Ron Ecker Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Firstly, the comments about the 'FoneFaker'. There is a big - and I believe incorrect - assumption made there. It says it can "...change your voice...". I have no problem with that; there are a multitude of ways to do this. It also says it can make your voice sound like a male or female. Again, no problems. Griffin says, though, that it "...will produce the person's Caller ID as well as his or her voice...". That is NOT what the device / service claims, and I do not believe it would be capable of doing so. It is one thing to use a device to alter your voice; it is quite another to use it to mimic someone else's voice. I am wondering if he actually purchased one of these devices / services and attempted to use it in the manner in which he claims it would have been used? I think not. Griffin may be incorrect regarding the FoneFaker device in particular (I know nothing about it), but he is correct that the technology exists to mimic someone else's voice. Voice morphing is detailed in the article linked below in the Washington Post, and could certainly have been used to dupe people on 9/11: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...arkin020199.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Ron - quite correct. If however the airfones were installed (they were) and mobile phones can be used from aircraft in some circumstances (they can), why do we need to look at voice morphing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 (edited) why do we need to look at voice morphing? Because at least one of the phone calls, from Barbara Olson, is suspect in content. She said that the pilot Burlingame was among those herded to the back of the plane by the hijackers, with Barbara then calling her husband to ask him what they ought to do. Those who knew Burlingame said that he would never give up his aircraft in that fashion, and there is evidence, according to Senator Warner, that he did not. Warner said that "examination of his remains . . . indicated Captain Burlingame was in a struggle and died before the crash, doing his best to save lives on the aircraft and on the ground." http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cfburling3.htm Edited October 13, 2007 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Isn't this a subjective opinion? About what he would or would not do? A lot of these things depend on circumstances, upon the assessment by the individual at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Isn't this a subjective opinion? About what he would or would not do? Yes, except for the alleged forensic evidence that he struggled with the terrorists. Given the state his remains must have been in after such a crash, I suspect that being able to differentiate injuries in that way is another load of government crap. But what I think about it is of course subjective too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 I don't see how if he struggled with the terrorists or not substantially changes the "accepted" events unless such action / inaction contradicts recorded events. I can see how he would have complied with the hijackers demands. I can see how he would have fought the hijackers demands. In neither case do I need to involve any conspiracy. Could you expand on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Thanks Evan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Could you expand on this? It is simply my speculation that if Burlingame fought with the terrorists, he did so in the cockpit, he did not wait till after he had been herded at boxcutter-point to the back of the airplane. If my speculation is correct, than Olson's phone call was a fabrication. But none of us was aboard the plane. This is speculation, and debating it accomplishes little. In my opinion 9/11 was an inside job, and that is what matters to me, not what may or may not have happened aboard Flight 77 which supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, and what voice morphing may or may not have been used in relation thereto. What I want with regard to 9/11 is a real and complete investigation, not to engage in endless speculations about who was on board those planes and did what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 But none of us was aboard the plane. This is speculation, and debating it accomplishes little. In my opinion 9/11 was an inside job, and that is what matters to me, not what may or may not have happened aboard Flight 77 which supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, and what voice morphing may or may not have been used in relation thereto. What I want with regard to 9/11 is a real and complete investigation, not to engage in endless speculations about who was on board those planes and did what. I enjoy reading Ron's posts about 9/11. Many times I think he may be right on the money. But with each passing month I think the chances of getting a real and complete investigation become less. And they weren't very high to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 But with each passing month I think the chances of getting a real and complete investigation become less. I agree. I don't expect one, I'd just like to see it. It will be years from now if ever. And even then it will not be real or complete. Who would conduct it? What entity could possibly be independent of the tentacles and menace of the government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Ron, Do you then think that calls for a new investigation are a moot point? That any investigation will be hopelessly compromised from the beginning? If a new investigation was conducted, what would be some of the areas you would particularly want looked at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Do you then think that calls for a new investigation are a moot point? That any investigation will be hopelessly compromised from the beginning? Anyone who thinks that the government would allow an investigation that would bring it down is dreaming. It never happened with JFK and it won't happen with 9/11. I shouldn't even bring it up. My bad. If a new investigation was conducted, what would be some of the areas you would particularly want looked at? The concerted "negligent" behavior during the attacks of George W. Bush, the Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense. (The Family Steering Committee tried in vain to get the 9/11 Commission to ask simple questions of Myers and Rumsfeld about what they were doing, or rather not doing. I guess it wouldn't be polite.) The only one on the job was the supposedly powerless (ha ha ha) vice president, and when I say "job" I suspect "inside." Someone had to make sure everything was going wrong - that is, right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) Isn't this a subjective opinion? About what he would or would not do? Yes, except for the alleged forensic evidence that he struggled with the terrorists. Given the state his remains must have been in after such a crash, I suspect that being able to differentiate injuries in that way is another load of government crap. But what I think about it is of course subjective too. Ron that’s all pretty inconclusive 1) I never seen any forensic reports to the effect that Bulingame died fighting. I agree that the state the bodies and plane would have been in would have made such a determination very difficult. Warner’s statements could have been nothing more than playing up the heroism of a constituent, i.e. BS from a politician, one who was up for reelection that year. Also the claim that he died fighting was needed to get him burried at Arlington 2) He could have been killed after being forced to the back of the plane 3) The statements by one or two of his relative that they can’t believe he would have given up his plane without a fight are similarly inconclusive. It is natural for someone to want to heroify a loved one who died in such circumstances especially after the heroification of the flight 93 passengers. They knew the flight was doomed any way Burlingame didn’t have the benefit of such hindsight. Pilots were instructed to cooperate with hijackers, the number of hostages killed in previous hijackings was small. By fighting the hijackers he would not only have risked his life but those of everyone else on board. Perhaps Evan can give a more definitive answer but I imagine a fight in the cockpit probably would have doomed the plane to crash. The hijackers on the other flights claimed to have bombs they probably did so on flight 77 as well, there is not much two pilots could have done against 5 hijackers if they had a bomb. 4) Olsen could have mistaken the co-pilot for the pilot she didn’t mention his name As for the voice morning according to your own source the system didn't work real time and was dependant on having a 10 minute recording of the person’s voice. If anyone could find evidence of a system that could fake someone's voice in real time I'd like to see it. Len Edited October 14, 2007 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 15, 2007 Author Share Posted October 15, 2007 Click on: http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-conte...es/HTRHome.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Click on:http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-conte...es/HTRHome.html http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now