How 9/11 was done

[ElMondoHummus]

I think you'll find that most "science facts" start out as "science theories", but if people are unprepared to even entertain 'certain theories', what chance is there of producing 'evidence' that is likely to be acceptable?

You are emphasizing irrelevant factors to make your argument here. I don't want to get overly pendantic and point out that "facts" do not start from theories, but are instead observations which form the building blocks of theories. That's a topic for the Philosophy subforum. Rather, what I need to point out can be seen in a comparison of a failed and a successful hypothesis:

Ether, aka "luminiferous aether": The arguments supporting the existence of this as a medium for the propogation of radiative phenomena such as light were, at the time, rather compelling. But the study of the topic along with the gathering of evidence proved that the ether as a medium did not truly exist. Evidence was sought, it contradicted the hypothesis. That was the end of the concept.

Evolution: The arguments supporting the notion that nature's natural course involves the continuing change of lifeforms were hard ones to accept at first, despite the obvious evidence in the practices of animal breeding and crop farming. But the evidence continued to accrue, and made the concept more robust. People were able to branch off from the discoveries and produce predictions of their own to test, and both successes and failures in those tests added to the thesis of biological evolution. Unlike with the ether, evidence gathering ended up strengthening, not weakening, this concept.

The bottom line to whether a scientific hypothesis succeeds or fails has to do with whether the evidence builds the hypothesis up, makes it more robust, and clarifies the picture or not. In any hypothetical proposal, there will be some arguments or observations contradicting the framework - look at Albert Einstein's judgements of quantum physics for an example of this - but over the long term, the weight of observations and gathered facts will end up supporting a proposal that truly reflects reality. Whereas that same gathering of observations and facts will end up contradicting proposals that do not properly reflect reality.

Where are the 9/11 hypotheses in all this? On the contradiction side, planted most firmly. Currently, 9/11 proposals groan under the weight of their contradictions. As an example, there are proposals from Steven Jones that his microsphere analysis indicate thermite use, but he ignores the alternate sources for generation (heck, he actually misrepresents them by stating that the existence of this particle is supposed to be unusual) as well as the fact that more gross characteristics of thermite use are completely missing. People attempting to defend this work find ways to explain their way around the problem, but the explanations end up complicating the "plot" so much that they end up being untenable. The thousands of workers at Ground Zero helped cover up evidence of incendiary use because they were afraid of being fired? And the steel was shipped off too quickly to study it? The first is simply a silly proposition, and presumes much; the second is actually contradicted by fact (it took months to sort through the steel, and many people from mulitple organizations (FDNY, NYPD CSU, FEMA/NIST, FBI, etc.) did in fact study it), but these two "explanations" are emblematic of the types of defenses used to support Jones's thesis. They do not directly support the idea, depend on too much themselves to stand firm, and in many cases have been proven false. I've pointed at the notion of epicycles in heliocentrism before to make a comparison to a system that fell under the weight of it's own "support", and I'll do so again: The machinations necessary to make the thermite hypothesis fly resemble epicycles in complexity, and fail for the similar reasons. At any rate, the contradictions of the thermite proposal go well beyond these two objections, but the point is that the accrual of observations and evidence contradicts this proposal rather firmly. Science is working in this regard; it's giving people a framework to understand that the proposal's support is flimsy and weakening as more consideration is given.

There are other examples - the notion of hijackings not occuring (this is quite flatly contradicted by multiple converging streams of evidence, not the least of which are the radar tracks and, in two cases, the FDR and CVR data, the phone calls from the flights (itself the center of a conspiracy hypothesis that is failing under the weight of observations and evidence), and so on, and so forth, but the point is that after all this time, 9/11 conspiracy hypotheses are not advancing sufficiently. Arguing between fine points of NoC, or debating remote-controlled jets vs. no-planes is not advancing. The proposals are not robust, and in fact at heart have yet to be established. Jones's arguments for thermite are not developing, and much of his work is spent trying to get around the contradictions, not develop whatever positives may exist. David Ray Griffin's work is simply contradictory on so many levels. I'll let others pass judgement on Judy Wood, Kevin Ryan, and in this forum Heiwa and 9/11-investigator, but the point is that there is no robustness, and certainly no forward progression in the development of 9/11 conspiracy hypotheses. The deeper that people dig, the more that these hypotheses are disproven. And that is not the sign of a hypothesis that is moving towards acceptance.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

That is to be decided by the readers .

I am one of the readers of this thread and I am just wondering if you are now in a position to answer this post after 31 pages as you haven’t the previous times it was asked of you?

It is, of course, a little dated as it was so far back in the thread and you have added a lot of requirements for your STORY since then. May-be Dr Adequate will feel inclined to update it. This reader would be interested, as to your opinion. It doesn’t look good for you narrative when you ignore well posed questions.

You are aware that even the BBC claimed that several said hijackers were reported to be alive .

Several of them were still reported to be alive, before photographs of all of them had been released. Then it turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, as the BBC reported.

If they were still alive, all they'd have to do to clear their names of this monstrous crime and expose the OCT would be to say: "Hey, look, I'm alive". None of them has done so.

As I pointed out to Sennemut, one inaccurate report does not overturn the actual evidence, which is the stuff on which accurate reports are based.

And you do realise, don't you, that reports of the hijackers, or "hijackers" still being alive, if accurate, would destroy your hypothesis too? Your hypothetical 19 Mossad agents wouldn't go around pretending to be the hijackers after the hijackers were dead, would they? 'Cos of Mossad not being idiots. So according to your own hypothesis, these reports must have been erroneous; which they are.

See my blog for a list of 12 core conspiricists + 20-40 whatever Israeli foot soldiers ('movers', programmers, stand-ins at flight schools). I made the case against Larry for buying the WTC, riddled with asbestos, insures against terrorist attacks, hires an Israeli security firm for the complex, owned by a top zionist billionaire (Greenberg) and has a friendship with Netanjahu. I never pulled the pull so far. Now that you mention it... .

Knowing Jews, even rich ones, is not evidence of complicity in mass-murder.

You will find the whole insurance and asbestos thing covered extensively on these forums.

Al Qaeda itself is a vague organisation. Some doubt even if it exists at all. .

The people that we mean by al Qaeda exist, even if it doesn't have actual membership cards. Much the same could be said of "neocons". It's a vague label, but if I denied that they even existed you could just give me a list of some people who are neocons, yes?

Objection: Israel's sworn vasal. Since Mearsheimer and Walt we do not have to go to David Duke any longer for the opinion that Israel determines American foreign policy. And the rest of American Society I might add. .

Your rhetoric is swamping your hypothesis. If the US is an Israeli vassal, and Israel "determines" American foreign policy, then there would be no need to trick the US into doing anything, and you have annihilated Mossad's supposed motive for pulling off 9/11.

The consequences could be potentially disastrous. Hence your fierce resistance. .

No. And, as I have pointed out, if we're going to get into analysis of motives here, I don't think that you should cast the first stone.

There is a fall back scenario though: namely the (valid) excuse for Israel that 9/11 was carried out by 'rogue elements'. I do not claim that there ever was an Israeli or American cabinet session that discussed the plot we are discussing here. In the worst case Olmert, Netanjahu, Zakheim, Silverstein etc. will be convicted. Maybe a couple of billion reparations. But the real danger will be an uprising within the American establishment. Think of Ron Paul as an American Jeltzin, standing on a tank in front of Capitol Hill throwing crappy little Michael Ledeen against a wall just to show that he means business. .

We can agree, though, that the consequences would be bad for Israel. I think in the long term they'd be catastrophic. It would be hard, would it not, for them to maintain their putative stranglehold over American foreign policy? Or any influence at all?

I don't know where you got this "couple of billion" from, reconstructing the WTC complex alone is estimated at $12 billion.

The Mossad is a state organ. It will probably not act independently. Certainly not on 9/11.

That's why the consequences I listed were for Israel, not Mossad.

Baloney. The leadership of Al Qaeda (assuming AQ exists at all) would be smart enough to understand that this would be an open invitation to get American troops landing on their shores .

If my conspirators have perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of their actions, then so do yours (sauce for the goose) and you must explain why Israel wanted the US to invade Afghanistan. You might also want to explain why none of the fake hijackers were fake Palestinians.

To the question of al Qaeda's motives. Your point is fair, but not unanswerable.

(1) Did they know this would prompt the invasion of Afghanistan? They had made attacks before, less devastating to be sure, without this happening. As I understand it, the joke going round the Middle East before 9/11 was that if someone attacked America --- they'd sue.

(2) Perhaps the invasion of Afghanistan was exactly what they wanted. Historically, Afghanistan has been a trap. They pwned the last superpower to invade them, despite the USSR having the huge advantage of a common border. Al Qaeda, who were not themselves Afghans, might have thought it most clever to lure the US into what they expected to be a second Vietnam.

(3) They are loonies. "Smart", perhaps, but loonies. Fanatics and fatalists, they think that they should fight the good fight (as they see it) and leave the results up to Allah.

(4) It would not be "smart" to declare war on America at all if one was in fact afraid ever to strike any significant blow.

Your list would be a perfect case for showing the utter incompetence of Muslims .

If you're trying to use their previous track record to prove that they couldn't have done 9/11, is that not a little like saying that a runner can't have achieved his personal best time, because there's no record of him running that fast on any other occasion?

Maybe 9/11 was a particularly good plan. If you think about it, it was a good plan. It doesn't require the terrorists to do anything even slightly illegal until the very moment of the hijack (no rules against knives on planes back then, it seems silly in retrospect) and then two minutes later they're armed with something that weighs four hundred tons and travels at five hundred miles an hour.

The Mossad was implicated in 1993 as discussed yesterday (post dumped by admin) .

No. But assuming they were, will you call that "a perfect case for showing the utter incompetence of Mossad"?

USS Cole was bombed in Yemen, Arabian territory .

That's why I gave it as an example of an attack on Americans not carried out on American soil

And Israel has of course the huge precedent of attacking the USS Liberty as a clear false flag operation. Covered up by Johnson. It shows clearly that Israel has no problem attacking the 'ally' US if it suits it needs .

A false flag attack involves pretending to be someone else. Whatever you think about the Liberty incident, it was not a false flag.

- Non-existent? It exists now. I agree it is my task to show it existed in 2001. I would be surprised if ti did not. My Commodore64 could speak in 1984 .

So you have no evidence for real-time voice-morphing software in 2001. (I haven't looked yet at your alleged proof that it exists now --- you know you've made enough posts to post links, yes?) But beyond that, we have shown that at least four of the phone calls were made by people whom Mossad couldn't have predicted would be on the planes. No software in the world is going to mimic a guy's voice well enough to fool his mother without a sample of his voice to work from, you can see the impossibility there.

- I have pointed at the US-patent. Zakheim worked for SPC that PRODUCED these systems. I agree I have yet to show it was implemented on the planes .

Hello? We discussed the patent you showed us. Not only was it not implemented on these planes, it was not implemented at all. Or built. Or designed.

- Getting a box cutter or a bottle with liquid on board is a hard sell indeed but not unthinkable. .

There'd be no problem with box-cutters, which were not prohibited, you'd have a tougher time with nerve gas.

And your hypothesis has two additional problems. First, your conspirators need to get the nerve gas on board without boarding themselves, unlike the real hijackers, who faced no such difficulty.

And second, I have evidence that the hijackers got on board armed with "cardboard cutters and knives" (according to witness Barbara Olsen); whereas you don't have a scrap of evidence for the nerve gas, which you just introduced to fill a gap in your hypothesis.

And this is the problem with your way of working. There is no evidence of nerve gas, and you had no suspicion of nerve gas --- until you needed it to fill in one of the holes in your collander-like theory, when suddenly, hey presto! there it is, like the voice-morphing software and a method to radio control a mechanically steered jumbo jet.

- I have sketched the scenario regarding the stand-ins .

Sketched is the word.

The slipping out of the airport after checkin is the easiest part. Provided the security firm is Huntington, owned by Atzmon, a convicted criminal who was well acquainted with Olmert .

Has it occurred to you that the employees of a company are not mindless robot slaves of whoever owns it?

And that your slipping out the side theory is contradicted by all the evidence.

Again, this bit where nineteen people are smuggled out of three separate airports doesn't appear in your hypothesis because there's a shred of evidence to show that it happened (indeed, the evidence shows that it didn't) but simply because you need it to be true. But why should we think that it's true?

Again, some 'hijackers' are reported to be alive .

See above. You mean "were", not "are".

Do not underestimate the difficulties your own conspiracy theory. You need no less than 19 people willing to commit suicide to start with! .

Recruiting suicide bombers is the easy bit. They have no problem with that, you must have noticed.

Let that sink in. For a ridiculous motive. These guys were half westernized themselves. And they need to be part of a larger organisation as well with people who can talk. .

You mean like al Qaeda saying "Yes, we did it"?

Tapes are easy to fake.

That is easy to say.

Many Truthers have said so, but none of them has actually produced a Bin Laden video capable of fooling al Jazeera and the CIA.

And why don't al Qaeda denounce the fakes? Could they be in on it?

As far as I am aware did bin Laden never claim he was behind it .

Perhaps you should have watched the video I posted.

Oh, but wait, tapes are "easy to fake".

So what do you want him to do, come round your house?

Oh, but wait, it could be a Mossad agent who's had plastic surgery ...

Again, I have to ask, do you have any evidence the the al Qaeda tapes are faked ... or is it just something you require to fill up another gaping hole in your hypothesis?

This DNA from hijackers from the Ground Zero pile. You must be joking right? .

DNA from the hotel rooms and vehicles used by the hijackers was matched to body parts found at crash sites. It follows either that the hijackers were indeed on the planes ... or that you're now going to add some more unevidenced bunkum to your hypothesis to get round that.

The did find Atta's passport though unscathed in a street nearby .

Satam al-Suqami's, I believe.

That was so obvious planted evidence; that was a real mistake to do that .

Saying that something is "obvious" is not actually a demonstration that it's true, you might want to work a little harder on that one.

Why is is "obviously" planted except that you (obviously) need it to be planted, to square your hypothesis with reality?

You forget to mention our prominent member of that PNAC group that plotted for a global coup d'etat no less: Zakheim. He had worked 4 years as a CEO for a company that produced systems for remote control of airplanes .

Would that give him the power to retrofit mechanically-steered jumbo jets with radio control devices which don't exist in such a way that no-one would notice?

Bin Laden denied. Maybe that a couple of local loosers wanted to jump on the bandwagon acquiring local fame based on hot air .

Watch the video, or any of the other al Qaeda videos on YouTube or wherever.

I do not deny that the muslims world wide, being on second last position in the global pecking order (before Africa), liked that they had dealt America a blow. Self-esteem and stuff .

OK, earlier on you were claiming that they wouldn't actually do 9/11 because of the consequences. Now you're claiming that they'd pretend to have done it and hang the consequences ... to boost their self esteem?

This seems somewhat inconsistent.

That is to be decided by the readers .

Yes, and you are one of them. I am interested in your opinion.

Let's look at the two cases again.

I have documentary, eyewitness and forensic medical evidence that the hijackers had terrorist associations, made martyrdom tapes, bought knives, bought tickets, checked in, boarded the planes, took them over armed with knives and boxcutters, and were on the planes when they crashed. Oh, and al Qaeda claimed responsibility.

You have no evidence that the "hijackers" were successfully impersonated by Mossad agents for a couple of years, no evidence of them "slipping out the side", no evidence of complicity by airport staff, no evidence of nerve gas being smuggled onto the planes, no evidence that the planes had been fitted with remote control devices, no evidence that anyone has even designed such a device for such planes, no evidence that such a device was ever fitted to the planes, no explanation of how it could be fitted without anyone finding out, no evidence that real-time voice morphing such as could fool a parent or lover existed in 2001, no explanation as to how Mossad could have used this gimmick to impersonate people whose presence on the planes they could not have predicted ...

... and you require that all the evidence we do have is a fake; a proposition which is itself unsupported by any evidence.

So in your opinion, speaking as one of the readers by whom it is to be decided, which of us has the stronger case right now?

Woof!

 

[9/11-investigator]

Oh look, another technical non-solution to your problems.

The doctor refers to: "After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the United States government launched a massive program to spy on millions of its own citizens."

But I never said that it was the US-government that faked the phone calls for which eavesdropping was necessary.

If you read on: "Israel's spy agencies have long had a revolving-door relationship with Verint and Narus and other Israeli military-security firms."

 

[9/11-investigator]

Because he paid to insure the buildings and they didn't.

That was clear to me. But I had not understood that S. only leased the land, not the buildings. Thanks to ElMondoHummus I now do understand why it was S. who had to do the suing and not the NYPA.

 

[lapman]

That was clear to me. But I had not understood that S. only leased the land, not the buildings. Thanks to ElMondoHummus I now do understand why it was S. who had to do the suing and not the NYPA.

IIRC, S only owned WTC 7 and was leasing the towers. Either way, Silverstein didn't just walk into the PANYNJ office 6 weeks prior to 9/11 and sign the lease right on the spot. It took months for him to win the contract. So you claim that the timing of the lease signing is significant is ridiculous.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Out of curiosity though, I have one question. Why DO you blame the Jews? Seriously?

There is no evidence, not even circumstantial, and you don't seem to be a believer in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy (as say, Alex Jones is) so what's the deal?

I have said that many times before. 'My' theory is based on 2 pillars: 1) CD WTC 2) dancing Israelis identified as Mossad agents who clearly had foreknowledge. The rest follows more or less from it. Then we have Jewish ownership of the WTC target, Israeli WTC security firm Kroll, Israeli handling of security departure airports (Huntleigh), PNAC/Clean Break (New Pearl Harbor), we have mastermind Zakheim who had previously been 4 years CEO of a company doing business with remote control systems of aircraft, who became comptroller of the Pentagon that had to clear where the missing trillions had gone (precisely those people and data were destroyed), then there is this PTech story, and we have Mearsheimer/Walt who have made it clear who determines US foreign policy, so it would be clear to the perps how the US establishment would react to the events of 9/11. And we have the precedent of the false flag attack on the USS Liberty. And we have the Army School of Advanced Military Studies with their assessment (see signature).

It fits all too well. Much better than this lame Arabs-did-it-story, who had no motive to invite the US army into their soil, who never claimed responsibility in a credible manner.

America's ruling class (for it's composition go to Mearsheimer/Walt) decided to take advantage of the unipolar moment and needed an excuse to commit a quasi global coup d'etat and establish a police state at home on the basis of the Patriot Act (written before 9/11!) and Homeland Security. The Mossad delivered.

 

[DavidJames]

I have said that many times before. 'My' theory is based on 2 pillars: 1) CD WTC 2) dancing Israelis identified as Mossad agents who clearly had foreknowledge.

So you base your entire premise on two items for which you have no evidence? Well done.

America's ruling class (for it's composition go to Mearsheimer/Walt) decided to take advantage of the unipolar moment and needed an excuse to commit a quasi global coup d'etat and establish a police state at home on the basis of the Patriot Act (written before 9/11!) and Homeland Security. The Mossad delivered.

Police state? Yet we American's just free (and empathically) elected a man who his opponents said was a socialist and cavorted with a domestic terrorist. Your ability to understand reality is tragically ignorant.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The doctor refers to: "After the 11 September 2001 attacks, the United States government launched a massive program to spy on millions of its own citizens."

But I never said that it was the US-government that faked the phone calls for which eavesdropping was necessary.

No, you said that the relationship between US government efforts to eavesdrop on its own people and the firms to which this was outsourced, which have connections with Israeli intelligence, made it easy for the Israelis to eavesdrop on the future 9/11 passengers. You were therefore pretending that a post-9/11 relationship identified as such in your source existed pre-9/11 and facilitated the conspiracy. Now that your misdirection has been exposed, you're pretending that the claim was simply that Israeli companies in the security industry have a close relationship with Israeli intelligence, a conclusion about as surprising as that the Pope has a close relationship with the Catholic Church.

But the questions that this sort of behaviour, repeated over just about every issue discussed in this thread, will prompt in the mind of the undecided reader are these: firstly, why are you so transparently trying to manufacture evidence for your theory when you claim to be an unbiased investigator; and secondly, why, when your tricks are exposed, do you then change your story, talk about something else for a while, then pretend your original claim was substantiated? I think it's about time you started answering those questions yourself, because the answers settled on by undecided readers may not be entirely to your liking.

Dave

 

[lapman]

I have said that many times before. 'My' theory is based on 2 pillars: 1) CD WTC 2) dancing Israelis identified as Mossad agents who clearly had foreknowledge.

Since you're "pillars" have been proven completely false, you have nothing but quicksand to stand on. The rest of it is completely baseless which has been shown over and over again. Nothing you have stated is based on reality. Instead, you have created this elaborate fantasy and supported it with lies and more fantasy.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And we have the Army School of Advanced Military Studies with their assessment (see signature).

Oh, dear, here we go again. Are you aware of what and who SAMS is?

It fits all too well. Much better than this lame Arabs-did-it-story, who had no motive to invite the US army into their soil, who never claimed responsibility in a credible manner.

You may have missed the news, but no Arab government admitted to the attack. An extranational group from a variety of Arab nations did, however. Your "their soil" sound byte is odd, here, though it fits with Osama's complaint about US troops in his Holy Arabia.

On September 10, 2001, the Army School of Advanced Military Studies issued a report written by elite US army officers, which was made public just prior to 9/11. The report gave the following description for the Mossad: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

written by elite US army officers

Do tell.

Mister, do you have the actual paper written at (not by) SAMS by a student )or a team of students) there from which you cherry picked that observation?

By the way, I don't disagree with the assessmet on Mossad's capability. I will note that the US has a nuclear capability to drop MIRV's on Italy, but the US has not done so.

While Mossad may be capable of setting up an attack on US troops in the Middle East and making it look like Arabs did it, not that hard to do IMO, I don't find your extrapolation of that capability to the events of 9-11 to map well to the comments so chosen.

It's not that Mossad, MI6, KGB, or any number of covert ops organization might not have been capable of doing this. That is within the realm of possiblity.

What that doesn't explain is who admitted to doing it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

From a compendium of False Flag speculation at History Commons (?????)

A group of second-year students at the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) produces a 68-page plan for sending peacekeepers to Israel in the event that the Israelis and Palestinians agree to a peace plan and the creation of a Palestinian state.

Though the cover of the report indicates that the report has been written for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Maj. Chris Garver, a Fort Leavenworth spokesman, says that it was only an academic exercise.

An article about the report appears in the Washington Times on September 10, 2001. The report refers to Israel’s armed forces as a “500-pound gorilla in Israel” that is “well armed and trained” and is “known to disregard international law to accomplish mission.”

Of the Mossad, the report says: “Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”​

Note that this statement is in the context of US peacekeeping in a
hypothetical Israel Pal agreement in the Holy Land, not New York City.

It describes Palestinian youths as “loose cannons; under no control, sometimes violent.”​

Well, then they did 9-11. SAMS said they were sometimes violent.

The SAMS officers write that US goals for the first 30 days of such a mission would be to “create conditions for development of Palestinian State and security of Israel”; ensure “equal distribution of contract value or equivalent aid” that would help legitimize the peacekeeping force and stimulate economic growth; “promote US investment in Palestine”; “encourage reconciliation between entities based on acceptance of new national identities”; and “build lasting relationship based on new legal borders and not religious-territorial claims.”​

Source is [Washington Times, 9/10/2001]

What remains for me to figure out is when the exercise was actually published for CJCS review. I do not believe that Sept 10 is a relevant date.

DR

 

[Sparky]

This all might make the premise for a good (fiction) novel. Anyone want to take a shot at writing it?

 

[Dr Adequate]

That was clear to me. But I had not understood that S. only leased the land, not the buildings. Thanks to ElMondoHummus I now do understand why it was S. who had to do the suing and not the NYPA.

I'm not sure that EMH is right; so far as I know Silverstein did lease the buildings.

No, I think the issue is much more simple than that. The reason the Port Authority didn't sue anyone is that they didn't make a loss. They leased the WTC to Silverstein for 99 years; in return they got $3.2 billion dollars. Their financial interest ends there. If "Lucky" Larry Silverstein then can't make money out of it due to it being a smouldering pile of rubble, it is he, not they, who is out of pocket. They still get his money --- so whom do they sue?

This is also why he, not they, insured it.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I can't let this go.

That's because, at 1:22 etc., they are two different people. They say so! This doesn't support your case.

The rest of that video is the usual effect of "voice + effect"--that is, it doesn't sound like a different person, it sounds artificial. Great if you want the passengers to sound like Darth Vader, but not good for much else--except silliness.

The other example was a technique where a voice input triggers a synthesized or pre-recorded output--it's not really morphing, at all. It wouldn't be capable of doing an imitation of a different voice. It's specialized.

You guys are not easy to convince. Here is another gem:

Voice morphing:
First hear the real voice, then:
2:08 - same voice morphed into a child's voice
2:49 - likewise into an other man's voice
2:57 - likewise into a woman's voice

Let me know if you're still not satisfied.

 

[9/11-investigator]

No.

Here's an impression of the phone calls of 9/11, under the title "Shockingly Calm".

This is my personal favorite from the collection:

7) Todd Beamer talked for 13 minutes with GTE-Verizon supervisor Lisa Jefferson. According to Jefferson, Beamer "was amazingly calm and composed as he told her of the hijacking of Flight 93 and passengers' plans to rush their captors." [31] Jefferson said he "stayed calm through the entire conversation. He made me doubt the severity of the call." [32] She later told Beamer's wife, "If I hadn't known it was a real hijacking, I'd have thought it was a crank call, because Todd was so rational and methodical about what he was doing." [33]

Except for 1 or 2 cases this was the general pattern.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Since you're "pillars" have been proven completely false, you have nothing but quicksand to stand on.

You have not proven anything.

The 'best' answer regarding the dancing Israelis you guys could come up with was that maybe these Israelis were cheering for 'something else' (with the camera's pointing towards the smoking towers). I mocked that it must have been that the other night FC Jerusalem had beaten Tel Aviv United 2-1. Nobody protested.

The CD of WTC is by no means proven to be incorrect.

Dream on.

 

[stilicho]

America's ruling class (for it's composition go to Mearsheimer/Walt) decided to take advantage of the unipolar moment and needed an excuse to commit a quasi global coup d'etat and establish a police state at home on the basis of the Patriot Act (written before 9/11!) and Homeland Security. The Mossad delivered.

I'm not sure about Mearsheimer but most of the true conspiracists call this the 'transnational ruling class' so there's no confusion about what ethnic group they're talking about. To keep your conspiracy consistent and flexible, you should keep the American ruling elites a peg below the 'transnational ruling class'. That way, events such as the election of Obama to the presidency will fit better.

Obama won because the American ruling elites failed to deliver Eretz Israel (or whatever aim you arbitrarily select) to pay for the Mossad 'inside job'. See? It's simple! And you can explain away the lack of the institution of the US police state in the same way. The American ruling elites failed to deliver that either so the 'transnational ruling class' ensured Obama's victory.

 

[9/11-investigator]

No, you said that the relationship between US government efforts to eavesdrop on its own people and the firms to which this was outsourced, which have connections with Israeli intelligence, made it easy for the Israelis to eavesdrop on the future 9/11 passengers. You were therefore pretending that a post-9/11 relationship identified as such in your source existed pre-9/11 and facilitated the conspiracy. Now that your misdirection has been exposed, you're pretending that the claim was simply that Israeli companies in the security industry have a close relationship with Israeli intelligence, a conclusion about as surprising as that the Pope has a close relationship with the Catholic Church.

I said nothing, I just quoted from a review about Bamford's book. I agree that the US spying on civilians program addressed in the review dated post 9/11. But the review makes also clear that there existed a long-term relation ship between Israeli intelligence agencies and phone companies. I agree that this issue needs to be further addressed.

But the questions that this sort of behaviour, repeated over just about every issue discussed in this thread, will prompt in the mind of the undecided reader are these: firstly, why are you so transparently trying to manufacture evidence for your theory when you claim to be an unbiased investigator; and secondly, why, when your tricks are exposed, do you then change your story, talk about something else for a while, then pretend your original claim was substantiated? I think it's about time you started answering those questions yourself, because the answers settled on by undecided readers may not be entirely to your liking.

Dave

You err when you think that I want to attempt to change your mind or that I want to influence casual readers of this site. I could not care less. My time is too valuable for these kind of games. So forget this BS about 'tricks'. What I want is to discover the weak spots in my theory and to adapt the theory if necessary. I am a student, not a propagandist. Not yet. If I would go flat on my face now then that's a pity, but so be it. No real life embarrassment, apart from a man month loss. I would have tried and failed. But I smell that I'm on the right trail, although nowhere near the finish.

 

[Sparky]

You guys are not easy to convince. Here is another gem:

Voice morphing:
First hear the real voice, then:
2:08 - same voice morphed into a child's voice
2:49 - likewise into an other man's voice
2:57 - likewise into a woman's voice

Let me know if you're still not satisfied.

I'm still not convinced. I noticed that this software does not alter speech patterns and inflection.

For example, I have a very relaxed way of speaking. You might even call it a "drawl". Even if you could match the frequency and timbre of my voice exactly, you'll never be able to match my particular pattern and pronunciation in realtime.

Sorry. Nice try.

 

[Alt+F4]

But I smell that I'm on the right trail, although nowhere near the finish.

And? What do you plan to do? Are you going to file a criminal complaint against the Israeli government? Did you know someone that died on 9/11? As far as I can tell, no citizens of the Netherlands died in the attack. What is your motivation?