Voice-Morphing and the Passenger Calls

Exactly. It is a voice mimicing software. As for whether it can reproduce how you intonate, when, etc... remains to be seen. Plus without a huge library of the person's voice recordings, catch phrases, accent on certain words, would not likely be reproduced either.

TAM:)
 
You are correct. However, I mentioned somewhere in the essay that I didn't include any scenarios with suicidal sleeper agents because I found the idea implausible. I didn't consider the possibility of sleeper agents escaping through one of the exits because the idea didn't occur to me. I won't scoff at the notion as others have done, but I really can't see it happening, especially on a 757. Two things, you have to be going really slow - to avoid possible mid-air breakup - and you have to be unpressurized and below 8000' or so, otherwise you'll never get the door open(even going slow enough, I doubt you'd be able to open anything but the overwing hatches on a 757 - because you'd have to push the door forward and out into the direction of the airstream and the doors are ridiculously heavy). The perps would also have to use an exit that won't get them killed, and they'd have to remember to disarm the escape slides or they'd be in for a big surprise. :eek:

What sort of scenario did you have in mind?

All the objections you have to the possibility of the hijackers escaping from the plane have already been dealt with in the book I have quoted by former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrar. The first chapter of the book explains in detail how such a maneuver is executed by SEALS-- and therefore by other elite commando units around the world:

Most people do not parachute on purpose from jet aircraft. The planes are too fast, and the turbulent air dragging in their wake can snap your spine and pop your hips from your pelvis. We were trained to jump from commercial airliners because they are ubiquitous and nonattributable. It is one thing to prohibit American military aircraft from flying over your country. It is quite another to close down your airspace to all commercial traffic. Libya, Syria, Cuba, and a host of other thug nations allow commercial flights to fly through their airspace. This is all the opening a SEAL Team needs. Unknown and unseen, a SEAL element can parachute into any place on earth. One might insert: that is, provided one survives the jump. The trick is to exit in correct body position and deploy your parachute after the appropriate delay. There are two principal types of SEAL parachute operations: HALO, or high altitude, low opening; and HAHO, high altitude, high opening.

In a HALO drop, you exit the aircraft at 35,000 feet on oxygen and open your parachute low, at 2,000 feet, to avoid detection. A jumper falling at terminal velocity, roughly 120 miles an hour, would scream in for a full three minutes before opening his parachute.

In a HAHO drop, jumpers exit the aircraft above 35,000 feet, but their parachutes are deployed after a brief delay, maybe three seconds, opening high instead of low-sometimes literally in the jet stream. The team floats under canopy at 33,000 feet, then groups together and glides in formation toward the target.
At six and a half miles up, the MT-1-X parachute has a thirty-knot forward airspeed, and you can cover a lot of miles before you ever see any dirt. Depending on the winds aloft, a jumper can touch down twenty or thirty miles from where he exited the aircraft. It's a good way to drop into a place where you are neither expected nor welcome.

We had all done both types of parachute missions, hundreds of them, and tonight's jump was supposed to be routine....
So clearly this maneuver is dangerous, but not so dangerous that trained professionals couldn't do it hundreds of times. I encourage you, Apothoid, to read the entire chapter here:

http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=191806
 
I here by retract the words "Navy Seals", and in their place use the words "Government Agents".

Is that ok?

No, it's not. "Government Agents" means to most people agents of the U.S. Government, which I am not suggesting at all.

I prefer "professionally trained agents with the backing of a state apparatus." And that state would be one other than the United States.
 
Last edited:
ok, substitute "Sympathetic Mercinaries" or what ever you like. the idea is still ridiculous.

TAM:)
 
All the objections you have to the possibility of the hijackers escaping from the plane have already been dealt with in the book I have quoted by former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrar. The first chapter of the book explains in detail how such a maneuver is executed by SEALS-- and therefore by other elite commando units around the world:

So clearly this maneuver is dangerous, but not so dangerous that trained professionals couldn't do it hundreds of times. I encourage you, Apothoid, to read the entire chapter here:

http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=191806


When you're reduced to this sort of desperation to support a theory that has always been embarrassingly silly nonsense, why not just get on with your life? Seriously.
 
All the objections you have to the possibility of the hijackers escaping from the plane have already been dealt with in the book I have quoted by former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrar. The first chapter of the book explains in detail how such a maneuver is executed by SEALS-- and therefore by other elite commando units around the world:

So clearly this maneuver is dangerous, but not so dangerous that trained professionals couldn't do it hundreds of times. I encourage you, Apothoid, to read the entire chapter here:

http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=191806

The hijackers would not have left the amount of bread crumbs, in such a case! It makes no sense! We know who they were, and what they did, leading up to 911!!!! Please pay attention!
 
All the objections you have to the possibility of the hijackers escaping from the plane have already been dealt with in the book I have quoted by former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrar. The first chapter of the book explains in detail how such a maneuver is executed by SEALS-- and therefore by other elite commando units around the world:

So clearly this maneuver is dangerous, but not so dangerous that trained professionals couldn't do it hundreds of times. I encourage you, Apothoid, to read the entire chapter here:

http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=191806
you skipped the part about how much setup they had to do on the plane, the fact that they went out the rear starway exit (not a side exit)
 
you skipped the part about how much setup they had to do on the plane, the fact that they went out the rear starway exit (not a side exit)

Yes, jumping out of the rear exit sounds like a real problem for this theory. You would think the passengers would have noticed this.
 
Yes, jumping out of the rear exit sounds like a real problem for this theory. You would think the passengers would have noticed this.


Well, a bigger problem is the fact that there is no rear exit on either the 757 or 767.
 
When you're reduced to this sort of desperation to support a theory that has always been embarrassingly silly nonsense, why not just get on with your life? Seriously.

Explain why this is "embarrassingly silly nonsense."

Otherwise, I will assume you are left speechless because you don't have any good arguments to counter the possibility that the hijackers bailed out of the planes using techniques similar to those described in Chuck Pfarrar's book.
 
Yes, jumping out of the rear exit sounds like a real problem for this theory. You would think the passengers would have noticed this.

Who said anything about a rear exit?

We have good evidence from the phone calls that the Method of Operation on the flights was to herd the passengers to the back of the plane, and keep them there with some kind of mace or noxious gas placed in the plane's midsection. From that viewpoint, how would the passengers know what the hijackers are doing in the front and/or bottom of the plane?

I'm not going to pretend to know exactly which door they would have exited out of. But I find it laughable that you are going to concede that Pfarrar's account is possible from one kind of Boeing, but contend it is somehow impossible from 757/767s.

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door, and the Equipment Access Door, both located just below the cockpit.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arff767.pdf
 
Who said anything about a rear exit?

We have good evidence from the phone calls that the Method of Operation on the flights was to herd the passengers to the back of the plane, and keep them there with some kind of mace or noxious gas placed in the plane's midsection. From that viewpoint, how would the passengers know what the hijackers are doing in the front and/or bottom of the plane?

I'm not going to pretend to know exactly which door they would have exited out of. But I find it laughable that you are going to concede that Pfarrar's account is possible from one kind of Boeing, but contend it is somehow impossible from 757/767s.

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door, and the Equipment Access Door, both located just below the cockpit.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arff767.pdf


A-train, please stop now you are going to made to look very silly on this one

You are travelling down a very rocky road here

Do you think nose landing gear doors are accessible from the rest of the plane?

The equipment access door is to gain access from outside not get out from the inside

Do you think the cargo bay doors would be accessible from the rest of the plane?

If they opened any of the other doors in the cabin area what do you think would have happened?

Do you think they could safely jump out any of the cabin doors?

Juts leave it pal
 
Who said anything about a rear exit?

We have good evidence from the phone calls that the Method of Operation on the flights was to herd the passengers to the back of the plane, and keep them there with some kind of mace or noxious gas placed in the plane's midsection. From that viewpoint, how would the passengers know what the hijackers are doing in the front and/or bottom of the plane?

I'm not going to pretend to know exactly which door they would have exited out of. But I find it laughable that you are going to concede that Pfarrar's account is possible from one kind of Boeing, but contend it is somehow impossible from 757/767s.

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door, and the Equipment Access Door, both located just below the cockpit.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arff767.pdf

If you are going to try and portray yourself as some sort of "researcher" you might want to try and get some basic facts right. For example, the nose gear door is not an exit. It's the doors that open and close when the landing gear is cycled.

767 Nose Gear Doors
 
Kage said:
This explanation fails when you realize that the NWO doesn't have control over who books a flight on which plane, which requires huge resources and planning, which means that there are more people who can spill the beans./QUOTE]

And also, obtaining the level of personal knowledge required for each passenger would be a real problem. Especially a call like this:

Linda Gronlund, called her sister, Elsa Strong.

Elsa Strong says, "She said, 'Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.' And she said, 'Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them.' And then she got real calm and said, 'Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination.' And she just told me the combination of her safe.
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2...nbc090302.html
The fakers knew her safe combination? Now that's impressive research!

This is a much more rigerous debunking of the voice morphing technology than simple arguments about processing power and training time. Thanks.

Kage
 
Last edited:
...We have good evidence...


Such statements as the above deserve special analysis:

"We" in all likelihood doesn not exist, unless the "royal 'We'" is being invoked.
"Have" is wrong. "They" have absolutely nothing,
"Good" is wrong. Whatever "they" think "they" may have, the appropriate adjectives for it contain no synonyms for "good."
"Evidence" is wrong. I doubt "they" even know what the word means, let along possess any of it.

It's kind of awe-inspiring to see a statement like this where almost certainly not a single word is true (with the possible exception of the "we" part, I suppose). Thus the translation from CTish-to English would read something like this:

I don't have a blessed thing, except my fevered imagination, which trust me, is not good.

Of course, the only thing preventing me from being the most rabid, activist truther in the whole world is to be proven wrong about this. All it would take would be access to this "good" "evidence" "you people" "have."
 
Last edited:
Such statements as the above deserve special analysis:

"We" in all likelihood doesn not exist, unless the "royal 'We'" is being invoked.
"Have" is wrong. "They" have absolutely nothing,
"Good" is wrong. Whatever "they" think "they" may have, the appropriate adjectives for it contain no synonyms for "good."
"Evidence" is wrong. I doubt "they" even know what the word means, let along possess any of it.

It's kind of awe-inspiring to see a statement like this where almost certainly not a single word is true (with the possible exception of the "we" part, I suppose). Thus the translation from CTish-to English would read something like this:



Of course, the only thing preventing me from being the most rabid, activist truther in the whole world is to be proven wrong about this. All it would take would be access to this "good" "evidence" "you people" "have."

This is what gets me about this. If trutherism wasn't so completely wrong (like abject internally inconsistent wrongness) and I had been convinced without a shadow of a doubt that the government was behind it, I would not be going off to boot camp in a month, I'd be sabotaging rail lines and sniping government officials. Either the truthers know that they are wrong deep down inside, or they are total limp-wristed pansies.

Kage
 
The above two posts sink to almost unbelieveable levels of mindlessness and stupidity.

We really do have good evidence that the passengers were sent to the back of the planes, based on the records of the phone calls-- which is what this thread is supposed to be about. No one here disputes that. Stellafane, why don't you quit popping testosterone pills and try to use your brain a little more? Maybe you could start by actually paying attention to the thread, and to the posts made by people you disagree with.

Kage, I have never contended the government is behind 9/11. You obviously haven't been paying attention either.

It gets tiring having to contend with emotionally charged adolescents like the above two posters. Maybe we have two forums here-- one for those of us who want to debate and discuss ideas, and present our own arguments backed with sources; and another for angry guys who just want a place to let off a little steam before heading to the gym.

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
First, you'd have to actually have some ideas and arguments.

What of your contention that there are other suitable doors on the aircraft for special forces egress? You were wrong about the nose gear door, and wrong about the equipment access door. Any other bright ideas?
 
The above two posts sink to almost unbelieveable levels of mindlessness and stupidity.

We really do have good evidence that the passengers were sent to the back of the planes, based on the records of the phone calls-- which is what this thread is supposed to be about. No one here disputes that. Stellafane, why don't you quit popping testosterone pills and try to use your brain a little more? Maybe you could start by actually paying attention to the thread, and to the posts made by people you disagree with.

Kage, I have never contended the government is behind 9/11. You obviously haven't been paying attention either.

It gets tiring having to contend with emotionally charged adolescents like the above two posters. Maybe we have two forums here-- one for those of us who want to debate and discuss ideas, and present our own arguments backed with sources; and another for angry guys who just want a place to let off a little steam before heading to the gym.


1. Why don't you tell us who you "think" was behind 9/11.

2. The phone calls that you say confirm passengers were sent to the back, are alleged to be faked, so how can they be trusted??

TAM:)
 

Back
Top Bottom