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: 13
70
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

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.


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?

Interesting. You still haven't apologized for claiming I didn't read this thread or the P4T article, while it was me who quoted the same section to gman you quoted back to me. Gman, the person you claim is on your side.

Hilarious.
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 



.....and then you bail?


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.......



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   

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.......


ProudBird and snowcrash's safe landing on ACARS.





posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


HILARIOUS image.

Thanks for the



Always welcomed......



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


So that's your official document proving your claim?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by bubs49
 


So that's your official document proving your claim?


snowcrash safely landing on his feet after the ACARS thread. More evidence:





posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by huh2142
 





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.


Ha!

Here's a reminder of the two of the contentious issues brought to our attention by Pilotsfor911Truth and which has been responed to by childish troll posts.




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


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


Got it?



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer


I'll repeat this for your benefit.


Thank you.


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?



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.


Wait just a minute here... Where did Winters literally say his message was received 7 minutes after the alleged crash?

Did Winters say "alleged crash"? Wow! Amazing!

Quote him for me Inspector TPE. Quote him saying literally what you said. We're truly blessed to have young whipper snappers like yourself on the case.


Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Got it?


No.


Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Buh bye.


Stay gone.
edit on 9-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
An answer to a pages ago, post from ThePostExaminer :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


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.


Yes, that's right. But that printer changes to another printer in another station, the more flight time, and distance gained, goes by.
And those printers that same dispatcher can not see their paper print-outs anymore.
He only can see and hear his own printer, at wheels off time.


In regular flights the ACARS onboard the plane is sending (downlinking) it's position report at the moment of wheels off from the runway, and then every 10 minutes as stated, the ARINC system tracks this and based on this positional info, can thus continually route the routinely uplinked text information from the dispatcher, to the correct ground station, that then uplinks it to the plane.


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.


At the moment of wheels off, he is receiving that MVT message, that is sent to the same station as the dispatcher's teletype machine stands in.
That's why he heard "his" teletype clack out its MVT message.
But the further the plane disappears in the distance, there comes a moment that all its positional data sent every 10 minutes as teletype messages are not sent anymore to this dispatchers own station, but to the next one within reach of that plane, already flying 10 minutes further away from him. And every next 10 minutes it flies much further away from his home station. Thus his teletype will not clack anymore when positional data is received. That happens in a further away ground station. Do you understand now how you mix up understandable procedures again, as you did already before with Flight 77?

The problem PfT seems to have is that they do not understand that the usual, automated 10 minutes inter spaced, position report that is always downlinked from the plane to the ground stations in its 200 NM reach, and send by the plane's avionics systems (not the pilots), is NOT send to the dispatcher, but to ARINC, which computes and then decides the nearest station that received the plane's automated position messages send by its avionics.

That information did not appear on the dispatchers screen, nor on his teletype printout paper roll. On top of that was the fact that the plane (UAL93) already flew too low to give the radars any chance in that mountainous region, to continuously follow its flight track. It flew already between the high ridges in that landscape.

But that positional data is however used by the ARINC computers, to decide to which ground station nearest to the plane at the moment of sending any next new text messages by the dispatcher, it will send it to.

ARINC will keep calculating the probable next position of the plane in the following 10 minutes after it went down, since that event was not anticipated by the dispatchers following the plane, and thus not implemented yet in ARINC's systems.

Only when ARINC after 10 minutes does not get its routinely received next positional data from the automated avionics system onboard an already crashed plane, it will communicate with its ARINC operators and users, that the plane has problems or has crashed during the preceding 10 minutes, since it is not sending its next 10 minutes positional data anymore.

SO, only within the period of the next 10 minutes after its last not received positional data from the plane, will the ARINC computer decide that the plane does not send positional data again, and thus may have been crashed.
So, only in those last ten minutes you still see on the dispatchers teletype message copies, that the dispatchers were sending their messages to the ARINC computed possible nearest ground stations, which kept trying to uplink them to the already crashed plane, so, to a then, ghost plane.

Example given :
10:00 a.m. Arinc receives pos.data.
10:08 a.m. Plane crashed.
10:10 a.m. No positional data from avionics.
10:20 a.m. No positional data from avionics.

Thus, the dispatcher was still sending text messages to the next ground station decided by ARINC, and saved in that groundstation's teletype print outs, from 10:08 untill 10:20 a.m., with time stamps at the bottom that implicated that the messages were uplinked in the direction of the plane.
But these timestamps do not implicate that they were received.
Only after 10:20 a.m. were these messages not timestamped anymore, since ARINC's computers then knew that the plane had disappeared from their system.
From that moment on, all eventual dispatcher messages were bounced back, with that ****text**** last line (***UA93 EWRSFO*** ).
Only then knew the dispatcher from the ARINC system, that something was wrong with that plane.

Only the military main radars station operators were able to anticipate much earlier an eventual crash, based on the fast descending flight track, and communicated that with the FAA operators, who asked that small airfield's tower operators (with no radar at hand) to look around with their binoculars. And asked that small business jet to go and have a look at the last calculated coordinates. And they reported a smoke column, and then the FAA reported an eventual crash. Which became certain after other, corroborating witness reports.

The problem I still have with flight UAL93 is that these tower operators reported back that they did not see any airplane in their 20 miles diameter visual in a 360° circle around them, in that sunny, blue sky clear sky, while that UAL93 flight path must have been easily visible for them, if we may believe the recovered FDR. That FDR reported the plane its height as much higher than Viola Saylor and her sister, and several others in the same village, saw it thundering on tree top level above their heads, while the FDR places it at that point at about 4000 feet high.

And I posted a New York Times map printed in their 9/12 edition, where we can find several witness positions under flight UAL93 its flight path, with indicated visual heights of 500 feet or less, already 10 miles before impact. Which does not correlate at all with the heights at those points, reported from that recovered FDR.....

This is my first post #17 regarding the above, in the same thread that is linked to 2 pages before here by PfT defenders :
pilotsfor911truth.org...
In it is a link to a 7 page ATS thread regarding the height anomalies between the FDR and the witnesses from UAL93.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
These remarks belong to my last sentences above :

- 10:07 AM : Sixteen (16) miles south of Johnstown they said they lost radar contact with UAL93 and it was heading turning one four zero heading.

That's a quote from my post at PfT.
It would be possible to calculate the minimum height the radar beam from Johnstown could catch UAL93 above the mountain ridges in the terrain south of them.
Because we have multiple witnesses who saw that plane fly MUCH lower than the FDR heights offer in those witness positions.
NOTE: this is just a side step, regarding the anomalies that can be found in UAL93's flight path.
======================================================


I would like to hear first the answers PfT defenders can come up with, to my above long post.
The 500 miles further position of the plane, the PfT defenders come up with, are i.m.o. standard miles, not nautical miles, which are not the NM distances given by ProudBird for a plane at altitude, reaching ARINC ground stations. I believe he said in a 200 NM radius.
Calculate the distance covered by a plane flying at these FDR speeds, in 10 minutes, and then another 10 minutes, that will fit into that 2 x 200 NM radius easily. (2 x 400 NM diameter coverage)
edit on 10/12/11 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

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.


To which Master Snowcrash responds...



Wait just a minute here... Where did Winters literally say his message was received 7 minutes after the alleged crash?


Yaawwwwwwnnn....and i mean a jaw cracking, eyewatering, cramp in the jugular yawn, Snowcrash. 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.

Now Lab "Charles Dickens" Top enters the fray...nighty night children.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   

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.


You are correct. This happened to me just the other day. I sent a text to my brother asking if he needed anything as I was planning on stopping by for dinner at his place a few hours later. No answer.

I got to his place and asked if he received my text. Just then, his phone beeped and he told me he did now.

It's the same with e-mail sometimes. I've sent messages that took some time to arrive, while other times, it's pretty damn near instant.

The technology is good, but it isn't perfect.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Americantrucker
 


While this is interesting, the concept of cellphones have nothing at all to do with ACARS.

Sorry.


The concept (that fails here) is.....the teletype messages, and those time-stamps.

Period.


edit on Sat 10 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   

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?


Wrong poster. That was bubs. He gave you a link.

"devoid of any factual or argumentative content"

I am going to borrow that phrase ok? I will have to use it in response to some of your posts I am sure.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 


Your personality always glimpse through, ain't it.

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).
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.

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.
Only after ""all of the messages #20 to #24 were rejected, indicating the aircraft did not receive them.""

Your reading comprehension problems are based in that last line of those Winter Messages UA93 saved at your website.

The only way for a dispatcher to know via his ACARS and AIRINC systems, that a plane is lost for his systems (i.o.w., did not receive his text messages), is when the plane is rejecting his text messages.
That's the only indication for him to be sure that the plane did not receive any messages anymore.
After the first rejection.
Shown to him by that last text line on his teletype print out : ***text*** .

You like to try to impress us with all kind of techno babble, but the crux of the matter always lays in the straight English text lines, not in all your abbreviations.

And this is a straight out lie :
""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 Winters 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).

Thank you btw for that new try to smear my analysis. You are entering an upward spiral, from "clown", to "troll" to "Charles Dickens". There is some positive progression in your ridicule system.

edit on 11/12/11 by LaBTop because: Changed ARINC to AIRINC.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
 




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.


It's your own Source text which gives away your illogical, immature and non-factual responses regarding its plain English text.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

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).

No. That's not what "Ballinger clearly means", that's only your personal interpretation, which of course I respect, but which I can prove as completely wrong. The statement is very clear and does not leave room to your interpretation. Ballinger is referring to the ACARS logs he stored himself at his own desk:

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.)

MFR 04020009, p. 2
Please read carefully the part in bold: "logs of his ACARS logs".
Therefore it is now absolutely unquestionable that Ballinger refers to his own ACARS logs when he mentions "time sent and time received":

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.

MFR 04020009, p. 6
Your speculation is completely disproved by the text of the linked document.


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.

Wrong. As my previous quote from MFR 04020009 definitely proves, Ballinger is referring to his own ACARS logs at his own dispatcher's desk, not to some ground stations printing his uplinks as you clearly speculate. Note that Ballinger is physically delivering such logs to the Commission, so there is no question about this point. The time received is not "the time that the teletype machine in the by AIRINC chosen ground station will print", as you claim without any reference to the linked document. Ballinger clearly states that once he sends a message, the same is delivered to the addressed aircraft through ARINC within instants: "He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it" means that Ballinger is pretty confident that ARINC routes and delivers his uplinks within seconds. Please stick to the text in the future. Sorry, but the text of the official document does not support your theory at all.

edit on 11-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

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.

This is another example of how you twist simple and straightforward statements to fit them into your theory. First of all, your assumption that a dispatcher has no way to know whether his message was received or not by the aircraft without being physically inside the cockpit is completely absurd.

As explained repeatedly, each and every message uplinked or downlinked is always acknowledged by a dedicated, empty "technical ack". The technical ack is not the crew's acknowledgement, which is a real text message sent by the cockpit. These ack messages are automatic confirmations of receipt sent by the onboard ACARS MU to the CPS without any manual intervention. Their only function is providing confirmation to the ground station that an uplink was actually received by the targeted aircraft, therefore usually they are not reported to the airline, only to ARINC. But wait: this does not mean that a dispatcher does not know whether his uplink was received or not! If the originator does not receive a failure message, this means that his uplink was positively acked. Instead, whenever an uplink is not acked by the aircraft in three minutes, the CPS make two more attempts. When the third attempt is not acked, a failure is reported back to the originator. This is what the dispatcher receives at his printer whenever an uplink is rejected, i.e. was not acknowledged by the aircraft:

CHIAO CHI68R
.CHIAOUA 111420/ROB
CMD
AN N591UA/GL DEC
- QUCHIAOUA 2
DDLXCXA
***UA93 EWRSFO***t


Please note that the above ACARS log comes from Ballinger's desk as all the other logs publicly available through FOIA. This uplink was sent to United 93 at 10:20 EDT, but, as confirmed by Winter and also by Knerr, was not received. This proves you are wrong as to dispatchers don't know whether their uplinks are received or not by the targeted aircraft. The following is another example that you are wrong:

DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM
.SFOLMUA 111259/JER
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL
IS NORMAL....THX 777SAM
SFOLM JERRY TSEN

;09111259 108575 0543


We know from the Commission's MFR 04017215 that this message sent by Jerry Tsen was received by United 175:

1259:19Z 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 whenever an uplink fails to reach the aircraft after three attempts, a failure is reported to them. The fact that they received no failure report, means that the aircraft received that message. Period.

edit on 11-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

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).

First of all, the name of the Manager Flight Dispatcher who gave his interview to the FBI is Michael J Winter, not "Winters". Second, how on earth can Mr. Winter ever be sure that a message was received? Simple. Because in the event a message is not received, the originator gets a failure message (see example above from ACARS sent to United 93 and not received by the aircraft). Instead, whenever the originator receives logs such the following, the indication is that the aircraft received the uplink:

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111351/ED
AGM
AN N591UA/GL FWA
- UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
LAND ASP AT NEAREST --NEAREST AIRPORT.ASP .ASP ON GROND.ANYWERE.

CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111351 108575 0669


DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111351/ED
AGM
AN N591UA/GL FWA
- UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
LAND ASP AT NEAREST --NEAREST AIRPORT.ASP .ASP ON GROND.ANYWERE.
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111351 108575 0676


DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED EALLINGER

;09111410 108575 0706


DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111411 108575 0707



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.

FBI302, p. 55-57

Seriously: I wonder how on earth you can assert that a Manager Flight Dispatcher with years of experience like Winter does not know whether an uplink is received or not and speculate that the above messages were not received based on your sole speculation, which is not backed by one single document, one single statement, one single piece of evidence. Winter's statement is absolutely clear: the above messages were routed through FWA and CMI and were received by the aircraft. Messages #20-#24 were not received. Finally this is confirmed by David Knerr:


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.

Note how Knerr corroborates Winter: only messages sent "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 is a clear confirmation that all previous messages were received.

All you provided so far is pure speculation which is clearly disproved and contradicted by the official documents.

edit on 11-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
70
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join