Here is an excellent video analysis of Simon Shack's - September Clues Addendum film, exposing some of the deliberate "falsehoods" put-out by Simon Shack. Details and video below are from "YougeneDebs" YouTube Channel Published on Oct 18, 2009. Update Note: Unfortunately, this video was removed by YouTube, however I have archived it at my BitChute channel here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/0MKKpjLsBHoY/
The video notes below:
This video is an investigation into Simon Shack's claim that a certain helicopter was
absent from network footage during the collapse of WTC2. A claim made in
his September Clues Addendum Chapter 1.
Now that we have more
information about a helicopter in the footage during the collapse of
Tower Two, we can make a better judgment about Simon's claim.
Did Simon cut out inconvenient and potentially contradictory facts? It would seem so! What
about poor research skills or wilful negligence? I see no effort that
Simon tried to find a longer clip of the zoom-in showing a helicopter
during the collapse.
And finally, did someone tamper with the
evidence to bleach out not one, but 2 helicopters? Did Simon have the
means, motive, and opportunity? Simon's methods seem to be very impressive, but for all the wrong reasons!
So,
Simon, himself, presented Pat the helicopter in live footage during the
collapse; completely debunking his own claim; demonstrating once again
that Simon publishes in the auto-debunkery genre. Thank you for watching and caring!
In this "brief" analysis I shall demonstrate Simon Shack's "misrepresentation" of Flight 175's "alleged" flight path at 26:10 in his September Clues.
See below: screen-shot from 26:10 in September Clues.
Simon Shack suggests the plane's flight path is "rising" in the video? After past research conducted into Simon Shack's claims and methods of his presentation of evidence, I questioned whether or not Simon Shack had "accurately" represented the plane's flight path in this video.
Checking the Evidence:
I decided to try and track the plane's "actual" flight path (and not the plane flight path as suggested by Simon Shack in his film). I did this by "overlaying" two different video frames using an "earlier" time-frame and a "later" time frame as the plane travels towards the South Tower. See two screen-shot images below:
In the two screen-shot images above I have "highlighted" the two white boxes in two separate video frames, which I decided to overlay the two video frames on top of each other so we could track the plane's flight path more accurately and have a greater idea of the plane's flight path. See the result below of the two overlaid images:
In the image above I added "red" lines to represent and highlight the plane's angle as it banks when it continued forwards in its flight path. I also added two "yellow" lines to track the plane's engines which helped to "distinguish" clearer the plane's flight path.
In the image below, I needed to add some more information such as a Datum line (orange/black), which would give a "true" representation and angle to work off, by striking a line through the two buildings in the foreground. I also put a "red" line through the centre of the plane, which also helped to highlight the plane's flight path. See image below:
In the image above it gives us more information to work with which can help determine whether or not the plane's flight path is in a descent or whether it is "rising" as Simon Shack suggested in his film.
What I did next was to find another video from a different angle which I could apply the same set of highlighting lines to along with a "Datum" so I could compare. See image below: Please see the highlighting lines Colour Key in the top left corner also in the image.
As you can see from the image above the plane is in a descent, and clearly from the (orange/black) Datum line we can also see that the plane tilts and banks sidewards. See both images for comparison below:
See below: Short video showing the plane's trajectory flight path to be descending NOT elevating like shack will have us believe in his September Clues film.
Analysis Conclusion:
As we can see the plane's flight path was not "rising", but was in a "descent", which has been completely "misrepresented" by Simon Shack in his September Clues film. We can clearly see that comparing both images together with the extra informational lines, we see the plane tilting and banking as it closer to the South Tower before impact, which can be seen consistently in both images above.
Simon Shack appears to be "exploiting" parallax which is a continuous theme throughout his September Clues films regarding the plane's flight paths. Richard D. Hall's "Flight 175" 3D Radar Analysis proved conclusively that all the plane's flight paths matched in each of the 26 videos sufficient to be analysed from the 53 videos available, thus proving Simon Shack's claims to "false".
Again, questions are raised about Simon Shack’s presentation of video
evidence and the methods he uses in his film September Clues. Is Simon Shack promoting the idea of "video fakery" to discredit the
video evidence record of 9/11? When studying Simon Shack’s presentation
in his film, it becomes clear that he has continually omitted or
misrepresented evidence. From my past analysis, where I have disproved other claims he makes in
his film, it is now appearing to be a deliberate pattern of deceptive
and misleading behaviour, rather than poor research skills, suggesting
an agenda to promote disinformation about the video record on 9/11.
It appears Simon Shack is overseeing a
"Psychological Operation" to promote "video fakery" to lead
people away from closely studying other explanations for the 9/11 video
evidence. When people believe they have an explanation for the anomalies, it
stops them studying the evidence any further. This personally happened to me
for several years, and in that respect, Simon Shack’s "Psychological Operation"
worked, as I didn’t continue to study closely, because I thought I had the
answers… How wrong I was.
In this analysis I’m going to explore Ace Baker's theory he proposes in his blogspot article video he published on the 27th May 2008, entitled - "Theory of Live 9/11 Airplanes Composites" and also in a later version which he included in his 2012 film entitled - "9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera". They both explain how he believes video compositing was used on 9/11 to
"insert" in real-time, a flying airplane into the Fox News "Chopper 5" video. I will primarily be focusing my analysis on his later film - Chapter 7, called "The Key" from "9/11 The Great American Psy-Oprah".
See below: Ace Baker's Theory of Live 9/11 Airplane Composites video:
In Ace Baker's 2012 film 'The 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera' - Chapter 7 "The Key", he explains how he believes a "fake" airplane was "inserted" into the Fox News "Chopper 5" footage using live video compositing layering techniques and "Luma Keying".
Ace Baker also explains what went wrong with the infamous "nose-out" anomaly captured in the Fox News "Chopper 5"
video footage, as (Flight 175) plane's nose "exits" the South Tower building still "intact", which is physically impossibly. See below: The famous "nose-out" shot.
While I do agree that it is a physical impossibility for the plane's nose to exit the South Tower building with its nose still "intact", I do NOT agree with Ace Baker's explanation of this impossible anomaly captured in the Fox News video footage, because of the "technical issue" which Ace Baker has chosen to "omit" which makes his explanation invalid.
So we can thoroughly understand why the "technical issue" arises, which makes his theory invalid, I will first briefly explain Ace Baker's "theory".
Firstly, Ace Baker proposes that there are some "necessary"
attributes which would make live video compositing possible and allow the insertion
of a "fake", computer animated, airplane into the live video. The attributes are:
High contrast between tower and sky
Steady camera with no panning, tilting, or
zooming
Airplane path is across sky only
Airplane disappears across straight vertical edge
"Impact" wall is hidden
No shadows required
Ace states that, "Absent any one of these attributes, inserting a
"fake" airplane becomes "impossible".
See short video excerpt below from Ace Baker's film explaining Compositing, Layering and Luma keying.
Now we are familiar and understand Ace Baker's theory and explanation he proposes in his film of how they "inserted" a fake airplane into the Fox News "Chopper 5" video, we can look at the "technical issue" which makes his theory invalid.
Technical Issue Explained... The "technical issue" in Ace Baker's theory is the use of a "Luma Key" for the purpose of adding a "fake" plane into the
live video footage, which cannot be reproduced as seen in the live Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage of
the 2nd plane impact. The technical issue proves that "Luma Key" was NOT used in the live Fox News "Chopper5" footage as Ace Baker has "alleged". Please refer to the images below as I continue to explain the technical issues.
If a Luma Key had been used in the live Fox News "Chopper 5" video, the exiting "nose" of the alleged "inserted" fake airplane
in the 2nd (middle) composited layer would be "visible" on top of (and in front of) the "explosion" exiting the
tower which is the 3rd (bottom) layer, which is the "original" Fox News video.
