Continuation - NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Jackanory said:
Roger, you have clearly stated that you read a classified document at the NSA that states that flight 93 was intercepted and shot down.
Click to expand...

You are again confusing what is staed online and what i stated.

Did you read a classified document at NSA that stated an intercept of 93 and shoot down?
Click to expand...

I have read the Critic but cannot state what it says.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
1. Yes i have.

2. You mean like cover ups that the government does on a daily basis?

I am not participating in anything,
Edited by Gaspode: 
Edited for civility
Click to expand...

If you know the contents and are not revealing them then you are covering them up. This is very simple. You do know we have laws to protect "whistle blowers" don't you?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
You are again confusing what is staed online and what i stated.



I have read the Critic but cannot state what it says.
Click to expand...

I am not confusing anything Roger and you have already stated what you told us it says.

In 3 posts i have clearly established and you have clarified that you are blatently telling lies about this topic.

We can all link directly to your quotes on JREF and other forums. Although for me that would be pointless so i will simply refresh your memory.

1) You have stated that you read a classified critic at the NSA.

2) You have stated that this classified critic said that flight 93 was intercepted and shot down.

3) When it was put to you that you had simply read about a critic from Wayne Masden and not at NSA- you adamently denied this and continuosly stated that you had personally read about the intercept and shoot down in a classified critic at the NSA because you worked there as an analyst.

So although you have maintained that an intercept and shoot down happened because you read it in a classified NSA critic, you are now saying that you actually read that information on the internet. Confirmed here in this very thread by you in your tangled web of deceipt and lies.

Thank you for admitting that your source about an intercept and shoot down of flight 93 was the internet and not an NSA critic. I can only assume that you tried to gain some kudos to impress some kids on ebaums, told a few lies and backed them up with the NSA analyst stuff, got banned, came here and have dug deeper and deeper ever since.

I have said it time and time again Roger - you post stuff that refutes your own claims. You have been caught in a web of lies and deceipt.

Any NSA Critic is of no further relevence to your position.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
I have read the Critic but cannot state what it says.
Click to expand...

There are a few issues with this...

#1. If you actually work for the NSA (which I doubt) then you KNOW that you should not publicly be discussing any CLASSIFIED documents that you have read even if you don't reveal the "classified" portions of the document.

#2. You should never tell people what clearance you have and connect that information with where you work and what your actual position is. Especially if you have a TS/SCI which you have claimed.

#3. As an analyst for the NSA you should be very familiar with intelligence collection techniques and how several pieces of UNCLASSIFIED information can be put together to gain useful information.

In the past I have been guilty myself (on several occasions it was when I was debating "truthers") of revealing far too much information about what clearances I hold, where I work, what projects I have been involved in, etc. But I now refrain from doing that despite how passionate about the topic I might be....I suggest that you likewise refrain.

I won't ask you to prove that you are an analyst or that you hold a clearance because after reading this discussion I'm not sure I would believe it anyway....

Until there is some kind of public evidence of this document I think all this talk about classified documents and clearances should be put aside.

As I have heard it said before....."without the data your chatter dont matter".
 
DGM said:
If you know the contents and are not revealing them then you are covering them up. This is very simple. You do know we have laws to protect "whistle blowers" don't you?
Click to expand...

I cannot reveal whats in a classified document.

Who said anything about whistle blowers? I am just getting a declassified version of a document that will show reasonable doubt in the official story.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
I have read the Critic but cannot state what it says.
Click to expand...

The OP of the thread this one was split from completely negates this statement.

You made no bones about what you were implying. Backtrack all you like, but you know what you claimed on this forum and others.

So do we.

You've been trounced in internet debates, had your claims held to the fire, been found wanting, and yet for some reason you persist.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
I have read the Critic but cannot state what it says.
Click to expand...
.
Which is lie, since you have already stated that it says both "intercepted" and "shot down.'

Given this documented lie, why should anyone take anything you say at face value unless you provide dcoumentation that it is not another of your lies?
.
 
newton3376 said:
There are a few issues with this...

#1. If you actually work for the NSA (which I doubt) then you KNOW that you should not publicly be discussing any CLASSIFIED documents that you have read even if you don't reveal the "classified" portions of the document.

#2. You should never tell people what clearance you have and connect that information with where you work and what your actual position is. Especially if you have a TS/SCI which you have claimed.

#3. As an analyst for the NSA you should be very familiar with intelligence collection techniques and how several pieces of UNCLASSIFIED information can be put together to gain useful information.

In the past I have been guilty myself (on several occasions it was when I was debating "truthers") of revealing far too much information about what clearances I hold, where I work, what projects I have been involved in, etc. But I now refrain from doing that despite how passionate about the topic I might be....I suggest that you likewise refrain.

I won't ask you to prove that you are an analyst or that you hold a clearance because after reading this discussion I'm not sure I would believe it anyway....

Until there is some kind of public evidence of this document I think all this talk about classified documents and clearances should be put aside.

