RE: YOUR QS

• Document Type: SPECIALCOLLECTION
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 05929305
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: March 16, 2022
• Document Release Date: October 12, 2016
• Case Number: F-2012-01498
• Publication Date: March 30, 2012

Approved for Release: 2016/09/21 C05929305
Cynthia L Rapp
From: David Sanger
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 11:22 AM
To: Cynthia L Rapp
Subject: Re: Your qs
Didi,
A fax coming through to you now with typeset pages that deal with the issues Mr. Morell was
concerned with. Can you pass them on to him?
Somewhat time sensitive, so if he has issues, please have him
Tuesday. If he wants to discuss anything, pass him my cell, Thanks much,
David
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:24 AM, David Sanger
> Didi,
> Sounds like you guys hired the New York Times IT team -- some days its
> amazing we get a newspaper out.
> All these help. And I'll find a way to make it clear our anonymous
> official was exaggerating on the speedometer.
> I'll be back to you on the stuff for Mike. You have a fax number?
> cheers,
> David
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:07 AM, wrote:
>>
>> David - I think I'm back in business. Comments to your comments in blue.
� And the Director says it is OK to say you spoke with him. Cheers,
>> Didi
>>
>>
(b)(3)
� Thanks. I assume that whatever came in the encrypted form I can
� ignore -- I wasn't able to open it. (It spun and spun and spun and
� then said "no response, " That must be the big crypt
� under the building, right? The scary thing is that wasn't a virus
� but the result of an "upgrade."
>>
� On the 15,000, I thought it might be for effect -- if there's
>>_something more.real.I.can put in, great. If not, we can do a.quote to a sr. Intel.
1
let me know by Monday or
wrote:
Approved for Release: 2016/09/21 C05929305
Approved for Release: 2016/09/21 C05929305
>>
>> official and make it clear it was said with a laugh, or exaggeration
� for effect, or something like that (actual speed would be new
� info, which I know you would love, so better keep it as an exaggeration).
>>
>>
>>
� But the key for the reader is:
� 1) there was an instrumentation failure related to measurement of speed.
>>
� 2) the thing landed itself (which explains why it was in one piece)
� first part is right, but the Iranian video shows that it actually
� broke in two large pieces;
� 3) because it's made of such hi-temp material, blowing it up wouldn't
� have done much good and going in to get it would have been too risky.
>> Can't steer you off that.
>>
>>
>>
� that's wrong
� des
>>
>>
>>
>>
� On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Cynthia Rapp
>>
>>
>
>� back
>� from the note last night.
>>
>> >
>
> you
>
>>
>> >
That seems to be the consistent story I'm hearing, but let me know if
For Michael, let me check on polished text. I'm waiting to see the
first-pass back from the typesetter. Well get it to him one way or
the other, perhaps by fax.
(b)(6)
wrote:
David - my official e-mail is down this morning, so I am circling
I've got the questions farmed out an expect responses today. On
first question, I am quite sure that number was for effect, but
because your words will be immortal I am doing some due diligence.
2
Approved for Release: 2016/09/21 C05929305
Approved for Release: 2016/09/21 C05929305
>>
>> >
>>
>� Michael would like to know when the polished text might be ready
>� for him?
>> >1 think he will be traveling next week. Thanks,
3
Approved for Release: 2016/09/21 C05929305