| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Frederick
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 46
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
noise
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 115
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Griffin sure does like the voice morphing theory. Why would the plotters fake Burnett's calls four times?
How does Griffin know when to trust the FBI (Olson's cell calls and Bin Laden not wanted for 9/11) and when not to (19 hijackers)?
Some of Taibbi's objections are the same as those posed by Warren Commission defenders. IMO, the answer is that JFK and 9/11 were transparent conspiracies. The intent being to intimidate anyone who wasn't satisfied with the magic bullet theory or faulty cable trafficking procedures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoraemi
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 187
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
WHY did DRG BEGIN with voice cloning? He basically walloped T. in the ensuing debate but why mention, let alone BEGIN WITH one of the most exotic and improbable theories in the 911 literature?
Why even venture such a theory to begin with? We already have 'em nailed on 99 out of 100 issues.
If we're going to insist on proposing a theory about the phone calls perhaps we can come up with something a little more down to earth? What about pseudo-hijackers? A War game connection? Hiajckers who were themselves hijacked? Anyone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frederick
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: Crazt twoofers |
|
|
Jeeeez,
I thought all you crazy twoofers were brain-dead cultists who regard the Rev. D. R. Griffin as your infallible high preist!
Just kidding. 
But seriously, I really don't know what to think of this voice morphing stuff. It doesn't seem so ridiculous to me. However, I could be wrong. And I'm glad to see that you guys are willing to offer constructive criticism--even when it involves our most venerable "leader". I'm sure Dr. Griffin would agree.
Do you think the JREF'ers would be half this critical to their demi-god, James Randi?
I don't think so.
Last edited by Frederick on Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frederick
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: vote |
|
|
What does "Douchiest"mean?
I think it means Matt Taibbi.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | even when it involves our most venerable "leader". I'm sure Dr. Griffin would agree. |
I'm not so sure. At least, I've never heard Griffin speak along such lines. He has spoken of a "democratic" "world government" but has never mentioned what he means by "democratic."
In any case, "we" have no need of a "leader" as I'm sure most here would agree. You too, apparently.
"A strong people do not need a government"
- Zapata |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Danse wrote: | WHY did DRG BEGIN with voice cloning? He basically walloped T. in the ensuing debate but why mention, let alone BEGIN WITH one of the most exotic and improbable theories in the 911 literature?
Why even venture such a theory to begin with? We already have 'em nailed on 99 out of 100 issues.
If we're going to insist on proposing a theory about the phone calls perhaps we can come up with something a little more down to earth? What about pseudo-hijackers? A War game connection? Hiajckers who were themselves hijacked? Anyone? |
DRG is not stupid. So why is he shooting himself in the foot?
He's not dropping voice morphing from his presentations any time soon, clearly. I am a big fan of his work--and most of it is good work work, but something doesn't sit right with me to see the same blunders (i.e. voice morphing, etc.) repeated so many times. His great work is marred by these issues. Voice morphing has been "morphed" into a central claim, distraction, and sideshow. Radio interviews and now even debates primarily put Pentagon plane crash fakery and fake phone calls front and center.
I read the "debate" and both sides were diversionary and completely missed most of the important issues. Although it is hard to top Taibbi.
War Games?
Norad Lied?
Promotions?
Insider Trading?
Family member questions unanswered?
Nowhere to be seen. Apparently, cell phone "voice morphing" is a more pressing issue.
David Ray Griffin has made very important contributions to the 9/11 truth movement and I value his work greatly in many respects but his judgment should be questioned for putting cell phone voice morphing in a DEBATE situation. In a venue where we should be making new converts to the truth movement? We should be using this opportunity to grow the movement by presenting the best case that we have. I no longer have faith in DRG to put the "best foot forward" for the 9/11 truth movement, and I say this with great disappointment.
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frederick
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm not so sure. At least, I've never heard Griffin speak along such lines. He has spoken of a "democratic" "world government" but has never mentioned what he means by "democratic." |
Have you read The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God?
| Quote: | | In any case, "we" have no need of a "leader" as I'm sure most here would agree. You too, apparently. |
Of course... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frederick
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | David Ray Griffin has made very important contributions to the 9/11 truth movement and I value his work greatly in many respects but his judgment should be questioned for putting cell phone voice morphing in a DEBATE situation. In a venue where we should be making new converts to the truth movement? We should be using this opportunity to grow the movement by presenting the best case that we have. I no longer have faith in DRG to put the "best foot forward" for the 9/11 truth movement, and I say this with great disappointment. |
Have you ever talked to DRG--or at least try to contact him-- about your concerns? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoraemi
Joined: 09 Sep 2007
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: - |
|
|
| Quote: | "DRG is not stupid. So why is he shooting himself in the foot?
He's not dropping voice morphing from his presentations any time soon, clearly. " |
He's already on record. It features prominently in his work. Why should he run away, knowing Taibbi would bring it up?
There is a solid source. We know the technology exists. It may cause people to cast some doubt on what they think they know.
I think it was a good idea to document how deception is a real possibility, and we can't be sure about our assumptions. The naiton's top generals thought they knew Colin Powell's voice. That's a great example, that people must accept as reality. It's not fictional.
If they can be so ignorant about a technology that's been around since at least 1999 (and featured in The Terminator, 1984, Sarah Conner's mother), then that is surely a good tactic to get them questioning assumptions.
Griffin crosses the line when he tells us this theory is true, or the only possible explanation, etc. That, we don't know.
More importantly, this theory isn't all that important, given far more damning and substantiated problems: obstruction of justice, interfering with investigations, tampering with evidence, blocking the release of information, CIA connections, FBI headquarters actions, etc.
Griffin never once mentions the "foreign governments" which I refer to as often as possible. That is a shortcoming, and we need those "foreign governments" highlighted in high-profile news stories.
_________________
The Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Frederick wrote: | | Quote: | | David Ray Griffin has made very important contributions to the 9/11 truth movement and I value his work greatly in many respects but his judgment should be questioned for putting cell phone voice morphing in a DEBATE situation. In a venue where we should be making new converts to the truth movement? We should be using this opportunity to grow the movement by presenting the best case that we have. I no longer have faith in DRG to put the "best foot forward" for the 9/11 truth movement, and I say this with great disappointment. |
Have you ever talked to DRG--or at least try to contact him-- about your concerns? |
I will contact him and thanks for suggesting this. However, I think it is clear at this point he is not going to drop voice morphology any time soon.
Will someone please explain to me with a straight face how voice morphing managed to get mentioned in DRG's first response without the idea even being ridiculed by Taibbi yet?
| Quote: | | "In defending you, your attorney, having pointed out that the water bottle could have been planted, then argues that, since you did not make that call and never went into that building, the police must have fabricated evidence by using digital (voice and video) morphing technology. When the prosecutor rolls his eyes, your attorney cites William Arkin's 1999 Washington Post article, "When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing," which points out that voice morphing, like photo and video manipulation, is now good enough to fool anyone. With regard to why the police would have tried to frame you, your attorney suggests that the FBI may have asked the local police to put you away because of critical things you had written about the White House." |
http://www.alternet.org/story/100688?page=2
My simple question is this: who else in the 9/11 truth movement starts their debate by creating a story involving the use of voice morphing? In an attempt to make a point about "conspiracy theories" being plausible?
To say I am pissed off by this is an understatement.
And what's more telling is that this is not the FIRST time that voice morphing promoted as a primary idea--for example in radio interviews and elsewhere. It won't be the last I'm afraid to assume.
See here:
http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=21896#21896
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog
Last edited by Arabesque on Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrisc
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: Re: - |
|
|
| johndoraemi wrote: | | We know the technology exists. |
Sure, and we know that microwaves and lasers exist and there there is a, no doubt massive, military research and development program for directed energy weapons... I'm sure you see the problem here... the best (worst) example of this kind of thing being the "The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre"... 
Incidental Jimmy Walter's hasn't renewed his domain name and I had to dig the title of that document up form the Internet Archive...
http://web.archive.org/web/20080204074823/http://reopen911.org/ReOpen911_2007Archive/index.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chrisc
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 1168
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: This sucks |
|
|
If I were Rep I'd have booted willyloman and brianct rather than not takes sides and lock the thread... 
| Rep wrote: | Attention.
This thread is temporarily locked.
I'm asking the following users to chill out, and refrain from responding to each other's posts at 911blogger.com;
Arabesque
willyloman
Jon Gold
loose nuke
brianct
Check the Rules page;
http://911blogger.com/rules
"911blogger.com is not a message board. This site is not structured for long marathon debates about the veracity of specific claims or hypotheses."
You have all made your points. If you want to continue battling, do it by email, not on the comments board here, thanks.
It's 6:32pm Central Time.
http://911blogger.com/node/18066?page=1#comment-198958 |
BTW there is also a thread on this at Truth Move: http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1270 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just read through all that nonsense on 911blogger.
As another forum moderator, I've got to agree with Chrisc here. And that's because I've never been convinced by the suggestion that 911blogger is not a discussion forum. As a result I've always felt that they could use more specific guidelines.
Here's a representative comment I found over there:
| Quote: | | Griffins side of the debate is immaculate. Ive not read anything by him with which i can disagree. With Arabesque, Jon Gold, and Taibbi, the situation looks very different |
_________________
http://911truthburnout.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