As I have heard it said before....."without the data your chatter dont matter".
Click to expand...

Guys, I have to echo this statement (ncluding the part about inadvertantly revealing too much about what I know in terms of security); I only resurrected the thread to see if 16.5 had received any updates on his FOIA, since I had no clue when U1 would be back at that time and I was curious. We're in danger of slipping back into our old habits; the ones that got the previous thread closed, I might add. I suggest from now on we only ask if the document(s) in question have been received or not, since that's simply a yes or no type question and poses no danger of drifting into irrelevant territory. Thoughts?
 
newton3376 said:
Edited by Cuddles: 
Discussion of Ultima1 removed.

Until there is some kind of public evidence of this document I think all this talk about classified documents and clearances should be put aside.
Click to expand...

The document is talked about on the internet and i have shown the letter from the FOIA office about the request.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabrina said:
Guys, I have to echo this statement (ncluding the part about inadvertantly revealing too much about what I know in terms of security); ?
Click to expand...

I have not revealed anything about any projects or any other information that would be harmful.

I have requested a declassified version of the Critic so i can show and discuss the information.
 
TSR said:
.
Which is lie, since you have already stated that it says both "intercepted" and "shot down.'
Click to expand...

Thats what the internt states, what i started my OP from. Maybe you should do research before responding.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Thats what the internt states, what i started my OP from. Maybe you should do research before responding.
Click to expand...

I have researched your posts again Roger, as you suggested.

I have bolded the significant comment above.

In your above post (quote 4805111) you have again stated that you started the OP (NSA Critic intercept post) after reading about it on the internet!. So you again admit that it was infact an internet article (probably Wayne Masden) that you first learned of a supposed intercept and shoot down of flight 93.

Oh the games you play
 
ULTIMA1 said:
I have not revealed anything about any projects or any other information that would be harmful.
Click to expand...

That's not for you to determine. People in the intelligence business don't get the luxury of deciding what details about their work are okay to spread publicly. If you are who you say, you signed a non-disclosure agreement for a reason.

The argument could be made that the basis for your public CRITIC claim is a violation of said NDA.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Thats what the internt states, what i started my OP from. Maybe you should do research before responding.
Click to expand...

Actually here is what you have stated, word for word over several posts;(bolding mine)
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.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
When i get this document and poist it, it will contridict the official story.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Well the official story states that no planes (intercepters) were near flight 93.

This document will show that Flight 93 was intercepted by fighters and possibly shot down.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
But i do know what i says. I have read the document, thats why i filed a FOIA to get it.
Click to expand...

You stated that you "have read" the document, and heavily implied that you meant that you have read the classified docuement, not just the internet chatter about the docuement.

Thus it is odd, first of all that you state that the docuement will "possibly" show that the aircraft was shot down. If you state this because you know, from haveing read the classified doc, that ir does say that the plane was sjot down but cannot be sure that this will be included in the declassified doc you have just contravened the standing orders you would have not to discuss a classified docuement( which means uttering no comment about it)

If you state this because you do not know if the classified doc does or does not state that the plane was shot down then you have just admitted that you have not in fact read the classified docuement. This illustrated that you have misrepresented your actions with the statement that you "have read the docuement".

You state that this Cirtic does indeed exist and the letter you received might imply that it does. That is to say that there may be a Critic regarding flight 93.

First you tell us you have actually read that Critic yourself and that it supports the internet contentions about the Critic. Now you claim that you have only read the internet contentions about the Critic which illustrates that you do not know if a Critic about flight 93 (should it indeed exist) does or does not contain any reference to a successful interception (rather than simply an intercept mission being launched) much less a shoot down.

We are back to square one here U1.

You do not know any more about this potential Critic than what you read in internet chatter about this unrevealed docuement. Which means you have no more knowledge about it than we do.

,,,,,,, and so we wait.

You should have known better than to use the phrase "coming soon" when referring to anything coming from any gov't.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
newton3376 said:
Edited by Cuddles: 
Discussion of Ultima1 removed.



The document is talked about on the internet and i have shown the letter from the FOIA office about the request.
Click to expand...

Sorry..."talked about on the internet" is not evidence although truthers seem to feel that by showing me a google or a youtube video they have provided "evidence".

The claims you are making are quite serious....and for me to believe the claim that 93 was "intercepted" or "shot down" you will have to do better than "...complete strangers on the internet are talking about it...."
Click to expand...
 
Moot point right now newton; Ultima was finally banned.

Mods, since the original poster is no longer here, may we take this thread off of moderated status in order to be better able to bump it as needed for 16.5? Even if Ultima can't post his "smoking gun", so to speak, 16.5 can, which was the original point of his submitting the same FOIA request as Ultima. And I'm still curious to know what this supposed NSA Critic says, so I hope 16.5 won't cancel the request.
 
Moderated status removed.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
Well, I won.

The $1 million dollars that is.

I knew ten months ago that Ultima would not survive, so i sent my own FOIA request. I'll update the status later this week.

Randy, I will take it in twos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom