NSA Document Flight 93 intercepted coming soon

[ULTIMA1]

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

[WildCat]

Uh, no it doesn't...

[ULTIMA1]

Uh, no it doesn't...

You might want to look at what the official story states.

When i get this document and poist it, it will contridict the official story.

[Mr.Herbert]

OH NOOOOO He was Banned at ATS... now the madness starts here.

GOD HELP US ALL!!!!

[Totovader]

You might want to look at what the official story states.

When i get this document and poist it, it will contridict the official story.

In the mean time, can you "poist" what it is that will supposedly be "contridicted"...

[Drudgewire]

While I don't think the documents are going to say what you think they'll say, and while nobody disputes there was a Falcon 20 near the crash site, I will give you props for being more than the dolts who usually come here spouting whatever they read off some goofy website and angrily passing it off as fact.

You are actually doing something, and I respect that. :)

[dtugg]

Why would you even ask the NSA about this? Their job has nothing to do with UA93, they are a cryptologic intelligence agency. There are much better sources of information regarding this if you insist on filing FOIA requests.

[madurobob]

Huh? All it says is
We have completed our search for records responsive to your request. The material responsive to your request is not voluminous or complex, and your request has been placed in the first-in, first out processing queue for Non Personal Easy Cases
I'm very curious to know just what you think you have there.

[Caustic Logic]

OH NOOOOO He was Banned at ATS... now the madness starts here.

GOD HELP US ALL!!!!

Banned? Are you serious? I thought was impossible.

Ultima1 - welcome. If you're willing to learn, I do have to say, this is a better environment. I was hoping that was why you'd signed on. But seeing Mr H's response... Alright, I'll look at your doc when you have it, and tell you what I think it says, but I'm not arguing with you over anything. Good luck.

Hint - I forget how ATS is, but the posts here actually underline your typos in red, giving you every chance to fis them.

[Mr.Herbert]

While I don't think the documents are going to say what you think they'll say, and while nobody disputes there was a Falcon 20 near the crash site, I will give you props for being more than the dolts who usually come here spouting whatever they read off some goofy website and angrily passing it off as fact.

You are actually doing something, and I respect that. :)

Drudge... Roger aka Ultima1 is one of them... he read a story about a guy that knows a guy that read a document that stated flight 93 was intercepted.He posted about it at ATS.

Then a few days later he stated that HE read a "classisfied" version of it at work (he works for the NSA)

Since then he filed a FOIA request for an "declassified" version.

He is full blown woo.

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

[madurobob]

Hint - I forget how ATS is, but the posts here actually underline your typos in red, giving you every chance to fis them.
Amen, brother!

[16.5]

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

"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."

Uhh, that letter does not say that.

"This contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93."

Putting aside "the official story" what you attached does not say that.

Sorry Pal, you will be getting back a big Goose Egg.

Learn how to write a broad FOIA request next time.

[ULTIMA1]

In the mean time, can you "poist" what it is that will supposedly be "contridicted"...

Well the official story states that no planes (intercepters) were near flight 93.

This document will show that Flight 93 was intercepted by fighters and possibly shot down.

Huh? All it says is

I'm very curious to know just what you think you have there.

Well i filed an FOIA request to get a declassified verstion of a Critc that was posted on 9/11/2001about FLight 93 (the only Critic that day from NSA).

The FOIA office stated in the letter that they have the Critic (document) and will be sending it out.

"
Learn how to write a broad FOIA request next time.

Why do i need to write a broad FOIA request when i was asking for a specific document, the document they have stated they have and are sending?

[WildCat]

Hint - I forget how ATS is, but the posts here actually underline your typos in red, giving you every chance to fis them.
Only if you d/l software.

[dtugg]

Well the official story states that no planes (intercepters) were near flight 93.

This document will show that Flight 93 was intercepted by fighters and possibly shot down.

And if (when) it doesn't, you'll just claim that it was fabricated, right?

[beachnut]

Well the official story states that no planes (intercepters) were near flight 93.

This document will show that Flight 93 was intercepted by fighters and possibly shot down.
No it will not.

You see the RADAR data is there, it shows no fighter intercepted 93. You have to be the worse analyst at the NSA.

The FDR of 93 shows an intact plane impacting the ground, as does the impact crater and parts on the ground. An analyst could figure this out. A competent analyst.

This is funny you appear with promises of evidence. Cool.

[WildCat]

Well the official story states that no planes (intercepters) were near flight 93.
There were no fighter planes. There was a Falcon 20 business jet.

This document will show that Flight 93 was intercepted by fighters and possibly shot down.
No, it won't. The wreckage of flight 93 is not in any way consistent with a shoot-down, nor is there anyting in the FDR supporting a shoot-down.

But don't let those facts make you abandon your fantasy!

[Drudgewire]

Drudge... Roger aka Ultima1 is one of them... he read a story about a guy that knows a guy that read a document that stated flight 93 was intercepted.He posted about it at ATS.


Well don't I feel silly then? :o

[Mr.Herbert]

Ultima,

Your fans at ATS miss you. Why were you banned?

[WildCat]

I love how he thinks the government could keep secret that they actually did 9/11, but would admit it if only a FOIA request was properly filled out.

It's right up there with getting Bush and Cheney to testify UNDER OATH!

[Drudgewire]

I love how he thinks the government could keep secret that they actually did 9/11, but would admit it if only a FOIA request was properly filled out.

It's right up there with getting Bush and Cheney to testify UNDER OATH!

Haha, good point. "We have successfully covered up the murder of three thousand Americans, plus the many more who have lost their lives in the war on terror which followed our dispicable act, for seven years now. Sure hope no one asks nicely for the documents which totally prove we made up the whole thing, because then we're screwed." :D

[Arus808]

as he was torn apart at ATS for his reading comprehension problems, it just goes to show that since his banning at ATS, he hasn't learned how to read, nor comprehend anything that is put to him.

[madurobob]

The FOIA office stated in the letter that they have the Critic (document) and will be sending it out.
No, they didn't. read that letter again. They said your request was "easy".

I fully expect you to get a blank page saying "no documents found". That's easy.

[ULTIMA1]

But don't let those facts make you abandon your fantasy!

Well this document might just blow those facts away with other facts.

By the way this document would stand up in court as actual evidence.

[WildCat]

Well this document might just blow those facts away with other facts.

By the way this document would stand up in court as actual evidence.
What document?

[16.5]

Why do i need to write a broad FOIA request when i was asking for a specific document, the document they have stated they have and are sending?

Uhhh, if what they were quoting was what you requested, that is not asking for one specific document.

Bigger problem. They are not necessarily telling you that they have it. They are telling you they looked for responsive documents and are going to send you what they have. The number of responsive documents will likely be: ZERO.

Biggest problem? That is a form letter, dude, a form letter.

/could be wrong, maybe they will send him something. Kind of silly to post a whole thread about a freaking form letter, though.

[ULTIMA1]

No, they didn't. read that letter again. They said your request was "easy".
.


Yes it was easy because i asked for a specific docuement. A document they found easily.

[Arus808]

Well this document might just blow those facts away with other facts.

By the way this document would stand up in court as actual evidence.



Nice argument based on your own assumptions since

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE DOCUMENT IN YOUR HANDS!

so, seeing that you dont know what it says, how can you make such stupid claims in the first place.

Oh wait...you are clueless.

[ULTIMA1]

What document?

The document i asked for.

[Drudgewire]

Well this document might just blow those facts away with other facts.


It might finally prove my "rogue unicorns did it" theory, but until I've read the document I'd look pretty stupid passing off my imaginary version of what might be on there as evidence that would stand up in court now, wouldn't I?

[ULTIMA1]

Uhhh, if what they were quoting was what you requested, that is not asking for one specific document.

I asked for a "Critic" there was only one "Critic" posted that day.

[Arus808]

Yes it was easy because i asked for a specific docuement. A document they found easily.


showing yet again, that you failed reading comprehension 101.

REAd the letter you received again. IT doesn't say what you think it says.

The fact that you've had members from TWO forum sites TELL you this shows you are closeted in your own fantasy.

[madurobob]

Yes it was easy because i asked for a specific docuement. A document they found easily.

Uh-huh. Keep dreaming. Post it when you get it. I'll buy you a beer if it is anything near what you think it is. Until then, this is a useless conversation.

[ULTIMA1]

so, seeing that you dont know what it says, how can you make such stupid claims in the first place..


But i do know what i says. I have read the document, thats why i filed a FOIA to get it.

[Mince]

...(he works for the NSA)


Maybe as a floor sweeper, and even that's unlikely.

[Arus808]

But i do know what i says. I have read the document, thats why i filed a FOIA to get it.


coming from you I rather believe Pinnochio than a liar that you've been shown to be.

Produce the document, or else this is just pure speculation and assumption on your part.

and seeing that YOU cant even understand a simple letter to your FOIA request, we can rest assured that this "document" you did read, was also met with your SUB PAR reading comprehension level that you've demonstrated.

[madurobob]

But i do know what i says. I have read the document, thats why i filed a FOIA to get it.
Sure. So, you read the classified version, know it exposes the official story as a hoax, and yet you feel you can't expose this because the doc is classified.

Interesting morals you have there.

[dtugg]

But i do know what i says. I have read the document, thats why i filed a FOIA to get it.

Wait, I thought that you said the document was coming soon, you know as you say in the title to this thread. Coming soon would mean that it has not come yet. Or have you got it in the mail in the hour or so that you started this thread?

[ULTIMA1]

Sure. So, you read the classified version, know it exposes the official story as a hoax, and yet you feel you can't expose this because the doc is classified.


Well if you would have read the letter you will see that i asked for a declassifed version to post.

[ULTIMA1]

Wait, I thought that you said the document was coming soon,


Yes the document is coming as stated in the letter from the NSA FOIA office.

[madurobob]

Well if you would have read the letter you will see that i asked for a declassifed version to post.
right. Because you're afraid to expose the classified version... why?

When the FOIA returns to you empty, what will you do? Claim you really, really did see the classified version that exposes the official story as a hoax, but refuse to publish it because its "classified"?

[WildCat]

The document i asked for.
Which you asked for because you don't have it. Nor do you even know if such a document exists.

[dtugg]

Well if you would have read the letter you will see that i asked for a declassifed version to post.

So the government is going to give you a declassified document proving that the story that they give is a lie? Right. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Soloist]

This contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93.


Well nice to see you change your spin on the document. For so long we have been hearing from you how this will "prove Flight 93 was intercepted and shot down" making the official story wrong.

I look forward to your insulting troll posts where you call everyone who disagrees with you immature.

Yay.

BTW, wouldn't proof that the plane was actually shot down blow all the other 9/11 inside job conspiracy theories away?

[Arus808]

And ULTIMA1 fails to see that even if (a big if) flight 93 was shot down, there would be no reason to cover it up. Seeing that we've already had 3 planes crashed into buildings, and they realized a fourth one was hijacked, the alert would have been out to find the plane since it would have been believed that its mission would also to crash into a building. Which one? who knows. But the precedent was already there.

[Drudgewire]

But i do know what i says. I have read the document, thats why i filed a FOIA to get it.

You'll have to pardon our skepticism over you maaaaybe not reading it right the first time, but we go by evidence here and your interpretation of the letter you posted in the OP does present a tiny credibility issue.

But that's OK, when you get the real document post it here and it'll prove a shoot-down and we'll all be like "woah, this IS real evidence." And the entire community will jump all over your bandwagon because we've been DYING for any shred of real evidence since the very first 9/11 CT was presented and six years later we're getting pretty annoyed with the wait.

And when none of this happens, at least you'll be able to comfort yourself in the delusion we're really not skeptics and the reason we all laughed heartily at what you wound up getting is because that's what sheep do and not because it said the opposite of what you thought it did. ;)

[ULTIMA1]

So the government is going to give you a declassified document proving that the story that they give is a lie? Right. I'll believe it when I see it.


Well facts are facts.

DO you believe everything the media tells you?

[ULTIMA1]

but we go by evidence here and your interpretation of the letter you posted in the OP does present a tiny credibility issue.

I have stated what is in the letter.

I asked for a specific Critic from 9/11 (the only one posted that day) and they found it.

[Horatius]

I'm willing to bet 10 Ameros that, if any document shows up that actually says anything about intercepting in relation to Flight 93, it will be about intercepting radio communications. This interpretation would seem to be consistent with the quality of his interpretation of the letter he already posted.

Any takers?

[madurobob]

ULTIMA1 - I await your answer: if the FOIA comes back empty, will you expose the classified doc, or hide behind the fact that its classified?

[ULTIMA1]

I'm willing to bet 10 Ameros that, if any document shows up that actually says anything about intercepting in relation to Flight 93, that it will be about [B]intercepting radio communications
Any takers?


I thnk you might want to reread the letter.

[16.5]

Interesting.

It does appear that the NSA does indeed have responsive documents.

If they had none they would have sent another form letter saying that they had none.

Plus it would have went into the "Super Easy" category. Yes they have a "super easy" category. This is not in that category.

Here is a link to the NSA FOIA guidelines that seem to back up some of the OP's claims:

http://www.nsa.gov/foia/foia00011.pdf

So, time to go back and edit my previous posts!

Mwhahahaha!

[ULTIMA1]

ULTIMA1 - I await your answer: if the FOIA comes back empty, will you expose the classified doc, or hide behind the fact that its classified?

Why would the FOIA come back empty when they have already stated they have what i asked for?


Please reread the letter or have someone read it for you so you can understand it.

[DC]

ULTIMA1 - I await your answer: if the FOIA comes back empty, will you expose the classified doc, or hide behind the fact that its classified?

correct me if i am wrong, but i doubt you can FOIA a classified document. and when they do give it out, would that not mean it is atleast then declassified?

[roundhead]

My guess is that this is disinfo.

I find it hard to believe a plane was shot down when one didnt crash there, from impact, shootdown, or anything else.

[ULTIMA1]

correct me if i am wrong, but i doubt you can FOIA a classified document. and when they do give it out, would that not mean it is atleast then declassified?

Well if you would have read the letter you would see that i asked for a declassified version of the document.

[Drudgewire]

And ULTIMA1 fails to see that even if (a big if) flight 93 was shot down, there would be no reason to cover it up. Seeing that we've already had 3 planes crashed into buildings, and they realized a fourth one was hijacked, the alert would have been out to find the plane since it would have been believed that its mission would also to crash into a building. Which one? who knows. But the precedent was already there.


The whole conspiracy basically boils down to "we tell the world we gave permission to shoot down the plane, but then we'll REALLY SHOOT DOWN THE PLANE AND SAY WE DIDN'T!"

:explode

[Mince]

correct me if i am wrong, but i doubt you can FOIA a classified document.


Nor can you read a classified document without authorization; making ULTIMA1's claims to have read such a document very dubious. If he did read a classified document without authorization, he is a felon...and a self-confessed felon.

[dtugg]

Well facts are facts.

DO you believe everything the media tells you?

What facts?

And no, I do not believe everything that the media tells me. But when what they says is backed by ALL the available evidence, yes I do tend to believe it.

[WildCat]

My guess is that this is disinfo.

I find it hard to believe a plane was shot down when one didnt crash there, from impact, shootdown, or anything else.
Too funny!

:dl:

[ULTIMA1]

My guess is that this is disinfo.

I find it hard to believe a plane was shot down when one didnt crash there, from impact, shootdown, or anything else.

Well the document is real and would hold up in court.

It states that Flight 93 was intercepted, follow up reports suggest a fighter came back without a missile. Thats why i asked for follow up reports.

[Drudgewire]

Interesting.

It does appear that the NSA does indeed have responsive documents.

If they had none they would have sent another form letter saying that they had none.

Plus it would have went into the "Super Easy" category. Yes they have a "super easy" category. This is not in that category.

Here is a link to the NSA FOIA guidelines that seem to back up some of the OP's claims:

http://www.nsa.gov/foia/foia00011.pdf

So, time to go back and edit my previous posts!

Mwhahahaha!


Oh it's obvious something is coming. Even the government doesn't like paperwork enough to say "we don't have much, we'll send it soon" just to send another letter saying "no documents found." :p

[ULTIMA1]

What facts?

And no, I do not believe everything that the media tells me. But when what they says is backed by ALL the available evidence, yes I do tend to believe it.

The fact that this document is real and would hold up in court.

What real evidence has the media produced?

[JimBenArm]

Is this new evidence earth-shattering? Will it totally rock my world? Will it make me want to wail in agony over the loss of the last seven years?

Or will I just get another laugh at the expense of another truther?

Time will tell. However, I know what I'm betting on, and I haven't lost yet.

[ElMondoHummus]

None of these claims matter. For one, we haven't seen the document yet. On top of that, any such claim that an interception and shootdown occurred contradicts the already established physical evidence as well as the radar data (as Beechnut pointed out) and the CVR. Until we see the document and are given a chance to see what it indicates, any claims that the "official story" is contradicted are premature.

Evidence first. Then conclusions.

[DC]

Well if you would have read the letter you would see that i asked for a declassified version of the document.

sorry for asking but, will that be the same document as the classified one? just not classified anymore? or will they partially declassify it? What i mean is, will it contain the same information as the classified one? i am kinda confudes with "decassified version."

[ULTIMA1]

Or will I just get another laugh at the expense of another truther?
.


Time will also tell who is adult enough to admit when the document is posted and who will still be living in a fantasy world afraid to face reallity.

[dtugg]

The fact that this document is real and would hold up in court.

What real evidence has the media produced?


You mean the document that you admit in your OP you have not received yet? How could you possibly know what it says?

The media hasn't really produced any evidence, they just reported it. I have yet to see how any significant part of the evidence that they report is not true. Maybe you can help me out.

[Mince]

The fact that this document is real and would hold up in court.


So, you've obtained a legal analysis of the document you read illegally? The legal analyst was ok with committing a felony by reading a classified document?



What real evidence has the media produced?



None. That's not their job.

How much research and investigation have you done that has not involved your keyboard, YouTube or Google?

[JimBenArm]

Time will also tell who is adult enough to admit when the document is posted and who will still be living in a fantasy world afraid to face reallity.
Oh, I can't wait. This one is going to be especially good.

Lyte Bryte II!

[doobiedoright]

No way this dude works for the NSA....no way.
They would put his butt on a plane to gitmo quicker than spit!

[ULTIMA1]

sorry for asking but, will that be the same document as the classified one? just not classified anymore? or will they partially declassify it? What i mean is, will it contain the same information as the classified one? i am kinda confudes with "decassified version."

Yes, it will be the same document, they will just black out or take out the few sentences that are classified.

Now unless they rule that the document is old enough that their is nothing classifeid in it anymore then they will release the whole document.

[ULTIMA1]

No way this dude works for the NSA....no way.
They would put his butt on a plane to gitmo quicker than spit!

Why, i have not posted anything that is classified.

There are media sources that have spoken about the document also, are you going to send them to gitmo too?

[Drudgewire]

Time will also tell who is adult enough to admit when the document is posted and who will still be living in a fantasy world afraid to face reallity.


I absolutely will. Everyone here knows I'm back on the CT bus the SECOND someone provides me a reason to which doesn't make me feel as stupid as my first go-round forever will.





http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/cricket.gif

[DC]

Yes, it will be the same document, they will just black out or take out the few sentences that are classified.

Now unless they rule that the document is old enough that their is nothing classifeid in it anymore then they will release the whole document.

thank you :)

i am looking forward for this document. While i fear the intersting parts would be the blackedout ones :(

[ULTIMA1]

thank you :)

While i fear the intersting parts would be the blackedout ones :(

Not really as stated i have read the document.

[Mince]

Not really as stated i have read the document.


You know you're admitting to a felony if you claim (and it's true) that you've read a classified document without authorization, don't you? And as far as its probative value in court, is that your legal opinion; and what gives you the standing to determine its use in a court of law? If you're not a qualified legal analyst, how did you determine the document would "stand up in a court of law"?

[ULTIMA1]

You know you're admitting to a felony if you claim (and it's true) that you've read a classified document without authorization, don't you?

I have authorization to read it.

Its also been mentioned by a few media groups.

I have a background in law enforcement so i know a litlte about what can be used in court.

[beachnut]

Yes the document is coming as stated in the letter from the NSA FOIA office.
You should just go over to the office, you are an analyst at the NSA, so you can just walk over and pick it up.

[ktesibios]

I'm willing to bet 10 Ameros that, if any document shows up that actually says anything about intercepting in relation to Flight 93, it will be about intercepting radio communications. This interpretation would seem to be consistent with the quality of his interpretation of the letter he already posted.

Any takers?

It would also be consistent with what the NSA does for a living.

[HyJinX]

Silliest thread ever.

[T.A.M.]

Sorry I am so late to this "party".

Ultima, seriously, do you really think you, some little nobody, has just been told you will receive a document that is going to prove that UA93 was shot down, or anything even close? really?

What you will receive, I will wager money on, will prove no such thing, not even close.

I mean on the wrong side of the argument, I can accept, but THIS GULLIBLE?

----

I know you are mistaken with such certainty, that I will pledge this.

If you provide a verified document from the NSA that proves that UA93 was shot down, I will voluntarily withdraw from the JREF, never to return.

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

Silliest thread ever.


THAT'S why I like him! Thanks bro. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/hfive.gif

[Mr. Skinny]

You should just go over to the office, you are an analyst at the NSA, so you can just walk over and pick it up.
He's likely a special operative or field agent who doesn't work near the FOIA office.

I've had a few FOIA requests for information emails cross my desk (computer). Usually it just a general message put out to the organization(s) they think may have information. Individuals might respond to the email saying "I think I might have something in my files - let me look and get back to you" or "I sorta remember something about that" - in which case they might tell you that you'll get a quick response, because they know the available information is not voluminous. You could still get a "no information available" letter I suppose. Dunno though, I'm no FOIA expert.

[Mince]

I have authorization to read it.

Its also been mentioned by a few media groups.

I have a background in law enforcement so i know a litlte about what can be used in court.


Riiiiiiggghhht. I forgot, you're secret internet spy man guy.

[Bobert]

OH NOOOOO He was Banned at ATS... now the madness starts here.

GOD HELP US ALL!!!!

LMAO!
He banned over at ATS?
LOL!
He was like the only person I had ever put on ignore.

[beachnut]

He's likely a special operative or field agent who doesn't work near the FOIA office.

I've had a few FOIA requests for information emails cross my desk (computer). Usually it just a general message put out to the organization(s) they think may have information. Individuals might respond to the email saying "I think I might have something in my files - let me look and get back to you" or "I sorta remember something about that" - in which case they might tell you that you'll get a quick response, because they know the available information is not voluminous. You could still get a "no information available" letter I suppose. Dunno though, I'm no FOIA expert.
He said he works there! He commutes from PA.

[Seymour Butz]

Ultima, seriously, do you really think you, some little nobody, has just been told you will receive a document that is going to prove that UA93 was shot down, or anything even close? really?

What you will receive, I will wager money on, will prove no such thing, not even close.

TAM:)

You're wasting your time with this woowoo maniac. This is the dude that during a comparison of planes hitting concrete buildings (Pentagon ) he made the statement that the video of the F-4 hitting the nuclear containment thing was invalid because THE F-4 IS MOSTLY MADE OF STEEL. He's an insane liar.

He'll do this: construct a non-sequitor argument that HE says proves that 93 was intercepted and most likely shot down. But when everyone points out that his argument requires a huge leap to get where he wants it to be, he won't answer straight.

Rather, he'll then start with posts like "why are you afraid of the truth", and "why do you believe everything the media tells you", etc... all the while avoiding any response as to WHY his argument isn't a non-sequitor.

[Bobert]

Amen, brother!

Interesting because I have to manually hit the spell check.
My typos are not underlined in red.

[Mr. Skinny]

He said he works there! He commutes from PA.
Oh! Missed that.

In that case you're right. He should just have it sent to his office in a holey joe (marked "personal and confidential" or such) or go pick it up himself.

[Mr. Skinny]

You're wasting your time with this woowoo maniac. This is the dude that during a comparison of planes hitting concrete buildings (Pentagon ) he made the statement that the video of the F-4 hitting the nuclear containment thing was invalid because THE F-4 IS MOSTLY MADE OF STEEL. He's an insane liar.

He'll do this: construct a non-sequitor argument that HE says proves that 93 was intercepted and most likely shot down. But when everyone points out that his argument requires a huge leap to get where he wants it to be, he won't answer straight.

Rather, he'll then start with posts like "why are you afraid of the truth", and "why do you believe everything the media tells you", etc... all the while avoiding any response as to WHY his argument isn't a non-sequitor.
Sounds like he'll be sorta like a cat toy on this forum then. You guys will play with him until you get bored...then leave him in some corner of the forum gathering dust bunnies...

[T.A.M.]

Time will also tell who is adult enough to admit when the document is posted and who will still be living in a fantasy world afraid to face reallity.

I have no doubt, that if this document exists, you will be given it, provided it is declassified. My point is that it will not contain anything that proves UA93 was shot down, or even anything remotely close.

I quoted your above statement so that you are reminded of it when you are proven to be wrong.

TAM:)

[Mr.Herbert]

I know you are mistaken with such certainty, that I will pledge this.

If you provide a verified document from the NSA that proves that UA93 was shot down, I will voluntarily withdraw from the JREF, never to return.

TAM:)

I gave him the SAME PLEDGE at ATS.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I scanned this thread pretty quickly, but did ULTIMA1 post his FOIA request here, or link to it?

[madurobob]

Why would the FOIA come back empty when they have already stated they have what i asked for?


Please reread the letter or have someone read it for you so you can understand it.

Your refusal to answer the question is noted. I think we all know why.

[twinstead]

At first I thought ULTIMA1 could have had some new stuff and provide lively and honest debate in this subforum for a change. It appears now after reading some of his 'work' he is a master of claiming things mean something when they actually don't, and mundane things are smoking-gun rock-solid evidence when normal people see no such thing.

Oh well.

[Sabrina]

1. I highly, HIGHLY doubt that someone who actually works for NSA will announce it on a public forum, due to the constraints of OPSEC. It's generally considered okay to say you work for the government, but it's not kosher to list the specific agency, especially if it's an intel agency, as NSA is.

2. Discussion of classified information with individuals who do not have the clearance or need to know the information, as I'm *SURE* (note the heavy sarcasm there) you are aware, Ultima, is illegal. You may not have mentioned the information itself, but spouting off that you know something classified is also a violation of OPSEC and is against the law.

3. If you're an NSA analyst, I'm a monkey's uncle.


Nothing more need be said.

[JimBenArm]

Oh, I believe him. He works for NSA, in a law enforcement role.

In other words, a security guard checking badges at the door.:wackytwitcy:

[LashL]

I scanned this thread pretty quickly, but did ULTIMA1 post his FOIA request here, or link to it?

That's what I was looking for as I read the thread, and I did not see any such document or link to it.

[Jonnyclueless]

Vapor wear. Unless you present said document, it does not exist. While standard twoofer tactic is to taunt evidence long before showing it so as to pretend you have a case that no one can contest because there is nothing to see, it doesn't mean anything.

If you cannot support your claim with an actual document which the claim is based on, you don't have an argument. And the thread might have been interesting if Ultima wasn't the 10,000th crackpot to claim to have damning evidence, but they just can't actually provide it.

[Totovader]

If I am understanding correctly, ULTIMA1 has claimed to have already seen this document through one of his contacts or associates or something...

Now he's looking for that document via an FOIA request which has been "granted"...

Of course, I think it's pretty safe to call batcrap on this one- but just for the record:

ULTIMA1 - Can you quote- to the best of your recollection- what the relevant passages of this document were? What makes you think it's going to be so significant?

[jhunter1163]

1. I highly, HIGHLY doubt that someone who actually works for NSA will announce it on a public forum, due to the constraints of OPSEC. It's generally considered okay to say you work for the government, but it's not kosher to list the specific agency, especially if it's an intel agency, as NSA is.

2. Discussion of classified information with individuals who do not have the clearance or need to know the information, as I'm *SURE* (note the heavy sarcasm there) you are aware, Ultima, is illegal. You may not have mentioned the information itself, but spouting off that you know something classified is also a violation of OPSEC and is against the law.

3. If you're an NSA analyst, I'm a monkey's uncle.


Nothing more need be said.

I was hoping the lovely Sabrina would weigh in on this, as I know she has some relevant knowledge ;) .

I read elsewhere (actually, I believe it was here, but in another thread) that if you are an NSA employee, you have essentially no electronic privacy. Anything and everything you do on teh Internetz is scrutinized. So, posting that you have classified knowledge on an Internet forum if you really are an NSA analyst is pretty much punching a ticket for Leavenworth, is that fair to say?

[beachnut]

Now he's looking for that document via an FOIA request which has been "granted"...


ULTIMA1 - Can you quote- to the best of your recollection- what the relevant passages of this document were? What makes you think it's going to be so significant?
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/FLI93-2.jpg?t=1222974166

This is the letter he has.
Photo bucket

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/FLI93-2.jpg?t=1222974166

[ULTIMA1]

1. I highly, HIGHLY doubt that someone who actually works for NSA will announce it on a public forum, due to the constraints of OPSEC. .

Well i do work for NSA and can post documents to prove it.

There is nothing wromg with me stating i work for NSA. Please see the public NSA forum, http://www.nsa.gov. You can even file FOIA through the site.

[funk de fino]

Well i do work for NSA and can post documents to prove it..

Go on then

[Dave Rogers]

When there's actually some evidence to look at, can someone start a new thread please? This one is a waste of time, so I'd like to be able to ignore it.

Dave

[ULTIMA1]

When there's actually some evidence to look at, can someone start a new thread please? This one is a waste of time, so I'd like to be able to ignore it.

Dave

Well as stated and proven the evidence is coming.

[funk de fino]

Well as stated and proven the evidence is coming.

What about the evidence you work for the NSA?

[ULTIMA1]

What about the evidence you work for the NSA?

I just sent you a PM with my military and NCS transcripts showing my background and education.

[Mr.Herbert]

Go on then

Here is the document Ultima has on his Photobucket pages:

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/scan1.jpg

[funk de fino]

I just sent you a PM with my military and NCS transcripts showing my background and education.

Soory, photobucket is blocked here. You can load them into your own profile on this forum and send them from there.

Are you OK for me to contact the NSA through their website and check up on this?

Tell them you are telling people on a message boad that you have seen classified documents that prove the the govt shot down flight 93 and that you have put in a FOIA for it so you can show it to the rest of the world?

[ULTIMA1]

Tell them you are telling people on a message boad that you have seen classified documents that prove the the govt shot down flight 93 and that you have put in a FOIA for it so you can show it to the rest of the world?

Well i have posted a letter from the NSA FOIA office, so i think they know i have filed a FOIA request for the documents.

[Dave Rogers]

Well as stated and proven the evidence is coming.

Like I said, until it's here the thread's a waste of time. Wake me up when it arrives.

Dave

[twinstead]

One would think that the grand entrance of this earth-shattering smoking-gun evidence would be at a law enforcement agency somewhere in the world, but hey, an internet forum. Same thing, huh? I feel a bait and switch coming on.

[T.A.M.]

So we are to believe (sorry if I cough), that a whistleblower who works for NSA, is coming to ATS and JREF to get the info out that UA93 was shot down.

CNN/MSNBC/FOX NEWS will be so disappointed.

What a *********** joke you are.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

Or, in the immortal words of Pink Floyd, ha ha, charade you are.

I call BS too. But remember, I as well promise to join the truth movement myself if an official document is presented that proves 93 was shot down.

So you want to do this in an internet forum. Whatever floats your boat. I say bring it on, ULTIMA1. Bring it on.

[DC]

Or, in the immortal words of Pink Floyd, ha ha, charade you are.

I call BS too. But remember, I as well promise to join the truth movement myself if an official document is presented that proves 93 was shot down.

So you want to do this in an internet forum. Whatever floats your boat. I say bring it on, ULTIMA1. Bring it on.


Where can one join that movement?

[funk de fino]

Well i have posted a letter from the NSA FOIA office, so i think they know i have filed a FOIA request for the documents.

Are you OK for me to contact the NSA through their website and check up on this? That it is OK for you to discuss the contents of classified documents that prove flight 93 was shot down with faceless internet posters?

[ULTIMA1]

CNN/MSNBC/FOX NEWS will be so disappointed.


I guess you did not know that a group called Reuters already has talked about the information.

[ULTIMA1]

Are you OK for me to contact the NSA through their website and check up on this? That it is OK for you to discuss the contents of classified documents that prove flight 93 was shot down with faceless internet posters?

Do you want the phone number for the FOIA office so you can verify the request and the document?

[funk de fino]

Do you want the phone number for the FOIA office so you can verify the request and the document?

That is not what I am saying. read again.

I will email them once I see your docs and ask if it OK for you to discuss the contents of classified docs which contain proof that flight 93 was shot down by a US jet.

Is this OK?

[beachnut]

Do you want the phone number for the FOIA office so you can verify the request and the document?
They let you blog at work?

[Mr.Herbert]

Roger....

Do you see a pattern yet? You are being asked the SAME questions here as you were over at ATS. You failed there....and you have failed HERE.

[Björn Toulouse]

Time will also tell who is adult enough to admit when the document is posted and who will still be living in a fantasy world afraid to face reallity.



Why didn't you just wait until you had this "document" in hand and then post a thread about it? Was it necessary to set up this tease first?

This is like my local TV news when just before they cut to a commercial they show a tantalyzing snippet and say "coming up next" and then 45 minutes later I am still watching and waiting like a mute mule.

[JimBenArm]

This is exactly like what Lyte Trip did, coming here and announcing his "earth shattering" evidence, which he never did produce, BTW.

SS-DD.

[Totovader]

If I am understanding correctly, ULTIMA1 has claimed to have already seen this document through one of his contacts or associates or something...

Now he's looking for that document via an FOIA request which has been "granted"...

Of course, I think it's pretty safe to call batcrap on this one- but just for the record:

ULTIMA1 - Can you quote- to the best of your recollection- what the relevant passages of this document were? What makes you think it's going to be so significant?

How about it?

[ULTIMA1]

I will email them once I see your docs and ask if it OK for you to discuss the contents of classified docs which contain proof that flight 93 was shot down by a US jet.?

I have not discussed anything classified.

[ULTIMA1]

How about it?

First off the document states that Flight 93 was intercepted (which contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93).

Second their are reports of a follow up document which states one of the fighters came back without a missile.

[Totovader]

That is not what I am saying. read again.

I will email them once I see your docs and ask if it OK for you to discuss the contents of classified docs which contain proof that flight 93 was shot down by a US jet.

Is this OK?

It looks like he's made this claim before- and stops just short of actually confirming his identity.

Although the folks in this forum (http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=245571&page=4) managed to find his "home number" and "work phone"...

And he claims it's accurate. Now why he was discussing this on ebaumsworld is another question, but apparently he is so desperate to peddle his crap, that any forum will do besides the proper one.


ETA: by the way, check out the next page of that thread where "flurry" has collected various quotes from ULTIMA1, including several stating he has top secret clearance...

[Totovader]

First off the document states that Flight 93 was intercepted (which contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93).

Second their are reports of a follow up document which states one of the fighters came back without a missile.

That's not an answer to my question. I asked specifically for relevant passages.

If you're unable to quote this and then have your quotes match the document... then it's going to be pretty easy to completely dismiss your "smoking gun" evidence, wouldn't you agree?

[ULTIMA1]

That's not an answer to my question. I asked specifically for relevant passages.


How about we wait and let me post the document and then you can see if you can find anything to debate it.

[Crazytimes]

How about we wait and let me post the document and then you can see if you can find anything to debate it.

How long will that take ?

Have you proven yet that you work for the NSA ?

[Horatius]

First off the document states that Flight 93 was intercepted (which contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93).

Second their are reports of a follow up document which states one of the fighters came back without a missile.



Are all these details in the single document you claim is on it's way? You've written this just vaguely enough to make it unclear.

Are the "reports of a follow up document" in the same document as the statement that Flight 93 was intercepted?

We don't care right now what any other alleged "reports" may contain, we want to know what, exactly, this document you think the NSA will send you will contain. Can you paraphrase from memory any part of the document? Please be explicit, and restrict yourself to this single document.

[Totovader]

How about we wait and let me post the document and then you can see if you can find anything to debate it.

How about no? How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?

It doesn't. You said you had seen proof that the government was lying about this event, and that you would be able to provide proof of that. In order to confirm the first part of your story, you should be able to quote the relevant passages.

Otherwise, what are we supposed to believe about your credibility? You have an opportunity here to demolish your critics- and you're going to pass it up?

Quote the relevant passages so we can match it up with the document you claim will be arriving- otherwise expect that you won't be taken seriously at all.

[ULTIMA1]

Are all these details in the single document you claim is on it's way? You've written this just vaguely enough to make it unclear..

I will try to make this simple.

No, all the details are not in one document.

The main document states about the interception of Flight 93.

Supposidly the follow-up documents state that a plane came back without a missile.

[ULTIMA1]

How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?.

I have a letter from the FOIA office confirming it is coming.

I will post the document when i get it.

[Totovader]

I have a letter from the FOIA office confirming it is coming.

I will post the document when i get it.

You are again dodging the question. I can't help but feel like I've caught you in the same lie that many others have before you came to this forum: you have seen no such document, have no security clearance, and if your credentials are accurate- you're probably nothing more than a library archivist. This document you claim to be obtaining is not only unsurprising- but without your accompanying story it really is likely to be nothing at all. When that happens, what do you think will happen to your credibility? Your only option will be to claim that "this is not the same document I saw!" at which point you think you will be free to make up any nonsense you happen to be fond of that day.

Without providing us with a passage from the document- your story isn't even slightly believable.

Again- the issues you are avoiding are summed up by the question in my last post:

How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?

It doesn't. You said you had seen proof that the government was lying about this event, and that you would be able to provide proof of that. In order to confirm the first part of your story, you should be able to quote the relevant passages.

Otherwise, what are we supposed to believe about your credibility? You have an opportunity here to demolish your critics- and you're going to pass it up?

Quote the relevant passages so we can match it up with the document you claim will be arriving- otherwise expect that you won't be taken seriously at all.

[ULTIMA1]

I can't help but feel like I've caught you in the same lie that many others have before you came to this forum.


NO you have not caught me in a lie.

I have read the document thats why i filed an FOIA request to get a declassified copy so i can post it to show an official contridiction to the official story.

If you beleive the docuemnt does not exist please call the FOIA office and verify the document does exist.

[funk de fino]

NO you have not caught me in a lie.

I have read the document thats why i filed an FOIA request to get a declassified copy so i can post it to show an official contridiction to the official story.

If you beleive the docuemnt does not exist please call the FOIA office and verify the document does exist.

So, it is a classified document yet you have been discussing its content with faceless internet posters? Content which you say proves that fligt 93 was shotdown?

When I contact your NSA via email and tell them this they will be happy?

[Totovader]

NO you have not caught me in a lie.

I have read the document thats why i filed an FOIA request to get a declassified copy so i can post it to show an official contridiction to the official story.

If you beleive the docuemnt does not exist please call the FOIA office and verify the document does exist.

Clearly you are lying. The question is not whether the document exists or not- I'm sure there are plenty of documents that exist- the question is whether the document truly states what you claim it does.

In order to justify that claim, you should be able to quote the relevant passages and prove that you know of such a document- and that when the document arrives and does not say these things you will still be able to have a shred of credibility (although, I wouldn't count on it).

What you are doing- right now- is pretending like an FOIA request is some sort of secretive process- that it allows you to peer into the inner workings of the secret government and find things they didn't even know existed. You are then using this misconception to build up a story about something you claimed to have seen- at the same time that you know an FOIA request will just bring back some garbage which is largely unimpressive at which point you can scream "cover up! this is not the document I requested! this is not the document I saw with my own eyes!"

All of this- of course- backed up by your claim that you are some kind of an NSA operative with top secret clearance.

Sorry, but this is a forum chock full of skeptics, critical thinkers, and rational people- we have a hard time buying cockamamie stories about secret documents divulging a gigantic government cover-up by some lackey who's going to quickly and silently destroy the "official story" by posting his "smoking gun evidence" on an Internet message board- evidence, I might add, which no other person on the face of the planet has ever seen or eluded to.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Again- the issue you are avoiding like the plague is summed up in the questions you refuse to answer:

How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?

It doesn't. You said you had seen proof that the government was lying about this event, and that you would be able to provide proof of that. In order to confirm the first part of your story, you should be able to quote the relevant passages.

Otherwise, what are we supposed to believe about your credibility? You have an opportunity here to demolish your critics- and you're going to pass it up?

Quote the relevant passages so we can match it up with the document you claim will be arriving- otherwise expect that you won't be taken seriously at all.

[Totovader]

So, it is a classified document yet you have been discussing its content with faceless internet posters? Content which you say proves that fligt 93 was shotdown?

When I contact your NSA via email and tell them this they will be happy?

Make sure to tell them about his top secret clearance which allowed him to see this document!

:mglook

[funk de fino]

I know what this will be. It is that report from some loonet tune ex forces who says someone told him that a certain pilot that day shot down flight 93 and that he came back missing a missile.

I cannot remember where it was reported but I remember the claims from some truthy nutter sites.

This must be it. The false claim about the pilot.

[funk de fino]

I bet its something to do with this

Col. Don de Grand-pre first broke the story of the Happy
Hooligans and the shootdown of Flight 93 during his interview on
The Alex Jones Show back in February.

This nutcase named someone as the guy who shot it down. the paper ultima has seen could possibly be about this false claim.

[twinstead]

again


Oh you'll see....YOU'LL ALLLLL SEE!

[Horatius]

I will try to make this simple.

No, all the details are not in one document.

The main document states about the interception of Flight 93.

Supposidly the follow-up documents state that a plane came back without a missile.



Okay, we're making progress. Let's just focus on this one document you claim to have seen, and are expecting to arrive, okay?

Now, please try to answer a few specific questions about the contents of this document:

Does it clearly identify the type of aircraft that intercepted Flight 93? That is, does it say "F-16", "F-15", or some such clear designation? If so, what type of plane was it?

Does it clearly state that the intercepting plane fired at flight 93?

Does it clearly state what was fired at Flight 93? That is, was it a missile or gun fire that brought Flight 93 down? If it was a missile, does the document specify the type of missile used, such as a Sidewinder?

Does it clearly state the time of this intercept?

Does it clearly state the location of this intercept?

Does it detail what orders were given to the pilot of the intercepting aircraft?

Does it detail any radio communications between the pilot of this aircraft and anyone else, either on the ground or in the air?

[Seymour Butz]

the question is whether the document truly states what you claim it does.



It won't.

This is his MO.

He'll claim that it's proof an intercept/possible shootdown, and no amount of pointing out that his conclusion is wrong will make a dent in his denial. Get used to it if you choose to ask him questions. Personally I gave up on it and have resorted to pointing out his fallacious argumentative style, like above. It's the only profitable road to take with this level of woo.

For a troofer to get banned from ATS should speak volumes, since it is a haven for the woo maniacs. He's supposedly gotten banned from others as well, from what I hear from those that care.

Although I will admit that he didn't post anything that would be considered a bannable, and suspect that he and one of the mods had a disagreement in PM's that got him banned. And I suspect he complained about my pointing out his error-laden argumentative technique to a mod that got him banned since he never responded to my points in that thread. He simply ignored them. Get used to that too.

[Horatius]

I know what this will be. It is that report from some loonet tune ex forces who says someone told him that a certain pilot that day shot down flight 93 and that he came back missing a missile.

I cannot remember where it was reported but I remember the claims from some truthy nutter sites.

This must be it. The false claim about the pilot.

I bet its something to do with this



This nutcase named someone as the guy who shot it down. the paper ultima has seen could possibly be about this false claim.


Those are likely the "follow-up" documents to which he has also referred.

I'm hoping we can focus on the sole document he is expecting to receive shortly. It would be good to know the answers to the questions I've posted above, so we know what to expect.

[Bobert]

First off the document states that Flight 93 was intercepted (which contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93).

Second their are reports of a follow up document which states one of the fighters came back without a missile.

Sure buddy cant wait to see these

[Bobert]

Ok Ok I need to put an end to all this speculation as to Ultima's ban!
Myself and Agent Smith from the LA field office had to, well lets just say one of the ATS mods now has a hard time typing the q,p,z,a,;,'capss lock, enter, or / keys.

[Totovader]

Ok Ok I need to put an end to all this speculation as to Ultima's ban!
Myself and Agent Smith from the LA field office had to, well lets just say one of the ATS mods now has a hard time typing the q,p,z,a,;,'capss lock, enter, or / keys.

You took away those keys on his keyboard!

Animals.

[Panoply_Prefect]

When is this FOIA-request due to be delivered to Ultima? I'm curious.

[uk_dave]

Why didn't you just wait until you had this "document" in hand and then post a thread about it? Was it necessary to set up this tease first?

But of course. 'truthers' hate it when no one is paying them any attention so they have to everything they can to keep themselves in the (internet)public eye.

I mean, if our friend here was to remain silent until his incontrovertible proof that the official account of flight 93 is a lie is handed to him by one of the top intelligence agencies in the US, well, he runs the risk of nobody noticing, right? :cool:

This is like my local TV news when just before they cut to a commercial they show a tantalyzing snippet and say "coming up next" and then 45 minutes later I am still watching and waiting like a mute mule.
See what I mean? :D

[uk_dave]

How long will that take ?

Have you proven yet that you work for the NSA ?

Of course he has.

He's even taken a course in "effective customer service".

Probably the same one Turbofan took.:boggled:

[Crazytimes]

Okay, we're making progress. Let's just focus on this one document you claim to have seen, and are expecting to arrive, okay?

Now, please try to answer a few specific questions about the contents of this document:

Does it clearly identify the type of aircraft that intercepted Flight 93? That is, does it say "F-16", "F-15", or some such clear designation? If so, what type of plane was it?

Does it clearly state that the intercepting plane fired at flight 93?

Does it clearly state what was fired at Flight 93? That is, was it a missile or gun fire that brought Flight 93 down? If it was a missile, does the document specify the type of missile used, such as a Sidewinder?

Does it clearly state the time of this intercept?

Does it clearly state the location of this intercept?

Does it detail what orders were given to the pilot of the intercepting aircraft?

Does it detail any radio communications between the pilot of this aircraft and anyone else, either on the ground or in the air?

ULTIMA, please address this post.

[Horatius]

When is this FOIA-request due to be delivered to Ultima? I'm curious.


We don't know. They have a standard deadline of 20 days, but the letter he posted indicated that they won't be able to meet that deadline because of the volume of requests in line ahead of his. They don't seem to indicate an expected delivery date.

[doobiedoright]

I have authorization to read it.

Its also been mentioned by a few media groups.

I have a background in law enforcement so i know a litlte about what can be used in court.



You could not possibly read something that does not exist.
If you were who you say you are you would already be in jail.
The NSA monitors the activity of their agents and you sir defently would raise red flags!
If you are who you say you are you are in direct violation of several laws and I hope you like bracelets as you will have a pair very soon!
Heck you cant even spell!

[doobiedoright]

First off the document states that Flight 93 was intercepted (which contridicts the official story that no planes were near Flight 93).

Second their are reports of a follow up document which states one of the fighters came back without a missile.






ULTIMA1
Scholar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 110


I have not discussed anything classified.




OOPPPSS You might want to rethink your position!
You are busted and I hope you will be going to a safe place very soon!

[JimBenArm]

You know, he really hasn't discussed anything classified. Fantasy items that exist only in his fevered imagination are not classified.

[Bindamel]

Well, I lurk here a lot, and I had no memory of this one, so I looked it up.

My google-fu gives me:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3568.shtml (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3568.shtml)

The NSA CRITIC, according to sources who have seen it, is about five or six sentences, and paraphrasically states:
“Two F-16s scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base at [likely 1336 Zulu]. Civilian airline hijacked. Over state of Pennsylvania civilian airliner was ‘intercepted’ at (Latitude and Longitude of intercept].”
Several follow-up CRITICs are appended to the first United 93-related CRITIC. One follow-up CRITIC mentioned a possible fifth hijacked plane flying south from Canada that was near the Canadian-U.S. border. Another CRITIC states the plane ‘intercepted’ over Pennsylvania was ‘confirmed civilian.’
On April 16, 2008, WMR reported: “WMR has received another confirmation, bringing the total number to three, that United Flight 93, hijacked on the morning of September 11, 2001, was shot down over rural Pennsylvania by U.S. Air Force jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. There are also reports that one F-16 scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia returned to base minus one air-to-air missile but the National Security Agency CRITIC report specified the interceptors that downed United 93 took off from Andrews.
“The third confirmation, as were the first two, is from a National Security Agency (NSA) source. In fact, a number of personnel who were on watch at the Meade Operations Center (MOC), which is a floor below the NSA’s National Security Operations Center (NSOC), were aware that United 93 was brought down by an Air Force air-to-air missile. Personnel within both the MOC and NSOC have reported the doomed aircraft was shot down.”

For even more fun, google Wayne Madsen's story. :jaw-dropp

Apparently he's on the run from a hitmen who have been hired by the government to kill him. Good thing he's keeping a low profile.

[funk de fino]

I have had a look at his USAF papers. Look OK to me but I would like to know what aircraft and squadron he worked on during his time and for how long.

Also he claims to have been a police officer for 12 amount of years as well. I would like to know where and when.

I really hope this is not the Donn Grand-pre fake shootdown crap.

If you look at the other forum linked he was busted loads of times

[twinstead]

I'm still unsure, even if all this were true, why a shootdown would be covered up. 3 planes had already been crashed into buildings with unknown at the time but obviously huge casualties. Who knew where this one was headed?

Why cover it up and risk being discovered when it would have been understandable to shoot it down in the first place. Why fake all the evidence? I guess the mysterious workings of the NWO are not for us to know...

[doobiedoright]

If there was a shoot down it would be classified,there fore the mere mention of said shoot down would be in violation of said classified information....Either way info has been sent to the FBI and one way or another he is in for a shock!

[T.A.M.]

If there is a verified document that proves UA93 was shot down, I will quit JREF forever, as promised.

I think my membership is safe...lol

TAM:)

[doobiedoright]

If there is a verified document that proves UA93 was shot down, I will quit JREF forever, as promised.

I think my membership is safe...lol

TAM:)



I would agree.
I think our friend here is in for a very rude awakening!
I doubt the feds will take to kindly to his bull!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That's what I was looking for as I read the thread, and I did not see any such document or link to it.


So... we don't even know what ULTIMA1 actually asked for.

How about it, ULTIMA1? Can you please post your FOIA request?

[T.A.M.]

I thought this document, given in the OP, was the FOIA request?

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/FLI93-2.jpg?t=1222974166

TAM:)

[Sabrina]

Bearing in mind that in actuality I work for a private consulting firm that does contracts with US government agencies, I would like to address Ultima's claim that him saying he's an NSA analyst does not violate any rules of OPSEC. He's wrong.

One of the first things I was told upon arrival at my current contract was not to spread around to too many people where it was I was working, as that would make me a potentially (I'm stressing that word to point out that it may not make MUCH difference, but it would make some) attractive target to terrorists and monitoring from other governments. With a few exceptions, I've generally honored that dictate, and since I've been on this project I've gotten much better at being discreet about what it is I do, even if what I do is not considered highly classified at all. My point being, for Ultima to spout off about being an NSA analyst on a public forum is highly suspect to me. It's one thing to do it on a forum made specifically for that agency, if such a thing exists; it's another thing entirely to do it on a forum open to literally anyone in the entire world. I have a background in intelligence via the military; I'm currently a captain in the Army reserves and am serving as an assistant brigade S2 for a local unit, and I'm fully qualified to brief on SAEDA, OPSEC, PHYSEC, and INFOSEC via training I took approximately four years ago. Ultima, if you are an NSA analyst, as I've said before, I'm a monkey's uncle. Analysts, if they want to keep their jobs and their security clearances, do not announce to all and sundry what they do; if asked, they will generally simply say "I work for the government". For you to announce this, as you are, on this forum, smacks to me of a small-time person desperately trying to make people believe he's a big shot. Sorry, you ran across someone with the experience to point out your mistake. Tough luck; better luck next time! *grins cheerfully*

[Bobby]

@Cl1mh4224rd: the reply (from FOIA) does talk about CRITIC messages, a google search for "CRITICK messages" returns a cia page as the first link (would paste it here, but my newbie status ...).

[T.A.M.]

Looks like Ultima has been playing this thing around for a while

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

TAM:)

[Bobby]

Looks like Ultima has been playing this thing around for a while

I can't post urls
TAM:)

Indeed, and that leads to a report from July 24th (waynemadsenreport.com, article 20080724_1) which, unless you subscribe, simply says "Guantanamo prosecutors refers to United 93 being shot down.", which is nice. rawstory.com has a little more info:

"If they hadn't shot down the fourth plane it would've hit the dome," Stone, a Navy officer, said in his opening remarks, repeating Bin Laden's deputy's claim.

The tribunal's chief prosecutor, Col. Lawrence Morris, later explained that Stone was quoting Hamdan in evidence that will be presented at trial. Morris declined to say if the "dome" was a reference to the U.S. Capitol.

So the prosecutors did say that United 93 was shot down, but only by quoting the defendant's own words. Not quite the definitive statement you find on Wayne Madsen's Report ...

[Bobert]

You took away those keys on his keyboard!

Animals.

LOL geez can someone please PM me and tell me how to post the laughing dog?

[Sabrina]

: dl : without the spaces between the colons and the letters.

Like so. :dl:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I thought this document, given in the OP, was the FOIA request?

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/FLI93-2.jpg?t=1222974166


Well, that's the response to his request, but it looks like they do quote what's probably the core of ULTIMA1's request. Why that escaped me before, I don't know.

@Cl1mh4224rd: the reply (from FOIA) does talk about CRITIC messages, a google search for "CRITICK messages" returns a cia page as the first link (would paste it here, but my newbie status ...).


I think this is the page you're referring to: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol4no2/html/v04i2a03p_0001.htm

[Mr.Herbert]

sorry... Ultima? You alive?

[Zipster]

sorry... Ultima? You alive?

Don't you worry, he'll reply eventually. One thing I know of him is that he won't let these comments go. He has to make good with his script consisting of insults like immature, "be adult enough", and my favorite, "living in a fantasy world".

From what I've seen of him at eBaum's World Forums and ATS, his weekday post schedule starts at around 3 am (when he claims to make the 2 hour commute to work :eek:) and around 3:30 pm, when he arrives home.

But his weekend schedule's a bit more random.

Bearing in mind that in actuality I work for a private consulting firm that does contracts with US government agencies, I would like to address Ultima's claim that him saying he's an NSA analyst does not violate any rules of OPSEC. He's wrong. ...

Does it make it worse that on EBWF he had a PM conversation (or was it in a thread?) with me and said specifically that he analyzed foreign military aerospace items (fighters, bombers, missiles I'm assuming)? What are the consequences in the event he is NSA and his superiors get wind of him so freely proving himself an NSA analyst?

[Bobby]

Well, that's the response to his request, but it looks like they do quote what's probably the core of ULTIMA1's request. Why that escaped me before, I don't know.




I think this is the page you're referring to: I cannot post urls ... yet

Thanks Cl1mh4224rd, that was it, the, no longer secret, "NOTES ON THE CRITIC SYSTEM".

[Horatius]

Wow, so many new members......It's like ULTIMA1 came with his own entourage.


I just hope he answers my earlier questions....;)

[Bobby]

Wow, so many new members......It's like ULTIMA1 came with his own entourage.


I just hope he answers my earlier questions....;)

:) Like <> is. Last time I checked I wasn't part of anybody's entourage, certainly not any twoofer's.

[Horatius]

:) Like <> is. Last time I checked I wasn't part of anybody's entourage, certainly not any twoofer's.



Fair enough, but he does seem to draw the crowds!



But it seems the crowds may have scared him off before he answered my questions!


:mad:

[doobiedoright]

Don't you worry, he'll reply eventually. One thing I know of him is that he won't let these comments go. He has to make good with his script consisting of insults like immature, "be adult enough", and my favorite, "living in a fantasy world".

From what I've seen of him at eBaum's World Forums and ATS, his weekday post schedule starts at around 3 am (when he claims to make the 2 hour commute to work :eek:) and around 3:30 pm, when he arrives home.

But his weekend schedule's a bit more random.



Does it make it worse that on EBWF he had a PM conversation (or was it in a thread?) with me and said specifically that he analyzed foreign military aerospace items (fighters, bombers, missiles I'm assuming)? What are the consequences in the event he is NSA and his superiors get wind of him so freely proving himself an NSA analyst?


If he is who he says he is.....he will be in handcuffs very soon.
I predict men in gray suits making him dirty his pants real soon!

Hey how do I get the million?

[ULTIMA1]

I have had a look at his USAF papers. Look OK to me but I would like to know what aircraft and squadron he worked on during his time and for how long.

Also he claims to have been a police officer for 12 amount of years as well. I would like to know where and when.



I was at RAF Alconbury from 1981 to 1983 and was a crew chief on the RF4-C in the 1st TRW.

I was at Reese AFB from 1983 to 1985 and was crew chief on the T-38A in the 64th OMS.

I was a federal police officer for 12 years, from 1986 to 1998 at NSA. I can post my crertificate from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

[Bobby]

Fair enough, but he does seem to draw the crowds!



But it seems the crowds may have scared him off before he answered my questions!


:mad:

Think the same happened to me in the setiforums, politics, 9/11 Anomalies thread. The main twoofer there has been MIA for the past couple of weeks.

[ULTIMA1]

Bearing in mind that in actuality I work for a private consulting firm that does contracts with US government agencies, I would like to address Ultima's claim that him saying he's an NSA analyst does not violate any rules of OPSEC. He's wrong.


There is nothing wrong with stating i work for NSA. As long as i do not go into specifics of the work i do or post things that are classified.

I have not posted much more then can be found on the NSA public website.

[ULTIMA1]

your linked FOIA request lists you as an outsider. Interesting.

Maybe because i sent the FOIA from home (not from work) so i coud post it online to show i did make the request.

Then i show the letter stating that the document i asked has been found and will be sent.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Then i show the letter stating that the document i asked has been found and will be sent.


Why not just wait until you actually received the document? What good did you think posting this would serve?

[ULTIMA1]

Why not just wait until you actually received the document? What good did you think posting this would serve?

Showing people that i have information coming that does officially contradict the official story.

[Zipster]

There is nothing wrong with stating i work for NSA. As long as i do not go into specifics of the work i do or post things that are classified.

I have not posted much more then can be found on the NSA public website.

I do remember you telling me you analyze intelligence on foreign aircraft and the such. That's probably more specific than the NSA wants the public to know about what you do. Even if that was a cover, it's a pretty bad one to use...

[ULTIMA1]

I do remember you telling me you analyze intelligence on foreign aircraft and the such. ...

Please go the NSA site and read what it states.

http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00003.cfm

[T.A.M.]

As for the rest of this "bluster", Let me know when CNN broadcasts,

"NSA Analyst blows lid off government version of the 9/11 attacks"

Until then, this particularly ridiculous truther is going in the ignore column.

TAM:)

[Zipster]

Please go the NSA site and read what it states. ...

"Intelligence" on foreign aircraft can include radio chatter and the such can it not? Wouldn't intercepting and analyzing said aircraft radio traffic fall under the SIGINT mission?

[LashL]

Maybe because i sent the FOIA from home (not from work) so i coud post it online to show i did make the request.

Then i show the letter stating that the document i asked has been found and will be sent.

No, you have not shown any such thing.

You have not posted your FOIA request, nor have you posted the response you allegedly received. All you have posted so far is a partial page from a purported response to some request or another, and not a single word of your alleged request.

Please post your actual request in its entirety (with your personal information redacted, of course) and the response you allegedly received in its entirety (again, with your personal information redacted, of course).

Unless and until you do that, frankly, this thread is a complete and utter waste of time and bandwidth.

ETA: And I hope that my fellow forumites can and will refrain from doling out troll kibble in the interim. Seriously, folks.

[ULTIMA1]

No, you have not shown any such thing.

You have not posted your FOIA request, nor have you posted the response you allegedly received. All you have posted so far is a partial page from a purported response to some request or another, and not a single word of your alleged request.
.


Can you even read?

The letter i posted states what my request was and states that they found the reqested document.

[LashL]

The letter i posted states what my request was and states that they found the reqested document.

No, it does not. It says nothing of the sort. I am intimately familiar with FOIA requests and I am intimately familiar with drafting responses to them, so don't even go there.

As I said:

You have not posted your FOIA request, nor have you posted the response you allegedly received. All you have posted so far is a partial page from a purported response to some request or another, and not a single word of your alleged request.

Please post your actual request in its entirety (with your personal information redacted, of course) and the response you allegedly received in its entirety (again, with your personal information redacted, of course).

Unless and until you do that, frankly, this thread is a complete and utter waste of time and bandwidth.

[Totovader]

Similarly, I would like my questions answered as well...

How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?

It doesn't. You said you had seen proof that the government was lying about this event, and that you would be able to provide proof of that. In order to confirm the first part of your story, you should be able to quote the relevant passages.

Otherwise, what are we supposed to believe about your credibility? You have an opportunity here to demolish your critics- and you're going to pass it up?

Quote the relevant passages so we can match it up with the document you claim will be arriving- otherwise expect that you won't be taken seriously at all.

[ULTIMA1]

No, it does not. It says nothing of the sort. .


Now lets look at the letter shall we.
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/FLI93-2.jpg?t=1222974166

The first paragraph states that on 18 August 2008 i requested a declassified copy of the Critic meassage and any follow up reports on the interception of FLight 93.

CAN YOU SEE THAT IN THE LETTER, YES or NO ?

[LashL]

Now lets look at the letter shall we.


As I said, you have not posted your FOIA request, nor have you posted the response you allegedly received. All you have posted so far is a partial page from a purported response to some request or another, and not a single word of your alleged request.

Please post your actual request in its entirety (with your personal information redacted, of course) and the response you allegedly received in its entirety (again, with your personal information redacted, of course).

Unless and until you do that, frankly, this thread is a complete and utter waste of time and bandwidth. And troll kibble.

[ULTIMA1]

As I said, you have not posted your FOIA request, nor have you posted the response you allegedly received. .

You can read can't you? You do see the letter is a repsonse to a FOIA request from NSA? You can see that the request i made is in the first paragraph of the letter?

The first paragraph states that on 18 August 2008 i requested a declassified copy of the Critic meassage and any follow up reports on the interception of FLight 93.

CAN YOU SEE THAT IN THE LETTER, YES or NO ?

[Zipster]

I think was LashL is asking for is the original FOIA form you filled out, minus any personal information you see fit not to release to the public.

Do you still have that? If yes, then post it so that the first of LashL's request can be laid to rest.

[ULTIMA1]

I think was LashL is asking for is the original FOIA form you filled out, minus any personal information you see fit not to release to the public.
.


Problem is the letter states exactly what the FOIA requested.

But if they have to have it here it is, hope it makes them happy.

FOIA request‏
From:
Sent: Sat 8/16/08 11:08 PM
To: foianet@nsa.gov

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authority for collecting information requested is contained in 5 U.S.C. § 552a and 5 U.S.C. § 552. NSA's Blanket Routine Uses found at 58 Fed. Reg. 10,531 (1993) as well as the specific uses found in GNSA02, GNSA03, and GNSA10 apply to this information. Authority for requesting your Social Security Number (SSN) is Executive Order 9397. The requested information will be used to assist the Agency in locating and disseminating the applicable records to the requestor. The disclosure of the requested information, to include your SSN, is voluntary. However, failure to provide the requested information may delay the processing of your request.


Full name:

Company/Organization: NSA

Address

Home Phone:

Work Phone:

Description of the records you seek: I would like to get a declassified copy of the CRITIC messages and any follow up reports from September 11, 2001 of the interception of Flight 93.

[chillzero]

Moving some posts to AAH. Please remember your MA. Do not attack individuals. Discuss or attack the issues presented.

[Totovader]

How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?

It doesn't. You said you had seen proof that the government was lying about this event, and that you would be able to provide proof of that. In order to confirm the first part of your story, you should be able to quote the relevant passages.

Otherwise, what are we supposed to believe about your credibility? You have an opportunity here to demolish your critics- and you're going to pass it up?

Quote the relevant passages so we can match it up with the document you claim will be arriving- otherwise expect that you won't be taken seriously at all.

*bump* for ULTIMA1

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Showing people that i have information coming [...]


So what? That's completely worthless.

[...] that does officially contradict the official story.


How can you honestly make that statement when you haven't even received that information? You have no idea what you're getting, but you've already decided that it contradicts the "official story"?

Really?

[ULTIMA1]

How can you honestly make that statement when you haven't even received that information? ?

Well lets look at the facts (i know thats probably foreign to you)

The letter verifies that the document exists.

I have read the document and knw what it states thats while i filed an FOIA request to get it.

[Zipster]

So make with it. I'm going to ask an honest question. How many more days do you think we have to wait before something shows up in your mail?

[ULTIMA1]

So make with it. I'm going to ask an honest question. How many more days do you think we have to wait before something shows up in your mail?

Well i thought you guys did not even beleive the document existed?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Well i thought you guys did not even beleive the document existed?


Who said that?

[ULTIMA1]

Who said that?

Gee, you have not read the post on here have you?

[Zipster]

Well i thought you guys did not even beleive the document existed?

Please show me where I said that the document didn't exist. Or be adult enough to admit you were wrong about what I said.

[Jonnyclueless]

So not only is this guy making empty claims about a document he hasn't even provided, but he is making false claims about working for the NSA? Having had person friends who worked for the NSA, I can assure you this guy does not.

[ULTIMA1]

So not only is this guy making empty claims about a document he hasn't even provided, but he is making false claims about working for the NSA? Having had person friends who worked for the NSA, I can assure you this guy does not.

How am i making false claims when a letter from the NSA FOIA office confirms the request and the document?

I have posted documents to prove that i do work at NSA.

[Totovader]

Gee, you have not read the post on here have you?

Oh you tricky devil, you. You're trying your hand at a prevarication- I don't think anyone doubts that a document exists... as for this story that you've seen a classified document which proves a shoot down of Flight 93... I don't think any reasonable person buys that for a second.

The fact that you have dodged every single question about it- and your credentials are just a bit suspect- has a lot to do with that, I'm sure.

[CptColumbo]

So not only is this guy making empty claims about a document he hasn't even provided, but he is making false claims about working for the NSA? Having had person friends who worked for the NSA, I can assure you this guy does not.Based on his/her behavior and lack of any real evidence I have to concur, until evidence to the contrary is provided.

[Totovader]

How am i making false claims when a letter from the NSA FOIA office confirms the request and the document?

I have posted documents to prove that i do work at NSA.

You're making false claims because you can't back up anything you've said. I asked for specifics regarding this document- as did others- and you had to continually dodge the question. Even now there are plenty of open questions which are causing significant damage to your credibility... and your only recourse is to blame this forum.

I don't think that will work.

[Totovader]

How is that supposed to confirm you actually have this document in the first place- and that you've seen information which is supposed to be interesting?

It doesn't. You said you had seen proof that the government was lying about this event, and that you would be able to provide proof of that. In order to confirm the first part of your story, you should be able to quote the relevant passages.

Otherwise, what are we supposed to believe about your credibility? You have an opportunity here to demolish your critics- and you're going to pass it up?

Quote the relevant passages so we can match it up with the document you claim will be arriving- otherwise expect that you won't be taken seriously at all.

*bump* again for ULTIMA1

These are the questions you continue to dodge regarding the specifics of this top-secret document you claim to have seen. Due to your inability to give any specifics regarding this document, it is easy to conclude that your claims are fraudulent and without merit.

[Seymour Butz]

I have posted documents to prove that i do work at NSA.

No you haven't.

You've posted documents that show that Roger M (your father?) works at the NSA.

YOUR identity has not been established.

[Zipster]

From his postings at eBaum's World Forums, I'm kind of suspicious that we would so readily agree that he is that particular Roger living at that particular location.

Unless it's a plant house, what kind of NSA agent tells everyone so readily that that's his home address? If he's lying, then doesn't that place the residents at that address in danger of some type of attack (low chance, but still possible)?

[ULTIMA1]

You've posted documents that show that Roger M (your father?) works at the NSA.
.

Those document are my documents, you are just either too immature or not intellgent enough to figure that out.

Others have been able to figure out they are mine.

[ULTIMA1]

what kind of NSA agent tells everyone so readily that that's his home address?


Someone who posts actaul facts and evidence, something you guys keep failing at.

[TexasJack]

Those document are my documents, you are just either too immature or not intellgent enough to figure that out.

Others have been able to figure out they are mine.

How do we know they're yours?

BTW if you are going to accuse someone of not being intelligent, it helps to spell the word correctly.

[beachnut]

Those document are my documents, you are just either too immature or not intellgent enough to figure that out.

Others have been able to figure out they are mine.What is an Intel Gent?

How intelligent are you? You are not an NSA analyst you say you are an NSA analyst. If you were an NSA analyst you will not be one after you are reported for not being able to analyze 9/11 for those things only a grade school level of competence is required.

So far you implied or say;
77 did not impact the Pentagon
93 was shot down
11 could not do the damage it did
175 did not to the damage it did
You have proof 93 was shot down, but don't have it yet (irony)
Do you want to apologize for more of the terrorist action on 9/11?

ans. The CEO of Intel?

[Zipster]

Is it here yet? Still nothing in the mail from the NSA about your FOIA request? Back to waiting...

[Seymour Butz]

[QUOTE=ULTIMA1;4098259]

Those document are my documents,

[QUOTE]

Of course they're your documents. That's not in dispute.

Who YOU are is. I say that Roger is your family member. Prove me wrong. My evidence of this is, as you admitted, you made your FOIA request from home, rather from work. That's because YOU are NOT Roger, and do not work at the NSA. Further evidence of this is the fact that your story on EBaum regarding your security clearance/codes changed from post to post. This is because you are not intelligent enough to keep your lies straight. Further evidence is how you've stated publicly that you work for the NSA, which as Sabrina pointed out, is not kosher.

So please grow up and admit that you do not work at the NSA.

Also, please be mature enough to admit that you were lying when you said that an F-4 Phantom is mostly made of steel.

[Gavron]

I believe on Ebaums, he posted his "work number' once. A forum users tried to call it, and a woman answered...and didnt know anything about the NSA. We're assuming it was just his mom.
Also, the IP addresses used on that forum all came from a home address, even at times when he was supposed to be at work.
The mods there saw thru his lies and banned him from posting there.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I believe on Ebaums, he posted his "work number' once. A forum users tried to call it, and a woman answered...and didnt know anything about the NSA. We're assuming it was just his mom.
Also, the IP addresses used on that forum all came from a home address, even at times when he was supposed to be at work.
The mods there saw thru his lies and banned him from posting there.


Why doesn't this surprise me? Lol...

[Hokulele]

I would like to announce that I will be making an announcement at some point in the future announcing that I have announced...



I'll come in again.

[JimBenArm]

I would like to announce that the previous announcement was not the announcement that was intended. The intended announcement will be unattended.

[Gavron]

I'll submit an FOIA request for your announced announcement information....

[Hokulele]

Nobody expects the annou...



Bugger.

[Bobert]

: dl : without the spaces between the colons and the letters.

Like so. :dl:
You are awesome thanks!
:dl:

[Bobert]

As for the rest of this "bluster", Let me know when CNN broadcasts,

"NSA Analyst blows lid off government version of the 9/11 attacks"

Until then, this particularly ridiculous truther is going in the ignore column.

TAM:)

Good decision.

[Bobert]

Ultima,
You dont by any chance happen to have that 4 hour researchers edition that the CIT seems to have misplaced?

[LashL]

FOIA request‏
From:
Sent: Sat 8/16/08 11:08 PM
To: foianet@nsa.gov

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: Authority for collecting information requested is contained in 5 U.S.C. § 552a and 5 U.S.C. § 552. NSA's Blanket Routine Uses found at 58 Fed. Reg. 10,531 (1993) as well as the specific uses found in GNSA02, GNSA03, and GNSA10 apply to this information. Authority for requesting your Social Security Number (SSN) is Executive Order 9397. The requested information will be used to assist the Agency in locating and disseminating the applicable records to the requestor. The disclosure of the requested information, to include your SSN, is voluntary. However, failure to provide the requested information may delay the processing of your request.


Full name:

Company/Organization: NSA

Address

Home Phone:

Work Phone:

Description of the records you seek: I would like to get a declassified copy of the CRITIC messages and any follow up reports from September 11, 2001 of the interception of Flight 93.


Uh huh. So, did you make this request via the NSA FOIA website form or did you send in an e-mail request?

[ULTIMA1]

How do we know they're yours?
.

Well if you do not know how to figure that out then my points about maturity and intelligence are correct.

[ULTIMA1]

[QUOTE=ULTIMA1;4098259]
you made your FOIA request from home, rather from work.

I made the FOIA request from home so i could show it to you online. Wasn't to hard to figure that out huh?

Also, please be mature enough to admit that you were lying when you said that an F-4 Phantom is mostly made of steel.

I have proven through facts and evidence (that you cannot debate) that the F-4 with engines is made mostly of steel.

I only hope one day you will grow up, stop living in a fantasy world and face reallity.

[ULTIMA1]

Also, the IP addresses used on that forum all came from a home address, even at times when he was supposed to be at work.
.

Please be adult enough to stop the lies.

I had other members figure out and state where i worked, I had shown what hours i worked and when i was online. i had shown members and mods who i was and where i worked.

Please stop the lies.

[ULTIMA1]

Uh huh. So, did you make this request via the NSA FOIA website form or did you send in an e-mail request?

I sent it via e-mail so i could show it online, like i did.

I have shown a letter from the NSA FOIA office verifing the request.

What else do you need me to show to verify the request was made and the document has been verified?

Would you like the phone number to the FOIA office?

[madurobob]

"The Announcement will not be televised."

Oh, sorry - we've moved past that bit, I guess.

Ultima1 - dude, stop it. You've got nothing. Post back here when you get the FOIA response and post that response in full. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict you will not be man enough to do even that.

Please, by all that is holy (or better yet - all that's not), prove me wrong.

[Horatius]

In all the fuss, ULTIMA1 seems to have missed my earlier post.

ULTIMA1, please ignore the sniping. We were making some good progress earlier, please let us continue with this.


Okay, we're making progress. Let's just focus on this one document you claim to have seen, and are expecting to arrive, okay?

Now, please try to answer a few specific questions about the contents of this document:

Does it clearly identify the type of aircraft that intercepted Flight 93? That is, does it say "F-16", "F-15", or some such clear designation? If so, what type of plane was it?

Does it clearly state that the intercepting plane fired at flight 93?

Does it clearly state what was fired at Flight 93? That is, was it a missile or gun fire that brought Flight 93 down? If it was a missile, does the document specify the type of missile used, such as a Sidewinder?

Does it clearly state the time of this intercept?

Does it clearly state the location of this intercept?

Does it detail what orders were given to the pilot of the intercepting aircraft?

Does it detail any radio communications between the pilot of this aircraft and anyone else, either on the ground or in the air?

[ULTIMA1]

ULTIMA1, please ignore the sniping. We were making some good progress earlier, please let us continue with this.


Let me post what i can post for now, untill i get the document and see what was taken out.

The main Critic states that flight 93 was intercepted. As far as type of aircraft i have to wait and see if the declassifed copy gives types.

Their are reports that follow up reports to the main Critic state that a plane came back with a missile missing.

It does state times, but they are in Zulu time, if you understand what that is?

[Horatius]

Let me post what i can post for now, untill i get the document and see what was taken out.

The main Critic states that flight 93 was intercepted. As far as type of aircraft i have to wait and see if the declassifed copy gives types.

Their are reports that follow up reports to the main Critic state that a plane came back with a missile missing.

It does state times, but they are in Zulu time, if you understand what that is?



Yes, I understand Zulu time.

However, part of the purpose of answering the above questions is to allow us to determine if the document that shows up is in any way the same document you claim to have already seen. If you don't answer them until after you have the forthcoming document, most of the people here simply won't believe you ever saw the earlier document, particularly if the forthcoming version lacks any details to support the conclusion that Flight 93 was shot down.

I can understand if you do not want to post the specific information as requested above, but can we at least get yes/no answers to some of the questions?

[TexasJack]

Well if you do not know how to figure that out then my points about maturity and intelligence are correct.


Yet you can't spell intelligent, oh the irony.

[chillzero]

Keep it civil and on topic, please.

[Gavron]

Their are reports that follow up reports to the main Critic state that a plane came back with a missile missing.

Did you request those reports as well? Do they list the serial number of the missile that was missing, and what investigation has been done to locate that missile?

[Sabrina]

ebaumsworld, given it's status as a questionable website that on occasion is known for downloading spyware onto the computers that visit it, would be blocked on government computers. It's also considered a gaming site, I believe, or a humorous site with questionable content, which would also cause it to be banned on government computers.

Is anyone aware if Ultima was claiming to be posting from WORK on ebaumsworld when he posted there? If so, there's no way in h-e-double-hockey-sticks that he was posting from NSA.

Quite frankly, I'm amazed THIS website isn't blocked from government computers, but I suppose the term "educational foundation" makes it a little less questionable than some other sites. Regardless, given the amount of time Ultima seems to be spending on his computer posting at internet forums, I'd wonder that his boss isn't on the ball enough to stop him and get him back to actually doing WORK; you know, that thing we're all paid for.

Setting that aside, I am more and more convinced that Ultima is lying through his teeth about where he works. I'm not arguing that it's not considered CLASSIFIED, per se, to say that you work at NSA, but it is frowned upon, as it can make you, your family, your friends, and even in some cases your coworkers more enticing targets for terrorists or other criminal elements. OPSEC would require that, assuming Ultima actually IS an NSA analyst in any capacity, he keep quiet about his job and what he does. That's the plain and simple truth. I have nothing further to say about the matter.

[twinstead]

If ULTIMA1 is a NSA Analyst, I am Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands

[Jonnyclueless]

I can absolutely assure you that Ultima does not work for the NSA. To think, a truth lying. Who'da thunk it?

[LashL]

I sent it via e-mail so i could show it online, like i did.

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.


I have shown a letter from the NSA FOIA office verifing the request.


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.

What else do you need me to show to verify the request was made

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.

and the document has been verified

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.

Would you like the phone number to the FOIA office?

I have it. What a weird question.

[ULTIMA1]

Did you request those reports as well?

Well if you would have read the letter i posted you would have seen that i did.

You really should learn to read post before responding.

[ULTIMA1]

Is anyone aware if Ultima was claiming to be posting from WORK on ebaumsworld when he posted there? If so, there's no way in h-e-double-hockey-sticks that he was posting from NSA.


If you knew anyting about NSAs computer intranet system (which its clear you do not) you would know that i cannot get on the internet from my woek computer.

Thats why i only do it from home.

[uk_dave]

Are you on gardening leave?