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: 14
70
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


Ballinger could not see in real time, the by AIRINC saved messages from him, as gman1972 already explained earlier on in this thread. He had to LATER delve into the systems other stations logs, after the events happened, when he had time to cover his back.

He had his wife and his lawyer with him at the interview...He did not want to end up as the scape goat. Clever man.
And he carried to the interview his logs from his own printer, but most of the rest were from other printers in other RGStations, clearly not situated in his own office, which he delved up directly after the incidents by using his access privilege for the ACARS and AIRINC systems, when he realized that he could very well end up as the national 9/11 scapegoat. That way he could prove that his messages were sent by those stations teletype system. That he made no mistakes.

There are three points in his interview where you clearly recognize a very cautious man, who first gives the broad answer, then, after being pushed by his interrogators, starts to remember more...Read it all, again, with another, broader mind set :

SOURCE : 9/11 Commission PDF about the Ballinger interview :

---more---




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
This is the full text that you quoted only the first part out from that 10 page PDF interview:


In addition, 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. Furthermore, he wanted to make absolutely sure the flight crews got the message so he sent both a digital (with a bell) and a text message which automatically printed.
[NOTE: TEAM 7 WILL RECEIVE BRIEFING BY AIRINC ON THE TIMING ISSUES INVOLVED FROM COMPOSITION OF THE MESSAGE BY THE DISPATCHER, TO TRANSMITTAL TO AIRINC, TO TRANSMITTAL FROM AIRINC TO THE AIRCRAFT, TO THE AIRCRAFT'S RECEIPT OF THE MESSAGE.]


These last lines after "Furthermore" and the capitalized text lines, you did not include in your quotes, while this last line indicates how AIRINC will have answered the timing issues, and thus also the certainty of receipt issue by the aircraft.

To make it undoubtedly clear, I'll repeat this line by him :
"" Furthermore, he wanted to make absolutely sure the flight crews got the message so he sent both a digital (with a bell) and a text message which automatically printed.. ""

Tell me, why would he have to be so absolutely sure that the flight crew got the message, when YOU are so sure that Ballinger got directly a confirmation back from the plane's avionics and/or the pilots, every time he sent a text message to that plane?
Got you with your own words......

This next 9/11 Commission PDF's text is another confirmation that the dispatchers do not have other means than the ***text*** line at the bottom of rejected (bounced) ACARS messages, to be sure that the airplane indeed does not receive their ACARS messages :


[U] At 9:26 a.m. Ballinger received a response to his 9:23 a.m. ACARS message to Flight 93 (which was transmitted by AIRINC at 9:24 a.m.): "Ed Confirm latest mssg plz Jason." (Note: Mr. Ballinger read the message to the staff and didn't mention the word "please". His wife said that in the aftermath of the event they had discussed whether the message was a confirmation from Dahl or a request for a confirmation from Ed). In response to whether he would have seen the message, Mr. Ballinger stated that "it flies across my screen" but that he would have seen it. Once again, this message from UA 93 is likely from Jason Dahl. The fact that it is addressed to Ed (recall that Dahl knew Ballinger) is strong circumstantial evidence that Dahl was still in the pilot's seat at this point.

[U] Ballinger was not made aware of the 9:28 a.m. communication from Flight 93 overheard by air traffic controllers: "get out of here."


The following excerpts from the PDF show that Ballinger had no means of knowing that the airplane (UAL93) indeed had received his ACARS messages, otherwise he would have worded his next ACARS differently :


[U] At 9:36 a.m Ballinger was aware of the following ACARS transmission from fellow dispatcher xxxxx to Flight 93: "Hows the wx. Can dispatch be of any assistance?" At Ballinger's initiative, he had begun to split his workload with xxxxx at some point prior to this.

[U]At that point, Ballinger's ACARS message was again changed with the addition of "UAL 175-93 - missing" at the end. This communication went out at 9:36 a.m. to Flights 8155 and 83; at 9:37 a.m. to Flights 283, 163, and 81; and at 9:41 a.m. to Flight 93.
Finally, at 9:41 a.m. Ballinger sent the previous message to Flight 93 again with the addition at the end of "UAL 175/93 found."


Flight Tracking :


[U] Ballinger stated that it is not the dispatcher's job to monitor tracking of the flight path. The flight path information he has is not actual radar data but is a system that anticipates where the plane would be given its flight plan etc. It's the job of FAA Air Traffic Control to keep track of the flight path, and if it isn't going where it's supposed to then ATC notifies the air carrier's corporate office.
He noted that the receipt of some information made by xxxxx, query Flight 93 at 9:03 and it was probably a call from ATC saying that we're having a problem.


Recommendation :


[U] Mr. Ballinger's primary recommendation is that the government should fully enforce the existing FAR 121 rule giving dispatchers priority in receiving information relevant to the flights they are handling.


That's a cry for help towards the ATC's (Air Traffic Controllers) about giving the dispatchers relevant information. Such info like lost transponder signals, deviation from flight plans, disappearance from radar screens, etc.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


It's time you get used to the difference between real-time events and their appearances on the dispatcher's screens, and after-the-fact-logs, delved up from the systems, by the same dispatcher.

At the time of the event, he can not look at the teletype messages printed out on far away from his office, receiving ground stations (RGS).
He has to go search the logs of these systems, to find all relevant information about his routed messages.

Of course he had no time to do that while planes are crashing into towers, the Pentagon and the ground.
Only when all is quiet again, and all planes are grounded at last all over America, he realized he can get all the blame, so he starts covering his behind, which was a good thing to do.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
This is a quote from Cheap Shot, a member of PfT in 2009, it describes how radar operators see their targets tracked and identified on their screens :


QUOTE (Cheap Shot @ May 4 2009, 10:59 PM) *
It takes a couple of minutes for a track to switch to a coast track, it will free track for a little bit then switch to coast, very recognizable though when it does. When the digitized target symbol is the coast track it will show a # sign, when in free track a triangle will appear over the target symbol, free tracks occur when the aircraft is outside of its flightplan limitations. When it is flat tracked it will show a diamond shape over the target.

The TSD is only updated when the aircraft is generating a flat track. In a free track the flightplan will normally continue on its last known heading and speed. Someone looking at a TSD would not know without slewing over the TSD track and clicking for additional information whether the track is flat or free. Watching the TSD someone could assume that the aircraft is still flying its track.

Someone watching the actual radar display would first see a free track with no target, loss of altitude information, and eventually the track would turn into a coast track, and just float until the edge of the scope.


This was posted to answer questions regarding shutting off transponders.
And that's why Ballinger beseeches the 9/11 Commission to let ATC's much earlier in any aviation panic, establish an open contact line with the dispatchers, and share their real time info with them.
The info these air traffic controllers read, when they are slewing over the TSD track and clicking for additional information whether the track is flat or free. Watching the TSD someone could assume that the aircraft is still flying its planned track.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by bubs49
 


Ballinger could not see in real time, the by AIRINC saved messages from him, as gman1972 already explained earlier on in this thread. He had to LATER delve into the systems other stations logs, after the events happened, when he had time to cover his back.

He had his wife and his lawyer with him at the interview...He did not want to end up as the scape goat. Clever man.
And he carried to the interview his logs from his own printer, but most of the rest were from other printers in other RGStations, clearly not situated in his own office, which he delved up directly after the incidents by using his access privilege for the ACARS and AIRINC systems, when he realized that he could very well end up as the national 9/11 scapegoat. That way he could prove that his messages were sent by those stations teletype system. That he made no mistakes


So your assumption is that, from his desk, Ballinger could only see his own messages (i.e. only the messages sent by him personally?). With all means of respect, I wonder if you are serious or you are trying to make fun of me without bothering to read the literature. Once more time, my reply will come from the same official document:


When Mr. Ballinger came in he saw an ACARS message sent by [Jerry Tsen] of UA Maintenance to UA 175 saying something to the eftect that "heard of incident aboard" at 8:59 a.m."

MFR04020009, p. 3

Of course Ballinger could also see messages routed from other dispatchers. Also, what are you trying to insinuate with:


Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by bubs49
 


And he carried to the interview his logs from his own printer, but most of the rest were from other printers in other RGStations, clearly not situated in his own office, which he delved up directly after the incidents by using his access privilege for the ACARS and AIRINC systems


Again: are you serious? Are you telling me that Ballinger made a round trip in MDT, PIT and all the other transmitting remote ground stations just to collect logs he had on his side at his own printer? And for what? Do you seriously believe what you're claiming?


Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by bubs49
 


To make it undoubtedly clear, I'll repeat this line by him :
"" Furthermore, he wanted to make absolutely sure the flight crews got the message so he sent both a digital (with a bell) and a text message which automatically printed.. ""

Tell me, why would he have to be so absolutely sure that the flight crew got the message, when YOU are so sure that Ballinger got directly a confirmation back from the plane's avionics and/or the pilots, every time he sent a text message to that plane?

Of course because some messages are considered high priority and the dispatcher wants to make sure the cockpit is aware of their receipt! Once an uplink is sent, the CPS system delivers that message to the aircraft as usual, no matter with or without an audible signal. But for whatever reason, the cockpit may sometimes not pay too much attention to an incoming uplink and ending up ignoring it or acknowledging it too late. This is why a dispatcher decides to activate an audible sound in the cockpit: obviously he wants to catch the crew's attention and since this happened on the morning 9/11, there is no need to explain why Ballinger considered his uplinks high priority and wanted to make sure they were read and later acknowledged by the crew with an appropriate downlink.


U] Mr. Ballinger shared with Commission staff the various ways that he as a dispatcher can contact an aircraft under his authority, including:
1. Sending an ACARS (aircraft communication and response system): this is an email message that can be sent one of two ways: either as a bell that chimes to let the flight deck know they have an electronic message on the screen or as a hard message that automatically prints at a console in between the pilot and first officer's seats.

MFR04020009, p. 3

Again, the answer to your absurd speculations comes from the document you should have read before quoting. A "bell that chimes" or "hard message that automatically prints at a console" are only an audible and/or visual option respectively. Of course a message is delivered to the aircraft, either with one or the other option activated at discretion of the dispatcher.

LaBTop, I am tired of wasting time with your speculations. Don't expect further replies.
All the best.
edit on 11-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (minor changes)

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



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


Ok, I am getting a bit lost in all this. So are you saying this ACARS message in question actually printed on board the plane, and that is what the second time stamp is indicating, the time of printing on board the plane? Or...what? Just wanting some clarification...



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


The "point", TA is....there is absolutly no, zero, nada, zilch merit in this claim of United 175 having "received" an ACARS message after it had already hit the WTC Tower.

What is shown is the fact that an ACARS message was sent, after the jet had crashed, and that the time of the message was printed on the bottom of the teletype.

THAT is it, in a nutshell.

Please review all of the other "P4T" failed so-called "bombshells" that have been issued by them, as well, in order to get a complete picture of the utter lack of credibility they possess on these issues.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Please review all of the other "P4T" failed so-called "bombshells" that have been issued by them, as well, in order to get a complete picture of the utter lack of credibility they possess on these issues.


He's attempting to pull the same tactic he used with the earlier UA 93 Radar Record from Herndon. He's taking statements out of context by not revealing the whole story and putting his spin on it to deceive the gullible into believing he's found something significant.

It's easy to determine Ballsucker is lying by watching either his lips move or seeing something he's typed...



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Maybe. But considering also the other key points P4T is raising along with it, it is still interesting to explore the what ifs. And I'm not so sure you have adequately argued counterpoints enough to my satisfaction. I am still on the fence as to what exactly that time indicated, considering the ACARS customization UA was using at the time. In fact, that very customization of having the time those messages were received on the bottom of the printouts helps the truther's case more than it does yours, imo.

I have no doubt that if a bombshell is ever discovered, it will be from a group like P4T. Is why it is important we evaluate things on a case by case basis. If the past is clean the way the official story would have us believe, then P4T won't hurt a thing by digging a little. Or digging a lot. I remain very interested in anything P4T brings to the table.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I can only tip the hat, then....to a futile endeavor.


But considering also the other key points P4T is raising along with it, it is still interesting to explore the what ifs.


I can tell you square-on, from a perspective of actually having some knowledge (rubbing my lapels).....



And I'm not so sure you have adequately argued counterpoints enough to my satisfaction. I am still on the fence as to what exactly that time indicated, considering the ACARS customization UA was using at the time.


The facts are clear, the distractions presented by the "P4T" are evident.



In fact, that very customization of having the time those messages were received on the bottom of the printouts helps the truther's case more than it does yours, imo.


Those time-stamps are merely the time of the print-out when it is delivered to the teletype. Period.


I have no doubt that if a bombshell is ever discovered, it will be from a group like P4T.


Sorry but.....this is
'able.





edit on Sun 11 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Awesome post by pilot Rob Balsamo on the matter...



I tried a little experiment just for fun...

I just asked my 10 year old nephew to read this statement and tell me what he thinks it means....

"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. "


He replied that it means a message is sent to... and received by the airplane. I asked him, "How do you know it was received"? He replied, "Cause it says it right there"... and pointed to the words "time received".

I asked, "Does that statement mean a message was received by a printer in some office?" , he laughed, "What? No... it says airplane".

I corrected him, "Well, technically it says, aircraft.. .but ok".

I asked, "Does that statement 'time received' mean it is the time received by ARINC?", he replied, "No, the message goes THROUGH ARINC, but is received by the airplane..."

I thanked him, he went back to playing Red Dead Redemption.

The above statement made by Ballinger references "the aircraft" as the noun with an action word of "received". Ballinger does not reference a "printer" as the noun affected by the verb, he doesn't reference ARINC as the noun affected by the verb "received", he references "the aircraft".

He does reference ARINC as the message going "through", not "received". The word "aircraft" is the noun referred to by the verb "receive" throughout the entire above statement.

If anyone is still confused by basic English comprehension, please ask a friendly ten year old to interpret the statement for you.

And again, when the FOIA documents refer to a printer, they are referring to this type of printer. (just a quick search I did)

(IMG:i78.photobucket.com...)

This is perhaps why gman1972 is confused by the word "printer", thinking it is the printer in his office, but in reality it is the printer on the flight deck.

Dispatcher's couldn't care less when a document is printed in their office. They want to know when it was printed on the airplane. As referenced multiple times in the FBI interviews linked above.

Hope this helps.

pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by WetBlanky
 





awesome post by pilot Rob Balsamo on the matter...


"Nuff said, right there....

LOL, LOL, LOL....



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Originally posted by WetBlanky

Awesome post by pilot Rob Balsamo on the matter...
---snip---
This is perhaps why gman1972 is confused by the word "printer", thinking it is the printer in his office, but in reality it is the printer on the flight deck.

Dispatcher's couldn't care less when a document is printed in their office. They want to know when it was printed on the airplane. As referenced multiple times in the FBI interviews linked above.

Hope this helps.


No, it did not help you at all.
Because the dispatchers wanted to know when it was printed on the airplane, but they could not know that from their position on the ground. And since the hijackers did not answer any voice communication alerts, they had no means at all to be sure that the plane was still in the air or that their messages were received and read, by anyone in that plane. Because that timestamped message he got back from AIRINC only indicated that AIRINC had tried to sent it up to the calculated position of that plane, not that the plane had received it, let it be, printed it out.


I asked my grandfather who's 105 years old, and he said he feels sorry for that nephew, and to tell Mr Balsamo's nephew to not follow the lead of such a despotic uncle who withholds important information from little boys, tear his little hands loose and use his own computer to read through the last posts at ATS in this thread, and then ask his uncle why he did not let him read this snippet of text by the same man, chief dispatcher Ed Ballinger :


To make it undoubtedly clear, I'll repeat this line by Ed Ballinger :
"" Furthermore, he wanted to make absolutely sure the flight crews got the message so he sent both a digital (with a bell) and a text message which automatically printed. ""

Tell me, why would he have to be so absolutely sure that the flight crew got the message, when YOU are so sure that Ballinger got directly a confirmation back from the plane's avionics and/or the pilots, every time he sent a text message to that plane?
Got you with your own words......


Those words from Ballinger himself, implement without a shimmer of a doubt, that the 9/11 dispatcher did not have any means of knowing for sure if the pilots did receive and read his text messages sent to them through the AIRINC systems, in a hijack situation, with unknown hijackers as pilots who do not react on voice communication. BEFORE he got an AIRINC message back with the bottom line : ***text***. Then he knew it was not received in the plane.

He even does not know for sure if the plane is still in the air, since the FAA their AirTrafficControllers did not habitually share their own, faster and newer information with them, until he gets a bounced-back text message back from the AIRINC systems, with that last line, without time stamp : ***text***.
That happened after one of the last automated 10 minutes positional data messages was NOT sent back by the plane's avionics automated systems. Which then triggers that last line response from AIRINC for all following text messages trying to be sent up to a non existing plane.

Because the plane with that system in it went already minutes earlier down into the ground, or that system was shut off (unlikely), or was jammed by a C-130 with secret electronic jamming capabilities (the same C-130 at the Pentagon flew within 20 miles from the UAL93 crash site at the time of the crash, (unlikely or difficult to prove)), or was f.ex. melted by acid by the 9/11 planners (unlikely).
Only then at last, knows Ed Ballinger for sure that that plane did not receive his last text messages with that last line ***text*** printed in them, sent back to him by the AIRINC ground station that tried to up-link those last text message to that already downed plane.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by bubs49
 


Ok, I am getting a bit lost in all this. So are you saying this ACARS message in question actually printed on board the plane, and that is what the second time stamp is indicating, the time of printing on board the plane? Or...what? Just wanting some clarification...


If we believe to Ed Ballinger, the UAL dispatcher who sent most of ACARS to United 175, United 93 and several other UAL flights under his control on the morning of 9/11, there is no doubt about what the second timestamp in an ACARS log refers to. As quoted many times here during this thread, according to him ACARS have two timestamps: the first indicates the time sent, the latter the time received by the aircraft. Ballinger's statement, as reported by the Commission, is absolutely clear.

Some posters, here and in other forums, argue that the second timestamp actually refers to the time the message is printed at the dispatcher's office (what makes no sense, if you consider that in some cases you notice a 1-2 minutes difference between both timestamps, what can hardly be explained as the time it took for the printer to print the message), others state that the second timestamp indicates the time when the message is routed through/printed at ARINC and not when it actually reaches the aircraft. While the meaning of Ballinger's statement is definitely clear, those who question it have brought so far no documents or any other kind of evidence to support their claims.

Ballinger also declared to the Commission that ACARS may be sent to the aircraft activating an audible signal in the cockpit or directly to the cockpit's printer, at discretion of the dispatcher. This is confirmed by Michael J Winter, Manager Flight Dispatch at UAL (see FBI302 linked above), when interviewed by the FBI about ACARS to/from United 93. Winter said that "Both messages [Messages #18 and #19] were sent to the printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal in the aircraft."

Hope this helps.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Winter said that "Both messages [Messages #18 and #19] were sent to the printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal in the aircraft."


I see, we have to do with still learning, simple minds, so let's ask simple questions :
Was Mr Winter inside the plane?
I'll make that easy for you, I know it is not easy for 10 year olds: the answer is: No.
So how did Mr Winter know that the printer in the plane spitted out three text messages, and rang a bell in the cockpit when the last one arrived?
He did not know at all if they ever arrived in that cockpit, because he was not in that cockpit.
Mr Winters even found out not so long after, that the plane had crashed. He found that out when he got a print out with a last printed line, "" ***text*** "", in it.

Ohh, Gosh, thought Mr Winter, all that type-work done for nothing. That plane had already crashed when all these messages were typed out.

Now, hope that helped a tad bit. Time to go to bed now, little guy. And a big hug from uncle LT.
When you grow up, I hope you will learn to separate the fairy tales from the real full truth of that ugly day.
And I hope for you, that it will not be too late for change, so you can live happily ever after.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
If there was no truth to the OP then why did it take 10 years to get this information out under the FOIA?
My opinion is the said planes were never used it is possible that the military used their own planes since more and more of the evidence points to a false flag attack.

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



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


Thanks.

I think this pic pretty much answers the question of where the printer is located (and readers, be sure to use the scroll bar under the pic...):



The printer like that on UA 175 was supposed to have been blown into a billion pieces in the WTC. But instead it apparently printed an ACARS message. And combined with the relay locations, 175 was really somewhere else.

To believe or not believe, that is the question. The arguments have been laid forth, the egos are clashing, the attitudes are diverse, and the insults continue. SOS.
edit on Mon Dec 12th 2011 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

Winter said that "Both messages [Messages #18 and #19] were sent to the printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal in the aircraft."


I see, we have to do with still learning, simple minds, so let's ask simple questions :
Was Mr Winter inside the plane?
I'll make that easy for you, I know it is not easy for 10 year olds: the answer is: No.
So how did Mr Winter know that the printer in the plane spitted out three text messages, and rang a bell in the cockpit when the last one arrived?
He did not know at all if they ever arrived in that cockpit, because he was not in that cockpit.




Jesus Christ man, read Bubs' post! You're too busy typing your short stories and not paying attention to a well documented, self explanatory and I have to say really patient and civil poster. Grow up.

And Proudbird? Rub away at your "lapels", you've disproved nothing here. Not even close.

Your "arguments" are undocumented speculation. You were happy to highhorse it here not so long ago and then throw your "educated guess" in the crapper based on a dispatch clerk's "opinion" who allegedly works with ACARS messages that have nothing to do with United Airlines and is working a system 10 years more advanced than that of 9/11. Totally irrelevant.

Ballinger refers to only TWO timestamps. Time sent. And time received by the aircraft



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.


A ten year old would get this...



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

A ten year old would get this...


Like someone's nephew, perhaps..

edit on 12-12-2011 by trebor451 because: typo



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


That's a Boeing 747 center console (see, four thrust levers? And, the four engine Fuel Control and "Run" / "Cutoff" switches, below the thrust levers?).

But essentially that is where the printers are, as well on the 767 and 757. Ours are oriented differently, and use a different size paper than shown there.

But:


The printer like that on UA 175 was supposed to have been blown into a billion pieces in the WTC. But instead it apparently printed an ACARS message.


NO, it did NOT. Only think that printed after the crash of UAL 175 was the teletype in United Dispatch.



And combined with the relay locations, 175 was really somewhere else.


NO, this is the feeble claim by someone who blog posted as "Woody Box", and now (some years later I might add) has been picked up by the "P4T" in order to drum up attention, and "donations:.

The ARINC system attempted to send the message from Dispatch, and used the algorithm to ascertain where the flight would have been along its normal original Flight Plan routing.

Period.

Full stop.
edit on Mon 12 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join