136 Pages of Conversations with Steve De'ak (26 April 2017-19 July 2017)
I had a run in with De'ak back in the summer through the comments on his YT channel. His statements were very revealing, and the issues with De'ak continue as I type this. At some point I'll post other comment exchanges I've had with him on his website (which he has blocked me from twice: once on 1/12 and again yesterday (1/24)). The stuff here lasted from 4/26-7/19, and on 9/10 I compiled all the pages together into one final file. I originally copied the comments as soon as I could, which sometimes was done in real-time. Anyways, these are unedited and uncensored which is proven by the screenshots of each new post. I still have the original emails that notified me when a new comment was posted as well. I'm glad I saved these when I did.
Link to the document: (Brief note on a copying error, at the bottom of page 40 there are two of Steve's comments that belong on page 81 near the top. Other than, that everything is copied as originally written)
From here to the end is the text from the original document for copy/pasting purposes if anyone wants to do that. No screenshots, that is in the link above.
136 Page of Conversations with Steve De’ak
Comments originally appeared on: Jim Fetzer/Steve De'ak - "The Real Deal" How were the gashes in the Twin Towers made? At: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKGh3CAoO64&lc=z13red3pbxraijmzg04cedgohvv2hbbpe20
Me on 4/25, 7pm: Why do you not support Dr. Judy Wood?
SD responding to above (4/26): Why, what does she say cut the holes?
Me responding to above (4/26): She doesn't speculate on what cut them, but the magnetometer data is very interesting how it shows a dip at 8:46 and a spike (more like rise) at 9:03.
Either way, why do you not support her? Please watch this video and notice how at 0:40-43 a chunk of perimeter columns turns to dust. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
Bombs and thermite (or anything else besides a DEW) do not explain that. Also in this video at 1:16, the top chunk of 30 floors is turned to dust inside the dust cloud and only the eastern wall emerges while trailing dust. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
The evidence is very overwhelming for what Judy Wood says.
Comments originally appeared on: Jim Fetzer/Steve De'ak - "The Real Deal" How were the gashes in the Twin Towers made? At: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKGh3CAoO64&lc=z13red3pbxraijmzg04cedgohvv2hbbpe20
Me on 4/25, 7pm: Why do you not support Dr. Judy Wood?
SD responding to above (4/26): Why, what does she say cut the holes?
Me responding to above (4/26): She doesn't speculate on what cut them, but the magnetometer data is very interesting how it shows a dip at 8:46 and a spike (more like rise) at 9:03.
Either way, why do you not support her? Please watch this video and notice how at 0:40-43 a chunk of perimeter columns turns to dust. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
Bombs and thermite (or anything else besides a DEW) do not explain that. Also in this video at 1:16, the top chunk of 30 floors is turned to dust inside the dust cloud and only the eastern wall emerges while trailing dust. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
The evidence is very overwhelming for what Judy Wood says.
Me on 4/28 at 10pm: 41:19 there were 8 live shots😉
1. WNYW Chopper 5
2. NY1 from the ESB
3. WPIX-TV (WB11) from the ESB
4. ABC Chopper 880 (not 7 as commonly believed)
5. CBS
6. CBS (again)
7. CNN live on FOX 4
8. NBC Chopper 4 41:22, so far there are 60 clips total😉
How could there be no clips of a missile if all the existing ones are all corrupted/fake?
SD responding to above (4/29): How could all the live shots not show a view of the impacted face? Dozens of amateurs thought to film the impacted face but not the army of journalists?
Me responding to above (4/29): I do think there are some shots of the "plane" (I am also a no-planer) captured by news cameras from the south that are hidden away somewhere (even though I have no evidence for this, it is just my speculation). The main reason that none of the live shots show the south face is the fact that they were all focused on the north face of the north tower. Nothing was happening at all on the south face of the south tower at this point. If any cameras were in that general area, it would make for some boring video (before 9:03).
It is true that the CBS-2 live clip and CNN live clip were filmed on virtually the same axis (slightly west of north), and the NBC4, NY1, and WB11 live clips were shot on about the same axis (north). There are still 3 more clips, one from the NNE (CBS-1), the NW (ABC Chopper 880), and the W (WNYW Chopper 5).
Each clip has different things obstructing the view of the "plane" that makes it a lot harder to fake on live TV. For example, in the NBC 4 clip, the object appears for a split second between the two towers. Also, the CBS-1 clip shows the object disappear behind the smoke/fumes, reappear from behind the tower a few seconds later, and then disappear behind the tower again just before the alleged impact. The WNYW Chopper 5 footage would be the hardest to fake because the object is actually visible during the wide shot for a few seconds. During the first zoom in, it exits the frame.
Even if the shots were all faked, why do no videos exist of a missile hitting the tower? Dozens of people captured the event on video and not all of them have shown it to us yet. At some point, someone should come forward with a video showing a missile or something else.
Anyways, I'm not trying to troll around and I do respect your work. I just wanted to point out some flaws with the TV fakery and Controlled Demolition theories. (Have you watched those videos showing the steel turning to dust? In this one at 0:40-43: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
and this one at 1:16: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
If Judy Wood's material is not true, how can these videos be explained?)
Me responding to myself (4/30): I would like to make a correction to my first comment...There are now 61 known video clips (the 61st was brought to my attention today). Like I said, "Dozens of people captured the event on video and not all of them have shown it to us yet." People keep coming forward with more videos, and someone just did.
SD responding to above and above (4/30): I understand how difficult it must be to consider that to have that many fake videos only reinforces the conclusion that this was a gigantic operation, but I don't understand what you mean by saying you believe there are secret shots of the "plane" in the same sentence as saying you're a "no-planer." The evidence supports my conclusions quite nicely and yes, each and every one of those shots cancels out the other as being fraudulent. The fact is that if this was a real event there should be zero examples of fakery, much less every single one. So what do you mean you're a "no planer" but you believe there is secret footage of the "plane" hidden away somewhere? What if that secret footage actually showed multiple missile impacts, which is of course not the official narrative and therefore would NEVER be broadcast to the public?
Me responding to above (5/1): Let me clarify about be being a no-planer. I believe that no physical planes crashed anywhere on 9/11, but I do believe that images of planes were seen in the sky by people in NYC, Arlington, and Shanksville. I.e., the plane was a projected image/illusion/hologram (I don't like to use the word hologram). I believe that the gashes in WTC 1, WTC 2, and the Pentagon were created by directed energy weapons, and that the "UA93" gash was created with missiles as put forward in one of your earlier videos.
I think it is 100% possible for all 61 known videos and 40 known photos to have been faked, but I just don't see any evidence of fakery. The arguments that I have seen so far have been disproven (and I've REALLY looked into this theory), with the exception of the weird audio offset of the voice that says, "Oh my G-d, a plane hit the building, I cannot believe it!" in the Hezarkhani video. But this in itself does not prove that the video portion was faked. Anyways, I am still open to the idea of TV fakery but I just need to see some conclusive and irrefutable evidence. I have yet to see one example of video fakery.
The missile theory is interesting and I'm open to it, but I have a hard time believing that no civilians would capture this on video. Just one video uploaded to YouTube would expose the entire plane story. More videos keep coming forward every so often (like the 61st video I came across yesterday), and I find if hard to believe that missiles could have hit the towers in front of 100s, if not 1000s of people. I understand that the points of impact were a very unlikely place to be looking at the time of the event, but out of millions of people in the city, a few here and there are bound to have seen it.
Also, whenever I bring up Judy Wood why do you just ignore it? Once again, videos of steel turning to dust here (at 0:40-43): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
and here (at 1:15-1:19): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
5/20/2017, I discover that my previous comment is missing when I get a notification for this reply from chris Mcguinness [sic].
5/20/2017, I also discover that my reply to Steve’s reply to my comment is missing (it contained those same links)
chris Mcguinness responding to this thread on 5/20: yankee451 There was definitely something that flew threw the air and smashed into the trade towers! I can't believe that there where no planes definitely not normal commercial planes!
My reply to that on 5/20: Chris: Are you saying that you believe that there were planes? I do think that something did hit the towers and that it was probably some type of cruise missile surrounded by the illusion or projection of the plane.
And yankee451: I had this huge 357 word reply to your most recent comment, but it seems to have been suspiciously deleted. If this is just an error on my part, my apologies, but I'm going to post this again.
This is what I said in my previous comment that I posted on May 1st:
Let me clarify about be being a no-planer. I believe that no physical planes crashed anywhere on 9/11, but I do believe that images of planes were seen in the sky by people in NYC, Arlington, and Shanksville. I.e., the plane was a projected image/illusion/hologram (I don't like to use the word hologram). I believe that the gashes in WTC 1, WTC 2, and the Pentagon were created by directed energy weapons, and that the "UA93" gash was created with missiles as put forward in one of your earlier videos.
I think it is 100% possible for all 61 known videos and 40 known photos to have been faked, but I just don't see any evidence of fakery. The arguments that I have seen so far have been disproven (and I've
REALLY looked into this theory), with the exception of the weird audio offset of the voice that says, "Oh my G-d, a plane hit the building, I cannot believe it!" in the Hezarkhani video. But this in itself does not prove that the video portion was faked. Anyways, I am still open to the idea of TV fakery but I just need to see some conclusive and irrefutable evidence. I have yet to see one example of video fakery.
The missile theory is interesting and I'm open to it, but I have a hard time believing that no civilians would capture this on video. Just one video uploaded to YouTube would expose the entire plane story. More videos keep coming forward every so often (like the 61st video I came across yesterday), and I find if hard to believe that missiles could have hit the towers in front of 100s, if not 1000s of people. I understand that the points of impact were a very unlikely place to be looking at the time of the event, but out of millions of people in the city, a few here and there are bound to have seen it.
Also, whenever I bring up Judy Wood why do you just ignore it? Once again, videos of steel turning to dust here (at 0:40-43): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
and here (at 1:15-1:19): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
Okay, I know that was incredibly long, but I find it strange that it was gone when I checked on it today (especially since I said to stop ignoring Dr. Judy Wood's material). And under the other thread that I started when I said, "Why do you not support Dr. Judy Wood", you deleted my reply to that as well. Any time I simply provide evidence for he case (or rather, just WHAT happened), it is covered up. Why? Why? Why? Please do not ignore this!
Me responding to my original post on 5/26: On April 26th, I originally replied:
She doesn't speculate on what cut them, but the magnetometer data is very interesting how it shows a dip at 8:46 and a spike (more like rise) at 9:03.
Either way, why do you not support her? Please watch this video and notice how at 0:40-43 a chunk of perimeter columns turns to dust. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
Bombs and thermite (or anything else besides a DEW) do not explain that. Also in this video at 1:16, the top chunk of 30 floors is turned to dust inside the dust cloud and only the eastern wall emerges while trailing dust. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
The evidence is very overwhelming for what Judy Wood says. [End of original reply]
Why was this comment deleted?
5/28/17: I discover that my second reply to the long thread is missing again.
My reply to this on 5/28: Okay, why was my comment deleted again? This is the second time this has happened. I reposted the comment after it was deleted the first time when I said this:
[Start of second repost]
Chris: Are you saying that you believe that there were planes? I do think that something did hit the towers and that it was probably some type of cruise missile surrounded by the illusion or projection of the plane.
And yankee451: I had this huge 357 word reply to your most recent comment, but it seems to have been suspiciously deleted. If this is just an error on my part, my apologies, but I'm going to post this again.
This is what I said in my previous comment that I posted on May 1st:
[Start of original/first post]
Let me clarify about be being a no-planer. I believe that no physical planes crashed anywhere on 9/11, but I do believe that images of planes were seen in the sky by people in NYC, Arlington, and Shanksville. I.e., the plane was a projected image/illusion/hologram (I don't like to use the word hologram). I believe that the gashes in WTC 1, WTC 2, and the Pentagon were created by directed energy weapons, and that the "UA93" gash was created with missiles as put forward in one of your earlier videos.
I think it is 100% possible for all 61 known videos and 40 known photos to have been faked, but I just don't see any evidence of fakery. The arguments that I have seen so far have been disproven (and I've REALLY looked into this theory), with the exception of the weird audio offset of the voice that says, "Oh my G-d, a plane hit the building, I cannot believe it!" in the Hezarkhani video. But this in itself does not prove that the video portion was faked. Anyways, I am still open to the idea of TV fakery but I just need to see some conclusive and irrefutable evidence. I have yet to see one example of video fakery.
The missile theory is interesting and I'm open to it, but I have a hard time believing that no civilians would capture this on video. Just one video uploaded to YouTube would expose the entire plane story. More videos keep coming forward every so often (like the 61st video I came across yesterday), and I find if hard to believe that missiles could have hit the towers in front of 100s, if not 1000s of people. I understand that the points of impact were a very unlikely place to be looking at the time of the event, but out of millions of people in the city, a few here and there are bound to have seen it.
Also, whenever I bring up Judy Wood why do you just ignore it? Once again, videos of steel turning to dust here (at 0:40-43): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
and here (at 1:15-1:19): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
[End of first/original post]
Okay, I know that was incredibly long, but I find it strange that it was gone when I checked on it today (especially since I said to stop ignoring Dr. Judy Wood's material). And under the other thread that I started when I said, "Why do you not support Dr. Judy Wood", you deleted my reply to that as well. Any time I simply provide evidence for he case (or rather, just WHAT happened), it is covered up. Why? Why? Why? Please do not ignore this!
[End of second repost]
Again? Really? Why are you censoring this evidence? You are acting very much like a disinfo agent right now, and I would like an explanation. If you can explain why this comment has been deleted twice then I will give you the sincerest of apologies, but if this gets deleted a third time I’ll have no other option than
to conclude that you are also a disinformationist involved in covering up the REAL truth. Is there anyone else out there who is noticing this? Someone should contact Andrew Johnson to put something on his website about this if it gets deleted again. Yankee451, you have not told me why this was taken off, and if it happens again then I will know that you are disinformation (just like Fetzer).
6/3, I discover that my repost under the first thread is missing again.
My reposting on 6/3:
Steve, this is the second time you have deleted this comment. Why do you keep covering up evidence? It is simply WHAT happened. On 5/26 I reposted it by saying:
[Start of 5/26 repost] On April 26th, I originally replied:
She doesn't speculate on what cut them, but the magnetometer data is very interesting how it shows a dip at 8:46 and a spike (more like rise) at 9:03.
Either way, why do you not support her? Please watch this video and notice how at 0:40-43 a chunk of perimeter columns turns to dust. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
Bombs and thermite (or anything else besides a DEW) do not explain that. Also in this video at 1:16, the top chunk of 30 floors is turned to dust inside the dust cloud and only the eastern wall emerges while trailing dust. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
The evidence is very overwhelming for what Judy Wood says. [End of original reply]
Why was this comment deleted? [End of 5/26 repost]
AGAIN?! I’m sorry, but over the past month and a half you haven’t been giving me any solid answers to my questions. They were just sincere inquiries, not personal attacks. My comments have continually been deleted and the only thing I can conclude is that you are disinformation. I hate to believe this, but unless you can provide an explanation to why you keep doing this, I’m forced to think that you are another layer of cover-up. Just like Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez thought with Richard Gage, “Maybe he just doesn’t know about this evidence,” but it appears that you do and will not allow it to be publicized. I have nothing to hide. I’m an independent researcher that has been looking into 9/11 since 3/29/2016. Around the second week of November 2016, I became convinced that Dr. Wood was on to something and believed it fully by mid-January 2017. Once I realized how much disinfo was out there, I realized that even the least likely of people would be part of the cover-up. Once again, I sorry that I have to say this, but I have no other option. Please, just explain to me why you keep censoring evidence. Until then…
6/4, Shock of all shocks, I discover that my long comment is missing again (but not the other one).
My reply to this on 6/4: Yep, you deleted it again. You leave me with no other option but to conclude that you are disinformation. I’m sorry. I will recant if you can provide a valid, logical, rational explanation. Last time I replied I said this:
[Start of third repost]
Okay, why was my comment deleted again? This is the second time this has happened. I reposted the comment after it was deleted the first time when I said this:
[Start of second repost]
Chris: Are you saying that you believe that there were planes? I do think that something did hit the towers and that it was probably some type of cruise missile surrounded by the illusion or projection of the plane.
And yankee451: I had this huge 357 word reply to your most recent comment, but it seems to have been suspiciously deleted. If this is just an error on my part, my apologies, but I'm going to post this again.
This is what I said in my previous comment that I posted on May 1st:
[Start of original/first post]
Let me clarify about be being a no-planer. I believe that no physical planes crashed anywhere on 9/11, but I do believe that images of planes were seen in the sky by people in NYC, Arlington, and Shanksville. I.e., the plane was a projected image/illusion/hologram (I don't like to use the word hologram). I believe that the gashes in WTC 1, WTC 2, and the Pentagon were created by directed energy weapons, and that the "UA93" gash was created with missiles as put forward in one of your earlier videos.
I think it is 100% possible for all 61 known videos and 40 known photos to have been faked, but I just don't see any evidence of fakery. The arguments that I have seen so far have been disproven (and I've REALLY looked into this theory), with the exception of the weird audio offset of the voice that says, "Oh my G-d, a plane hit the building, I cannot believe it!" in the Hezarkhani video. But this in itself does not prove that the video portion was faked. Anyways, I am still open to the idea of TV fakery but I just need to see some conclusive and irrefutable evidence. I have yet to see one example of video fakery.
The missile theory is interesting and I'm open to it, but I have a hard time believing that no civilians would capture this on video. Just one video uploaded to YouTube would expose the entire plane story. More videos keep coming forward every so often (like the 61st video I came across yesterday), and I find if hard to believe that missiles could have hit the towers in front of 100s, if not 1000s of people. I understand that the points of impact were a very unlikely place to be looking at the time of the event, but out of millions of people in the city, a few here and there are bound to have seen it.
Also, whenever I bring up Judy Wood why do you just ignore it? Once again, videos of steel turning to dust here (at 0:40-43): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
and here (at 1:15-1:19): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
[End of first/original post]
Okay, I know that was incredibly long, but I find it strange that it was gone when I checked on it today (especially since I said to stop ignoring Dr. Judy Wood's material). And under the other thread that I started when I said, "Why do you not support Dr. Judy Wood", you deleted my reply to that as well. Any time I simply provide evidence for he case (or rather, just WHAT happened), it is covered up. Why? Why? Why? Please do not ignore this!
[End of second repost]
Again? Really? Why are you censoring this evidence? You are acting very much like a disinfo agent right now, and I would like an explanation. If you can explain why this comment has been deleted twice then I will give you the sincerest of apologies, but if this gets deleted a third time I’ll have no other option than to conclude that you are also a disinformationist involved in covering up the REAL truth. Is there anyone else out there who is noticing this? Someone should contact Andrew Johnson to put something on his website about this if it gets deleted again. Yankee451, you have not told me why this was taken off, and if it happens again then I will know that you are disinformation (just like Fetzer).
[End of third repost]
You are disinfo. Sorry, no other option. And I apologize in advance for me posting the same comment over and over on all of your videos (I will do that as soon as this is posted). People need to know the truth and you should stop censoring this evidence.
6/4, I then posted this comment four times on all of Steve De’ak’s videos (the ones in his playlist):
Everyone, please watch these videos of the demise of each building. In this video of WTC2:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ from 1:15 to 1:18 that top chunk of 30 floors turns to dust and only parts of the eastern wall emerge while trailing a ton of dust. In this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs from 0:40-0:43, there is a piece of perimeter columns next to the spire that turn to dust right as the guy walks in front of the camera. This is only explainable by a DEW and not anything else. Go to drjudywood.com and read her book Where Did The Towers Go? for more information. Also read 9/11 Finding the Truth by Andrew Johnson.
(On: Jim Fetzer/Steve De'ak - "The Real Deal" How were the gashes in the Twin Towers made?)
(On the Sofia Smallstorm Interview)
(On: 9/11 Crash Test 2016)
(On: 9/11: Dust Pouring out of a WTC column.)
(On 3 views of a falling man)
(On Shanksville Deception)
(On tiny windows)
(On St. Nicholas)
(On Pentagon Smoke Screen)
(On Plane Shaped Hole)
(On Shanksville Crater)
(On War Without End)
6/5, Steve finally responds to both threads by saying: Nothing has been deleted.
My response to that on 6/5: Then why do my comments keep disappearing? I’ve been saving them from the very beginning and every once an a while when I check on, my most recent comment disappears with proof that steel turned to dust. Have you watched the videos of steel turning to dust? Once again, here (at 0:40-43): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
and here (at 1:15-1:19): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
I’m just trying to tell you about this evidence and you keep ignoring it.
Steve responds to the shorter thread on 6/5 by saying: Perhaps you're entering your comments in Google+ and not in Youtube. I have seen some comments in Google+ but I don't see them in Youtube. Anyway, I have no reason to delete any comments.
Steve responds to the longer thread on 6/5 by saying: I can see several comments as well as duplicates from you. Perhaps you can delete the extras?
Steve adds on to this four minutes later by saying: Steel doesn't turn to dust in the real world, but if it did there would be evidence of "half dustified" steel in the debris pile, but there isn't. What there is though is evidence of removed bolts and floors, and there is video evidence of the dust being in dust form at the time of the first impacts, but before the demolition. The evidence indicates the dust was already there.
https://youtu.be/aoKiBn4tCNw
He adds on again after three minutes by saying: Evidently Youtube thinks your posts are "SPAM." Don't blame me if I don't check the spam buckets often enough for you.
My responses to these four under the longer thread on 6/5: Then how do you explain these videos that clearly show steel turning to dust? This is why I’m somewhat suspicious. Whenever I bring it up again you ignore it. Please, stop ignoring it! It’s right there in the videos.
His response on 6/5: I have already explained it - they aren't turning to dust, the dust was already there. It and Judy were apparently written into the script. The best way to control the opposition is to lead it, after all.
My response to that on 6/5: No, you haven’t explained it. In the video I link in another comment about the demise of WTC1, a group of perimeter columns turns to dust as the guy walks in front of the camera. I’m not talking about the spire, I’m talking about the perimeter columns that are falling towards the west right in front of the spire. If you also look at the main video on Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez’s channel, you can see some of the steel wheatchex turning from steel into dust. The columns are not just hidden behind dust, they are turning to dust in midair. Can you give me one example where Dr. Wood has been involved in censoring information?
Steve’s response on 6/5: I repeat, they are not turning to dust, the wall panels are falling while streaming clouds of dust that was evidently planted in advance. Like I said, the dust was already there; it was written into the script to give truthers something to be baffled by. Simple magic trick, nothing more.
My response on 6/5: In this video: WTC Tower 1 collapse from north (in SoHo) – enhanced from 0:400:43, a group of perimeter columns turn to dust. I don’t know how you aren’t seeing this. Have you watched the video? Also, how were all of those columns filled with dust in the middle of Manhattan? What about the 1400+ toasted cars? What about Hurricane Erin? Unburned paper? Jellification of steel? Lack of debris? Persistent fuming of the ground beneath WTC 4 for over seven years? Exploding fire trucks, cars, and Scott Packs? Lack of a seismic signal? Undamaged bathtub? Quiet sound as the towers were destroyed? Similarities with the Hutchison Effect? The lathering up the building before demise? Very fine dust particulates? Weird fires? Rustification? Etc.
Steve’s response on 6/5: Dust and paper can be seen boiling in the shock and awe impact explosions, and dust and paper can be seen all over the ground after the impacts. There is video of dust and paper pouring out of a wall column, a huge plume pouring from just one column explains a lot, but if indeed the steel was turned to dust there should be many examples of partially "dustified" steel in the debris field. But there are none. There are however many examples of missing bolts and floors, and the straps I mentioned in the Fetzer interview are a very damning bit of evidence that indicates the towers were gutted of non load bearing walls and floors, and demolished using conventional explosives. The dust was added to mask the means used in the demolition, and to hide the missing contents and to control the opposition.
He then adds: in the video you linked to :Once again, here (at 0:40-43): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
at 40-43 seconds the steel can be seen falling and streaming dust and as the camera zooms away it loses focus and the steel appears to "vanish." Really, you might want to consider how effective the power of suggestion is, because you seem determined to see steel turning to dust despite more down to earth explanations.
My response on 6/5: In that video, I see dust falling from the floor next to the column, but not from the column itself. Can you show me how it is coming out of the column? I agree that there are bolts and floors missing, but I believe that this fact strengthens the case for a DEW. It will affect different materials differently, so the bolts and floors will be turned to dust in a different way from the steel. I don’t want to speculate, so I won’t try to say why. How were the towers gutted in the middle of Manhattan without anyone noticing? Were the 2000+ people that died in the towers actors (as well as their families and friends)? Why do witnesses report a very quiet sound as the towers were destroyed? What about the toasted cars, Hurricane Erin, jellification of steel, rustification, low seismic signal, undamaged bathtub, lack of debris, similarities with the Hutchison Effect, levitation of objects, weird fires, unburned paper, etc., etc., etc.?
In the video I linked: I understand that at 0:43 the camera zooms out. At that point, all of the visible beams except for two have turned to dust. I’m not talking about those two beams that do seem to disappear as the camera zooms out (you can actually still see them if you look closely in the following seconds). Compare the second before that guy’s head blocks the view with the second after he gets out of the way. You will see that the columns that are between those are half-dust half-steel before he gets in the way, and 100% dust after he moves. I saw this video before I really even believed what Dr. Wood said. I had heard of her work, but I didn’t believe it until I saw this. Afterwards, I watched a bunch of other videos that show the same thing and became convinced.
6/7, I realized I hadn’t always been referring to Dr. Judy Wood as Dr. Judy Wood and instead just Judy Wood, so I added: My apologies to Dr. Judy Wood and anyone else reading this. I haven’t always been referring to her as Dr. Judy Wood by leaving off the very important Dr. prefix. I’m not trying to employ neurolinguistic programming or decredentialize her.
Steve responds on 6/8 with this: "Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject."
https://www.google.com/#q=propaganda+appeal+to+authority
"Appeal to Authority: Authority is evoked as the last word on an issue. Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action.This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities, this fallacy is a fairly common one."
http://pinkypropaganda.blogspot.com/2010/05/appeal-to-authority.html
My response on 6/8: What?!? That is completely irrelevant to 9/11. What does that have to do with what happened at the World Trade Center? Ignore the messenger and LOOK at the evidence. You are clearly ignoring WHAT happened. Please, tell me why you do not support Dr. Judy Wood. Don’t tell me that she is disinformation, she only presents evidence. Why do you not believe what she presents? (This is not appealing to authority, I’m just saying that I agree with her and that she brings up points that need to be explained.)
6/22, I discover that those comments under those two threads have been deleted again (or YouTube just marks it as spam as he says).
Steve’s reply sometime after that in the next few days (I didn’t check this at all from 6/9-6/21 because of the history trip so I don’t know the exact day): WHAT??!! Appealing to some "expert" with a few letters behind their name is all the ironically named truth movement is good for and it is the only argument you have offered. I have already explained why the evidence makes it plain Judy Wood is the one ignoring the evidence, and since you let her do your thinking for you, you are forced to follow suit.
You wrote:
"You are clearly ignoring WHAT happened."
Nope, I am examining the evidence at the scene of the crime that YOU refuse to address. Instead you appeal to authority.
You:
"Please, tell me why you do not support Dr. Judy Wood. "
Again? Because I can think for myself and because she is ignoring critical clues that can explain how it was done and by extension, who did it. I have been in contact with Judy on numerous occasions and like you she appeals to authority, HER authority. She is establishment trained, establishment published, and wields her establishment credentials like a bludgeon and her "research" relies entirely on "secret" technology that cannot be proved (because it is secret) and which gives the military the power of the gods. She behaves exactly as military propagandists behave and she will not address all the evidence. Judy has been a major leader of the truth movement for many years and we all know the best way to control the opposition is to lead it, so why don't you tell ME why YOU support the fraud?
You:
"Why do you not believe what she presents? (This is not appealing to authority, I’m just saying that I agree with her and that she brings up points that need to be explained.)"
It is not about belief - it is about what the evidence indicates. I am more than happy to explain each and every "belief" you have but so far your only argument is to appeal to the authority of someone you think is smarter than you.
My reply to that on 6/22: What evidence is *DR* Judy Wood ignoring? You say that bolts are missing. I agree. Now look at that evidence in light of all the other evidence (dustification of steel, rustification, lather, persistent fuming of the WTC site as late as 2008, lack of debris, similarities with the Hutchison Effect, Hurricane Erin, the magnetometer data, seismic signals, eyewitness testimony, exploding Scott Packs, weird fires, unburned paper, 1400+ toasted cars, etc…). What all of the fake truth organizations out there do is cherry-pick the data and draw conclusions from that. We need to look at ALL of the evidence before coming to a conclusion.
You:
“…she is ignoring critical clues that can explain how it was done and by extension, who did it.”
First, it is important to know what happened, then how it happened.
You:
“It is not about belief-it is about what the evidence indicates.”
I agree, and thank you for correcting me on that (wow, the powers that be really have used NLP on me more than I realize!). How does the fact that steel turned to dust (along with the rest of the body of evidence) not scream DEW to you? I completely 100% agree that bolts are missing, but we shouldn’t just isolate this one piece of evidence and draw conclusions from it.
NEW BLURB
On 6/20/2017, Steve uploads another of his presentations with Fetzer with more about Shanksville and the Pentagon. During the last 20 minutes, he talks more about the WTC.
Comments originally appeared on: Jim Fetzer and Steve De’ak discuss 9/11 – June 16, 2017 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALPZqq3tW3U
From this point on I should probably screenshot the entire screen with the time and everything.
And then: If all the names you listed insist they saw a jet melt into the wall as shown on the Hezarkhani footage, yes, they’re lying too.
As well as: "Nope, I'm just questioning what you're saying Steve, if that makes me a "super sleuth", then that's your stuff, not mine. Please look me up also."
6/21, I comment: 39:34 The camera had to have been on a ferry or the video perspective would be different. I was just in Battery Park last week on a ferry, and what I saw in person matched what the video shows. And it's Hezarkhani not Herzarkhani😉
42:20 Where did you hear this from?
42:33 The Luc Courchesne footage was first aired on CBC on 9/13/2001 at 7:30pm, not years later. I'll post the link in my reply to this so youtube doesn't view it as "spam".
59:36 Jim says, "We're tweaking our understanding of what happened on 9/11..." Hmmm... Yes, you clearly are twisting the facts Jim.
I add the link: Here is the link to Courchesne's footage being aired on CBC on 9/13/2001 at 7:30pm.
http://archive.org/details/911/day/20010913#id/NEWSW_20010913_233000_Sports_Journal/start/23: 30:56UTC
He replies on 6/22: Thanks for the feedback.
And then a few minutes later: The fifteen frames prove he was not on a boat and that he was on dry land using a tripod or dolly. Unless you can explain how a handheld camera can accomplish such a thing while rocking on a boat, that is.
I stand corrected about couchesne's video.
Conspiracy Cuber, you might consider using your real name and face and going public with the correct facts.
My reply on 6/22: Yeah, I probably should actually make videos about this at some point. It is very likely that Hezarkhani was using a tripod…on a boat. I’ll link the Hezarkhani video in another comment, but if you look at it at 1:27, you can see the heads of two people for a very brief moment. If Michael was standing on the ground, these people would have been over 20 feet tall. The trees in the video are not enormous, but they’re bigger than what would be possible if Hezarkhani was standing on dry ground. There isn’t that much space between the trees and the water either. One last point, Carmen Taylor has publicly stated that she was on a ferry (linked below). Okay, thanks for reading.
The links: Hezarkhani (heads visible at 1:27): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsP-Gt52P2A
Carmen Taylor tells Jeff Hill that she was on a ferry (at 1:46 in the clip): http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/JeffHillsPhoneCalls/Pumpitout.com%20%20Carmen%20Taylor%2014%20Oct%2007.mp3
He replies on 6/22: Read my edit above - it has been several years since I realized the Naudet footage included Courchesne footage that hadn't been released yet. Time stamps are 29.17 from the naudet footage and 1:17 from the Couchesne footage.
https://youtu.be/ggH89ssUw7I?t=77
And then adds: Obviously they were both not on a boat.
His edit to a previous comment that he mentions in here (he simply inserts it): EDIT: correction - I don't stand corrected. The Naudet time stamp of the Courchesne footage can be seen at 29.17. The timestamp from the Courchesne footage of the same frame can be seen at 1:17 - VERY early in the footage. The whole courchesne footage is 10:57, which was not aired publicly until 2004 (if I am not mistaken.) The bottom line is that Naudet included Courchesne footage that was not yet in the public domain, so he must have contacted Couchesne for the clip.
https://youtu.be/ggH89ssUw7I?t=77
Thank you for correcting my spelling of Hezarkhani.
The It has been several years since discovering the [sic]
My response on 6/22: Can you send me a link to the Naudet documentary? I can’t seem to find it online, so I won’t comment for or against what you said. But either way, how does that prove video fakery? You said, “Obviously they were both not on a boat.” Why? Did you read and/or consider my response ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)? The only possible angle is from the ferry.
His first reply on 6/22: I own a copy and recommend buying one.
His second reply: "Why? Did you read and/or consider my response ( ° ʖ °)? The only possible angle is from the ferry."
Because Hezarkhani was definitely using a tripod or dolly on a stable platform as demonstrated by the 15 frames in his video, and because Carmen was apparently standing beside him. Even two frames without camera movement are proof of tripod use, therefore he was not on a rocking boat in the river.
His third reply: Here you go - a link with still shots from both videos.
http://yankee451.com/?p=3931
His fourth reply: What do the visible heads prove? It would have been helpful to have a view of the boat but all we have is 15 frames that prove he was not using a handheld camera but he was using a tripod mounted camera on a stable platform. Carmen Taylor's story doesn't change the 15 frames.
My response on 6/23: Oh, I just assumed it was online. Okay, gotcha. Hezarkhani could have used a tripod, but how does that prove video fakery? The 15 frames don’t prove that he was on solid ground. The water was fairly calm that morning with wind speeds of about 9mph, and when boats rock back and forth there is always a moment where the boat is stationary as it is about to move back down. Plus those frames aren’t 100% motionless (maybe 95%). 2 frames without camera movement does not prove that he was using a tripod, only that the camera was stable. Carmen was not immediately next to him, she was more to the right than Michael. Were they on a stable platform that was 30 feet above the ground then? The visible heads show that Michael was standing quite high off the ground and if you go to Battery Park, it becomes very clear that if he was on the ground the trees would be blocking his view of the towers.
About Luc Courchesne: You are correct, the Naudet documentary has a part of the Courchesne footage that hadn’t been released to the public yet. And since he is listed in the credits, Jules and Gedeon contacted him for the footage. I agree. How. Does. That. Prove. Video. Fakery?
He replies: 15 frames are nearly motionless, which corresponds the time it took to stabilize the camera. Three of those fifteen frames show ZERO movement, all within a half second of time. Yes, that means a stable platform, whether it was a tripod, or a dolly, or a pier in the river, he was NOT holding the camera in his hand while standing on a boat in the river. It doesn't prove video fakery, it proves an intent to deceive. The video itself shows the fakery which would not have been possible had he been holding the camera in his hand, which he wasn't. He was lying, therefore his video should be taken with a bucket of salt, a bushel of limes and a case of tequila. Why is it so important to you that the video is real?
My reply: You: Yes that means a stable platform, whether it was a tripod, or a dolly, or a pier in the river, he was NOT holding the camera in his hand while standing on a boat in the river.
There is no pier in Battery Park. How could he have filmed the video not on the boat? The visible heads show that he was above the ground. He could have been using a tripod…on the boat.
You: The video itself shows the fakery which would not have been possible if…
What fakery exists in this video?
You: He was lying…
I don’t see any evidence that he was.
You: Why is it so important to you that the video is real?
It’s not important to me at all. Its authenticity does not affect my views on 9/11. I just don’t see any evidence that it’s fake. Why is it so important to you that the video is fake?
He replies: "There is no pier in Battery Park. How could he have filmed the video not on the boat? The visible heads show that he was above the ground. He could have been using a tripod…on the boat."
Have you ever taken any footage with a handheld camera and broken it down frame by frame and compared it with frames captured while on a tripod?
If he was above the ground then he must have been on a stage, eh? Pity he didn't pan around to eliminate any question, isn't it? I was being sarcastic about the pier, the point being that how they did it is beside the point to the fifteen frames that prove they were on a stable platform. Even a tripod on a boat wouldn't have three frames with zero movement. The rocking of the "boat" can be seen in other
frames before and after the impact footage, are you saying the boat stopped rocking while the plane crashed?
"What fakery exists in this video?"
Self-healing buildings and planes that disappear into solid steel without crashing, not to mention an impact hole that indicates something(s) struck from the side, not head-on.
"I don’t see any evidence that he was."
I'm not surprised.
"It’s not important to me at all. Its authenticity does not affect my views on 9/11. I just don’t see any evidence that it’s fake. Why is it so important to you that the video is fake?"
It is important that all the evidence be considered honestly and openly. If it leads to fake video and media involvement, then so be it.
My reply: You: Have you ever taken any footage with a handheld camera and broken it down frame by frame and compared it with frames captured while on a tripod?
Yes. If you hold the camera stable enough sometimes it does look like it was filmed on a tripod.
You: Pity he didn’t pan around to eliminate any question, isn’t it?
He did pan around. I’ll post the link in another comment (from NIST FOIA release 10, WTCI-329-I#4.wmv).
You: …are you saying that the boat stopped rocking while the plane crashed?
I’m not saying anything except that he was on the boat. I’ll post the link in another comment, but look at this video from the top deck of a ferry in Battery Park that I took. There is no possible way for anyone on the ground to have the same viewing angle as someone on the top deck of the ferry.
You: Self-healing buildings…
I completely 100% agree. No planes crashed anywhere on 9/11. That is an indisputable fact. I see that as more of an indicator of image projection technology. The entire video fakery argument falls apart when one reliable witness says they saw a plane hit the building (which would then be a projection of the plane).
You: It is important to me that all the evidence be considered honestly and openly. If it leads to fake video and media involvement, then so be it.
That was not the question. I asked why it was important to you that it is fake. You have not conclusively proven that it is. I agree that evidence is important, but it does not point to video fakery. It does point to no planes, but dozens of people witnesses the alleged plane. Were they all lying? Was every single person in southern Manhattan lying? Are the other videos fake also? Why do you ignore the fact that steel turned to dust on 9/11? You keep dodging these bullets one way or another, and it’s tiring. Are you really searching for the truth or are you trying to divert people away from it? Steel turned to dust. Watch the videos I linked in the other Fetzer interview. BTW, you do realize that Fetzer is disinfo right?
The links: The links:
Michael Hezarkhani panning around before the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNwKLONCAs0#t=50m56s
My video from Battery Park: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RigL0sPDzcI
His long reply on 6/24: You: “Yes. If you hold the camera stable enough sometimes it does look like it was filmed on a tripod.”
Not true. But if it was you could provide the frames to prove it. See if you can get fifteen frames as close as Hezarkhani did.
“He did pan around. I’ll post the link in another comment (from NIST FOIA release 10, WTCI-329-I#4.wmv).”
Not true. Hezarkhani’s footage is available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsPGt52P2A&t=0s
You: “I’m not saying anything except that he was on the boat. I’ll post the link in another comment, but look at this video from the top deck of a ferry in Battery Park that I took. There is no possible way for anyone on the ground to have the same viewing angle as someone on the top deck of the ferry.”
Evidently they were on an elevated platform. The 15 frames prove he was not using a handheld camera on a boat.
You: “I completely 100% agree. No planes crashed anywhere on 9/11. That is an indisputable fact. I see that as more of an indicator of image projection technology. The entire video fakery argument falls apart when one reliable witness says they saw a plane hit the building (which would then be a projection of the plane).”
Witnesses are unreliable, but they also reported missiles, small planes and bombs. But they can’t all be right. Only one answer will match the evidence at the scene of the crime. “Projection technology?” You mean like a hologram? FYI, even a tiny hologram can’t be broadcast in broad daylight, so you must assume there is something secret which you can’t prove exists (because it’s secret.) Holograms don’t cut steel, and as explained in other videos, whatever it was that DID cut the steel struck from the side and wouldn’t have been masked by the “projection technology” of the jet anyway. This means that even if such a technology exists (a BIG “if” that you can’t prove,) the video would need to be edited anyway, which means he would still need to use a tripod.
“That was not the question. I asked why it was important to you that it is fake. You have not conclusively proven that it is. I agree that evidence is important, but it does not point to video fakery. It does point to no planes, but dozens of people witnesses the alleged plane. Were they all lying? Was every single person in southern Manhattan lying? Are the other videos fake also?”
I don’t need to prove anything, the 15 frames do that. I can only lead the proverbial horse to water.
It is important that the facts are discussed honestly and openly and when they are the only conclusion can be that the Hezarkhani video was filmed on a tripod and subsequently tampered-with.
You have offered explanations of technologies that cannot be proved. You might as well say “unicorns did it!”
People saw planes because planes were in the air, heck there are even videos of planes in the air (not the ones that hit the towers.) Other researchers have exposed flybys being used at Shanksville and the Pentagon too – so of course people saw planes. https://youtu.be/tNR1KW0yi5M
But anyone who says they saw one melt into a steel skyscraper is obviously mistaken, because the damage evidence indicates small projectiles struck from the SIDE. https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM
The damage evidence doesn’t lie but establishment-trained “scientists,” published by “establishment” publishers and who wield their “establishment” credentials like a bludgeon sure do. Are you appealing to the authority of someone you think is an expert?
You are just repeating the official rumors about thousands of witnesses – it’s circular logic. How does their testimony override the evidence that Hezarkhani used a tripod? How about the people, who heard and saw missiles, are they all lying? Why would they lie? https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M?t=76
"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."
WNBC News
"...we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."
Port Authority Police Officer
WNBC News
"They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."
Radio Dispatch
NY Daily News
"The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building."
WTC Police Channel 07
Mercury News
"Woolworth Building! They're firing missiles from Woolworth Building!"
Police Channel
Portland Indymedia
"...there was a missile launch at the Woolworth building."
Police Officer, 09:18AM
Mailgate News
"...the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the Woolworth building."
Alan Reiss, WTC Police Desk
9-11 Commission Hearing
" There was a 'swooshing' sound, then an explosion, and it sounded really low. It was if someone, one or two floors above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile."
Lance Cpl. Alan Reifenberg
Marine Corps News
As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that building, you guys better be careful up there.’
NYC Fireman
Mr.Bellers Neighborhood
You: “Why do you ignore the fact that steel turned to dust on 9/11? You keep dodging these bullets one way or another, and it’s tiring. Are you really searching for the truth or are you trying to divert people away from it? Steel turned to dust. “
Not true. Judy Wood wannabes always say that but there is ZERO evidence of partially-“dustified” steel and plenty of evidence of removed bolts and floors:
http://yankee451.com/?p=3232
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=MRy-c3mMlMs
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=P4tckn7s7II
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=D2pa_R8O2As
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=qcEqB72Ao6U
There is also plenty of evidence that the dust was there by the time of the first impacts.
Dust and paper boiling in the Shock and Awe explosion: https://youtu.be/0ZWI4TlVsMc?t=632
Notice all the DUST around the base of the tower after the first impacts: https://youtu.be/7bKTVtyGqyQ
Dust cloud dozens of floors below the impact point. Dust settles - smoke rises: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgFeDTE9oOU
A 20-foot plume of dust and paper pours out of a wall column: https://youtu.be/aoKiBn4tCNw
You: “Watch the videos I linked in the other Fetzer interview.”
Why?
You: “BTW, you do realize that Fetzer is disinfo right?”
People say that about me too, and I have said that about others. How do you identify what is “disinfo” and what is “truth?”
A few hours later he adds: When you're at the dock on that ferry, does it rock much, especially end to end? Because if you look at the footage the camera rocks gently side to side and I'm assuming the ferry was parallel to the dock, which would mean it was rocking end to end if his perspective was perpendicular to the dock.
My reply on 6/24: You: Not true. But if it was you could provide frames to prove it. See if you can get fifteen frames as close as Hezarkhani did.
Yes, I have gotten at least fifteen frames to appear that stable on a handheld camera. I’ll link the video in another comment, but it shows that those 15 frames are not motionless.
You: Not true. Hezarkhani’s footage is available here:…
I’ll post the link the the NIST FOIA video again, but there is a section in there at 50:56 where he pans around before the event.
You: The 15 frames prove he was not using a handheld camera on a boat.
Watch the video showing the comparison linked below.
You: Witnesses are unreliable, but they also reported missiles, small planes and bombs. But they can’t all be right.
Is anyone else seeing a double standard here? Why do you automatically count every alleged plane witness as a liar but the missile witness testimonies are somehow credible?
You: “Projection technology?” You mean like a hologram?
NO. A hologram is an example of a type of image projection system, but its position as seen in the sky is dependent upon the position of the viewer. I’m talking about classified image projection technology that is far more advanced.
You: …you must assume there is something secret which you can’t prove exists (because it’s secret).
I can prove its existence. Something had to have done what was seen and the only thing that fits is an image projection system.
You: Holograms don’t cut steel…whatever it was that DID cut the steel struck from the side…
Do not confuse holograms with image projections. DEWs dustify steel and could have easily created those holes in less than a second. It is invisible and silent so it would make it appear as though a plane hit the building.
You: I don’t need to prove anything, the 15 frames do that.
Watch the linked video showing that those 15 frames are NOT motionless.
You: But anyone who says they saw one melt into a steel skyscraper is obviously mistaken, because the damage evidence indicates small projectiles struck from the SIDE.
Very much straw man.
You: You are just repeating the official rumors about thousands of witnesses – it’s circular logic…How about the people, who heard and saw missiles, are they all lying? Why would they lie?
I never said there were thousands of witnesses, I said there were dozens. There’s a huge difference between 40 and 3500. Yes, I believe that those “witnesses of missiles” are lying just to plant easter eggs that official truthers will pick up on and treasure.
You: Not true. Judy Wood wannabes always say that but there is ZERO evidence of partially-“dustified” steel and plenty of evidence of removed bolts and floors…
There IS evidence of partially dustified steel in WTC 7 at least. I’ll link the article from New York Times below that mentions partially dustified steel beams. There is evidence of MISSING bolts and floors, that
does not prove that they were removed. (If the towers were gutted, how would no one notice in the middle of Manhattan?) In your words, “It is important that the facts are discussed honestly and openly…” so what is your explanation for the 1400+ toasted cars, seismographic data, Hurricane Erin, lack of debris, lather, holes in adjacent buildings, levitation/antigravity effects, etc.?
You: Why?
They show steel turning to dust.
You: How do you identify what is “disinfo” and what is “truth?”
If someone discusses facts honestly and openly, they are legitimate truth-seekers. If they are presented with irrefutable facts dozens of times and still deny them, they are disinformation. You seem to be denying these facts quite a bit…so…
You: Does it rock much, especially end to end?
Not too much. The rocking back in forth is a fairly slow process and it takes several seconds for a boat that large to go through one cycle of forward and backward.
The links:
Hezarkhani from NIST FOIA (at 50:56): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNwKLONCAs0#t=50m56s
My video showing that the Hezarkhani footage is not 100% motionless: (Technical difficulties – in production…if I forget to upload it remind me, thanks (I promise that I will upload it though))
Report of partially dustified steel (see the second-to-last paragraph in the article): http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strangecollapse-7-world-trade.html
His reply on 6/25: "Yes, I have gotten at least fifteen frames to appear that stable on a handheld camera. I’ll link the video in another comment, but it shows that those 15 frames are not motionless."
I said they are nearly motionless, but that THREE of those 15 are absolutely motionless. I look forward to your footage where you can show even two frames without any motion.
You: "I’ll post the link the the NIST FOIA video again, but there is a section in there at 50:56 where he pans around before the event."
I already saw your link - would you like me to break it into frames for you so you can see that that the panning was cut right before Hezarkhani's footage? The full Hezarkhani footage doesn't include that bit either, because it wasn't his footage.
You: "Is anyone else seeing a double standard here? Why do you automatically count every alleged plane witness as a liar but the missile witness testimonies are somehow credible?"
The sentence you skipped was: "Only one answer will match the evidence at the scene of the crime." With that in mind, which witness accounts match the evidence at the scene of the crime?
You: "NO. A hologram is an example of a type of image projection system, but its position as seen in the sky is dependent upon the position of the viewer. I’m talking about classified image projection technology that is far more advanced."
Can you prove it exists? Can you explain how it works to the layperson? Does it cut steel? Can you explain how the damage evidence that indicates the lateral impact of small projectiles is consistent with this top-secret, classified technology?
You: "I can prove its existence. Something had to have done what was seen and the only thing that fits is an image projection system."
Not true. Tried and true layering techniques used by movie magicians since the 19th century match the evidence, and can be proved to exist in the real world, and it can be demonstrated. All it takes is a tripod."
You: "Do not confuse holograms with image projections. DEWs dustify steel and could have easily created those holes in less than a second. It is invisible and silent so it would make it appear as though a plane hit the building."
Do your super-secret image projectors cut steel? What directed energy weapon dustifies steel, exactly? The steel in the towers was sharply bent to the right, and the aluminum cladding was pinched, like someone whacked it with a stick - what Directed Energy Weapons can mimic the lateral impact of dense-metal projectiles? Please be specific.
The damage to both towers shows the same pattern - lightly damaged cladding followed by progressively worse-damaged steel, and on the 9th column from the left, an inward blasting hole. I can explain this damage using weapons known to exist in the real world, but if I'm wrong there must be a better explanation. I don't see any "dustified" steel but I do see steel sharply bent to the side, so which weapon system can do such a thing, other than a kinetic one, of course?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/trajectories-1.jpg
ME: "But anyone who says they saw one melt into a steel skyscraper is obviously mistaken, because the damage evidence indicates small projectiles struck from the SIDE.
You: "Very much straw man."
Oh? You mean you haven't examined the impact evidence to verify whether or not it is consistent with the damage that can be caused by whatever it is you think caused it? I linked to a video or two that explains it - perhaps you haven't seen it yet, or perhaps the only way to explain the damage is with a kinetic weapon, therefore you brush it off?
Let me spell out why to avoid the damage evidence is about as weak of a straw man argument as you can get. Whatever it was started here - a projectile of some kind struck this cladding just hard enough
to pinch it, but not hard enough to sever it.http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/3something-pinched-this-aluminum-cladding1.png
Moving to the right the cladding is sliced and the damage becomes progressively more pronounced. http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/5-and-struck-from-the-side.png
So whatever it was that struck at the far-left and lightly damaged the cladding, it was not as big, nor as dense as that which sharply bent this steel column to the right. Remember, the direction of travel of the jet was more or less, head-on.http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/7-causing-left-rightbends-a.png
The next column too was sharply bent to the right:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/8-more-bends-a.png
The next column was shattered:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/10-splitting-this-column.png
Something exploded on the face,
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/9-Something-appears-to-have-detonated-on-thiscolumn.png
Causing the top of the column to protrude-out:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/11-pushing-this-column-forward.png
Do you still deny the evidence of lateral impacts?
You: "I never said there were thousands of witnesses, I said there were dozens. There’s a huge difference between 40 and 3500. Yes, I believe that those “witnesses of missiles” are lying just to plant easter eggs that official truthers will pick up on and treasure."
I see, so there were dozens of witnesses. Can you please name them, and then explain how the jet's left wing which would impact the columns on the right corners managed to impact the columns on the opposite corner and bend the steel in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling.
Wing strikes right corner: http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Swept-back-wingstriking-right-corner-first.png
Damage is on left corner: http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/left-side-dents1.jpg
And then right afterwards: You: "There IS evidence of partially dustified steel in WTC 7 at least. I’ll link the article from New York Times below that mentions partially dustified steel beams."
What no photos? I don't see any links.
You: "There is evidence of MISSING bolts and floors, that does not prove that they were removed."
Were they there to begin with? Have you verified all those floors and all their contents were there at the time? I mean the New York Times also gave us the weapons of mass destruction, so...tell me again why their word is gospel? The missing bolts and absence of trusses in the debris field would usually be
enough for a rational person to conclude they weren't there at the time of demolition. Steel doesn't turn to dust in the real world. I'll link to the evidence that the dust was in dust form again, since you skipped that part in the last post:
Me: "There is also plenty of evidence that the dust was there by the time of the first impacts.
Dust and paper boiling in the Shock and Awe explosion: https://youtu.be/0ZWI4TlVsMc?t=632
Notice all the DUST around the base of the tower after the first impacts: https://youtu.be/7bKTVtyGqyQ
Dust cloud dozens of floors below the impact point. Dust settles - smoke rises: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgFeDTE9oOU
A 20-foot plume of dust and paper pours out of a wall column: https://youtu.be/aoKiBn4tCNw"
You: " (If the towers were gutted, how would no one notice in the middle of Manhattan?)"
With the PATH station and the Mall traffic, even with empty towers the place would always look like a bustling city-within the city, but after 6:00 even the locals said the place was deserted. All it took was creative lighting to make the place look occupied - you did know that the WTC had a centralized lighting system, right? Early tenants had to pay extra for light switches.
Ogden, a global entertainment services provider to arenas, sports stadiums (Veteran's Stadium in Philadelphia), concert halls, amphitheaters and amusement parks (Disney World), was awarded the contract in March after requests for proposals were put out by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Ogden's proposal won over six other high-powered bidders, including Time Warner and Service America.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/21/nyregion/fyi-171069.html
Ogden Global Entertainment Services, an international corporation which beat-out Time Warner for the rights to the WTC observation deck, Ogden modernized the light shows. They were hiding empty towers in plain sight:
UNTIL 1985, OGDEN CORPORATION was primarily a "smokestack operation" - it built ships and freight cars, manufactured machine tools and processed scrap metal. However, in 1985, Ogden sold these operations to its employees to concentrate on services. "The new Ogden," company ads proclaimed, is "putting America's house in order."
Today, Ogden Corporation is a "service-oriented" company with 40,000 employees and net sales and service revenues in 1992 of over $1.76 billion. Based in New York City, its businesses include Ogden Building Services, which manages and maintains commercial buildings; Ogden Entertainment Services, which promotes concerts; and Ogden Aviation Services, which refuels planes and prepares on-flight meals. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services provides consultation to the nuclear industry and is involved in the cleanup of Defense and Energy Department contaminated sites.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hype...mm0893_09.html
Furthermore the WTC had a 42-man armed guard in the form of the Port Authority Police, and the Port Authority only answers to two people in America, namely the governors of New York and New Jersey - they do NOT answer to the public and operate in one of the most corrupt business and government
environments on the planet. Every single one of their projects was built with Mob labor, the WTC included. They are a quasi-governmental body that can seize property via eminent domain, cannot tax but can charge the public for the use of their structures, and consider themselves a paramilitary engineering outfit and they have deep ties to the Navy whence we get the Office of Naval Intelligence. They are the Port Authority, laws unto themselves. They didn’t need to stick to construction codes, they didn’t need to worry about inspections, they operate as a private, for-profit business and they could pretty much do as they please without the harsh glare of public oversight. So if they emptied their buildings and told the world they were full, we'd have to take their word for it.
You: "so what is your explanation for the 1400+ toasted cars, seismographic data, Hurricane Erin, lack of debris, lather, holes in adjacent buildings, levitation/antigravity effects, etc.?"
Corruption. Levitation effects? - someone has had too much Gene Roddenberry. Here is footage of what appears to be firefighters setting fire to a car:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZI5k_CPupw
The police also planted plane parts and started a museum exhibit to indoctrinate school children into believing the fires were so intense the concrete melted:
https://youtu.be/vSi_9S-S6kI
http://yankee451.com/?p=963
You: "They show steel turning to dust."
Link/citation, please.
You:"If someone discusses facts honestly and openly, they are legitimate truth-seekers. If they are presented with irrefutable facts dozens of times and still deny them, they are disinformation. You seem to be denying these facts quite a bit…so…"
I am not the one avoiding the lateral impact evidence. I am not the one avoiding the evidence that the dust was in dust form by the time of the first impacts. I am not the one relying on imaginary technology. I am not the one avoiding evidence. That doesn't mean I think you're a spook, but I do think you're pretty gullible.
"Me:" Does it rock much, especially end to end?"
Not too much. The rocking back in forth is a fairly slow process and it takes several seconds for a boat that large to go through one cycle of forward and backward."
Note the sideways rocking: https://youtu.be/ZsP-Gt52P2A?t=102
My reply on 6/25: Dang, 1850 words in those replies. How did you write all of that in the time between when I posted my comment and when you posted yours? Anyways…okay here we go.
You: I look forward to your footage where you can show even two frames without any motion.
There is motion in every frame. Before I release it, just zoom way into the video and watch it frame by frame during those seemingly motionless frames. The camera was not 100% stable.
You: I already saw your link – would you like me to break it into frames for you so you can see that the panning was cut right before Hezarkhani’s footage? The full Hezarkhani footage doesn’t include that bit either, because it wasn’t his footage.
The NIST FOIA video contains the longest bit of his footage available in the public domain. The link you posted was the most famous part, but there were other videos he filmed before and after. One of those is the panning around, and yes then it cuts to the most well-known footage because he stopped and started the camera. What about the part after the “impact” section where he says that it’s about 20 minutes after the crash?
You: The sentence you skipped was: “Only one answer will match the evidence at the scene of the crime.” With that in mind, which witness accounts match the evidence at the scene of the crime?
That is an example of a TCP or technically correct pseudo-refutation. Let me clear this up once and for all: I 100% agree that NO PLANES CRASHED ANYWHERE ON 9/11 because the physical damage to the towers is impossible. However, there are people who reported seeing planes in the sky, so the only reasonable explanation is that the plane was an image projection (NOT HOLOGRAM).
You: Can you prove it exists? Can you explain how it works to the layperson? Does it cut steel? Can you explain how the damage evidence that indicates the lateral impact of small projectiles is consistent with this top-secret, classified technology?
I can prove it exists because it is the only viable explanation. Something had to have been able to accomplish what was seen, so therefore the technology exists. It is irrelevant to explain how it works. It does not cut steel, a DEW dustified the necessary columns at the “impact zones”. The damage evidence does not prove it was missiles. You are presenting me with a false dichotomy. You are trying to say that the only available options are planes or missiles and since planes are eliminated, it had to be missiles. What about a DEW? That would account for everything! The pinched cladding, the appearance of something striking from the side, the bent columns, the similar impact design on each tower, etc. If it was missiles, where did those pre-fab column units go? Why did they just completely disappear? They are not inside the towers according to the pictures…so how do missiles account for that?
You: Not true. Tried and true layering techniques used by movie magicians since the 19th century match the evidence, and can be proved to exist in the real world, and it can be demonstrated. All it takes is a tripod.
Okay, what about the eyewitness accounts? Was every single person in Manhattan and Jersey City a crisis actor? And how does a tripod account for the live shots? There are 8 live shots, four of which were filmed from choppers (ABC Chopper 880, WNYW Chopper 5, NBC Chopper 4, CBS-2). I think it is quite obvious that choppers are not stationary. There were also three other videos that were filmed on choppers (Fox5 Mystery Chopper, WPIX Air11, and an unknown one from Weehawken, New Jersey).
You: What directed energy weapon dustifies steel, exactly? The steel in the towers was sharply bent to the right, and the aluminum cladding was pinched, like someone whacked it with a stick – what Directed Energy Weapons can mimic the lateral impact of dense-metal projectiles? Please be specific.
You are asking me to provide the serial number on the machine. These questions are very similar to what Gregory S. Jenkins asked Dr. Judy D. Wood in that infamous interview. The full range of these weapons is classified, so I cannot provide an answer, but the question is irrelevant.
You: …perhaps the only way to explain the damage is with a kinetic weapon…
Once again, you have presented a false dichotomy.
You: Can you please name them, and then explain how the jet’s left wing…
Okay here’s a few: Boris Miller (and whoever was with him), Carmen Taylor, Chris Hopewell, Dan Joyce, Devin Clark (and whoever the other person is with him), Evan Fairbanks, Jules and Gedeon Naudet (of course this one won’t count for you since you think they’re in on it ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ), Holly Bine, Howard
Schickler, Jennifer Spell (and whoever else was with her), Joshua Lentz (and the crowd around him), Luc Courchesne (and whoever was with him), Luis Alonso, Luke Cremin, Michael Barbagallo, Michael Hezarkhani, Park Foreman (and his neighbor), Pavel Hlava, Peter Strid (there may be a crisis actor in this one…), Robert Clark, Susan Cook, William Gibson (and the crowd around him), and others. I am a no planer. Once again, you are presenting a false dichotomy. It is not just planes vs. missiles.
You: What no photos? I don’t see any links.
So you will only accept it if photographic evidence is provided? Have you personally seen every piece of steel found in the debris field? I’ll link the article again in another comment.
You: Were they there to begin with? Have you verified all those floors and all their contents were there at the time?
Yes, they were there to begin with. I can’t technically prove that those floors were there at the time, but because tens of thousands of people worked there, I can reasonably conclude that the towers had not been tampered with. Can you prove that they were taken out? Were the 50,000 employees of the WTC all lying?
You: The missing bolts and absence of trusses in the debris field would usually be enough for a rational person to conclude they weren’t there at the time of the demolition.
They. Were. Dustified. Nuff said.
You: Steel doesn’t turn to dust in the real world.
Apparently it does. I’ll link the videos in another comment.
You: (That long reply to try and say that the towers were empty)
Was every employee and employer and janitor and tourist and relative and firefighter and police officer and manager and…were they all lying? What you say about the towers being destroyed would require Manhattan to be an enormous movie set where everyone is in on it or an actor or something else like that.
Me: What is your explanation for the 1400+ toasted cars…?
You: Corruption.
Wha-? Once again, you are trying to get everyone to believe that every New Yorker was lying.
You: The police also planted plane parts and started a museum exhibit to indoctrinate school children into believing the fires were so intense the concrete melted…
I agree.
You: Link/citation, please.
I have the links in the next comment.
You: I am not the one avoiding the lateral impact evidence. I am not the one avoiding the evidence that the dust was in dust form by the time of the first impacts. I am not the one relying on imaginary technology.
You are, however, relying on the premise that everyone in Manhattan who said they saw a plane or went in the towers was a liar, crisis actor, or mistaken.
You: I am not the one avoiding evidence.
Yes, you clearly are avoiding evidence. I don’t want to have to make these accusations against you, but you keep censoring and denying evidence that is irrefutable.
You: Note the sideways rocking: (link)
When I was there, it didn’t rock too much because there was no wind, but when he was there the wind speed was about 9mph which would cause the boat to rock more violently.
The links: NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-siteengineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html
Steel turning to dust in the north tower (0:40-0:43): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs
Steel turning to dust in the south tower (watch that top chunk of 30 floors at 1:16): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
He replies a few hours later: Thanks for nothing - I guess we'll just have to take your word for it.
I reply: How do you not see steel turning to dust in these videos?
6/27, I upload a video (it wasn’t very well put together, but that is irrelevant) that shows that those 15 frames are not motionless. Title: Not Motionless 15 Frames, Description: This an extremely sloppy edit of the Hezarkhani video showing that those 15 frames are not motionless. The motion is very, very small and hard to detect, but it is still there. At the end I have the Scott Myers video for comparison (that was filmed on a tripod). Specifically for Steve De’ak. [End description] I post the link in the thread: I uploaded the video showing that those 15 frames are not motionless: https://youtu.be/XLvl08h_VzQ
7/2, I add a link to Mark Conlon’s video also showing that the 15 frames are not motionless: Here is another video by Mark Conlon that shows that the 15 frames are not motionless: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2gjU3b_CJg Have you seen these…?
7/4, after some back and forth with Mark Conlon (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7yVHV5pyQ&lc=z13fvrcz2nekstl1122mf53iysndtxekk.1499197617200239&feature=em-comments and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RigL0sPDzcI&feature=youtu.be), he intervenes in this thread with some brilliant summaries:
{{{{{EDIT 7/6: Originally on 7/4 Mark commented before any of this: He did, he videoed the Statue of Liberty, and also walked to Greenwich Street after they got everyone off the ferry.
Apparently it got deleted or something because it isn’t in the thread (maybe Mark deleted it? I still think it was Steve), so the only screenshot I have is from an email
Okay, now back to what I was saying two days ago before this edit.}}}}}
Hi Steve, how is it obvious they were NOT both on the ferry boat? Can you provide evidence to back-up your statement regarding this point, and also the use of a tripod, as you haven't really proven anything that you have said so far beyond you beliefs. You have also accused Michael Hezarkhani of producing a "fake" video. Could you provide evidence that it was him who faked the video, or anyone else for that matter, or is this just your belief? Plus could you clarify "specifically" which frames are frozen out the 1 to 15 frames? Thanks!
And then: Two frames does not prove use of a tripod, and you know this. You have to provide better evidence than just two frames, or a statement saying so. Can you tell me the time-frame in seconds how long two frames is to hold completely still without NO movement with a video camera? Also, Carmen Taylor was NOT standing right next to Hezarkhani, she was at least 15 to 20 feet away from him to her left.
And then again: The visible heads prove that Hezarkhani was in an elevated position, because of the height of the tree-line. 15 frames prove nothing to support the use of a tripod. You are completely omitting the whole video which demonstrates Hezarkhani was using a hand-held video camera without a tripod, which is overwhelming when comapred to just the two frames which you site for your evidence of a tripod.
My response on 7/4: Thank you. De’ak, please listen to us, your points have been thoroughly debunked throughout this thread. Mark Conlon just provided a brilliant summary of everything, but you still do not accept the evidence. Are you for real or are you just another gatekeeper? The arrows are pointing VERY strongly in the direction of gatekeeper.
(and then) EDIT: By the way, I’ve been saving these comments (text and screenshots) since the very beginning so even the ones that you removed are documented.
7/5, Mark replies with two more comments: Yes Conspiracy Cuber, you did a good job of documenting your conversations with Steve De'ak, and also the 15 frame video you did. I'm sorry to say the very fact Steve De'ak is involvement with Jim Fetzer is very telling. I shall say no more, but people should read Andrew Johnson's book - 9/11 Finding The Truth, if you want to know more about Jim Fetzer's part in the perception management department. Don't forget, this is a man (Jim Fetzer) who has played down his knowledge regarding the Hezarkhani video footage in an interview with Steve De'ak. I know Jim Fetzer is very informed about the Hezarkhani video footage and I have all his early radio shows to prove it.
As well as: I have lined-up the Hezarkhani video using Google Earth. Hezarkhani's location is based on the facts I obtained. So you are correct that Hezarkhani had to be on the ferry boat, it was the only place you can get a perfect match with all the buildings, plus you have been there in person to prove this conclusively. Thanks for taking the time to do that.
And I ask: Could you send me some of the links to those radio shows? I can't seem to find them online. Thanks!
BACK TO THE OTHER VIDEO FOR A BRIEF MINUTE
7/6, Arnold Gregory responds to the original thread: She only analyses evidence and speculation on the planes and politics are not her expertise. Her main thing its that the buildings turned to dust. The pile of rubble should have been several times higher given the "pancake" theory. There is not corresponding seismic data when the towers fell. Apparently there was a detectible disturbance in Earth's magnetic field. Something other than chemical energy turned a million tons of concrete and steel into dust and didn't go boom enough. She thinks the evidence indicates some unknown but not unfeasible directed energy weapon. Jim Fetzer thinks all the heat could only have been generated with some "micro nuke" technique. Could explain why all the responders are sick.
Also notice my original response to Steve was deleted (or “spammed”) again. Same thing happened under the other thread in the same video (I never reposted it).
BACK TO THE OTHER SECTION
Steve responds to this with 5 comments in a row on 7/8, comment one: Look me up in the book. You guys aren't super-sleuths, are you?
Comment 2: Hi Mark, the sideways rocking of the videos proves that even if he was on the boat he was still faking the movement that suddenly stopped for the fifteen frames, AND he was lying about using a handheld camera. Then there is the appearance of the hole in the wall only after the shock and awe explosion occurred, and that's just for this video. Can you provide evidence that Hezarkhani is a real person? Thanks!
Frames, 11, 12 and 13:
http://yankee451.com/?p=3887
Comment 3: "Two frames does not prove use of a tripod, and you know this. You have to provide better evidence than just two frames, or a statement saying so"
You're so full of it - yes it does prove tripod use as anyone who has ever taken handheld video can attest. There are plenty of websites with camera-stabilizing tips but the only way to ensure the camera doesn't move at all is with a tripod or with something just as stable. You will have to provide evidence to prove me wrong.
https://wistia.com/blog/stabilizing-handheld-video
Comment 4: I have provided 15 frames that prove he was lying even IF he was on the boat. Thanks for your feedback.
Comment 5: Hey Mark, you seem like a Judy Wood water carrier with friends in the cult, so how about you get me on a show with Andrew Johnson so we can "Check the Evidence" together?
Mark Conlon replies ten minutes later twice: Steve, you talk about the "15 frames" as if this time-frame is impossible to keep a video camera still? You didn't answer how long in real time is "15 frames" is, which would put into context the actual time Hezarkhani had to keep his video camera dead still. If is is for 3 frames as you alluded to, then was would that be in real time? From my analysis of the15 frames, they are not all still, and I will putting this research analysis out soon. I've analysed the smoke/fumes also and I will publishing tis research soon. It is for you to prove Hezarkhan had a tripod, and up to now you haven't proven this. You said he was on dry land, the rocking suggests he was not. As for whether he was a "real" person, have you heard Jeff Hill's phone call to him? Thanks for answering my question regarding which frames you suggest are still. Beast wishes, Mark.
And then: Hi Steve, sorry to be a pain, could you tell which frames you say the smoke/fumes are frozen? Thanks!
Steve replies: "Yes Conspiracy Cuber, you did a good job of documenting your conversations with Steve De'ak, and also the 15 frame video you did. I'm sorry to say the very fact Steve De'ak is involvement with Jim Fetzer is very telling. I shall say no more, but people should read Andrew Johnson's book - 9/11 Finding The Truth, if you want to know more about Jim Fetzer's part in the perception management department. Don't forget, this is a man (Jim Fetzer) who has played down his knowledge regarding the Hezarkhani video footage in an interview with Steve De'ak. I know Jim Fetzer is very informed about the Hezarkhani video footage and I have all his early radio shows to prove it."
Wow, listen to this joker. I wouldn't know a spook if he said "Boo" to my face but the Judy Wood crowd can recognize them on sight. What is it about the establishment-trained, establishment-published Judy Wood who wields her establishment-credentials like a bludgeon that is so enamoring to you? Is it the way it appeals to the Gene Roddenberry in you, or is it the way it gives godlike power to the military or is it the way it is shrouded in secrecy and can't be proved to exist in the real world?
Mark replies: The video it's self proves you are wrong Steve. Have you assessed the Hezarkhani video all the way through? It is your suggestion of the tripod, so it rests with you to demonstrate this thoroughly, not just because you say so. You have rocking on the ferry boat, unstable platform where Hezarkhani was located close by to the left of Carment Taylor. Why are you ignoring the evidence?
And then: I could say the same for you Steve regarding your association with Jim Fetzer, however I won't lower myself to your standards which have slipped when you're asked some questions. I know Andrew Johnson very well, I've met him several times, and also Dr. Wood. This interests me very how you have introduced Dr. Wood and Andrew Johnson, make such remarks which relates to Jim Fetzer's type of stereotyping of being part some cult. I cannot talk for Andrew Johnson, have you asked him yourself if he will show the evidence? Anyway, I see you want to lower the tone from your response to my questions by how you have introduced some rather revealing comments in your reply.
As well as: Who is lying? If you're referring to Hezarkhani, then how can someone be lying when you doubt they even exist?
And: Nope, I'm just questioning what you're saying Steve, if that makes me a "super sleuth", then that's your stuff, not mine. Please look me up also.
I reply: Steve, have you seen the analysis that I did of the Hezarkhani footage? It shows that no two frames are motionless, and even if they were it wouldn’t prove that he used a tripod like Mark Conlon has been saying. About Luc Courchesne, yes the Naudet brothers contacted him for his footage and he is listed in the credits. So what? How does that prove video fakery?
Why do you accuse *DR* Judy Wood of being disinfo? Can you show me one piece of evidence that she is ignoring? I see plenty that YOU are ignoring… A quote from you, “…they aren't turning to dust, the dust was already there. It and Judy were apparently written into the script. The best way to control the opposition is to lead it, after all.” Wow, I can’t believe you actually would accuse her of doing that. No, the steel is not loaded with dust, it turned to dust in midair. It’s an irrefutable fact.
I add: Steve, have you been to NYC? I know you’re way over in WA, but it might be helpful to visit the place where Hezarkhani took the video. Once you get off the ferry you’ll realize that the towers wouldn’t have even been visible from the ground. Those tree tops are 20-30 feet high and two heads are appear in the video for a brief second, so how could he have not been on the ferry? How do two frames suggest that he used a tripod when all the others (as well as some other outside evidence) prove that he was on a ferry?
How about Carmen Taylor, was she lying too? Park Foreman? Luis Alonso? Holly Bine? Roberto Cervantes? Andrew Foster? Luc Courchesne? Peter Strid? Was every single person who saw an image of a plane in the sky lying about it?
Steve replies: Mark Conlon wrote:
"It is your suggestion of the tripod, so it rests with you to demonstrate this thoroughly, not just because you say so. "
That's rich coming from a Judy Wood acolyte and all.
Mark replies: Steve cites 3 x frames which are still, which would be 1000th of a second for 3 x frames. Even if they were still (and they are NOT) how can he cite this as evidence for a tripod? It would not be impossible to hold a hand held video camera still for a 1000th of a second. That's the time frame in seconds we are talking about. you are right Conspiracy Cuber, they are not perfectly still, there is movement. It appears to me that Steve De'ak is promulgating false information like many others have in the past who Jim Fetzer promoted on his radio shows to discredit the Hezarkhani video footage as fake. I think that is Steve De'ak's objectives here, as he does appear to be rehashing a lot of old points to try and portray this video as fake. scraping the barrel if you ask me.
Steve replies: “Who is lying?” The guy who says he can get 15 frames of video the way Hezarkhani did with a handheld camera, that’s who.
See I'm not the one accusing you of being a spook so I couldn't care less who you are.
And: Should be easy for a big-talker to prove.
Mark replies: Wow, Mr. De'ak, you're showing your true colours now. What is it about Dr. Judy Wood that really makes you say such things, about me. Why don't you just answer the questions, instead of deflecting them way with useless comments. This is about you demonstrating to me and others that your evidence is correct. Up-to-now, you haven't really provided any solid evidence to back-up your claims. It's as simple as that.
Steve replies: Wow, Mr. De'ak, you're showing your true colours now. What is it about Dr. Judy Wood that really makes you say such things, about me. Why don't you just answer the questions, instead of deflecting them way with useless comments. This is about you demonstrating to me and others that your evidence is correct. Up-to-now, you haven't really provided any solid evidence to back-up your claims. It's as simple as that."
My true colors! O' you've found me out! Seriously, why should I take you seriously? You cite Judy and Andrew who will not even try to back up their tripe with evidence and then you demand I answer to you? Snort.
I reply: yankee451 said, “That’s rich coming from a Judy Wood acolyte and all.” So, is that supposed to debunk something? You still have not proven that the video is fake, OR that it was filmed on a tripod. You haven’t answered the vast majority of our questions, and the ones you do answer are illogical and evidence-free responses. Mark Conlon said, “…which would be 1000th of a second for 3 x frames.” Minor correction, it would be 10th of a second, but the point still rings true. Anyone can go out with a handheld camera and have small moments like that where the video is stable for fractions of a second. If you’re lucky you can even have a full second or two with seemingly zero motion.
One question for Steve De’ak: If the points that you make are refuted, will you continue to tell others that they are fact, or will you change your opinion and recant your beliefs? Even if you do change your opinion, will you let others know that you were wrong? Ace Baker eventually admitted that the “plane” is visible in the WNYW Chopper 5 wide shot, but he still left this in his documentary (if you can call it that).
Steve replies 2 minutes later: "Conspiracy Cuber" wrote "So, is that supposed to debunk something?"
No, it was me flicking off a booger. If you want me to debate Judy's "DEW" bullshit, I'll do it with Andrew or Judy, but I won't waste my time on their winged monkeys. Thanks for your feedback.
Mark replies 21 minutes later: You still haven't said how long 15 frames is in reality of time/seconds? That's the time frame we are dealing with. You said 3 x frames show "no" movement, so 3 x frames to prove a hand held video camera can be kept still without a tripod is not impossible. 3 x frames is 1000th of a second in real time to keep the video camera dead still. So you base the evidence of a tripod on 1000th of a second? That's even if there is no movement, but there is in the 3 x frames, which completely proves your claim to wrong, and conclusively wrong.
I reply: Yankee451, you didn’t even answer the question I asked you at the end of my last reply. Why do you not want to debate it with anyone except for Andrew or *DR* Wood? Is the fact that steel turned to dust not enough to convince you? You don’t even have an explanation for all the phenomena presented in Where Did The Towers Go?, so how can you say that she is disinfo? (BTW, corruption is a non-answer) And please stop changing the subject whenever you can’t answer a question. Mark Conlon is right, you can’t base the evidence of a tripod on 10th of a second (not 1000th, but the point still remains) or even ½ a second. Either you are being very intellectually dishonest, or are trying to appear that way. I don’t see any other option.
I later reply: yankee451 said, ""Who is lying?" The guy who says he can get 15 frames of video the way Hezarkhani did with a handheld camera, that's who." Your argument is incredibly circular. This is the
logic I see in that: His video is fake because of 15 stable frames and anyone who says they can film 15 stable frames is lying which also shows that his video is fake. Go out, and try it yourself. I've done it MANY times.
yankee451 said, "If all the names you listed insist they saw a jet melt into the wall...they're lying too." That's not what I said, I agree that a jet can't melt into a wall. That leaves us with two options: 1) The videos are all fake and the eyewitnesses are all lying, or 2) The planes were fake (I.e., image projections) and the videos and eyewitnesses are legitimate. You keep trying to shove option 2 out of the way like it doesn't exist. You can't hold these people as guilty until proven innocent, and any evidence that contradicts this is dismissed as being part of the coverup. Use Occam's Razor! Was every single witness within a 16 mile radius of Manhattan a liar?
yankee451 said, "You cite Judy and Andrew who will not even try to back up their tripe with evidence and then you demand I answer to you? Snort." Is anyone else reading this thread seeing how De'ak is avoiding a discussion of evidence? For the umpteenth time, PLEASE, watch those videos that I linked that show steel turning to dust. Dr. Wood does not present a theory, she presents evidence. Evidence speaks for itself. And Mark Conlon is right, you haven't proven anything that you claim.
Mark Conlon corrects himself: Yes Conspiracy Cube, thanks for adding that bit in I left off in my calculations. 1 x frame = 33.36700 milliseconds, x 3 = 0.100101 seconds = 1/10th of a second.
Mark asks Steve a question and it triggers us all on 7/10: Steve, can you confirm which frames you are talking about which have smoke/fumes frozen in the Hezarkhani frames? You told me which other ones you refered to regarding the stable shot which were 11,12 & 13. Just interested which are the ones for the smoke. Thanks!
Steve responds: I retracted it - from my blog:
"I had a pleasant conversation with the inimitable Jim Fetzer the other day where we discussed the evidence that I think gets far too little attention from the truth movement, as well as some new observations about the Herzarkhani video that I now contend I was wrong about (frozen smoke). 1hour."
I changed my mind after the Fetzer interview when I was attempting to use some Photoshop tools to outline the smoke frame by frame, and then compare the outlines on the video frames where the jet slides into the building to demonstrate that at that point it appears to "freeze," but the quality is so crappy it's too difficult to tell one way or the other. In retrospect as I examined the video I realized that he didn't really need to "freeze" the smoke to accomplish the ruse, all he needed was a tripod which would allow him to layer-in a jet, and to cut-out the whole face of the tower and use it as a mask-layer (like a curtain) to cover-up whatever actually cut the hole in the tower. Courchesne and Jules Naudet were using tripods too.
Mark responds: Can you confirm whether it was yourself or Jim Fetzer's choice to not go with your "frozen" smoke frames theory? Plus, can you confirm to me what frames you thought the smoke was frozen in, out of the 15 frames? Also are you accusing Michael Hezarkhani personally of fabricating his video and inserting the plane? Thanks!
Steve responds: Hey Mark - you on a witch-hunt, buddy? It was ME and ME alone! My only association with Jim Fetzer is as a fellow truth-seeker who shares his show with many people. I have also been interviewed by Ab Irato, Morgan Reynolds, Sofia Smallstorm and others, but that doesn't mean I'm in cahoots with any of them, it only means we've shared airwaves. Maybe focusing on the evidence would be more productive.
I reply: yankee451: Yes, focusing on the evidence would be more productive. So...why do you ignore the fact that steel turned to dust?
Steve replies: Conspiracy Cuber - the steel didn't turn to dust. Why do you and all of Judy's water carriers ignore the evidence that the dust was in dust form at the time of the first impacts, why do you lot always ignore the evidence of dust and paper pouring out of the tower, of dust and paper in the shock and awe explosions and all over the ground afterwards? Are you saying a DEW was used to dustify steel for the impacts too?
Mark replies: How come you say, you can't taking me serious, then you talk about Andrew and Dr. Wood. I haven't cited Dr. Wood, or mentioned Andrew Johnson, only when you introduced them into the conversation comments to me when you accused me of being part of a cult. I'm not asking you to take me seriously Steve, I'm only asking you questions surrounding your theories in relation to the Hezarkhani video. Am I not allowed to ask legtimate questions about what you're proposing about the Hezarkhani video? Surely the scrutiny shown of your frozen smoke claims were vaild wasn't they, as you retracted this theory, as that was exactly what I was questioning you about? So did you take me seriously then?
And then: So all the eyewitnesses are lying? So how did they control all the people who seen a plane?
Steve replies: I have answered your questions about the message but your focus appears to be on the messengers, and you seem disingenuous and myopic, plus I am not required to respond.
And then: "So all the eyewitnesses are lying? So how did they control all the people who seen a plane?"
Is that what I said? Your paraphrasing skills are lacking.
Mark replies: Hey Steve why are you so touchy? I was asking whether Fetzer had influenced your decision to retract the smoke frames theory, that was all. After all you mentioned in your comment that you had a coverastion with Fetzer didn't you? What's a witch hunt about that? Well yes focusing on the evidence would, but you will not do that or answer my question which I've asked you at least 3 times now. WHICH FRAMES ARE THE FROZEN SMOKE IN OUT OF THE 15 FRAMES? Do you think you could answer this question without getting personal, and be straightforward with your answer. Thanks!
And then: I was not paraphrasing... or didn't you see the question mark on the end of the questions. There is a difference, and I paraphrase for a living Steve, so my "paraprasing skills" are pretty good and have been verified thanks! Now are you going to keep avoiding my question, which frames is smoke frozen in out the 15 frames? By the way, that's a question not a paraphrase. Perhaps myopic suits you better, as you don't read my question as questions rather paraphrases..
He adds: Which frames out of the 15 frames is the smoke frozen? Simple question.
And: The fact you been rude and personal shows a level of weakness in your theories, and lack of evidence to support them in what you propose. This has demonstrated your avoidance, which in my book makes you the disingenuious one Steve De'ak, and what you are doing is trying to project your disingenuiousness onto me, which is classic psychology, which I understand all too well. You have not only shown a lack of integrity, but a lack of straightforwardness in your dealings when answering legitimate questions put to you.
And: Hmm, interesting how you have introduced who you're not in "cahoots" with. That didn't even figure into the question asked you. So you obviously felt the need to "reinforce" this point, even though it was not part of my original question. I could interpret that two ways actaully offering information that wasn't asked. Nevermind.
And: Frames 11 and 13 show movement in the building in the foreground, only very minor, I've analysed them thoroughly. So this leaves only frame 12. And if that matches either 11 or 13, then it is on two frames that could be still, which would not consitute "fakery" or the use of a tripod, end of. Plus I'm still waiting to see evidence of this tripod and also Michael Hezarkhani using some computer software to "fake" his video, that's if indeed he possess the skills to even do that to his video. Obviously Steve must have strong evidence which he could present. Easy to accuse someone of things, at the end of the day, he's full of statements and that's about it.
I reply: Mark Conlon: It's also strange how he now says that he's answered our questions earlier. When you asked him if every witness was lying, he sort of half denied that he believes this (even though he said they were all lying two days ago), but then left it unanswered altogether. Given the fact that he denies dustification and the presence of reliable "plane" witnesses, I think we can reasonably conclude that De'ak is part of the cover-up. No one can be this oblivious of something and still believe it after it has been proven wrong time and time again.
And yankee451, just answer his question! What frames did you originally say the smoke was frozen in? Also, where was Hezarkhani if not on the boat? No other position will match what we see in the video. As a side note, yes the plane shaped holes were created with DEWs (this is shown in the magnetometer data, which you still ignore).
Steve replies: "Which frames out of the 15 frames is the smoke frozen? Simple question."
The frozen smoke statement was retracted but referred to the frames as the jet was entering the tower. Simple answer.
And: "Hey Steve why are you so touchy"
Just lucky I guess.
"Well yes focusing on the evidence would, but you will not do that or answer my question which I've asked you at least 3 times now. WHICH FRAMES ARE THE FROZEN SMOKE IN OUT OF THE 15 FRAMES? Do you think you could answer this question without getting personal, and be straightforward with your answer. Thanks!"
They weren't part of the 15 frames, I never said that and you don't have to shout.
And: "I was not paraphrasing... or didn't you see the question mark on the end of the questions. There is a difference, and I paraphrase for a living Steve, so my "paraprasing skills" are pretty good and have been verified thanks! "
Then you are purposefully misrepresenting what I wrote.
"Now are you going to keep avoiding my question, which frames is smoke frozen in out the 15 frames? By the way, that's a question not a paraphrase. Perhaps myopic suits you better, as you don't read my question as questions rather paraphrases.."
I never said the frozen smoke was part of the 15 frames, not only do you not paraphrase well you, don't even have the videos straight.
I reply: yankee451: Steve could you tell me where Hezarkhani was if not on a boat? Thanks!
Steve replies: If it was it was a stable boat that provided a rock-solid platform for a tripod.
I reply: And what evidence is there that he used a tripod?
Steve replies: "The fact you been rude and personal shows a level of weakness in your theories, and lack of evidence to support them in what you propose. This has demonstrated your avoidance, which in my book makes you the disingenuious one Steve De'ak, and what you are doing is trying to project your disingenuiousness onto me, which is classic psychology, which I understand all too well. You have not only shown a lack of integrity, but a lack of straightforwardness in your dealings when answering legitimate questions put to you."
No, it means I'm tired of having to put up with the same old BULLSHIT from people like you, Mark Conlon, who wouldn't know controlled opposition if it sold you a coffee table book published by e PhD.
And: “And what evidence is there that he used a tripod?”scroll up
Mark replies: Okay, thank you for that Steve. Just to note, I've done analysis on the 11th and 13th frames, and they are different, and shows "minor" movement in the building in the foreground. So this means so far that only two frames are possible at this point of a match, however this may change when I check frame 12 against the 11th and 13th. Thanks for clarifing this information.
Steve replies: Mark, I disagree and I don't trust your attention to detail, but I'm glad you finally realized that you were mistaken about the "frozen smoke" and the "15 frames." Even so I am still waiting for your 15 frames of handheld camera footage that proves a handheld video camera can do what a tripodmounted camera did in the Hezarkhani footage.
Mark replies: Steve, there no need to be like this and get personal with people. You are defensive when people ask you questions. Your attitude isn't great to be honest Steve. I'm not against you, and if you presented evidence which was soild enough under scrutiny, then I'd be the first to say so and support it. I'm not going after you personally, but I feel you have behaved rather in a that fashion to which I mention above. I can see how you would encounter conflicts with people, or may be you feel pissed off. I'm a fair person, I haven't attacked you personally, I'm just not convinced yet of your evidence. Look you have retracted the frozen smoke, and I had already done analysis on that, and reached that conclusion that it wasn't valid. So may be the scrutiny to go check that again and retract was a good thing? I wouldn't condem you for that, that's what happens when you're doing research... Right? Best wishes, Mark.
Steve replies: Mark, You write smack about me and anyone else who points out the gaping holes in Judy's theory, so spare me the game.
Mark replies: I will post my analysis soon in full. I did the smoke theory awhile ago, and knew it wasn't vaild. I'm checking your other claims regarding the frames and will publish the findings. Also, you make statements in the interviews which cannot be backed up, and it is for you to back-up what you say. Example: Where is your evidence that Hezarkhani faked his video, and I mean he personally? These type of statements cannot be backed-up. Don't worry, I will checking points you put-out, just like I have with Killtown, Peggy Carter, BS Registration, Simon Shack (Hytten), OBF, Ace Baker and Markus Allen and many other people. I've proved they have put-out disinformation, and have used "video fakery" as a "psy-op". to manage people's perceptions. You may want to read Andrew Johnson's book all about those people who have been party to muddling-up the truth, which he backs-up with evidence, and one of them is Jim Fetzer who he proves is part of muddling-up the evidence, and is some how managing people. Ace Baker also named in his book. He promoted false points in his film regarding using compositing and Luma Keying in Chopper 5 Fox footage. this type deceptions putting out false information needs to be called-out.
Steve replies: Thanks, I am only interested in accuracy and I make mistakes and forget things as much as the next guy but if my prickly attitude isn't welcome you might want to try to prove some of the statements you've made about me, or withdraw them, before you expect me to greet you with open arms.
Mark replies: Absolutely right Conspracy Cuber.
And: Well it was a little hard to get an answer from you Steve, and this is why I was clarifying which frames they were to make sure that my analysis was correct. But you wanted to play games and be
avoidant and have an attitude problem because I aske you questions. Rather childish behaviour if you ask me Steve. Plus I was shouting in my comment, I enlarged the fonts because you kept missing the question. I don't shout at people, perthaps you do with your bad attitude you have with me.
Steve replies: "Well it was a little hard to get an answer from you Steve, and this is why I was clarifying which frames they were to make sure that my analysis was correct. But you wanted to play games and be avoidant and have an attitude problem because I aske you questions. Rather childish behaviour if you ask me Steve. Plus I was shouting in my comment, I enlarged the fonts because you kept missing the question. I don't shout at people, perthaps you do with your bad attitude you have with me."
Had you just read my blog or emailed me like other listeners had, you would have known and wouldn't have had to go through this little charade.
Mark replies: What statements have I made about you Steve? I'm not in the game of attacking people personally. I will point-out a bad attitude, but I'm not going down that road of personal BS. Perhaps you will "retract" the comments about me being a water carrier for Dr Wood? Or the references to others being part the cult. I thought we were getting somewhere in your last comment, but still get the feeling of an attitude issue.
Steve replies: "Well it was a little hard to get an answer from you Steve, and this is why I was clarifying which frames they were to make sure that my analysis was correct. But you wanted to play games and be avoidant and have an attitude problem because I aske you questions. Rather childish behaviour if you ask me Steve. Plus I was shouting in my comment, I enlarged the fonts because you kept missing the question. I don't shout at people, perthaps you do with your bad attitude you have with me."
It's not just an attitude I have with you, Mark, and you'll find that when I'm treated with honesty and respect that I return it in kind, but your transparent attempt at painting me into a corner isn't about exposing the truth is it? I tell you what, I'm happy to debate Andrew and Judy about this all day long and I can be as congenial and superficial as the best of them, for the sake of the audience you understand. We can go over all the evidence TOGETHER on video so that everyone can see for themselves who's talking out their ass and who's just plain sick of the lies and is acting appropriately.
I reply: yankee451: Steve, really why are you getting so defensive? We're just trying to ask you questions and you keep brushing them off like we should already know the answer. Can you provide irrefutable evidence that Hezarkhani was using a tripod? Please don't use the 15 frames as evidence. Watch the video that I did and the ones the Mark Conlon has made. In mine I zoom in to a building and show that no two frames are motionless.
BTW, Dr. Wood does not present a theory, she presents evidence. How is her evidence flawed? How do you explain dustification visible in every video? Please show me one thing that she present that is not true with evidence to back it up. Thanks!
Steve replies: Conspiracy Cuber - thanks for the feedback.
Not defensive, just tired of repaving the same old ground, and tired of having my intelligence insulted while my motives are questioned.
Did you link to the fifteen frames of handheld footage that is as motionless as the Hezarkhani footage yet?
Judy and her minions avoid key evidence like the plague, almost as if it's a conspiracy or something. Some of it is detailed here:
https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM
I reply: yankee451: Anyone can hold a camera stable for two frames under the right conditions. Those two frames aren't even stable anyways, so your argument is invalid. Dr. Wood does not talk about the creation of the plane shapes holes because that involves speculation. She does not speculate. However, Richard Hall and Andrew Johnson talk about it sometimes. I see plenty of evidence that you are ignoring. Why is it so important to you that Hezarkhani was using a tripod?
Steve replies: "yankee451: Anyone can hold a camera stable for two frames under the right conditions. Those two frames aren't even stable anyways, so your argument is invalid"
Two frames? We're talkin' fifteen, three of which are motionless. But you can't even do two, else you would have done so already, therefore your opinion is worthless.
"Dr. Wood does not talk about the creation of the plane shapes holes because that involves speculation."
Judy doesn't touch it because it involves forensic investigation, which is something a forensic scientist should embrace.
"She does not speculate."
She never stops speculating. Take the straps mentioned in my video with Jim, for example, what does she say about that evidence?
"However, Richard Hall and Andrew Johnson talk about it sometimes."
I'd like to talk about it with them.
"I see plenty of evidence that you are ignoring. "
Such as?
"Why is it so important to you that Hezarkhani was using a tripod?"
It isn't, but a tripod is the only way to explain the 15 frames, so why are you so reluctant to accept that?
Mark replies: I'd say the only frames which can be classed as the least movement is 11 and 12 together, that's it really. They are least movenment between them all. So we have to weight that up in seconds, and do a test to hold the video camera still for a 10th a second. If that Steve's evidence a 10th of a second to prove this tripod theory, then he is ignoring all the other evidence, which is overwhelming that no tripod was used. this is like saying we favor 1% over 99% of the evidence. I cannot see how he can reach his conclusion based on the evidence alone.
I reply: yankee451: I'm not reluctant to accept anything, I just need to see sufficient evidence for it. You keep giving me these info about missing (that does NOT prove it was removed) bolts and floors. Guess what? DON'T. SINGLE. IN. ON. ONE. PIECE. OF. EVIDENCE. I agree the bolts and floors are missing. BRILLIANT, now look at that IN LIGHT of ALL the OTHER evidence. Sorry if I'm getting too harsh here, but
it's elementary logic; look at WHAT happened first, and look at ALL the evidence. If you only focus on missing bolts and floors, that is known as cherry picking the data to fit a pre-ordained conclusion. Some evidence you are ignoring: Toasted cars, Hurricane Erin, dustification, missing debris, intact bathtub, low seismic impact, similarities with the Hutchison Effect, jellification, tritium without radiation, iron microspheres like those in crop circles, exploding scott packs, weird fires, unburned paper, and more. How can you say that she speculates when you completely IGNORE these?
About Hezarkhani: The. 15. Frames. Have. Motion. Even 11-13 do. Watch my video where I show this here: https://youtu.be/XLvl08h_VzQ as well as Mark's analyses. Yes, it is possible that to hold a camera that stable. I have done it many times myself, and if you try it I guarantee you'll come up with the same results. What would him using a tripod prove anyways? Also, did Kai Simonsen use a tripod that was 1000 feet tall, or was he actually in Chopper 5?
[BRIEF NOTE: For most of these comments, I didn’t copy them down until the 11th, so if any were deleted I wouldn’t know. I’m not trying to say that some were deleted, but it just seems like Steve could easily delete one without anyone noticing.]
On 7/11 I ask Mark a question: Mark Conlon: I couldn't agree more. Quick question: when you met with Richard and Andrew last week, was that recorded and available online somewhere or was it just intended to be just between the three of you? Thanks!
BRIEF DIVERSION BACK TO THE OTHER THREAD
On 7/10 Steve replies to the original thread that started it all: What does she say about the stillhanging truss straps and the fact that the dust was in dust form at the time of the first impacts? What about the dust pouring out - what does she say about that?
https://youtu.be/aoKiBn4tCNw
On 7/11 I reply: This piece of evidence is very minor compared to the fact that steel turned to dust. What do YOU say about the 1400+ toasted cars, Hurricane Erin, dustification, missing debris, intact bathtub, low seismic impact, similarities with the Hutchison Effect, jellification, tritium without radiation, iron microspheres like those in crop circles, exploding scott packs, weird fires, unburned paper, etc., etc., etc.? Please, stop singling in on one piece of evidence and look at ALL of it.
Links: Steel turns to dust here (watch the top 30 floors at 1:16-1:19): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
BACK TO THE OTHER THREAD
7/11 I delete my previous question to Mark Conlon after he private messaged me on my channel.
Later in the day on 7/11 Steve replies: “If that Steve's evidence a 10th of a second to prove this tripod theory, then he is ignoring all the other evidence, which is overwhelming that no tripod was used. this is like saying we favor 1% over 99% of the evidence. I cannot see how he can reach his conclusion based on the evidence alone."
All it takes is two frames to prove the tripod, but there are fifteen with practically zero movement, which is a pretty good feat to pull off being zoomed in so much. I really doubt you have ever tried to capture fifteen frames of nearly motionless video with a handheld camera, especially one zoomed in the way Hezarkhani's was. Had you done so you would know better, and if you could prove it can be done, you would. But you don't.
And then: Golly, the idea of considering all the evidence is brilliant! Wish I'd thought of that!
Let me know when Judy and Andrew are ready to discuss it ALL. ;-)
I reply: yankee451: So you get on them for not talking about one small piece of evidence that, when that is the only one you focus on. What is your explanation for only the outer panes of glass being "broken" in the World Financial Center, hmmm? Best wishes, enjoy your day, sweetly in Christian love.😁
Steve replies: Not just one, small piece of evidence, Conspiracy Cuber - for starters.
The still existing straps
The MISSING WINDOWS with SCREENS OVER THEM
The missing bolts
The missing floors
The fact that missing contents such as stainless steel steam kettles, plumbing, and the water therein, don't turn to dust in the real world
The dust and paper that was already there before the first impacts
The history of the towers, the real estate market and the people involved.
The lightly damaged cladding
The laterally bent and progressively worse-damaged steel
I know Judy and Andrew will avoid this evidence like the plague, so undoubtedly you will too.
And: The missing windows:
http://yankee451.com/?p=1961
And: The still existing straps were once attached to iBeams that the frauds Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson insist were turned to dust by directed energy weapons capable of vaporizing steel iBeams but incapable of vaporizing the flimsy straps they were bolted to:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/truss-straps.png
Oops:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/truss-straps-2.jpg
And: No partially "dustified" steel can be seen anywhere, but missing bolts can be seen throughout the debris field. Did those DEWs target just the bolts?
http://yankee451.com/?p=3232
https://youtu.be/MRy-c3mMlMs
https://youtu.be/P4tckn7s7II
https://youtu.be/D2pa_R8O2As
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcEqB72Ao6U
And: Dust and paper boils in the Shock and Awe explosions:
https://youtu.be/0ZWI4TlVsMc?t=640
https://youtu.be/v_JvuixHxdM
Dust and paper all over the base of the towers after the initial "impacts:"
https://youtu.be/7bKTVtyGqyQ
Creme de la creme: a large plume of dust and paper pours out of a wall column after impact but before "dustification:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoKiBn4tCNw
Mark replies on 7/12: Steve, it doesn't take 2 frames to prove a tripod, it takes far more than that. You need to proved evidence that Michael Hezarkhani had a tripod, or at least set-up a tripod or even a dolly. An eyewitness might help or a photograph or video? You say the 15 frames have "practically" no movement, so movement = not on dry land, and on a ferry boat. 2 frames at a 10th of a second is ignoring the "overwhelming" other frames of evidence of all the MH video footage, not just the other 13 frames. Your methods are completely wrong. You are trying to use an "absence" of evidence to prove your evidence for your arguments, which is either dishonest of you, or you are trying to lead people to a wrong conclusion to discredit the MH video, or you are just very misguided in your research skills? The MH video has had several attempts of discreditation by people who I consider to be disinformers. BS Registration, Peggy Carter, Killtown, Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Jim Fetzer and Nico Haupt, and too many more to name here. "Video Fakery" is nothing more than a "Psychological Operation" to manage people's perceptions, to discredit the 9/11 video evidence record, and the Hezarkhani video in particular, which has been the most sort after video to discredit, with people putting out disinformation about is from missing buildings, to the location not existing (Markus Allen, Peggey Carter and Simon Shack). All proven "false". Simon Shack's films have been seriously scrutinised and assessed by myself, which is why I reach that conclusion, as the analysis of his points he puts forward as video fakery have turned-out to be "deceptive" with the use of clever "misdirection" and cherry picked evidence and also withholding of other evidence which might prove damaging for his agenda.
