NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
ULTIMA1 said:
If the 9/11 commission report is wrong about no fighters being in the area of the planes on 9/11 what else is it wrong about?

Why are you so afraid of finding the truth of what happened that day?
Click to expand...

Lame, lame response. If a single element is enough to refute an entire work, your posts would've been self-refuted pages ago on typos alone. Let alone on the fact that there's more to the narrative than what the 9/11 Commision Report presents.

You see, the 9/11 Commision report is not the only word on what happened that day. That's something that you for some odd reason don't seem to be getting into your head. I've given you the direct informatin, not quoted you stuff from the report. Hell, I haven't read the report yet, not all of it. Find what evidence I've linked for you that came from the 9/11 Commision. I've shown you the NTSB reports, I've linked you the Moussaoui trial evidence, I've shown you links to other news stories and reports... but I've yet to provide anything that came from the 9/11 Commision Report. In fact, if I'm correct, A good deal of that raw evidence was used by the commision. So even if your contention is that the 9/11 Commision Report is in severe error, it doesn't change anything. Because none of what I've been using to refute your silliness came from them. Damn near all of it is primary information. You're seeing the evidence directly.

This is why your arguments fall so flat. You're so one-note about everything. And when you're failing, you flail out with that "fear" question. What a laugh... as if I haven't looked at any of it. Well, I have. But you haven't, hence your basic mistakes about debris and the contents of the CVR. What are you scared about? Mind commenting on the evidence we all here have presented to you? We've only been waiting for what, 27 pages now? And all we've gotten so far are unsupported statements and claims about a document you have shown anyone.
 
Seymour Butz said:
You don't realize what kind of guy he is.

Reread some of his posts, and he says: "the 9/11 Comission report says that no planes were intercepted....... and that the plane was most likely shot down."

He never says that the Critic says that one of the hijacked planes were intercepted. Just that A plane was intercepted, and the 9/11 CR doesn't mention it.

And I'll make a prediction right here and say that he'll then claim that since they were wrong or lied about that, then that means that the unsubstantiated report of a plane coming back missing a missle must be true, and that means that they were covering up, and 93 was really shot down, irregardless of what all the other data says. He'll claim that it's all from the MSM, and it can't be trusted, and why don't you file FOIAs, and why don't you do your own investigations, etc...

In short, he's playing a weak game of gotcha by letting you guys make your own assumptions, and you're stepping right into the troll's trap.

You can't win with a guy like this. Over at ATS, he made a statement that an F-4 Phantom is mostly made of steel, and I called him on it. He had no proof of his statement, other than showing that it had SOME steel in it, which never was in question. But it didn't matter to him. The fact that there is some steel is good enough to continue making the claim.

This is what trolls do. Make outrageous claims that they can't back up, for no other reason than to get a rise out of you. Get used to it if you choose to engage him.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't worry about my posts at this guy. I'm not worried about him. I full well understand his tricks and have highlighted his doublespeak already. But none of this is really for him. I post in order to show lurkers and other readers what the truth is. As well as to demonstrate how a conspiracy peddler operates. So in short, I'm not trying to "win", I'm trying to use him as an ongoing object lesson. And oh boy, the returns I'm getting on that are enormous!

He's an object: "This is how the delusional approach arguments. You'll see this in everthing from historical to scientific conspiracy peddling". He's nothing more.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Oh, don't worry about my posts at this guy. I'm not worried about him. I full well understand his tricks and have highlighted his doublespeak already. But none of this is really for him. I post in order to show lurkers and other readers what the truth is. As well as to demonstrate how a conspiracy peddler operates. So in short, I'm not trying to "win", I'm trying to use him as an ongoing object lesson. And oh boy, the returns I'm getting on that are enormous!

He's an object: "This is how the delusional approach arguments. You'll see this in everthing from historical to scientific conspiracy peddling". He's nothing more.
Click to expand...

He's no troofer.

A troofer either:

a) lies about 9/11 due to whatever politics they happen to have

b) is so stupid and/or delusional to believe what the conspiracy peddlers are selling.

He got in just as many arguments with troofers as anyone at ATS, cuz his intention is to get a rise out of anyone that takes the bait. It doesn't matter to him which side of the argument the "fish" comes from.

Why else would he make that statement about the F-4, and then defend it? It has no bearing on any aspect of 9/11, and yet he will argue the point.

His only objective is to get a rise. This is what he lives for.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
The document states that a plane was intercepted, what plane is not clear thats why i asked for more follow up reports.
Click to expand...



And yet, that's not what you said in the very first post in this very thread:

ULTIMA1 said:
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
Click to expand...


So, were you lying then, or are you lying now? And did you really think no one would ever look back at the first page of this thread?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
The document states that a plane was intercepted, what plane is not clear
Click to expand...

Roger, why are you lying?

Ultima1 said:
I have recieved notice that the FOIA request for the NSA document about the intercept of Flight 93 is in process and i will have it soon.
Click to expand...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread393735/pg1#pid5011910

LIAR:

Ultima1 said:
Yet the NSA document states that FLight 93 was intercepted.
Click to expand...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread393735/pg2#pid5033333

LIAR:

Ultima1 said:
Well the document states that Flight 93 was intercepted, and a follow up document states that a plane came back without a missile.
Click to expand...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread393735/pg3#pid5036078

LIAR:
Ultima1 said:
Yes i know thats why there is a SPECIFIC (and only 1) Critic message about Flight 93.
Click to expand...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread393735/pg4#pid5037036

LIAR! Your first post here at JREF:


Ultima1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Liar:

Ultima1 said:
Do you know what a CRITIC is?

The NSA has one in thier archives that states Flight 93 was shot down.
Click to expand...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread379365/pg1#pid4769210

And here we have the whopper:

Ultima1 said:
I do know the document exist becasue i have access to Intelink.
Click to expand...

You lie.
 
Last edited:
Excellent post, Mr Herbert!

Isnt it sad when he can't remember what lies he has posted? Then those same lies come around and bite em in the ass? haha!:D
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Gee more proof that people on here cannot read. The contents of the document has been shown on the internet.
Click to expand...

Where?

Maybe you're mixing up the difference between the document actually being SHOWN on the internet and the document being DISCUSSED/TALKED ABOUT on the internet.

So where was it SHOWN?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Because it is not classified information. Let me explain as simple as i can.

1. The flight numbers of the airliners that day are not classified.

2. The types of airliners that day are not classified.

3. The fact of military aircraft launched that day is not classified.

I hope this is simple enougho understand.
Click to expand...

And let ME make this as simple as I can.

Are the above three points the ONLY information that you have discussed here with with us in this public forum?

No?

You have discussed the fact that you have read a CLASSIFIED document and that the CLASSIFIED document you read VERIFIES claims made by a REPORTER who supposedly got his information from government officials.

Do you get it yet?
 
Gamolon said:
And let ME make this as simple as I can.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's simple enough for this simpleton. Let's just spell it out....

It does not matter that classified information has been published on the Internet or in any other venue by anyone. It is STILL a serious violation of Security for a Government Official (of any rank or status) who holds a Security Clearance to confirm that information. There should be no discussion of this issue as it is FACT and not subject to interpretation.

Since this whole affair has already been reported by several people, it should be quite obvious that this jerk is not who or what he says he is (as if that's not obvious already).

This whole thing does not make sense in the first place. Why would this information be classified? If it is classified how can one obtain an UNCLASSIFIED version? NSA does not have the authority without higher authority concurrence or approval to declassify a document. This is not a "willy nilly" matter.

The only issue that I can envision that would make this type of information classified is the "source". In some cases the Government does not want to reveal it's source for information and therefore declares the information classified. If new technology is used (which the Government does not wish to reveal or confirm) or if the information came from foreign Government sources the information might be classified for that reason only.

That does bring up a question to which I don't know the answer. Perhaps Sabrina or someone else with current accurate information can comment on this. Would simply removing the source declassify the information? I suspect in some cases it would, but I'm not an authority on this. This part might be worthy of further discussion, so that it results in a learning experience. Otherwise, this thread has been and is a total waste of time and space.
 
Last edited:
All Weather Bicycle

Björn Toulouse said:
What if it rains?
Click to expand...


Oh I wish i had a picture of the guy who bikes past my house every morning around 6:30 am. Hes got this bike with huge mirror brackets on the handlebars that hold up a red child's plastic sled canopy, The rear of which is held up by a sissy bar. All kinds of reflectors and conspicuity tape on the bike as well. Topped off by the odd character who pedals the thing. Like a Plennie Wingo on two wheels.
 
Björn Toulouse said:
What if it rains?
Click to expand...

Well then the meetings off. You couldn't risk such an important spook catching a cold, now could you? I mean, he could catch pneumonia and die. Who else could do such a fine job of not exposing the conspiracy? That has to be an awfully fat ass that can sit on such a mountain of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
And yet, that's not what you said in the very first post in this very thread:
Click to expand...

beachnut said:
He said Flight 93! beat again

This is easy. What else did the NSA analyst stationed at the NSA guard outpost say?
Click to expand...


Mr.Herbert said:
Roger, why are you lying?
Click to expand...




Maybe because if you had any common sense or intelligence (but then we are talking about people who still believe the official story without any official reports) you would know that the only planes they could be talking about would be either flight 93 or flight 1989 confused for flight 93.

And the document still stands as a verified document that shows reasonable doubt in the official story.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
So you are changing your story now? What is your new take on 911? ?
Click to expand...

I have no take on 9/11. i am posting facts and evidence i find.

Now i know facts and evidence is a very hard concept for believers like you to understand since you have no real and evidnece to support the official story but still go along with it.

And the document still stands as a verified document that shows reasonable doubt in the official story.
beachnut said:
You failed to make the appointment today?
Click to expand...

No, i was there, i did not see No Such Agency.
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
I have no take on 9/11. i am posting facts and evidence i find.

Now i know facts and evidence is a very hard concept for believers like you to understand since you have no real and evidnece to support the official story but still go along with it.

And the document still stands as a verified document that shows reasonable doubt in the official story.


No, i was there, i did not see No Such Agency.
Click to expand...
You drove back home? I doubt it. No photos with a paper under the flag pole to pove your claim? No evidence?


The official story, as in reality, the only story, the truth is Flight 93 crashed in Pa due to terrorist flying the plane into the ground because they are chicken and could not face the Passengers on Flight 93 who are heroes who tried to take the plane back. Proven story with facts and evidence whereas your story is hearsay junk from the Internet 911Truth pit of supreme ignorance.

The fact is a gate guard at the NSA cannot figure out 911 in years, and the passengers of Flight 93 figured out 911 in minutes. What is your problem? You like to lie and spread misinformation like implying you were an NSA analyst.


No, the document does not show Flight 93 was intercepted. Sorry, the evidence proves you wrong, you failed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom