NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

[No Such Agency]

I was there. I hung out for about 10 minutes in front of the VCC and didn't see him. Asked a few old guys in the smoking area who roughly match the grainy photos.... no sign of a Roger.

Kind of feels like looking for big foot... you've got these grainy photos of a guy most people are sure doesn't actually exist.

Anyways I don't really see a way to resolve this issue. ULTIMA1 refuses to answer my questions. I'm not going to give up personally identifiable information to him. So that basically makes this a stalemate, right? He could have been there right before or after I left... or maybe he was never there. Or hell, maybe I was never there.... It's he said she said at this point.

I hate childish games. *sigh*

 

[ULTIMA1]

You drove back home? I doubt it. No photos with a paper under the flag pole to pove your claim? No evidence?

Well if you knew anything at all (which it is very clear you do not) then you would that cameras are not allowed near NSA buildings.

The official story, as in reality,

If the official story is reallity you should have no problem showing the reports i have been asking for.

Why can't you show 1 official report to back up the official story. Maybe its becasue they have not been released yet?

 

[ULTIMA1]

I was there. I hung out for about 10 minutes in front of the VCC and didn't see him.

I was sitting in front of the flag pole on the bench from 11:30 till 12:10.

Why do you have to lie? I have answered your questions.

How about being mature enough to answer the following.

1. Is there a gray line (secure) and a black line (non-secure), YES or NO?

2. Does the line on top of the compter screen show clasiification, YES or NO?

3. What does FANX stand for and name the buildings.

 

[TJM]

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:"

NSA: Well surprise surprise, he was a no-show.

ULTIMA1: I was there. Why can't you be mature enough to admit you are afraid of me?

Or a variant. Count on it.

 

[beachnut]

Well if you knew anything at all (which it is very clear you do not) then you would that cameras are not allowed near NSA buildings.





If the official story is reallity you should have no problem showing the reports i have been asking for.

Why can't you show 1 official report to back up the official story. Maybe its becasue they have not been released yet?

You must be old like me all the kids have cell phones with cameras, so you are the one who lack knowledge and camera can be used all over with no one able to know. So you could if you wanted prove your story of being all wet today. So you have an old cell phone with no camera, you should have daughters like me who give you a cell with a camera and you could support your new story of sitting in the rain.

Official what. 19 terrorists killed 8 pilots and flew 4 planes attempting to hit four buildings. A complex plot for a gate guard to grasp, but reality just the same. Unlike your delusional intercept of Flight 93 and you trying so hard to imply 93 was shot down. Failure is all yours as you don't even have a story on how 911 was done after it was laid out in evidence. Lucky you are not an analyst; you would be fired for lack of knowledge.

What is your story now?

 

[madurobob]

I was there. I hung out for about 10 minutes in front of the VCC and didn't see him. Asked a few old guys in the smoking area who roughly match the grainy photos.... no sign of a Roger.

For a couple of NSA spooks you two are really quite bad at arranging a meeting.

You have to have something identifiable to go on. One wears a hat, one leans against the flag pole flipping a quarter into the air and catching it. Something, anything, to identify them from the others.

Just saying "I'll meet you at the flagpole at noon" is not the way to get this done. Have you never had to pick someone up at the airport you didn't know?

Y'all need to try again, for real next time.

 

[ULTIMA1]

You must be old like me all the kids have cell phones with cameras, so you are the one who lack knowledge and camera can be used all over with no one able to know.

You really are immature and have no idea what you are talking about.. Let me explain it like i explain to my kids.

THERE...ARE...NO...CAMERAS...OF...ANY...KIND...ALLOWED...NEAR...NSA...
BUILDINGS. CELL PHONES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE BUILDINGS.

[Official what. 19 terrorists killed 8 pilots and flew 4 planes attempting to hit four buildings.

Let me try to explain as simple as i can.

Where are the official FBI and NTSB crime scene reports on the 4 planes that crashed on 9.11?
If you do not have these reports then you do not really know what happened that day and you are lying if you say you do know.

 

[No Such Agency]

I was sitting in front of the flag pole on the bench from 11:30 till 12:10.

Like I said, I was there, didn't see ya, sorry.

Why do you have to lie? I have answered your questions.

You should go back and read my posts, I outlined for you exactly which ones you had not answered. There's a lot of them. I can't post links, but I'm sure you can find it back on page 20 or so.

[EDIT]Oh, I can post links now. Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4576494#post4576494[/EDIT]

How about being mature enough to answer the following.

I've never claimed to work for NSA, unlike you, so I don't really need to answer questions. And I've already said I'm not going to give out personal information. But...

1. Is there a gray line (secure) and a black line (non-secure), YES or NO?

Yes. But as I said the phone connected to the gray line is not actually gray.

2. Does the line on top of the compter screen show clasiification, YES or NO?

Yes, but the classification you gave in your answer was wrong.

3. What does FANX stand for and name the buildings.

Stands for Friendship Annex, because BWI used to be called Friendship Airport. There's 3 main buildings, oddly enough named FANX 1 through 3. There's a host of other smaller buildings around there which are sometimes said to be part of FANX, but they aren't (they're "Airport Square") and no I don't know off the top of my head how many there are.

Btw these are fairly bad questions, I know plenty of people who work at FANX who don't even know what it stands for.

 

[Mince]

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

Yes, I'm terrified. Please helm me!

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'm going to think it's not an inside job because they were trying to shoot down an aircraft instead of letting it crash into an important building.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Yes. But as I said the phone connected to the gray line is not actually gray.

Thanks for admitting my answer was correct the first time.

Yes, but the classification you gave in your answer was wrong.

Thanks for admitting the top line is for classification as i stated.

Stands for Friendship Annex, because BWI used to be called Friendship Airport.

Yes, you are correct.

As far as the airport square buildings they go up to 20, there is a new one APS 14.

 

[TJM]

You should be able to post links now, NSA. Link away.

 

[ULTIMA1]

I'm going to think it's not an inside job because they were trying to shoot down an aircraft instead of letting it crash into an important building.

When did i ever say it was an inside job?

What fantasy world are you living in?

 

[beachnut]

...
THERE...ARE...NO...CAMERAS...OF...ANY...KIND...ALLOWED...NEAR...NSA...
BUILDINGS. CELL PHONES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THE BUILDINGS.

Let me try to explain as simpleas i can.

Where are the official FBI and NTSB crime scene reports on the 4 planes that crased on 9.11?

No cell phones allowed near the flagpole in the rain today; good for you! Good work explaining to your kids.


You are serious? You think there is no evidence? Are you that challenged at 911, you sound like the dolt Balsamo?


No wonder you have delusions on 911, you can't figure out the evidence and you deny the evidence. Good for you! Maybe your kids can explain 911 to you since you are unable to grasp reality.

What is your new story on flight 93? Was it shot down and intercepted?

 

[TexasJack]

Like I said, I was there, didn't see ya, sorry.

I think if you had looked for a teenager, you would have spotted him.

 

[Mince]

When did i ever say it was an inside job?

When did I ever say you said, or even thought, 9/11 was an inside job?

What fantasy world are you living in?

 

[No Such Agency]

Thanks for admitting my answer was correct the first time.



Thanks for admitting the top line is for classification as i stated.



Yes, you are correct.

As far as the airport square buildings they go up to 20, there is a new one APS 14.

Man you are really dense, aren't you? Go read the thread, and answer those questions. If you can't answer them then there is no way you are who you say. If you can answer them then you still might not be who you say, but at least you have a shot. As it is now all you've done is hold your hands over you ears and say "I can't hear you I work for NSA nahnahnahnah".

I can come up with questions all F*ing day that you can't answer (that aren't classified). Like this: Where is the MOC? (Building, floor, room number)

 

[Mince]

What fantasy world are you living in?

The one in which 9/11 was an inside job and a person who claims he works for the NSA has time to post 80 times a day (before several suspensions) on one message board and fails to demonstrate any mental acuity that would convince others that he worked for an intelligence agency while utterly failing to provide any evidence to that claim.

 

[Gavron]

You just gotta love how Roger completely ignored all the posts yesterday about how he lied about his flight 93 statements.

Kinda like an ostrich putting his head in a hole....maybe people wont notice thhose questions and move along.

haha!

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Misner ~

Why did you lie?

Originally Posted by ULTIMA1
The document states that a plane was intercepted, what plane is not clear

Huh? Liar? Are you going to address the post where I showed that you are in fact a liar? When Will you be mature enough to admit you're a liar?You filed your FOIA in September. It is now April. Guess what liar...you got nothing. Nothing but your lies and delusions.

 

[Sabrina]

I'm not sure it's simple enough for this simpleton. Let's just spell it out....

It does not matter that classified information has been published on the Internet or in any other venue by anyone. It is STILL a serious violation of Security for a Government Official (of any rank or status) who holds a Security Clearance to confirm that information. There should be no discussion of this issue as it is FACT and not subject to interpretation.

Since this whole affair has already been reported by several people, it should be quite obvious that this jerk is not who or what he says he is (as if that's not obvious already).

This whole thing does not make sense in the first place. Why would this information be classified? If it is classified how can one obtain an UNCLASSIFIED version? NSA does not have the authority without higher authority concurrence or approval to declassify a document. This is not a "willy nilly" matter.

The only issue that I can envision that would make this type of information classified is the "source". In some cases the Government does not want to reveal it's source for information and therefore declares the information classified. If new technology is used (which the Government does not wish to reveal or confirm) or if the information came from foreign Government sources the information might be classified for that reason only.

That does bring up a question to which I don't know the answer. Perhaps Sabrina or someone else with current accurate information can comment on this. Would simply removing the source declassify the information? I suspect in some cases it would, but I'm not an authority on this. This part might be worthy of further discussion, so that it results in a learning experience. Otherwise, this thread has been and is a total waste of time and space.

Sorry Reheat, I'm afraid that question can't be answered on this forum. But you did sum up the rest of the issue quite nicely. The trouble is, Ultima over here doesn't believe that indirectly revealing the contents of a CLASSIFIED document is a security breach of any kind (which, I might add, he has done numerous times on this forum alone, not to mention at least two others, IF (and that's a flippin' big if) he is who he says he is). I've pointed this out to him, several other individuals on this forum have pointed it out to him, and he refuses to believe it.

Given, however, that he keeps insisting the document in question has been "shown" on the internet, and given that the individuals here who've done a search have found nothing more than an article full of speculation on the part of a reporter who CLAIMS to have a DoD source to confirm his speculations, I'd say the document Ultima keeps referring to is in fact nothing more than said article, in which case, he's absolutely correct; the article is not classified, and he can discuss it all he wants. Calling it the document in question, however, is flat-out lying on his part and bears repeated pointing out. Which I will happily continue to do, but I've ceased engaging Ultima directly and instead offer my perspective solely for the undecideds who may stumble upon this thread and need edification.