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

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by DHeffBrooklyn

[SNIP]

I actually like the forum for prunes better. But anyway, not sure why you are attacking my "expertise" of telexes and time stamps with such aggression, I do have to look at them and type them all day.

And I hate to say it but I don't believe the 9/11 official story at all, I don't at all believe that two planes brought down three towers. My favourite thread on here and the reason I joined was that 9/11 undebunkable thread from months ago, I showed that to my wife and told my friends about it. Actually I have believed in the controversy since the controversy started. So no, I am not employing any kind of secret tactics to pull the wool over peoples eyes, simply stating fact.

Congrats on being an EX pilot for continental, that's awesome.

What other question am I suppose to answer that relates to this? Or can you tell me why I should explain about cat a and b? I don't get the relevance, not being sarcastic or anything. Maybe you can share your expertise with us?

Being as how you seem to have so much and only have done 3 posts I'm sure you have much more to add then simply trying to point out that I suck

PS what the heck is the P4T forum?? Never mind, figured it out.

bah.. still not giving the switched plane theory any credence.

electronic hiccups

b

Originally posted by gman1972
...not sure why you are attacking my "expertise" of telexes and time stamps with such aggression, I do have to look at them and type them all day.

I'm not "attacking" your "expertise". I am questioning it.

Considering the experts who have placed their name to Pilots For 9/11 Truth, backed by independent corroboration and source, you have not presented any source for your claims that the second time stamp is based on a "printer", and all other sources contradict your claim, including claims made by "Proudbird" that the second time stamp refers to when ARINC "ground systems" received the message.

Why have you not corrected "Proudbird" if you feel the second time stamp is based on,

"
The top one is the referrence to when the acars is sent, the one on the bottom is basically a footer for the person who sent the message:


";09111303 108575 0545"


So, why would any reader he listen to you over the OP article?"

and...

"The one at the top says what time the message was sent, the one at the bottom shows when it was printed. "

You actually contradict yourself.

can you tell me why I should explain about cat a and b? I don't get the relevance, not being sarcastic or anything. Maybe you can share your expertise with us?

It is referenced, explained and thoroughly sourced in the OP article. Have you read it yet?

Are you, or are you not....familiar with Category A and B flight tracking as described by ARINC with respect to ACARS?

PS what the heck is the P4T forum??[

I'll let others reply to that question.

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

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).

reply to post by ProudBird

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 [color=gold]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?

Originally posted by gman1972
...not sure why you are attacking my "expertise" of telexes and time stamps with such aggression, I do have to look at them and type them all day. [quote

I'm not "attacking" your "expertise". I am questioning it.

Considering the experts who have placed their name to Pilots For 9/11 Truth, backed by independent corroboration and source, you have not presented any source for your claims that the second time stamp is based on a "printer", and all other sources contradict your claim, including claims made by "Proudbird" that the second time stamp refers to when ARINC "ground systems" received the message.

These aren't my claims, they are just common knowledge. Just like when you miss a call on your cell it shows what time it came at.... really that's it. Just to be sure I asked around the office and they all said that the first time is the time it was sent, the second time is the time it was printed. Now it is totally possible that the delay is getting the message to ARINC and once it gets there it's instantly transmitted to the printer. Kind of like making a long distance phone call in the old days, takes ages to get to where it's going, but as soon as it does the phone on the other side rings. I didn't correct Proudbird because I though we were saying similar enough things.

The top one is the referrence to when the acars is sent, the one on the bottom is basically a footer for the person who sent the message:

";09111303 108575 0545"

"The one at the top says what time the message was sent, the one at the bottom shows when it was printed. "

You actually contradict yourself.

Yes I see how that could be said, however I was talking about two different sides to the coin which I didn't explain. If I send a message the bottom is what I use for reference (footer) as to when it was send and what the telex number is. For the receiver it shows when it was received/printed at the bottom. Like an email, my sent reference is at the bottom, and for the receiver the time received is at the bottom. Hope that clears it up.

can you tell me why I should explain about cat a and b? I don't get the relevance, not being sarcastic or anything. Maybe you can share your expertise with us?

It is referenced, explained and thoroughly sourced in the OP article. Have you read it yet?

Are you, or are you not....familiar with Category A and B flight tracking as described by ARINC with respect to ACARS?

No I am not. What I want to know is why it's so important? How can category a or b flight tracking change a hard copy of a telex which came off a printer in the office? That's why I find it irrelevant, you guys do know that those are telex copies right? That's what i'm talking about, nothing about flight following.

I deal with pilots every day and have great relationships with them, call many of them friends and fully respect them. One thing is for sure though, most don't know much about ground operations i.e. office stuff then I know about flying a jumbo, I know lots about it, but sure can't fly one. A few days ago I was sending an ACARS and a pilot was looking over my shoulder saying, "hey that's what it looks like." Just the nature of the industry, you guys fly them, we do the rest

Sorry I made a mess of this message :-(
.

edit on 2-12-2011 by gman1972 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2011 by gman1972 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2011 by gman1972 because: (no reason given)

Drat, the telexes that I scanned didn't turn out very well, so i'm not going to post them.

What I'll do tomorrow is scan a few acars messages both up and down and post them for you guys to see. Unfortunately there will be blacked out in a few areas... don't really want to share where or for who I work



PS thanks proud bird for the advise on how to do it.

Originally posted by g146541
Yeah, a text will sit inside of your phone until it can transmit it seems.
Maybe after the smash, the phone flew from the plane and caught signal.
Do err did cell phones work on planes?
I recall the phone call stories being called bull as you cannot use a cell in an airplane.
I really dunno.
Any number cruncher types care to give the cliffs notes?

It WAST'NT a cell phone!! It is a piece of communications equipment in the cockpit of the aircraft. When the message is received, the device sends a type of ACK (Acknowledgment). Read the article people.

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.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
Both aircraft that hit the towers were repainted military aircraft carrying underbelly fuel tanks.

And your evidence for that silly claim is what exactly?

or is this the return of the pod people?

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.

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.

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".

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
All of the veterans identified the craft as KC-135's,

Except KC-135's did not have underwing tanks.... so much for your "veterans!

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
All of the veterans identified the craft as KC-135's,

Except KC-135's did not have underwing tanks.... so much for your "veterans!

I did not say underwing, I said underbelly, and they can be added to any aircraft with sufficient ground clearance.

I would also appreciate not being attacked in such a manner, and a little respect for veterans woudl be appreciated.

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 to post by gamesmaster63


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??

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.

reply to post by gamesmaster63


Then someone showed them the wrong pictures. This veteran KNOWS that the planes that hit the towers were 767s. No underwing pods, no missiles..plain ole civilian 767s.