And: Steve have you took your evidence to court? Dr. Wood did? Do you know of the Smith & Mundt Act? Did you support Dr. Wood when she took the evidence to court? If not, why not?
I reply on 7/12: Steve, that’s great that there are missing windows and bolts and all the other stuff you said. Now look at that IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE. A few corrections: the DEW did not vaporize anything, it dustified it. Stop acting like Greg Jenkins by purposefully confusing the two. We can see that whatever type of DEW was used is material specific which would explain why the bolts and floors are missing, but the straps still remain. Just like how microwaves affect water differently than metal or paper, this DEW affects different materials differently. You didn’t answer my question – what is your explanation for only the outer panes of glass being “broken” in the World Financial Center?
Mark Conlon: Spot on. :-)
On 7/11 I ask Mark a question: Mark Conlon: I couldn't agree more. Quick question: when you met with Richard and Andrew last week, was that recorded and available online somewhere or was it just intended to be just between the three of you? Thanks!
BRIEF DIVERSION BACK TO THE OTHER THREAD
On 7/10 Steve replies to the original thread that started it all: What does she say about the stillhanging truss straps and the fact that the dust was in dust form at the time of the first impacts? What about the dust pouring out - what does she say about that?
https://youtu.be/aoKiBn4tCNw
On 7/11 I reply: This piece of evidence is very minor compared to the fact that steel turned to dust. What do YOU say about the 1400+ toasted cars, Hurricane Erin, dustification, missing debris, intact bathtub, low seismic impact, similarities with the Hutchison Effect, jellification, tritium without radiation, iron microspheres like those in crop circles, exploding scott packs, weird fires, unburned paper, etc., etc., etc.? Please, stop singling in on one piece of evidence and look at ALL of it.
Links: Steel turns to dust here (watch the top 30 floors at 1:16-1:19): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RX1HZTBgQ
BACK TO THE OTHER THREAD
7/11 I delete my previous question to Mark Conlon after he private messaged me on my channel.
Later in the day on 7/11 Steve replies: “If that Steve's evidence a 10th of a second to prove this tripod theory, then he is ignoring all the other evidence, which is overwhelming that no tripod was used. this is like saying we favor 1% over 99% of the evidence. I cannot see how he can reach his conclusion based on the evidence alone."
All it takes is two frames to prove the tripod, but there are fifteen with practically zero movement, which is a pretty good feat to pull off being zoomed in so much. I really doubt you have ever tried to capture fifteen frames of nearly motionless video with a handheld camera, especially one zoomed in the way Hezarkhani's was. Had you done so you would know better, and if you could prove it can be done, you would. But you don't.
And then: Golly, the idea of considering all the evidence is brilliant! Wish I'd thought of that!
Let me know when Judy and Andrew are ready to discuss it ALL. ;-)
I reply: yankee451: So you get on them for not talking about one small piece of evidence that, when that is the only one you focus on. What is your explanation for only the outer panes of glass being "broken" in the World Financial Center, hmmm? Best wishes, enjoy your day, sweetly in Christian love.😁
Steve replies: Not just one, small piece of evidence, Conspiracy Cuber - for starters.
The still existing straps
The MISSING WINDOWS with SCREENS OVER THEM
The missing bolts
The missing floors
The fact that missing contents such as stainless steel steam kettles, plumbing, and the water therein, don't turn to dust in the real world
The dust and paper that was already there before the first impacts
The history of the towers, the real estate market and the people involved.
The lightly damaged cladding
The laterally bent and progressively worse-damaged steel
I know Judy and Andrew will avoid this evidence like the plague, so undoubtedly you will too.
And: The missing windows:
http://yankee451.com/?p=1961
And: The still existing straps were once attached to iBeams that the frauds Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson insist were turned to dust by directed energy weapons capable of vaporizing steel iBeams but incapable of vaporizing the flimsy straps they were bolted to:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/truss-straps.png
Oops:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/truss-straps-2.jpg
And: No partially "dustified" steel can be seen anywhere, but missing bolts can be seen throughout the debris field. Did those DEWs target just the bolts?
http://yankee451.com/?p=3232
https://youtu.be/MRy-c3mMlMs
https://youtu.be/P4tckn7s7II
https://youtu.be/D2pa_R8O2As
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcEqB72Ao6U
And: Dust and paper boils in the Shock and Awe explosions:
https://youtu.be/0ZWI4TlVsMc?t=640
https://youtu.be/v_JvuixHxdM
Dust and paper all over the base of the towers after the initial "impacts:"
https://youtu.be/7bKTVtyGqyQ
Creme de la creme: a large plume of dust and paper pours out of a wall column after impact but before "dustification:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoKiBn4tCNw
Mark replies on 7/12: Steve, it doesn't take 2 frames to prove a tripod, it takes far more than that. You need to proved evidence that Michael Hezarkhani had a tripod, or at least set-up a tripod or even a dolly. An eyewitness might help or a photograph or video? You say the 15 frames have "practically" no movement, so movement = not on dry land, and on a ferry boat. 2 frames at a 10th of a second is ignoring the "overwhelming" other frames of evidence of all the MH video footage, not just the other 13 frames. Your methods are completely wrong. You are trying to use an "absence" of evidence to prove your evidence for your arguments, which is either dishonest of you, or you are trying to lead people to a wrong conclusion to discredit the MH video, or you are just very misguided in your research skills? The MH video has had several attempts of discreditation by people who I consider to be disinformers. BS Registration, Peggy Carter, Killtown, Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Jim Fetzer and Nico Haupt, and too many more to name here. "Video Fakery" is nothing more than a "Psychological Operation" to manage people's perceptions, to discredit the 9/11 video evidence record, and the Hezarkhani video in particular, which has been the most sort after video to discredit, with people putting out disinformation about is from missing buildings, to the location not existing (Markus Allen, Peggey Carter and Simon Shack). All proven "false". Simon Shack's films have been seriously scrutinised and assessed by myself, which is why I reach that conclusion, as the analysis of his points he puts forward as video fakery have turned-out to be "deceptive" with the use of clever "misdirection" and cherry picked evidence and also withholding of other evidence which might prove damaging for his agenda.
And: Steve have you took your evidence to court? Dr. Wood did? Do you know of the Smith & Mundt Act? Did you support Dr. Wood when she took the evidence to court? If not, why not?
I reply on 7/12: Steve, that’s great that there are missing windows and bolts and all the other stuff you said. Now look at that IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE. A few corrections: the DEW did not vaporize anything, it dustified it. Stop acting like Greg Jenkins by purposefully confusing the two. We can see that whatever type of DEW was used is material specific which would explain why the bolts and floors are missing, but the straps still remain. Just like how microwaves affect water differently than metal or paper, this DEW affects different materials differently. You didn’t answer my question – what is your explanation for only the outer panes of glass being “broken” in the World Financial Center?
Mark Conlon: Spot on. :-)
Steve replies: "Steve, it doesn't take 2 frames to prove a tripod, it takes far more than that."
Sure it does, but if it doesn't you can demonstrate it. Zoom in nice and tight and try to get 15 almost motionless frames with a handheld camera, film yourself doing it and post the video. It's that simple.
And: Some people have DEW in their eyes and can't discuss the evidence to the contrary. And now we're back to wasting time.
I reply: In my Battery Park Ferry video, go to 0:06 and analyze it frame by frame right around the time where the Statue of Liberty comes into view. There are a few frames there were the camera is nearly motionless, yet I was just holding my phone in my hands when I filmed that. Same thing happens around 0:09 mark. No tripod necessary. It is not that hard to hold a camera steady for a fraction of a second. I was even in the same place MH was when he took that video! He filmed his video using a handheld camera on a ferry, case closed. Are you going to accuse me of using a tripod?
How are missing bolts evidence that disproves a DEW? It actually fits in very nicely… Answer my question, what is your explanation for only one pane of glass being “broken” in the outside windows of the World Financial Center?
Mark replies: The Michael Hezarkhani video proves it. When are you going to produce some evidence that proves the man you're talking about had a tripod. Up to now all you have is empty statements. You've produced NO evidence, and use absence of evidence as a positive, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence in that video.
And: This isn't about Dr. Wood or Andrew Johnson. This is about you ignoring all other 13 frames and the rest of the video evidence. The overwhelming video evidence dedunks your theory of a tripod. You have struggled other than because you say so that Hezarkhani used a tripod. Sorry Steve, that's not evidence for use of a tripod just because you say so. The 2 frames do not prove a tripod was used end
of. It doesn't matter how much you tell Fetzer in your videos that you used to play around with making funny movies with a tripod, that doesn't prove anything. It's still a theory.
And: Steve, I think you are avoiding the lack of evidence you are presenting which we point out to you, and are using or keep bringing Dr.Wood and Andrew Johnson into the discussion which has nothing to do with tripods? Keep on track!
Steve replies: "Steve, I think you are avoiding the lack of evidence you are presenting which we point out to you, and are using or keep bringing Dr.Wood and Andrew Johnson into the discussion which has nothing to do with tripods? Keep on track!"
Perhaps you should comment only on that video then?
And: "The Michael Hezarkhani video proves it. When are you going to produce some evidence that proves the man you're talking about had a tripod. Up to now all you have is empty statements. You've produced NO evidence, and use absence of evidence as a positive, while ignoring the overwhelming evidence in that video."
The fifteen frames are proof that if he is a real person, he's a real liar. The sideways-rocking of the boat is another clue, as is the way the hole only appears after he pulls way back, and then there's the selfhealing building and the actual physical damage to the tower, which doesn't match whatsoever. The evidence, when considered honestly and without preconceptions, is indeed overwhelming.
Mark replies: I am, and have. It's a shame you're showing yourself to be very avoidnant about the overwhleming evidence, and saying you've proven something which you haven't or can.
Steve replies: I must have missed your video where you zoom in tight with a handheld camera and show zero movement for three frames and almost zero camera movement for another 12. I have been unable to get even two frames to be identical, so you must have a very steady hand. Please post the video.
Mark replies: So how do you explain the Rinaldi video footage from Battery Park from a ferry that was taken in 1997 and held steady for 24 frames? Was this amateur also using a tripod then, as it is very similar to Hezarkhani's video. You have no evidence to call Hezarkhani a liar, it's just a statement, not a fact. Where's his tripod Steve? As for self healing holes, you are very much mistaken, can you not see the fumes covering it, and the same in Naudet footage? You are really making statements which you don't back-up with any evidence.
I reply: Steve, on my video from Battery Park, analyze it frame by frame at 0:06 and 0:09, there are some seemingly motionless frames there. I did not use a tripod. In case you need it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RigL0sPDzcI
Steve replies: I don't know, how was he stabilizing it without a tripod? Did he use a wall, or a trash can, and did he stabilize it right before capturing footage of an impossible event that doesn't match the physical damage like Hezarkhani did?
Mark replies: Have you ever seen the Rinaldi video from Battery Park Steve? In his video from 1997 from the "ferry boat", he was able to hold his video camera steady for 24 frames without a tripod, so how do you explain this? Or are you going to ignore this evidence also? https://youtu.be/yzjygyBMSUw
I reply: yankee451: Steve, watch my video here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RigL0sPDzcI where I am on the ferry. There are several stable frames at 0:06 and 0:09 with almost no motion.
Steve replies: "As for self healing holes, you are very much mistaken, can you not see the fumes covering it"
They are seen frame by frame below. No, I do not see the fumes covering it up.
https://youtu.be/WKGh3CAoO64?t=2692
And here: http://911crashtest.org/
Mark replies: So come Steve, what about the Rinaldi's 1997 video from the ferry in Battery Park, where 24 frames hold steady, that's 9 more frames than Hezarkhani's..? I thought it couldn't be done without a tripod? It looks just like Hezarkhani's to me, and holds steady. Are you going discount this evidence. You see Steve, if something looks like an amateur, it probably is an amateur, which Hezarkhani's was. https://youtu.be/LKOelbnHT8U
And: In the Naudet video that plane hole is covered by smoke/fumes, and the wind blows it across the face, didn't know this Steve, or do I have to post something to show this. The same as your "false" frozen smoke theory? Look closely you will see it perfectly. By the was I have their DVD also and it's even clearer in that, perhaps you should watch yours you have.
Steve replies: "How are missing bolts evidence that disproves a DEW? It actually fits in very nicely"
So you are saying they targeted the bolts? Seriously, please explain this technology - like prove it exists in the real world.
"Answer my question, what is your explanation for only one pane of glass being “broken” in the outside windows of the World Financial Center?"
Poly-carbonate panes and luck?
But back to the WTC, how does Judy explain the lightly damaged cladding followed by the progressively worse-damaged steel which was sharply bent in a completely different direction than the jet was traveling? Almost identical damage in both towers: eight laterally bent columns followed by an inward blasting hole. What directed energy weapon or explosive can be used to mimic the physical impact of a kinetic weapon? Please be specific.
Mark replies: Stop changing the subject and answer my two comments regarding the Rinaldi video? You intrduced the plane holes, not me, so can you stay with what I've been discussing with you throughtout all our comment exchanges, which is regarding HEZARKHANI frames. Stay on topic and stop being so avoidant of the evidence. Rinaldi held steady for 24 frames, that's 9 frames longer than Hezarkhani?
And: As in my comment above, you kept bringing Dr. Wood into it and Andrew Johnson. Perhaps you should answer my comments to you about the Rinaldi video and the 24 frames as it holds steady from the ferry boat. Or you going to keep avoiding this evidence. 9 frames more than your Hezarkhani video frames.
Steve replies: "Stop changing the subject and answer my two comments regarding the Rinaldi video? You intrduced the plane holes, not me, so can you stay with what I've been discussing with you
throughtout all our comment exchanges, which is regarding HEZARKHANI frames. Stay on topic and stop being so avoidant of the evidence. Rinaldi held steady for 24 frames, that's 9 frames longer than Hezarkhani?"
I am not changing the subject and I have answered your questions but newsflash, Mark, I don't answer to you. I don't know about the Rinaldi footage, I must have missed the link, nor did I catch what proof was offered that it was non-stabilized handheld footage nor any other details, but I have taken plenty of footage with and without tripods and monopods - and there's a reason they are used for camera stabilization and why they are especially necessary for making things appear and disappear on video. All you've done so far is gnash your teeth and stomp your feet which may play well with the cult but impresses me naught.
And: "As in my comment above, you kept bringing Dr. Wood into it and Andrew Johnson. Perhaps you should answer my comments to you about the Rinaldi video and the 24 frames as it holds steady from the ferry boat. Or you going to keep avoiding this evidence. 9 frames more than your Hezarkhani video frames."
I prefer to speak to the bosses, sue me. I am not avoiding anything, but I may have missed the link to the video, please repost it and the time stamp I should be looking for. What proof is offered that it was captured by with a handheld video camera?
I reply: yankee451: FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! I'm sorry I'm getting so angry, but we have disproved ALL of your points dozens of times. And yes, one more thing on the DEW and then lets stick to the MH video after this. Steel turned to dust which proves that a DEW must have done that (nothing else would). Enough on that, you are clearly disinfo and ignoring evidence so there is no point to arguing about that anymore. I'm sorry to say this, but please just follow the evidence wherever it leads and don't hold on to beliefs just because you want to! Watch my video on the ferry, there are several motionless frames as well as in the Rinaldi video. You keep talking circles around everything. 2 frames don't even prove anything! They're not even motionless!
Mark replies: Same proof you cite as a tripod being used, and also Hezarkhani to be a liar, who used cgi to insert the plane. So when you give the evidence for that then I might take your statements seriously. Until then they are just statements, and the liability is with you to prove otherwise. https://youtu.be/yzjygyBMSUw
Steve replies: "yankee451: FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! I'm sorry I'm getting so angry, but we have disproved ALL of your points dozens of times."
Not true, but this is an example of why I prefer to talk to the cult leaders rather than waste my time with their minions. With a video conference like Jim and I used it makes demonstrations easier to understand, and it makes it much more difficult to hide behind false statements. I welcome such an opportunity with say Andrew but he prefers to ban me from his sites and ignore my emails. Judy told me to use a sandwich board to raise awareness, so I'm under the impression that exposing the actual truth isn't high on the cult's priory list.
Mark replies: @Conspiracy Cuber - He is igonring the evidence, and being avoidant. The Rinaldi video proves his theories wrong about the Hezarkhani video. This is why he's come out with another theory about the gashes allegedly self-healing and missing, when in reality it's the fumes that is covering holes
in Hezarkhani and Naudet video. I've go studies to prove this, and used some of Richard. Hall's 3D Radar match-ups to prove he's wrong. Yes, I'm beginning to think the same, that Steve De'ak is on a mission similar to Nico Haupt, Killtown, Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Markus Allen, BS Registration, Peggy Carter and One Born Free. Didn't want to really add him to that long list, but the more I speak with him and get no sense, the more I'm convinced from the lack of evidence for his statements that he does belong on that list, especially when he's not being straightforward and advoidant with us.
Steve replies: Mark - perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned I didn't see the Rinaldi link, and I don't appreciate you accusing me of shit when I'm simply being honest. Post the link or piss off.
I reply: Mark Conlon: It is unfortunate to find another psy-jacker, but not too many are left in the world who aren't involved in the coverup except for Dr. Wood, Andrew Johnson, Richard Hall, you, Pete Santilli and maybe a few others.
Steve: DID. YOU. WATCH. MY. VIDEO? There are some frames in there that are seemingly motionless at 0:06 and 0:09. No tripod necessary. Available here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RigL0sPDzcI
Mark replies: Steve, I've posted the links about 3 times to you... He's the fourth time: https://youtu.be/yzjygyBMSUw
Plus, I was talking about your avoidance throughout when we ask you a question, never seem to get a straight answer from you., and to be honest like I said before your attitude isn't the best either. And since you accuse me of being Dr Wood's water carrier I think it was you who started to lower the tone. Something I haven't done. I will leave it with you, and see what you think, may be it will be useful in your research, best wishes!
Steve replies: Your posts were in the spam bucket – thanks for the link. I’ll be in touch
And: Please provide the original Rinaldi footage.
And: "Plus, I was talking about your avoidance throughout when we ask you a question, never seem to get a straight answer from you., and to be honest like I said before your attitude isn't the best either. And since you accuse me of being Dr Wood's water carrier I think it was you who started to lower the tone. Something I haven't done. I will leave it with you, and see what you think, may be it will be useful in your research, best wishes!
Bullshit. If you want to be treated with respect back-off on the accusations. What questions have I yet to answer?
And: "Steve: DID. YOU. WATCH. MY. VIDEO? There are some frames in there that are seemingly motionless at 0:06 and 0:09.
Yes I can see you managed to get two very close, but not 15, and not zoomed in tight like Hezarkhani, which makes a huge difference. Try it again zoomed in on the WTC and see how close you can get.
And: "As in my comment above, you kept bringing Dr. Wood into it and Andrew Johnson. Perhaps you should answer my comments to you about the Rinaldi video and the 24 frames as it holds steady from the ferry boat. Or you going to keep avoiding this evidence. 9 frames more than your Hezarkhani video frames."
I've never seen this video and your video is very difficult to analyze. Do you have an unedited version?
And (right about now it is 7/13): "Mark Conlon: It is unfortunate to find another psy-jacker, but not too many are left in the world who aren't involved in the coverup except for Dr. Wood, Andrew Johnson, Richard Hall, you, Pete Santilli and maybe a few others."
See this is what I mean, I like you guys, really. I've been on a show with Pete Santilli and Morgan Reynolds, does that make me one of the good guys, or does that make them tainted?
I guess I'll have to stop saying it only takes two frames to prove a tripod, I'll have to include the caveat of the camera being zoomed in. And yes, the boat footage is quite stable so I will stop saying he was on dry land. A tripod on the boat would be quite stable, even a handheld would be, which makes the exaggerated rocking and the 15 frames, self-healing building, and a hole that only appears after the smoke clears, even more obviously fake. However I concede these points to you and will no longer say he was on dry land.
Mark replies: Hi Steve, I'm not after for you concede to me, I would hope you see that what you're proposing doesn't help your own cause for truth. Yes we can disagree whether or a tripod was used? However, if anything by dropping the dryland and 2 frames at least helps your own case for a tripod. From my research which is all on my blog-page, whoever shot that footage Hezarkhani or not Hezarkhani had to be on a ferry/boat in an elevated position. People have put-out "false" information about Hezarkahni's location being impossible or not even existing, like, BS Registration (Fred), Peggy Carter and Markus Allen, (you may remember those people) which is why I did a lot of research on trying to demonstrate Hezarkhani's or video makers location. Both Simon Shack and Markus Allen putout false information regarding missing building which was just plain bull-shit, and I called them out on that, which is the right thing to do. I'm a fair person, and I think you are, and I think may be some points that have been raised and have been taken on-board, and you have looked again, which is more than Simon Shack or the others do. If I found something wrong with any 9/11 video footage then I would say so. The anomalies are very strange in the video evidence record, whther video fakery is the answer I'm still not convinced like I was in the past. this mainly because of the all the false points put-out appeared "deliberately" not as a result of poor research, regarding all those people I named ealier on in my comments. I'm only after the truth also just like you. Just to be transparant with you. I know Andrew Johnson, I've seen him do his talks and met him quite a number of times. I've met Dr. Wood once when she visited my hometown in the UK. I've also met Richard D. Hall several times and spoke to him. As for Pete Santilli, I have no time for him what so ever, never met him and don't listen to his shows. Same with Morgan Reynolds, only left a couple of comment on his website a few months ago, but not really any convsersation. Like you said, you're not in with Fetzer, and I believe you when you say that. However for me, I find Fetzer very doubious and questionable regarding some of his motives and actions. Perhaps he wants to manage you and your information? I don't know. Perhaps you will find this out for yourself? Take care and best wishes, Mark. :-)
And: Okay no worries Steve, I find tracking the comments quite difficult sometimes, and yes I had that issues also with the spam box.
I reply on 7/13: yankee451: First off, I apologize for my unnecessary anger yesterday. A few questions:
1. Why does it matter so much to you that MH was using a tripod?
2. What difference would it make anyways?
3. Can you provide conclusive evidence that the plane was composited into the footage?
4. Why do you doubt the very existence of Michael Hezarkhani?
5. Even if you proved that any one video or photo is fake, how would that prove that every witness was lying and every other video is faked?
6. How would a zoom in make it harder to hold a camera steady? It makes the shakes more obvious, but if the camera is held completely stable, it would not affect anyone’s ability to hold a camera stable for a fraction of a second.
7. Why do you want to argue with Dr. Wood only and not any of her followers?
8. Why does a side by side comparison of the MH and Rinaldi footage not satisfy you? Why do you want the original Rinaldi footage?
9. Why do you keep changing the rules when it comes to whether or not it is possible to hold a camera steady for 0.5 seconds? At first you say all 15 frames are motionless. Once that was debunked you went down to three. Then you said that it is impossible to hold a camera steady for 1/10th of a second and will hold to that until someone can contradict that. Now that I’ve contradicted it in my Battery Park video, you go back to square one and say that it’s not 15 frames and also add that I’m not zoomed in. Why does it matter that I wasn’t zoomed in. You specifically stated, “…you can’t even do two, else you would have done so already…” Yes, I have done that. It’s more like 5 nearly motionless frames at 0:06. That proves it is possible to hold a camera steady for a fraction of a second. As soon as I debunked your original point, you made up a new one. How is this not special pleading? The Rinaldi video is also another great piece of evidence that disproves your hypothesis.
10. How does the, “exaggerated rocking and the 15 frames, self-healing building, and a hold that only appears after the smoke clears,” even more “obviously fake”?
11. Can you provide irrefutable evidence that every eyewitness was a liar?
12. If one video or photo is fake, then why not all of them? Why not use Simon Shack/Hytten’s logic and say that every one is part of a computer generated matrix?
13. Did you read the list of questions? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
14. Can I have specific answers to each question I asked? Thanks!
Steve replies: Conspiracy Cuber,
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:
https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM and in this 1-hour video: https://youtu.be/WKGh3CAoO64
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.
13. No.
14. No.
I reply: yankee451: The only question you answered correctly was 14. ;-) You either did not answer the questions, or gave a non-answer. About the rocking of the boat: I was there on 6/13/2017 at 5:37pm. According to WeatherUnderground it was a lot more windy on 9/11 (look it up, I won't post the link so it doesn't go to spam). It is not impossible for an amateur to hold a camera relatively steady for a halfsecond.
And: Can you give irrefutable proof that every plane witness was a liar?
And: Was Keith Lopez using a tripod? He was driving in a car when he took that video. How about Pavel Hlava? Same thing there. Did Joshua Lentz or William Gibson use a tripod? Gibson video was fairly stable, yet we know that he didn't use a tripod because he starts to run after the impact. How about Roberto Cervantes? His video couldn't have been filmed on a tripod either because the railing in his
video is clearly directly under the camera. How about the live shots? Four were filmed on tripods (CBS-1, NY1, WB11 (WPIX-TV), and CNN live on FOX4), but four others (ABC Chopper880, NBC Chopper4, WNYW Chopper 5, and CBS-2) were filmed from choppers. Did Kai Simonsen use a 1000 foot tall tripod to film the Chopper 5 footage? Or Chopper 4, a 2000 foot tripod? Enough said, it is quite clear that some people could not have possibly used tripods to film their footage.
Steve replies: Conspiracy Cuber,
I answered honestly and accurately, you can suck it if you don't like the answers. So you ARE saying that the boat stopped rocking for those 15 frames?
And: "Can you give irrefutable proof that every plane witness was a liar"
Either a liar, mistaken or a fool, yes. Ask me again and I'll tell you the same, and you'll still ignore the reasons why.
And: Perhaps they were, have you verified whether or not the impact damage is consistent with their footage? I figured it was given that I was referring to the those folks not in cars or on planes, but if you're going to be splitting such fine hairs I'll have to cut to the chase and say anyone who captured a plane sliding into a building like a hot knife through butter is certainly a liar and their footage is all fake because the impact damage indicates something else happened. The two links in the answers you didn't like explain exactly why.
And: https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM and https://youtu.be/WKGh3CAoO64
I reply: Steve, I'm not saying that planes hit the buildings because they didn't video fakery is not the only answer. You didn't even try to debunk the fact that William Gibson (and all the others I mentioned) was not using a tripod because it is obvious that he wasn't. Please just answer this one question: Did Kai Simonsen use a 1000 foot tripod and was the camera on Chopper 4 on a 2000 foot tripod?
And: Sorry minor correction: Chopper 5 was 725 feet high and Chopper 4 was 2001 feet high.
Steve replies: Conspiracy Cuber, you have me at a disadvantage, I don't know your name, so you aren't held to the same standards as I am. You are splitting hairs and ignoring the very evidence that proves they're lying, and yes, it proves fakery.
On 7/14 Mark replies: Sorry, to be fair Steve, why are you using a different YouTube name from your real name? I personally use my real name for all my accounts. YouTube, Blogger and Facebook. Can you really use that against Conspiracy Cuber? Jusy asking Steve, don't be too put out by my question.
And: The boat didn't stop rocking, and those 15 are not steady. That's the flaw in the your argument. We did prove that those frames have movenemt all the way through the 15 frames, and that's without the rest of the video footage frames which all have movement.
And: To call someone or group of people liars, you would have to have proof they knowingly deceived. I don't think this is something you can prove Steve. If you went to court and the Judge said where is your evidence and proof, then you would have a hard job on your hands. Same as saying Hezarkhani faked his video himself. you would have to prove he has those computer skills or knowledge to it, and that's very difficult. Just saying!
I reply: Steve, answer my question, did Kai Simonsen use a 725 foot tripod and did the camera operator of Chopper 4 use a 2001 foot tripod?
Steve replies: "Steve, answer my question, did Kai Simonsen use a 725 foot tripod and did the camera operator of Chopper 4 use a 2001 foot tripod?"
I was being sarcastic, bitch.
I reply: Well then, if profanity suits you...
Do you seriously think that is an answer? If your theory relies so much on tripods, the wouldn't the live shots need to be stationary? The "plane" was visible from Chopper 5 in the wide shot and zoom in. How is that "compositable"? Or the Chopper 4 shot where the "plane" is seen between the two towers?
Why does it matter what my name is? If you want a brief synopsis of my 9/11 research: Backstory, I've been raised Christian since birth so I already had known that evolution was a lie. Eventually (in 2012) my dad showed me an 18 hour long seminar series by Dr. Kent Hovind that completely obliterates the theory of evolution. In that he gave occasional references to things like chemtrails, NWO, 9/11, cancer, etc., and at first I immediately dismissed it, but by 4/2015 I was convinced that he was actually on to something. Over the next year I learned more about the chemtrails, vaccines, GMOs, etc. On 3/29/2016, my brother showed me a clear example of 9/11 predictive programming and I went on my computer and started looking into this. At first, I was drawn into the regular old BiB/Thermite lie, but in 5/2016 I came across Richard D. Hall's 3D Ball Analysis from 2010. That instantly convinced of the no planes argument (although at the time I believed in video fakery). Fortunately, I happened to come across his updated analysis (the 2015 version) at the beginning of June and realized that it made much more sense. Finally by 11/2016 (around election week for us Americans) I thought I'd solved 9/11 and decided, "So why don't you look at what Dr. Judy Wood has been saying?" (I first heard of her in Richard Hall's updated 3D Analysis but didn't look into what she said) I had to rethink everything and by 1/17/2017, I finally gave up bombs, brushed the last bit of nanothermite of my fingers and began spreading the truth.
Is that a reasonable enough explanation? It's completely irrelevant, but if you're going to attack me just because you don't know my name (what is your reasoning behind that?) I'll give it to you. No, I'm not lying about any of that, I just kept searching for the truth even after I thought I knew it.
Steve replies: "Sorry, to be fair Steve, why are you using a different YouTube name from your real name? I personally use my real name for all my accounts. YouTube, Blogger and Facebook. Can you really use that against Conspiracy Cuber? Jusy asking Steve, don't be too put out by my question."
I began blogging and making videos under the moniker of yankee451but realized anonymity is for sissies and that I was only hiding from the people I was trying to reach, so I switched to my real name, but already have links spread all over trutherdom to my yankee451 material and I like the name and logo but use my real name and face. I find that when people have to face up to their real life, namely friends, family and co-workers they tend to be more truthful. Folks who hide behind anonymity can say anything they want without repercussions.
I reply: yankee451: So how were the live shots composited then? Four from choppers, 3 would be extremely difficult, the last one was only shown on 1 channel. And the witnesses? Was the crowd surrounding Joshua Lentz lying?
Steve replies: "To call someone or group of people liars, you would have to have proof they knowingly deceived. I don't think this is something you can prove Steve. If you went to court and the Judge said where is your evidence and proof, then you would have a hard job on your hands. Same as saying Hezarkhani faked his video himself. you would have to prove he has those computer skills or knowledge to it, and that's very difficult. Just saying!"
Of course they're all liars. You're still ignoring the evidence that makes it obvious to a barnyard animal."
And: "The boat didn't stop rocking, and those 15 are not steady. That's the flaw in the your argument. "
Not true, as anyone can see by examining the frames. This is just another piece of the puzzle that indicates there was a team of propagandists that were deployed to act as the amateurs.
And: Mark, are you going to supply the unedited Rinaldi footage?
I reply: Steve are you going to answer my questions?
Mark replies: Yeah, I sort of know you by Steve De'ak, rather than your moniker. I know what you mean though, that's why I just use my real name really to be transparant :-)
Steve replies: "Steve are you going to answer my questions?"
Answered, bummer for you if you didn't like them. You're still ignoring the evidence that proves the amateurs who captured a jet sliding like butter into the tower are liars and frauds as explained here:
https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM and here:
https://youtu.be/WKGh3CAoO64
And: "Well then, if profanity suits you...
Do you seriously think that is an answer? ...etc"
I answered a dozen questions already, scroll up.
My "theory" is simply to examine the evidence and to attempt at a most-likely explanation for it. It is that evidence that Judy and her clique refuse to address. https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM and here:
https://youtu.be/WKGh3CAoO64
I reply: yankee451: No, you did not answer my questions. I'll post them again: How were the live shots composited? Four from choppers, 3 would be extremely difficult, the last one was only shown on 1 channel. And the witnesses? Was the crowd surrounding Joshua Lentz lying?
Also, how many people were in on it? Do you HONESTLY think that 10,000s of people were all lying? And how would the perps control those who weren't lying? Like what, did they lock them all behind closed doors? Seriously, there is no way what your saying is realistically possible. It is theoretically, but in practice it'd be pretty darn hard to pull off such a big lie in front of so many people.
You: My "theory" is simply to examine evidence and attempt at a most likely explanation for it. It is evidence that Judy and her clique refuse to address"
It's just that...a THEORY. Don't create a THEORY and ATTEMPT to fit the evidence around it. Look at all the evidence as a whole. How many times have I told you this? Leave Dr. Wood out of it, she only focuses on what happened, not theories as to how the gashes were created. Does a plane crash cause a change in the earth's magnetic field? There is so much evidence that you refuse to address you really need to stop pretending that you're searching for truth. It is quite clear at this point that you are NOT. How could the dozens of hundreds of witnesses all have been lying? Those links you include are evidence-free. You discredit DEWs for what reason? Where did the steel go that was originally were the hole would soon be? You can't see it in the gash, and missiles don't cause that, so...how do you explain that??? And how many missiles do you think were fired at these buildings? I mean SOMEONE is BOUND to see this! According to your theory, the impression that I'm getting is that at a very BARE MINIMUM a dozen missiles were used per tower. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you seem to be saying. How many people would need to be in on it? The area around the WTC would need to be practically a MOVIE SET with a 10 mile radius (at least). Don't you think that might be just a little absurd to think this? How was the Chopper 5 shot composited? The plane IS visible in the wide shot and zoom in which makes it nearly impossible to do in realtime. Was every news station in on it? Every anchor, cameraperson, reporter, people back at headquarters, etc.? How many people were in on it? Please provide a number and answer all of these questions. Thank you.
Steve replies: "yankee451: No, you did not answer my questions. I'll post them again: How were the live shots composited? Four from choppers, 3 would be extremely difficult, the last one was only shown on 1 channel. And the witnesses? Was the crowd surrounding Joshua Lentz lying? Also, how many people were in on it? Do you HONESTLY think that 10,000s of people were all lying? And how would the perps control those who weren't lying? Like what, did they lock them all behind closed doors? Seriously, there is no way what your saying is realistically possible. It is theoretically, but in practice it'd be pretty darn hard to pull off such a big lie in front of so many people.
You: My "theory" is simply to examine evidence and attempt at a most likely explanation for it. It is evidence that Judy and her clique refuse to address"
It's just that...a THEORY. Don't create a THEORY and ATTEMPT to fit the evidence around it. Look at all the evidence as a whole. How many times have I told you this? Leave Dr. Wood out of it, she only focuses on what happened, not theories as to how the gashes were created. Does a plane crash cause a change in the earth's magnetic field? There is so much evidence that you refuse to address you really need to stop pretending that you're searching for truth. It is quite clear at this point that you are NOT. How could the dozens of hundreds of witnesses all have been lying? Those links you include are evidence-free. You discredit DEWs for what reason? Where did the steel go that was originally were the hole would soon be? You can't see it in the gash, and missiles don't cause that, so...how do you explain that??? And how many missiles do you think were fired at these buildings? I mean SOMEONE is BOUND to see this! According to your theory, the impression that I'm getting is that at a very BARE MINIMUM a dozen missiles were used per tower. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you seem to be saying. How many people would need to be in on it? The area around the WTC would need to be practically a MOVIE SET with a 10 mile radius (at least). Don't you think that might be just a little absurd to think this? How was the Chopper 5 shot composited? The plane IS visible in the wide shot and zoom in which
makes it nearly impossible to do in realtime. Was every news station in on it? Every anchor, cameraperson, reporter, people back at headquarters, etc.? How many people were in on it? Please provide a number and answer all of these questions. Thank you."
Talk to the hand.
I reply: Wow, it that isn't a clear sign of a gatekeeper, nothing is.
Steve replies: Bring Judy, Conspiracy Cuber and we'll examine the evidence as a whole, especially that which proves holograms and DEWs weren't responsible.
I reply: Steve, you didn't even answer one of my questions! *IMAGE PROJECTIONS* not holograms. I don't want to get into this argument, answer my questions first and THEN we can. Thank you.
Steve replies: I have answered your questions, some in detail. Read the answers again - of course I'm a gatekeeper, because I'm a LEADER of the opposition, aren't I?
And: "Steve, you didn't even answer one of my questions! IMAGE PROJECTIONS not holograms. I don't want to get into this argument, answer my questions first and THEN we can. Thank you."
You sure it wasn't unicorns, I mean they can be proved to exist as easily as your "image projections" can be, right? What do you have against discussing the damage evidence? I think I know...it would spoil the buzz, wouldn't it?
I reply: Steve.
Answer.
The.
Questions.
I’ll post this again (this is the third time I’ve asked you…), please provide an answer and explanation for each question or recant. How were the live shots composited? Four from choppers, 3 would be extremely difficult, the last one was only shown on 1 channel. And the witnesses? Was the crowd surrounding Joshua Lentz lying? Also, how many people were in on it? Do you HONESTLY think that 10,000s of people were all lying? And how would the perps control those who weren't lying? Like what,
did they lock them all behind closed doors? Seriously, there is no way what your saying is realistically possible. It is theoretically, but in practice it'd be pretty darn hard to pull off such a big lie in front of so many people.
You: My "theory" is simply to examine evidence and attempt at a most likely explanation for it. It is evidence that Judy and her clique refuse to address"
It's just that...a THEORY. Don't create a THEORY and ATTEMPT to fit the evidence around it. Look at all the evidence as a whole. How many times have I told you this? Leave Dr. Wood out of it, she only focuses on what happened, not theories as to how the gashes were created. Does a plane crash cause a change in the earth's magnetic field? There is so much evidence that you refuse to address you really need to stop pretending that you're searching for truth. It is quite clear at this point that you are NOT. How could the dozens of hundreds of witnesses all have been lying? Those links you include are evidence-free. You discredit DEWs for what reason? Where did the steel go that was originally were the hole would soon be? You can't see it in the gash, and missiles don't cause that, so...how do you explain that??? And how many missiles do you think were fired at these buildings? I mean SOMEONE is BOUND to see this! According to your theory, the impression that I'm getting is that at a very BARE MINIMUM a dozen missiles were used per tower. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you seem to be saying. How many people would need to be in on it? The area around the WTC would need to be practically a MOVIE SET with a 10 mile radius (at least). Don't you think that might be just a little absurd to think this? How was the Chopper 5 shot composited? The plane IS visible in the wide shot and zoom in which makes it nearly impossible to do in realtime. Was every news station in on it? Every anchor, cameraperson, reporter, people back at headquarters, etc.?
Steve replies: "Conspiracy Cuber"
I.
Stopped.
Reading.
Them.
I reply: If video fakery was irrefutable, you should easily be able to answer these.
Steve replies: The impact holes to the WTC show lightly damaged cladding at the far left, followed by progressively worse-damage steel columns, followed by an inward blasting hole in the ninth column, which is evidence of missile impacts, which would not have been masked by the hologram even if such things exist.
https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM and here: https://youtu.be/WKGh3CAoO64
I reply: Please, answer my questions!
On 7/15 Mark replies: Steve, you keep saying "holograms". WHY... as none of the people you name, like Dr. Wood or Andrew Johnson mention or use the term "holograms". I have also noticed that Jim Fetzer, keeps mis-quoting Richard D. Hall also. He doesn't use "holograms". Either this is a "deliberate" attempt by yourself and Jim Fetzer to implant falsehoods into the public domain's minds? Or are you simply mistaken? Which is it?
And: Plane holes, then you have to explain the earth's magentic fields evidence? Missiles don't cause these changes? So explain this evidence data, as your missile theories does not.
And: Video fakery is a "psychological operation" and "perception management". I've documented the people behind this 'psy-op', who came along before Steve was on the scene. Their mission as documented was to lead people away from studying the evidence. Steve, likes to promote Gerrard Holmgren and Webfairy as the "original" no-planers. This factually incorrect. Theirry Meyssan was the first to spot and publish that their was no-plane used at the Pentagon. Webfairy and Holmgren ran with this at the WTC crashes, and inroduced "video fakery" which I consider was done "deliberately" by them as a cover story to muddle-up the evidence and discredit the 9/11 evidence record. They didn't start this until around 2003-04. Thierry Meyssan's published information was at a website in October 2001 and books in 2002. I think both Holmgren and Webfairy mislead people. And Steve promotes their theories. Scott loughery is another who you never hear mentioned these days who put out "video fakery" also, Webfairy was inspired by his stuff before she put out video fakery. Funny how history gets re-written by Jim Fetzer and Steve De'ak.
Steve replies: I'm happy to address all the evidence, even the alleged magnet fields - consider the source. There, it is addressed. Now back to the evidence of missile impacts. Why doesn't Judy or any of her minions address the evidence at the scene of the crime? Isn't that step one in any criminal investigation?
And: "Steve, you keep saying "holograms". WHY... as none of the people you name, like Dr. Wood or Andrew Johnson mention or use the term "holograms". I have also noticed that Jim Fetzer, keeps misquoting Richard D. Hall also. He doesn't use "holograms". Either this is a "deliberate" attempt by yourself and Jim Fetzer to implant falsehoods into the public domain's minds? Or are you simply mistaken? Which is it?"
I don't really care what imaginary technology you think was responsible, Richard D. Hall's "analysis" doesn't override the evidence of the lateral impacts of small projectiles that were more-dense in some places than they were in others. It is step one of any criminal investigation because it limits the possibilities of what could be responsible. But Judy, Richard et al skip that step, probably because it makes the whole "DEW" trip moot.
And: "Video fakery is a "psychological operation" and "perception management". I've documented the people behind this 'psy-op', who came along before Steve was on the scene. Their mission as documented was to lead people away from studying the evidence. Steve, likes to promote Gerrard Holmgren and Webfairy as the "original" no-planers. This factually incorrect. Theirry Meyssan was the first to spot and publish that their was no-plane used at the Pentagon. Webfairy and Holmgren ran with this at the WTC crashes, and inroduced "video fakery" which I consider was done "deliberately" by them as a cover story to muddle-up the evidence and discredit the 9/11 evidence record. They didn't start this until around 2003-04. Thierry Meyssan's published information was at a website in October 2001 and books in 2002. I think both Holmgren and Webfairy mislead people. And Steve promotes their theories. Scott loughery is another who you never hear mentioned these days who put out "video fakery" also, Webfairy was inspired by his stuff before she put out video fakery. Funny how history gets re-written by Jim Fetzer and Steve De'ak."
Really? Because from what I know about controlled opposition it is the leaders who should be considered suspect. So with that in mind let's see what the leaders of the opposition have been doing for the last 16 years:
1 - Simon Shack insists all the photographic evidence is fake, effectively disposing of the evidence in the process.
2 - Richard Gage draws almost $100K in annual salary including all expenses while he petitions the mostlikely suspects for redress. This is exactly like demanding the NAZIs investigate the Reichstag Fire.
3 - Judy Wood is establishment-trained, establishment-published, and wields her establishmentcredentials like a bludgeon. She ignores the evidence and has concocted a story about top-secret weaponry that gives the military god-like power but can't be proved to exist in the real world. (Because it's secret.) Judy, like Gage, turns to the most-likely suspects for justice.
4 - Nukers like Bollyn and Veterans Today insist Isreal was behind the attack, effectively marginalizing truthers as "anti-semetic" in the eyes of the brainwashed Western masses that we need to reach if we're ever going to stop the wars.
Now I'm no leader of this ironically-named movement by any means, but I can't help noticing that the top "hypotheses" of 9/11 will NOT touch the evidence at the scene of the crime.
Your condescension is noted when you write things like "Steve, likes to promote this or that..." but all Steve is trying to do is discuss the evidence. If I am wrong about what the evidence indicates then there MUST be a better explanation for it but that would require actually talking about the evidence, which none will do.
I reply: STEVE!! Please answer my questions!!!
Steve replies (actually a copy and paste): 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: https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM and in this 1-hour video: https://youtu.be/WKGh3CAoO64 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.
And: The fastest way to shut up a truther is to talk about the impact damage. It is almost as if they don't want to learn the truth.
I reply: Steve, those weren't the questions I was referring to. These are. Please answer then. Fourth time...
1. How were the live shots composited? Four from choppers, 3 would be extremely difficult, the last one was only shown on 1 channel.
2. And the witnesses? Was the crowd surrounding Joshua Lentz lying?
3. Also, how many people were in on it? Do you HONESTLY think that 10,000s of people were all lying?
4. And how would the perps control those who weren't lying? Like what, did they lock them all behind closed doors? Seriously, there is no way what your saying is realistically possible. It is theoretically, but in practice it'd be pretty darn hard to pull off such a big lie in front of so many people.
You: My "theory" is simply to examine evidence and attempt at a most likely explanation for it. It is evidence that Judy and her clique refuse to address"
5. It's just that...a THEORY. Don't create a THEORY and ATTEMPT to fit the evidence around it. Look at all the evidence as a whole. How many times have I told you this?
6. Leave Dr. Wood out of it, she only focuses on what happened, not theories as to how the gashes were created. Does a plane crash cause a change in the earth's magnetic field?
7. There is so much evidence that you refuse to address you really need to stop pretending that you're searching for truth. It is quite clear at this point that you are NOT. How could the dozens of hundreds of witnesses all have been lying?
8. Those links you include are evidence-free. You discredit DEWs for what reason?
9. Where did the steel go that was originally were the hole would soon be? You can't see it in the gash, and missiles don't cause that, so...how do you explain that???
10. And how many missiles do you think were fired at these buildings? I mean SOMEONE is BOUND to see this! According to your theory, the impression that I'm getting is that at a very BARE MINIMUM a dozen missiles were used per tower. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you seem to be saying.
11. How many people would need to be in on it? The area around the WTC would need to be practically a MOVIE SET with a 10 mile radius (at least).
12. Don't you think that might be just a little absurd to think this?
13. How was the Chopper 5 shot composited? The plane IS visible in the wide shot and zoom in which makes it nearly impossible to do in realtime.
14. Was every news station in on it? Every anchor, cameraperson, reporter, people back at headquarters, etc.?
Steve replies: Conspiracy Cuber - I already answered your questions. Now please get Judy, Andrew or Richard to discuss the impact evidence.
https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM and in this 1-hour video: https://youtu.be/WKGh3CAoO64
And: Conspiracy Cuber,
1 – Probably with a practiced shot like they did with the tripod on the boat, they then inserted a recorded animation of a plane into crappy video. Obviously members of the NYPD were involved.
2 – Either lying or a fool, yes.
3 – As many people as it takes, likely thousands. It’s the big lie and YOUR incredulity would have been counted on. How many people involved is too many, anyway? 100? 125? How big of a lie is “too big” in your mind, anyway? Oh boy, the “10,000s people lying” canard. It doesn’t matter how many people
you THINK saw what was on television, it doesn’t change the DAMAGE EVIDENCE. The story of thousands of witnesses comes from the most likely suspects (the worlds’ media and authorities) and is always trotted out as if it is gospel by lazy truthers everywhere, but your assumption doesn’t make it so. At first witnesses reported seeing anything BUT a large plane. It was after the second strike, which was captured on television that everyone started assuming thousands of witnesses saw the same thing. Such is the way of urban legends. After the second strike anyone who thought they saw something else had a TV shoved in their face (a clue that the media were CRITICAL to the ruse) as the late Gerard Holmgren wrote: http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Why-they-didnt-useplanes.pdf
4 – How did they keep the Manhattan Project so secret? Military compartmentalization, baby. You of course assume you would recognize propaganda when you see it, and that you wouldn’t fall for the big lie. Meanwhile you’re talking about super-duper dustifying weapons and an imaginary “don’t call it a hologram” projection system or some shit. Right, pull the other one.
5 You are projecting now. You know a decade or so ago I bought Judy’s snake oil too, and Simon Shack’s and everyone else’s out there until eventually I realized every one of them is ignoring the first step of the investigation. So no I don’t start with a “theory,” I threw away all of THEIR theories and started at the beginning again by examining the evidence at the scene of the crime and then using that to form a hypothesis as to what could have caused it. It’s called “Crime Scene Reconstruction,” and it’s kind of an important step in any criminal investigation. I’m surprised an alleged forensic scientist like Judy Wood missed this step. It could have saved the truth movement a decade and a half if the leaders of the movement had simply started at the beginning, I mean the importance of crime scene reconstruction can’t be overstated: It is often useful to determine the actual course of a crime by limiting the possibilities that resulted in the crime scene or the physical evidence as encountered. Reconstruction is based on the ability to make observations at the scene, the scientific ability to examine physical evidence, and the use of logical approaches to theory formulations.
http://forenzika.unist.hr/Portals/6/docs/studenti/Crime%20Scene%20Reconstruction.pdf
6. No, it’s thanks to leaders like Judy that 9/11 truthers look like trekkies. You’re like the poster child aren’t you? You won’t look at the damage with your own two eyes and rub two pieces of gray matter together to arrive at your own conclusions but you’ll swallow hook, line and sinker as much hokus-pokus about things that you can’t verify on your own, so you defer to authority, Judy’s authority. This is what controlled opposition looks like, but of course you’d recognize it on sight.
7. More projection. I’ve listed a shitload of evidence and all you can do is stomp your feet and point to invisible magnetic fields that someone else told you were there.
8. You are a perfect example of why I prefer to not waste my time with Judy Woodtards.
9. As can be seen in this video the dust and paper were packed into the columns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoKiBn4tCNw&feature=gp-ny&google_comment_id=z13mur0i2tivv3lyg04chzyjombyc3cisxs0k
Nothing turned to dust, there is no evidence of any partially dustified steel but there is plenty of evidence of dismantled towers that were packed with dust and paper, apparently to give Judy a leg to
stand on and to give gullible truthers something to believe in. What you are suffering from is the power of suggestion and maybe too much Star Trek.
10. I’m not sure, at least a dozen. As many as the damage evidence indicates. Maybe there were thousands of witnesses to missiles, but why would they media report them to us when they were selling us planes? As it turns out, there were a lot of witnesses to missiles, so were THEY all lying? Why would they lie?
11. Again? As many as it takes. Do you have much experience with CIA black operations, you seem to think you’re an expert.
12. What you find believable has exactly dick to do with what the evidence indicates. I marvel at how easily you’re duped by things you don’t understand and can’t be proved, but reject real-world, down-toearth explanations that are known to exist in the real world. Well you know there are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn’t true and the other is to disbelieve what is. Seems like you’re two for two.
13. See #1. I get that you JUST CAN’T BELIEVE the media would lie to you , but the truth really does set you free.
14. And there it is again – you just can’t believe your precious media would lie. Well all it would take would be one person in a key position in the major studios and the broadcasts take place like they normally do. News readers would read the news, cameras would roll and no one would be the wiser. Anyone who wanted to spill the beans would probably get the picture that there would be no one to spill them to, considering the media broadcast the fake planes, the military launched the missiles, the police planted evidence and with the FDNY spread stories of horror and fires so intense concrete and steel melted (which isn’t possible and SHOULD be a clue as to the depth of the corruption,) but alas – some people find it easier to believe the masters of the universe are so powerful that they can vaporize the bolts that hold steel skyscrapers from …somewhere…no one knows what this weapon is or where it would be fired from.
15. We’re done now, thanks reinforcing my belief that Judy Wood’s cult members can’t be reasoned with.
I reply: Wow, just wow. If you theory relies on the assumption that Manhattan was a TV set, so be it. You didn't even answer all of the questions. Your answers were incredibly dishonest and evasive. Has it really come to this? I don't trust the news at all! Can you show me one, JUST ONE example of proven video fakery?
And: Are you accusing me of being a disinformer?
On 7/17 Mark replies: Dr. Wood has done the best investigation of the crime scene. She took the evidence to court. Has anyone in regard to the theories of the people you promote taken their evidence to court? No is the answer to that Steve. Plus you didn't support Dr. Wood's court case. As for your missile theory, again you have no evidence to support your theory. It's just a theory. What you think happened.
Steve replies: Deferring to Judy Wood rather than use your own brain? I think I called that, Mark Conlon. Since she won't touch it you won't touch it because you don't think for yourself.
Taking the evidence to court? You mean the not-so-good doctor couldn't figure out that the court system that put Bush into office wouldn't give her a fair shake? How did that work for her by the way?
I reply: Steve, I think we can very well see steel turning to dust. I'll provide the links. The plane issue is actually a distraction and should only be investigated AFTER it is determined what happened to the buildings. Now that Dr. Wood has done that we can look into the plane issue, but it appears that you will ignore all evidence that disproves video fakery. Again, can you provide irrefutable evidence that just ONE (1) video is fake?
Mark replies: Steve you are a really insulting person, especially after I helped you see sense with your 15 frames nonesense. Again all my evidence against the people who I refer to is on my blog. As for you Steve when you actually produce some evidence to support your theories of video fakery, then I might take you seriously. Up to now, you haven't answered our questions which we have asked you to consider. You are one of the most avoidant person I've spoke to on this subject, along with your new found friend Jim Fetzer. Why are you promoting old theories that were disproven years ago, what is your agenda Steve De'ak. you have called Hezarkhani a liar without any foundation or evidence to prove such a claim you make about him. You say he fabricated his video with out any evidence other than you say so, and because you like to make videos at Christmas. It's just pathetic Steve. There is no one who reports a dolly or tripod, no eyewitness or videos or photographs, nothing no evidence. Either you are
on a mission similar to those before you who I have named like Simon Shack and Ace Baker, or you are very misguided? Which is it?
And: Steve how about doing a podcast with myself and Conspiracy Cuber? Let's check your evidence?
I reply: Mark Conlon: Absolutely. All his videos and responses are evidence-free and filled with lies, misinformation, disinformation, falsehoods, factual errors, debunked claims, logical fallacies, and speculation. His data is cherry picked and usually not even true in the first place. I'm still not sure about the podcast yet.
Steve replies: With Judy, Andrew and Richard? Sure.
I reply: Steve, are you going to provide evidence? Why do you want to talk to them?
Mark replies: Did I say with Andrew, Judy or Richard. Just answer my question and stop being so stupid and avoidant. You really do avoid being straightforward. I really want to discuss the Hezarkhani evidence and your theories.
Steve replies: No thanks – I already know you’ll just defer to one of the above anyway.
I reply: If it's irrefutable, you should easily be able to prove that Hezarkhani was a liar. When someone makes a theory, they should put it under as much scrutiny as possible to see if it will survive. You appear to be running away from any piece of data that starts to squash your hypothesis.
Mark replies: Steve De'ak, what a cop out. Don't make excuses. It is you who keeps referring Dr. Wood, not me. So don't shift this to me. We can discuss your evidence, and let's see what evidence you really have. I won't roll-over like your friend Jim Fetzer, I will scrutinise your statements and evidence. Come on Steve, if you're that confident regarding your evidence then surely you would discuss it openly, or do you have something to hide?
And: I'm prepared to be challenged on any evidence I've written about regarding "video fakery". You don't seem to have the same convictions with own evidence. This is very suspect Steve De'ak that you will not debate me on your evidence regarding the Hezarkhani video and your statements you've made in relation to that video and Hezarkhani himself. Let's see how you fair when your statements are seriously scrutinised... I don't believe you actually believe in what you are putting-out regarding your evidence, and I am kind of wondering why this is Steve?
Steve replies: Call it what you like, Mark. I don't feel overly compelled to hang with you guys.
And: Make it worth my while. I'll do a video chat where I can share my screen as long as Judy, Andrew or Richard will also be there doing the same. That way we can share notes and truthers everywhere can see for themselves. Let me know.
I reply: yankee451: Why do you want them to debate it so badly? Where is the evidence that any one video is faked? I'm still waiting for it...
Mark replies: So basically Steve you wont debate me on your evidence? I don't need Dr. Wood, Andrew Johnson or Richard D. Hall to debate your evidence. This is about me and you Steve discussing your evidence that you have put-out on the internet about Michael Hezarkhani's video and a point of fact you call him a liar and someone who fabricated his video. Now if you are that confident in your evidence and statements you make on your website and in your interviews, why not have a serious debate and I can
ask you some questions that your new mate Fetzer wont ask you. Come Steve let's check your evidence and put it under the spot-light of scrutiny? You have been avoidant from day one, and I'm starting to doubt your genuineness to be honest in your own belief in what you are putting out into the public domain. No need for you to be avoidant and keep mentioning people who are not even connected to this debate, I'm scrutinising your evidence and it is me who wnats to debate your evidence. Take up my offer, and lets see how well your statements fair in support of your evidence.
Steve replies: "So basically Steve you wont debate me on your evidence? I don't need Dr. Wood, Andrew Johnson or Richard D. Hall to debate your evidence. This is about me and you Steve discussing your evidence that you have put-out on the internet about Michael Hezarkhani's video and a point of fact you call him a liar and someone who fabricated his video. Now if you are that confident in your evidence and statements you make on your website and in your interviews, why not have a serious debate and I can ask you some questions that your new mate Fetzer wont ask you. Come Steve let's check your evidence and put it under the spot-light of scrutiny? You have been avoidant from day one, and I'm starting to doubt your genuineness to be honest in your own belief in what you are putting out into the public domain. No need for you to be avoidant and keep mentioning people who are not even connected to this debate, I'm scrutinising your evidence and it is me who wnats to debate your evidence. Take up my offer, and lets see how well your statements fair in support of of your evidence."
Why, will it be any different than what we've already discussed? It's here in writing, and you've got Conspiracy Cuber as a scribe.
Mark replies: Well not really Steve, it is very different and there are several areas where you haven't answered questions sufficiently, or really clarified the veracity of the evidence, plus as you know written responses can get interpreted wrongly. I'm open to exploring your evidence. If can make your case, then you can some questions which might clarify areas which are nebulous for me.
Steve replies: So it will be the same. Me answering honestly and openly and you saying it is insufficient. Sounds exciting.
I reply: Steve are you accusing us of being disinformants? Where is the evidence that any one video was faked? This is the fourth time I’ve asked.
Mark replies: I just thought we could discuss it all, and maybe you could clarify some points, not an argument or anything. Doesn't mean I would not accept your position. Anyway have a think about it. :-)
Steve replies: What is the format?
Mark replies: It can be just conversational really, not confrontational. Just explore some of your theories or evidence or even what you think whatever. I can show you some of my research etc which may be you can comment on and get your take on it. To be honest Steve you've done podcasts before I haven't, so ahead of me on that. I could send some questions through so you can prepare ahead of time and get an agenda to talk about and cover. I think it would be useful myself to get a take on things. Bring-up or go where you want really. Despite the back and forth on the YT comments etc, I am very interested in what you have to say in your areas of 9/11 studies and research. I'm a respectful person to others, and try to be straightforward. It's not about proving anyone wrong, or I'm right, I just want to find some truth as to what happened on 9/11. Anyway, have a think about it. Have a good day, Mark. :-)
Steve replies: If I can share my screen, sure. Otherwise no.
Mark replies: Forgive me, do you mean show what you're talking about, like the Fetzer interviews etc. That would be good, as people can see what we would be discussing etc. I wouldn't make it unfair Steve, or else there's no point to doing a talk. :-)
Steve replies: Yes, a video conference where I can discuss exactly what leads me to my conclusions.
UPDATE 9/10/2017: I haven’t heard anything more recent about De’ak. I’m taking these 136 pages and saving it as a .pdf file for future reference to anyone who wants it. For recent (i.e., 2017) information regarding Steve and his so called “evidence”, please see:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=359&Itemid=6 0
http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2017/05/911-no-plane-perception-management.html
http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2017/07/analysis-of-steve-deaks-frozen-smoke.html
https://youtu.be/ddAnZKFI4o8
https://youtu.be/HWFbo2WCcWc
https://youtu.be/CDmzkwTF0ZQ
Thank you for reading.
-Conspiracy Cuber
Comments
Post a Comment