How do truthers explain the phone calls?

[W.D.Clinger]

it's a little scary that you wont believe it until its on TV. -its all over the halls of academia.

No, it's not.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

That web page lists less than 1/10 of one per cent of the college and university professors in the United States. That's an overly generous percentage, because quite a few of the people on that list are no longer teaching or work outside the US.

No one on that list claims to teach at my current (fairly large) university. None claim to teach at the (fairly large) university where I did my graduate work. Two claim to teach at the (extremely large) university where i studied as an undergraduate. (I happen to know one of those two: He is now retired, and no longer teaches at any university.)

Getting back to the OP, A K Dewdney doesn't have any real explanation for the phone calls, but argues they could have been faked. Although Dewdney has written several articles arguing against the phone calls, and may well be the 9/11 Truth Movement's most prominent proponent of faked phone calls, he has little knowledge or experience with RF communications and electronics.

 

[tmd2_1]

Did he just seriously post that? So soon after I gave him a list?

​

... And that's just a summary - an incomplete one at that - for Flight 93.

Anyway, Twinstead, your point got proven. Completely. By the truther himself.

I was talking about evidence for the official story meaning against AQ. All of which you just stated even if true is clearly not evidence against AQ.

 

[tmd2_1]

I did answer your questions; it's your responsibility to read and comprehend it. I specifically referred to echos and distortion, and compared them to other things like cell phones and radio software phones. Go back. Re-read.



No. It's not. You can say "you know" all you want, but it doesn't turn fantasy into reality.

Again: Proof. You're pounding on a table of empty here.

Echo hungh? I am a male I've never heard an echo on the phone that is the form of a female voice. Which would be the case here (reverse obviously) I've also never heard anything like what is heard when she tries to hang up. I mean those last words, seem to be saying "testing...testing" it is extremely creepy. Believe what you want, I can't force you to hear things you don't want to hear.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Echo hungh? I am a male I've never heard an echo on the phone that is the form of a female voice. Which would be the case here (reverse obviously) I've also never heard anything like what is heard when she tries to hang up. I mean those last words, seem to be saying "testing...testing" it is extremely creepy. Believe what you want, I can't force you to hear things you don't want to hear.

Doesn't sound male to me.......and there is no "testing testing". Stop lying

and we can't apparently stop you hearing what you want to hear.

 

[332nd]

Echo hungh? I am a male I've never heard an echo on the phone that is the form of a female voice. Which would be the case here (reverse obviously) I've also never heard anything like what is heard when she tries to hang up. I mean those last words, seem to be saying "testing...testing" it is extremely creepy. Believe what you want, I can't force you to hear things you don't want to hear.

Ok, let's say its not an echo & it is a male voice. Did her asking a guy to sit/stand nearby & watch out for the terrorists while she reports what happened ever cross your mind?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I was talking about evidence for the official story meaning against AQ. All of which you just stated even if true is clearly not evidence against AQ.

Yes, actually, it is. The hijackers were identified, and their ties to Khalid Sheik Mohamed (or in the case of Mohammed Atta, Bin Laden himself) established. That was established years ago.

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes, actually, it is. The hijackers were identified, and their ties to Khalid Sheik Mohamed (or in the case of Mohammed Atta, Bin Laden himself) established. That was established years ago.

Sure they were. I don't want to derail this thread, if you want to talk about evidence for the official story I have a thread for that. Or you can start your own.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, let's say its not an echo & it is a male voice. Did her asking a guy to sit/stand nearby & watch out for the terrorists while she reports what happened ever cross your mind?

It wasn't that either. There was no male voice in the recording whatsoever. What he's hearing is distortion from

1. The quality of the original airfone conversation itself, exacerbted by Ms. Lyles breaking down emotionally near the end and holding back tears
2. Artifacting from what I can only presume is the digitization either via the GTE airfone (presuming FL93's was the second generation of airfone to begin with) or the home voicemail system itself (and 2a. re:Artifacting - electronic echo suppression failing; that's the part the truther thinks is a repeat in a man's voice; the video poster has obviously never had a bad cell connection before, nor has he had to deal with VoIP)
3. The sounds of her putting the phone away. It's the sounds of the phone being put up that is heard at the end; whatever voices he's hearing are nothing more than background noises, and perhaps Ms. Lyles apologizing for being near tears to someone else nearby.

Wikipedia link to the recording, so as to avoid giving the YouTube link hits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CeeCee_Lyles

Tmd obviously doesn't understand echo cancellation failures. Digital failure of echo sources is a well known phenomenon. And has been for over a decade. Two sources discussing this problem:

• http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Causes+of+Echo
• http://urgentcomm.com/mag/radio_voice_quality_pcs/

That's something I've had to deal with nearly every damn day for some time now in my own job. When you deal with VoIP, and also deal with cell phones (and deal with cell phones connecting to VoiP users and vice versa) you hear the exact problems you hear in the call. I'll leave it to sound engineers here to expand on that stuff, but from my point of view, it's damn common and easy to identify.

The bottom line is that there is zero that's suspicious about that call.

 

[332nd]

It wasn't that either. There was no male voice in the recording whatsoever. What he's hearing is distortion from

1. The quality of the original airfone conversation itself, exacerbted by Ms. Lyles breaking down emotionally near the end and holding back tears
2. Artifacting from what I can only presume is the digitization either via the GTE airfone (presuming FL93's was the second generation of airfone to begin with) or the home voicemail system itself (and 2a. re:Artifacting - electronic echo suppression failing; that's the part the truther thinks is a repeat in a man's voice; the video poster has obviously never had a bad cell connection before, nor has he had to deal with VoIP)
3. The sounds of her putting the phone away. It's the sounds of the phone being put up that is heard at the end; whatever voices he's hearing are nothing more than background noises, and perhaps Ms. Lyles apologizing for being near tears to someone else nearby.

Wikipedia link to the recording, so as to avoid giving the YouTube link hits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CeeCee_Lyles

Tmd obviously doesn't understand echo cancellation failures. Digital failure of echo sources is a well known phenomenon. And has been for over a decade. Two sources discussing this problem:

• http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Causes+of+Echo
• http://urgentcomm.com/mag/radio_voice_quality_pcs/

That's something I've had to deal with nearly every damn day for some time now in my own job. When you deal with VoIP, and also deal with cell phones (and deal with cell phones connecting to VoiP users and vice versa) you hear the exact problems you hear in the call. I'll leave it to sound engineers here to expand on that stuff, but from my point of view, it's damn common and easy to identify.

The bottom line is that there is zero that's suspicious about that call.

Oh I know, (well, I didn't know, it just sounded like the "white noise" stuff that ghost hunters use as evidence of a haunting) I was just wondering why he went straight to suspicious & creepy.

Eta: Ohhhhhh! NOW I see where he got suspicious & creepy! See, the first couple of times I listened to the vid, I just listened! I just played it again & I watched too! How helpful of the truther who uploaded it to tell you what was "really" going on!

Sweet baby blue Jesus in a jeep! Her breaking down is a man's voice!?!? REALLY!?!?

 

[tmd2_1]

It wasn't that either. There was no male voice in the recording whatsoever. What he's hearing is distortion from

1. The quality of the original airfone conversation itself, exacerbted by Ms. Lyles breaking down emotionally near the end and holding back tears
2. Artifacting from what I can only presume is the digitization either via the GTE airfone (presuming FL93's was the second generation of airfone to begin with) or the home voicemail system itself (and 2a. re:Artifacting - electronic echo suppression failing; that's the part the truther thinks is a repeat in a man's voice; the video poster has obviously never had a bad cell connection before, nor has he had to deal with VoIP)
3. The sounds of her putting the phone away. It's the sounds of the phone being put up that is heard at the end; whatever voices he's hearing are nothing more than background noises, and perhaps Ms. Lyles apologizing for being near tears to someone else nearby.

Wikipedia link to the recording, so as to avoid giving the YouTube link hits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CeeCee_Lyles

Tmd obviously doesn't understand echo cancellation failures. Digital failure of echo sources is a well known phenomenon. And has been for over a decade. Two sources discussing this problem:

• http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Causes+of+Echo
• http://urgentcomm.com/mag/radio_voice_quality_pcs/

That's something I've had to deal with nearly every damn day for some time now in my own job. When you deal with VoIP, and also deal with cell phones (and deal with cell phones connecting to VoiP users and vice versa) you hear the exact problems you hear in the call. I'll leave it to sound engineers here to expand on that stuff, but from my point of view, it's damn common and easy to identify.

The bottom line is that there is zero that's suspicious about that call.

You might want to re-look at the whole thing she wasn't on an airphone, it was her cellphone, here is her husband saying so. So you certainly try to come off as if you know a lot about this whole thing interesting you didn't even know she was on a cell phone. The cell phone itself is certainly more than questionable that it was used, and even more bizarre she got through twice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2kFQu6Ux0

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh I know, (well, I didn't know, it just sounded like the "white noise" stuff that ghost hunters use as evidence of a haunting) I was just wondering why he went straight to suspicious & creepy.

Yeah, I figured you'd know yourself. I just used your post as a launch pad to expound in detail (sorry in return for doing that ). But yeah, I've had to deal with that junk myself, and it's not my job to have to deal with it. It's just that 1. Smartphones do fall within our support structure, but despite voice issues explicitly being left to the cellular network provider, my work group still gets bugged about it, and 2. We were given a VoIP system so as to provide more and better routing control. But which means that networking outages takes out our phone system, leaving us unable to support people experiencing network outages.

We laugh over that irony every time it happens.

Anyway, I'm no formal expert, but dammit, I've personally experienced those exact artifacts myself in my job for what, nearly 2 years now? So my colleagues and I have been forced to become experienced, if not formally trained experts, in the sorts of problems involved with digital voice technology. And as far as I can tell, United Airlines went digital with GTE Airfones back in 1995, so I presume that Flight 93 would've been converted by 2001.

It takes a seriously oblivious mind to pull off that level of suspicious interpretation. It's doing more than ignoring the obvious, it's ignoring the logical. Anyway, rant over. Thanks for the ear, man.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You might want to re-look at the whole thing she wasn't on an airphone, it was her cellphone, here is her husband saying so. So you certainly try to come off as if you know a lot about this whole thing interesting you didn't even know she was on a cell phone. The cell phone itself is certainly more than questionable that it was used, and even more bizarre she got through twice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2kFQu6Ux0

You are confused. It was Lyles' second call that her husband answered that was made on a cell phone. The voicemail you're referring to was her first call, and it was established to have been from a GTE Airfone. Reference Moussaoui trial evidence presentation on the calls for the correct information.

 

[I Ratant]

Oh I know, (well, I didn't know, it just sounded like the "white noise" stuff that ghost hunters use as evidence of a haunting) I was just wondering why he went straight to suspicious & creepy.

Eta: Ohhhhhh! NOW I see where he got suspicious & creepy! See, the first couple of times I listened to the vid, I just listened! I just played it again & I watched too! How helpful of the truther who uploaded it to tell you what was "really" going on!

Sweet baby blue Jesus in a jeep! Her breaking down is a man's voice!?!? REALLY!?!?

.
We'll make more progress talking to the box of rocks.
This guy is lost.

 

[332nd]

You might want to re-look at the whole thing she wasn't on an airphone, it was her cellphone, here is her husband saying so. So you certainly try to come off as if you know a lot about this whole thing interesting you didn't even know she was on a cell phone. The cell phone itself is certainly more than questionable that it was used, and even more bizarre she got through twice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2kFQu6Ux0

The first call (in the vid you posted) was from the airfone.

 

[tmd2_1]

You are confused. It was Lyles' second call that her husband answered that was made on a cell phone. The voicemail you're referring to was her first call, and it was established to have been from a GTE Airfone. Reference Moussaoui trial evidence presentation on the calls for the correct information.

I didn't know that. It hardly matters, the call speaks for itself. You'll say anything to support your dogma.

 

[beachnut]

I didn't know that. It hardly matters, the call speaks for itself. You'll say anything to support your dogma.

It is called reality, you like fantasy, you are not a skeptic, you are gullible. Ready for your evidence. ... you don't have any

 

[332nd]

I didn't know that. It hardly matters, the call speaks for itself. You'll say anything to support your dogma.

Wow... irony...
So you really think that's a man's voice when Mrs Lyles breaks down? Really?

 

[tmd2_1]

Wow... irony...
So you really think that's a man's voice when Mrs Lyles breaks down? Really?

Nope I distinctly said what I thought was and was not accurate about that video the first time I posted it here. I even said what I thought were differences between what the author said was being said at the end, and what I thought was being said. I wasn't just reading what he wrote.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I didn't know that. It hardly matters, the call speaks for itself. You'll say anything to support your dogma.

So, not only do we establish that some of us here have experience at putting up with the types of digital voice distortions heard in the voicemail, but we also establish that we're better versed in the details of the call evidence. And this is your response.

Worse surrender ever. Our job in this thread is done, folks. Good night.

 

[tmd2_1]

So, not only do we establish that some of us here have experience at putting up with the types of digital voice distortions heard in the voicemail, but we also establish that we're better versed in the details of the call evidence. And this is your response.

Worse surrender ever. Our job in this thread is done, folks. Good night.

That's where your wrong. That call is all the evidence I need. Anybody with an open mind, can listen to it, and be suspicious. Nothing you can say bout distortion or echo can change that. You want to know why? Talking on the phone is something we all have done before many times, and we know that what you hear on that call doesn't sound like anything we've heard before. That's something you can never overcome.