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.
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.
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
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.
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
He's a short video made by the late Anthony Lawson, who made some great observations in relation to Simon Shack's presentation of evidence regardng the plane "nose-out" comparisons which Simon Shack produced in his September Clues film, to prove the nose of the plane exited the South Tower in the Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage.
As we can see Simon Shack has used a very deceptive way 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 video evidence objectively. Great work by the late Anthony Lawson. R.I.P.
See below: Simon Shack's comment to this video on Steve De'ak's YouTube channel.
While Steve De'ak admitted his mistake, which I commend him for doing so, Simon Shack reverted to using disrespectful names in his comment by calling people "clowns" and "goons" and would rather accuse people of being shills. See video below:
Please note: Simon Shack doesn't say the video isn't wrong in its proof that it was not "video fakery", however would rather avoid that point by promoting another "false" video about an "alleged" 21-ft tall jumper video.
This is classic avoidance by Simon (Hytten) Shack, which speaks volumes as to what Shack's role is by promoting "falsehoods" while accusing others of doing the same as he has been doing since 2007 in his films. I have been quite sceptical of Steve De'ak's points he has promoted in the past, but he has admitted his mistake in this case, and also about his "Frozen Smoke" theory in the Hezarkhani video. This is something that Simon Shack never does, which speaks volumes about his mission and goals to find the truth.
An area of research we never hear too much about anymore is the two "mystery" planes flying in and around the vicinity during the second "alleged" plane event where allegedly "Flight 175" impacted the South Tower in NY. The FBI were aware of at least one of those two "mystery" planes, as reported by Jennifer Spell a videographer who captured the "mystery" plane in the background as "Flight 175" crashed into the South Tower in her video footage. She provided the FBI with a copy of her video which showed a "second" plane parallelling the "alleged" United Airlines "Flight 175" plane. To my knowledge nothing more was ever disclosed to Jennifer Spell by the FBI (during their visit for a viewing at her home of the video footage) as to what the second plane was doing in that area at the time of the plane crash into the South Tower.
Jennifer Spell Video (2nd Mystery Plane)
Other videos also captured the 2nd mystery plane parallelling the alleged "Flight 175" Plane. See below:
A 'Camera Planet Archive' video also captured a close-up of the "mystery" plane. See below:
Many researchers have tried to explain this mystery airplane as the "Doomsday" airplane. The "Doomsday" airplane was a different shape and and was mainly white in colour with a black stripe running down the middle of the plane, and without any black markings on the wings or tail section of the airplane as seen in the mystery plane images above captured in the South Tower event in NYC.
The fact that the "mainstream media" made a big story about a mystery plane in the Washington area, where they correctly reported it as the "doomsday" airplane could indicate some type of "perception management" to play down second "mystery" plane's presence in NYC.
Doomsday Airplane:
See Video from 12th September 2007 from Anderson Cooper's 360 program, where
they re-visit the "mystery plane" that flew over the white house on
9/11.
As stated in the news report '9/11 Commission' co-chairman Lee Hamilton said, "he had a vague recollection of someone mentioning of a mystery plane" however yet the staff who looked into it didn't raise it as an important issue to investigate it, and wasn't raised for discussion. Was they referring to the Washington mystery plane, or mystery airplanes in NYC also, as there was at least two mystery airplanes in the vicinity during the South Tower event. See images below:
So we have
two mystery planes that were captured in other videos and photographs in and
around the NYC area during the second "alleged" plane impact into the
South Tower.
Why didn't we hear anything about the existence of these mystery planes in NYC? Was the story used by CNN to confuse or play down the issue in relation to the existence of the mystery planes in NYC, or to confuse people with the Washington "Doomsday" airplane sightings, which one might of expected in light of the events in NYC, that such a "Doomsday" plane would be flying around in the Washington area?
Another unusual object flying-by during the 2nd plane impact event was captured in Fox News' "Chopper 5" video. The flying object is moving at speed in the opposite direction? It doesn't appear to be picked-up by other videos or photographs. What was this object doing? Is it a helicopter? Or was it dumping debris?
Hypothesising: Because of all the "strange" anomalies captured in the second plane crash videos of the "alleged" Flight 175 airplane, such as; disappearing wings, 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 and impossible plane speed.
