ACARS Confirms 9/11 UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash! Just WOW!, page 5
reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 08:23 PM by ProudBird
reply to post by DHeffBrooklyn
(sigh)...
These are some actual ACARS messages, as formatted by the system, in ARINC.
And, NOT as shown in the "Woody Box" blog that posted the United Airlines Dispatch "hard copies" of their up-link messages. That is for United's internal reference use only!!
SOURCE
Adding: Anyone who wishes to go "whole hog" can down load an ACARS decoder from the website below:
ACARS decode
I just searched some N-numbers, and United Airlines has stored all of their B-767-222s from the same "vintage" as the accident airplane's from 9/11 -- N612UA.
You can see the older stored B-767-200s HERE
However, because of the merger with Continental, many "former" CAL are now listed in the United database, at airfleets.net. And, are active. So, using the free download software, you can enter the N-numbers to look at messages.
As of 2 Dec, 2011 -- 49 active Boeing 767s @United. Some -200s, some -300s and some -400s
(ALL the -400s are former CAL. ALL the -300s are former UAL The two -200s are former CAL. Note the suffixes....the ones ending in a "2" are original Uniteds, and the ones ending in a "4" are original Continental. The N-numbers are another clue. Note they can be sequential? This is what some companies do, they reserve "blocks" of numbers, much like personalized license plates for your car).
(sigh)...
These are some actual ACARS messages, as formatted by the system, in ARINC.
And, NOT as shown in the "Woody Box" blog that posted the United Airlines Dispatch "hard copies" of their up-link messages. That is for United's internal reference use only!!
SOURCE
This is a frequent vistor to the ACARS screen, a signal that the aircraft is in the process of receiving uplinked messages.
ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: .N651UA
Message label: H1 Block id: 4 Msg. no: D90A
Flight id: UA0978
Message content:-
#DFB/PIREPUA.E22C246510978KIADEDDF 8 5972250CL
122 DATA NOT AVAILABLE
38.9850 -77.46532241 1757 18.0324 14
39.0942 -77.51132243 6802
-----------------------------------------------------------[05/08/1997 22:50]
ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: .N651UA
Message label: H1 Block id: 5 Msg. no: D90B
Flight id: UA0978
Message content:-
#DFB 7.5332 13
39.1518 -77.22502247 11805 -4.3307 17
-----------------------------------------------------------[05/08/1997 22:50]
These two messages are position and weather data downlinked from the aircraft automatically to the ground station.
ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: .N642UA
Message label: H1 Block id: 9 Msg. no: F39A
Flight id: UA0970
Message content:-
#M1BPOSN39092W076136,SWANN,215516,230,GOLDA,215624,BROSS,M21,28214,958/TS2155
16,100897B166
-----------------------------------------------------------[10/08/1997 21:55]
This is a good example of a position report along the aircraft's flight route. In this case, United flight 970 is a North latitude 39.09.2 and West longitude 76.13.6, which happens to be the waypoint named SWANN, and they were over SWANN at 2155.16 UTC, at FL230 (Flight Level 230 or 23,000 feet),
and they are estimating next waypoint GOLDA at 2156.24, next position BROSS. Outside air temperature is a minus 21, wind 282/14.
Adding: Anyone who wishes to go "whole hog" can down load an ACARS decoder from the website below:
ACARS decode
I just searched some N-numbers, and United Airlines has stored all of their B-767-222s from the same "vintage" as the accident airplane's from 9/11 -- N612UA.
You can see the older stored B-767-200s HERE
However, because of the merger with Continental, many "former" CAL are now listed in the United database, at airfleets.net. And, are active. So, using the free download software, you can enter the N-numbers to look at messages.
As of 2 Dec, 2011 -- 49 active Boeing 767s @United. Some -200s, some -300s and some -400s
(ALL the -400s are former CAL. ALL the -300s are former UAL The two -200s are former CAL. Note the suffixes....the ones ending in a "2" are original Uniteds, and the ones ending in a "4" are original Continental. The N-numbers are another clue. Note they can be sequential? This is what some companies do, they reserve "blocks" of numbers, much like personalized license plates for your car).
edit on Fri 2 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 2-12-2011 @ 08:34 PM by impressme
reply to post by ProudBird
This is the very first time that you have EVER responded to me and my post. You just told a fallacy to me and everyone on here claiming that I ignore your questions and that I repeat false claims this is completely untrue and you know that.
How can you make up such an accusation against me when you have never responded to any of my post until now? We are up to five pg. and anyone reading your statements (quote above) can go back to the beginning of this thread and see who likes to make up nonsence in here.
Please provide a source, you made all these negatives claims against important people you called them liars. You still have not address any of my questions, but only to tell me I need to do some research. Perhaps you believe you are on a chat site and credibility is not important when one is arguing one’s opinions. We like to debunk or prove that something’s are true or false, millions of people read these threads every day and if you start attacking very important people and call them liars then you should be able to back up your claims.
Most people on here including me do not find your source from” 911Myths credible.” 911 Myths website has been rejected by most people who have done some real research on 911 including me. 911 Myths website has been debunk many times and has been proven a fraud, by me and others on ATS. 911 Myths only supports the OS of 911 and is extremely bias of outside opinions and has rejected scientific evidence that proves the OS is a lie. The authors of 911 Myths do not like to be challenged and consider the OS of 911 the truth. This is your source you just gave me?
www.911myths.com...
The fact is it’s not credible. Can you provide us another source please?
I don’t think I am being unreasonable, do you?
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.
This is the very first time that you have EVER responded to me and my post. You just told a fallacy to me and everyone on here claiming that I ignore your questions and that I repeat false claims this is completely untrue and you know that.
How can you make up such an accusation against me when you have never responded to any of my post until now? We are up to five pg. and anyone reading your statements (quote above) can go back to the beginning of this thread and see who likes to make up nonsence in here.
The answers to those questions have been given, already....and are perfectly available as well, IF the proper reseach is done.
Please provide a source, you made all these negatives claims against important people you called them liars. You still have not address any of my questions, but only to tell me I need to do some research. Perhaps you believe you are on a chat site and credibility is not important when one is arguing one’s opinions. We like to debunk or prove that something’s are true or false, millions of people read these threads every day and if you start attacking very important people and call them liars then you should be able to back up your claims.
Most people on here including me do not find your source from” 911Myths credible.” 911 Myths website has been rejected by most people who have done some real research on 911 including me. 911 Myths website has been debunk many times and has been proven a fraud, by me and others on ATS. 911 Myths only supports the OS of 911 and is extremely bias of outside opinions and has rejected scientific evidence that proves the OS is a lie. The authors of 911 Myths do not like to be challenged and consider the OS of 911 the truth. This is your source you just gave me?
www.911myths.com...
The fact is it’s not credible. Can you provide us another source please?
I don’t think I am being unreasonable, do you?
edit on 2-12-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 3-12-2011 @ 12:51 AM by gamesmaster63
Originally posted by eightfold
reply to post by jsmappy
If this is true and United 175 really did receive an ACARS message *after* it hit the buildings then a whole new 9/11 rabbit hole just opened up in front of me. Thats. Not. Possible.
If the plane was still at altitude *after* it was supposed to have hit the South Tower then what did we watch hit the tower? Sorry for 'typing-out-loud' but this has knocked me sideways a bit. It seems genuine but impossible.
edit on 2/12/11 by eightfold because: I must learn to use the preview button.
Planes did hit the towers, they just weren't the planes we were told they were. Both aircraft that hit the towers were repainted military aircraft carrying underbelly fuel tanks. What was in the fuel tanks is up for question.
reply posted on 3-12-2011 @ 01:05 AM by g146541
reply to post by axslinger
I did mention cliffs notes Bro.
This implies I am too lazy to look for myself in this arena, mostly because I believe we will never know the truth, so I don't let it bother me as it is beyond my grasp literally.
But I still do have the question as to whether cell phones worked on airplanes then and now.
I will not step foot on a jet, I'm the fat old white version of BA Barrakis.
I did mention cliffs notes Bro.
This implies I am too lazy to look for myself in this arena, mostly because I believe we will never know the truth, so I don't let it bother me as it is beyond my grasp literally.
But I still do have the question as to whether cell phones worked on airplanes then and now.
I will not step foot on a jet, I'm the fat old white version of BA Barrakis.
reply posted on 3-12-2011 @ 01:23 AM by gamesmaster63
reply to post by ProudBird
I do here what you are saying ProudBird, but I will have to continue to question the official story on what happened that day because of the stories I have been told by family and friends (most Air Force veterans that know how to identify aircraft) that witnessed the aircraft hitting the towers.
All of the veterans identified the craft as KC-135's, not Boeing 767 passenger jets.
I do here what you are saying ProudBird, but I will have to continue to question the official story on what happened that day because of the stories I have been told by family and friends (most Air Force veterans that know how to identify aircraft) that witnessed the aircraft hitting the towers.
All of the veterans identified the craft as KC-135's, not Boeing 767 passenger jets.
reply posted on 3-12-2011 @ 01:29 AM by gamesmaster63
reply to post by gman1972
Gotta turn around what I said on the first few pages, now that I have done more research on ACARS, it can be a horribly inefficient system. That does not prove that the original story has much bearing to reality though. It just debunks this "proof".
Gotta turn around what I said on the first few pages, now that I have done more research on ACARS, it can be a horribly inefficient system. That does not prove that the original story has much bearing to reality though. It just debunks this "proof".
reply posted on 3-12-2011 @ 01:57 AM by spoor
Originally posted by gamesmaster63
I did not say underwing, I said underbelly, and they can be added to any aircraft.
yep, the pod people are back!
www.911review.com...
and a little respect for veterans woudl be appreciated.
Why respect anyone who makes silly much debunked claims about pods on flights 77, 93, 11 and 175?
reply posted on 3-12-2011 @ 02:04 AM by ProudBird
reply to post by gamesmaster63
I'd ask them again, much more carefully....perhaps show pictures too:
Sorry, they are dead wrong. (Maybe they were pulling your leg??)
The B-767 has two engines. One each wing.
The KC-135 has four engines. Two each wing.
No one with any aviation knowledge would ever, ever confuse them. I don't feel like uploading pics, to post in-thread, so will just provide links ---
Boeing 767:
(Please, take note. I selected this one, because you can see all the gear doors still open, as it is in the process, still, of gear retraction).
KC-135 (Also, retracting the gear):
A 767 "beauty shot":
^ ^ ^ Above is a -300, little bit longer than UAL 175 on 9/11. Same paint scheme. Gear is up, but flaps are still extended, at 15°, and leading edge slats extended too.
KC-135, clean (no gear, no flaps/slats) from below:
(Those sharp-eyed viewers will spot the difference in the four engines, from this version to the other KC-135 up above. Most of the aging tanker fleet has been re-engined, to the newer high-bypass turbofans, but some still are flying with the older original turbojet engines).....
The 767 and KC-135 simply cannot be mistaken for one another.
Of course, there are countless photos and videos of UAL 175, as well.
ALSO, regarding "under belly tanks". No, that is a very, very old and well-discredited claim, based on bad interpretations by some people of certain poor resolution photos and still frames from videos.
See if you can tell, in this photo of a United 767, again in the "old" paint scheme as 2001. Here, due to the camera angle, its even more exaggerated -- the "bumps" on the belly of the fuselage, either side just at the wing root. Those are fairings that "bump out" a bit to accommodate the the man landing gear bogeys (the four double tandem wheels, each gear) when they are retracted.
Also, that angle it's hard to tell, but down the center (bottom) of the belly is an area that is not painted. The dark blue lower "half" of the fuselage doesn't continue all the way 'round, below. SO, you are left with a long, narrow rectangle of unpainted aluminium there. When people think they're seen "under belly pods", it is just an illusion based on the design of the paint.
Look at this one:
Here's an example of their "next" paint scheme, they were transitioning to fleet-wide.....until the Continental merger, where they decided to adopt the Continental scheme, just changing the name on the side:
You can see the same rectangles on the belly, where the paint stops.
Continental paint scheme, Ship #053, in May 2010:
Now, the SAME exact airplane, with the name already re-painted. In March 2011:
The light gray paint scheme prevents that optical illusion on the belly, doesn't it??
I'd ask them again, much more carefully....perhaps show pictures too:
I have been told by family and friends (most Air Force veterans that know how to identify aircraft) that witnessed the aircraft hitting the towers.
All of the veterans identified the craft as KC-135's, not Boeing 767 passenger jets.
Sorry, they are dead wrong. (Maybe they were pulling your leg??)
The B-767 has two engines. One each wing.
The KC-135 has four engines. Two each wing.
No one with any aviation knowledge would ever, ever confuse them. I don't feel like uploading pics, to post in-thread, so will just provide links ---
Boeing 767:
(Please, take note. I selected this one, because you can see all the gear doors still open, as it is in the process, still, of gear retraction).
KC-135 (Also, retracting the gear):
A 767 "beauty shot":
^ ^ ^ Above is a -300, little bit longer than UAL 175 on 9/11. Same paint scheme. Gear is up, but flaps are still extended, at 15°, and leading edge slats extended too.
KC-135, clean (no gear, no flaps/slats) from below:
(Those sharp-eyed viewers will spot the difference in the four engines, from this version to the other KC-135 up above. Most of the aging tanker fleet has been re-engined, to the newer high-bypass turbofans, but some still are flying with the older original turbojet engines).....
The 767 and KC-135 simply cannot be mistaken for one another.
Of course, there are countless photos and videos of UAL 175, as well.
ALSO, regarding "under belly tanks". No, that is a very, very old and well-discredited claim, based on bad interpretations by some people of certain poor resolution photos and still frames from videos.
See if you can tell, in this photo of a United 767, again in the "old" paint scheme as 2001. Here, due to the camera angle, its even more exaggerated -- the "bumps" on the belly of the fuselage, either side just at the wing root. Those are fairings that "bump out" a bit to accommodate the the man landing gear bogeys (the four double tandem wheels, each gear) when they are retracted.
Also, that angle it's hard to tell, but down the center (bottom) of the belly is an area that is not painted. The dark blue lower "half" of the fuselage doesn't continue all the way 'round, below. SO, you are left with a long, narrow rectangle of unpainted aluminium there. When people think they're seen "under belly pods", it is just an illusion based on the design of the paint.
Look at this one:
Here's an example of their "next" paint scheme, they were transitioning to fleet-wide.....until the Continental merger, where they decided to adopt the Continental scheme, just changing the name on the side:
You can see the same rectangles on the belly, where the paint stops.
Continental paint scheme, Ship #053, in May 2010:
Now, the SAME exact airplane, with the name already re-painted. In March 2011:
The light gray paint scheme prevents that optical illusion on the belly, doesn't it??
edit on Sat 3 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 3-12-2011 @ 03:32 AM by gamesmaster63
reply to post by ProudBird
And that is why they identified them as KC-135's. Engine count wrong for a 767.
Pulling my leg is doubtful, but it is possible.
Also, thank you for at least discussing this topic with some coherency, politeness, and mutual respect. Unlike some of the others on this thread.
You do bring up some very good points. I will have to review the images that I have, as well as discuss more stringently with my family and friends.
All I am trying to do is insure that I at least have a more clear understanding of what happenned and attempt to hold my government accountable for the information they put out.
And that is why they identified them as KC-135's. Engine count wrong for a 767.
Pulling my leg is doubtful, but it is possible.
Also, thank you for at least discussing this topic with some coherency, politeness, and mutual respect. Unlike some of the others on this thread.
You do bring up some very good points. I will have to review the images that I have, as well as discuss more stringently with my family and friends.
All I am trying to do is insure that I at least have a more clear understanding of what happenned and attempt to hold my government accountable for the information they put out.
edit on 3-12-2011 by gamesmaster63 because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-12-2011 by gamesmaster63 because: (no reason
given)
9/11: Criminal Incompetence and Ass-Covering by the Bush Administration
Posted 14 days ago with 12 member flags
Posted 14 days ago with 12 member flags
The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags
Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags
Ultimately the question of the origin of the funds is of little practical significance.
Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags
Posted 2 days ago with 5 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
The Conspiracy Begins: "Planting Drugs on Adam Kokesh " (Video)
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 1 minutes ago
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 1 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
4 Fireballs with Same Heading Spotted Over U.S. in last 24 Hours
General Conspiracies: 7 hours ago, 22 flags
General Conspiracies: 7 hours ago, 22 flags
Untouched water as old as 2.6 billion years is found: Don't drink it
Fragile Earth: 16 hours ago, 21 flags
Fragile Earth: 16 hours ago, 21 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Women don't like quiet males. (They prefer alpha males who are all bullies)
Relationships: 9 hours ago, 139 replies
Relationships: 9 hours ago, 139 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.419 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.419 seconds
