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!
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!.
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.