Have you located the explosions yet, in the soundclip I linked to?
Here it is again: http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/
Scroll down to "Exhibits: Audio"
How 9/11 was done
- Thread starter 9/11-investigator
- Start date
Have you located the explosions yet, in the soundclip I linked to?
Here it is again: http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/
Scroll down to "Exhibits: Audio"
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Joey,
Aesthetics and horror are not mutually exclusive. 9/11 had this unmistakable majestic aesthetic quality about it. Majestic as in Great, Larger-Than-Life. But you're wrong about the Schadenfreude regarding 9/11, although I admit I did enjoy that the Americans finally discovered these weapons of mass destruction after all (size 44).
I understand your deep desire to short-cut our 9/11-discussion in an attempt to put a white hat on your head and a black one on mine in order to make it clear for the rest of the world who has a 'beautiful soul' (*) and who has not. In our part of the world we have a little contempt for people who believe in a non-existing moral world order. That's for Appalachian Hillbillies.
Or maybe you start a literature group with the good doctor, who himself has to do some catching up reading and start to study Genealogie der Moral or Jenseits von Gut und Boese. If this is too demanding you could start with Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (a.k.a. Nietzsche for Americans) to learn about the difference between good/evil and good/bad.
(*) Barbara Bush on Barbara Bush.
P.S. are you really a friend of de Markies van Carabas? This Dutch guy can be very blunt about Jews. I am amazed!
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Of course they'd have to type phonetically at the speed of conversational speech without making any typos (any evidence that there's anyone in the world who could do anything remotely like that?) ... and you'd need a gizmo that does output in real time, which the Los Alamos gizmo doesn't.
No you haven't.
That is not someone else's voice. It's just your voice distorted.
That is one of the many things you fail at.
Try reading my expanation above again until you understand it.
The peculiarities of someone's voice are defined by more than pitch and timbre. In the same way, you can't make a cello sound exactly like a piccolo just by shifting it up an octave or two.
Thank you for coming up with it.
Typing? Really?
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Apart from those guys who did a really good job and made phone calls that you find yourself utterly unable to criticize. I guess some Evil Jews can type more emotionally than others, but there weren't enough of them to go round.
Of course, "doing a lousy job" is a relative term. Clearly Mossad were only thinking of fooling the family members who took the calls, in which they were completely successful. But they didn't take into account the fact that one day a Truther might read a newspaper article.
No?
JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
Look, I'm a fan of explosions too. I enjoy a nice big fireball in a Die Hard movie. The difference here is that behind THAT one were hundreds of people being incinerated or consigned to the horrible choice of either being cooked alive or jumping to their deaths. If you truly find something aesthetic about that, then I'd hate to see the paintings in your house.
No sir, I just call a spade a spade. Meaning it is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't. I don't claim any sort of moral superiority here. I just have a real problem with people placing blame where it isn't due. You've been shown mountains of evidence that contradict your salvoes of "what-if" and "ooh, but I found THIS..." You have responded in turn by linking to a fictional weapon from the HALO universe as proof thermite took down the WTC, for example. I don't think you're a bad guy and you definitely have some capability for analytical thought. It saddens me to see you waste it on such things. And I don't see things in terms of absolute black and white. That's for our friends over at CIT. I'm going to ignore the hillbilly quote for now.
I've read Zen. As for myself, I didn't have to have a preacher or a government official tell me that murdering thousands of innocent people was a bad thing. If a moral code is non-existent as you claim, then I guess you have an easy job as a parent. Keep them fed, and send them to school - but don't intervene if they punch their sister or steal from a store. After all there is no such thing as morals, right?
Huh?!?
All your trumpeting about me being a "black and white" guy and you are amazed that I'm friends with someone whose views don't exactly line up with mine? Looks like you missed something. Looks like you missed a LOT of things.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
You're wrong. I was there.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Why do truthers such as 9/11 Investigator say…
…and then make extensive use of government provided information to prove their point?
- Here is a US-patent, filed one month after 9/11 (#219)
- FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” (#248)
- According to the White House, US does not consider bin Laden as mastermind 9/11 (#248)
- CIA closes down unit that hunts for bin Laden (#248)
If the government always lies, then the above must be lies too. There must be hard evidence for connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 because the FBI said there was not, and they always lie.
He then continues to use information provided by the “powers that be”:
- Flight testing of four global landing system (GLS) concepts is currently under way at NASA's Wallops
Island Air Field in Virginia (#455)
- Like the FAA demanding from Boeing to implement this kind of functionality.
- Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos
- This was the content of a so-called FBI BOLO (be on lookout) sent out on 3:31 pm.(#467)
Why do truthers believe the government only tells the truth when it supports their argument?
(#183)9/11 Investigator said:
…and then make extensive use of government provided information to prove their point?
- Here is a US-patent, filed one month after 9/11 (#219)
- FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” (#248)
- According to the White House, US does not consider bin Laden as mastermind 9/11 (#248)
- CIA closes down unit that hunts for bin Laden (#248)
If the government always lies, then the above must be lies too. There must be hard evidence for connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 because the FBI said there was not, and they always lie.
(#421)9/11 Investigator said:
He then continues to use information provided by the “powers that be”:
- Flight testing of four global landing system (GLS) concepts is currently under way at NASA's Wallops
Island Air Field in Virginia (#455)
- Like the FAA demanding from Boeing to implement this kind of functionality.
- Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos
- This was the content of a so-called FBI BOLO (be on lookout) sent out on 3:31 pm.(#467)
Why do truthers believe the government only tells the truth when it supports their argument?
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
I'm not rich enough to afford an old Dutch master, but you would be surprised to learn what is very prominent in my living room: a poster from the Twin Towers in a nice frame, I bought in 1997 when I visited New York for 10 days in 1997 and even was on top on one of those towers (I believe the one without the antenna). I remember it was a long way up to the top; unfortunately I did not pay too much attention to the structure of the building or the elevators.
Good. I'm not really looking for nasty exchanges with any of you. But a little Seitenhieb is to be expected if being accused of delighting in somebody else his suffering.
I said that a moral world order did not exist. Morals as a set of rules imposed by the strong (you) on the weak (your daughter beating son) certainly exists. You do that because you want to prevent that merely one copy of yourselves will live on rather than two after your inevitable demise in old age. Your desire to prevent your son from stealing is motivated to avoid conflict with potential stronger parties than you (shopkeeper or worse the Law). You are not motivated by terrible stomach pains because the poor shopkeeper has just been deprived of a lollypop, pinched by your venturous son.
Sorry, my mistake. It was beautiful mind rather than beautiful soul.
Possibly. I was really amazed. Not holding your friendship against you though, but you probably already understood that.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
In the meantime let's carry on trying to solve 9/11.
Here is a statement from George Papcun, the guy behind the voice morphing software from Los Alamos. He denies that faking of the phone calls was possible and he does this for all the wrong reasons:
"However, a major problem for their allegation, given that they claim there were no hijackers, is that the passengers on United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania called home with desperate messages to loved ones, in which they said there were hijackers. Accordingly, the conspiracy theorists have needed to claim that someone (namely, me
) created the voices of the passengers in those phone calls. That allegation is plainly outrageous and demeaning to the memories of those courageous passengers."
Papcun, who clearly knows on which side his bread is buttered (Los Alamos, i.e., the government), goes into the moral overdrive. It's not very likely that Papcun would have had any problems with this: "Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world."
Here comes the wrong reasons:
- it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated.
Problem solved (Bamford/Ketcham)
- I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93, especially not knowing which of them would call home.
I can!
And George, it is the Mossad who determines who calls home, not the passengers who are sitting dead in their chairs.
- Additionally, in this situation it would be necessary to know what someone would say to his or her loved ones under such circumstances. What pet names would be used? What references would be made to children and other loved ones?
Just listen in a couple of times and study some 12 cases.
- Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyones pillow talk?
Not just the gov, George. The Mossad as well, especially if you are booked on flight11, etc.
Nothing about near real time problems.
Here again a prescient quote from the article from the WaPo:
Video and photo manipulation has already raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world. With audio joining the mix, it is not only journalists but also privacy advocates and the conspiracy-minded who will no doubt ponder the worrisome mischief that lurks in the not too distant future.
Here is a statement from George Papcun, the guy behind the voice morphing software from Los Alamos. He denies that faking of the phone calls was possible and he does this for all the wrong reasons:
"However, a major problem for their allegation, given that they claim there were no hijackers, is that the passengers on United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania called home with desperate messages to loved ones, in which they said there were hijackers. Accordingly, the conspiracy theorists have needed to claim that someone (namely, me
) created the voices of the passengers in those phone calls. That allegation is plainly outrageous and demeaning to the memories of those courageous passengers."Papcun, who clearly knows on which side his bread is buttered (Los Alamos, i.e., the government), goes into the moral overdrive. It's not very likely that Papcun would have had any problems with this: "Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world."
Here comes the wrong reasons:
- it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated.
Problem solved (Bamford/Ketcham)
- I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93, especially not knowing which of them would call home.
I can!
And George, it is the Mossad who determines who calls home, not the passengers who are sitting dead in their chairs.
- Additionally, in this situation it would be necessary to know what someone would say to his or her loved ones under such circumstances. What pet names would be used? What references would be made to children and other loved ones?
Just listen in a couple of times and study some 12 cases.
- Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyones pillow talk?
Not just the gov, George. The Mossad as well, especially if you are booked on flight11, etc.
Nothing about near real time problems.
Here again a prescient quote from the article from the WaPo:
Video and photo manipulation has already raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world. With audio joining the mix, it is not only journalists but also privacy advocates and the conspiracy-minded who will no doubt ponder the worrisome mischief that lurks in the not too distant future.
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
In the meantime let's carry on trying to solve 9/11.
Here is a statement from George Papcun, the guy behind the voice morphing software from Los Alamos. He denies that faking of the phone calls was possible and he does this for all the wrong reasons:
"However, a major problem for their allegation, given that they claim there were no hijackers, is that the passengers on United Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania called home with desperate messages to loved ones, in which they said there were hijackers. Accordingly, the conspiracy theorists have needed to claim that someone (namely, me
Papcun, who clearly knows on which side his bread is buttered (Los Alamos, i.e., the government), goes into the moral overdrive. It's not very likely that Papcun would have had any problems with this: "Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world."
Here comes the wrong reasons:
- it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated.
Problem solved (Bamford/Ketcham)
- I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93, especially not knowing which of them would call home.
I can!
And George, it is the Mossad who determines who calls home, not the passengers who are sitting dead in their chairs.
- Additionally, in this situation it would be necessary to know what someone would say to his or her loved ones under such circumstances. What pet names would be used? What references would be made to children and other loved ones?
Just listen in a couple of times and study some 12 cases.
- Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyones pillow talk?
Not just the gov, George. The Mossad as well, especially if you are booked on flight11, etc.
...
Between the grins, 'majestic aesthetic qualities', the misunderstanding of Nietzsche and Persig, and the antisemitism, we have an appalling spectacle of moral, emotional, and intellectual obtuseness bordering on childish sadism.
And, the quote from Papcun does in fact make exactly the opposite point from what you want.
One further technical problem with your childish offensive fantasy scenario:
High-quality samples for a number of passengers would be required--that is, not recordings of phone calls.
The Colin Powell example was based on a high-fidelity recording.
Phone calls, especially cell phones so commonly in use, don't have the bandwidth or fidelity to provide adequate models.
This means that the fictional Mossad agents would have to record the passengers in advance, in person, with studio microphones.
Or they would have to install a whole battery of microphones in the passenger's houses to be certain of decent results.
The fidelity would not be sufficient if the subject is moving around too far from a single mike.
I've done a lot of unconventional recording, including using parabolic reflectors, and the fidelity isn't there, without close, consistent mic placement.
Perhaps the Mossad stuck lapel mics on everybody.
But I notice that you are vague on little details like this, along with everything else.
Oh, and fictional Mossad agents typing their dialogue?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
- I cannot imagine how I might have obtained extensive samples of the voices of the passengers on Flight 93, especially not knowing which of them would call home.
I can!
And George, it is the Mossad who determines who calls home, not the passengers who are sitting dead in their chairs.
The problem arises from any "spur of the moment" (and there was) conversation. The software only mimics (words would have to be said already) it does not change someones voice (and mannerisms) into someone else's.
I think this is what George Papcun was talking about.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Three posts earlier he uses them himself threefold...
It's Pirsig. Caleb undertakes no real effort to elaborate on his supposed superior knowledge, which is probably sensible for a representative from organized Lad-ism. Hit and run.
This little englander who accuses me without reason to be a sadist obviously does not like me. And to correct you: YOU are an anti-semite if you insist to use this ridiculous concept on anybody who says that semites did it. Askhenazim Jews are no semites but turkoid Wolga-bulgarians from southern present day Ukraine; the Arabs you accuse of perpetrating 9/11, they are semites. That makes you an anti-semite according to your own twisted logic.
The Colin Powell example was also based on hifi output. In the case of 9/11 phone calls no such output is realised. And from calls that supposedly originate from a plane nobody expects high quality.
No it does not. Hifi input for hifi output. Cell phone quality input for cellphone quality output.
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
Here you demonstrate that you have no feeling for context--that you will argue a point purely verbally and locally.
My grins were in response to a joke post (bad poem on a completely different thread.) It's remarkable to think that anyone is objecting to grins themselves: It's grins in the 9/11 context, in the context of anti-semitism and the death of thousands that is offensive.
This contextual blindness and desperation to argue a point is further demonstrated by your notion that the dialog could have been typed.
Pirsig, in Lila, and Zen, expounds a metaphysics of Quality.
His philosophy has nothing to do with Nietzsche--in any way, shape, or form. Perhaps you meant Plato. You, apparently, were merely name-dropping.
Give up your absurd fantasy that the phone-calls could have been faked.
As for twisted logic, I'm not as clever as you--I'm not capable of twisting it with your gleeful virtuosity.
I do have around 20 years of pro audio experience, and would be incredibly pleased to have a gizmo like what your fantasy requires.
If you intuit some dislike, it is a widespread dislike here of your abuse of...everything, in your posts. About your person I know nothing, and wish to know nothing.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Here is another statement from George Papcun, made in 2007:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2856750#post2856750
"Even now, let alone back in 2001, no method exists that would allow real-time morphing as precise and as flexible as would have been required to simulate the telephone calls from the passengers and crew of the doomed flights."
And here's a post from Mike Williams that discusses one of "the wrong reasons":
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2857069#post2857069
How did Mossad obtain Linda Gronlund's safe combination?
Dave
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
This government employee is covering his behind. Is he saying that this Washington Post article was a lie? The article claimed that near real time voice morphing was possible resulting in very convincing Colin Powell impersonations. My conclusion was that in order to reach real time voice morphing one just has to add some additional processing power.
Talking about voice morphing/synthesis: parallel to the work done at Los Alamos there was a Flemish firm Lernout & Hauspie that did serious R&D on voice technology. The firm went bust at the time that the twin towers fell (no connection). Interestingly Microsoft incorporated their voice synthesys software in Windows. Go to Start --> Control Panel ('Configuratiescherm' in Dutch) --> Speech Recognition Options. There is one standard voice 'Microsoft Anna' who can read a line of text, like 'These suckers have box cutters. I love you. I have got to go!'. I would agree that this software would not do the trick, but I am sure that Papcun's stuff is way better. And that you need voice morphing to mimic the intonations and emotional qualities.
Has been discussed earlier in this thread. I suggested that the Mossad could have burgled the place and put the safe there themselves. Before you ridicule that idea please read first this story (search for Ostrovsky) to learn how the Mossad set up a dummy furniture brokerage company just to install a bug in a Syrian ministers furniture. Buying a safe at Walmart, break in a home and hide the safe somewhere in a closet under blankets with a hand written piece of paper in it is a smaller effort. Other explanations (sister faking the will) are possible as well but result in predictable storms of moral outrage (conveniently ignoring that although only one in 20 world citizens is an American, every fourth global prisoner sits in an American jail. People do these kind of things).
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
Your expectation is correct. Too much work. Don't feel like it.
9/11-investigator
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
I was grinning about Papcun's effort to save his sorry derriere, not about people fighting to stay alive.
I suggested it as a possibility, but I reject this as unlikely, because of the inability to put intonation and emotion into typed text. I have given links to video's that demonstrate that it is possible to alter one's voice into somebody else's; and I happily leave it to Dr. Adequate to ponder if this is really morphing or synthesis.
You're wrong. Most of the central ideas that Pirsig used were 'borrowed' from Nietzsche.
- One of his main distinctions between Romantic and Classic comes from Nietzsches 'Geburt der Tragodie aus der Geist der Musik' (Dyonisian and Appolonian).
- This idea of Phaedrus becoming insane under the pressure of his insights finds it's match in Nietzsche's breakdown in Turin (Geistige Umnachtung).
- the 'anything goes' approach of science; that truth is inseparable from human perception, that our science is antropomorph and not absolute (confirmed by Poincare and Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
- The amor fati idea of Nietzsche as expressed in the scene of Hector's preparation for the fight against the Athenians in Zen.
- The dismissal of the decadent Athenian philosophers Platon and Socrates in favor of the Sophists, who preach moralinfreie Tugend (amoral virtue (not immoral virtue) or Quality as Pirsig translates the Greek Arete concept).
- Nietzsches scepticism against dialectics, the favorite tool of the commie lowlifes during the larger part of the century after Nietzsche and of their Trotskyite neocon follow-ups that now govern Washington and are determined to give America the Russia-treatment (their neocon buddy Kasparov would love to lay his hands on Russia again). BTW one of the most interesting scenes from Zen is the battle between Phaedrus and 'The Professor'. This professor was very real: McKeon. He was the mentor the infamous Leo Strauss, the advocate of the Grand Lie and deception. Strauss and McKeon would have admired 9/11 as the (almost) perfect deception that it was and seen it as a perfect legitimate act done by the Intelligent Elite to bring the stupid masses to do what serves the General Good.
Why should I?
Nobody likes a laywer, except for gold digging females. And jerks like me don't care if they are liked or not (females excluded). I admit that I am pushing my theory to see how far I can get. But I am not down yet. And my story is not the only possible explanation. Bollyn and Dewdney for instance are in the pod business. You should realize that JREF is one of the last debunking outposts in a sea of truther forums. The latest escapade by NIST shows in how much trouble they are. NIST is in free fall themselves.
240-185
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 510
Suggested isn't enough. For the n-th time, you have to prove. Posting a link to a superficially similar story does not prove what you are claiming.
Because you haven't any evidence.
You're blaming Mossad without evidence, and despite other JREFers proved you that if Israel commited 9/11, it would be a geopolitical suicide.
(Sorry for randomly placed quotes)