NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
ULTIMA1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you think I've been doing for the past umpteen pages, Ultima? Those links don't go to nowhere.

ETA: You know, this is rich. Ultima's been given links to many primary sources, and many other secondary ones that have not only directly interviewed primary sources or perused primary information. Ultima on the other hand has not only provided the text of the document in question, but as "proof" of it's existence, links to conspiracy peddling sites to butress his claim. When those sites provide no more support of his claims than his posts here do.

Reheat got it wrong: He overestimated your age by 6 years. Now, go back and look at the links I provided, and address that content. It's juvenile to refuse to address information directly provided for you.
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
What do you think I've been doing for the past umpteen pages, Ultima? Those links don't go to nowhere.
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard for believers just to admit they have no actual reports that support the official story.

Lets look at some hard facts about 9/11

1. There have been no official reports released from the NTSB on any of the hijackings on 9/11.

2. There have been no official crime scene reports released from the FBI or NTSB, in fact the FBI only worked the crime scene at the Pentagon for 5 days.

So if there have been on official reports released then the believers have no actual facts and evidence to support the official story.

There is however lots of facts and evidence that show reasonable doubt in the official story.

Ultima on the other hand has not only provided the text of the document in question, but as "proof" of it's existence, links to conspiracy peddling sites to butress his claim.
Click to expand...


How many times ycan you be wrong?

1. I did not provide text of the document.

2. I have shown the response from NSA that the document does exist. I cna give you the phone number to FOIA office to verify the document yourself.

3. I guess belivers are the only ones that can use conspiracy sites to try to back up thier fantasy of what happened.

4. If you and reheat had any basic common sense or bassic intelligence you would know my age from the documents i have provided but i guess we can figure out that you both have neither.
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
You cannot view this document unless you have access to a secure intranet. That is why i have filed a FOIA request to get an unclassified version to post on the internet.

But you can find information on the document from the following.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...source_con.htm
Click to expand...

As people have asked before, is this not a security breach to discuss that you have read a CLASSIFIED document and are now discussing it's contents in a public forum?

I would see that it would be ok to say that you have read information that a document exists, but to come to a public forum and state that you actually read it AND then discuss it's contents...

Uh oh.

What would your boss think about that?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Why is it so hard for believers just to admit they have no actual reports that support the official story.

Lets look at some hard facts about 9/11

1. There have been no official reports released from the NTSB on any of the hijackings on 9/11.
Click to expand...

False. Once again, you prove that you haven't read the substance of posts previously put to you. What do you think the NTSB flight path studies and FDR reports are?

Last time I do your work for you:
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

From here on out, look stuff up on your own.

ULTIMA1 said:
2. There have been no official crime scene reports released from the FBI or NTSB, in fact the FBI only worked the crime scene at the Pentagon for 5 days.
Click to expand...

The Pentagon is off topic, and outside the scope of your claimed document. You shouldn't be commenting on things you have no knowledge about.

Furthermore - False and misleading: Information gathered by the FBI was provided at the Moussaoui trial. That evidence can be perused here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

Instead of a report, you get the raw evidence itself. Who wants to bet that Ultima's next move will be to blow this off as not being summarized in a report?

ULTIMA1 said:
So if there have been on official reports released then the believers have no actual facts and evidence to support the official story.

There is however lots of facts and evidence that show reasonable doubt in the official story.
Click to expand...

False to both. I have provided a mere handful of links, all of which contain far more primary information than any of your posts do. Now, your turn. Provide real evidence, and not just proclaimations like you did in this post. Where is your primary evidence that, "no official reports" have been released? I'd like to see that source. And then ask you why you believe it when I have on more than one occasion provided direct links to the reports you say don't exist.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Why is it so hard for believers just to admit they have no actual reports that support the official story.

Lets look at some hard facts about 9/11

1. There have been no official reports released from the NTSB on any of the hijackings on 9/11.
Click to expand...
The NTSB does not investigate hijackings. However, they have released several documents that they created to help the FBI in their investigation. Those could be considered "official."
2. There have been no official crime scene reports released from the FBI or NTSB, in fact the FBI only worked the crime scene at the Pentagon for 5 days.
Click to expand...
NTSB does not do criminal investigations. The do accident investigations. There were no accidental crashes on 9/11. The FBI does not have to release any documents except by FOIA request. Please show the ones you have filed with the FBI and the answerers.

So if there have been on official reports released then the believers have no actual facts and evidence to support the official story.
Click to expand...
Since when is it a requirement to have "official" reports since there is a plethora of evidence already posted on the internet?
There is however lots of facts and evidence that show reasonable doubt in the official story.
Click to expand...
You have yet to post even one real "fact."
 
Gamolon said:
I would see that it would be ok to say that you have read information that a document exists, but to come to a public forum and state that you actually read it AND then discuss it's contents...

Uh oh.

What would your boss think about that?
Click to expand...


Gee more proof that people on here cannot read. The contents of the document has been shown on the internet.

So i am still waiting for an explanation of how this is a securuty breach.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
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
Click to expand...
Again you provide nothing (except proof of your poor reading comprehension)! As far as my "maturity" goes, would you like to see a copy of my AARP card?:p
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
Gee more proof that people on here cannot read. The contents of the document has been shown on the internet.

So i am still waiting for an explanation of how this is a securuty breach.
Click to expand...

This statement alone reveals that you have NO CLUE!

If you even have a Security Clearance of any kind you are one DUMB #%^@!

Furthermore, if you are a NSA analyst, I am the King of Egypt!

 
You did not display text yet you state (bolding mine):

ULTIMA1 said:
Well the document is real and would hold up in court.

It states that Flight 93 was intercepted, follow up reports suggest a fighter came back without a missile. Thats why i asked for follow up reports.
Click to expand...

If it's classified information, why are you telling people in a public forum about a classified document you read and what it says?

You don't see a problem with this?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
How many times ycan you be wrong?

1. I did not provide text of the document.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly my complaint. You did not provide the text of this supposed document. So how can you know what it contains if you haven't seen it?

Oh, right. You're trusting 3rd parties who themselves haven't revealed the text of the document. In other words, you're gullible. Thanks for the confirmation.

ULTIMA1 said:
2. I have shown the response from NSA that the document does exist. I cna give you the phone number to FOIA office to verify the document yourself.
Click to expand...

And you can go on showing us FOIA responses, but until the contents of the document are made clear, you're just blowing smoke.

Furthermore, as I pointed out before, who cares what the document says? At most, it places another jet in the area. At most. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but your document cannot contradict the FDR, CVR, witness testimony, and all the other evidence that has been gathered. Evidence you obviously have not taken the time to familiarize yourself with because you make critical mistakes when you refer to it.

ULTIMA1 said:
3. I guess belivers are the only ones that can use conspiracy sites to try to back up thier fantasy of what happened.
Click to expand...

This just doesn't make any sense. What is, for example, conspiratorial of the NTSB site I linked above?

ULTIMA1 said:
4. If you and reheat had any basic common sense or bassic intelligence you would know my age from the documents i have provided but i guess we can figure out that you both have neither.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you chose to rise to that bait. An offhand remark simply made to ridicule you, and you choose to respond to it. Okay, then. Start acting your age then, if you feel the need to prove it. Start behaving like an educated adult, start addressing evidence put directly towards you, quit blowing off specific, supported statements with unsupported ones of your own, and quit beating around the bush with that original document. Your own display of the FOIA request proves that you have no direct knowledge of the content of it, since you continually point to other sources which themselves do not directly reveal its content, but instead forward hearsay and innuendo regarding it.

In short, start debating like an adult. So far, you've failed to do this. Among other things you've failed to accomplish (such as: Prove your points).

-----

Again, this thread is done. Ultima's got nothing but vague allegations, run-arounds, unsupported statements, and vapor. This thread isn't alive; we're kicking a corpse here. There's nothing here, not that Ultima can give anyway.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Gee more proof that people on here cannot read. The contents of the document has been shown on the internet.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. All you have shown is an op ed website, with a story on it. No actual facts to base that story on...just "sources". No data, no document, no evidence.

Pretty weak sauce there, Roger.

I think 16.5 will be our saviour. When he posts his data, then we will see some real information.
 
Last edited:
Sparky said:
Do you expect us to believe Wayne Madsen's drool? You're going to have to do a LOT better than that.
Click to expand...



As it turns, out, even U1 doesn't believe Wayne Madsen's Drool, otherwise:


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.
Click to expand...


..why would he be distancing himself from the claim that United 93 was shot down specifically by a missile?

So, U1, will you stand by the missile assertion, or admit that, in at least this one instance, your source is completely wrong?
 
Yeah, funny how that missile didn't show up on radar nor did any of the other pilots in the area report seeing a missile smoke trail. How do you reconcile that, Ultima1?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom