The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by tide88
Again all you have done is posted information from other sites that is pretty much common knowledge.

Well they must not be common knowlegde for a lot of beleivers becasue a lot of them have tried to argue the facts i have posted.

You should really try keeping up with what is being psoted so you know what going on.


[edit on 11-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tide88
Again all you have done is posted information from other sites that is pretty much common knowledge.

Well they must not be common knowlegde for a lot of beleivers becasue a lot of them have tried to argue the facts i have posted.

You should really try keeping up with what is being psoted so you know what going on.


[edit on 11-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Oh I know what is going on. It is you that is thoroughly confused. Get that CRITIC message yet. Less then four months to go and you have to stop posting. I have it marked on my calander. The day when stupidity ends.

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

Well I already posted an amature video of someone taping the WTC after the first plane impacted. Guess what happened after the second plane hit. After he ran for about 5 seconds he scanned the sky. Also the video of the pentagon that is on this thread the guy also spots a plane(the c130). But sure, everyone was so inthralled with the explosion they were unable to see a 757 fly over the pentagon. All those people in traffic and the people behind the pentagon also didnt see a low flying planes.

BTW all those photos were taken minutes if not longer after the impact. Most would scan the skies immediately after impact. As proven in the video I had previously posted.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by tide88]

Pentagon, sir, I'm asking you to post evidence of people scanning the skies immediately after the explosion at the Pentagon, say 1-3 seconds perhaps after the explosion and not the WTC attacks. The WTC film doesn't apply to your logic of course because that was after two planes had already hit. By doing so you are committing the complex question fallacy where two unrelated points, New York City with 2 plane impacts 90+ floors above ground level with a skyline filled with high rise buildings, to an alleged ground level single impact, with a much clearer skyline, and a greater production of smoke cover after the initial explosion.

I'm not asking for a people scanning the skies 2-3 minutes which is the time at which the C-130 was in the area. I'm asking you to post evidence that people instead of watching a huge fireball erupt in the sky and fill the sky with a thick smoke cover, actually peering into the skies around the Pentagon searching for additional planes instead of the out of place massive explosion taking place.

Again, I'm still awaiting your 'evidence' that applies to the situation. There are hundreds of photos in and around the scene, I'm sure you can find one to support yourself.

There is already one person on record who has seen a low flying passenger jet leaving the Pentagon immediately after the explosion and you are aware of him thanks to CIT's investigation. Do I need to link to his account?

Out of the hundreds around the area at the time, and the dozens who watched the plane fly into the Pentagon proper, you are suggesting that ONE person actually say and HEARD a 757 flying away? You can hear a jet 10,000 feet in the air. They are exceptionally loud. After the initial fireball, not only would have people noticed a jet flying away, they certainly would have heard it.

But it's all moot really. Until you folks claiming that it never hit the Pentagon can prove that ALL the witnesses who said they actually saw the plane physically fly into the wall were ALL mistaken, you are just wrong.

Once again, you are basing a premise on witnesses who did NOT see where a plane went after it left their field of vision, and their testimony is riveting and accurate, but for some reason, those who saw it actually hit the Pentagon are all wrong, lying, or apparently, just dumb as rocks.

Originally posted by tide88 It is you that is thoroughly confused. Get that CRITIC message yet.

Thats funny since i can show the quote from throat yogart where he tried to state the FBI started the crime scene on the day they arrived after i showed the evidence that they did not start the crime scene till the 21st.

Less then four months to go and you have to stop posting. I have it marked on my calander. The day when stupidity ends.

You mean less then 4 motnts and i will will have made an example of the beleivers that are so afriad of the truth that they live in a media fed fantasy world?

Do you really think i would send a FOIA request without knowing what the document proves?



[edit on 11-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You have no idea the document exists. You read about it on another site. I have seen the link. It is not something you have uncovered.

reply to post by Swing Dangler

What about the people who witnessed the explosion from behind the pentagon. CIT has specifically listed these people as people who saw the explosion but were unable to see the impact. These witnesses would be in clear site of any flyover. Also there is no video that I am aware of nor are there pictures that show the area and people staring at the explosion seconds after it happened. You claim there are many pictures that show people just staring at the explosion seconds after it happened. Please post this time stamped pictures you claim you have seen. As for not being able to place the two situations (wtc and pentagon) together, that is rediculous. People were already well aware that TWO PLANES were already used as weapons to attack the Twin Towers. Many pentagon witnesses claim to have seen a low flying plane hit the pentagon. You cant seriously be saying that those people just watched the plane hit then just stared at the impact like they were hypnotized and didnt look around to see if any other attacks were underway nearby. After all, the twin towers were attacked by planes twice and this was known by those witnesses. What is to say another plane wasnt about to hit the pentagon a few minutes later. I for one would have checked, as would the majority of people with half a brain. Of course you are in the minority, so I have no doubt you would have stared at the impact point like a retard looking at a lollypop.

Originally posted by tide88
You have no idea the document exists. You read about it on another site.

Gee, you really should read post and keep up with whats going on before responding. I showed the FOIA request and even offered a phone number to verfiy the request and the document.

I have access to the classified document and have read it.

I filed an FIOA request to get a declassified copy.

So we will soon see who is going to be leaving and who is going to be staying.

RADES or FAA data false, or both.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I have access to the classified document and have read it.

Roger, if I were to send a copy of your posts to the NSA including the above. Do you think you would still have a job?

Does the NSA allow it's employees to state that they have read classified documents showing the United States Government covered up the deaths of those on flight 93?

thank you

-TY-

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I have access to the classified document and have read it.

I filed an FIOA request to get a declassified copy.

As TY just pointed out, you have effectively revealed the contents of a classified document on the internet. Isn't this like treason or something? At the very least it would be a sackable offense.

Presumably you must be very high ranking within the NSA to get access to such documents - strangely you don't give off that sense of gravitas that I would imagine a senior security analyst would have. Perhaps I have watched too many Bourne films to have a realistic view, and the security services are actually controlled by a bunch of kids rather than sharp as hell Harvard graduates.

If this document contains what you say it does then it contains some of the most sensitive information imagianable. What makes you think it falls under FIOA rules? You seriously think they would just stick it in an envelope and send it out to you? No press conference to own up to their mendacity and explain their lies?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Does the NSA allow it's employees to state that they have read classified documents showing the United States Government covered up the deaths of those on flight 93?-

Yes, if the document exists that shows Flight 93 was interceprted, and i do not reveal any cleassified material (which i haven't)

I have e-mailed the FOIA office and they are working on my request. I should have the material soon. Enjoy the rest of your time online.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
As TY just pointed out, you have effectively revealed the contents of a classified document on the internet.

No, i only made a general statment as to what the document states about Flight 93.

I have not revealed any classified information. I requested a declassified copt to post on the internet and should be getting it soon.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No, i only made a general statment as to what the document states about Flight 93.

Err, yeah, you have revealed the contents of it (hypothetically speaking). Just because you haven't quoted it means nothing - you've revealed the secret - that's the bit that's classified - not the words themselves.

I have not revealed any classified information.

Well we both know this as you've never seen such a document. If you had you could have just leaked it to the press.

How exactly do you claim you got hold of this document anyway? Did you press the intercom on your big teak desk and go:

ULTIMA1: "Moneypenny, bring me the top secret document that details how the USAF shot down a passenger jet on 9\11"

Moneypenny: "Yes sir, would you like a Martini with that? The guys in the top secret archives will want to know why you need it, what shall I say?"

ULTIMA1: "Tell them I need to win an argument on an internet conspiracy site. I'm sure they won't have a problem with that"

Moneypenny: "Hmmmm. OK sir"

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

No, i only made a general statment as to what the document states about Flight 93.

I have not revealed any classified information. I requested a declassified copt to post on the internet and should be getting it soon.

What are you talking about??? You stated in several threads several times that the document YOU READ stated that flight 93 was intercepted. You even went as far as to say it was "shot down."

Therefor if in fact you DID read the alleged CLASSIFIED document, you released classified information by stating the contents of the alleged document. That is a crime.

So Roger, I have your last name, DOB, and your current job description. If I were to contact your superiors, would you get reprimanded for your conduct in this forum?

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Err, yeah, you have revealed the contents of it (hypothetically speaking). Just because you haven't quoted it means nothing - you've revealed the secret - that's the bit that's classified - not the words themselves.

I will state this 1 more time for you to understand.

I DID NOT TALK ABOUT ANYTHING IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS CLASSIFIED.

How exactly do you claim you got hold of this document anyway?

Well if you would have read my post you would know that i have acces to the document because i have a security clearence.




[edit on 14-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
What are you talking about??? You stated in several threads several times that the document YOU READ stated that flight 93 was intercepted. You even went as far as to say it was "shot down."

Yes i did, and that was not the information on the document that was classified.

So Roger, I have your last name, DOB, and your current job description. If I were to contact your superiors, would you get reprimanded for your conduct in this forum?

I will give you contact numbers. I have done nothing wrong.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Let me get the straight Roger.

1. You were given access to a classified Top Secret Document
2. You read the document
3. You filed an FOIA request for the document.
4. You stated here on several occasions that the document stated that flight 93 was intercepted.
5. You are now claiming that you didn't release any classified information.


Yes Roger, I want the contact information of your superiors. I will contact them first thing Monday morning.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by ULTIMA1

 

Let me get the straight Roger.

1. You were given access to a classified Top Secret Document
2. You read the document
3. You filed an FOIA request for the document.
4. You stated here on several occasions that the document stated that flight 93 was intercepted.
5. You are now claiming that you didn't release any classified information.


Yes Roger, I want the contact information of your superiors. I will contact them first thing Monday morning.

Yeah really why are we giving this guy ####? Let him post his proof and if he does not then flame and roast.

Moreover, whatever classified material ATS can get our hands on we should keep close to the vest and not blab about it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Yes i did, and that was not the information on the document that was classified.

So only part of the document was classified? It didn't say "Classified" at the top or anything then?

Are you actually saying that the fact that the USAF shot down a passenger jet full of people and then hundreds of people conspired to invent a whole raft of evidence to the contrary, including fake phone calls, isn't classified?!?

If this is the case why hasn't it got out yet? Couldn't you just have censored out the sensitive bits (I can't imagine what would be more sensitive) and released it to the press? Gone deep throat, as it were?