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: 12
70
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
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.



I've noticed there's no reply to this?




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
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)


I've read the UA 175 article... multiple times. You would know had you read THIS thread properly, since I quote from it, and I explained specific parts from YOUR article (in fact the piece you just quoted) to gman, the guy you two pretend is on your side.


The fact of the matter is I reject P4T's opinion. I've read the 302s, the MFRs, the official documentation and even the thread @ unexplained mysteries, where Balsamo got his ass handed to him. Of course, he had to have an exit strategy so he started taunting and trolling until he got banned from yet another forum. That's why he can't show his face anywhere but under another funny alias. Hey's, there's even a thread at Truth Action where this nonsense is discussed (hey I even mention UA 93's transponder turned back on somewhere on TA), instigated I believe by a sock puppet of Aldo Marquis, and I again quote from P4T's article there.

I haven't read the UA 93 article, (and that isn't the OP of this thread either) but as I can tell from above, you're on the job there as well aren't you?


Maybe I'll read it later.
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by gman1972
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


Ahhhhhhh now I get it.

(...)


Emphasis in the above mine. Will you apologize for lying and misrepresenting my reading the P4T article,ThePostExaminer, explaining it to gman, who responded with "Ahhhhhhh now I get it."?

LOL!

Let's give it about ten seconds before you come back saying I've read it, but since I disagree with you, I haven't read it well.
Come on, we all know P4T's rhetorical tactics.
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Snowcrash911,

I think there is some confusion here. My screen name is WetBlanky, not Aldo Marquis. Accusing people of sock puppetry and calling them something other than their screen name is I am sure a rule breaker. Please do not address me by anything other than my screen name.

I am positive that no one is genuinely convinced by your links. If you are keen on debating, why not take CIT up on the challenge to voice to voice or face to face debate? It's pretty obvious why you reneged. You would rather keep it online, so you can mire readers in paragraphs of nothingness and avoidances, pages of character assassinations, lies, and pieces of long debunked and corrected disinformation. When in a v to v or f to f debate, there is no way to evade questions and you are forced to offer concessions, take Anthony Summers, Adam Larson, and former Operations/Intelligence Sargent John Bursill for example.

In fact, the only thing you are right about is that this is off-topic. Let's continue this discussion on the Anthony Summers debate defeat thread.


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



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Snowcrash911,

I think there is some confusion here. My screen name is WetBlanky, not Aldo Marquis. Accusing people of sock puppetry and calling them something other than their screen name is I am sure a rule breaker. Please do not address me by anything other than my screen name.


You could have fooled me. Fooling people is your specialty, after all.


Originally posted by WetBlanky
I am positive that no one is genuinely convinced by your links.


Stay positive. You need lots of Karma correction.


Originally posted by WetBlanky
If you are keen on debating, why not take CIT up on the challenge to voice to voice or face to face debate? It's pretty obvious why you reneged.


We're debating now.


Originally posted by WetBlanky
You would rather keep it online,


For now, yes.


Originally posted by WetBlanky
so you can mire readers in paragraphs of nothingness and avoidances, pages of character assassinations, lies, and pieces of long debunked and corrected disinformation.


Let's see. Your star witness, Roosevelt Roberts, is actually a SoC witness. You edited your own documentary and mangled his phone conversation with you, because you know the majority of gullible tools you prey on will never go to your forum/website and download the full mp3 or read the transcript. That is by far the most outrageous feat of unadulterated deception in your whole repertoire. Not the most disgusting, like the ever expanding web of infiltrators and "accomplices to mass murder" you see in every Pentagon witness that doesn't agree with your idiotic flyover fantasy.


Originally posted by WetBlanky
When in a v to v or f to f debate, there is no way to evade questions and you are forced to offer concessions, take Anthony Summers, Adam Larson, and former Operations/Intelligence Sargent John Bursill for example.


I would crush you, and you know it. Are you a poker player?


Originally posted by WetBlanky
In fact, the only thing you are right about is that this is off-topic. Let's continue this discussion on the Anthony Summers debate defeat thread.


Sure thing.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
For the Record:

16g.) Board Wars: You will not use these boards to organize "attacks" on other boards, blogs, or discussion groups, and similarly, you will not organize such attacks against this board. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account

and

15d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance written permission from TAN or their agents). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Plesae Stay on Topic!!!!




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Just to be on topic again.

  1. How can an aircraft receive an ACARS, activating an audible signal on board, from a ground station nearly 500 miles away, 7 mins after being supposedly crashed?
  2. Can any one here provide source saying that a remote ground station can be received nearly 500 miles away by an airplane which is underground?


Sorry for repeating things, but the only way to stay on topic is providing answers to such questions. I presented evidence backed by official documents. The only refutation I received so far was an incredible sequence of insults and pure speculation. The only poster who genuinely tried to delve into this issue had to admit he did not have any plausible explanation.

edit on 9-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


Same baloney, different day:


I presented evidence backed by official documents.


Good luck....you need it.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by bubs49
 


Same baloney, different day:
Good luck....you need it.


Thank you, but I don't need luck. I need answers.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Duplicated post. Removed
edit on 9-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bubs49
Just to be on topic again.

  1. How can an aircraft receive an ACARS, activating an audible signal on board, from a ground station nearly 500 miles away, 7 mins after being supposedly crashed?
  2. Can any one here provide source saying that a remote ground station can be received nearly 500 miles away by an airplane which is underground?



Could you please link me directly to the official document that states a reception confirmation was received from UA 93 (or was it UA 175, that was the OP, wasn't it) seven minutes after its crash? You present this claim, but it's easier to verify it if you accompany such brazen claims with a link to a reliable source. Please don't say: "it's in this thread"... you are making a claim, present it please.
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Could you please link me directly to the official document that states a reception confirmation was received from UA 93 (or was it UA 175, that was the OP, wasn't it) seven minutes after its crash? You present this claim, but it's easier to verify it if you accompany such brazen claims with a link to a reliable source. Please don't say: "it's in this thread"... you are making a claim, present it please.


snowcrash, with all means of respect.

Have you ever considered the option to read a thread, including others' posts, links and referred documentation, before logging on, clicking on "Quote" and posting your speculations?

Yes, buddy. It's all in the thread.

Take your time to review the presented evidence, if you want of course.
Please understand that I can link documents and quote excerpts ad nauseam, but in any way I can force you to read them. Or to understand them.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bubs49
snowcrash, with all means of respect.

Have you ever considered the option to read a thread, including others' posts, links and referred documentation, before logging on, clicking on "Quote" and posting your speculations?

Yes, buddy. It's all in the thread.

Take your time to review the presented evidence, if you want of course.
Please understand that I can link documents and quote excerpts ad nauseam, but in any way I can force you to read them. Or to understand them.


bubs, just post the link to the document and I will read it, so we know what we're talking about. Stop giving me the runaround. You know exactly which official document you must be referring to. Present your claim. Stop playing games. Please.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
bubs, just post the link to the document and I will read it, so we know what we're talking about. Stop giving me the runaround. You know exactly which official document you must be referring to. Present your claim. Stop playing games. Please.


I guess this is your best assumption for the questions I raised above, right?
Again:

  1. How can an aircraft receive an ACARS, activating an audible signal on board, from a ground station nearly 500 miles away, 7 mins after being supposedly crashed?
  2. Can any one here provide source saying that a remote ground station can be received nearly 500 miles away by an airplane which is underground?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bubs49
Just to be on topic again.

  1. How can an aircraft receive an ACARS, activating an audible signal on board, from a ground station nearly 500 miles away, 7 mins after being supposedly crashed?
  2. Can any one here provide source saying that a remote ground station can be received nearly 500 miles away by an airplane which is underground?



I don't see that you have proved your two items listed above. Someone that works with ACARS (not sure if same airline as the one in question) demonstrated that the second time is the time the telex finished printing. Your source seems to be research from PilotsForTruth. Based on this and other threads their research seems to be less than professional and thorough.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bubs49
I guess this is your best assumption for the questions I raised above, right?
Again:

  1. How can an aircraft receive an ACARS, activating an audible signal on board, from a ground station nearly 500 miles away, 7 mins after being supposedly crashed?
  2. Can any one here provide source saying that a remote ground station can be received nearly 500 miles away by an airplane which is underground?


So you have no official source that shows reception of ACARS seven minutes after crash? Okay. Consider your claim dismissed.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
[So you have no official source that shows reception of ACARS seven minutes after crash? Okay. Consider your claim dismissed.


Of course I have official sources that show reception of ACARS seven minutes after crash. I have posted my documentation lots of times. The problem is that you don't bother to read it or maybe you don't understand its implications.

To be honest, snowcrash. I wonder why your behaviour is tolerated by the mods.
Have a good night.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join