JoeyDonuts
Frequencies Not Known To Normals
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2008
- Messages
- 10,536
Wind rushing in the cockpit. That's rich. If UA93 had been fired upon, you'd hear a lot of other things too.
NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon
- Thread starter ULTIMA1
- Start date
- Status
This is old debunked junk; flashback to 2006!
Not the engine and part of the engine. It was fan part that was ejected; a part of the engine which was found hundreds of feet away from the impact zone; it happens, I have experience in aircraft impacts and have directed collection of parts from aircraft impacts like flight 93 where the plane hits as one piece then thousands of parts are ejected all over the place; usually on the trajectory of impact. Oops, I was trained to investigate crashes like you were trained to guard the gate at NSA. I was as good at it as you are good at getting awards for guarding the gate at NSA. Stick with gate guarding, your aircraft investigation abilities suck.
You are the one who ignores facts and evidence.
All the debris far away was only stuff that could go with the wind. The wind was blowing exactly the right speed and direction for the stuff to fly to other locations. You should pick ideas that are not debunked and you should stay away from skeptic forums where your failed ideas are going to be challenged as dirt dumb.
Air rushing past the fuselage? Have you heard the wind noise go up when the pilot is speeding low? You hear excessive wind noise on the fuselage when the plane is going faster. Flight 93 got up to 600 mph at impact; do you think you would hear the wind? I hear the wind in my truck when I go fast, and also in a big jet when I flew faster lower. Golly, you need to think before you post stupid stuff.
SONIC BOOM~! From the missile
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Over a thousand posts, and we still have no evidence that the document that's the subject of this discussion even exists. That's a serious win if ULTIMA1's trolling, and an epic fail if he's not. Do we actually get to see the document in the "NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon - continuation" thread, or will we have to wait for "NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon - further continuation"?
Dave
Dave
Actually, that would be "NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted 'comming' soon - continuation" and "NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted 'comming' soon - further continuation"? The old ULTIMA1 didn't have his Mozilla Firefox spellchecker.
Last edited:
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
RM
Why are you running away from this quote of yours?
Why are you running away from this quote of yours?
RM jr said:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Oh, my goodness. People, here is a glowing example of how dishonest conspiracy peddlers are. I provide information explaining how the point in contention came to be, but does Ultima even acknowledge this? No. So here's a reminder to him that I don't have data i.e. anything gathered by the people on site, but I do have facts and evidence supporting what I said:
... and he still hasn't provided anything other than unsupported doubt. Speaking of "no real facts or evidence", where's Ultima's? Note that he himself has continued to fail to provided any real "facts or evidence" to support his disbelief.
Recall that AE4184's debris was "strewn throughout a 3/4 mile area". And that plane was travelling slower than FL93 was when it hit.
Note how he uses that claim:
... insinuating that a jet came back without a missile, then backs away from the obvious conclusion to be drawn by its presentation later when arguments are applied casting doubt onto that claim. FL93 was shot down by a fighter's guns, then, or at least that's what Ultima's trying to claim now:
Unfortunately, the reasons a missile is contradicted are also the reasons a gun kill are contradicted: There's no evidence for it. Period. There was no indication on the FDR, which recorded no failures of systems. There was no indication on the CVR, which recorded no sounds of breakup or anything other than 1. An attempt to storm the cockpit, and 2. Hijackers talking to each other, and one muttering about Allah. A gun shootdown would put this alleged fighter much closer to UA93, yet none of the ground witnesses reported seeing any fighter. On top of all of that, the debris field, once again, indicates an impact, not a shootdown. Ultima makes objections, such as:
But he fails to provide any evidence of this. Fact of the matter is, the only places debris was reported was either witin a half mile radius of the crash itself, and some lightweight material such as paper and fabrics near Indian Lake, ~1 mile away. Human remains were found no further than an area of 70 acres surrounding the impact crater. All of this is entirely consistent with impact, not disintegration in midair.
My goodness... Ultima's reduced to quotemining in his rebuttals. How sad. And dishonest. The rest of us have provided quite a fair amount of links and facts and have made transparent our logic. Has Ultima done the same? No.
So again, let's recall the only piece of evidence that Ultima has presented:
One single FOIA request for one single document on one single fact. Even if his allegations stemming from this supposed doc were legitimate - and let's be honest: If they were, we would've gotten more than this silly runaround - then he hasn't established any of these other objections that he's brought up about the debris field, what was contained in the CVR, etc. He's established none of that. He couldn't. The only knowledge he claims to have is about another jet in the area. That's it. And it's in contradiction to all other evidence gathered to date, evidence Ultima has yet to acknowledge with anything substantial in response. No, the best he can do is selectively quote. And that should tell other readers just how solid his argument is.
There's nothing here. Ultima's got nothing. He's presented nothing, he's argued next to nothing, and he's even resorting to divorcing quotes from their context. There's nothing else left here to do. Until he presents real evidence, this thread is over. And has been for some time now.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Whatever (and whenever) I get anything from my FOIA, you can be damn sure I am starting a new thread, MODS be danged! smiley style face.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
I did.... I could not find anything. Kindly provide a link.
eta: I started looking last night, by the way.
How about giving me a little notice, i am not on all the time.
How about noon Friday, would that be good for you?
Well if looked at the infomration then you might know if it is or not.
Last edited:
Either show me actual reports showing what i ask for or be mature enough to admit you have no real evidence to support the official story.
I am not running away, i have shown several sources that the document does exist.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that the document contridicts the official story that no fighters were near any of the planes on 9/11?
Gee, it took me a whole 30 seconds to find the information. Kind of tells me that what i think about believers is very true.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_wayne_ma_080419_third_nsa_source_con.htm
Gavron
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 663
If this data (from the critic you requested the FOIA for) is available on the internet, why are you afraid to post a link here to back up your claims?
Show us this "official story" breaking info, Roger.
If this data (from the critic you requested the FOIA for) is available on the internet, why are you afraid to post a link here to back up your claims?
Show us this "official story" breaking info, Roger.
Gee you really keep proving my point about belivers, either you are really immature, really do not know how to look up information or are very afraid to admit when anything does not agree with what you beleive happend in your fantasy world.
If you would have just looked at the post above you would have seen a link.
Last edited:
Gavron
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 663
LOL!!
Yeah, that looks like a document verifying your story alright....NOT. There is no document verifying ANYTHING yet, just another "anonymous source" saying they have "seen" this fictitious document.
Too damn funny. Thanks for the good laugh
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I did! You are the primary source of a "piece of evidence" you can't provide. Please explain.
Gee you really do not know how to read do you?
If you could read i stated there is infomration about the documnet, not the document.
Please learn how to read before responding.
Gee you really keep proving my point about belivers, either you are really immature, really do not know how to look up information or are very afraid to admit when anything does not agree with what you beleive happend in your fantasy world.
Here is just one other source about the document that has been posted many times.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...source_con.htm
Last edited:
- Status