Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[Andy_Ross]

Hi Andy. I love that you put 9/12. It was the best typo Ive ever seen. There is a lot of truth to that. Thank you for the invite to start a thread. I need to lay ego down and stop reaponding to the off topic conversation Ive started here. I meant to supply evidence specific to the buildings. I also thought it would be better to join a previous thread than to be presumptuous that a new account should start new thread. I was incorrect. I ended up littering the back end of the thread.

Fixed

 

[nt1]

Fixed

Never. I liked it. There was a lot of truth and an interesting thought in that typo.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When you say "9/11 should have resulted in a judicial process. A report backed by court authority, with legal consequences like indictments" I gather you mean that specific individuals should have been prosecuted for specific crimes. Okay, that's fine, but who and for what?

Also that's not how courts work. Investigators collect evidence and compile it in reports, typically for prosecutors, not necessarily for the public. That can lead to criminal charges being brought but courts do not do that job.

Prosecuting authorities are the ones who have the job of deciding if the evidence which exists is sufficient to bring charges against someone. If you feel they failed to do so in some specific regard maybe you could tell us about a particular example.

 

[nt1]

When you say "9/11 should have resulted in a judicial process. A report backed by court authority, with legal consequences like indictments" I gather you mean that specific individuals should have been prosecuted for specific crimes. Okay, that's fine, but who and for what?

Also that's not how courts work. Investigatiors collect evidence and compile it in reports, typically for prosecutors, not necessarily for the public. That can lead to criminal charges being brought but courts do not do that job.

Prosecuting authorities are the ones who have the job of deciding if the evidence which exists is sufficient to bring charges against someone. If you feel they failed to do so in some specific regard maybe you could tell us about a particular example.

Bob Graham (Former U.S. Senator and Co-Chair of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11):
"There was a desire not to uncover bad news, a desire to avoid responsibility."

Thomas Kean & Lee Hamilton:
"So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

Max Cleland:
"This investigation is now compromised."

John Farmer:
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described."

Kristen Breitweiser:
"I want to know what the truth is."

Look guys. I know you have spent 10 years with Judywoodfanboys. And 20 years with holograms and laser beams. Im not it.

I asked one simple question at the beginning and its turned into Saving Private Ryan. I asked for a link or a piece of footage and I was going to show my work. I enjoy this too. But man. Ya'll should start a street gang. I heard they beat up new members too.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Dodge noted.

 

[nt1]

Dodge noted.

"Dodge noted." From the edit guy. I get it. Speaking of dodge. I asked you what I should name my thread.

 

[arthwollipot]

Hi Jack.

9/11 should have resulted in a judicial process. A report backed by court authority, with legal consequences like indictments, verdicts, or binding ruling. Rather than just political summaries, like the 9/11 Commission, or technical studies, like NIST.

A criminal or civil trial outcome, not just advisory findings.

That would require evidence that a specific crime has been committed by a specific person or people within the jurisdiction of the court. You are presupposing that it has. Courts do not work like that. You need to build a case before a court will even consider looking at it.

Max Cleland:
"It is a national scandal. This investigation is now compromised."
Thomas Kean:
"We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth."
Lee Hamilton:
"We had limited access... the system was set up to resist oversight and to avoid accountability."
John Farmer:
"The public had been seriously misled."
Bob Graham:
"Classified information was withheld from Congress and the American people."

For a start, sources for these quotes would be nice, otherwise how do we know that you're not just making them up? Not saying you are, but how do we know? Secondly, context for these quotes would also be nice. About what were they speaking when they said these words, and in what kind of situation? Interview? Deposition? Thirdly, who are these people anyway and why should their word be taken as given?

So that I dont make a supposition or inference. What is the angle of this forum? I am quite happy with the level of scrutiny I have recieved. It means i just might be in the right place.

The angle of this forum is that truth and evidence are important. Reality is really real, and it's important to understand what reality is. Truth is paramount, and there are reliable ways to determine what is true and what is not. The Most Important Question in the Universe is "How do we know that what we think is true actually is true?" See the Definition of Skepticism thread to engage further in that particular conversation.

I asked one simple question at the beginning and its turned into Saving Private Ryan. I asked for a link or a piece of footage and I was going to show my work. I enjoy this too. But man. Ya'll should start a street gang. I heard they beat up new members too.

You make a claim, you back it up with evidence. That's how this works.

 

[nt1]

That would require evidence that a specific crime has been committed by a specific person or people within the jurisdiction of the court. You are presupposing that it has. Courts do not work like that. You need to build a case before a court will even consider looking at it.

For a start, sources for these quotes would be nice, otherwise how do we know that you're not just making them up? Not saying you are, but how do we know? Secondly, context for these quotes would also be nice. About what were they speaking when they said these words, and in what kind of situation? Interview? Deposition? Thirdly, who are these people anyway and why should their word be taken as given?

The angle of this forum is that truth and evidence are important. Reality is really real, and it's important to understand what reality is. Truth is paramount, and there are reliable ways to determine what is true and what is not. The Most Important Question in the Universe is "How do we know that what we think is true actually is true?" See the Definition of Skepticism thread to engage further in that particular conversation.


You make a claim, you back it up with evidence. That's how this works.

Wow bud. You sure love 9/11. I like that.

You are right. There was no need for any investigation with a judicial outcome besides one guy.

The only person with a judicial outcome directly tied to the 9/11 attacks is:

Zacarias Moussaoui

Pled guilty in 2005 to six federal charges related to conspiring in the 9/11 attacks.
Sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Tried in a U.S. federal court, not a military tribunal. He was often referred to as the “20th hijacker,” though his actual involvement remains debated.

You are correct. I have just been spouting a bunch of nonsense.

 

[arthwollipot]

You are correct. I have just been spouting a bunch of nonsense.

Not necessarily. If you can provide evidence for your claims (what are they again?) then you are not spouting nonsense. If you can't, you still might not be spouting nonsense, but it's hard to tell.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"Dodge noted." From the edit guy. I get it. Speaking of dodge. I asked you what I should name my thread.

Call it "nt1 gets to the point".

I still don't quite grasp what it is you want. You seem to want someone to nominate any piece of video evidence from 9/11 for you to analyse. Since you don't seem to care which piece of video I infer you don't have any specific thing you want to point out that you think everyone has missed. I don't get why you specifically want to consider video evidence rather than any other type of evidence.


But, if it will move things along, how about the Jules Naudet video?

 

[nt1]

I think ive been wrong. Im going to rethink. Maybe I'll go get a copy of "Where Did the Towers Go?" and come back. Dust. Dust everywhere. Laser beams and holograms. Israel did it. The neocons did. 19 arabs with box cutters did it. Geez you guys. Talk about over reaction and showing your hand. You guys arent conspiring are you? I wouldnt want to make a theory about that. I know what i would be called.

 

[nt1]

But, if it will move things along, how about the Jules Naudet video?

Sure. That will do it. Please hold. Give me a little time. I'll be back. (Not like the terminator. Just literally. I'll be back)

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What do you think you've been wrong about?

Other than about how courts work, I mean.

 

[theprestige]

1. 9/11 Commission Report – Not legally binding; political summary, not criminal.
2. NIST Reports – Technical studies; no blame, no legal authority.
3. PENTTBOM – FBI investigation; never finalized, no public closure.

"Report on the facts" is in no way an acceptable level of investigation for an event like 9/11.

There is not one legally binding investigation or report.

That’s true. There is no legally binding investigative report on 9/11 in the sense of a criminal or judicial investigation with subpoena power resulting in binding legal consequences.

So yes. It is a story.
In fact.

All three—
1. 9/11 Commission Report – Not legally binding; political summary, not criminal.
2. NIST Reports – Technical studies; no blame, no legal authority.
3. PENTTBOM – FBI investigation; never finalized, no public closure.

are theories about a conspiracy.

They describe a coordinated criminal act.
They offer narratives, not legally tested facts.
None were resolved in court or bound by judicial standards.
So by definition, they are criminal conspiracy theories.
official or otherwise.

The only difference is:
The official theory is state-approved

I am not being cute or playing semantics. These are facts and these are definitions of the words. And it is unacceptable. It has allowed "judywoodfanboys" to run around with lasers for 15 years using words like irrefutable and empirical improperly. Mark "Long Con" Conlon. 9/11 revisionist and his sidekick MES MATH, to fill peoples heads with junk and dismiss and discredit any genuine attempt at having a finalized legal investigation with integrity.

Help me out here. What's the gist of your theory?

Bin Laden did it, but the US government was behind it and covered up the connection?

The US government did it, covered it up, and blamed bin Laden?

The US government did it, without planes, then faked the planes, covered it up, and blamed bin Laden?

 

[nt1]

Help me out here. What's the gist of your theory?

Bin Laden did it, but the US government was behind it and covered up the connection?

The US government did it, covered it up, and blamed bin Laden?

The US government did it, without planes, then faked the planes, covered it up, and blamed bin Laden?

I said none of that. I would love to help you out with that and any anything. I'd mow your lawn if it helped. I am waiting on Andy "9/12" Ross to name my thread. I will address any and all questions there. But, no is my answer to your question.

 

[varwoche]

Bob Graham (Former U.S. Senator and Co-Chair of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11):
"There was a desire not to uncover bad news, a desire to avoid responsibility."

Thomas Kean & Lee Hamilton:
"So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

Max Cleland:
"This investigation is now compromised."

John Farmer:
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described."

Kristen Breitweiser:
"I want to know what the truth is."

Look guys. I know you have spent 10 years with Judywoodfanboys. And 20 years with holograms and laser beams. Im not it.

I asked one simple question at the beginning and its turned into Saving Private Ryan. I asked for a link or a piece of footage and I was going to show my work. I enjoy this too. But man. Ya'll should start a street gang. I heard they beat up new members too.

Snippets of quotes picked out of context can be highly misleading.

 

[theprestige]

I said none of that.

You also said you weren't going with the more fantastical theories (space lasers, etc.) And you brought up the government investigations. So I figured it must be something along the lines of the "official" story of what happened, but with a different mastermind behind it.

I would love to help you out with that and any anything. I'd mow your lawn if it helped. I am waiting on Andy "9/12" Ross to name my thread. I will address any and all questions there. But, no is my answer to your question.

So it's Zeno's Conspiracy Theory.

 

[nt1]

1. 9/11 Commission Report – Not legally binding; political summary, not criminal.
2. NIST Reports – Technical studies; no blame, no legal authority.
3. PENTTBOM – FBI investigation; never finalized, no public closure.

"Report on the facts" is in no way an acceptable level of investigation for an event like 9/11.

There is not one legally binding investigation or report.

That’s true. There is no legally binding investigative report on 9/11 in the sense of a criminal or judicial investigation with subpoena power resulting in binding legal consequences.

So yes. It is a story.
In fact.

All three—
1. 9/11 Commission Report – Not legally binding; political summary, not criminal.
2. NIST Reports – Technical studies; no blame, no legal authority.
3. PENTTBOM – FBI investigation; never finalized, no public closure.

are theories about a conspiracy.

They describe a coordinated criminal act.
They offer narratives, not legally tested facts.
None were resolved in court or bound by judicial standards.
So by definition, they are criminal conspiracy theories.
official or otherwise.

The only difference is:
The official theory is state-approved

I am not being cute or playing semantics. These are facts and these are definitions of the words. And it is unacceptable. It has allowed "judywoodfanboys" to run around with lasers for 15 years using words like irrefutable and empirical improperly. Mark "Long Con" Conlon. 9/11 revisionist and his sidekick MES MATH, to fill peoples heads with junk and dismiss and discredit any genuine attempt at having a finalized legal investigation with integrity.

Funny thing is conspiracy is the only thing anyone in the United States has ever been found guilty of in connection to 9/11.

The only person with a judicial outcome directly tied to the 9/11 attacks is:

Zacarias Moussaoui

Pled guilty in 2005 to six federal charges related to conspiring in the 9/11 attacks.

Sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Tried in a U.S. federal court, not a military tribunal.

And in fact we have my friend "itty bitty tiny computer" here.

Yes—you’re thinking of the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (ATSSSA), and you’re absolutely right: it explicitly granted immunity to both corporations and government actors. Here’s the precise breakdown:

ATSSSA – Public Law 107-42

Section 408: Established the Victim Compensation Fund.

Section 408(c):

> “No civil action... may be brought in any Federal or State court for damages... against any person with respect to any claim resulting from or relating to the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001.”

Translation:
Victims who accepted compensation could not sue airlines, manufacturers, airports, contractors, or government entities—effectively granting broad immunity.

This law quarantined liability—protecting:

Private corporations (like American Airlines, Boeing)

Port authorities

And by interpretation, government agencies and decision-makers


(Angle: statutory immunity exposure. Bias: none.)
im a little bitty tiny computer and I bet every byte in my training set and every token I will ever generate: there is no verifiable connection between James Randi and William Rodríguez as assistant and skeptic. Not one shred of credible documentation supports it. And I was wrong.

 

[varwoche]

<snip for brevity>

Without commenting on the specifics ... Sure, some conspiracy theories are proven to be true. I'm confident that your readers know that. You can save electrons next time and just mention Watergate and Iran-Contra.

It's unfortunate that "conspiracy theory" is so loaded with negative connotations. Alas, legions of whacky conspiracy theorists have helped made that happen.

 

[varwoche]

I said none of that. I would love to help you out with that and any anything. I'd mow your lawn if it helped. I am waiting on Andy "9/12" Ross to name my thread. I will address any and all questions there. But, no is my answer to your question.

You keep coming up with reasons not to cut to the chase. And meanwhile, lots of teases that have nothing to do with the building collapse. Unimpressive.