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