So your saying even if they intercepted the fighters calling in stating they had intercepted the plane you would not beleive it was intercepted?
No I wouldn't. Because it wasn't. All it would prove is the NSA intercepted a radio communication from someone claiming to be a fighter pilot that intercepted an airliner they claimed was UA93.
As I've already pointed out, radar evidence trumps radio communications. No fighters were in its vicinity at the time of its crash.
So you saying even though they listened to everything going on and had it on tape you would still not beleive it happened?
If the CVR data, FDR data, radar data, eyewitness reports, debris field, and all other evidence all indicated that KAL007 had not been shot down, no, the NSA intercepts would not convince me that it had been shot down.
However, in
conjunction with CVR data, FDR data, radar data, eye witness reports, Russian-released radio communications, and forensic examination of wreckage, the NSA intercepts support the fact that KAL007 was shot down.
You seem incapable of grasping this very basic fact. You determine what happened by assessing all of the evidence
collectively and deciding on the sequence of events that best fits
all of the evidence. It is not a case of selecting whatever arbitrary piece of evidence you like, and then ignoring every other piece of evidence that refutes it.
Simply put, the following evidence indicates UA93 was not intercepted or shot down, but that a passenger revolt forced the hijackers to crash the aircraft into the ground:
1) FDR
2) CVR
3) Debris field
4) Radar Data
5) ATC/FAA Recordings and records
6) NORAD recordings and records
7) Witness testimony
8) Passenger phone calls
9) USSS testimony and records
10) USAF testimony and records
These, collectively, provide a preponderance of evidence in support of the "official" account. The NSA CRITIC you describe, assuming it indeed says what you claim it says, would not undermine this collection of evidence.
