NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
ULTIMA1 said:
I have shown evidence of the documet and the FOIA request.

Its not my fault if you refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...

He isn't questioning that you have a FOIA request. Anyone can do that. It's the claims of the document that you have NOT shown that he is referring to. And until you actually have a document that proves your claim, it is not valid evidence. It's merely you making a claim.

And we all know where this is going because this happens all the time. It's eventually going to turn out to be you twisting the truth into something it's not. how exactly that will pan out we will have to wait and see. Probably a reference to the civilian plane, or simply an attempt to intercept the plane, which is what they said they did.

Until then, continue to milk a claim you cannot back until we get to that point, but don't expect others to rely on vapor evidence.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
He isn't questioning that you have a FOIA request. Anyone can do that. It's the claims of the document that you have NOT shown that he is referring to. .
Click to expand...

The response from NSA shows that the document is real and is being sent to me.
 
Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless
He isn't questioning that you have a FOIA request. Anyone can do that. It's the claims of the document that you have NOT shown that he is referring to. .
Click to expand...



ULTIMA1 said:
The response from NSA shows that the document is real and is being sent to me.
Click to expand...


If only the towers and the Pentagon had been constructed from the same material as some skulls around here....
 
I am going WAY out on a limb here:

There is NOT a document stating an aircraft from the U.S. Military intercepted Flight 93. No fighter jet made visual contact in flight. No airborne weapon system ever locked on 93.

Ivan.................
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Yes, i do not know why people will not accept the fact that the document has been proven real and has been shown what it states.
Click to expand...

Let me see if I can explain. In all likelihood, most of the posters here would probably agree that the NSA believes it has a document which is relevant to the request you made in your FOIA request.

Largely, this is due to someone else making a similar FOIA request and getting a response that seems to indicate there is something meeting those criteria.

A document's mere existence does not prove that its as-yet-unseen content supports your position.

I suspect that it does not support your position. I have two reasons for this.

The first is that an intercept, perhaps even an engagement and shootdown would not have been such a terrible thing for the government to admit. It's a terrible tragedy, certainly. It is that, regardless of the circumstances. An intercept, even if too late to prevent or hasten the crash, would have shown that at least something in our defenses was working properly.

The second is that a vast government conspiracy, willing to kill thousands for what amounts to little more than a public relations stunt, seems unlikely to release self-incriminating evidence -- twice -- simply because the FOIA requests were filled out properly.

Likewise it seems unlikely that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy would go to the trouble of faking one document while sending the correct data on the other.

You should probably bear in mind when you receive the document that someone else will be receiving a copy, too.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Yes, i do not know why people will not accept the fact that the document has been proven real and has been shown what it states.
Click to expand...

A docuement exists.

You do not know what is contained in that doc so it can hardly be stated that you know what it contains.
As stated, people here are not questioning that you submitted a FOIA request and that you have been told that you will be receiving something as a result.

Now perhaps you'd answer my question about whether or not, in the event that a shootdown is proven, that you in particular would abandon the idea that the crash site was faked.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
The response from NSA shows that the document is real and is being sent to me.
Click to expand...

No it proves *A* document is real. What is contained on that document is not. You're making claims about the contents of the document based soley on a FIOA request. That's the issue here. Until you get a document sayings what you are claiming, it does not exist.

Anyone can file a request and get a response that a document is being sent. You could just as easily file a request for a document at NASA and claim it's contents say the moon is made of cheese. Simply them reponding that a document being sent does not mean they are sending a document showing the moon is made of cheese.

Why is this point so difficult to get across? It really shows the level of logic when dealing with conspiracy cults.
 
jaydeehess said:
A docuement exists.

You do not know what is contained in that doc so it can hardly be stated that you know what it contains.
As stated, people here are not questioning that you submitted a FOIA request and that you have been told that you will be receiving something as a result.

Now perhaps you'd answer my question about whether or not, in the event that a shootdown is proven, that you in particular would abandon the idea that the crash site was faked.
Click to expand...




And considering that he posted the original post in this thread almost two months ago, people must begin to wonder why he has yet to actually show any documents that he has received. How long was it expected to take to get these alleged documents?
 
TjW said:
A document's mere existence does not prove that its as-yet-unseen content supports your position.
Click to expand...

But i have seen the content, thats why i asked for the specific document. NSA response was that they had the specific document i asked for.


The first is that an intercept, perhaps even an engagement and shootdown would not have been such a terrible thing for the government to admit. [/quote]

But the point i am making with the document is that it proves the official story wrong.
 
A document exists covering the topic. But that doesn't mean the document says there was an intercept. It could mean that it simply documents how they were unable to intercept the plane. We all know they tried, so obviously there is going to be documentation about the intercept attempts.

To make a claim about what the document actually says is conjecture and speculation. To then use speculation as an argument is not honest.

So far there is no document presented in this thread that proves the official story wrong. All we have is YOU making a claim of that. So far you have not provided any evidence of such, and the request paper is not evidence of your claim.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
But i have seen the content, thats why i asked for the specific document. NSA response was that they had the specific document i asked for.
<snippage by TjW>
Click to expand...

Yes. I think everyone will acknowledge that this is what you have said.
There are two problems for me:

I can not independently verify that you have, in fact, seen the document.

Even assuming that you have seen the document, your judgement as demonstrated on this forum does not incline me to accept your interpretation without having seen the document myself.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
But i have seen the content, thats why i asked for the specific document.
Click to expand...

No Roger, you haven't. You started a thread at ATS back in August stating that flight 93 was shot down. You linked to a bogus news article written by loon Wayne Madison who in the article, uses himself as his source. If you go to his original article, nowhere does he list where he obtained his information. The CRITIC that you are referring to does not exist.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread379365/pg1

Nowhere in that several page thread do you claim to have read it, only that you know it exists because you claim this:

Ultima said:
I know the document exists becasue[sic] I have access to Intelink.
Click to expand...

Yet, in another thread at ATS you claim this:


Ultima1 said:
Yes as a matter of fact i do have the classified version at work, i was talking about taking it to court. You might want to work on your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

See where I am going with this Roger?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
But i have seen the content, thats why i asked for the specific document. NSA response was that they had the specific document i asked for.


The first is that an intercept, perhaps even an engagement and shootdown would not have been such a terrible thing for the government to admit.
Click to expand...

But the point i am making with the document is that it proves the official story wrong.
Click to expand...

IF it states an intercept was accomplished and that visual contact was made it would contradict the official statements that such was not the case.

If a shootdown is proven it would contradict another aspect.

However, nothing more could be determined. If visual was made but no shootdown then you have gained nothing particularily spectacular. You cannot use that information to back a Pentagon flyover for instance. Yet I believe that you would try.

If a shootdown is proven then it would most certainly cancel all conspiracies concerning a faked UA93 crash site.

On the other hand you are assuming that an intercept was accomplished and visual contact made before you even see the doc in question.
All other information suggests otherwise so for my part I will be very surprised indeed if such is contained in the docuement.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Here is a letter from the NSA FOIA office that they have the NSA "Critic" that i asked for that states that Flight 93 was intercepted.

This contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/FLI93-2.jpg?t=1222974166
Click to expand...

It's possible that you misunderstand, almost everything you encounter. With that said, and keeping it in mind;

There could be thousands of documents related to an effort, or lack of an effort to intercept 93. This could be everything from conversation logs debating what to do, to reports filed by every military pilot in the air that day, every communication between the FAA and any military person where the words "Flight 93" were used.

There could be hundreds of documents having to do with the airline and there responses to questions from the government. Man, there's a huge list of possibilities..

Somehow though, you think you've won the Lotto. Because the government responded to you about your request, and has said {Maybe} that the phrase "Flight 93" may have been written or said by someone in the U.S. military, you think this proves the "official" story, wrong..

I'm in a rare state. I don't quite no what to say.. I'm frightened.

Ivan..............................
 
Seymour Butz said:
You're wasting your time with this woowoo maniac. This is the dude that during a comparison of planes hitting concrete buildings (Pentagon ) he made the statement that the video of the F-4 hitting the nuclear containment thing was invalid because THE F-4 IS MOSTLY MADE OF STEEL. He's an insane liar.

He'll do this: construct a non-sequitor argument that HE says proves that 93 was intercepted and most likely shot down. But when everyone points out that his argument requires a huge leap to get where he wants it to be, he won't answer straight.

Rather, he'll then start with posts like "why are you afraid of the truth", and "why do you believe everything the media tells you", etc... all the while avoiding any response as to WHY his argument isn't a non-sequitor.
Click to expand...

Can I put in for collecting Randi's Million Dollar Challenge?
 
beachnut said:
What is the definition of soon?
Click to expand...

At the rate ULTIMA's getting suspended (really, again after only a few days???), soon will probably be some time next year. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Good thing we have 16.5's request to fall back on. I trust him to post the document (if it ever arrives) in its entirety and not cherry pick parts out of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom