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.
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?
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.
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?
......or better still contact Ballinger yourselves?
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by bubs49
You have been told, and caught in the lie once already. SO, apparently you completely ignore responses written to you, or prefer to accuse, accuse accuse and leave unsubstantiated propaganda claims out in the ether.
The document, above labeled "FBI302, p. 2" is the same one that has been brought up in the thread already. It has been read. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that once a person has read a document, it can then be referred back to, and does not have to be re-posted each time. But, accusing someone of not having "read" it in the first place is a wonderful way to duck responsibility, and avoid answering the direct questions that go to the meat of the matter.
This claim is thoroughly, and utterly devoid of value. It is shown clearly already, and apparently it is the "job" of some people to come here to ATS and keep spinning the plates balanced on top of the wobbly sticks, to keep the show going..........
The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission. However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp.
Originally posted by snowcrash911
The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission. However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
It's not "according to the 9/11 Commission", it's according to the data provided by Mr. Knerr. The 9/11 Commission is identified as the source as a straw man argument, while Ballinger is identified as the source directly when it suits the argument.
So what exactly are you saying about Mr. Knerr?edit on 5-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bubs49
This is not entirely correct.
Originally posted by bubs49
The Memorandum for the Record is a document released by the 9/11 Commission, therefore it is not a straw man argument to identify the Commission as its source.
Originally posted by bubs49
Unlike FBI302, who contains interviews by the FBI to several people, among then David Knerr and Michael J Winter, the Memorandum for the Record is not a direct interview to Knerr.
Originally posted by bubs49
Also, the Commission focused only on "messages of interest" and, for whatever reason, decided to ignore others. Knerr was obviously present at that session and we may also speculate he was the source for "The last message (1303:17Z) was not received"
David Knerr, Manager, Flight Data Automation, provided the briefing. Knerr stated that he accomplished an "ACARS audit" on 9-11 on both UA 175, and UA 93 "by noon." He verbally certified that he presented to Mr. Kara in compiled form all of the ACARS information relevant to both flights that day.
Originally posted by bubs49
however the MFR is not an affidavit or a document by David Knerr.
An FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews that they conduct" [3][4] and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent.
It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.
A forms list from an internal FBI Website lists the FD-302 as Form for Reporting Information That May Become Testimony.
Originally posted by bubs49
I remind you that Knerr declared to the FBI in 2002 that United 93 kept on receiving messages until 10:12 EDT and only after that time the ACARS uplinked by the airline were rejected.
In the final moments, at 10:12 AM EST, of UA FLIGHT 93's flight, ACARS messages were being sent from ground communications but were not being received. This was causing the ACARS messages to be rejected. KNERR advised that FLIGHT 93's low altitude may have caused this dilemma or the fact that FLIGHT 93 had already crashed at the time the messages were sent.
Originally posted by bubs49
Yet all messages after 9:50 EDT were not mentioned in the MFR. Why? Was Knerr's decision to ignore them? Was he lying in 2002 when interviewed by the FBI? I strongly doubt.
Messages #20 to #24 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD. (Chicago Dispatch - SC) However, all of the messages were rejected indicating the aircraft did not receive them.
Also present during this part of the interview was David Knerr, Manager Flight Dispatch Automation, UAL, WHQ.
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
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??
Originally posted by gman1972
Can some one clear this up for me, because I don't really understand.
I was under the impression that the PFT folks and the thread title are saying that because the ACARS message has a time stamp on the bottom that that is confirmation that the ACARS was received by the airplane is that right? Or is it more complex than that and I am not understanding your stance fully?
Thanks
Originally posted by snowcrash911
Originally posted by gman1972
What they're saying, is that because some messages to UA 175, which were not received, were routed through Harrisburg International Airport and Pittsburgh International Airport, that UA 175 must have still been flying in the vicinity, since P4T claims that's how the ACARS routing algorithm works: it continuously detects where the aircraft is flying and selects the ground station for uplink messages based on VHF signal strength from the airplane.
Originally posted by gman1972
Is that was is considered the flight tracking cat a and b the guy mentioned that I don't know about?
Thanks for filling in the blank parts for me
ACARS networks track the aircraft in flight and know where the aircraft is in order to route messages to the aircraft (or vice versa) through the best remote stations on the ground. When a message is sent from the ground or in flight, it is routed through a Central Processing System. This system determines the best routing to a ground station based on the aircraft location. Two types of flight tracking (or flight following) protocols are used for this process. Category A and B.
First is Category A. This type of flight following uses Flight Tracking messages automatically sent from the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes. These messages are a data link and do not contain any text, therefore the customer airline does not receive these messages, they are used for Flight Tracking purposes only. When the Flight Tracking message is sent, the Central Processing System (CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sent through and picks the three best stations for routing messages to and from the aircraft. After roughly 10 minutes, another Flight Tracking message is sent from the aircraft, through a new set of ground stations in the vicinity of it's new location, and the Central Processing System dumps the old stations and replaces it with new stations better for routing messages to the aircraft. This process continues throughout the flight automatically.
The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, is a bit more simple. The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course. The Central Processing System continuously chooses the best station for routing purposes while the aircraft is in flight. If the flight plan route is amended in flight, and a diversion is necessary, the Central Processing System chooses a new remote ground station along the diverted flight path based on this flight tracking protocol, tracking the aircraft.
The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.
The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.
Originally posted by gman1972
That would be a good way to find out if there is any reality to the claim, too bad no one thought to do a message scan to check if there were any automatic position report messages sent from the aircraft after it had crashed into the tower. Because even though they aren't printed, you can still see them in the actual ACARS program… oh well can't do much about it now.
Aircraft Situation Display (ASD)
Dispatchers and other persons who sit positions in the System Operations Centers (SOC)
at both American and United Airlines have access to an aircraft situation display that can
be tailored to meet specific needs. For example, any individual with access to the system
can focus strictly on company planes, a specific plane, or all planes in the system.
Military planes are not displayed. The ASD at each of the two SOCs is tailored to the
needs of each airline and is a subset of the TSD (Time Sensitive Display) commonly used
by FAA, in that the ASD is based on FAA radar feed.
The ASD is not time sensitive and refreshes each minute or more. Nevertheless its
sensitivity allowed United to maintain continuity on UA93 and to have post-facto
awareness that UA175 impacted the second tower. Its sensitivity and data input,
however, was not sufficient to allow American to gain any situational awareness of
AA 77, but did allow some situational awareness of AA 11.
Originally posted by gman1972
And I assume there is a good explanation as to why there was no plane on radar? Or guessing that it was flying low to avoid the radar… assume theres a good explanation why there are no witnesses that saw a big airplane flying a few hundred feet off the ground after the most serious attack on American mainland soil?
Mr. Winter explained the Aircraft Condition and Reporting System ACARS uses radio ground stations RGS at various locations throughout the United States for communication. The messages from the aircraft utilize the RGS in a downlink operating system. A central router determines the strongest signal received from the aircraft and routes the signal/message to UAL flight dispatch.
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.
KNERR related that data is either uplinked to the aircraft from fixed communication centers or downlinked from the aircraft to receiving communication centers. KNERR explained the uplink and downlink references on an ACARS message. DLBLK refers to downlink while ULBLK refers to uplink.
These references also identify that an ACARS message has been received by its sender, either ground communications or the aircraft.