| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which of the Truthers claims is the Stupidest? |
| Laser Beams from Outer Space |
|
22% |
[ 2 ] |
| Holographic Planes |
|
44% |
[ 4 ] |
| Freefall Speed |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| The NWO made it obvious! Just to rub our faces in it. (MITOP) |
|
11% |
[ 1 ] |
| We want the truth. |
|
22% |
[ 2 ] |
| Other |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 9 |
|
| Author |
Message |
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject: Stupidest Truther Claim |
 |
|
| In your opinion, what is the stupidest claim you have heard from a Truther? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That believers in the official story of 9/11 sometimes display intelligence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
well you've certainly proved to me your motivation is'nt truth by posting this thread.
first of all what does it prove? what is it's purpose?
obviously to give you and like minded critics a kick or ego boost, by bringing it down to a childish level that would be seen on a playground, your excused if you are below the age of 18 although i doubt it.
are you saying there are no stupid critics? that critics don't make wild claims? do you really see it as being on a side and anybody who is on your side is more inteligent?
or is it ego? im smarter than 'truthers' so lets list their silly comments so i can bath myself in superior intelilect and come away feeling content that i am smarter whilst having a laugh at those dumb 'truthers'.
pointless.
however, if iam to take part it would be to highlight one thing. that is even critics make claims which are wrong. so i will highlight a term used from both sides that is wrong, although i refuse to call it silly when it is always simply the way people word things that could give a different impression.
truther: the twin towers fell into their own footprint.
critic: there was fire coming from every floor and every window in wtc 7.
(search george galloway on google video then look for the 9/11 conspiracy radio show with him as the host for that glaring critic error/lie who george kept refering to as an expert, its 30 minutes long but i don't care, you either watch it for proof or you don't.)
they are the two most obviously wrong exagerated claims ive ever heard that i can think of, off the top of my head.
the lack of other critic participation in school boy banter type replies that achieve nothing other than causing forum mayem and abuse has been noted and respected as far as im concerned(although barely a day has passed), though i doubt they care what i think.
we are all just people with different opinions, some make errors in judgement on both sides. the best way to correct those errors is by being at least respectable to eachother, your more likely to be listened to.
the nature of this thread just alienates 'truthers' and the ignore button is duely and rightly switched on. as im sure it is when simular threads are aimed at critics.
also
truther: there were squibs seen coming out of the buildings(when a squib is an explosive NOT dust and debris, which ive been in error saying myself by picking it up along the way)
critic: it could'nt of been a conspiracy it would of took about 10,000 people to pull it off, how many people would be in on it? (when 19 people pulled of 9/11 and 4 pulled off 7/7)
truther: fire is'nt hot enough to melt steel (when it is said it only weakened it NOT melted)
critic: there is no evidence what so ever for CD (when wtc 7 flops to the ground in the manner of a CD)
i could go on.....if i could be bothered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok this topic is for my own entertainment, don't like it? Tough.
I agree with a fair majority of the "stupid statements" you made however you do appear to be saying that because Building 7 looked a little like a CD it must be a CD, you of course have expertise in CD and are qualified or have the stated opinion of somebody who is qualified to source?
The next thing is yes 19 hijackers did pull off 9/11 (I am not willing to discuss 7/7 my knowledge of the conspiracy theories is seriously lacking and what I have seen just made me laugh)
That is to say that 19 islamic extremeists hijacked planes, took over them and flew them in to buildings.
It would take many, many, many more people for the conspiracy theories to work, lets think about who would be involved: Army personnel, Firemen (despite the fact firemen died on the day Truthers continue to claim the FDNY knew all about it) Police, CIA, BBC, Fox, CNN, ABC, Other mainstream media, everyone in NIST, everyone who worked toward the 9/11 commission report...you see what I mean? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
well it seems to me you like to call into question 'truthers claims' whilst excusing your own. lets have a look at what you said.
| Quote: | | you made however you do appear to be saying that because Building 7 looked a little like a CD it must be a CD |
no i was clearly saying that that if wtc 7 looked like a CD then the claim there is "no evidence what so ever" is false. i was not saying if it looked like one then it is 100% one, the mere fact it looked like one is 'evidence' towards the theory of CD wether it was or not.
| Quote: | you of course have expertise in CD and are qualified or have the stated opinion of somebody who is qualified to source?
