NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Busy little truther here...

ULTIMA1 said:
You have no actual facts, evidence, or report that states that engine core would be consistant being detached upon impact.
Click to expand...

Is this a clumsily phrased way of saying I don't have any data establishing why the engine is 300 yards away? That's right. I don't. I have simple logic, plus the example of American Eagle 4184 to guide me. The debris field is consistent with at least that one other example of a plane impacting the ground. If you want to do some work researching other possibilities, use the NTSB database I linked you to discover other crashes, and then look for information about their debris scattering.

Fact of the matter is that it's consistent. You have failed to provide anything other than unsupported doubt that it's not.

ULTIMA1 said:
You do know there is more then just missiles on a fighter right? You do know fighters also carry guns?
Click to expand...

Ahhh... so not only was your earlier report of a jet returning "without a missile" is irrelevant, right? A potential mistake? Or merely someone hypothesizing, or perphaps passing along incorrect information?

Sure, it's possible for a jet to be shot down by cannon fire. But this speaks towards convergence of evidence: If it was, why did the FDR not indicate this? And why was the heavy debris located where it was instead of miles away? Contrary to your belief, the impact site was entirely consistent with a ground impact, and absolutely contradictory to a plane losing parts in midair.

Which part of your document speaks towards this?

ULTIMA1 said:
You also must know that the CVR captured sound of rushing air in the cockpit right?
Click to expand...

(*Shrugs*). It also recorded the hijacker's final statements (the obvious one: "Allah is the Greatest" repeated over and over). What is missing is the sound of any impact, explosion, or disintegration. Which is the important part.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Lets just look at some simple facts.

Fact 1. The 9/11 commission report states that no fighters were near any of the planes on 9/11.

Fact 2. As yet to be presented...
Click to expand...

To everyone:
"Why doesn't he just post this document?"
To Ultima:
"Why don't you just post the document?"
 
mark4mark said:
To everyone:
"Why doesn't he just post this document?"
To Ultima:
"Why don't you just post the document?"
Click to expand...

To mark4mark ;):D: Doesn't matter what he does. As said before, the convergence of evidence from the FDR and CVR, including the witness and victim testimony, up to the wreckage recovery, all indicate a jet that was crashed, not one that had been shot down. If Ultima's right - a big if - then it doesn't change anything significant, because all the other evidence establishes that FL93 was not shot down.

All he can do is place a jet nearby. That's it. Anything else is stretching beyond the scope of the document as he's laid it out in the first pages, and that's even presuming the doc exists at all, let alone is accurate.
 
Hey ULTIMA - Since you've already read this document, and have vouched for its veracity multiple times, you should have no problem answering this - well, since you have a head for details and all.

What squadron was the fighter attached to? What kind of plane was it? What was its call sign? What weapon was used to down the airliner? Was it a BVR engagement? Who was controlling and vectoring the fighter aircraft?

Please note. If you claim NEADS was in control if it, there's a very honorable man by the name of Nasypany that will want to rearrange your facial features.
 
JoeyDonuts said:
What weapon was used to down the airliner?
Click to expand...

Well, he already noted that he never claimed it was a missile, and took me to task by explaining that military jet have guns, so that narrows that part down.

Unless he starts denying that part... in which case, you either have unguided rockets, one hell of a skillful and lucky hit with a bomb (yes, that is of course a joke), or a "Fox 4" (and you will know what that is).

Meh... he gets himself handed to him whenever he gets specific. I'm going to bet he'll dodge your questions.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Well, he already noted that he never claimed it was a missile, and took me to task by explaining that military jet have guns, so that narrows that part down.

Unless he starts denying that part... in which case, you either have unguided rockets, one hell of a skillful and lucky hit with a bomb (yes, that is of course a joke), or a "Fox 4" (and you will know what that is).

Meh... he gets himself handed to him whenever he gets specific. I'm going to bet he'll dodge your questions.
Click to expand...
The problem with the gun claim is all those shell casings that would have littered the landscape and the spent projectiles that could have still caused damage to something. Funny how there are no reports of those.
 
lapman said:
The problem with the gun claim is all those shell casings that would have littered the landscape and the spent projectiles that could have still caused damage to something. Funny how there are no reports of those.
Click to expand...

Yes, true. Of course. It's contradicted by other things as well. But I don't cite it out of any sense of advocacy; rather, I merely point out the corner Ultima's painting himself into.

I for one am waiting for him to deny cannon usage, which leaves unguided rockets or bombs (*snort!*). Or a Fox 4. For comedy's sake, I'm really hoping he goes after that last!
 
