IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Flight 93: "this Is The Captain Speaking. You Believe Me Don't You?", Audio analysis of flight recordings on Flight 93

aviophobia
post Feb 27 2009, 03:32 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 22-February 09
Member No.: 4,165



Obviously the timeline of the audio recording of Ziad Jarrah making announcements to the passengers on Flight 93, which is intermingled with a flight traffic controller and pilots from other airborne flights is incorrect. Not only because the two announcements were reported to be approximately 9 minutes apart but are only approximately 1 minute 23 seconds apart on the timeline, but also because of others’ concerns about how cockpit transmissions get mixed in with calls to the flight traffic controller and other aircraft.
So if this is just a simple dramatisation, which has been edited, then it should be stated as such.

This could, of course be explained as a short-form edit of the communications on the morning of 9/11, but the recording still raised queries about the actual recordings of Jarrah’s voice in the two announcements.
Firstly, the first announcer doesn’t have much of a grasp of English. It starts with an almost unintelligible “Ladies and gentlemen…” Here’s what the first announcer says: “Ladies and gentlemen here, the captain please sit down, and keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb aboard. So sit.”
The second announcement sounds like a different announcer, who has a more discerning command of the English language, a slightly different accent, and speaks more slowly and approximately two semitones lower that the first announcer:
“Hi, here’s the captain. Ah, we’d like you all to remain seated. There’s a bomb aboard. And we are going back to the airport. And we have our demands. So please remain quiet.”
Whether it was 1 minute 20 seconds or even 9 minutes later, this is quite a remarkable difference from the first announcement.
Quite a developmental curve from, “..and keep remaining sitting…,” in the first announcement, to “…we’d like you all to remain seated…”
The most remarkable difference however between the two announcements lies in the two audio waveforms.
Compare the two waveforms:

DON'T FORGET TO CLICK THE TOP OF THE IMAGE TO GET THE HIGH RESOLUTION VERSION.





In the first announcement the noise cancelling microphone is visibly affected by what is called ‘noise gating’, as is prevalent in other airline communications. Put very simply, when the pilot is not speaking it turns off. It doesn’t just switch back on when the pilot speaks because this can cause clicking, popping or even clipping of the first words of the transmission. So the system is designed to ‘ramp’ back up. So it looks something like this symbol:<
There is a 410Hz tone running through both announcements. Some have said that this is an alarm because the plane is flying too fast for its altitude. Once again this is confusing considering the timeline where this is placed has the aircraft climbing to cruising altitude. Alternatively this could even be acoustic feedback from a headset microphone discarded close to a speaker. However in the first announcement it is obviously coming from a speaker because we can clearly see it being attenuated on the waveform by the noise gate and then ramping up.

If you compare the first waveform to the second waveform, there is almost no gating effect at all, even though there are 3 distinct pauses, which would have caused gating and ramping as in the first announcement.

Conclusion: The second announcement is recorded in a different environment. I’m not going to speculate a studio, but it’s worthy to note that this type of gating is not automatic in a studio environment, and has to be deliberately engaged. The second announcement also seem to have been recorded with dynamic compression -- quite dissimilar to the first announcement.

If you want to follow the timeline in real time I have made a video and placed it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnjOyCx6Oxw


Cheers

This post has been edited by aviophobia: Feb 27 2009, 03:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 28 2009, 05:28 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Fascinating stuff, thanks! cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 6 2009, 08:30 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (aviophobia @ Feb 26 2009, 11:32 PM) *
Obviously the timeline of the audio recording of Ziad Jarrah making announcements to the passengers on Flight 93, which is intermingled with a flight traffic controller and pilots from other airborne flights is incorrect. Not only because the two announcements were reported to be approximately 9 minutes apart but are only approximately 1 minute 23 seconds apart on the timeline, but also because of others’ concerns about how cockpit transmissions get mixed in with calls to the flight traffic controller and other aircraft.
So if this is just a simple dramatisation, which has been edited, then it should be stated as such.

This could, of course be explained as a short-form edit of the communications on the morning of 9/11, but the recording still raised queries about the actual recordings of Jarrah’s voice in the two announcements.
Firstly, the first announcer doesn’t have much of a grasp of English. It starts with an almost unintelligible “Ladies and gentlemen…” Here’s what the first announcer says: “Ladies and gentlemen here, the captain please sit down, and keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb aboard. So sit.”
The second announcement sounds like a different announcer, who has a more discerning command of the English language, a slightly different accent, and speaks more slowly and approximately two semitones lower that the first announcer:
“Hi, here’s the captain. Ah, we’d like you all to remain seated. There’s a bomb aboard. And we are going back to the airport. And we have our demands. So please remain quiet.”
Whether it was 1 minute 20 seconds or even 9 minutes later, this is quite a remarkable difference from the first announcement.
Quite a developmental curve from, “..and keep remaining sitting…,” in the first announcement, to “…we’d like you all to remain seated…”
The most remarkable difference however between the two announcements lies in the two audio waveforms.
Compare the two waveforms:

DON'T FORGET TO CLICK THE TOP OF THE IMAGE TO GET THE HIGH RESOLUTION VERSION.





In the first announcement the noise cancelling microphone is visibly affected by what is called ‘noise gating’, as is prevalent in other airline communications. Put very simply, when the pilot is not speaking it turns off. It doesn’t just switch back on when the pilot speaks because this can cause clicking, popping or even clipping of the first words of the transmission. So the system is designed to ‘ramp’ back up. So it looks something like this symbol:<
There is a 410Hz tone running through both announcements. Some have said that this is an alarm because the plane is flying too fast for its altitude. Once again this is confusing considering the timeline where this is placed has the aircraft climbing to cruising altitude. Alternatively this could even be acoustic feedback from a headset microphone discarded close to a speaker. However in the first announcement it is obviously coming from a speaker because we can clearly see it being attenuated on the waveform by the noise gate and then ramping up.

If you compare the first waveform to the second waveform, there is almost no gating effect at all, even though there are 3 distinct pauses, which would have caused gating and ramping as in the first announcement.

Conclusion: The second announcement is recorded in a different environment. I’m not going to speculate a studio, but it’s worthy to note that this type of gating is not automatic in a studio environment, and has to be deliberately engaged. The second announcement also seem to have been recorded with dynamic compression -- quite dissimilar to the first announcement.

If you want to follow the timeline in real time I have made a video and placed it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnjOyCx6Oxw


Cheers


Very interesting, have you looked at the variable offset?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aviophobia
post Mar 7 2009, 12:43 AM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 22-February 09
Member No.: 4,165



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 6 2009, 08:30 PM) *
Very interesting, have you looked at the variable offset?


WYSIWYG

Cheers rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 7 2009, 08:33 AM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



A voltage offset will cause the wave form to be above or below the center access of the wave.
It occurs at different levels, from different inputs.
So, for instance, if a studio recording is added to another recording, there maybe a distinct
voltage offset in part of the wave form.

The process for finding these offsets,
is to first remove them,
second, invert the new wave form
and mix it with the original, this will eliminate the entire wave except the offsets,
which may be too small to see, so maximize the wave, and any points of offset,
will be clearly seen.

The points of offset change, can indicate, if and when, additional signals were added to the original recording.
This is a method of confirming if an original audio recording has been tampered with.

What you see, is what was altered.

cheers, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aviophobia
post Mar 7 2009, 04:51 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 22-February 09
Member No.: 4,165



Hi Lunk,
It's a valid point. Of course you're talking about noise. And if something was introduced or edited into a waveform you could see different noise values by isolating them. A bit like what a 3 pin XLR balanced mic does: Runs signal on Pin2, Earth on pin 1 and signal out-of-phase on pin 3. Since noise such as RF etc is not the same on Pins 2 and 3 a summing amp on the mic input sees the difference and disregards it.
These different noise values could be conspicuous on a something like the CeeCee Lyles recording -- of which I both removed the noise and kept the noise for analysis-- because it's a continuous speech waveform. But the pilots' announcements are recorded some minutes apart (supposedly approximately nine). I see your point that a different noise value could indicate a different input was used, but additionally both noise and atmos would certainly differ due to different RF in the area -- even different air speed and altitude, and even distance from the base receiver because the recordings were made at a different time. But none of these conditions in my opinion would cause the waveforms to be noise gated differently (or have a different AGC applied) or have such a graphically different dynamic range as if compressed. And even using the inversion method you can't get the 410Hz tone out because it's constant throughout the waveform and right in lower frequency area of speech. I even tried burying 410 on a third octave graphic abut 48db below the noise floor -- but it's still there.
That's why I simply said "what you see if what you get", because you can see the difference in the two waveforms without playing with them at all.
Just on that CeeCee Lyles recording. It's even very hard to isolate the underlying breathy voice because it's not in the area where noise usually is and it remains even on the noise cancelled waveform. Actually the only thing I can speculate on that recording is that I totally disagree with the much touted "You did great" version of the second voice. After cleaning up that recording it's fairly apparant to me that the voice says, "You need more praying" and the reply from CeeCee is "Sorry." Then another 911 coincidence: when I saw her husband's interview (you know, that truely emotional outpouring where he's telling of the tragic death of his wife whilst it looks like he's contemplating whether he'll have the red or the white wine with dinner). In the interview he talks about how they both paused to pray.


Cheers

This post has been edited by aviophobia: Mar 7 2009, 06:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 7 2009, 06:35 PM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Did you figure out what was said from the recording yourself?

Offset is not noise, most of the time it is unheard,
it is just that the wave form isn't centered.
Noise removal, is different from offset removal.

I tried to get rid of that tone too,
but it wiped out too much of the broadcast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aviophobia
post Mar 7 2009, 11:14 PM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 22-February 09
Member No.: 4,165



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 7 2009, 06:35 PM) *
Did you figure out what was said from the recording yourself?

Offset is not noise, most of the time it is unheard,
it is just that the wave form isn't centered.
Noise removal, is different from offset removal.

I tried to get rid of that tone too,
but it wiped out too much of the broadcast.


