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.



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!




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.




Recently I’ve been targeted by a Judy Wood acolyte named Mark Conlon.  He’s a good example of why that crowd gives me the creeps.   This is how the stalking began:

Out of the blue my YouTube channel started getting spammed by this “Conspiracy Cuber” character.  On this video’s comment section you can read the conversation.  After having to deal with Judy Wood’s fawners for more than a decade I admit I have zero patience with them.  In this case my childishness came out as soon as it became clear whose colors he was wearing and what his goal appeared to be.  He was trying his damndest to prove me wrong about a comment I made to Jim Fetzer where I said that a video with even two frames without movement is proof of tripod use.  He then posted a video that proved me wrong, he with a handheld camera on the same ferry that Hezarkhani was alleged to have captured his video from, captured footage with two frames that showed no movement.  The difference being that Hezarkhani’s video shows several frames with ZERO movement and more than a dozen frames with practically no movement not to mention the fact that Hezarkhani was not trying to capture two still frames (like Conspiracy Cuber was,) and Hezarkhani was zoomed in tight on flight 175 as it hit the WTC, whereas Conspiracy Cuber was shooting empty space.  Nonetheless he was right and I was wrong, and I had to admit that no, two still-frames do not prove tripod use.

During the conversation with “Conspiracy Cuber” Mark Conlon showed up and thanked Conspiracy Cuber for keeping a record of the conversation, so clearly this was a team effort.  Mark and I then conversed for a while, which ended with Mark inviting me to do a show with him to defend my position.  My response was to say that I would be happy to do a show if we could do screen sharing like Jim Fetzer and I did, but Mark declined.  Shortly after that Mark deleted all of his comments, which is a strange thing for a genuine truth-seeker to do, but not so strange for someone to do whose goal is to discredit truthers he disagrees with.

I am reduced to this tit-for-tat with Mark because he blocks comments on his page, complaining about too much spam, something we all have to deal with.  If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. My goal is to expose the truth, whether or not it agrees with what I already believe, so spam or not I want to know where I am mistaken.  But that’s just me.

Apparently Mark’s raison d’etre is to expose “falsehoods” within the truth movement where people like Ace Baker, Simon Shack and others (including me) have been spreading what he considers “false” arguments about “video fakery.”  He lumps me in with other truthers that I too have criticized for cherry-picking information and assisting with the cover-up, but from a different angle than I have.  This is important to him evidently because he is convinced the video record of 9/11 depicted a real event, whereas I am certain they are faked based on the evidence in the impact holes, evidence Mark has not, or will not “analyze.”  Now I know Judy’s flock does not buy that a real plane was used, oh no, they believe a hologram or some other super-secret projection technology was to blame, but ask yourself who benefits from that conclusion?  Why the media do, of course.   The media are to be protected at all costs; that is the bottom line behind discrediting no-planers, but just because someone claims to be a no-planer doesn’t make them a truth seeker.    After all, the best way to control the opposition is to lead it but unlike Judy, I am not a leader of this movement by any means.  I am just a humble researcher who crossed a line by questioning Hezarkhani.

But that was just the beginning.  A couple days ago Mark included me on a list of people he names as frauds, which isn’t anything new (I’ve been called worse by better,) but he also listed Gerard Holmgren and Rosalee Grabel, RIP on his list, which is a pretty low blow considering they’re not with us and can’t defend themselves.  But you know what they say; you can tell you’re over the target when you start taking flak.

So with all this newfound attention I decided to spend some precious bandwidth and time to see what Mark’s beef is all about, but I didn’t expect this!  It’s like a mini-shrine to Judy Wood’s pseudo-science with a good dose of hating-on-De’ak mixed in to keep the faithful outraged.   I’m impressed!  There was far more about l’il ol’ me than I was ready for, so much so that I couldn’t take it all in all at once (we pay dearly for limited Internet access.)  I don’t much worry about the Feds or about some angry (yet non-existent) 9/11 family member kicking in my door at 4:00 am, but I wouldn’t put it past Judy Wood’s clique one bit.  These people give cults a bad name, but this Conlon guy has a serious hard-on for me.    I can only imagine this is because like most of Judy’s fan club he is incensed by my video “What Cut the Plane Shaped Hole?” where I don’t refer to Judy as a “doctor,” and I refer to her followers as “minions,” which in Mark’s case is pretty accurate considering he’s been following me around like a DEW-eyed paparazzi taking screen captures of my every word, and then covering up his tracks , intent on catching me doing my fraud stuff.  I can’t tell if he’s for real of if he’s just Andrew Johnson’s sock puppet, they all look the same to me, but since Judy and Andrew won’t respond (Andrew’s still sore about my “Judy Woodtard” comment from years ago) maybe Mark the Minion will message his masters for me.

Mark went on to post here that I at least have the honesty to admit error, something other truthers don’t do.  In response I posted a few questions for him about some of the clues that lead me to my conclusions.   By “questions for him” I mean “questions for Judy.”  Really, these questions are directed at anyone, truther or truster.   I knew he wouldn’t address these clues because Judy’s followers NEVER DO, but they aren’t alone; most truthers avoid the evidence at the scene of the crime like the plague, which speaks volumes about their hypotheses.  Hint: if your hypothesis doesn’t fit all the evidence then it’s time to go back to the drawing board – if your goal is to discover the truth that is.

I digress.  That’s a long way to go to get to the point of this petty little post.

In my link above I asked Mark why he never addresses the MEAT of my hypotheses, namely the evidence that completely eliminates Judy’s argument.  Mark’s response was to justify his treatment of me, and to support it he listed a couple examples of his posts where my errors were pointed out.  In his defense he doesn’t resort to the sarcasm I resort to, but then he hasn’t had to put up with the cult like I have.

What he did do was to provide all the “yeah-buts” Judy’s followers usually provide, but as expected he completely ignored the evidence (they always do!)  I realize of course that my disrespectful attitude doesn’t help, but a guy’s got to have some fun once in a while, doesn’t he?  But to show my heart is in the right place (dedicated to the truth) I’ll respond to Mark’s yeah-buts despite their being made moot by the evidence that he’s avoiding.   I do this because I tire of having to retype this shit over and over again; I want something I can link to, or cut and paste for the next round of DEW-ey eyed truthers to cross my path.  I hope Mark and his Scribes are paying attention.

Mark Wrote:


“Also a question which I can never get a straight answer to with most “video fakery” promotors is, how did they control every video in NYC of the event without at least one or two slipping through the net showing a missile or no-plane hitting the South Tower? How did they control witnesses who did see a plane and hear a plane? What was they seeing if they did see the image of a plane in the sky with their own eyes and also how did videographers actually follow through the sky the object if nothing was there? This cannot be just put down to implanted media reporting after the fact. I have spoken to Jim Huibregtse who seen and heard the first plane? Is Mr. Huibregtse a liar? “





The way I would have done it if I were a psychotic billionaire, and the way it appears to have been done, would be to deploy a team of propagandists to film the event and edit-in their own flavor of fakery.  From the reports I’ve read, the FBI had heavily infiltrated the crowds, warning folks of incoming planes, spreading fear and god knows what else, to set the stage as it were.


In the event someone insisted they saw a missile, or captured footage of it, who would they report it to?  The media that was broadcasting cartoon planes?  The military that launched the missiles?  The government that was about to declare war on the world?  Or would they turn to the NYPD that planted the plane parts and spread lies about fires so intense the concrete melted, or to the FDNY that was setting fire to cars, wearing stage makeup and telling tall tales about molten steel?


After the first strike, before the TV Show of the second strike, there were reports of no planes, small planes, missiles and big planes.  Were they all lying?  In the heat of the moment, if someone saw a missile out of the corner of his eye, what would he have seen other than a blur?  As explained by Gerard Holmgren, RIP here, anyone who insisted they saw something other than a plane had a TV shoved in their face, and anyone who wasn’t sure what they saw would defer to the television.


With all the differing accounts and with the notorious unreliability of eye witnesses, until they showed the video of the plane flying behind the tower followed by an explosion, no one knew what happened.  If a second strike had never occurred, in order to find out what did hit the tower (if anything) an investigator would need to examine the damage evidence at the scene and ask, “What Cut the Plane Shaped Hole?”  Why do you avoid that evidence?  Is it because it exposes all of the videos of 175 as faked in one fell swoop?


There are videos of planes flying, such as the “white plane,” so of course planes were in the air.  Wouldn’t you have had a few flyovers to confuse the adrenaline-charged crowd?  The target was not the towers; the target was “we the people.”  Huibregtse may have seen a flyover, or he may have convinced himself he saw a plane when it was just a fast moving missile, or he may be lying, but whatever he saw, if he claims he saw a jet melt like butter into the tower as shown on the Naudet footage he is obviously mistaken, as can clearly be seen in the impact damage that you still refuse to address, presumably because it makes all your arguments irrelevant.


Also, all the witnesses, all the dodgy videos, and all the photographic “analysis” in the world don’t change the damage evidence, evidence that indicates something else happened, evidence that you and the rest of Judy’s followers avoid.



Mark Wrote:


“I am aware of your videos you have made regarding the “plane shaped hole”. The reason I have not pointed-out any errors is because I am still researching this area at the moment. I have put-out a video regarding the 1st plane impact fire-ball explosion study and behaviour, but this is only a small part of the research. I feel some “falsehoods” about that explosion fire-ball were promulgated by Simon Shack, regarding a 6 second delay and secondary explosion to create the plane shaped hole, which from the new research I have done is incorrect, and is another distraction and misdirection ploy by Simon to lead people away from what really caused the hole. https://www.bitchute.com/video/eCVlmYFKv4O9/

Layer masks, Mark, layer masks.  The hole was already cut by the time the fireball erupted through it, as can be seen in the way the “flame gash” bursts through an undamaged wall.  Layer masks.  They took a layer of video of the undamaged tower, and used it to cover up the real tower being impacted by the missiles.  After the hole was cut, they set off the shock and awe fireball, which erupted through the hole as they faded away the layer mask to expose the “live” shot of the shock and awe explosion.  This explains why the Television plane had to fully penetrate the wall before exploding, because they had to wait until the missiles cut the hole in the real tower, before they removed the layers of the plane and undamaged tower.  Layer masks.


Edit, 1/12/17:  Also, because the plane wasn’t real it needed to be buried into the tower before the eruption of the real fireball.  Not doing so would have resulted in the plane layer overlapping the fireball layer, exposing the fraud.  So the plane entered all the way to the tip of the horizontal stabilizer before the fireball erupted.

Mark wrote:


“Like you, I have researched the “Gelatin” art students, although we may differ greatly on their role if any they played or didn’t play. I will discuss more in my future blog article covering all the research I have done into the plane shaped holes and “Gelatin” and other new evidence which may shed light on this story and why it was released by the mainstream media.

Geletin didn’t plant the bombs, as discussed with Jim here, and even if they did plant bombs, it was with the blessings of the Port Authority of NY and NJ.  Explosives alone didn’t cut the holes in the towers, as can be seen in the damage evidence you won’t address.

“To answer your main question, the reason I haven’t written about “errors” in your other videos is because at this point in time I am still researching this whole area of the plane holes and what may or may not have made the plane holes. It would be unfair of me to put something out unfinished or not fully researched. “


I see, but it is okay to label a couple dead people who can’t defend themselves, and me whose research you haven’t verified yet, as frauds?


“If at the end of this research I felt your theory or evidence was correct or relevant, then be sure I would reflect that also. Just to clarify, it was not you who was being discussed in my future article.  What I can say is, and will be noted is the behaviour in this matter of the both stories put-out by Shack and Baker of how they believe the hole was made. I am still looking into the Pentagon and Shanksville events and I will publish new evidence on “Flight 93” in the new year. As you already know, I do have issues with some of your other theories around the Hezarkhani video, but that’s for another day.

Listen to you!  You don’t know enough about the evidence to comment about the WTC, the Pentagon or Shanksville, but you know enough about the truth to be able to identify a fraud when you see one?  Hypocrite much, Mark?

Now it’s your turn to correct the record by admitting you don’t know enough about the subject matter to comment, and that you are in no place to criticize anyone about anything.  I’m not holding my breath.












My Response to David Griscom

David Griscom, PhD, is talking smack again.  From a recent email he attached this message:

I’ve answered this question multiple times, so this may be the last time.  So file it some place.  Note that I am treating the plane that hit the south tower.  What hit the north tower was smaller and the exact plane type is anyone’s guess (my guess is an A-10 attack aircraft, which comes with strait wings, and I suppose that the perps just made them longer to match the lateral wing span of a 767).

What hit the south tower was seen by many from many different angles to have been a modified 767 (see http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html ).  And structural modifications were absolutely necessary for such a plane of this exterior type to fly at 575 mph at such a slow altitude (see Pilots for 9/11 Truth video of what would have happened to s stock 767 trying to fly that way).

Now as for the “No Planers”, consider this: There was no debris in the street below the impact hole in WTC2.  Why not?  Because the plane pushed all of the debris in front of it (into the building).  If there had been no plane, the entrance hole would have needed to have been faked.  And the only way that it could be faked would be by use of pre-positioned explosives where the “No Plane” was supposed to have hit.  However, those explosives used to fake the hole would have driven half of their debris into the street and have bent the steel columns outward, NONE OF WHICH WAS SEEN.  Q.E.D.

I believe that the No Planers fell into two categories, either (1) they didn’t understand the physics or (2) they have been bribed or blackmailed into being trolls to confuse the general public.  As far as I have deduced, Fetzer, Reynolds, and the fake Cimino all fall into the latter category.  I believe that the honest No Planers were either misled by the latter characters and/or believed that the parts of the south-tower plane that were not yet inside the building after the nose touched should have broken into pieces while still outside.  To the contrary, one group used the videos to measure the speeds of all parts of the plane after the nose had struck, finding that they didn’t slow down a single iota while the contacting parts were being “eaten.”

Why was that?  Well, the only thing that could have caused an exterior breakup of the aircraft upon impact would have been SHOCK WAVES.  And shock waves occur only when the impact velocity is faster than the speed of sound in the impacted material.  As mentioned above, the impact velocity of the plane was clocked at 575 mph, whereas the speeds of sound in aluminum (i.e., the main structural material of stock passenger aircraft) and that of in steel (i.e., what was very likely used strengthen the south-tower attack plane to prevent its breaking up before impact).  N.B. Both aluminum and steel have about the same speed of sound, i.e., about 13,000 mph.  Q.E.D.

Certainly, the honest “No Planers” can be forgiven for not knowing this corner of physics (which most physicists don’t know about but can be verified in e.g. H. J. Melosh: Impact Cratering – A Geological Process, Oxford Monographs, Geology and Geophysics # 11, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989.

In closing I recall an 8th grade teacher of mine who, when students complained about an assignment, always said: “A word to the wise should be sufficient.”


My response below:

David, your first paragraph states that you’re addressing the South Tower crash over the North Tower crash because of the difference in size between the two planes and that whatever hit the North was smaller and too difficult to identify.  I can only assume that you are relying solely on video evidence as the premise for your hypothesis, while ignoring the damage evidence visible in both towers that indicates the same means were likely used for both strikes.  Had they been of different sizes and configurations as you say the holes would have reflected it.  I may not be a PhD in Physics but I know that equal and opposite reactions are a given, therefore when examining the impact evidence it can be concluded that whatever it was that struck the far left of both towers was similar in size, shape and trajectory.

You wrote:

“(my guess is an A-10 attack aircraft, which comes with strait wings, and I suppose that the perps just made them longer to match the lateral wing span of a 767).”

Why guess?  You’re a doctor and you’re ignoring the evidence that makes it quite clear that whatever it was that struck these columns could not have been the planes we were shown on television.  Paying close attention to Newton’s Laws of Motion, I observe that the first nine columns at the far left of both impact holes were struck from the side by something(s) at a trajectory or at trajectories somewhere around 15 degrees from parallel to the face of the towers:

So right here is evidence that makes it quite likely that whatever it was that caused the damage to the North Tower…

…similar means were used on the South Tower:

Now, you say a modified A-10 Warthog was used, with straight wings, however the damage caused by the left wing tips of whatever hit the towers struck at an oblique left-right trajectory, not a head-on impact from a flat wing, and it was small and more massive in some places that it was in other places.  But since you are relying on the videos as the premise for your hypothesis, you are limited to what trajectories can be used to explain the damage.   I assume this is why you avoid this evidence, because it makes it clear that the videos of the planes are faked and were used to mask whatever it was that really cut the holes, just like a “camera spoof” trick used in so many “crime caper” movies.

When you wrote that your guess was it was a modified A-10 my first response is to ask you why you’re guessing?  You can use the 14-inch wide columns as a gauge to measure how big the projectile was that struck them, and had you done so you would quickly know that whatever it was that struck at the far left, was only big enough and massive enough to lightly damage the thin aluminum, and than it was certainly much thinner and much less massive than the wingtip from a 767 (or modified A-10) striking head-on.  Remember, the videos showed the jets striking at different trajectories; Flight 11 was head-on, but flight 175 was at about 12.5 degrees from perpendicular.  Different trajectories do NOT create almost identical damage in the real world.   Furthermore, and using Purdue University’s “scientific” study of the North Tower impact to demonstrate the point, the swept-back left wing would have struck the RIGHT corner of the columns first.  As seen on the video you’re hanging your hat on, the wings struck in a wedge-motion, sawing from the inside-out, but the damage shows instead of striking on the right corner and wedging the columns to the left, the columns were struck on the LEFT corner and were sharply bent to the RIGHT, opposite of what Newton’s laws would lead me to expect.   So you’re not only guessing, you’re fabricating an explanation that is completely contradictory to the available evidence.  A quick investigation of the scene of the crime is all it takes to eliminate a few hypotheses that don’t fit, but then you would have to admit error, something I have never seen you do.

In your second paragraph you continue with your premise that the videos depicted a real event, and after painting yourself into that corner, go on to claim that flight 175 MUST  have been a modified jet to be able to fly at such speeds and (presumably) to be able to cut through the steel of the South Tower with the greatest of ease; again completely ignoring the evidence in the impact holes, the writing on the walls as it were that indicates that at least for the left sides of both impact holes, small projectiles struck from the side, and that those projectiles were both not very big and not very dense in some places, and much bigger and much more dense in other places.  This can be seen in the lightly-damaged, thin aluminum cladding at the far left, followed by progressively worse-damaged and sharply bent steel columns a few feet away, and on the ninth column from the left, inward-blasting holes.

You wrote:

“And the only way that it could be faked would be by use of pre-positioned explosives where the “No Plane” was supposed to have hit.  “

Once again, completely ignoring the evidence mentioned above that indicates the lateral impact of kinetic weapons, such as cruise missiles fitted with dense-metal, penetrating warheads.  Missiles like the JASSM which LOOK LIKE PLANES and can account for both the lightly damage cladding at the left, as well as accounting for the heavily damaged steel a few feet away.  What the damage doesn’t match is your assumption that the videos are genuine, because as is obvious to a barnyard animal, it was caused by projectiles striking from the left and bending the steel to the right.

You then pinched out this turd:

“I believe that the No Planers fell into two categories, either (1) they didn’t understand the physics or (2) they have been bribed or blackmailed into being trolls to confuse the general public.  As far as I have deduced, Fetzer, Reynolds, and the fake Cimino all fall into the latter category.  I believe that the honest No Planers were either misled by the latter characters and/or believed that the parts of the south-tower plane that were not yet inside the building after the nose touched should have broken into pieces while still outside.  To the contrary, one group used the videos to measure the speeds of all parts of the plane after the nose had struck, finding that they didn’t slow down a single iota while the contacting parts were being “eaten.”  “

All I can say is Jim Fetzer is the only truther I’ve met who has had the balls to talk about the evidence I mentioned above, something you certainly won’t do.  That you mention honesty in the same breath as accusing others of being trolls deployed to confuse the public is another low for your already dismal record of fake physics and outright lies.  If anyone fits the bill for a government troll it’s the ex-NASA employed, establishment-trained, establishment-published guy who wields his establishment-credentials like a bludgeon while steadfastly avoiding step-one in any criminal investigation, namely the scene of the crime.  You’re a fraud, Doc, as anyone who reads your next paragraph will know:

“Why was that?  Well, the only thing that could have caused an exterior breakup of the aircraft upon impact would have been SHOCK WAVES.  And shock waves occur only when the impact velocity is faster than the speed of sound in the impacted material.  As mentioned above, the impact velocity of the plane was clocked at 575 mph, whereas the speeds of sound in aluminum (i.e., the main structural material of stock passenger aircraft) and that of in steel (i.e., what was very likely used strengthen the south-tower attack plane to prevent its breaking up before impact).  N.B. Both aluminum and steel have about the same speed of sound, i.e., about 13,000 mph.  Q.E.D.  “

The plane was only a sum of its parts, as was the building.  What part of the jet allegedly impacted with what part of the building makes a big difference in the equal and opposite reaction of the impact doesn’t it, Doc?  A wing section that struck a window would behave differently and produce different SHOCK WAVES than a wing section that struck the protruding edge of a column, yes or no?

The columns were shaped like this, with the SIDES of the columns protruding past the face, creating effectively two laterally-braced steel knives that would impact the leading edge of the wing, which last I checked was as sharp as a basketball.

You then resort to your tried and true method of appealing to your own authority in a now transparent and frankly pathetic attempt to continue to skirt the evidence and to avoid admitting you are a fake physicist.

The more you avoid this evidence, David, the more you look like that which you accuse others of being.


My Response to Mark Conlon

Mark’s post can be found here:



Thursday, 26 October 2017

Simon Shack’s “King Kong Man” in North Tower Window – DEBUNKED!

By Mark Conlon

In this blog I want to draw attention to a video posted at Steve De’ak’s YouTube channel in 2015, where he admitted that he was wrong about his North Tower “Tiny Windows” theory. However the same cannot be said for Simon Shack with his “King Kong Man” in the window theory.

The video below proves that it was not “video fakery” or people being giants or small windows in the video footage, or anything wrong with the video. Again it is down to perspectives and the angles, something that Simon Shack does NOT understand including parallax, as demonstrated in my previous blog artices.

See below: Steve De’ak’s apology video for his mistaken “Tiny Windows” theory

See below: Simon Shack’s comment to this video from Steve De’ak’s YouTube channel.

While Steve De’ak shows humility for his mistake, Simon Shack reverted to using disrespectful names in his comment by calling people “clowns” and “goons” and would rather accuse people of being shills.

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.

To find out more about Simon (Hytten) Shack and his mission, read this article by Andrew Johnson:
9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175

Thank you for reading and caring!.

Mark blocks comments on his blog, so I’m responding below:

Hi Mark,

Thank you for giving me credit for admitting error.  As I told you on another thread, this is not about being right, it is about being accurate and I have had to admit error many times over the years.
Also, if you don’t mind my saying so, I never see you point out errors in my analysis of the lateral damage to the columns and the lightly damaged cladding visible in both impact holes, nor do you point out error in my analysis of the evidence of missing bolts and floors, as discussed in this video with Jim Fetzer:

And in this five year old video:

And also discussed with Sofia Smallstorm:

You know that when proven wrong I will admit it, so if I am wrong about the impact holes, there must be a better explanation, but I don’t see you pointing out error in this clip about the Pentagon either:

Nor do I see any comments about the evidence of dust being in dust form prior to the collapses:

Say, why did you delete all your comments from Conspiracy Cuber’s thread on this video?:

Please use your contacts with Andrew Johnson to discuss the evidence mentioned above and point out my errors so that I can correct the record again.  As a fellow truth seeker, thank you again for your comments and for your efforts to expose the truth.

Steve De’ak

How to Win the War on Terror

Video: The 9/11 Amateurs Were Using Tripods

Anyone who has ever toyed around with video editing knows how much fun it can be to use a tripod.  With footage captured by a camera on a tripod and with commonly used layering techniques a photographer can make things appear and disappear from the video. All of the 9/11 footage I have seen show evidence of tripod use, and in this case I’ll use the Hezarkhani footage as an example.  This footage was allegedly captured from the deck of a tour-boat but there are fifteen frames that prove without a doubt this guy was a pro with a tripod or dolly on dry land pretending to be an amateur on a boat.

Since there wasn’t a real jet for him to focus on for this shot to work, the camera operator had to practice the camera movement from a predetermined location on a stable platform because to insert a 3D image of a jet into 2D footage is infinitely less complicated if the footage is captured from a stable platform like a tripod, and sure enough Hezarkhani had one.  Still frames and video below.


Herzarkhani frames 3_000936Herzarkhani frames 3_000937 Herzarkhani frames 3_000938 Herzarkhani frames 3_000939 Herzarkhani frames 3_000940 Herzarkhani frames 3_000941 Herzarkhani frames 3_000942

Herzarkhani frames 3_000943 Herzarkhani frames 3_000944 Herzarkhani frames 3_000945 Herzarkhani frames 3_000946 Herzarkhani frames 3_000947

Herzarkhani frames 3_000948

Herzarkhani frames 3_000949

Herzarkhani frames 3_000950






“The Real Deal” with Jim Fetzer

I had a pleasant conversation with the inimitable Jim Fetzer the other day where we discussed the evidence that I think gets far too little attention from the truth movement, as well as some new observations about the Herzarkhani video that I now contend I was wrong about (frozen smoke).  1-hour.

Edit, 3/1/2018: YouTube continues to delete my videos, with this one being the most recent, therefore I am moving to Vimeo.  Updated link below: