Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[nt1]

Hello. Which collapse footage does someone want me to bunk for them? Im looking for one thats not bunk.

 

[kookbreaker]

Hello. Which collapse footage does someone want me to bunk for them? Im looking for one thats not bunk.

Ummm, what?

 

[nt1]

Ummm, what?

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]

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.

OK, you realize except for a handful of truthers, we mostly don't buy into any 911 conspiracy nonsense around here.

And the handful of truthers tend to be on bungee cords.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

 

[varwoche]

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.

You shouldn't expect others to do your legwork in order to foist the abject nonsense you appear to be foisting.

 

[nt1]

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?

Hello. No not guess. I just said i need a piece of footage of your choice.

 

[nt1]

OK, you realize except for a handful of truthers, we mostly don't buy into any 911 conspiracy nonsense around here.

And the handful of truthers tend to be on bungee cords.

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?

 

[nt1]

You shouldn't expect others to do your legwork in order to foist the abject nonsense you appear to be foisting.

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.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why not just tell us your theory of what happened?
You can link the video you think is important.

 

[kookbreaker]

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?

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.

 

[nt1]

Why not just tell us your theory of what happened?
You can link the video you think is important.

I thought it would be more convincing if i offered for the person considering what i had to show, chose the source of footage.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Start a thread and present your theory and your support for it.

That's the best way to do things.

 

[nt1]

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.

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.

 

[nt1]

Start a thread and present your theory and your support for it.

That's the best way to do things.

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]

Let me ask this. Is this place open to consider? Or is it official story and 9/11 commission report only?

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?

 

[nt1]

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]

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

"Official story"? How about "report on the facts".

 

[nt1]

"Official story"? How about "report on the facts".

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]

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

On what would you prefer the report be?