NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
ULTIMA1 said:
But this is the part of the passage you ignored as usual.
Click to expand...

Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial.
Click to expand...

An al Qaeda operative, with all they know about air defense on 9/11 and CRITIC reports, said "the fourth plane" was "shot down." You would use terrorist error or worse, terrorist propaganda, as evidence just because the quote was repeated in a courtroom while you dismiss actual direct photographs, hundreds of them, used in the Moussaoui trial, because what, they didn't tell you the camera models and type of film used?

There is no actual evidence for a shoot down, not that you can find or anywhere. There IS evidence against it, if you care to look.

"Ultima1" why do you refuse to stop and think about what you are saying ever? You are a hoaxer, plain and simple. Credibility deficit insurmountable, even to an optimist like me. game over. Ignore. I don't even want to see your stupid document now if you ever get it.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Are you going to press chagres against the media group Reuters for talking about the same document i am?
Click to expand...

Horatius said:
Could you link us to where this was discussed?
Click to expand...

ULTIMA1 said:
Here is Reuters quote and the Online Journal quote.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_3568.shtml
According to a Reuters report from the courtroom, Stone stated: “If they hadn’t shot down the fourth plane it would’ve hit the dome.”

On October 29, 2007, WMR reported: “According to U.S. intelligence sources, the archives of the National Security Agency (NSA), available to cleared users via the INTELINK network, contains an archive of Flash precedence and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) NSA intelligence messages known as ‘CRITICs.’

One such CRITIC from September 11, 2001, which includes a number of follow-on intelligence reports, concerns United Airlines flight 93, downed over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the CRITIC is at odds with the official account of the fate of United 93, which is that passengers and crew attacked the hijackers and forced the plane to crash into the ground.
Click to expand...


That isn't a Reuters' report that "discusses the same document" you are. The only discussion of such a document appears to be from this Wayne Marsden person, with no indication that it has anything to do with Reuters.

Indeed, the only connection between the two is speculation on the part of Mr. Marsden:

According to a Reuters report from the courtroom, Stone stated: “If they hadn’t shot down the fourth plane it would’ve hit the dome.”

The reference was to United 93, which crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Chief prosecutor Colonel Lawrence Morris later said that Stone was merely quoting Hamdan, however, Morris would not even concede that the “dome” reference was to the U.S. Capitol building.

Whether or not Stone was himself referring to the shoot-down of United 93 or whether he was quoting Hamdan, who was, in turn, quoting either Bin Laden or Zawahiri is immaterial. The shoot-down of United 93 is backed up by evidence in U.S. intelligence files, including those found in the super-classified CRITIC database maintained by the National Security Agency (NSA). There is little doubt that the prosecutors in Guantanamo had some form of access to CRITIC and other intelligence in preparing their case against Guantanamo detainees like Hamdan.
Click to expand...


There is nothing here to indicate that Reuters has ever discussed or endorsed the suggestion that a CRITIC document as described exists.
 
Last edited:
You are exactly right, Horatius.

I think he "wants" it to say it refers to thr CRITIC....but when it comes to evidence, once again he falls short.
 
I wonder what is going to happen when he finally sees this document and it does not say that 93 was intercepted.

Claim that it wasn't the same document that he supposedly read, that they must have changed it because of his request?

Try to fake a document saying what he wants it to say, which will probably be easily caught?

Go crazy and never post here or anywhere else on the subject again?
 
Right...so how many more days until this document(s) show up?

I'm making a personal race to see if our company can build the CH-53K faster than this document takes to arrive.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Its going to be so funny to see you try to come up with a excuse and try to backpeddle when i show documents that you cannot debate and would hold up in court.

Just for once in your life stop living in a fantasy world.
Click to expand...
vader_irony.jpg
 
Zipster said:
Right...so how many more days until this document(s) show up?

I'm making a personal race to see if our company can build the CH-53K faster than this document takes to arrive.
Click to expand...

This has been a curious thread.

I posted yesterday that I had personally spoken to the FOIA coordinator at NSA.

She confirmed that they had received the FOIA request.

As of yesterday it was still in the queue, and had not been assigned a handler.

I have diaried this matter for next week to follow up.
 
16.5 said:
This has been a curious thread.......snip......I have diaried this matter for next week to follow up.
Click to expand...


Right. Why don't we all voluntary leave this thread in limbo until the "document" is posted? (This post doesn't count). Starting......................... NOW!
 
Wait, does that include me... cause I still want my questions answered. I think ULTIMA1 is stalling while he googles it.
 
TexasJack said:
How about it? Why don't you persuade one of your co-workers laughing at us to join? It would give you a little bit of credibilty.
Click to expand...

I do not need credibility. The facts and evidence i post speaks for itself.

Its the believers that really need help with credibility.
 
as stated before. you are not arguing facts. you are not offering up evidence. its been asked of you several times to post the ACTUAL FOIA request. THE letter you received says nothing that you claim.

Please provide this request. other than you've been shown to be nothing but a liar.
 
Arus808 said:
Please provide this request. other than you've been shown to be nothing but a liar.
Click to expand...

I have already provided the FOIA request several times. Why are you lying?

But just to prove that i am right and you are lying, here is the FOIA request.

Please grow up and stop the lies.

FOIA request‏
From:
Sent: Sat 8/16/08 11:08 PM
To: foianet@nsa.gov

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authority for collecting information requested is contained in 5 U.S.C. § 552a and 5 U.S.C. § 552. NSA's Blanket Routine Uses found at 58 Fed. Reg. 10,531 (1993) as well as the specific uses found in GNSA02, GNSA03, and GNSA10 apply to this information. Authority for requesting your Social Security Number (SSN) is Executive Order 9397. The requested information will be used to assist the Agency in locating and disseminating the applicable records to the requestor. The disclosure of the requested information, to include your SSN, is voluntary. However, failure to provide the requested information may delay the processing of your request.


Full name:

Company/Organization: NSA

Address
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Country:

Home Phone:

Work Phone:

Description of the records you seek: I would like to get a declassified copy of the CRITIC messages and any follow up reports from September 11, 2001 of the interception of Flight 93.
 
Deleted. I really have nothing more at all to say to this person. He is at best a very irresponsible analyst and at worst an identity thief.
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
I do not need credibility. The facts and evidence i post speaks for itself.

Its the believers that really need help with credibility.
Click to expand...

If this were even remotely true, you would have no problem verifying the information you have already provided by answering the questions which would go a long way to confirming your identity. Plus, you wouldn't need to do all this nonsense about "it's coming! it's coming!"- you would have just posted the document, or at least provided details.

You have clearly just taken the words from the article you posted earlier, invented some story about being an NSA agent and seeing this "top secret" document, and now you're desperately trying to backtrack and keep up with your own lies at the same time.

You're a fraud and a liar.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
I do not need credibility.]
Click to expand...

Oh contraire. You *do* need credibility because nothing you have stated in this thread or anywhere else has been a) true or b) accurate or 3) worth a bucket of warm spit.

Still, that is one hilarious statement - "I don't NEED credibility! I am so far out there already it wouldn't matter!"
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom