Gavron
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 663
Actually, it doesnt state that.
In your mind, it states that because you really dont understand what it says.
Thats ok, we all know what it says.
NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon
- Thread starter ULTIMA1
- Start date
- Status
Actually, it doesnt state that.
In your mind, it states that because you really dont understand what it says.
Thats ok, we all know what it says.
no it doesn't.
Here is what they have stated is your request.
"a declassified copy of the CRITIC messages AND any follow up reports from September 11th, 2001 of the interception of Flight 93".
So in this request, you have asked for documents concerning 2 different areas,
(A) The CRITIC Messages
(B) Follow up reports from September 11, 2001 of the interception of Flight 93
in their reply, they HAVE NOT distinguished which of these two they have found documents for, nor have they stated that what they did find were the CRITIC or Follow up reports, but rather, documents RELATED to or RESPONSIVE to your request.
TAM
Yes NSA does have a document about an intercept, as far as shoot down that part is not cleara yet, but the crash site is questionable.
I am on several sites, like the 9/11 family site and am posting the facts and evidence i find. I, like the families wnat to know the truth.
Last edited:
So they did find the documents i asked for .
I don't have any questions about the crash site. It looks like every crash site where a plane augered in intact.
Nothing questionable about it.
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Dolt.
He has stated that there are underground caverns from the coast that reach Nevada.
Why can't I question his aviation experience?
What prevents me from doing so?
Ultima1:
Are you dumb? This is a real question, because I have shown you the difference here.
They said they found documents "Responsive" to your request.
For instance, if they have a report that states, "jets were scrambled, but not in time to reach flight 93 for intercept"
that would be in there.
If they had a CRITIC message, that could be in there.
If they had any follow up reports on the NORAD response to flight 93, that might be in there.
They have not stated WHAT DOCUMENTS THEY HAVE FOUND, merely that they are RELATED to your request (which is asks for a few DIFFERENT THINGS).
Where is the tugging the hair out smiley?
TAM
Are you dumb? This is a real question, because I have shown you the difference here.
They said they found documents "Responsive" to your request.
For instance, if they have a report that states, "jets were scrambled, but not in time to reach flight 93 for intercept"
that would be in there.
If they had a CRITIC message, that could be in there.
If they had any follow up reports on the NORAD response to flight 93, that might be in there.
They have not stated WHAT DOCUMENTS THEY HAVE FOUND, merely that they are RELATED to your request (which is asks for a few DIFFERENT THINGS).
Where is the tugging the hair out smiley?
TAM
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
This thread is not concerned with the crash site. It is concerned with your FOIA.
You wish to discuss the site, see other threads on that subject or start another one.
Gavron
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2008
- Messages
- 663
Reading John Lears post on luciananarchy forums about this sub base:
"From sources I consider very reliable submarines can travel under the U.S. as far as St Louis. Maybe even farther east. Maybe all the way to the Atlantic."
http://lucianarchy.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=johnlear&action=display&thread=1636
slightly off topic, but does directly show the state of mind of U1sreliable source.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Actually I believe its in Nebraska.
no it doesn't.
Here is what they have stated is your request.
"a declassified copy of the CRITIC messages AND any follow up reports from September 11th, 2001 of the interception of Flight 93".
So in this request, you have asked for documents concerning 2 different areas,
(A) The CRITIC Messages
(B) Follow up reports from September 11, 2001 of the interception of Flight 93
in their reply, they HAVE NOT distinguished which of these two they have found documents for, nor have they stated that what they did find were the CRITIC or Follow up reports, but rather, documents RELATED to or RESPONSIVE to your request.
TAM
U1 desires also that "interception" mean 'successful interception" whereas the term actually refers to the entire mission.
Such an interception mission could as easily describe the path of the fighters sent up to perform this mission or one that in hindsight only would have been a mission to intercept the specific flight, AA93, which in fact never gets anywhere near flt 93 or 1989 but instead are vectored to and fro, or who's mission gets canceled and changed to patrols over cities.
Fact is that U1 claims many times, to have read the classified report and then has stated that flt 93 was intercepted, claims that the internet version says it was shot down and posts that it was shot down on that basis despite the supposed fact that he has read the classified version which he says contains things that the internet version does not but he still chose to then state that it WAS shot down solely because an internet poster said it was when if he knew that the classified version did not say that he would be remiss to agree with the internet version............. the contortions he goes through here are those of a pathalogiocal liar who's rationale is "I am saying this now, so you have to believe me now"
my issue is not so much with his beliefs, as his inability to understand that a response to a single request for documents on multiple topics, might not yield the exact documents he thinks he is getting.
my 8 year old understands it.
TAM
my 8 year old understands it.
TAM
Poor John spews junk ideas on 911 and sees aliens; he sees them everywhere... he knows we had manned missions to Mars. Good for john ... Go ahead prove his aliens are real, prove we went to Mars with men and take any of his 911 ideas and back them with solid evidence.
His aviation knowledge is dog poop if he fails to use it. He says Flight 77 can't do what flight 77 did; failure. His ego is too big to let the valuable aviation knowledge out of his head filled with alien mush. His ideas on 911 are failed, delusional, and junk science. His alien ideas are delusions; his ideas on 911 are delusions.
Get a grip; as an analyst at the NSA there comes a time when you have to be rational and get something right!
His does not use his aviation knowledge on 911; only delusion on 911 come out of his fantasy filled mind. An analyst at the NSA should catch this!
You said Flight 93 was shot down and now you want to take back your statement?
Last edited:
What? No the crash site is not questionable save to those who lack knowledge.
Ask any trained aircraft accident investigator and they will tell you the crash site is exactly correct. But how many trained aircraft accident investigators do you know? Zero.
You make are ignorant of crash science and make up failed opinions.
Why are you changing what you said? You said 93 was shot down; and you said Flight 93 was intercepted. You said these things are you now apologizing for saying them and retracting them or ignoring your own statements?
Hmm. Maybe I should have said multiple games of whack-a-troll.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status