Disinformation Comments "Setting The Record Straight"

By Mark Conlon

It is with great angst that I have to write this short blog post, however it is necessary in order to set the record straight regarding false information which is being attributed to me by AnneBeck58 (Anne Beckett) in relation to the 9/11 airplanes research I have conducted. 

I came across the comments on the 5^th January 2020 by Anne Beckett on this website here: http://incamera.info

AnneBeck58 writes about me 

"He seems to believe in (De’ak) missiles. I don’t know how he can go with any of that and not only because silly Grandpa =Yankee yammers on about it, making no sense at all". 

My Response To This Claim 

This is inaccurate, I have never supported Steve De’ak’s “multiple missiles” theory. It is well documented by myself and Steve De’ak that we do not share the same interpretations of the airplane crash evidence. In fact we have had several disputes with each other in the past which is documented on Steve's website.

For Anne Beckett to align my research with Steve De’ak’s is a misrepresentation of my research. I have never suggested “multiple missiles” were involved at any of the airplane crash events. This is also reflected in all the research I did for Chris Hampton’s film - 9/11 Alchemy “Facing Reality”.

Anne Beckett also claimed in her comments that I was “extremely” rude to her. Anyone who knows me will know this to be untrue. I was not rude to Anne Beckett, challenging her assumptions yes, but not rude, even despite her condescending nature towards me during our conversation, whereby she showed no interest or respect for my knowledge in this area of 9/11 studies, publishing over 50 articles along with the various interviews I have done with Richard D. Hall, Unite Planet and my contributions in the 9/11 Alchemy “Facing Reality” film. Perhaps if she had bothered to read my blogs or watch the film she would know my position on the matter. Anne Beckett failed to provide me with any links to her own research after several times of me asking, whereby she cut-off the conversation abruptly unfortunately, or conveniently for her.

It is interesting in further comments she made how Anne Beckett claims she heard Andrew Johnson “talking about it in not the kindest manner”.

In her comment Anne Beckett is implying that Andrew Johnson is making reference to myself and Steve De’ak. This is untrue. She has falsely linked me to De’ak’s “multiple missile” theory as though Andrew was commenting about myself and Steve De'ak. Andrew Johnson knows very well my personal position regarding Steve De’ak’s “multiple missile” theory, that I do not, or ever have in the past or present supported the use of “multiple missiles” on 9/11. For Anne Beckett to suggest Andrew Johnson was talking about myself when possibly making reference to Steve De’ak's theory is grossly inaccurate, but more importantly misquoting Andrew Johnson himself. I suggest Anne Beckett should apologise to Andrew Johnson for using his name inaccurately in her comment above. I am sure Andrew wouldn’t appreciate the inaccurate implication she is making about his comment inferring about myself, when in reality Andrew was most likely talking about De'ak alone.  

My Official Position

I have never supported the idea or theory that “multiple missiles” were involved in the 9/11 airplane crashes. I have pondered the use of a missile that could be cloaked with an airplane image around it, however a missile would not make an airplane shaped hole in a building or ground. So I have believed something more would have been at play to create the airplane shaped holes. I tend to use the term "delivery system" in my later research, not missile as this is biasing what I am observing in the video and photographic evidence. I have learnt since that the military use the term "delivery vehicles". 

I cannot rule out the use of a single “delivery vehicle” projecting a cloaked image projection around itself of an airplane flying through the sky which was not always convincing depending on which angles and locations people were observing, photographing and videoing the airplane, or whether some type of magnetic field interference affected the image projection itself (as Chris Hampton suggests in his film), because of the anomalous issues (missing wings and tail section) of the projected image as the airplane gets closer to the WTC South Tower. Also to be considered, is whether the high quality video cameras captured the airplane image projection midway to being drawn due to the varying shutter speeds of the video cameras as seen in the Luc Courchesen video and also the second hit Naudet video, where 6 frames shows the missing wing, which was also captured in other videos and from different angles. 

I also cannot rule out the possibility that there was external locations were the airplane image was being broadcast/projected from, meaning that there was nothing actually in the sky apart from a projected image of the airplane heading towards the WTC Towers. I can to some degree show evidence of field interference at all 4 airplane crash events and 3 crash sites, indicating the use of directed energy to create the airplane holes in the WTC buildings, Pentagon Building and in the ground at Shanksville which is highlighted in the - 9/11 Alchemy “facing Reality” film, especially in relation to the flashes, magnetometer data, seismic disturbances and water features installed at the 3 crash sites.

I compared the airplane crash holes damage at the WTC towers to the “Hutchison Effect” (also ‘Conspiracy Cuber’ did) along with other “Blooming Effects” captured on the morning news regarding the formation of holes that appeared in the road in New York, before the event itself happened, something which Anne Beckett attempted to take ownership of during our conversation, although she didn’t realise (I don’t believe) at that point it was myself who actually made this discovery and connection to the Hutchison Effect, which I posted in Andrew Johnson’s 9/11 Facebook Group, and was included in Chris Hampton’s film in August 2018, whereby I produced image comparisons inset for use in his film. I did ask Anne Beckett to provide me with links to her own research, however she cut the conversation short at this point and I didn’t hear back from her again afterwards.
 
Conclusion

I can only conclude that this was an attempt by Anne Beckett to spread disinformation about my research position, and ostensibly blacken my character for some reason judging by her comments she has made. It also appears she was trying to caused division, or imply division between myself and Andrew Johnson. This is a common pattern of behaviour I have experienced in the past, due to the nature of the research I am conducting into the airplane crashes and image projection technology. It is an interesting note: Anne Beckett is a supporter of “video fakery” which was a major Psychological Operation (Psy-Op) which I exposed and is something that I have written about extensively on my blog, and those promoting it, which I demonstrated how it was used to conceal and misdirect people away from the image projection technology that was involved, which I am trying to expose which created the illusions of the airplanes in the sky at all 4 airplane crash events on 9/11.