Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
"Shockingly Calm" Phone Calls on 9/11; Were the calls from the planes real?
Topic Started: Jul 5 2008, 09:24 AM (4,443 Views)
JackD

If the goal is to probe the "truth" of the official 9/11 story, which includes multiple accounts of phone calls, some recorded, some given as 1st or 2nd hand testimony, some made by cell phone (CeeCee lyles call showed up with her name on caller ID) -- some made with airfone --

Then JohnDoeII has already done that quite handily.

The accumulated evidence that some, or several, of the calls were not made from inside hijacked planes thus calls into question the phone-call part of the OCT or official conspiracy theory.

Full stop.

now, you can accept that point as established, or if you dont wish to, then try to defend that phone calls were genuine (requires producing phone call records, subpoena witness, testimony under oath, etc) --

So, I assume you accept that the phone call explanations have big problems. Great.

the next point is "well, if phone calls were not made in manner claimed, what is other explanation?"

there are several -- since there were lots of calls made in dif ways.
1) accounts of phone calls were reported inaccurately
2) some accounts of calls were fabricated
3) some of the calls were made by callers who identified themselves (Like CeeCee) but NOT from planes (listen to CeeCee lyle's call, some one says "you did GREAT" in a whispered voice at the end)

4) some of the calls were NOT made by the alleged callers but instead by other parties using technology that clones a voice and /or clones the phone. Both can be done.
-----------------------------

the analogy to be made here is this -- let's say you are accused of murder, falsely. you defend yourself and show that there are enough problems with the murder charges and evidence to call into a questino 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for your guilt. fine.

are you then required, in order to establish your innocence, to provide to the court a believable or provable ALTERNATE scenario that explains the murder, or shows who 'really dunnit?' -- no. If you are unable to demonstrate to the court how the murder really happened, should you remained charged wiith the murder anyway?

THat is where we are at in the 9/11 truth investigation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grit1645

JackD
Sep 8 2008, 04:08 PM
the analogy to be made here is this -- let's say you are accused of murder, falsely. you defend yourself and show that there are enough problems with the murder charges and evidence to call into a questino 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for your guilt. fine.

are you then required, in order to establish your innocence, to provide to the court a believable or provable ALTERNATE scenario that explains the murder, or shows who 'really dunnit?' -- no. If you are unable to demonstrate to the court how the murder really happened, should you remained charged wiith the murder anyway?

THat is where we are at in the 9/11 truth investigation.
As I see it, in this scenario it is the government that is the accused, and you who is the accuser. Wouldn't you put the government on trial?

Since it is the accused that does not have to prove some alternate theory of the crime, but the accuser who has to prove THEIR theory, it is you who have to prove YOUR theory of the crime, rather than the other way around.

You are not, one hopes, the terrorists, being accused. Are you, then, their defense attorneys? What is your interest in defending them?

And no, I do not assume the phone call explanations have big problems. Like the planes at WTC, I accept the calls, in general, as true.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JackD

http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?4134

I also accepted the phone calls as true until I began to study them in detail. see john doe II work above from Team8plus

I, for one, do not accuse any one, any group for 9/11 attacks. To do so would require a truly independent investigatino with subpoena power and criminal indictment power.

I fully endorse the proposition that the events of 9/11 including 3 skyscraper collapses were NOT caused by OBL+19 hijackers +Laptop.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lidane

The passengers sounded very eerily calm during their calls. Unnaturally calm.

So I think,

1) The passengers were forced to make the calls at gunpoint, and were told what to say during each call.

and/or

2) 'Samples' of passenger and crew members' voices were taken during the flight or after secretly landing at a designated secret location, again possibly at gunpoint. The perps themselves made the phone calls, speaking through a special device that alters their voice to match the 'sample' voice, allowing them to impersonate these specific passengers and crew members.

But the voice-morphing device has technological limitations, however, so that when you speak into to it you have to do it in a very monotone, almost robotic tone of voice, or else it doesn't work. The device is incapable of imitating or conveying the emotional complexities/dynamics of the human voice in a natural-sounding way, which would explain why the 'callers' ended up sounding so unusually, unnaturally calm.

Edited by Lidane, Sep 20 2008, 12:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · Investigate 9/11 · Next Topic »
Add Reply