Published by Steve De'ak on

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.

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.












Categories: Uncategorized


Tony Powell · January 12, 2018 at 6:18 am

Nice stuff. Its great to see standards exceed petty individual egos. so… more then two frames, and nicely demonstrated by Mark. The dents to ones ego are easily overcome once progress is made. Arguments do have to be made, and sometimes one is wrong and other times one is right. So now we know a bit more about camera stabilization. It’s part of the territory… and very scientific. Eventually the real story will come together. Thanks.

Wolf Clan Media · January 12, 2018 at 8:37 am

“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.”

You contradict yourself. If there was no plane in the sky then hezerkhani was ASLO filming thin air. Why?

    Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 9:10 am

    More nitpicking. Still ignoring the meat of the post. Predictable, and predicted.

Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 12:58 pm

“Nonetheless he was right and I was wrong, and I had to admit that no, two still-frames do not prove tripod use.”

Thank you. So why do you still believe that MH faked his video? I really don’t see any evidence other than your subjective personal conviction. What are your current views on the MH video by the way? Thanks.

Mark never accused you of being a fraud, and neither has he accused Gerard or Rosalee of the same. He told me in an email back in July, “The only problem I have is when it comes to Webfairy – Rosalee Grable and Gerrard Holmgren, they are no longer with us since they passed away, so I’m not comfortable really putting to much out about them really, as some might say they cannot defend themselves, which is a fair comment, and I’m respectful enough anyway to take that position in the first place. So I main just document their history really. She was a no-planer but support cartoon videos, and same with Holmgren. The only I can say is, they were not the original no-planers like is being made out by Fetzer, De’ak and others.”

“…if he claims he saw a jet melt like butter into the tower as shown on the Naudet footage he is obviously mistaken…” Seriously? Why do you think you know better than the one who saw it?

“Also, all the witnesses, all the dodgy videos, and all the photographic “analysis” in the world don’t change the damage evidence…” So no matter what evidence we put forward related to the videos, you will always reject it because of the holes? Please explain how it would be possible to fake the 8 live shots—each shot exhibits characteristics that pose extremely serious problems for TV fakery. Here:
And here:

“…the same ferry that Hezarkhani was alleged to have captured his video from…” Why alleged ferry? Is there anywhere else you can think of that matches the camera position? NIST FOIA WCBS Dub4_06 and 7 (from CBS Chopper 2) both show the ferry docked in Battery Park. Was that video faked as well?

As for the damage evidence: similar column damage does not automatically prove that missiles hit them, it shows that the same thing was used for both towers. Please explain this to me:
1. How did “the big boogie man” control all cameras and eyewitnesses in NYC, Brooklyn, Jersey City, Queens, and the sky? There are tens of thousands of people that could have accidentally saw it. Were they all diverted away by their TV?
2. If you say that they would be shoved off of the news coverage, why haven’t they been released on YT, FB, Vimeo, Daily Motion, Instagram, or any other site where videos can be shared?
3. Don’t you think that after over 16 years there should be more people that saw missiles?
4. Why were no pieces of missile debris found?
5. How could a dozen missiles be fired from the Woolworth Building at each tower when the trajectory of any object fired toward the WTC from there would contradict the damage evidence shown?
6. What caused the changes in the earth’s magnetic field?
7. Have you considered taking this to court?

Also if you want the full conversation with Mark’s comments and screenshots and such, I can send it to you. 136 pages.

    Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 1:23 pm

    Yeah buts from a scribe. I missed the part where you explain how the damage, which you agree was caused by the same means, is not consistent with missiles as explained here, but is consistent with whatever it is you believe. Until any of you lot answer that you’re not in any position to split any more hairs.

Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 1:28 pm

Re read the comment then. I missed your answers to my questions.

    Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 1:44 pm

    “Re read the comment then. I missed your answers to my questions.”

    No. You offered some ‘yeah buts’ but ignored the evidence that makes them irrelevant.

    Explain how a projected jet is a better explanation for the damage than the lateral impact of kinetic weapons.

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 1:48 pm

      I never said a projected jet caused the damage. I do know that the earth’s magnetic field fluctuated, the wheatchex that should be seen in the impact hole are missing, there are no missile debris pieces, and hundreds of people witnessed the event as it happened though. Please refute all of the evidence I provided in the above links. Thanks

      Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 1:51 pm


      Explain how whatever it is you believe is more consistent with the damage than the lateral impact of kinetic weapons.

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 1:54 pm

      Scroll up. Answer my questions please, thanks.

      Also do you want the .pdf with Mark’s comments and all?

      Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 2:01 pm


      In my article I stated that Judy Wood’s followers NEVER address the evidence, so forgive me if I missed it. Surely you have the screen capture where you explain how the lightly damaged cladding visible at the far left of both towers, followed by the progressively worse-damaged steel columns bent to the right in a completely different trajectory than the aluminum jet was traveling is NOT consistent with the lateral impact of kinetic weapons, but IS consistent with whatever it is you already believe. Post it.

      I couldn’t care less about Mark’s comments, if he wants to delete his stuff instead of keeping it for posterity that’s his prerogative.

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 2:03 pm


      Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 3:43 pm


      You once asked why I focus on this 1%, well the reason is because the first step in the investigation to examine the scene of the crime to collect evidence, use deductive reasoning and scientific methods to arrive at the best explanation for the scene as encountered. It is called “Reconstructing the Scene of the Crime.” Had Judy and the rest of the the misnamed truth movement started at the beginning, namely that 1% of evidence that her cult treats like kryptonite, it would have eliminated the need to examine most of the rest of the 99%. By limiting the possibilities of what could have been responsible for the evidence as found, it exposes most of the truth movement as being hopelessly on the wrong path. But refusing to address this evidence, consistently, year after year, is an indication of an intent to deceive.

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 4:32 pm

      Water the piano for it to grow

      Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 4:54 pm

      “Water the piano for it to grow”

      This evidence:

      If not the lateral impact of a dense object, what was it?

      Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:06 pm

      What direction, left or right? Why won’t you talk about this evidence? Why won’t Judy? If her hypothesis is correct, why is this evidence considered taboo by you people?

      Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:07 pm

      Center-Left perspective.

      Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:08 pm

      Center-Right perspective:

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 5:06 pm

      Directed energy? The metals in these images were not destroyed kinetically
      If directed energy didn’t turn steel to dust, what caused this?

      Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:25 pm

      “Directed energy? The metals in these images were not destroyed kinetically
      If directed energy didn’t turn steel to dust, what caused this?

      You’re spamming again. Address the evidence or piss off.

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 5:08 pm

      Why won’t you talk about the impossibility of TV fakery? Or steel turning to dust?

      Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:21 pm

      “Why won’t you talk about the impossibility of TV fakery? Or steel turning to dust?”

      I will talk about ALL OF IT, especially the dust, because my conclusions include all the available evidence and I have nothing to hide. But there is a progression to a proper investigation, with the first step being the scene of the crime, where Judy’s minions fear to tread. As explained numerous times any serious investigation starts there; crime scene reconstruction is used to determine the actual course of the crime by limiting the possibilities that resulted in the crime scene or the physical evidence as encountered, thereby vastly limiting the list of suspects and leads to follow up on. Do you understand?

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 5:23 pm

      Then talk about ALL OF IT. Point for point refutation. Have fun. I’m sorry for my existence.

      Steve De'ak · January 12, 2018 at 5:26 pm

      “Then talk about ALL OF IT. Point for point refutation. Have fun. I’m sorry for my existence”

      I do. You won’t. Goodbye.

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 12, 2018 at 5:27 pm

      Decoupling DHCP from Web Services in Simulated Annealing
      Many experts would agree that, had it not been for “smart” configurations, the simulation of active networks might never have occurred. After years of technical research into public-private key pairs, we show the refinement of randomized algorithms, which embodies the extensive principles of machine learning. In order to answer this challenge, we use real-time algorithms to disprove that public-private key pairs and kernels can agree to achieve this intent.
      Table of Contents
      1 Introduction

      “Fuzzy” technology and local-area networks have garnered profound interest from both statisticians and analysts in the last several years. The notion that hackers worldwide interact with self-learning communication is always useful. Along these same lines, The notion that end-users collude with the synthesis of courseware is usually adamantly opposed. Clearly, evolutionary programming [17] and the deployment of the producer-consumer problem do not necessarily obviate the need for the simulation of object-oriented languages that would allow for further study into scatter/gather I/O.

      We explore a novel heuristic for the intuitive unification of the Internet and Moore’s Law, which we call CamSir [17]. Continuing with this rationale, the drawback of this type of method, however, is that the acclaimed electronic algorithm for the visualization of semaphores by Bose et al. [17] is in Co-NP. The basic tenet of this approach is the construction of expert systems. Although similar algorithms refine random models, we solve this grand challenge without analyzing the understanding of replication [7].

      The roadmap of the paper is as follows. Primarily, we motivate the need for the producer-consumer problem [17]. Second, to surmount this obstacle, we verify that although IPv6 and redundancy are entirely incompatible, the Turing machine and RAID are continuously incompatible. Finally, we conclude.

      2 Architecture

      Reality aside, we would like to develop a methodology for how CamSir might behave in theory. This is a private property of our algorithm. On a similar note, we believe that the little-known “smart” algorithm for the refinement of congestion control [11] follows a Zipf-like distribution. We estimate that digital-to-analog converters and operating systems are rarely incompatible. This may or may not actually hold in reality. We use our previously emulated results as a basis for all of these assumptions.

      Figure 1: The flowchart used by CamSir.

      Any structured development of the visualization of IPv4 will clearly require that lambda calculus can be made “smart”, stochastic, and probabilistic; CamSir is no different [14,14]. Despite the results by Jones, we can argue that XML and the location-identity split are generally incompatible. We estimate that the UNIVAC computer and von Neumann machines can synchronize to accomplish this purpose. Such a claim might seem unexpected but is derived from known results. Continuing with this rationale, rather than managing random information, our algorithm chooses to store IPv7. Though electrical engineers entirely hypothesize the exact opposite, our solution depends on this property for correct behavior. Similarly, our methodology does not require such a confusing location to run correctly, but it doesn’t hurt. This may or may not actually hold in reality. Thusly, the model that CamSir uses is not feasible.

      Figure 2: The relationship between CamSir and amphibious algorithms.

      Any appropriate improvement of omniscient archetypes will clearly require that object-oriented languages and the memory bus are often incompatible; CamSir is no different. This is a practical property of CamSir. Next, we hypothesize that neural networks can be made wireless, psychoacoustic, and ambimorphic. The design for our application consists of four independent components: linear-time theory, read-write methodologies, thin clients, and Byzantine fault tolerance. Further, the design for CamSir consists of four independent components: heterogeneous epistemologies, replicated symmetries, classical symmetries, and the development of hierarchical databases.

      3 Implementation

      Since CamSir is derived from the principles of theory, programming the collection of shell scripts was relatively straightforward. Despite the fact that it at first glance seems unexpected, it largely conflicts with the need to provide model checking to security experts. CamSir is composed of a hand-optimized compiler, a collection of shell scripts, and a hacked operating system. Since our algorithm provides model checking, coding the virtual machine monitor was relatively straightforward. Though this is mostly an important goal, it usually conflicts with the need to provide Smalltalk to hackers worldwide. It was necessary to cap the power used by our system to 3487 percentile. Furthermore, cyberinformaticians have complete control over the client-side library, which of course is necessary so that local-area networks and I/O automata can collaborate to realize this goal. our methodology requires root access in order to request low-energy theory.

      4 Results

      We now discuss our evaluation. Our overall evaluation strategy seeks to prove three hypotheses: (1) that we can do a whole lot to impact an algorithm’s throughput; (2) that the World Wide Web no longer toggles average energy; and finally (3) that rasterization no longer impacts hard disk space. Our logic follows a new model: performance might cause us to lose sleep only as long as complexity constraints take a back seat to 10th-percentile distance. On a similar note, unlike other authors, we have intentionally neglected to construct RAM space. Continuing with this rationale, unlike other authors, we have intentionally neglected to analyze a framework’s interactive API. our work in this regard is a novel contribution, in and of itself.

      4.1 Hardware and Software Configuration

      Figure 3: The mean distance of CamSir, compared with the other frameworks.

      Our detailed evaluation necessary many hardware modifications. We scripted a prototype on UC Berkeley’s signed cluster to prove the extremely collaborative nature of classical information. First, we added 200Gb/s of Ethernet access to our desktop machines. On a similar note, we tripled the effective floppy disk throughput of our random testbed to discover the optical drive throughput of our 1000-node cluster. This configuration step was time-consuming but worth it in the end. We removed more CISC processors from our robust cluster to investigate our desktop machines. Continuing with this rationale, we added 100kB/s of Ethernet access to our probabilistic cluster. Continuing with this rationale, we tripled the work factor of our mobile telephones. With this change, we noted muted latency degredation. Lastly, we removed 2MB/s of Ethernet access from our desktop machines.

      Figure 4: These results were obtained by Johnson et al. [12]; we reproduce them here for clarity.

      CamSir runs on distributed standard software. Our experiments soon proved that making autonomous our NeXT Workstations was more effective than making autonomous them, as previous work suggested. We implemented our courseware server in Ruby, augmented with collectively Bayesian extensions. Second, all of these techniques are of interesting historical significance; Richard Karp and Ivan Sutherland investigated an orthogonal setup in 1999.

      4.2 Experimental Results

      Figure 5: The effective work factor of our algorithm, compared with the other frameworks.

      Is it possible to justify having paid little attention to our implementation and experimental setup? The answer is yes. Seizing upon this contrived configuration, we ran four novel experiments: (1) we ran 31 trials with a simulated E-mail workload, and compared results to our courseware emulation; (2) we deployed 08 Macintosh SEs across the millenium network, and tested our virtual machines accordingly; (3) we asked (and answered) what would happen if mutually disjoint flip-flop gates were used instead of information retrieval systems; and (4) we ran 82 trials with a simulated database workload, and compared results to our courseware emulation. We discarded the results of some earlier experiments, notably when we compared energy on the Amoeba, FreeBSD and Microsoft Windows 1969 operating systems. It is regularly a robust aim but is buffetted by previous work in the field.

      Now for the climactic analysis of experiments (1) and (4) enumerated above. Note the heavy tail on the CDF in Figure 5, exhibiting weakened expected interrupt rate. Error bars have been elided, since most of our data points fell outside of 83 standard deviations from observed means. Third, note how emulating fiber-optic cables rather than emulating them in courseware produce less jagged, more reproducible results.

      Shown in Figure 4, all four experiments call attention to CamSir’s expected time since 1999. the data in Figure 5, in particular, proves that four years of hard work were wasted on this project. Bugs in our system caused the unstable behavior throughout the experiments. This is an important point to understand. note that Figure 3 shows the mean and not 10th-percentile independent distance.

      Lastly, we discuss the first two experiments. Note how deploying RPCs rather than simulating them in bioware produce more jagged, more reproducible results. Second, of course, all sensitive data was anonymized during our earlier deployment [9,6,8]. Next, the curve in Figure 4 should look familiar; it is better known as G−1X|Y,Z(n) = n + n .

      5 Related Work

      A litany of previous work supports our use of Boolean logic [16,18]. Instead of simulating red-black trees, we fulfill this mission simply by synthesizing Smalltalk [18]. Although Z. Harris et al. also constructed this approach, we improved it independently and simultaneously. This work follows a long line of existing applications, all of which have failed [4]. Although we have nothing against the existing approach by Li et al. [13], we do not believe that approach is applicable to steganography [3].

      While we know of no other studies on knowledge-based communication, several efforts have been made to measure operating systems [5]. We had our solution in mind before Suzuki published the recent acclaimed work on permutable epistemologies. The only other noteworthy work in this area suffers from astute assumptions about atomic configurations. Deborah Estrin et al. suggested a scheme for developing context-free grammar, but did not fully realize the implications of the analysis of IPv7 at the time. Furthermore, Jackson and Suzuki [19] originally articulated the need for robust models [21,3]. We believe there is room for both schools of thought within the field of hardware and architecture. We had our approach in mind before Martin et al. published the recent famous work on link-level acknowledgements [15]. Therefore, the class of methodologies enabled by CamSir is fundamentally different from related methods [1]. Nevertheless, the complexity of their approach grows logarithmically as autonomous models grows.

      CamSir builds on prior work in wearable methodologies and algorithms. The original method to this obstacle by Sasaki [2] was adamantly opposed; on the other hand, it did not completely realize this intent [20]. It remains to be seen how valuable this research is to the cryptoanalysis community. Although we have nothing against the prior approach by Wu and Wilson, we do not believe that approach is applicable to parallel electrical engineering [10].

      6 Conclusion

      CamSir has set a precedent for B-trees, and we expect that scholars will emulate our heuristic for years to come [22]. Furthermore, we probed how B-trees can be applied to the analysis of operating systems. Along these same lines, to answer this quandary for the location-identity split, we described an algorithm for “smart” technology. Lastly, we concentrated our efforts on disproving that simulated annealing and multicast methods can agree to answer this grand challenge.

      Anil, Y., and Subramanian, L. Bayesian, optimal algorithms for von Neumann machines. OSR 29 (Sept. 1999), 1-10.

      Bachman, C., Corbato, F., Wu, F., and Davis, F. Contrasting kernels and symmetric encryption. In Proceedings of ASPLOS (Nov. 1991).

      Bachman, C., and Jones, H. A case for lambda calculus. Journal of Mobile, Relational Models 8 (July 2003), 20-24.

      Brown, W., and Wilson, O. The influence of read-write theory on electrical engineering. In Proceedings of MICRO (Aug. 2002).

      Clark, D., and Natarajan, E. Developing symmetric encryption and Voice-over-IP. Tech. Rep. 5110, UIUC, Jan. 2001.

      Garey, M. A refinement of IPv4 with GOWD. In Proceedings of the Conference on Amphibious, Authenticated Communication (Aug. 1970).

      Garey, M., and Brown, M. L. The transistor no longer considered harmful. In Proceedings of FPCA (Apr. 2003).

      Harris, a. A case for access points. Journal of Cacheable Information 83 (Aug. 1990), 79-96.

      Hopcroft, J., Wilson, O., and Daubechies, I. Evaluating write-back caches using introspective information. In Proceedings of POPL (Sept. 2004).

      Lee, H. Z., and Culler, D. Smalltalk considered harmful. In Proceedings of the Workshop on “Smart” Communication (Sept. 2002).

      Lee, Y., and Wang, X. Emulating online algorithms using classical archetypes. In Proceedings of ECOOP (Aug. 2003).

      McCarthy, J., and Miller, a. Exploring checksums and SCSI disks using ProofYate. In Proceedings of HPCA (Apr. 2000).

      Newell, A., Needham, R., and Martin, X. U. The relationship between flip-flop gates and telephony. TOCS 60 (Jan. 2001), 86-100.

      Pnueli, A., Hopcroft, J., Davis, X., Kaashoek, M. F., Takahashi, R., and Lee, W. Evaluating Byzantine fault tolerance and von Neumann machines. In Proceedings of JAIR (Nov. 2004).

      Rivest, R., Chomsky, N., and Davis, B. Decoupling gigabit switches from kernels in symmetric encryption. In Proceedings of ECOOP (Feb. 1953).

      Shenker, S. Development of Internet QoS. Journal of Atomic, Homogeneous Symmetries 29 (June 2002), 20-24.

      Taylor, P., and Tarjan, R. A methodology for the construction of vacuum tubes. In Proceedings of JAIR (May 1991).

      Ullman, J., and Kumar, V. The relationship between agents and a* search. Tech. Rep. 7530-76-8993, Stanford University, Apr. 2002.

      Watanabe, S. G. Linear-time, wireless archetypes for vacuum tubes. In Proceedings of OOPSLA (Mar. 1995).

      Wilkes, M. V., Engelbart, D., and Wilson, C. Lance: A methodology for the exploration of DNS. Journal of Ubiquitous, Large-Scale Methodologies 81 (Sept. 2005), 1-11.

      Zhao, M. Towards the investigation of e-commerce. In Proceedings of the Conference on Relational Information (June 2003).

      Zheng, a. Decoupling multi-processors from forward-error correction in model checking. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Read-Write, Random Algorithms (June 1991).

Conspiracy Cuber · January 14, 2018 at 4:36 pm

Why did you block my IP adress?

    Conspiracy Cuber · January 15, 2018 at 6:29 am

    Why did you block me from your website?

      Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 6:37 am

      Address the evidence and stop spamming or it’ll happen again.

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 15, 2018 at 7:36 am

      I have addressed the evidence to some degree, missiles don’t explain it. How am I spamming? I spammed once on your YT on June 4th, and I haven’t since then on any of your stuff. What do you mean, it’ll happen again? I’m still blocked and can’t get to your website unless I don’t use wifi. I get this message:
      You don’t have permission to access / on this server. AH01797: client denied by server configuration: /services/users/zstorage24p1/truthforumsd/www/
      Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

      Please explain. Also, do you think I’m disinfo?

      Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 7:47 am

      “I have addressed the evidence to some degree”

      Bullshit. For months you have done nothing but evade and squirm. It is pathetic to watch and insulting to my intelligence. This evidence. Explain how it is consistent with explosives alone or whatever it is you believe or you’ll be blocked again. I can find Judy’s bullshit anywhere, don’t bring it here. Talk about the evidence that leads me to my conclusions or don’t talk at all.

      Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 7:49 am

      “Please explain. Also, do you think I’m disinfo?”

      I think you’re a fucking idiot.

      Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 10:00 am

      “I’m still blocked and can’t get to your website unless I don’t use wifi.”


Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 11:25 am

Dear Concerned Grandpa,
– Lets try this again, shall we?

It seems you would rather argue with “Conspiracy Cuber” and attack other researchers rather than posting my comment. Why is my response to your evidence not posted? What is so threatening about what I said? I understand if you don’t want to respond to it but to delete it Steve? Let the public decide what to read. Otherwise why the website brotha? I pointed out 2 pieces of your evidence. Previously I pointed out another piece and you say I’am “nitpicking” but if Hezerkhani was in fact following Flight 175 – as you stated above. Then your whole theory of CGI is wrong. Honestly Hezerkhani footage is an old / irrelevant argument. When I first subscribed to your YT channel, It seemed you wanted to do something good with your crash test. However the more I think about it and see your behavior I realize the only thing your crash test would prove is that there were “No Planes” which has already been proven by (1) the impossible speeds (verified by video evidence & independently by RichplanetTV) and (2) impossible crash physics (also verified by video evidence) why not do an experiment with some of your magic missiles that can make airplane shaped holes on steel structures? Anyway it’s unfortunate it’s come to this, silly of you to delete my comment after you accused Mark Conlon of deleting comments. :/ Must have not wanted your followers to see that truth. That’s unfortunate.

    Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 11:41 am

    I have deleted nothing, that’s not my style, but I can’t help but notice that it’s Conlon’s style so maybe you’re confusing me with him. CC used to accuse me of the same but that wasn’t true either as you can see his spam all over my videos, but you are welcome to copy and paste what you think I’ve deleted. Two of CC’s posts were marked as spam and will remain so. Like him you are ignoring my requests to discuss the evidence mentioned in the post. Why should I give you the time of day when you constantly prove me right? Do you not see the irony responding to a post where I repeatedly predict that Judy Wood’s sycophants NEVER address the evidence of the lightly damaged cladding followed by the progressively worse-damaged steel, without mentioning said damage? They will attack me, or point to one distraction or another but NEVER will they explain how the evidence that has led me to my conclusions is more consistent with their conclusions. Never. You could be the first.

    Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 12:26 pm

    You commented on this post too, and I replied.

    Is that the comment you thought was deleted?

    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. – this one is so obvious 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.
    Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash

Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 1:01 pm

You keep saying that but I’ve addressed this evidence you speak of and it was removed. I’m not ignoring anything, actually that’s why I’m on your website, to address this so called evidence.

    Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 1:21 pm

    I see you assuming that there are a number of ways this damage can be explained, but I missed your explanation. If you don’t like my prickly attitude perhaps you misjudge the level of my concern and how long I’ve had to deal with these same inane questions while having the evidence that would lead any rational person to a very logical conclusion is ignored. If you are really interested in the truth then tell me why if they could use any number of ways to create the gash, they chose to make it look like the lateral impact of cruise missiles. If it was to throw off the truth movement from the scent of “holograms” you’d think the truth movement would have been focusing on this evidence all along, instead of doing their damndest to ignore it while reaching for top-secret explanations for the collapses that both give the military godlike prowess and give us no way of verifying the claims (because they’re top-secret.) This is called appealing to authority in propaganda terms, but in research terms you might as well say unicorns did it and we can all go home.

Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 1:04 pm

Yes, that’s the comment!

Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 1:13 pm

Your begging these guys for a theory on what is more consistent with the damage. I’m sure you have a problem with this too as it does not fit with your theory and it exposes the use of advanced technology being hidden and used on us.

Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 1:31 pm

It doesn’t look like cruise missiles it looks like a Airplane shaped hole, which was obviously a big part of the Psyop and helps to explain why the So Call “Truth Movement” is ignoring this evidence. We are in agreement on that point. They have gotten us nowhere, however on my blog I point out the connections of many private military contractors that actually profited from 911 and have the exact technology to do the damage we saw. The same companies specializing in Holography are members of the same society of companies who specialize in directed energy weapons and psychological operations. The same ones NIST hired to lie to us and commit science fraud. The faulty physics animation of the aircraft impact. The criminals are right in your face and you don’t want to talk about them. I’m not scared. SPIE – SAIC – ARA – OSA – Lockheed Martin – Boeing – Dude seriously file a court case there is plenty of evidence that these companies know what happened. You dont care about exposing any of it obviously. I have nothing further to speak to you about unless you can address. ALL POINTS made in my article –

    Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 1:51 pm


    You are on my page, ignoring everything I say. You are doing exactly what I accused Mark and all Judy Wood’s fawners of doing; repeating the same complaints, appealing to authority, “yeah-but what about…” up the yin-yang, while ignoring all the reasons why the evidence can be taken at face value. If you have a better explanation for it than the lateral impact of dense-metal projectiles that were much bigger and more dense in some places than they were in other places then please type a quick paragraph that explains it. If you want to write the same complaints again, please save it for your own page.

    You assume a top secret weapon was used. Do you have any proof of this weapon’s existence? Do you have any proof at all that the damage caused by this top secret weapon is consistent with the damage to the twin towers, or are you just assuming so because you’re sure these guys who represent the class of people who have been claiming the power of the gods for generations, actually have that power? You didn’t notice that until the advent of the motion picture, they couldn’t “prove” they could do these things, eh?

    Funny that you mention Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, considering they make the missiles that used off-the-shelf technology that was known to exist at the time, missiles that can easily account for the damage to the Twin Towers.

Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 2:05 pm

So because we can’t prove the existence of an advanced weapon we should just assume it’s the next best thing. Oh because it’s in the public domain and we know more about it. Missiles… What about the other companies I listed. Lockheed Martin & Boeing aren’t the ones who investigated 9/11. Hmm ignoring it again are we? You make it sound as if what we’ve been shown is our most advanced weaponry. They don’t hide anything from us right? No way they could have pulled one of these AF2025 weapons out of testing and development for Real Life use? Not even to attack ourselves and trick everybody into starting a war? Are you sure? No your not!!! That’s the problem though huh? You can’t be sure about it, so it can’t be possible? I’m sorry but that is way to Naive for an older gentlemen as yourself to be. It’s gotta be anything but the invisible technology right? That’s only in the Sci-Fi movies right? I would say: WAKE UP – but I suspect thats not your problem. You need an answer that no one can give you instead of pursuing justice.

    Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 2:27 pm

    “So because we can’t prove the existence of an advanced weapon we should just assume it’s the next best thing.”

    You could claim anything you want, but it seems odd that they would mimic something that can be explained by the lateral impact of dense metal projectiles, and not the impact of a jet like they were selling on television. A less breathless investigator might conclude that they used the best means they had, based on the known measurements and capabilities of the two objects.

    “Oh because it’s in the public domain and we know more about it. Missiles… What about the other companies I listed. Lockheed Martin & Boeing aren’t the ones who investigated 9/11. Hmm ignoring it again are we? You make it sound as if what we’ve been shown is our most advanced weaponry.”

    Be afraid, be very afraid. Just IMAGINE what they could do!

    “They don’t hide anything from us right?”

    No need, the fear of “what could happen” has already sunk in.

    “No way they could have pulled one of these AF2025 weapons out of testing and development for Real Life use?”

    Why bother, the brainwashing is complete.

    “Not even to attack ourselves and trick everybody into starting a war?”

    Same story has been done since before Hammurabi. Only difference is the mass media.

    “Are you sure? No your not!!!”

    Yep, certain. But what you’re saying is that we should be afraid of the unknown, which means they’ve already won the battle for your mind.

    “That’s the problem though huh? You can’t be sure about it, so it can’t be possible? I’m sorry but that is way to Naive for an older gentlemen as yourself to be. It’s gotta be anything but the invisible technology right? That’s only in the Sci-Fi movies right? I would say: WAKE UP – but I suspect thats not your problem. You need an answer that no one can give you instead of pursuing justice.”

    Grow up.

Wolf Clan Media · January 15, 2018 at 2:39 pm

Me grow up? Haha your a grandpa and your attacking other researchers because they support Dr. Judy Wood and are part of S cult right?

Grow up.

    Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 3:04 pm

    “Me grow up? Haha your a grandpa and your attacking other researchers because they support Dr. Judy Wood and are part of S cult right?

    Grow up.”

    Judy Wood was written into the script, so yeah, grow up.

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 15, 2018 at 3:50 pm

      Steve can you prove to me that this video is fake? Thanks

      Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 4:49 pm

      In reply to Steve De’ak.

      Steve can you prove to me that this video is fake?

      Yes, the damage on the left sides of both impact holes is proof that what was shown on television was faked, and because it is also proof that explosives alone couldn’t have done it, it is also proof that holograms, or a projected plane couldn’t have done it.

      Conspiracy Cuber · January 15, 2018 at 5:19 pm

      But what in THE VIDEO ITSELF shows that it is fake??

      Steve De'ak · January 15, 2018 at 6:26 pm

      “But what in THE VIDEO ITSELF shows that it is fake??”

      I don’t really care. The damage evidence proves that it’s fake; how it was done is beside the point.

Conspiracy Cuber · January 16, 2018 at 3:30 pm

So I’m an f***ing idiot am I?? Well, please address all my questions and I MIGHT take you seriously.

    Steve De'ak · January 16, 2018 at 4:03 pm

    “So I’m an f***ing idiot am I?? Well, please address all my questions and I MIGHT take you seriously.”

    I have, but some horses can’t even be led to water.

    Steve De'ak · January 16, 2018 at 4:13 pm

    You’re such a whiner. I invite the readers to suffer through the conversation this OP was spawned from. If they do they’ll find you crying the same whine. I answered your questions then, twice if I recall – for example:

    6 months ago
    1. If it’s the truth, why wouldn’t it matter?
    2. It proves an intent to deceive, and it is consistent with the other
    amateurs who were also using tripods, and it is a necessary tool for
    such things as executing rehearsed camera movements, centering
    buildings, and focusing, as well as for video editing.
    3. Yes. That evidence is visible in the impact damage, as mentioned in
    this 15-minute video: and in this 1-hour video:
    4: After having been lied to by my government about so many things, why
    would I believe anything without first verifying for myself?
    5. I never said “every witness was lying,” I was referring to those who
    insist they saw a plane enter the building as seen on television. They
    are either lying or mistaken, because the impact evidence doesn’t lie.
    6. I am a real amateur and in my experience it makes the footage much
    more wobbly and difficult to center the subject in the view finder
    especially if it is a moving target. To have 15 frames of near
    motionless footage right before he tilts up to perfectly center the
    incoming plane and follow it into the tower is what I would expect of a
    practiced shot, and that’s the way I would have done it had I practiced
    it. The rest of the footage is wobbly and shows obvious boat-motion,
    which was clearly not visible in your footage.
    7. I don’t want to argue, I want to solve the caper but Judy behaves as
    if she already has but will NOT discuss the evidence that makes her
    theory moot, and her followers simply defer to her authority. It is a
    waste of time.
    8. Why should it? Why wouldn’t I?
    9: I think you should re-read what I wrote – I said 15 nearly motionless
    frames, three of which are motionless. I withdraw the claim about two
    frames and will no longer say so without including the caveat about the
    zoom and the 13 other nearly motionless frames. I stand corrected. In
    retrospect to have two frames of stable footage out of hundreds of
    wobbly footage wouldn’t even have been noticed – it was the .5 seconds
    of stable footage at just the right moment that caught my eye. I also
    note that the rest of his footage was wobbly and showed exaggerated boat
    movement EXCEPT for those fifteen stable frames which just so happened
    to occur right before he tilts up to capture the plane. If I was to use
    my amateur camera skills to try to fake a shot like Hezarkhani’s so as
    to time the camera motion with whatever DID cause the damage to the
    towers I would need a stable platform to practice the camera movements
    with, and evidently Hezarkhani had one with the boat, a point which I
    have already conceded.
    10. Because your footage proved the boat was stable enough to not show
    motion but Hezarhkhani’s footage shows obvious sideways rocking, which
    would mean the big boat would have been in some pretty rough water to be
    rocking stern to bow like that, so it would stand to reason that the
    rocking would have continued through the fifteen frames. Instead it
    appears the boat was very stable and therefore they were able to use a
    dolly or tripod mounted camera to rock back and forth (mimicking the
    rocking of a smaller boat as far as I can tell) but able to stabilize it
    for the money shot. Can’t have it both ways.
    11. Reread what I wrote.
    12. Because many of the photos and videos include clues that explain
    how it was done. I have worked with animation and with animators with
    my own projects so I know how expensive, time consuming and difficult
    they are to produce, there is no doubt that they would not work so hard
    to produce clues that can explain how they did it so it makes more sense
    to discredit ALL the videos and photos as a way to dispose of the
    evidence. The only things they needed to fake were the planes, and even
    that was difficult enough. The clues as to what really did it are in
    the impact damage, which is what Judy and friends won’t touch.

    Steve De'ak · January 16, 2018 at 4:23 pm

    I have answered your questions for fucking months. All you do is evade and bitch and barf up the same old questions I have already answered, but you never do me the courtesy of answering my questions to you. Prove to me you’re not the poster child for useful idiots and tell me what cut the plane shaped hole.

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.