NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

[JoeyDonuts]

And with that, we can consider this matter completely and utterly closed. ULTIMA1, much like 9/11 Truth, ceases to exist when you log off. His entire existence seems to be based upon spinning message board yarns and bragging about his "experience." He has nothing substantial to bring to the debate, and I'm convinced he has not now, nor has he ever worked at the NSA. (Although I am convinced he is close to someone that does.) At any rate, for the poster known as No Such Agency to attempt to engage him directly has shown to be fruitless, and I'm sure we're all thoroughly UNsurprised by that development. I would suggest for No Such Agency's mental health that he cease going down this rabbit hole. If past behavior of this ULTIMA1 character is any indication, the damn thing just goes in a big circle anyway.

He's got nothing, never did, and is simply another frenetic and unsubstantiated noise in the cacophony of the Internet.

He also probably deserves some sort of golden 'spiky club' award for his general troll-ness.

He is not worth the time of any single person on this board. He's had the chance time and time again to come up with something substantive. I would recommend all persons of sound mind place him on ignore, and the document - when and if it ever shows - should be reviewed when 16.5 posts it, as this ULTIMA1 slag has shown himself to be disengenuous, argumentative, and untrustworthy. He's just stirring the pot, and attempting to argue with him about the validity of his so-called experience or evidence is just giving him what he wants.

Just picture him behind that keyboard, buried under a pile of used Hot-Pocket wrappers, empty RockStar Energy cans, pantsless and sweaty as he snickers uncontrollably with each trolling post.

Exposing him would be somewhat cathartic to those of us who worked in the business, but in the end it's not worth it. Besides, he probably won't give you any XP.

Although he might randomly drop an interesting item...

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh for cripes sake, now he is saying that th critic does not show an intercept of Flight 93?

Well that was the price of a stamp down the drain.

I'll post whatever I get from the NSA.

Probably in 2011 the way they are taking their own sweet time to respond.

 

[Horatius]

Maybe because if you had any common sense or intelligence (but then we are talking about people who still believe the official story without any official reports) you would know that the only planes they could be talking about would be either flight 93 or flight 1989 confused for flight 93.

And the document still stands as a verified document that shows reasonable doubt in the official story.

So, you admit then that you lied when you said:

Here is a letter from the NSA FOIA office that they have the NSA "Critic" that i asked for that states that Flight 93 was intercepted.

This contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/FLI93-2.jpg?t=1222974166

You said, quite plainly, that the "Critic" "...states that Flight 93 was intercepted". Now, you show us that this was nothing more than your speculative interpretation of what the Critic said.

Why should we listen to anything a demonstrated liar has to say? Put up or shut up, as they say.


Not that I expect you to do either.

 

[Sparky]

Just picture him behind that keyboard, buried under a pile of used Hot-Pocket wrappers, empty RockStar Energy cans, pantsless and sweaty as he snickers uncontrollably with each trolling post.

Ewww. Just threw up a little bit in my mouth. Unfortunately, probably very close to the the truth though. Uck.

Excuse me while I go throw up again.

 

[TJM]

Ewww. Just threw up a little bit in my mouth. Unfortunately, probably very close to the the truth though. Uck.

Excuse me while I go throw up again.

Go back to your old avatar or I will steal it. You've been warned.

 

[Sparky]

Go back to your old avatar or I will steal it. You've been warned.

It's yours if you want it. Where shall I send it?

 

[ULTIMA1]

You are serious? You think there is no evidence?

As statated you have no actaul reports from the FBI or NTSB (they have not beenn released yet) so you have no real evidence to support the official story.

You are just another sad person who believes what they are told and do not want to know the truth of what happened.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Man you are really dense, aren't you? Go read the thread, and answer those questions.

I have answered your questions.

You just admitted i was correct with there being 2 phones a gray line and black line.
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.

You also admitted i was correct with the top line being the classification of the computer.
2. Does the line on top of the compter screen show clasiification, YES or NO?
Yes.

I also have a lot of questions i could ask you to see how well you know NSA.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Oh for cripes sake, now he is saying that th critic does not show an intercept of Flight 93?

Well that was the price of a stamp down the drain.

I'll post whatever I get from the NSA.

Probably in 2011 the way they are taking their own sweet time to respond.

The critic states that a plane was intercepted (as i have stated all along) As far as which plane we will not know untill the document has been declassified to see what information has not been taken out of the document.

The Critic does not give a specifc flight number(which is why i asked for follow up reports), but we know that it could have only been 1 of 2 planes. Either flight 93 or flight 1989 (which was confused for flight 93 for a while.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

I also have a lot of questions i could ask you to see how well you know NSA.

No one believes anything you say Roger. You're a compulsive liar. You confabulate in almost every attempt you make at producing a legible sentence.

I think I can speak for EVERYONE: (including the mindless truthers)

Shut up until you produce the document.Your posts are nothing but a waste of band width.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

The critic states that a plane was intercepted (as i have stated all along) As far as which plane we will not know untill the document has been declassified to see what information has not been taken out of the document.

The Critic does not give a specifc flight number(which is why i asked for follow up reports), but we know that it could have only been 1 of 2 planes. Either flight 93 or flight 1989 (which was confused for flight 93 for a while.

LIAR!

Thats funny, becasue the offical story states that no planes got close to flight 93.

Yet the NSA document states that FLight 93 was intercepted.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread393735/pg2#pid5033333


You have stated since September that it was Flight 93 and the critic said so. Go back and read the thousands of posts you made regarding it. Here and at ATS. While your at it, learn to spell or use spell check.

 

[ULTIMA1]

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,

How many times must i keep repeating things becasue you seem not to understanda a basic sentence? Let me bold it so it might make more sense and be easier for you to read again.

I NEVER STATED THE DOCUMENT WAS SHOWN ON THE INTERNET, I STATED THE INFORMATION ON THE DOCUMENT IS ON THE INTERNET, (WHICH IS ON SEVERAL WEBSITES AND CAN BE FOUND WITH ONLY A FEW SECONDS SEARCH FOR ANYONE KNOWING HOW TO DO BASIC SEARCH FUNCTIONS.

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.

Also for the hundreth time.
The NSA FOIA office has confirmed the document does exist by letter and verbally over the phone.

 

[ULTIMA1]

You have stated since September that it was Flight 93 and the critic said so. .

Yes thats right, i have stated that and stand by it.

Will will have to wait for the document to come out to see if it was Flight 93 or Flight 1989 that was confused for Flight 93.

Either way the document still contridicts the official story. Just 1 more peice of evidnece that shows reasonable doubt in the official story

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Yes thats right, i have stated that and stand by it.

Will will have to wait for the document to come out to see if it was Flight 93 or Flight 1989 that was confused for Flight 93.

Either way the document still contridicts the official story.

Go back and read my post. Are you that thick? You stated in one post the Critic does not state the flight number. In another post you state it does.

You claimed to have read the classified version because you claim to have access to these files. You filed an FOIA request to get the declassified version.

You are caught in a lie Roger. Which is it? Did the critic state that is was flight 93 or they didn't know?

YOU READ IT! - Liar.

 

[ULTIMA1]

You claimed to have read the classified version because you claim to have access to these files. You filed an FOIA request to get the declassified version. .

Yes and have posted the FOIA request and the letter from the NSA FOIA office that states the document exist and they are sending it to me.

The document still contridicts the official story.

 

[funk de fino]

Yes and have posted the FOIA request and the letter from the NSA FOIA office that states the document exist and they are sending it to me.

The document still contridicts the official story.

Officially the biggest liar this site has ever seen!!

You said you read it and it said Flight 93. Now you are saying it did not.

You said it showed it had been shot down. Now you are running away and saying there could have been an interception.

You have no idea what an interception is even though you claim you were a crew chief on Phantoms. You lied about your responsibilities on that as well.

Your transcript dioes not show what you say it does.

You really need to go seek help.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Why are you dodging the lie?

You read the classified document.

You claimed back in September. (after you allegedly read it) That is stated that Flight 93 was either intercepted or shot down.

NOW .. you claim the document :

The Critic does not give a specifc flight number(which is why i asked for follow up reports), but we know that it could have only been 1 of 2 planes. Either flight 93 or flight 1989 (which was confused for flight 93 for a while.

Two lies in there Roger. You see them?

Admit it Mr. Misner.. YOU GOT CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN!

 

[ULTIMA1]

You said it showed it had been shot down.

I never stated it was shot down. there are some reports and evidnece that suggest it may have been shot down, but have not donw the full research yet.

You have no idea what an interception is even though you claim you were a crew chief on Phantoms.

I know exactly what an interception is. Its when a fighter is launched to check out a plane that has lost contact or is off course. The fighter maintains a visual on the plane and tries to make contact with the plane.

I also have shown my military transcrpt that shows i was a crew chief.

 

[Mince]

I never stated it was shot down. there are some reports and evidnece that suggest it may have been shot down, but have not donw the full research yet.

So you have no evidence Flight 93 was shot down.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Why are you dodging the lie?

You read the classified document.

yes i have read the document

You claimed back in September. (after you allegedly read it) That is stated that Flight 93 was either intercepted or shot down.

I never stated the plane was shot down, i stated it may have been shot down. The document clearly shows a plane was intercepted.

Admit it Mr. Misner.. YOU GOT CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN!

No i did no get caught with my pants down it just takes basic common sense and basic intelligence to know whats going on, clearly you lack both