Voice-Morphing and the Passenger Calls

A-Train said:
The above two posts sink to almost unbelieveable levels of mindlessness and stupidity.
Click to expand...

Why thank you. Coming from a 9/11 truther, where bizarro logic seems to rule, I'll take that as a compliment.

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.
Click to expand...

Silly me. I thought this thread was about voice-morphing technology. That's what the title say anyway.

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.
Click to expand...

I don't report people for insulting me personally. But geez, that's really over the line. Accusing me of popping pills, because you don't like my post? I admit that I treated you post pretty dismissively, but I didn't attack you personally like this. I suggest you learn how to deal with someone who disagrees with you, or rethink this whole internet forum thing. Because if this is any indication, you're not currently equipped to handle it.


It gets tiring having to contend with emotionally charged adolescents like the above two posters.
Click to expand...

OK, two things. One, a lot of us (myself included) were taken to task by the mods for bringing up Revolution91's age. So I suggest you don't bring up mine or anyone else's. Two, are you blind or something? Do you really think that face in my avatar belongs to an adolecent?? (Then again, lack of visual acuity might explain why so many CTist keep finding "evidence" in places it clearly does not exist.)

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.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's already multiple forums here. Some, like this one, are indeed designed for those who want to debate and discuss ideas backed with evidence. And there's forums better suited for letting off steam. I'm guessing you believe your posts belong in the former. But from my perspective, you've presented absolutely zero indication that they do. You don't debate or discuss ideas, you just resurrect for the umpti-umpth time tired old CTist canards that have been debunked a million times. You've shown no interest in what others have to say, you just want them to accept what you present without question. You offer no evidence, not by any rational person's definition of the word. In short, like every CTist the world over, you've done nothing to persuade me that you "have" "good" "evidence." And I can hardly be blamed for pointing out that painfully obvious fact.
 
Last edited:
A-Train said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here's your problem, you site source like boeing.com to try and back up your claims. Yet you will make basic fact checking mistakes like identifying things like nose gear doors as a route of exit.
 
Alt+F4 said:
Yes, the voice quality that comes from using Servox electro-larynx is pretty awful. It would have been wonderful to have the technology then to record her actual voice and have that used as her "playback" voice.
Click to expand...

Stephen Hawking could benefit from that too. I would imagine it would boost self esteem and definitely improve communication.:)

____

Oops, I skipped over post 71 and 72 when I wrote this.
 
Last edited:
wooooody64 said:
Revolutionary91 said:
Why develop voice morphing technology in the first place. I cant think of a wholesome use for it. He is developing technology to allow us to impersonate each other, its a gift for criminals..
Click to expand...

Im with Rev, Why?
Click to expand...

Really, woody? You can't think of any non-nefarious uses for it, despite the fact that several have been raised in this very thread?
 
By the way, terrific thread, pomeroo, and thanks for the additional information, Alt+F4, regarding your contact with Dr. Papcun.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
A-Train said:
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.
Click to expand...

Point 1 - You are not the only person in this forum, nor was the comment directed at you. Had I inteded it to be directed at you, I would have started my post like a letter, with your name on top. I was merely commenting on the lack of spine of the 9/11 truth movement. If you identify with this movement, then yes---I called you a limp-wristed pansy. If you identify with limp-wristed pansies, then I apologize 100% for linking you to the truth movement. I used such possibly hurtful verbiage due to the constraints given by our beloved rule 8. Many of my friends are limp-wristed pansies, and I am quite tolerant of their lifestyle.

Point 2 - I've read Warrior Soul, and am quite aware (as I said in a previous post) that DEVGRU SEALs can and do parashute from civilian airliners. As someone who is enlisting into Naval Special Warfare, I think that that is pretty awesome. DJ Cooper's heist is also another example of such a stunt. The problem is that this manuver requires a rear access ramp to be survivable. The planes in question did not have one. Aside from this major problem with the "how," I can't see a possible "when" either. When did these super agents parachute out of the planes? How come they weren't observed landing? I've jumped out of planes, even opening low you stay in the air a long time. Opening high, as you suggest, means an even longer time under canopy. Do you think that these parachuting super agents managed to be missed as they parachuted into northern NJ and MD?

Point 3 - I, however testosterone fuled I may be, am not an adolescent or a teen ager. I have a degree in physics from a good university and am totally happy to have puberty squarely behind me. If you read my posts I don't refer to a posters age (even if I think that they are an immature little squirt) or their other beliefs. I feel that such references, even though not connected to the argument at hand, are too close to ad homs for my liking.

Kage
 
A-Train said:
Sorry, but I actually read Apathoid's paper. He did not destroy the idea of remote controlled Boeings. He made a pretty good argument against the possibility of a remote takeover of those planes. However, all his scenarios included the assumption that the crew of the planes would be actively working against such a takeover.

He did not deal with the possibility, such as I am proposing, that the pilots had been shot through the head by highly trained hijackers, who then would have been able to rig the cockpit for remote flight unimpeded.
Click to expand...

And here in the bolded part is the crux of the biscuit. If A-Train had read Ap's paper for comprehension, s/he would have noticed that there is no "remote control" mode available on the AFCS system, and that "rigging the cockpit" for remote-controlled flight would require modifications to the equipment and the airplane's wiring infrastructure. This fact is entirely independent of the presence or absence of pilots.

A-train simply handwaves a capability which is not actually built into the planes into existence because without it, his/her entire fantasy collapses. As support for the "commando takeover" scenario, this just won't do.

If A-Train wants anyone to give this claim serious consideration, s/he must provide an explanation of just how the commandos would go about installing this previously non-existent capability, using items brought on board in their carry-on luggage (along with their parachutes- they don't have those on airliners either). This needs to be done in enough detail that a technically knowledgeable person, like Apathoid, can see that it is at least plausible.

This isn't some script conference for Star Trek. You can't just have Scotty say "I'll just discombobulate the xylostats into the platinoid umlauts on the photon torpedoes" and rely on the audience's willing suspension of disbelief to *bleep* over your plot hole.

Life would be much easier and more pleasant if we all could skip over inconvenient physical realities by saying "frammin on the jimjam, frippen on the krotz" and wishing really hard. And as long as we're dreaming, I'd like a pony and an ice cream soda.

Well, A-Train? Going to stop handwaving and support your claim?
 
A-Train said:
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.
Click to expand...


It is embarrassingly silly nonsense on many counts.

The hijackers' names and seating positions were shown on the passenger manifests printed in several major newspapers.
Perhaps the airlines, the FAA, and the publishers, editors, and reporters of these papers are all part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy? It's getting a little crowded, you know.

No calls made by any of the passengers or flight crew report anyone "bailing out," assuming such a feat was possible.

If your imaginary special forces teams bailed out, who executed the maneuvers necessary to hit the buildings?

The remote-control technology required by your fantasy--does it exist? Show evidence.

There's still that nagging problem of the jihadists being extremely proud of their accomplishment.

Ktesibios's question about the parachutes is damned inconvenient, no? Didn't think of that, huh?
 
Last edited:
Aside from all the above which proves the impossibility. what about the erratic flight path with the many changes in altitude and all the banking turns? an autopilot just goes straight ahead.
 
pomeroo said:
The hijackers' names and seating positions were shown on the passenger manifests printed in several major newspapers.
Perhaps the airlines, the FAA, and the publishers, editors, and reporters of these papers are all part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy? It's getting a little crowded, you know.
Click to expand...

Vast Conspiracy? I have no idea what you're talking about. That the names of the supposed hijackers appeared on the manifests only means that the real hijackers stole their identities, and boarded the planes under those assumed names. Or, that some patsies boarded the planes unwittingly, but did not participate in the hijackings.

pomeroo said:
No calls made by any of the passengers or flight crew report anyone "bailing out," assuming such a feat was possible.
Click to expand...

It's obviously possible. Chuck Pfarrar's book proves that. Didn't you read the excerpt I linked to? How could the passengers notice anything from the back of the plane, if the hijackers bail out from the front or bottom, as did Pfarrar and his SEALS? Obviously, the technique as used by SEALS was designed not to be noticed by civilian passengers.

pomeroo said:
If your imaginary special forces teams bailed out, who executed the maneuvers necessary to hit the buildings?
Click to expand...

The planes were flown by remote navigation, such as Global Hawk. The planes may have been assisted to their targets by some kind of localizer or other homing device planted in the WTC buildings and Pentagon.

pomeroo said:
The remote-control technology required by your fantasy--does it exist? Show evidence.
Click to expand...

That technology has been around for at least thirty years, everyone knows that. Even Loose Change knows that.

pomeroo said:
There's still that nagging problem of the jihadists being extremely proud of their accomplishment.
Click to expand...

Most people in the Arab/Muslim world don't think al-Qaeda did 9/11. They readily admit that Arabs aren't capable of such a sophisticated operation. They tried to tell us that, but we wouldn't listen.

pomeroo said:
Ktesibios's question about the parachutes is damned inconvenient, no? Didn't think of that, huh?
Click to expand...

You mean his question about remote control? I'll admit I can't describe precisely how a cockpit could be rigged for remote control in 10-15 minutes. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

You guys are desperately fighting these ideas tooth and nail. But in the long run, you will have to admit that everything I am suggesting is eminently doable.
 
now youre bordering on ludicrous, Atrain. stop. you are repeating the same debunked lies
 
A-Train said:
Most people in the Arab/Muslim world don't think al-Qaeda did 9/11. They readily admit that Arabs aren't capable of such a sophisticated operation. They tried to tell us that, but we wouldn't listen.
Click to expand...

Another racist comment...seems like alot of this going around from the truthers lately.

I know lots of arabs, and let me tell you, they are as smart and intelligent as any north american. Your above comments are not only false, but shameful. Worse that those who claim these people were "Arabs in Caves".

TAM:mad:
 
A-Train said:
It's obviously possible. Chuck Pfarrar's book proves that. Didn't you read the excerpt I linked to? How could the passengers notice anything from the back of the plane, if the hijackers bail out from the front or bottom, as did Pfarrar and his SEALS? Obviously, the technique as used by SEALS was designed not to be noticed by civilian passengers.
Click to expand...

In that very same chapter of that very same book, Chuck makes it clear that they use the rear exit, and even then without proper body position it is possible for the slipstream to snap the operators neck. Also, the plane in the book performs an emergency dive and slows its airspeed in order to make the evolution possible. The plane also has NO CIVILIAN PASSENGERS! Every person on that plane is involved with the mission at hand. People would notice that the plane had depressurized (having been on a plane that did just that I can tell you that it was miserable, though much more so for my mom and sister who can't clear their ears on command like I can). This book is not a sufficient source to prove what you claim is even possible.

Have you ever seen the side exit of a plane? It opens out. In an emergency opening the exit door falls off the plane. Where was this door? Why didn't people find this door or see it plummet to the ground? Also, you haven't answered how 20 operators managed to parachute in broad daylight and not get noticed around large, dense metropolitan areas. Your theories are worse than plausible.

Kage
 
Kage said:
In that very same chapter of that very same book, Chuck makes it clear that they use the rear exit, and even then without proper body position it is possible for the slipstream to snap the operators neck. Also, the plane in the book performs an emergency dive and slows its airspeed in order to make the evolution possible. The plane also has NO CIVILIAN PASSENGERS! Every person on that plane is involved with the mission at hand. People would notice that the plane had depressurized (having been on a plane that did just that I can tell you that it was miserable, though much more so for my mom and sister who can't clear their ears on command like I can). This book is not a sufficient source to prove what you claim is even possible.

Have you ever seen the side exit of a plane? It opens out. In an emergency opening the exit door falls off the plane. Where was this door? Why didn't people find this door or see it plummet to the ground? Also, you haven't answered how 20 operators managed to parachute in broad daylight and not get noticed around large, dense metropolitan areas. Your theories are worse than plausible.

Kage
Click to expand...


Not to mention all of the interior debris, and possibly many passengers that would have been sucked out the door.

TAM:)
 
Frammin on the jimjam, Frippen at the krotz!

As expected, A-Train has simply indulged in more handwaving.

To put it in words of short syllables, A-train has made a positive claim- that the putative commandos could "rig the cockpit for remote flight". The entire A-Train scenario depends on that claim: if it isn't true, the whole thing falls apart.

A-Train has made a further positive claim: that the commando scenario is "eminently doable".

Asserting a positive claim places the burden of proof on the claimant. It's not necessary to prove it wrong; if it be not properly supported by evidence it fails all by itself. We do have good evidence that the capability for remote-controlled flight is not built into the 757 or 767 and can't be invoked simply by throwing some switches and twisting some knobs; A-Train has supplied no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that his/her commando team could accomplish what is claimed and in fact has admitted to having no knowledge of how it could be done. That admission is identical to admitting to having no knowledge that it can be done at all, least of all within the unavoidable constraints imposed by the rest of the A-Train scenario.

Since the claim of the villains "rigging the cockpit" for remote flight remains completely unsupported by anything save uninformed assertion, it should be rejected until such time as its proponent provides proof of it's being possible.

But A-Train can't withdraw this claim, because if that one thing fails, the entire fantasy crumbles, and with it all possibility of pinning the blame on A-Train's chosen hate object.

Consequently, my psychic powers lead me to predict that A-Train will respond either with more unsupported assertions, or irrelevant links to stories about aircraft which were either designed or heavily modified for remote-controlled flight. When I win Randi's million bucks, send it to me at work. I'll be there late, plotting how if I can get into one of the control rooms for half an hour I can rig the SSL audio mixing console to be a video editing system.
 
MacGyver could do it. So could the A-Team. You big meany nay-sayer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom