by Mark Conlon (edited by Andrew Johnson)
29 Oct 2015
The reference material used in this analysis is from Simon Shack’s film
September Clues, which is from Simon Shack’s YouTube Channel: https://youtu.be/gORu-68SHpE
In part three of this analysis I’m going to explore two claims made by Simon
Shack, starting at 100:22 into his film September Clues. He claims Pavel
Hlava’s video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower is a re-edit
of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage of the same event. Simon Shack also
claims at 100:51 in his film that the Rector St building is missing in the
Pavel Hlava video. This isn’t the first time that the “absence” of this
building has been wrongly presented in a video. Another
‘video fakery’ promotor named Markus Allen also made a claim about Michael
Hezarkhani’s video footage having the Rector St building missing, which I
proved to be a false claim.
At 100:22 in September Clues, Simon Shack claims Pavel Hlava’s video footage
of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower is a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s
At 100:30 - Simon Shack then uses a comparison split screen / side-by-side
shot of Pavel Hlava’s video footage and Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage,
suggesting that a “Similar Gentle Zoom-out” and “Similar Angle of
WTC and Airplane”.
If this was a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage, the
perspectives and angles would be the same, as they would have been taken
from the same location or in very close proximity. Simon Shack says they are
“similar”, which implies they are not the same! This is a key point,
because looking at the two videos suggests that they were captured from two
different locations, and would prove that Pavel Hlava’s video footage is
genuine and not a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s.
research I conducted into Michael Hezarkhani’s video, it
can be shown that his location was on the top deck of a ferry which was
stationed in Battery Park. This corresponded with Carmen Taylor’s location,
where she took her photographs – and they too show something very similar to
Michael Hezarkhani’s video footage. Carmen
Taylor disclosed her location to Canadian researcher Jeff Hill in a phone
call (at a time code 1 minute 44 seconds into the conversation).
To prove that Pavel Hlava’s video is different, and not a re-edit of the
Hezarkhani video I set-out to find exactly where Pavel Hlava was located
when he took his video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower.
Please see location images below:
Using the Google Street view images above, we can now determine that Pavel
Hlava captured his video footage of Flight 175 impacting the South Tower
when he was at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel entrance. To understand the
difference in locations of Michael Hezarkhani and Pavel Hlava I plotted
their locations on a map.
See map below:
As we can see from their locations above on the map, Pavel Hlava and Michael
Hezarkhani were quite some distance away from each other. Simon Shack fails
to point this out when making his claim that Pavel Hlava’s video is a
re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s.
Another thing which Simon Shack doesn’t take into account is the camera’s
zoom level in Michael Hezarkhani’s video, which can give you a false
perspective of his location compared to Pavel Hlava’s location, which was
closer to the South tower.
See examples below:
This comparison screen-shot above in the September Clues film at 100:30
looks quite convincing in backing up Simon Shack’s claims regarding a
re-edited version of Michael Hezarkhani’s video. Also note how Simon Shack
has squashed the Hezarkhani video, which makes it appear more like Pavel
When watching complete versions of both videos, you can see the zoomed-out
sequence in the Michael Hezarkhani video gives you a completely different
perspective from Hlava’s, demonstrating perfectly that they were taken from
two different locations.
See below: camera zoom
Simon Shack also fails to explain that the Hezarkhani video was zoomed-in
when he captured the plane in his video footage, whereas Pavel Hlava’s was
already zoomed-out when he captured the plane in his video footage. In the
Michael Hezarkhani zoomed-out sequence it shows a different foreground,
compared to Pavel Hlava’s already zoomed-out sequence. This proves
conclusively that the two videos were taken in different locations to each
other! We can even see different buildings in the (real) foreground, as
I have shown that Pavel Hlava’s video was taken from the Brooklyn Battery
Tunnel, and the foreground is genuine in his video, so we can now see that
Simon Shack is clearly wrong in his suggestion of one or more “missing”
buildings, to support his claim of ‘video fakery’ . This is shown at 100:51
in his film.
Again when analysing Simon Shack’s claim, it becomes clear that he conceals
evidence – for example by not showing
the viewers the full Pavel Hlava video sequence. Instead, Simon Shack
decides to show a still image, thus
concealing clear evidence about one or more of the “missing” buildings –
which are, in fact, visible in the both videos!
See below: video evidence
of the building in the video, which Simon Shack claimed was missing.
The screen-shots above were taken from this link here: https://youtu.be/ryl-o6XzL7s
Again questions are raised about Simon Shack’s presentation of video
evidence and the methods he uses in his film, September Clues. Why did Simon
Shack not show the full video sequence of the Pavel Hlava video? This would
have proved there was no “missing building” ! Why did Simon Shack claim
Pavel Hlava’s video was a re-edit of Michael Hezarkhani’s video, when
clearly both videos are taken from two different locations, which was easily
established when researched correctly?
Is Simon Shack promoting the idea of ‘video fakery’ to discredit the video
evidence record of 9/11? When studying Simon Shack’s presentation in his
film, it becomes clear that he has continually omitted or misrepresented
evidence – by using cleverly timed editing. This has therefore concealed
evidence which shows a number of his claims are false. From my past
analysis, where I have disproven other claims he makes in his film, it is
now appearing to be a deliberate pattern of deceptive and misleading
behaviour, rather than poor research skills, suggesting an agenda to promote
disinformation about the video record on 9/11. Is Simon Shack promoting the
idea that the ‘video fakery’ explains anomalies in the behaviour of Flight
175 when it crashes into the South Tower? Is Simon Shack attempting to
discredit the 9/11 videos to help conceal what was really captured in the
videos? Again, I ask the question - is Simon Shack disseminating
disinformation in an attempt to hide the fact that advanced image projection
technology was used to create the illusion of plane crashes?
It appears Simon Shack is overseeing a Psychological Operation to promote
‘video fakery’ to lead people away from closely studying other explanations
for the 9/11 video evidence. When people believe they have an explanation
for the anomalies, it stops them studying the evidence any further. This
personally happened to me for several years, and in that respect, Simon
Shack’s Psychological Operation worked, as I didn’t continue to study
closely, because I thought I had the answers… How wrong I was.
For further information regarding Simon Shack read this article by written
by Andrew Johnson in May 2012: 9
or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175.