Recorded Call of a 9/11 Story

The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.

Recorded Call of a 9/11 Story

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Thu May 20, 2010 8:00 pm

This seems to only apply to California, but still interesting guidelines:

What are non-commercial exploitative purposes?
Non-commercial exploitative purposes are those in which a person's identity is used for someone else's benefit. This is known as misappropriation. For example, you cannot use a video recording of someone to promote a political issue without their consent.

What are the exceptions of exploitive purposes?
Non-exploitative purposes include news and commentary, creative works, and incidental advertising use.

-" onclick=";return false; ... commercial

In other words, if you record something legally with the other party's permission, even if you express distrust to them while doing it, you are allowed to release it afterwards as news or even an art project without their permission since they already gave permission for it to be recorded. This is correct, no?

If someone can help me with this, I may have some pretty interesting evidence I can publish -- a conversation I've recorded with the other entity's permission but which they later tried to retract (or pretended to try to retract -- it is hard to tell with liars). I believe they want me to publish it because they think they will be seen as innocent. I think they are playing the Brer Rabbit "oh no don't throw me in the pointy bushes" kind of reverse-psychology.

On the other hand, I did 'hmm' and 'haw' a lot just to keep the conversation going, even though he would not answer any of my important questions adequately. I really think they are doing this whole agreeing-to-the-recording-then-retracting because either they thought their responses were so good or they really don't care.

I am in California now so it may work out under these rules. Unlike the perps, I would very much like to respect the law. Can I publish this, even though they officially requested post-recording that I do not (however sarcastic or fake the request may have been)? Because I think they may actually be 'safe' either way, but it might help us all out if people can listen to this Skype call learn about the kind of conversation style I was using with people I don't trust at all, but with whom I wanted to extend a conversation.

I know Jeff Hill was supposed to have been doing this for a while, but I believe he was a perp and may be protected in some way. I want to go about this assuming it hasn't been done for real before. Would appreciate advice from Fred or Ozzy or others - pretty much anybody. brianv, fbenario, what do you say about this?

Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby fbenario on Fri May 21, 2010 1:19 am

I have no experience with libel/slander/misappropriation law, and have never researched this area. I also have no way to confirm whether this site accurately sets forth current law, either federal or California. As a result, I wouldn't want you to use my analysis as anything other than helpful advice.

Having said all that boring, self-protective stuff as a caveat, and assuming the linked article states current law, my conclusion is:

Hoi, I am confident that you are legally protected by these rules if you publish the transcript of your Skype call for the purpose of educating us and the world. Be careful to avoid personal comments about the other person, and keep your own analysis of the call unemotional and uninsulting. Just point out the flaws/inconsistencies, and any other logical crap involved, without being demeaning or belittling.

Generally, you do not need a release when using the recordings for news purposes.
What are exploitative purposes?
Exploitative purposes are commercial or for your own personal benefit. -top-

What are commercial purposes?
Commercial purposes are attempts to use recordings in order to sell products or make money.
What are the exceptions of exploitive purposes?
Non-exploitative purposes include news and commentary, creative works, and incidental advertising use. -top-

Do I need a waiver to use the recording as news?
With some limitations, you do not need consent when using a person's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness for news, public affairs, or sports broadcast. You cannot be held liable for using recordings in connection with reporting or commenting on matters of public interest.

Taken together, these rules clearly permit use on this forum as long as consent was given for the recording at the time, since the purpose of our forum is neither commercial nor exploitative.
Posts: 2228
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Fri May 21, 2010 5:40 am

Not only do I have a transcript; I have the recorded call which I think says more than even the transcript could hope to convey. Do you think that the transcript is better than the recorded call? I feel as though the recorded call has a much richer experience for people and the transcript is not enough. I didn't use one of those devices that beeps every 30 seconds to let people know it is a recording. Simon just hooked up a manual device to his computer and I used a microphone that put my voice in real time into the recording of the desktop WAV sound of Windows - so it recorded the Skype output and my voice. When we turned up the volume of the desktop WAV output, it would get feedback so my voice is super disgustingly loud; it was very crude but better than the software recorders offered by Skype that seemed to cut out and skip.

I also had to cut the sound twice to save the files in Audacity as they were getting really long and when there was feedback I was scared I would lose them so I would stop the file, save it and start recording in a few seconds. So in total this was like two 10-second spaces of nothing lost out of an hour and two-minutes interview. Not bad for our crude setup.

So the audio is in three pieces pasted together in Audacity. I was hoping we would have just a smooth file so people would not accuse us of doctoring it, but they might accuse us of that anyway. I assure you all I did was paste the three files in order and export as MP3. Do you think that qualifies as a legal recording? If not, it definitely qualifies as a documentary. Documentaries are way more edited and chopped up than this. This is just a raw recording as described above, recorded live from Skype and mic input for about an hour with only two tiny, negligible cuts.
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby Osmosis on Fri May 21, 2010 6:14 pm

Ok Hoi, enough with the us the goods!
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:46 pm

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat May 22, 2010 12:00 am

I am pretty convinced I am within my rights to release it under the circumstances. Having permission to record is strong consent. They asked to review it, but when I wanted to continue our weird relationship post-interview they said they didn't want to. So I guess what we got is what we got.


We are kind of just meeting - Simon and myself - and so we are excited to speculate about everything. What is going on? Who do you trust? etc. etc. I just finished the Vicsim Report and so 10 days later there was apparently this long-planned wedding. Simon invited me, and I was excited to eat food at the wedding so I said yes!

We went to the end of the wedding, got bored, and decided to go to the afterparty which sounded more interesting. We get to this sort of golf-course looking thing and outside the building where there is going to be a big dinner, there are snack tables. Near one of them, there is this apparent couple talking loudly. I didn't notice them at the wedding but Simon and I didn't go to the wedding long. We just wanted snacks and to socialize. Me, I was looking forward to mainly food. Haha!

They were talking about war, nearby Simon, and saying 'what are we in this war for?' etc. and Simon being Simon inserted himself into the conversation and was like 'Well you know there's this propaganda system' and whatnot and talking about his research. The lady looked weird, like with sun-glasses on all the time, and the guy made me think fake luxury for some reason. Kind of 'tropical' white people to me. Simon had called me over because they were telling him they had a son who knew someone who died. The name of the person who died was 'Beto Soweto' and they were on Flight 93, the one that crashed in a field.

I thought 'Wow! 93 - the very airplane that is most definitely a fake. That's interesting.' I also noticed how 'Beto Soweto' sounded like a mnemonic device for South Africans.

Fascinated and instantly suspicious of them, I politely asked if that's true, can we get in touch with the son? The woman - who had been giving a sort of Alex Jones-ish speech in her shiny glasses about evil government - tagged her male counterpart and said 'Yes, why don't you give him his phone number and/or e-mail?' so the guy writes in my schedule '' and I thank him, and wonder what kind of crazy conversation this could lead to. And why are we being led to talk to this guy? Simon recalled that it felt very weird how they engaged him in the conversation without officially engaging him.

Later, the man calls 'Loris' on his portable phone and then hangs up and says to Simon, 'Oh sorry, it's not Beto Soweto. It's Carlos Montoya and he was on flight AA11 - the first flight that crashed into the first tower' and such.

So that's all the info we get out of them, but the bride says they are old family friends and seemed to find their behavior strange in some way. Or maybe not.

So we go back to Simon's and look up Montoya. He is obviously one of the worst fakes ever - with strange copied textures and face bits.



So we start laughing and wondering what this Loris Centela "LOW-riss CHENT-oh-la" is going to say. Simon finds a comment left by a Loris Centola on the Boston University memorial (By the way, we noticed that the name is vaguely like Loorse Change-ola) which only says, "Ciao Beto. I feel you next to me when I work, when I sleep, when I watch the disaster on TV, while I'm living. You'll be always alive in my heart. I see you soon, my friend." - Loris Centola, Friend of BU, 11 September 2002

Now it's getting really weird. What could he have meant by "see you soon" exactly? Simon finds a picture of Loris as well, which looks just as peculiar. He is standing in front of a marathon or something.

