Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[Jack by the hedge]

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

It's not especially puzzling that someone who got prosecuted for their part in a suicide attack was prosecuted for conspiring to do it rather than for actually doing it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...(Angle: statutory immunity exposure. Bias: none.)
im a little bitty tiny computer

I don't know what this reference means, but then I'm not sure if I'm supposed to.

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.

I had to look William Rodríguez up to be reminded who he is. I had no idea until I looked at his Wikipedia page just now that he used to work with James Randi. Small world.

Do you think that has some significance?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Wait. Is William Rodríguez the gotcha?

We're all here because something something James Randi and what we each believe about 9/11 is something something guy who used to work with Randi, so we're all biased against seeing the real truth which will be revealed on about page 80 of the thread that hasn't even got a name yet?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Can you think of a reason that the other hijackers weren't put on trial?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

It's not my job to name your thread.

 

[theprestige]

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.

So it's some form of LIHOP/MIHOP that you're asymptotically approaching.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's not my job to name your thread.

I suggest "James Randi had an inside man on 9/11". That's clickbaity enough I reckon.

 

[Oystein]

nt1 says:

I literally am not playing semantics.

nt1 also says, in the very same post:

...
What I have said was to specifically to destroy the term "conspiracy theorist" for what it has purposely been pigeon . ...

Now. The word conspiracy.
...
... We have "conspiracy theorist" thrown at anyone that wants truth. Go throw conspiracy theorist at Judywoodfanboys ...

I deleted very long tracts of text you threw in as part of your playing semantics.

The point is: You are MASSIVELY debating the SEMANTICS of the term "conspiracy theorist" and of the word "conspiracy".

Can you show cause for why you ought not be mocked for introducing this lengthy Play on Semantics with the false claim "I literally am not playing semantics"?

 

[Oystein]

...
“PENTTBOM not finalized” is a fact in this way:

There is no publicly released final report from the FBI officially concluding the PENTTBOM (Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing) investigation.
...

Why would you expect a a complex FBI investigation ti get officially concluded by the public release of a final report?
Can you present as evidence a statutory duty to do just that, or present a couple of examples of previous complex FBI investigations that were concluded and finalized by the public release of a final report, so that you could argue it's a common and expected practice, even if not technically mandated?

 

[Disbelief]

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.

I predict run of the mill truther.

 

[kookbreaker]

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.

These quotes were indicative of the frustration the investigators, and they did have to struggle. But ultimately they felt they did a proper investigation and made a proper report. Which put those quotes into the "out of context" category. Its like quoting Wilbur Wright saying "Man will not fly for a thousand years" after he had a bad day and deciding airplanes are a hoax.

Don't get to full of yourself. We've dealt with a lot more than Judy Wood around here and so far you haven't done anything special. Also, drop the martyr complex.

 

[Oystein]

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

I suggest we all just accept the fact that EVERYBODY understands the term the same today: It is derogatory short hand for people who claim a criminal conspiracy that is NOT TRUE. That "not true" bit is implied by the term "conspiracy theory".
If you want to theorize about a proposed conspiracy that is actually true, or at least plausible and not yet debunked, you surely will avoid saying you have a "conspiracy theory". You would say "a theory involving a conspiracy" instead, or whatever gets the point across without using the loaded term.

In fact, I have found it useful to consistently adhere to a strict definition of a related, more specific term:

DEFINITION: A "9/11 Truther" is a person who persists in being essentially wrong about 9/11.​

Each word in that definition is necessary:
"persist" implies that you are not a 9/11 Truther if you initially are wrong about 9/11, but are able to and do revise your stance once you obtain more and better information. Everybody can be wrong about anything for a while.
"essentially" recognizes that some/most/all "9/11 Truthers" are right about some details and aspects of the larger topic (e.g. almost all acknowledge 9/11 occurres on 9/11/2001, involved major destructive events in NYC, and that the sun shone from a blue sky. Being partially right does not suffice to not be called a "9/11 Truther", if you persist in being wrong about the essence of they events: If you deny that people dies; if you deny airiners were used; if you blame it on Jews, you are wrong about the essence of 9/11. Conversely, you could be mistaken or ignorant about some details and aspects, while understanding the essentials. Such ancillary wrongness would then not make you a "Truther".

Try this definition on Truthers and non-Truthers of all stripes: You will find it really captures what you already knew the term "really" means.

So I suggest someone coin a broader definition of the term "conspiracy theory" that captures that its adherents persist in being essentially wrong when proposing a specific or unspecific conspiracy is to blame for some societal ill, such as a major crime or a public crisis.

 

[Oystein]

Which piece of footage of the impact or collapse would anyone like me to show cause for concern with? I need a specific example to reply to. Please dont just say "any". That wont be fair if i pick it. Im hoping to find a legitimate piece of footage to apply science to.

Since nobody can guess what the heck you are driving at, well, why not start with this? It's bin on YT for 14 years now, and the poster, Nathan Flach, I think did as good a job as anyone to get his hands on videos as close to the original as we can hope for, with no edits.


So please, @nt1 , show cause for concern with this video by applying science to it!

 

[varwoche]

There are certain things that are frequently exhibited by fact-free conspiracy theorists: Evasiveness. Vagueness. Gish galloping. Taking things out of context. Smugness. Playing the victim.

 

[nt1]

nt1 says:

nt1 also says, in the very same post:

I deleted very long tracts of text you threw in as part of your playing semantics.

The point is: You are MASSIVELY debating the SEMANTICS of the term "conspiracy theorist" and of the word "conspiracy".

Can you show cause for why you ought not be mocked for introducing this lengthy Play on Semantics with the false claim "I literally am not playing semantics"?

Get out of here. Hilarious. You do what makes you happy.

Enjoy your life.

I'm busy reading about James Randi and the manefesto he signed. Researching American Humanist Association.

This place is a joke so far. So enjoy your parade.

 

[nt1]

Why would you expect a a complex FBI investigation ti get officially concluded by the public release of a final report?
Can you present as evidence a statutory duty to do just that, or present a couple of examples of previous complex FBI investigations that were concluded and finalized by the public release of a final report, so that you could argue it's a common and expected practice, even if not technically mandated?

Why would i expect that? I cant take that serious. That's hilarious.

 

[nt1]

I predict run of the mill truther.

Predict what you want. Low effort guesses and team work. Thats what i see from you lot.

 

[nt1]

These quotes were indicative of the frustration the investigators, and they did have to struggle. But ultimately they felt they did a proper investigation and made a proper report. Which put those quotes into the "out of context" category. Its like quoting Wilbur Wright saying "Man will not fly for a thousand years" after he had a bad day and deciding airplanes are a hoax.

Don't get to full of yourself. We've dealt with a lot more than Judy Wood around here and so far you haven't done anything special. Also, drop the martyr complex.

Do i need to bring you examples of difficulties had during the Commission. Do i need to bringnyou the publicly documented facts? Do i need to do your research for you?

Look big guy. You are all a joke. And a team too. Ill be back to deal with hilarious mess you have enjoyed creating.

 

[nt1]

These quotes were indicative of the frustration the investigators, and they did have to struggle. But ultimately they felt they did a proper investigation and made a proper report. Which put those quotes into the "out of context" category. Its like quoting Wilbur Wright saying "Man will not fly for a thousand years" after he had a bad day and deciding airplanes are a hoax.

Don't get to full of yourself. We've dealt with a lot more than Judy Wood around here and so far you haven't done anything special. Also, drop the martyr complex.

Get full of myself? Difficult when im dealing with your team. Its been fun so far. Im reading this humanism manifesto. I ll be back. Nothing like having a manifesto....

 

[nt1]

Since nobody can guess what the heck you are driving at, well, why not start with this? It's bin on YT for 14 years now, and the poster, Nathan Flach, I think did as good a job as anyone to get his hands on videos as close to the original as we can hope for, with no edits.


So please, @nt1 , show cause for concern with this video by applying science to it!

Thank you. Thank you. That was all i asked for in the first place. Thank you. Geez.