NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hogwash...produce the document. If you are talking about the FOIA letter, it DOES NOT CLAIM THAT!

Yes in fact the letter that i recieved in connection with the the FOIA request does state that the document does exist and that they are sending me the document and follow up reports.

Also i suggest you ask No Such Agency to check the critic archives for the critic that talks about the interception of at least 1 plane.
 
beachnut;4579226[/quote said:
I have to say the commission is correct if the definition of 911 planes is 11, 175, 77 and 93.

You are forgetting other planes that were flying in the area like Delta 1989 that was even confused for Flight 93 for a while.

The NSA document contridicts the 9/11 commission as far as fighters intercepting a plane.
 
Last edited:
Ultima, what is your daddy going to do to you when he finds out that you are posting this nonsense again?
 
Edited for Rule 12 violataion.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited for Rule 12 violataion.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

That's you, remember. You were grounded from the Internet for a few months for doing that. Now you're back. How long will you be grounded when your daddy finds out you are doing it again?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited for Rule 12 violataion.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are forgetting other planes that were flying in the area like Delta 1989 that was even confused for Flight 93 for a while.

The NSA document contridicts the 9/11 commission as far as fighters intercepting a plane.

You are saying the USAF intercepted 1989?

Which planes were intercepted?

Which planes were shot down?

Why do you display zero reading comprehension skills?

Why does Ultima1 claim to be an NSA analyst?

You must not be busy at work able to post your delusions at will. You are not an NSA employee you are a fraud spreading lies about 911. I have proof all over the Internet. If you were an NSA employee you got fired when you first posted you were an NSA employee.

NSA top-secret SCI special programs NOFORN Confidential Classified GIANT FLASH OVERRIDE Top Secret CIA SAR access Sensitive Compartmented Information TS clearances Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) Special access program (SAP) clearances Signals intelligence SIGINT interception COMINT communications intelligence NSA employee said so NSA


How can you be so ignorant on 911? I have seen your other posts all over the Internet. Why were you locked up for 3 months?
 
Last edited:
Roger...here is a picture of you in an NSA news letter. Why don't post a picture of yourself holding a piece of paper that reads "JREF."

ultima.jpg
 
Well ULTIMA1 has obvious cherry picked the questions he knows how to answer, completely dodging the others. Looks like my work here is done.
 
Guys, I hate to beat this point into the ground, but what Ultima's supposed and possibly imaginary status with the NSA is doesn't matter. This has been mentioned before; I clearly remember Gumboot touching on this all the way back in October. The fact of the matter is, regardless of what he states:

Here is a letter from the NSA FOIA office that they have the NSA "Critic" that i asked for that states that Flight 93 was intercepted.

This contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/FLI93-2.jpg?t=1222974166
Well the official story states that no planes (intercepters) were near flight 93.

This document will show that Flight 93 was intercepted by fighters and possibly shot down.
Well the document is real and would hold up in court.

It states that Flight 93 was intercepted, follow up reports suggest a fighter came back without a missile. Thats why i asked for follow up reports.

... he cannot claim that big a deviation from "The Official Story" at all. All the evidence validates the fact that the jet was not shot down, and the radar data shows no military plane in the area. So even if Ultima somehow validates his claim about his employment at the NSA, it doesn't matter. The absolute most he can claim is that a military jet was missed in the radar coverage and that it fired a missile and missed Flight 93. That's the utter, absolute most. A second, more likely possibility is that there was some sort of military aircraft in the area that somehow evaded radar coverage and had lost a missile at some point. The actual, truly likely possibility is that he found a doc repeating misinformed speculation. Regardless, there is no way for him to have any support for anything about a shootdown or anything else MIHOP. He CANNOT have any sort of legitimate information that overturns what has been determined from the FDR (data validating the fact that the plane was in working condition all the way into the ground), CVR (validating that hijackers were at the controls), wreckage recovery, cell and air phone calls, DNA analysis (all linking confirmed flight passengers to the flight and the impact site), FBI work linking the hijackers to the flight, and so on. The most he can do is catch a small error about what plane(s) were in the area. That is THE MOST. Period.

I realize that sometimes it's fun to poke at a particularly clueless yet strident truther. But this has gone beyond pathetic. He can be the head of the NSA for all we care, and it still wouldn't change the fact that the jet has been verified to have been hijacked and flown into the ground by hijackers, NOT shot down or otherwise forced down by the military.

Who cares what his employment is? That chase has turned into the epitome of GNDN. There might be substantive information yet to be discovered in the topic of this thread, but it will not be had in the pursuit of Ultima's credentials.
 
Last edited:
Fact2. According to a verifiable NSA document there was at least 1 plane that was intercepted by fighters.

Incorrect. The docuement states that the NSA has documents that pertain to the FOIA inquiry, not that you are correct in asserting that flight 93 was intercepted let alone shot down.

Here is a letter from the NSA FOIA office that they have the NSA "Critic" that i asked for that states that Flight 93 was intercepted.

This contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/FLI93-2.jpg?t=1222974166

Once again please point to the phrases in the letter that state "Flight 93 was intercepted."
 
Last edited:
Yes in fact the letter that i recieved in connection with the the FOIA request does state that the document does exist and that they are sending me the document and follow up reports.

No it doesn't. It states that the material found in response to your request is not voluminous or complex. An official letter saying "No such report exists" in response to a previous search for the same document would, for example, fit that description perfectly.

Dave
 
I think when he receives the response to his FOIA, it's going to contain a laminated shirtless picture of Erik Estrada. And that's it.
 
I was not military police. if you look at my transcript the very first course on the second page (last entry by date)is basic police training taken at the federal law enforcement training center in Glynco, GA.

So you went straight from AF to NSA policeman?

ultima1 said:
The OSHA courses i took for the fire and safety rep was done after the dates on the transcript.

Post them then. A fire and safety rep is not a fire safety officer.
 
Yes in fact the letter that i recieved in connection with the the FOIA request does state that the document does exist and that they are sending me the document and follow up reports.

I'll state this again, in the vain hope that you might actually understand it if enough people say it to you, really slowly.

The letter you received doesn't state that the document exists, and doesn't say what they are sending you. You really need to stop and read that letter carefully because it doesn't say anything like that.

It really doesn't.

The document might exist, it might not - there is no way to tell from the letter that you received.
 
I'll state this again, in the vain hope that you might actually understand it if enough people say it to you, really slowly.

The letter you received doesn't state that the document exists, and doesn't say what they are sending you. You really need to stop and read that letter carefully because it doesn't say anything like that.

It really doesn't.

The document might exist, it might not - there is no way to tell from the letter that you received.

Actually, the letter establishes that there ARE documents responsive to his FOIA request. I have confirmed this with NSA. I believe his acknowledgement letter from the NSA says that it is in easy queue, which means there ARE documents, but they are not particularly voluminous or complex. I know my acknowledgement letter says that.

What ever documents are responsive were shipped out to some other agency for their input.

Again, the fact that there are documents responsive to the request does not establish in any way that there is an inside jobby job.
 
Again, the fact that there are documents responsive to the request does not establish in any way that there is an inside jobby job.

Nor does it even support the contention that the aircraft, flight 93, was successfully intercepted and most certainly does not address the idea, in the slightest, that it was shot down.

You and U1 may well get a report about the fighters that were airborne showing that no fighter ever made contact with any suspicious civilian plane.

U1 wants his usage of 'intercept' to refer solely to a successful interception whereas an 'intercept' is a mission, not just the successful end of a mission.
 
Whats your daddy going to do when he finds put you have been playing on the internet pretending to be an adult?
We are waiting for your stuff; when do you think it is coming? What kind of phone is in the guard shack?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom