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: 15
70
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


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.


ProudBird, with all means of respect. It's time you to stop squawking misinformation only based on your bias and your desire to defame other people whose only crime is supporting theories different than yours.

There is no dispatcher, no ACARS engineer, no ARINC professional, no ARINC or Boeing official document, no pilot that will ever confirm your claim. ACARS are not sent based on the flight plan. Period. Please resign to this fact. Even gman, even LaBTop (if you bothered to read their posts) clearly stated that uplinks are sent based on the aircraft's positional data, i.e. based on the media advisory messages that the aircraft itself constantly sends to the closest remote ground station. This is why the CPS always chooses the best RGS to route an uplink and reach the targeted aircraft. ACARS is no guessing game. Ask any ACARS expert and you'll get the same answer: until an aircraft drops its positional data, there is no way for the CPS or for the airline to know exactly where the aircraft is. If ACARS were sent based on the flight plan, as you claim, most of messages would be lost every day for the simple reason that thousands of aircraft are rerouted daily because of multiple causes, such as weather, traffic, airport congestion etc.

Why don't you start taking a look at the "The Global Link", 7/2002, the newsletter from ARINC, where Category A and Category B Flight Tracking is clearly explained with a language accessible also to the layman?

Category A

For aircraft in flight, the CPS holds the RGS station information as active for only 11 minutes. After that time, the station information is deleted because an en route aircraft will usually have moved on to a different set of stations. When an aircraft uses 10-minute tracker messages, CPS is continuously refreshed with new RGS information and always knows where to deliver an uplink message.


Category B


In a Category B network, aircraft must monitor all the stations available and then select a single station to establish a connection to the ground. During the connection process, the first action of the avionics is to send a Link Test to establish a connection with the RGS. This Link Test has a format that is identical to the Category A tracker message. Once the connection is established, messages to the aircraft are handled by this single RGS. With Category B, the aircraft can only connect to one RGS at a time; therefore, during flight the avionics must change RGS connections and repeat the connection process every few minutes. As a result, while the traditional tracker function is not needed, Link Test messages are still transmitted at frequencies that are at least the same or greater than those used in a Category A network.




posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
If you read the above quotes from ARINC's newsletter, you'll discover that with Category A Flight Tracking "CPS holds the RGS station information as active for only 11 minutes", while with Category B the Flight Tracker must be renewed "every few minutes" because "the aircraft can only connect to one RGS at a time". That said and definitely ascertained, please explain now:

1) How could Jerry Tsen's uplink sent at 8:59 EDT to United 175 possibly be received by the aircraft and routed through the RGS from Harrisburg (MDT) if United 175 was more than 110 nm away from MDT at that time and MDT was never the best RGS during its track from Boston to New York, not even the second best option, whereas at 8:59 was the 13th closer station to United 175?

2) If United 175 actually crashed against the South Tower, as the official version claims and you support, then why did ARINC routed an uplink from Ballinger at 9:23 through the Pittsburgh's RGS (PIT) twenty minutes after the alleged crash in New York if the aircraft officially never entered into the MDT coverage area, let alone the PIT coverage area? Why Pittsburgh? Why not try MDT again? If we believe to ARINC and not to your speculations, after 11 minutes the last RGS is not more active, which means that the CPS will probably try possible alternatives. But in this case, we would expect that the ACARS sent by Ballinger had this format

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

(example of message not received by United 93 at 10:20 EDT, as confirmed by Winter)

and not this

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574


(the real format of the ACARS sent by Ballinger at 9:23 EDT).

All this leads to conclude that United 175 was actually flying over Harrisburg between 8:59 and 9:03 EDT (as confirmed by three different logs publicly available) and actually flying over Pittsburgh at 9:23 EDT. No matter how the ARINC algorithm works (and I proved it does not work the way you claim), after 20 minutes from the alleged crash we should expect a rejected format and not a message with two timestamps, as for every ACARS which is normally received by an aircraft.

I am all ears for your explanation, but please make sure this time to back it with some supporting evidence and not only with your speculations and your bias, as you usually do.


edit on 12-12-2011 by bubs49 because: minor changes

edit on 12-12-2011 by bubs49 because: minor changes)

edit on 12-12-2011 by bubs49 because: minor changes



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


The only misinformation being "squawked" comes from these bogus claims.

The level of "appeals to authority" that are shrouded by the technical gibberish are rather typical tactics.



There is no dispatcher, no ACARS engineer, no ARINC professional, no ARINC or Boeing official document, no pilot that will ever confirm your claim. ACARS are not sent based on the flight plan. Period. Please resign to this fact. Even gman, even LaBTop (if you bothered to read their posts) clearly stated that uplinks are sent based on the aircraft's positional data, i.e. based on the media advisory messages that the aircraft itself constantly sends to the closest remote ground station.


And, that Ladies and Gentlemen show the full force of the deception at work, here.

A compilation of some details of how ACARS works today, intermingled and massaged to fit this "conspiracy" bias, on the flimsiest of "evidence". More verbal diarrhea, in text format.

And, this is a blatant misrepresentation:


If ACARS were sent based on the flight plan, as you claim, most of messages would be lost every day for the simple reason that thousands of aircraft are rerouted daily because of multiple causes, such as weather, traffic, airport congestion etc.


Again, perfectly mistaking my posts, because I cannot each time be PRECISE in every aspect of what is written.....those who know the facts, and understand, are not fooled by these tactics.


Why don't you start taking a look at the "The Global Link", 7/2002, the newsletter from ARINC, where Category A and Category B Flight Tracking is clearly explained with a language accessible also to the layman?


Yeah, more typical BS. I noted there were no specific citations (another well-known tactic), but instead a blanket exhortation to "Read This!", with the oh-so-subtly implied insult.

Yes, seen often, blatant and rampant, from certain sources.

As per the quote below:


ProudBird, with all means of respect. It's time you to stop squawking misinformation only based on your bias and your desire to defame other people whose only crime is supporting theories different than yours.


Those who are claimed (oh, Boo-Hoo, cry us a river why dontcha?) to be "defamed" are thoroughly deserving of derision and scorn, because of the obvious (to those of us who are experienced in the fields we're discussing)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I think somebody's bird got cooked.

You should just try conceding, you would save more face.
edit on 12-12-2011 by WetBlanky because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Let's get a refresher on the REALITY of that day (11 September, 2001) on the ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY!!!

Watch, and learn the facts and REALITY of that day.


Google Video Link


There are specific references to United 175.

EVERY aviation professional can see this video, and comprehend perfectly the REALITY it represents.

Of course, in this much later time frame?? (As I write on 12th December, PST, 2011??)

Many who wish to impugn the REALITY and make up FALSE claims, will continue to be at it.....
edit on Mon 12 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by bubs49
 


Again, perfectly mistaking my posts, because I cannot each time be PRECISE in every aspect of what is written.....those who know the facts, and understand, are not fooled by these tactics.

You cannot be precise each time, but you should be precise at least once in this thread and quote or link your sources to support your claims. What you failed to do so far and, lastly, in your post above.


Originally posted by ProudBird
Yeah, more typical BS. I noted there were no specific citations (another well-known tactic), but instead a blanket exhortation to "Read This!", with the oh-so-subtly implied insult.

No specific citations???
I quoted ARINC. Twice. It's more or less the same as quoting the Bible if we were debating about religion. The topic is ACARS, who else am I supposed to quote if not ARINC? My neighbour? The milkman? Is there any more authoritative source for this issue than ARINC? I also quoted a lot of Commission's documents in my previous posts. Do you know some more official and reliable sources than these?

And what about your sources? Nothing, as usual. No links, no quotes, no documents, no supporting evidence, no expert advices, zero, nothing, nada. Only offence, defamation, insults. Your best source in this thread was gman, who later, with an unprecedented level of honesty, admitted he had no answers to my questions and apparently left the thread.


Originally posted by ProudBird
Those who are claimed (oh, Boo-Hoo, cry us a river why dontcha?) to be "defamed" are thoroughly deserving of derision and scorn, because of the obvious (to those of us who are experienced in the fields we're discussing)

No problem, feel free to insult me too. Apparently this is the only thing you are really able to do to debunk the others' claims.

Stay well
edit on 12-12-2011 by bubs49 because: minor edits



posted on Dec, 12 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


There have been nothing but lies and misconceptions shown, from "your side".

These are the continuing tactics as prominently displayed, for all to witness.

Good luck with the future efforts, of spreading this nonsense. I (and all of us) see that it only gets any "traction" on the Internet.

Fortunately, there are a few people who have the ability to speak to this baloney, and have the opportunity to use a Forum such as ATS where it can be openly discussed, and not beaten down....as happens in certain "other" Forums.......



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
This explanation by Steve Leger, Director, Avionics Test and Evaluation, at ARINC, will explain to those pilots at PfT that still do/will not understand the heart of the ACARS up and downlink matter, like Balsamo, and his defenders, why the dispatcher only can know from his ACARS text messages printed out at different positions and then relayed back to him, with that ***text*** last line in it, that the ARINC system has rejected (and the plane thus not received) his former text messages, send during those 11 minutes. He has no knowledge in the last 11 minutes real time that pilots did receive his ACARS messages, o.o.w. in the last 11 minutes period before he gets that ***text*** message back. Especially in a non-voice responding hijackers situation.
He can only know it went missing or down and thus did not receive his ACARS messages any time earlier than when he gets additional info from the FAA personnel, or radar operators who call him on his official landlines.



6 The Global Link • July 2002
THE USE OF TRACKER MESSAGES IN CATEGORY A ACARS NETWORKS

T E C H N O TA L K

Many customers frequently ask about the purpose of tracker messages: “What are tracker messages?” “How are tracker messages used?” This article provides answers to those questions.
Description and Purpose of Tracker Messages
Tracker messages are VHF ACARS downlinks that are sent automatically at fixed intervals, typically 10 minutes. These messages allow the service provider to dynamically track aircraft during flight. In most cases, the avionics use a Q0-labeled Link Test as a tracker message.
The Link Test message does not contain any useful application text; therefore, it does not result in a delivery message to the airline customer. Some customers prefer a user-defined tracker message with a message label other than Q0. The message may include additional information such as geographic position or altitude within the message text. These user-defined messages certainly would be delivered to the airline host computer.
As mentioned, tracker messages are used for flight following. Each time a downlink message is received from an aircraft, the ARINC ACARS Central Processor System (CPS) is updated with the three best remote ground stations (RGSs) that received the downlink message. When ARINC receives an uplink message from the airline computer, it first consults a table in CPS to determine which stations are most likely in contact with the aircraft. It tries these stations for message delivery. If no downlink activity has been heard from the aircraft in 11 minutes, the CPS system returns the uplink back to the originator as undeliverable.
For aircraft in flight, the CPS holds the RGS station information as active for only 11 minutes. After that time, the station information is deleted because an en route aircraft will usually have moved on to a different set of stations. When an aircraft uses 10-minute tracker messages, CPS is continuously refreshed with new RGS information and always knows where to deliver an uplink message. If an airline sends uplink messages only after they have been specifically requested by a downlink from the aircraft, then tracker messages may not be needed. This is because the preceding downlink request automatically updates the ground network with aircraft location information. An uplink message that was not first requested by the aircraft (by downlink) is referred to as an “unsolicited uplink.” For unsolicited uplinks, CPS knowledge of the best RGSs is essential to successful delivery of the message. In practice, almost all airlines send some unsolicited uplinks and depend on the service provider to know what RGSs are in communication with the aircraft.
Category B Networks
and Tracker Messages
In a Category B network, the traditional tracker message is considered optional because the tracker message function is covered elsewhere in the air/ground protocol. This would lead some to believe that a Category B network operates more efficiently by not using traditional trackers. In a Category B network, aircraft must monitor all the stations available and then select a single station to establish a connection to the ground. During the connection process, the first action of the avionics is to send a Link Test to establish a connection with the RGS. This Link Test has a format that is identical to the Category A tracker message.
Once the connection is established, messages to the aircraft are handled by this single RGS. With Category B, the aircraft can only connect to one RGS at a time; therefore, during flight the avionics must change RGS connections and repeat the connection process every few minutes. As a result, while the traditional tracker function is not needed, Link Test messages are still transmitted at frequencies that are at least the same or greater than those used in a Category A network.
Summary
Tracker messages allow ARINC’s Category A VHF network to track an aircraft during flight and allow us to make the best RGS selections for message delivery. Tracker messages do not decrease the network efficiency and are recommended for customers that send unsolicited uplink messages. Many avionics systems allow an airline to enable tracker messages as a maintenance or configuration item. As always, please contact us if you’d like further information or assistance in enabling tracker messages in your aircraft.

Steve Leger
srl@arinc.com
tel +1 410 266 2169
fax +1 410 266 4499


PS : The next article is also interesting :
TAKEOFF DATA CALCULATION (TODC) OVER ACARS

edit on 13/12/11 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Well, I wanted to say this earlier, since most of this hails from excellent research at the Unexplained Mysteries forum, but... notice this sentence?


"As always, please contact us if you’d like further information or assistance in enabling tracker messages in your aircraft."


Who says tracker messages were enabled in UA 175 at all? That's a key issue I wanted to bring up, but unfortunately I got caught up in some thread denying the tragic death of Mark Bingham, as well as another thread featuring the usual CIT bollox.

edit on 13-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


You say it yourself :



ProudBird :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.

Bubs49 : ProudBird, with all means of respect. It's time you to stop squawking misinformation only based on your bias and your desire to defame other people whose only crime is supporting theories different than yours. There is no dispatcher, no ACARS engineer, no ARINC professional, no ARINC or Boeing official document, no pilot that will ever confirm your claim. ACARS are not sent based on the flight plan. Period. Please resign to this fact. Even gman, even LaBTop (if you bothered to read their posts) clearly stated that uplinks are sent based on the aircraft's positional data, i.e. based on the media advisory messages that the aircraft itself constantly sends to the closest remote ground station. This is why the CPS always chooses the best RGS to route an uplink and reach the targeted aircraft. ACARS is no guessing game. Ask any ACARS expert and you'll get the same answer: until an aircraft drops its positional data, there is no way for the CPS or for the airline to know exactly where the aircraft is. If ACARS were sent based on the flight plan, as you claim, most of messages would be lost every day for the simple reason that thousands of aircraft are rerouted daily because of multiple causes, such as weather, traffic, airport congestion etc.


You really should consult a logopedist. (An expert who learns you how to read)

Those are your OWN words, that bolded by me, text.
Please, Lord, don't let me be misunderstood..... (line from a song)

Only after the next 10 minutes period, in the 11th minute, does the dispatcher, the CPS or the airline know exactly where the plane was AT THAT EXACT MOMENT of sending its LAST positional data.
It will already have flown further in the next seconds/minutes, that's why they need an algorithm to calculate possible positions in the NEXT 10 minutes, to compare it with their list of available ground stations, and use the probable nearest one to the already further advanced plane's position.

And, Bubs49, we all know that those 2 planes (UAL93 and 175) we talk about here, were already HIJACKED and steered far away from their original flight plan. Thus, the CPS was already a long time in "guessing mode". Calculating based on the former 10 minutes periodS, where the plane COULD be in the next 10 minutes.
When the plane crashed in that last 10 minutes period, it was not ABLE to receive any more ACARS messages.
And that's why those last ACARS text messages got REJECTED, 11 minutes LATER.
That's 660 seconds LATER.

All your crap about those other ACARS messages received in other stations further away from the crash site, are ATTEMPTS to connect to that already CRASHED plane. And since the last/next 10 minutes positional data stream was not received YET, they all were neatly timestamped. Which does not AT ALL indicate that they were received in that already totally wrecked plane.

Until those last 10 minutes ticked away its last second, THEN all other NEXT in row ACARS messages were bounced/rejected with NO timestamp and that ***text*** last line on their print-outs.
So, in that preceding LAST 10 minutes/660 seconds period, nearly all ACARS messages were not received too.
You can calculate that if you find those two last 10 minutes timestamps from the positional data stream sent to CPS. Then accept a time for the crash, and you know exactly which last ACARS message ATTEMPTS have failed to reach a not flying plane anymore.

Ask Balsamo's little nephew.....he seems to be the real expert in the family.
I like him more and more.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by bubs49
 


Only after the next 10 minutes period, in the 11th minute, does the dispatcher, the CPS or the airline know exactly where the plane was AT THAT EXACT MOMENT of sending its LAST positional data.
It will already have flown further in the next seconds/minutes, that's why they need an algorithm to calculate possible positions in the NEXT 10 minutes, to compare it with their list of available ground stations, and use the probable nearest one to the already further advanced plane's position.

Sorry LaBTop, but I seriously doubt you fully understand the subject you're attempting to debate about and its implications on the 9/11 story. In order to uplink the messages from the airline to the aircraft, the CPS uses the last positional data sent from the aircraft. At 8:59 EDT United 175 had not crashed yet, so the CPS needed no guessing game, as you speculate. The aircraft's onboard MU was still operative, as proven by the fact it received the message sent by Jerry Tsen (and this is confirmed by the Commission's MFR). This means that at 8:59 United 175 was still sending its media advisory messages (positional data) to the closest ground station as usual, as any other aircraft in the world would. Why on earth should the CPS route the message from Jerry Tsen through MDT (Harrisburgh) and not through any of the numerous RGS around the New Work area at 8:59 then? If MDT had never been the closest RGS during the track from Boston to New York and during the last 11 minutes, not even the second or third option, not at 8:46, not at 8:51, not at 8:53 and definitely not at 8:59 (when it was the 13th closer station), why did the CPS route Jerry Tsen's uplink through MDT then? Why don't we see EWR, LGA, JFK, PHL or any other closer RGS code on that message instead of MDT?
Please take a time to look at the maps provided before repeating your nonsense. There is no technical explanation for that ACARS being routed through MDT unless you admit that the real United 175 was not in the New York area at 8:59 EDT but was actually over the MDT coverage area flying West.


Originally posted by LaBTop

And, Bubs49, we all know that those 2 planes (UAL93 and 175) we talk about here, were already HIJACKED and steered far away from their original flight plan. Thus, the CPS was already a long time in "guessing mode". Calculating based on the former 10 minutes periodS, where the plane COULD be in the next 10 minutes.

That's a joke, LaBTop, isn't it? Tell me, you're not serious, right? You repeated in many posts that the CPS uses the last positional data sent from the aircraft to route an uplink (and this is basically correct). Now you open an exception for United 175 at 8:59 because it was out of its original flight plan, so you're insinuating that the CPS does not use the last positional data, but the static information from the flight plan. Can you see how you are in contradiction? No buddy, unfortunately for you and the theory you insist in supporting against any evidence to the contrary, this is not how ACARS work. As repeated here ad nauseam and as also admitted by gman in his last post here, flights are rerouted daily for hundreds of reasons, yet the CPS is always able to track them. And why? Because, as long as the aircraft is airborne and his onboard MU is operative, the aircraft continues to drop its positional data (media advisory message) to the new closest RGS, so the CPS will communicate with the aircraft using the new ground station. That simple. At 8:59 United 175 was out of its original flight plan, but there was no reason for the CPS to route Jerry Tsen's uplink through Harrisburg or to guess where the aircraft could be, because the aircraft was still airborne and was transmitting its positional data as usual. Therefore we would expect to see any New York's RGS and not MDT. Period. I contacted a number of ACARS experts in the last months, none of them, no matter from US, Europe or any other part of the world, supports your theory. Please resign to the fact that you are speculating based on your bias only.
edit on 13-12-2011 by bubs49 because: link added, minor changes



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

And that's why those last ACARS text messages got REJECTED, 11 minutes LATER.
That's 660 seconds LATER.

All your crap about those other ACARS messages received in other stations further away from the crash site, are ATTEMPTS to connect to that already CRASHED plane. And since the last/next 10 minutes positional data stream was not received YET, they all were neatly timestamped. Which does not AT ALL indicate that they were received in that already totally wrecked plane.

Until those last 10 minutes ticked away its last second, THEN all other NEXT in row ACARS messages were bounced/rejected with NO timestamp and that ***text*** last line on their print-outs.
So, in that preceding LAST 10 minutes/660 seconds period, nearly all ACARS messages were not received too.
You can calculate that if you find those two last 10 minutes timestamps from the positional data stream sent to CPS. Then accept a time for the crash, and you know exactly which last ACARS message ATTEMPTS have failed to reach a not flying plane anymore.

You are a really hopeless case, LaBTop. At 9:23 United 175 was officially destroyed since 20 minutes. If math is of any help for you, 20 is bigger than 11. After 11 minutes without sending media advisory messages, United 175 was a guessing game for the CPS, so we can even speculate that the CPS would attempt to reach the aircraft based on its last positional data, but then why not MDT again as routed at 8:59? Why PIT which is 317 nm away from New York? Even assuming that the CPS routes the uplinks based on the original flight path (which is not and I won't repeat again), for the uplink sent by Ballinger at 9:23 we would expect to see a failed log like this

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


and not like this

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574


LaBTop, believe me. Your claim is only based on pure speculation and personal bias. While I understand your desire to defend the official version and also respect it, in technical terms your claim is completely absurd. Try to contact a real ACARS expert. Try to contact ARINC yourself. When a poster from UM contacted an ARINC professional to ask how could an uplink sent at 9:23 to United 175 be routed through PIT when the aircraft had officially crashed at 9:03 in New York, the answer was: "No, this is impossible".
For the records, I continue posting here only for the benefit of those (like True American) who appear to be open to understand. Your bias is so strong that no evidence will ever be enough for you to change your mind.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bubs49
When a poster from UM contacted an ARINC professional to ask how could an uplink sent at 9:23 to United 175 be routed through PIT when the aircraft had officially crashed at 9:03 in New York, the answer was: "No, this is impossible".
For the records, I continue posting here only for the benefit of those (like True American) who appear to be open to understand. Your bias is so strong that no evidence will ever be enough for you to change your mind.


And I appreciate it, so please, keep right on posting. I am open to truth...No actually, as my moniker says, I am PARTISAN to the truth, whatever that may be. But I am also very careful about letting the "Q" Unit shape my truth for me. I really appreciate your comments.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bubs49
When a poster from UM contacted an ARINC professional to ask how could an uplink sent at 9:23 to United 175 be routed through PIT when the aircraft had officially crashed at 9:03 in New York, the answer was: "No, this is impossible".


Well, the cast of characters is now complete.

And SkyEagle, at the same forum where this happened, contacted ARINC three times and got an entirely different response. Yes, late at night, but you weren't able to confirm he wouldn't, as a pilot, have access to a 24-hour support line, which would seem to be normal given the round-the-clock nature of flight traffic.

The person you are referring to, who made the call, is Scott, a complete nitwit on 9/11 research matters, who precedes you on every forum you frequent, wallowing in awe and profusely praising you. He called some woman on a communication help desk and then bushwhacked her with your "UA 175 still flying" nonsense. She didn't like it, of course, and told him never to call again, but the call was not recorded so "Scott" can't prove a thing. I understand service desks very well, as I'm ITIL certified, and one thing is for certain: you never get a technical specialist on the line the first person you talk to. They are shielded off from direct outside access, to be reserved for infrastructural problems which are both urgent and important, i.e. high impact problems or service disruptions.

In other words, Scott's phone call, which you attempt to dress up as much more than it is, proves absolutely nothing. Feel free to quote the entire exchange, which supports your case yet looks completely ridiculous and immediately illustrates how worthless a call to a lower-order worker is to get some real technical answers in this matter.
edit on 13-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
As I've said above, I think tracker messaging may not have been installed on UA 175.

Anyways, all this is pretty simple. Since flight plan predictive logic is incorporated into routing mechanisms alongside other variables, the ground stations selected are along the flight plan.

The "receipt" time/dates are from ARINC telex printer sent time, not from the plane. If the plane is down, eventually a NAK is sent to ARINC by the actual transmission logic.

But it will probably take another six years of fruitless discussion to conclude, especially since P4T will make sure all experts will be unavailable for comment due to their usual 'scorched earth' strategy.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
First, you and me are constantly mingling up two planes, I concentrate on UAL93 (down in Pennsylvania) , you on UAL175 (down in New York, quite earlier).
I have to read your next two posts above later, no time now, in a few hours I'll be back.


reply to post by bubs49
 




Bubs49 : No matter how the ARINC algorithm works (and I proved it does not work the way you claim), after 20 minutes from the alleged crash we should expect a rejected format and not a message with two timestamps, as for every ACARS which is normally received by an aircraft.


You could have a point there. However....
Those two timestamps do not at all indicate that the ACARS message was received, I thought we got that out of the way now. It indicates that the ARINC ground stations have received it. And probably attempted to sent to all planes. If they all reached those planes, that's the next question.

That second, UA175, time stamped paper print-out is in my opinion from the printer which SENT that text message typed by the dispatcher Ed Ballinger, to the ARINC headquarters computers.
Only after delving in the logs at all the ground stations with their ARINC computers I expect you find that first, later, at 1420 rejected message for UA93.

I see two different tail numbers, to be clear for our readers, these are two planes :
Reject message is for/from UA93 (tail nr N591UA)
Sent message is for UA175 (tail nr N612UA)
In my opinion it all revolves around this line in the second, sent message to UA175 at 1323 :
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -

However, I am not sure if the dispatcher directly got the reject messages back on his printer in his office in 2001. Could be.
It will all be in the text formats of the messages. What do all those letters mean? And the time format (ET,CET, ET etc) at the dispatchers office, the ground station offices, and the ARINC headquarters offices, are they synced?.

If you are a 2001 ARINC expert, you can answer all that. Like this man surely is :
Steve Leger
srl@arinc.com
tel +1 410 266 2169
fax +1 410 266 4499

You will be able to read back from him, what any combination of characters in those two specific 1323 (the sent) and 1420 (the rejected) messages you showed us, will mean.

Any one, send him an email. No, I definitely won't, for my own privacy reasons.
I expect you to learn that certain characters indicate where the message is sent, if it got a return message, if it got received by the ARINC headquarters, if that one did sent it to the calculated ground station and if that one attempted to uplink it to the plane.
AND, if the plane acknowledged its receipt.
And, if the timestamps CORRELATE which eachother. I think so, but better sure than sorry.

Btw, you showed us a computer typed message, can I have the link where I can check the real paper copies for myself? All of them, so I can compare them.

Why not wait to read what the eventual return email from Mr Leger will explain?
Or do we first decide HERE what the text from this email to him will be, so he does not lock himself immediately up.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

But it will probably take another six years of fruitless discussion to conclude, especially since P4T will make sure
all experts will be unavailable for comment due to their usual 'scorched earth' strategy.


Probably not 6 years. The PfT/"Captain" Bob Balsamo shelf life for this sort of thing can be examined in all the other "smoking guns" they come up with - the FDR, the "closed cockpit door, the ground stop, the C-130, the RADES data, etc so on and so forth. Not a single one of them panned out and they are all now in the dustbin. The Grand Affidavit they submitted with the Gallop lawsuit was laughed at while ignored, which should tell them their "expert opinions" are nothing but jokes in the courtrooms and chambers of the judges.- what was it? Cynical Delusion? Fantasy? Speculation? Conjecture? Fanciful? "Factually baseless"? Sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit? Then sanctioned *again*? Now *that's* entertainment!

They'll move on to something else...someone in someone's basement will find another anomaly, another hiccup in a data stream, another weird outlier in an otherwise unremarkable string of numbers and they will be off once again, breathless from "Press Release - Must Credit "CAPT" Bob Balsamo!" posts, another smoking gun, another whatever that will be forgotten in 6 months.

*yawn*
edit on 13-12-2011 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
As I've said above, I think tracker messaging may not have been installed on UA 175.


Brilliant. ACARS existed, but tracker messaging didn't. It's more or less the same as saying that cars existed, but no engine yet had been designed to power them. Congratulations for one more safe landing on your own feet.


Originally posted by snowcrash911
Anyways, all this is pretty simple. Since flight plan predictive logic is incorporated into routing mechanisms alongside other variables, the ground stations selected are along the flight plan.


So I guess you won't have any problem to link any source, document, expert advice or whatever to support this claim, right?
Morever, let me ask you one simple question. If "the ground stations selected are along the flight plan" (your own words), how on earth ACARS can reach an aircraft whenever it is rerouted (what happens on a daily basis for multiple reasons)?



Originally posted by LaBTop
If you are a 2001 ARINC expert, you can answer all that. Like this man surely is :
Steve Leger
srl@arinc.com
tel +1 410 266 2169
fax +1 410 266 4499

You will be able to read back from him, what any combination of characters in those two specific 1323 (the sent) and 1420 (the rejected) messages you showed us, will mean.

Any one, send him an email. No, I definitely won't, for my own privacy reasons.
I expect you to learn that certain characters indicate where the message is sent, if it got a return message, if it got received by the ARINC headquarters, if that one did sent it to the calculated ground station and if that one attempted to uplink it to the plane.


It makes no sense to call ARINC to know about the second timestamp of the UAL ACARS released through FOIA. ARINC provides the ACARS service in North America, so you should contact them to ask about the general features of the ACARS service, about RGS and their coverage area, about tracker messages, technical acks, about how the communication between aircraft and airlines/ATC works in general. ARINC cannot provide an answer about a specific and tailored feature of a specific airline (in this case United Airlines). Please understand that every airline has its own proprietary decoding software. This is why you find so many ACARS on the Internet which have a different look and format. An ACARS "intercepted" by a radio amateur has not the same format of an ACARS decoded by the airline. Depending on the decoding software used, the final output may change significantly.

If you need a final clarification about the second timestamp of the ACARS message list delivered by Ballinger to the 9/11 Commission, you should contact an UAL dispatcher or maybe Ballinger himself. Anyway, Ballinger already provided a clear, strainghforward, unquestionable explanation about what first and second timestamp mean: "Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received". In my opinion this needs no further clarification, but of course feel free to contact United Airlines for more information.

edit on 13-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Anyways, all this is pretty simple. Since flight plan predictive logic is incorporated into routing mechanisms alongside other variables, the ground stations selected are along the flight plan.

Bubs49 : So I guess you won't have any problem to link any source, document, expert advice or whatever to support this claim, right?
Moreover, let me ask you one simple question. If "the ground stations selected are along the flight plan" (your own words), how on earth ACARS can reach an aircraft whenever it is rerouted (what happens on a daily basis for multiple reasons)?


Solution : change the word "plan" into the word "track".


Bubs49 : Anyway, Ballinger already provided a clear, straightforward, unquestionable explanation about what first and second timestamp mean: "Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received". In my opinion this needs no further clarification, but of course feel free to contact United Airlines for more information.


I think it's not such an unquestionable explanation, since you option for that time stamp meaning "as received by the plane", while I and others option for "as received by the ARINC headquarters computer, or the ARINC sub-station's computer" (RGS, remote ground station).

I am sure we are right, since it is the most logical explanation. The automated RGS software has no means of knowing -immediately- if the by its computer, up linked ACARS text message is received.

That's why I keep calling it uplink "attempts".

That ARINC RGS station's software probably has a back coupling mechanism, to come up with that later upcoming "" ***text*** "" line message event, triggered 11 minutes further in time, after the last positional-10-minutes down linked-message had been received, when eventually not that expected next positional-standard-10-minutes message-down link from the plane has been received, and then the software decides that it has no purpose anymore to sent any more ACARS text messages up to the for its internal software logic, now disappeared plane.

And that's why I am convinced that this is the heart of this time stamp matter confusion :
You are confusing a ground station, with a plane as the receiving party.

You keep holding on to your interpretation of Ballinger's words, where you have to option for "received" meaning received by the plane, to keep your theory upright.

While we keep trying to convince you and your followers, that it is not logical at all, since there was no means for the ground station's software in 2001, to know directly after up linking that text message, if the plane in reality received it. It just threw it up in the VHF ether, hoping the plane would receive it. But since the plane's ACARS system did not have a reaction mechanism build-in, when indeed it did receive it, by f.ex. sending IMMEDIATELY a confirmation back; the RGS station software never knew directly after up linking any text messages, if the plane indeed received those.

To solve that dilemma, ARINC implemented those tracker messages, down linked by the plane's avionics every 10 minutes, so the ARINC software and its users knew at least every 11 minutes that the plane was still flying, and where.

Especially in this case, where the hijacking pilots were not responding to voice or text message communication attempts by the FAA Air Traffic Controllers, radar station operators or airline dispatchers. And they had the plane's transponders switched off, most of the time.
Thus there was no altitude information available to the FAA, but the military main radars still were able to track those planes positions, but without automatic altitude info. Their main radars of course gave their own altitude info to the military. But not to the FAA...until the FAA controllers asked specifically for it per land line.

And in case you and anyone reading this, accept we are right, the whole 20 minutes later time stamp is becoming non-factual for your conspiracy theory of a still existing and flying around in the sky, flight UAL175.
It then becomes what it in fact is, an attempt to reach the plane's ACARS onboard systems.
Twenty minutes, after it crashed into the South Tower.


For the record, do you think a secretly switched "UAL175" decoy plane hit the tower, or no plane at all?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
A tad bit more evidence that "received" means received by the ground stations :

SOURCE : pilotsfor911truth.org...

On page 4 of 10 :

However, until receiving the above time sequence from Commission staff,
Ballinger had calculated that there had been a 20-minute (rather than a 10-minute)
lag in his receipt of the information on the flight attendant's call, and so he was
somewhat less sure of what the result would have been. Mr. Ballinger stated
however that it was the crash of 1'75 into the WTC at 9:03, not the concern that it
had been hijacked that prompted him to send the ACARS messages warning of
cockpit intrusion. [NOTE: Staff does not presently have decisive evidence as to
the source of the delay in transmission of information about the 8:52 a.m. call
from the San Francisco office to United headquarters in Chicago.
UAL headquarters staff recalled getting the call.from San Francisco around 9:00 a.m.
and San Francisco personnel could not place the precise time of their call to
Chicago.]

[U] Immediately after receipt of the report from "xxxxx", Ballinger sent an
ACARS message to Flight 175 at 9:03, inquiring "How is the ride. Any thing
dispatch can do for you." At the time, Ballinger was not aware of"xxxxx"
simultaneous ACARS message to Flight 175 : "NY approach looking for ya on
127.4." However, Ballinger believes it was perfectly correct for "xxxxx" to proceed in this manner because it is customary for dispatchers to help each other out in times of emergency. Mr. Ballinger stated that he received no response from Flight 175 to his message

U]Ballinger learned of the 8:59 a.m. ACARS message from "xxxxx" in
United's San Francisco office to Flight #175 sometime between the second and
third crashes on 9/11 (between 9:03 and 9:38 a.m.)


""The 20 minutes instead of a 10 minutes lag"" remark of Ballinger intreagues me.
I know he talks about a "call", but did he expect to hear about that call via an ACARS message? Has it anything to do with the 20 minutes lag in the much later ACARS time stamped message routed via the PIT ground station, 20 minutes after UAL175 crashed into the South Tower?

Overall, you taste from his words that many ACARS text messages did not end up on his desk, he did not know about them, he said. So he did not get copies from all ACARS messages, to or from UAL175, on his desk/printer.

---more---




top topics



 
70
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join