Explaining these anomalies has always been promoted via way of "video fakery", which has several issues in its theory. My personal hypothesis suggests similar to a hypothesis first put forward by Richard D. Hall in 2012, regarding a drone flying parallel to Flight 175 projecting an airplane. This was mainly suggested because of the anomalies in the military radar data which showed the plane's coordinates 1500 feet to the side of the civilian radar data plane path.
My suggestion to the drone theory flying to the side of Flight 175 would be to ask the question; were those two unidentified "mystery" planes involved in some way deploying some type of "image projection" of a plane, which is why the existence of the two "mystery" planes was never investigated fully or discussed publicly by the 9/11 Commission?
Image By: Richard D. Hall
Airborne Holographic Projector which has been talked about in various manuals and articles. See below:
Also this 'Washington Post' article talks about a secret program established in 1994 to pursue technology of a "holographic projector" for deception purposes. The article certainly gives us a glimpse of the thinking in military circles for weaponry of a different kind. See below:
I believe this is a valid area for research in relation to the alleged "Flight 175" plane crash at the South Tower, and could go some way to explaining far better the anomalies captured in the "Flight 175" plane crash videos.
Video fakery cannot explain the anomalies sufficiently which I have pointed in several articles in the past, and in some cases appears to be used as a distraction or some type of "psychological operation" by the likes of Simon Shack and Ace Baker. Video fakery cannot account for how they could control the many hundreds of people who seen a plane in the sky hit the South Tower. Plus, how did the perps have "complete" control over the video and photographic record in the whole area of NYC without the possibility of at least one or two videos/photographs slipping through the net showing no-plane hitting the South Tower? This has never been fully explained by Simon Shack or Ace Baker when they are promoting the "video fakery" theory. With "image projection" technology such as technology mentioned above, the perps would not need to have "complete" control over any of the eyewitnesses, photographers or videographers, which could limit the people involved to a small few in carrying out the event. By carrying it out this way using such technology can also explain the lack of plane "crash physics". I think the possible use of an "image projection" technology explains the anomalies far better as a hypothesis than does "video fakery", especially with the possible involvement of the two mystery planes which has not been fully explained to this day. I'm not saying this is how it was done, or if they were even involved, it is just a hypothesis put forward and I'm open to change it as and when I gather new evidence in my investigation and research.
For sometime now I have been unsure about the Fox News "Chopper 5" nose-out video footage showing a plane's nose "exiting" the South Tower building. My initial reasons for my doubts were firstly alerted when Richard D. Hall did a comparison study on the plane's nose before it entered the South Tower building and afterwards as it exits the building. Richard's study comparisons were in contrast to what Simon Shack presented in his September Clues film, which led me to be not as convinced regarding it being a plane's nose exiting the South Tower.
Over the past few months I have spoken to someone who has decided to conduct in depth research into this area of the 9/11 plane videos, and analyse exactly what we were seeing, not just the Fox News "Chopper 5" video, but all the relevant plane videos of the alleged "nose-out". I believe this "new" analysis and findings to be of the utmost value in determining what we were really observing in the 9/11 "Flight 175" plane videos of what was "exiting" the South Tower.
Please watch this new video analysis below and consider carefully the evidence presented in it, and also be aware of how your views on this subject have been shaped by people such as; Simon Shack and Ace Baker. Consider this new evidence!!!
Analysis below is conducted by someone who goes under the name "Conspiracy Cuber" on YouTube.
Conclusion:
Considering new information and evidence during an investigation should be an on-going exercise if we are to get closer to the truth. Remaining open to it is imperative. After seriously considering this new evidence it has "confirmed" earlier doubts that we was "not" looking at a plane's nose "exiting" the South Tower building, but a dust cloud which resembles the shape of the plane's nose in a lot of the "lower" quality videos. Also remember the suggestion that we were seeing a plane's nose was something continually told to us by Simon Shack and Ace Baker. Did this cause many people including myself to not fully study this video evidence carefully and objectively, because I had already along with many others had my observations shaped by such suggestions, something which I have spoken about many times in my previous articles. Misdirection has been a key to misleading many of us from observing the videos and what is actually contained in them. This is convincing new evidence, and I ask all of you to seriously consider it before hanging-on to such suggestions from the likes of Simon Shack and Ace Baker.
This video analysis has been made in response to a video that was uploaded to YouTube by "No Planer TV" - Ryan Rodrigues. My video analysis rebuttal is intended to "point-out" errors in a video posted by Ryan Rodrigues by some called BS Registration, whereby the video claims the Michael Hezarkhani video is fake. The errors I'm pointing-out are factual errors, and not fiction, unlike the ones suggested in BS Registration's video, which I believe was made sometime in 2007. I am also questioning the veracity of both Peggy Carter (also known as, Pearl Vasudha Chanter) and Ryan Rodrigues, because both of them say, Simon Shack's September Clues film "is the bestevidence to prove fraud". I address this also in my analysis and rebuttal video below.
I also deal with this image and comment posted by Ryan Rodrigues below:
Ryan Rodrigues posted this image on 2nd October 2017, 2 days after being told by Andrew Johnson (Admin) not to post anymore comments "off-topic" in the 'Real 9/11 Truth-Movement' Facebook Group, on the 30th Sept 2017. Question: Why did Ryan post "off-topic" again two days later asking for a response to his image above?
Please watch my video analysis rebuttal below: Viewing in "full-screen" mode is suggested to see smaller details.
See reference: to my comment in my video regarding Ryan Rogrigues' comment saying he has "respect" for Simon Shack's work:
It appears "factual" evidence pointing-out flaws in the BS Registration video and Simon (Hytten) Shack's claims are being ignored, because of a continued persistence to post "old" videos such as this one by BS Registration, who's aim was to be to cast doubt over the authenticity of the Michael Hezarkhani video. A pattern which I am all too familiar with, and have documented in a number of blog articles. Sadly it seems to be raising its ugly head once again.
In this blog-postI'm going to share an important conversation I had with Jim Huibregtse, a first hand 9/11 eyewitness and videographer in NYC at the time of the first plane strike and the rest of the events in NYC. Jim Huibregtse captured the North Tower's damage roughly 5 to 10 seconds after the first plane hit. The reason for my contacting him was because I had cited his video as evidence against Simon Shack's claims regarding the plane shaped hole being made bigger using photo-shopping in Richard D. Hall's show and my blog articles. Jim's video proved that Simon Shack was wrong. I also wanted to know what video camera he was using, when he videoed the North Tower's damage. (Brief clip of Jim Huibregtse video) below:
I also expressed my concern that people who videoed the plane hitting the South Tower were accused of fabricating their videos, something which I do not believe after studying most of the video evidence involved. I want to thank Jim Huibregtse for answering my question, but also thank him for offering "extra" information which I did not ask him about, out of respect really because of the sensitive nature of the event and being only a week after the anniversary. Also I'd like to thank him for letting me share this conversation publicly, as his eyewitness account is helpful to help us all understand what may or may not have hit the towers.
Conversation: 18th September 2017
Mark Conlon: Hi
Jim. I'm contacting you to ask if you could tell me what type of video camera
you videoed your 9/11 footage with if you can remember? I have been doing
research into some of the videos of 9/11 you see. Just to be transparent with
you, I believe all the videos and photographs are real, and I have always been
against people who suggest otherwise and challenged people who say so. I would
be grateful for any information that you could help with. If I've offended you
in anyway contacting you out of the blue like this, then I apologise for that,
it wasn't my intentions, and would understand if you do not reply back. Kind
regards, Mark Conlon.
Jim Huibregtse: Mark
the camera used was a Sony DCR-PC1, with an external microphone, with a suspect
cable. At times I forgot to turn the microphone on, hence the silence on some
of the footage, and at other times, the cable added some clicks and pops as my
hands moved about the camera. There's been no alteration of the original
footage, it's straight from my original footage. Hope this helps.
Mark Conlon: Hi
Jim, thank you very much for responding and answering my question, I really do
appreciate you taking the time to do that. Yes that answers my question. Just
to ask, can I refer to what you have told in this message, as this is a private
message? Regards, Mark.
Jim Huibregtse:
By the way, I just watched Part One of the "Layers of Deception". My
last name is pronounced "hugh-brex". Also, I had (unfortunately) just
shut off the camera seconds prior to the first plane flying directly over my
head, and, as the Sony camera took several seconds to turn 'back on', I missed
the plane directly overhead, which I would have been able to shoot with ease
had I happened to have my camera running. A fact I'll take to my grave.
However, with that said, and being a bit of an airplane enthusiast, I can
plainly, and without hesitation, confirm that it was an airplane that hit the
North Tower. It roared 700 feet above my head, and I got a full 3 or 4 second
view of it passing directly overhead. Whether or not it was the plane in
question, or some 'other' plane I obviously can't confirm, but it was a large
'commercial style' aircraft, without a doubt. Also, a friend of mine visited
the Shanksville site sometime after the event for an editorial photo shoot, and
he collected some bits of the aircraft, that were merely scattered about, and
gave me a couple of (apparently) engine parts, postage stamp in size which I
have somewhere, likely in storage. I'm sure any capable aircraft engineer could
identify the part, and what aircraft it came from, unless of course, the items
were planted there. To me, the evidence of a thermite fire, and molten rivers
of melting steel supposedly from a fire of insufficient heat would be the
avenues I'd like to see investigated. Also, the many eyewitnesses in the sub
levels of the Trade Center who witness explosions prior to their collapse. To
say nothing of the video evidence of "squibs". A spectacular event to
say the least. Good luck with your investigations.
Mark Conlon: Hi
Jim, thank you so much for this information. It really helps in the research
I'm doing. Because of the sensitive nature regarding that day and what it left
on people in NYC and around the US, I was debating whether to contact you or
not. It was your video evidence which made me see through the "conspiracy
theories" doing rounds on the internet surrounding the "video
fakery" suggestions from Simon Shack and his September Clues. Obviously,
your video was the first discussion area with Richard D. Hall in his show
regarding Simon Shack. Regarding the plane, I'm glad you have provided this
additional information to me. I believe people seen a plane, and I believe the
videos are real. although have felt perplexed regarding the impact "crash
physics" and some of the other anomalies in some of the plane videos, like
disappearing wings which I've struggled to reconcile with myself and what it
could be. I've hypothesised but cannot explain it. I'm very open-minded and
explore or all areas, maybe they were "real" planes, however like you
say not the ones we were told to us in the official narrative. Very interesting
about the "Flight 93" debris which your friend found and what you
have. Thanks also for letting me know about that evidence. I felt quite bad for
the (videographers & photographers) who got accused of fabricating their
videos and photographs. I started to expose the misinformation surrounding it
all, hopefully to set the record straight. As for the thermite, there's been
quite a bit of a back story to it and the person who introduced that theory -
Prof Steve E. Jones in relation to the Cold Fusion "cover-up" in
1989. It's a bit much to go into, but if ever you get time or an interest in
this area I will pop a couple of links which will explain it far better than I
can. Also Dr. Judy Wood's presentation, again just in case if you ever have an
interest in this area. Anyway, I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to
speak to me, I do appreciate it and also how to pronounce your surname name Lol.
Best wishes for now Marcus. PS: Links I mentioned will be in a separate message
below:
Mark Conlon:
Dr. Judy Wood - Breakthrough Energy Movement conference in Holland, 2012https://youtu.be/T1NbBxDGSkI
I'd like to thank Jim Huibregtse for his time and honesty in this conversation. His account is so valuable in helping us get to the bottom of the "no-planes" saga and to cut through the "disinformation" put-out by Simon Shack and others' too many to name here, regarding the 9/11 video evidence. I'm sure we can all agree, the videos are "real" and they were definitely not fabricated by the videographers. An object (plane) was observed and heard in the sky hitting the North Tower. I think "video fakery" is being exposed for what it really is which is disinformation.
Here's an excellent video analysis of Simon Shack's September Clues "moving buildings" conducted by: YougeneDebs published 16th September, 2009.
This analysis by YougeneDebs demonstrates how Simon Shack "exploits" parallax views to "falsely" promote "video fakery" in the 9/11 video evidence record. Please see analysis video below:
As we can see in the analysis above, there is conclusive evidence that Simon Shack has knowingly "deceived" people by "exploiting" the parallax perspectives in his September Clues video, even though he was informed about his mistakes regarding the "moving buildings" in his September Clues film. unfortunately Simon Shack ignored this mistake and thus re-issued another version of his September Clues film with same mistake. What more evidence is their to present about Simon Shack's efforts to knowingly "deceive" people with his September Clues film in the name of promoting "video fakery", as it is now clear to see that he has been "deliberately" putting-out falsehoods and disinformation in his videos.
Here is an excellent video analysis of Simon Shack's - September Clues Addendum film, exposing some of the deliberate "falsehoods" put-out by Simon Shack. Details and video below are from "YougeneDebs" YouTube Channel Published on Oct 18, 2009. Update Note: Unfortunately, this video was removed by YouTube, however I have archived it at my BitChute channel here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/0MKKpjLsBHoY/
The video notes below:
This video is an investigation into Simon Shack's claim that a certain helicopter was
absent from network footage during the collapse of WTC2. A claim made in
his September Clues Addendum Chapter 1.
Now that we have more
information about a helicopter in the footage during the collapse of
Tower Two, we can make a better judgment about Simon's claim.
Did Simon cut out inconvenient and potentially contradictory facts? It would seem so! What
about poor research skills or wilful negligence? I see no effort that
Simon tried to find a longer clip of the zoom-in showing a helicopter
during the collapse.
And finally, did someone tamper with the
evidence to bleach out not one, but 2 helicopters? Did Simon have the
means, motive, and opportunity? Simon's methods seem to be very impressive, but for all the wrong reasons!
So,
Simon, himself, presented Pat the helicopter in live footage during the
collapse; completely debunking his own claim; demonstrating once again
that Simon publishes in the auto-debunkery genre. Thank you for watching and caring!
In this "brief" analysis I shall demonstrate Simon
Shack's "misrepresentation" of Flight 175's "alleged"
flight path at 26:10 in his September Clues.
See below: screen-shot from 26:10 in September Clues.
Simon Shack suggests the plane's flight path is
"rising" in the video? After past research conducted into Simon
Shack's claims and methods of his presentation of evidence, I questioned
whether or not Simon Shack had "accurately" represented the plane's
flight path in this video.
Checking the Evidence:
I decided to try and track the plane's "actual"
flight path (and not the plane flight path as suggested by Simon Shack in his
film). I did this by "overlaying" two different video frames using an
"earlier" time-frame and a "later" time frame as the plane
travels towards the South Tower. See two screen-shot images below:
In the two screen-shot images above I have
"highlighted" the two white boxes in two separate video frames, which
I decided to overlay the two video frames on top of each other so we could
track the plane's flight path more accurately and have a greater idea of the
plane's flight path. See the result below of the two overlaid images:
In the image above I added "red" lines to
represent and highlight the plane's angle as it banks when it continued
forwards in its flight path. I also added two "yellow" lines to track
the plane's engines which helped to "distinguish" clearer the plane's
flight path.
In the image below, I needed to add some more
information such as a Datum line (orange/black), which would give a
"true" representation and angle to work off, by striking a line
through the two buildings in the foreground. I also put a "red"
line through the centre of the plane, which also helped to highlight the
plane's flight path. See image below:
In the image above it gives us more information to work with
which can help determine whether or not the plane's flight path is in a descent
or whether it is "rising" as Simon Shack suggested
in his film.
What I did next was to find another video from a different
angle which I could apply the same set of highlighting lines to along with a Datum so I could compare. See image below: Please see the
highlighting lines Colour Key in the top left corner also in the image.
As you can see from the image above the plane is in a
descent, and clearly from the (orange/black) Datum line we can also
see that the plane tilts and banks sidewards. See both images for comparison
below:
See below: Short video showing the plane's
trajectory flight path to be descending NOT elevating like shack will have us
believe in his September Clues film.
Analysis Conclusion:
As we can see the plane's flight path was not
"rising", but was in a "descent", which has been
completely "misrepresented" by Simon Shack in his
September Clues film. We can clearly see that comparing both images together
with the extra informational lines, we see the plane tilting and banking as it
closer to the South Tower before impact, which can be seen consistently in both
images above.
Simon Shack appears to be "exploiting" parallax
which is a continuous theme throughout his September Clues films regarding the
plane's flight paths. Richard D. Hall's "Flight 175" 3D Radar Analysis proved
conclusively that all the plane's flight paths matched in each of the 26 videos
sufficient to be analysed from the 53 videos available, thus proving Simon
Shack's claims to "false".
Again, questions are raised about Simon Shack’s presentation
of video evidence and the methods he uses in his film September Clues. 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. From my past analysis, where I have disproved 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.
It appears Simon Shack is overseeing a "Psychological Operation" to
promote "video fakery" to lead people away from closely studying
other explanations for the 9/11 video evidence. When people believe they have
an explanation for the anomalies, it stops them studying the evidence any
further. This personally happened to me for several years, and in that respect,
Simon Shack’s "Psychological Operation" worked, as I didn’t continue
to study closely, because I thought I had the answers… How wrong I was.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)