Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[Axxman300]

Lets move on.

No, coward, you still have six photos you've ignored. Either your app works or it doesn't.

-Claim: the footage. Photos. Stories. Everything. Was designed. Controlled. Controlled after. Controlled now. By design.

No. This is standard delusional thinking. Debunked a thousand times over.

-2006 is a general year you csn give to ehn footage was released back to those ALLOWED and INVITED to film and attend the event.

Lol, no. You've obviously never been to New York nor met someone from New York. Maybe get out of the basement or trailer park sometime.

-From 2001 to 2005 footage was swept. Deleted. NDA'S were signed

Really? Cool, you must have copies of this NDAs, right? You can show them to us, right? Should we hold our breath?

-Youtube began in 2005. The controlled conspiracy theories and their characthers were created and controlled. All. If you know about them. They were placed.

...And what about the other online video sharing sites that were up and running between 2001 and 2005? Most of us saw 911 videos online long before Youtube, so I'm guessing you're under 25.

The bystanders in the footage. Placed. Invited. Those that weren't were mixed in and guided out of a zone that was fully controlled and guided. The people you see in that footage are purposely placed and instructed. By different groups. For different reasons. With a single aligned set of instructions and rules.

Bless your heart, you really need to get to NYC sometime. The locals take street closures with stride and silent stoicism...just kidding, the yell at the cops, and call the mayor's office. And with a population of over 1.5 million people in a 22 square mile area the closures would have been news. Not only did this not happen, it wouldn't be possible.

The way the event is created and controlled is the same way you build a pyramid.

Actually, this is true. It would take 35,000 to 60,000 people to pull off. And they all have to stay silent for all this time. I'm guessing you're not a social person because your grasp of the basics of human nature are non-existent.

No one knew all three of these. Knew when, where, how. Even Bush. This csn be seen by his face. In the school. He knew they got one over on him.

Well now, junior, someone had to know all three if it was a conspiracy.

The alternative. The event, as you protect it, is complete damage control. Id did happen. It would require a extensive theory to pass that off. But to give it credence i eill tell you you can get port authority security cameras labeled 7:50am. That allows for a real attack that happened one hour before and they scrambled to control narrative. The reason would be the contractors protecting their money. Dont worry. I know your confused. I dont blame you. You dont and shouldnt put this type of time into studying public documents and facts.

This doesn't make any sense. And you're wrong about scrambling to control a narrative because in the first hour nobody knew what was happening. As far as the Port Authority cameras go, the tower cameras and systems were destroyed, but enough survived. Super Paw over at Quora, and Substack has a bunch of Port Authority footage complete with graphic content, if that's your thing. Point is, the videos are out there if you take the time to search.

Anyway. Not one person is going to "win" any debate on 9/11 with me. Why? Because i only use public documents. Facts the public use. I subscribe to none. I make guesses, inferences, and suppositions. But they are based on things that are accessible by all. I also only use documents and facts that accepted.

Nobody cares. You have yet to engage in a debate. Many of us know survivors, and eye-witnesses to the attacks of 9-11, and don't have to rely on public documents (which you ignore, BTW).

-Footage is garbage. A couple hours learning what a luma curve does and doesnt do, is all you need to ask genuine questions.

A genuine question? Like why do you ignore Jay Utah's explanation of the Luma Curve, and how you're misusing it? Or the other big question: Why do you ignore Andy's six photos? If the Luma Curve BS works this should be a snap, so why continue to it?

he accounts, on other platforms, to this day, are better evidence than the footage that 9/11 is a criminal conspiracy. Whether in part or full.

Yes, Al Qaeda engaged in a conspiracy to hijack four commercial jetliners and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon. In full.

1946 federal aviation act. Sets in action the ability to federally control the event.

Even a casual observer of 9-11 can tell your the FAA and USAF controlled nothing.

Recap. There is a public airport in Saudi Arabia. the Dhahran International Airport. It was built with US Govt money for the USAF. A civilian terminal later designed by the WTC architect. With the Bin Ladins previously connected to oil interests, as well as providing future financing for the airport.

In one airport. You have. The US military and govt. The Saudi govt. STANDARD OIL AMARCO interests. The Bin Ladens. The WTC architect.

You gloss over the whole WWII and Cold War thing. And the Bin Landen Group is still the go-to construction firm in the Middle East when you need to get the job done right, and on time. We get it, you're racist. To you, Arabs can't think for themselves, and could never be clever enough to pull off the attacks on 9-11 because the USA is just some unstoppable giant, and thus the USA must have staged 9-11.

Can't wait to hear why the attacks were faked.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

No, coward, you still have six photos you've ignored. Either your app works or it doesn't.


No. This is standard delusional thinking. Debunked a thousand times over.


Lol, no. You've obviously never been to New York nor met someone from New York. Maybe get out of the basement or trailer park sometime.


Really? Cool, you must have copies of this NDAs, right? You can show them to us, right? Should we hold our breath?


...And what about the other online video sharing sites that were up and running between 2001 and 2005? Most of us saw 911 videos online long before Youtube, so I'm guessing you're under 25.


Bless your heart, you really need to get to NYC sometime. The locals take street closures with stride and silent stoicism...just kidding, the yell at the cops, and call the mayor's office. And with a population of over 1.5 million people in a 22 square mile area the closures would have been news. Not only did this not happen, it wouldn't be possible.


Actually, this is true. It would take 35,000 to 60,000 people to pull off. And they all have to stay silent for all this time. I'm guessing you're not a social person because your grasp of the basics of human nature are non-existent.


Well now, junior, someone had to know all three if it was a conspiracy.


This doesn't make any sense. And you're wrong about scrambling to control a narrative because in the first hour nobody knew what was happening. As far as the Port Authority cameras go, the tower cameras and systems were destroyed, but enough survived. Super Paw over at Quora, and Substack has a bunch of Port Authority footage complete with graphic content, if that's your thing. Point is, the videos are out there if you take the time to search.


Nobody cares. You have yet to engage in a debate. Many of us know survivors, and eye-witnesses to the attacks of 9-11, and don't have to rely on public documents (which you ignore, BTW).

A genuine question? Like why do you ignore Jay Utah's explanation of the Luma Curve, and how you're misusing it? Or the other big question: Why do you ignore Andy's six photos? If the Luma Curve BS works this should be a snap, so why continue to it?

Yes, Al Qaeda engaged in a conspiracy to hijack four commercial jetliners and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon. In full.

Even a casual observer of 9-11 can tell your the FAA and USAF controlled nothing.


You gloss over the whole WWII and Cold War thing. And the Bin Landen Group is still the go-to construction firm in the Middle East when you need to get the job done right, and on time. We get it, you're racist. To you, Arabs can't think for themselves, and could never be clever enough to pull off the attacks on 9-11 because the USA is just some unstoppable giant, and thus the USA must have staged 9-11.

Can't wait to hear why the attacks were faked.

^Just this

 

[nt1]

Joking aside, it does annoy me when people march into a community which has been in existence since (if I recall correctly) before they were born announcing that they're actually too good to be there and everyone there will fail to meet their standards, and tries to redefine the accepted terms of discourse because they can't meet the standards (note, standards not volume) of evidence and discourse that are expected here. This is a welcoming place, but bring your ego & nothing to back it up and you'll make a fool of yourself pretty quickly.

I disagree with the assessment.

 

[nt1]

No, coward, you still have six photos you've ignored. Either your app works or it doesn't.


No. This is standard delusional thinking. Debunked a thousand times over.


Lol, no. You've obviously never been to New York nor met someone from New York. Maybe get out of the basement or trailer park sometime.


Really? Cool, you must have copies of this NDAs, right? You can show them to us, right? Should we hold our breath?


...And what about the other online video sharing sites that were up and running between 2001 and 2005? Most of us saw 911 videos online long before Youtube, so I'm guessing you're under 25.


Bless your heart, you really need to get to NYC sometime. The locals take street closures with stride and silent stoicism...just kidding, the yell at the cops, and call the mayor's office. And with a population of over 1.5 million people in a 22 square mile area the closures would have been news. Not only did this not happen, it wouldn't be possible.


Actually, this is true. It would take 35,000 to 60,000 people to pull off. And they all have to stay silent for all this time. I'm guessing you're not a social person because your grasp of the basics of human nature are non-existent.


Well now, junior, someone had to know all three if it was a conspiracy.


This doesn't make any sense. And you're wrong about scrambling to control a narrative because in the first hour nobody knew what was happening. As far as the Port Authority cameras go, the tower cameras and systems were destroyed, but enough survived. Super Paw over at Quora, and Substack has a bunch of Port Authority footage complete with graphic content, if that's your thing. Point is, the videos are out there if you take the time to search.


Nobody cares. You have yet to engage in a debate. Many of us know survivors, and eye-witnesses to the attacks of 9-11, and don't have to rely on public documents (which you ignore, BTW).

A genuine question? Like why do you ignore Jay Utah's explanation of the Luma Curve, and how you're misusing it? Or the other big question: Why do you ignore Andy's six photos? If the Luma Curve BS works this should be a snap, so why continue to it?

Yes, Al Qaeda engaged in a conspiracy to hijack four commercial jetliners and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon. In full.

Even a casual observer of 9-11 can tell your the FAA and USAF controlled nothing.


You gloss over the whole WWII and Cold War thing. And the Bin Landen Group is still the go-to construction firm in the Middle East when you need to get the job done right, and on time. We get it, you're racist. To you, Arabs can't think for themselves, and could never be clever enough to pull off the attacks on 9-11 because the USA is just some unstoppable giant, and thus the USA must have staged 9-11.

Can't wait to hear why the attacks were faked.

Did you call me racist? And for what reason?

 

[nt1]

^Just this

No. I was called a racist. So no. Not just calling me a coward after i responded to all six photos.

 

[nt1]

No, coward, you still have six photos you've ignored. Either your app works or it doesn't.


No. This is standard delusional thinking. Debunked a thousand times over.


Lol, no. You've obviously never been to New York nor met someone from New York. Maybe get out of the basement or trailer park sometime.


Really? Cool, you must have copies of this NDAs, right? You can show them to us, right? Should we hold our breath?


...And what about the other online video sharing sites that were up and running between 2001 and 2005? Most of us saw 911 videos online long before Youtube, so I'm guessing you're under 25.


Bless your heart, you really need to get to NYC sometime. The locals take street closures with stride and silent stoicism...just kidding, the yell at the cops, and call the mayor's office. And with a population of over 1.5 million people in a 22 square mile area the closures would have been news. Not only did this not happen, it wouldn't be possible.


Actually, this is true. It would take 35,000 to 60,000 people to pull off. And they all have to stay silent for all this time. I'm guessing you're not a social person because your grasp of the basics of human nature are non-existent.


Well now, junior, someone had to know all three if it was a conspiracy.


This doesn't make any sense. And you're wrong about scrambling to control a narrative because in the first hour nobody knew what was happening. As far as the Port Authority cameras go, the tower cameras and systems were destroyed, but enough survived. Super Paw over at Quora, and Substack has a bunch of Port Authority footage complete with graphic content, if that's your thing. Point is, the videos are out there if you take the time to search.


Nobody cares. You have yet to engage in a debate. Many of us know survivors, and eye-witnesses to the attacks of 9-11, and don't have to rely on public documents (which you ignore, BTW).

A genuine question? Like why do you ignore Jay Utah's explanation of the Luma Curve, and how you're misusing it? Or the other big question: Why do you ignore Andy's six photos? If the Luma Curve BS works this should be a snap, so why continue to it?

Yes, Al Qaeda engaged in a conspiracy to hijack four commercial jetliners and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon. In full.

Even a casual observer of 9-11 can tell your the FAA and USAF controlled nothing.


You gloss over the whole WWII and Cold War thing. And the Bin Landen Group is still the go-to construction firm in the Middle East when you need to get the job done right, and on time. We get it, you're racist. To you, Arabs can't think for themselves, and could never be clever enough to pull off the attacks on 9-11 because the USA is just some unstoppable giant, and thus the USA must have staged 9-11.

Can't wait to hear why the attacks were faked.

That is not how natural light works. That. Is not acceptable.


That. Is not how any photo responds to applying luminescent curve to any file.

 

[Orphia Nay]

nt1, you didn't give an answer for Andy Ross's challenge. You said one photo might have been altered, and waffled on about the rest.

You need to specify clearly which 3 photos were tampered with.

 

[nt1]

No, coward, you still have six photos you've ignored. Either your app works or it doesn't.


No. This is standard delusional thinking. Debunked a thousand times over.


Lol, no. You've obviously never been to New York nor met someone from New York. Maybe get out of the basement or trailer park sometime.


Really? Cool, you must have copies of this NDAs, right? You can show them to us, right? Should we hold our breath?


...And what about the other online video sharing sites that were up and running between 2001 and 2005? Most of us saw 911 videos online long before Youtube, so I'm guessing you're under 25.


Bless your heart, you really need to get to NYC sometime. The locals take street closures with stride and silent stoicism...just kidding, the yell at the cops, and call the mayor's office. And with a population of over 1.5 million people in a 22 square mile area the closures would have been news. Not only did this not happen, it wouldn't be possible.


Actually, this is true. It would take 35,000 to 60,000 people to pull off. And they all have to stay silent for all this time. I'm guessing you're not a social person because your grasp of the basics of human nature are non-existent.


Well now, junior, someone had to know all three if it was a conspiracy.


This doesn't make any sense. And you're wrong about scrambling to control a narrative because in the first hour nobody knew what was happening. As far as the Port Authority cameras go, the tower cameras and systems were destroyed, but enough survived. Super Paw over at Quora, and Substack has a bunch of Port Authority footage complete with graphic content, if that's your thing. Point is, the videos are out there if you take the time to search.


Nobody cares. You have yet to engage in a debate. Many of us know survivors, and eye-witnesses to the attacks of 9-11, and don't have to rely on public documents (which you ignore, BTW).

A genuine question? Like why do you ignore Jay Utah's explanation of the Luma Curve, and how you're misusing it? Or the other big question: Why do you ignore Andy's six photos? If the Luma Curve BS works this should be a snap, so why continue to it?

Yes, Al Qaeda engaged in a conspiracy to hijack four commercial jetliners and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon. In full.

Even a casual observer of 9-11 can tell your the FAA and USAF controlled nothing.


You gloss over the whole WWII and Cold War thing. And the Bin Landen Group is still the go-to construction firm in the Middle East when you need to get the job done right, and on time. We get it, you're racist. To you, Arabs can't think for themselves, and could never be clever enough to pull off the attacks on 9-11 because the USA is just some unstoppable giant, and thus the USA must have staged 9-11.

Can't wait to hear why the attacks were faked.

I observed JayUtah's statements. I do not agree. I do not recognize him as a conclusive authority on the subject. I respect that you do. I do not. I replied to all six. I disagree with your statements about my posts and your accusations of me being a racist. I find that reprehensible. Your statement and racism.

 

[arthwollipot]

No. I was called a racist. So no. Not just calling me a coward after i responded to all six photos.

You did not say which of the six photos you believed to have been altered based on your apparently-foolproof method of detecting altered photos.

 

[JayUtah]

I observed JayUtah's statements. I do not agree.

You give no reason for your disagreement.

I do not recognize him as a conclusive authority on the subject.

Then explain what's wrong with my findings. Simply saying you disagree does not engage with the facts and reasoning presented.

I replied to all six.

Asked and answered. You were told to apply your method and by that method to determine whether any of the images had been tampered with. The goal was to validate your method. You answered questions that weren't asked and did not answer the questions that was asked.

 

[JayUtah]

That is not how natural light works. That. Is not acceptable.

The lighting in the image no longer looks natural because you have egregiously manipulated it.

That. Is not how any photo responds to applying luminescent curve to any file.

"Luminescent" is the wrong word. You are simply fiddling idly with tools you do not understand, producing egregiously distorted colors, and attributing the result to some unspecified tampering.

You have no idea what you're doing or talking about.

 

[nt1]

You did not say which of the six photos you believed to have been altered based on your apparently-foolproof method of detecting altered photos.

I replied to each individually with answers to each. I never once. Said. Foolproof or my.

I applied a publicly accessible tool. I stated where it exposes concern.

Here is a download as direct as possible.

Notice. Applying a curve to the photo reveals that the pen and its clip do not touch.

 

[JayUtah]

I replied to each individually with answers to each. I never once. Said. Foolproof or my.

You claim your tool is essentially foolproof at determining whether an image has been tampered with. But you apply it only to images you provide and whose provenance you can't confirm and in which you do not verify by other means that tampering has occurred. When presented with images purported to be properly controlled for testing your method, all of a sudden you decide not to apply your method and all of a sudden you are unable to determine conclusively whether tampering has occurred.

This simply means you failed to take the test, and therefore you fail the test.

I applied a publicly accessible tool. I stated where it exposes concern.

No. The tool you are using does no such thing, does not purport to do any such thing, and in fact disclaims that it can.

Notice. Applying a curve to the photo reveals that the pen and its clip do not touch.

Only because your inept fiddling has removed the midtones that express the faint representation of the pen clip in the original image.

You claim you have read my comments. But you will not address them other than to express your knee-jerk disagreement. At this point I can conclude therefore that you are willfully ignorant of the actual efficacy of your method, if not purposely disingenuous.

 

[nt1]

You did not say which of the six photos you believed to have been altered based on your apparently-foolproof method of detecting altered photos.

See the "sticker"?

It appears to be a fabricated artifact



Notice the light of the shirt crease. And the vertical line that runs behind it?

Notice the border overlaps but the middle of the "sticker" does not.

I would say the border is laid on. The box is filled in yellow. The text laid on. A scanner isnt going to expose a line and shirt crease behind it. A digital artifact is a possiblity.

 

[nt1]

I hope nobody is holding their breath ...

Answered all 6.

 

[nt1]

Should be easy to find a few hundred accounts at least.

Correct.

"The highway was closed off for some reason." "The train was canceled." "The bus took a different route." "Downtown streets were barricaded." Hours before the first plane crash, not after. Where can we read some?

 

[nt1]

We know they are real locations.
What I want is for you to apply your methods in the same way as you did to the pictures of your own you posted and with the same level of effort and rigour.

No sir. Go read what i wrote. You obviously did not

 

[nt1]

Its all disingenuous, he claims his evidence is easy to find so he doesn't need to provide evidence. He claims his manipulations of 20 year old video shows manipulation and ignores anyone who provides explanations for why it doesn't. Then says we are the ones not acting in good faith. Nope, don't buy it. Just trolling at this point, which is probably a violation of the rules but I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.

Genuine. Not trolling.

 

[JayUtah]

A digital artifact is a possiblity.

No.

You are not an image analyst. Nothing you're doing has the slightest to do with any technique in image analysis to detect forgery or tampering. You are simply fiddling randomly with a toy and attributing random emergence in your manipulated images to unspecified malfeasance.

 

[Axxman300]

Did you call me racist? And for what reason?

You don't believe Arabs are capable of hijacking four jetliners simultaneously, and flying them into buildings. Yet unseen, and presumably white, Americans are capable of faking every aspect of 9-11. That is racist. The Bush White House had the same problem.

 

[Axxman300]

View attachment 61729
That is not how natural light works. That. Is not acceptable.

View attachment 61730
That. Is not how any photo responds to applying luminescent curve to any file.

These are not Andy's pictures. Let's see your wonder gadget work on them.

 

[nt1]

Are you abandoning your claim to be able to tell images have been manipulated?

No. Im moving past pictures of tractors snd seashores. And to pictures involved with the event


Notice hair exposed under the part of thebhair responding. Who would have done it. Is it conclusive. I dont know that. But you can replicate it and question it yourself. Or dont.

 

[arthwollipot]

Answered all 6.

No, you didn't. You didn't apply your method to a single one of them.

 

[JayUtah]

No. Im moving past pictures of tractors snd seashores.

You're trying to substitute your own test in place of one that has been controlled by someone else to provide credible measurement of the strength of your method. We require you to apply your method to the controlled test specimens. Someone else knows for a fact whether they have been manipulated and has escrowed that information as an experimental control. Applying your method to random images that you choose and declaring that your interpretation of them must be correct is absurd.

Notice...

No. You are simply repeating the same questionable methods over and over again with no treatment of what is mathematically and interpretationally wrong with them.

Is it conclusive. I dont know that.

We can conclusively determine that the properties you are ambiguously attributing to unspecified malfeasance are exclusively the product of your manipulation of the image using a toy that you are misusing. We can show mathematically how the adjustments you are applying produce the results you claim are anomalous.

But you can replicate it and question it yourself. Or dont.

Inviting people to repeat your error does not remove the error. We prefer to question your claims regarding your methods and how you propose that they reveal image tampering.

 

[JayUtah]

No, you didn't. You didn't apply your method to a single one of them.

Actually he did apply it to two of them.

He applied it to the beach image with the industrial complex in the background. He pronounced the image genuine and untampered, despite that his signature "halos" were clearly seen around the beach strollers in the distance.

He applied it to the image of the pond surrounded by trees and pronounced it also negative for tampering. I corrected his procedure by applying his method to an enlargement and was able to produce halos.

 

[steenkh]

Answered all 6.

You didn’t use your luma technique which was the point of the whole exercise.

Also, you never put forward arguments, but always just piles more of the same stuff on top of the previous stuff.

You don’t accept JayUthah as an authority. But why? Because he disagrees with you?

 

[Andy_Ross]

See the "sticker"?

It appears to be a fabricated artifact

View attachment 61734

Notice the light of the shirt crease. And the vertical line that runs behind it?
View attachment 61735
Notice the border overlaps but the middle of the "sticker" does not.

I would say the border is laid on. The box is filled in yellow. The text laid on. A scanner isnt going to expose a line and shirt crease behind it. A digital artifact is a possiblity.

Yes it is fabricated. It has been printed by a machine.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You don’t accept JayUthah as an authority. But why? Because he disagrees with you?

It's pure evasion. While Jay is an authority (his IRL identity isn't the best kept secret), he didn't base his arguement on it, rather he laid out exactly what the tool does & how it's being misused, he even showed the maths.

 

[Thermal]

July 6th 1946
NY Gov. Dewey announces the first WTC committee.
----
July 6th 1946
George Walker Bush Jr. Is born.
The preaident and tower were born the same day.

I feel so stupid for not having seen this connection sooner. When George Bush Sr ◊◊◊◊◊◊ Babs Bush in early October of 1945, it was the start of the rite of ritual symbolism. And on July 6, 1946, Sylvester Stallone was also born in...you guessed it...NYC. It explains everything. Wake up sheeple!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Correct.

You agree it's correct that we ought to be able to find hundreds of accounts from New Yorkers who were prevented from getting to work that morning before the attacks, if it was true that the area was closed off in preparation for fake attacks.

Why don't we find them in that case? Obviously it's because fake attacks are not what happened. Right?

 

[Thermal]

You agree it's correct that we ought to be able to find hundreds of accounts from New Yorkers who were prevented from getting to work that morning before the attacks, if it was true that the area was closed off in preparation for fake attacks.

Why don't we find them in that case? Obviously it's because fake attacks are not what happened. Right?

Can you imagine what Manhattan would have looked like that morning in this fantasy world? It would have been like a movie set shoot. And not one witness to anything, then or now. Not one soul that said "man, I really feel guilty about my part in this" and publicly came clean.

 

[varwoche]

Might as well take the leap to The Matrix being a documentary. That explains how tens of thousands of New Yorkers are delusional and/or part of the conspiracy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In the hours before the attacks the big news story of the day would be that thousands of lower Manhattan workers were being prevented from getting to work by Police (or Doctor Evil's minions dressed as cops). They wouldn't let the growing crowd past and they wouldn't explain why not. Real cops would show up and challenge the strangers in uniform. The mayor would be contacted for his comment and wouldn't know what was going on. Eventually the angry crowd would surge past the henchmen.

None of this happened. The idea that the whole area was closed off is utterly stupid. Nobody who suggests this might be what happened has given it even a moment's thought. Fail.

 

[ahhell]

In the hours before the attacks the big news story of the day would be that thousands of lower Manhattan workers were being prevented from getting to work by Police (or Doctor Evil's minions dressed as cops). They wouldn't let the growing crowd past and they wouldn't explain why not. Real cops would show up and challenge the strangers in uniform. The mayor would be contacted for his comment and wouldn't know what was going on. Eventually the angry crowd would surge past the henchmen.

None of this happened. The idea that the whole area was closed off is utterly stupid. Nobody who suggests this might be what happened has given it even a moment's thought. Fail.

Not if the cops and mayor were doing for some mysterious reason they didn't understand but were told by.......someone to it?

ETA: I'm satisfied that JayUtah has shown why nt1's methods aren't doing what he thinks they are. I'm unconvinced that there were an unusual number cancelations on flights that day. But lets pretend, none of that was true. What actually happened that day?

1. Did the buildings actually collapse or not?
2. If they did, what caused it?
3. Why wouldn't it have just been easier to fly some planes into the buildings than fake some plans flying into the buildings?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Not if the cops and mayor were doing for some mysterious reason they didn't understand but were told by.......someone to it?

As always, the conspiracy theory has to expand and expand until literally everyone is in on it.

While my opinion of Rudi Giuliani is not high, even he would put two and two together. "So that guy who said he was from the NSA/FBI/Secret Service/Whatever and told us we had to clear the area: he told us that well before those two planes were hijacked. In fact it was well before the flights even took off. So he had the authority to shut down lower Manhattan, but not to delay a couple of commuter flights. Hmm. Well, I'm sure it's fine. Not even worth mentioning really."

 

[Thermal]

And the thousands of daily NYC tourists with their cameras and handheld camcorders didn't catch a single image of any of this, of course.

 

[Thermal]

Not if the cops and mayor were doing for some mysterious reason they didn't understand but were told by.......someone to it?

ETA: I'm satisfied that JayUtah has shown why nt1's methods aren't doing what he thinks they are. I'm unconvinced that there were an unusual number cancelations on flights that day. But lets pretend, none of that was true. What actually happened that day?

1. Did the buildings actually collapse or not?
2. If they did, what caused it?
3. Why wouldn't it have just been easier to fly some planes into the buildings than fake some plans flying into the buildings?

I believe we have some other yahoo running around on this site that says the Towers were actually hollow? Which is kind of weird, considering that I'd been in both and totally didn't notice that.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I believe we have some other yahoo running around on this site that says the Towers were actually hollow? Which is kind of weird, considering that I'd been in both and totally didn't notice that.

But if they're not hollow, how could you go inside?

 

[Thermal]

But if they're not hollow, how could you go inside?

Foiled by logic again. Color me luma curved w/halos.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yeah, pull the other one. It's got a bright halo around it.