ULTIMA1 said:
You have no actual facts, evidence, or report that states that engine core would be consistant being detached upon impact.
Click to expand...

You have nothing other than a letter that states there is a docuement(s) pertaining to your inquiry. No facts, no actual docuement or report to base you supposition that flt 93 was shot down. NONE!


You do know there is more then just missiles on a fighter right? You do know fighters also carry guns?

You also must know that the CVR captured sound of rushing air in the cockpit right?
Click to expand...


You of course have some empirical evidence or reports of such, to support the idea tat the aircraft was gunned down , such as the shells casings being found, the distictive sound of a fighter's guns being heard as a fighter passed nearby.........................?
 
mark4mark said:
To everyone:
"Why doesn't he just post this document?"
To Ultima:
"Why don't you just post the document?"
Click to expand...

Another reason for this: He doesn't have it yet.

He CLAIMS to have seen the classified version of it and has stated that it says there was a jet near one of the hijacked planes on 9/11(which incidentally is a MAJOR security violation, assuming he is who he says he is, since that indirectly discloses the contents of a CLASSIFIED document on the unclassified internet) and has filed a FOIA request for an unclassified version which he claims he will post here as soon as he has received it. 16.5, another poster on here, has verified independently that there is a FOIA request for the document in the queue and has mirrored the request so that we will receive it either way (i.e. if the document in question doesn't really say what Ultima says it does and doesn't post it, 16.5 will because it's also been requested by that poster).
 
Sabrina said:
Another reason for this: He doesn't have it yet.

He CLAIMS to have seen the classified version of it and has stated that it says there was a jet near one of the hijacked planes on 9/11(which incidentally is a MAJOR security violation, assuming he is who he says he is, since that indirectly discloses the contents of a CLASSIFIED document on the unclassified internet) and has filed a FOIA request for an unclassified version which he claims he will post here as soon as he has received it. 16.5, another poster on here, has verified independently that there is a FOIA request for the document in the queue and has mirrored the request so that we will receive it either way (i.e. if the document in question doesn't really say what Ultima says it does and doesn't post it, 16.5 will because it's also been requested by that poster).
Click to expand...

Ok, so we have someone here, someone who I trust, who will also get the document. Good.

I await the results. Until then, why is Ultima even posting about it?

TAM:)
 
Sabrina, you are correct. Divulging classified information on a public internet (referencing he has seen it, what it may contain, and will post it soon) is a definite security breach.

When 16.5 posts the true document, will ULTIMA1 cry foul and say they have covered it up, and are not releasing what he has seen? Guess we'll have to wait and see.

I'm still thinking mall cop...
 
Gavron said:
Sabrina, you are correct. Divulging classified information on a public internet (referencing he has seen it, what it may contain, and will post it soon) is a definite security breach.

When 16.5 posts the true document, will ULTIMA1 cry foul and say they have covered it up, and are not releasing what he has seen? Guess we'll have to wait and see.

I'm still thinking mall cop...
Click to expand...
Why no love for Paul Blart?
 
JimBenArm said:
Why no love for Paul Blart?
Click to expand...

The resemblance in that earlier picture is uncanny...

I'm just thinking nosy security guard, poking into things they shouldnt, then revealing what he has seen on public forums. Doesnt sounds like anything an true intelligent NSA analyst would do.

So, once again, mall cop sounds more likely :)
 
JimBenArm said:
Why no love for Paul Blart?
Click to expand...


Methinks you identify overmuch with his rotundness. ;):D

picture.php


Hey Mrs. JimBenArm! Is there any resemblence there?? :eek::D:p
 
all of yuo belivers cant counter the evidense i present so you muts attak me for my apearance.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Unless he starts denying that part... in which case, you either have unguided rockets, one hell of a skillful and lucky hit with a bomb (yes, that is of course a joke), or a "Fox 4" (and you will know what that is).
.
Click to expand...

If I remember right, there are only 3 'Fox' codes and they refer to the type of guidance used by the particular missile - either IR, Active Radar, or Semi-Active. I don't remember which is which, and I didn't dabble around in Air Alley long enough to commit the proword for an Air-Air guns engagement to memory.

That brings us to another point. If it had been a missile, there would have been fragmentary evidence of it. If it had been a guns kill, there would have been fragmentary evidence of it as well. We have RADAR data on UA93's location, and nothing in said data is indicative of UA93 being approached or fired upon by another aircraft.

Plus if it had been a gun kill, what was left of the 20mm slugs would have been relatively easy to locate if they had the right kind of sensing gear. DU or Tungsten.

This whole thing is the same as it ever was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom