16 years later,9 unanswered questions.

Richard Clarke has a theory of his own which does explain why these guys were allowed to run around the country:

The only thing I see evident on this thread is positive proof of :
"The Wizard's First Rule" - Zed

I'm just curious of one thing myself.

If TPTB go through such great pains and decisive means to cover up their "treacherous" acts of evil and dismay,

THEN WHY IN THE HELL WOULD THEY ALLOW SOME JOE SMOE DUDE GIVE UP THEIR PLAN "WITH EVIDENCE" ON YOUTUBE?

I mean seriously, people on this site, many on this thread say "they monitor and watch, and censor" what is being put on YouTube and the internets.

It just does not make any sense to let your plan to be put out there on a friggin video that everyone can see.

Did they drop the ball on all of your "evidence", which I still don't see any inquiries or rebuttal of anything official. Which it seems to me that if it was such concrete and earth shattering, then more would be done to "right the wrongs".

But nope, just the same crap rehashed, repackaged, and sold to a different generation that seems to be incapable of doing a little real research on their own instead of flipping through YouTube videos listening to yahoos trying to promote themselves to make a little advertising coins.

It's the same meat ground up and served as a different portion for your plate.

originally posted by: neutronflux


Finally, you are the one that is hearing what you want to hear. The voice is not hers. It's sounds more like electronic voice phenomena if anything. The voice of a lie telling those who ignores the lies of the truth movement, enable the lies of the truth movement, and pledged there soul to the truth movement what they want to hear. Especially when artificial means must be used to make the tape say it's a frame?

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork

You can find the recording at Wikipedia's "Flight 93" about half way down the page at "Phone call made by CeeCee Lyles"

en.wikipedia.org...

The clip I posted only slowed it down, nothing more. Everyone can hear it for themselves, and also slow it down. It's pretty clear that she whispered at the end. Sorry. It is what it is.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Most people whisper by tightening up their neck and mouth. Make it more controlled, resulting in a quite and higher voice. Not some strange lower husky voice where the tape most be "cleaned up" to make out the words.

People whisper all sorts of different ways, and can sound even more differently when they're whispering closely into a phone's receiver. She might have even been obfuscating her mouth with the phone as she hung up so whoever was there wouldn't see.

But you're arguing simantics, she clearly said something quitely into the receiver, whether you want to call it a whisper or a hushed voice.

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Again, what you think you hear has nothing to with actual eyewitnesses accounts and physical evidence.

You do understand the recording was recovered off an answering machine?

Can you prove the answering machine did not use a tape? The tape was probably recorded over many times, and the old tape answering machines were notorious for not entirely recording over/erasing old messages.


So you have garbled words that do not sound like her, from what is probably an old tape recorded over many times, the voice is not consistent with a wipser, the recording has to be "slown and cleaned up" to make the message, the message makes no sense, how would she have enough knowledge of a vast conspiracy to even try to worn anybody, the evidence is so weak that this is the first time I seen it used on ATS in my time here, and what you think you hear in no way discredits eyewitnesses, radar data, DNA evidence, recovered wreckage, and physical evidence.

And it's sad you go on about lies, but do nothing to combat the documented lies of the truth movement. You are complicit in the con of the truth movement.

a reply to: CajunMetal

If the recording was from a analog tape, the only thing the original recording proves is analog tapes are susceptible to noise. That analog recorders are notorious for not entirely recording over previous recordings.

originally posted by: WilltellGenerally speaking, 911 may be the biggest crime in history.

What if it were said that WWI and WWII were scams/rackets just like 9-11 was.. or the cold war.

9-11 would pale in comparison.

originally posted by: CajunMetal
One thing I don't get though: how'd they coerce the "let's roll" statement or get a regular guy under duress to act out the counter attack without it sounding suspicious to his partner?

Here's something else for you to think about:

Todd missed his earlier flight. He wasn't supposed to be on fl93.

Therefore, any truther claims that he was in on it and sending false calls, and/or it was all preplanned pretty much becomes an impossibility. Right?

For how do you preplan anything with a guy that wasn't going to be on that flight until the last minute?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CajunMetal

If the recording was from a analog tape, the only thing the original recording proves is analog tapes are susceptible to noise. That analog recorders are notorious for not entirely recording over previous recordings.

I'm from the era of analog tapes and can also tell you that by 2001 most home phones had a base with a digital answering machine included, and no, tapes were not notorious for the thing you claim. this is as someone from that era who at the time was doing a ton of over dubbing work on Tascam 4 tracks and regular tape decks. You can also not prove it was from a tape so we're really at an impasse.

I certainly dont doubt the stories of vans exploding, I recall those reports on the very day it all happened. If they can have 19 people on planes, you can bet they can have four or five more in Vans with explosives. Because thats what they do. Now the whole inside job thing... im not buying into that.

16 years later and my one question, when will the endless war end?

a reply to: CajunMetal

Are you saying tape answering machines were not being sold in 2001. Are you saying there was not a good portion of tape answering machines in use in 2001.

Sorry,

One: I bet the audio that you cite was sourced from a analog magnetic tape at some point.

Two: analog tape is unreliable. Is easily distorted, loses ability with age/repeated use, and is not reliable.

Three: And tapes and recorders are notorious for introducing noise and loss of quality with use and time.

Four: and tape answering machines had a bad habit of not removing 100 percent of the old message when recording a new message.

Clark was, is and will always be a very dangerous man.
His ignorance and stupidity as well as arrogance has cost the lives of U.S. personnel, innocent American citizens and several friendlies.

Buck

a reply to: Willtell

Here’s another question that is very wrenching that seems to indicate the passengers on those flights may have been just summarily executed.

How can a question indicate that?

It sounds like a claim, the questions follow concerning the claim of no passengers on the planes that hit the buildings or crashed.


If I asked

Is Willtell an idiot?

Does that indicate that you are an idiot?

a reply to: Incandescent

If you are an adult who has done basic research into 9/11 and still support the OS, or at the very least are unwilling to criticize it, then not even a strong dose of anti-stupid medicine can help you. While they are all contentious points worthy of further investigation, the one that gets to me is the missing 2.3 trillion. Debunkers are like "so what, they lost some money, big deal!" That's TRILLION, not thousands, millions or even billions...it's a truly insane amount to "just go missing".

So the one that gets you shows that you haven't done basic research past any conspiracy sites, and that maybe you are not an adult?

Its been explained in detail, it was 2.3 trillion mentioned then, more trillions were also unaccounted for, If memory serves me correct it was either 6 or 9 trillion all together over many years that the Pentagon couldn't account for.

Its all explained how and why this has happened and whats being done to trace the money.

Yes, with basic research, not YouTube surfing and conspiracy blogs, one can easily find answers.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CajunMetal

Are you saying tape answering machines were not being sold in 2001. Are you saying there was not a good portion of tape answering machines in use in 2001.

Sorry,

One: I bet the audio that you cite was sourced from a analog magnetic tape at some point.

Two: analog tape is unreliable. Is easily distorted, loses ability with age/repeated use, and is not reliable.

Three: And tapes and recorders are notorious for introducing noise and loss of quality with use and time.

Four: and tape answering machines had a bad habit of not removing 100 percent of the old message when recording a new message.

I totally get what you're saying, all good points. I'm just suggesting that if it was a poor tape with the qualities you cite, that one would imagine there being more noise or ghosted artifacts besides the one we're talking about.
The sounds we do hear, imo, are consistent with movement of the receiver in close proximity of the callers mouth trying to hide a hushed message from view of the alleged handler(s).

Cheers

originally posted by: CajunMetal

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CajunMetal

Are you saying tape answering machines were not being sold in 2001. Are you saying there was not a good portion of tape answering machines in use in 2001.

Sorry,

One: I bet the audio that you cite was sourced from a analog magnetic tape at some point.

Two: analog tape is unreliable. Is easily distorted, loses ability with age/repeated use, and is not reliable.

Three: And tapes and recorders are notorious for introducing noise and loss of quality with use and time.

Four: and tape answering machines had a bad habit of not removing 100 percent of the old message when recording a new message.

I totally get what you're saying, all good points. I'm just suggesting that if it was a poor tape with the qualities you cite, that one would imagine there being more noise or ghosted artifacts besides the one we're talking about.
The sounds we do hear, imo, are consistent with movement of the receiver in close proximity of the callers mouth trying to hide a hushed message from view of the alleged handler(s).

Cheers

You have no proof of that. The voice doesn't even sound like her. The sound is garbled. You do not have the original recording from the answering machine. You cannot even prove if it was something added.

And the garbled sound from the tape is evidence of a garbled sound on the tape. Has no impact on the number of people that attest to seeing the jet, recovering the wreckage, DNA evidence, radar data, recovering human remains, remains released for burial, the impact crater, buried wreckage, the large debris field scattered with remains/personal items/wreckage, and the scorched trees.

Like to start with what human remains were released to families for burial?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: CajunMetal

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: CajunMetal

Are you saying tape answering machines were not being sold in 2001. Are you saying there was not a good portion of tape answering machines in use in 2001.

Sorry,

One: I bet the audio that you cite was sourced from a analog magnetic tape at some point.

Two: analog tape is unreliable. Is easily distorted, loses ability with age/repeated use, and is not reliable.

Three: And tapes and recorders are notorious for introducing noise and loss of quality with use and time.

Four: and tape answering machines had a bad habit of not removing 100 percent of the old message when recording a new message.

I totally get what you're saying, all good points. I'm just suggesting that if it was a poor tape with the qualities you cite, that one would imagine there being more noise or ghosted artifacts besides the one we're talking about.
The sounds we do hear, imo, are consistent with movement of the receiver in close proximity of the callers mouth trying to hide a hushed message from view of the alleged handler(s).

Cheers

You have no proof of that. The voice doesn't even sound like her. The sound is garbled. You do not have the original recording from the answering machine. You cannot even prove if it was something added.

And the garbled sound from the tape is evidence of a garbled sound on the tape. Has no impact on the number of people that attest to seeing the jet, recovering the wreckage, DNA evidence, radar data, recovering human remains, remains released for burial, the impact crater, buried wreckage, the large debris field scattered with remains/personal items/wreckage, and the scorched trees.

Like to start with what human remains were released to families for burial?

Proof of what? I explained what it sounded like to me.

As for the rest of your questions, those are also addressed in the videos we're talking about, you can re-watch them.

You keep saying it sounds to you like a garbled tape and not her voice. That's fine. We clearly hear different things. I just disagree and in my opinion and experience (and I'd argue most people my age) it doesn't sound like damaged tape; it sounds like what you hear on a non-cellular phone's mouthpiece when someone speaks closely with a hushed voice.
I grew up in a time when you called someone's house and they'd muffle the receiver w their hand to put you on hold, and when you'd whisper to your boyfriend or girlfriend at night into the receiver because you couldn't just walk into the other room.
That's what that sounds like as she moves the receiver around and whispers on her way to hanging up the phone.

And if we're splitting hairs: slowing down the recording could account for the change in voice to your hearing. And even if it was slowed down you can still hear the cadence of spoken words in the original. It's clearly not been slowed down enough to do anything more than isolate that portion of tape.

But neither of us knows if it's tape, damaged or otherwise. I'm sure your mind wouldn't be changed if it were proven to not be analog tape.
Based on the context surrounding 9/11 conspiracy it sounds to me that it's plausible that's what she's saying regardless.

Cheers

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: Willtell

Here’s another question that is very wrenching that seems to indicate the passengers on those flights may have been just summarily executed.

How can a question indicate that?

It sounds like a claim, the questions follow concerning the claim of no passengers on the planes that hit the buildings or crashed.


If I asked

Is Willtell an idiot?

Does that indicate that you are an idiot?

One thing there is absolutely no question about, and that is the idiots are those who believe in the OS!