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: 11
70
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:08 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?



And THAT is your response to bubs49's post!!

You must think that all members and visitors to the ATS forum are all dithering idiots
(yourself being the only exception - in your own mind - of course!).

The Truth is obviously the completely opposite.

You're in reality displaying yourself as nothing but a tragic-comic figure.

So not much to laugh about, really -


Cheers




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


Sorry, but again the "P4T" are talking in circles, and doing the run-around, and when you invest too much trust in what they say, you fall for their game and misdirection.

In the quoted external source, there was this:


1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft


Of course, that is too soon to be certain, IF the systems is going to keep querying...but in any case, that time (1303:17) is 0903:17 EDT, and United 175 had been destroyed by then anyway.

Now, here's the rub: Where are all of the no acknowledges from United Dispatch that show the messages after the three failed attempts, for both of the United airplanes?

And, the really big one: WHY hasn't any of the American Airlines Dispatch telex message copies also been brought up as part of this "amazing evidence"?

Just floating this out there --- is it because the formats that American use on their teletypes is subtly different, and doesn't allow Balsamo & Co. \ @ "P4T" to bedazzle their 'audience' with this ridiculous claims?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by bubs49
 


Sorry, but again the "P4T" are talking in circles, and doing the run-around, and when you invest too much trust in what they say, you fall for their game and misdirection.


Just floating this out there --- is it because the formats that American use on their teletypes is subtly different, and doesn't allow Balsamo & Co. @ "P4T" to bedazzle their 'audience' with this ridiculous claims?



You are again and again making this into a personal vendetta.

As for that, you too are displaying yourself as a severely tragic-comic figure as well.

I find it therefore impossible to believe that you have ever been a pilot responsible for the welfare and safety of any number of traveling passengers.

I suspect you're getting all your information from instruction books, manuals, wikipedia and the like, etc, etc..

I might even concede that you perhaps have used some of your savings trying out flying in 'simulators' now and again, but that's about all!

Please try to deal with 'reality' for once in your life - weedwacker .....


Cheers



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



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   


Sorry, but again the "P4T" are talking in circles, and doing the run-around, and when you invest too much trust in what they say, you fall for their game and misdirection.


Again weed..proudbird??


It's not what Pilotsfor911Truth say, it's documented! Bubs has told you this just 2 posts ago. You may have missed it?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now..

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Who is making the claim that an audio signal was activated in the aircraft? Winters or Pilotsfor911Truth?



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.


I'll keep quoting that until you stop trying to sidetrack this debate down your "beat da twoofer" road.
You're not actually debating or deriding Pilotsfor911Truth of any "twoofer". You're openly dismissing official documentation and testimony!

So that's both Winters and Ballinger you're questioning now. Is there any part of the official narrative that you guys will defend without putting your own twist on? Shouldn't this one sample of many be a reason to reopen an investigation with all of the cards on the table? Honestly?



To me our only real opponent is the government. What we say is directed at them and their version of the story in the 911 Commission Report. What GL’s and other Truthers like Legge say and write is meaningless unless the government says it too. That’s why I think it’s best to simply direct them all to the government instead of fighting with them (along with my confidence that the government will not adopt what they say). Only our real opponent can make any of their stuff matter.


Got it?

You really need to read that quote to see how meaningless your "educated guess" (and most other GLs I've encountered) really is to me and any other open minded skeptic reading this thread.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


What's your point about UA 93? That audible bell in the cockpit, which can be rung at the direction of a flight dispatcher, was that sent after UA 93's official crash time?

I'm not saying I already know, just clue me in please.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by djeminy
[You are again and again making this into a personal vendetta.

As for that, you too are displaying yourself as a severely tragic-comic figure as well.

I find it therefore impossible to believe that you have ever been a pilot responsible for the welfare and safety of any number of traveling passengers.

I suspect you're getting all your information from instruction books, manuals, wikipedia and the like, etc, etc..

I might even concede that you perhaps have used some of your savings trying out flying in 'simulators' now and again, but that's about all!

Please try to deal with 'reality' for once in your life - weedwacker .....

Cheers


P4T promotes many erroneous claims, hell Balsamo once wasn't even fully convinced planes crashed at the WTC, so naturally, like a witness impugned, new claims will be regarded with great skepticism.

I'm not impressed with your factless ad hominems. You 'suspect' this, and 'concede' that.. who cares? Is this Youtube-level vitriol all you've got? That ain't much.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


What's your point about UA 93? That audible bell in the cockpit, which can be rung at the direction of a flight dispatcher, was that sent after UA 93's official crash time?

I'm not saying I already know, just clue me in please.



"which can be rung" is not the same as "was rung"!

Please find out whether it's one or the other, before you ask a question like that -


Cheers



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


Just answer the question. You want to promote a claim, promote it. Don't recede and well up like the tide whenever it suits your fancy.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by djeminy
 


This is what I attempt to exhort the people who actually know nothing, and therefore I can bring an iota of knowledge, to dispel the tidal waves of misinformation that flow on these topics, and primarily form the "P4T":


Please try to deal with 'reality' for once in your life...


And, I will say that the rest of your ad hominem is a typical example of the tactics employed, when bereft of any substantial and factual evidence.

One should always keep in mind the full litany of the failed "revelations" from "P4T" over the years, and see the baseless claims and exaggerated manipulations for what they truly are.

Furthermore, it is obvious that "they" have carved out a particularly noisome place in history, as is evident with a close examination. To the extent that there is no telling how many minions are sent forth on the Internet to "pump it out" in their favor, just to attract attention.

When in fact, if this "information" was indeed so 'Earth-shattering', then it would be front-page news, and top stories on all media networks. Not a sad ploy that is used to steer "donations" to the coffers of a particularly feeble website masquerading as a "quest for 9/11 truth".



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by djeminy
 


This is what I attempt to exhort the people who actually know nothing, and therefore I can bring an iota of knowledge, to dispel the tidal waves of misinformation that flow on these topics, and primarily form the "P4T":


Please try to deal with 'reality' for once in your life...


And, I will say that the rest of your ad hominem is a typical example of the tactics employed, when bereft of any substantial and factual evidence.

One should always keep in mind the full litany of the failed "revelations" from "P4T" over the years, and see the baseless claims and exaggerated manipulations for what they truly are.

Furthermore, it is obvious that "they" have carved out a particularly noisome place in history, as is evident with a close examination. To the extent that there is no telling how many minions are sent forth on the Internet to "pump it out" in their favor, just to attract attention.

When in fact, if this "information" was indeed so 'Earth-shattering', then it would be front-page news, and top stories on all media networks. Not a sad ploy that is used to steer "donations" to the coffers of a particularly feeble website masquerading as a "quest for 9/11 truth".




I don't think you're aware of this, weedwacker, but you are in actual fact reinforcing everything i said in the post you're responding to above.

Only god knows why you're doing this!

Cheers



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


In the grand scheme of things, we already know all four planes crashed at the sites reported by the witnesses, and naturally, the Northwoods claims crash and burn along with them. Cumulative evidence is what David Ray Griffin relies on, making his deeply flawed case for a conspiracy.

I have no faith in the moral high ground of the US government, nor in their supposed 'victim role' handed to them by conspiracy theorists who accuse them of deeds they did not commit. When analyzing state actions, it does no good whatsoever to yo-yo between extremes: either guiltless or lying, elaborate fakery contriving demons from hell.

Face it, the US government is not a monolithic entity, and whatever crime one wishes to shove in its already elongated rap sheet, it shall be proven using sound principles of logic and research, and to cherrypick anomalies and elevate them to blockbuster status just to satisfy one's own sense of heroic, outlaw researcher bragging rights, will not do. Radar data, DNA evidence, phone calls, physical evidence, radio contact, witness testimony, photographs, video, flight data recorders, cockpit voice recording, boarding passes... it converges to hijackings and plane crash, not Northwoods.

This is about morphing perceived impossibilities into fanciful, highly subjective and speculative scenarios. I mean... ACARS routing ambiguities prove what exactly? P4T's way of dealing with MFRs stating ACARS messages were not received after crash time? Just pretend the source isn't Knerr, but the 9/11 commission and popular distrust and resentment will fill in the blanks. As I've said elsewhere, we still need some harsh accountability for claims of old, which were debunked, much to the chagrin of a gaggle of bellicose, arrogant charlatans with pilot's licenses, cultivating the illusion of authoritative consensus among a group of ideologically filtered yes-men.

Yes, I'm interested in resolving details, but the larger body of evidence supporting plane crashes and hijacking as described by the "official story" overshadows the far-fetched Northwoods-inspired straw grasping by a group of desperate, discredited paranoids who know just enough to get themselves in trouble.

This thread could end right now on the basis of normal acceptance of cumulative evidence, yet it doesn't because we are curious to know the details, not because there's still one iota of chance that plane swap scenarios actually pan out.
edit on 8-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
So what do we know?

- The supposed 'receipt' time stamp is actually related to ARINC reception, evidenced by ACARS messages claimed not to have been received, yet which sport 'reception' time stamps anyway;
- ACARS message uplink routing incorporates flight plan, and the circumstances on 9/11 result in ACARS routing to ground stations along the flight route. Hence MDT and PIT... along UA 175's flight plan. You're seeing a routing system looking for an airplane using an algorithm tuned to various variables, incorporating predictive logic.
- No after crash ACARS messages have been officially confirmed as received by the crashed airplanes.

P4T, as usual, comes up completely empty-handed, but residual ambiguity fueled by half-assed research will go the distance for whomever is quickly satisfied with inadequate and insufficient data. More people led astray, despite a long and sordid history of P4T promoting utter nonsense. Going around in circles, consuming time better spent on real issues surrounding 9/11, such as the FACT that we have a cover-up. Cover-up of what? Anything truly malicious? We'll never know, we're caught in yet another aimless micro-debate. Exciting, titillating, and false.

ACARS routing MUST have official, authoritative routing documentation. Locate it, post it and we'll talk. (FTR: what has been produced so far unfortunately doesn't fit the bill)
edit on 8-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Something else to consider: if ACARS routing was sensitive to "last known ground station contact" only, then we have a security issue: I could spoof any plane and construct an ACARS denial of service attack based on router table poisoning.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


What's your point about UA 93? That audible bell in the cockpit, which can be rung at the direction of a flight dispatcher, was that sent after UA 93's official crash time?

I'm not saying I already know, just clue me in please.



If you had read the link provided, you'd know that it was after the official crash time.
And I notice you've went on a few rants before you've read it. No surprise there then..



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


As usual, you are wrong Snowcrash.

From the UA175 thread that you obviously haven't read (along with the UA93 thread)




Two types of flight tracking (or flight following) protocols are used for this process.

Category A and B.

First is Category A. This type of flight following uses Flight Tracking messages automatically sent from the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes. These messages are a data link and do not contain any text, therefore the customer airline does not receive these messages, they are used for Flight Tracking purposes only. When the Flight Tracking message is sent, the Central Processing System (CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sent through and picks the three best stations for routing messages to and from the aircraft. After roughly 10 minutes, another Flight Tracking message is sent from the aircraft, through a new set of ground stations in the vicinity of it's new location, and the Central Processing System dumps the old stations and replaces it with new stations better for routing messages to the aircraft. This process continues throughout the flight automatically. The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, is a bit more simple. The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course. The Central Processing System continuously chooses the best station for routing purposes while the aircraft is in flight. If the flight plan route is amended in flight, and a diversion is necessary, the Central Processing System chooses a new remote ground station along the diverted flight path based on this flight tracking protocol, tracking the aircraft.

The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.

The reason Dispatchers have an ASD is due to the fact the aircraft across the globe deviate from their cleared flight plans daily due to weather, traffic, etc. With an ASD, Dispatchers can keep track of their flights and alert for weather (or other adverse conditions) along the route. Even if Dispatchers had the capability to choose which specific ground station to route a message, why would they choose MDT and then later PIT if the aircraft is diverting back to the east on their monitors? The answer is, they wouldn't. The hypothesis that Remote Ground Station routing is based on original flight plan is completely absurd and usually attempted by only those who obviously are not interested in the facts, instead need to speculate to hold onto their beliefs. As described, the Central Processing System routes messages through remote ground stations based on Flight Tracking Protocol(5).


Ballinger, who has worked with ACARS from its inception, is the one who clearly states that the two timestamps refer to time sent and time received. Winters is the one who claims that an audible signal was activated in the cockpit of "Flight 93". The ACARS message shows that the audible signal was activated over 500 miles away from the alleged crash site 7 minutes after the alleged impact.

Not Pilotsfor911Truth.

Got it?

Now do us all a favour and go read before spouting your "opinion".
edit on 9-12-2011 by ThePostExaminer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Now do us all a favour and go read before spouting your "opinion".
edit on 9-12-2011 by ThePostExaminer because: (no reason given)


Of course he won't bother to read. If he did, he would come to the conclusion the P4T's claim is right and fully backed by official documents and official statements. So the best thing to do to feed its debunking desire is not reading the article, not reading the arguments, not reading the linked documentation in order to speculate and come to the only conclusion that confirms his bias.

The only poster here who, although skeptic, was really open minded and seriously tried to delve into this issue was gman. As soon as he noticed how ACARS really work, he had to admit that he had no plausible explanation for the MDT uplink nor for the PIT uplink sent to United 175.

Kudos to him. He was the only poster here who really made a serious attempt to fully understand the subject.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 





Yes, I'm interested in resolving details, but the larger body of evidence supporting plane crashes and hijacking as described by the "official story" overshadows the far-fetched Northwoods-inspired straw grasping by a group of desperate, discredited paranoids who know just enough to get themselves in trouble.


What a hypocritical rant. The cherry on top being that paragraph you finished off with.

Ignore qualified pilots, independent investigators, physics, aerodynamics, contradictions in the OCT "evidence" itself, the gaping void in the documentation of plane parts and FDRs yet let's all bow to the 9/11 Commission Report penned by sycophants and puppets loyal to the military machine. Let's all accept hearsay, nudges and winks from anonymous "experts" that fly in the face of both logic and the real world. Let's actually accept a bastardized version of the OCT.
Fill the obvious blanks with opinions and denial of people who don't really matter.

No thanks.

Even GLs can't defend the OCT without putting their own spin on what the OCT actually is. Just like yourself.

The fact that it's on record that an audible signal was activated 7 minutes after the alleged crash, 500 miles from the alleged impact site should be answered by those who made the claims and those who accepted it as evidence. Period.


edit on 9-12-2011 by ThePostExaminer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Let's not forget the other "anomalies" surrounding "Flight 93" Snowcrash.


pilotsfor911truth.org...




1405 (10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct doug: ok buddy

10:06

ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three

doug: all right

...

doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zero seven eighty four six west

ntmo-e: that's the last known position of united ninety three


From the site linked to above



United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site.


i47.photobucket.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Or this little "anomaly"...



Exactly how many planes were "hijacked" Snowcrash?




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Let's not forget the other "anomalies" surrounding "Flight 93" Snowcrash.


pilotsfor911truth.org...




1405 (10:05 a.m.)

ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet

doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred

ntmo-e: southeastbound still doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him

ntmo-e: correct doug: ok buddy

10:06

ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three

doug: all right

...

doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zero seven eighty four six west

ntmo-e: that's the last known position of united ninety three


From the site linked to above



United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site.


i47.photobucket.com...


This is all total unadulterated crap from the usual culprits. The info you've posted above was a relayed conversation from Cleveland Center to Herndon put together after the fact with ESTIMATED TIMES. It WAS NOT timeline from someone looking at a radar scope because Herndon DID NOT and DOES NOT have radar. The actual radar record and timeline recorded at Cleveland Center shows what we know is true and that is that UA 93 crashed at approximately 0903 EDT. Why you must LIE to promote your obvious agenda only you know. This simply proves that both CIT and pfffft are eager and willing to LIE to promote their fraudulent agenda... Go find another hobby, this one is a failure for you and your ilk.



new topics




 
70
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join