Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,587
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp


    Alice Hoglan was visiting her sister-in-law, Kathy Hoglan, in Saratoga, Calif., when the phone rang. It was 9:42 Eastern time. Kathy's nephew, Mark Bingham was on the line.
    "Alice, talk to Mark," Kathy said, handing her the phone. "He's been hijacked."
    "Mom? This is Mark Bingham," the voice said. It sounded strange for her son to introduce himself by his full name. She knew he was flustered.
    "I want to let you know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb," he said.
    "Who are these guys?" Alice Hoglan asked.
    There was a pause. Hoglan heard murmurs of conversation in English. Mark's voice came back.
    "You believe me, don't you?" he asked.
    "Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?" There was a pause. Alice heard background noise. The line went dead.
    Even in a stressful situation, would you identify yourself to your own mother using your last name?

    When your mother asked you a simple, direct and logical question, would you then challenge her by asking if she believed you?

    Then the line goes dead....

    Can you say voice morphing technology?

    I can:
    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.
    Technology availible in 1999....and it sound just like a person speeking without the robot like cherping associated with earlier technology.

    And were was it developed? DARPA in Los Alamos.

    [Admin Edit. Flame bait.]
    Last edited by BigJerr; 06-28-2007 at 08:42 PM.
    DemocraticWarrior is not a registered Political Action Committee, nor is it a registered Non-Profit Organization. Donations to DemocraticWarrior are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Click here to enlarge

  2. #2
    Woad Warrior Ben Burch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,776
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 248 Times in 142 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    Fake because you say so.

    How honest.
    "Oh, Freeptards are their own "special" sort of crazy. Distill all the paranoia of the John Birch Society, inform it with the skewed worldview of Rush Limbaugh, and then season with White Supremacism, Militia weapon fetishes, and garnish with that delightful tang of Inbreeding, and you have Freeperville." -Ben Burch (me)

    "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." - Declaration of Independence.

    Click here to enlarge

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,587
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    I call it like I see it, Oh Gatekeeper.

    Point of fact: During the Mousoui trial, the government presented evidence of 37 Air-Phone calls and 2 cell phone calls from flight 93. A complete reversal from the numbers and accounts in the 9/11 Commission Report.

    Who's tellin the truth now?

    Do you call you mommy and say, "hi, it's me Ben Burch"? Or do you say, "hi mom it's Ben?"

    The technology to fake the call--or calls-existed in 1999. And this call stinks like a dead fish.

    Capice?
    DemocraticWarrior is not a registered Political Action Committee, nor is it a registered Non-Profit Organization. Donations to DemocraticWarrior are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Click here to enlarge

  4. #4
    Democratic Warrior dr.strangelove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Westchester Co., NY
    Posts
    5,997
    Thanks
    411
    Thanked 629 Times in 382 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Trap Click here to enlarge
    http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp



    Even in a stressful situation, would you identify yourself to your own mother using your last name?

    When your mother asked you a simple, direct and logical question, would you then challenge her by asking if she believed you?

    Then the line goes dead....

    Can you say voice morphing technology?

    I can:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm



    Technology availible in 1999....and it sound just like a person speeking without the robot like cherping associated with earlier technology.

    And were was it developed? DARPA in Los Alamos.

    [Admin Edit. Flame bait.]
    By this logic, you are clearly a CIA plant trying to distract anone from discussing the real failures on 9/11 by throwing the bullshit about fake cell phone calls and explosives into the frey. Just because the tech exists and the reasons exist for you to be a CIA plant does not make it so. Trap, this logic is beneath even you.
    DemocraticWarrior is not a registered Political Action Committee, nor is it a registered Non-Profit Organization. Donations to DemocraticWarrior are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Click here to enlarge

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,587
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    Common tactic in rhetoric: Distort you oponent's position and then attack the destorted position.

    Just because the tech exists and the reasons exist for you to be a CIA plant does not make it so.
    I have quoted the ENTIRE transcript of the conversation between Mark and his mother. Not one detail or word was omitted. Based on the wacko statements Mark made to his mother, using his full name, asking her if she believed him...and then abruptly cutting it off; this conversation stinks of being a plant.

    In addition, I provide strong evidence that the technology to fake such a phone call existed at the time the call was made.

    To me, that's a slam dunk.

    (Where the hell do you go throw in 'explosives' and the CIA? More attempts at distortion? Ain't gonna work)
    DemocraticWarrior is not a registered Political Action Committee, nor is it a registered Non-Profit Organization. Donations to DemocraticWarrior are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Click here to enlarge

  6. #6
    Democratic Warrior dr.strangelove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Westchester Co., NY
    Posts
    5,997
    Thanks
    411
    Thanked 629 Times in 382 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    The only distortion here is what you are doing to the evidence you have presented.

    Because the technology exists it must have been used. Thats what you are really saying. Because doing so fits within the conclusion you have already drawn.

    Yet you supply no evidence of any use of the technology. Voice technology, of the type you suggest exists is itself highly suspect, but even if we accept it could be done, voice recordings are easily anaylzed by experts. Voice analysis experts analyze components of the voice like sound structure, pitch, sound wave length, curve and depth and various other identifying parts of the voice. I've seen it done in court and its quite impressive to me. An expert can look at samples of a voice, usually a series of known samples that can not be refuted, like a speech given at an event, a child's birthday party, a recording on vacations or even better, something made as a child. Then these are compared to the sample you are testing. While these are not 100% accurate, this would be evidence of the use of the voice technology you allege. EVIDENCE again is what you lack.

    The only common tactic here is yours of using no evidence except that you already have a clear belief that the government perpetrated a crime on 9/11, then trying to pick and choose facts to support your opinion.

    What I have always criticized you for is examining evidence to support your conclusion, rather than lettign the evidence take you to a conclusion. I usually stay away from your posts because there is no point in trying to have a discussion of what evidence sugests with someone who will never allow evidence to impact their opinion. But in a case where you use logic this flawed, I felt the need to interject.

    My problem is that you think you presented a slam dunk. To use you basketball analagy, you barely presented what would be rolling the ball on the floor toward the basket while seated at the bench and then claiming to your buddies that you made a slam dunk.

    But thats okay. That you think you presented a slam dunk is really all I needed to know. Its more evidence of why I don't even bother with you on this topic. You are not serious enough about the topic of 9/11, and it merits far more than that. It merits serious investigation, not what you call debate. You, and those others who simply adopt a position with no real analysis, do far more damage to the real 9/11 truth movement than people who refuse to even question. While I don;t doubt you want the truth to come out, your desire to have your opinion be correct has damaged your credibility and removed truth from the debate.
    DemocraticWarrior is not a registered Political Action Committee, nor is it a registered Non-Profit Organization. Donations to DemocraticWarrior are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Click here to enlarge

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,587
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    Because the technology exists it must have been used. Thats what you are really saying. Because doing so fits within the conclusion you have already drawn.
    And you still ignore the content of the message sent by Mark Bingham to his mother. I included the entire transcript of the conversation at the beginning of the post.

    Would a son identify himself to his mother by using his full name? Have you ever done that when you have made a call to your mother? Does this call have the smell of being ligit, or is there something wrong here?

    I looked at the entire issue of the cell phone calls. The impossibility of getting a signal at altitude, the content of the message and the technology avaliable to fake it.

    Flight 93 is unique in the 9/11 story. There were very few calls placed from the other hijacked jetliners. However, from Flight 93 we have 30+ calls taking place. At first we were told that most of these calls came from passanger cell phones. Then the government reverses itself in the context of the trial of Moussoui and states that there were 30+ Air-Phone calls but only 2 cell calls. Interesting that in a court of law, where any claim can be examined and challenged, the government changes the story of the cell calls.

    Recall, since there were NO Arab names on the passanger manifests, it is these calls that are crucial to the Official Story that 'Arab Terrorists' hijacked those planes.

    I have every right to examin the calls in detail and call them fake when they do not pass any standard of common sense smell test.

    Since we have no audio tape of the Bingham call to his mother, save the one that the government with its 'Echelon' program must have....then voice print analysis is impossible.
    DemocraticWarrior is not a registered Political Action Committee, nor is it a registered Non-Profit Organization. Donations to DemocraticWarrior are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Click here to enlarge

  8. #8
    Woad Warrior Ben Burch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,776
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 248 Times in 142 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dr.strangelove Click here to enlarge
    ...While I don't doubt you want the truth to come out, your desire to have your opinion be correct has damaged your credibility and removed truth from the debate.
    Except I don't think that he DOES want the truth to come out unless that truth is congruent with his preconceived notion. If the truth is what I expect it is, Trap here will do all in his power to suppress it, all the while claiming that it supports his version of events.

    You see this sort of fundamental dishonesty in a number of places;

    - Religionists
    - UFO Believers
    - "Creation Science" believers
    - Scientologists
    - White Supremicists
    - Militia Survivalists
    - Republicans

    And it doesn't get any more wholesome when the person claims to be on "our" side, either.
    "Oh, Freeptards are their own "special" sort of crazy. Distill all the paranoia of the John Birch Society, inform it with the skewed worldview of Rush Limbaugh, and then season with White Supremacism, Militia weapon fetishes, and garnish with that delightful tang of Inbreeding, and you have Freeperville." -Ben Burch (me)

    "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." - Declaration of Independence.

