It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is It Via This Kind Of Fakery Technology That 9/11 Went Down?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


first of all why would you need a recording of "everyone" on the plane? wouldnt you only need the voices of the people that were making the calls?
second why would they care who missed the plane? you do not even need the callers on the plane if its a setup.
third here you will find on page 2/11 that Linda left a message saying that the terrorists had already attacked the wtc but that statement is refuted a few pages down (6/11)when it says


GRONLUND had stated that the terrorist had already attacked the World Trade Center WTC and they threatened to do the same type of bombing attack . STRONG stated she did not know how GRONLUND knew WTC had been attacked
now how can that be if STRONG said just a few pages up where that info came from? but now she doesnt? seems like someone needs to get their stories straight.
edit on 19-3-2011 by Another_Nut because: page numbers for link added




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


Still waiting for the lunatic fringe to explain HOW KNEW WHO WOULD BE ON THE FLIGHT !

Then how do you get digital recordings of their voices ?

As for Linda Gronlund - think she was only person there? We know there were multiple phone calls from
numerous passengers. If during call your loved one informs you that WTC has just been attacked would you
not share it with everyone around?

Typical deficent thinking....



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 

they knew who would be on the flight from the ticket sales.since most tickets are reserved you can get that list pretty quick if you have the right connections . then you call them up and have them take a quick 10 min "survey" about something . and you didnt even come close to answering the Linda question. if Linda called Strong and left a message saying the terrorists told the passengers about the wtc attacks (page one of the link in previous post) why would Strong say she didnt know where Linda got that info? you cant have it both ways .

and if you did not read my second post then i will say now i do not know what happened on 9/11 and neither do you. so to say that this idea is a little out there is ok but it is based on tech that was in development as early as 1994. to call me a lunatic is sad as you are only helping TPTB when you cut off a line of thought that seems a little to sci-fi ish .

really tho if you were a shadow organization with all kinds of top secret tech would you not use that as a way to cause descent among you enemies? hell they could have used a small nuke, conventional explosive, thermite, and scalar weapons all in different spots so me and you could spent the next 10 years arguing over who is right on these boards.all the while they are laughing at us cause we fell for it.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by pshea38
 


Still haven't explained how they got 10 minute digital recordings of everyone on that plane

Or how knew, in advance, who would be on that flight - Mark Bingham also missed it, He arrived only 5
minutes before it left, They were several more people who eitther booked flight shortly before or had
tickets on the flight and took different one.

In addition how would know personal details like Linda Gronlund tellling sister where to find her safe and the
combination

Typical delusional conspiracy fantasy......


The washington post article proved that voice morphing technology was available to the military in the 1990's. So anyone doubting that this could not have been employed as a method of deception must think again. Myself, i believe that there were no passenger flights as described so all the individual details released are pre-fabricated and falsified and is not worth my time getting bogged down over.
Your Typical attack is like water off a ducks back.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reign02
I was there and saw the 2nd plane hit with my own two eyes!!! Definatley was NOT holograph of some kind. And if it was how did they make the sound of the jet as it passed over NYC? You people amaze me at how you can create elaborate retarded conspiracy stuff....

Here is exactly what happened.....

2 planes hit the WTCs
something hit the Pentagon (plane, UAV, Cruise missle, whatever you think because if you weren't there you don't know)

GG


As per the washington post article, if holographic technology was available in the 1990's, what makes you believe that they could not or would not have any audio projection system to hand.
So i am retarded eh. well if thats your approach, let me tell you that i do not believe you for one second.
i will not take your word for anything.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
In one of the "phone calls" from one of the doomed planes the caller reaches his "mother" and asks if it is "Mrs. So and So"....how many of you address your Mother as Mrs, Last Name, You would say "Mom, is that you? This is (your name)." But if it was a 3rd party making the call with altered voice technology you might address her that way then pretend to be her son once you know that you have reached the right person (the real son would know his mother's voice unless it was a real bad connection then you might ask but you still wouldnt call her by her last name).



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
In one of the "phone calls" from one of the doomed planes the caller reaches his "mother" and asks if it is "Mrs. So and So"....how many of you address your Mother as Mrs, Last Name, You would say "Mom, is that you? This is (your name)." But if it was a 3rd party making the call with altered voice technology you might address her that way then pretend to be her son once you know that you have reached the right person (the real son would know his mother's voice unless it was a real bad connection then you might ask but you still wouldnt call her by her last name).


What is your source please ?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by thedman
 

they knew who would be on the flight from the ticket sales.since most tickets are reserved you can get that list pretty quick if you have the right connections . then you call them up and have them take a quick 10 min "survey" about something .


As is usual, there were plenty of last minute changes and late bookings for the fatal 9/11 flights. Including passengers who switched from flight 91 to UA 93 on the morning of 9/11 itself. 9/11 blogger has done a helpful analysis :-

911blogger.com...

So, how did the perps obtain voice samples for people who didn't know themselves that they would be on one of the flights until the last minute ?

They could hardly be caught by your suggested " quick 10 minute survey about something ." And that suggestion is ludicrous from every angle. How many people respond positively to a cold call 10 min survey ? and how many would respond positively to deep personal questions necessary to fake a call to spouses, parents, siblings ? You are clutching at straws to try and support the absurd.

Dr Cancun, who developed the voice morphing technology, has made it clear that it could not have been used in the circumstances of 9/11. That should be the end of this nonsense.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


clutching at straws? for what? i was asked how it could be done . i answered that in quick and simple way. it only took like 3 minutes to come up with that and they had longer than 3 minutes to plan it. whats your point. and your link actually makes more sense when when i think about it. all those "last minute changes" makes it easier to fake not harder . you take the voices you have on file and and book them a ticket at the last minute . that is a lot easier than calling prebooked passengers and trying to get a sample. o and about the good doctor, well if you created the tech that helped the 9/11 conspirators would you say "o yea that was me.i helped them do it." no you would not you would say just what the doc is saying.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by Alfie1
 


clutching at straws? for what? i was asked how it could be done . i answered that in quick and simple way. it only took like 3 minutes to come up with that and they had longer than 3 minutes to plan it. whats your point. and your link actually makes more sense when when i think about it. all those "last minute changes" makes it easier to fake not harder . you take the voices you have on file and and book them a ticket at the last minute . that is a lot easier than calling prebooked passengers and trying to get a sample. o and about the good doctor, well if you created the tech that helped the 9/11 conspirators would you say "o yea that was me.i helped them do it." no you would not you would say just what the doc is saying.


Are you serious ? How were these voices " on file " ( together with pertinent personal details ) ?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 

first not all of the calls made were from those "last minute"passengers . i am looking into which ones were late comers who ALSO made calls. but just think if you were the one planting evidence. would it be easier to get the passenger list and try to get a sample from that or would it be easier to get the sample then just book those people on the flight?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by Alfie1
 

first not all of the calls made were from those "last minute"passengers . i am looking into which ones were late comers who ALSO made calls. but just think if you were the one planting evidence. would it be easier to get the passenger list and try to get a sample from that or would it be easier to get the sample then just book those people on the flight?


You can't just book people onto flights because you happen to have, for some obscure reason, samples of their voice. They have to be geograhically in the right place and have a reason to take a transcontinental flight. How on earth would perps know this and why take the huge risk of trying to fake calls anyway ?

The whole concept is nuts and becomes nuttier the more you think about it.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


listen do not get me wrong i am not saying it happened . i am saying that it would be within the realm of possibility. i think the one of the best questions you have asked is why. why would they risk the calls? i have no idea . but i think it ties into the mass confusion idea i have been working on. this is where the perpetrators use multiple attack devices (thermite/planes/uavs/scalar) including never before seen tech to make each person who watch/research anything about 9/11 confused by the unanswered questions that each theory leaves. this is a sure fire way to keep us arguing with each other . always remember its not the how and why that matters. how and why are things that come after the questioning of the OS . and since i think we all agree the os is bs then we are friends working for the same goal. and as long as you dont know how it was done i think its silly to rule out anything that was possible on that day, as this is where the infighting starts and thier victory is assured.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


It's not within the realms of possibility for a whole raft of practical reasons which you cannot answer.

I don't know where you get the idea that " we all agree the os is bs ". My observation is that the os is broadly what most people on the planet believe is the truth.

I have spent more time than I should have looking at truther theories and I have just been struck by the utter poverty of truther reasons to support a conspiracy. Imo the only areas to justify careful investigation, not a witch -hunt, are intelligence failures. How, for example, did Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi ( pilots of AA 11 and UA 175 ) ever get into the US when they had been under surveillance by German Security as part of the Hamburg Cell.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


if what you say is truth i will suggest a read through this thread pay special attention to Anok. if you believe the os then any conspiracy will seem far fetched and full of holes and there is no room for debate with you. but then again not even the 9/11 commission believes the 9/11 report so even the os is full of holes .



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I specifically remember voice morphing technology being discussed immediately around the time of 9/11. Since then I scoured Google and couldn't find a single mention of it again, until this thread just now.

Another example of information being censored if you ask me. I've seen more than a couple different articles of "interest" be sent tumbling down the Google ranks. The AP's article featuring a volunteer structural engineer who worked with FEMA at Ground Zero, and accusing the ASCE of corruption and cover-up during their investigation, went a similar route and now you can hardly find that article at all either, despite the controversy it caused at the time. The AP never followed up on the article, and neither did the ASCE or anyone else. Deafening silence follows these kinds of articles, at least from anyone of any intelligence whatsoever.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I specifically remember voice morphing technology being discussed immediately around the time of 9/11. Since then I scoured Google and couldn't find a single mention of it again, until this thread just now.

Another example of information being censored if you ask me. I've seen more than a couple different articles of "interest" be sent tumbling down the Google ranks. The AP's article featuring a volunteer structural engineer who worked with FEMA at Ground Zero, and accusing the ASCE of corruption and cover-up during their investigation, went a similar route and now you can hardly find that article at all either, despite the controversy it caused at the time. The AP never followed up on the article, and neither did the ASCE or anyone else. Deafening silence follows these kinds of articles, at least from anyone of any intelligence whatsoever.


So because , for some unknown reason, you couldn't google something then it must have been censored ?

Didn't take me any time at all to find this item by Dr George Papcun, founder of voice morphing technology, saying what rubbish it is to suppose that his invention could have been used on 9/11 :-

sites.google.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
So because , for some unknown reason, you couldn't google something then it must have been censored ?


Of all the "unknown reasons," that is my primary one, yes. Why? Because I can find the most trivial, stupid articles from years ago before I could half of the much more serious articles I've seen disappear from web searches.

I have no intention of trying to convince you of this, because you aren't even suspicious of all the inconsistencies, contradictions and missing information from the official reports. And that tells me something about how observant you are.


Didn't take me any time at all to find this item by Dr George Papcun, founder of voice morphing technology, saying what rubbish it is to suppose that his invention could have been used on 9/11 :-


You give an inventor much more credit for foreseeing how his technology could be used than I do. If you stuck to strict logical reasoning you would not have to get stuck on these issues that are not quantifiable or demonstrable, but more or less just another opinionated rant.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So, are you saying you still believe 9/11 calls from the planes were faked by voice morphology ? How quaintly 2006 of you.

I am afraid you are a truther dinosaur. 9/11 blogger, which I think is the largest truther site, has turned itself completely against that. Have you seen this critique of David Griffin's nonsense ?

911blogger.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
So, are you saying you still believe 9/11 calls from the planes were faked by voice morphology ? How quaintly 2006 of you.


I'm saying it's a distinct possibility definitely worthy of an in-depth investigation. And certainly nothing you have said disproves the thought.


I am afraid you are a truther dinosaur. 9/11 blogger, which I think is the largest truther site, has turned itself completely against that. Have you seen this critique of David Griffin's nonsense ?


I'm afraid you are confusing me with someone like yourself: someone who always looks to others to figure out what they're "supposed" to believe. Can you say.... baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh?




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join