Tools of the Trade: Mark Conlon

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.

http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/1978-movie-mocks-911-crash-physics.html

 

Steve De’ak relies on “video fakery” because without it his “multiple missiles” theory cannot be valid, and the fact we have now “proven” and “exposed” the “video fakery” psy-op 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 where 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”?

 

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.

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 publically “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.

Still nope, see above and stop avoiding the “real” debate which is the lightly bent aluminum 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 traveling.

I will be addressing several “lies” and inaccuracies told by Steve De’ak about myself, which he learly 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).

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!)

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 the 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.

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 screenshot 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?

Unfortunately though, Mark, the truth is not what you’d like it to be, but even if such technology DID exist in 2001, it doesn’t account for the laterally bent steel and the lightly bent cladding that you still refuse to address.   Did you lie or did you make a mistake?  Big kiss!

Steve

 

 

Video Shows Hologram Whale Jumping in Gymnasium-Fiction!

Summary of eRummor:

Many are wondering if a video showing a humpback whale hologram jumping through a gymnasium floor as students look on is real.

The Truth:

This is a promotional video for a tech startup that shows what type of technology they want to develop, not what they’re currently able to do.

In other words, a hologram whale didn’t really jump through a gymnasium floor as amazed children looked on — the video was edited to showcase the technology the company, Magic Leap, hopes to develop.

As of October 2015, Magic Leap was in “stealth mode.” The company had attracted high-profile investors like Google and Weta Workshop, the company that did special effects for “Lord of the Rings” and “Avatar.” Still, Magic Leap’s technology has been largely held under wraps, CNET reports:

According to Magic Leap, the graphics you see while using it will look movie-like. It seems as though virtual objects won’t overlap with real-world ones, and they’ll create virtual interactions with real things (like the virtual reflections off a real table). HoloLens also recognizes things around you, such as walls or tables, or your hands: some games blast virtual holes in walls, too, but demos I’ve tried so far have been under extremely locked down conditions. Magic Leap claims these mixed-reality things will appear around you in everyday use, and will seem indistinguishable from reality. That’s something that no one has achieved, and I’d have to see to believe.

Magic Leap released a video that it says was shot directly through its technology without any special effects or editing in October 2015. The video shows what appear to be holograms interacting with the physical world, but it’s nowhere near the size and scale of the humpback whale jumping through a gymnasium floor.

So, this one could be true someday, but it’s fiction for now.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/video-shows-hologram-whale-jumping-in-gymnasium/

 

Comments

  1. Wolf Clan Media

    You used a ‘fake news,mainstream debunking’ website to try and discredit holograms. You are a hypocrite,thats fake news I thought. The way you treat eyewitnesses and victims is absolutely gross. You go on and on about aluminum cladding while ignoring every other piece of evidence. Once again try proving the videos are fake without using the `impossible damage’ line. Cause all that proves is it wasn’t a real airplane. Not fake video, your ignoring evidence by claiming it’s fake with no proof. Now you claim there were no jumpers? What planet are you from dude.

    1. Steve De'ak

      I’m from the planet that relies on the evidence at hand, an alien land to Judy’s bootlickers.
      From the post you’re bitching about:

      but even if such technology DID exist in 2001, it doesn’t account for the laterally bent steel and the lightly bent cladding that you still refuse to address.

  2. Conspiracy Cuber

    Then prove that the videos are lies. You said in your other article that each video has anomalies, so show me some.

    1. Steve De'ak

      Wait, what? He’s still talking about the videos, and not addressing the lightly bent cladding and sharply bent steel that prove all the videos are fake? Couldn’t see that coming.

    2. Steve De'ak

      Hehe, remember, I refer to you guys as “minions,” which seems pretty accurate. It’s like Judy’s team of teenage mutant ninja turtles. Hey Mark, I see you lurking, why not comment for yourself? Unlike you I allow that sort of stuff.

  3. truther musical

    He says: “This explains why he avoids the debate with myself and Conspiracy Cuber regarding “video fakery”, as he has had to publically “retract” certain theories in the past”.

    Real truthers are never afraid to admit when they think they may be wrong. This is a strength not a weakness. As Michael Jackson often said “it’s all for love”.<3B-)

    1. Steve De'ak

      Hi JT!

      Being wrong is all part of the game, although like anyone I prefer being right over being wrong, but either way it is still a step closer to the truth. Knowing what I know about controlled opposition it goes without saying that some truthers will never admit they’re wrong. In the event they are confronted with information that proves they are wrong, they will be forced to ignore it, or distract away from it by questioning my motives, intelligence and sanity, or in this case; twisting themselves into self-righteous pretzels of indignation. Poor fellas. Thanks for dropping by!

      Your biggest fan,

      Steve De’ak

  4. Wolf Clan Media

    Wrong! Lightly bent cladding does not prove fake video at all. It proves something damaged the buildings. Honestly it makes no sense to use that as evidence of `fake` video. Considering your referring to the fake video evidence to show the bent cladding. Which ASLO shows paper unburned weird cuz it should burn at 451 but I bet Yankee knows that. But that video n photo are fake right? So your either an idiot who picks and chooses which evidence is real or not, and want to spread a lie about missiles because you heard something about the Woolworth building from your fake news people. OR you have an agenda that’s far from the truth. Who hired you? And JT, whoever you are hiding behind your truthers musical site. Hmm “Steve’s crash test will surely stop the endless war” you gotta be kidding me. The M.I.C. will just throw it’s contracts out with they see the grandpa’s project, Hahshsh I know a logical person could not believe that so I’m convinced that both of these websites are set up to distract researchers from finding the truth. I’m sure your grandkids will be proud that you attacked victims online. :/

    1. Steve De'ak

      ” Lightly bent cladding does not prove fake video at all. It proves something damaged the buildings.”

      It proves exactly that. The evidence indicates the projectile struck from the side, which means that the videos of the jet striking from the front are fake. Furthermore, if as you say the image of the jet was real, then the projectiles wouldn’t have been masked by the projected image of a jet, and would therefore need to be edited out of the footage anyway, so why bother with a fancy projection system when the end result would be edited video?

      Honestly it makes no sense to use that as evidence of `fake` video. Considering your referring to the fake video evidence to show the bent cladding. Which ASLO shows paper unburned weird cuz it should burn at 451 but I bet Yankee knows that. But that video n photo are fake right? So your either an idiot who picks and chooses which evidence is real or not, and want to spread a lie about missiles because you heard something about the Woolworth building from your fake news people. OR you have an agenda that’s far from the truth. Who hired you? And JT, whoever you are hiding behind your truthers musical site. Hmm “Steve’s crash test will surely stop the endless war” you gotta be kidding me. The M.I.C. will just throw it’s contracts out with they see the grandpa’s project, Hahshsh I know a logical person could not believe that so I’m convinced that both of these websites are set up to distract researchers from finding the truth. I’m sure your grandkids will be proud that you attacked victims online. :/”

      Your complaints are answered in the below posts:

      http://yankee451.com/?p=4008
      http://yankee451.com/?p=4147

      1. Conspiracy Cuber

        What is your explanation for the formation of the right wingtip? The aluminum cladding above the gash is bent in one direction, yet the cladding below the gash is bent in the opposite direction. Also, you still have yet to explain how the NYPD, FDNY, and PA (and whoever else you think “did it” (whatever “it” means anymore…)) recruited every single WTC employee and tourist and anyone who said they saw a plane—you still have yet to explain how these tens of thousands of people were recruited, how the events played out with no screw-ups, and how the cover-up has been managed so well. How many people were in on it? A million? Ten million? A hundred million? Every single person who visited the complex between the 93 bombing and 9/11?

    1. Steve De'ak

      Why is your assumption “physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony”?

      Because it limits the possibilities of events that resulted in the evidence as found. Witnesses allegedly saw large planes, small planes, no planes and missiles, but not all of those things can account for the damage evidence, besides eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Why do you think some witness accounts carry more weight than others, and why do you think some of the witness accounts override the physical evidence?

      1. Conspiracy Cuber

        If eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, why do you use 9 statements where anonymous people said they saw (or heard reports of) missiles? Name one person that said they saw a missile. It seems more that your assumption is “all the eyewitnesses were either mistaken, a fool, or lying, unless they thought they saw what I wanted to have happened”.

        Some witness accounts weigh more than others when the majority of people said they saw a plane. I never said that witness accounts override the physical evidence, they corroborate each other. I 100% wholeheartedly agree that planes could not have cause the damage seen. There were no planes, I agree. But when people still saw a plane, it shows that something more advanced was going on.

        You do realize that we both are relying on explanations that most would reject? The only difference is that you can’t prove that every single person was in on it, whereas the existence of holographic technology has been well documented for decades. Start here: http://wolfclanmedia-research.blogspot.com/2017/12/optical-illusions-on-911.html Okay, I guess there’s more differences than that, but your explanation is very lacking.

      2. Steve De'ak

        If eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, why do you use 9 statements where anonymous people said they saw (or heard reports of) missiles?

        I list them as proof that there were reports of missiles. In fact before the second strike was shown on television, the majority of reports were that anything but a large jet struck, so by your own rules the plane loses.

        Name one person that said they saw a missile. It seems more that your assumption is “all the eyewitnesses were either mistaken, a fool, or lying, unless they thought they saw what I wanted to have happened”.

        Susan McElwain. I address these complaints in my posts. Please don’t make me repeat myself.

        Some witness accounts weigh more than others when the majority of people said they saw a plane.

        That’s the herd mentality, by definition.

        I never said that witness accounts override the physical evidence, they corroborate each other. I 100% wholeheartedly agree that planes could not have cause the damage seen. There were no planes, I agree. But when people still saw a plane, it shows that something more advanced was going on.

        Addressed in the posts I linked to, please read them and pay attention.

        “You do realize that we both are relying on explanations that most would reject? The only difference is that you can’t prove that every single person was in on it, whereas the existence of holographic technology has been well documented for decades.”

        Unlike your explanation, mine can account for the physical evidence. Holograms don’t mask objects, they are interrupted by them, and even if they could mask objects they wouldn’t have masked what struck the WTC at a lateral trajectory. Even if they were used, they don’t cut steel, and I detail what could have accomplished that task in the posts linked to, which I wrote for people like you to be able to see exactly why I reach my conclusions. So rather than demand I keep repeating myself, please read the material.

      3. Conspiracy Cuber

        So only reports of missiles count as legitimate witness statements?

        “Susan McElwain” you’ve gotta be trolling. At the WTC?

      4. Steve De'ak

        So only reports of missiles count as legitimate witness statements?

        “Susan McElwain” you’ve gotta be trolling. At the WTC?

        No, but only some witness accounts corroborate the damage evidence. Shanksville was part of the same operation, so it makes sense that if missiles were used there, they should be considered elsewhere.

        Please read the material and use the evidence therein to support your conclusion. I appreciate your incredulity but all you’re doing is reinforcing the points of the posts.

        http://yankee451.com/?p=4008
        http://yankee451.com/?p=4147

      5. Conspiracy Cuber

        “Shanksville was part of the same operation, so it makes sense that if missiles were used there, they should be considered elsewhere.” I don’t care if it makes sense, I only care what the evidence indicates. I’m sorry, but I fail to see how a few bent columns and few articles about missing light switches prove that millions of people were lying actors.

        Please explain how missiles could have formed the right wingtip on WTC1. Thanks.

      6. Conspiracy Cuber

        Link takes me to my video manager page.

        What is your explanation for the damage shown on the 2nd column from the right (on the right wing tip gash)? The top is bent to the West and the bottom is bent to the East.

      7. Conspiracy Cuber

        “Equal and opposite reactions indicate the trajectories of the projectiles, right?” No, I’m saying that the top column fragment above the gash is bent one way, and the fragment below the gash is bent the other way.

      8. Steve De'ak

        “Equal and opposite reactions indicate the trajectories of the projectiles, right?” No, I’m saying that the top column fragment above the gash is bent one way, and the fragment below the gash is bent the other way.

        The cladding was popped out. If it wasn’t a missile impact, what was it?

      9. Conspiracy Cuber

        So you’re admitting missiles couldn’t have done that? I have no idea what cause the hole specifically. I have an idea, but as of now I can’t name the device used.

      10. Steve De'ak

        So you’re admitting missiles couldn’t have done that?

        I’m saying that from my research, multiple cruise missile are the most likely suspects, based on the evidence and the known measurements of the towers and the known measurements and capabilities of the missiles. I’m asking you what you think did it if it wasn’t a missile.

        I have no idea what cause the hole specifically. I have an idea, but as of now I can’t name the device used.

        But it wasn’t missiles which do exist, and which can account for the damage? Are you sure you are thinking objectively?

      11. Conspiracy Cuber

        Where is the missile debris? Or witnesses? Or videos/photos? Do you believe in Occam’s Razor? Yes I am thinking objectively. Are you sure you are when you accuse tens of millions of people of lying? No it was not missiles. They don’t account for the damage. Holographic technology exists, as do energy weapons. Read Chapter 17 of WDTTG and Optical Holography from 1971. http://mafija.fmf.uni-lj.si/seminar/files/2004_2005/Holography.pdf

      12. Steve De'ak

        Where is the missile debris? Or witnesses? Or videos/photos? Do you believe in Occam’s Razor? Yes I am thinking objectively. Are you sure you are when you accuse tens of millions of people of lying? No it was not missiles. They don’t account for the damage. Holographic technology exists, as do energy weapons. Read Chapter 17 of WDTTG and Optical Holography from 1971.

        Again, your incredulity is noted, as well as your gullibility. You are ignoring the evidence detailed in the posts.

    2. Conspiracy Cuber

      When do you think the floors were removed? Also how were they removed? And just for my understanding, when was the hollow towers picture taken that you use as your channel logo? Thanks

      1. Steve De'ak

        When do you think the floors were removed? Also how were they removed? And just for my understanding, when was the hollow towers picture taken that you use as your channel logo? Thanks

        Prove the floors were there to begin with. Prove every floor had poured concrete on it, and that every floor had HVAC, electrical and plumbing fixtures and water therein. And read the articles.

  5. Truther Musical

    A quick internet search gives us this regarding missiles – do the following statements have any validity?:

    In an interview in September 2006 with CNN’s Miles O’Brien, former 9/11 Commissioner member, Timothy Roemer, says that a missile caused the damage to the Pentagon and then quickly ..

    US War Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was the first person to imply that a “missile” hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Some “truth” activists were fooled by this claim (it was a very sophisticated hoax) but eventually retracted …

      1. Steve De'ak

        If those are coming from people who are already involved in the cover up, I would reject them.

        Notice the source. Media and the authorities. In my opinion they were hedging their bets; in the event too many people reported having seen missiles before the flight 175 broadcast they would need a patsy, and apparently that would be some terrorist in the Woolworth building.

      2. Conspiracy Cuber

        Anyone can see that the towers turned to dust. Terrorists with planes don’t do that. Therefore, if a governmental agency can’t see what is so clearly shown in the videos and they stick to terrorists, they are somehow or other responsible for covering up the evidence. Now whether they are being controlled by a higher power or not is up for debate.

      3. Steve De'ak

        Anyone can see that the towers turned to dust. Terrorists with planes don’t do that. Therefore, if a governmental agency can’t see what is so clearly shown in the videos and they stick to terrorists, they are somehow or other responsible for covering up the evidence. Now whether they are being controlled by a higher power or not is up for debate.

        Please address the post, thanks.
        http://yankee451.com/?p=4008

  6. Andy

    Trident Tuning Fork search results. I can’t give you the link to the PDF because it is too long, https://www.yandex.com/search/?text=math%20for%20trident%20tuning%20fork%20frequency&lr=103153
    On physics.com there should be the math equations to figure out the LOW frequency of giant tuning forks based on size of the individual elements of the forks.
    The buildings are surrounded by those trident tuning forks.

    Again, I am not part of the useful idiots or the Woodenites.

  7. Flipside

    The videos are real the planes however are not. Only fake planes could glide into the towers, the Pentagon, and disappear into the ground leaving cartoon cut outs. Several of the videos are created from one video. The hologram theory is ridiculous to say the least, much easier to edit In fake planes. That’s obvious to anyone with simple video editing skills. It doesn’t matter how many witnesses say they saw something that’s physically impossible because it’s physically impossible so what ever evidence they think they have it just doesn’t matter. Evidence needs to be evident and what is evident is planes can not and will not do the damage they did on 9/11.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *