How do truthers explain the phone calls?

[Dash80]

 

[newton3376]

No, it's not.


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.

No one who has any RF Comms or Electronics experience thinks it's impossible to make a cell phone call from 30,000, 40,000, or even 50,000 feet (50,000 starts to push it though IMO).

A.K. Dewdney is a moron.

 

[Dash80]

Let me give you some advice tmd...

Stop being so gullible, any moron can make a video and put it on youtube. Any moron can say "hey watch this video, it's suspicious!"

 

[tmd2_1]

I know you said "sounds like". What do you base it on? The people in the towers? Why should she sound like them? She was trained in crisis management as an FA, not to mention she was a cop before then. Add to that, the fact that some people are simply calmer than others &... well, you're defending that dogma again.

In hindsight I should have just kept sticking to the audio. I made that mistake with the airphone and cell phone which will be used against me. Even though it is completely meaningless.

 

[sylvan8798]

Right now some millionaire is on trial in Florida for killing his wife. He calls 911 immediately after she is shot and says, utterly without emotion like he's reporting the weather: "I just shot my wife."

Now it seems to me that there are 3 possiblities:
1) He shot his wife on purpose. In that case he SHOULD be PRETENDING to be hysterical and shouting or sobbing "I just accidentally shot my wife!"
2) He shot his wife by accident. In which case he should be ACTUALLY hysterical and shouting or sobbing "I just accidentally shot my wife!"
3) His wife shot herself, on purpose or by accident. In which case he should be saying "omg my wife just shot herself, get help, hurry!"

He is doing none of these things, and in fact sounds ridiculously unfazed, which is part of the reason he is on trial right now. We should not, however, conclude that his call was made with voice-morphing technology.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Every time you turn a corner there's something that doesn't make any sense .

When will you grasp that something not making sense to you is just an indicator of your utter lack of education and experience.

you didn't know about echos on phones..............

 

[USAFMXOfficer]

No, that it could be someone else using voice morphing technology. It may seem like science fiction but it's not the technology is there. That tape is very creepy.

So how did "they" get a voice clip from Cee Cee Lyles to voice morph?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

When will you grasp that something not making sense to you is just an indicator of your utter lack of education and experience.

you didn't know about echos on phones..............

He's not even close to understanding it.

Take simple "talker echo", defined as:

...some proportion of the "talker's" voice is echoed back to the talker - i.e. the person speaking hears their own voice.

Sample audio files of this phenomenon: http://www.voiptroubleshooter.com/problems/echo.html

Add to it distortion, like amplitude clipping:
http://www.voiptroubleshooter.com/problems/ampclip.html

What have you got?

Yes, those examples are from VoIP. I understand that. I also understand that the GTE Airfones weren't VoIP, but were simply digital air-to-ground connections. That misses the point: Both technologies are digital, and both suffer from the same sorts of distortions. That's the point.

There really isn't anything more to say. A simple listening to that call is all that it takes to understand that there's nothing suspicious about it at all.

 

[I Ratant]

So how did "they" get a voice clip from Cee Cee Lyles to voice morph?

.
Ingenuously.

 

[atavisms]

Dr George Papcun, the inventor of Voice Morphing technology, presented the following summary of his thoughts on the 9/11 calls and if they were "morphed"

That the calls were 'morphed' is an outdated hypothesis. People, like DR Griffin went to such lengths because the evidence for demolition is so overwhelming and the calls needed to be explained. I understand some people will still repeat this theory but the evidence is pretty clear in showing that the calls had to have been real. A much more plausible and likely explanation can be found here: http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/fake_calls.html

 

[sylvan8798]

You can dismiss, deny, and ignore the facts that completely belie the official explanations, all you like.

You mean like you dismiss, deny, and ignore the facts that completely belie whatever it is that YOUR personal explanation is?

 

[dafydd]

That the calls were 'morphed' is an outdated hypothesis. People, like DR Griffin went to such lengths because the evidence for demolition is so overwhelming and the calls needed to be explained. I understand some people will still repeat this theory but the evidence is pretty clear in showing that the calls had to have been real. A much more plausible and likely explanation can be found here: http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/fake_calls.html

In the words of John McEnroe,you cannot be serious. Do you believe any old pony that you see on the net?

 

[1337m4n]

That's where your wrong. That call is all the evidence I need.

Evidence of what, exactly?

A few posts later you say

I have no dogma to defend. I only seek the truth.

So here you are trying to be this unbiased, unopinionated "seeker of truth", but your facade is betrayed by the little Freudian slip you make when you claim that the call is "evidence". " "All the evidence you need", in fact. "All the evidence you need" for what exactly? You claim you don't have an opinion. You claim that you're neutral and trying to look at both sides objectively. If that were true, a purely subjective interpretation of one single phone call would not be "all the evidence you need". You'd need more than that if you were truly neutral and unbiased.

Worse is that it isn't even evidence. It's FEELING. You FEEL like it's suspicious. You FEEL like it's unnatural. You FEEL like it doesn't fit. Gut instinct might work for TV characters like Dr. House and Agent Gibbs, but here in Real Life, science requires evidence of a more concrete nature. And that's why your phony identity, your facade, of the "unbiased neutral researcher" is breaking down: no truly unbiased researcher on this planet would take his own subjective interpretation of an event, and categorically declare that it is "all the evidence I need".

You've been offered perfectly plausible explanations for the distortions that don't imply "massive government conspiracy. You dismiss them for no reason. You've been offered mountains of evidence that contradict "massive government conspiracy". You dismiss that for no reason. And when we confront you about it you fall back on the time-honored Truther cowardice of "But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just saying that this is SUSPICIOUS. SUSPICIOUUUUUSSSSS!!!!!" There's no real response to that other than to tell you to read this infographic courtesy of Cracked.com. See #7? That's you, except you don't use question marks.


In summary: Please stop insulting our intelligence by pretending to be "neutral" and "unbiased". The only person you're fooling anymore is yourself.

 

[dafydd]

No, that it could be someone else using voice morphing technology. It may seem like science fiction but it's not the technology is there. That tape is very creepy.

I suppose that under the circumstances any phone calls that you would have made would have been a barrel of laughs.

 

[twinstead]

This thread is basically a clinic on how irrational conspiracy theorists hand wave away compelling evidence that is contrary to their position.

 

[dafydd]

This thread is basically a clinic on how irrational conspiracy theorists hand wave away compelling evidence that is contrary to their position.

It is fascinating to watch.

 

[tmd2_1]

He's not even close to understanding it.

Take simple "talker echo", defined as:

​

Sample audio files of this phenomenon: http://www.voiptroubleshooter.com/problems/echo.html

Add to it distortion, like amplitude clipping:
http://www.voiptroubleshooter.com/problems/ampclip.html

What have you got?

Yes, those examples are from VoIP. I understand that. I also understand that the GTE Airfones weren't VoIP, but were simply digital air-to-ground connections. That misses the point: Both technologies are digital, and both suffer from the same sorts of distortions. That's the point.

There really isn't anything more to say. A simple listening to that call is all that it takes to understand that there's nothing suspicious about it at all.

No I know what you are trying to do, all someone had to do is rely on their own experience with phones. You try to give them some hi-tech sounding explanation for what is heard in that tape. I believe that when I point out to people to rely on their own experience, they will believe the call is suspicious.

 

[Edx]

You know this reminds me of the David Icke style claims that compression artifacts in video is proof that people are shapeshifting into these alien lizard people, even though there is a perfectly understandable explanation for it, they'll stil insist that its not compression artifacts, it really is what they claim it is.

 

[tmd2_1]

You know this reminds me of the David Icke style claims that compression artifacts in video is proof that people are shapeshifting into these alien lizard people, even though there is a perfectly understandable explanation for it, they'll stil insist that its not compression artifacts, it really is what they claim it is.

You know I said in my first post here, that they could have really done the hijackings, and that would make all of this stuff real. Than perhaps the planes were taken over by remote control. People just focused on the Ceecee part. It really doesn't make a difference to me, if that is Ceecee or not. Well I mean if it's not, obviously it's game over for the official story. But if it is, it just means something else was done, maybe something like I mentioned above. There's so much evidence against the official story and so little for it, that this one piece is far from needed.

 

[332nd]

You know I said in my first post here, that they could have really done the hijackings, and that would make all of this stuff real. Than perhaps the planes were taken over by remote control. People just focused on the Ceecee part. It really doesn't make a difference to me, if that is Ceecee or not. Well I mean if it's not, obviously it's game over for the official story. But if it is, it just means something else was done, maybe something like I mentioned above. There's so much evidence against the official story and so little for it, that this one piece is far from needed.

There's that dogma again.