggests.

To test Simon Shack’s ‘layering-line limit’ theory further I did an analysis of the preceding frames in the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ video footage to see if the plane’s nose disappears behind the ‘layering-line limit’ – as it should, if it was continuing forward behind the ‘layering-line limit’ before the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence.

In the analysis below, I have used a Fox News ‘chopper 5’ sequence which Simon uses in his film at 4:46. This particular sequence which Simon Shack uses contains the ‘abrupt cut-off’ of the plane’s nose. I thought this would be an ideal sequence to test and analyse his theory for evidence of a ‘layering-line limit’ in the video footage. 

From my analysis above it appears that the plane’s nose remains intact in the preceding frames right through to the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence. There is no evidence of the plane’s nose disappearing behind a ‘layering-line limit’. This proves beyond any doubt from the video evidence in Simon Shacks own film at 4:46, that there is no  ‘layering-line limit’ in the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ video footage, because the plane’s nose does not disappear or get abruptly cut-off.

This is also supported by the other video evidence of the preceding frames in Simon Shack’s film at 7:23 where he uses the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ sequence which demonstrates the plane’s nose remaining ‘intact’ throughout the whole sequence, with no ‘abrupt cut-off’ or disappearance behind any ‘layering-line limit’ in the preceding frames to the ‘Fade to Black’ sequence.

See below: Other preceding frames video evidence at 7:23

 

 

Conclusion of the Evidence:

We have three different plane noses in the Fox News ‘chopper 5’ sequences used in Simon Shack’s film September Clues. Two of which identical frames 7:14 and 7:23 were analysed to show that both plane’s noses are not abruptly cut-off by a ‘layering-line limit’ as suggested by Simon Shack in the 6:50 identical frame. To further support this evidence of the plane’s noses remaining intact and not disappearing behind any ‘layering-line limit’ is the preceding frames analysis, where I analysed the preceding frames in Simon Shack's Fox News ‘chopper 5’ sequences he uses at 4:46 and 7:23. 

Questions have to be asked and seriously considered…

Does this suggest Simon Shack has manipulated the plane’s nose to suit his theory regarding the ‘layering-line limit? In the Pixel analysis, pixels appear to have been removed from this frame at 6:50 when compared to the other two plane noses in the two identical frames at 7:14 and 7:23 in his film.
 

From my own analysis using Simon Shack’s own film evidence, it suggests that some type of manipulation has taken place to remove the softer pixels around the plane’s nose in his 6:50 frame. Was this done to support and advance his theory regarding the plane’s nose allegedly bumping into its own ‘layering-line limit’?

As we have seen from all the video evidence in Simon Shack’s film, the preceding frames all show the plane’s nose intact leading up to the ‘Fade to black’ sequence, which would be impossible if there was a ‘layering-line limit’ as Simon Shack suggests.

Other supporting evidence suggesting Simon Shack manipulated the plane’s nose becomes more apparent when you compare the identical frame sequence he uses in his earlier version of his film September Clues.

See the screen-shot comparisons below:

In the earlier version of September clues the plane’s nose isn’t abruptly cut-off by the alleged ‘layering-line limit’ observed in the later film version. The frames are identical, yet the plane noses are very different.  Is this conclusive evidence of manipulation of the plane’s nose by Simon Shack?   

Other researchers have raised questions about Simon Shack’s ‘nose-in’ ‘nose-out’ evidence in the past. There is an interesting video clip here of Richard D. Hall discussing with Andrew Johnson, Simon Shack’s analysis of the plane’s nose that is in his film regarding the Fox News ‘chopper5’ ‘video. It is interesting to note that both Richard D. Hall and Andrew Johnson suggest that some type of manipulation has taken place regarding Simon Shack’s evidence he uses in his analysis of the plane’s nose. Short video clip here below:

Summing-up, I suggest a strong possibility that Simon Shack has removed the end of the plane’s nose in his 6:50 frame to support his ‘false’ theory for a ‘layering-line limit’. The video evidence analysis I have conducted and presented in this article does NOT support any such ‘layering-line limit’ theory as suggested by Simon Shack in his film. Has Simon Shack himself manipulated video frames to promote the idea that the video fakery on a larger scale to explain the anomalies in the behaviour of Flight 175 when it allegedly crashed into the South Tower? Is this because the videos are actually real and show an image of something which was not a real physical plane? I.e. is Simon Shack disseminating disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that an advanced image projection technology was used to create the illusion of plane crashes?


Thank you for reading and caring...