NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
funk de fino said:
I can hear those goalposts scraping ever so slowly across the floor.

You do know that an interception is not a shootdown right?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong about this, because I have only a superficial interest, but I believe the closest airplane to Flight 93 was a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet.

Obviously, this is not the same thing as the F16 Fighting Falcon, but it doesn't surprise me that someone with an urge to connect dots might connect dots that are not, in fact, connected.

So it seems more likely to me that there was no interception, either.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
But if the official story was wrong about no interceptors being near Flight 93, what else is it wrong about?
Click to expand...

Even IF there were CAP aircraft vectored towards UA93, I don't see how a radio intercept (if one exists) is going to show where the interceptor was in relation to the UA93, unless you think you have a AAWC giving target orders to the CAP, or the fighter itself acknowledging "target in sight" on UA93. If none of these exist, then the radio traffic does nothing to address the geolocation of the interceptors and UA-93. In which case we have to rely on Radar data.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
The official story states that no military interceptors were near Flight 93.

But now we have a document that states it was intercepted, proving that the official story is wrong when it comes to that information.
Click to expand...


You have said that you have already read this document. What kind of "interceptor" performed the "interception"?
 
funk de fino said:
I take it this is a retreat from claiming 93 was shotdown?
Click to expand...


NO, just waiting on all the documents to see what they say.

The main document states it was intercepted, but we will have to wait anad see what the followup documents state.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
NO, just waiting on all the documents to see what they say.

The main document states it was intercepted, but we will have to wait and see what the followup documents state.
Click to expand...

You are the guy who claims he was an F4 crewchief, you can surely tell me what an interception means?

Are you saying this was not a shootdown then but a possible interception?

PS could you clarify for me the years and dates that you spent in the Airforce, the police then the NSA? And when you became a fire officer as you have claimed?
 
The official story says they DID try to intercept the plane, btu they got their too late. The document is simply going to bring up that intercept attempt that we all already know about. Talk about a bunch of hot air...
 
ULTIMA1 said:
NO, just waiting on all the documents to see what they say.

The main document states it was intercepted, but we will have to wait anad see what the followup documents state.
Click to expand...

I believe a direct quote from any such docuement would be in order Ultima.

What were the exact words in the "original docuement" concerning an intercept?
"Intercept was performed" , for instance, would not mean that the interceptor made contact with UA93, only that it was vectored towards UA93.

In the mean time you have been asked what model of interceptor was used and what your definition of 'interception' is, and you have steadfastly ignored the inquiries.
 
More than a direct quote. If Ultima is to be taken even remotely seriously, he must provide the entire set of documents, along with a means of independent verification that they are real, and not just photoshopped forgeries.

TAM:)
 
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?

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?
Click to expand...

I just got dizzy.

So a government document now proves that the faked crash site is not fake, but the cause of the crash is fake? What does that do to the credibility of the truthers who have claimed the crash site is faked? unless the cunningly faked a document ...

:boggled:
 
T.A.M. said:
More than a direct quote. If Ultima is to be taken even remotely seriously, he must provide the entire set of documents, along with a means of independent verification that they are real, and not just photoshopped forgeries.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I agree! That is why I sent a separate FOIA request seeking the identical documents
 
ULTIMA1 said:
The official story states that no military interceptors were near Flight 93.

But now we have a document that states it was intercepted, proving that the official story is wrong when it comes to that information.
Click to expand...



We have no such thing!
We have seen zero evidence to support your fantasy!
We would like you to post evidence you claim we have!
 
doobiedoright said:
We have no such thing!
We have seen zero evidence to support your fantasy!
We would like you to post evidence you claim we have!
Click to expand...

I have shown evidence of the documet and the FOIA request.

Its not my fault if you refuse to accept it.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
I have shown evidence of the documet and the FOIA request.

Its not my fault if you refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...



No, no, you completely missed what doobiedoright is saying. You have provided some evidence that you have made an FOIA request and that a document has been located, but as to what that document actually says, all you have given is your word about what it says. That is not evidence. Do you understand the difference? Read ddr's post again if you need help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom