September Clues - Addendum "Deceptions" - Part Two


By Mark Conlon

Following-on from my part one analysis, in this short part two analysis I’m going to study more claims made by Simon Shack in his September Clues – Addendum film, where he claims all of the live network television footage depicting the South Tower’s destruction is “fake”. Simon Shack bases his claims on the presence and movements of a helicopter (PAT) flying in the vicinity of the South Tower, prior to the South Tower’s destruction. 

At 6:19 into the film, Simon Shack claims that 'Chopper 2' (CBS) filming from the south behind the towers is no where to be seen on any available 9/11 footage. See below: screen-shot.


I was able to find some MSNBC news coverage footage which shows both 'PAT' the helicopter and 'Chopper 2' filming the South Tower as it is destroyed. Simon Shack claims no footage of 'Chopper 2' exists. See below: screen-shot.


Simon Shack also debunks himself again here below, as he points out 'PAT' in this 'Chopper 2' CBS news footage.


At 6:40 into his film Shack again debunks his own theory by showing another 9/11 video which also shows 'PAT' clearly in the video footage. See below: screen-shots.


At 6:45, Simon Shack tries again to "exploit" some poor quality distance video footage claiming that 'PAT' is not in the video. See below:


I managed to track down the video footage of the video on the "right" in the split screen-shot above in Simon Shack's film, where he implies 'PAT' the helicopter is "missing". See Below: series of screen-shots showing 'PAT' the helicopter flying away as the South Tower is destroyed. (Note: how Simon Shack misrepresents the location in the image above of PAT's location when considering PAT's actual location in the screen-shots below).




See below: enlargement... 'PAT' is clearly visible...


This is clear evidence that Simon Shack is either mistaken, or it implies he is deliberately trying to deceive his viewers of his film. The pattern throughout the film indicates deception.
 

At 7:32 in his film Simon Shack tries again to imply 'PAT' is missing, by using some very poor low quality video footage. See below:


However if you very look closely at 7:31 'PAT' can vaguely be seen in Simon Shack's version. WHY hasn't Simon Shack pointed 'PAT' out?


Instead at 7:36, Simon Shack flashes this question mark up again trying to "exploit" the poor quality video to promote "video fakery"...


I managed to locate some better quality video footage below of the same video above, which shows 'PAT' clearly located in the video. See screen-shot below:




Conclusions:
A question to consider is, can we really trust Simon Shack to fairly present the 9/11 video evidence? The answer for me judging by his "unfair" treatment of the video evidence presented in his September Clues films, is NO. Simon Shack's integrity has been called into question so many times regarding his presentation of the video evidence, because of his clever editing, misdirection and false, misleading statements which he makes without any supportive evidence, other than to conceal evidence which proves the opposite to his claims.

Simon Shack appears to have an agenda with predetermined conclusions where he is prepared to "exploit" legitimate explanations such as, "laws of optics" to present perfectly genuine 9/11 videos as "fake". Simon Shack's intention is to cast doubt in people's minds over the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence, which to some degree has worked as people are still promoting 'video fakery'.

It appears that Simon Shack is overseeing a "Psychological Operation" to  manage people's perceptions. When people believe they have the correct answers it stops them studying the video evidence any further. This personally happened to me for several years, and in that respect, Simon Shack’s "Psychological Operation" and "Perception Management" worked, as I didn’t continue to study the video evidence because I thought I had all the answers… How wrong I was.

To find out more about Simon Shack (Hytten), please read Andrew Johnson's research article here: 9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175. http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60

Also see these other articles related to my analysis of Simon Shack's films below...

I may do a 'Part Three' as there are more mistakes and deceptions to be exposed...  


Thank you for reading and caring....


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In Search of United Airlines ‘Flight 175’

Image
By Mark Conlon I would like to begin by thanking Julia Ratsey and Conspiracy Cuber for their help towards this blog post. Also thanks to Andrew Johnson, Richard D. Hall and Chris Hampton who have been supportive of my research.   United Airlines “Flight 175” (UAL 175) was a scheduled domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport, in Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles International Airport, in Los Angeles, California. On September 11 th 2001 UAL 175 was scheduled to depart at 08:00 a.m. for Los Angeles. Allegedly fifty-one passengers and the five hijackers boarded the 767 through Terminal C's Gate 19. The plane pushed back at 07:58 a.m. and took off at 08:14 a.m. from runway 9. It is estimated that UAL 175 was hijacked between 08:42 a.m. and 08:46 a.m. while American Airlines “Flight 11” (AAL 11) was just minutes away from hitting the North Tower. We are told the hijackers forcibly breached the cockpit and overpowered the pilot and first officer, allowing lead hijac...
Read more

Who Is 9/11 Harley Guy..? "Seeing Through The Disinformation"

Image
  By Mark Conlon   Much has been made in recent years of the use of "crisis actors" involved in relation to 9/11 and a number of " staged " terrorist attacks that followed. Much of the early promotion of "crisis actors" originated and was heavily promoted by Simon Shack, along with other so-called 9/11 researchers'.  One of the most famous 9/11 cases was the "Harley Guy" on Fox News who gave an account of the " official " 9/11 WTC building collapse story from the get-go, or did he? There has been many people who believe the "Harley Guy" to be actor Mark Adrian Humphries. Of course Mark Humphries denies any involvement on 9/11, and claims he was in Los Angeles at the time the 9/11 events were happening. See image below: Taken from Simon Shack's - September Clues forum.  So who is the "Harley Guy"? I still see and hear people accusing Mark Humphries of being the "Harley Guy". From research which doesn...
Read more

Flight 175 and The Truth about 'The Truth in 7 Minutes' in FIVE Minutes

Image
By: Mark Conlon - 25 Jan 2014   (Updated 24 Feb 2017) Short introduction and note by Andrew Johnson [ADJ] Below, Mark has carefully documented some further errors made by Markus Allen in a recent response to another error he made in an earlier video. The thrust of what Markus Allen appears to be trying to say is that “the videos of Flight 175 crashing into the WTC are fake”. This, of course, has been a topic much discussed on 9/11 “truth” websites. I have come to the conclusion, partly because of what I have covered in this article, that there has been a deliberate attempt to promote the 9/11 video fakery position in order to obscure or cover up the knowledge of the use of some type of image projection technology, which was used to create a very powerful illusion of plane crashes (for those chuckling about this idea, simply try and account for the physical evidence that plane wings cannot cut through steel box-girders and also account for the fact that some witnesses did not see or...
Read more