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.
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.
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.
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.
I have done a video analysis of claims made by 9/11 researchers - Killtown and Ace Baker, in relation to "alleged" audio fakery in the
Michael Hezarkhani video. I will demonstrate in my analysis that their
was a deliberate attempt to mislead people towards the wrong
conclusion and cast doubt in peoples minds over the authenticity of the
Michael Hezarkhani video.
It has takes some explaining because of the nature
of their deception, however I thought it was best to explain it using
video format rather than writing it in an article format. I didn't find
it easy to present this analysis and it took me half an hour to explain
it all in the video, however I have known about this deception for 4
years and thought it was time to put the record straight and expose
those two shills for what they are. I know I'm not the best film editor,
but hey my message and analysis is honest.
I may consider adding some written notes to this post in the future to add more information, however for now I think the video explains the deception and misdirection carried out by both Killtown and Ace Baker.
This is a review and response to Steve De'ak's latest
"derogatory" article called. "Tools of the Trade: Mark
Conlon". In his latest article we see another insight into the
kind of mentality, attitude and nature of De'ak, while never addressing any of
the points about "video fakery", which he uses to support his "flawed"
"multiple missile" theory.
De'ak's introduction to his article below:
De'ak says..."Just a quick poke at Judy Wood’s tool,
Mark Conlon. From his post below, he seems to be nursing a grudge.
He won’t take comments on his blog and he is fond of being indignant and of
accusing me of lying, so I thought I’d add a little fuel to his fire".
My Analysis of De'ak's Introduction:
Yet again we have an example of De'ak's true colours,
(colours spelt the English way Steve) of where he is lying and being
derogatory. I am not a "tool" of Dr. Wood (whatever way De'ak means
this term), I have NO contact with Dr. Wood. I have only met Dr.
Wood once in October 2011, after her talk she gave in the UK. I own a copy her book Where Did the Towers Go, and
have read it. This qualifies me to
explore Dr. Wood's evidence she presents in her book. Also, please bear in mind, that I
have never said that I've done research on the how the buildings disappeared.
My research has been mainly in relation to video fakery, and the
video evidence of the second plane. Perhaps De'ak could show some honesty in his reporting of the
facts instead of trying to associate me with Dr. Wood, or having some type of
collusion with her. This is De'ak's mind of fantasy, and not reality.
Also, De'ak knows already that I don't allow comments on my
blog-page, as mentioned in my response in to him in December 2017. People can contact me
directly through the "Contact Form" on my blog instead, and many people do. This also stops spamming in the comments section on the blog. Please
note, De'ak has never contacted me using the contact form. The reason this is
important to make this point is, because De'ak has brought it back-up again
and also because De'ak's accusations of being "stalked" or
"targeted" by people who ask him difficult or challenging questions
on his "public" comments sections on his blog and YouTube channel.
De'ak likes to plays the "victim" card and then
rationalises his abusive "bad" language towards those who dare to ask
him to clarify his theories. It should be obvious by now that I don't wish to
create such drama, unlike De'ak does with my blog readers. My boundaries are clear with my comments section on my blog, his are not, as he also complains about spamming,
which is why I explained in my open
response to him on the 19th December 2017, why the comments section on my blog are switched off, and I only invite people to contact to me through the "Contact Form" on my blog.
A word of advice to "Grandpa De'ak", don't invite
comments on your "public" videos or articles/blogs if you don't like it, while at the same time accusing people of "stalking" or
"targeting" you when you put yourself into the public
domain. This just smells of double standards to me.
Decoding De'ak's Fuzzy Logic
Below is a paragraph from my blog which De'ak responds to in
his latest blog post.
Steve De’ak relies on “video fakery” because without it his
“multiple missiles” theory cannot be valid, and the fact we have now “proved”
and “exposed” the “video fakery” to be a psychological-operation over and over
again, he does not want to discuss it any longer and has subtly shifted the
debate to his “multiple missile” theory which is based on just 9 people’s
accounts from the mainstream media reports, which is a contradictory position
by Steve De’ak, as according to him the media were complicit on 9/11, and
according to Steve De’ak they produced “fake” videos and live coverage on 9/11?
Yet he has no issues “cherry picking” mainstream media accounts as truth
regarding missiles hitting the North Tower, while ignoring all the other
evidence of eyewitnesses, videographers and photographers accounts, who seen a
PLANE. De’ak would rather make wild accusations against those people calling
them liars, and fabricators of their video evidence and being part of a giant
conspiracy on 9/11 without a single shred of evidence to support his bizarre
theories. “Does “PEOPLE BASHING” come to mind”? De'ak's response below:
Nope. Actually Mark it isn’t video fakery that I
rely on for my conclusions, it is the evidence at the scene of the crime,
evidence that you refuse to address. I guess this is where I should be
acting all indignant that you lied! Gasp!
Note, more profanity swearing from De'ak. Firstly, De'ak
claims it's not about "video fakery", but in reality it is all about
"video fakery". Let me be clear, De'ak has promoted video
fakery and has promoted several unfounded claims
about the Michael Hezarkhani video on Jim Fetzer's show. De'ak claimed the "smoke was frozen" in the Michael
Hezarkhani video to allow a plane to be inserted into the video. I demonstrated that De'ak's assertions were factually incorrect in my article. Later, De'ak
retracted from promoting this claim about the Michael
Hezarkhani's. See below:
Secondly, De'ak claimed that "15 frames" in the
Michael Hezarkhani video showed no movement in the video, which was seriously
scrutinised by another 9/11 planes researcher Conspiracy Cuber, and also by myself separately, which showed none of
the frames from the "15 frames" were completely held still or
motionless as De'ak claimed. Again this was later admitted and retracted by
De'ak, yet he promoted this again afterwards, which was rather strange considering De'ak's response to Conspiracy Cuber in the YouTube comment section. Was this
forgetfulness from the self-termed "Concerned Grandpa"?
Thirdly, we also have De'ak accusing Michael Hezarkhani
himself of "fabricating" his video and "fuzzing-out"
and "blurring-out" the plane gash hole in the building. This is something which I addressed
in an analysis video I produced, which was conveniently overlooked by De'ak, and he
has never spoken about it or addressed my rebuttal, other than making "false" claims and name
calling towards me in a public Facebook Group. This behaviour by De'ak, while at the same
time shockingly admitting he had not "listened" or
"watched" the video
analysisI did in relation to the claims he had made on Fetzer's
show.. WHY has he not wanted to talk about the analysis, however would rather call
me names instead?
Let me add, the person who runs the "9/11 Plane
Hoax" Facebook Group, where De'ak was calling me names, and not talking
about the analysis video I had made, was the person who first alerted me to De'ak's comments about me, which were inaccurately reported in his Paparazzi
blog post, where he yet again accused people of "stalking" or
"targeting" him. Furthermore, De'ak mentions a "frauds list" that I (Mark Conlon) apparently added him to. Let me be clear again, there is 'NO' reference in
the article I wrote to the list of names being a "frauds
list" as De'ak claims in his Facebook comment above. The
"frauds" comment came from the person who runs and is an admin for the 9/11
Plane Hoax Facebook Group. See below:
Perhaps De'ak should realise if you are going to talk in a public forum about people, it means members of the public can read
and see what you are saying about them. This again highlights the "victim
mode" De'ak sinks to, by making out he is being "stalked" or
"targeted" by people, when it is him who is speaking about
others and not the research which was being presented about his theories, and not
him the person.
Let's continue...
So to be really clear, this is about "video fakery" because De'ak has
made several unfounded claims about video
fakery, the same as he talks about "layering" and "masking"
in his videos, where he implies how "they" - (the perps) concealed the "multiple missiles" which hit the North and South Towers in the videos? Again his
theory involves "video fakery". WHY is De'ak egar not to discuss this
area of research that I have mainly been investigating for that last 5 years?
It appears De'ak wants to discuss evidence of the crime scene, yet doesn't
actually want to discuss the actual video evidence of the crime happening,
WHY?
If it is not De'ak's belief that it is not about video
fakery, why is it that not one video shows multiple missiles hitting the North or South Tower, WHY? Please answer this question Steve!
The overwhelming testimonies of eyewitnesses speak of a
"large plane". De'ak's logic here is everyone is either controlled in
NY, or are liars. Yet he chooses to accept 9 accounts of a missile or missiles being
fired at the WTC Tower, which were reported through mainstream media sources. Yet De'ak tells us the media were part of the
conspiracy, putting-out false information. Question, is this not false information about a missile then? In the source that De'ak cites, only 1 out of the 9 reports, reported seeing a missile being fired at the WTC
Towers. And note, a missile not missiles. All the other 8 are just unidentified accounts or reports from the police radio dispatches,
which could have come from one source which was recirculated and heard by many
emergency personal on the ground. Also not, many of the reports reference accounts in the third person, not the first person, which implies it wasn't their first hand experience. See below:
Let's take a closer look at a list of eyewitnesses who saw a
plane, which De'ak ignores
Fire Chief Pfeifer is listed in the list above, who seen the
plane impact the North Tower. Pfeifer has never mentioned other than a plane
impacting the North Tower, he makes no mention of multiple missiles, as De'ak claims they did. Here's a video of an interview below with Fire Chief Pfeifer
recalling what he witnessed.
De'ak ignores all the eyewitnesses listed above, yet De'ak relies on one second-hand report of
someone seeing a missile, and not missiles. WHY does De'ak ignore the overwhelming
witness testimony evidence?
Moving on...
De'ak fails again to address another paragraph from my
blog post, which he offers no response to in relation to video
fakery.
See below, my paragraph which De'ak cites in his blog
post
So the “real” debate which Steve De’ak is avoiding is
“video fakery” and it is now clear why, as without “video fakery” De’ak’s “multiple
missiles” theory causing the plane shaped holes in the WTC buildings falls
apart, which makes it invalid. This explains why he avoids the debate with
myself and Conspiracy Cuber regarding “video fakery”, as he has had to
publicly “retract” certain theories in the past he put-out about the Hezarkhani
video, and has now tried to get myself and others into a “false” debate using a
“phony-bone of contention” of a “multiple missiles” theory causing of shaped
plane holes. Something which I and others will discuss if he can get past his
sheer childish rudeness and bad attitude when questions are put to him.
De'ak's response below:
"Still nope, see above and stop avoiding the “real”
debate which is the lightly bent aluminium cladding followed by the progressively
worse-damaged steel columns bent sharply to the right, in a completely
different direction than the cartoon plane (or advanced projection technology)
was travelling".
Analysis of De'ak's response...
Again, note De'ak doesn't want to discuss video fakery, he wants to shift the debate away from video fakery to the damage
of the towers. Consequentially he avoids and ignores all the evidence
documentation of the crime events taking place in the video evidence record. He
must answer why his theory involving "multiple missiles" causing the
damage to the WTC Towers isn't described in the overwhelming evidence record? Calling people liars simply isn't evidence.
De'ak chooses to ignore all video evidence, and would rather
we accept his theory, that the damage was caused by multiple
missiles, despite no evidence to support his theory in any of the
videos, photographs and overwhelming eyewitness testimonies.
Here's another paragraph from my blog below, which De’ak
cites in his latest article. His response is very telling where accuracy and
honesty seems to be vacant yet again.
My paragraph which De'ak cites in blog article below:
I will be addressing several “lies” and inaccuracies told by
Steve De’ak about myself, which he has knowingly put-out, such as myself “deleting”
YouTube comments from his YouTube comments thread. Twice he has told this lie,
as he was informed twice about why my comments were removed due to YouTube’s
termination of my YouTube channel (I have evidence to prove it).
Please note, in my article to which is being referred to in De'ak's Facebook comments below by De'ak, I never referenced the list, or to De'ak being a "fraud"., it was the person who runs (admin) the "9/11 Plane Hoax" Facebook Group Gari Jones who referred to the list as "Frauds" not me. De'ak has never acknowledged this fact. WHY?
De'ak's response:
I couldn’t give a rat’s ass why your comments went
missing, and why you think this is important is beyond me. Sue me if I
missed the memo. You wanna talk “lies?” Fine! The videos of
flight 175 are all lies, including Hezarkhani’s! (And I have the
evidence to prove it!)
Analysis of De’ak’s response:
De’ak says, “I couldn’t give a rat’s ass why your
comments went missing, and why you think this is important is beyond me”.
Well if De’ak couldn’t give a rats ass why my YouTube
comments disappeared from his YouTube comments thread, why did he make such a big deal about it in his blog article? Why has he brought-up this
issue, not once but three times, if he doesn’t care? Surely this suggests he does give a
rats ass or else he wouldn’t have brought it up again. De’ak seems happy to make this false statement three times, that I
deleted my YouTube comments. WHY does De’ak promote this false information
repeatedly? Surely isn't it about time he reported this correctly and
accurately?
In the second part of his sentence De’ak again reverts to
implying that all the videos are lies and fake, and Hezarkhani's.
De’ak offers no evidence to back-up these claims, just a statement, which is
not based on any evidence or facts. This is an interesting display by De'ak, highlights perfectly why De’ak needs the videos to be promoted as fake, because without the video fakery aspect, his theory of
“multiple missiles” is rendered invalid. This also highlights the smearing against people such as,
Michael Hezarkhani and the other 60 videographers by De’ak,
and it is plain to see yet again. I challenge De’ak to produce his video
fakery evidence to which he alludes to at the end of his sentence. I await his
evidence.
Another paragraph from my blog post which De’ak cites in
his article, with another interesting lack-luster response. See my paragraph below:
Plus, I will be documenting comprehensively the lies and
other distortions he has told regarding comment exchanges between each other.
Perhaps an indication why he did not want the “accurate” archive of comments
exchanged between us which ‘Conspiracy Cuber’ offered to him which he outright
rejected. Perhaps if he had, he might of accurately reported or reflected the
true nature of the comments exchanged between us, and maybe reflected
truthfully what was said, instead of distorting it to suit his false memory of
what was said, where he’d rather play the man and not the ball with personal
attacks about me and not my research or analysis. There will be a full
report with evidence demonstrating what has taken place, and the reader can
decide for themselves whether or not Steve De’ak was being completely
“truthful” and “honest” in what he said about me and his own comments and
responses.
De’ak’s response below:
Start with documenting the damage evidence and stop being
such a pussy. But before you do that admit you’re the one stretching the
truth. Here’s a screen shot from your blog where you’ve been acting like
a Trekkie who just learned Spock’s ears are fake. Do I really see that
you included a link to the long discredited claim that “7D” technology exists?
Analysis of De’ak’s response:
Here we observe De’ak’s use of disrespectful name calling to
which he can't help but resort to, by calling me a “pussy”. Is this really
someone who portrays himself as a “Concerned Grandpa” and an adult? I do
wonder? It seems he wants to get me into a name calling situation, this is a classic distraction by De'ak, whereby he seems hell-bent on creating drama. His name calling doesn't matter, as it says more
about him than does me. This shows weakness in his arguments, so please
keep-it-up Concerned Grandpa.
Moving on, apparently I am accused of stretching the truth by De'ak, but
De’ak couldn’t resist to start his labelling again in relation to
holography. It has nothing to do with Trekkie (Star Trek) as much as De’ak
would like people to believe, as holography has been around since the 1800's, well before Star Trek. So another example of De'ak wondering-off and introducing
"Star Trek" again. It's getting boring now Steve come on shack a
leg!
I will deal with De'ak's comment at the end of his
sentence below:
De’ak said: Do I really see that you included a link to the long discredited
claim that “7D” technology exists?
Here, De’ak correctly pointed-out an observation regarding the
video I linked to in the blog post. De'ak was correct in his information that
it was NOT holographic technology in the video I linked to in my blog. I
want to acknowledge this point for the record out of fairness and accuracy to De'ak.
For the record, my mistake...
The 7D whale video was only a promotional video for a tech start-up that shows
what type of technology they want to develop. Let me add though,
TruthorFiction.com who De'ak cites, is a Snopes mainstream debunking website
with possible links to the mainstream such as, Time Warner. Rich Buhler was the
founder and president of Branches Communications, an LA company that produced
radio, TV, and film media for many years. He also founded www.TruthOrFiction.com in 1999. However,
this does not excuse my mistake! The 7D whale video is from a company
called Magic Leap who do augmented reality, and it was not witnessed in "real
time" which the video depicts, which is correctly pointed-out by De'ak, although this still does not disprove no existence of holographic
technology, but I do admit my mistake, pointed-out by De'ak regarding me using
the 7D Whale video as a demonstration of holographic technology, when it is not. It is important that I practice what I preach about other 9/11 researchers and take responsibility
for my mistake and am humble enough to correct and acknowledge my mistake.
De'ak's denial of holography even existing:
Here's a reference of the type of holographic technology to create powerful images which I allude to regarding De'ak's denial in my
article. Please see videos below talking about holography.
The interactive transmission process is known as Musion Live
Stage telepresence and offers a new way for people to holographically
communicate across the globe - face-to-face in real time. Three Christie
Roadster HD18K DLP® projectors were used for the first-ever transmission of
live, interactive 3D holograms from London and Montreal to Orlando, Florida
from June 17-19, 2009.
In the video below: Jeri demonstrate theories behind
holograms and how to project 3d images from a standard hologram plate. The
table used to make the hologram.
See video below: Holograms, Holographs: "Introduction
to Holography" 1972 Encyclopedia Britannica Films. Examines the process of
holography, types of holograms, and the uses of the hologram for artistic and
scientific purposes.
See video Below: Fairy Lights in Femtoseconds - Tangible Holographic Plasma.
Fairy Lights in Femtoseconds: Aerial and Volumetric Graphics Rendered by
Focused Femtosecond Laser Combined with Computational Holographic Fields.
Again, I will leave it up to the reader of this article to make up their own
minds whether Steve De'ak has been completely honest in his statements and
whether or not he has conducted himself in a respectful manner which is worthy
of any respect anymore.
Thank you for reading and caring...
UPDATE: 8th February 2018
After further research it is interesting that Steve De'ak didn't offer this link from Michelle Starr's article, alongside his efforts of
trying to debunk the (whale) video I linked to in my article, regarding Magic Leap. Instead, De'ak chose a mainstream debunking website instead.
According to Michelle Starr on
October 20th 2015. "Stunning Magic Leap demo is as real as augmented reality gets"
"The mysterious augmented-reality start-up has released a
video demonstrating its technology with zero special effects or compositing."
I
came across this fascinating video called "Who is Alexander Ace
Baker". As part of my research I have been studying some of the background
connections Ace Baker has... His arrival and presence in the
"No-Planes" movement is somewhat dubious following the strange
behaviour that followed involving him "faking" his own suicide on Jim
Fetzer's show, while causing division in the
"No-Planes" community.
It has also has been shown that he was deliberately promoting "false"
video fakery misinformation, thus consequently casting doubt in people's mind over
the authenticity of the video evidence record of "Flight 175". He
also denounced the use of holographic technology.
Video information below:
Published
on 14 Jul 2009: Who is Alexander Ace Baker
Alexander
"Ace" Baker AKA Alexander Collin derives his YouTube name from
Alexandra Kollontai http://www.youtube.com/collinalexander
Reilly, Ace of Spies:
This British adventure series is a dramatisation of the fantastic real-life
adventures, from 1903 until the mid-1920s, of the Russian-born British agent
Sidney Reilly AKA Sidney Rosenblum, who worked for MI6 (British Military
Intelligence) as Agent ST-1.
The programme is based on books by Robin Bruce Lockhart - "The amazing
true story of the world's first international super spy."
Other
background information about Ace Baker:
Ace
Baker and his wife work extensively for the media, both TV and Hollywood. Ace
and his wife Claire Marlo, also have a production company called “Invisible Hand
Production”.
They
have worked for companies such as: NBC, ABC, FOX, CBS and Paramount, Columbia,
Disney, Franchise. Hollywood was busy paving the minds for the 911 attacks!
What is Ace doing among them? Ace Baker has produced the musical scores mostly
for films by Fred Olen Ray and John Puch - Franchise Phoenician Entertainment. Some films below produced by Phoenician Entertainment, note: the themes of these films; involving plane crashes, hijackings and terrorism.
He
has also awarded a gold medal for his beat programming of ICE-T records. Ace
also works with Reality Check Studios who is a software partner of Vizrt.
Vizrt’s
product suite is used by the world’s leading broadcasters including: CNN, CBS,
Fox, BBC, Sky, ITN, ZDF, Star TV, TV Today, CCTV and NHK. Also, many
world-class production houses and corporate institutions, including both the
New York and London Stock Exchanges, utilise Vizrt solutions. The 2002 VIZRT-
Missile Defence Agency Connection which also works with Directed Energy Weapons,
is confirmed since 1996. Vizrt are also connected to 3D holographic imaging. The type of technology Ace Baker was trying to steer people away from being involved on 9/11. Other research
shows that Vizrt/RealityCheck/realityx is actually an Israeli Defence Company: http://www.vizrt.com/news/press_releases/article1347.ece.
Does this show indirect links to holographic technology and directed energy?
My conclusion:
Does this suggest Ace Baker’s role was to infiltration the “No-Planes” community, and smoothly
gain confidence and trust from the 9/11 research community. Jim Fetzer played a major role in helping Ace Baker promote the idea
of “video fakery” using compositing through his radio shows - The Dynamic Duo and later the The Real Deal. Ace Baker claimed that compositing techniques such as 'Luma Keying' was used
to insert a fake plane into the live TV coverage of 9/11. However there
is one problem with this theory. Luma keying was shown to not be possible in the Chopper 5 video, plus not ALL eyewitnesses could be faked or actors. There would be no way of controlling all the photographers and videographers in
the New York area who really captured what they took to be a plane crashing into the
towers.
Does it also suggest Baker's role was to create a cover story by providing an explanation to
explain all the anomalies captured in the video footage such as, disappearing wings and the non-existent collision
defying Newtonian Physics between the South Tower building and the plane, captured in the video evidence footage. Was the “video fakery” explanation used as a form of perception management to cover up
the use of an advanced 3D Volumetric image projection hologram, which was potentially captured by many photographers, videographers and seen by the eyewitnesses?
It is not known to many people that Ace Baker was also hired to produce his film (The Great American Psy Opera) promoting "video fakery" while also
discrediting Dr. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds and other 9/11 researchers. This
information came to light due to the late Gerard Holmgren disclosing
Ace Baker's e-mail asking Holmgren to be involved in his film. Ace Baker has since disappeared after faking his own death on Jim Fetzer's radio show, in a bizarre fake suicide. It was established that Baker was still alive and did the stunt as a piece of "art performance".
I will leave the reader to draw their own conclusions about Ace Baker's role in the 9/11 research community.
