The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Awesome post, awesome detective work. You poured a lot of time into this and deserve the gratitude of the united states as a whole.
Thanks man. Thanks.


-Z-

reply to post by discombobulator


This is Rogers reply on ebaums world about his FOIA requests:

Well i can show the e-mail i have recieved from the NTSB. I have also recieved 2 CDs from them with the data from the Flight Data Recorder from Flight 77.

Its jsut too bad you are too stupid or too immature to do any real research and you live in a media fed fantasy world.

E-mail from the NTSB. Please feel free to call the phone numbers or use the e-mail to verify the e-mail.

Mr. Mis***:

Government agencies do not have to submit FOIA requests to other government
agencies to obtain records. Are you seeking this information as a private
individual or on behalf of the Department of Defense?



Tamara Pleasant-Crawford
NTSB, Records Management Division
(202) 314-6540
(202) 314-6074 (fax)



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 7:28 PM
To: FOIA
Subject: Public Correspondence

The following request was received from the NTSB web site:
Roger Mis***
Department of Defense
[email protected]
USA
nochoice

Message:
Information and data on Flight 77 animation from flight data recorder.
September 11, 2001 New York City.

didn't know government agents used a hotmail account. Also what was the FOIA # for the above mentioned CD's you supposedly received. Looks bogus to me.

Originally posted by tide88

didn't know government agents used a hotmail account. Also what was the FOIA # for the above mentioned CD's you supposedly received. Looks bogus to me.

No, it's actually legitimate.

It's completely irrelevant though, and designed only to distract.

We are dealing with his FOIA request for the NSA's CRITIC messages and his apparent failure to lodge the request prior to being challenged about it on a public forum.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Sorry, you haven't proven that you sent this one in.

What do you need for me to prove i have sent the public e-mail to NSA for the FOIA?



[edit on 21-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by beachnut
Let me show you what you lack!
1. Proof the FDR is not real!
2. Proof the DNA evidence is not real!
3. Proof the parts at the Pentagon are not 77!

It is your burden to prove you ideas, which absent of facts and evidence now, stand as pure fantasy.

look in a mirror.
theses things are exactly true of the official story as well.

there is NO PROOF of ANYTHING.

the best we have to work with is circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony. seeing as this job was pulled off by the people who are providing what official evidence there is(the military/industrial/media complex), that evidence is pretty much non-admissible.

why are there no videos? there were over 80 cameras.
why did the FBI KNOW to be at the CITGO and the doubletree within minutes of the crash? why was the FBI even concerned about this evidence, when people were still dying and their efforts could have been focused on something much more critical, like saving lives.

the fact that you have a certificate, along with your towing of the party line, suggests to me that you might be 'in on it'.

i'm still waiting for you to tell me what's wrong with my physics, BTW.

Yes you are correct. These 'government loyalists' and 'government shills' shadowing the CIT investigators and other 9-11 Truthers, and swarming to this ATS forum, do act exactly like they are 'in on it'. I do not know what their punishment will be for failing to stop the 9-11 Truthers, but it is blatantly obvious that they are becoming increasingly desperate and mentally unstable.

Here is FBI Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire's declaration to a court-ordered FOIA regarding the 85 confiscated and censored video tapes. As you can see, none of the Pentagon rooftop video cameras (at least 8 of them) were even mentioned as the FBI (Justice Dept) had no jurisdiction over the Defense Dept.

She determined that the FBI had 85 videotapes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
flight77.info...
flight77.info...

As you can see for yourself, the FBI was very careful about not mentioning what the confiscated videos showed in the air around the Pentagon and on the grounds; specifically the area around Lloyd England's taxi and the 5 light poles. Agent Maguire herself did not personally view 56 of the videotapes. Likely one of those protect your own ass deals. Those 56 videos were allegedly viewed by the FBI laboratory at Quantico Virginia, which repeatedly in the past has been accused by FBI whistleblowers of deliberate evidence tampering and manufacturing and mishandling. Surprise surprise surprise.

And of course it is likely that Agent Maguire also did not view the higher quality videos from the rooftop cameras and stored on hard drives in the Pentagon security room in the basement.

I think that with its sordid history, OUR FBI cannot be trusted despite all the wonderful Elliot Ness propaganda flicks. As you stated, the FBI was already on the scene, ready to rock and roll and confiscate all videos and warn any eyewitnesses who might stray from the official truth, before the first explosion at the Pentagon.


[edit on 8/21/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by tide88

didn't know government agents used a hotmail account. Also what was the FOIA # for the above mentioned CD's you supposedly received. Looks bogus to me.

Becasue it was sent form home, are you really that clueless or jsut playing.

Its really getting fun and easy to prove things to you but as usual believers like you just keep ignoring the facts. You make a really good media robot.

Here is the scan of the FOIA request i received from the NTSB.

i114.photobucket.com...

Edited to remove the post. No reason to offer an olive branch to someone too foolish to accept it.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
If Ultima wants to continue to refer to what he claims as NSA employment, FOIA requests, etc…..I have no problem with ferreting out the truth, or not, of those claims.

So what would you like me to post (more then i have) to prove who i work for and the FOIA request i have sent?

Oh and do not forget the E-mails i have sent, including 1 about vehicle black boxes in vehicles near the 9/11 crime scenes.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Frankly, I don't care what you do. You've highlighted yourself well enough.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Frankly, I don't care what you do. You've highlighted yourself well enough.

So why do you keep refusing to admit to the facts and evidence i post?

If you admit to who i work for you have to admit to what i post also.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
Sorry, you haven't proven that you sent this one in.

What do you need for me to prove i have sent the public e-mail to NSA for the FOIA?

I think the whole point of this expedition has escaped you. Let me hightlight the key events so far, and then summarise at the end.

1) You claimed that you possessed a document that would prove the "official story" false beyond any reasonable doubt

2) The document you are referring to contains NSA's CRITIC messages from 9/11 allegedy referring to the "intercept" of Flight 93

3) When challenged to produce the document you claimed that you could not and that it could only be obtained through a FOIA request

4) You ignored questions regarding the current status of your FOIA request four times, and attempted a number of brazenly idiotic diversions

5) The supposed FOIA Request email that you now claim to have publicy sent is time stamped after you were challenged in point 3 above.

So, in summary, I find it a little strange that a hardcore researcher such as yourself - who works at the NSA (I don't doubt this, mind you) with access to INTELINK suddenly became aware of the CRITIC messages on 9/11 through a Wayne Madsen article published 1st August 2008 yet apparently did absolutely nothing to obtain the document until you were challenged to back up claims you made on an internet forum that you already possessed it.

But that's another story of yours that keeps changing, isn't it. First you claimed you had it, then you were just trying to get it and now we have you in another thread claiming to have seen it yourself.

And frankly, I don't care about your other FOIA requests and I don't understand what flapping your gums about them is supposed to prove.

Any monkey can send in an FOIA request which I think you've gone as far as proven.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tide88

didn't know government agents used a hotmail account. Also what was the FOIA # for the above mentioned CD's you supposedly received. Looks bogus to me.

Becasue it was sent form home, are you really that clueless or jsut playing.

Its really getting fun and easy to prove things to you but as usual believers like you just keep ignoring the facts. You make a really good media robot.

Here is the scan of the FOIA request i received from the NTSB.

i114.photobucket.com...

Okay you proved me wrong. I take back the above quote where I said it looks bogus. Maybe you do work for the NSA (sweeping floors) maybe you dont. I have to admit, I am quite concerned with the fact that you claim to have seen classified documents and post that these documents exists. You in no way should have any kind of security clearance. Also let me give you some advice:

1. Stop telling people to grow up and calling them immature everytime someone questions you. You use this on every thread and every forum you post on. It is really quite pathetic and only points out a lack of communcation skills on your part.

2. Don't give your personal information on the internet. There are a lot of crazy people out there (YOU) and with a name, town, and DOB it is easy to track. If you have knowledge of Classified Materials, what is to say some terrorist or somone else will not hunt you down to know all the secret information you are holding in your head. What terrorist or spy for another country wouldnt want to get a hold of someone with your security clearance?

3. Get out some more. From the looks of it, all you do is work and post on internet forums about conspiracies, movies (x-files, transformers, anime), ufos, etc. It is a fun and exciting world out there, go enjoy it.

Been fun chatting with you. But my time has come to move on. This thread is going in circles at this point. And obviously CIT, Spreston, and Ultima 1 have proven how rediculous and desperate the truth movement has become. Bye Bye.

[edit on 21-8-2008 by tide88]

Originally posted by ZyPHeR
Awesome post, awesome detective work. You poured a lot of time into this and deserve the gratitude of the united states as a whole.
Thanks man. Thanks.

-Z-

You're welcome. We debunk 9/11 Deniers wherever we find them.

The North Side Flyover - Officially Debunked, Independently Laughed At:

forums.randi.org...

Originally posted by tide88
Been fun chatting with you. But my time has come to move on. This thread is going in circles at this point. And obviously CIT, Spreston, and Ultima 1 have proven how rediculous and desperate the truth movement has become. Bye Bye.

Yeah, brushing the Ultima1 sideshow circus aside for a moment, I think CIT has been well and truly crushed here. Craig reneged on his promise to return and answer critical questions about the odd account of Roosevent Roberts and the lack of flyover witnesses, and the common theme from those who have praised Craig's article is "didn't read it, but you get a star for effort."

The only people lobbying in CIT's defense are the usual nonsensical clowns like SPreston (I don't even bother reading this guy anymore) and the result of them getting the media attention they aspire is one of the most hilarious articles I've read in a while.

Originally posted by tide88
And obviously CIT, Spreston, and Ultima 1 have proven how rediculous and desperate the truth movement has become. Bye Bye.

Sounds to me more like your running away becasue you know you cannot debate the evidence i have and can show.

Originally posted by discombobulator
I think CIT has been well and truly crushed here.

Excuse me but what have you crushed?

I have still seen no evidence to debate what i have psoted and have seen no evidence to support the official story.

So please enlighten us on what has been crushed.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Excuse me but what have you crushed?

You.

Now would you please go away.

[edit on 22-8-2008 by discombobulator]

ULTIMA1,

So you claim to be an NSA employee, eh? Well, if this is the case, can you answer a few very simple questions for me?

1. Please describe to me your security clearance and accesses.

2. Please describe to me the color of your badge.

3. Please tell me the name of the person who is in charge of Q131. It's in the book and on the internal web.

4. What is FANX?

5. When must you file a UFT form?

These are all very simple unclassified questions that any cleared NSA employee can answer, but a keyboard cowboy would not likely know. Please reply soonest.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
I think CIT has been well and truly crushed here.

Excuse me but what have you crushed?

I have still seen no evidence to debate what i have psoted and have seen no evidence to support the official story.

So please enlighten us on what has been crushed.

I'll ask once again, I have no idea why you are ignoring this question.

This theory is based on eyewitness reports that supposedly see the plane flying in from an angle other than the official report. Apparently those who planned this are stupid enough to knock light poles down, because a gaping hole and a missing plane wouldn't be enough to prove a plane was there. Nope.. lightpoles should be the proof they need!

Regardless, there are a lot MORE witnesses that said they saw a 757 (some say large passenger jet, some say an AA flight, some say a 757) crash into the side of the Pentagon. Again: They SAW IT FLY INTO THE PENTAGON.

Now, why are the witnesses who support this theory correct, while a much larger base of witnesses are all wrong? Why are YOUR witnesses reliable, versus those who saw the plane fly into the Pentagon, which would be MUCH more solid proof of it happening, than your folks seeing a playing flying on a different side of a gas station, proving that it did not.

What in the world makes your rather small # of witnesses correct, and the larger # wrong? Can you please explain this?

And if you come up with the answer I got from another person (they didn't see what they thought they saw), explain to me what they thought they saw. And how someone can mistake anything else, for a large silver passenger jet. If I saw a 757 flying into a building, I'd KNOW what I saw..