NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

[BCR]

Okay Boone870, I have the Cleveland page started. The transcripts are up now and I'll start converting and uploading the audios this weekend. It took me two days to just extract the archive.

Cleveland (ZOB)

Now Ultima, as I get this stuff up, I want you to go through it and point out this fighter that shot down UAL93. It HAD to be under ATC control or other aircraft had to be moved out of its way. You should be able to pick that up rather easily.

 

[Gavron]

Thanks, 911files!

Nice to see a post where someone says they will post data, and actually come thru. If only others would be as kind to follow thru as you have. Nicely done!

 

[Sparky]

I doubt U1 will be back now that the photo has blown his "analyst" cover. How embarassing.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm confused, which poster is Roger?

 

[Reheat]

I'm confused, which poster is Roger?

The one in the photo with the BIG GUT!

 

[dtugg]

I'm confused, which poster is Roger?

Roger is ultima's daddy.

 

[Dog Town]

I doubt U1 will be back now that the photo has blown his "analyst" cover. How embarassing.

Hasn't stopped him before, why now? That pic was posted a couple times in this forum awhile back. I am sure it's made the rounds at ATS.He even posted his phone number once!

 

[ULTIMA1]

Well ULTIMA1 has obvious cherry picked the questions he knows how to answer, completely dodging the others. Looks like my work here is done.

Actually it looks like you have only chery picked the answers you wanted.

If you still dod not believe i am who i say i am please feel free to give me your SID or phone so we can set up a face to face meeting.

 

[ULTIMA1]

.. he cannot claim that big a deviation from "The Official Story" at all.

So wrong.

The 9/11 commission report states that no fighters were near any of the plane on 9/11.

The NSA document states that at least 1 plane was intercepted by fighters.

AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE NSA DOCUMENT COMPLETLY CONTRIDICTS THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.

 

[ULTIMA1]

No it doesn't. It states that the material found in response to your request is not voluminous or complex.

Not voluminous or complex is not the same as the document not existing. The letter does verify the document does exist.

I have also taked to the FOIA office to verify the document does exist and is being sent.

 

[ULTIMA1]

Now Ultima, as I get this stuff up, I want you to go through it and point out this fighter that shot down UAL93. .

How hard is it to understand that the NSA document contridicts the 9/11 commisions report when it comes to fighters being close to the planes on 9/11?

The 9/11 commission report states that no fighters got neaar any of the planes on 9/11.

The NSA document states that at least 1 plane was intercepted by fighters on 9/11.

 

[TJM]

How hard is it to understand that the NSA document contridicts the 9/11 commisions report when it comes to fighters being close to the planes on 9/11?

The 9/11 commission report states that no fighters got neaar any of the planes on 9/11.

The NSA document states that at least 1 plane was intercepted by fighters on 9/11.

How hard is it to look at 911Files' data and prove him wrong?

 

[The Big Dog]

So wrong.

The 9/11 commission report states that no fighters were near any of the plane on 9/11.

The NSA document states that at least 1 plane was intercepted by fighters.

AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE NSA DOCUMENT COMPLETLY CONTRIDICTS THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.

Uh, Ultima? You have never produced the NSA Document. So not only can we not "CLEARLY SEE" anything, at present you have not and cannot support your claim. So why don't you zip it until we get the NSA responses to our FOIAs?

I AM POSTING IN LL CAPS I AM AN ALL CAPS POSTER! PAY ATTENTION TO ME

 

[ULTIMA1]

Uh, Ultima? You have never produced the NSA Document.

The information on the NSA critic can be found on the internet with little research.

Also the letter from the FOIA office states the document does exist.

Also you can ask No Such Agency to look up the document in the NSA critic archives to verify the document does exist.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

So wrong.

The 9/11 commission report states that no fighters were near any of the plane on 9/11.

The NSA document states that at least 1 plane was intercepted by fighters.

AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE NSA DOCUMENT COMPLETLY CONTRIDICTS THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.

First of all, you've provided no document to reference. All you do is claim its existence.

Second, you're not coming close to addressing the substance of the points I've raised. To repeat: Regardless of what this supposed document claims, the convergence of other lines of evidence is conclusive. The FDR unambiguously shows the jet was flown into the ground, and had suffered no interruptions or degradations of capabilities until the moment it hit the ground. This directly falsifies any claim of being hit by a missile. The CVR does not record any explosions prior to impact, and validates that the hijackers were the ones at the controls up to the point of impact. The wreckage pattern is inconsistent with a shootdown, but entirely consistent with a controlled flight into the ground. And so on. As I said, even if your document exists, and even if it's accurate, the most you can claim from it is that a jet in the area avoided radar coverage and, if it truly fired a missile, it failed to hit the jet. If anything else had happened, then the FDR, CVR, cell and airphone calls, and wreckage would have shown this.

The most you can claim is that there was another plane in the area, and that it had no effect on what UA93 did. That is the absolute, positive most you can claim. The evidence conclusively establishes that. There is no doubt about any of these other points. Your alleged document cannot change any of that.

 

[TJM]

First of all, you've provided no document to reference. All you do is claim its existence.

Second, you're not coming close to addressing the substance of the points I've raised. To repeat: Regardless of what this supposed document claims, the convergence of other lines of evidence is conclusive. The FDR unambiguously shows the jet was flown into the ground, and had suffered no interruptions or degradations of capabilities until the moment it hit the ground. This directly falsifies any claim of being hit by a missile. The CVR does not record any explosions prior to impact, and validates that the hijackers were the ones at the controls up to the point of impact. The wreckage pattern is inconsistent with a shootdown, but entirely consistent with a controlled flight into the ground. And so on. As I said, even if your document exists, and even if it's accurate, the most you can claim from it is that a jet in the area avoided radar coverage and, if it truly fired a missile, it failed to hit the jet. If anything else had happened, then the FDR, CVR, cell and airphone calls, and wreckage would have shown this.

The most you can claim is that there was another plane in the area, and that it had no effect on what UA93 did. That is the absolute, positive most you can claim. The evidence conclusively establishes that. There is no doubt about any of these other points. Your alleged document cannot change any of that.

Well said Mondo. Too bad he won't address anything other than your opening sentence.

 

[No Such Agency]

Actually it looks like you have only chery picked the answers you wanted.

I posted the questions you have no answered, and you still have no answered them. Since you refuse to answer them, we have no choice but to assume you are not who you claim to be.

If you still dod not believe i am who i say i am please feel free to give me your SID or phone so we can set up a face to face meeting.

Doing so would be incredibly unwise, you should (but obviously do not) know that. Also, this is where I point out I never claimed to have first hand knowledge of any of the stuff we're talking about. You have claimed that you have this knowledge, but have not followed up any of those claims. (Believe it or not, I have read your old "journal" comments and so I know how this all began. But don't worry, I won't tell.)

Why don't you behave like an adult and just say "I am not going to answer any more of these questions" rather than pretend like the questions do not exist? Maybe you aren't an adult?

 

[TJM]

Tell!1!111!

 

[TJM]

And off he goes. Hey Ultima? Change that fryer grease and do hurry back. You've got some interesting questions to answer here.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well said Mondo. Too bad he won't address anything other than your opening sentence.

Well, it doesn't matter what he does from this point. It's the evidence that matters, not his claims. He can either ignore the points I've raised, or he can try to set up a "my claim proves this" and dance around those points (well, I guess that's actually the same thing, isn't it? Dancing around is ignoring those points). Or he can move on and concentrate on only establishing that a jet was in the area, which actually would contradict the 9/11 Commision Report but not substantively change the narrative of FL93's fate, since nothing about a jet being in the area changes what the FDR, CVR, wreckage, or cell/airphone call testimony says. Or, by some miraculous occurance, he can concede that the other points conclusively establish UA93's fate and just leave things at that. Regardless, it doesn't matter. As I said, there's a limit to what he could claim regarding the overall narrative even if he's somehow right about everything. If he moves beyond that to attack other aspects of the narrative, he's making a new claim that has nothing to do with this supposed document.

Anyway, thanks for the compliment.