Mark Conlon - 10 Aug 2016
In part one of this analysis I’m going to explore video footage which was
broadcast live on September 11th 2001.
The Good Day New York Chopper 5 live news coverage captured United Airlines
Flight 175 impacting the South World Trade Tower. This particular live news
coverage captured anomalies within it which has been highly controversial. The
particular area I want to explore in the live video coverage is the famous
‘nose-in’ ‘nose-out’ footage. The video captured the plane’s nose of United
175exiting from the South Tower with its nose intact, without any apparent
damage done to it.
Let’s all agree from the outset that this is an impossibility which defies laws
of physics as we know it. The question is: How did the Boeing 767 plane’s nose,
(where the electronics are situated) penetrate through the steel wall columns
and internal central core columns of the South Tower?
When September Clues surfaced on the internet in 2007 it offered answers to my
many questions concerning this unusual anomaly captured within the ‘Chopper 5
news’ footage. Simon Shack’s explanation claimed that a ‘CGI plane’ was inserted
and layering was used which accidentally drifted off centre, allowing
an inserted CGI plane’s nose to accidentally poke-out of the other-side of the
South World Trade Centre building, which was followed by a blank black screen
for 15 frames to conceal the “error“ activated by a television supervisor, which
became commonly known as the ‘fade to black’ sequence, which tried to quickly
cover-up the mistake made by the perpetrator’s.
For many years I was satisfied with Simon Shack’s hypothesis in his film
September Clues and the explanation of video fakery in the Chopper 5 news
footage with the plane’s nose-in, nose-out anomaly sequence. I was also
influenced by another character named Ace Baker regarding the use of video
fakery in the Chopper 5 news footage, which also led me to sit back and accept
video fakery was most likely to have been used in the news videos on 9/11.
After studying more closely Simon Shack’s other claims regarding video fakery in
other 9/11 videos I began to see a pattern emerging where information was being
omitted by Shack in his film to make his case of video fakery. I found this very
deceptive and extremely misleading. It appears he successfully mislead many
viewers to believe that the chopper 5 news footage was fake, thus discrediting
the video footage. This
conveniently created a division and distraction away from what the live Chopper
5 news footage really showed.
To illustrate the omissions made by Simon Shack in his film September Clues I
will first demonstrate his hypotheses so we can understand the bigger picture.
Shack believes a centre layer was added to the video footage which a graphic
inserted plane would disappear behind to prevent the plane exiting the South
Tower. See pictures below taken from September Clues video.
The picture below shows how Shack believes a ‘Luma Key’ and contrast was used to
wash out the Sky-line in the Chopper 5 news video. As I discuss later in this
analysis the technique of using ‘Luma Key’ in this video footage creates a major
flaw in Shack’s hypothesis, which completely discredits it.
The picture below shows the reference centre layer-line (in yellow) which
creates a layer to the side of the building which would conceal the plane’s
nose, but according to Simon Shack the Chopper 5 news helicopter fitted with the
F.I.R Camera system drifted slightly to the side which off-set the centre
(yellow) layer-line, which is why the plane’s nose was able to be inadvertently
be revealed and intact.
Please note: Still image from September Clues. Centre layer line is set
perfectly in this shot before the camera drifted to the side.
The picture below shows the centre layer-line (in red) drifting off centre which
off-set the centre (red) layer-line allowing the plane’s nose to appear out of
the side of the building.
Please note: how the (red) layer line has drifted to the side which
allows the nose to be revealed of the plane.
As we can see Shack’s hypotheses in the above pictures seemed to offer a
convincing answer to the plane’s nose anomaly which I found to be very plausible
for many years. At the time ‘video fakery’ and the ‘no planes’ debates were
dividing researchers in the 9/11 Truth-Movement which
had the effect of playing each
faction off against the other.
Let’s take a closer look at Simon Shack’s (CGI and Layering) hypotheses and
study the evidence closely so we can see what has been deliberately ‘omitted'.
To achieve the layering of the plane going into the building you would need a
layer for the plane’s ‘entrance’ into the building so the plane would disappear
behind the building on ‘entrance’. This has been completely omitted by Simon
Shack. The question is; why has he omitted this from his hypotheses? The
‘entrance’ layer line should have also drifted if the ‘exit’ layer line of the
building drifted… “This did not happen”.
See the picture below:
I have highlighted the ‘entrance’ layer line and ‘exit’ layer line in red.
The picture below shows the ‘nose-out’ of the plane because of the drifting of
the ‘exit’ layer line off centre. Shack makes no explanation regarding the
off-set of the ‘entrance’ layer line only the centre ‘exit’ layer line?
Note: read captions for more details.
The plane’s ‘entrance’ layer line being off-set in the picture above should have
visibly affected the plane’s ‘entrance’ into the building in the ‘chopper 5’
video footage. ‘THIS DID NOT HAPPEN’. This rules-out any possibility of
layering because the plane in the video “entered” the building correctly.
The fact Simon Shack ‘omitted’ the ‘entrance’ layer line is quite confusing to
me, because ideally it is only necessary for one layer line to be applied at the
‘entrance’ of the building if the perpetrators were to use such a layering
technique. This would have avoided the problem altogether of a nose-out issue,
but would have still potentially created
problems with the drifting and
the off-set of the ‘entrance’ layer line, especially with the camera being
situated on the helicopter.
The fact the plane “entered” the building correctly in the ‘chopper 5’ video
contradicts Simon Shack’s ‘layering and CGI’ hypotheses completely. Other video
evidence of live news broadcasts also captured the plane’s nose ‘exiting’ from
the South Tower.
See picture below:
Shack’s layering glitch hypothesis in the chopper 5 video does not explain the
video evidence, but acts merely to lead us away from studying the evidence more
closely to establish what really was captured hitting the South Tower in the
9/11 videos and photographs.
Simon Shack’s promotion of video fakery has provided a cover-story to distract
many researchers (including myself) away from actually studying the video
evidence. I believed Shack’s hypothesis answered the anomalies in the 9/11 plane
videos, only to discover the use of deceptive means to prove his claims of video
In part two I will deal with an in depth analysis of the nose-out sequence that
Simon Shack uses for his evidence in his film September Clues, where clear
manipulation has been used to deceive his viewers...
Also read 9 or 11 “Clues” about
Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175 here: http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=349&Itemid=60