Steve De'ak's Avoidance of "Video Fakery" & More Ad Hominem Attacks

By Mark Conlon

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!

It isn’t about me, and it isn’t about you – it is about the fucking evidence.

My response to De'ak's Fuzzy Logic

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 analysis I 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." 

Source: https://www.cnet.com/culture/magic-leap-shows-demo-video/

Who is Alexander Ace Baker (Colin Alexander)...?

By Mark Conlon

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”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Marlo

https://www.clairmarlo.com/

https://www.antiwarsongs.org/artista.php?id=10948&lang=en&rif=1

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.  

The North Tower Airplane Wing Gash and the Gelatin PSYOP

By Mark Conlon

In this short analysis of the first "alleged" plane impact explosion on the North Tower, I am going to demonstrate once and for all, that it was not a secondary explosion, or cutter charges that caused the plane wing gash 6 seconds after the initial explosion captured in the Naudet video footage at 8:46 a.m. on 9/11.

This suggestion has been made by countless 9/11 researchers over the years, and it is my belief that this idea has been deliberately put-out to ostensibly cover-up and conceal something else which took place during the time when the North Tower got its plane shaped hole.

Below, Simon Shack suggested in his short film - 9/11 Amateur film - Part 2, that a secondary explosion or cutter charges caused the plane wing gash 6 seconds after the initial explosion.

Below, Shack claims that the secondary linear explosion is made 6 seconds after initial impact using pre-placed charges.

When we study the Naudet video closely, this isn't what we observe regarding the behaviour of the explosion, which Shack, Ace Baker Jim fetzer and others have ostensibly claimed was a secondary event.

Detailed analysis and short video below:

Below, we can observe how the wind drifts the bright ball of glowing fumes across the North Tower face, in a westerly direction.

Below we can see how the glowing ball of fumes conceals the initial impact area, but as the wind drifts the glowing fumes across the face of the North Tower it begins to reveal the wing gash and plane shaped hole.

As wind continues to drift the fumes across the North Tower face it exposes the already made but hidden plane shaped hole, thus creating the illusion that the wing gash was created 6 seconds after the initial impact. It is the behaviour between the wind and the glowing fumes combined which creates the illusion of the appearance of the wing gash. This proves the plane wing gash was NOT made 6 seconds later, as suggested by various 9/11 researchers, however was simply an illusion.

Here's a short video below, highlighting the behaviour of the fireball and the reveal of the wing shape:

This video demonstrates without a shadow of doubt, that the plane wing shaped gash did not appear 6 seconds after the initial impact time. It was just concealed by the fumes which eventually drifted westwards across the face of the North Tower revealing the plane wing gash.
  
The Gelatin Art Students PSY OP & Cover Up of Advanced Technologies...

The Naudet video footage above has been cited by many 9/11 researchers such as, Ace Baker, Jim Fetzer and later Rebekah Roth, as evidence of proof of involvement of the Israeli art students group called Gelatin, who they allege are responsible for pre-planting the cutter charges and explosives in the North Tower to create the plane shaped holes. It is my belief (based on evidence) this story is a convenient cover story to conceal more significant evidence involving more "unconventional" means to create the plane shaped holes and also the illusions of the planes in the sky in New York.

Firstly, the Gelatin art students were not Israeli, they were Austrian. Secondly, they were not in the South Tower, so this does not account for the creation of the plane shaped hole in the South Tower building. Thirdly, the Gelatin art group were housed on the 91st floor of the North Tower, and the North Tower damage was between the 93rd - 97th floors. Finally, at the time of "alleged" impacts in the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. and the South Tower at 9:02 a.m. the earth's magnetic field fluctuated and spiked. As far as I am aware, bombs, explosives or plane crashes cannot cause the earth's magnetic field to fluctuate and spike in this fashion. This evidence has been concealed from public knowledge. See below:

 

The magnetometer fluctuations are indicative of some type of field interference taking place on 9/11, which happened during every event on 9/11. All 4 plane crashes and the destruction of the North Tower, South Tower and WTC 7.  Please watch this short segment taken from the - 9/11 Alchemy "Facing Reality" film below:

 
Watch Film Here: 9/11 Alchemy "Facing Reality"

It is my belief after carefully studying the Gelatin art student story, that the story was created and used to conceal the evidence I have cited above, thus to aid the promotion of "conventional" means to explain the creation of the plane shaped holes in the buildings, and also cover up the use of a sophisticated holographic "image projection" technology to create planes in the sky, which many people observed, photographed and videoed on their camcorders, thus why the "video fakery" PSY OP cover story was invented and introduced to conceal anomalies captured in the video and photographic evidence record - example, missing wings on the planes and lack of crash impact collision physics between the building and plane.

The name 'Gelatin' also implies explosives if you check the dictionary. 
 

 

However, 'Gelatin' is also related to holographic technology, as it provides 100% diffraction. Also it is referenced to in a declassified IDA Memorandum - An Israeli document from April 1987 called Critical Technology Assessment - Israel and NATO Nations. See Below:

So could 'Gelatin' be a cryptic clue as to the type of technologies deployed to create the plane shaped holes in the buildings and also the plane illusions in the sky on 9/11? At the same time we have the idea being promoted with a story reported in the New York Times on 18th August 2001 in relation to the Gelatin art students which has gained traction in the alternative media which ideally has created a cover story about them being Israeli art students and "bomb experts" which aids the cover-up of unconventional advanced technologies involved to create the planes shape holes and plane illusion. Ace Baker, Jim Fetzer and later Rebekah Roth have promoted this false story about the Gelatin art student group. They are not bomb experts, or Israeli, neither were they in the South Tower, which Ace Baker claimed in his Film - The Great American Psy Opera. Ace Baker's background is very suspect which I have written about here in this blog post and also Simon (Hytten) Shack's behaviour which Andrew Johnson wrote about in an article. Simon (Hytten) Shack also has usual connections with his brother's (Mario) sponsorship deal with the Bin Laden Group, and Shack's father worked for the United Nations. Shack also confessed to having done paid work for the European Space Agency. It is also interesting how the mainstream media have left the Gelatin art students story up online since 18th August 2001 which has helped to create this misleading "false" story, when more important evidence has been removed online. We have to consider that the story was deliberately put out and left up online for this very reason. Why is Ace Baker, Jim Fetzer and others so trusting of this story, when they know all too well how the mainstream media works; perception management and psychological operations?

Conclusion: 

From my analysis of the plane wing gash formation, it was not made by conventional explosives or cutter charges that were activated 6 seconds later, something which has been promoted by Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker, Simon Shack, Rebekah Roth and other researchers, who are most likely promoting this false information to conceal the involvement of "unconventional" technologies used instead to create the plane shaped holes in the North and South Towers and plane illusion in the sky. The Gelatin art students story has acted as a cover story and perception management mainly in the alternative 9/11 truth groups, which ostensibly introduced a "false" explanation for the creation and formation of the plane shaped holes and promote the use of conventional explosives, while ignoring and concealing evidence of the use of unconventional technologies such as, holographic and directed energy. It is interesting also what role the "video fakery" cover story PSY OP played to explain the anomalies captured in peoples' video and photographic evidence. Something I have written about extensively throughout my blogs.

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!

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!