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.
Originally posted by bubs49
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.
.....and then you bail?
Originally posted by ProudBird
Pull The Rip Cord!!
It's the best way to deal with these people, and their nonsense...........
PULL the cord let your 'chute inflate, and then safely finish the descent, until you land on your feet.
edit on Fri 9 December 2011 by ProudBird because: ...just because.......
Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by bubs49
So that's your official document proving your claim?
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.
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.
SOURCE
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.
SOURCE
So now you go a step further, masking your inability to post official documentation proving your claim that an ACARS message (with bell) was confirmed to be received seven minutes after the crash, by insinuating I should be taken care of by moderator intervention, and then you bail?
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.
SOURCE
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.
SOURCE
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I'll repeat this for your benefit.
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Here's a reminder of the two of the contentious issues brought to our attention by Pilotsfor911Truth and which has been responded to by childish troll posts.
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Winters specifically stated that Message 19 "activated an audible signal in the aircraft". And that it was received 500 miles away from the alleged crash site. 7 minutes after the alleged crash.
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Got it?
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Buh bye.
I know it's an automated response from the aircraft to ground control, but the guy is obviously saying that there is an interaction between a message sent and the printer. Acknowledgment.
And ACARS messages are fast. Out of my office window I can see aircraft departing from 19R at ARN. When the aircraft lifts off ACARS sends the off message. VHF to the local ACARS transceiver at ARN, then landline to our base at LHR, then back to my printer as a MVT message.
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by snowcrash911
So now you go a step further, masking your inability to post official documentation proving your claim that an ACARS message (with bell) was confirmed to be received seven minutes after the crash, by insinuating I should be taken care of by moderator intervention, and then you bail?
I'll repeat this for your benefit.
Here's a reminder of the two of the contentious issues brought to our attention by Pilotsfor911Truth and which has been responded to by childish troll posts.
Not a claim being made by Pilotsfor911Truth, but by two people very close to the investigation regarding the ACARS messages.
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.
SOURCE
Is Mr Ballinger wrong? Can you see any more than two timestamps on the ACARS messages?
and
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.
SOURCE
Winters specifically stated that Message 19 "activated an audible signal in the aircraft". And that it was received 500 miles away from the alleged crash site. 7 minutes after the alleged crash.
There's no ambiguity, try as you may to play your smoke and mirror games or how much you try and obfuscate the issue. It's there in black and white. Just go ahead and say it. They're "liars", right? "Misremembered"? You and your GL sidekick know more than these people?
They are contained in the Memorandum For the Record. Part and parcel of the OCT. Your "opinion" is irrelevant.
Just had to point out why.
Got it?
Buh bye.
Wait just a minute here... Where did Winters literally say his message was received 7 minutes after the alleged crash?
Originally posted by seenavv
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.
Originally posted by Snowcrash911
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Here's a reminder of the two of the contentious issues brought to our attention by Pilotsfor911Truth and which has been responded to by childish troll posts.
Posts with pictures of parachutes devoid of any factual or argumentative content?
It's "hidden" in the post above. I thought maybe a full day away from here would give you guys a chance to muster together a logical, mature factual response. No surprise I'm disappointed.
Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
Ballinger clearly means that the time-sent is when the dispatcher sent his message to the by the AIRINC system chosen ground station ( the Receiving Ground Station, RGS).
In going over the events of the day, Mr. Ballinger had reference to documents concerning the time line he had prepared immediately after the events and logs of his ACARS messages. He made these available to Commission staff as well. (NOTE: They appear to be identical with documents previously supplied by United Airlines.)
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.
Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
And the time received is the time that the teletype machine in the by AIRINC chosen ground station will print, that the there received dispatcher's text message has been send (uplinked) to the airplane.
Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
Special CODED text in messages will force the printer module in the plane to give an audible signal.
That does not mean that the message has been received by the plane, it only means that it has been sent by the RGS, in the special form that triggers an audible signal in the aircraft.
Were you in the aircraft? Did you hear that audible signal? How do you know then that the plane's ACARS did indeed receive the special message?
When the only way to know that it did, is to be physically inside that plane.
1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged
Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
Winters specifically stated that Message 19 "activated an audible signal in the aircraft". And that it was received 500 miles away from the alleged crash site. 7 minutes after the alleged crash."
It does not mean that. The code in the message will activate an audible signal, IF the message will be received.
How on earth can Mr Winter ever be sure that that audible signal was heard by human ears in that cockpit? He wasn't in there. That text message (coded for activating an audible signal), was not proof that it was received by the airplane!
It was RECEIVED and then immediately sent by the RGS (the "R" stands for receiving, the GS for ground station).
Messages #16 and #17 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Ft. Wayne, IN, FWA as designated in the line "AN N591UA/GL FWA...". The messages were sent to the ACARS printer.
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.
Messages #20 to #24 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD. However, all of the messages were rejected indicating the aircraft did not receive them.
Also present during Part of this interview was David Knerr, Manager Flight Dispatch Automation, UAL WHO.
These references also identify that a ACARS message has been received by its sender, either ground communications or the aircraft. In the final moments, at 10:12 AM EST, of UA FLIGHT 93's flight, ACARS messages were being sent from ground communications but were not being received. This was causing the ACARS messages to be rejected. KNERR advised that FLIGHT 93's low altitude may have caused this dilemma or the fact that FLIGHT 93 had already crashed at the time the messages were sent.