9/11 “No-Planes" Perception Management Past & Present

Exposing A Psychological Operation

I originally wrote and published this article on 12th April 2017. It was posted at my original blog website, but I feel it is mainly still as relevant as the day I wrote it.

9/11 “No-Planes" Perception Management Past & Present

Written By Mark Conlon
Edited By Andrew Johnson

In recent months, there has been a noticeable increase of material being removed by social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook. In October 2016 Richard D. Hall released his latest version of his 'Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis. Some months later YouTube decided to remove Hall’s Analysis video for some unknown reason?

View Richard D Hall’s Flight 175 Radar Analysis Below:

When I checked on Hall’s YouTube channel, his video blocked as of the 1st April 2017. Hall’s video being remove was just prior to the FBI releasing a set of “alleged” photographs from the Pentagon attack, which just happened to show photographs of “alleged” plane wreckage, from just after the “alleged” plane crash.

Strangely though, this week, 8th April 2017, Hall’s video was reinstated by YouTube for no apparent reason? I asked Hall via email whether or not he had launched an appealed with YouTube which may have led to a decision to have his video reinstated? Hall assured me he had not, as he was unaware at the time his video had been removed.

This led me to suspect, the timing of the Pentagon photographs release, was a coordinated effort to Have Hall’s video removed while the photographs could be widely circulated to enforce and embed the plane narrative in people’s minds being as so many people are now questioning the veracity of whether or not real planes crashed on 9/11. Was YouTube’s decision to reinstate Hall’s video in light of Hall's UK wide Tour, where no doubt Hall would have spoken about this in his talk?

Why is the 3D Radar Analysis findings so dangerous...?

In Hall’s Flight 175' 3D Radar Analysis, Hall made the case that the flight paths in each video matched up correctly in each of the 26 suitable videos from the 50 available videos that Hall analysed, showing the plane's path for a long enough period time for analysis. Hall's video demonstrates that all the plane paths match in all the videos he analysed, disproving Simon Shack's matrix theory, and inserted CGI Plane. This has seriously challenged the analyses put forward by two well known “no-plane” theorists and video fakery promoters; Simon Shack and Ace Baker. This new evidence and hypothesis from Hall's 3D Radar Analysis, has been met with great resistance from ‘video fakery’ promoters.

The videos of the WTC “plane impacts” show impossible crash physics (further discussion below) - including anomalies such as, disappearing wings, impossible speed and damage which is inconsistent with real plane crashes. Hence, the videos demonstrate that we was not seeing a real plane in the videos.

Hall’s analysis essentially shows this was not because of video fakery – rather, it confirm that some type of 3D volumetric image projection technology was used of a plane, which was captured in the videos in real-time.

Is it then the case that this conclusion has had to be covered-up – in order to conceal the existence of an advance 3D volumetric image projection technology? Was “video fakery” introduced as a clever cover-story to help lead people away from discovering this advanced technology system, just like what happened with the "thermite" explanation, which was introduced as a cover-story by Steve E. Jones to cover-up the “real” evidence of the destruction of the twin towers from an advanced directed energy weapon.

Exposing video fakery as a cover-story makes Hall's findings so devastating to the cover-up of the advanced 3D volumetric image projection technology that was used to create the plane illusions on 9/11.

It appears there has been a noticeable coordinated attempt by the “powers-that-be” to top-up the “official” planes narrative, when the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary.

An example of this was a recent release of images on 31st March 2017 by the FBI.http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/fbi-9-11-pentagon-terror-attack-photos/

Apparent “new” photographs surfaced from the Pentagon attack including 3 photographs of plane wreckage. This timely release of the photographs may have therefore been released because questions are continually being asked about the lack of physical evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11.

Interestingly, out of the 16 images released, 3 show “plane wreckage” which is allegedly from American Flight 77 at the Pentagon crash site.

Perception Management:

Below, is an example of the subtle promotion in the news headline to reinforce and embed the idea that real planes crashed on 9/11.

Source: Daily Mail Online Article Below:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4365662/FBI-pictures-reveal-aftermath-9-11-attack-Pentagon.html?ito=social-facebook

Thierry Meyssan wrote a book called Pentagate in 2002. Meyssan states in the book, that the attack on the Pentagon was not carried out by a commercial airliner, but a missile. Meyssan’s central thesis in his book is that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. This conclusion was heavily criticised by other prominent 9/11 Truth Movement members, such as Jim Hoffman, who himself is a supporter of Steven E Jones, who circulated the false thermite story, which I mentioned earlier in this article.

Meyssan's early astute observations of no-plane involvement at the Pentagon attack also led to early observations of “no-planes” real plane crashes happening in New York and Shanksville.

Meyssan challenged the idea, that the piece of wreckage shown in the 2 out the 3 images released by the FBI, came from the alleged airplane (American Flight 77). Meyssan concluded it was more likely to have been planted wreckage from another plane because the piece of wreckage did not match any part of an American Airlines plane.

Image from Thierry Meyssan's book Pentagate - Page XVI

Meyssan stated that the piece of wreckage in this image does not match any piece of a Boeing 757-200 painted in the colours of American Airlines. He also mentions, that this wreckage was never inventoried by the Department of Defence as coming from Flight 77.

Is the release of these new images a subtle attempt to promote and reinforce the idea of planes being involved in the 9/11 attacks because of the growing doubts by many people regarding of the lack of evidence of planes at all 4 crash sites on 9/11...?

You can cee the new images at this Yahoo News link below. Note: In the online Yahoo article they have ordered the set of 16 images starting with the 3 images of plane's (Flight 77) alleged wreckage.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/fbi-releases-harrowing-pictures-showing-slideshow-wp-102643014.html

Perception Management: Cover-ups, Muddle-ups and Psychological Operations

When bearing in mind, there is no visual evidence of a plane crashing in Shanksville, with only eyewitness account to rely on. And there was only very low quality CCTV footage later released in 2006 from Pentagon attack, which hardly shows conclusive evidence of a American Airlines plane captured in it, when in contrast to the visual evidence record captured of United 175 crashing into the South Tower, which shows many anomalies happening with the plane, such as impossible plane speed for a Beoing 767-222 traveling at such low altitude, along with impossible Newtonian physics of the plane crashing into the building and also the strange disappearing wings and tail section, captured in many of the videos, which significantly highlighted the fact, that we were not observing a “real” plane captured in the videos.

Because of the anomalous evidence captured in the United 175 videos, this seems to have led the authorities to putting in place some type of damage control to account for all the plane anomalies. This led to the introduction of a clever "psychological operation" to propagate the message via fake researchers and truthers such as Simon Shack and Ace Baker to name two, that all the plane anomalies were the result of shoddy video fakery, CGI and video compositing.

It must be video fakery and CGI a plane? Or was it something else?

From my own research and analysis into the September Clues film (2007), made by Simon Shack, and what Shack proposes to explain the anomalies, I have demonstrated many of Shack’s points are without doubt incorrect at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, supporting supporting the fact that the video fakery and CGI explanation was deliberately circulated those questioning veracity of what was captured in the United 175 plane videos. The same analysis was also applied to Ace Baker’s “composting” theory, which was also a false explanation deployed to deceive people into believing the video fakery narrative. See short video below:

Shack and Baker were prominent 9/11 research figures, which appear to have led the psychological operation to lead people away from studying the video and photographic evidence, and what was really at play in the videos.

The “video fakery” narrative was deployed to cover-up what was really captured in the videos and seen by eyewitnesses in NY, which was the demonstration of advanced three-dimensional volumetric image projection technology, which projected an near to convincing plane image in the sky. This not only explains why the crash physics was inconsistent with a real plane colliding and crashing into a steel and concrete building, but also the impossible plane speed, which the plane was travelling as it approached the South tower in the videos. It also explains why the plane wing anomalies were captured in the videos from different angles and locations, also observed by the many eyewitnesses who described differing statements of a small plane, a missile and rocket.

See video below:

September Clues Film “Perception Management”

Another point which has been observed in my analysis of the September Clues film surrounding the promotion of video fakery is, that Simon Shack makes false claims about certain videos such as the Michael Hezarkhani video, where in one example he claims the Pavel Hlava 2nd plane video is a "re-edit" of the Michael Hezarkhani video footage.

This is provably disinformation which appears again to have beeen deliberately put-out by Shack to promote the idea of video fakery, and to also to discredit both videos as fake, which was the main objective - to cast doubt regarding the video evidence record. The main objective for Shack’s disinformation film was to conceal the advanced three-dimensional image projection technology used in all four plane events on 9/11.

I was deceived by Shack’s film

The prominent video fakery message circulated by the so-called researchers did a good job, as I didn't check their theories/hypothesis, as I took it for granted for 6 years that they had been given me all the correct answers to the anomalies which I observed such as, no crash physics and disappearing wings in the videos, thus believing the plane was a CGI plane, which had been inserted or composited into the videos, which led me to believe all the plane videos and photographs were fake.

How wrong I was, when I did eventually check their claims which turned out to be grossly incorrect. Initially, I thought this was because they had made genuine errors in their research but I soon could see an emerging Pattern of behaviour to deliberately deceive with clever misdirection and editing deployed to falsely promote a false narrative to explain all the anomalies in the plane videos.

Conclusion:

Video Fakery was a clever psychological operation, which has been exposed in my research, which is why the latest set of FBI images have been released to manage people’s perceptions, as more people are starting to see that video fakery and CGI doesn't sufficiently answer all the questions surrounding the anomalies captured within the plane videos.

Perhaps this is why recently, the censorship of any discussion of the “no-planes” evidence on 9/11 has been stepped-up by the powers-that-be, with this timely release of these FBI images showing the “plane remains” because of the failings in their psychological operation and cover-story that was “video fakery”.

Below, you can watch my appearance on Richard D Hall’s show from September 2017, also with Andrew Johnson, where we discuss and highlight how Simon Shack and others have been deceiving people with their “video fakery” psychological operation.

Part One: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=244&part=1&gen=99

Part Two: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=244&part=2&gen=99

Part Three: https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=244&part=3&gen=99

Thanks for caring & reading.