It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 10
70
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by gman1972
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Yes I read all that before but thanks for reminding me that I lost my train of thought on it last night.

It just doesn't make sense to me though.What I am getting at is, as I said during normal ops the position reports to ARINC tell the system where the a/c is and then it can sent the messages to the right station to transmit to the a/c. If the plane has to divert, or reroute then this would still keep updating and the messages would always be sent to the correct station to transmit to the a/c because the position reports keep updating where the plane is. Even if it was going hundreds of miles out of the way, the position reports would keep telling ARINC where to route the messages to.


This is definitely correct, gman. You are right. But, do you understand that this streghtens Pilots for Truth's claim as to how ACARS are routed and definitely corroborates their theory?

Basically you are saying that an aircraft constantly establishes connectivity to the closest ground station (or re-establishes it after a NO COMM) sending a media advisory message. Exactly. This is essentially how ACARS work. The aircraft communicates its RGS (not position, RGS!) to the CPS indicating which is the best channel to reach the aircraft at that particular moment. Until the aircraft drops the connection or is forced to look for another station, the dispatcher does not know where the aircraft is and where to route the uplink.
We fully agree as to this point.

So, how do you explain that the ACARS sent at 8:59 EDT from Jerry Tsen to United 175 was received by the aircraft (and the MFR confirms it was received) through the RGS of Harrisburg (MDT) if the aircraft was in the New York area (few miles from its target, South Tower), officially at more than 110 nm from MDT?

Why should an uplink be routed through MDT (110 nm from the radar position of United 175 at 8;59 EDT) if there were plenty of RGS in New York area (JFK, LGA, EWR, some ot them at less than 20 nm)? MDT was the 13. closest station at that time! The aircraft was still flying, it was not yet destroyed and its onboard MU was fully functional, as confirmed by the fact it received the message.

How can you explain that in first place? Then we'll talk about the PIT ACARS further.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



What are the chances it could have been able to communicate after impact?


Zero chances.


How is it supplied with power?


Only from Normal electrics. Powered from the Main buses to the various sub-buses.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Proudbird whats your take on that pdf i posted on page 9 that shows the mu has its own time stamp on received messages



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 



....whats your take on that pdf....


What I took from that study is, they examined the system after the airplanes landed, and accessed the MU data there, to compare the time references stored on-board to the times they ad from the ground stations.

I didn't see any supporting evidence to substantiate the "PfT" claims, at all, that the teletype print-outs in Dispatch reflect the "acknowledgement time" from the airplane.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I doubt it was after they landed, because they had acknowlegments at ground during flight.

2.2.2 Logout Files. Every event within the ground equipment (either outgoing or incoming), including messages, acknowledgments received

It also proves the MU CAN ACKNOWLEDGE Independently



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


The part there, in the quoted external text, where it says "acknowledgements received" is referring to those performed by the pilots, as I explained in post above.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 



A significant problem was observed during this audit with the ACK/NAK protocol. Over the course of the 2-hour/25-minute audit, every RA/~1 (Free Text Uplink) that was Initiated (13 total) was originally ACK’d by the avionics and then NAK’d 5 seconds later


It says avionics not pilots



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
We have an update on p4t.
pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by remymartin
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I doubt it was after they landed, because they had acknowlegments at ground during flight.

2.2.2 Logout Files. Every event within the ground equipment (either outgoing or incoming), including messages, acknowledgments received

It also proves the MU CAN ACKNOWLEDGE Independently



Of course the MU can acknowledge independently. And actually does !!

Every message uplinked or downlinked is acknowledged by a dedicated technical ack message. If an uplink is not "acked" by the MU in three minutes, the ground system will send again. After three failed attempts without ack, a failure is reported back to the originator.

The technical ack is not the cockpit's ack. It's basically an automatic empty dedicated message. This is why the originator (in this case, the UAL dispatcher) knows whether the aircraft has received an uplink or not.

For example, take the message sent by Jerry Tsen to United 175 at 8:59 EDT.
The Commission (MFR) says that it was received by the aircraft, but not crew-acknowledged.

This is additional confirmation that the technical ack is not the cockpit's ack.
edit on 6-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


OK.....seeing that.

However, this is still not showing that the time-stamps on the United Airlines Dispatch hard-copy teletypes actually depict any ACK from the avionics. If anything, this is done by the systems, and only "seen" when ferreted out for studies like this to be conducted.

Given that the PDF and that study dates back to 1995, it shows that it was preliminary to the eventual development of using ACARS for Air Traffic Control messages (which is in use today, especially when in non-radar environments and over-water). Also, it is common today to receive your Oceanic Clearances by ACARS, it reduces the radio frequency congestion. The Clearance is up-linked by ATC, and has a reference number. So, when you contact the ATC facility, you merely confirm to the Controller with the reference, and there's no need to read the full clearance details, and waste time with that activity.


So, that study was a way to ascertain reliability for implementation of even more reliance on the ACARS, as it will also pertain to future ATC enhancements, and the ultimate goals of the new Air Traffic Management schemes that are close to being the new "norm" for the future. Also called the "Next Generation" of ATC. (A tongue-in-cheek nod to Star Trek, perhaps?).

Full ADS-B compliance requirements are coming, and ACARS will play a role in that as well.

ADS-B

What Is ADS-B ?









edit on Tue 6 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bubs49


This is definitely correct, gman. You are right. But, do you understand that this streghtens Pilots for Truth's claim as to how ACARS are routed and definitely corroborates their theory?


That's okay, like I have said a few times I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything about 9/11, just sharing what I know about the telexes that were quoted and present why I believe the bottom time stamp doesn't mean that the other party received the message, and I stand by that.

But remember the part your referring to I came up with just staring at my computer screen and thinking. It's not based on any personal knowledge or experience, it's not based on any facts what so ever. I put many disclaimers in that post that I was just thinking out loud and to take it with a grain of salt. I don't think that qualifies to strengthen your position or hurt it. If I was pointing out facts and stuff that would be different but I was pretty clear that I was not and just trying to understand more about the subject.

"So, how do you explain that the ACARS sent at 8:59 EDT from Jerry Tsen to United 175 was received by the aircraft (and the MFR confirms it was received) through the RGS of Harrisburg (MDT) if the aircraft was in the New York area (few miles from its target, South Tower), officially at more than 110 nm from MDT?"

I can't because this is well outside my area of knowledge. I have no idea, could be a million reasons why, maybe the closest station was full from all the messages that were being sent in a panic to aircraft in the new york area, maybe for some reason the plane in question was not sending it's position reports, I don't know. I don't think anyone knows, thats the debate isn't it? I wonder if other a/c that weren't involved in the terrorist plot also had some of their messages routed through RGS farther away, that would help narrow it down.

But I really don't have anything to contribute on the big picture here, I don't have the knowledge on this as I only started learning about this theory on this thread, some of you have been looking at it for years I imagine. If I did then I'd be happy to share, but for now I think I'll bow out. This thread started out pretty rocky but has turned into a good natured informative subject and I have enjoyed being a part of it, it's taught me lots!

I'll keep reading though,

Oh PS I'm going to take my pictures down as it kind of makes me nervous having them out there and I think they have served their purpose

Cheers
edit on 6-12-2011 by gman1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gman1972
 


gman,
thank you for your reply.

I am happy to notice that now you are considering the possibility that Pilots for Truth's claim is not completely wrong, as many people here state, mostly without fully analyzing the subject or, in some cases, even without reading the article and the linked literature.

I am not asking you to believe. Just to consider the possibility that the theory may be true. Nobody has the truth here. Just take your time to review all the available documentation and to delve into this subject, put all the pieces together and come to your own conclusion.

Cheers



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by gman1972

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Ballinger worked through the ACARS messages for the FBI as seen in the ACARS PDF. Are you really trying to tell us that this guy's "opinion" isn't worth taking into consideration over yours (whatever it is now) and gman's??



I don't have an opinion examiner, I am sharing my knowledge on the subject and my access to be able to share it. I invited people to teach me something that I may not know. Not sure why you guys keep dragging me though the mud, I haven't said one bad, condescending, aggressive, or otherwise remark this whole time.

Geese even when i was misquoted I didn't come out with, "obviously you can't read" or "Please reread what I wrote you obviously didn't pay attention." or any of the other common remarks.

Can you guys just calm down a bit so we can have a rational discussion on this?


Get used to it, gman1972. It is their debate style...the only way they can stay afloat in any discussion.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Wow, so quiet in here...


Originally posted by remymartin
We have an update on p4t.
pilotsfor911truth.org...


Bump?

See if what's been argued in this thread against Pilotsfor911Truth tallies with the latest findings.




The remote ground station used to route the message to the aircraft (FWA or CMI), the time and date in which the message is sent (eg. 111351, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1351Z or 0951am Eastern), the flight number (UA93), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N591UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.








Messages #18 and #19 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Champaign, IL CMI as designated in the line "AN N591UA/GL CMI...".Both messages were sent to the printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal in the aircraft.


7 minutes after the alleged crash of Flight 93, the aircraft received an ACARS message and an "audible signal" was activated in the aircraft! Not only that, the ACARS message was relayed through an RGS 500 miles away from the "crash site". The range for remote ground stations is 200 miles, and that is only guaranteed above 29,000 feet.

"CMI RGS" is to the far left of the screen:

pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Another reminder from so long ago:



pilotsfor911truth.org...


Cheers



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


You just keep re-hashing the same discredited claims and nonsense:



7 minutes after the alleged crash of Flight 93, the aircraft received an ACARS message and an "audible signal" was activated in the aircraft! Not only that, the ACARS message was relayed through an RGS 500 miles away from the "crash site". The range for remote ground stations is 200 miles, and that is only guaranteed above 29,000 feet.


Once again, confusing two statements and calling them as having actually happened is deceptive and factually incorrect.

The line above: "....the aircraft received an ACARS message..." is untrue and the SAME "evidence" is presented that only shows United Dispatch sent the message, and the teletype printed time. NOT that the airplane received the message!!

Furthermore, the "audible signal" is associated with some ACARS messages, but not with others. There are "low level" and "medium level" company datalink message categories, and depending on the set-up, may or may not activate an EICAS message as well. In other words, if the sender marks as "urgent" ("medium") then it will ring the single chime, a yellow EICAS advisory will appear and "MSG" will show in the scratchpad on the CDU, along with a light on the unit.

Here again, for reference:




Point is, in the quoted "evidence" you presented, it is discussing the fact that IF the airplane were operating, in existence, and everything was normal, then that type of message from Dispatch would have rung the chime.

Saying that United 93 "did" receive the message, and the "audible signal", is disingenuous in the extreme.

I am sorry that this simple concept is so confusing to those who are such big "fans" of the "P4T"......it's difficult to accept when you are forced to realize that your "idols" are flat wrong, and what's worse.....actively lying to you, all along.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Saying that United 93 "did" receive the message, and the "audible signal", is disingenuous in the extreme.

It is not P4T who says United 93 received Messages #13, #14, #15 through the Toledo RGS (TOL), Messages #16 and #17 through the Forth Wayne RGS (FWA) and Messages #18 and #19 through the Champaign's RGS (CHA). It is not P4T who is speculating that Messages #16, #17, #18, #19 were sent to the aircraft's printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal. Who stated this was Michael J Winter, Manager Flight dispatcher for United Airlines in September 2001 and his statement was confirmed by David Knerr, also Manager Flight Dispatcher at UAL in an interview to the FBI.

Would you please stop ignore facts backed by official documents with your personal speculations?


Originally posted by ProudBird
I am sorry that this simple concept is so confusing to those who are such big "fans" of the "P4T"......it's difficult to accept when you are forced to realize that your "idols" are flat wrong, and what's worse.....actively lying to you, all along.

For the last time: every message uplinked or downlinked is acknowledged by a dedicated technical ack message. If an uplink is not "acked" by the MU in three minutes, the ground system will make two more attempts. When also the third attempts returns no ack, a failure is reported back to the originator.
The technical ack is not the crew ack. It's an automatic process. This is why UAL dispatchers (as any other dispatchers in every airline in the world) know whether an uplink was received or not. Here is an example:


United Flight 175 Messages of Interest

1158:00Z Pushback (rounded to nearest 30 seconds)
1214:00Z Lift off (nose wheel strut extension)
1231:49Z A crew acknowledged message that indicates crew was in charge
1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged
From Jerry Tsen 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


MFR 04017215
"A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged". Question. How could possibly United Airlines dispatchers know that Jerry Tsen's message was received if the crew sent no acknowledgment? Answer: because when an uplink fails to reach the aircraft after three attempts, a failure is reported to them. Period.

Of course dispatchers always know when an uplink is received or not. And Michael J Winter clearly states which messages were received by United 93 and which not.

edit on 8-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bubs49
It is not P4T who says United 93 received Messages #13, #14, #15 through the Toledo RGS (TOL), Messages #16 and #17 through the Forth Wayne RGS (FWA) and Messages #18 and #19 through the Champaign's RGS (CMI). It is not P4T who is speculating that Messages #16, #17, #18, #19 were sent to the aircraft's printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal. Who stated this was Michael J Winter, Manager Flight dispatcher for United Airlines in September 2001 and his statement was confirmed by David Knerr, also Manager Flight Dispatcher at UAL in an interview to the FBI.


EDIT: CHA changed to CMI



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


Hey Bob... Did you ever take down the 11.2G paper? That was another good one.

Oh, and Bob...what did the radar show?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by bubs49
 


Hey Bob... Did you ever take down the 11.2G paper? That was another good one.

Oh, and Bob...what did the radar show?


I don't think "Bob" is here.

The "11.2g paper" has been acknowledged as being inaccurate. Three years ago!

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Now have you any response to add regarding the last few posts?

@Proudbird

Bubs has explained it better than I ever could. It's your speculation (and "educated guess") versus documented proof that something is definitely rotten in Denmark regarding the 9/11 planes.

And where is the ambiguity in the following statement?




Messages #18 and #19 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Champaign, IL CMI as designated in the line "AN N591UA/GL CMI...".Both messages were sent to the printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal in the aircraft.


edit on 8-12-2011 by ThePostExaminer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join