Shanksville pics..?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: rayjoh

Whether or not the humans on the ground and in the air are exchanging texts, the computers that run the system are communicating.

Does the communication have any handshake like TCP/IP or UDP? Does the aircraft computer send an ACK (ACKnowledge) to confirm it received the message? Or does the sending computer assume that the message arrived to the aircraft even if it did not send an ACK?

a reply to: rayjoh

To be fair. The truth movement proof is, I think, a BEP acknowledgement.

Here is where it gets sticky. Pay attention, I may miss something. Or may be testing your ACARS knowledge......

First, each airline can use various ACARS functions. I am really curious if flight 93 was transmitting something repetitively before the crash. Example: engine performance data every 15 minutes before contact is lost. I really want to study the ACARS logs, but short on time. Or was flight 93 regularly sending error codes / system ok, fuel usage data, position, ETA times?

Two, I think there are two ACARS text providers. So a BEP acknowledgement may have different meanings between the providers.

Three, each airline likes to make it hard for other's to interpret their specific ACARS messages? That doesn't ring true? However, it is fact each airline may use their own specific ACARS terms. Again, BEP may be used differently from airline to airline.

This is my take. Without looking at the logs and nobody willing to provide time stamps, I think the referred to BEP acknowledgements are fairly instantaneous with the ground ACARS message submitting text messages to the system and having the message cued for transmission to the addressed aircraft.

An actual broadcast from the addressed aircraft upon recite of a ACARS message is different than BEP?

Example, BEP correlates to a cellphone network saying a text is sent.

What happens if the addressed cellphone is out of tower range?

Only when the cellphone network returns a delivered time stamp do you positively know the message was received by the addressed device / account. Not sure about cellphone texts, but you can open the same email on multiple devices.

I wonder if there is a flight 93 ACARS in air received / open term.

I also wonder how ACARS handles ground to air messaging?

Does ACARS handle messaging in batches.

Or is part of ACARS messaging to use different terms to set priority which dictates how long ACARS holds on to a ground to air message before broadcasting the data burst?

I think the only thing the truth movement has, ACARS ground messages were accepted by the system, and the ACARS system was confused by trying to address to a destroy ACARS receiver.

It's quite obvious ACARS has to broadcast to send a message and contact the addressed in air receiver.

I don't think ACARS checks the status of the in air receiver before broadcasting a message.

originally posted by: rayjoh

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: rayjoh

Whether or not the humans on the ground and in the air are exchanging texts, the computers that run the system are communicating.

Does the communication have any handshake like TCP/IP or UDP? Does the aircraft computer send an ACK (ACKnowledge) to confirm it received the message? Or does the sending computer assume that the message arrived to the aircraft even if it did not send an ACK?

It's been years since I've examined the older ACARS system, but I think the "handshake" procedures are as you mention.

I have friends in the airline business, and for many in today's system, it is by satellite, not VHF as it was before.

a reply to: Salander

Please give the time stamp of the flight 93 transmission that originated from flight 93 that proves flight 93 was in the air after the crash.

How can you not remember, or provide, the time and transmission in ACARS format that is the most critical part of your proof. Very telling you proof is only smoke and mirrors.

a reply to: neutronflux

Please give the time stamp of the flight 93 transmission that originated from flight 93 that proves flight 93 was in the air after the crash.

That was provided to you by me on pg 18 of this thread.

pretending that it was not. We are here to deny ignorance, not to embrace it.

a reply to: Informer1958

And you cannot cut and paste the answers?

You cannot cut and past the ACARS log entry that is your smoking gun?

State time of a time stamp?

It's because there is no ACARS transmission originating from flight 93 after the crash to provide positive inflight feed back flight 93's ACARS unit was operating?

The only thing you have is an ACARS system that was confused by the destruction of flight 93!

Just state the time of your smoking gun ACARS log entry time stamp!

a reply to: neutronflux

It's because there is no ACARS transmission originating from flight 93 after the crash to provide positive inflight feed back flight 93's ACARS unit was operating?

The only thing you have is an ACARS system that was confused by the destruction of flight 93!

I will post this again since you have demonstrated that you have IGNORED it.


Read the source.

If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a "Technical Acknowledgement" section should be present in ACARS messages. What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent 'text' messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received. Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received. An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages. However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) 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.

The 9/11 Commission has claimed which messages have been received by the aircraft. According to a another Memorandum For The Record (MFR), four ACARS messages were sent between 8:59AM and 9:03AM on the morning of Sept 11, to United Flight 175. The MFR reads as follows(3) -

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged stating "I heard of a reported incident."
1259:29 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1259:30 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft

The first message at 1259:19Z, as stated, was received by the aircraft, but not crew acknowledged, which is not required as technical acknowledgements are automatic. This is referring to the message noted above sent through MDT by Jerry TSEN (First coded ACARS message at top). The second (1259:29Z) and third messages (1259:30Z) referenced in the MFR were not provided through the FOIA. The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission.

However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp. The coded Rogers initiated ACARS message is included above, third from the top. Of course, the 9/11 Commission cannot admit if the last message was received by the airplane as that would immediately indicate to anyone that the airplane did not crash into the South Tower at 09:03am.

It is interesting to note that the Commission ignores the 9:03am ACARS message sent by Ed Ballinger routed through MDT (second ACARS message printed above), yet claims the 9:03am message sent by Rogers as not being received. Based on sequential numbers of the messages themselves, it is clear Ballinger's 9:03 message was sent before the Rogers message (0545 for Ballinger message, 0546 for Rogers, printed on bottom of the message), yet the Commission ignores Ballinger's message. Why would they ignore Ballinger's message, yet acknowledge Rogers? Is it because Ballinger's message was received by the airplane and they realized that an aircraft cannot receive an ACARS message at that distance and such low altitude? This message is more evidence the aircraft was in the vicinity of Harrisburg, and not NY. At least 3 ACARS messages were routed through MDT between 8:59 and 9:03am, and received by the airplane, according to the technical acknowledgement time stamps at the bottom of the messages.

The last message sent at 9:23AM, routed through Pittsburgh, has been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission as well. Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not.

ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards for communications in the United States. ARINC is a provider of the communication protocol for ACARS networking. As ACARS networks are to Cell Phones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon or AT&T. When a message is sent from the aircraft, or the ground, the message needs to be routed through remote ground stations as described above. Many remote ground stations (RGS) are located throughout the world. Here is a diagram of some of the stations located in the Northeast USA.

Read the rest from this source.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I have given you the facts and have proved how the 911 Commissioners ignored some of the credibal findings.

Not all the information was provided through the FOIA Report. However, enough information was given to prove there was many discrepancy in the OS narratives of the alleged flight 98 crash.

If said plane crashed in Shanksville, why hide the critical information ,is the question you should be asking?

a reply to: Informer1958

There is no proof Flight 93 was in any other place than the crash site.

There is no broadcast from flight 93 after the crash to inform ACARS where flight 93 was.

All you have is a confused ACARS system trying to find a destroyed jet.

If there is no ACARS broadcast logged from flight 93 to ACARS to inform the ACARS system where flight 93 is, how would ACARS know where flight 93 is? It's a message system, no a location system.

One: If you cannot provide how ACARS knew where flight 93 was with out flight 93 broadcastings, you don't have squat.

Two: If you cannot provide an ACARS log entry of an ACARS broadcast from flight 93 after crash, you don't have square.

The only way for ACARS to know where flight 93 was, was for flight 93 to broadcast its position! Where is the logged proof!

a reply to: neutronflux

There is no proof Flight 93 was in any other place than the crash site.

Sorry but I disagree with you on your "opinion".

There is no broadcast from flight 93 after the crash to inform ACARS where flight 93 was.

I am talking to a brick wall again, you have demonstrated that you have completely ignored my above post.

Have a nice night.

a reply to: Informer1958

I am just asking for logged proof of flight 93 in the context ACARS only knows where and if flight 93 is in the air if flight 93 transmits. Please provide the proof in a stated fact.

It's fact there are no ACARS transmissions originating from flight 93 after the crash.
No automated engine status ACARS reports. No ACARS messages of fuel, position, ETA. Nothing from ACARS to prove flight 93 was in the air after the crash.

Sorry.

originally posted by: AsherLewin11
Considering a 757 did not create the crater as the crater is not even big enough for one engine and it's nacelles
As you can see in this image the small crater created on 9/11 was around 2 feet wide at the impact zone which fans out to 15 feet wide 10 feet deep and 25 or so feet long. Much too small to have been caused by a boeing 757.

Show your family and friend they will easily agree without any convincing that flight 93 didn't crash in shanksville on 911

. There, now let people decide on their own

The ground isn't even scorched!

a reply to: Informer1958

From: www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Title: The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

The work of: booNyzarC

Posting: www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Having determined that I wasn't going to find everything needed to refute these claims for free online, I decided to buy ARINC Specifications 618-5 and 620-4, which were the relevant specifications in place circa September 11, 2001.

The documents in question prove without any doubt whatsoever that UA175 and UA93 DID NOT receive any uplink messages after their reported crash times.

This series of posts should definitively demonstrate the following points:

The RGS locations referenced in Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf were supplied by the airline and do NOT indicate which station was actually used by the DSP (ARINC) to deliver, or attempt to deliver, the uplink message.
The actual RGS used for uplink attempts by the DSP (ARINC) can be the same RGS as predicted by the airline, but it often isn't the same.
Messages from the Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf with a secondary time stamp can be confirmed as NOT being delivered to the aircraft by analyzing Warren Stutt's 5 AWA 898 Printout of ARINC messages.pdf, which definitively proves that the secondary time stamp indicates something else entirely.

a reply to: Informer1958

United employee David Knerr also has confirmed there is no ACARS evidence of flight 93 being in flight after the flight 93 crash.

Three WTC towers brought down by controlled demolision.
The Pentagon hit by a missile .
A ploughed field that is supposed to be the sight of a crashed plane that totally disintigrated.

I'd say that there is enough evidence out there to doubt the official story.

a reply to: Gideon70

So speaks the STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ?

a reply to: wmd_2008

You know what happens when you assume ?

a reply to: Gideon70

Spent a long tlme in construction first job in the Design/Drawing office of a STRUCTURAL steelwork company and many years on site in a technical role including testing structural components back to you

originally posted by: Gideon70
Three WTC towers brought down by controlled demolision.
The Pentagon hit by a missile .
A ploughed field that is supposed to be the sight of a crashed plane that totally disintigrated.

I'd say that there is enough evidence out there to doubt the official story.

Care to state your evidence and debate facts? Care to make arguments to facts already posted in this thread on high speed collisions?

Or just rant off being told by click bait conspiracy sites milking 9/11 for money and notoriety what to think!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

Please give the time stamp of the flight 93 transmission that originated from flight 93 that proves flight 93 was in the air after the crash.

How can you not remember, or provide, the time and transmission in ACARS format that is the most critical part of your proof. Very telling you proof is only smoke and mirrors.

Not really. The ACARS controversy was settled years ago with research from Woody Box. The ACARS data simply confirms what Coroner Miller said--there was no airliner in that field.