Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Indisputable 911 coverup facts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archaeopteryx" data-source="post: 43021489" data-attributes="member: 194332"><p>I seem to have missed where you have shown my statement about Laura Brown's memo as incorrect. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Where was I wrong about the memo?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>On what basis does the article conclude that the FAA times were wrong? I don't recall it specifying within the actual article, on what basis, or what evidence it had to conclude that the FAA times are wrong. If the evidence for the inaccuracy of the FAA times is based on the NORAD tapes, then my questions still need answering... why did the FAA and military lie the first time?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>When I speak of fundamental communications, I mean the conversations between high levels of the military and Pentagon. As in, the conversations involving Major General Larry Arnold, as well as the communication between General Richard Myers and Donald Rumsfeld, and other high level officials. Even if these tapes were authentic, they still do not reveal to us the bigger picture- the total scope of relevant communications between the Pentagon, military and other agencies, on that day. Are we to conclude that these tapes are authentic even though they exclude some of the most important information?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Given the omission of very important conversations, and the mass contradiction between the military's first account, I am less than inclined to think that it told the truth the second time round. Now if the tapes are not authentic, we must tantalize the idea that they were doctored or that recordings were 'cherry picked' to tell the narrative desired. Do such means exist? Yes. Is it possible? Yes. An example of such methods includes voice morphing. In a 1999 article in the <em>Washington Post</em>, William Arkin provides an example, in which a certain general, Carl Steiner, makes a statement: "Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." Of course, Steiner never made such a statement. It was a fabrication to illustrate the technology and capability of voice morphing. Robert Hordon, a pilot and former air traffic controller also articulates another method of fabrication, stating that: "Doctoring these tapes would pose very few difficulties whatsoever. Either one could 'write over' the time channel, adjusting it to any time on would want. Or one could transfer all the audio information on particular channels onto another tape that already has a 'chosen' time reference impregnated upon it." </p><p>It is clear that the means for doctoring such fabrications does exist, but does the motivation? If one wanted to cover-up either carelessness, negligence or even complicity, then such a motivation would indeed exist.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archaeopteryx, post: 43021489, member: 194332"] I seem to have missed where you have shown my statement about Laura Brown's memo as incorrect. Where was I wrong about the memo? On what basis does the article conclude that the FAA times were wrong? I don't recall it specifying within the actual article, on what basis, or what evidence it had to conclude that the FAA times are wrong. If the evidence for the inaccuracy of the FAA times is based on the NORAD tapes, then my questions still need answering... why did the FAA and military lie the first time? When I speak of fundamental communications, I mean the conversations between high levels of the military and Pentagon. As in, the conversations involving Major General Larry Arnold, as well as the communication between General Richard Myers and Donald Rumsfeld, and other high level officials. Even if these tapes were authentic, they still do not reveal to us the bigger picture- the total scope of relevant communications between the Pentagon, military and other agencies, on that day. Are we to conclude that these tapes are authentic even though they exclude some of the most important information? Given the omission of very important conversations, and the mass contradiction between the military's first account, I am less than inclined to think that it told the truth the second time round. Now if the tapes are not authentic, we must tantalize the idea that they were doctored or that recordings were 'cherry picked' to tell the narrative desired. Do such means exist? Yes. Is it possible? Yes. An example of such methods includes voice morphing. In a 1999 article in the [I]Washington Post[/I], William Arkin provides an example, in which a certain general, Carl Steiner, makes a statement: "Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." Of course, Steiner never made such a statement. It was a fabrication to illustrate the technology and capability of voice morphing. Robert Hordon, a pilot and former air traffic controller also articulates another method of fabrication, stating that: "Doctoring these tapes would pose very few difficulties whatsoever. Either one could 'write over' the time channel, adjusting it to any time on would want. Or one could transfer all the audio information on particular channels onto another tape that already has a 'chosen' time reference impregnated upon it." It is clear that the means for doctoring such fabrications does exist, but does the motivation? If one wanted to cover-up either carelessness, negligence or even complicity, then such a motivation would indeed exist. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
General Political Discussion
Indisputable 911 coverup facts
Top
Bottom