So, why is it that your post includes a cut and paste from the NSA online request webpage information which only comes up in a pop up window when one attempts to submit an online request via the Privacy Act - not the Freedom of Information Act - and which does not come up at all if one submits an online request pursuant to the FOI Act, and which does not come up at all if one submits a request via e-mail?
I am curious as to why you would copy and paste the wrong submission information into your alleged e-mail to the NSA, particularly since you claim to work for the NSA.
I am also curious as to why you would cut and paste the Privacy Act submission information from the pop-up window that comes up online when one attempts to submit a request via that Act, since a request pursuant to the Privacy Act is for information held by a government agency about oneself, and not for information held by government agencies about others/government actors, which is clearly explained on the site.
You have shown part of a letter that indicates a request was made by someone at some time for something, pursuant to the FOIA.
Please understand that I am not saying that you did not send some kind of request to someone. What I am saying is that (a) you have not yet provided sufficient evidence that you sent the request that you claim to have sent; and (b) the partial letter you posted does not verify that you sent the request you claim to have sent.
It really should be a rather trivial matter for you to establish that you have done so but, so far, you have not, and you appear to be vigorously resisting posting complete evidence of having done so. Perhaps it is just laziness on your part and you couldn't be bothered to post the actual request and the complete response, but if you want to have any hope of convincing a room full of skeptics of something, you should come prepared with sufficient evidence.
As I said from my first post on the subject, a copy of the actual request and the complete response received (both with your personal information redacted, of course). In light of the fact that you have since posted the text of a pop-up window that comes up only when one submits an online request via the Privacy Act rather than the FOI Act, I suppose I will also require an explanation for why you would have included the contents of that pop up window in your alleged e-mail request.
No, it has not. You are leaping way too far ahead of yourself here. You keep claiming that you have seen a classified document in the past and that the response you've cited somehow "verifies" the existence of the classified document you claim to have seen. You take this even further and suggest that the response you've cited also "verifies" your interpretation of the classified document that you claim to have seen.
This is completely wrong. All the letter says is that the agency has identified documents responsive to a request received, and that the request will be processed in due course on the "Non Personal Easy Cases" track. That does not mean - in any way, shape or form - that the responsive documents say or mean what you seem to think they say or mean. That does not mean - in any way, shape or form - that the responsive documents "state that flight 93 was intercepted" or that they "will show that Flight 93 was intercepted by fighters and possibly shot down", etc., as you claim.
You are grossly overstating things here.
I have it. What a weird question.
