My Response to Mark Conlon
Mark’s post can be found here:
http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2017/10/simon-shacks-king-kong-man-in-north.html
Thursday, 26 October 2017
Simon Shack’s “King Kong Man” in North Tower Window – DEBUNKED!
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!.
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
http://yankee451.info
https://911crashtest.org
24 Comments
Conspiracy Cuber · December 18, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Hi Steve, Conspiracy Cuber here,
Why do you focus on a small 1% of the evidence instead of all of it as a whole? Steel turned to dust, that is an irrefutable fact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs from 0:40-43 is very clear. Watch that piece of facade falling to the west turn to dust before your eyes.
Missing bolts and floors do not automatically prove they were removed. Why do you focus on those few pictures when there are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of others showing dustification. Steel turned to dust, but paper didn’t. Neither did all of the aluminum.
How could thousands of New Yorkers (and those in NJ) completely miss seeing a dozen missiles strike each tower? Don’tcha think that there would be some videos of that after 16+ years? Or any eyewitnesses? People reporting that missiles were fired from the Woolworth Building don’t cut it. Where’s the video proof?
About the deleted comments, what does that prove? I’ve had him delete comments on my videos before (of course that was before his YT Channel got DELETED).
You can contact Andrew Johnson at:
ad.johnson@ntlworld.com
ad.johnson2211@gmail.com
http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/contact.htm
Also, have you seen my videos about the impossibility of live TV fakery? There are quite a few serious problems with it.
Steve De'ak · December 19, 2017 at 4:20 am
I have Andrew’s email address but alas he avoids this evidence, just like you and all of his acolytes do. I’ll wait to hear from Mark, thanks.
Conspiracy Cuber · December 19, 2017 at 4:55 pm
We are not ignoring the evidence you present, we are simply stating there are more reasonable explanations than missiles given video evidence and eyewitness testimony. Please provide any evidence that the videos (especially the live shots) were faked, and please explain away everything I’ve covered on my YT channel.
And you’re not avoiding evidence? I’m sorry, but have you read Where Did The Towers Go?? The videos show steel turning to dust…there’s no way to avoid that. Please explain the magnetometer data as well http://magnetometer.rcs.alaska.edu/DATA/www/2001/09/11/kaktovik/kaktovik_2001_09_11.png
Missiles and video compositing doesn’t explain that. Also the presence of Hurricane Erin.
Just for my understanding, what are your current views on the Hezarkhani video? Thanks.
Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 7:05 am
The damage to the left sides of both holes is what I am referring to, and have been for years, but which Judy’s cult will never address. Why could that be? Is it because you’re a useful idiot or deliberately obfuscating?
The lightly damaged cladding followed by the progressively worse-damaged steel columns visible at the far left of both holes. If you can’t explain how that evidence is consistent with whatever it is you believe, then you can’t be taken seriously as a “9/11 Truther”
Wolf Clan Media · January 14, 2018 at 10:40 pm
Dear concerned grandpa,
I agree with conspiracy cuber and Mark on this one. I will address your “Dust video” at least by saying: that it looks to be a solid piece trailing dust as many of the columns did. https://youtu.be/1rikh31huXY – this one is so obvious https://youtu.be/ikI5UIWi42w there’s 2 700ft columns that vanish in front of your eyeballs dude, if you have a problem with Judy Wood then research black projects and Tesla technology which was stolen and weaponized man, there’s plenty of evidence being ignored by you bro. So yes holography is done with the use of lasers and there are many ways those holes could have been created besides missiles, another story planted by MSM who you blame for fake TV. read the Airforce 2025 paper more evidence with a list of weapons, all which can explain every anomaly of 911, including the weather modification evidence you also ignore, I’m sure you’ve heard of the paper it talks about the holographic aircrafts… The videos are real all you have to do is call one of the videographers, I saw you say the military… Yes the Military Industrial complex, private corporations have done this and been taken to court. More evidence YOU have ignored mark conlon shouldn’t need to address a theory that’s not based in evidence in my opinion. I will also address your pinched cladding by saying read- where did the towers go, the Airforce 2025, study the Hutchinson effect, directed energy and black projects. Until then you are aiding in the cover up of 9/11 unfortunately. I don’t think a concerned grandpa would say this way. You want a better world as we do right? Why fight with researchers, free energy has been covered up for over 100 years and now used against us. Also please address conspiracy cubers questions. Thanks.
Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 6:41 am
Wolf Clan Media –
All you Cult members refuse to address the evidence that make your complaints irrelevant. Why don’t you grow some balls and explain what Judy Wood says cut the holes in the towers?
Thanks,
Steve
Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 12:32 pm
“Dear concerned grandpa,
I agree with conspiracy cuber and Mark on this one. I will address your “Dust video” at least by saying: that it looks to be a solid piece trailing dust as many of the columns did. https://youtu.be/1rikh31huXY – this one is so obvious https://youtu.be/ikI5UIWi42w there’s 2 700ft columns that vanish in front of your eyeballs dude, if you have a problem with Judy Wood then research black projects and Tesla technology which was stolen and weaponized man, there’s plenty of evidence being ignored by you bro. So yes holography is done with the use of lasers and there are many ways those holes could have been created besides missiles, another story planted by MSM who you blame for fake TV. read the Airforce 2025 paper more evidence with a list of weapons, all which can explain every anomaly of 911, including the weather modification evidence you also ignore, I’m sure you’ve heard of the paper it talks about the holographic aircrafts… The videos are real all you have to do is call one of the videographers, I saw you say the military… Yes the Military Industrial complex, private corporations have done this and been taken to court. More evidence YOU have ignored mark conlon shouldn’t need to address a theory that’s not based in evidence in my opinion. I will also address your pinched cladding by saying read- where did the towers go, the Airforce 2025, study the Hutchinson effect, directed energy and black projects. Until then you are aiding in the cover up of 9/11 unfortunately. I don’t think a concerned grandpa would say this way. You want a better world as we do right? Why fight with researchers, free energy has been covered up for over 100 years and now used against us. Also please address conspiracy cubers questions. Thanks.”
The damage in question (that you are so desperate to distract away from) eliminates the use of a real plane, reinforced or otherwise at the same time it eliminates the use of a hologram. Do you know why?
Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 12:41 pm
Wolf Clan Media,
Of course you don’t know why, how could you if you’ve never examined the evidence. Truthers know all about controlled opposition but never consider they’ve been duped by it to believe what isn’t true and to disbelieve what is true. Let me explain.
The lightly bent cladding visible at the far left of both holes, followed by the progressively worse-damaged steel, followed by the inward blasting hole is evidence of a lateral impact of small projectiles. The evidence is consistent from video to video and photo to photo. It makes no sense to think that this evidence indicates anything other than what it appears to indicate. The hologram theory relies on explosives alone for the creation of the hole, this is because holograms don’t cut steel. But the lateral bends are proof of something hard hitting from the side. Explosives adherents will insist that explosives could do such a thing, to which I call BS because if they could do with explosives what these people assume they CAN do with explosives, then they SURELY would have made their gash look more like it was caused by the head on impact of a jet rather than making both towers look like it was caused by the lateral impact of multiple cruise missiles.
Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 12:56 pm
So Wolf, and Conspiracy Cuber,
This is why ALL of your complaints are irrelevant. The lateral bends to the steel eliminate most of the truth movement’s hypotheses as possibilities all at once; holograms, explosives alone, planes of any kind – POOF, all eliminated by the evidence that you fellas still would prefer not to talk about. Go figger.
Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 1:23 pm
I mentioned nothing of explosives. Like I said Holograms are formed using Lasers which actually can cut steel and pinch aluminum so… No! explosives does not go with the use of holograms in any way. Another impossibility is bombs in the building. Holography IS another form of directed energy – specifically photons. Read the 2025 paper and once again you’ll see a list of weapons that would be capable of doing this kind of damage. Another note we the citizens don’t know fully what holograms can & cannot cut. You act like you know whats been developed in secret since the cold war? Are you really that naive? I dont think you could be. Why would you rule out these possibilities. Read this article and explain the evidence, connections, and conflicts of interests. You want someone to explain it. Help us out. Read this honestly and tell me it’s not possible then? http://wolfclanmedia-research.blogspot.com/2017/12/optical-illusions-on-911.html
Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 1:29 pm
Lasers super heat molecules and do not bend steel. They would cut through aluminum cladding, not pinch it like it had been whacked with a stick and even if they could mimic the LATERAL impact of cruise missiles WHY WOULD THEY DO SO WHEY THEY WERE SELLING US THE HEAD ON IMPACT OF A PLANE???!!!! Answer the question.
“Another note we the citizens don’t know fully what holograms can & cannot cut. ”
And now you’re back to imaginary conclusions again. Just imagine how much power the masters of the universe could have! If you want to be taken seriously, stick to your explanation of how the damage evidence is consistent with whatever you imagine happened, but can’t prove because it’s hidden in some secret vault in Area 51. Pathetic.
Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 1:47 pm
Your question: “even if they could mimic the LATERAL impact of cruise missiles WHY WOULD THEY DO SO WHEY THEY WERE SELLING US THE HEAD ON IMPACT OF A PLANE???!!!!”
This is going nowhere, your automatically assuming it resembles missile damage and that’s it. Anything else has to compare to that (Bias) conclusion. Do you have an image of missile damage I can analyze and compare with the South/North Tower Hole? I’m not trying to argue about theories, I think researchers should collaborate to get the facts out there. I’m being sincere send an image for analysis. You seem to be like everyone else that needs a name for the mechanism used or proof of its existence. Acknowledging the fact that plane shaped holes appeared into steel in front of all of our eyes and then buildings with people in them disappeared in front of our eyes should be enough for us to agree, should it not. Do you want to prosecute the people responsible for the murders? Cause like I said you CAN find out who that is NIST hired them. Address that question. Is there not a conflict of interest with the companies NIST hired and there specialties?!?!? Seriously your avoided the obvious until then…
Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 2:09 pm
“This is going nowhere, your automatically assuming it resembles missile damage and that’s it.”
No, I’m basing my conclusions on my understanding of Newtonian physics, my experience with running a stick against picket fences, shooting things, blowing things up and observing the results of the equal and opposite reactions when objects collide. If I am not mistaken you’re basing your conclusions on an over active imagination.
“Anything else has to compare to that (Bias) conclusion. Do you have an image of missile damage I can analyze and compare with the South/North Tower Hole? I’m not trying to argue about theories, I think researchers should collaborate to get the facts out there.”
”
Your own bias is what’s to blame here. My conclusion is based on the known measurements and capabilities of the missiles and the known measurements and method of construction of the buildings and the video record of the alleged collisions. To prove or disprove my hypothesis I would like to conduct a test at a rocket sled test center, hence the 9/11 Crash Test Project, but so far truthers have rejected any sort of test to prove or disprove anything, they prefer to reach for the stars.
” Do you have an image of missile damage I can analyze and compare with the South/North Tower Hole? I’m not trying to argue about theories, I think researchers should collaborate to get the facts out there. I’m being sincere send an image for analysis. ”
I don’t sense your sincerity, but like I said it is a conclusion based on the known statistics of both impacting bodies and the evidence at the scene of the crime, both at Shaksville and at the WTC. I still haven’t caught your explanation as to how the 12 inch projectile isn’t consistent with the available evidence, nor why if they could make any gash they wished, they chose for lateral bends rather than “wedged” bends like they were showing on television. Besides relying on super-secret information that can’t be proved to exist, your assumption doesn’t make any sense. And I know Judy doesn’t even touch Shanksville.
” You seem to be like everyone else that needs a name for the mechanism used or proof of its existence.”
Because to use an imagined means is dishonest. This is the “truth movement” not the “what-if movement.”
“Acknowledging the fact that plane shaped holes appeared into steel in front of all of our eyes and then buildings with people in them disappeared in front of our eyes should be enough for us to agree, should it not.”
Oh I can explain all of it, and have done quite a bit already, but none of my conclusions rely on top secret information or imaginary weapons.
“Do you want to prosecute the people responsible for the murders?”
Prosecute? You mean, appeal to more authority, such as the court system that Judy Wood turned to, the same court system that put Bush in office? Catch a clue, the authorities you keep turning to are the most likely suspects, and they wrote Judy Wood into the script, knowing full well that their audience was weaned on Star Trek.
“Cause like I said you CAN find out who that is NIST hired them. “Address that question. Is there not a conflict of interest with the companies NIST hired and there specialties?!?!? Seriously your avoided the obvious until then…””
NATIONAL institute of standards and technology. Catch a clue, seriously. But back to the laterally bent steel – can you please explain how it is not consistent with the impact of a JASSM, but it is consistent with the impact of an imaginary weapon?
Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 2:34 pm
I actually thought your test was a good idea, but it doesn’t seem to be happening and your theory contradicts facts, like the eyewitnesses. I agree the authority will probably get us nowhere but ruling out possibilities because it’s a secret will do what for us. You said “this is the truth movement” no it’s not. We are 2 researchers right? I thought you weren’t in the truth movement. We both agreed they won’t even discuss this. Your crash test proves no planes. We already have that proof, as I said. Do a test on a steel structure with missiles making a plane shaped holes.
“can you please explain how it is not consistent with the impact of a JASSM”
Already on it. I will have something put together shortly. BTW there is sincerity here. I just think your theory is outlandish… Sorry :/
Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 2:37 pm
“I actually thought your test was a good idea, but it doesn’t seem to be happening and your theory contradicts facts, like the eyewitnesses. I agree the authority will probably get us nowhere but ruling out possibilities because it’s a secret will do what for us. You said “this is the truth movement” no it’s not. We are 2 researchers right? I thought you weren’t in the truth movement. We both agreed they won’t even discuss this. Your crash test proves no planes. We already have that proof, as I said. Do a test on a steel structure with missiles making a plane shaped holes.
“can you please explain how it is not consistent with the impact of a JASSM”
Already on it. I will have something put together shortly. BTW there is sincerity here. I just think your theory is outlandish… Sorry :/”
We all have opinions but unlike yours mine accounts for all the evidence, including the witnesses, and doesn’t rely on the fear of the unknown.
Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 2:43 pm
Please prove to me the videos are fake? If you can do this I will consider and research your missile theory. I will even share your work with others if you can please prove to me – the videos are fake? Prove it!
Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 2:53 pm
“Please prove to me the videos are fake? If you can do this I will consider and research your missile theory. I will even share your work with others if you can please prove to me – the videos are fake? Prove it!”
For fuck’s sake.
You mean in addition to as I have explained numerous times already, not to mention as explained and demonstrated with animations in the videos linked-to on the post you’re responding to?
Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 2:44 pm
I have contact info for many of the witnesses would you like to have a 3 way call with one of them? Let em know what you think they did that day?
I think their statements have dick to do with the evidence that you still won’t explain. The JASSM is an example of the technology that was available off the shelf at the time. Lookitup.
Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 2:57 pm
Let’s do a video conference. If they insist that they saw a jet slide like butter into the buildings, I’ll be happy to demonstrate to the both of you why they’re either lying or a fool but I want a recording of it so I don’t have to keep repeating myself.
Wolf Clan Media · January 16, 2018 at 4:46 am
“You mean in addition to as I have explained numerous times already, not to mention as explained and demonstrated with animations in the videos linked-to on the post you’re responding to?”
You haven’t proven shit. Your repeating the same nonsense as every other promoter of video fakery. Just put your own spin on it. Richard D. Hall proved the videos are real in his 3D radar analysis. Your just helping to prove no plane. Not fake video dude. There’s a difference. Your all the same: “planes can’t do that so video is fake” blah blah blah. Wow. We could do the call but I think the witnesses have heard enough people call them liars already. This event effected them way more than you and I. We have no right to accuse these people just because the damage isnt consistent with a plane. That doesn’t prove fake video, maybe to an idiot. You want to tell them how u know theyre lying? If that’s your intention, then nevermind. If you would rather be disrespectful then continue your progress with the Truth Movement, instead of regular independent researchers. I think it’s pretty clear what your goal is here, have a good one guy.
Steve De'ak · January 16, 2018 at 5:30 am
“You haven’t proven shit. Your repeating the same nonsense as every other promoter of video fakery. Just put your own spin on it. Richard D. Hall proved the videos are real in his 3D radar analysis. Your just helping to prove no plane. Not fake video dude. There’s a difference. Your all the same: “planes can’t do that so video is fake” blah blah blah. Wow. We could do the call but I think the witnesses have heard enough people call them liars already. This event effected them way more than you and I. We have no right to accuse these people just because the damage isnt consistent with a plane. That doesn’t prove fake video, maybe to an idiot. You want to tell them how u know theyre lying? If that’s your intention, then nevermind. If you would rather be disrespectful then continue your progress with the Truth Movement, instead of regular independent researchers. I think it’s pretty clear what your goal is here, have a good one guy.”
Richard D Hall won’t touch the evidence any more than Judy will, much less their water carriers. I know they’re lying and I know you’re a useless idiot because of the lightly damaged cladding followed by the progressively worse-damaged and laterally bent steel columns that you refuse to address. Thanks for stopping by and proving me right, over and over again.
Steve De'ak · January 16, 2018 at 12:27 pm
Wolf, CC and all of Judy’s fan club,
We’ve all been useful idiots before, so don’t take it personally. Myself, I once believed what Judy Wood was selling too, but I kept researching, eventually discovering that she as well as most of the truth movement are deliberately leading the rank and file away from this evidence. Of course I could be wrong about my conclusions but to discredit my argument would require your addressing the evidence that leads me there.
The official story is clear, the jet struck in a wedge motion which means that the left wing would have impacted the columns on the right corners, and bent them in the direction of travel of the jet. Do either or any of you dispute this?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Swept-back-wing-striking-right-corner-first.png
Steve De'ak · January 16, 2018 at 1:03 pm
“The official story is clear, the jet struck in a wedge motion which means that the left wing would have impacted the columns on the right corners, and bent them in the direction of travel of the jet. Do either or any of you dispute this?”
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Swept-back-wing-striking-right-corner-first.png
Of course not, because there is video record of the collision and there are the Purdue University animations to support it, and of course there are all the claims made by the NIST, FEMA and MIT et al. So we have a baseline that is the official story, but all it takes is a little investigation to discover that despite the direction of travel of the jet and despite the 30 degree sweep of the wing, and despite the videos and the official claims, the damage shows a lateral impact; the columns were struck from the side.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/center-left.jpg
No disputes, so far?
Steve De'ak · January 16, 2018 at 1:20 pm
““The official story is clear, the jet struck in a wedge motion which means that the left wing would have impacted the columns on the right corners, and bent them in the direction of travel of the jet. Do either or any of you dispute this?”
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Swept-back-wing-striking-right-corner-first.png
Of course not, because there is video record of the collision and there are the Purdue University animations to support it, and of course there are all the claims made by the NIST, FEMA and MIT et al. So we have a baseline that is the official story, but all it takes is a little investigation to discover that despite the direction of travel of the jet and despite the 30 degree sweep of the wing, and despite the videos and the official claims, the damage shows a lateral impact; the columns were struck from the side.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/center-left.jpg
No disputes, so far?”
Whatever it was started here. A projectile of some kind struck the thin aluminum cladding that covered the steel column just hard enough to pinch it, like it had been whacked with a stick.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/3-something-pinched-this-aluminum-cladding1.png
You do see that, right?