I listened to whatever calls were released a long time ago. Why do I need to do so again? I already know what was said. And who cares if an individual call happens to be "difficult to explain" (it's not; you're hearing simple signal distortion and standard radio phone transmission problems, but if you would've realized
that, you wouldn't be bringing this up now, would you?)? Regardless of what anomaly you think you perceive in one, single phone conversation, I have the following bodies of evidence to fall back on:
- Secondary radar data tracking FL93 for its entire route.
- All the calls, not just Ms. Lyles.
- The cockpit voice recorder.
- The flight data recorder, which allowed for the reconstruction of the flight path, thus providing mutual support for the radar data.
- The eyewitnesses near Shanksville who directly observed the jet, or were aware of the crash and rushed to help.
- The first responders who've verified that they worked a jetliner crash site.
- Victims remains, positively identified by the local county coroner.
- Items identifying the hijackers that were recovered from the crash site.
... and more.
And against all that, you want me to subtract all that context and just listen to a single datapoint that better fits with all that data I'm citing and ill fits with the notion that voice morphing was used? And then what? What if I
did happen to find it "suspicious"? How does that undo all of that other evidence.
The problem is, you're not
thinking. The real world doesn't work via
ignoring all contextual information. If I hear either an echo on a call or some other sort of distortion, why should I supposed it's somehow related to supposed voice morphing technology when I've heard that exact same phenomenon on my own phone, as well as other wireless telephony devices such as the software phones my department uses at work? Why should I give the conspiratorial accusation even one tiny iota of credence when I already know what the entire context of the event is that surrounds the call?
Convergence of evidence. I don't need to worry about isolated distortions or supposed "echos" in a call; I already know that Cece Lyles was on board a jet that was proven to have been hijacked. I already know that the calls were accepted as genuine by courts (re: Moussaoui trial evidence) and family members. I already know that the charges that they were faked have been based on misunderstandings, distortions, and simple illogical thinking. And against that, what is being proffered?
What do I hear on that recording? I hear a frightened woman trying to make people understand a hijacking has occurred. And a person saying goodbye. If you have proof - and I mean actual
proof, not poor understandings shaped by conspiratorial bias and prediliction towards fantasy over reality - that there's more to the calls than meets the eye, then
that's what you have to present. You must present evidence that shuts the opposition up. That they cannot deny or argue against. But when all you do is give us exactly what you gave me - "
Explain what you hear on Ceecee's tape? Go ahead I want to hear what you have to say about that subject itself..." - then you prove you have nothing.
Try harder. Nothing you've said, done, or argued has resurrected the topic. It's still dead as dead can be.
