How do truthers explain the phone calls?

[atavisms]

Surely, this is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against their position: witnesses giving a live account of a plane hijacking. Now I know some of them have tried to explain this with voice generation apparatus but, surely, the more sensible truthers (if that's not a contradiction of terms) will know that you can't generate characteristics, personal information etc. without significant pre-background of someone.

So, how did they manage to simulate a hijacking to which people bore witness on the 'real' planes, whilst the 'fake' planes hit the buildings? How, also, did they get the timing just right for Betty Ong's call to cut off as flight 11 hit the North Tower?

Thanks.

The most likely explanation is hypothetical -the features that reveal explosives on 9-11 are not. Pls remember that.

The phone calls were made by the victims on the planes is what the evidence shows. http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/fake_calls.html

Not one relative doubted it was their loved one calling. One woman even left the combination to her safe for her sister to open. In a such a helpless and terrifying situation some people wouldve naturally gone for their cellphones just on the off chance they worked and in so doing give the hijacking story greater credibility. For people going to such extremes as the events of 9-11, setting up the planes with cell phone capabilities would have been just another detail. Likely, on an encrypted lines and with a delay, so they could still maintain control and the cut the calls at will. This would give the hi-jacking story much more realism and credence.

Some independent investigating worth noting is Kevin Ryan's articles on Demolition Access To The WTC
Here talks about then here mp3 radio interview here:
http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20110112-Wed1300.mp3

articles here:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/index.html

 

[Dash80]

I believe you said before you are female correct? When's the last time you were on the phone, and a male voice said the same things back to you. Like the "very much" followed by a male "very much"?

Yes I'm female.

I really don't hear what you hear on the video tmd, really I swallowed my disgust long enough to subject myself to it.

I'll play along just for a minute though... if she was being told what to say why does this "man" repeat her words, AFTER she's said them? Hmm?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Is it hard to believe? No of course not. What is hard to believe, is someone was saying "You were great" as if she was acting. It's also hard to believe why it was disembodied like that. We've all been on the phone and heard other people in the background, but they sound like regular voices, not what we hear in this call. Listen carefully to the very end, you hear something very faint, but not disembodied anymore..it sounds like "testing..testing" As in testing a device. Very strange stuff.

Repeating a lie does not make it true. Have you ever had a call from a plane? one that used 2001 technology? No? well then why are you telling us what it should have sounded like? And why are you asking " is some saying"? If its not clear, and it isn't, you cannot just choose what you want it to be just because it fits your fantasy. and there is no testing testing either! Stop lying about someones last message to their family before they died. That just sick.

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes I'm female.

I really don't hear what you hear on the video tmd, really I swallowed my disgust long enough to subject myself to it.

I'll play along just for a minute though... if she was being told what to say why does this "man" repeat her words, AFTER she's said them? Hmm?

That's the point that it would be the same person, with some slight glitches in the software. Voice morphing technology. Seems like Science fiction, but it's not. Here's an article from 1999

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I believe you said before you are female correct? When's the last time you were on the phone, and a male voice said the same things back to you. Like the "very much" followed by a male "very much"?

Its an echo on the line! You have never had one of those????? how young are you????

 

[sheeplesnshills]

. For people going to such extremes as the events of 9-11, setting up the planes with cell phone capabilities would have been just another detail. Likely, on an encrypted lines and with a delay, so they could still maintain control and the cut the calls at will. This would give the hi-jacking story much more realism and credence.

Or even more likely they were simply terrified passengers on a hijacked plane.............

What is it about twoofers sickness that makes a more complicated answer better than a simple one....is there something in the very complexity that they find soothing like a Austistic person finds comfort in lists and data

Humans search for order, is twooferism some sort of perverted symptom of this? perhaps similar to the complexities religions get into in for example the Catholic Trinity? The very complexity is an end in of itself?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

here's the explanation of your male voice repeating what the lady says

http://www.adaptivedigital.com/product/echo_cancel/echo_explain.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_cancellation

 

[Dash80]

That's the point that it would be the same person, with some slight glitches in the software. Voice morphing technology. Seems like Science fiction, but it's not. Here's an article from 1999

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

A glitch that turns her into a man? Oh and why not fix the glitch before they used it?

Clearly this is a subject you don't understand, to add to a growing list of things we already know you are clueless about.

 

[sylvan8798]

Yes, because normally when somebody talks to you on the phone you can see their body.

Thanks, Dave, now I have to clean my monitor screen .

Humans search for order, is twooferism some sort of perverted symptom of this? perhaps similar to the complexities religions get into in for example the Catholic Trinity? The very complexity is an end in of itself?

The Sacred Mysteries of 9/11 Truth?

 

[Craig4]

Is it hard to believe? No of course not. What is hard to believe, is someone was saying "You were great" as if she was acting. It's also hard to believe why it was disembodied like that. We've all been on the phone and heard other people in the background, but they sound like regular voices, not what we hear in this call. Listen carefully to the very end, you hear something very faint, but not disembodied anymore..it sounds like "testing..testing" As in testing a device. Very strange stuff.

Do you have any proof the phone calls were faked? I'm not asking if it was possible they were faked. I'm asking for proof they were faked.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Folks, remember: The inventor of voice morphing tech spoke on this.

Back in 2007, even:

George Papcun, the creator of voice-morphing technology (http://www.almexperts.com/ExpertWitness/experts_and_consultants/expert/5156404.html), has graciously permitted me to post his first article addressing the fantasist claim that calls from the hijacked planes were faked. This issue seems to me to be of singular importance. If the calls were real, then the whole fantasist sand castle is washed away:


Dear Mr. Wieck,

Following please find an amended version of my commenary on Voice Morphing and the alleged 911 conspiracy. You may post it with attribution, cleaning up the html as needed.

Sincerely,
George Papcun, Ph.D.


Purveyors of conspiracy theories have claimed that the events of 9/11 were the result of a massive government plot and cover-up. (See, for example, (www.loosechange911.com.) According to their version of events, there were no hijackers. Instead, the World Trade Center buildings were blown up by explosives planted inside the buildings rather than, or at least in addition to, the effects of the passenger airplanes crashing into them. They claim that the government (or the CIA or someone other than Osama bin Laden and the hijackers) was behind 9/11.

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 theory purveyors 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.

I originally developed the technology of voice morphing, the technology by which it is possible to make someone seem to say something they did not say (see www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm ) and coined the phrase. Therefore, I know what would have been required to create such bogus calls. Practical considerations preclude making counterfeit telephone calls in this situation. For example, it is necessary to have samples of the voices of the people to be imitated. In situations like this, where the goal is to participate in an unconstrained conversation, the voice sample must be extensive. 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. 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? Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyone’s pillow talk? In a separate essay, I will cover the technical aspects of voice morphing, which will further demonstrate the implausibility of the scenario set forth by the purveyors of conspiracy theories.

Whether such wild-eyed theories are worth being concerned about is problematic. However, in their own words, their conspiracy theory organization “has grown from a cult following to a grassroots organism that can no longer be contained” (op cit). I have received email from a high school social studies teacher who told me that her students actually believe that I did everything the purveyors of conspiracy theories say I did. Why they would so mistrust their government and be so naïve with regard to technical issues are interesting questions, albeit matters well beyond the scope of this essay.

This topic is as dead as it can get; this is less recycling a claim and more digging up a corpse. When will we see NORAD stood down recirculate? Or jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough?

 

[tmd2_1]

Do you have any proof the phone calls were faked? I'm not asking if it was possible they were faked. I'm asking for proof they were faked.

Listen to the link I gave. I know you'll deny it, but it is highly suspicious.

 

[tmd2_1]

Back in 2007, even:


This topic is as dead as it can get; this is less recycling a claim and more digging up a corpse. When will we see NORAD stood down recirculate? Or jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough?

Let me know when there is something that says it's impossible. They knew who would be on the plane, sometimes weeks in advance, could get samples through wiretaps, general surveillance...etc. Ceecee's tape is awfully suspicious, you'll never admit it, but we both know it is.

 

[I Ratant]

Let me know when there is something that says it's impossible. They knew who would be on the plane, sometimes weeks in advance, could get samples through wiretaps, general surveillance...etc. Ceecee's tape is awfully suspicious, you'll never admit it, but we both know it is.

.
The noises in your head aren't another person.
There is no "we" there, it's just you.

 

[twinstead]

Let me know when there is something that says it's impossible. They knew who would be on the plane, sometimes weeks in advance, could get samples through wiretaps, general surveillance...etc. Ceecee's tape is awfully suspicious, you'll never admit it, but we both know it is.

Why do you pick one tape and claim it's suspicious as if it's the only evidence that phone calls were made? How did they know who was going to call? How would they know that somebody didn't get on the plane at the last minute? How about personal information?

What about this:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Cellphone_calls_faked

What kind of omnipotent entity planned and executed all these faked calls??

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Let me know when there is something that says it's impossible. They knew who would be on the plane, sometimes weeks in advance, could get samples through wiretaps, general surveillance...etc. Ceecee's tape is awfully suspicious, you'll never admit it, but we both know it is.

No. You let me know when you have proof. Until then, you've got nothing but baseless speculation mounted on paranoid, unsupported suspicion. In the meanwhile, we've got the inventor of the technology saying you're full of crap.

And on top of that:

...They knew who would be on the plane, sometimes weeks in advance

Ignoring the weasel wording inherent in the ever indeterminate "They": What matters is that there were realtime calls made for people who got on the doomed flights at the last minute. As quoted just earlier today in this thread:

...how did the conspirators obtain a “10-minute digital recording” of several passengers? Especially as many of the ones who made calls weren't even supposed to be Flight 93 passengers until the very last minute.

"Jeremy Glick was supposed to have been on Flight 93 a day earlier, but missed the Monday flight after getting stuck in traffic on his way to Newark Airport... Another passenger, Lauren Grandcolas was on her way home to Marin County... Originally scheduled on a later flight, she had been pleasantly surprised to easily get a standby seat on Flight 93 at the airport. “I can’t wait to see you,” she told her husband Jack in a message she left on the couple’s answering machine before dawn in California, telling him she would be home a few hours early".
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067652

And they’re not the only ones. In fact, so many people changed their plans within around 24 hours to take this flight, that has been marked up as an anomaly in itself. A Team8Plus page (http://www.team8plus.org/content.php?article.8) points out this also applies to Jeremy Glick (missed his flight the day before), Mark Bingham (took an extra day to recover from a birthday celebration), Honor Elizabeth Wainio (changed to a direct flight at the last minute) and possibly Edward Felt (last-minute business trip) amongst those who made phone calls, and others who didn’t.

And it would take more - much more - than just having voice morphing tech (which wasn't sophisticated enough to do what was claimed back in 2001). To quote the inestimable Mike W:

As Dr Papcun points out, while the voice morphing is difficult enough, it's dwarfed by the challenge of managing the content of any conversation. How are any conspirators going to know how an individual is likely to behave in this situation, what they might say? There can't be any guessing here, no slip-ups, you can't afford to make a relative suspicious. You must have an "actor" who can react precisely as the passenger would, on reflex.

And as an example of the research required, consider the call by Linda Gronlund, who reportedly called her sister to pass on the combination of the safe containing her will (which suggests no-one else knew it, because otherwise why bother?):

Linda Gronlund, called her sister, Elsa Strong. Elsa Strong says, "She said, 'Hi, Else, this is Lin. I just wanted to tell you how much I love you.' And she said, 'Please tell Mom and Dad how much I love them.' And then she got real calm and said, 'Now my will is in my safe and my safe is in my closet. and this is the combination.' And she just told me the combination of her safe.
[URL]http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090302.html[/URL]

Again: This topic is dead. You bring nothing new to a subject that was buried over 3 years ago.

 

[atavisms]

So, how did they manage to simulate a hijacking to which people bore witness on the 'real' planes, whilst the 'fake' planes hit the buildings? How, also, did they get the timing just right for Betty Ong's call to cut off as flight 11 hit the North Tower?

Thanks.

There were no fake planes. forget fake planes. they are not part of real 9/.11 truth but just nonsense pretending to be. The hijackings were real.

Pretend for a moment the 'Truthers' (*a valiant name if ever there were one) are right. Certainly the evidence for explosives at WTC complex would be substantial if all there were was the way WTC7 came down, but there is so so much more than that, that all points in the same direction.

perhaps 'patsys' were made to believe they were part of an attack against the US not realizing they were the ones actually being manipulated. Looking at the evidence shows the phone calls were NOT faked. It would have unnecessarily complicated things. Remember Occam's Razor, the most direct (simple and obvious) explanation is usually the correct one. So to say, WTC7 fell that way from office fires, even though the only time we have ever seen a building exhibit those features was during an implosion via demolition charges, is going against all historic precedence. Saying it fell from 'thermal expansion having displaced a single column' is not the most likely explanation because it has never been seen before or since and goes against 120 years of hi-rise engineering history. Not simple. Not likely because it is completely unprecedented. When you hear some say 'fake planes' on 9-11. you know they dont know this subject or the central arguments of real 9-11 truth. And you can just skip that foolishness

 

[332nd]

Let me know when there is something that says it's impossible. They knew who would be on the plane, sometimes weeks in advance, could get samples through wiretaps, general surveillance...etc. Ceecee's tape is awfully suspicious, you'll never admit it, but we both know it is.

No, its not. I say this because I am an actor & the reasons you're giving you only see as suspicious because they aren't doing what you would expect. Now then, what is what you would expect based on?

 

[twinstead]

There were no fake planes. forget fake planes. they are not part of real 9/.11 truth but just nonsense pretending to be. The hijackings were real.

Pretend for a moment the 'Truthers' (*a valiant name if ever there were one) are right. Certainly the evidence for explosives at WTC complex would be substantial if all there were was the way WTC7 came down, but there is so so much more than that, that all points in the same direction.

perhaps 'patsys' were made to believe they were part of an attack against the US not realizing they are the ones being manipulated. Looking at the evidence shows the phone calls were NOT faked. It would have unnecessarily complicated things. Remember Occam's Razor, the most direct (simple and obvious) explanation is usually the correct one. So to say, WTC7 fell that way from offices fires even though the only time we have ever seen a building exhibit those features was during a implosion via demolition charges..is going against all historic precedence. Saying it fell from ('thermal expansion having displaced a single column') is not the most likely explanation because it has never been seen before or since and goes against 120 years of hi-rise engineering history

Well, the only 'patsy' here is you. The hijackings were real, the crashes were real, and nobody of any importance or respect believes those crashes and fire couldn't have brought down the buildings.

Yes, It appears the vast majority of those with actual expertise in hi-rise engineering disagree with you--some random guy on the internet--so pardon me if I want a second opinion.

 

[newton3376]

So to say, WTC7 fell that way from offices fires even though the only time we have ever seen a building exhibit those features was during a implosion via demolition charges..is going against all historic precedence.

Fell what way?

Show me a demolition that has all of the physical characteristics of the WTC7 collapse.....show me one. Be sure to include the 3 different phases of collapse that NIST discussed in NCSTAR 1A.

What features?

Stop being stupid.

Saying it fell from ('thermal expansion having displaced a single column') is not the most likely explanation because it has never been seen before or since and goes against 120 years of hi-rise engineering history

EVERY time there is a major building fire the potential for partial or global collapse is something that is considered. Stop being stupid.

The "never been seen" argument is stupid unless you can point to other similar fires in WTC7. So....how many other WTC7 fires that were exactly like the one on 9/11 can we compare it to?

Oh........thats right........zero



Now stop being stupid.