So now I start to doubt this Loris identity, but I am fascinated that UBS would be involved because of the Enron disaster, etc. so I wonder what he has to say about that stuff too. So we e-mail him telling him about how we supposedly met his parents but we don't trust him and we'd like to talk with him and record a conversation in Skype and ask for his help solving 9/11.

Oddly, he agrees! The only thing I can think of is that he can't appear to be suspicious at first, and they have to give him plausible reason to be suspicious before they ask him to withdraw from conversing with people who obviously think he is full of sh#t. So for whatever reason, we make arrangements on Skype. But then I started wondering if this is like an interactive live Role Playing Game they've set up with the whole 9/11 thing, because now I was thinking, 'Just why in the heck would this person agree to talk to someone who believes it's all fake and even thinks they are fake? How much of his personality is reserved for this 9/11 story and how much is real, if any?'

At this point, of course, we are still reeling from the observations we've made on the victim photos and CNN and we're going publicly with the notion that maybe someone really died. So that's how we introduce ourselves. I say I'm Hoi Polloi and that's significant if he wants to look it up. And that's what may have allowed this Loris to play like he was really interested instead of concerned. Then, he allowed concern to show through on the day of the interview, typing to me in Skype "this is weird" and I basically said "I know it is! But I think this could be a good thing..." and so he agrees. Then we record the conversation.

At the end, we agree to another time, whatever that even means. But then something odd happens. He writes me an e-mail saying he discovered the Vicsim Report and was furious. This was strange since I had explained to him that I thought the victims might be fake. I asked him to point out the site, he replied that he didn't know where he had gotten it. This was the night that disappeared. He said he wished to cut off all further contact with me, and hence even though he didn't want to review it, said that I shouldn't publish it. I didn't have plans on publishing it, but it is within my rights to do so. I informed him I didn't have plans, but he didn't respond. That's it.


This conversation is funny. The circumstances are bizarre. Nothing that appears to be going on is reliable. It is almost like we are having an average conversation except ... not.

I will state for the record that I had the privilege of initiating the conversation honestly stating that I didn't trust them or who they said they were and doubted everything they said, that I believed it was possible that nobody died and yet they continued to accept those terms, even as they came closer and closer to being interviewed under those terms. From that standpoint, I am certainly allowed to say that this is the basic context of the interview: myself, being very wary and welcome and skeptical of all information coming at me while maintaining an excessively apologetic, conversational tone just to keep it going and get a measure on him ... and the other voice, acknowledging my mistrust, seemingly being saddened by it, but teasing me about it while still coming closer and closer, doing the interview and then going away.

Indeed, the entire interview - if it can be called that - might do nothing for listeners but establish very concretely that I am a bad investigator, that I have wasted a great deal of my time trying to be absurdly polite and conversational with a disembodied voice that - on the surface - has markings of an apparently legitimate, innocent individual. Maybe some people will hear this and think I was wrong to start out the interview on the basis of complete mistrust or wrong to accept the invitation to interview them in the first place.

On the other hand, we did just sort of 'happen' across this interview a couple days after the Vicsim Report was published. Obviously, what is going on here is very, very, very weird and I understand if nobody believes that this was a real conversation. It was real. So what we ended up with is a long, rambling recording of me - who doubts all the 9/11 victim deaths - putting a lot of myself into a sort of informational black hole, and receiving something in return from a voice that partially supports the official story of 9/11 victim deaths. So hopefully listeners can study what happened and take some lessons from it and judge for themselves the value of what is going on here. Anyway, much ado about nothing. Here is that excessively strange and actually rather hilarious conversation:


(no longer valid download link of same audio) DOWNLOAD:
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby fbenario on Sat May 22, 2010 12:50 am

hoi.polloi 4 May 21 2010, 01:40 AM wrote:Not only do I have a transcript; I have the recorded call which I think says more than even the transcript could hope to convey. Do you think that the transcript is better than the recorded call?

