How 9/11 was done

[Dr Adequate]

We did indeed discuss that, I wasted my valuable time on what turned out to be false info from some of the regulars.

No.

I fail to understand what the link is between the content of a conversation and the availability of a sample.

I did not say there was any. I said that even if the content was such, they still wouldn't have the voice samples.

Mention one nonexistent gizmo in my theory?

The patent remote control system that no-one's ever built ... the "thermite cord" off the computer game ... the real-time voice-morphing system ...

... but of course that depends what "your theory" is today. Any progress on how the towers came down yet? Have you refined your "explosives/thermite/whatever" theory?

But you have a point regarding the airphones. I am sure that the Israeli intelligence people within Verint were able to fake a few records in their database.

In whose database?

Why are you "sure"?

Do you have any evidence that this happened?

You say that it took you seven years to come up with your theory. It seems to amount to "Evil Jews coulda faked everything using secret technology". I could have come up with that in five seconds and dismissed it in a further five for lack of evidence.

 

[~enigma~]

Jews do not like Germans very much.

We don't? BTW, what does this have to do with the topic of how 9/11 was done?

 

[Dr Adequate]

We did indeed discuss that, I wasted my valuable time on what turned out to be false info from some of the regulars. Please try to keep up yourself.

Let me refresh your memory. In post #173 and post #194 of this thread gumboot and I showed you that Glick, Grandcolas and Bradshaw were all unscheduled additions to the flight who made phone calls from flight 93, at which point you hastily dropped the subject and started talking about something else.

 

[Alt+F4]

Once the Mossad gets hold of the passenger lists they can pass it on to their buddies at Verint and in no time they can get hold on sound samples necessary for voice morphing.

Do you have any evidence for this? Of course you don't.

 

[twinstead]

Let me refresh your memory. In post #173 and post #194 of this thread gumboot and I showed you that Glick, Grandcolas and Bradshaw were all unscheduled additions to the flight who made phone calls from flight 93, at which point you hastily dropped the subject and started talking about something else.

I'm going to have to inisist you deal with this, too, 9/11-investigator. how could those phone calls be faked?

 

[9/11-investigator]

And a little research would show you that the passengers who made phone calls include Bradshaw, Glick, and Grandcolas, whom gumboot named in his post. (See for example Exhibit P200055 in United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui.)

Oh sorry, slipped through.

Overview of all the phone calls.

Sure, if you can prove that these 3 guys did not make a phone call (that could be sampled) between their late booking and their actual boarding, then I am in deep trouble. Success with your efforts!

Now that you mention these people:

Passenger Jeremy Glick calls his wife, Lyz, at 9:37. She later recalls, “He was so calm, the plane sounded so calm, that if I hadn’t seen what was going on on the TV, I wouldn’t have believed it.” She says, “I was surprised by how calm it seemed in the background. I didn’t hear any screaming. I didn’t hear any noises. I didn’t hear any commotion.”

(A sad confirmation of the observed fact that if people see something on TV they then think it is necessarily true, while it would be far wiser if she had trusted her instinct and thus had seen through the scam she was subjected to; for the rest my tip to the Mossad would be, if they read along, next time throw in some screams from Arabs; sound samples are easily obtained from the Gaza strip).

Passenger Lauren Grandcolas calls her husband, Jack, at 9:39, and leaves a message on the answering machine. According to journalist and author Jere Longman, “It sounded to Jack as if she were driving home from the grocery store or ordering a pizza.” Jack Grandcolas later says, “She sounded calm.” He describes, “There is absolutely no background noise on her message. You can’t hear people screaming or yelling or crying. It’s very calm, the whole cabin, the background, there’s really very little sound.”

It is indeed not easy to fake emotion and angst if you have trouble suppressing the urge to laugh your *ss off while fooling these people.

 

[9/11-investigator]

We don't? BTW, what does this have to do with the topic of how 9/11 was done?

If you do then you are the first Jew ever who said that he liked Germans (not that I believe you).

What it has to do with 9/11? I think you can figure that out yourself: the largest part of the WTC damage had to be paid by Allianz and Swiss Re., from German lands. If the Israelis indeed did 9/11 then who do you think they would like to pay the damage?

 

[bynmdsue]

I don't hink our intrepid investigator uderstands how the voice morhing syatem works and is actually confused most likely by the word "morphing"

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

 

[9/11-investigator]

Invalid appeal to authority. Dewdney is not an expert on the complexity of military operations.

Dewdney was merely quoting Ostrovsky about his experiences with the Mossad. You do not need to be an expert on anything to get a quote right. O. describes how much effort the Mossad put into getting a Syrian ministers furniture bugged.

Richard Gage is making up fantasy numbers. He's ignoring the fact that Silverstein has continued to pay rent on the site, has had to pay for the construction of the replacement buildings, and has pulled a figure for asbestos abatement out of I know not where.

Could you quantify these statements a bit? Why should Silverstein pay the rent for non-existing buildings, of which almost the whole world thinks that it was not Silversteins fault that these buildings went south?

 

[Disenchanted]

And on top of that they needed to get rid of these asbestos riddled buildings on the cost of insurances companies from mainly German speaking territories like Germany and Switzerland.

Why would the insurance companies be so willing to pay? Why couldn't their investigators find evidence against the "official story"?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

O. describes how much effort the Mossad put into getting a Syrian ministers furniture bugged.

This may be one of the few statement's you've made that bears even a modicum of sense.

The Mossad would gave good reason for wanting to clandestinely surveil Syrian officials, given the Syrians' history of providing support to the Hezbollah and their Iranian Pasdaran controllers.

The TEL's that launched C802 CSSM's against the Israeli frigate in 2006 made their way to the LH through Damascus. If I were Mossad, these are things I would want to know.

 

[GStan]

Oh sorry, slipped through.

Overview of all the phone calls.

Sure, if you can prove that these 3 guys did not make a phone call (that could be sampled) between their late booking and their actual boarding, then I am in deep trouble. Success with your efforts!

Sorry, but since you are the one conjuring up the fantasy out of thin air, it will be your duty to find evidence that 1) these three people did all make a phone call, 2) that someone did actually record the phone call, and that it could be (and was) used in the manner in which you need it to be in the time available.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Trojan Horse.

Together, Verint and Amdocs form part of the backbone of the government's domestic intelligence surveillance technology. Both companies are based in Israel – having arisen to prominence from that country's cornering of the information technology market – and are heavily funded by the Israeli government, with connections to the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence (both companies have a long history of board memberships dominated by current and former Israeli military and intelligence officers). Verint is considered the world leader in "electronic interception" and hence an ideal private sector candidate for wiretap outsourcing.

Once the Mossad gets hold of the passenger lists they can pass it on to their buddies at Verint and in no time they can get hold on sound samples necessary for voice morphing. This connection is my little contribution to solving the 9/11 riddle (I emailed this idea to Bollyn and got an enthusiastic reply). So if his book 'solving 9/11' will come out look for this link and think: hey that's our 9/11-I's idea!

That's a terrible argument. For starters, you post a technology which allows for the possibility of conducting surveillance as an argument that some entity actually holds samples of anyone in the US. Please. That's not proof. That's not even a good assertion. Read your own link; nothing about it actually says that such a bank/repository/database of actual voice recordings exists. At best, assuming it's even accurate, it merely discusses wiretapping technology. And there's a huge leap from "can wiretap" to "has samples of 9/11 victims voices readily available". I'd like to know how an article discussing a technology supposedly used to compromise secure government lines is supposed to buttress the argument that random citizens, some of whom were last minute additions to the 9/11 flights, were recorded at some point in the past. Or to put it another way: 9/11 Investigator's link does not support his assertion. Any sort of wiretap can provide the same samples that the link article's technology can, and at that point, he's still missing the argument of how any of the passengers voices got singled out to be recorded in the first place.

Wrong: most conversations were one-way conversations where the caller was leading/dictating the conversation. There was no time for smalltalk or discuss little Joey's flu... the storyline was: 'Hi, here's Mark, I am in the plane, we're hijacked, please call the FBI, I love you. I have got to go. Bye. Click'.

No, you're the one who's wrong. Read the transcripts. They were highly interactive. Read the Betty Ong call transcription (http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-betty-ong-tape3.pdf), where the operator asks for and receives answers from Ms. Ong for an example of this.

On top that, the mere fact that the callers were "leading" the conversation doesn't change the fact that the calls were interactive. Read the Tom Burnett transcript.

And beyond that, how do you explain personal knowledge and phrases used? Remember Lisa Beamer's description of her husband's "Let's Roll" phrase?

KING: Was "Let's Roll" rather typical of Todd?

LISA BEAMER, HUSBAND TODD KILLED ABOARD FLIGHT 93: Yes. He used that a lot, especially with the boys to motivate them to move on and do what they needed to do, whether it was to clean up their toys or get their shoes on or head out the door, whatever it was. You want to kind of try to parent with positive things, so that was one of his positive phrases that he would use to encourage them to obedience.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/18/lkl.01.html

Are you telling me that was captured in some random phone call by some alleged Israeli Mossad wiretap? And that whomever plotted this act knew enough about Todd Beamer to know that his "Let's Roll" phrase should be included? None of that - none of it - is supported by anything you post. You don't even establish that the Mossad is involved, you merely assert it without supporting evidence. You don't prove that a databank of voice samples exists. And you don't even try to demonstrate how the hypothetical voice morphers knew enough about one of the victims to include one of his common phrases.

In short, you prove none of your assertions. You are flatly contradicted by the existing evidence.

They are looking in the wrong direction. It was not the government that faked the calls... it was the Mossad whose reliance on deception is legendary, nay it is even a part of their motto: "by way of deception shalt thou wage war". And that's what they did bigtime on 9/11.

By a relative small investment of some 30-50 man years they got 1,000,000 military man year equivalant for free from the US taxpayer to clean out the Middle East in Israels advantage.

Argumentum via Israeli is not proof. You provide zero substantiation of this point. Just saying "Mossad did it" doesn't prove that Mossad really did it. You need real evidence to make an argument fly.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh sorry, slipped through.

Overview of all the phone calls.

Sure, if you can prove that these 3 guys did not make a phone call (that could be sampled) between their late booking and their actual boarding, then I am in deep trouble. Success with your efforts!

I can prove it with the same degree of certainty that I can prove that there are no winged pigs, and in the same manner: by observing that no-one has produced any evidence to the contrary.

Now that you mention these people:

Passenger Jeremy Glick calls his wife, Lyz, at 9:37. She later recalls, “He was so calm, the plane sounded so calm, that if I hadn’t seen what was going on on the TV, I wouldn’t have believed it.” She says, “I was surprised by how calm it seemed in the background. I didn’t hear any screaming. I didn’t hear any noises. I didn’t hear any commotion.”

(A sad confirmation of the observed fact that if people see something on TV they then think it is necessarily true, while it would be far wiser if she had trusted her instinct and thus had seen through the scam she was subjected to; for the rest my tip to the Mossad would be, if they read along, next time throw in some screams from Arabs; sound samples are easily obtained from the Gaza strip).

Passenger Lauren Grandcolas calls her husband, Jack, at 9:39, and leaves a message on the answering machine. According to journalist and author Jere Longman, “It sounded to Jack as if she were driving home from the grocery store or ordering a pizza.” Jack Grandcolas later says, “She sounded calm.” He describes, “There is absolutely no background noise on her message. You can’t hear people screaming or yelling or crying. It’s very calm, the whole cabin, the background, there’s really very little sound.”

It is indeed not easy to fake emotion and angst if you have trouble suppressing the urge to laugh your *ss off while fooling these people.

Ah, I was wondering why they didn't fake screaming in the background. Obviously it was because it would have come out as a laugh track. As everyone knows, Jews can fly planes by remote control but faking the sound of screaming is beyond them.

None of 'em can act, either.

I take it you will therefore admit that any phone calls which did display "angst" were for real?

---

Alternatively, the hijackers had told the passengers to keep quiet. This would explain why the passengers in the background were quiet and why the phone calls were made in a quiet, clear and distinct voice.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh sorry, slipped through.

Overview of all the phone calls.

Sure, if you can prove that these 3 guys did not make a phone call (that could be sampled) between their late booking and their actual boarding, then I am in deep trouble. Success with your efforts!

Wrong placement of the burden of proof. You're the one making the claim, you are the one who has to support it. Where's your evidence that 1. The technology you breezily mentioned was actually used to monitor someone other than the government secure lines specifically mentioned in the artible, and 2. That the passengers in question were recorded voices instead of live transmissions?

You provide zero evidence for either claim. The most you post is an article suggesting that some eavesdropping technology exists. And you don't prove that it was actually used at all, let alone used in the context of 9/11.

As an aside, I'd beware of trusting information from either The Web Fairy, or Killtown. Granted, the specific link you provide at a glance looks to be nothing more than the assembly of quotes attributed to individuals, but again, why lean on those two individuals? Why not get the actual transcripts, like I did for the Betty Ong call in the previous post? Or for the description provided by Lisa Beamer? Why not go to the source? You really need those two to digest the information for you?

Now that you mention these people:

Passenger Jeremy Glick calls his wife, Lyz, at 9:37. She later recalls, “He was so calm, the plane sounded so calm, that if I hadn’t seen what was going on on the TV, I wouldn’t have believed it.” She says, “I was surprised by how calm it seemed in the background. I didn’t hear any screaming. I didn’t hear any noises. I didn’t hear any commotion.”

(A sad confirmation of the observed fact that if people see something on TV they then think it is necessarily true, while it would be far wiser if she had trusted her instinct and thus had seen through the scam she was subjected to; for the rest my tip to the Mossad would be, if they read along, next time throw in some screams from Arabs; sound samples are easily obtained from the Gaza strip).

Passenger Lauren Grandcolas calls her husband, Jack, at 9:39, and leaves a message on the answering machine. According to journalist and author Jere Longman, “It sounded to Jack as if she were driving home from the grocery store or ordering a pizza.” Jack Grandcolas later says, “She sounded calm.” He describes, “There is absolutely no background noise on her message. You can’t hear people screaming or yelling or crying. It’s very calm, the whole cabin, the background, there’s really very little sound.”

It is indeed not easy to fake emotion and angst if you have trouble suppressing the urge to laugh your *ss off while fooling these people.

What's this supposed to prove? That some callers didn't lose their heads while calling others about the crisis they were experiencing? Not all people get excited and panicky while reporting a crisis; listen to this 911 call from an older lady that happened while her house was being broke in to. And search out others. Some calls have panicked people. Some don't. Your information suggests that the callers simply managed to keep part of their calm. It does not come close to supporting any argument that the calls were faked.

 

[twinstead]

Wow. From what I can see many of the phone calles WERE highly interactive. 9/11-investigator why would you say that they all were one-sided? You know from reading the transcripts that isn't true. Are you just making stuff up again to support your theory? Any sane person reading the text of those calls can ONLY come to the conclusion that any claim that they were faked would need some pretty extraordinary evidence to even make it out of the box.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Could you quantify these statements a bit?

You're the investigator. Now you know what to look for, look it up.

Why should Silverstein pay the rent for non-existing buildings, of which almost the whole world thinks that it was not Silversteins fault that these buildings went south?

The terms of the lease require him to pay rent for the site (which still exists) in order to retain the right to redevelop it. The question of fault doesn't arise; it's a contract.

Dave

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why should Silverstein pay the rent for non-existing buildings, of which almost the whole world thinks that it was not Silversteins fault that these buildings went south?

Because the man whom you occasionally refer to as "Lucky" Larry took out a 99-year lease on the site six weeks before it was attacked.

Yes, it does seem a little unfair on the poor guy, doesn't it?

 

[stateofgrace]

WTC 1&2 were obviously not supposed to look like CD. And that's what Jowenko observed, in contrast to WTC7, which in his eyes was a CD (which it was in reality). The way WTC1&2 would come down was supposed to look like that the planes had caused the collapse.

Really?

So let me get this straight, your "perps" went to all the trouble to disguise the CD of WTC 1 and 2 but didn't bother going to the same trouble with WTC 7, right?

Rather than disguise the demolition of WTC 7, they decided it would be a great idea to demolish it after the dust cloud had settled, in broad day light, in full view of anybody who may have a video recorder, right?

And simply hope nobody would notice?

It never occurred to them, after they had gone to all the trouble to disguise the CD of WTC 1 and 2 that somebody might actually notice WTC 7 was demolished? It never occurred to them to apply the same staging with WTC 7 that they went to all the trouble with WTC 1 and 2?

Doesn't that seem slightly odd to you? Doesn’t it seem at all strange, had they wished to demolish WTC 7 they had every opportunity to do so, under the cover of the dust cloud? Ever wondered why they didn't?

They couldn’t be bothered to disguise the CD of the third building, right?

 

[doobiedoright]

Because the man whom you occasionally refer to as "Lucky" Larry took out a 99-year lease on the site six weeks before it was attacked.

Yes, it does seem a little unfair on the poor guy, doesn't it?

Any sane person would say why would lucky larry take out a 99-year lease,then blow his stuff up 6 weeks latter costing him probably everything he has!
Then again logic and the truth movement are far from friends!