|
no i don't have expertise, but i do have two eyes in my head and the ability to compare for simularities of a known CD alongside the wtc 7 collapse and the compacity to tell they are very simular. are you telling me i need expertise to beable to tell if something looks like something else? do i need a teacher to confirm a circle looking like a circle? i think not. you seem to think a building collapsing like a CD constitutes no evidence of a CD whatsoever. fair enough if you do, but be aware the first stage of evidence gathering is observation of the scene or event occuring if it was caught on tape and witnesses, and even some of those confirm a countdown and explosions. so my point is the claim there is "no evidence" is just as ludicrous and on a par with the "silly comments"
you wish to laugh at which come from truthers mouths.
| Quote: | That is to say that 19 islamic extremeists hijacked planes, took over them and flew them in to buildings.
|
and bypassed ALL security procedures. you forgot to mention this, you made it sound simple.
| Quote: | | It would take many, many, many more people for the conspiracy theories to work, lets think about who would be involved: Army personnel, Firemen (despite the fact firemen died on the day Truthers continue to claim the FDNY knew all about it) Police, CIA, BBC, Fox, CNN, ABC, Other mainstream media, everyone in NIST, everyone who worked toward the 9/11 commission report...you see what I mean? |
and here is the silly statement on a par with what you want to laugh at.
did the hijackers need all those people to be successful? obviously with a insidejob conspiracy you need more than 19 hijackers, but my point here is the claim that many thousands would need to be in on it is a large and over the top exageration. a few conspirators to carry it out along with a few people in power to give orders and control whats going off would be all that is needed. critics claim thousands would be involved, not true, the fact is the figure could be as low as 30-50 if it was a conspiracy. which could always be put down to incompentence or failure of sercurity procedures. it seems to me all you would need is total control of security where ever the conspiricies took place along with people to carry it out.
the media may not be involved at all. they were being told the same story during the day as everybody else, they just relayed it, and i did'nt doubt it untill looking closer myself so i have no reason to believe the same is'nt true of newscasters etc ie: that they fully believe the offical version as it was emerging and were not involved in any conspiracy, the same as the police, firemen, and everybody else in postions under those controlling the response to the hijackers etc. why would they have to know if it was a conspiracy? it would seem more natural to just control the response to the hijackers and let everybody under that just do their jobs in a way they would do normally and follow orders.
i don't know where you got the idea firemen are being linked with a conspiracy, i certainly don't think that and have never ever seen anyone myself suggest it. but then i don't post around other 9/11 sites or read them very often.
its amazing how 19 hijackers pulling of a huge attack on a powerful nation is plausible to believe, whilst claiming if help came from the inside tens of thousands would have to know. 19 hijacker + a few is all that is needed for a insidejob conspiracy, nobody below them has to know. funny how security failed so misseribly that day, it must of been incompetence.
all you would need is prior knowledge and the capacity to ensure it happens. and you have a conspiracy against your own country.
where CD is concerned i'd agree, if it was CD then how did they get them in the buildings? i suppose that is something that would be answered if it emerged it was a CD afterall.
if it was a conspiracy, you and i do not know how long a period it was planned over, so needing 100's of people to rig buildings may not be the case at all. and don't even start on security or people noticing. marvin bush was in charge of security on the lead up to 9/11, and i do not go snooping around workers repairing the building when im at work, do you?
i am not saying i think anything i have said IS the case, i am only pointing that if it was a conspiracy you would NOT need thousands you would only need control.
i am not sure on a lot of details because theres are so many versions of the same event, but to say it cannot of been a conspiracy because that would involve thousands to then say it was easily carried out by 19 seems bizarre to me. if 19 plus a few conspirators controlling from outside the original 19 can pull it of then so can 19 with a few pulling strings on the inside.
wether that was the case i have no idea. the point is thousands are not needed and it is a exageration when people say they are. just as much as a exageration as saying that everbody was invloved in a conspiracy, media, police, firemen, etc etc.
there appears to be many exagerations from where im standing, but don't fool yourself into thinking they are all one way.
everytime somebody gets it wrong from either side it fuels the conspiracy scenerio even more. telling me wtc 7 dos'nt look like a CD when it clearly does is'nt going to prove wtc 7 was'nt a CD. denying the obvious has the opposite effect. however the fact it looks like CD dos'nt prove it was a CD either, but it is evidence, but does it fit all the evidence? that is the question, not wether there is evidence or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthernSoul
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 100
Location: Grimsby
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | well it seems to me you like to call into question 'truthers claims' whilst excusing your own. lets have a look at what you said.
| Quote: | | you made however you do appear to be saying that because Building 7 looked a little like a CD it must be a CD |
| marky 54 wrote: | | no i was clearly saying that that if wtc 7 looked like a CD then the claim there is "no evidence what so ever" is false. i was not saying if it looked like one then it is 100% one, the mere fact it looked like one is 'evidence' towards the theory of CD wether it was or not. |
So a man in the street looks like Jesus, sandals, beard, long hair, the works, is this evidence that Jesus exists and that he is in fact Jesus?
| Quote: | you of course have expertise in CD and are qualified or have the stated opinion of somebody who is qualified to source?
|
no i don't have expertise, but i do have two eyes in my head and the ability to compare for simularities of a known CD alongside the wtc 7 collapse and the compacity to tell they are very simular. |
Indeed, similar to your untrained eyes
| marky 54 wrote: |
are you telling me i need expertise to beable to tell if something looks like something else? |
In order to be reasonably sure...yes, in Forensics and other sciences it is general accepted that to identify two objects (from videos or pictures) as the same object one must attempt to identify differences not similarities, if differences are present the two things cannot possibly be the same. (The conspiracy theories surround the disappearance of Amelia Aerhart have been proven wrong using this method and as no CD expert has claimed any of the WTC buildings where demolished your "evidence" is non existant)
| marky 54 wrote: | | do i need a teacher to confirm a circle looking like a circle? |
To be a circle it must be perfect, you can say it looks like one but unless you analyse it more closely you cannot be sure. Of course a circle is on a very different scale as I'm sure you will accept.
| marky 54 wrote: | | i think not. |
as above
| marky 54 wrote: | | you seem to think a building collapsing like a CD constitutes no evidence of a CD whatsoever. |
If an expert told me it did then I would, you are not an expert, I am not an expert, no expert has ever come forward to say so.
| marky 54 wrote: | | fair enough if you do, but be aware the first stage of evidence gathering is observation of the scene or event occuring if it was caught on tape and witnesses, and even some of those confirm a countdown and explosions. |
A source would be appreciated if possible
| marky 54 wrote: | so my point is the claim there is "no evidence" is just as ludicrous and on a par with the "silly comments"
you wish to laugh at which come from truthers mouths. |
I disagree, as above.
| marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | That is to say that 19 islamic extremeists hijacked planes, took over them and flew them in to buildings.
|
and bypassed ALL security procedures. you forgot to mention this, you made it sound simple. |
I apologise, the failing in the security are highlighted in the commission report, they mainly surround lack of training. Keep in mind airports were far less securrity conscience before and the day of 9/11 than they are now.
| marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | | It would take many, many, many more people for the conspiracy theories to work, lets think about who would be involved: Army personnel, Firemen (despite the fact firemen died on the day Truthers continue to claim the FDNY knew all about it) Police, CIA, BBC, Fox, CNN, ABC, Other mainstream media, everyone in NIST, everyone who worked toward the 9/11 commission report...you see what I mean? |
and here is the silly statement on a par with what you want to laugh at.
did the hijackers need all those people to be successful? obviously with a insidejob conspiracy you need more than 19 hijackers, but my point here is the claim that many thousands would need to be in on it is a large and over the top exageration. a few conspirators to carry it out along with a few people in power to give orders and control whats going off would be all that is needed. critics claim thousands would be involved, not true, the fact is the figure could be as low as 30-50 if it was a conspiracy. |
I just told you that it would take at least that many to plant explosives. You may want to reassess that number.
| marky 54 wrote: | | which could always be put down to incompentence or failure of sercurity procedures. it seems to me all you would need is total control of security where ever the conspiricies took place along with people to carry it out. |
and to keep any witnesses who saw that security quiet, why has nobody come forward and said: "oh a month before 9/11 there was some strange security procedures and I think I might have seen some workman strapping things to the building"
or
"The office was closed and no work was scheduled but the lights were on in the office"
or
"I worked on planting explosives in the WTC buildings, I'm sorry I didn't know"
Or
"I was a security guard at the WTC and I was told to keep it quiet but there where lots of wires on the floors of the buildings that looked like they might be connected to explosives"
Anything like that?
| marky 54 wrote: | | the media may not be involved at all. they were being told the same story during the day as everybody else, they just relayed it, and i did'nt doubt it untill looking closer myself so i have no reason to believe the same is'nt true of newscasters etc ie: that they fully believe the offical version as it was emerging and were not involved in any conspiracy, the same as the police, firemen, and everybody else in postions under those controlling the response to the hijackers etc. why would they have to know if it was a conspiracy? it would seem more natural to just control the response to the hijackers and let everybody under that just do their jobs in a way they would do normally and follow orders. |
I think this very much depends on your point of view, that is to say, MIHOP, LIHOP, No-Planer and whatever. I can certainly see your point here nontheless 9/11 Deniers other than yourself obviously, often place a lot of blame on the FDNY. And I think this is a key problem with 9/11 Denial, you guys don't even have a working theory yet and your evidence often contradicts your other evidence. The funniest example is an oldie, the lawnmower runway outside of the pentagon designed for a cruise missile to follow. 
[quote="marky 54"]i don't know where you got the idea firemen are being linked with a conspiracy, i certainly don't think that and have never ever seen anyone myself suggest it. but then i don't post around other 9/11 sites or read them very often.[/Quotes]
I'm pleased to hear you don't think the FDNY were involved however many deniers claim that the evacuation of Building 7 is proof of this rubbish
| marky 54 wrote: | | its amazing how 19 hijackers pulling of a huge attack on a powerful nation is plausible to believe, whilst claiming if help came from the inside tens of thousands would have to know. 19 hijacker + a few is all that is needed for a insidejob conspiracy, nobody below them has to know. funny how security failed so misseribly that day, it must of been incompetence. |
Not so much incompetence as a system that was not designed for that kind of situation, the faults are outlined in the 9/11 commission these generally related to the communication between the different organisations whose job it is to protect US airspace.
| marky 54 wrote: | | all you would need is prior knowledge and the capacity to ensure it happens. and you have a conspiracy against your own country. |
I don't doubt the existance of false flag operations I just don't consider your "evidence" compelling enough and most of it is old and ebunked.
| marky 54 wrote: | | where CD is concerned i'd agree, if it was CD then how did they get them in the buildings? i suppose that is something that would be answered if it emerged it was a CD afterall. |
Indeed I think I might have talked about this above, if so then I apologise for telling you something you knew
| marky 54 wrote: | | if it was a conspiracy, you and i do not know how long a period it was planned over, so needing 100's of people to rig buildings may not be the case at all. and don't even start on security or people noticing. marvin bush was in charge of security on the lead up to 9/11, and i do not go snooping around workers repairing the building when im at work, do you? |
of course, but I bet you notice them and as i mentioned above, even more so if the security is extremely tight around them.
For anything less than 50 or so experts it may well of taken years to rig the buildings, far before the Bush administration.
| marky 54 wrote: | | i am not saying i think anything i have said IS the case, i am only pointing that if it was a conspiracy you would NOT need thousands you would only need control. |
and the silence of those you control and the number again depends on the your point of view, MIHOP, LIHOP etc
| marky 54 wrote: | | i am not sure on a lot of details because theres are so many versions of the same event, but to say it cannot of been a conspiracy because that would involve thousands to then say it was easily carried out by 19 seems bizarre to me. |
These 19 did not want to hide the whole thing afterwards,
| marky 54 wrote: | | if 19 plus a few conspirators controlling from outside the original 19 can pull it of then so can 19 with a few pulling strings on the inside. |
Forgive me, am I to take it you accept that the hijackers are dead?
| marky 54 wrote: | | wether that was the case i have no idea. the point is thousands are not needed and it is a exageration when people say they are. just as much as a exageration as saying that everbody was invloved in a conspiracy, media, police, firemen, etc etc. |
These are groups that conspiracy theorists often point to. I am not just plucking these out of nowhere.
| marky 54 wrote: | | there appears to be many exagerations from where im standing, but don't fool yourself into thinking they are all one way. |
| marky 54 wrote: | | everytime somebody gets it wrong from either side it fuels the conspiracy scenerio even more. telling me wtc 7 dos'nt look like a CD when it clearly does is'nt going to prove wtc 7 was'nt a CD. |
I said neither of those things
| marky 54 wrote: | | denying the obvious has the opposite effect. however the fact it looks like CD dos'nt prove it was a CD either, but it is evidence, but does it fit all the evidence? that is the question, not wether there is evidence or not. |
Given the fact that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were not the only buildings to collapse that day (though they were the most reported and obvious from the outside) I'd say CD does not fit the evidence
Thanks for the thought provoking post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Indeed, similar to your untrained eyes
|
i did not say my eyes can tell it WAS a controlled demolition. i said my eyes can tell it looks simular. as can many peoples. so what are you going to get? people asking questions maybe? especially if more than one or two traits as well as other evidence seems to suggest it.
| Quote: | In order to be reasonably sure...yes, in Forensics and other sciences it is general accepted that to identify two objects (from videos or pictures) as the same object one must attempt to identify differences not similarities, if differences are present the two things cannot possibly be the same. (The conspiracy theories surround the disappearance of Amelia Aerhart have been proven wrong using this method and as no CD expert has claimed any of the WTC buildings where demolished your "evidence" is non existant)
|
CD's are not exactly the same, there will always be a slight difference even if they are identical buildings, why not go and observe for yourself? show me two implosions that are exactly the same. they won't be because most buildings have different designs just for a start, thats without taking into consideration any other factors. therefore you can only look for simular signs, there will always be differences even if your comparing two CD'S of the exact same type of buildings.
like ive already said, you don't need to be an expert to tell they look simular, you only need an expert to confirm if it was or was'nt. wether it was or was'nt you are not going to will the footage to change into something that dos'nt look like a CD, when it does.
| Quote: | To be a circle it must be perfect, you can say it looks like one but unless you analyse it more closely you cannot be sure.
|
so your saying if something looks simular it needs closer investigastion? i think you'll find thats what the majority were doing, asking for people to look more closely due to the lack of a proper investigastion that included CD. well untill NIST decided to include it and look into it. but most are still waiting and the rest have given up and decided not to wait on a report that seems none exsistant.
| Quote: | If an expert told me it did then I would, you are not an expert, I am not an expert, no expert has ever come forward to say so.
|
to accept it WAS certainly a implosion of cause. to suspect and call for an investigastion for experts to decide in a fair and properly funded investigastion, no. you just need evidence, meaning reasons to suspect.
if something looked like a duck then i suspect it is a duck untill a fair investigastion has been carried out telling me otherwise, the commission report was a whitewash.
| Quote: | | A source would be appreciated if possible |
a source to this?
| Quote: | | but be aware the first stage of evidence gathering is observation of the scene or event occuring if it was caught on tape and witnesses, and even some of those confirm a countdown and explosions. |
if you need a source to this then do you think investigators do not observe first? if they do not observe first how do they know what to investigate?
| Quote: | I apologise, the failing in the security are highlighted in the commission report, they mainly surround lack of training. Keep in mind airports were far less securrity conscience before and the day of 9/11 than they are now.
|
you think the commission has credibility?
| Quote: | I just told you that it would take at least that many to plant explosives. You may want to reassess that number.
|
so now your an expert on CD? should i believe you? or just an expert?
| Quote: | and to keep any witnesses who saw that security quiet, why has nobody come forward and said: "oh a month before 9/11 there was some strange security procedures and I think I might have seen some workman strapping things to the building"
or
"The office was closed and no work was scheduled but the lights were on in the office"
or
"I worked on planting explosives in the WTC buildings, I'm sorry I didn't know"
Or
"I was a security guard at the WTC and I was told to keep it quiet but there where lots of wires on the floors of the buildings that looked like they might be connected to explosives"
Anything like that?
|
good points, but why would they even have to know. if it was a CD then niether of us know where or when they were planted. were they planted out of sight? at night? during holidays? over months? years?
i don't have a clue and i will not pretend i do. the fact is if it was a CD then those are questions those invovled would only know and need to answer.
| Quote: | Not so much incompetence as a system that was not designed for that kind of situation, the faults are outlined in the 9/11 commission these generally related to the communication between the different organisations whose job it is to protect US airspace.
|
again the 9/11 commission report is in no way trustworthy. its the main culprit for sites like this in the first place.
| Quote: | I don't doubt the existance of false flag operations I just don't consider your "evidence" compelling enough and most of it is old and ebunked.
|
really, does how old information is even come into it? if there was information which proved something we had been lied to about, would it really be ok to forget it because it was 7 years old, when many people died? surely how old information is dos'nt even play a part.
as for most being debunked, i would disagree and say some, and that some i have taken on board or never believed in the first place. but even if it was most, most is not ALL, and also it is not MY evidence, i do not own it, it is just there.
| Quote: | of course, but I bet you notice them and as i mentioned above, even more so if the security is extremely tight around them.
For anything less than 50 or so experts it may well of taken years to rig the buildings, far before the Bush administration.
|
again you claim to be an expert yourself even though you have pointed out many times when i have said things, that im no expert. should i listen to what you said or just an CD expert?
also as i have said above, if it was a CD then neither of us know how they did it, that would need to answered by those responsible if it was a CD.
| Quote: | and the silence of those you control and the number again depends on the your point of view, MIHOP, LIHOP etc
|
agree, obviously if there was a conspiracy, the depth of involvement would effect the amount involved, however the claims by some critics it would be thousands who knew(and ive even seen some say 10,000 +) is a vast exageration and may not be the case at all if it was a conspiracy.
| Quote: | | These 19 did not want to hide the whole thing afterwards, |
neither did they have any control to keep it quiet. if it was a inside job however they would have the advantage of control from the inside to ensure it either dos'nt get out, or comes across as laspes in security etc etc.
| Quote: | Forgive me, am I to take it you accept that the hijackers are dead?
|
i am aware of reports saying some were still alive, which were given an explaination and changed. many still see this as evidence or think the media are lieing. i don't have a clue either way. hence i take it on faith it was a error by the BCC and assume the hijackers are dead. however i would be lieing if i said i was not sceptical about how such a error could occure. but they reported some alive then changed it to wrong identity, which is fair enough.
you should'nt assume everybody thinks the same and believe the same things. just because jimbob on such a forum believes something dos'nt mean i believe it to or think it is suspicious.
| Quote: | Given the fact that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were not the only buildings to collapse that day (though they were the most reported and obvious from the outside) I'd say CD does not fit the evidence
|
well thats your opinion, which is fair enough. although a source to this would be nice. as far as i was aware none of the other buildings collapse in their entirety, sure there were chunks took out and partial collapses but i was'nt aware any of the others collapsed totally without help by CD experts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | marvin bush was in charge of security on the lead up to 9/11, and i do not go snooping around workers repairing the building when im at work, do you? |
Marvin Bush was not in charge of security, I can't believe that one is still floating around!
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to change my answer - the dumbest theory I have heard is the one about mini nuclear bombs in the WTC basement.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | marvin bush was in charge of security on the lead up to 9/11, and i do not go snooping around workers repairing the building when im at work, do you? |
Marvin Bush was not in charge of security, I can't believe that one is still floating around! |
my error i apologise. i should of rechecked that information. the last time i spoke about it was ages ago, and i remember now mention of board of directors or something, but i cannot even remember if that was correct.
i best go and look again. theres so much stuff said, yes i do get it wrapped around my neck sometimes and get it wrong.
thanks for correcting me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 3:16 am Post subject: Re: Stupidest Truther Claim |
|
|
| NorthernSoul wrote: | | In your opinion, what is the stupidest claim you have heard from a Truther? |
I think the voice-morphing suggestions from Griffin and others are the most stupid of the more mainstream claims, and just as outlandish as the laser beams or hologram stuff. As a claim it is also deeply offensive to those who spoke to their loved ones on ill-fated planes.
Unfortunately the truthers are in a deep hole in that area, because without the voice-morphing a lot of their other claims just totally collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cFwDFKX9HnU
| Quote: | | and just as outlandish as the laser beams or hologram stuff. |
disagree, not as outlandish as the examples you gave. at least it exsists is easy to use and cheap.
obviously you would need a sample of the voice you want to morph, then measurement of the voice to beable to set the setting at the correct range.
i'd imagine some programmes are better than others, and others are not availble to the public, but the technology exsists and it seems simple and straight forward.
| Quote: | As a claim it is also deeply offensive to those who spoke to their loved ones on ill-fated planes.
|
i take it what you find outlandish is the scenerio, NOT the "the voice-morphing suggestions " which in principle can be done. if it is the scenerio you refer to, then i agree its hard to imagine or accept somebody would do that. but as far as im concerned i cannot say either way which it was, as i was not there. the voice morphing suggestion is possible, its just the scenerio thats hard to take.
it would involve collecting samples of each person who called home. which would mean either voice samples were collected before 9/11 inbetween bookings and take off, or the planes landed everyone was took off and had to give voice samples and then disappeared.
its on the scenerio basis i believe it to be seen as outlandish. though people do, do things that are hard to believe, because we would'nt do them ourselves. so it basically boils down to that, however any proof that this was something that actually happened has not been presented anyway as far as i am aware.
it is simply speculation, but speculation that at least has a working technology, unlike holographic planes reflected of the sky and into peoples eyes, or energy weapons that seems to have some sort of vague technology but there is no evidence the technology can acheive what the theory proposes.
voice morphing scenerio = hard to believe because of what it would mean.
but the exsistence of a technology dos'nt mean it was used simply because it exsists. which is what the voice morphing 'theory' on 9/11 falls under. you need at least some sort of indication or some sort of evidence pointing to the possibility to even suspect it, and where voice morphing is concerned there is none other than speculation due to the technology exsisting.
but i think your exagerating it is as outlandish as npt etc. they have no working technology on the level they propose they were used as well as the scenerio and what it would mean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | i'd imagine some programmes are better than others, and others are not availble to the public, but the technology exsists and it seems simple and straight forward. |
I'm sure you can imagine it, but to make any sort of case you would have to prove that. I have never ever heard a computer-generated voice that sounds remotely realistic. If we assume that the Americans have a secret bit of software that does it perfectly then we are doing the same thing as those who have invented new types of secret weapons or explosives for use in this conspiracy.
And that is for starters, before you even get to the logistics of fooling the people who were phoned. I think it is an utterly outlandish claim, personally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Quote: | | i'd imagine some programmes are better than others, and others are not availble to the public, but the technology exsists and it seems simple and straight forward. |
I'm sure you can imagine it, but to make any sort of case you would have to prove that. I have never ever heard a computer-generated voice that sounds remotely realistic. If we assume that the Americans have a secret bit of software that does it perfectly then we are doing the same thing as those who have invented new types of secret weapons or explosives for use in this conspiracy.
And that is for starters, before you even get to the logistics of fooling the people who were phoned. I think it is an utterly outlandish claim, personally. |
the software does sound realistic. you lie and make it up.
the only things i have not been bothered to look for is taking samples and then playing them back through the software.
| Quote: | Voice Morphing which is also referred to as voice transformation and voice conversion is a technique to modify a source speaker's speech utterance to sound as if it was spoken by a target speaker. There are many applications which may benefit from this sort of technology. For example, a TTS system with voice morphing technology integrated can produce many different voices. In cases where the speaker identity plays a key role, such as dubbing movies and TV-shows, the availability of high quality voice morphing technology will be very valuable allowing the appropriate voice to be generated (maybe in different languages) without the original actors being present.
There are basically three inter-dependent issues that must be solved before building a voice morphing system. Firstly, it is important to develop a mathematical model to represent the speech signal so that the synthetic speech can be regenerated and prosody can be manipulated without artifacts. Secondly, the various acoustic cues which enable humans to identify speakers must be identified and extracted. Thirdly, the type of conversion function and the method of training and applying the conversion function must be decided.
|
http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hy216/VoiceMorphingPrj
don't tell me you find it hard to find examples when you do a search?
i could link hundreds of things, i just did'nt think it was needed due to a critic denying the obvious or denying well known things, but i guess i should of known.
just incase you still want to talk nonsense i'll highlight it.
| Quote: | the availability of high quality voice morphing technology will be very valuable allowing the appropriate voice to be generated (maybe in different languages)without the original actors being present.
|
maybe now you can tell me what its talking about, about actor's not needing to present inorder to generate a voice? obviously they only need a voice sample.
| Quote: | | I have never ever heard a computer-generated voice that sounds remotely realistic. |
then you either have not looked. or you still have your head up your arse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ...the availability of high quality voice morphing technology will be very valuable... There are basically three inter-dependent issues that must be solved before building a voice morphing system... |
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | ...the availability of high quality voice morphing technology will be very valuable... There are basically three inter-dependent issues that must be solved before building a voice morphing system... |
|
http://soundevidence.com/voice_morphing_9_11.html
read this then! is he saying anything different to me? not really, so why argue over tiny details? christ im sure critics would agrue anything for the sake of it. they would disgree with things they said, if i said them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm
When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999
"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.
At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.
But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico......... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | http://mi.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hy216/VoiceMorphingPrj |
Some of the samples there definitely sound much more convincing than other attempts I have heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
