NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry I am so late to this "party".

Ultima, seriously, do you really think you, some little nobody, has just been told you will receive a document that is going to prove that UA93 was shot down, or anything even close? really?

What you will receive, I will wager money on, will prove no such thing, not even close.

I mean on the wrong side of the argument, I can accept, but THIS GULLIBLE?

----

I know you are mistaken with such certainty, that I will pledge this.

If you provide a verified document from the NSA that proves that UA93 was shot down, I will voluntarily withdraw from the JREF, never to return.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
HyJinX said:
Silliest thread ever.
Click to expand...


THAT'S why I like him! Thanks bro.
hfive.gif
 
beachnut said:
You should just go over to the office, you are an analyst at the NSA, so you can just walk over and pick it up.
Click to expand...
He's likely a special operative or field agent who doesn't work near the FOIA office.

I've had a few FOIA requests for information emails cross my desk (computer). Usually it just a general message put out to the organization(s) they think may have information. Individuals might respond to the email saying "I think I might have something in my files - let me look and get back to you" or "I sorta remember something about that" - in which case they might tell you that you'll get a quick response, because they know the available information is not voluminous. You could still get a "no information available" letter I suppose. Dunno though, I'm no FOIA expert.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
I have authorization to read it.

Its also been mentioned by a few media groups.

I have a background in law enforcement so i know a litlte about what can be used in court.
Click to expand...


Riiiiiiggghhht. I forgot, you're secret internet spy man guy.
 
Mr. Skinny said:
He's likely a special operative or field agent who doesn't work near the FOIA office.

I've had a few FOIA requests for information emails cross my desk (computer). Usually it just a general message put out to the organization(s) they think may have information. Individuals might respond to the email saying "I think I might have something in my files - let me look and get back to you" or "I sorta remember something about that" - in which case they might tell you that you'll get a quick response, because they know the available information is not voluminous. You could still get a "no information available" letter I suppose. Dunno though, I'm no FOIA expert.
Click to expand...
He said he works there! He commutes from PA.
 
T.A.M. said:
Ultima, seriously, do you really think you, some little nobody, has just been told you will receive a document that is going to prove that UA93 was shot down, or anything even close? really?

What you will receive, I will wager money on, will prove no such thing, not even close.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time with this woowoo maniac. This is the dude that during a comparison of planes hitting concrete buildings (Pentagon ) he made the statement that the video of the F-4 hitting the nuclear containment thing was invalid because THE F-4 IS MOSTLY MADE OF STEEL. He's an insane liar.

He'll do this: construct a non-sequitor argument that HE says proves that 93 was intercepted and most likely shot down. But when everyone points out that his argument requires a huge leap to get where he wants it to be, he won't answer straight.

Rather, he'll then start with posts like "why are you afraid of the truth", and "why do you believe everything the media tells you", etc... all the while avoiding any response as to WHY his argument isn't a non-sequitor.
 
beachnut said:
He said he works there! He commutes from PA.
Click to expand...
Oh! Missed that.

In that case you're right. He should just have it sent to his office in a holey joe (marked "personal and confidential" or such) or go pick it up himself.
 
Seymour Butz said:
You're wasting your time with this woowoo maniac. This is the dude that during a comparison of planes hitting concrete buildings (Pentagon ) he made the statement that the video of the F-4 hitting the nuclear containment thing was invalid because THE F-4 IS MOSTLY MADE OF STEEL. He's an insane liar.

He'll do this: construct a non-sequitor argument that HE says proves that 93 was intercepted and most likely shot down. But when everyone points out that his argument requires a huge leap to get where he wants it to be, he won't answer straight.

Rather, he'll then start with posts like "why are you afraid of the truth", and "why do you believe everything the media tells you", etc... all the while avoiding any response as to WHY his argument isn't a non-sequitor.
Click to expand...
Sounds like he'll be sorta like a cat toy on this forum then. You guys will play with him until you get bored...then leave him in some corner of the forum gathering dust bunnies...
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Time will also tell who is adult enough to admit when the document is posted and who will still be living in a fantasy world afraid to face reallity.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt, that if this document exists, you will be given it, provided it is declassified. My point is that it will not contain anything that proves UA93 was shot down, or even anything remotely close.

I quoted your above statement so that you are reminded of it when you are proven to be wrong.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I know you are mistaken with such certainty, that I will pledge this.

If you provide a verified document from the NSA that proves that UA93 was shot down, I will voluntarily withdraw from the JREF, never to return.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I gave him the SAME PLEDGE at ATS.
 
I scanned this thread pretty quickly, but did ULTIMA1 post his FOIA request here, or link to it?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Why would the FOIA come back empty when they have already stated they have what i asked for?


Please reread the letter or have someone read it for you so you can understand it.
Click to expand...

Your refusal to answer the question is noted. I think we all know why.
 
At first I thought ULTIMA1 could have had some new stuff and provide lively and honest debate in this subforum for a change. It appears now after reading some of his 'work' he is a master of claiming things mean something when they actually don't, and mundane things are smoking-gun rock-solid evidence when normal people see no such thing.

Oh well.
 
Last edited:
1. I highly, HIGHLY doubt that someone who actually works for NSA will announce it on a public forum, due to the constraints of OPSEC. It's generally considered okay to say you work for the government, but it's not kosher to list the specific agency, especially if it's an intel agency, as NSA is.

2. Discussion of classified information with individuals who do not have the clearance or need to know the information, as I'm *SURE* (note the heavy sarcasm there) you are aware, Ultima, is illegal. You may not have mentioned the information itself, but spouting off that you know something classified is also a violation of OPSEC and is against the law.

3. If you're an NSA analyst, I'm a monkey's uncle.


Nothing more need be said.
 
Oh, I believe him. He works for NSA, in a law enforcement role.

In other words, a security guard checking badges at the door.:wackytwitcy:
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I scanned this thread pretty quickly, but did ULTIMA1 post his FOIA request here, or link to it?
Click to expand...

That's what I was looking for as I read the thread, and I did not see any such document or link to it.
 
Vapor wear. Unless you present said document, it does not exist. While standard twoofer tactic is to taunt evidence long before showing it so as to pretend you have a case that no one can contest because there is nothing to see, it doesn't mean anything.

If you cannot support your claim with an actual document which the claim is based on, you don't have an argument. And the thread might have been interesting if Ultima wasn't the 10,000th crackpot to claim to have damning evidence, but they just can't actually provide it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom