Large Debris Field, No Bodies, No Large Plane Parts. Flight 93? Think again

reply to post by ULTIMA1


But YOUR claim is that you saw the document and flight 93 was shot down. You did make this claim.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
But YOUR claim is that you saw the document and flight 93 was shot down. You did make this claim.

I saw the document. The document states Flight 93 was intercepted (which debunks official story)

Follow on reports state a plane came back without a missle.

As shown i posted a FOIA request to get trhe document and all reports.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


But you said it was shot down. Yes? No ?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
But you said it was shot down. Yes? No ?

Well if it was intercepted and a plane came back with a missing missile, common sense would state it was shot down.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
There are many media outlets that would of course publish it. Here are a few sources

But too bad no one really pays attention to any of those media outlets. I mean how many people really pay attention to the Enquirer?

What i stated is that none of the MAIN MEDIA SOURCES would not publish it.

Between all those I mentioned, there must be 10's of thousands or more who read them. Now you're just making excuses.

You don't think anyone will take the story so you won't even try. Sounds like a lame excuse to me.
You might as well stop looking for the truth right now as you obivously believe it won't do you any good so it becomes a pointless waste of time.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


But in the document you read, it does not state that it was shot down. Does it?

If it were in fact shot down. Don't you think this would be a key component of the document?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
If it were in fact shot down. Don't you think this would be a key component of the document?

NO, not really because you do not understand what a CRITIC is.

A CRITIC is just a quick first basic report to get information out to the proper government agencies as fast as possable. There are time limits involved.

The later on there will be follow up reports.

Lets take KAL 007 as an example:

The original CRITIC was just about the interceted communcation between the MIG and ground control. Then later on more reports were sent out.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Well, I can't wait to see this report. (I am still calling BS on you seeing this)

The only reason you brought this report up was that you saw it mentioned on a truther website.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
The only reason you brought this report up was that you saw it mentioned on a truther website.

I am calling BS on you being an adult with basic intellignece and common sense.

The reason i brought it up and the fact that i sent a FOIA request is to prove the truth, something you seem to be very afraid of.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

In his defense, you are not trying to PROVE the truth to anyone as you are refusing to show the truth.

Again, if you are not going to do anything with this info. why bother at all? It seems like it's just a huge waste of time to look at it and shove it into a drawer and call it good. It's like buying at dvd to have it but never watching it ????????

Originally posted by jfj123
In his defense, you are not trying to PROVE the truth to anyone as you are refusing to show the truth.

If i was not trying to prove the truth i would not have brought up the document at all.

OK Everyone..

You have all been advised previously about off topic and personal attacks..

As you can see, there is NOT going to be anymore..

Semper

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
In his defense, you are not trying to PROVE the truth to anyone as you are refusing to show the truth.

If i was not trying to prove the truth i would not have brought up the document at all.

But you're not going to do anything with it so it's pointless to even bring it up!

Originally posted by jfj123
But you're not going to do anything with it so it's pointless to even bring it up!

I am goiong to show it to people who do not want to face the truth for a start.



[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ultima, you claimed to have seen this report. How come we didn't hear from you about this until AFTER you posted a link to the Madsen Report?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Ultima, you claimed to have seen this report. How come we didn't hear from you about this until AFTER you posted a link to the Madsen Report?

Beacaue i could not post about the document since its on a intranet that you could not get to and see the actual document.

So i showed the evidence of the document and then did a public e-mail with FOIA so you could see it also.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
But you're not going to do anything with it so it's pointless to even bring it up!

I am goiong to show it to people who do not want to face the truth for a start.



[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Then what? If what you say is true and this doc. exists, this is a HUGE smoking gun. Why would you not try to do something more productive with it? Showing it to a few "non-believers" on ATS does nothing more then allow you to massage your own ego a bit. Surely that can't be the whole point of trying to get this document, can it?

Originally posted by jfj123
Then what? If what you say is true and this doc. exists, this is a HUGE smoking gun.

Why is it a smoking gun.

It just porves the government made up some propagande as to what happened on Flight 93.


Which would have sounded better that day after the other attacks to get people to feel patriotic?

1. We shot down a civilian airliner full of poeple.

2. Passengers tried to take over the cockpit.


[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
But you're not going to do anything with it so it's pointless to even bring it up!

I am goiong to show it to people who do not want to face the truth for a start.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Here's a good place to start

Crooksandliars.com
This site has had 248,949,526 hits. That's a big audience.

or how about this one

rawstory.com which has anywhere from 500,000 to 850,000 unique visitors PER DAY !!!!

So please stop telling me

But too bad no one really pays attention to any of those media outlets. I mean how many people really pay attention to the Enquirer?

What i stated is that none of the MAIN MEDIA SOURCES would not publish it.

Just between these to alternative news outlets, there are hundreds of millions of readers. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

and of course if you had proof as you claim you will, they would post your story.

I'll tell you what, I'll even email them to get the ball rolling, just u2u me your email and I'll let them know what info you have and we'll go from there. How does that sound?