The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have already proven to other members on here who i am and who i work for.

Just curious. You state that you are employed by the NSA, are your supervisors aware that you are disiminating your name and employment status on a public forum? If not, how would they react to this knowledge?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Let me repeat. NO steel building has ever collapsed from fire (or strutural damage) no matter how severe.

That's a lie...unless you actually believe it, in which case, it's just stupid.

You are 100% sure that there is no steel building anywhere that's collapsed due to fire? That's a pretty substantial claim.

Would you like me to post examples proving your claim wrong? Or do you now see now how ridiculous this claim is and choose to retract it?

reply to post by beachnut


why don't you just point out my error?

sounds like it should be easy.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by tide88
Sure. I was also be mature enough to admit when you send a copy of your government id card or nsa access card.

What a good way to get his security clearance taken away. Yeah, let's post our access cards Ultima, I bet the gov. wouldn't mind.

BTW, even if Ultima was a janitor at NSA, he'd still need security clearance.

Hell, I need it just to hang off the side and inspect some of these buildings here in DC. One of which is the tallest building in DC. Let's see if you guys can figure out which building I was on 2 weeks ago. Hint: It's not the Washington Monument.

I also have a card from the place where AF1 takes off and lands.

And don't ask me to scan my id and access cards, that's just silly.

[edit on 8/18/2008 by Griff]

I mean this with all seriousness.
It frightens me that you claim to have secure access to any building that is occupied by any level of government in this country.
Your off duty recreational truther activities could end up causing issues with your security clearance.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
Uhuh.

Sure, show us this FOIA request letter.

Now there is a FOIA number on the letter that i have recieved from outside source (NTSB).

NTSB letter dated June 07, 2007

FOIA number 20070291.

And this is the letter that contains your FOIA request to obtain this document you refer to that demonstrates that the "official story" is false?

You stated that you would scan the page and show it to us. Would you do that please?

And thankyou for finally acknowledging the FOIA Request Number does in fact exist.

Originally posted by PaxAmericanvs
Just curious. You state that you are employed by the NSA, are your supervisors aware that you are disiminating your name and employment status on a public forum? If not, how would they react to this knowledge?

Well there is a NSA public website.

I am not giving out anything that pretains to my job or anything classified.

Originally posted by discombobulator
And this is the letter that contains your FOIA request to obtain this document you refer to that demonstrates that the "official story" is false?

This was a letter i recieved from the NTSB with the FDR data from Flight 77.

As stated the document i am trying to get now is from the NSA.

Originally posted by nicepants
That's a lie...unless you actually believe it, in which case, it's just stupid.

NO it is not a lie.

Pleasse show me a steel building (in the US.) that has collapsed from fire in the last 30 years.

reply to post by TheBobert


why should it frighten you?
it's not like anyone can make up the truth. what's wrong with wanting to know the truth, and why should truth seeking be a security risk?

what are you, a rabbit?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
And this is the letter that contains your FOIA request to obtain this document you refer to that demonstrates that the "official story" is false?

This was a letter i recieved from the NTSB with the FDR data from Flight 77.

As stated the document i am trying to get now is from the NSA.

You state that you possess a classified document that would prove the "official story" false, but you say that in order for it to be released publicly it must be obtained through a FOIA request.

You are now being asked for the FOURTH time to answer BOTH questions.

Do you currently have a FOIA Request to gain public access to this document?

If so, what is the FOIA Request Number (or Case File number)?

The evasions you have given so far are:

1) FOIA Request Numbers do not exist - You have since debunked your own evasion by providing an NTSB FOIA Request Number, but with no proof whatsoever that it is even related to you

2) Your FOIA request was internal - This is a lie. The Freedom Of Information Act is designed to allow the public (Government agencies excluded) to gain access to non-exempted material held by Government agencies. There is no mechanism referred to as "FOIA" that allows these undocumented requests to float freely around within any particular Government agency. Access to documents within Government agencies is restricted through classification and job responsibility.

What evasions are you going to add to the list when you refuse to answer these two simple questions for the fourth time?

Do you currently have a FOIA Request to gain public access to this document?

If so, what is the FOIA Request Number (or Case File number)?

[edit on 19-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well there is a NSA public website.

I am not giving out anything that pretains to my job or anything classified.

I was under the impression that revealing that your are employed by the NSA was a breach of protocol regardless. Is this correct or am I mistaken?

reply to post by PaxAmericanvs


I spoke with my retired friend last night. He worked for the NSA. He said, depending on your job. So, in other words, not neccessarily.

TheBobert: I'm the last person you need be afraid of. And my claims are valid.

reply to post by Griff


Is it a fair characterization that if someone on ATS is admitting (bragging?) they work for the NSA, they don't have the kind of position that would give them the 'inside scoop'?

In other words, if he's articulating his supposed NSA credentials on a very public internet forum, the fact that he can (is allowed) do so implicitly rules him out as having the kind of position he is claiming to have in the first place, correct?

It is usually those in low levels that like to brag the most about how they work for the government.
Maybe he works in the NSA giftshop.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by TheBobert]

Originally posted by TheBobert
It is usually those in low levels that like to brag the most about how they work for the government.
Maybe he works in the NSA giftshop.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by TheBobert]

I think he cleans the The National Cryptologic Museum. He probably trys their codebreaker games there and thinks he is actually a NSA codebreaker. Also I wonder if there is a sample resume of what courses a typical person needs to be able to work for the NSA. Maybe a ficititious person by the name of roger mis*** jr. Also the fact the not only does he claim he works for the NSA, but posts his real name, is very scary if he actually does have any kind of securtiy clearance.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by PaxAmericanvs

 

I spoke with my retired friend last night. He worked for the NSA. He said, depending on your job. So, in other words, not neccessarily.

Ask him if it against policy to not only tell people you work for the NSA, but also let them know you have access to classified documents,. Then you post your real name and transcripts all over public forums on the internet. You have to admit, this is kind of scary. If he was just telling some friends that he worked for the NSA, I wouldnt think it was a big deal. However posting it on 5+ forums(that I have found so far) for anyone to read, has to be against NSA policy. If you get a chance, ask your friend that. Don't you think it is funny Griff that not one person questions you about what you do, or that you have a friend in the NSA. I don't doubt you for one second. The reason for this is that although I disagree with you, you can tell that the person behind your posts is a logically, smart, informed person. You read Ultima quotes and you are like ...

Originally posted by discombobulator
Hey Craig,

Why isn't Roosevelt Roberts Jnr's statement corroborated by Levi Stephens?

Craig? Craig...??? Earth calling Craig....come in Craig!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by nicepants
That's a lie...unless you actually believe it, in which case, it's just stupid.

NO it is not a lie.

Pleasse show me a steel building (in the US.) that has collapsed from fire in the last 30 years.

Your claim mentioned nothing about the US or the last 30 years..are you changing it now?

Here's one example which proves your claim is BS.




EDIT: Not that it matters.......even if your claim was correct, it wouldn't prove that collapse was impossible.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by nicepants]

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by discombobulator
Hey Craig,

Why isn't Roosevelt Roberts Jnr's statement corroborated by Levi Stephens?

Craig? Craig...??? Earth calling Craig....come in Craig!

Because Levi was facing the opposite direction and missed the flyover/deduced the impact.

Are you suggesting that Levi proves Roosevelt was completely fabricating his account of a commercial airliner with jet engines at an altitude just over the light poles flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion?

Why would Roosevelt lie about this on 11/30/2001 in a recording that he knew would be forever documented in the Library of Congress?

What could possibly be his motive for doing that?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Because Levi was facing the opposite direction and missed the flyover/deduced the impact.

Are YOU suggesting that Levi Stephens did not notice a 90-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan passing between him and the explosion at 50 to 100 feet simply because he was "facing the opposite direction"???

"...I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van and I looked back and I saw this huge explosion, black smoke everywhere."

DON'T you think if there was a 180,000 lb "commercial airliner with jet engines at an altitude just over the light poles flying away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion" he would have seen it?

Don't you think he would have seen it IT IF IT WERE THERE? No? Why? BECAUSE HIS BACK WAS TURNED?

Do us all a favor. Find an airshow this weekend or as soon as you can. Get an idea of what a large aircraft looks like flying 50 or 100 feet off the ground at 200 or 300 or 400 knots. Take Rob the Tool Balsamo with you. THEN come back and talk to us about someone seeing a large commercial airliner banking over the south parking lot at 50 or 100 feet.

You CIT cover girls get faster and funnier every day.

And there's another question....how in the hell can an aircraft with a 125-foot wingspan be in a double-banking turn from north of the Citgo to the south parking lot at 50 or even 100 feet without dragging a wing in the ground or snapping off a dozen more light poles?

Roberts is mistaken. Simple as that. At some point you need to engage the laws of credulity in these "interviews" you CIT Boys are playing at. Roberts is not credible. Simple as that. Your other witnesses - the "NoC/I saw the impact" witnesses - are not credible since they themselves have conflicting testimony that cancel out the two events (NOC an dimpact). Like you always say, you can't have both.

How many cars does that south parking lot hold? Over 2,000. If it is your intention to go out into the world and try to convince the general public, much less a judge or jury, that *nobody* was in that 2,000 car parking lot of one of the world's largest office buildings at 0930 on a Tuesday morning and THAT is why YOU, the CIT Cover Girls, only have 1 (one) witness to a 180,000 airliner banking over the aforementioned 2,000+ car parking lot at 50 or 100 feet and HE was the only one who saw it, good luck.

Faster, please.

And you can stop with the Library of Congress stuff. It doesn't impress anyone who knows that pretty much anything related to 9/11, garbage or otherwise, will most likely end up in the LoC, especially nowadays with digital archiving. Save that LoC line for the chick at your next gig.

[edit on 19-8-2008 by pinch]