    Click here to enlarge

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    608
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    Trap,

    Your credibility is intact. The transcript of the call tells you it was contrived. Can we prove it was a deception? No we can't. Common sense is that he would have said hi mom or it's Mark but he would never say it is Mark Bingham. Moms know the sound of their childrens voices. The story stinks and the resident gatekeepers here are making absolute fools of themselves. Trap I recommend not even engaging them at all. Just keep posting good information and let them rant and rave all they want. Smart people can see through the BS.

  10. #10
    Woad Warrior Ben Burch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6,776
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 248 Times in 142 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by AtomicBomb Click here to enlarge
    Trap,

    Your credibility is intact...
    Might mean something coming from a person who had any credibility on this topic whatsoever...

    Click here to enlarge
    "Oh, Freeptards are their own "special" sort of crazy. Distill all the paranoia of the John Birch Society, inform it with the skewed worldview of Rush Limbaugh, and then season with White Supremacism, Militia weapon fetishes, and garnish with that delightful tang of Inbreeding, and you have Freeperville." -Ben Burch (me)

    "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." - Declaration of Independence.

    Click here to enlarge

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    608
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Ben Burch Click here to enlarge
    Might mean something coming from a person who had any credibility on this topic whatsoever...

    Click here to enlarge
    Bait declined.

  12. #12
    Democratic Warrior dr.strangelove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Westchester Co., NY
    Posts
    5,997
    Thanks
    411
    Thanked 629 Times in 382 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    I'm not ignoring anything. I am just pointing out your continued habit of relying on bad logic and poor evidence.

    As for the content of the call, I would suggest you are ignoring the content of the call. You do this often. You try to use a set of facts when they suit your purposes, but ignore the surrounding circumstances. You cliam you include the entire transcript of the conversation, but you are not including any voice recording, so all you are doing is reading words and injecting your own conclusion about the tone and the surrounding circumstances. You know nothing about this man and his mom. If you did, you might know she said he often referred to himself by his first and last name. I rarely do this, but its something he often did. Now since that fact does not jive with your conclusion, you will probably find some way to discount the fact, rather than simply take the mother's testimony, and Marc's partner's testimony, that Marc often did this very thing. Also, its possible he was under a fair amount of stress, was with a group of people who were trying to notify both loved ones and the government for help, and was in the mindset of being formal. My point is that you just inject your own conclusion to the call, rather than let the call lead to a conclusion.

    Would a son identify himself to his mother by using his full name? Yes, this one did that very thing. So the basis of your conclusion is that YOU would not do something, but you ignore that people have said HE would do this.

    Its really all about you last statement though. "Does this call have the smell of being ligit, or is there something wrong here?" No, this call smells completely legit. It only smells foul to you because you want it to.

    That Flight 93 is unique is the very thing that supports that it was taken over from within. Why would this flight be any different from the other three if there was an organized plan by the government in place on board the planes?

    Please continue to exercise your right to examine any calls in detail and call them fake when they do not pass your smell test, but when your smell test is based on as much bullshit as this, I have every right to call you on it and I will.
    DemocraticWarrior is not a registered Political Action Committee, nor is it a registered Non-Profit Organization. Donations to DemocraticWarrior are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Click here to enlarge

  13. #13
    Kickin' Ass Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The outback of beyond
    Posts
    13,790
    Thanks
    2,230
    Thanked 3,268 Times in 2,155 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    . Now since that fact does not jive with your conclusion
    Jive: 1. a lively style of dance; 2. a form of slang.

    Jibe: be in accord; agree.

    Sorry... a pet peeve of mine.
    DemocraticWarrior is not a registered Political Action Committee, nor is it a registered Non-Profit Organization. Donations to DemocraticWarrior are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Click here to enlarge

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,587
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    but you are not including any voice recording
    That's because I don't have any voice recording because one does not exist. Do you voice record your calls?

    Read the news paper article again. Mark's mother notes that it was odd for her son to be using his full name when he identified himself.

    Look at the inability of the caller to respond to the mother's question, a logical one, directly. "Who are these guys" she asks. Then there is a pause and the response is "You believe me, don't you." An odd way to respond to a question asking for a description/identity of the hijackers...no? Would not a question like that imply belief that the plane was hijacked?

    Sorry Gatekeepers: It's the Official Story that does not stand up to scrutiny and has been changed now 3 times to 'conform' with known and factual information....such as reducing the number of cell phone calls from dozens to 2.
    DemocraticWarrior is not a registered Political Action Committee, nor is it a registered Non-Profit Organization. Donations to DemocraticWarrior are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Click here to enlarge

  15. #15
    Democratic Warrior dr.strangelove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Westchester Co., NY
    Posts
    5,997
    Thanks
    411
    Thanked 629 Times in 382 Posts

    Re: Mark Bingham cell call: Fake

    So you are not in fact citing a transcript of a recording, but instead an article. I was very curious why you referred to your article as a transcript. I suspect you wanted to add credibility to your argument, so you cited to a transcript that does not exist. I don't record my calls, but I also would not cite a transcript of a call that was not recorded.

    As for your suggestion to again read the article, this is a common tactic of yours. If you find one article that supports what you said, you rely on it as if it is the only truth, but when someone questions whether the article itself is accurate, you refuse to entertain the debate. I am telling you that the mother has explained this outside of your cited article. Because its not in your article, you ignore it. I suspect you ignore it because its damaging to your position. You often ignore what is damaging and only believe what supports what you previously believed true. Its why I doubt the credibility of your posts. Which is sad to me. You seem like a bright guy. If you would entertain serious debate, I think it would be enjoyable and educational for both of us, and those who read the exchange.

    The article says Mark's mother thought it was odd for her son to be using his full name. But if you have done any research on this, you would find her stating directly that such was in fact a common occurrence. He also thought he appeared stressed on the phone, and he often used his full name in times of stress. His life partner has also confirmed this to be true. Since these tidbits question the article as the foundation of your position, you ignore them rather than respond to them.

    Since there is no transcript, you are citing to an article as if it is a transcript. You have o idea what the exact exchange was. You are dealing with an article written by a reporter who appears to have either talked to Alice, or more likely used another article as a point of reference. The writer does nto state which. I would suggest that the writer, Denis Roddy, or his research reporters Cindi Lash, Steve Levin or Jon Silver, actually talked to Alice. I would suspect they are taking her comments from her interview with either, Fox, CNN, Good Morning America or Today (I forget which she did right after 9/11 off the top of my head, but we can both find out pretty easily with a few minutes on google.)

    So this is not a transcript, but the personal recollection of a person who just lost her son. I don;t know if she was close to him or not, but I suspect the death of achild would be difficult for even someone not very close tot he child. If you are close, I suspect it would be even more difficult. I suspect it is the type of thing that would make giving a second by second play by play of a phoen call difficult, because she would inject her grief into her recollection of the call.

    Also, I suspect time passed far differently thatn normal for her. She was aware of the terror attacks, was aware that her some was on a plane and he just told her there was a hijack. I imagine a few miliseconds may have seemed like minutes ot her, and hours may have seemed like seconds, depending on her thougts at the time.

    Your transcript is a recollection, told by a third party who may not have even interviewed the woman.

    Since there is no transcript, even if we are to assume the accountign is 100% accurate, you cite an inability of the caller to respond to the mother's question of "Who are these guys."

    I would suggest that the response of "You believe me, don't you" is not odd at all. I would imagine that people callign people and tellign them they were on a plane that was hijacked met might expect to be met with some disbelief. Even more so if the calls were goign to the western half of the country, where people may have been asleep. I suspect if I were awoken by a call from a friend at 5:00 am with his telling me he was on a plane that was hijacked on 9/10/01, I would have been a little less likely to believe him at first. Perhaps he was hoping to get past explainign the situation to his mother.

    As for whether it was an odd way to respond to a question asking for a description/identity of the hijackers, sure. I imagien beign on a plane with people weapons and bombs who have already stabbed someone would cause me a to be a bit distracted and I might not even be listeing much to the person I was trying ot get help from.

    The last high stress call I made was to 911 wen a friend of mine was stabbed with a large pice of wood during a construction project. During the call to 911, I ignored the questions and instructions of the 911 operator and just tried to get my information out. I imagine the plane was more stressful than my friend's back yard, but I still was a bit stressed and was not responsive. I imagine that it would be easy for anyoen with an open mind to understand that his mind may have been elsewhere, and he may have been conversing with people around him instead of talkign to his mom, possible hiding the phone or takign it away from his ear and just acting quickly to get a message out.

    Sorry Trap, its your logic and questioning that does not stand up to scrutiny. I have many questions about the official story. I seek answers, I just don't believe any of the answers you have provided have any more validity than the official story.
    Last edited by dr.strangelove; 06-30-2007 at 05:23 PM.
    DemocraticWarrior is not a registered Political Action Committee, nor is it a registered Non-Profit Organization. Donations to DemocraticWarrior are not tax-deductible for federal income tax purposes.
    Click here to enlarge

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •