9/11 "No-Planes" Perception Management Past & Present

By Mark Conlon

Edited By Andrew Johnson

In recent months, there has been a noticeable increase of material being removed by social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook. In October 2016 Richard D. Hall Released his latest version of his 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis. Some months later YouTube decided to block the 3D Analysis video for some unknown reason? Strangely this week the video has been "unblocked" by YouTube, again for no apparent reason? Was this a timely decision in light of Richard D. Hall's UK Tour, where no doubt Richard would've spoken about this? The video was still blocked as of the 1st April 2017 when I last checked it on his YouTube channel, just after the FBI released an alleged set of new 9/11 images from the Pentagon attack, which just happens to show plane wreckage after the alleged plane crash.

In the 2012 version of Richard's 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis, he made the case that the flight paths in each video matched up correctly in each of the 26 suitable videos from the 50 available videos that he analysed, showing the plane's path for long period time for analysis. Richard's video demonstrates that all the plane paths match in all the videos he analysed, disproving Simon Shack's matrix theory, and inserted CGI Plane. This has seriously challenged the analyses put forward by two well known “no-plane” theorists and 'video fakery' promoters; Simon Shack and Ace Baker. 

This new evidence and hypothesis from Richard D. Hall's 3D Radar Analysis findings, it has been met with great resistance from no-planes and 'video fakery' promoters.

Why is the 3D Radar Analysis findings so dangerous...?

Videos of the WTC “plane impacts” show impossible crash physics (further discussion below) - including disappearing wings, impossible speed and damage not consistent with real plane crashes. Hence, the videos demonstrate that we was not seeing a 'real' plane in the videos. RDH’s analysis essentially shows this was not because of 'video fakery' – rather, it tends to confirm that some type of 'image projection' of a plane was captured in the videos. Is it then the case that this conclusion has had to be covered-up – in order to conceal the existence of an advance technology? Was 'video fakery' introduced as a clever cover story to help lead people away from the discovery of this advanced technology 'image projection' system, just like the "thermite" explanation which was introduced as a cover story by Steve E. Jones to cover-up the 'real' evidence of the destruction of the twin towers from an advanced directed energy weapon. Exposing 'video fakery' as a cover story makes Richard D. Hall's findings so devastating to the cover-up of the advanced technology used to destroy the WTC and create a sophisticated cover up. I now consider the 'video fakery' explanation to be a “cover story”. This has led me to notice an attempt to promote the idea of planes on 9/11 when the evidence is to the contrary. An example of this was a recent release of images on 31st March 2017 by the FBI. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/fbi-9-11-pentagon-terror-attack-photos/

The alleged “new images” of the 9/11 event at the Pentagon include 3 of plane wreckage. This release may have therefore been because questions being continually asked about the lack of physical evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11.

Out of the 16 images released, 3 show plane wreckage which is allegedly from 'Flight 77' at the Pentagon crash site.

Perception Management:

Is this the subtle promotion in this news headline to reinforce the idea that planes crashed on 9/11..?

Daily Mail Online Article Below:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4365662/FBI-pictures-reveal-aftermath-9-11-attack-Pentagon.html?ito=social-facebook

In Thierry Meyssan's 2002 book called Pentagate, Meyssan states that the attack on the Pentagon was not carried out by a commercial airliner but a missile. The central thesis of the book is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. This conclusion was heavily criticised by other prominent 9/11 Truth Movement members such as Jim Hoffman (himself a supporter of Steven E Jones).

It is my opinion that Meyssan's astute observations of “no-plane” at the Pentagon event also led to early observations of no-planes at the crashes in New York, which then led to the introduction of a clever "psychological operation" called 'video fakery' to conceal what really happened.   

Thierry Meyssan also challenged the idea that piece of wreckage shown in the 2 out the 3 images released by the FBI above, came from the alleged airplane (Flight 77). Meyssan concluded it was more likely to have been planted debris wreckage from another plane because the piece of wreckage did not match any part of an American Airlines plane.

Image from Thierry Meyssan's book Pentagate - Page XVI

 

Meyssan stated that the piece of wreckage in this image does not match any piece of a Boeing 757-200 painted in the colours of American Airlines. He also mentions, that this wreckage was never inventoried by the Department of Defence as coming from Flight 77.

Is the release of these new images a subtle attempt to promote and reinforce the idea of planes being involved in the 9/11 attacks because of the growing doubts by many people regarding of the lack of evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11...?

See the new images at this Yahoo news link below. Note: In the online yahoo article they have ordered the set of 16 images starting with the 3 images of plane's (Flight 77) alleged wreckage.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/fbi-releases-harrowing-pictures-showing-slideshow-wp-102643014.html

Perception Management: Cover-ups, Muddle-ups and Psychological Operations:

The video evidence of 'Flight 175' allegedly impacting the South tower demonstrates a contradiction of Newton's 3rd Law, as if there's no real collision between the South tower and the plane. Also contained in the videos are some very strange anomalies regarding the disappearance of the plane's wings as it approaches the South tower before impact.

It must be 'video fakery' and 'CGI planes'...? REALLY, or something else..?

From my own research which I have conducted into the September Clues film and the explanations proposed within it to explain the anomalies, which I have written about and posted here on my blog, I have proved that many of the points that Simon Shack makes are without doubt incorrect at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, and appears that the 'video fakery' idea was put-out deliberately as a psychological operation (psy-op) to lead people away from studying the video and photographic evidence. Thus, 'video fakery' has been used as a cover story to conceal the use of some type of advanced 'image projection' technology to put an image of a plane in the sky, an image  which was then videoed and photographed by many eye witnesses. This explains why the 'crash physics' was not consistent with a 'real' plane colliding and crashing into a steel and concrete building and also the impossible speed which the plane was travelling at as it approached the South tower in the videos. 

September Clues Perception Management...?

 

 

Another point which has been observed in my analysis of the September Clues film surrounding 'video fakery' is that Simon Shack makes false claims about certain videos such as the Michael Hezarkhani video, where in one example he claims the Pavel Hlava 2nd strike video is a "re-edit" of the Michael Hezarkhani video footage. This is provable disinformation which appears to be deliberately put-out by Simon Shack to promote 'video fakery' and to also to discredit both videos as fake which is the main objective - to cast doubt regarding the video evidence record. I suggest this is done to conceal the advanced technology 'image projection' used which was captured by the many videographers and photographers in New York.

The films and the prominent 'video fakery' so-called researchers did a good job, as I didn't check their theories/hypothesis and I took it for granted for over 6 years that they had given me all the correct answers to the anomalies which I observed such as, no crash physics and disappearing wings in the videos, thus believing 'CGI planes' were inserted or composited into the videos which led me to believe all the videos and photographs were faked.

How wrong I was when I did eventually check their claims which turned out to be grossly incorrect. Initially, I thought this was because they had made genuine errors in their research but soon, I could see an emerging theme and behaviour pattern of deliberate, deceptive means of clever misdirection and editing to falsely promote to the viewers a false answer to all the anomalies in the videos.

I now consider 'video fakery' to be a psy-op in itself. Perhaps this answers why the latest set of FBI images have been released as part of the perception management, as more people are starting to see that 'video fakery' doesn't sufficiently answer all the questions surrounding the anomalies captured within the videos. Simon Shack is concealing the truth instead of exposing it along with managing people's perceptions.

Perhaps this is why recently, the censorship and perception management of any discussion of the no-planes evidence on 9/11 has been stepped-up, so I consider this timely release of these FBI images showing the plane wreckage at the Pentagon to be “damage control and perception management” because of the failings in their psychological operation cover story that is 'video fakery'.

To find out more about Simon Shack (Hytten), please read Andrew Johnson's research article here: 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 
 
Thanks for reading...

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.