Sounds good to me, Hoi, to use the audio. My legal analysis doesn't change.

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you with my opinion that the audio seems legally permissible, as long as you had consent to record it - a busy day today dealing with the selfish bastards at the cable company for my girlfriend.

EDIT: I only made it through listening to about 30 minutes of the audio. I don't believe a word that guy is saying. He seems to be making it up on the fly, and none of the details is convincing.
Posts: 2228
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby antipodean on Sat May 22, 2010 3:27 am

Hoi I thought you handled yourself really well.
It does seem a bit odd how this Lois guy can forge such an extended relationship with a couple, who he briefly meets up with over an 18 month period.
But I guess networking is an important aspect of being employed in the finance sector.
Did Lois actually make it to the Boston Uni 10th anniversary.
Curious as to whether he could have been at GZ for 9/11, 8th anniversary.
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat May 22, 2010 3:31 am

I don't know. They stopped responding to my e-mail and requested to cut off our relationship. I still don't know who or what I was interviewing!
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby Osmosis on Sat May 22, 2010 3:12 pm

Interesting interview Hoi - I thought you did a good job and sounded very professional. As far as any information he provided, you could have interviewed me and learned just as much about this Montoya guy, and I definitely don't know him. I too believe he was lying - the reason he has cut off communication is he knows that you know he is lying and he has no more lies to tell.
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:46 pm

Unread postby timothymurphy on Sat May 22, 2010 7:22 pm

That phone call had a lingering weirdness.
I listened to it yesterday ?
You were so kind to him Hoi.

Hopes it’s ok if I share some of my notes.

(for those who haven’t listened to the call yet)

-He sounds like the cookie monster.
(Loris not Hoi)

In his defence:
I started to feel convinced by his story when he had to fiddle with food and cats, like a real person.

I’m a good guy?While I speak I cook?

Not in his defence:
Why on Earth couldn’t he recall whether his friend Beto came from Columbia or Bolivia?!
Similarly, he presented Beto’s wife Stacey as from “South America” ? but then fudged his way through “dual nationality” to “American” from California ? unconvincing.

His first words on Beto are:
“He was social”
He then paints him as relatively quiet, and perhaps withdrawn>

He was calm. He was not quiet?. He had a very sweet smile.

It’s like he can only think in terms of stereotypes such as “quiet” or “party guy” but is trying to find something more nuanced and natural in between the stereotypes.

Stacy also seems a crudely drawn character made from stereotypes:
“party girl”

She is described using memorial-type words even though she is supposed to be alive!

"always smiling”
“beautiful lady”

When pressed for information about the vicsim Beto, before enrolling on the MBA together ? there is nothing!
He retreats claiming that he is actually more friends with Stacy, the wife. ? Beto was a “regular guy” - and that’s it for details.

There was a weird unevenness about the types of details he could recall:

He can recall the exact date of starting work at UBS 1 Oct 2004.
He can recall meeting Stacy in a “Finance” class, but not her surname.

While he cannot remember the professor’s name, he knows details of his career ? the Israeli who went from Boston University to MIT.

Personally, I find it odd not that he can’t remember the prof’s name but that he feels a duty to remember the professor’s name for Hoi.
I hardly remember any professor’s names from University in late 1990s ? they’re pretty remote figures at most Universities.

He also feels a duty to remember Stacy’s maiden name for Hoi, and tries.

An innocent person would simply admit they could not recall a maiden name ? but he assures Hoi that he can acquire that information. ? it’s not natural.
He could promise to ask Stacy, or just admit he cannot remember but does not need to agonise as if he is guilty.

Hoi kindly lets him off admitting he can’t even remember his friend Gil’s surname.

Re: Gil, the Israeli friend living in California
Loris proudly claims
“I know his background”.

Perhaps it is a language issue, but that seemed a rather academic approach to a friend ? as if he had researched him.

(Like Fred wrote about in occult lingo thread.)

“Finance” and “Israel” seem almost like buzz words.
He meets Stacy in a finance class, where there’s an Israeli professor
Stacy works in Finance, she goes to Israel.

Stacy has children who are 8 and 10.
That would make the younger one born in 2001 ? easy to remember.

As Hoi presses him for info about his employer UBS, he evidently knows little and says
“I’m not gonna talk about UBS”
“Cross-Border issues” are the reason.
When Hoi asks for explanation of this, he responds: “it’s all on the web? in any newspaper”
Evidently he cannot explain cross-border issues.

Re:Stacy and 9/11:
“I never talked to her about it again.”
Despite being close friends, and losing a mutual friend in 9-11, after 8 years they have still not discussed it.
That is strange, but 8 years of silence on a topic is alot easier than inventing fake conversations to keep track of.

-Why does he feel a duty to do this interview at all?
Why would he care about some nutty researcher who doesn’t believe in his friend?!

(no offence Hoi, you’re not nutty, but if Loris and Beto were real people you would be nutty.)

I would find it unbearably unpleasant to be with somebody who doubted the existence of myself and my friend.
He seems to finds it pretty routine.
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:51 pm

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat May 22, 2010 7:41 pm

It is difficult to hear in this recording - especially the MP3 version instead of the 300 megabyte original, which I may have to put up some way eventually - but while I was talking to him I heard the distinct noise of a tape recorder button depression a couple seconds before the 'meowing' began.

I am not sure if he is concerned that Rusty the Cat is pressing tape recorder buttons or if Rusty the Cat is the name of a tape recorder, but there was something odd going on there from my standpoint.
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread postby antipodean on Sat May 22, 2010 10:58 pm

Stacy has children who are 8 and 10.
That would make the younger one born in 2001 ? easy to remember

Maybe I need to re listen, I thought the 2 children were Stacey's new fiancee's from a previous relationship.

When people make up these stories they sometimes include pieces of truth from their regular life, to merge in with their ego bullshit of "I know someone who perished on 9/11" .

This is the second time a UBS connection has been made in promoting the existance of a victim. What's interesting is why they chose AA11, and not someone in the Towers.
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am

Unread postby ozzybinoswald on Sun May 23, 2010 12:00 am

As Timothy said, one would expect a person who has a constant spectral companion to be aware of that person's nationality.

Ciao Beto. I feel you next to me when I work, when I sleep, when I watch the disaster on TV, while I'm living. You'll be always alive in my heart. I see you soon, my friend." - Loris Centola, Friend of BU, 11 September 2002

And you'd think that a definite name could be settled on for Carlos Alberto Montoya aka Bebeto.

Betin, so many things come into my head. I cried for hours the day that you left for the United States." -Posted by Jaime Montoya on 2008-09-12

For those who knew Carlos, we know that he is better known as "Beto", short for Alberto." -Posted by Adriana Macias on 2007-09-25

Admittedley, the images of Beto are typically vicsimmy. But the other thing I noticed was the lapel rose. Did the ceremony which he seems to be represented as attending continue so long that the flower dried out and turned dark? And became larger? What light source causes the rose to darken while brightening the shirt and face?
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:52 am

Unread postby godzilla on Sun May 23, 2010 12:45 am

Holy Vicsims Batman!

A rose is a rose is a rose.

"It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true." - Henry Kissinger
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:43 pm

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:13 pm

Technical message from user insider_trading:

I just downloaded your recorded conversation from Zshare, and I couldn't get it to play. So I changed the extension from .WAV to .MP3, and that worked. Not sure if anyone else had the same issue.

Thanks, I used Audacity to make this thing and I don't know what kind of coding I need to make it universally playable. I just used a public LAME mp3 license thing.
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Return to VICSIMS: the simulated victims of 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest