Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

I recently got into a debate with the biggest "9/11 Truth" account on Twitter. He goes by the name "9/11 Revisited", and he has over 10K followers.

After interacting with him for a few months (and being blocked twice) it's safe to say he is not a fan of Simon Shack
"Simon Shack is a hack". A direct quote from him.

Well, it appears I ruffled his feathers enough that he decided to make an entire thread dedicated as to why Simon is wrong.
https://twitter.com/911Revisionist/stat ... 5229711420 (you have to have an active Twitter account to see the entire thread)

His thread contains 23 entries, of which I only read 3, and that was enough for me to realize that the entire thread is BS.

The majority of entries in the thread are articles from Mark Conlon, who I was surprised to learn, has not been mentioned here before (I did a search).
It seems Mark Conlon is Simon's biggest critic, having created dozens of articles "dis-proving" Simons's research.

However, from the little I've read of Mark's work, he seems to be nothing more than a clown.

jon909 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 8:24 am The majority of entries in the thread are articles from Mark Conlon, who I was surprised to learn, has not been mentioned here before (I did a search).
It seems Mark Conlon is Simon's biggest critic, having created dozens of articles "dis-proving" Simons's research.

Well, dear Jon - since I stand accused by Mr. Conlon to have engaged in "a deliberately deceptive, psyop 9/11 research" [1] - and even to have "definitely manipulated"[2] the infamous 'NOSE OUT' shot aired "live" on WNYW FOX5, I should probably spend some time responding to such inane and quite frankly imbecilic accusations. Mind you, it's certainly not my favourite pastime to do so - but I guess it should be of no surprise that efforts are still being deployed to discredit our longstanding 9/11 research at Cluesforum, now that people seem to be finally waking up to the broader 'picture' - and to the sheer scope and extent of image manipulation / TV fakery being sold as "news" to the masses - with the full cooperation of the corporate media.

In this video I watched today, Mr. Conlon is interviewed by two 'yes-men' who keep nodding and agreeing with everything he says.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XMNSRx4hUWmS/

[1] At 26:10, Mr. Conlon basically contends that my September Clues research is a psychological operation - and that I have engaged in "deceptive editing".

[2] At 55:16, Mr. Conlon says that I have "definitely manipulated" the infamous NOSE OUT clip showed "live" on WNYW FOX5.

Mr. Conlon also mentions other video analyses of mine which I'd have purposely made to deceive the world - thus underhandedly implying that I would be some sort of intelligence operative with a devious agenda... But let me just respond here to his claims that I would have manipulated the infamous "NOSE OUT" imagery - and that what we see emerging from the other side of WTC" is nothing but "dust"...

Yes, Mr. Conlon - you may well say that I "manipulated" that FOX5 imagery - but in my "NOSED OUT" video analysis I always clearly stated when and why I did so. For instance, I occasionally applied some high contrast and even a 'bump map' filter to the videoframes used for my back-to-back comparisons of the "pre-impact and post-impact Boeing cockpits". You see, Mr. Conlon, whenever a crime is committed and a crappy CCTV camera happens to capture the event, police investigators will regularly use digital filters to enhance the fuzzy imagery. All I have done is to apply those very same forensic techniques to the (quite absurdly fuzzy) 9/11 imagery aired on TV on 9/11.



Here I compare a pre-impact image (frame 15) with a post-impact image (frame 38) of the infamous NOSE OUT clip:



And here I compare another pre-impact image (frame 6) with another post-impact image (frame 35) - using a high-contrast filter:



I will leave everyone to decide for themselves whether characters like Mark Conlon, Richard Hall and Andrew Johnson are intelligence assets or just the proverbial 'useful idiots', although it matters little - at the end of the day. Whether willingly or unwillingly, their antics and ever-changing theories effectively concur to shift the blame away from the TV networks' active complicity in the wretched 9/11 hoax. As far as I can gather, they now claim that missiles cloaked in holograms impacted the towers... Moreover, their support of 'doctor' Judy Wood (who keeps using the 9/11 Hollywood imagery of the WTC collapses to push her exotic 'DEW dustification' theories) also protects the real, flesh-and-blood managers of whatever demolition firm was contracted to demolish the old and decrepit twin towers with plain old (and ultra-reliable) dynamite charges. Finally - and to my best knowledge - the Conlon-Hall-Johnson trio have never even touched with a bargepole the crucial issue of the 3000-or-so fake victims of 9/11 - as methodically and comprehensively exposed on this forum over the years. This fact alone qualifies them (in the best of cases) as 'baby-truthers' - which may be less offensive than calling them out as intelligence operatives on a governmental payroll.

Now, this Conlon guy is a "Johnny-come-lately" who states to have started researching 9/11 around 2013 - and now glibly claims to have debunked the entire September Clues research (billing it as 'deceptive disinfo'), whereas Richard Hall and Andrew Johnson have been around for a long, long time. In fact, the latter initially (back in 2008 or so) posed as a staunch supporter of my SC documentary. As it is, he even offered me what was then some quite expensive storage space for my research files which I (rather naively, perhaps) accepted. Fortunately, I have since transferred all of my files to a safer storage place managed by a trusty Swedish friend - but I don't dare imagine what could have happened to the entire bulk of my research files if I had left them 'in the hands of' Andrew Johnson, now that he has apparently turned against me.

To be sure - and on a final note - none of the above-mentioned characters have ever contacted me for an online chat / or podcast (Hall & Johnson regularly talk on their "Richplanet" podcast) for all of these years! Worse still, Mr. Con-lon (who appears to have spent untold hours analyzing my September Clues analyses) has never even deigned to contact me via e-mail - even though my e-mail address is easily found on the web. So here's what I propose to those three musketeers:

Mr Conlon, Mr Hall and Mr Johnson: you are ALL welcome to come and visit me in Rome for a weekend. I will pamper you with some yummy Italian dishes (I've become a rather decent cook over the years) and put you up in my panoramic guestrooms overlooking the Eternal City. We may then talk it all over in my garden until dusk. All I'll be asking you for is to pay for my supermarket / food expenses to keep you well fed - and for my small Fiat's petrol expenses to drive you to and fro the airport. And don't you worry, over the years I have invited to my house several dozens of truthseekers from all over the world, so I'm quite used to managing guests and keeping them comfortable and happy.

In the meantime, you are all invited to provide an intelligent explanation as to why each of the four major US TV networks featured a "beep-beep" audio cue in their respective audio feeds, 17 seconds before the impact of "Flight 175" shown on live TV - just ONE second before the only existing 16 seconds of images of "Flight 175" (seen on 'live TV') started airing on CBS. Were all four TV networks (and their respective cameramen in their four respective news choppers) aware of the incoming 'missile hologram'? Or did they all just get lucky?

Excellent response Simon

I too, called Mark Conlon "Mark CONlon" when responding to 9/11 Revisited's ridiculous thread
Mark's response to your "missing black gash" (#2 in the thread) was so embarrassing, it was enough for me to completely discredit him.

Weirdly enough, it seems the majority of Mark Conlon's articles from the thread have since been deleted as of this post. When you click on the links, most now say: "Sorry, the page you were looking for does not exist."
This was not the case just a few days ago. All of the links worked perfectly.

Has word of 9/11 Revisited's ridiculous thread reached Mark?
And perhaps Mark, finally realizing how stupid his articles are, decided to delete them?


I am surprised entry #10 has not been deleted yet. It's a snippet of "Markus Allen vs Simon Shack" (posted by Mark CONlon) which had me laughing out loud, all thanks to Markus "Goldstein" Allen

jon909 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 8:45 am I am surprised entry #10 has not been deleted yet. It's a snippet of "Markus Allen vs Simon Shack" (posted by Mark CONlon) which had me laughing out loud, all thanks to Markus "Goldstein" Allen

The snippet you mention may be from this Hoaxbusters Call audio of January 16 2012:
https://tunein.com/podcasts/Hoaxbusters ... -p3310513/
(This was rebadged by Ab Irato, (The Fakeologist) as “Master Fake Theatre” “MFT014 - Simon Shack on Hoaxbusters Call”)

I listened to this audio some months ago and found it interesting and telling. I present some excerpts below.

In the call, Markus tries his best to discredit Simon. He takes issue with September Clues and Simon’s seemingly spooky connections. However, Markus ends up discrediting himself.

For the first hour and a half of discussion, host Chris Kendall and Simon compare notes on September 11, bringing up examples of their reasoning and research. Markus, apparently listening patiently that whole time, chimes in at 1:38:30 and asks Simon a series of questions.

2:08:14
Marcus: Who are the people that are doing all this to us? Do you know who it is?
Simon: Well I, I, I tend to keep from, you know, doing a list of names of who is behind it, but I have my own ideas. I don’t, yes, I would like one day to have a trial and have these people lined up. But, don’t you know, more or less who they are?
Marcus: Oh, I have a very good idea who they are, but I wanted to know who you are and I know you can’t say... but if you could say, who is it?
2:08:58
Simon: I’m sure the Bush administration had something to do with it, ...OK? First of all, and then there’s lots of other wheeler and dealers around that... and... maybe...and other... important people in different countries too.

Simon continues his answer. He includes the media as another one of the major parties involved and finishes with:
2:09:40
Many, many, many powerful people are behind it
Markus: So the Jews the Freemasons the Sufis the secret societies the Club of Rome, the... all of these, Trilateral Commissions, Club of 300, all those people are just not involved at all, it’s George Bush?
Simon: All the people you mentioned are probably involved in some way in different levels. Freemasonry, Jews, Jesuits...a big, big kabal... people. I’m sorry I can’t, you know, offer you my precise list of culprits, I’m not into that.
[...]
----------------------------
Later, Simon provides the name of one particular fraudster. He details how he was involved and finishes with:
2:13:10
Remember his name, and try to contact him, call him. Steven Rosenbaum. He used to have the Camera Planet.
[...]
2:13:30
So yes, I have one guy I point my finger on and that’s this guy, but there are many more.
2:13:48
Markus finishes his questioning and goes quiet
-----------------------------------------

Caller-inner Tim, (who is not Tim the Fakeologist), joins the call and says he doesn’t
2:55:25
really agree that he [Bush] was, that he had big of an influence in it
Simon clarifies:
2:57:38
I don’t think he had any role in the masterminding of this, no. But he obviously knows about it
and
2:58:24
Simon: I need to to clarify then, I just said that there are people that say the Bush administration has nothing to do with 911, that’s too much.
----------------------------------------------------------------

3:19
Simon and Chris go quiet. Tim rambles on alone for a minute.
3:20
Markus rejoins.
3:22
Chris rejoins to say:
The call dropped off and Simon’s gonna make dinner
3:23:50
Tim: to me it was almost clear as day that he said “it was Bush”
3:23:55
Marcus: I see in the chat that people are giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he was just mentioning that it might have been Bush and it was others. No, he said “It was Bush”
3:28:13
Marcus: Oh, there’s no doubt that he’s [Simon is] a fraud

3:31:18
Marcus insists that Simon said “Bush did it”
-----------------------------------------------

He insists again...
4:05:24
Marcus: It’s sickening to me that these guys are fooling us. There’s zero doubt in my mind that Simon Shack is a fraud. I think he admitted it many times throughout the call.
4:13:32
Marcus: And then, when you ask him whose at the top, he said “Bush".... "Bush!”, like your'e kidding me. Bush?

Chris expresses doubt about this and points out the general thrust of what Simon said. So Markus digs in his heels and begins projecting.
4:14:13
Markus: I admit to doing this early in my career. Whenever someone busted me, cause I used to lie. I came from a family where you lied, that’s how you got ahead in life. So whenever someone busted me on something where my lie could not have been true, then all of the sudden I would just jump to their position. And that’s exactly what he did. He put this “Bush did it” nonsense. And then, as soon as Tim started laying into him. Of course he agrees with it, because he knows that we know, so he’s just pandering to us.
4:16:10
Marcus: That vicsim report is about as bogus as Dallas Goldbug crap.
4:16:20
It’s the exact same Dallas Goldbug crap that I fell for and Chris schooled me, I mean I was dead wrong about that.

Poor Marcus was fooled again. Or did he rather employ the tactic that he used “early in his career” and once he was busted he just “jump(ed) to” Chris’ position?
----------------------------------
4:23:32
Marcus: You’ve gotta really roll back the tape on what he said when I asked him “who’s at the top?” And he said “Bush” I almost shat my pants! That was the most ridiculous... I was actually stunned

Chris does not succumb to the insistent insinuation.
4:24:40
I don’t think he was saying bush is at the top. One reason I don’t think that is because, that would be like, ok. He’s gonna come on here [....].And then he’s gonna like throw that out. That’s like, when he hasn’t done it before and he hasn’t done it on his forums to my knowledge, or he doesn’t push that on the forums. [...] and then like kind of out of the blue “Bush did it”? It doesn’t make any sense.

Markus was opportunistic, he jumped on Tim's misunderstanding of what was said. He latches tightly on to "Bush did it" and makes this his refrain.
We also learn that Markus Allen comes from a family of liars and that he “used to lie”.

*

MY EARLY "HARDCORE FANS"

Oh my gosh, yes dear Macaria - that Markus Goldstein "Allen" was a truly unpleasant character, I wonder what he's up to these days...

For the record, Mr Goldstein (as he revealed at some stage to be his real surname) posed as one of the very first "hardcore fans" of my September Clues documentary as he appeared out of the blue on the "9/11 truther radiowaves" soon after the movie's online release back in 2007 - vividly praising and promoting my lonesome (and entirely unfunded) 9/11 research. To be sure, if Mr Goldstein was my first "hardcore fan" who subsequently flipped at 180°, switching 'overnight' from fan to foe, he certainly wasn't the last one. As it turned out, this sort of seemingly irrational turnaround was to become a common and recurring 'hallmark' of several (previously wholly unknown) characters who later emerged as fairly "prominent 9/11 truthers", that is to say, at least within certain internet circles.

One fine day, as I quietly settle down in ripe old age, I should probably write a book documenting my experiences in this regard, were it only to help raise awareness to what independent citizen-researchers like myself should expect whenever their findings hover a bit too close to the target. Just relax and realize that no one is going to 'take you out' - but many clowns will try and discourage you with assorted psychological tricks; one of these being to initially praise your research to the High Heavens, only to come down on you shortly thereafter with dismissive antics and vapid / personal ad hominem attacks. Those clowns are, unfortunately, a dime-a-dozen today - as the globalist agenda (for lack of a better term) enjoys a limitless budget to recruit their servile minions. Let me say that I'm not one of them (and have no connection to anyone but myself) - but I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word for it.

Anyhow, please consider this post of mine as a little memo / notebook for a possible future 'gossip book' about the "inner workings of the whole 9/11 truther affair", with particular regards to the small clique of clownish characters who were evidently recruited to discredit and ridicule the so-called "NO PLANE theory" which, of course, was a deliberate misnomer. To their credit, their subsequent "TV FAKERY" slogan was certainly a less misleading one. We were all fooled by TV.

Back to Mr Markus Goldman - and the 'oh-so-tangled web' spun around those few who knew / or realized early on that 9/11 was nothing but a TV show (and that, of course, no airplanes were involved). If my memory serves me well, Mr Goldman called in to Paula Gloria's show - absolutely raving about my recently published SC documentary. Paula Gloria, another - now deceased - phony & new-agey 9/11 "truther", was allegedly sheltering in her apartment none other than the 'homeless' Nico Haupt (the infamous German drug addict popularly-known as "the 1st no-planer"...). This clique of infamous "no-planers" also comprised the now deceased Rosalee Grable, a.k.a. "The Webfairy" (who played an old lady affected with severe neurologic issues) and the ineffable "Ace Baker" (a goofy-looking character who would later fake his suicide, live on Jim Fetzer's radio show...). Paula Gloria was then invited to the hugely popular Howard Stern radio show where she was - most predictably - crudely thrashed and ridiculed in front of millions of American listeners.

Of course, Ace Baker was also an early "hardcore fan" of my September Clues documentary who also contacted me (via e-mail) soon after its release, asking me if he could screen my movie at Jim Fetzer's upcoming "truther" conference (in August of 2007). Not long thereafter though, "Ace Baker" would release his own movie which basically proposed the inane notion that the 9/11 TV imagery (as captured by the various TV networks) was perfectly real and legit, but that someone had somehow inserted the crashing airplanes on top of it! He then went on to state that "September Clues is 90-95% false." viewtopic.php?t=1094

I think the picture should be perfectly clear by now: in the aftermath of ANY major government psyop, a crew of clownish (and off-putting) characters is recruited, their task being to proclaim and diffuse the TRUTH - or 'as near as needed' to the same - only to behave and appear like complete idiots in the eyes of the general public, which will thus dismiss their claims as total hogwash. As it is, the very same tactic is currently being used by NASA's propaganda / damage-control department which has framed all smart & awakened NASA skeptics as "flat earthers", Roger-Rabbit-style. Pretty brilliant psyop tactics, if you ask me...

The "NO-PLANE theory" then suffered a further setback as Morgan Reynolds (who served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor in 2001–2002, during George W. Bush's first term) was interviewed on FOX TV, being ridiculed by the FOX anchorman for claiming that no planes hit the towers - yet without ever mentioning that the TV networks had aired a prefabricated Hollywood-type movie on "live TV". Needless to say perhaps, I have never heard from Morgan Reynolds in all these years - even though he must be aware of the SC movie and the longstanding, collective CF research.

As we continued our image analyses here at Cluesforum (which conclusively established that even the WTC-collapse imagery was an integral part of the Hollywood-type movie), we then witnessed the rise to 9/11 TRUTHER STARDOM of 'professor' Judy Wood, with her richly-illustrated book "Where Did The Towers Go?". Since her 'scientific analyses' were entirely based on the (bogus) 9/11 imagery, her role was obviously that of upholding the credibility of the same. To be sure, the collapse imagery showed us a physically impossible event - what with the two towers crumbling top-down, in a snowy cloud of dust (just like we saw the Empire State Buiding crumbling in the 1996 movie "Independence Day"). She thus concluded that the WTC towers were "dustified" with some exotic "Directed Energy Weapons" - and droves of sunday-driving 9/11 truthers lapped it all up, for WHO doesn't love a good sci-fi story - complete with ultra-secret weapons from outer space?

At the time of Judy Wood's appearance on the "9/11 truther scene", I was contacted by Andrew Johnson and Richard Hall from the UK (of the RICH PLANET website & podcast). The two of them were also initially "hardcore fans" of my September Clues research - and presented it very favourably on their channel. Not long thereafter though, Richard Hall made a long video designed to completely 'debunk' September Clues. Both of them are still staunch supporters of Judy Wood's outlandish theories - and have never, in all of these years, ever invited me to their hyperactive RICH PLANET podcast!

Back in 2013, our great forum member Maat made a hilarious "ADDAMS FAMILY" composite of the various "9/11 truthers" mentioned above:



And yup, that was as many as 11 years ago... I trust that you may imagine how little those pathetic "early hardcore fans" matter to me today.

Original 'ADDAMS FAMILY' composite and post by Cluesforum member "Maat": viewtopic.php?p=2385997#p2385997