The reason for this is, the "Luma Key" works off of the luminance (brightness) within the video
signal. In order to see an airplane animation that has been sandwiched in between two duplicate layers of video from the same camera feed (3 layers
altogether), the (top) 1st layer would require portions of the image to be cut out,
revealing the added airplane layer underneath in the 2nd (middle) layer. When this is done using a "Luma Key", a predetermined luminance (brightness) threshold (limit) is set which will
prevent any portion of the video image from showing that is brighter than
that brightness threshold setting, making those brighter portions disappear completely, and in this case, the brightness threshold would have to be set to a point
where it would eliminate the entire sky background (of the 1st (top) layer only)
while leaving the darker Twin Towers intact to act as the mask for the plane to disappear behind.
The biggest issue here is that the explosion that erupts from the opposite side of the South Tower, is
as bright as the sky threshold Luma Key setting, which means that the explosion would "disappear" just as
the sky does because of "Luma Key" threshold setting on that 1st (top) layer, which would reveal the 2nd layer behind it which supposedly contains the fake "inserted" plane and its protruding nose. Which should've looked like this image below:
The fact that the explosion does "NOT"
disappear, and we observe it covering and obscuring the plane's "nose", is conclusive proof that a "Luma Key" was not used in the Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage
Below: is a short video made by someone who goes under the name Saul Train. He explains "excellently" far better than I can why the South Tower explosion should "disappear" in the Fox News "Chopper 5" video footage if a "Luma Key" was used to "insert" a fake plane using compositing and layering. The fact the explosion didn't disappear in the news footage demonstrates thoroughly that Ace Baker's "Luma Key" theory is invalid.
Here's an analysis I have done in relation to the alleged "POD" attachment theory of an "external" piece of equipment attached to the belly of the "Flight 175" plane, captured in many of the 9/11 videos before impacting the South Tower. This was first suggested by some prominent 9/11 researchers in 2003-04 and over the years it has become a hot topic for debate, and still is today in 2017.
My reasons for my analysis:
Over the last 4 years of investigating the "no-planes" theory and video evidence of 9/11, I have come to learn and understand of a "Psychological Operation"
which appears to involve certain 9/11 researchers whose aim is to cast
doubt in people's minds over the authenticity of the 9/11 video
evidence, especially in relation to the videos of "Flight 175" crashing
into the South Tower, in particular the Michael Hezarkhani video. It has been my quest to expose those "falsehoods" which have been circulated far and wide across the internet
by various 9/11 researchers' "past and present" and highlight the disinformation which they have been promulgating and unravel the "Psy-Op" and expose it for what it is.
Below I
outline how the "POD" theory has been managed and promoted in its early conception, thus implanting into peoples' minds a "false" debate but also misdirecting their attention away from some very important evidence contained in the videos.
"Perception management" - What does history tell us...?
For
a long time, I didn't pay attention to what was happening in the 2nd
plane videos because initially my attention was drawn and focused on the
suggestion of a "POD" attachment on the plane, put forward by the various 9/11 researchers' such as, Phil Jayhan at
his "Let's Roll" forum, and also Dave Von Kleist who
promoted it in his film "In Plane Site" in 2004.
Phil Jayhan - was an early promoter of the "POD" theory in 2003.
Dave Von Kleist - 9/11 In Plane Site: Director’s Cut Film 2004
Dave Von Kleist promoted the "POD" theory in his film as early as 2004 and also in his later film in 2007 - 9/11 Ripple Effect. He was also against the possibility of "no-planes" being involved on 9/11. (Disclaimer: I am not suggesting DVK was circulating disinformation).
Loose Change: 1st Edition - Promoting the "POD" Theory in 2005
Dylan Avery promoted the "POD" theory in his 1st Edition of the "Loose Change" film but didn't include it in the 2nd edition of the film. Also out of bounds for discussion on the "Loose Change" forum was the topic of "no-planes".
The "POD" theory was also accepted by many in the 9/11 Truth-Movement, which turned-out to be managed and "controlled" which was also being steered in a direction by various people who have been shown to be concealing truths rather than exposing them such as; Alex Jones, Steve E. Jones, Richard Gage and Jim Fetzer.
Rebekah Roth: "POD" & "Trick Photography"
Even today we still hear people implanting the idea of a "POD" attached to the plane and also "video fakery" to explain the strange and unusual lack of "crash physics". Here's Rebekah Roth during an interview on "Coast to Coast AM" talking about a "Pod" attached to the plane, however also suggesting "video fakery" ("Trick Photography") as the answer to explain the now obvious lack of "crash physics" as the alleged plane impacted the South Tower building. Here is the excerpt from interview:https://vid.me/IbSKZ
Rebekah Roth's comments contradicts her own theory that "remote controlled" planes were used to strike the towers because she still cannot explain the lack of "crash physics" other than say she thought it was "Trick Photography" which still does not explain the many eyewitnesses who seen the plane hit the South Tower. Plus, how would they control every video and photograph taken of the event in NYC? Or is Rebekah Roth like many others I've written about, intending to implant the idea of the planes story on 9/11 along with the "video fakery" psy-op to "cover-up" a secret advanced "image projection" technology, which could reasonably account for all of the relevant anomalies mentioned above, and the eyewitness accounts who observed a plane hitting the South Tower?
Image Projection Vs Video Fakery: Pros & Cons...
Using an "image projection" technology would solve any issues around needing to control "all" of the video and photographic evidence, as there wouldn't be any need, as people would've videoed and photographed the image of a plane, rather than the theory of using "video fakery" which would need to have control over all the videos and photographs along with the inserting the plane into every video and photograph. Plus, there is always a possibility that a "rogue" video or photograph could slip through the net showing no-plane at all. Something which hasn't happen up to now 16 years on.
Don't look there, look over here....
Effectively I was prevented from observing such anomalies in the surrounding peripheral areas of the video footage of 2nd plane videos, because of the initial emphasis placed upon the "POD". I consider this a "deliberate" distraction which worked well on me and many others for a long time.
See my analysis below:
After conducting extensive analysis on many videos and photographs I now have reached the conclusion that we were observing the "wing fairings" on the plane, and not a "POD" as suggested by many 9/11 researchers'.
A major flaw which needs to be considered is the "Landing Gear"...
There is one vital flaw in the argument for the "POD" theory attachment which is never acknowledged or really discussed, and that is the "storage area" of the "Landing Gear" which is the area around by the wing fairings and the alleged "POD" attachment. If the "POD" was attached it would've prevented the landing gear to extend and retract when landing and taking-off. See video below showing the landing gear's location and the retraction phase, when the plane is taking-off.
The fuselage bulges out where the wings join it. This is called the wing fairing.
The landing gear assembly folds into this area when it is retracted,
which causes a problem if the alleged "POD" is a "missile" launcher as suggested by some 9/11 researchers. See Images below:
Conclusion:
After extensive analysis into the "Pod" theory and finding-out its origins and analysing the videos and photographic
evidence, I am now of the
opinion at this current time, that the "POD" theory was put-out to distract peoples'
attention away from studying all of the video content contained in the 2nd
plane videos, thus, having the desired effect to "misdirect" peoples'
attention away from studying or noticing the surrounding areas of the
videos where anomalies such as the "disappearing wings" were visible and the lack of any noticeable plane "crash
physics". This is "classic misdirection", look over here so to speak, done to conceal other damming evidence contained in the videos which needed concealing because it might have exposed that "no-planes" were involved on 9/11, hence why "video fakery" was introduced around 2004 as another "cover-story" to manage anyone who questioned the anomalies in the 2nd plane videos. My question still remains; what were we seeing in the videos of "Flight 175"?
Much has been said 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" was by Simon Shack following his September Clues film and his September Clues forum.
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 beginning. Or did he?
There has been many people who believe the "Harley Guy" to be a professional actor Mark Adrian Humphries. Humphries denied these claims and of any involvement on 9/11. Humphries claimed he was in Los Angeles at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
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 my research, which doesn't get much attention around the internet, it appears the "Harley Guy" is actually Mark Walsh, who worked as a freelance employee for Fox.
See Image below:
The video below is two short excerpts from "Psycho Mark" Walsh and Ben Sparks' radio broadcast on May
5, 2011. Mark and Ben, including callers discuss 9/11 and the 10th anniversary of the WTC attacks following Osama Bin Laden's capture May 2011. Mark Walsh speaks of his experiences on 9/11. Later in the show the discussion returns to 9/11 and Mark Walsh is informed by a caller that he's known
as the infamous "Harley Guy" from 9/11 on YouTube, much to his
surprise. Walsh has been nicknamed "Harley Guy" on the internet,
because he was wearing a Harley Davidson shirt during his 9/11 Fox News
interview on 9/11.
Here is Google Earth, showing Mark Walsh's apartment building at 105 Tribeca Tower, Duane Street, NY.
Below, is a map showing Walsh's location of his apartment building, and distance from the WTC towers.
Also, here's a clip from the Opie & Anthony Show
from 9/11/01 where they talk about Mark Walsh living near the WTC and
him witnessing the attacks from his apartment and appearing on TV with
Fox News that morning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYKqBC...
In conclusion:
It is clear to see that "Harley Guy" is in fact Mark Walsh and not Mark Adrian Humphries a professional actor. Clearly, misinformation was circulated by certain so-called 9/11 researchers. Was this done to help create a later "Psy-Op" regarding "crisis actors", which seems to play a role in many of today's "conspiracy theories" involving "fake" terrorist attacks?
Another note to consider: Most people have said how cool Mark Walsh looks when delivering his lines on 9/11. I don't recognise this, and in my opinion I see someone who was quite anxious, who couldn't stand still, and was talking quite quickly and looks flustered.
Also, because Mark Walsh was working freelance for Fox News that day, is it possible that he got his "official" information regarding the WTC buildings collapses straight from Fox News and inadvertently repeated what he had been informed had happened to the WTC buildings into his own recollections of his own experience during the interview unknowingly? Thus, inadvertently describing the "official" collapse story perfectly.
Evidence for this is Mark Walsh's use of the term "Ground Zero" in his famous interview, which later became the "official" name of the destruction area. Was this a coincidence that Mark Walsh called it "Ground Zero" or does this suggest the information came from an "official" organisation such as Fox News who might have had scripted information fed to them and then communicated to their reporters and freelance employees at the scene in NYC, like Mark Walsh for example, who most likely unknowingly repeated the "official" collapse story? After all, Mark's "initial" account of the "second" airplane crash was accurate and consistent with the observable video evidence and his vantage location where he witnessed it from. This is never an option of consideration in the 9/11 research community. Does this make Mark Walsh a conspirator, or an employee who was unknowingly used in the conspiracy?
I believe this could be a possibility and should be considered before accusing people of being part of a conspiracy, especially the "wrong" people such as Mark Adrian Humphries who had no involvement in 9/11 or was a crisis actor.
In this short analysis I will explore a theory that has been circulating the internet regarding Flight 175's plane wing briefly passing behind the edge of the North Tower Building in the Michael Hezarkhani video footage. Many people have thought that this was proof and evidence that the Michael Hezarkhani's video was fabricated. See image below:
To briefly explain why the plane's wing appears to be going behind the North Tower's edge in this version above of the Michael Hezarkhani video, is because the video has been converted into "super" slow-motion. This is a process which takes a normal video recording at 30fps and makes it into 60fps or even 90fps using some computer software. This is so the video runs smoother when viewed in slow-motion.
The process to create a "super" slow-motion effect basically creates interpreted frames between the "original" frames. So the frame being created is not entirely a genuine frame, as it is an interpreted creation of two frames which is known as "motion interpolation", also known as:Inbetweening or tweening which is the process of generating
"intermediate" frames between two images to give the appearance that the
first image evolves smoothly into the second image, which is why we see the anomaly circled in red in the video image above, where the plane's wing appears to disappear behind the edge of the North Tower building. This anomaly is no-way attributed to "video fakery" as suggested by many researchers. Just an artefact of the software to create the video to appear in "super" slow-motion.
The process of creating super slow-motion video:
As we can see the plane's wing is very similar in colour to the North Tower's edge colour. The computer software struggles to separate the two colours, especially when trying to convert and create a lower quality compressed version of the of Michael Hezarkhani video, which is why we see the visual separation effect between the plane's wing and building. See the image on the right below:
As we can observe in the two comparison images above, the image on the left shows the plane's wing is not separated between the North Tower's edge, however they do merge together, because the plane's wing passes in front of the North Tower's edge, however the image on the right demonstrates how the computer software interpreted the frame, thus creating the appearance of the wing disappearing behind the North Tower's edge in the "super" slow-motion video version when compared to the "original" frame on the left.
See below "original" 3 x frames of the Michael Hezarkhani video showing that the plane's wing does "NOT" pass behind the North Tower's building edge.
Conclusion:
As we can see, legitimate explanations explain the anomaly in this case, and it cannot be attributed to "video fakery" as suggested by many researchers. Any analysis of the Michael Hezarkhani video should be conducted with the best quality video possible, and not in super slow-motion.
This is a short analysis where I examine a claim made by Steve De'ak during an interview with Jim Fetzer on the 26th March 2017. De'ak claimed the smoke/fumes plume in the Michael Hezarkhani video "freezes" and has no movement in the video during the plane crash sequence frames. After hearing this claim I decided to conduct a short analysis on the 13th April 2017, and I am publishing the findings here after clarifying some information from Steve De'ak on the 10th July 2017.
The reason for asking Steve De'ak for clarification was because I was unsure of the exact time-frame he was referring to in the video footage. This is what lead me to conduct two different time-frame studies of the video footage smoke/fumes plume. See the both analysis findings below.
See below: "close-up" comparison of the smoke/fumes plume characteristic differences in the different frames, from just before the plane "crashes" into the South Tower to when the plane "impacts" the South Tower.
The two analysis studies above "conclusively" demonstrate that the smoke/fumes plume in the Michael Hezarkhani video footage was "NOT" frozen in the frames as Steve De'ak claimed.
Information update:
After some back and to comments with Steve De'ak through his YouTube channel I can now confirm on 10th July 2017 that Steve De'ak told me he has "retracted" his claims for "frozen" smoke/fumes in the Michael Hezarkhani video. Just to note, this isn't about me being right, and De'ak being wrong. Steve has obviously looked closer at new information and re-evaluated his own position. This is what "good" investigators do, not being solely fixed to one idea/theory. So I commend Steve for being open, and reconsidering new information.
See below:
Although this might solve this matter of frozen smoke/fumes, it doesn't solve the "new" claims which Steve De'ak is proposing about the Michael Hezarkhani video, which I will be addressing in another blog soon.
What I can say is, "false" claims are being circulated across the internet about the Michael Hezarkhani video footage which has been a pattern over a long period of time ostensibly to "discredit" the 9/11 video footage and portray it as fake video, something which I have written about at length in other blog posts. The question that has to be asked: Why is it so important to discredit this piece of video footage?
Characteristics: The discrediting of the video evidence - Michael Hezarkhani video
It came as no surprise to me to
discover how this figured in the recent timeline of events in the
“perception management” of this piece of video evidence.
Please read this interesting article written by Andrew Johnson of checktheevidence.com regarding Steve De'ak's 9/11 Crash Test. Link below:
