NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon
- Thread starter ULTIMA1
- Start date
- Status
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Yep, You're pretty much done here Ultima. The only thing left to do is have contest on what you'll name your sock.
("ThisIsn'tRoger" or "ULTIMA2" would be bad choices.)
("ThisIsn'tRoger" or "ULTIMA2" would be bad choices.)
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
No Such Agency
New Blood
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 24
True, but it sure did take a long time to answer. Especially after you insisted that they were gray, and I had to tell you they weren't, and you still disagreed for a while.
Wrong, see below.
Correct. Why did it take so long for you to answer?
Failure. Your refusal does not make sense in this context. If you simply did not want random internet people calling your hone, that is solved by providing a number they cannot call. You have failed to do this, the only explanation could be that you do not have access to a secure phone. If you did, why wouldn't you post the number? You've already given out your full name, address, sid, picture, etc... what is a phone number? If you are who you say then one could get this phone number using only your name. The only explanation is you do not have such a phone number.
Irrelevant. When you were first given access to NSA facilities you would have to have received two compartments.
As you said above, and else where, you supposedly access this document over Intelink-TS. The classification of Intelink-TS is higher than the answer you provided in #2. You seem to be unable to provide an answer to #5. If you can access the document as you say, one would think you would know the classification of the system you used to access the document, as well as the clearance level required to use the system (including the specific compartments needed). Since you don't, the only logical conclusion is that you do not have access to that system.
The sad part is this information is probably available on the internet, JoeyDonuts private messaged me that he though #5 was too easy of a question, and that he readily knew the answer. I actually agreed, but it appears you have failed.
You have left huge logical holes in your identity claims and I have no choice but to officially certify that you do not work for the NSA.
Q.
E.
D.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Not to change the subject, but can anyone remind me what the definition of a troll is?
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,449
In addition to these screen shots, Roger admits a few pages ago that he indeed read the critic.
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert
You claimed to have read the classified version because you claim to have access to these files. You filed an FOIA request to get the declassified version. .
Ultima1 said:
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
I don't know why you continue to pick on ULTIMA1. He's proven he's an NSA analyst, has a security clearance, and isn't violating any laws by posting about classified documents.
He's also proven the existance of three alternate universes, aether, cold fusion, and the tooth fairy.
So lay off. 'kay? He's the real deal!
He's also proven the existance of three alternate universes, aether, cold fusion, and the tooth fairy.
So lay off. 'kay? He's the real deal!
Nice find by Mr. Herbert on Rogers posts ATS.
Roger, those posts are from 2005. Why did you wait over 3 years before even filing your FOIA request if you've been spouting the same nonsense for years?
And, yes, we can call you a liar all we want and it's not a rule breach. The reason is because it's TRUE...you've severely contradicted your own statements several times in this thread alone which makes you a proven liar.
Roger, those posts are from 2005. Why did you wait over 3 years before even filing your FOIA request if you've been spouting the same nonsense for years?
And, yes, we can call you a liar all we want and it's not a rule breach. The reason is because it's TRUE...you've severely contradicted your own statements several times in this thread alone which makes you a proven liar.
To be fair to the kid, those posts are from 2008. 2005 is when he registered there.
I were him, I would just leave. Every time he posts here, he will be reminded about the fact that he is a proven liar.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Quick question for those of you who peruse ATS, is there anyone at ATS who believes U1 is an NSA analyst?
Last edited:
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I was wondering if only U1 bought his own fantasy.
The letter states that the document i asked for (that a plane, possibly flight 93 was intercepted) does exist.
What crimes? the government decided there enough going on that day without telling them about a posible intercept and shootdown.
I have shown the FOIA request sent to NSA.
I have shown the letter recieved from NSA that the document i asked for (possibly showing an intercept and shoot down) does exist and they are sending it to me.
Please read my post before responding.
I stated the internet version of the contents of the document are not exactly what is on the actual document.
Because thats what is stated on the internet version of whats in the document. Also due the qustionable crash site of flight 93.
Lying again!
At no point in that letter does is say that any interception of any plane ever took place on 9/11.
All your letter says is that they received your FOIA request and you're going to the end of the queue. Period. End of letter.
If you look back i did answer the questions before.
It is relevant becasue being on the police force we had different inprocessing then most employees.
Well when is a good time for to meet again so i can prove how wrong you are.
Last edited:
Q1. When you sent the request, did you ask for a particularly named document, or simply ask "please provide documents regarding the intercept of flight93 on 9/11 2001?
Q2. Was there reply the following (or something very similar)?
"We have received your request, and are in the process of retrieving all documents related to that request".
OR
was it more like,
"We have received your request for document X, and are in the process of retrieving this document for you".
OR like this,
"We have received your request for information related to 'flight 93 intercept on 9/11/2001' and are presently processing said request."
I will go back to look at your FOIA form to see if it answers my questions, but the wording is often very key in these requests.
TAM
- Status