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

page: 7
70
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 





Important new information surfacing from P4911T, that a text message was confirmed RECEIVED long after UA 175 airplane was reported to have hit the South Tower. This evidence was tampered with in the 9/11 Omission Report, but due to the diligence of researchers, it provides further confirmation of what many of us have suspected for a long time: That the aircraft may have been switched in mid air.


It confirms yet again that the aircraft shown on TV may never have existed to begin with.




posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Would be interesting to see what Rob Balsalmo would have to say in regards to ProudBirds posts...



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


I think the report says that the phone that was supposedly ON the crashed aircraft received a text, not sent one.

So, the phone company sending out stored messages and calls doesn't apply here.

The question is instead one of 'How does a telephone, smashed and incinerated in a crash, is in working order enough to receive a test message?'



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
The question is instead one of 'How does a telephone, smashed and incinerated in a crash, is in working order enough to receive a test message?'


The simple answer is it can't. Also, it's not exactly a phone.... If you believe this you've being conned by the typical "techno babble" of the ballsucker. He's here, posting in the thread so why don't you say Hi!



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

The above log is an ACARS message received by UA27 at 10:32 EDT though the RGS of Minneapolis/St.Paul (MSP). Note how Sent and Received timestamps are visible.
The following is a failed ACARS message (not received by UA27):

HDQDD CHI68R
.HDQDDUA 111530/LIN
CMD
AN N447UA/GL MSP
- QUHDQDDUA 2
DDLXCXA
***UA27 ***


The teletype print-out you posted (not included here) is a different message (a "Free Text") than this one at 1530Z.

The information included in the header lines is different. I will find the decode website later. In fact, looking at it, the uplink from Dispatch might be incomplete, there. Hence, no acknowledgement from ARINC that the message was slated for delivery.



Again, no timestamp for the Received field, no counter #.


AND, again.....the timestamp at the bottom of the teletype examples are the ones that tell the customer, in this case United Airlines, that the message was accepted by the ARINC ground network....it is not the "time" of airplane acknowledgement. The "counter #" is simply the order the message was sequenced in the company's printer.



This message was sent from the ground at 11:30 EDT. The aircraft did not receive it, probably because it had already landed somewhere and its onboard ACARS MU had been turned off.




We do not "turn off" the ACARS!! It uses, in most installations, VHF comm radio #3. In older airplanes, where we only had two transceivers (Com 1 and Com 2), then it used VHF radio #2.

N447UA is an Airbus A320, so it had the most sophisticated avionics at the time, and a dedicated VHF #3 radio.

As long as the airplane is on Normal AC power, whether it is from external source, the APU or the engines.....all three sources will power all electrical buses. In other words, if there is power to the buses that provide electricity to the flight deck, then the radios are energized. They have no "off" switches.

Now, if you want to provide evidence that UAL flight 27 landed at MSP after the Nationwide order to clear the skies, and that by 1530 Z (1130 EDT, 1030 in Minneapolis) the airplane had been completely de-powered (or, on External power, with only the Ground Service buses energized), then I will look forward to reading your proof.

On reviewing, briefly, the Electrical System information for the A320 (an airplane I never trained on), I see that their terminology is different from Boeing's.

The counterpart equivalent to the Boeing "Ground Service" bus is called the "Maintenance" bus on an Airbus. The associated buses are called the "Ground/Flight" buses. The ' / ' denotes that the buses are wired through the air/ground sensing systems.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
]

reply to post by bubs49
 


I'll answer your questions to the best of my knowledge but I always screw up the quote part, so I'll just quote the part I'm answering.

"You will discover that in some instances there is a 1 or 2 minutes difference between the time when an ACARS was sent and the time the same ACARS was received, whereas most of ACARS are sent and received within 60 seconds."

Yes, that is totally right. There can be a few minutes difference on when it was sent to when it was received, but these are copies of the sent messages, the difference in time is when the message was sent to ARINC and when it was printed on the printer. I'll send a regular telex to an address that doesn't exist and show you that even though there is no person or computer to acklowledge receipt of the message, I will still get a time stamp at the bottom. You'll have to be patient though as I have to do this from home.

"Exactly. If you send your ACARS to an aircraft that does not exist because you mistyped your uplink or you send your ACARS to an aircraft that exists and your typing is correct but, for whatever reason, the aircraft does not receive it, this is what you get:

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

Sorry, but that's not right. I should have done this to begin with in my previous post, but I didn't think of it till last night. So I sent a acars to an airplane which doesn't exist and I have in my hand the copy of the sent message with the time stamp at the bottom, same as all the rest. Again I'll have to wait till I get home up upload it.

I had a look at the link with all the acars messages on it, one exchange caught my eye on page 10, ground is saying beware of cockpit intrusion, reference number 565, the next message(unrelated to the previous message, but same subject) is a pilot sending an air-ground message asking "which airline." The message from air-ground has no time stamp at the bottom either, however the plane obviously received the warning as did the ground receive his reply... because he had a question and they have a copy of it. I'm wondering if those messages with no time stamp at the bottom are actual copies of the acars messages from the flight deck file, as I have pointed out the flight deck acars dont have a time stamp, but every copy from the ground does. Or perphaps they were printed after the fact using a screen print from the acars system? I can scan acars messages going back months and print them out, maybe that's what these ones are without the time stamp. Anyway that's for someone else to investigate, I'm just here to try and prove that the time stamp at the bottom of a telex is a reflection of when the telex was printed, not received.

Hopefully when I upload the examples of the message to a plane that doesn't exist and a telex to a department that doesn't exist, both with time stamps on the bottom that will help show that.

edit on 4-12-2011 by gman1972 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-12-2011 by gman1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird



Originally posted by ProudBird

Now, if you want to provide evidence that UAL flight 27 landed at MSP after the Nationwide order to clear the skies, and that by 1530 Z (1130 EDT, 1030 in Minneapolis) the airplane had been completely de-powered (or, on External power, with only the Ground Service buses energized), then I will look forward to reading your proof.


I agree with you to some extent. It was my speculation that UA27 had "probably landed". I am still delving into this issue. I consider this a possibility, but I concede that I have no final confirmation so far. Anyway, for whatever reason, the format of the last ACARS sent to UA27 is clearly different from all the others. Which is your assumption?

Please take into account that for the ACARS with the same format sent to United 93 at 10:20 EDT (see above) we have confirmation form Michael J Winter and David Knerr that it was not received by the aircraft.

Please look at my previous posts to find quotes and links.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
After reading PB post I see that I am also saying something different from him, he says that the time on the bottom is when ARINC receives the message and I am saying that it's when it prints out. Quite honestly I'm not sure which one is correct, both sound feasable and I don't know how to find out which one is right. But for the purpose of this debate, I don't think it really has much significance anyway. We are both trying to show that the time on the bottom simply has nothing to do with when/if the acars was received by the other party. Our difference on this matter doesn't apply to that.

Maybe I can dig around and try to find a beginners guide to telexes... may have to dig very deep indeed!
edit on 4-12-2011 by gman1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Hi all,

Okay so I'll start off with the actual telex manual that I found which describes what the time stamps at the bottom mean



We use two time stamps for some reason, a start of the printing and the end of the printing…. they must have scammed us that this was important many years ago as I can find no use for it. Regardless, there it is in black in white what the bottom time stamp means.

Next I sent a message to an airport which doesn't exist YWR, this part didn't come out very well as I realized that I could not copy myself in on it, or someone could claim that the time/date stamp was for my copy which is a valid address. So I just sent it to the fake airport and screen printed the confirmation that it was sent which shows the time stamp as well, then I include the rejection message quoting the same time reference



So I get a message back referencing the time signature of the message that I sent, even though it was sent to somewhere that doesn't exist.

Next up is the message to an aircraft that doesn't exist. For this I could not use the standard program as… well it doesn't allow you to send messages to planes that don't exist. But there is a free text way of doing it that works just as good as the program. So just to prove that I am not pulling anyones leg or being sneaky first captures are the format of the message that I'm sending to a valid a/c and the proof that they received it.



I left part of the registration "OP" so that you can see when I go to the next message that it matches. Also my comment about checking if it works was a play on my part as I had already told the gate info earlier.

Here is the proof that it worked



Right, so now onto the acars message to an aircraft that doesn't exist HXP. First picture is to prove that the aircraft doesn't exist.



And now finally my message to the fictitious aircraft HXP with a time stamp at the bottom. Based on what the folks who are saying that the time stamp on the bottom is the time of receipt… well obviously not in this case as there isn't anything that it will be receiving it.



Well that's about it. Not even sure if anyone is still looking into this as it's been pretty dead for the last 24 hours, but there you go anyway.

Cheers all

edit on 4-12-2011 by gman1972 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-12-2011 by gman1972 because: tried to resize the pictures but can't figure it out.
edit on 6/12/11 by argentus because: photos removed at poster's request



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by gman1972
 


OK, much applause.


Based on what the folks who are saying that the time stamp on the bottom is the time of receipt… well obviously not in this case as there isn't anything that it will be receiving it.


I can retract the educated guess that the bottom time stamp must have come from ARINC. It was the only thing I could think of, since I knew that it certainly was NOT an "acknowledgement" from the airplane itself.

So, as simple as the time the telex stopped printing, eh? Blimey!!


(That was my best British accent. And, a word that doesn't run afoul of the censors).

Now, where are all of the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" cheerleaders??

'TiffanyInLA'? You reading this??

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and anyone taking any bets on whether this misinformation of "UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash"will get taken down from the above-mentioned site of bad facts?

Me? I'm not taking any wagers, because I know I'd lose....(but, I'd like to be proven wrong, in this case).

edit on Sun 4 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by gman1972
 


Originally posted by gman1972
Okay so I'll start off with the actual telex manual that I found which describes what the time stamps at the bottom mean


So much work when the author of the referred ACARS already provided a complete explanation about what the timestamp at the bottom means?



Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

Memorandum For The Record, p. 6/10

Definitely you don't read the others' posts. Also, the fact that first you linked to a page with a list of ACARS decoded (probably by a radio amateur) through a non-proprietary decoding software (what remarkably you called "real ACARS", LOL) and now you claim to have disproved a theory based on one or two personal tests leads me to conclude that you completely ignore how the format changes from one airline to another. Unless you have the same proprietary decoding format as United Airlines, you'll never get the same output format!

reply to post by ProudBird
 


Originally posted by ProudBird
I can retract the educated guess that the bottom time stamp must have come from ARINC. It was the only thing I could think of, since I knew that it certainly was NOT an "acknowledgement" from the airplane itself.


Really? It does not come from ARINC?



KNERR further advised that AERONAUTICAL' RADIO INCORPORATED ARINC serves as the network administrator for the communication data. According to KNERR, this is important to remember when reviewing data messages because uplink and downlink times may show a time delay when compared. This is caused by the/processing of multiple ACARS messages through the ARINC network at the same time. ARINC serves a substantial portion of the commercial airline industry operating within the Unites States. Depending on the time of day or region of the country that an aircraft may be operating over, ACARS traffic can be delayed.

KNERR advised that when an aircraft downlinks data to communication towers it does so by sending out messages over a large geographic area that it is flying. Depending on the area of the country, more than one communication tower may receive the aircraft's message. KNERR pointed this out to be the case during FLIGHT 93's flight over New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio on 09/11/2001.

FBI302, p. 36-37

Obviously you complete ignore the subject. You don't read posts, you don't bother to read the links provided, you use more than questionable examples to refute a theory and yet you insist you have debunked the article?

Unbelievable.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by gman1972




Am I right that you scanned a SITA document to disprove a theory fully based on ACARS routed through ARINC?

edit on 6/12/11 by argentus because: photo removed at poster's request



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


Oh, I have read every bit of it. This is where somebody's reading comprehension is failing:


Obviously you complete ignore the subject. You don't read posts, you don't bother to read the links provided, you use more than questionable examples to refute a theory and yet you insist you have debunked the article?


Regarding Mr. Knerr. Let's review the text block again, I will repeat the relevant bits -


KNERR further advised that AERONAUTICAL' RADIO INCORPORATED ARINC serves as the network administrator for the communication data.


SO far, so good. Nothing misunderstood, here.


According to KNERR, this is important to remember when reviewing data messages because uplink and downlink times may show a time delay when compared.


Ah, the crux of the confusion. He (Mr. Knerr) refers to two different message transactions. The Ground-to-Air message is one. Conversely, there is also an Air-to-Ground message than can be sent, as well. We can query directly to Dispatch, with a "Free Text" message, just as they do to us. And, WE receive no "acknowledgement" except the words "MSG SENT" in the scratchpad. No "time" nor "sequence #" ...those will be telexed on the ground at the teletype, when it is channeled to the printer.

Mr. Knerr continues, again all factually correct:


This is caused by the/processing of multiple ACARS messages through the ARINC network at the same time. ARINC serves a substantial portion of the commercial airline industry operating within the Unites States. Depending on the time of day or region of the country that an aircraft may be operating over, ACARS traffic can be delayed.


There is no "time stamp" on the ACARS message sent by the airplane, printed at the bottom of the Telex (teletype) copy in Dispatch.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bubs49
reply to post by gman1972
 



Definitely you don't read the others' posts. Also, the fact that first you linked to a page with a list of ACARS decoded (probably by a radio amateur) through a non-proprietary decoding software (what remarkably you called "real ACARS", LOL) and now you claim to have disproved a theory based on one or two personal tests leads me to conclude that you completely ignore how the format changes from one airline to another. Unless you have the same proprietary decoding format as United Airlines, you'll never get the same output format!



Sorry dude but you have me confused with someone else, I haven't linked to anything in this thread.



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bubs49
 


More misdirection and assumption and inference, straight from the horse's mouth?:


So much work when the author of the referred ACARS already provided a complete explanation about what the timestamp at the bottom means?


This refers to Mr. Ballinger, a Dispatcher working for United Airlines.

However, again with the comprehension:


Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.


This is Mr. Ballinger's opinion, at the time of that interview, regarding the decoded time references on the Telexes.

But, obviously, when he says he "....is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message...", that conflicts with the (sometimes) reality of occasional delays, as pointed out by Mr. Knerr.


It is very common for people who work with the day-to-day routine technology of this sort to have minor misconceptions about what "every" digit and numeral on those teletype print-outs actually means.

I've looked at thousands of similar such print-outs......they are the primary source of transmitting the flight paperwork.....and you learn to focus on the parts that are important. Headers and suffixes are not normally bothered with, and when pressed to "explain" them, sometimes one makes assumptions.

BTW, your link to Mr. Ballinger's testimony (I presume that's what it was) titled "Memorandum for the Record, p. 6/10" does not work, in the above post. Takes me to a blank screen. (**)

edit(**)...Oh, I see why. You put ' " 's in between the url tags.

Here:

media.nara.gov...


edit on Sun 4 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   


Am I right that you scanned a SITA document to disprove a theory fully based on ACARS routed through ARINC?



Do you know what SITA is?

From wiki for ease


Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a digital datalink system for transmission of short, relatively simple messages between aircraft and ground stations via radio or satellite. The protocol, which was designed by ARINC to replace their VHF voice service and deployed in 1978,[1] uses telex formats. SITA later augmented their worldwide ground data network by adding radio stations to provide ACARS service. Over the next 20 years, ACARS will be superseded by the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN) protocol for Air Traffic Control communications and by the Internet Protocol for airline communications.


edit on 4-12-2011 by gman1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Well done Proudbird. You've been lecturing people for how many pages now on your take of what the timestamps mean, then retract your "educated guess" because of a screenshot of an ACARS message that has no bearing whatsoever on the UA ACARS system and which is 10 years more advanced?!

You say that Ballinger was merely stating "his opinion" in that the timestamps referred to time sent and time received, yet we should take your (still retracted?) "opinion" which is based on the latest most spinnable claims until the next one comes along?

Ballinger worked through the ACARS messages for the FBI as seen in the ACARS PDF. Are you really trying to tell us that this guy's "opinion" isn't worth taking into consideration over yours (whatever it is now) and gman's??



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
No doubt in my mind that September 11th, 2001 had foreknowledge, was foreseeable and obviously forewarned about. Those proven activities could not have happened unless, it was an inside job. Therefore, it was. End of that argument.

However, this interesting twist, regrettably, has too much spin-room for an alternative explanation/argument. Like, a delay in transmission. So we'll be wasting our time putting our energy on this when at the end of the day, it won't change anything.
And too bad too because I personally feel none of those planes hit any of their said-targets that morning.

In fact, I just learned (years later) how Flight 23 was a possible 5th lie. Errrr, I mean plane!

And we all know how Flight 93 was originally reported to have landed safely in Cleveland too, right?

So when certain facts jostle and upset the Operation Northwood-like story-line that day, they simply spin those stories into 'mistakes' and blame them on all the confusion that befell the world that day!

Listen the occupants on this pathetic planet (particularly the United States) needs conflict (war) to make money at all times. There hasn't been a war-less day ever since the gun was invented!

Please please PLEASE I implore you to read my thread on Susan Lindauer ..................



edit on 5-12-2011 by Human_Alien because: fix link



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by gman1972
 


I can retract the educated guess that the bottom time stamp must have come from ARINC. It was the only thing I could think of, since I knew that it certainly was NOT an "acknowledgement" from the airplane itself.


As usual, you won't bother to read the linked documentation, anyway:



GAMBARANI was referenced in Baltimore RAPID START 1163 as the point of contact for obtaining any text messages sent by the four hijacked aircrafts in captioned investigation. GAMBARANI advised all text data messages retrieved from the four hijacked aircraft were stored without being analyzed by ARINC.

[...]

GAMBARANI advised the text messages from aircraft through 9/11 ARINC usually contain information such as time away from the gate, Workine-level time of take off, time of landing and time to the gate. Any administrative messages supplied by the airline to ARINC can be Employee uploaded to the aircraft. Occasionally, companies will monitor engine instruments and performance through the ARINC system automatically. GAMBARANI is not sure what monitoring status was maintained by American or United Airlines, the two companies involved in the hijacking.


FBI302, p. 2

Before speculating further and claiming to have debunked a subject that you completely ignore, please take the time to revise the official documentation. The ACARS logs were emailed by ARINC to the FAA and then to the FBI. David Knerr and Michael J Winter commented a "sanitized list" of 24 genuine ACARS provided by ARINC. Unfortunately we don't have this list, but both Winter and Knerr confirmed that United 93 was still airborne and kept on receiving ACARS within the CMI (Champiagn, IL) coverage area at least until 10:12 EDT.

I don't think it make much sense to post further in this thread until you'll bother to read the documentation and provide some other evidence than your personal assumptions and speculations.
edit on 5-12-2011 by bubs49 because: Changed a potentially misleading sentence.
edit on 5-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-12-2011 by bubs49 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Just to get this thread back on track let's step back and look at this logically.

What's being said here? That a communications system which is used for many purposes which range from the relatively "mundane" to timesaving to possible life threatening situations such as weather fronts (the need to divert) or warnings such as "possible hijackings" is simply left to chance??

That a message sent from ground control is simply thrown into the ether? That ground control receive no digital confirmation that the message has been received? What a joke.

Bottom line, The ACARS PDF notes show that at 09:21AM

pilotsfor911truth.org...

"United says, you may want to send out cockpit warnings."

The UA175 ACARS message in question:




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



There was no "backlog" or "delay" in the printer or whatever. The message was physically sent at @09:21AM according to the notes. End of story.

The message was apparently received and recognized by the cockpit MU in Pittsburgh 20 minutes after UA175 allegedly impacted. The timestamps "sent/received" claim is backed up by Ballinger, And it logically makes sense,

My own 2cents..

On the claim that the ACARS system was simply following the route the aircraft flew, why stop at Pittsburgh? Isn't the flightpath also delineated by the time of take off, speed, etc? Is it logical that the AIRINC system would call for the aircraft to be located by going though the entire proposed flightpath than a system where location is based on time of take off and speed?

Instead of GLs doing their usual flaffing about for excuses, why not produce the documentation to counter Ballinger's "opinion" or better still contact Ballinger yourselves?

Until then, the OP still stands unanswered and valid questions need to be answered.



new topics
top topics
 
70
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join