I don't have anything to remove an offset that is not noise. No, can't get anything other than the obvious from the CeeCee Lyles recording.
I've been all over this because he says that he saw the caller ID on her last call. So that's one they can't change to an airphone. But what's astounding is that Lorne V Lyles who was ex military and a cop at the time didn't check his phone messages, because he didn't discover this recorded message until a week after 9/11. Now how do you do that? Imagine the messages of condolence he would have been getting hours after the crash -- not to mention the calls from the FBI. How did he manage to receive messages and not see his own wife's message?
But then you think, who released this recording with obvious voices in the background? Are they really trying to jerk our chains?

This post has been edited by aviophobia: Mar 7 2009, 11:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 7 2009, 11:55 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



"That was great."
It did sort of sound like she was reading from a page.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aviophobia
post Mar 8 2009, 03:50 AM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 15
Joined: 22-February 09
Member No.: 4,165



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 7 2009, 10:55 PM) *
"That was great."
It did sort of sound like she was reading from a page.


Sorry Lunk, can't follow this. Can you elaborate?

Cheers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 8 2009, 06:25 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



At the end of the CeeCee Lyles telephone answering machine a creepy voice says "you did great"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiX7mNV4ab0

I'm not sure about the validity of this recording.

So I'll do a offset analysis!

...hold on this will take a bit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 8 2009, 07:42 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I found the original recording of CeeCee Lyles answering machine here:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...ts/P200054.html

There was no noticeable offset until after the machine says "end of message", this could be expected.

There is a removable background hiss, that can be easily removed.
The voice at the end of the tape says actually "you were great"
then a word that sounds like "Howard" and then the word "testing"

This sure sounds contrived to me.

imo, lunk

This post has been edited by lunk: Mar 8 2009, 07:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sinewy
post Mar 19 2009, 10:08 PM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 235
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 106



The first audio starting with "Ladies and Gentlemen...." is reported to be of Ziad Jarrah's. The second recording, albeit better English, is to have depicted Atta's voice. We have been told this by the MSM.

Those are not Jarrah's two voice recordings. Moreover, they are neither Jarrah's nor Atta's voices. There is no absolute proof for this. At the present time, we can see this being another hoax. Garbage in, garbage out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Mar 22 2009, 05:41 AM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 143
Joined: 27-April 07
From: France, Ajaccio
Member No.: 999



The two messages are probably an imitation of the voice of Ziad Jarrah. This one, as other terrorist pilots, could not have a sufficient experience of piloting to fly the Boeings 757 or 767, supposedly used on September 11th, 2001. See these links:

1) STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FBI DIRECTOR ROBERT S. MUELLER III
JOINT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE INQUIRY:

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html

2) Profile: Pan Am International Flight School:

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...l_flight_school

3) Profile: Rudi Dekkers:

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...=rudi_dekkers_1

Quote of of the third link:

"The FBI will say that the four hijacker pilots never fly real large jets before 9/11 and have a total of approximately 17 sessions on large aircraft simulators, mostly on older models":

"Both Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi each take two sessions lasting 90 minutes on a Boeing 727 simulator and one session on a simulator for a Boeing 767, the type of aircraft they fly on 9/11 (see December 29-31, 2000)"

Therefore only 3 days of training for Mohammed Atta (alleged pilot of Flight 11) and Marwan Alshehhi (alleged pilot of Flight 175) with a flight simulator of a Boeing 767, From December 29, 2000 through December 31, 2000.

"Ziad Jarrah, who flies a Boeing 757 on 9/11, has five sessions on 727s and 737s (see December 15, 2000-January 8, 2001".

Therefore Ziad Jarrah had no training for a Boeing 757 before September 11 2001.

Hani Hanjour, who flies a Boeing 757 on 9/11, practices for a total of 21 hours on a Boeing 737-200 simulator (see February 8-March 12, 2001).

See Also :

February 8-March 12, 2001: Hanjour Practices on Boeing 737 Simulator, but Has Problems:

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=jettech

Quote:

"Hani Hanjour practices on a Boeing 737-200 simulator for a total of 21 hours at the JetTech International flight school in Phoenix, Arizona. Hanjour also attends ground school and pays just under $7,500 for the training. Despite only completing 21 of his originally scheduled 34 hours of simulator training, according to the FBI this is the best-trained of the four hijacker pilots (see Spring-Summer 2001). However, an instructor comments: “Student made numerous errors during performance… including a lack of understanding of some basic concepts… Some of the concepts involved in large jet systems cannot be fully comprehended by someone with only small prop plane experience.” [US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; Alexandria Division, 7/31/2006 pdf file] The school contacts the FAA to warn it of Hanjour’s poor English and flying skills (see January-February 2001)."

Therefore Hani Hanjour had no training for a Boeing 757 before September 11 2001.

I found the two following videos concerning the phone calls of CeeCee Lyles:

1) Flight Attendant Called Husband from Flight 93

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBjgV1plf2M&hl=fr

2) Chilling Phone Call Exposed -CeeCee Lyles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OsXrjQ4l7I&hl=fr

And this link concerning a technological procedure of imitation of the voice, maybe used on September 11 2001:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...arkin020199.htm
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th September 2019 - 01:00 PM