NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
ULTIMA1 said:
Thanks for showing that you cannot show any of the information asked for.

I mean i can find reports on all other aircraft crime scenes, why can't any of the reports on the 9/11 planes be found?
Click to expand...

1. Where are you looking?
2. Have you contacted officials with the institution responsible? If so, did you ask them why you cannot access the crime scene reports?

No, I didn't think so.

"but if it isn't on the internet...then it can't exist...right?"

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
1. Where are you looking?
2. Have you contacted officials with the institution responsible? If so, did you ask them why you cannot access the crime scene reports?
Click to expand...

1. I have looked at all the sites that have anything to do with the agencies investigating 9/11.

2. Aas seen i have sent request and even FOIA request to get information.
 
Anyone who wants to read the BS that ultima is trying to pass off has proof, go back to page 36, post 1429 for the direct link to the WMR. I'd post it again but I'm on my mobile, no cut and paste.
 
Have you read the followup reports to the main CRITIC and if not, why?

Why are you so afraid to answer that, Roger?
 
ULTIMA1 said:
1. I have looked at all the sites that have anything to do with the agencies investigating 9/11.

2. Aas seen i have sent request and even FOIA request to get information.
Click to expand...

Have you contacted the NTSB for their documentation? Have you contacted the FBI to request the crash crime scene reports from them? If so, what have they said to you? What agent at the FBi were you in touch with?

The FBi was responsible for the crash crime scene investigation, so they would have the required reports. Who at the FBI have you discussed it with?

TAM:)
 
ULTIMA1 said:
Even with the infomration blocked out if it mentions a plane being intercepted it still contridicts the official story.
Click to expand...
Actually, No it doesn't. The "official story" only deals with the high-jacked planes. You have to show that they were referring to one of those, not some other plane they may have suspected (I can name at least two that come to mind).
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
I am still waiting for you to answer the question about my making a security breach by posting information that can be found on the interent. Unless your saying the websites that contain the information have made a security breach too?

As stated before becasue you cannot figure out where i work tells me that you are either very immature or very closed minded. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Well, let me just put myself in your shoes for a moment:

1.) I read a classified document at work.

2.) Later (or maybe even prior to No. 1 above) I see something posted on the internet confirming the information I read in the classified document in No. 1.

Should I:

a.) Report to my local security personnel and let them know someone has posted what I believe is classified information on the internet?

or

b.) Post on various 9/11 conspiracy theory sites confirming that I believe the information (in No. 2 above) is correct because I've read a classified document containing similar information?

Doesn't a.) seem like the right answer to you? Seems like the right answer to me.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
The internet has plenty of sites that discuss whats in the Critic.

I am waiting to get the unclassified version of the Critic.

What is fishy about that?
Click to expand...

What's fishy is not what other internet sites say, but that you are posting information which you claim is classified.

You seem to think that it's ok to to discuss what's in this classified document as long as you're not posting the document itself.

That's what's fishy.

ETA: Mr. Skinny beat me to it :)
 
Last edited:
ULTIMA1 said:
Even with the infomration blocked out if it mentions a plane being intercepted it still contridicts the official story.
Click to expand...

It would not - and indeed, could not - contradict the whole of the "official story". It would contradicts one single, isolated point about one single isolated detail, and that's it. It wouldn't put into doubt what happend to Flight 93, it would only mean there was another plane in the area when hijackers flew it into the ground.

We've said this over and over again. Too many times, too damn many times.
 
ULTIMA1 said:
I am still waiting for you to answer the question about my making a security breach by posting information that can be found on the interent. Unless your saying the websites that contain the information have made a security breach too?

As stated before becasue you cannot figure out where i work tells me that you are either very immature or very closed minded. Which is it?
Click to expand...

*arches a brow* Sparky, I've explained and explained why you have committed a security violation and have gotten agreement on my assessment from several posters here, my entire reserve unit, and the security folks I reported you to. Just because you can't grasp the concept doesn't mean I have to KEEP explaining it to you. I suggest you go back (as you keep suggesting to people here) to my earlier posts on the matter and this time; READ THEM. If at that point you still don't understand, you will have merely proven my theory that you are not whom you say you are.

As for where you work, you have yet to prove definitively that you work where you say you work. Several posters here have suggested ways that you could prove it definitively, and you've ignored them. Which also makes me believe you do not work at NSA. So as to which it is; I'm going to go with "more knowledgable than you" and leave it at that, 'kay?
 
must be a bitch to drive 80 miles back and forth to work (New Oxford PA to Fort Meade Maryland).

I live 1 mile from my work.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
must be a bitch to drive 80 miles back and forth to work (New Oxford PA to Fort Meade Maryland).

I live 1 mile from my work.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Must be a bitch to drive a mile to work, especially in Winter. Me? I get up, go to the den, fire up my Avid and I'm ready for a day's offlining of television shows. Mmm, mmm, mmm. Commute only gets hairy when there's traffic around the washroom.

Suckaaaah! :D
 
T.A.M. said:
must be a bitch to drive 80 miles back and forth to work (New Oxford PA to Fort Meade Maryland).

I live 1 mile from my work.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Not too bad when you have the back seat and lick the windows for a couple hours......

totg-short-bus.jpg
 
Perhaps I might ask Ultima1 which of the following best describes the contents of the CRITIC which he claim exists and to have actually read:

1. CRITIC describes an interception and shootdown of flight 93.

2. CRITIC describes an interception of an airliner (presumably hijacked or suspected hijacked).

I ask that U1 stipulate which it is. He are the only one who has claimed to have seen this CRITIC. Read it. Therefore can state for a fact what it contains. As far as I am concerned, U1 does not have to relate the CRITIC in detail, but what I want is to know which version of what it contains U1 is actually attesting to.

So which is it? #1 or #2?

Realize that I am asking U1 to stipulate as to what the "facts" are with respect to the CRITIC. I am deliberately ignoring any counter evidence such as the radar and ATC transcripts.

If #1 and #2 do NOT describe what the CRITIC contains then I would be pleased to have U1 give a general description of what it did contain particularly since U1 has taken the tack that the CRITIC was related to flight 93. In that case, U1 should realize that he is stipulating what the contents of the CRITIC describe.

I kind of expect to not get an answer. :eek:
 
fezzic said:
Perhaps I might ask Ultima1 which of the following best describes the contents of the CRITIC which he claim exists and to have actually read:

1. CRITIC describes an interception and shootdown of flight 93.

2. CRITIC describes an interception of an airliner (presumably hijacked or suspected hijacked).

I ask that U1 stipulate which it is. He are the only one who has claimed to have seen this CRITIC. Read it. Therefore can state for a fact what it contains. As far as I am concerned, U1 does not have to relate the CRITIC in detail, but what I want is to know which version of what it contains U1 is actually attesting to.

So which is it? #1 or #2?

Realize that I am asking U1 to stipulate as to what the "facts" are with respect to the CRITIC. I am deliberately ignoring any counter evidence such as the radar and ATC transcripts.

If #1 and #2 do NOT describe what the CRITIC contains then I would be pleased to have U1 give a general description of what it did contain particularly since U1 has taken the tack that the CRITIC was related to flight 93. In that case, U1 should realize that he is stipulating what the contents of the CRITIC describe.

I kind of expect to not get an answer. :eek:
Click to expand...

U1 will not understand nor will he care what is being said/stated to him.

He is a liar with no real comeback. He simply hides behind a grubby screen trolling his lies. Not NSA, Not ex law enforcement, Not an analyst, probably Not even a gate guard - just some sad little tosser who knows a man who knows a man who read something on the internet.

Stop feeding this fool and he will scurry somewhere else on his belly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom