Thursday, May 25, 2006

Hi Dylan, This is Your Brain, Do You Miss Me?

One of the most offensive parts of Loose Change is where they mock the victims on Flight 93 making their desperate phone calls to their relatives.

A man claiming to be Mark Bingham called his mother, Alice, who was visiting his sister-in-law. The caller says, "Mom? This is Mark Bingham."

When was the last time you called your mother and used your full name?

" I just want to tell you that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys on board and they have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. I'm calling you from the Airfone," and then " You believe me, don't you, Mom?"

" Yes Mark, I believe you, who are these guys? "

Then he was interrupted by someone who was speaking in a low-toned male voice, speaking what sounded like English.

After 30 seconds of muffled sounds, the caller repeats " I'm calling you with an Airfone. "

His mother asks him again, " Who are these guys? "

After another pause he returns and asks again, " You believe me, don't you, Mom? "

There was another pause, and the phone just trailed off.

The insinuation of course was that this call was faked. The arrogance involved in this is astounding though. Dylan and company pretend to know whether it was Mark Bingham, better than his mother and two other relatives, who the filmmakers can't even bother to identify correctly.

ALICE HOGLAN, SON MARK DIED ON FLIGHT 93: Yes, he did. The call came in at 6:44 a.m., which would have been 9:44 Eastern time, and we spoke for maybe three or four minutes. He actually talked to three people. He was able to tell Kathy, his aunt, my brother Vaughn's (ph) wife, "I want to tell you guys that I love you in case I don't see you again." And then, Kathy said to him, well, "we love you too, Mark, talk to your mom." And I came on the phone, and Mark -- I heard Mark's voice and he said: "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." And I could tell from that that he was a little agitated. And he said, "I want to let you know that I love you."

They claim that this is because scientists were able to change someone's voice on a tape recorder, but this is not a recorded conversation! This was a live conversation with three different people. How did whoever faked this conversation know enough about the family to fool all these people? How did they even know where to get a hold of his mom, she wasn't at home, she was at his aunt's house? How did they even know which of the women was his mom? Oh yes, applying Occam's razor the obvious answer must be that it was all faked using cutting edge voice morphing and AI technology.

And of course only seconds later it gets even stupider, when Dylan and company explain that making phone calls from an airplane was technologically impossible back in 2001.

But to be honest, none of that matters. Why? Because none of these calls could have taken place.
If so, I want my $11.99 a minute back. And don't even get me started on those ripoff in-flight catalogs...

Update: A reader says that I mischaracterized the voice morphing technology. I am a bit hampered though, by the fact that the film does not describe the technology in detail, but they do make the point that this is not real time interactive technology, so my point still stands. Here is the relevent part from the movie, at the 1:10 mark.

So how is it possible to fake a person's voice? In 1999, the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico revealed their voice morphing technology. General Carl W. Steiner, the former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Special Operations declared on tape, " Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government. "

Another example was Colin Powell saying, " I am being treated well by my captors. " With just a 10-minute recording of somebody's voice, they are able, in almost real time, to clone someone's speech.

Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy.

38 Comments:

At 26 May, 2006 02:31, Blogger nesNYC said...

They claim that this is because scientists were able to change someone's voice on a tape recorder, but this is not a recorded conversation!

Where the heck did you get that? I don't recall Loose Change saying anything about a tape recorder. What he's describing is voice morphing software - or - a computer speaking in the voice of the person sampled.

Seems you guys really do want to see what you want to see.

 
At 26 May, 2006 05:46, Blogger BG said...

This blogging and commenting seems like such as incredible waste of time that could be avoided if our law enforcement or other governmental agencies would serve the public consistent with their charge.

Even Pat and James have to agree with that contention if look at the big picture. Why should they (Pat and James) have to spend all this time when the Pentagon/FBI has 86 tapes (I'm told) that could go a long way told toward settling some of the questions.

Pat and James evidently will never put 2 and 2 together and realise the evidence isn't released because it will tell a story that the govt. don't want told.

 
At 26 May, 2006 06:14, Blogger Chad said...

I don't get this about you CTers. You say this government pulled this whole thing off with thermite, psy-ops helicopters, and voice-morphing technology.

Do you honestly think that they wouldn't have had concrete video evidence proving their story (i.e. Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon) if that's what they wanted people to believe?

I'm not saying that the lack of these tapes proves the official story is true, but if the government is as diabolical as you all say, video evidence would be an easy fix and one that could've even been taken care of before the attacks took place.

And according to one poster on here (Scott I believe), all the evidence will be released in December. A nice little Christmas gift for you guys to say was all faked. I mean, let's face it. Any tape released now that doesn't show what YOU guys want to see is gonna be dismissed as staged anyway.

 
At 26 May, 2006 06:28, Blogger BG said...

Chad,

I'm not trying to argue against all of your points, even though I though a lot needs to be discussed.

My specific comments above were meant to apply to all the acknowledged Pentagon area tapes, including some taken from businesses (Citgo gas station for one) in the area.

I acknowledge that they could create fake vids pre-9/11 or since then. I admit I don't have certain knowledge about what they have done or will do in that area.

 
At 26 May, 2006 06:45, Blogger Ed said...

wikipedia seems to be the only place where i can get an relatively unbiased opinion on which to base my own... still your views are refreshing, and since imn half way through a persuasive anaysis assignment for my college it's interesting to see the way you use language as a persuasive medium.

 
At 26 May, 2006 06:47, Blogger Chad said...

BG, I'm not saying that this is the most scientific way to go about this, but I GoogleEarthed the Pentagon. From what I can tell, the buildings that would've had a direct line of sight to the impact are pretty far away.

If all we're talking about is security cameras from these places(which capture only a couple images per second), then the odds of seeing anything more definitive than the Pentagon tapes (which were much much closer) are slim to nil.

As a matter of fact, if they DID clearly show a plane, I'd be suspect of their validity.

 
At 26 May, 2006 06:55, Blogger MarkyX said...

nesync, read the page.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile.

ROFLCOPTER SOI SOI SOI

Idiot.

 
At 26 May, 2006 07:44, Blogger Pat said...

Ed, be wary of Wikipedia; always check the sources. I have found a lot of disinformation over there, especially on controversial topics.

James, you should check out the first version of Loose Change; it's even more offensive on the calls than V2. He mocks Betty Ong and wonders why Todd Beamer spent time talking to a Verizon supervisor rather than call his wife. It was this last part that made me go nuclear on the film.

NESNYC, they never really explain what the voice-morphing software does. Do you just type in the words and it says them?

Or do you speak and the words are changed to somebody else's voice (which is technically what morphing means)?

 
At 26 May, 2006 08:38, Blogger Rousseau said...

I agree a lot of the evidence in the movie is dodgey at best. But what about the passport? I found that of all the "evidence" presented in the movie to be the toughest to dismiss. Cerainly this doesn't prove a wide ranging conspiracy. That being said, it is pretty tough to beleive that an intact passport would be recovered afetr a plane crashed into a building?

 
At 26 May, 2006 08:42, Blogger Alex said...

What's tougher to beleive is that anyone in the "government conspiracy" would be stupid enough to say "HEY, I know, let's take a passport and claim it flew through that huge fireball!".

I could see it happening as a freak occurence. I find it MUCH harder to beleive it's part of a deliberate plan.

 
At 26 May, 2006 08:46, Blogger Rousseau said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 26 May, 2006 08:47, Blogger Rousseau said...

Freak occurence? But, now you have to rely on unprobalistic speculation to explain away an exepted fact, the gov't did claim to find and exhibit to the public an intact passport. We have all seen the tape, and reason would have to direct us towards the notion that a piece of plastic and paper would not have survived that massive explosion intact. Relying on "freak occurences" puts a lot of scenerios into to play.

 
At 26 May, 2006 08:58, Blogger Chad said...

As far as the passport goes, it all comes down to what you would more easily believe:

A) A paper document somehow made it through a large fireball relatively intact.

or

B) The people responsible for pulling of this enormous conspiracy purposefully planted evidence that would easily come under scrutiny, thereby jeopardizing their coverup.

Both seem highly unlikely to me, but I'd have to say that B is more unlikely.

 
At 26 May, 2006 09:07, Blogger Rousseau said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 26 May, 2006 09:08, Blogger Rousseau said...

For a site devoted to rigor, "somehow made it through" is as problematic as "freak occurence". I talking about our basic knowledge of heat and matter, a huge explosion alters the chemical make-up of objects like paper and plastic. The conspiracy people make their case using the same "even though it is almost entirley inconcievable to conceive of, it's possible" to deal with tough empirical observations, as the passport clearly posses. The onus is on you here to give me some better explination than "somehow it happened" as our knowledge and reason clearly favor the notion that an INTACT passport from the plane was not found on the streets of NY after spiraling through a jet fuel fireball.

 
At 26 May, 2006 09:44, Blogger Alex said...

Fuck man, have you ever SEEN the remains of an aircraft accident? You get pieces of clothing, paper, plastic, all sorts of junk survives. Look at the pictures of some of the bodies recovered from the pentagon. The top half of one of them is scorched beyond reckognition, yet the clothing on his/her sides and bottom is still intact. How do you explain that? Statements like "there's no way the passport could have survived" stem from mistaken assumptions based on sheer ignorance.

 
At 26 May, 2006 09:46, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 26 May, 2006 09:47, Blogger ScottSl said...

Chad, NIST currently holds 6899 photos and 6977 segments of video from September 11, 2001 in New York City. The 9/11 truth movement has wanted this info. When the report is done on building 7 in Dec., this info will be released to the public.

The Pentagon info is a different story.
On the FOIA's they have stated that none of the classified videos held show the impact of flight 77 into the Pentagon. However there are rumors that one (possibly more) of the videos does show the plane BEFORE the impact.

I really doubt the Citgo gas station will show anything. The camera recorded at 1 frame a second.

When these videos will be released is unknown. All info I have suggests that it will be in the near future. However this is a guess.

bg's position is an old one used among CT'ers

There is tons of classified infomation (about all sorts of CT topics) still going through the declassification process to this day.
CT'ers tend to conclude classification equals something sinister. Its a staple of the mindset.

 
At 26 May, 2006 10:04, Blogger Chad said...

I'd have to say that another staple is being able to dismiss evidence as "fake" or "planted" if it happens to show something to the contrary to whatever the current conspiracy is.

 
At 26 May, 2006 10:39, Blogger Rousseau said...

Alex,
I have seen planes that have "crashed into the ground, break apart then explode, which can cerainly strew phusical evidence. What I think the 9/11 tape show is an enitre plane blowing up when it crashes into a building, which further contained and intensified the heat of an explosion versus a land crash.

 
At 26 May, 2006 11:07, Blogger Alex said...

Keep in mind that the majority of the fuel in the aircraft is contained in the wings/engines. The terrorists would have been in the cockpit and forward part of the aircraft. I'd have to do some more research here, but I do recall that when (at least) one of them hit, you could clearly see debris being ejected out the other side. It's quite possible that fragments from the forward part of the aircraft escaped the brunt of the flames and were ejcted from the building.

Anyway, I'm speculating, but I don't have the time right now to do much more. I'm in the middle of packing for a bit of a trip. If I get the chance I'll do some more research and let you know what I come up with.

 
At 26 May, 2006 12:11, Blogger LT said...

Dylan, and all of you claiming, coverup, should be made to sit down and talk with the Bingham family, and apologize for your ridiculous assertions.

and BG, your nonsense about putting 2 and 2 together? please, you can't put it together that macbeth is a phony...lol unreal

 
At 26 May, 2006 12:17, Blogger LT said...

Fousseau,

The onus is on you here to give me some better explination than "somehow it happened" as our knowledge and reason clearly favor the notion that an INTACT passport from the plane was not found on the streets of NY after spiraling through a jet fuel fireball.


Actually,
the onus is on you. The official version of events has been presented. If you don't believe it, it is up to you to PROVE otherwise. Don't you guys understand this?

Also,
did all of you happen to miss the mass of paperwork floating through the streets of New York after this event, or do you all just ignore that FACT also?

 
At 26 May, 2006 12:29, Blogger Chad said...

LT (is it L or I?) -

I don't mean to defend the CTers here, but the mass of paperwork in the air was originated from the buildings, not the plane which disintegrated upon impact. (People using desks to break windows to get air, that sort of thing.)

I don't have any experience at all with plane crashes, but I'm sure that what Alex says is true. A fire from an impact won't burn every square inch of everything within the plane.

So yeah, it's possible a passport would survive. I just think it's one of those things that is easily questionable, and hence the allure it holds for the CTs.

 
At 26 May, 2006 13:05, Blogger Rousseau said...

Actually the fact that I'm pointing out that it is hard to square the nature of a plane crash with finding the passport on the street. Saying that based on what I know about the interaction of massive infernos with small pieces of paper, is not tantamount to claiming that the government engaged in a mass conspiracy. Which to my mind I have never alledged. Thanks for pointing out the paper deal, its not relevant in this case. Remember, the offical line by numerous high level oficials was that we were "winning" in Vietnam for almost a decade. Read the Pentagon Papers, not analysis but the actual docs that make it pretty clear that the "offical line" did not reflect the true thing of many commanders in the field. Read the declassified docs on the folk in N.M. who were used as nuclear Guinea Pigs, and told that radiation would not harm them, and that there was no safty conerns invovled in living next to a nuclear test site, you can read them for yourselves. I not making these cases up, and I can't think of better evidence then the governments own documents. If you want to continue to invent some wierd scenerio to deal with the passport, go ahead, I'll stick with common sense.

 
At 26 May, 2006 14:57, Blogger nesNYC said...

nesync, read the page.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile.

ROFLCOPTER SOI SOI SOI

Idiot.


OMG! You guys are absolutely CLUELESS! Why do things need to be spelled out for you?

Can't you conclude that "10-minute digital recording" can also be obtained by a 10 minute live voice sample? Holy SHIT! No wonder you guys believe in Osama and tooth fairies :rolleyes:

 
At 26 May, 2006 14:59, Blogger undense said...

I don't know where the terrorists had thir passports stashed, but when I travel internationally I have may passport in its own pouch which is then placed in my briefcase.

Since we don't know were the hijackers had thir passports and can't reconstruct any sequence of events off that baseline, it's pretty silly to dote on it because it cannot be proven either way whether the passport could or couldn't have survived.

Ultimately that makes the passport claim little more than a red herring argument.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

NESNYC, they never really explain what the voice-morphing software does. Do you just type in the words and it says them?

Or do you speak and the words are changed to somebody else's voice (which is technically what morphing means)?


Yes, you get the voice sample from the person you want to emulate and then just type the words and the text-to-speech synthesizer will create the impression that it is the target person speaking. In that article, they say the military will use this in "psy-op" operations against enemies by fooling them to believe something never really said. It's pretty easy then to, say, take hostages, have them speak into the voice samplers and then make radio shows or PHONE CALLS that seem like they came from the target person.

Loose Change implies that is what could have happened but I think it might be more low tech like pointing a gun at the passengers and making them make all those calls from the ground where the planes were taken to.

There is an account that Illinois 911 got one of these calls. If any of you are familiar with the 911 system, you'll know that the calls are routed to the local centers. If the planes were in the skies two states away, that 911 call would have gone through 2 states. The calls were manufactured it's just what method was used to manufacture them that is in question. Voice Morphing tech. can't be ruled out.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:09, Blogger nesNYC said...

Keep in mind that the majority of the fuel in the aircraft is contained in the wings/engines.

Very good! Remember, flight 77 was supposed to have hit a few light poles before it hit the Pentagon, why didn't it spray jet fuel on the Penta-lawn and why didn't this fuel trail ignite during the explosion?

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:56, Blogger shawn said...

Can't you conclude that "10-minute digital recording" can also be obtained by a 10 minute live voice sample?

...which means the calls had to have been placed for them to get this 10 minutes of live voice sampling.

No wonder you guys believe in Osama and tooth fairies :rolleyes

Equating those two is like equating leprechauns and Saddam.

 
At 26 May, 2006 16:11, Blogger Chad said...

Wait... The tooth fairy isn't real??!?

Son of a... :::bitchslaps nesnyc:::

 
At 26 May, 2006 17:53, Blogger LT said...

"Thanks for pointing out the paper deal, its not relevant in this case."

Actually, I believe it is. If you don't, no big deal. To me, it explains that it was indeed possible for the passport to survive intact. Obviously, other paperwork survived, no reason that this couldn't.

"is not tantamount to claiming that the government engaged in a mass conspiracy. Which to my mind I have never alledged."

well, at least not directly right? By claiming "If you want to continue to invent some wierd scenerio to deal with the passport, go ahead, I'll stick with common sense.", you throw out any LOGICAL explanation, in favor for "the government must be in on it right." I'm aware of most of the stuff you're talking about. However, I'm not sure what definition of "winning" you're using. TACTICALLY, we won nearly every engagement, while is obvious that STRATEGICALLY, we weren't as successful. One of the major events in the strategic victory, which ultimately lead to the end of the war, was lack of support for the war and Soldiers on the homefront. Right now, our enemy in Iraq is engaged in the same type of information war - one to turn peoples hearts and minds towrad sympathy for terrorists that battle our troops daily, and people actually eat it up. That's one reason why they are so eager to believe people like Jesse Macbeth. Does it matter that he's really not a Soldier, much less a ranger? nahh, we all know those types of things go on all the time anyway. How many times have you heard that? Its rampant in our society and its the wrong picture. Yeah, those things have happened, but its not commonplaceI could go on and on ALL NIGHT but i won't, but things like this movie, and phony soldiers actually hurt our country way much more than i think you guys understand. So much for all of us is riding on the outcome in the middle east, yet not many see it.

 
At 26 May, 2006 17:54, Blogger LT said...

and Chad,

I appreciate your observations. Its LT (lieutenant) by the way.

LT

 
At 26 May, 2006 18:45, Blogger undense said...

Very good! Remember, flight 77 was supposed to have hit a few light poles before it hit the Pentagon, why didn't it spray jet fuel on the Penta-lawn and why didn't this fuel trail ignite during the explosion?

Maybe it's because hitting light poles, most of which are designed to break off at their base in case something like a car hits them, has nothing like the structural strength of beams and columns, particularly when the exterior beams and columns in the WTC were designed to resist lateral shear and wind loads?

But let's ignore significant considerations like that to spew some hair-brained conspiracy story.

 
At 26 May, 2006 19:12, Blogger Chad said...

Glad to have the Ell/Eye thing cleared up LT. But I still think the paper thing is a non-issue when arguing the passport.

If other flammable pieces of evidence were found intact that were supposed to be on the plane, that'd be awesome.

But in my opinion, the paper we all saw that day flying through the air did not come from either airliner and to use it to prove the existence of the passport is a little misleading.

So... I can see the CTs eagerness to latch on to it as "proof". I just think it needs to be chalked up to dumb luck.

I still love you though. :)

 
At 26 May, 2006 20:16, Blogger LT said...

same here buddy:^)

 
At 26 May, 2006 21:48, Blogger James B. said...

And you will notice I have been good and haven't made any jokes about lieutenants. ;-)

 
At 27 May, 2006 06:56, Blogger LT said...

i have noticed that chief...

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home