NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Keep it civil and on topic, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Their are reports that follow up reports to the main Critic state that a plane came back with a missile missing.
Click to expand...

Did you request those reports as well? Do they list the serial number of the missile that was missing, and what investigation has been done to locate that missile?
 
ebaumsworld, given it's status as a questionable website that on occasion is known for downloading spyware onto the computers that visit it, would be blocked on government computers. It's also considered a gaming site, I believe, or a humorous site with questionable content, which would also cause it to be banned on government computers.

Is anyone aware if Ultima was claiming to be posting from WORK on ebaumsworld when he posted there? If so, there's no way in h-e-double-hockey-sticks that he was posting from NSA.

Quite frankly, I'm amazed THIS website isn't blocked from government computers, but I suppose the term "educational foundation" makes it a little less questionable than some other sites. Regardless, given the amount of time Ultima seems to be spending on his computer posting at internet forums, I'd wonder that his boss isn't on the ball enough to stop him and get him back to actually doing WORK; you know, that thing we're all paid for.

Setting that aside, I am more and more convinced that Ultima is lying through his teeth about where he works. I'm not arguing that it's not considered CLASSIFIED, per se, to say that you work at NSA, but it is frowned upon, as it can make you, your family, your friends, and even in some cases your coworkers more enticing targets for terrorists or other criminal elements. OPSEC would require that, assuming Ultima actually IS an NSA analyst in any capacity, he keep quiet about his job and what he does. That's the plain and simple truth. I have nothing further to say about the matter.
 
I can absolutely assure you that Ultima does not work for the NSA. To think, a truth lying. Who'da thunk it?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
I sent it via e-mail so i could show it online, like i did.
Click to expand...

So, why is it that your post includes a cut and paste from the NSA online request webpage information which only comes up in a pop up window when one attempts to submit an online request via the Privacy Act - not the Freedom of Information Act - and which does not come up at all if one submits an online request pursuant to the FOI Act, and which does not come up at all if one submits a request via e-mail?

I am curious as to why you would copy and paste the wrong submission information into your alleged e-mail to the NSA, particularly since you claim to work for the NSA.

I am also curious as to why you would cut and paste the Privacy Act submission information from the pop-up window that comes up online when one attempts to submit a request via that Act, since a request pursuant to the Privacy Act is for information held by a government agency about oneself, and not for information held by government agencies about others/government actors, which is clearly explained on the site.


ULTIMA1 said:
I have shown a letter from the NSA FOIA office verifing the request.
Click to expand...


You have shown part of a letter that indicates a request was made by someone at some time for something, pursuant to the FOIA.

Please understand that I am not saying that you did not send some kind of request to someone. What I am saying is that (a) you have not yet provided sufficient evidence that you sent the request that you claim to have sent; and (b) the partial letter you posted does not verify that you sent the request you claim to have sent.

It really should be a rather trivial matter for you to establish that you have done so but, so far, you have not, and you appear to be vigorously resisting posting complete evidence of having done so. Perhaps it is just laziness on your part and you couldn't be bothered to post the actual request and the complete response, but if you want to have any hope of convincing a room full of skeptics of something, you should come prepared with sufficient evidence.

ULTIMA1 said:
What else do you need me to show to verify the request was made
Click to expand...

As I said from my first post on the subject, a copy of the actual request and the complete response received (both with your personal information redacted, of course). In light of the fact that you have since posted the text of a pop-up window that comes up only when one submits an online request via the Privacy Act rather than the FOI Act, I suppose I will also require an explanation for why you would have included the contents of that pop up window in your alleged e-mail request.

ULTIMA1 said:
and the document has been verified
Click to expand...

No, it has not. You are leaping way too far ahead of yourself here. You keep claiming that you have seen a classified document in the past and that the response you've cited somehow "verifies" the existence of the classified document you claim to have seen. You take this even further and suggest that the response you've cited also "verifies" your interpretation of the classified document that you claim to have seen.

This is completely wrong. All the letter says is that the agency has identified documents responsive to a request received, and that the request will be processed in due course on the "Non Personal Easy Cases" track. That does not mean - in any way, shape or form - that the responsive documents say or mean what you seem to think they say or mean. That does not mean - in any way, shape or form - that the responsive documents "state that flight 93 was intercepted" or that they "will show that Flight 93 was intercepted by fighters and possibly shot down", etc., as you claim.

You are grossly overstating things here.

ULTIMA1 said:
Would you like the phone number to the FOIA office?
Click to expand...

I have it. What a weird question.
 
Sabrina said:
Is anyone aware if Ultima was claiming to be posting from WORK on ebaumsworld when he posted there? If so, there's no way in h-e-double-hockey-sticks that he was posting from NSA.
Click to expand...


If you knew anyting about NSAs computer intranet system (which its clear you do not) you would know that i cannot get on the internet from my woek computer.

Thats why i only do it from home.
 
LashL said:
You have shown part of a letter that indicates a request was made by someone at some time for something, pursuant to the FOIA.
Click to expand...

Well if you read the letter is states my name (which i blocked out) the date of the request i made, and the information i requested.

This is completely wrong. All the letter says is that the agency has identified documents responsive to a request received, and that the request will be processed in due course on the "Non Personal Easy Cases" track. That does not mean - in any way, shape or form - that the responsive documents say or mean what you seem to think they say or mean.
Click to expand...

Well for 1 i asked for very specific document, in fact the only Critic posted by NSA that day.

The letter verifys the specific document i requested was identified and will be processed.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Well if you read the letter is states my name (which i blocked out) the date of the request i made, and the information i requested.



Well for 1 i asked for very specific document, in fact the only Critic posted by NSA that day.

The letter verifys the specific document i requested was identified and will be processed.
Click to expand...



 
There are soooo many little things i could argue with in this thread, but that's not why i'm here. I'm here to remind Ultima1 that he has promised the document he seems to have requested to be forthcoming soon, and I'm waiting to see it.

You are on the "all others" list, correct? awaiting a scheduled time to travel to their archives and dig through files for 2 hours until you find that Critic thing, correct? You have all this planned, right? Do you have to go far? You're going to do it, right? They'll let you photocopy it free if you find it, and then you'll scan it to a JPEG, right? so the world can finally see the facts and evidence, rather than the evidence (this letter) you say proves this evidence's existence.

Until then, it's simply not as clear to everyone as it to you just what this letter says. You can't just change that by calling people names, dude. Why do you have to bicker with every naysayer? Are you here to present your evidence once you follow through and get it, or to run around in little hamster wheel arguments? You are a fast little bugger, Ultima1, I'll hand you that.

PS - didn't you borrow your screen name from one of the Transformers or something?
 
Horatius said:
Yes, I understand Zulu time.

However, part of the purpose of answering the above questions is to allow us to determine if the document that shows up is in any way the same document you claim to have already seen. If you don't answer them until after you have the forthcoming document, most of the people here simply won't believe you ever saw the earlier document, particularly if the forthcoming version lacks any details to support the conclusion that Flight 93 was shot down.

I can understand if you do not want to post the specific information as requested above, but can we at least get yes/no answers to some of the questions?
Click to expand...


ULTIMA1, you seem to have drifted off again. I hope from the above posts you'll understand why it's necessary for you to answer these questions - if you want to have any chance of convincing people here, you have to provide them with something more substantial than what you have provided so far.

Please, let us work together to try and give it to them.
 
Horatius said:
Please, let us work together to try and give it to them.
Click to expand...

I applaud your efforts; you have laudable patience.

However, in my view you are playing a game of cat and mouse with Ultima1 where both of you believe yourselves to be the cat. Its a lose-lose situation; you've accomplished nothing when you've bested a fool.

This thread will go on for 10 more pages... but in the end there will be nothing posted we haven't all seen before.
 
madurobob said:
I applaud your efforts; you have laudable patience.

However, in my view you are playing a game of cat and mouse with Ultima1 where both of you believe yourselves to be the cat. Its a lose-lose situation; you've accomplished nothing when you've bested a fool.

This thread will go on for 10 more pages... but in the end there will be nothing posted we haven't all seen before.
Click to expand...

...or there will be nothing posted at all.
 
AJM8125 said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2683248e9b69eef607.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Here's a question- why would ULTIMA1 block out his name on the "response to FOIA request" document, but not in any other document? On his "military training" document and on his "NSA training" document his name is clearly visible...

All the sudden within the last few months he decided to start removing his name from these documents after he already posted his name in others- and continues to link to those other documents?

I suspect that ULTIMA1 has used the identity of someone else for some of his documents.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Well if you read the letter is states my name (which i blocked out) the date of the request i made, and the information i requested.



Well for 1 i asked for very specific document, in fact the only Critic posted by NSA that day.

The letter verifys the specific document i requested was identified and will be processed.
Click to expand...
Well, for the record, I do not doubt your words when you say that you made such a request and that it is being processed. That is an entirely plausible claim.

What you claim about the content of that paper is what I doubt. The claim that such a paper exists is implausible, and the claim that they would disclose such a paper on request is absurd.

I therefore await your presenting the paper.

Hans
 
If there is a date for when the documents arrive it is pointless to speculate on their existence, when you can just wait until they arrive (or don't arrive).

However, it seems odd that a thread was started about receiving a document about United 93 being intercepted before the document arrived. I can understand the excitement of wanting to get information out as soon as possible, but on a forum populated by skeptics it would be prudent to wait until you have the actual proof you are claiming exists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom