The image has been removed or taken down from the link.
Extra line to escape the mod's wrath :-)

Originally posted by Venit
The image has been removed or taken down from the link.
Extra line to escape the mod's wrath :-)

The image is still available as the first item on the page.

ULTIMA, may I suggest you blur out your personal information, there are unfortunately people who would take advantage of such information.

There was an image here.. Ultima added one.. so no need here.

Here

This might be interesting to see.

[edit on 9/22/2008 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 9/22/2008 by ThichHeaded]

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
This might be interesting to see.

Yes, the beleivers might have to actually wake up and face reallity.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Even the truthers have their doubts.

Sounds like someone is getting worried that the documents might actaully be shown and prove the official story wrong.

How much more proof do you need that the information is coming?






[edit on 25-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have recieved notice that the FOIA request for the NSA document about the intercept of Flight 93 is in process and i will have it soon.

I will bet the farm that when Roger gets his requested letter, he will not be so quick to scan and post it.

Please read what the letter to him states:

We have completed our search responsive to your request.The material responsive you your request is not voluminous or complex.... First in first out for non personal easy cases...

I would think the government releasing a document where they admit to killing it's own citizens would be quite "complex" and would NOT be an "easy case."

Ultima, January 2nd is right around the corner. You are on borrowed time.

Originally posted by gavron
So, on October 2nd (or 3rd at the latest), you will be posting your information then, correct? They did say 20 days, and that was on Sept 12th.

Please learn to read.

It states they are unable to respond within 20 days. Why do you have to twist or misquote post, its shows a lot of immaturity?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

We have completed our search responsive to your request.The material responsive you your request is not voluminous or complex.... First in first out for non personal easy cases...

But they do say the material exist don't they?

Please enjoy the rest of your time online, what you have left.



[edit on 25-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It states they are unable to respond within 20 days. Why do you have to twist or misquote post, its shows a lot of immaturity?

I guess he just misread, I also did the first time, their wording is not good.

But they do say the material exist don't they?

Yes, but your request is for "materials related to the intercept of Flight 93", it says nothing of any shootdown at all.

Let me be quite clear here, a document saying that Flight 93 was intercepted does not show that Flight 93 was shot down. I just thought I'd nip this in the bud as far as I am concerned in case this is the evidence you intend to present as proof.

I believe that the requirement for people to stop posting was to be decided by moderator, so perhaps we could get a pre-emptive judgement on what exactly would count as evidence of a shoot down.

edit: I may have been mistaken as to the situation regarding fighter intercepts! I am no expert with Flight 93, so it may be that documentation showing Flight 93 was intercepted may disagree with the current "official story". If this is the case then more debate might be needed! Don't take my post above as being set in stone. It does look like I may have been mistaken, so it may not be appropriate to dismiss your claim based on this criteria.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by exponent]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Could there be a message stating that flight 93 was intercepted? No.

What facts do you have that a document does not exist that states Flight 93 was intercepted?

What are you going to do when i post that document that Flight 93 was intercpted? You will finally have to face reallity.

Originally posted by exponent
Yes, but your request is for "materials related to the intercept of Flight 93", it says nothing of any shootdown at all.

But the intercept in itself contridicts the official story that states no planes were near Flight 93.

Also there were follow up reports about a plane coming back without a missile, which would indicate a shootdown. Thats why i asked for any addition material in addition to the main document.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But the intercept in itself contridicts the official story that states no planes were near Flight 93.

Also there were follow up reports about a plane coming back without a missile, which would indicate a shootdown. Thats why i asked for any addition material in addition to the main document.

Indeed I may have been mistaken on my original point, I am by no means an expert with Flight 93. I will await the publication of the documents you receive, and we'll see what happens then.

It might be useful to get a very strict moderator definition beforehand, so no debate can be had afterward.

Originally posted by exponent
It might be useful to get a very strict moderator definition beforehand, so no debate can be had afterward.

Well as stated even the intercept of Flight 93 does debate the official story.

So people will still have to face the reallity that the official story has been debated.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The material responsive you your request is not voluminous or complex.... First in first out for non personal easy cases.

sounds like this is a non-complex, easy case. (NSA words)

One would think shooting down an airliner would be complex, and not easy.

Please learn to read.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So people will still have to face the reallity that the official story has been debated.

Debated and proven correct.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by gavron]