NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeyDonuts said:
because it cites hearsay from sources who have seen the document.
Click to expand...

So transcripts from court and evidnece from government documents are all hearsay?


You need to cease and desist passing yourself off as an NSA analyst.
Click to expand...

So sad you cannot even figure out basic documents are real and legit.
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
Oh i guess Reuters jsut got the infomration form their crystal ball :D:D:D
Click to expand...


Well, considering you didnt link a reuters story, nobody will know. You only linked a story from WMR....which just grabbed the one quote of the attorney repeating what his "terrorist" client said.

Show us the link to the Reuters report, please.....if you can.
 
Gavron said:
Well, considering you didnt link a reuters story, nobody will know. .
Click to expand...

Oh sorry i forgot you cannot read, and did not see the part about evidence, like from a court.


At the first military commission trial last week in Guantanamo, Cuba, Navy Lieutenant Commander Timothy Stone, one of the prosecutors, told the jury that accused Al Qaeda terrorist Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni citizen, was guilty of knowing about the 9/11 attacks because he overheard a conversation between Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda number two man Ayman al Zawahiri concerning details of the attacks.

According to a Reuters report from the courtroom, Stone stated: “If they hadn’t shot down the fourth plane it would’ve hit the dome.”

The reference was to United 93, which crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Chief prosecutor Colonel Lawrence Morris later said that Stone was merely quoting Hamdan, however, Morris would not even concede that the “dome” reference was to the U.S. Capitol building.

Whether or not Stone was himself referring to the shoot-down of United 93 or whether he was quoting Hamdan, who was, in turn, quoting either Bin Laden or Zawahiri is immaterial. The shoot-down of United 93 is backed up by evidence in U.S. intelligence files, including those found in the super-classified CRITIC database maintained by the National Security Agency (NSA). There is little doubt that the prosecutors in Guantanamo had some form of access to CRITIC and other intelligence in preparing their case against Guantanamo detainees like Hamdan.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
So your stating that evidence from court is all hearsay and false ?
Click to expand...
Even the dumb news story tells you it is hearsay! Do you understand hearsay? No you use hearsay as facts, you are wrong. It is due to using hearsay to form your failed ideas.

Stop telling everyone they can not read that is a personal attack! Support your hearsay with some facts not some stupid online craps story!

Your ability to sweep away evidence is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
You know you make a good poster child for why kids should stay in school.

So sad you cannot even figure out simple documents are real and legit.
Click to expand...

Your grammar and spelling is atrocious. Your logic and argumentative technique even worse. You were saying something about staying in school? If you did stay in school, I'd demand a refund on my money, because you got ripped off.
 
Last edited:
Looks liike you cannot read your own quote there, Roger:

Chief prosecutor Colonel Lawrence Morris later said that Stone was merely quoting Hamdan, however, Morris would not even concede that the “dome” reference was to the U.S. Capitol building.
Click to expand...

Also, that is still the same WMR article....you did not link a Reuters report at all.
 
Guys, please stop bickering and making personal digs. Let's keep it civil, thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Wayne Madsen did work at the NSA in the 1980s. Since now he's in the conspiracy-hawking business it would not surprise me one bit to learn he injected a little personal experience into that article. Totally unethical but hey - gotta stay relevant right?
 
"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks, repeating Bin Laden's deputy's claim.

The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the "dome" was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.

"Virtually no one knew the intended target, but the accused knew," Stone said.

United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field in rural Pennsylvania. U.S. officials have never stated it was shot down although rumors saying that abound to this day.
Click to expand...

Funny. I don't see anything about CRITICs in this article. Looks like Reuters actually has to back their stuff up.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
According to a Reuters report from the courtroom, Stone stated: “If they hadn’t shot down the fourth plane it would’ve hit the dome.”
Click to expand...


Nice bit of cherry-picking. Here's what you clipped from that passage. Intentionally, no doubt.

"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks, repeating Bin Laden's deputy's (Ayman al-Zawahiri) claim."

**emphasis added (I use cherry red for the cherry-picker)

So, instead of the implication of your abbreviated quotation, that the Navy officer said, "If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane," we the fact that al-Zawahiri made the statement. These misinterpretations, misunderstanding and misreadings is precisely what Alex Jones does to cow his sheep.


Very deceptive. Maybe you do work for the government after all.
 
Last edited:
Mince said:
Nice bit of cherry-picking. Here's what you clipped from that passage. Intentionally, no doubt.
Click to expand...
But this is the part of the passage you ignored as usual.

Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
But this is the part of the passage you ignored as usual.

Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial.
Click to expand...

Let's say the plane was shot down. So? What exactly would you think that proves?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
But this is the part of the passage you ignored as usual.

Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial.
Click to expand...


And? The passage isn't germain to your cherry-picking of Stone's statement. My point is that you cherry-picked a quotation. Either you were incompetent when you posted the quotation or you were being deceptive. Either way, you cherry-picked. Your post and the article proves this.
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
But this is the part of the passage you ignored as usual.

Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial.
Click to expand...


Yeah...evidence that Hamdan had close connections to Bin Laden, not evidence that what he overheard from Bin Laden was correct. Do you see the difference?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
But this is the part of the passage you ignored as usual.

Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial.
Click to expand...

This really makes me wonder what the reports you submit at work contain!
 
ULTIMA1 said:
But this is the part of the passage you ignored as usual.

Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial.
Click to expand...

Just because statements are made "in evidence" in a court of law does not make the statements true. People lie in courtrooms, you know. Anyway, and legal scholars correct me if I'm wrong (I'm a bit rusty), any statement made in a trial that does not occur from the witness stand under oath would be dismissed as hearsay at another trial.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom