Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ACARS Confirms 9/11 UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash! Just WOW!

page: 1
70
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+48 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Important new information surfacing from P4911T, that a text message was confirmed RECEIVED long after UA 175 airplane was reported to have hit the South Tower. This evidence was tampered with in the 9/11 Omission Report, but due to the diligence of researchers, it provides further confirmation of what many of us have suspected for a long time: That the aircraft may have been switched in mid air.



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.


pilotsfor911truth.org...

Please visit link for the whole story.

The P4T discussion thread is here:
pilotsfor911truth.org...

I will be curious to see what those more knowledgeable about aircraft particulars will have to say about this. I sure hope no one tries to say that 175 confirmed the message long after it blew into a zillion pieces. Umm no. The only way that text message could be confirmed, is if it was still alive and well. Another "devil in the details" damning piece of evidence for the Official Lie, and pay attention to the work they have put in to explain the message routing systems too, cause that helps provide additional context and further evidence.

Thanks once again to Rob and company for staying the course and continuing their research!


"Q" Unit bombardment in 3...2....1....
edit on Thu Dec 1st 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Oh re read it, so a phone what was supposed to be blown to bits on the plane received a text after the fact?
Can they try and check where that phone was at the time it received the message? like track the signal?
edit on 1-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Not bashing it at all , but couldnt the phones have been blown out of the plane and landed on the send button when they fell to the ground?
Lol sounds really silly but I bet this would have been the answer in the commission's report.
edit on 1-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: bloody Dyslexia grrrr


I highly doubt the phone could've flown out the plane but i was thinking of a more plausible theory

If you've ever texted with a cellphone, sometimes texts can take a 5-10min or even up to a few hours to be sent. It doesn't happen often but I've seen it happen many times in the past. The timestamp with the phone on the recieving end always shows when it received the text, not when it was sent.

Considering there must have been a lot of traffic amongst the communication towers it may have caused a delay between messages being sent at the time.... Just a thoery and i might be totally wrong.

But regardless i still believe 911 was entirely an inside job and i wouldnt be surprised to hear the real planes were swapped somehow
edit on 1-12-2011 by seenavv because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Once again I urge readers to visit the first link in the story, and read carefully. Take your time. Understand this, so it sinks in first. You can also read some of the following comments from Rob and company at the second link.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

Great find !
Let the games begin !
It must be hell on the Official Story side sometimes.
Absolutely exhausting.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
This isn't new. It was discussed on here long ago, and shown to be just another flawed attempt by the charlatans bent on making a living off of the gullible folks that believe in their ravings.

Side note, but still related to 9/11... For a couple of days after, people were getting phone calls from their loved ones that had died in the Towers. The system was storing calls that couldn't get through that day and sending them later when the system wasn't as tied up....and each time, the family would call the authorities to say that their loved one must still be alive, just trapped.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Now that is some hard evidence & I'd like to see the look on the face of the guy tasked with refuting this little nugget of dynamite!

Onboard flight computers don't lie. Automated transponders don't lie. Ground station monitoring & recording equipment doesn't lie.

.... or maybe the system clocks, gps tracking & flight computers ALL miraculously had a problem at EXACTLY the same time; during one of the single most critical hours in the history of the modern World???


Fantastic find!!

S+F



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
This isn't new. It was discussed on here long ago, and shown to be just another flawed attempt by the charlatans bent on making a living off of the gullible folks that believe in their ravings.

Side note, but still related to 9/11... For a couple of days after, people were getting phone calls from their loved ones that had died in the Towers. The system was storing calls that couldn't get through that day and sending them later when the system wasn't as tied up....and each time, the family would call the authorities to say that their loved one must still be alive, just trapped.


Yes, but this is just soooooo exhausting. Having to repeat the same debunk over and over and over. Don't you wish sometime that someone would come up with something new? I mean they're all just making it up anyway so why not something a little original? I think its all on some loop somewhere - every six or seven months it all starts all over again. With the same earth shattering results. None.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Readers should not get confused, as there was a similar story, long ago but different:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That had to do with radar, this has to do with text.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seenavv
 
ACARS is not a cell phone. It works like a cell phone text message, the ACARS system was most likely freely operational without overload. Anyway, this is all news to me (I never looked in depth at 9/11 conspiracy theories) and I am reading it now.

Looks like time stamps are correct, daylight savings time accounted for, messages are received within the same minute sent etc... But I have never heard of this detail before so read it while on the edge of my chair if you will. Thanks a lot for sharing and looking forward to the scrutiny it will most certainly receive. And yes this does appear to be new.

The ACARS message in question:
Pilots/ACARS/Google experts confirm/debunk please
edit on 1-12-2011 by Sek82 because: add pic



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Yeah, a text will sit inside of your phone until it can transmit it seems.
Maybe after the smash, the phone flew from the plane and caught signal.
Do err did cell phones work on planes?
I recall the phone call stories being called bull as you cannot use a cell in an airplane.
I really dunno.
Any number cruncher types care to give the cliffs notes?


+17 more 
posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Look at it this way - even without being technical experts in how the ACARS system works and what sort of glitches may or may not have attributed to this anomaly - the mere fact it was ignored and brazenly omitted from the official report should tell you all you need to know about the official story.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Rob Balsamo, of the so-called "pilots for truth", once again is at his most deceptive. Smoke and mirrors, that's all he's got, at this stage of the game.

Looking at the link you provided: Balsamo lists the three ACARS messages, two at 0903 EDT, and one at 0923 EDT (1303 and 1323 Zulu/UTC respectively).

BUT then, he writes:


According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.


However, Mr. Ballinger's statements only indicate the TWO sent just seconds before impact were acknowledged by the ACARS onboard UAL 175. And NOT the one sent after it had already hit, at 1323Z.

Rob Balsamo is simply lying, and in a way that is seemingly intentional, by making it as complicated as possible, but dropping in innuendo along the way. It is a long-seen tactic, and his apparent "hope" is it will continue to foster confusion, and thus steer people to keep "donating" to his ridiculous website, and long-dead "cause".

His whole attempt, there....is an obvious ploy to just "Razzle Dazzle 'em!!"....



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Readers should not get confused, as there was a similar story, long ago but different:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That had to do with radar, this has to do with text.


Seems to me we had the same histrionics and same "I have the sMoKiNg Gun!!!!!" with that cockpit door fiasco a while back and that loading up a hijack IFF signal only takes a "few seconds" joke and the claimed 11.2 g required pull up and the "airplane will fall apart at 1 knot over its "design speed", etc, so on and so forth. Capt Bob and his friends over at P4T don't have a very good track record with these things. Same-o Same-o. Yawn. What's next?



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Very intriguing. I don't see a date that this article was written about Flt 175 on the P4911T, though. Am I missing it? Tnx.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
ACARS is Aircraft Communications Addressing And Reporting System, developed by Air Radio Inc. It is not at all like cellphone messaging, it is an advanced aeronautical digital comms system with automated and manual functions.
A full explanation of the system is here Wikipedia



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
However, Mr. Ballinger's statements only indicate the TWO sent just seconds before impact were acknowledged by the ACARS onboard UAL 175. And NOT the one sent after it had already hit, at 1323Z.



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.


Explain the second timestamp on the ACARS message at 1323Z, if it wasn't acknowledged by the aircraft then? Doing so would be really helpful to clear things up rather than just ridiculing the source of these claims.

Exactly what statement does he indicate the third was not received by the ACARS system?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 



Rob Balsamo, of the so-called "pilots for truth", once again is at his most deceptive. Smoke and mirrors, that's all he's got, at this stage of the game.

Looking at the link you provided: Balsamo lists the three ACARS messages, two at 0903 EDT, and one at 0923 EDT (1303 and 1323 Zulu/UTC respectively).

BUT then, he writes:


According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.


I would like to see the sources to this information please? You failed to provide a link to your claim?
As for the rest it is only your opinion,and the fact is you have not debunked anything here.


Rob Balsamo is simply lying, and in a way that is seemingly intentional, by making it as complicated as possible, but dropping in innuendo along the way. It is a long-seen tactic, and his apparent "hope" is it will continue to foster confusion, and thus steer people to keep "donating" to his ridiculous website, and long-dead "cause".

His whole attempt, there....is an obvious ploy to just "Razzle Dazzle 'em!!"....


Lying? I would like to see the evidence that proves this man is not being truthful, not your opinion. If you cannot back your claim than it would be fair to say you’re not being honest about calling Rob Balsamo a liar.
edit on 2-12-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 



Explain the second timestamp on the ACARS message at 1323Z, if it wasn't acknowledged by the aircraft then?


The entire crux of the claims from the "source" is bogus. The claim that the time-stamp on the bottom of each of those ACARS data spurts is the "acknowledge" by the airplane.

It is more likely the ARINC system itself that is acknowledging the message from the airline's dispatch center.

You see, this is how those dudes over at that "source" skew their little fantasy, and keep the BS rolling on out. It has been the same modus operandi for many years. Much time, and energy, is wasted playing "Whack-a-Mole" with them.

Did you hear about the American 77 Flight Deck Door fiasco? This is not off-topic, BTW, but indicative of the fully "head-up-and-locked" mentality they have. I haven't looked, I cringe at giving the website any undue extra "hits"....but, I would bet a dollar that nonsense is still being trumpeted over there. At this point, it's getting into Vaudeville territory, and it's 'Amateur Hour' on the stage.


The bad tap dancing, and other obfuscations are also included in the diatribe.....with the misdirection about which ARINC ground station transmitter in Pennsylvania is alleged to have sent what, etc. Pure eyewash. Oh, and the embedded hyperlink to the ACARS datablock "explanation"? Mostly is discussing the downlink feature, not the ground-to-air portion.


Also, even though dispatcher E. D. Ballinger is quoted as saying he "thinks" the uplinked messages are received almost instantly, this is not always the case. Note, even in the link provided by the "source", it mentions the data speed is 2400 baud. If you ever have the chance to listen to an aviation band frequency scanner, you can find the ACARS frequency on VHF. Or, you can also hear it by listening to that VHF comm if you select the proper radio, and the receiver and volume. But, for the scanner:


ACARS Frequencies
....
131.550 MHz ACARS Primary channel for North America
130.025 MHz ACARS Secondary channel for North America
129.125 MHz ACARS Tertiary channel for North America ....

www.angelfire.com...

What you will hear are a chirping and some squeals....similar to, but not exactly like, your old dial-up modems.

Nowadays, the ACARS has many more functions than its first design use, for the OOOI times (Out. Off, On, In), to alleviate the pilots from calling them in on the radio. With modern cockpits, and the multi-function units, the Flight Management Systems, and interface with the FMCs via the CDU screens and the keypads, there is much more they can do. Early versions of ACARS were a separate unit, now they are integrated and accessed through the CDUs. There are shortcut keys to request the latest weather, either METAR, TAF, Winds and also airport ATIS. As well, the "Free Text" option, to send text to Dispatch, and to read what they send.

Point is, when we request an ATIS, for example? There is always a wait....length of time depends on how busy the network is, in your area. Could be a minute, could be several.

So, found a pretty good image from searching online, this is typical for modern Boeings, it's from a 737 Next Generation (because of the color....the 757/767 are a light brown), but the keys are laid out about the same. There are older versions, and might be what UAL 175 had back then, with minor differences.



I chose this one because it's in the "SATCOM" mode already. To access the COMM modes, you use the button labeled "FMC COMM", it's second row, between the "HOLD" and "PROG" buttons.

Here is an early version, from the 1980s to early 1990s era:



There is no alpha keypad.....only place for letters are on far right, inserted by those three toggles. You pushed once to scroll through the alphabet, letter by letter...or, hold to slew fast, either direction. Cumbersome, but you got used to it.

Here, I found what American Airlines probably used on their 757/767s back then:



(More trivia: I found that photo attributing it to an AAL 757. In that case, though, it looks like it had at one time been in one of their MD-80s, because of its color. That ugly blue....one reason I hated to fly that airplane....)

So, depending on the company, and what equipment they had purchased and installed, the configuration of ACARS units was up to the version of the CDU and FMC at the time. I'm guessing United had the version posted on top, or similar.

Well, that was a trip down memory lane. But, all in all, is to explain that no, the contention of those printed ACARS messages, as claimed, do not show the airplane "acknowledging". And, they aren't "that" fast. Just another red herring from our favorite troupe of comedians here in the LA area.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 


And to add, since I used up the 5000 characters (
).....another little detail that is conveniently ignored by those who push the "fake planes", or whatever else they keep trying to come up with, to sustain their delusions....the video below. It was an NBC Dateline special on the one-year anniversary of 9/11. Interviews with the Air Traffic Controllers.

In the case of the four hijacked airplanes, United 175 was unique in one respect: The transponder.

On the other three jets, the hijackers selected the transponders "off" (actual, to Standby, there is no "off" on the control panels).

But, the hijacker on UAL 175, alternatively, chose to simple scramble the original code to another random four numbers. This had the effect of "disappearing" the transponder returns from the ATC computers, since all its flight plan information is keyed to that original code. However, since it was still squawking a discrete code, they were able to find it easily, because it still transmitted the altitude information, and groundspeed in the data block on the screen....just no Flight number nor airplane type.

They could watch that radar return (target) all the way to impact.

(Skip to about 15:30. Also, note @ 18:50):

Google Video Link





new topics

top topics



 
70
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join