Sooooooort of? OP didn't title or start the thread. It was kind of presented to him. He made it pretty clear early on that he planned to rapid fire multiple lines of anomalies, and field them as they come, not stick to one narrow topic. His own title would likely have differed.
We seem to be dealing with another scatterbrained truther here. nt1 started on the investigations, then moved to pictures, and is now on cancelled flight reservations. Thus far, no coherent claim has been presented, nor has any convincing evidence been offered up to support these multiple vague insinuations. I don't see this changing any time soon.
Not my area of expertise. I only looked in to check you were getting knowledgeable and helpful responses from the several posters here who understand this stuff, which you clearly are. It's their posts you should be reading and responding to, but it looks like you've put them all on ignore. Which is a shame, as it means you are determined not to learn anything.
Hi there. I disagree. I am getting helpful responses. I am getting reaponses from proclaimed knowledge that i believe withiut verifying.
I disagree that it is accurate.
One ear is mine. One ear is mine added back to the same photo. Notice. Halo. Edge. White line. This is what you see when a photo is composited
Notice orange t shirt and sholder.
One fuzzy. Fuzzy is good.
Original photo. Cellphone picture of a photo i am physically holding.
One smooth. Smooth bad.
Cropped out. Saved as a file. Add back in to a file of original photo of a photo. Yes.. i knowbthat reads silly. And if yiu are genuine i will try to say it anyway that is more helpful
Politely.
Regardless of claimed credentials
Regardless of my inferior experience or knowledge
No.
I do not decide light.
I do not decide how it works in footage.
It is what it is.
Real
Altered
To what degree is what i admit is above my expertise to conclusively say.
As i have said before.
I respect truth above all. But the response i have recieved.
Is similarly like,
cavemen seeing fire for the first time. Or. Kubrick 2001. Apes seeing the monolith
There was a fire up the block from me a couple weeks ago. If you were to scrutinize my movements preceding the fire in detail, there were oddities occurring over and over in every area. My truck can be tracked leaving a location, then apruptly returning to that location before resuming on the original course (I realized I left my phone on the jobsite and went back for it). Then my vehicle travels, and makes another abrupt U-turn around the block, and stops at a location for about 15 minutes (passed by the grocery store and realized I forgot to pick up coffee, then met a buddy in there and we talked a while). Upon arriving at home, I immediately set out walking in aimlessly around the neigborhood (walking the dog). A few minutes later, the fire trucks were rolling.
The fire investigators do not know my parantheticals, just my movements. Are they 'oddities occurring over and over in every area', and should they be suspicious of me starting the fire? Or maybe when you micro scrutinize every detail, do anamolies turn up that look suspicious to a suspicious mind?
Should we be suspicious of Mark Wahlberg and Jackie Chan? Seems awfully odd that they knew not to be where they were supposed to be at exactly the right time, doesn't it?
ETA: very suspiciously, Mark Wahlberg is believed to have used the alias of Marky Mark, associated with a suspicious group known as The Funky Bunch.
Hi there. I do not understand the reference or relevance. Genuinely.
If this is an important reference to you, please let me know what you qould like .e to focus on or how to compare it to my post you compared this to. Thanks.
(Art. I feel like you did ask a genuine question. I am skeptical. But please. If you are unsatisfied or would like a reply from me for clarity. I will do that. I have reservations about everyone's genuine interest based on interrupting results)
*This is not spam. It is an extended reply with time spent back and forth working on it.
Hi Art
I change my opinion based on my and others research. I claim no authority or permanent conclusion. Im working on truth at all times.
It was a one day civil war.
If secret societies exist. They dont want everyone. So not everyone was in on it.
Embedded groups across multiple industries and institutions participated with personal agenda.
Not one group knew when or how or what was going to happen
.
The group that knew every last detail probably totalled 12 humans.
there is no name for them. Not even a name like Rosicrusian. Ill show you how George Bush did not know.
partial list of participants.
Media of any kind. Computer design. Actors. Insurance. Aviation. Insurance. State and federal agencies. Institutions.
participants that were unknown to them.
Go to fbi .gov. type flight 93.
If the fbi were completely in on it OR they were completely satisfied with it being genuine. They would not be stupid enough, which they are not, to post a self made video with three people in a row saying there was no sign of a plane there.
No single person knows more than the amount they can incriminate themselves. No one can prove enough to even be worth saying anything. And if they did... It probably looks like edward norton turning himself in at the police station during the movie fight club.
Also. 25 years later many are dead.
Not many left to tell on each other
YouTube started in 2005. Thats 4 years to collect and scrub
The patriot act and a couple other laws allowed mass surveillance wirh no privacy.
Besides guantanamo bay there were 3 other black sites. Czech. Phillipines. Cant remember other. Laws passed that would allow the right scrutiny to be silenced with no judicial law.
"Here is New York. A Democracy of photography" collected photos. My guess.... signed NDA's and scrubbed them. Look at the contributors list. I did.
Look for reaidence statements about returning and their apartments looted. Say the same thing. Cameras. Laptops. Gone.
I would guess rhey went door to door and collected any chance of unconteolled evidence.
Look at each and every photographer and victim. Let me know when you find one you feel comfortable with wanting me to show cause for. I would love to find one.
Chatty.
However, if your point was about a systemic failure of prosecutorial accountability or investigation (i.e., that prosecutors, intelligence, or law enforcement agencies failed to act on evidence), then this reply is either missing or sidestepping that.
You're right. I do know that’s exactly what you meant—and yes, that part is not addressed in their reply at all.
They framed your claim as if you misunderstood how courts function, when in fact your point was about a systemic failure by prosecutors, investigators, and intelligence agencies to act on known evidence or pursue accountability. That critique is completely dodged in their response.
They created a straw man—correctly describing how courts don’t issue indictments on their own—while ignoring the real accusation: that the people who do have that responsibility failed or refused to do their job in the aftermath of 9/11.
They framed your claim as if you misunderstood how courts function, when in fact your point was about a systemic failure by prosecutors, investigators, and intelligence agencies to act on known evidence or pursue accountability. That critique is completely dodged in their response.
They created a straw man—correctly describing how courts don’t issue indictments on their own—while ignoring the real accusation: that the people who do have that responsibility failed or refused to do their job in the aftermath of 9/11.
3. Obstruction After the Event:
FBI agents like Coleen Rowley, Robert Wright, and others documented obstruction by higher-ups when they tried to pursue investigations pre- and post-9/11.
4. Whitewashed Investigations:
The 9/11 Commission was formed under pressure, underfunded, and heavily constrained in scope. Key witnesses weren’t subpoenaed under oath. Testimony was sometimes done in secret or not at all. Evidence was omitted.
5. No Indictments at High Levels:
No intelligence director, White House official, or agency leader was charged for gross negligence, willful suppression of intelligence, or obstruction of justice—despite clear trails of failure and, in some cases, willful blindness.
6. Destruction of Evidence:
Key evidence (e.g., tapes, documents) was destroyed. For instance, the CIA admitted to destroying videotapes of interrogations against court orders.
7. Use of the Event to Justify Further Abuse:
Instead of prosecutions, 9/11 was used to pass laws like the PATRIOT Act, and to launch wars that had no direct connection to the attackers—wars predicated on manipulated intelligence.
This was not a failure of courts misunderstanding their role. This was a system-wide failure—or refusal—of every tier tasked with oversight, investigation, and prosecution. No indictments, no accountability, and no genuine judicial reckoning.
1. PENTTBOM – First Public Acknowledgment/Update:
Initial public mention: September 12, 2001
FBI Director Robert Mueller publicly announced that the FBI had launched an investigation into the attacks, later named PENTTBOM.
Detailed update: September 13–14, 2001
The FBI released the names of the 19 hijackers and stated that they had identified those responsible.
This update was made public before any grand jury proceedings or judicial review, and within 72 hours of the attacks.
So:
Investigation began: Sept 11, 2001
Named and blamed individuals: Sept 13–14, 2001
No indictments issued at this time
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.
PENTTBOM was never formally announced as "finalized."
However, the closest official statements indicating its closure or completion came in late 2004 to early 2005, when:
FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that the core facts of the 9/11 plot were understood and the primary perpetrators identified.
September 2004: The FBI quietly reduced active fieldwork on PENTTBOM, shifting resources to broader counterterrorism efforts.
Internally, it was treated as largely completed by 2005, though it technically remains open as a case file for any future leads.
There has never been a formal closure announcement to the public—no press conference, no final report, no DOJ statement declaring the investigation concluded.
So:
De facto conclusion: 2004–2005, quietly.
No formal public finalization ever occurred.
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.
Well, sure, but as a practical reference structure, it works. Beats the hell out of "Here's a random partial handwritten page, figure out where it allegedly came from in your free hours". I've spent enough of my life playing Where's Waldo without seeking more.
A where's waldo reference used for 9/11 is not the most sincere.
Do you want the link for the files for the investigstion of cancelled flights that day?
It is on fbi . gov in the vaults. Ill bring it if needed.
It may lead to more productive replies from me if you told me your do's and dont's of 9/11 comments or your personal or group theory. It may help me understand what it is that i said that is least well recieved.
I see a genuine attempt at giving me a chance. Im trying to match the level of scrutiny and sincerity with adequate information.
No, it's what you see when there is a midtone boundary and you aggressively emphasize midtones for no apparent reason. Besides, the one example is against a bright boundary. That's the one you're claiming has no "halo."
He's explaining to you the central fallacy of anomaly-hunting.
If you closely examine one example of something, you will necessarily learn more about that one example than you can know about other examples that you don't study carefully. It is then tempting to assume that everything you see wrong with that one example pertains to that example only, and wouldn't be found anywhere else. Then it's tempting to try to weave that into the narrative of whatever happened that made you look closely at that one example.
Then you should make your case for its inaccuracy to the posters whose inaccuracy you are questioning, and who have the expertise that you and I both lack.
JayUtah has kindly taken the time and trouble to share his considerable expertise with you in several long posts. To simply ignore him is not only incredibly rude but remarkably stupid. He has just responded to your post to me.
Jay says: No, it's what you see when there is a midtone boundary and you aggressively emphasize midtones for no apparent reason. Besides, the one example is against a bright boundary. That's the one you're claiming has no "halo."
It's an illustration of the fact that if you look for weirdness, you will find it. You can either accept that some things look weird and that there are usually good reasons for it, or you can raise up the weirdness as "evidence" for something "shady" going on. Here, I'll do a quick edit of Thermal's post to make it obvious what it means to anomaly hunt:
If you were to scrutinize the subject's movements preceding the fire in detail, there were oddities occurring over and over in every area. The subject's truck can be tracked leaving a location, then abruptly returning to that location before resuming on the original course. Then the vehicle travels, and makes another abrupt U-turn around the block, and stops at a location for about 15 minutes. Upon arriving at his home, the subject immediately set out walking, apparently aimlessly, around the neighbourhood. A few minutes later, the fire trucks were rolling. What was the subject doing prior to the fire? Why did the truck backtrack, twice? What was the subject trying to hide? What happened during the 15 minute wait? When the subject got home, did they go out on foot to check drop locations? I'm just asking questions.
I also have concerns that the responses we get here may be AI generated too. If this was a real person posting some of this snark, I would be worried about the level of unhealthy paranoia. That said, I am not going to waste my time delving into a clearly disturbed mental state.
I had that impression after reading nt1's first couple of posts. Currently on page 8 of this train wreck, and have read nothing that seriously challenges that suspicion.
Hi there. I disagree. I am getting helpful responses. I am getting reaponses from proclaimed knowledge that i believe withiut verifying.
I disagree that it is accurate.
One ear is mine. One ear is mine added back to the same photo. Notice. Halo. Edge. White line. This is what you see when a photo is composited
Notice orange t shirt and sholder.
One fuzzy. Fuzzy is good.
Original photo. Cellphone picture of a photo i am physically holding.
One smooth. Smooth bad.
Cropped out. Saved as a file. Add back in to a file of original photo of a photo. Yes.. i knowbthat reads silly. And if yiu are genuine i will try to say it anyway that is more helpful
Politely.
Regardless of claimed credentials
Regardless of my inferior experience or knowledge
No.
I do not decide light.
I do not decide how it works in footage.
It is what it is.
Real
Altered
To what degree is what i admit is above my expertise to conclusively say.
As i have said before.
I respect truth above all. But the response i have recieved.
Is similarly like,
cavemen seeing fire for the first time. Or. Kubrick 2001. Apes seeing the monolith
Not 9/11 specifically; it's the site's general protocol. There are a lot of topics here we will all be engaging in, from American politics to the Shroud of Turin. There simply aren't enough hours in the day to go a-hunting for every claimants original sources.
That's one thing you really do need to accept: it's your responsibility to cite your source clearly. No screenshots. No link to millions of docs in a database. Cite it very specifically if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it's assumed you are yanking our chains recreationally.
It would be helpful to cite the specific documents you rely on for your argument, yes. Not partial screenshots from whereever.
Honestly, bro: just forget you ever learned the screenshot feature here. It never helps, and always makes discussion unnecessarily complicated. Attach images only when necessary, and links only to primary sources (not databases).
It may lead to more productive replies from me if you told me your do's and dont's of 9/11 comments or your personal or group theory. It may help me understand what it is that i said that is least well recieved.
Anything goes for your own position, but be ready to cite your specific source and defend it against criticism. Your comments and opinions and interpretations are your own, and if delivered honestly, will be well-received (although often challenged). We are all skeptics, and can be swayed by persuasive evidence. Almost every one of us has had long-standing ideas changed through forum debate. Hell, you might present some ◊◊◊◊ that permanently rattles our cages. We are open to it, but it needs to be solid.
Seriously man, welcome to the forum. You can speak your mind, and you'll get the hang of the level.of argumentation expected. We had a guy here that said he could prove people were immortal... mathematically. Goofy, yeah? But the discussion went on for years, with really intriguing sidebars.
Tl;dr: it doesn't matter what you say. It matters how rigorously you present it, and how honestly you debate it.
Hi there. I do not understand the reference or relevance. Genuinely.
If this is an important reference to you, please let me know what you qould like .e to focus on or how to compare it to my post you compared this to. Thanks.
arthwollipot and JayUtah already summed it up well. What I'm saying is that all kinds of ◊◊◊◊ is happening all the time, and it doesn't necessarily tie into what you are focusing on (in this case, passenger attendance on flight 11). Sometimes stuff is running independently parallel to the big picture. Mark Walberg and Jackie Chan, again. Should we be suspicious of their absence, when they were both supoosed to meet in a ball of burning jet fuel? Were they tipped off? I kinda doubt it.
As Thermal said, yes to the link. Please don't attach the file to a post. Nothing personal, but when you post a file, readers are unable to independently confirm where it came from and that it hasn't been altered.
As Thermal said, yes to the link. Please don't attach the file to a post. Nothing personal, but when you post a file, readers are unable to independently confirm where it came from and that it hasn't been altered.
And again, don't link to a database. You need to be specific enough to the doc where we can consider the evidence you rely on without playing scavenger hunt.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
