ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags flight 175

Reply
Old 1st December 2011, 12:17 AM   #1
RossFW
Muse
 
RossFW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 896
9/11 acars

I'm sure it's here somewhere, but can someone steer me to the debunk of this rubbish-

Quote:
ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA





(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred. read more...
RossFW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2011, 02:59 AM   #2
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,271
It's been discussed here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ighlight=ACARS

I am currently reading that thread, have progressed to post 52 (checking links is time consuming). Pay attention to Femr2, apathoid and CtColumbo and ztry to ignore the bickering by beachnut and others.


ETA: That thread never came to a definite conclusion, but this seems to be the gist:
  • The ACARS messages involving UA175 were messages to the plane, not from the plane. Obviously, it is possible to send a message to a receiver that is already destroyed.
  • ACARS messages get transmitted via VHF radio antennae on the ground near the plane - for planes at cruising altitude, "near" can be up to 200 miles away. Sender must include the ground station in the message. It seems that the ground station is usually determined from flight plans, not from live information about the plane's actual location. It seems Harrisburg (and 20 minutes later: Pittsburgh) was near the expected location of UA175 according to flight plan, had it not been hijacked, re-routed, and later crashed. If senders were not informed, or not sure, about the hijack, then sending via flight plan location was a reasonable thing to do. Message content assumed (or hoped) pilots were still in control.
  • An open issue is whether or not the message would have been recorded (printed out) without some technical acknowledgment from the plane's ACARS system that it has been received. Femr2 thinks that ACARS protocols (always?) include such automatic acknowledgements, apathoid and CptColumbo doubt it. Even if an ACK would have been the rule, it is not clear if an ACK was received or not. Furthermore, it is nor clear if the sent message would not have been recorded if an ACK was exected but not received
In short, having records of messages being send to (or via) Ground Radio in Pennsylvania is no proof of the plane actually being in Pennsylvania at that time, unless it can be proven that the ACARS ground system received an acknowledgment from the plane that it had received the message.

Last edited by Oystein; 1st December 2011 at 04:19 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2011, 01:32 PM   #3
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by RossFW View Post
I'm sure it's here somewhere, but can someone steer me to the debunk of this rubbish-
...
Quote:
information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.
What an idiotic claim. Is equal to calling out your mom's name, yell "mom" in your backyard in California, when she is really in Georgia, then claim she is in California. It is that simple. If someone argues/supports the ACARS point, they are nuts, or a liar. RADAR alone proves where all the planes on 911 were, ACARS proves there are nuts who prefer to celebrate ignorance over the truth.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2011, 02:22 PM   #4
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,271
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
...

What an idiotic claim. Is equal to calling out your mom's name, yell "mom" in your backyard in California, when she is really in Georgia, then claim she is in California. It is that simple. If someone argues/supports the ACARS point, they are nuts, or a liar. RADAR alone proves where all the planes on 911 were, ACARS proves there are nuts who prefer to celebrate ignorance over the truth.
I am 100% sure that this "information" will NOT help Ross in any argument with anyone.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2011, 05:38 PM   #5
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I am 100% sure that this "information" will NOT help Ross in any argument with anyone.
I said RADAR proves where all the flights on 911 were. RADAR debunks the insane ACARS claim. It really is that simple. When we investigated aircraft accidents, we used RADAR to prove where the plane was, not ACARS, not messages.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
...

... RADAR alone proves where all the planes on 911 were, ACARS proves there are nuts who prefer to celebrate ignorance over the truth.
My analogy was good too, I know ACARS. But all we need is RADAR to shoot down the many lies in the statement by p4t.

Is the information, RADAR proves the statement is false, wrong? No. It is a fact, it is the real evidence of where the planes were.

There is nothing wrong with learning about ACARS, but it is not needed to debunk the lie in question.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2011, 05:47 PM   #6
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
*snip bickering*
Relax beachnut, no one is making any claims to the contrary. In this thread. At least yet. Give it time, I'm sure one of the resident truthers will come along and try to wow us with long debunked crap.
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2011, 05:54 PM   #7
vtbub
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It's been discussed here:

*snip*[*]An open issue is whether or not the message would have been recorded (printed out) without some technical acknowledgment from the plane's ACARS system that it has been received. Femr2 thinks that ACARS protocols (always?) include such automatic acknowledgements, apathoid and CptColumbo doubt it. Even if an ACK would have been the rule, it is not clear if an ACK was received or not. Furthermore, it is nor clear if the sent message would not have been recorded if an ACK was exected but not received.

ACARS goes over the same range of frequencies that all commercial aircraft use. They aren't encrypted and can be decoded by software in home computers. It sounds like a quick data burst. I've actually decoded a few via radios in the web. Dunno about the ACK thing, but anyone with a scanner and a soundcard can read ACARS.
vtbub is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2011, 06:51 PM   #8
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,271
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I said RADAR proves where all the flights on 911 were. RADAR debunks the insane ACARS claim. It really is that simple. When we investigated aircraft accidents, we used RADAR to prove where the plane was, not ACARS, not messages.



My analogy was good too, I know ACARS. But all we need is RADAR to shoot down the many lies in the statement by p4t.

Is the information, RADAR proves the statement is false, wrong? No. It is a fact, it is the real evidence of where the planes were.

There is nothing wrong with learning about ACARS, but it is not needed to debunk the lie in question.
You know ACARS. That doesn't help RossFW to argue against anybody.

No, the information is not wrong, but RossFW has to take it by faith alone. You're not helping him very much. Would be better to reference a source of information - an old thread here, or whatever has radar tracks etc.
See, Woody Box does not deny that a plane crashed into the south tower - the one seen on radar that you are talking about. Woody Box speculates that there is a second plane that UA tried to talk to. Do we have all radar tracks of all planes that flew over PA in that time frame to rule out a "second" UA175? Or would it not be easier to explain what ACARS does, and what it doesn't, to show that ACARS message to plane is no proof that plane was there?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2011, 06:56 PM   #9
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,271
Originally Posted by vtbub View Post
ACARS goes over the same range of frequencies that all commercial aircraft use. They aren't encrypted and can be decoded by software in home computers. It sounds like a quick data burst. I've actually decoded a few via radios in the web. Dunno about the ACK thing, but anyone with a scanner and a soundcard can read ACARS.
Yes I know, and any message back that acknowledged receipt would be in the same format, wouldn't it? I read about software that decodes ACARS messages, but it seemed it is most conveniently fed by internet sources - which give you what message servers transmit. With a radio scanner, do you pick up directly what planes broadcast? If so, then ten minutes worth of scanning ACARS traffic between a ground station an planes would reveal if planes send back acknowledgement messages.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2011, 07:09 PM   #10
vtbub
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Yes I know, and any message back that acknowledged receipt would be in the same format, wouldn't it? I read about software that decodes ACARS messages, but it seemed it is most conveniently fed by internet sources - which give you what message servers transmit. With a radio scanner, do you pick up directly what planes broadcast? If so, then ten minutes worth of scanning ACARS traffic between a ground station an planes would reveal if planes send back acknowledgement messages.

The stuff I've done was radio over the internet based. Someone fed their scanner on the web and another program decipherd the data bursts. You would hear what the planes send back as it's the same channel used.
vtbub is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2011, 12:54 AM   #11
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You know ACARS. That doesn't help RossFW to argue against anybody.

No, the information is not wrong, but RossFW has to take it by faith alone. You're not helping him very much. Would be better to reference a source of information - an old thread here, or whatever has radar tracks etc.
...?
RADAR is not faith, and for 911 issues the RADAR data is common knowledge for anyone who can google , radar ntsb flight 175. Saying RADAR proves the claim wrong is not faith, it is repeating a known fact from a rational 911 investigation. If you want to check the work done by the NTSB, you can get the raw RADAR data, unlike the silly evidence free claims made by morons selling DVDs to the gullible.


The claim boils down to, because they have a ACARS to flight 175, flight 175 can't be in NYC. And it is worse, because they have one 20 minutes after 175 impacted the WTC. An idiotic claim of face value.

Quote:
ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device (a system) used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages (this is exactly like claiming my mom received yelling mom out the back-door, 2400 miles away) through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, (A BIG lie, that that the aircraft received the message, super dumbed down when you know 175 is gone) and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred. read more...
Clearly they claim 175 was not in NYC. An idiotic lie used by Balsamo to sell DVDs to gullible people.

The claim is 175 was not in NYC. RADAR debunks the claim. No need to go learn ACARS which is geeky as I, as I watch TV recorded and edit video on my quad tuner VTR new quiet cool, fast, hand built computer.

The RADAR data proves 175 took-off and crashed into the WTC.

The ACARS delusional claim is that 175 was over Pittsburgh, not in NYC. RADAR data shows that is false. This is not faith, it is fact. One of the first things we get when we investigate aircraft mishaps, RADAR data.

The first google search result for, radar ntsb flight 175, -
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf
Cure for faith in this case is google the correct key words.

Review for what Balsamo said, and remember, according to Balsamo I have had a stroke (big lie so far).
Quote:
ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) -... We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred. read more...
How many lies do we have?
Aircraft airborne long after crash.
Further information which confirms the aircraft was not in ... NYC.
Further information implies many more lies they can't define... or what?

As a trained, experienced aircraft accident investigator, I claim RADAR debunks this idiotic lie. Will RADAR debunk the lie for the person who plagiarized the lie, who defends the lie out of ignorance, who is too gullible to google radar NTSB flight 175? ???
The best part, it does not take a pilot or an engineers to figure out Balsamo is spreading lies. Learning about ACARS is not needed, but JREF is about education, knowing more is good, learning about ACARS is good. Knowing you don't need to know anything about ACARS to debunk the crazy claim, is cool.

When you look at the messages, they are routed to where 175 should be if it was not taken. In addition, for over 20 minutes 175 possible line of sight distance was 200 to 250 nm. The sad part is Balsamo is still selling lies and spitting on the dead.

The reason this is "new", Balsamo needs money for crowns, and Christmas. It is funny he is SPAMMING old lies as being new.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...howtopic=21754
What a pathetic liar.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-C...TER-CRASH.html

MDT is only 129.44 nm from WTC. No wonder the plane could automatically receive the message, the crew was dead, not to be confused with brain-dead but breathing like Balsamo. At 8:59, Flt 175 was high enough to receive transmissions from MDT. Balsamo never flew heavy jets left seat, he sells idiotic lies on DVD. Balsamo does not do RADAR. RADAR debunks Balsamo. Nothing in the Balsamo delusion proves the messages were received by Flt 175. Balsamo made it up, and will use hearsay and lies to support his delusion.

This is a "new" attempt to support the old claim. Balsamo needs money.

SPAMMING the internet... http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/4705...ter-crash.html

He is pushing it all over, watch out for flying lies, all that Balsamo can pilot now.

Last edited by beachnut; 2nd December 2011 at 01:14 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2011, 01:18 AM   #12
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,271
Thx for the lnx, beachnut
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 11:58 AM   #13
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
[quote]
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Knowing you don't need to know anything about ACARS to debunk the crazy claim, is cool.


I would like to know if and how ACARS transmissions are acknowledged by the aircraft supposted to receive them......Balsammos claim of 200 mile range seems dubious, as googling ACARS range shows that amateurs can easily track at least 200 mile with cheap ground station setup which is unlikely to be as good as the equipment on the aircraft or the official ground stations

The fact that the message was repeated seems to indicate that there is no automatic acknowledgement or otherwise why bother repeating what is already acknowledged?
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 12:36 PM   #14
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
[quote=sheeplesnshills;7823992]
Quote:



I would like to know if and how ACARS transmissions are acknowledged by the aircraft supposted to receive them......Balsammos claim of 200 mile range seems dubious, as googling ACARS range shows that amateurs can easily track at least 200 mile with cheap ground station setup which is unlikely to be as good as the equipment on the aircraft or the official ground stations

The fact that the message was repeated seems to indicate that there is no automatic acknowledgement or otherwise why bother repeating what is already acknowledged?
It's a line of sight thing
When Cap'n Bob makes a claim you can guarantee he's wrong
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 12:42 PM   #15
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
[quote=sheeplesnshills;7823992]
Quote:
I would like to know if and how ACARS transmissions are acknowledged by the aircraft supposted to receive them
While I do not know the specific answer to your question there has been a lengthy discussion at ATS regarding the issue with both Ranke and Ballsucker attempting to muddy the waters with their typical innuendo and false bravado along with a mixture of techno babble thrown in.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread781617/pg1

The crew may manually specifically confirm receipt if requested to do so. It does appear that the time stamp at the end of the msg upon which Ballsucker is basing part of his fraud is simply a time stamp of when the msg finished printing AT THE DISPATCH OFFICE which sent it, not an acknowledgement from the aircraft. Ballsucker is now attempting to use the distance issue with speculation and incredulity along with the opinion and pfffft conclusions based on testimony from a Dispatcher from United Airlines to the 911 Commission.

The definitive answer is not likely to be revealed except with proprietary information from AIRINC, which is not available online.

In the meantime, the various radars which tracked both UA 175 and UA 93 and the physical evidence at both crash sites are the best refutation at this point....
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 03:25 PM   #16
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Balsamo is spreading insane delusions based on his standard 11.2g failed moron logic. One of the only pilots in the world who claims he can't fly as well as terrorist pilots, he can't hit the WTC or the giant Pentagon in a modern jet. What a tool, a bone head who can't earn a Pulitzer with claims, if true, would be the biggest story in history. But, Balsamo is making up delusions using hearsay, and moronic logic to fool idiots who can't figure out 911. Indicative of Balsamo's moron math which gave us 11.2g of ignorance, his ACARS delusion is dumber.


RADAR is the fact, not some message system which did not confirm receipt except in Balsamo's empty head. Balsamo must be all the posters at p4t, you can't find that many idiots, that many yes men who are morons.

RADAR data is available, multiple RADAR sites tracking each aircraft. Beats ACARS.

The message system will work line of sight and further, these messages are very short in time. Nothing would stop messages being received while airborne, even 100 to over 200 miles away, depending on altitude and signal strength.

After each plane crashed, Balsamo's claim the planes were still airborne becomes insanity. Only morons would ignore RADAR and believe Balsamo. Bet the morons posting at p4t are socks of Balsamo, there can't be that many idiots.

Saying Flight 93 was still airborne after everyone was buried in the ground in PA, is insanity. The claim is expected Balsamo behavior for a failed pilot who can't do math and physics, a pilot who never flew heavy jets left seat, and never will. Most the posters on the internet must be socks of Balsamo, no one can be that stupid, unable to think for themselves. RADAR is the fact, DNA is proof. Once again we have lies from Balsamo, a failed pilot, who fails to be more than a fraud spreading insane claims based on ignorance.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf
After you have RADAR data, you can see Balsamo is a moron, an insane failed pilot who can't do math. If you can't see that, you are a bigger moron than Balsamo, it is amazing you can read and type.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 07:05 AM   #17
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Quote:
The crew may manually specifically confirm receipt if requested to do so. It does appear that the time stamp at the end of the msg upon which Ballsucker is basing part of his fraud is simply a time stamp of when the msg finished printing AT THE DISPATCH OFFICE which sent it, not an acknowledgement from the aircraft.

I suspected it was something like that. thanks.
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2011, 12:24 PM   #18
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post

I would like to know if and how ACARS transmissions are acknowledged by the aircraft supposted to receive them......Balsammos claim of 200 mile range seems dubious, as googling ACARS range shows that amateurs can easily track at least 200 mile with cheap ground station setup which is unlikely to be as good as the equipment on the aircraft or the official ground stations

The fact that the message was repeated seems to indicate that there is no automatic acknowledgement or otherwise why bother repeating what is already acknowledged?
(if the amateurs use HF (2-30MHz), the range can be worldwide, okay, 2,000 to 6,000 miles, most likely VHF ACARS on 911, line of sight plus a little)

The VHF radio easily goes to the horizon, line of sight. In the military we used UHF and later we also used VHF. The UHF was was line of sight, and the VHF did better than line of sight. If you can see the station, you can transmit to it plus a little for VHF. 200 miles is easy, and for some of the flights they could receive from over 220 miles or further while at altitude. This is math, Balsamo will not be able to handle the math parts.

The dispatcher has no idea if the crew receives messages unless the crew confirms the message. Balsamo is in standard insane ignorance mode, stringing hearsay and lies together to form his new/old/insane/moronic smoking gun. His dumb as dirt p4t cult members are going nuts about this insane claim.

Balsamo posts an insane claim, and his Followers (big F for failure), respond mindlessly to fraud and insanity.
"Great work Rob. Let me be the first to congratulate you on it."
"Watch the GLs scrambling with this one!"
"TRUTH can never be curbed nor eradicated."
"Excellent work Rob, and many thanks for your perseverance and determination"
"Now thats some dark clouds coming up on the horizon!! "
"I wonder how the duh bunkers are going to spin this one?"
,"why in the hell is this not front page news in every newspaper in America??"
"To me it is still not clear how you can know that skyjackers were on board."
"If UA 93 was actually airborne, where did it land and what happened to the passengers?"
"Bottom line I think people are starting to pay attention."
"I stand in awe of all of the real patriots at P4T and CIT."
"Please, never give up this vital work. Our way of life is at stake."
"There is no speculation in the article. Every assertion is backed by official documents." (poor dolt, he falls for Balsamo's lies and repeats them with more lies)
" that old goofhead beachnut is claiming that RADAR debunks the ACARS messages" (RADAR does debunk Balsamo's claim, I am a goofhead, but I am right and this poor cult member is dumber than dirt, a perfect member for p4t lies and insanity. Proud to be in ignorance, and he has no clue his superior intelligence is a fantasy)
How many of these are Balsamo Socks? How many are GL socks? lol

It is funny, a couple of these posters are playing with Balsamo. No one can be that stupid to fall for Balsamo's insane claim.



Balsamo's formula for keeping his cult members in the dark; Pick something technical, proprietary, hard to find information on, generate lies about the subject, have real evidence to support the fraud from government sources, create the false theory (which p4t does not have a theory as Balsamo breaks his own rule) and let the gullible, ignorant, morons who refuse to think for themselves spread the lie on the Internet, brainless drones programed to be simpletons, lapping up the lies and regurgitating them mindlessly, because Balsamo said so.

Pathetic Web sites posts this nonsense as news. The web site administrators are too stupid, too lazy, to select real news, and post lies based on ignorance. People too lazy to check the facts, letting morons post junk on the Internet. If you are bored while on the thrown, take the laptop and google, "ACARS CONFIRMED – 9/11 AIRCRAFT", could be 50 web sites blinding letting Balsamo spread lies.

goofhead beachnut

Last edited by beachnut; 8th December 2011 at 01:46 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2011, 12:52 PM   #19
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
The one good thing about aviation is those who do do and those who don't make it up.
May the cockpit door ever remain a stupidity filter !
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 10:17 PM   #20
wstutt
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 132
Hi,

I have a file which disproves assertions of P4T regarding ACARS messages to UAL93. This is my post on P4T discussing this.

Warren.
wstutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2011, 10:30 PM   #21
Mynott
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 48
Acars

This forum is timely as there is a poster on a MB here down under who is currently attempting to make a meal out of Woody nut's and Balsmo's alleged findings on ACARS and Flights 175,93. Keep it up.!
Mynott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 01:02 AM   #22
Mynott
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 48
Comments please beach nut, re a twoofers remarks here re RADAR track,

Radar tracks aircraft and only identifies them from the transponder signal.

ie Radar cannot positively identify an aircraft. Just a green blip and some numbers.

ACARS can positively identify aircraft.

Perhaps you would like to post the ACARS tracking information of your "hijacked" planes.

Cheers
Mynott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 01:24 AM   #23
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by RossFW View Post
I'm sure it's here somewhere, but can someone steer me to the debunk of this rubbish-

Quote:
ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, ... and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred. read more...
Balsamo extends his insanity to Flight 93...

Balsamo, using 11.2g failed physics logic, where you just make up incredibly stupid statements by waving hands, like 11.2gs, Balsamo says,
Quote:
It is conclusive, the 9/11 Aircraft were airborne long after their alleged crashes.
RADAR data makes this statement insanity. One would have to be brain-dead to agree with Balsamo. DNA for Flight 93 Passengers, and terrorists, prove Balsamo is a liar, making an insane claim, one only morons, a few failures at p4t forum believe.

DNA, and RADAR prove Balsamo lies. Not a surprise, he sells lies on DVD, filled with nonsense morons believe.

Quote:
quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received -
Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.
According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.
This is Balsamo's proof, made up nonsense about Ballinger. Now if you say Balsamo is a liar, he can shift it to Ballinger. DRG used the hearsay method of shifting the burden of proof to the hearsay source.

The truth is, a dispatcher can't tell if a plane gets a message, or not. Unless the service provider tells them, or the crew responds.

Who is Ed Ballinger? Ed Ballinger, is a former United Airlines flight dispatcher. Not an expert on ACARS, he is a user, uses ACARS to send messages, not an expert on ACRAS. Why can't Balsamo's cult members figure this out by thinking for themselves? After 11.2g physics from Balsamo I would expect the blind Followers of Balsamo to be more skeptical.

Ballinger has no clue if Flight 93 and Flight 175 received the messages. Balsamo is a liar, he sells lies on DVD.

Ironic, pilots for truth have no theory.

Balsamo says...
Quote:
It is conclusive, the 9/11 Aircraft were airborne long after their alleged crashes.
It is not a theory, it is an idiotic claim. How stupid do you have to be to believe Balsamo? Undefined, too stupid to define, too lazy to think for themselves.


The dispatcher has no clue if the message was received with the evidence on record. In reality, the dispatcher has no evidence the message was received unless the crew responds, or the carrier, the service provider (AIRINC) supplies the information the message was rejected. ... failure for Balsamo, using hearsay to form delusional claims only a few morons, Balsamo drones believe. Balsamo failed as a pilot, fails as a researcher.


Originally Posted by wstutt View Post
Hi,

I have a file which disproves assertions of P4T regarding ACARS messages to UAL93. This is my post on P4T discussing this.

Warren.
It is ironic. Warren, I have programed from assembly to PASCAL, you are an expert on the FDR and decoding it. Not surprised you technically proved Balsamo failed again.

Balsamo fails to realize you are an expert on what you post. I doubt Balsamo understands the extent of your expertise. Your efforts are equal or better than an effort at the Masters level...

Good work

Originally Posted by Mynott View Post
Comments please beach nut, re a twoofers remarks here re RADAR track,

Radar tracks aircraft and only identifies them from the transponder signal.

ie Radar cannot positively identify an aircraft. Just a green blip and some numbers.

ACARS can positively identify aircraft.

Perhaps you would like to post the ACARS tracking information of your "hijacked" planes.

Cheers
False, transponder is not needed to track an aircraft. You might hear flight 93 disappeared from ATC scopes. That can be true if the ATC sites did not have the ability to use raw data. However, the track of all aircraft are recorder, the raw RADAR data is on tape, and can be used to show exactly where each plane flew.

ACARS could show where a plane was, but it would be related to a message from the aircraft, not a function of ACARS, a function of what is in a message from the aircraft.

RADAR does identify an aircraft, because you track it from takeoff to landing or crash, or leaving RADAR contact. Because you follow it in space and time.

ACARS tracking? email tracking? What is this?

ACARS does not track an aircraft, but ACARS messages from an aircraft could be used to track an aircraft. Look up what ACARS is, what the different classes of messages are. People can figure this out with google if they dig deep enough.

RADAR does not need a transponder to track an aircraft. RADAR does positively identify an aircraft. RADAR is a like an eye, and electronic eye, a RADIO eye, an electromagnetic eye. RADAR also can be used to find altitude, the RAW data, not only the transponder information. ... it is easier if the transponder is used. The raw data from 911 proves each plane's path.

... on 911, if the terrorists turned off the transponder, the RADAR sites recorded the tracks of all aircraft. ... , all other aircraft were squawking, all other aircraft were using transponders. Bad news for Balsamo moronic claims about RADAR.

Last edited by beachnut; 14th December 2011 at 02:33 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 02:02 AM   #24
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,271
Originally Posted by wstutt View Post
Hi,

I have a file which disproves assertions of P4T regarding ACARS messages to UAL93. This is my post on P4T discussing this.

Warren.
To view, I need to sign up. Before I sign up, I must agree to the following term:
Originally Posted by pilotsfor911truth.org
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
hahaha and then Aldo opens a thread about this here JREF thread:
Originally Posted by Aldo Marquis CIT
Duhbunkers try to explain ACARS and fail

And of course, we see the obsessoids over at the govt loyalist cesspool scurrying, looking for and expecting an immediate explanation from the nameless faceless "experts". This individual can't even think or research for themself, they have to seek comfort in answers from the groupthink tank.
I LOL'd
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 03:15 AM   #25
Mynott
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 48
Sorry beach nut, and finally these comments from our resdent twoofer down under,

"Not my theory - that's your first mistake. It is conclusive evidence that there was a plane swap.It was compiled from FAA data .Therre is no scope for any other interpretation, at least not any that you have come up with.

There is circumstantial evidence as well.

Radar data shows these planes 93 and 175) on converging tracks with others.

Why did the " hijackers " turn off the transponders only to turn them back on again.? Why not just leave them switched off? How did they know the correct code to re enter?

Why did UA93 choose to do their course reversing turn in a radar blind spot?

It doesn't matter , anyway. ACARS data is conclusive. There is no doubt where the planes were and when.

ATC radar can be easily fooled . ACARS can't.
Mynott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 03:36 AM   #26
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by Mynott View Post
Sorry beach nut, and finally these comments from our resdent twoofer down under,

"Not my theory - that's your first mistake. It is conclusive evidence that there was a plane swap.It was compiled from FAA data .Therre is no scope for any other interpretation, at least not any that you have come up with.

There is circumstantial evidence as well.

Radar data shows these planes 93 and 175) on converging tracks with others.

Why did the " hijackers " turn off the transponders only to turn them back on again.? Why not just leave them switched off? How did they know the correct code to re enter?

Why did UA93 choose to do their course reversing turn in a radar blind spot?

It doesn't matter , anyway. ACARS data is conclusive. There is no doubt where the planes were and when.

ATC radar can be easily fooled . ACARS can't.
There is no RADAR blind spot, the RADAR data is taped, stored, and can be used after the fact to track aircraft accurately. I have used it when I investigated accident in the USAF. The moron has no useful knowledge of RADAR. Yes, ATC lost 93, but the raw data was recorded. This means we know exactly where 93 was.

I have the raw data for 93 in google earth, it shows 93 from takeoff to crash.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/foia/9_11...l_aircraft.pdf

DNA proves where 93 crashed. ACARS messages were not received by 93 and 175 after they crashed. To claim that is true is insanity. Is the person insane, or incredibly stupid?


RADAR proves where the plane ended up on 911. DNA for 93 proves RADAR and 93's fate. The poor moron down-under should be happy he/she is able to use the Internet, his/her only skill that is rational.

There is no RADAR blind spot. There is RADAR data for all flights.

ACARS is a message traffic, like email. ACARS messages were not received by 93 or 175 after they crashed due to murderers.

ACARS is message traffic, it has no value as to where the aircraft are, unless the message contains Nav information. The ACARS works 220 or more miles away, by VHF radio, it does not tell you where the plane is, unless the plane messages it position.

The raw RADAR data show altitude, thus the aircraft which get close to other, are not at the same altitude, thus tracking proves no swap. The so called swap aircraft were squawking, and thus could not be confused with the hijacked aircraft.

Have the moron explain how RADAR is fooled. BTW, multiple RADAR sites tracked the aircraft on 911. Multiple independent RADAR sites. oops

Balsamo lies. He said I had a stroke. ... no stroke yet. he thinks someone who had a stoke is able to expose his lies, and he is the one with the 11.2g claim made up out of thin air. He has to say I had a stroke so his failed Followers will not think for themselves.
Balsamo has to make up stuff and fails. He says this is reality ...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...t_757_A320.jpg
yet this it the actual post.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1250
The current real post.
He can't get anything right so he lies and blocks JREF from his forum. Balsamo is a truth NAZI, only lies are allowed.
Here is my post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1250, here is what Balsamo says the post is
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111Beachnut_757_A320.jpg
I set him up for failure, he is not too smart. He sells DVDs filled with moronic claims, and threatens to kill people who disagree with him.
This is the best Balsamo can do.
Quote:
Mark Roberts deserves to die a traitors [sic] death for trying to suppress 9/11 families from seeking the Truth."Pilots for Truth" founder, and ex-commercial pilot, Robert Balsamo


...And a few months later:

"Mark Roberts does deserve to die a traitors death....

I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.


If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic." "Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo,
Balsamo never flew left seat heavy jets, something I did in my 20s. He made up the ACARS claims, a lie out of ignorance.

Last edited by beachnut; 14th December 2011 at 04:25 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 05:05 AM   #27
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,271
For those who don't want to sign up at P4T:
Warren uploaded this FOIA file with ACARS messages to and from flights 11, 77, and 93:
http://www.warrenstutt.com/General%2...20Messages.pdf

Here is what I understand:

Messages with the code
  • "ULMSG" are from airline to ARINC, to be routed via a target radio station (Target Stn)m which could be the wrong one; it's probably determined by airline from flight plan
  • "ULBLK" are messages from ground station to plane - the actuak ground station sending is in the tag "Stn="
  • "DLBLK" are messages from plane to ground station (downlink). The actual receiving station is in the tag "BepStnName="

Time stamps are in Universal Time, which was ET +4h., So a stamp of "20010911 13:47:31" translates to 9:47:31ET.

Some stations can be looked up here:
http://www.angelfire.com/sc/scannerpost/acars.html
Some more here:
http://www.universal-radio.com/catal...ders/acars.pdf
And a map here:
http://datalink.sas.se/ground/images...ica_052010.pdf

Some stations that I saw in the ACARS log:
BWI=Baltimore
CAK=Akron (Ohio)
CLE=Cleveland
CRW= Charleston (West Virginia)
CVG=Cincinnati
DTW=Detroit
EWR=Newark, NJ
FWA=Fort Wayne (Indiana)
HTS=? (I am guessing Huntington, West Virginia)
IAD=Washington (Dulles)
LGA=New York City (La Guardia)
ORF=Norfolk, VA
PIT=Pittsburg
SYR=Syracuse (NY)
TOL=Toledo (Ohio)
YYZ=Toronto

UA93 crashed at 10:03:11. Warren notices correctly that the last DLBLK message from UA93 was received at 10:01:57/59ET by ground stations Pittsburgh (ca. 80 miles from Shanksville) and Washington-Dulles (ca. 150 miles from Shanksville).
After crash time, there are no more DLBLK messages, only uplinks.

Rob Balsamo at P4T doubts Warren's expertise, and his interpretation of "BepStnName=" tags for DLBLK messages, and mockingly points out that a DLBLL was received from UA93 at 09:47:31ET by ground stations in Detroit, Dulles and Toronto. The message was also received by Pittsburgh and HTS (Huntington, WV?).
Rob seems to think this is not possible. However, at the time the plane had turned near Cleveland and was somewhere near the Ohio-Pennsylvania-West Virginia state borders, heading east towards Pittsburgh. That location was approx.
  • <200 miles from Detroit
  • <250 miles from Toronto
  • ~250 miles from Washington
  • ~50 miles from Pittsurgh
  • ~200 miles from Huntington
All within reasonable range for planes at altitude. At the time, UA93 was still at about 19,000 feet (5700m). At this altitude, the horizon is about 170 miles away.
(Details of flight path here).
Reading through the log file, it becomes clear that Warren's interpretation of station names for downlinks is spot-on: Early in the flight, the akronyms for airports in New York feature heavly, later in the flight, Ohio takes over, and always there are occasional messages picked up locations near the horizon, such as Baltimore, Buffalo, Norfolk, Toronto, Cincinnati, Huntington.
Also, following the target stations of ULMSG messages, we see how UA93 was supposed to fly.


Conclusion:
The ACARS message log nicely corroborates the null hypothesis that UA93 flew from Newark out west, was diverted near Cleveland around 9:35, flew back east towards Pennsylvania and crashed shortly after 10:01.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 08:02 AM   #28
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by George152 View Post
The one good thing about aviation is those who do do and those who don't make it up.
May the cockpit door ever remain a stupidity filter !
I dunno....Balsammo used to be allowed to fly commercial planes......doubtful anyone would employ him now though.
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 09:54 AM   #29
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by wstutt View Post
Hi,

I have a file which disproves assertions of P4T regarding ACARS messages to UAL93. This is my post on P4T discussing this.

Warren.
I followed the discussion about the cockpit door, it was great to see how you step by step demolished his 'no door open' theory.

Good work.




ETA: looks like you got under Bobby's skin:

For the record, Warren tried to reply again. As expected, he has evaded my requests. In a court of law, this would be known as "non-responsive" and a Judge could hold Warren in contempt. But then again, Warren will never make it to the stand as an expert witness in Aviation.

I will not allow Warren to spread more disinformation on this forum until he addresses what he has avoided for nearly a year.

Warren, your replies to the ACARS argument are in a safe place and will be restored when you address and most importantly, correct the issues you have been avoiding.

I will not allow you to troll this forum with further confirmed disinformation and speculation when you have demonstrated that you avoid corrections to your past analysis and confirmed disinformation.



Bobby is a diligent reader of the JREF even though he loathes the place.

Last edited by tsig; 14th December 2011 at 10:07 AM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 02:54 PM   #30
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,149
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Bobby is a diligent reader of the JREF even though he loathes the place.
Sad part, I'm sure he's working on a way to get back in here. After all, this forum is the only thing standing in his way of bringing Justice to the world.

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 03:12 PM   #31
Huttosaurus
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hutt Vegas, NZ
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by Mynott View Post
This forum is timely as there is a poster on a MB here down under who is currently attempting to make a meal out of Woody nut's and Balsmo's alleged findings on ACARS and Flights 175,93.
Wouldn't be a certain male username with three numbers would it?
Huttosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 06:08 PM   #32
Mynott
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 48
User name

Correct. !
Mynott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 06:12 PM   #33
wstutt
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
<snip>

It is ironic. Warren, I have programed from assembly to PASCAL, you are an expert on the FDR and decoding it. Not surprised you technically proved Balsamo failed again.

Balsamo fails to realize you are an expert on what you post. I doubt Balsamo understands the extent of your expertise. Your efforts are equal or better than an effort at the Masters level...

Good work

<snip>
Thanks for the kind words again, Beachnut.

Rob does understand that I actually have some expertise when it suits him. Look at this page scroll down to the section DATA FRAME LAYOUT and you will see a page from my web site referenced in footnote 3.

Warren.
wstutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 06:23 PM   #34
Mynott
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 48
Thanx for that beachnut .I believe if it would be worthwhile if say 9/11 myths added an item on ACARS challenging the rubbish generated by Rob Balasmo and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Drowning as they do the salient issues in techno babble ,drivel and dross that is nevertheless tempting bait for the uninformed ,naive and gullible.
Remember it is this type unreason that demigods like Hitler and Stalin used to eliminate race and class enemies.!

Last edited by Mynott; 14th December 2011 at 06:25 PM.
Mynott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 07:07 PM   #35
wstutt
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I followed the discussion about the cockpit door, it was great to see how you step by step demolished his 'no door open' theory.

Good work.




ETA: looks like you got under Bobby's skin:

<snip>
Thanks for your kind words tsig.

Rob has put my account on moderate, so he has to approve my posts before they appear. I have actually posted a reply to his points as he requested, but that post has also yet to appear.

Warren.
wstutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2011, 09:38 PM   #36
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,739
Originally Posted by wstutt View Post
Thanks for your kind words tsig.

Rob has put my account on moderate, so he has to approve my posts before they appear. I have actually posted a reply to his points as he requested, but that post has also yet to appear.

Warren.
Pilots for 911 truth can't have the truth exposed on a forum dedicated to lies and failed claims.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 10:04 AM   #37
wstutt
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 132
Since Rob won't be letting any of my posts regarding ACARS to appear on the P4T forums any time soon, I would like to take the opportunity of responding to this P4T post here.

Here is a quote from David Knerr, Manager, Dispatch Automation, United Airlines from page 36 of this document from the above post:
Quote:
KNERR provided information related to the printout of text messages transmitted to and from UA FLIGHT 93 on 09/11/2001 through the AIRCRAFT COMMUNICATION ADDRESSING AND REPORTING SYSTEM (ACARS). KNERR identified this system as one means of communication that is utilized between aircraft and commercial carriers, like UA, to transmit text data. KNERR related that data is either uplinked to the aircraft from fixed communication centers or downlinked from the aircraft to receiving communication centers. KNERR explained the uplink and downlink references on an ACARS message. DLBLK refers to downlink while ULBLK refers to uplink.

These references also identify that a ACARS message has been received by its sender, either ground communications or the aircraft. In the final moments, at 10:12 AM EST, of UA FLIGHT 93's flight, ACARS messages were being sent from ground communications but were not being received. This was causing the ACARS messages to be rejected. KNERR advised that FLIGHT 93's low altitude may have caused this dilemma or the fact that FLIGHT 93 had already crashed at the time the messages were sent.
If we have a look at this document at 10:12AM EST (14:12 GMT) we see:

(Note to moderators: This image is from my web site. I give myself permission to hot link to it)

Those ACARS messages look like the following ones from this document:
Quote:
DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111410 108575 0706


DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111411 108575 0707
Now according to the interpretation of Ed Ballinger, aircraft dispatcher, United Airlines, those messages were acknowledged by the aircraft at 14:10 and 14:11 GMT respectively which is after the official time of the crash of UAL93. According to Michael J. Winter these messages which he referred to as messages #18 and #19 on page 57 of this document were both
Quote:
... sent to the printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal in the aircraft.
But according to David Knerr, those messages were not received by the aircraft.

So we have David Knerr disagreeing with Ed Ballinger and Michael J. Winter. All three of these men worked for United Airlines at the time.

P4T take the side of Ed Ballinger and Michael J. Winter and assert that the aircraft was still in the air after the official time of the crash.

Since there is no DLBLKs and therefore no ACARS messages received from the aircraft after the official time of the crash, I take the side of David Knerr.

Warren.
wstutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 10:53 AM   #38
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,271
Warren,

I scanned the thread at P4T and your reply here, and would submit the following suggestions:
  • Ballinger, when saying that messages were "acknowledged", wasn't refering to feedback fromn the plane, but to feedback fromn the RGS. At least I don't recall him quoted as explicitly saying that the message was ack'ed by the plane
  • Winter mentions a feedback that no one alive has heard: an audible signal in the cockpit. How does he know there actually was an audible signal? I suggest he only meant that there would have been an audible signal.

Does this make some sense?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 11:56 AM   #39
wstutt
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 132
Hi Oystein,

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Warren,

I scanned the thread at P4T and your reply here, and would submit the following suggestions:
  • Ballinger, when saying that messages were "acknowledged", wasn't refering to feedback fromn the plane, but to feedback fromn the RGS. At least I don't recall him quoted as explicitly saying that the message was ack'ed by the plane
You're correct, Ballinger didn't say acknowledged. He said:

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

P4T claims that the second time is the time the aircraft received the message.

Quote:
  • Winter mentions a feedback that no one alive has heard: an audible signal in the cockpit. How does he know there actually was an audible signal? I suggest he only meant that there would have been an audible signal.

Does this make some sense?
Yes, I agree with you, but P4T takes his statement literally.

Warren.
wstutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2011, 12:01 PM   #40
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,271
Originally Posted by wstutt View Post
Hi Oystein,

You're correct, Ballinger didn't say acknowledged. He said:

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

P4T claims that the second time is the time the aircraft received the message.
This seems to be the more natural interpretation of Ballinger's (paraphrased) words, but couldn't it be receipt by the RGS?

Originally Posted by wstutt View Post
Yes, I agree with you, but P4T takes his statement literally.

Warren.
And it is obvious that this literal interpretation is not something that Winter could possibly know.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.