Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

ACARS Confirms 9/11 UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash! Just WOW!

page: 4
70
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by seenavv

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Not bashing it at all , but couldnt the phones have been blown out of the plane and landed on the send button when they fell to the ground?
Lol sounds really silly but I bet this would have been the answer in the commission's report.
edit on 1-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: bloody Dyslexia grrrr


I highly doubt the phone could've flown out the plane but i was thinking of a more plausible theory

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.

Considering there must have been a lot of traffic amongst the communication towers it may have caused a delay between messages being sent at the time.... Just a thoery and i might be totally wrong.

But regardless i still believe 911 was entirely an inside job and i wouldnt be surprised to hear the real planes were swapped somehow
edit on 1-12-2011 by seenavv because: (no reason given)


I think your right on here. ACARS is s fairly low priority message and could have been bumped back in the que with all the other military/National defense traffic on the lines. They were crammed! Remember, it's how NEXTEL got all the free band-width from the FCC (thank you Mr. Bush) right after 9/11. Messages were not getting through.




posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


"lies, lies, and more lies. 9/11 was an outside job. they said it on tv".



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
So this confirms whatever hit the towers was not the plane we were told hit it, and we already knew whatever did hit the towers was operating way out of it's limitations with incredible accuracy and damage. Gheez.. Now that was one big missile... Make that 2 big missiles... perhaps 3 or 4 big missiles..



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by remymartin
 



Can you explain why the ACARS message was routed through MDT IN HARRISBURG at 08:59 eastern time.


Yes.

The ACARS messages when up-linked are sent to the nearest ground station that is where the airplane is predicted to be, based on its Flight Plan data.

It's that simple. All those claims made about the airplane having "received" the ACARS messages sent through those various up-link stations in Pennsylvania are simply not true. The "evidence" are the message print-outs, derived from United Airline's own Dispatch department records. The date and time stamp at the bottom appears to be merely their own format, for internal use of Dispatch, to confirm an acknowledgement from the ARINC network that their inputted message was received, and was processed to be transmitted by the ARINC system.



Ive read at the link below that ACARS uses real time monitoring from ground stations
not predicted flight paths. Have you got a source to back up your claim.


en.wikipedia.org...
I know its wiki but you see what i mean.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird

Rob Balsamo is simply lying, and in a way that is seemingly intentional, by making it as complicated as possible, but dropping in innuendo along the way. It is a long-seen tactic, and his apparent "hope" is it will continue to foster confusion, and thus steer people to keep "donating" to his ridiculous website, and long-dead "cause".

His whole attempt, there....is an obvious ploy to just "Razzle Dazzle 'em!!"....


Well this was an ironic statement, considering the tactic you used in following responses to me is the very same thing here - "Razzle Dazzle" us with pictures, and lectures about the ACARS system, all the while failing to directly address the evidence on hand, and beating around the bushes talking about Radar returns, transponders codes, and so on. Then you went back to the ridicule the source tactic.

I think we all figured out pretty quickly early on in the thread (the very first post actually, thank you TrueAmerican) everything you tried to explain to us about how it works, without ever getting to the nitty gritty of that mysterious second timestamp to UAL175@1323Z, the acknowledgement one. The one that's missing from say, Flight 93's ACARS message sent at 1420Z since it went down around the 1403Z-1406Z time _

Beyond the pilots for 911 truth presentation, we have the scanned ACARS messages on hand along with Mr Bellinger's notes and highlights of messages sent to the aircraft involved on 11SEP01, so lets get the whole "it was manufactured" claim out of the way before that starts.

Just the facts, please.

Insert three phases of truth quote here.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Oh goodness...

It appears as if that noose is tightening around the necks of those who hung themselves LONG AGO. There are going to be so many disinformation agents eating crow soon...



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   


I think your right on here. ACARS is s fairly low priority message and could have been bumped back in the que with all the other military/National defense traffic on the lines. They were crammed! Remember, it's how NEXTEL got all the free band-width from the FCC (thank you Mr. Bush) right after 9/11. Messages were not getting through.
reply to post by wrkn4livn
 


all the other military and defense traffic? what military and defense traffic? do you mean from the drills going of or from the attacks taking place?

because if you mean from the attacks, they were only dealing with an emergency after the first plane hit, it was not untill after the second plane hit that they knew they were dealing with a terrorist attack supposidly.

so i do not see why they would delay calls to a plane that has yet to crash and as far as anybody is concerned no terror attacks are taking place yet. everything is normal except for a accident in new york.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
FFS, I've left people voicemail and text messages that some people will not get till a few hours or even in some cases days later. This is not conclusive proof. Besides its been ten years where was this information until now ? ? ?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 



Well this was an ironic statement, considering the tactic you used in following responses to me is the very same thing here - "Razzle Dazzle" us with pictures, and lectures about the ACARS system.....


That post was a sort of "primer" for those unfamiliar with the actual workings of ACARS. There is a lot to cover, because it's the sort of thing that takes words to describe, but a person can learn and understand it much faster by simply using it, first hand.

The pictures were also tools to help inform, so that those reading would at least have a clue what the heck I was talking about.



.... all the while failing to directly address the evidence on hand, and beating around the bushes talking about Radar returns, transponders codes, and so on.


Which WAS addressed, in the summary at end of post, and in follow-up posts since.



I think we all figured out pretty quickly early on in the thread (the very first post actually, thank you TrueAmerican) everything you tried to explain to us about how it works, without ever getting to the nitty gritty of that mysterious second timestamp to UAL175@1323Z, the acknowledgement one.


Apparently, there is a delay in the posting of my info, and we are cross-posting? Because, it is clearly spelled out, by me, that the time references at the bottom of all of those ACARS message examples that are the focus of this thread's OP do not indicate an actual airplane acknowledgement. It is an ARINC service acknowledgement time and date tag.

Did I presume that everyone knew what "ARINC" is? Aeronautical Radio, Inc.

www.arinc.com...

They are diverse, as well, not just in the aviation industry, nowadays:

ARINC Product Categories

And,
ARINC ACARS Services




Beyond the pilots for 911 truth presentation, we have the scanned ACARS messages on hand along with Mr Bellinger's notes and highlights of messages sent to the aircraft involved on 11SEP01, so lets get the whole "it was manufactured" claim out of the way before that starts.


"It was manufactured", to use that phrase, is how the information was misinterpreted, and then presented as if it were some sort of major "smoking gun".

It simply is not.

Period.

It has as much validity as the kerfluffle over the AAL 77 Flight Deck Door nonsense.



Just the facts, please.


Sadly, when it comes to the so-called "PilotsFor9/11Truth" vanity website? The "facts" are scarce..........



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 



Rob Balsamo, of the so-called "pilots for truth", once again is at his most deceptive. Smoke and mirrors, that's all he's got, at this stage of the game.

Looking at the link you provided: Balsamo lists the three ACARS messages, two at 0903 EDT, and one at 0923 EDT (1303 and 1323 Zulu/UTC respectively).

BUT then, he writes:


According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.


I would like to see the sources to this information please? You failed to provide a link to your claim?
As for the rest it is only your opinion,and the fact is you have not debunked anything here.



Rob Balsamo is simply lying, and in a way that is seemingly intentional, by making it as complicated as possible, but dropping in innuendo along the way. It is a long-seen tactic, and his apparent "hope" is it will continue to foster confusion, and thus steer people to keep "donating" to his ridiculous website, and long-dead "cause".

His whole attempt, there....is an obvious ploy to just "Razzle Dazzle 'em!!"....


Lying? I would like to see the evidence that proves this man is not being truthful, not your opinion. If you cannot back your claim than it would be fair to say you’re not being honest about calling Rob Balsamo a liar.


I asked you to produce some sources to your claims on pg 1&2 and seeing that you behave as if you are some authority, or expert on this topic, you chose to completely ignore me and my questions. This proves to me that when you are challenged you run away, because you cannot back up your nonsense. You call Rob Balsamo a” liar,” yet when I asked you to bring credible sources to back this claim you don’t. You are not debating anything here you are just spouting your opinions. If you want people to take you seriously then you need to show credible sources to these absurd claims that you insist are so true. I would like to see a real debate on this topic, anyone can give there opinions however, that doesnt prove you are right.


The entire crux of the claims from the "source" is bogus. The claim that the time-stamp on the bottom of each of those ACARS data spurts is the "acknowledge" by the airplane.

Says whom, do you have a source for this information?

It is more likely the ARINC system itself that is acknowledging the message from the airline's dispatch center.

It is more likely? Sources please? You assert your opinion as if you are some sort of authority on this topic and yet I don’t see any sources to back your claims, we are looking for proof, not just some opinions


These are the two posts to my questions that you completely ignore. You make the claim that the “source” about the time- stamp on the bottom of those ACARS data spurts are acknowledge by the airplane are bogus, then produce a credible sources to back this claim?
edit on 2-12-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBRiddle
FFS, I've left people voicemail and text messages that some people will not get till a few hours or even in some cases days later. This is not conclusive proof. Besides its been ten years where was this information until now ? ? ?


Really? That has never happened to me unless my phone's battery has run dead or unless I have turned the power off. Perhaps you should switch to a more reliable service provider.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
These are the two posts to my questions that you completely ignore. You make the claim that the “source” about the time- stamp on the bottom of those ACARS data spurts are acknowledge by the airplane are bogus, then produce a credible sources to back this claim?
edit on 2-12-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)


Not to jump on anyones toes here, but I can show you if you'd like. I have half a box of telexs beside me and every one of those has the same kind of time stamp at the bottom. It's a reference thing, and usually when replying to one you quote the time stamp at the bottom so that the person/department you are sending it to can know what you are replying to.

It really is 1970's (I guess) technology which is still used today. Like if i'm replying to a certain message i'll type in RYT (Regarding Your Telex) 12022229 xqeo 000155 and then type my follow up. The ACARS that they are quoting are the telex copies of what was sent to the aircraft, not the message the aircraft received. This is a universal format and anyone around the world in any country working for any airline will be familiar with this... assuming that they have to send telexes which most do.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 



So what happens if a plane is diverted say due to bad weather, whats the point of sending a message to a plane thats not in that area?


Keep in mind the range of VHF signals. At cruise altitudes, it's over 200 NM. Yes, the range decreases as you descend, due to line-of-sight limitations on reception.

Of course, in today's world every major airline has feeds from then Air Traffic Control computers, sowing the same radar returns as ATC sees, so it's even more simple.

But, know that any diversion to an Alternate Airport is co-ordinated with the Dispatcher handling the flight. He/she is "in the loop" all the time. Each flight is the responsibility of the Dispatcher on duty, from takeoff to touchdown. Shift changes in Dispatcher duties, if they occur while the airplane is still airborne, simply pass on the responsibility to the next person.

So, Dispatch knows the diversion is happening, they must because of the "flight following" requirements. Of course, it is also an operational need from the standpoint of organization too....the other airline departments have to be made aware: The diversion airport, they have to know the ETA, to arrange for a gate (if there is one extra to use), and to handle the airplane, to turn it back out, or to overnight, or whatever the situation will be.

Reservations have to know too, because they will begin to look at each passenger's itinerary, and plan to re-accommodate ("Protect") them as needed, and possible, to get to original destinations. In extreme cases, hotels have to be notified, and rooms "blocked" (there are contingencies set up with various hotels in each city the airline operates into. Of course, I'm talking about large, organized airlines....majors). Etc.

So, the 200+ radius, from altitude is sufficient to communicate intentions, and help coordinate. Even if down in a holding pattern, and you reach "bingo" fuel (you cannot linger any longer, and still have sufficient reserves when you arrive at your Alternate), you are in VHF reception of your original destination airport easily.

Remember too....a Dispatcher can reach any flight by a number of different ways also. There is the SELCAL (Selective Call) that will alert the airplane specifically, it casts a wider "net" to locate the flight. And, there is also a "hotline" to the various Air Traffic Control facilities. A Dispatcher can call ATC, and have the Controller call the flight.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Can you post PDFs on here?

I scanned a few example telexes but can't seem to upload them as a picture, any ideas?



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Excellent find OP. THanks. Star and Flag.


Originally posted by gman1972
Not to jump on anyones toes here, but I can show you if you'd like. I have half a box of telexs beside me and every one of those has the same kind of time stamp at the bottom.


gman, are you saying that the time stamp on the bottom of an ACARS message will always be the same as the date and time found at the top?

Thanks in advance for your answer.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   



gman, are you saying that the time stamp on the bottom of an ACARS message will always be the same as the date and time found at the top?

Thanks in advance for your answer.


No, they can be different. The one at the top says what time the message was sent, the one at the bottom shows when it was printed. As most telexes come out within 10-30 seconds the time stamp will be the same, but sometimes it's off by a minute or two. It in no way relates to what time it was received by the person you sent it to, it's not like an email notification that it's been received and opened.

Example I send a telex to someone, the top time (simplified) says 1212, the one at the bottom shows 1212. The person that I sent it to receives the message after a longer than normal delay, the top will say 1212, the bottom will say 1214.

Does that make sense?

ETA, don't know why my whole message came out in italics, sorry.
edit on 2-12-2011 by gman1972 because: italics



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I am truly sorry, impressme, but upon many reviews of the things posted by this account name, I find it mostly fruitless to respond. Most replies are either ignored (if they happen to refute a claim) or met with the repeat of the original (falsified) claim, again.


These are the two posts to my questions that you completely ignore. You make the claim that the “source” about the time- stamp on the bottom of those ACARS data spurts are acknowledge by the airplane are bogus, then produce a credible sources to back this claim?


The answers to those questions have been given, already....and are perfectly available as well, IF the proper reseach is done.

Perhaps you overlooked this PDF? Iit is understandable and forgivable, since it was buried within a link in another post:

This is the large PDF

Have at it.

(NOTE: Those are the logs, as recorded and saved in United Airlines Dispatch. The time and date at the bottom DO NOT reflect the "airplane acknowledging" the ACARS transmission!)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by gman1972
 



I scanned a few example telexes but can't seem to upload them as a picture, any ideas?


If you save them to your computer as a JPG, GIF or PNG, you can then add them to the ATS Media by using the "Tools" button (next to "myATS"), and going to "ATS uploads". Then follow the instructions......



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by gman1972
No, they can be different. The one at the top says what time the message was sent, the one at the bottom shows when it was printed.


So then why did Mr. Ballinger not make any reference to a "printer" in the below statement? Instead, he referenced the "aircraft", twice.



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.


Is Mr Ballinger wrong?

Furthermore, since you are familiar with the ACARS Network, are you familiar with Category A and B Flight Tracking?
edit on 2-12-2011 by DHeffBrooklyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DHeffBrooklyn

Originally posted by gman1972
No, they can be different. The one at the top says what time the message was sent, the one at the bottom shows when it was printed.


So then why did Mr. Ballinger not make any reference to a "printer" in the below statement? Instead, he referenced the "aircraft", twice.



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.


Is Mr Ballinger wrong?

Furthermore, since you are familiar with the ACARS Network, are you familiar with Category A and B Flight Tracking?
edit on 2-12-2011 by DHeffBrooklyn because: (no reason given)


Not sure what you other nick is Dheff, but anyway as I said yes there are two times, the time sent and the time received, that is correct. However for this to be the smoking gun then you would need the copy of the acars print out from the flight deck of the aircraft in question to see what time it was received wouldn't you? There is no way to tell otherwise.

Think of it like this, I compose a email and sent it to you. In my sent items it shows that the email was sent at 12:12… where does it say what time it was delivered to you? It doesn't. However on the receiving side you get a time stamp showing when it was received AND when it was sent. Its the same concept, I can tell you when I sent that email to you, but I can't tell when/if you got it can I?

Forgot to answer your question in regards to Cat a and b flight tracking…. why would I need to do that? What relevance does it have to a time stamp on a telex?
edit on 2-12-2011 by gman1972 because: forgot a question






top topics



 
70
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join