NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

[ULTIMA1]

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.

I have shown 1 of several sites that verify the document does exist.

I have also shown the the NSA FOIA office also has verified the existance of the document.

I think 16.5 will be our saviour. When he posts his data, then we will see some real information.

Are you still going to say hthat when he post the same thing i do that contridicts the 9/11 commission report?

 

[ULTIMA1]

Do you expect us to believe Wayne Madsen's drool? You're going to have to do a LOT better than that.

I do believe when i have seen the document and it has been verified by the NSA FOIA office.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Oh for ****'s sake, I don't want what some nitwit truther says about it, I want the actual document.
.

I do believe when i have seen the document and it has been verified by the NSA FOIA office.

 

[ULTIMA1]

See you then.

I will be waiting by the benches.

 

[ULTIMA1]

The only thing left now is figuring out how ULTIMA1 will weasel out of this one. My guess is he'll attempt the "cloaking device:"

bring a camera (or camera phone).

No, I don't want to be charged for assaulting a minor.

And the only kind of salute I have for him involves one finger and an upward motion.

Just what i thought beleivers that will not accept even if we meet at NSA because of being very immature and still living in a childish fantasy world.

 

[T.A.M.]

Your day of reckoning is coming Ultima. Someone here, someone we trust, has asked for the identical document you have. When it arrives, and he posts it here, and it proves you are FOS, you will be shown for the shameless, attention seeking fraud we know you are.

I have a feeling we will not hear from you again after that day comes...hopefully shame will keep you away.

TAM

 

[ULTIMA1]

Your day of reckoning is coming Ultima. Someone here, someone we trust, has asked for the identical document you have. When it arrives, and he posts it here, and it proves you are FOS, you will be shown for the shameless, attention seeking fraud we know you are.

I have a feeling we will not hear from you again after that day comes...hopefully shame will keep you away.

The day of reckoning for you and your believer buddies is comming soon, when the information on the verified document (a document that would hold up in court) is what i stated it is and the NSA FOIA office and the internet, you have to finaly wake up from your fantasy world and face reallity.

 

[T.A.M.]

ok, lets wait and see then. Got anything more to add? I mean you have been sputtering the same thing here for weeks.

Lets wait and see, until then, it seems pointless to talk about it.

Let us know when you have your copy.

TAM

 

[ULTIMA1]

ok, lets wait and see then. Got anything more to add? I mean you have been sputtering the same thing here for weeks.

Lets wait and see, until then, it seems pointless to talk about it.

Let us know when you have your copy.

TAM

Sounds like you are getting scared that the document may be what i stated.

What are you going to do when the document is posted and is shows that a plane was intercepted (contridicting the 9/11 commission report)?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

gee you complain about me supposidly posted classidied infomration now you complain that i did not post any text. Please make up your mind.



But i have read the documnet and the NSA FOIA office verified its existance.



And you can go on showing how immature you are by not admitting i have proven the document does exist.



At the least it completly contridicts the 9/11 commission report that no fighters were near any of the planes on 9/11

Whole lot of nothing. I'm not the one who complained about him posting classified info; the most I've ever said about someone doing that is that they need to be aware of the protections under the Whistleblower act and left it at that. Proves that Ultima's reading comprehension is not up to task, otherwise he wouldn't be blaming me for that.

And Ultima: Who cares what you say about the document? I do not trust you. You have not established that you should be trusted. I don't care what sorts of answers you can give to questions about phone colors, or terminology used by the NSA. I care only about one thing: The contents of the doc. You can talk all you want about it, but anyone can claim anything about a document without actually showing it to people. So until you produce it, there's nothing to discuss about it.

Also note that I had been basing some of my posts on the assumption that what you say about this doc is correct. Even if it is, it's still of limited impact. You can say all you want about proving the 9/11 Commision Report wrong, but one single datapoint out of all the reams of evidence available - a tiny fraction of which we've given you links to - is hardly falsifying the whole report. And it's hardly changing the truth of the matter; regardless of what the 9/11 Commision Report says or might be wrong about, all the evidence that's available shows that FL93 was crashed by a hijacker. Not shot down by some other aircraft. Doesn't matter what this Critic doc says, the fact remains that all the other evidence clearly shows there was no shootdown.

----

Folks, note how he avoids the substantive parts of all of our previous posts. Not to toot my own horn, but:

First of all, you've provided no document to reference. All you do is claim its existence.

Second, you're not coming close to addressing the substance of the points I've raised. To repeat: Regardless of what this supposed document claims, the convergence of other lines of evidence is conclusive. The FDR unambiguously shows the jet was flown into the ground, and had suffered no interruptions or degradations of capabilities until the moment it hit the ground. This directly falsifies any claim of being hit by a missile. The CVR does not record any explosions prior to impact, and validates that the hijackers were the ones at the controls up to the point of impact. The wreckage pattern is inconsistent with a shootdown, but entirely consistent with a controlled flight into the ground. And so on. As I said, even if your document exists, and even if it's accurate, the most you can claim from it is that a jet in the area avoided radar coverage and, if it truly fired a missile, it failed to hit the jet. If anything else had happened, then the FDR, CVR, cell and airphone calls, and wreckage would have shown this.

The most you can claim is that there was another plane in the area, and that it had no effect on what UA93 did. That is the absolute, positive most you can claim. The evidence conclusively establishes that. There is no doubt about any of these other points. Your alleged document cannot change any of that.

Huh?? This is demonstrably untrue. I linked a pair of them myself a couple or three pages back.

• NTSB UA93 FDR report: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm
• NTSB UA93 flight path study: http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf
• US District Court (Eastern Dist. Virginia) transcript of the CVR, used in the Moussaoui trial: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/P200056T.pdf
• Somerset County Emergency Management Agency PowerPoint presentation of their efforts: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/SomersetCountyEmergencyManagementAge.pdf
• Dept. of Homeland Security report on the UA93 crash: http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/publications/sp/sp39/sept11book_ch3_grant.pdf

On top of that, there's the biggest report out of all of these, one that Ultima himself has referred to:

• 9-11 Commision Report: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/Index.html

This is not even an exhaustive list; they're only the ones I can get to quickly online at a moments notice.


Obviously I'm missing something here, but what in God's name did you mean by "no official reports have been released"? You yourself have referred extensively to one of them.

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.



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?



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.

Anyone see anything substantial in rebuttal from him regarding any of this? He's been told why this supposed Critic report is of limited impact. He's been told where to go read "official" reports. And he's been linked to primary and secondary sources of evidence regarding the fate of Flight 93 to peruse for himself. But look at what he chooses to respond to. What he's doing is the act of someone with no real rebuttal to give.

Again (for what, the 5th or 6th time now?): The most he can claim - if we go ahead and generously allow for this supposed Critic doc to actually exist - is for some other plane to be in the area. That changes nothing about the fact that it wasn't shot down; FDR, CVR, wreckage, airphone calls, witness statements, etc. all show that it wasn't. So presuming the doc exists and says what he says it does, what has all his hyperventilation here proven? That radar coverage missed a plane? Wow... some accomplishment.

Flight 93 Evidence Summary. It may not benefit Ultima because he has demonstrated that he's not willing to listen to facts or evidence. But for some of you readers out there, it may come in handy to rebut your own, personal Ultimas (and I feel bad for you if you have any to deal with).

 

[T.A.M.]

Sounds like you are getting scared that the document may be what i stated.

What are you going to do when the document is posted and is shows that a plane was intercepted (contridicting the 9/11 commission report)?

I will openly admit I was wrong, and as I told you, I will resign from JREF.

Will you call yourself an idiot, and a lying POS, when we get a copy of the report and it shows nothing of the sort?

TAM

 

[ULTIMA1]

And Ultima: Who cares what you say about the document? I do not trust you.

Well i do not care of you trust me or not but to be so immature that you will not even admit that the document has been verified by the NSA FOIA office just proves my point about you and other believers.

You can say all you want about proving the 9/11 Commision Report wrong, but one single datapoint out of all the reams of evidence available - a tiny fraction of which we've given you links to - is hardly falsifying the whole report.

If the 9/11 commission report is wrong about no fighters being in the area of the planes on 9/11 what else is it wrong about?

Why are you so afraid of finding the truth of what happened that day?

 

[ULTIMA1]

I will openly admit I was wrong, and as I told you, I will resign from JREF.

I will do the same if you can show (with proper evidence) that the document is wrong somehow.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I will do the same if you can show (with proper evidence) that the document is wrong.

That's a gimme. You need only reference Elmundo's post above.

Tata. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

 

[T.A.M.]

No, The agreement holds concerning the contents of the document and what they say, not whether they are wrong or right. If the contents of the document state that flight93 was intercepted, then you are right, and I will follow through on my pledge.

If the document DOES NOT state that flight93 was intercepted, then you must follow through.

TAM

 

[ULTIMA1]

No, The agreement holds concerning the contents of the document and what they say, not whether they are wrong or right. If the contents of the document state that flight93 was intercepted, then you are right, and I will follow through on my pledge.

If the document DOES NOT state that flight93 was intercepted, then you must follow through.

TAM

The document states that a plane was intercepted, what plane is not clear thats why i asked for more follow up reports. You have to also remember that Flight 1989 was considered to be a hijacked plane at first and that it was also confused for Flight 93 for a while.

But even so the document does contridict the 9/11 commission report that no fighters were near any of the planes on 9/11 which is the main point.

 

[T.A.M.]

That is not what you stated earlier. You stated you had proof that flight93 was intercepted. No moving the goalposts here I am afraid.

If you are now revising what your document will contain, then I will have to withdraw my pledge.

Still, I will be interested to see what in fact your document contains.

TAM

 

[TJM]

Just what i thought beleivers that will not accept even if we meet at NSA because of being very immature and still living in a childish fantasy world.

Hey spook boy. Learn how to read. You sound like you're already making excuses. Not thinking of backing out, are you? That's a punk move. You're not a punk now are you G-man?

 

[funk de fino]

That is not what you stated earlier. You stated you had proof that flight93 was intercepted. No moving the goalposts here I am afraid.

If you are now revising what your document will contain, then I will have to withdraw my pledge.

Still, I will be interested to see what in fact your document contains.

TAM

The liar has also said it shows 93 was shot down. He is very carefully avoiding any post which shows he has claimed this before. He has claimed he saw the doc so he cannpot weasel out now if it shows it was not 93 and was only an intercept of another plane that day.

His transcript is not what he says it is and he is clueless about USAF stuff as well. If he really was ex Phantom F4 he would never have mentioned guns as the possible weapon and would never confuse intercept with shoot down.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Again (for what, the 5th or 6th time now?): The most he can claim - if we go ahead and generously allow for this supposed Critic doc to actually exist - is for some other plane to be in the area.

You don't realize what kind of guy he is.

Reread some of his posts, and he says: "the 9/11 Comission report says that no planes were intercepted....... and that the plane was most likely shot down."

He never says that the Critic says that one of the hijacked planes were intercepted. Just that A plane was intercepted, and the 9/11 CR doesn't mention it.

And I'll make a prediction right here and say that he'll then claim that since they were wrong or lied about that, then that means that the unsubstantiated report of a plane coming back missing a missle must be true, and that means that they were covering up, and 93 was really shot down, irregardless of what all the other data says. He'll claim that it's all from the MSM, and it can't be trusted, and why don't you file FOIAs, and why don't you do your own investigations, etc...

In short, he's playing a weak game of gotcha by letting you guys make your own assumptions, and you're stepping right into the troll's trap.

You can't win with a guy like this. Over at ATS, he made a statement that an F-4 Phantom is mostly made of steel, and I called him on it. He had no proof of his statement, other than showing that it had SOME steel in it, which never was in question. But it didn't matter to him. The fact that there is some steel is good enough to continue making the claim.

This is what trolls do. Make outrageous claims that they can't back up, for no other reason than to get a rise out of you. Get used to it if you choose to engage him.