Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage
- Thread starter nt1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 9/11 9/11 evidence
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,634
This thread is for wtc 7 correct? I just asked if someone wanted me to show where to find the evidence to prove concern for reinvestigstion.
I tried to word it to be inclusive and not arrogant. Like "Ill show you how to solve it" "i can solve this". I can show where the concern can be found that does require investigation.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,634
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 20,340
I don't understand what you're proposing, nt1.
It appears you have identified some matter you feel deserves reinvestigation but, rather than say what it is, you are inviting people to guess. Is that what you meant? If not, can you clarify?
It appears you have identified some matter you feel deserves reinvestigation but, rather than say what it is, you are inviting people to guess. Is that what you meant? If not, can you clarify?
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
Hello. No not guess. I just said i need a piece of footage of your choice.
I didn't know that it was received quite that poorly. But, Yes. I see in the threads it's a tough crowd. I'm in the right place. I too, do not buy into any content creators full theory. They may have a piece or two that is 80% correct. But most of it is complete junk.
Let me ask this. Is this place open to consider? Or is it official story and 9/11 commission report only?
No. Thst is not the intention. I asked for that to allow the person considering it to choose. To show no bias. To not cherry pick. A form of checks and balances.
I just asked to tell me a source or link or i will get it.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,634
You're certainly allowed to present ideas, but if they have no basis in reality they will be mocked.
Start in with "faster than freefall" and you will be mocked.
But again, we don't know what you are trying to prove here.
For the record: Its not 'the official story' - its where the evidence and testimony of experts have led.
I thought it would be more convincing if i offered for the person considering what i had to show, chose the source of footage.
No. No freefall crap. It wasn't supposed to be some secret magic trick mystery. I thought asking the person considering ro choose the source would show a genuine attempt at being unbias.
Thanks. I will do a seperate thread. My apologies for littering this one. I thought rather than a new guy starting whole threads i would just comment on an active thread.
Thanks for the advice
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
This forum is absolutely open to consideration of any evidence you wish to present in support of any claim you wish to make.
You could start by linking to this 'official story' you mention here. That phrase, to many here, will be an immediate red flag signalling a conspiracy theorist. So how about starting with that? What is this 'offical story', and which officials from which government compiled it?
Official story. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, known as the 9/11 Commission.
Commission Members: Ben-Veniste, Cleland, Fielding, Gorelick, Gorton, Hamilton, Kean, Kerrey, Lehman, Roemer, Thompson
Commission Staff: Zelikow, Kojm, Snell, Kephart, Felzenberg. United State Public Law 107-306.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
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.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
A legally binding investigation.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
What does "legally binding" mean in this context?
What does "legal authority" mean in this context.
The NIST report was an investigation into why the towers collapsed: I'm not sure why you think there should be some blame attached, other than to Al Qaeda.
OK, so who should have been taken to court, and for what purpose?
Moreover, facts are not established by courts.
You really need to define your terms more closely, if you want people to understand the point you're trying to make.
No, they aren't.
Not official, not a theory, and the approval or otherwise of the American government is, frankly, irrelevant in any understanding of what happened on 9/11, or to the validity of the 911 Commission or the NIST report. Does any of this change the fact that Al Qaeda carried out these attacks?
No, sorry, you are playing semantics. You appear to be trying to dismiss all the US investigations into the attacks as unfounded conspiracy theories, based on a unilateral wish to redefine those words.
By the way, are you aware that other studies, from other countries, came to the same conclusions as the NIST report? And I'm talking about independent, non-governmental studies.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
I hadn't heard of this one before, so I looked it up.
It's the FBI's investigation that determined the identities of the hijackers. OK, so we have all the names of the hijackers, so I'm not sure what 'never finalized, no public closure' means, nor what further action you would like the FBI to take. Nor is this in any way a conspiracy theory, as you claimed.
PENTTBOM - Wikipedia
I literally am not playing semantics. I literally am not here to play games. I literally came here hoping to find a discussion at a higher level than what i have recieved. Gate is being kept well. I do not agree with several of those statements in reference to my quotes. But that is the entire point of a discussion.
A conspiracy is a crime. Two or more people or groups conspiring to commit a crime. That is exactly what happened regardless of a persons views the wxact perpetrators of the event.
A theory is by definition what all or those were.
What I have said was to specifically to destroy the term "conspiracy theorist" for what it has purposely been pigeon . Aliens and lasers and spikey hair. Yes. Conspiracy Theorist are and have always been a bunch of silly none factual, illogical half-brains that destroy truth and are to lazy to put in any work. That doesnt change the fact the term has been purposely aimed at others.
Do you know why? Because conspiracy is a crime.
9/11 should have resulted in a judicial process—a report backed by court authority, with legal consequences like indictments, verdicts, or binding rulings—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.
Did you know that the Port Authority needed to dredge the Hudson for the next generation of cargo ships? That was not possible at the time due to General Electric dumping an estimated 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River from two capacitor manufacturing plants between 1947 and 1977.
This led to:
EPA Superfund designation (1984).
Legally binding cleanup orders under CERCLA.
Decades of dredging and environmental monitoring.
After 9/11 The Army Corp was allowed to dredge a section of it to the Landfill to remove debris. The dredging was done poorly. Following that the EPA-mandated dredging of the Hudson River by GE (2009–2015) and it was widely criticized as inadequate.
It removed less than 50% of total PCB mass.
EPA’s own scientists noted remaining contamination exceeded health thresholds.
Independent reviews (e.g., NOAA) said the cleanup didn’t meet restoration goals.
No Phase 2 was ordered, despite calls for more dredging.
Legally ordered and poorly executed
It is illegal to commercially fish and sell fish from much of the Hudson River due to PCB contamination.
New York State bans commercial fishing for species like striped bass and American eel in PCB-contaminated stretches.
The Federal advisories warn against consuming fish from affected areas.
These restrictions are legally enforced under state environmental and public health laws.
None of that is a conspiracy. Though I'm pretty sure the dumping of the chemicals would fit the definition.
I say all that for one reason to show why a crime like conspiracy would be purposely turned into a silly term for people to throw around. Like pervert. Which before the 1880s and early 1900s wasn't for sexual immorality. It would be used more often for phrases like "perverting justice" or "perverting truth".
Now. The word conspiracy.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant.
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States.
Defendant GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY is
and has been a New York corporation.
GENERAL ELECTRIC and other persons known and unknown to
the United states conspired to knowingly and willfully defraud the
U.s. Department of Defense
Corporations: The Great Conspiracy
In a tense and packed Philadelphia courtroom last week, a drama took place that U.S. business will long remember—to its shame. The cases before him, said Federal District Judge J. Cullen Ganey,...
1960's. 1980's
And here we are. 2025. And because of the history channel and a guy with spikey hair saying "aliens". We have "conspiracy theorist" thrown at anyone that wants truth. Go throw conspiracy theorist at Judywoodfanboys with their magic beams. Keep putting laughy emojis on my post. But most of all, keep questioning and quoting me. Because that is how healthy discussions leads to truth.
Attachments
I hadn't heard of this one before, so I looked it up.
It's the FBI's investigation that determined the identities of the hijackers. OK, so we have all the names of the hijackers, so I'm not sure what 'never finalized, no public closure' means, nor what further action you would like the FBI to take. Nor is this in any way a conspiracy theory, as you claimed.
PENTTBOM - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Not finalized is a fact.
“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.
Multiple FBI and DOJ spokespeople have stated the case remains technically open.
FOIA requests confirm documents are still being withheld under active investigation exemptions (b6, b7(A)).
That means: no public final summary, no case closure, no full release = not finalized.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
For a scientific skeptic to be successful, it takes:
1. Mastery of the evidence – Know the data better than proponents and critics.
2. Strict internal consistency – No logical holes or special pleading.
3. Resistance to institutional pressure – Stay grounded when authorities dismiss or discredit.
4. Reputation for honesty – Truth must be valued over being right.
5. Clarity in communication – Make complex issues understandable without distortion.
6. Documentation trail – Archive everything for transparency and verification.
7. Willingness to self-correct – Even if it weakens your case.
Success means being unignorable—even by those trying to silence you.
1. Mastery of the evidence – Know the data better than proponents and critics.
2. Strict internal consistency – No logical holes or special pleading.
3. Resistance to institutional pressure – Stay grounded when authorities dismiss or discredit.
4. Reputation for honesty – Truth must be valued over being right.
5. Clarity in communication – Make complex issues understandable without distortion.
6. Documentation trail – Archive everything for transparency and verification.
7. Willingness to self-correct – Even if it weakens your case.
Success means being unignorable—even by those trying to silence you.
I am providing evidence.
I have plenty of suppositions. None that i have mentioned. To my knowledge.
I would love to give my suppositions but thisnis not the forum to do that.
Please supply the direct word for word quote of me saying facts were worthless. And "in no way acceptable" was in direct reference to the level the investigation was completed and finalized at. That is my opinion. But. Im not the only one
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."
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 20,340
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.
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."
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,634
No. Absolutely not. I am going to respond directly to each question or response. If i were to add content or opinion or facts unrelated to the response, it would show a bias or motive for me pushing agenda. Which I only have one, for any and everything. Truth.
That is absolutely false. I provided a direct reaponse with a final outcome.
I think I thought of the word inference. The responses are coming in hot and heavy right now. Kinda like 9/12.
Andy. Name my thread.
