NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sabrina said:
16.5-Just wanted to follow up and see if you'd received what Ultima had requested. Any new info?
Click to expand...

I have not received a thing, not even an acknowledgment of my FOIA.

I'd suggest diarying this thread for thanksgiving.
 
close to 60 days since he got his letter back from FOIA request. We'll see what transpires if / when he posts again after his suspension is over.
 
Bumping once again to ask if there's been an update from 16.5

I figure I'll try it once every couple of weeks or so. :D
 
No. Nothing yet. I also know ULTIMA1 hasn't got anything either.

PM me if you wanna know how I know.
 
Sabrina said:
Bumping once again to ask if there's been an update from 16.5

I figure I'll try it once every couple of weeks or so. :D
Click to expand...

I STILL have not received a thing, not even an acknowledgment of my FOIA.

I'd suggest diarying this thread for thanksgiving.
 
Actually it should be a lot quicker.

(again, I'm assuming that the US FOI legislation is similar to the UK legislation)

The response to a FOI request for information that doesn't exist is 'No such information exists'. Easy peasy. The really hard ones are ones that require you to do a search because they are non-specific.

It possibly just takes a long time because they have a lot of requests, a queue, and the usual bureaucratic stuff getting in the way.
 
BenBurch said:
It takes a long time to respond to FOIA requests for things that don't exist.
Click to expand...

Hee hee!

However, The Worm is correct. The NSA has something they call a super easy queue, which includes the requests for which there are no responsive documents.

Ultima's request did not fall into that queue , so it looks like there is something.

I am kind of annoyed I haven't heard anything yet, though.
 
Update

I did receive an acknowledgement from the NSA.

My FOIA is being handled on the same track as Ultima's.

I would be surprised to get anything before Christmas.

/say, can we take this off moderation?
 
Well, it's going to take some time to redact the radio intercept of NORAD giving the kill order to the fighter what shot down UA93 and all.
 
Have we decided whether or not a docuement illustrating a shoot down would therefore eliminate the idea that the impact site in Penn. is a fake?

After all if the aircraft was shot down then it must have impacted the ground somewhere which would seem to lead to the impact site near Shankesville as definately being that place.

One then wonders what the TM would make of a docuement proving a UA93 shoot down.
Would the idea of a faked impact be disgarded or would the docuement be seen as faked?
 
jaydeehess said:
Have we decided whether or not a docuement illustrating a shoot down would therefore eliminate the idea that the impact site in Penn. is a fake?
Click to expand...

Even if the document states Flight 93 was intercepted it would still show the official story to be incorrect when it stated no planes were near Flight 93.
 
No investigation into any occurence of any type is going to get the facts 100 percent correct 100 percent of the time.

As one who does not believe in the OCT, you have not really done that much to introduce a reasonable doubt that events did not transpire as we were told.

And even if you are onto something, honestly, what are you expecting to see here? An intercept of a kill order? A "FOX-2" call from the aircraft? Your FOIA reply from NSA was non-specific in what type of documents were found or how many there were. All it says is that a search for the records was completed, and that the information was not voluminous or complex. It could be a one-page typed statement from DIRNSA stating "there is no information pertaining to your request" for all you know.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Even if the document states Flight 93 was intercepted it would still show the official story to be incorrect when it stated no planes were near Flight 93.
Click to expand...

Except the official story does not say that. There was a commercial plane near the area of the crash. You have double bluffed yourself.

Just to be clear, you do know that an interception is not a shootdown?
 
JoeyDonuts said:
It could be a one-page typed statement from DIRNSA stating "there is no information pertaining to your request" for all you know.
Click to expand...

Thisa part of your post: "Your FOIA reply from NSA was non-specific in what type of documents were found or how many there were. All it says is that a search for the records was completed, and that the information was not voluminous or complex," is absolutely correct.

The above quoted part is not correct, as they do have some documents that are responsive. My FOIA request response states that the "material responsive to [my] request was located in a similar FOIA request waiting to be processed."

They also say IT WILL NOT BE DONE for at least 20 days.

So we ought to **** can this thread for a good month.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Even if the document states Flight 93 was intercepted it would still show the official story to be incorrect when it stated no planes were near Flight 93.
Click to expand...

That is not what I asked.

I asked if, on the chance that a docuement does show that UA93 was in fact shot down in order to save lives at the intended target, would the TM then abandon the faked impact site senario?

wanna try again?
 
funk de fino said:
Except the official story does not say that. There was a commercial plane near the area of the crash.
Click to expand...

Well as a matter of fact the officical story does state that no interceptors were near Flight 93.

This will be proven incorrect by the FOIA document.
 
JoeyDonuts said:
No investigation into any occurence of any type is going to get the facts 100 percent correct 100 percent of the time.
Click to expand...


But if the official story was wrong about no interceptors being near Flight 93, what else is it wrong about?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Well as a matter of fact the officical story does state that no interceptors were near Flight 93.

This will be proven incorrect by the FOIA document.
Click to expand...


I can hear those goalposts scraping ever so slowly across the floor.

You do know that an interception is not a shootdown right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom