By Mark Conlon
Edited By Andrew Johnson
In recent months, there has been a noticeable
increase of material being removed by social media platforms
such as YouTube and Facebook. In October 2016 Richard D. Hall
Released his latest version of his 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis.
Some months later YouTube decided to block the 3D Analysis video for
some unknown reason? Strangely this week the video has been
"unblocked" by YouTube, again for no apparent reason? Was this a
timely decision in light of Richard D. Hall's UK Tour, where no doubt Richard
would've spoken about this? The video was still blocked as of the 1st
April 2017 when I last checked it on his YouTube channel, just after the FBI
released an alleged set of new 9/11 images from the Pentagon attack,
which just happens to show plane wreckage after the alleged plane crash.
In the 2012 version of Richard's 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis, he
made the case that the flight paths in each video matched up
correctly in each of the 26 suitable videos from the 50 available videos that
he analysed, showing the plane's path for long period time for analysis.
Richard's video demonstrates that all the plane paths match in all the videos
he analysed, disproving Simon Shack's matrix theory, and inserted CGI Plane.
This has seriously challenged the analyses put forward by two well
known “no-plane” theorists and 'video fakery' promoters; Simon Shack
and Ace Baker.
This new evidence and hypothesis from Richard D. Hall's 3D
Radar Analysis findings, it has been met with great resistance from
no-planes and 'video fakery' promoters.
Why is the 3D Radar Analysis findings so dangerous...?
Videos of the WTC “plane impacts” show impossible crash
physics (further discussion below) - including disappearing wings, impossible
speed and damage not consistent with real plane crashes. Hence, the videos
demonstrate that we was not seeing a 'real' plane in the videos. RDH’s
analysis essentially shows this was not because of 'video fakery' – rather, it
tends to confirm that some type of 'image projection' of a plane was captured
in the videos. Is it then the case that this conclusion has had to be covered-up
– in order to conceal the existence of an advance technology? Was 'video
fakery' introduced as a clever cover story to help lead people away from
the discovery of this advanced technology 'image projection' system, just like
the "thermite" explanation which was introduced as a cover story by
Steve E. Jones to cover-up the 'real' evidence of the destruction of the twin
towers from an advanced directed energy weapon. Exposing 'video fakery' as
a cover story makes Richard D. Hall's findings so devastating to
the cover-up of the advanced technology used to destroy the WTC and create
a sophisticated cover up. I now consider the 'video fakery' explanation to be a
“cover story”. This has led me to notice an attempt to promote the
idea of planes on 9/11 when the evidence is to the contrary. An example of
this was a recent release of images on 31st March 2017 by the FBI. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/fbi-9-11-pentagon-terror-attack-photos/
The alleged “new images” of the 9/11 event at the Pentagon include 3 of plane wreckage. This release may have therefore been because questions being continually asked about the lack of physical evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11.
Out of the 16 images released, 3 show plane wreckage which
is allegedly from 'Flight 77' at the Pentagon crash site.
Perception Management:
Is this the subtle promotion in this news headline to reinforce the
idea that planes crashed on 9/11..?
Daily Mail Online Article Below:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4365662/FBI-pictures-reveal-aftermath-9-11-attack-Pentagon.html?ito=social-facebook
In Thierry Meyssan's 2002 book called Pentagate, Meyssan states that the
attack on the Pentagon was not carried out by a commercial airliner but a
missile. The central thesis of the book is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the
Pentagon. This conclusion was heavily criticised by other prominent 9/11 Truth
Movement members such as Jim Hoffman (himself a supporter of Steven E Jones).
It is my personal opinion that Meyssan's astute observations of
“no-plane” at the Pentagon event also led to early observations of
no-planes at the crashes in New York, which then led to the
introduction of a clever "psychological operation" called 'video
fakery' to conceal what really happened.
Thierry Meyssan also challenged the idea that piece of
wreckage shown in the 2 out the 3 images released by the FBI
above, came from the alleged airplane (Flight 77). Meyssan concluded it was
more likely to have been planted debris wreckage from
another plane because the piece of wreckage did not match any part of an
American Airlines plane.
Image from Thierry Meyssan's book Pentagate - Page XVI
Meyssan stated that the piece of wreckage in this image does
not match any piece of a Boeing 757-200 painted in the colours of American
Airlines. He also mentions, that this wreckage was never inventoried by the
Department of Defence as coming from Flight 77.
Is the release of these new images a subtle attempt to
promote and reinforce the idea of planes being involved in
the 9/11 attacks because of the growing doubts by many people regarding of
the lack of evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11...?
See the new images at this Yahoo news link below. Note: In the
online yahoo article they have ordered the set of 16 images starting with the 3
images of plane's (Flight 77) alleged wreckage.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/fbi-releases-harrowing-pictures-showing-slideshow-wp-102643014.html
Perception Management: Cover-ups, Muddle-ups and
Psychological Operations:
The video evidence of 'Flight 175' allegedly impacting the South tower
demonstrates a contradiction of Newton's 3rd Law, as if there's no real
collision between the South tower and the plane. Also contained in the
videos are some very strange anomalies regarding the disappearance of the
plane's wings as it approaches the South tower before impact.
It must be 'video fakery' and 'CGI planes'...? REALLY, or something else?
From my own research which I have conducted into the
September Clues film and the explanations proposed within it to explain the
anomalies, which I have written about and posted here on my blog, I have
proved that many of the points that Simon Shack makes are without doubt
incorrect at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, and appears that the
'video fakery' idea was put-out deliberately as a psychological operation
(psy-op) to lead people away from studying the video and photographic evidence.
Thus, 'video fakery' has been used as a cover story to conceal the use of some
type of advanced 'image projection' technology to put an image of a
plane in the sky, an image which was then videoed and photographed by many
eye witnesses. This explains why the 'crash physics' was not consistent with a
'real' plane colliding and crashing into a steel and concrete building and also
the impossible speed which the plane was travelling at as it
approached the South tower in the videos.
September Clues Film, Perception Management?
Another point which has been observed
in my analysis of the September Clues film
surrounding 'video fakery' is that Simon Shack makes false claims
about certain videos such as the Michael Hezarkhani video, where in one
example he claims the Pavel Hlava 2nd strike video is a "re-edit"
of the Michael Hezarkhani video footage. This is provable
disinformation which appears to be deliberately put-out by Simon
Shack to promote 'video fakery' and to also to discredit both videos as fake
which is the main objective - to cast doubt regarding the video evidence
record. I suggest this is done to conceal the advanced technology 'image
projection' used which was captured by the many videographers and photographers
in New York.
The films and the prominent 'video fakery' so-called researchers did a good
job, as I didn't check their theories/hypothesis and I took it for granted for
over 6 years that they had given me all the correct answers to the
anomalies which I observed such as, no crash physics and disappearing wings in
the videos, thus believing 'CGI planes' were inserted or composited into the
videos which led me to believe all the videos and photographs
were faked.
How wrong I was when I did eventually check their claims which turned out to be
grossly incorrect. Initially, I thought this was because they had made genuine
errors in their research but soon, I could see an emerging theme and
behaviour pattern of deliberate, deceptive means of clever misdirection
and editing to falsely promote to the viewers a false answer to all the anomalies
in the videos.
I now consider 'video fakery' to be a psychological-operation in itself. Perhaps this answers
why the latest set of FBI images have been released as part of
the perception management, as more people are starting to see that 'video
fakery' doesn't sufficiently answer all the questions surrounding the anomalies
captured within the videos. Simon Shack is concealing the
truth instead of exposing it along with managing people's perceptions.
Perhaps this is why recently, the censorship and perception management of any
discussion of the no-planes evidence on 9/11 has been stepped-up, so I
consider this timely release of these FBI images showing the plane
wreckage at the Pentagon to be “damage control and perception management”
because of the failings in their psychological operation cover story
that is 'video fakery'.
To find out more about Simon Shack (Hytten), please read Andrew Johnson's
research article here: 9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a
3D-Analysis of Flight 175. http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60
