More Ad hominem Attacks From Steve De'ak

By Mark Conlon

I want to highlight and bring attention to Steve De'ak's response, to a short article I wrote, and video I made. De'ak took to the 9/11 Plane Hoax Facebook page thread, by calling me a "Con"? De'ak, a custom to reverting to his usual name calling, which deflect attention away from actually talking about the content of my video analysis. 

De'ak admits in his Facebook comment that he didn't read or listen to what I was saying in my video, as he only read a so-called apparent "frauds" list. 

This is an inaccurate reference in his comment, as I make NO reference to the list being a "list of frauds" in my article, which he would realise if he had read the article or watched the video. In the paragraph I provide a "brief" history of "No-Planes", then show a list of people who have promoted video fakery, no-planes and also holograms.

Please Note: The two people I refer to in my article above Rosalee Grable AKA (The Webfairy) and Gerard Holmgren passed away.. which I reflected in the article saying "Sadly both are no longer with us".. 

If you read through all my previous blogs, there is no reference to either Rosalee Grable or Gerard Holmgren being disinformation OPs, and they are NOT certainly portrayed in a "negative" light, or being called "FRAUDS" in my blog articles. I have merely quoted a fact that both believed "No-Planes" were involved in the WTC attacks, and also believe TV Fakery/Video Fakery was involved, which I used to believe was correct, although now after extensive research of my own, disagree with both Grable's and Holmgren's assertions. To be clear, I am only stating from observing Grable in her many interviews, Grable's own position on the subject. The same for Holmgren. I just state their last known position on the subject, which is fact.

 Please Note: The list accurately states that Steve De'ak has promoted Video Fakery, No Planes and Crash Test. At no-point is he called a "fraud" or was the list called a "frauds list". In my articles I have always been respectful towards Steve De'ak, and expressed why I disagree with his findings or theories regarding "video fakery" and the Hezarkhani video. 

In fact I showed Steve De'ak credit for showing "humility" twice and admitting when he was wrong about two theories he had changed his position on after observing new evidence. So I am not quite sure as to why he feels this is bad to document people's theories, or make light of the changes in their positions once held. 

I even quoted where I had changed my own position on the Fox News - Chopper5 "Nose-out" sequence because of new evidence presented to me. So Steve's issues towards myself pointing-out when people are wrong in their theories, according Steve De'ak makes me a "CON", which doesn't really quite sit with the investigative research method, as after all my main body of research has proven conclusively the many flaws in Simon Shack's - September Clues film. Is this something I should not have talked about or pointed out regarding the "incorrect" points which are made by Simon Shack, or should I have kept quite about it so we can all still believe the inaccurate points proposed by Simon Shack in his September Clues film? Would this bring around progress in finding the truth, just so people can feel nice and comfortable in their "comfort zone"... NO! So why does Steve claim this is a dishonest practice, and not someone looking to find the truth...?

Please Note: I have not called Steve De'ak a "fraud", as he claimed I have in his latest Facebook comment. I would ask him to produce evidence of me calling him personally a FRAUD...?

I also correct De'ak's accusations, that "I" had deleted my YouTube comments, which I addressed in my recent response published - 19/12/2017 to De'ak's questions to me on his blog/website - 17/12/2017. As I explained, my YouTube Channel was terminated by YouTube, thus deleting all my comments in the thread, and not by me deleting my comments, which De'ak has again "inaccurately" repeated in his Facebook comments. 

On a final note, all this diverts attention away from the "original" findings of the analysis I did regarding the Hezarkhani video, thus pointing-out the incorrect claims made about the Michael Hezarkhani video and also my analysis of Steve De'ak's claim about Michael Hezarkhani fuzzing-out, blurring and fabricating his video evidence to conceal the plane gash, which I believe to be incorrect, and based on no evidence offered other than what Steve De'ak says Michael Hezarkhani did to his video.

So I will leave it to the viewer/reader of the article and my update to make of Steve De'ak's claims about me and to draw your own conclusions.

Thank you for reading and caring...

New Video Evidence Showing Ferry Boat Docked In Battery Park

By Mark Conlon

I feel this is important new evidence discovered by YouTube channel: Conspiracy Cuber, who posted this latest video evidence of the ferry boat docked in Battery Park which Michael Hezarkhani and Carmen Taylor were stationed on when they documented the 2nd WTC event. See Below:

Make sure you check-out the video description, as there is a lot of information that has been included.

Please follow me to keep track of new blog articles I post, or you can contact me using the Contact Form located at the bottom of the side-bar on the right hand side of the blog. 

Thanks for reading, watching and caring! 

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!

Mysterious Flashes & Fumes Near The Woolworth Building on 9/11

By Mark Conlon

In the video below, it shows some type of fumes rising and a mysterious flash, along with some small flying objects at very low altitude, which don't appear to be either a helicopter nor birds. It appears some type of electrical static interference was happening near the Woolworth building on 9/11. 

Also captured was two other mysterious flashes. See below: 

In the image below, it shows some type of trail, whether it is fumes of some kind is hard to tell? 

Again, in the image below, it shows another trail. Again whether it is fumes of some kind is hard to say?

Conclusion:

Could this be part of the electrical static interference from the directed energy weapon, which was used to destroy the World Trade Center Towers? What is observed in the video and the GIF images are very strange. 

Were the mysterious orbs captured in videos and photographs, which I wrote about in a previous article, connected to what we are observing here in the video and GIF images?   

This definitely needs further investigation!

Thanks for reading & caring!      

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

By Mark Conlon

This is an excellent analysis of Simon Shack's film September Clues by the late Anthony Lawson, who made some great observations in relation to Simon Shack's presentation of "alleged" evidence of TV Fakery on 9/11. 

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

 
Disclaimer: I "disagree" with Anthony Lawson's final point he makes at the end of his video in relation to the "impossible plane speed" that a 767 Boeing plane can travel at 572mph at sea level. 

As we can see yet again, Simon Shack uses very deceptive means to present his evidence. This has been a common theme with Simon Shack throughout all his September Clues films, which can no-longer be trusted to present 9/11 video evidence in a fair and balanced objective manner. 

Simon Shack appears to lack any "real" credibility anymore, and has proved himself to be extremely poor at conducting research analysis, or he is simply setting-out to deceive his viewers of his films. 

What exactly is Simon Shack's mission? 

Is Simon Shack promoting the idea of ‘video fakery’ to discredit the video evidence record of 9/11? When studying Simon Shack’s presentation in his film, it becomes clear that he has continually omitted or misrepresented evidence – by using cleverly timed editing.  This has therefore concealed evidence which shows a number of his claims are false. From my past analysis, where I have disproven other claims he makes in his film, it is now appearing to be a deliberate pattern of deceptive and misleading behaviour, rather than poor research skills, suggesting an agenda to promote disinformation about the video record on 9/11. Is Simon Shack promoting the idea that ‘video fakery’ explains anomalies in the behaviour of Flight 175 when it crashes into the South Tower? Is Simon Shack attempting to discredit the 9/11 videos to help conceal what was really captured in the videos? Again, I ask the question - is Simon Shack disseminating disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that advanced image projection technology was used to create the illusion of plane crashes?

Is Simon Shack is overseeing a "Psychological Operation" to promote ‘video fakery’ to lead people away from closely studying other explanations for the 9/11 video evidence. When people believe they have an explanation for the anomalies, it stops them studying the evidence any further.

This is a great analysis by the late Anthony Lawson. R.I.P, who really "BUSTED" Simon Shack along time ago and should be credited for his efforts to expose the "falsehoods" contained in Shack's film, although I completely "disagree" with Anthony Lawson's final point at the end of his video in relation to the "impossible plane speed" that a 767 Boeing plane can travel 572mph at sea level. I have posted his video purely on merit for the September Clues analysis.  
  
To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission and his unusual connections, read this article by Andrew Johnson:
9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175

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

By Mark Conlon

Strange anomalies were captured in the second plane crash videos of United Airlines - Flight 175, such as, disappearing wings, impossible plane speed for Boeing 767, no collision on impact with the building, explosion happening after the plane had already entered the building and no apparent debris falling to the ground of the plane along with no breakage of the tail section on impact.

 
Explaining these anomalies has always been promoted as video fakery, and planes being inserted or composited into the video footage, which creates several issues in itself. Video fakery or CGI does not explain how eyewitnesses observed the plane in the sky, and also how they were able to track a non-existent plane with their video cameras? A more plausible hypothesis put forward by Richard D. Hall in his 2012 radar analysis, where he asserts a drone flying parallel projected the image of the plane, which was observed and captured by people with their cameras. This hypothesis does provide some answers to the anomalies captured in the videos.

See Below: Image created by Richard D. Hall.

Richard's hypothesis isn't without its issues though, as he explained, because the military radar data showed radar coordinates 1500 feet to the side of the civilian radar flight path coordinates, which could’ve been the result of a fixed offset error. In October 2016, Richard D. Hall updated his radar analysis and hypothesised that it could've been a Tomahawk missile, which was cloaking an image of a plane around itself. This hypothesis seems more plausible, and does go someway to provide answers to all the anomalies captured in the videos.

John Lear spoke of about the Airborne Holographic Projector, which has been talked about in various manuals and articles. See below: 

Also there is a 'Washington Post' article which describes a secret program established in 1994 to pursue technology of a "holographic projector" for deception purposes. The article certainly gives us a glimpse into the thinking in the military circles for weaponry of a different kind. See below:

And again also discussed in this article below: 

Closing Note:

I believe this is a valid area for further in depth research, which could go some way to explaining the anomalies captured in the Flight 175 plane crash videos. 

What we can determine is, video fakery cannot explain all the anomalies sufficiently which I have outlined above and in several blog articles. In some cases it appears to me that the video fakery and CGI theory has been used as a distraction, or some type of psychological operation, by the likes of Simon Shack, Killtown and Ace Baker, to lead people away from knowing about the image projection technology. Also, video fakery cannot account for how hundreds, if not thousands of  people observed the plane in the sky, and crashing into the South Tower. Plus, how did the perps have complete control over all the videos and photographs in the NY area without the possibility of at least one or two videos/photographs slipping through the net showing no-plane hitting the South Tower at all? This has never been fully explained by Simon Shack, Killtown or Ace Baker when promoting the video fakery theory.

Image projection technology, would not need to have complete control over any of the eyewitnesses, photographers or videographers, which would limit the people involved in the operation. By carrying it out this way using image projection technology it can explain the lack of plane crash physics and impossible plane speed. The image projection hypothesis explains all the anomalies far better than does the video fakery theory.

Finally, the question I am left with is, was the video fakery theory deliberately circulated to explain the anomalies, but also to act as a cover to help keep the image projection technology a secret, because the powers-that-be intend to use the technology again in a Project Blue Beam style operation in the future? Was the planes on 9/11 a trial run to see if the people could tell the planes were not real? All legitimate questions.   

Thank you for reading and caring!    

Unexplained Anomalies in the Sky on 9/11

By Mark Conlon

In this short blog post I want to draw attention to some strange anomalies captured in various videos and photographs during Flight 175's approach towards the South Tower before it crashed. Please see a selection of the video still images and photographs below showing the anomalous looking orbs. To begin my analysis please see the Park Foreman video still image below:

Many people have tried to explain these strange white anomalies as paper which was ejected from the North Tower after it got its damage from the "alleged" first plane. However if you look at the size of the "alleged" plane in this still video image the anomalous objects would have to be far too large to be pieces of paper flying around in the air. Plus, the anomalous objects, if indeed they are solid objects are showing-up in different frames of the video as the "alleged" plane approaches the South Tower.    

Here's a closer look at the Park Foreman video still image capturing two anomalous features in the video footage. See below:

In the video still images above this does not appear to be light reflections from the video camera. Plus in this later frame the anomalies appear to be quite large in comparison to the "alleged" plane. Also, there is a photograph which also picks-up these the anomalies from a different angles and directions.

Here's a a comparison of both Park Foreman video with photograph inlay below:

Here's another view from another camera location which show more of the anomalous looking orbs before the South Tower receives the plane shaped hole. 

The fact we are seeing these anomalies from different directions and camera angles can rule out reflections from the sunlight into the cameras, as the sunlight direction is behind from a south west position, however could indicate something else such as orbs which are periodically being captured by the cameras, which may not be visible to the naked eye. This needs further investigation and research as to what indeed these strangle anomalies are, as they are definitely NOT paper as suggested by many researchers.

Update: 20th December 2019 - Orbs spotted in this photograph below

Update: 10th March 2020 - Orbs also captured in Rob Howard's photograph below

Thanks for reading!