Muslim researcher explains how 9/11 was made

[mehmetin]

Nonsense and utterly insulting to the family members who received the phone calls. The idea of 'computer production' phone calls has not merely been debunked, but disgraced.

We are not about disgrace! We are checkeing the possibilities, and the computer made live phone calls are definitely possible.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You're name wouldn't happen to be "Mehmet Akif OKUR" would it?

 

[mehmetin]

Let me get this straight, you said: "I do not support DRG. That link debunks DRG."

Then you turn around and say: "The computer production of all phone calls is possible, including the voice, their contents, the live communication"

You're contradicting yourself.

If you don't support DRG, then your theory about faked phone calls is irrelevant.

What's teh relation between my claims about faked phone calls and DRG? I do not know what DRG is telling precisely. I just know he explained too many things about the phone calls. But I am unable to check all his statements. I just checked for ONE call to be made at high altitude using the phone number of the cellular phone. That's all. I do not need more.

If there is one call made at 10000m altitude by cellular phone, that means that call is fake, so all others should be considered as fake too. Becaus people who made all required things to fake that phone call will also produce all other phone calls.

Phone calls are NOT evidence.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

We are not about disgrace! We are checkeing the possibilities, and the computer made live phone calls are definitely possible.

With todays computers & voice morhping, yes. But in 2001? Highly unlikely!

That would mean that the Government would have to wire tap every American phone number (including cell phones), get a voice recording of the person, come up with a software to produce an exact match of that person then hack into the planes phone system & then call people (relatives) using a crude version of voice morphing.

Impossible!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

What's teh relation between my claims about faked phone calls and DRG? I do not know what DRG is telling precisely. I just know he explained too many things about the phone calls. But I am unable to check all his statements. I just checked for ONE call to be made at high altitude using the phone number of the cellular phone. That's all. I do not need more.

If there is one call made at 10000m altitude by cellular phone, that means that call is fake, so all others should be considered as fake too. Becaus people who made all required things to fake that phone call will also produce all other phone calls.

Phone calls are NOT evidence.

DRG has the same problem you have about those alleged "faked" phone calls.

Not exactly, the phone calls from a cell phone aren't up to specks. Since cell phone towers are on the ground. But since the passengers used airphones, those airphones were connected to a satellite feed.

So no, you're 100% wrong about the phone calls being "faked".

Those recorded phone calls from the airphones are evidence. They're enough to prove your stupid theory wrong.

 

[Justin39640]

In the first post, I asked to forget all other truthers. I do not support DRG. That link debunks DRG.

The computer production of all phone calls is possible, including the voice, their contents, the live communication with answers which could be related to the discussed subjects with the families. All those information were available to the perpetrators.

No computer today can mimic the interpersonal relationships people have with each other. Imagine a robot called you trying to pretend it's your mother. You think it could fool you even if it had the voice dead on? Of course not. You'd know something was way wrong.

 

[mehmetin]

But what about the airphones that are in the planes themselves? Did you test the airphones?

It's difficult to make cellular phone call while terrorists are looking the passengers, and you are claiming that they used airphone which is more visible. According to some claims, there was no airphones in these planes. So using aiphones is practically impossible.

That's again the same: Getting unverifiable answers to all comments on official evidences. The phone calls only proves that the official story is false.

My deal is proving that my explanation is true. And I do not use the phone calls as evidence.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So using aiphones is practically impossible.

You didn't answer my question: "Did you test the airphones?"

Yes or no!

 

[mehmetin]

No computer today can mimic the interpersonal relationships people have with each other. Imagine a robot called you trying to pretend it's your mother. You think it could fool you even if it had the voice dead on? Of course not. You'd know something was way wrong.

You did not understand. The live phone call is made by a human speaking on the phone. He listen the families questions and answers to them as a human. But the voice that the family member hears is not the voice of the speaking person, it is the voice of the passenger on board of the plane. Today, that technology is sold in commerce; see "screaming bee" voice changing software.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You did not understand. The live phone call is made by a human speaking on the phone. He listen the families questions and answers to them as a human. But the voice that the family member hears is not the voice of the speaking person, it is the voice of the passenger on board of the plane. Today, that technology is sold in commerce; see "screaming bee" voice changing software.

You still haven't proven anything, a link or source would be appreciated!

Also answer my question: "Did you test the airphones?"

Yes or no!

Failure to say "Yes" or "No" would mean that you're lying.

 

[kookbreaker]

We are not about disgrace! We are checkeing the possibilities, and the computer made live phone calls are definitely possible.

According to who?! Your specualtion of what is and what is not possible is not evidence.

 

[A W Smith]

Whatever it is, all these phone calls could be produced by computer. That's 100% sure. So these calls are not reliable evidence.

No they could not
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160752

 

[mehmetin]

With todays computers & voice morhping, yes. But in 2001? Highly unlikely!

That would mean that the Government would have to wire tap every American phone number (including cell phones), get a voice recording of the person, come up with a software to produce an exact match of that person then hack into the planes phone system & then call people (relatives) using a crude version of voice morphing.

Impossible!

If teh software is commercially sold in 2005, that means it was available for prfessionnals in 2001, and for secret services in 1995 or earlier.

No, the government does not need to wire tap every american phone number. The perpetrators, probably the members of the "Israeli Spy Ring", were able to wire tap several passengers who booked a ticket on the planes. During several days, the yrecorded the voice and gathered information on the passengers' family life.

The ydo not need anexact match of voice. A very similar voice is enough, the quality of cellular phones is not so good.

 

[kookbreaker]

The groudn antennas are directed to be horizontgal. That's for energy consumption reduction and increasing the sensibility of the ground phones. I also tested by accident; a cellular phone remained open while crossed several countries. It received the frist text message on landing. It received no one message while crossing many countries.

A single test...with a more modern cell phone.

Compared to a link where multiple news articles were quoted about cell phones working in flight, and with communications experts discussing that they can work.

All that proves, the cellular phones could not work.

Sample of one using the wrong gear is hardly proof of anything except your own inability to understand the scientific method and a shockingly low standard for proof.

Watever it is, these calls could be generated by computer.

No. They could not. There is zero evidence for that. The technology was simply not available.

 

[mehmetin]

You still haven't proven anything, a link or source would be appreciated!

Also answer my question: "Did you test the airphones?"

Yes or no!

Failure to say "Yes" or "No" would mean that you're lying.

I do never test them, I do not need to test them.

 

[Thunder]

Could have, maybe did, possibly was, might have, etc etc etc.

I think this sums up this guy's theory.

 

[twinstead]

Anybody can make stuff up, mehmetin. The fact is you have NO evidence that ANYTHING you say was done on 9/11. That means you have a very very low standard of proof concerning things you believe in. That means you have confirmation bias. That means your theory is summarily rejected until you present some REAL evidence it happened.

It really is as simple as that. It's easy to claim our evidence is faked; we at least HAVE some. At lot, actually. We cannot comment on yours because you DON'T HAVE ANY.

The only thing you have proof of is that you'd make a good fiction writer.

 

[Pardalis]

"Muslim researcher", why mention your religion? Why is that important?

Does science produce different results for Muslims?

 

[Thunder]

"Muslim researcher", why mention your religion? Why is that important?

Does science produce different results for Muslims?

if you read back in the thread, its clear that he wanted everyone to know that he was NOT a Jew, for Jews only lie and consider themselves superior to all others.

 

[twinstead]

if you read back in the thread, its clear that he wanted everyone to know that he was NOT a Jew, for Jews only lie and consider themselves superior to all others.

And of course our extremist buddy mehmetin would never do that.