NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
ULTIMA1 said:
Do you want the phone number for the FOIA office so you can verify the request and the document?
Click to expand...

That is not what I am saying. read again.

I will email them once I see your docs and ask if it OK for you to discuss the contents of classified docs which contain proof that flight 93 was shot down by a US jet.

Is this OK?
 
Roger....

Do you see a pattern yet? You are being asked the SAME questions here as you were over at ATS. You failed there....and you have failed HERE.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Time will also tell who is adult enough to admit when the document is posted and who will still be living in a fantasy world afraid to face reallity.
Click to expand...



Why didn't you just wait until you had this "document" in hand and then post a thread about it? Was it necessary to set up this tease first?

This is like my local TV news when just before they cut to a commercial they show a tantalyzing snippet and say "coming up next" and then 45 minutes later I am still watching and waiting like a mute mule.
 
This is exactly like what Lyte Trip did, coming here and announcing his "earth shattering" evidence, which he never did produce, BTW.

SS-DD.
 
Totovader said:
If I am understanding correctly, ULTIMA1 has claimed to have already seen this document through one of his contacts or associates or something...

Now he's looking for that document via an FOIA request which has been "granted"...

Of course, I think it's pretty safe to call batcrap on this one- but just for the record:

ULTIMA1 - Can you quote- to the best of your recollection- what the relevant passages of this document were? What makes you think it's going to be so significant?
Click to expand...

How about it?
 
Totovader said:
How about it?
Click to expand...

First off the document states that Flight 93 was intercepted (which contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93).

Second their are reports of a follow up document which states one of the fighters came back without a missile.
 
funk de fino said:
That is not what I am saying. read again.

I will email them once I see your docs and ask if it OK for you to discuss the contents of classified docs which contain proof that flight 93 was shot down by a US jet.

Is this OK?
Click to expand...

It looks like he's made this claim before- and stops just short of actually confirming his identity.

Although the folks in this forum managed to find his "home number" and "work phone"...

And he claims it's accurate. Now why he was discussing this on ebaumsworld is another question, but apparently he is so desperate to peddle his crap, that any forum will do besides the proper one.


ETA: by the way, check out the next page of that thread where "flurry" has collected various quotes from ULTIMA1, including several stating he has top secret clearance...
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
First off the document states that Flight 93 was intercepted (which contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93).

Second their are reports of a follow up document which states one of the fighters came back without a missile.
Click to expand...

That's not an answer to my question. I asked specifically for relevant passages.

If you're unable to quote this and then have your quotes match the document... then it's going to be pretty easy to completely dismiss your "smoking gun" evidence, wouldn't you agree?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
First off the document states that Flight 93 was intercepted (which contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93).

Second their are reports of a follow up document which states one of the fighters came back without a missile.
Click to expand...



Are all these details in the single document you claim is on it's way? You've written this just vaguely enough to make it unclear.

Are the "reports of a follow up document" in the same document as the statement that Flight 93 was intercepted?

We don't care right now what any other alleged "reports" may contain, we want to know what, exactly, this document you think the NSA will send you will contain. Can you paraphrase from memory any part of the document? Please be explicit, and restrict yourself to this single document.
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
How about we wait and let me post the document and then you can see if you can find anything to debate it.
Click to expand...

How about no? How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?

It doesn't. You said you had seen proof that the government was lying about this event, and that you would be able to provide proof of that. In order to confirm the first part of your story, you should be able to quote the relevant passages.

Otherwise, what are we supposed to believe about your credibility? You have an opportunity here to demolish your critics- and you're going to pass it up?

Quote the relevant passages so we can match it up with the document you claim will be arriving- otherwise expect that you won't be taken seriously at all.
 
Horatius said:
Are all these details in the single document you claim is on it's way? You've written this just vaguely enough to make it unclear..
Click to expand...

I will try to make this simple.

No, all the details are not in one document.

The main document states about the interception of Flight 93.

Supposidly the follow-up documents state that a plane came back without a missile.
 
Totovader said:
How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?.
Click to expand...

I have a letter from the FOIA office confirming it is coming.

I will post the document when i get it.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
I have a letter from the FOIA office confirming it is coming.

I will post the document when i get it.
Click to expand...

You are again dodging the question. I can't help but feel like I've caught you in the same lie that many others have before you came to this forum: you have seen no such document, have no security clearance, and if your credentials are accurate- you're probably nothing more than a library archivist. This document you claim to be obtaining is not only unsurprising- but without your accompanying story it really is likely to be nothing at all. When that happens, what do you think will happen to your credibility? Your only option will be to claim that "this is not the same document I saw!" at which point you think you will be free to make up any nonsense you happen to be fond of that day.

Without providing us with a passage from the document- your story isn't even slightly believable.

Again- the issues you are avoiding are summed up by the question in my last post:

How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?

It doesn't. You said you had seen proof that the government was lying about this event, and that you would be able to provide proof of that. In order to confirm the first part of your story, you should be able to quote the relevant passages.

Otherwise, what are we supposed to believe about your credibility? You have an opportunity here to demolish your critics- and you're going to pass it up?

Quote the relevant passages so we can match it up with the document you claim will be arriving- otherwise expect that you won't be taken seriously at all.
Click to expand...
 
Totovader said:
I can't help but feel like I've caught you in the same lie that many others have before you came to this forum.
Click to expand...


NO you have not caught me in a lie.

I have read the document thats why i filed an FOIA request to get a declassified copy so i can post it to show an official contridiction to the official story.

If you beleive the docuemnt does not exist please call the FOIA office and verify the document does exist.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
NO you have not caught me in a lie.

I have read the document thats why i filed an FOIA request to get a declassified copy so i can post it to show an official contridiction to the official story.

If you beleive the docuemnt does not exist please call the FOIA office and verify the document does exist.
Click to expand...

So, it is a classified document yet you have been discussing its content with faceless internet posters? Content which you say proves that fligt 93 was shotdown?

When I contact your NSA via email and tell them this they will be happy?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
NO you have not caught me in a lie.

I have read the document thats why i filed an FOIA request to get a declassified copy so i can post it to show an official contridiction to the official story.

If you beleive the docuemnt does not exist please call the FOIA office and verify the document does exist.
Click to expand...

Clearly you are lying. The question is not whether the document exists or not- I'm sure there are plenty of documents that exist- the question is whether the document truly states what you claim it does.

In order to justify that claim, you should be able to quote the relevant passages and prove that you know of such a document- and that when the document arrives and does not say these things you will still be able to have a shred of credibility (although, I wouldn't count on it).

What you are doing- right now- is pretending like an FOIA request is some sort of secretive process- that it allows you to peer into the inner workings of the secret government and find things they didn't even know existed. You are then using this misconception to build up a story about something you claimed to have seen- at the same time that you know an FOIA request will just bring back some garbage which is largely unimpressive at which point you can scream "cover up! this is not the document I requested! this is not the document I saw with my own eyes!"

All of this- of course- backed up by your claim that you are some kind of an NSA operative with top secret clearance.

Sorry, but this is a forum chock full of skeptics, critical thinkers, and rational people- we have a hard time buying cockamamie stories about secret documents divulging a gigantic government cover-up by some lackey who's going to quickly and silently destroy the "official story" by posting his "smoking gun evidence" on an Internet message board- evidence, I might add, which no other person on the face of the planet has ever seen or eluded to.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Again- the issue you are avoiding like the plague is summed up in the questions you refuse to answer:

How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?

It doesn't. You said you had seen proof that the government was lying about this event, and that you would be able to provide proof of that. In order to confirm the first part of your story, you should be able to quote the relevant passages.

Otherwise, what are we supposed to believe about your credibility? You have an opportunity here to demolish your critics- and you're going to pass it up?

Quote the relevant passages so we can match it up with the document you claim will be arriving- otherwise expect that you won't be taken seriously at all.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom