Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[junkshop]

Our new(?) friend clearly drank the Kool-Aid*, and no amount of reality is going to convince them. They announced themself as a troll on arrival, and I think we should take them at their word. Further engagement will be fruitless.

<sub>*that it was akshually Flavor-Aid can be taken as read.

Edited to remove assumptions.</sub>

 

[Axxman300]

The photos show completely burnt out cars with no steam or smoldering smoke. There is no water in the streets. No mix of dust and water to make a mud or sludge.

And it is before 520pm. It would require the limits of science, physics, and reality.

Really, you can't think of another reason fire might suddenly go out? You know, like lack of oxygen? Those vehicles are close enough to the buildings to have been hit by flaming wreckage, therefore it's safe to assume that when each building came down the debris cloud struck with enough force and thickness to extinguish the flames.

I know 6th grade science class was rough, but jeez.

Claim. IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY OR LOGISTICALLY POSSIBLE FOR THIS FOOTAGE TO BE FILMED BEFORE 520PM **and be genuine***AND MATCH THE DRY DUST FROM THE COLLAPSE OF TOWERS 1 AND 2, THE COMPLETE INCINERATION OF THE VEHICLES, THE LACK OF SMOLDERING SMOKE OR HEAT, THE ABSENCE OF WATER IN THE STREETS FROM EXTINGUISHING THE FIRE, AND THE TIME LINE OF EVENTS AND THIS REPORTER BEING ON SITE FILMING.

What you're saying is you've never been to NYC. First, this photo was taken 7 hours after the collapse, and 9 hours after the first plane struck the building. If you can't tell time then how do you expect us to take you seriously? And you can't expect sane people to believe that hundreds of damaged vehicles were trucked into Manhattan unseen. You expect us to believe the insurance companies all willingly signed off on payments for these vehicles if they were all fake (because they did pay out). And what about the hundreds of photos showing still smoldering cars, and dozens of pictures of burning cars right after the crashes? Why do you ignore them?

The footage is fabricated.
The photographers can be called out.
The victims can be called out.
The same process that was not applied to 9/11

So you're what? 20 years-old?

We knew what happened on 9-11 by the following Monday. We knew there was a serious miscommunication between the CIA & FBI. We knew NORAD and the ANG got into the air late, and flew the wrong direction (in the case of DC). And we knew the Bush NSA had crapped the bed on Al Qaeda. There were half a million eye-witnesses to the attacks. Tens of thousands of eye-witnesses in lower Manhattan, and thousands of eye-witnesses at the WTC complex. 23 NYPD officers died at the WTC. You kill NYPD officers with impunity, no one in the department can be paid enough to look the other way.

911 is the most investigated crime in North American history. 91,000 people worked to clear Ground Zero. There have been dozens of private investigations into 9-11. Nothing has changed the essential facts that 19 Al Qaeda hijackers took control of four jet liners, and flew them into targets. That's it, that's all she wrote. Everything that happened after 9-11 is currently being debated across the military, State Department, and academia. Bottom Line: 9-11 Truthers (like yourself) got us into a war in Iraq because they refused to accept that Al Qaeda acted alone, without state sponsorship. Bush's NSC were 9-11 Truthers, just like you. And just like you, the twisted things to advance their agenda. The difference being that they held power in an administration headed by the third slowest-thinking President in US history.

Here's what you need to deal with: America lost most of its sanity and or reasoned thinking ability on 9-11. We collectively made bad choices, and compounded them with more bad choices in a fulcrum of stupidity couched in patriotic fervor. Since then it's been a race to the bottom. Al Qaeda won.

 

[turingtest]

Really, you can't think of another reason fire might suddenly go out? You know, like lack of oxygen? Those vehicles are close enough to the buildings to have been hit by flaming wreckage, therefore it's safe to assume that when each building came down the debris cloud struck with enough force and thickness to extinguish the flames.

I know 6th grade science class was rough, but jeez.



What you're saying is you've never been to NYC. First, this photo was taken 7 hours after the collapse, and 9 hours after the first plane struck the building. If you can't tell time then how do you expect us to take you seriously? And you can't expect sane people to believe that hundreds of damaged vehicles were trucked into Manhattan unseen. You expect us to believe the insurance companies all willingly signed off on payments for these vehicles if they were all fake (because they did pay out). And what about the hundreds of photos showing still smoldering cars, and dozens of pictures of burning cars right after the crashes? Why do you ignore them?



So you're what? 20 years-old?

We knew what happened on 9-11 by the following Monday. We knew there was a serious miscommunication between the CIA & FBI. We knew NORAD and the ANG got into the air late, and flew the wrong direction (in the case of DC). And we knew the Bush NSA had crapped the bed on Al Qaeda. There were half a million eye-witnesses to the attacks. Tens of thousands of eye-witnesses in lower Manhattan, and thousands of eye-witnesses at the WTC complex. 23 NYPD officers died at the WTC. You kill NYPD officers with impunity, no one in the department can be paid enough to look the other way.

911 is the most investigated crime in North American history. 91,000 people worked to clear Ground Zero. There have been dozens of private investigations into 9-11. Nothing has changed the essential facts that 19 Al Qaeda hijackers took control of four jet liners, and flew them into targets. That's it, that's all she wrote. Everything that happened after 9-11 is currently being debated across the military, State Department, and academia. Bottom Line: 9-11 Truthers (like yourself) got us into a war in Iraq because they refused to accept that Al Qaeda acted alone, without state sponsorship. Bush's NSC were 9-11 Truthers, just like you. And just like you, the twisted things to advance their agenda. The difference being that they held power in an administration headed by the third slowest-thinking President in US history.

Here's what you need to deal with: America lost most of its sanity and or reasoned thinking ability on 9-11. We collectively made bad choices, and compounded them with more bad choices in a fulcrum of stupidity couched in patriotic fervor. Since then it's been a race to the bottom. Al Qaeda won.

That bit right there is a hallmark of the dedicated CTist- they love to make arrogant and extravagant pronouncements (almost always on mistaken premises) about what is "NOT PHYSICALLY OR LOGISTICALLY POSSIBLE" in what they like to call "the official story," but will never ever apply the same standard to examine what is likely (or even possible) about their own claims. They have a superficial RPG plotline in mind and think that's good enough to compete with a reality that's too detailed for them to actually even grasp.

 

[lionking]

Well this thread has gone exactly as expected.

 

[sackett]

Well this thread has gone exactly as expected.

No it hasn't.

A "beloved satirist!" Whaaat?!?? Have my years of work, my decades of striving, achieved nothing? My goal -- which indeed I regarded as accomplished -- was to be Forum Lampooneer, my coat of arms proudly bearing the slapstick and inflated pig's bladder! But now this!

Perish, my dream.

 

[JayUtah]

It would require the limits of science, physics, and reality.

Or simply a scenario slightly different than the straw man you imagine.

Love you all

That was quite a rant. You might need more help than this forum is able to provide.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No it hasn't.

A "beloved satirist!" Whaaat?!?? Have my years of work, my decades of striving, achieved nothing? My goal -- which indeed I regarded as accomplished -- was to be Forum Lampooneer, my coat of arms proudly bearing the slapstick and inflated pig's bladder! But now this!

Perish, my dream.

It's like when the target of a political cartoon asks the cartoonist if he can buy the original. Bittersweet.

 

[JayUtah]

The bus looks like it went roasty toasty, the cars not so much.

Bus roof panels are often made from aluminum, which burns more readily than the steel in passenger car roofs.

 

[varwoche]

Really, you can't think of another reason fire might suddenly go out? You know, like lack of oxygen? Those vehicles are close enough to the buildings to have been hit by flaming wreckage, therefore it's safe to assume that when each building came down the debris cloud struck with enough force and thickness to extinguish the flames.

I know 6th grade science class was rough, but jeez.



What you're saying is you've never been to NYC. First, this photo was taken 7 hours after the collapse, and 9 hours after the first plane struck the building. If you can't tell time then how do you expect us to take you seriously? And you can't expect sane people to believe that hundreds of damaged vehicles were trucked into Manhattan unseen. You expect us to believe the insurance companies all willingly signed off on payments for these vehicles if they were all fake (because they did pay out). And what about the hundreds of photos showing still smoldering cars, and dozens of pictures of burning cars right after the crashes? Why do you ignore them?



So you're what? 20 years-old?

We knew what happened on 9-11 by the following Monday. We knew there was a serious miscommunication between the CIA & FBI. We knew NORAD and the ANG got into the air late, and flew the wrong direction (in the case of DC). And we knew the Bush NSA had crapped the bed on Al Qaeda. There were half a million eye-witnesses to the attacks. Tens of thousands of eye-witnesses in lower Manhattan, and thousands of eye-witnesses at the WTC complex. 23 NYPD officers died at the WTC. You kill NYPD officers with impunity, no one in the department can be paid enough to look the other way.

911 is the most investigated crime in North American history. 91,000 people worked to clear Ground Zero. There have been dozens of private investigations into 9-11. Nothing has changed the essential facts that 19 Al Qaeda hijackers took control of four jet liners, and flew them into targets. That's it, that's all she wrote. Everything that happened after 9-11 is currently being debated across the military, State Department, and academia. Bottom Line: 9-11 Truthers (like yourself) got us into a war in Iraq because they refused to accept that Al Qaeda acted alone, without state sponsorship. Bush's NSC were 9-11 Truthers, just like you. And just like you, the twisted things to advance their agenda. The difference being that they held power in an administration headed by the third slowest-thinking President in US history.

Here's what you need to deal with: America lost most of its sanity and or reasoned thinking ability on 9-11. We collectively made bad choices, and compounded them with more bad choices in a fulcrum of stupidity couched in patriotic fervor. Since then it's been a race to the bottom. Al Qaeda won.

Given all this, and given the absurd notion that demolished cars were staged in midtown Manhattan without anyone noticing, the odds that nt1's claims are true are roughly on par with the moon being made of cheese.

Of course we know the moon isn't made of cheese because the astronauts witnessed up close and personal ... oh wait.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Can't be made of cheese because the giant dustification space laser would have sunk in. Unless maybe it was something resilient like a Comté or Manchego.

Peckish now.

 

[Hercules56]

The claims in this thread are nothing but low-hanging fruit, and totally unworthy and undeserving of any serious attention or thought.

Best to ignore.

 

[Myriad]

I wonder why Terminator 2 in particular is so prescient about "what's coming."

I'm pretty sure that in the real world, humanoid robots are not made of magic nanotechnology, and they absolutely WILL stop if you shoot them.

 

[JayUtah]

Perish, my dream.

They also lampoon who satirize sincerely.

[Conspiracy theorists] love to make arrogant and extravagant pronouncements (almost always on mistaken premises) about what is "NOT PHYSICALLY OR LOGISTICALLY POSSIBLE" in what they like to call "the official story,"...

In general, conspiracy theorists present their claims not so much to advance the understanding of some event as to make themselves feel smart. Everyone else has been hoodwinked by a foisted narrative, but they're the smart ones who have seen through the deception and thrown off the oppressor. Since we inevitably find that the claimant lacks the actual expertise he aspires to, the expectations and assumptions from which the conspiracy theory departs can express no more than what little knowledge the claimant already possesses. "That's not what we would expect," is limited to the ability of the claimant to imagine what's possible.

This constructed bubble of genius and heroism lacks the necessary ego reinforcement unless it's acknowledged in some way by the larger world. Ideally the best acknowledgement is praise. And these days, conspiracy theorists are getting a lot more of that than they used to. But when better-informed people deign to offer an informed rebuttal, the ego bubble comes crashing down. Criticism has to be explained away somehow.

One way is the fingers-in-ears method: if they can't see or hear the criticism, it doesn't exist. Another is the pivot: "You may be smarter than me in some ways, but I'm intuitively smarter in other ways that matter more," or its variant, "You may be smarter than me, but you're also ideologically compromised and therefore can't be trusted." And there is the ever-popular and straightforward, "You're all vigorously opposing me; that means I must be onto something." You have to love that one—if people praise you, you're right; if people criticize you, you're right.

but [they] will never ever apply the same standard to examine what is likely (or even possible) about their own claims. They have a superficial RPG plotline in mind and think that's good enough to compete with a reality that's too detailed for them to actually even grasp.

I agree. I've said as much myself several times. The conspiracy two-step always means the conventional narrative is dismissed according to a high standard of proof wile the conspiracy narrative only as to clear a low bar of mere plausibility. And even then, plausibility is reckoned only in terms of that ego-reinforcement bubble defined by the claimant's evidently limited knowledge. White bands in photographs are "alpha halos" identifying tampering in pre-photographed scenes...somehow. All those concepts (real or imaginary) exist in the bubble, but there's no need for a cogent chain of causation. It all just comes together somehow.

 

[Thermal]

Given all this, and given the absurd notion that demolished cars were staged in midtown Manhattan without anyone noticing...

More importantly, why? Why, in any convoluted theory would you need to tow in car shells to a site where buildings were actually falling down? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just...drive the cars in beforehand and let the collapsing buildings do the work?

The cars have no debris/dust on them, that's true. And it seems like they should, if they were impacted. But that assumes that where they were when the pic was taken was their original location. If it was around 5pm, I'd bet my left nut they were pushed over to get emergency vehicles in to the disaster site. That would account for why the debris is all around the car in the foreground, but not behind it. It was pushed through the debris, not destroyed there.

Although im.not even sure this pic was taken around 5pm. There is a clock up in the upper left, but I can't tell if it's a minute counter on the footage or a real time clock. Since OP is using unsourced screenshots, we can't verify anything.

 

[ahhell]

snip....
What you're saying is you've never been to NYC. First,
this photo was taken 7 hours after the collapse, and 9 hours after the first plane struck the building. If you can't tell time then how do you expect us to take you seriously? And you can't expect sane people to believe that hundreds of damaged vehicles were trucked into Manhattan unseen. You expect us to believe the insurance companies all willingly signed off on payments for these vehicles if they were all fake (because they did pay out). And what about the hundreds of photos showing still smoldering cars, and dozens of pictures of burning cars right after the crashes? Why do you ignore them?
snip..

How do you know that? If true it definitely answers any questions about how they might have burned and dried out. I'm unconvinced, I don't see how they don't look like they were destroyed by falling debris and covered in dust. But, if they'd had 7 hours to burn, be extinguished, and possibly be moved.

So, Nt1s contention is that all the videos and pictures of 9/11 have been altered. Ok, that would be a vast conspiracy. Thousands, 10s of thousands, 100s of thousands of conspirators.

I have questions,
1. Has nt1 tried his manipulation with photos he's taken himself. Go out find tall building and take some video form different angles and different lighting. To the curve thing and see what happens. I suspect if he doesn't put a thumb on the scale, he'd end up with similar apparent signs of manipulation. I'm sure someone else could probably come up with similar artifacts with just about any image.
2. What happened to the buildings?

 

[varwoche]

More importantly, why? Why, in any convoluted theory would you need to tow in car shells to a site where buildings were actually falling down? Wouldn't it have been simpler to just...drive the cars in beforehand and let the collapsing buildings do the work?

Most 911 CTs don't provide a why that passes the giggle test. Why even bother with a controlled demolition?

 

[Thermal]

Most 911 CTs don't provide a why that passes the giggle test. Why even bother with a controlled demolition?

I'm guessing the Illuminati were having budget cuts, and couldn't afford drivable cars to park beforehand? Maybe it's cheaper to tow junkyard husks in to the middle of Manhattan while buildings are collapsing and no one noticing, but that seems kind of cost-inefficient. Are the Illuminati taking applications for bean counters? Seems like a guy like me or maybe DOGE or a handful of Saudi nationals could stop them from being so wasteful with resources and do all this much cheaper and more convincingly.

 

[JayUtah]

How do you know that? If true it definitely answers any questions about how they might have burned and dried out. I'm unconvinced, I don't see how they don't look like they were destroyed by falling debris and covered in dust. But, if they'd had 7 hours to burn, be extinguished, and possibly be moved.

The damage I'm seeing is consistent with fire damage alone, with only cursory evidence attributable to collision or debris. The car roofs are depressed to a degree consistent with the burning of interior elements, followed by softening of the roof elements and a partial collapse under its own weight. And depending on timing. the evidence could be considered consistent with fires having burned to the point of exhausting their fuel and burning out. Smoldering is hard to detect in still images (especially through @nt1's wild excursions through the luminosity adjustments).

I have questions,
1. Has nt1 tried his manipulation with photos he's taken himself. Go out find tall building and take some video form different angles and different lighting. To the curve thing and see what happens. I suspect if he doesn't put a thumb on the scale, he'd end up with similar apparent signs of manipulation. I'm sure someone else could probably come up with similar artifacts with just about any image.

No, the effect doesn't occur with any image. It's easy to believe @nt1 attempted his manipulation on photos he took himself and did not see any similar effect because his images were of too high a quality.

Tl;dr, the sharper the image, the less susceptible it is to the anomaly @nt1 is inducing.

My avatar is currently being oversampled as the forum displays it. The image snippet I submitted years ago was suitable for the old forum software's notion of proper size. But the new forum wants to display larger avatars. The stored image has too few pixels, so the browser is resizing the image at the forum software's request to be larger in terms of pixels. But it can't put in data that was never there. So it punts by oversampling, and that's why it looks blurry.

As I pointed out in my demonstration a few pages back. oversampling is what makes the effect appear. That won't occur in photos you take yourself, unless you zoom, crop, and resize a portion of the image in order to induce oversampling. The images he's using are digital enlargements of details in larger photos. Plus he's obtained them from convenience sources which may have done the zooming and resampling themselves without his knowledge. They all exhibit poor image resolution despite the presence of many pixels, much as does my avatar.

If you have an image with a dark region and a light region as part of a detail, the transition between those elements in a well-sampled, well-focused photograph may be only a very few pixels wide. If you have a 256x256 pixel region from that image and you blow it up to occupy a more viewable 1024x1024 raster, the additional pixels that have to be added get their values by interpolating between pixels in the original image. There are common methods (e.g., linear, bicubic) to do this mathematically. But the result is inevitably a larger region of pixels that transition between the former dark and light regions. Instead of being only a couple of pixels wide as in the original image, that transitional area in the resampled (enlarged) image could be dozens of pixels wide—occupied by these new, smoothly changing intensities. Then his brutal manipulation of the luminance map remaps that smooth transition into a single delineated region that doesn't actually exist in the image data.

 

[sackett]

Start guys talking about their work and you'd better pick a comfy chair.

But that's not a bad thing. Hell, by now even I'm starting to understand a little about photo manipulation and cheap fun with apps.

 

[ahhell]

The damage I'm seeing is consistent with fire damage alone, with only cursory evidence attributable to collision or debris. The car roofs are depressed to a degree consistent with the burning of interior elements, followed by softening of the roof elements and a partial collapse under its own weight. And depending on timing. the evidence could be considered consistent with fires having burned to the point of exhausting their fuel and burning out. Smoldering is hard to detect in still images (especially through @nt1's wild excursions through the luminosity adjustments).


No, the effect doesn't occur with any image. It's easy to believe @nt1 attempted his manipulation on photos he took himself and did not see any similar effect because his images were of too high a quality.

Tl;dr, the sharper the image, the less susceptible it is to the anomaly @nt1 is inducing.

My avatar is currently being oversampled as the forum displays it. The image snippet I submitted years ago was suitable for the old forum software's notion of proper size. But the new forum wants to display larger avatars. The stored image has too few pixels, so the browser is resizing the image at the forum software's request to be larger in terms of pixels. But it can't put in data that was never there. So it punts by oversampling, and that's why it looks blurry.

As I pointed out in my demonstration a few pages back. oversampling is what makes the effect appear. That won't occur in photos you take yourself, unless you zoom, crop, and resize a portion of the image in order to induce oversampling. The images he's using are digital enlargements of details in larger photos. Plus he's obtained them from convenience sources which may have done the zooming and resampling themselves without his knowledge. They all exhibit poor image resolution despite the presence of many pixels, much as does my avatar.

If you have an image with a dark region and a light region as part of a detail, the transition between those elements in a well-sampled, well-focused photograph may be only a very few pixels wide. If you have a 256x256 pixel region from that image and you blow it up to occupy a more viewable 1024x1024 raster, the additional pixels that have to be added get their values by interpolating between pixels in the original image. There are common methods (e.g., linear, bicubic) to do this mathematically. But the result is inevitably a larger region of pixels that transition between the former dark and light regions. Instead of being only a couple of pixels wide as in the original image, that transitional area in the resampled (enlarged) image could be dozens of pixels wide—occupied by these new, smoothly changing intensities. Then his brutal manipulation of the luminance map remaps that smooth transition into a single delineated region that doesn't actually exist in the image data.

Thanks, excellent explanation. I'd then suggest that nt1 go and find some 20 years old screen captors of news events other than 9/11 and see what happens.

Like lot of folks the problem with most of the 9/11 theories, the official story makes more sense and is more plausible. The only plausible explanation that is outside the official story is the let it happen, even then I'd expect whistleblower by now.

Short version, intelligence failures on the part of the US intelligence agency allowed 19 dudes with an expressed interest in harming the US along with an organization that had an expressed interest in harming the US and admitted to doing it flew planes into buildings. There is evidene to support that and it doesn't take thousands of accomplices. If you were a nefarious group of folks inside the US government, that's the way you would do it. Faking thousands of photos and videos and IDK what, paying 10s of thousands of eyewitnesses? Why would you do it that way?

Add to that the lack of a convincing argument that the anomalies in these videos isn't exactly what JayUtah is saying?