NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
While you are back, care to answer these from previously?

Ultima1 said:
OK here it is again for the 100th time.

1981-1985 US Air Force, Crew Chief.

1986-1998 DoD, Police officer.

1998-pres. DoD, Analyst, also Fire/Safety officer for my organization.

OK, you said you were federal police officer but your NSA transcript shows you have been working for them since you left the AF. Were you military police?

Your transcript says nothing about your fire training either.
 
There is no overwhelming actual evidence for anything concerning the so called 9/11 official story.

Why do you keep spreading the lies?
Yes. speacilly when the you and the outher beleivers attack and insult poeple for no reason then they disagree with you.
 
1. Yes the phones are colored black and gray. The gray phone also has NSTS on it.
The phones are not that color, its a joke they make on the first day you start work "We call it the gray phone, but it is really _____. It hasn't been gray for like 20 years"

2. Top Secret.
Incorrect. (Well, technically it's incomplete; see below.)

3. Internal does not mean the same as secure. You should know this.
That is true, but I contend that most people would understand in this context that I ment the secure number. That you didn't understand that, though, is not an incorrect answer on it's own....

For making an internal phone call using the black phone you use the last 4 digits, so the answer was correct.
You are actually only party correct. I don't want to go into too much detail, but due to the size of the phone system the 4-digit extension only works sometimes, and longer extensions must be used other times.

But I already clarified that I was speaking about "secure" phone numbers and not "internal" phone numbers as you are calling them. You have still dodged the original question, which was to provide an internal phone number (and a subsequent clarification to provide a "secure" number). You have (on other forums) provided a work phone number (if I remember correctly it pointed to the museum or something) so I'm curious why you're unwilling to provide a number now. Obviously you have no qualms giving away your phone number on random forums, and one might even think that the phone numbers I asked for are not reachable by just anyone. (Whether or not that is true is left as an exercise for the reader, see below.)

4. You should be using Searchlight to look me up.
Semantics. The funny part here is, I can't actually say whether or not I looked you up and whether or not you were in there. To do so would be a tacit admission that I have access to that information, which is a no-no. So far everything I have provided is just general knowledge. Most of it, obviously, can be located relatively easily on google.

I will throw in one more fun question though: What clearances do you currently possess (be specific, list compartments)?

I think the answer to "#1" and especially "new #2" show very clearly you are not whom you claim to be. Obviously you have a good source of information, as others have mused I'm going to guess you know someone who does work there. The trick is, you must ask them these questions and then give us their responses. But since that person probably doesn't need to exercise their ego in "proving" to you where they work, their answers are "summaries" of the actual information.

Someone who sits in front of a computer monitor with a sometimes annoying banner on the top of the screen for 8 hours at a time every day would have no trouble instantly typing the complete content of that banner upon request. But someone who was asked casually what the banner says would probably not give the entire test string.

Unfortunately, I think I will be unable to carry on this conversation too much longer. I've already overstepped by saying anything at all, but your claims peaked my interest. I'll tell you why, actually, it's because your information comes so close to being correct, but it is that last inch that makes all the difference.

Sorry to the friendly others, but I think for the same reason you won't see me post much/anything on these boards.
 
Or ULTIMA1 has not actually seen the document he's claiming exists and filed a FOIA for. He has yet to produce anything resembling evidence that induces reasonable doubt in the official account of UA93's fate that would open the door, even a crack, to the possibility of there being a CRITIC intercept that UA93 was shot down.

I suspect his entire position is based on information from various press sources. I am too lazy to dig up a primary source, but here's an ATS thread on the subject: (I can't post URLs so...) abovetopsecret.com slash forum slash thread379365 slash pg1

The quotes in that article support some of U1's assertions....
 
Originally Posted by ULTIMA1
For making an internal phone call using the black phone you use the last 4 digits, so the answer was correct.
You are actually only party correct. I don't want to go into too much detail, but due to the size of the phone system the 4-digit extension only works sometimes, and longer extensions must be used other times.

The real crying shame here is that this is actually the case for many very large internal phone systems and it points out that not only does U1 not work at the NSA but that he also does not work for a large corp with its own internal telephone system.

In the case of the co. I work for if I wish to call someone in my own geographic area (spanning 650 miles east to west) all I need is the last 4 digits, but if I wish to call a person in another region I need two more digits. None of these calls results in a long distance charge as the company owns its own fiber optic network and thus the entire country is covered by what is essentially one large internal phone pbx system.
 
What's really funny is that when I posted that, I didn't even notice the thread was by U1 himself. The link/quotes within are still valid though. He didn't fantasize the entire thing.

I saw that. I figured your point was that he had swallowed a story hook line and sinker with nothing but the author's word to go by.

Anyone can claim any docuement exists. Only a fool would believe the tale when no primary evidence backs it up.

One wonders how many bridges U1 'owns'.
 
Anyone can claim any docuement exists. Only a fool would believe the tale when no primary evidence backs it up.

Well, here is my primary evidence which is "no evidence" for the official story (or at least part of it anyways).

OTIS Stuff

I showed you my "no evidence" Ultima, now show me yours.
 
Last edited:
An you unable to post any facts and evidence make you a joke.

:wackylaugh:

UNO_Supremo_01.jpg
 
Last edited:
WARNING::: When reading the following, hold onto the arm rests of your seat and if you get dizzy look away from the screen until the feeling passes.

U1's hold up is the fact that he believed the story about there being a CRITIC docuement without actually seeing the CRITIC docuement and he now has to wait for the FOIA release which, he is sure,(warning ,, dizzying spiral ahead) will show the orginal report he read online to be true. Of course if he does not receive such a CRITIC doc then it will not be because it never existed it will be due to high level interference and the continued lack of evidence for the existance of said docuement will be seen as evidence that it exists. This will in turn bolster the original online report of its existance.
 
WARNING::: When reading the following, hold onto the arm rests of your seat and if you get dizzy look away from the screen until the feeling passes.

U1's hold up is the fact that he believed the story about there being a CRITIC docuement without actually seeing the CRITIC docuement and he now has to wait for the FOIA release which, he is sure,(warning ,, dizzying spiral ahead) will show the orginal report he read online to be true. Of course if he does not receive such a CRITIC doc then it will not be because it never existed it will be due to high level interference and the continued lack of evidence for the existance of said docuement will be seen as evidence that it exists. This will in turn bolster the original online report of its existance.

Yes, but he said there was "no evidence" for the official story. In just a few short days, I've managed to find a wealth of NEW evidence and post it which supports the official story. And as I write this, I am prepping the the NORFOLK Tracon stuff (Langley fighter response). It just seems a strange assertion that there is "no evidence" for the official story when he can't even post one little document that contridicts the official story.
 
Wayne Madsen is the one that started this crap. Ultima/Roger drank it up. Wayne Madsen was arrested on St. Patricks day for being drunk while meeting with an "informant." Hmm..in a bar, on St. PAddy's day, meeting an informant, getting plastered? Yeah Roger... this guy is the real deal.
 
Wayne Madsen is the one that started this crap. Ultima/Roger drank it up. Wayne Madsen was arrested on St. Patricks day for being drunk while meeting with an "informant." Hmm..in a bar, on St. PAddy's day, meeting an informant, getting plastered? Yeah Roger... this guy is the real deal.

That is hilarious! He was meeting with a confidential informant, who is now easily identifiable through public records!

"You can't arrest him, he is a confidential informant giving me top secret details about secret stuff!!"

Needless to say, he is taking up a collection for his attorney fees...

what a maroon.
 
Wayne Madsen is the one that started this crap. Ultima/Roger drank it up.

Yeah, I asked Ultima about this back in October, never responded.
This is the Madsen article.
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3568.shtml
“The third confirmation, as were the first two, is from a National Security Agency (NSA) source. In fact, a number of personnel who were on watch at the Meade Operations Center (MOC), which is a floor below the NSA’s National Security Operations Center (NSOC), were aware that United 93 was brought down by an Air Force air-to-air missile. Personnel within both the MOC and NSOC have reported the doomed aircraft was shot down.”
 
In fact, a number of personnel who were on watch at the Meade Operations Center (MOC), which is a floor below the NSA’s National Security Operations Center (NSOC)...
This is by far my favorite quote, actually. As if being one floor down from something completely different automatically makes you important. You know what, the cafeteria is also on the same floor as NSOC. Tonight at eleven: Cafeteria worker spills all about "secret" government cover ups!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom