My Open Response to Steve De'ak's Blog Post - 17th December 2017

By Mark Conlon

Steve De'ak's blog post - "My Response to Mark Conlon" Posted by Steve De'ak - 17th December 2017" 

Hello Steve,

Thanks for contacting me so to speak. Sorry you couldn’t leave a comment on my blog site. Yes, you correctly state that I block comments. I do this because of the amount of "anonymous" spammers who refuse to identify themselves. I do have a “contact button” in the side-bar of my blog where people who are serious in this subject can contact me directly if they wish. People seem to contact me this way who have serious comments or questions to ask, rather than people who just continually spam blog posts under “false” names.

As you may know my main body of research initially has been exposing “falsehoods” put-out by Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Markus Allen, BS Registration and others too many to name here, where I have demonstrated how they have promoted “false” arguments of “video fakery” in order to discredit or cast doubt over the 9/11 video evidence. I have proven this conclusively, and there can be no other way to draw inference and hypothesise from the facts and evidence I have presented over the past 4 years. This is why I analysed your “frozen smoke” theory claims in the Michael Hezarkhani video, because it was related to an area of research I have been doing around “video fakery”, especially in relation to the Michael Hezarkhani video in particular. This is why I particularly pointed-out errors in your theory. If you remember you revised your position regarding the “frozen smoke” which I reflected at the end of the blog article I did, and felt that was only fair to you. http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/analysis-of-steve-deaks-frozen-smoke.html 

I also felt it right to post a blog acknowledging when people correct or are open to re-evaluating previous hypothesis because of new evidence. I have recently done this myself regarding the Fox News “nose-out” sequence, because of clearer video evidence proving it to be a “dust cloud”. It was only right to update my own position or thoughts about that video footage, which I have done and posted on my blog.  http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/new-evidence-analysis-proves-911-nose.html 

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?

It was his video evidence I used to point-out Simon Shack’s "false" misrepresentation of an “alleged” gash which Shack claimed was photo-shopping done to the Naudet video footage to increase the 1^st plane shaped impact hole. That video evidence was swiftly removed from my YouTube Channel. My conversation with Mr. Huibregtse: http://mark-conlon.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/my-conversation-with-911-eyewitness.html

Regarding the deletion of my comments from Conspiracy Cuber’s comments thread on your YouTube Channel. Most likely by the sound of it you are unaware that my YouTube Channel was terminated after my appearance on Richard D. Hall’s show by Google/YouTube, so all my comments and videos were removed, so my comments would’ve also been removed from that thread. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6ba15o

I shall be writing a lot more about this set of circumstances and events surrounding what led-up to this very swift “unnecessary” action to silence me by YouTube, and the double standards they imposed on me by removing videos which they still promote on their platform today which are against their own community guidelines, which I informed them about on several occasions, however they seem happy to promote "video fakery" material, even though it could still be classed as graphic content according to their own guidelines?


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 1^st plane impact fire-ball explosion study and behaviour, but this is only a small part of the research. I feel some “falsehoods” about that explosion fire-ball were promulgated by Simon Shack, regarding a 6 second delay and secondary explosion to create the plane shaped hole, which from the new research I have done is incorrect, and is another distraction and misdirection ploy by Simon to lead people away from what really caused the hole. https://www.bitchute.com/video/eCVlmYFKv4O9/ 

Evidence which people really do not want to talk about, similarly like Ace Baker who also put-out a narrative which keeps it (like Simon does) to the conventional sense of “pre-planted” explosives where other evidence suggests otherwise, like the "magnetometer" readings spikes, which you don’t address in your videos? As far as I am aware plane crashes or missiles do not cause the earth’s magnetic fields to spike in such a fashion as they did on 9/11.

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.

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. 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. 

I hope this answers some of your questions in relation to your blog post? You can always contact me through the "Contact Form" in the side-bar of my blog. I may post this response at your blog/website also.  

And finally, Andrew Johnson told me, if you want to contact him directly then you can e-mail him, there’s no need to go via myself to ask him questions.

Kind regards and best wishes,

Mark Conlon.