Around this time, I had been following the discussion and
presentation of the so-called “video fakery” and “no planes” evidence by people
such as Nico Haupt, Rosalee Grable and Ace Baker, and so I was very interested
in this new video series and I watched all of it.
Over the next few months “Social Service” produced
additional “episodes” documenting further anomalies in the video record of 9/11.
One of the interesting things he noted that, as the events unfolded on TV, a
number of phone calls were made to various TV stations where witnesses claimed
to have seen a plane hitting the tower. Oddly, most - if not all - of these
calls that were aired were from media people – TV producers, their wives or
other staff from TV stations. Some of the callers - like
Teresa Renaud - seemed to describe events they could not possibly have seen
clearly, based on where they said they were when they made the call (this is
illustrated in one part of “September Clues”).
Social Service released several updates to September clues
and it finally ended up as 8 ten-minute segments and a couple of additional
“epilogue” videos. Around this time, it was revealed that Social Service’s name
was “Simon Shack”.
In July or August 2008, on a forum, Simon Shack made a
request for some web storage space for his videos. At the time, I had set up
some web space, and paid a 1-year subscription – but then the people I set the
website up for didn’t want it and I had no real use for it, so I offered some of
the space to Simon Shack to store his video files etc, and I gave him the
I purchased a domain name for Simon Shack
www.septclues.com - at modest cost.
Approximately 1 year later in August 2009,
Simon Shack wrote to me pointing out that the webspace I had given him was
“no longer accessible”. This was because the package I had originally bought
(for someone else – not me and not Simon Shack) had “expired” and I had chosen
not to renew it. I therefore sent Simon Shack the passwords to access the
Website control panel so that he would be able to use his own credit card to pay
for a renewal – in no way did I block access to the site.
Following this, in his “911 Actors” video, Shack plays in
quick succession a number of photos of various researchers and figures who have
spoken out against the official story of 911. If you look carefully,
at 6:57, you will notice that he includes a picture of Dr Judy Wood. Some of
the other pictures that Simon shows really are of actors – such as Charlie
Sheen. What subliminal message is Simon Shack trying to embed? (Note: he flashes
up pictures and includes no specific evidence to back up any allegations – in
fact, he makes no specific allegations in this part of the video.)
I see that Judy Wood has published a new book. However, her research is
based on fake pictures. The sole purpose of her existence is, imho, to
provide 'a plausible explanation' for the very stupid-looking WTC
So, Shack thinks the research is inconclusive because “the
photos are fake”. It seems clear, if one reads the language used in the supposed
hate mail sent via YouTube that it could not have been Dr Judy Wood. Simon Shack
seems to think that because the YouTube channel is there, it must be Dr Wood’s.
(There are apparent efforts of fellow posters to “bolster”
this idea.) However, if you look at this channel, you will see that there are
no videos uploaded on it – and it is decidedly “austere”.
Simon Shack also stated:
"Is this really Judy's YT channel", you may ask... Well, at the time I did
ask Andrew Johnson (her research colleague whom I've been in touch with in
the past) for clarification.
That may have been true when he made the post (May 6th
2011) – but soon after, he contacted me via Skype text chat and I confirmed to
him that this was not Dr Judy Wood’s channel (more on this “chat” later).
Also, the message said Dr Judy Wood would “sue” Simon
Shack, but Simon doesn’t make it clear in the post why Dr Wood would want to sue
him. It is not clear now either.
I can confirm that the YouTube channel “DrJudyWood” does
not belong to Dr Judy Wood and it does not belong to me. I do not know who it
does belong to. Also, as far as I can remember, when I originally looked at this
channel, it was only subscribed to one other channel – that of SimonShack
(though that has since changed). I can also confirm that Simon Shack is the only
person I am aware of that received hate mail from the YouTube channel with the
Real Names Vs. Aliases and Pseudonyms
People who have seen how I approach things will know that I
avoid any kind of anonymity. There are a number of reasons for this, one of the
main ones being that the culture of anonymity that was created on forums some
years ago is a big factor in making them what they are – for discussing subjects
such as 9/11, they are largely a waste of time now. You don’t know who you’re
talking to unless (like me) everyone uses their real name or can be immediately
known by the name they use.
Mr Shack (Hytten) has now gone to the ridiculous extent of
claiming ALL 9/11 video and photo footage is fake - and he therefore
claims it cannot be relied upon to determine how the towers were destroyed. Yes,
He confirmed this in a Skype chat I had with him.
[24/08/2010 22:29:08] simon shack: Andrew, why don't you return to our
forum? Tell me frankly now: are you somehow connected to the UK intelligence
agencies? Don't get offended now - you know that I'm a quite normal person
making my utmost to understand the oddities of this planet.
Some slightly odd questions. However, I have never posted
on Simon Shack’s “clues” forum. He did have another forum (z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shack)
though I am fairly sure I never posted there either. I confirmed to Simon that I
do not work for any UK (or other) intelligence services – and that I work for
the Open University – as I have stated many times. I encourage everyone and
anyone to study what I have posted and I openly challenge them to find errors or
misleading statements or any evidence at all that I am anything other than just
an ordinary person.
During in this chat, Simon Hytten made his position clear:
[24/08/2010 22:35:11 | Edited 22:36:36] simon shack: Yes but you must know
that people analyzing the fake 9/11 videos- and making scientific
conclusions around them - are entrenched in a fallacy? Such as Judy Wood?
Sadly, Simon misrepresents the truth. Dr Wood’s research is
based on at least the following:
3)Witness Audio Testimony
4)Audio features (e.g. relative silence of towers turning to dust)
7)Official reports – such as dust analysis (Cahill).
8)Photos from places like FDR drive ½ mile from WTC.
9)personal trips to the WTC site. On each of her visits to the site, for
example, she has
a.taken her own photographs (See Figure 154, page 153 of Where Did The
b.sampled air quality
c.made observations about the material characteristics and documented
anomalies and changes
d.documented unusual treatment of the site
e.spoken with first responders, victims' family members, and survivors who
were in the towers shortly before they were turned to dust.
f.directly observed and documented structural and material changes
Conversely, Simon Hytten’s research is primarily based on
video and photo evidence – some audio and the odd bit of witness testimony.
Simon Hytten completely ignores the other 4 or 5 categories of evidence – I have
not seen him discuss them anywhere in any of his lengthy posts.
Later in the Skype chat, Simon seems to think that Richard
Gage is a researcher – and that his “methods” are comparable to Dr Wood’s:
[24/08/2010 22:38:28] simon shack: Both Richard Gage and Judy Wood look at
the videos and draw
conclusions from them. This is a fallacious way of going about the research.
[24/08/2010 22:46:18] simon shack: I - and NO ONE ELSE - will ever be able
to prove exactly how the WTC complex was demolished. Do you understand?
That's why Richard GAge concentrates on his UNPROVABLE matter.
Again, Simon ignores what I had already written and posted
about Richard Gage and recklessly lumps things together in a way which displays
ignorance of the facts. He says “NO ONE ELSE - will ever be able to prove
exactly how the WTC complex was demolished”. Wow. He sounds sure of himself. Is
he afraid of someone doing just that? Let’s not forget, Dr Judy Wood
started a fraud case based on the evidence she collected – Simon Hytten has, to
date, not done anything similar.
Simon Says “Believe…”
Also in this Skype chat, Simon addressed the question of
the towers’ disappearance:
[24/08/2010 22:41:08] Andrew Johnson: How were the towers "demolished"?
[24/08/2010 22:41:16] simon shack: Let me believe that they were demolished
quite conventionally, ok?
I found it most interesting that Simon chose to believe
that the towers were demolished (despite the evidence which proves they were not
– such as the lack of sound and the lack of seismic signature – neither of which
are photo or video evidence). His whole study in September Clues is meant to be
based on analysis of evidence – of video fakery and so on. So, when it comes to
the destruction of the WTC, why does Simon believe all the evidence is
fake? Why does he believe they were “demolished conventionally”? Why does
he choose belief over knowledge – and evidence?
In a later Skype chat, in 2011, Simon Shack said
(presumably referring to the Ball Analysis):
[03/06/2011 22:12:26] simon shack: Well - your friend Richard Hall has
obviously tried to distort the TV fakery evidence, has he not?
I pointed out that Richard Hall had merely used a segment
from September Clues and re-analysed it – I’d hardly call that “distorting TV
fakery evidence”. Hall presented it as an idea, not a “definite conclusion”.
911 Flights - Video and Radar
Richard D Hall and I had discussed some of the issues
raised above and he himself, having published his “Ball” analysis still had
additional questions about some of the video record. He decided to conduct a
deeper and more thorough analysis and boldly attempted to “map” as many of the
flight 175 plane crash videos as he could onto/into his 3D-model of Manhattan.
This analysis was published on 21 May 2012 and revealed that 26 clips of the
flight 175 crash did indeed appear to match the Radar Data supplied by the NTSB
(but there was a discrepancy of about 1400 feet/430 metres with the 84RADES
Radar Data). This tended to rule out the idea of “simple video fakery” – which
is what most other “no planers” argue. It seemed to bring us to the point of
realisation that “another” technology had been used – one which created the
image of planes in the sky – which really could be filmed/video’d. This
also explains one of the fundamental difficulties with the “only video fakery”
position – some witnesses did report seeing a plane – though there were
sufficient variations in their accounts to suggest that there could have
been issues with viewing the projected image from certain locations. One of the
curious things is the "disappearing wings" observed in some clips 
– this should not happen with CGI!
Another problem with the video fakery is the sound –
when I carried out my witness study, there were also considerable discrepancies
as to the sounds reported – but this would make sense if it was not a real
plane which struck the tower. The sound must have been generated some how,
or is it even possible that people “remembered” the sound after the event –
having seen it on television?
It has become clear to some of us that the truth about the
events of 9/11 can be discovered. It also seems to be possible to
discover unpalatable truths about how the 9/11 cover up continues – on internet
forums populated by rude anonymous posters, and through people posing as
evidence-based researchers – who then wilfully ignore certain evidence and
attack others who have done the most to verify and analyse the most powerful
Here again we have the pattern of a 9/11 researcher
establishing himself in the “research community”, completing some time-consuming
and apparently very credible research. Yet, they then either ignore or just
attack the most powerful, science-based and court-submitted evidence and
research that is available. The forum they set up becomes another place where
anonymous posters become abusive about the research and the person who has done
the most with it. (The same has happened with forums at
http://forum.911movement.org/ both of which closed down after some
months/years of operation.)
Instead of Simon Hytten saying
“well, I am not quite sure how the towers were destroyed – I haven’t
studied the evidence enough yet” he states that he believes in
“conventional demolition” and he posts supposed hate mail on his forum - which
he suggests has come from Dr Judy Wood.
The record is now clear that Simon Hytten wilfully ignores
evidence, implants information to encourage doubt and then expects someone like
me to accept an invitation to his house in Italy!
[03/06/2011 21:36:02 | Edited 21:36:16] simon shack: Would you come over for
the big 10-year celebration in my house over Rome?
Simon Hytten’s current position on 911 has become almost
surreal – he states that ALL the photo and video record is fake, there were no
victims and it was all a simulation. He has tried to persuade some people that
basic observations (such as the towers turning to dust) may not actually be
correct. Would anyone believe this? Apparently, they would – a friend of mine,
who knows me personally - for a short time began to believe that Simon
Hytten’s view that one couldn’t determine what happened to the WTC because
all the videos were “fake”. The conversation with my friend illustrated to
me that “following” someone can mean that they can “lead you” in the wrong
direction. However, as evidence is not a person, you are not
subject to being influenced by a personal agenda if you stick with
Perhaps Simon Hytten’s slow but sure “building up” of a
following around September Clues can itself be seen as yet another “perception
management” operation – perhaps this time made easier by the very convoluted
nature of the video anomalies he originally set out to illustrate (i.e. it
really does make you reconsider what is real and what is not).
Additionally, Simon Hytten’s claim that some the victims -
and/or their relatives – are actors – without actually being able to prove
this idea - can also be very upsetting for many people. This can divert them
away from looking at the genuine anomalies which do indeed lay in the video
record of 9/11 – and do, indeed, allow us to find out what really happened.
Perhaps Simon Hytten is himself an actor – hey, he decided
to use a “stage name”, didn’t he? I leave the reader to decide.
Related: Simon Shack/Hytten's Brother was Sponsored by Bin Laden group in the 1980's
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:
Sent: 07 August 2009 15:15
Subject: RE: septclues.com is down !
Sorry about this - I completely forgot to tell you - the
space was due to expire on 19th July. I have been away for 2 weeks out of the
last 4 and this all slipped my mind - especially as Servage did not send a
reminder of any kind.
I hadn't planned to renew it as that space was
originally purchased for someone else who then moved their website elsewhere
(and they didn't offer me anything to cover the £75 I'd already paid out).
I didn't realise you'd linked stuff on the other forum
either - I'd just assumed you had the video files stored there.
If you want to try and renew it, you can logon here:
then there is a "captcha" to put in (for some strange
The web space was set up for "wholetruthcoalition.org"
but then it got moved.
You are of course welcome to do anything with the domain
If you need me to help out further, I will, but if you
can renew it yourself, 14 months of hosting will cost £74.97 - you can pay by
paypal, but you will need to change the registered e-mail address on the
The Septclues.com domain name will expire on 13th August
- again I had forgotten about this - it cost me £10 last year, and I expect it
will be the same this year.
You will find all the info accessible from the control
panel, once you've logged in.
All the best
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: 07 August 2009 14:45
> To: ad.johnson
> Subject: septclues.com is down !
> Dear Andrew,
> The septclues webspace you kindly set up for me is
> "The account has been suspended for non-payment"
> Please let me know as soon as possible if this is just
> temporary problem due to a late payment. Also, let me
know if you
> wish me to arrange for the payment myself ( I have no
> but I have a paypal account with a little credit on it
> Servage accepts paypal payments?)
> Thanks for a prompt reply ! As you may imagine, it is
> urgent matter as all my September Clues material
> Gifs are now unavailable at the 911movement forum !
From: Andrew Johnson [mailto:
Sent: 09 August 2009 09:11
Subject: FW: Automated Reminder: Your Domain is Expiring 2009-08-13
From: Servage Hosting [mailto:
Sent: 09 August 2009 04:02
Subject: Automated Reminder: Your Domain is Expiring
The following domain name(s) will expire in 5 DAYS:
Domain Name, Expiry Date
If the domain name(s) are not renewed during the next 5
days, they will stop working! This WILL affect all email and websites that use
the domain. PLEASE RENEW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to avoid disruption to your
[00:37:07] simon shack: Andrew, today I just happened to bump into this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSzHmHnR78 So I guess you are now officially suspecting me and September Clues to be some sort of 'cointelpro' operation. Very well. At least I know where you stand now - and I return this outrageously grave accusation straight to the sender - but only in private for now. To be sure, I have no videos up on Youtube saying similar things about you. In my world, this is called defamation and slander - you should be ashamed of such antics - but I certainly don't have the means to hire a lawyer and have you prosecuted for libel in the UK. Instead, I'll ask you for now to be fair and gentlemanly enough to reply to this footnote of mine : http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2372562#p2372562 Also, I do NOT authorize you to post on the internet these private exchanges we are having on Skype. How you can do so without asking me for my consent is beyond belief.
[00:54:04 | Edited 01:07:30] simon shack: And yes, we have strongly criticized Judy Wood on our forum - and I am ready to assume my own responsibilities for participating in calling out her act. But I have not, to this day, openly suspected you of being anything else than a deluded follower of her DEW dustification theories, based on her so-called 'scientific' analyses of fake, computer-generated imagery. I may have to reconsider these milder opinions of you if you fail to respond in a no-nonsense manner to this present communication.
[21:47:40] Andrew Johnson: Hey Simon - you can read the article I posted on my website! It's all there for you!
[i.e. the article above]
[21:47:58] Andrew Johnson: It's important to be responsible for what you say and do
[21:48:09] Andrew Johnson: which is why I posted the skype
[21:48:29] Andrew Johnson: I suggest you not talk to me any more or it might become more incriminating
[21:48:57] Andrew Johnson: I tried to help you - and you chose to attack scientific research and lie about it
[21:49:01] Andrew Johnson: your choice!
[21:49:28] Andrew Johnson: so I've nothing else to say really
[21:49:57] simon shack: "Incriminating?" What crimes have I committed, Andrew?
[21:50:30] Andrew Johnson: How about helping to pervert the course of justice?
[21:50:52] Andrew Johnson: But I also meant incriminating in illustrating you have lied
[21:50:57] simon shack: Come on - you are joking, right?
[21:51:02] Andrew Johnson: Nope
[21:51:22] Andrew Johnson: But I have nothing else to say of value so why are you talking to me?
[21:51:48] Andrew Johnson: People with an open mind will find everything they need on my website
[21:51:53] simon shack: You're funny...
[21:52:21] simon shack: I hope you really believe in what you do. Let's just leave it that. Bye!
[21:52:29] Andrew Johnson: Bye!
Simon Shack has
now made his views more than plain:
here for now. Please reply to this post of mine before you spam any other links
to "Judy Wood's" blatant disinformation bullcrap on this forum.
Here is another video questioning aspects of Simon Shack's "September Clues Addendum" and it raises valid points about how Shack has edited various clips to try and persuade the viewer that the videos to the WTC destruction are fake (in this video, the event is wrongly described as a collapse).