NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

[doobiedoright]

Either way, I just shot this off to U.S. Army CID.

If he's legit he's got some serious damage control to do.

If he's a fake, he's probably going to disappear.

I realize diming him out to CID will seem harsh to some. But this goes beyond just CTs and debunking them. He's put information out there that could put not only HIM in danger, but everyone he works with. OPSEC rules are there for a reason. I apologize in advance to the JREF administrators, but you have to understand I had a DUTY to report him - for his own safety if nothing else.

Your fine.i reported him to the FBI last week.
The dude is way over his head!

 

[Totovader]

Well, Toto, what I was trying to illuminate here was the fact that the weight of the existing evidence already provides quite a hill for Ultima's document to climb. And that determination can be made without any such reliance on who a person is.

The chances of ULTIMA1's claims being confirmed by this document are infinitesimally small- true, but the claim that he still saw it will remain. I suspect that the lack of evidence will become evidence- as many of his other claims have been.

You see, I always have problems with the whole argument-by-authority thing here, and it's not merely because it's a logical fallacy. It's because it ultimately does not address the root of any given claim. Ultima's point claim about the legitimacy of the report may indeed stand or fail on his identity, but the larger implication - that there's a previously unknown and unreleased event during UA93's flight involving a fighter and a missile - can be judged by what we already know. If a fighter did indeed lose a missile, then it's irrelevant to the UA93 narrative because there's no indication that jet was hit by a missile, not by the CVR, not from the FDR, and if we trust the crash investigators (I do; Beechnut can elaborate further on this point if he wants), not from the wreckage. If a fighter did indeed shoot a missile at UA93, then again, it's still irrelevant because it obviously didn't hit it. Neither case requires Ultima's identity to judge, because the weight the existing facts already demonstrates what happened.

While the last half of your comments here are logically true- they're too far ahead in the argument to make any headway, in my opinion. Cart before the horse kind of a thing.

And I hate to correct you, but this is not an example of an appeal to authority. ULTIMA1 is not claiming that his authority is the source of the information- he is claiming that his authority (identity) grants him access to that information. That claim is falsifiable.

If hypothetically a very old German man surfaced, and it was eventually proven that he was indeed closely and intimately involved in the Nazi government, I still wouldn't care what his identity was if he claimed there was no systemic eradication of Jewish people. His claim fails on its own merits, not his authority.

Nor should you- that would be an appeal to authority. If he claimed to have access to documents which he could then show you- he just chooses not to... then his claim is still invalid, just not an appeal to authority.

Anyway, I know that's a long winded answer, but it gets the point across. Ultima's claims about himself as well as the document he says he's seen, even if they're true can only change what we know if they either agree with the currently existing and verified body of knowledge or explain why we misunderstand the event. So in the end, it doesn't matter to me who he says he is. I work from the body of knowledge and confirmed evidence. His authority or lack thereof can not move me by itself.

Nor can it move me- as I said verifying his claims regarding his identity does not prove his claims regarding the document he supposedly saw. It does, however, make the claim at least possible. Obviously if his claim regarding his identity were refuted, then his claims about the document disappear as well.

Don't take this wrong, Toto, I'm not trying to attack you. Rather, I just don't see questions about his identity being very productive at getting at the truth. Even if it turns out that he's who he says he is, it doesn't change things without the document he claims exists. I understand your line of reasoning, I just fear that it's a spiral into irrelevant minituae, that's all. If he wants to challenge the currently accepted narrative, then he can produce the document for us to judge; any activities prior to that mean nothing in the end.

I think you're partially right- but I'm not patient enough to wait for him to stall on this document anymore. If he says who he says he is (and if he's not he shouldn't say he is), then it at least makes it worth the wait to see what document he claims to have.

If he's not who he says he is- then he's not worthy of any attention at all... and frankly either way the authorities should be dealing with him.

 

[ULTIMA1]

You crossed a line when you said what you had access to. QUOTE]

Um, please tell me when stating what i have access to (without telling my exact clearences) is crossing the line

Are you going to press chagres against the media group Reuters for talking about the same document i am?

 

[Totovader]

I have come up with a way that we can at least begin to confirm the identity of ULTIMA1 without getting the authorities involved or calling the phone number of a person who's identity he might have stolen.

I have done some research and made some calls.

I would ask that others join me in pressing ULTIMA1 for answers to the following questions, which- if he is who he says he is- should be easy to answer. Unfortunately, a delay in answering could indicate that he's doing more armchair research- and although this information could possibly be found online, I would be fairly impressed if he went to the trouble and was able to do it that way.

Answering correctly to the following questions does not confirm the identity of ULTIMA1- but it does at least put the question aside for the time being... in my mind.

And, if any of the mods are concerned- the information I will be asking for is public- however I will not post it here, only confirm or deny it once ULTIMA1 answers.

Q1) What is the mascot for your towns high school football team?
Hint: C______

Q2) The post office has several wanted individuals posted up on the wall. What is the name of the individual wanted for Terroristic Threats?
Hint: A_____ H______

Q3) What is the address of the person who lives behind you?
Hint: G____ is w______

Q4) What are their initials?

Q5) What is the address of the person who lives to the right of you?

Q6) What are their initials?

Q7) What are the initials of the woman who resides- or used to reside- at your address?
Hint: Not the previous resident.

Of course, I could just make up answers- so anyone who wants to know the correct answers prior to ULTIMA1 posting them, please let me know so that I have some method of publicly confirming this, and I will PM them to you.

*bump #4 for ULTIMA1

 

[ULTIMA1]

I just remembered an odd aspect to this whole story. .

If you or Gavron would be truthful you should also bring up about the mods who posted support for me..

Also you should be truthful enough to bring up about another ATS member who worked at NSA who supported my working there and the times i was there.

DO i have to post the quotes from the mods and the name of the ATS member and show how untruthful you guys can be?

 

[Horatius]

Are you going to press chagres against the media group Reuters for talking about the same document i am?

Could you link us to where this was discussed?

 

[Gavron]

If you or Gavron would be truthful you should also bring up about the mods who posted support for me..

These mods...they would be on the same forums you are currently BANNED at? yeah, sounds like a lot of support for ya there, buddy.

Are you going to press chagres against the media group Reuters for talking about the same document i am?

This would be the same media that you said lies and brainwashes people? or are they only correct and considered evidence when they go along with your conspiracy theories?

 

[ULTIMA1]

Could you link us to where this was discussed?

Here is Reuters quote and the Online Journal quote.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_3568.shtml
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.”

On October 29, 2007, WMR reported: “According to U.S. intelligence sources, the archives of the National Security Agency (NSA), available to cleared users via the INTELINK network, contains an archive of Flash precedence and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) NSA intelligence messages known as ‘CRITICs.’

One such CRITIC from September 11, 2001, which includes a number of follow-on intelligence reports, concerns United Airlines flight 93, downed over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the CRITIC is at odds with the official account of the fate of United 93, which is that passengers and crew attacked the hijackers and forced the plane to crash into the ground.

 

[Totovader]

ULTIMA1 - Are you going to continue to ignore my questions, or shall I keep bumping them for you?

 

[Gavron]

The link also states this:

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

Also, Reuters didnt mention the CRITICS...the WMR did from an anonymous source...

Are you sure you researched this ??

 

[Gavron]

ULTIMA1 - Are you going to continue to ignore my questions, or shall I keep bumping them for you?

It is apparent that he doesnt know the answers, and is trying to google the correct answers....

 

[ULTIMA1]

ULTIMA1 - Are you going to continue to ignore my questions, or shall I keep bumping them for you?

Well i figured i might since you and others ignore all the evindece i have posted.

Not to mention the documents i posted to prove who i am and who i work for.

I mean its kind of funny that others have figured out the documents are mine and legit but yet you guys cannot.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Also, Reuters didnt mention the CRITICS...the WMR did from an anonymous source.

Oh i guess Reuters jsut got the infomration form their crystal ball

 

[beachnut]

Here is Reuters quote and the Online Journal quote.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_3568.shtml
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.”

On October 29, 2007, WMR reported: “According to U.S. intelligence sources, the archives of the National Security Agency (NSA), available to cleared users via the INTELINK network, contains an archive of Flash precedence and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) NSA intelligence messages known as ‘CRITICs.’

One such CRITIC from September 11, 2001, which includes a number of follow-on intelligence reports, concerns United Airlines flight 93, downed over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the CRITIC is at odds with the official account of the fate of United 93, which is that passengers and crew attacked the hijackers and forced the plane to crash into the ground.

A big pile of junk. Hearsay and false! Good find.

Sad your shoot down is missing a supersonic missile path.
Your shoot down is not verified by the CVR. Oops
The FDR shows a functioning aircraft at impact.
Big, BIG problem, the FDR shows the terrorist making the inputs to crash the plane with two functioning engines, your missile is missing in action.

Your inability to research is clear; your lack of knowledge is clear when you fail to use all the data save your hearsay false information.

You have proven you are not bringing evidence, you bring woo,. Unsupported junk.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Well i figured i might since you and others ignore all the evindece i have posted.

There ya have it. It appears, Roger is not Roger after all.

 

[ULTIMA1]

A big pile of junk. Hearsay and false! Good find.

So your stating that evidence from court is all hearsay and false ?

 

[Totovader]

Well i figured i might since you and others ignore all the evindece i have posted.

Not to mention the documents i posted to prove who i am and who i work for.

I mean its kind of funny that others have figured out the documents are mine and legit but yet you guys cannot.

Actually, I would say that- considering your latest "source" of information- it is quite clear to me that you are just copying this information and trying to pass yourself off as someone who would have seen this secretly.

Since you have been unable to provide any specifics about this document, you are clearly lying.

Since you have been unable to provide any information verifying your identity, you are clearly lying.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Here is Reuters quote and the Online Journal quote.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_3568.shtml
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.”

On October 29, 2007, WMR reported: “According to U.S. intelligence sources, the archives of the National Security Agency (NSA), available to cleared users via the INTELINK network, contains an archive of Flash precedence and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) NSA intelligence messages known as ‘CRITICs.’

One such CRITIC from September 11, 2001, which includes a number of follow-on intelligence reports, concerns United Airlines flight 93, downed over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the CRITIC is at odds with the official account of the fate of United 93, which is that passengers and crew attacked the hijackers and forced the plane to crash into the ground.

This cites "sources who have seen the document." If I could bring charges up against these "sources" I would - assuming that these reports even exist, which I highly doubt. The fact is that this particular article doesn't prove anything at all, because it cites hearsay from sources who have seen the document. It doesn't name them (they'd lose their job.) It doesn't post the source material (WM would get hammered.) Their "inside sources" could be people just like you.

You really think you've stumbled onto something with this article - the one you keep coming back to when your so-called NSA credentials are questioned. This is proof of nothing more than someone close to the intelligence community making something up for credibility or kicks. Someone like yourself. You need to cease and desist passing yourself off as an NSA analyst. You are putting jobs, lives, and their mission at risk by blabbermouthing all over the web about these crazy things you've seen and have access to. I've seen a few of your posts - you have some familiarity with intelligence community buzzwords and I don't know how you got your hands on that National Cryptologic School transcript. But for your own good stop now. You need to disconnect from this fantasy of yours before a federal law enforcement agency does it for you.

 

[ULTIMA1]

There ya have it. It appears, Roger is not Roger after all.

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.

 

[Gavron]

So your stating that evidence from court is all hearsay and false ?

Apparently YOU do....

You stated already that the Moussaoui trial was not a fair trial, scapegoat, all that blather.

Is evidence presented in court only good if it goes along with your conspiracy theory?