NSA archives: Flight 93 shot down

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So lets all get this straight. You do not think it was important enough to find out first that there was evidnece of an attack against the US on a tape

Gee, ULTIMA1. Ever see the police gather bags of "evidence" from crime scenes? Do they test all of the evidence at the scene itself, or do they take it to a lab to better analyze ithe evidence with their equipment?

Plus, you didnt answer my other question. What about cameras that had no working monitors? Do they not take any of those taes, because they cannot view them there?

Originally posted by gavron
Gee, ULTIMA1. Ever see the police gather bags of "evidence" from crime scenes?

But we are not talking about basic evidence from a simple crime scene are we ?

We are talking a tape that may have evidence of the biggest terrorist attack against the US, and they could not take a few seconds to see if the tape had anything on it. Come on are you for real?

By the way i know a lot about evidence gathering and processing. Probably a lot more then you since i graduated from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Like I said before:

I think you are a patriot, have served your country with honor and are motivated by what you think is the right thing.

I have seen none of your credentials (nor do I need to - it's none of my business). I am going off of what you have publicly offered. Others who have seen the information you offered made reference to your attendance at college.

I am not trying to "put down" community college; not in any way. I was commenting on that fact that is certainly possible to seek and obtain employment with just about anyone with no degree. However, there are baseline educational requirements for seeking the best jobs - like an NSA analyst. It isn't attendance at junior college.

Also, I was not attempting to imply you are/were a janitor. I used that example as a polar opposite to an NSA analyst. There is nothing “wrong” with being a janitor and I didn’t mean nor intend to slight anyone in that profession or demean you.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Others who have seen the information you offered made reference to your attendance at college.

Well lets set the record straight one more time.

1. I did not attend community college. I recieved college credits form the community college of the Air Force for my courses and work in the military.

2. I started off working at NSA as a federal police officer. At the time they were looking for work expereince in lue of college. They took military education and experience instead of a degree.



[edit on 11-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
We are talking a tape that may have evidence of the biggest terrorist attack against the US, and they could not take a few seconds to see if the tape had anything on it.

Are you for real? I thought you had a background in investigating. Maybe you should go thru your notes and look at the section on gathering evidence again.

I find it almost comical that you cannot understand why they took the media from the cameras, to further examine them at the lab.

Plus, you still keep avoiding the question: What if there was no working monitor where they had external cameras? Do they just leave those tapes behind, saying "we couldnt watch the tapes there, so we'll assume they have nothing on em".

Originally posted by gavron
Are you for real? I thought you had a background in investigating. .

Yes i do have a background in investigation, and no one in thier right mind would not use a monitor that was right in front of them to check and see if there was any evidence on a tape.

I find it almost comical that you cannot understand why they took the media from the cameras, to further examine them at the lab.

I find it very sad that you cannot understand that anyone with basic common sense would use the monitor right in front of them at the time to see if there was evidnece of the biggest terrorist attack in history.

Sure, they would take it back to the lab later after finding if it had evidence on it. If it had nothing on it then there would be no reason to take it back to the lab.

Plus, you still keep avoiding the question: What if there was no working monitor where they had external cameras?

How many top security systems have you seen that do not have a monitor? Do you even understand or know about CCTV security systems?


[edit on 11-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

You guys will believe anything, right? There is no truth to this, it is all supposition. Somebody saw something, and told somebody else, who told someone else. But nobody can point out who read the supposed documents, or who claims to have read them.

Oh no, it's all just mist and vapor. But you will believe it, of course you will, Because you see a conspiracy behind everything.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes i do have a background in investigation, and no one in thier right mind would not use a monitor that was right in front of them to check and see if there was any evidence on a tape.

You obviously have never seen the CCTV cameras at a lot of conveniance stores. When you have a chance, check one out, and you will then see how ridiculous your question is.

How many top security systems have you seen that do not have a monitor? Do you even understand or know about CCTV security systems?

Honestly? I can recall 3 off the top of my head. These were security cameras for hospitals (one pointing to the ER entrance). 2 had monitors that were blurry, one was dead. They could not replace these monitors due to budgetary concerns at the time, "but they were working on it".

These were not run down clinics either, they were large centers in major cities.

So, once again, the idea of taking the tapes to view in a LAB environment is perfectly legitimate.

They may have state of the art High Def 30 inch monitors on all your CCTV cameras in your fantasy world, but in the REAL world, things are quite different.


[edit on 12-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
You obviously have never seen the CCTV cameras at a lot of conveniance stores.

But we are not talking about conveniance stores here, are we ?

They may have state of the art High Def 30 inch monitors on all your CCTV cameras in your fantasy world, but in the REAL world, things are quite different.

No in the real world people would use common sense and check out the tapes before taking them using a monitor that was available to see if there is evidence of a major terrorist attack .

NOW back on track.

The media version claims that no jets got near Flight 93, but now we have very good evidence from a government intell source that jets did intercept flight 93 and had shoot down orders.

So which evidence makes more sense?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But we are not talking about conveniance stores here, are we ?

If you bothered to do any research, you would realize the gas station had a conveniance at it.

No in the real world people would use common sense and check out the tapes before taking them using a monitor that was available to see if there is evidence of a major terrorist attack .

And when a monitor was of poor quality (blurry, or missing altogether), they would take the tape to their labs for further analysis. At least in the real world.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But we are not talking about basic evidence from a simple crime scene are we ?

We are still talking about a crime scene are we not? This is like any other crime scene. Gather all the evidence, analyze it in the proper labs, and conduct your investitations. That is how investigators work in the real world.




[edit on 12-8-2008 by gavron]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1The media version claims that no jets got near Flight 93, but now we have very good evidence from a government intell source that jets did intercept flight 93 and had shoot down orders.

So which evidence makes more sense?

If I had to pick, it would be the government sources.

Tell me - why withhold 80+ videos if they had nothing on them? If you make a FOIA request for them, it will be rejected.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by gavron
If you bothered to do any research, you would realize the gas station had a conveniance at it.

And if you bothered to do any research or look at the photos i posted you also would have have seen most of the camera are on government buildings and large hotels.

We are still talking about a crime scene are we not? This is like any other crime scene. Gather all the evidence,

Not really this was one of the biggest crime scenes the FBI had. Common sense would dictact to find out if there evidnece on the tapes to see if they were worth taking back to the lab. Also so the agents would have an idea if there was an intentenal attack and how to best continue with the crime scene investigation.

Also maybe you can explain why the FBI removed cameras from several locations?

Originally posted by gavron
If you bothered to do any research, you would realize the gas station had a conveniance at it.

And if you bothered to do any research or look at the photos i posted you also would have have seen most of the cameras are on government buildings and large hotels.

We are still talking about a crime scene are we not? This is like any other crime scene. Gather all the evidence,

Not really this was one of the biggest crime scenes the FBI had. Common sense would dictact to find out if there evidnece on the tapes to see if they were worth taking back to the lab. Also so the agents would have an idea if there was an intentenal attack and how to best continue with the crime scene investigation.

Also maybe you can explain why the FBI removed cameras from several locations?

[edit on 13-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Gee i guess Gavron cannot come up with any feedback.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


By the way i know a lot about evidence gathering and processing. Probably a lot more then you since i graduated from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Graduated?

You took an 8 week course! Who was the valedictorian of your class? Did you wear a cap and gown? Did you get a year book?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
You took an 8 week course!

Did you get a year book?

Something much better. Actual Federal Police Credentials (US. Department of Defense Police credentials). Just one more thing that i achieved that you have not.

More education and experience then most people on here. That also allowed me to see through the lies of the media that you still believe.

Oh and guess what, its the same course that almost every other federal police agency takes.




[edit on 15-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Seems like everyone is afraid to debate me on thise issue since i have prove of the document that shows reasonable doubt in the official story.

Top 10 reasons that Flight 93 was shot down.

1. There was a report by phone about an explosion minutes before the 'crash'

2. Ample time to scramble to stop 93 which was headed for DC

3. Debris field? Yes, a large one, including quite a bit in a 10 mile radius.

4. There are 3 people involved in this, Cheney, Mineta and the mystery man. The mystery man is the middle man that sent the order to the AirForce. THis is a conspiracy. Mineta testified and if you watch it, you see the inconsistency.

5. The 'sheeple' have been so busy with the WTC 7 and the natural occurance that you overlooked the obvious.

6. Where is the NWO that Bush is ushering in with 9/11? I mean, do you REALLY think he still wants to be president. He did not put us here, it is the state of the world.

7. A patriotic stroy created to pump up the nation. Lets Roll.......

8. Rummy....nuff said there

9. FDR, all other information is made to look as if the terrorist are afraid of the passengers, but they are afraid becuase they have been hit and they know it is over

10. The TRUTH movement and all the other 9/11 conspiracy garbage, yeah, that is a psyop so you do not question the fact we shot down a civilian airliner...

Cheney and Mineta....they are there if you look close enough....

Originally posted by esdad71
Top 10 reasons that Flight 93 was shot down.

You are wrong on all your accounts. The FDR PROVES where the flight went. The CVR PROVES what was going on. The phones calls to loved ones PROVES what was going on and what happened.

There was NO PHONE CALL THE DESCRIBED AN EXPLOSION!