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.
Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by bubs49
Hey Bob... Did you ever take down the 11.2G paper? That was another good one.
Oh, and Bob...what did the radar show?
1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by bubs49
Sorry, but again the "P4T" are talking in circles, and doing the run-around, and when you invest too much trust in what they say, you fall for their game and misdirection.
Just floating this out there --- is it because the formats that American use on their teletypes is subtly different, and doesn't allow Balsamo & Co. @ "P4T" to bedazzle their 'audience' with this ridiculous claims?
Sorry, but again the "P4T" are talking in circles, and doing the run-around, and when you invest too much trust in what they say, you fall for their game and misdirection.
Messages #18 and #19 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Champaign, IL CMI as designated in the line "AN N591UA/GL CMI...".Both messages were sent to the printer and Message #19 also activated an audible signal in the aircraft.
To me our only real opponent is the government. What we say is directed at them and their version of the story in the 911 Commission Report. What GL’s and other Truthers like Legge say and write is meaningless unless the government says it too. That’s why I think it’s best to simply direct them all to the government instead of fighting with them (along with my confidence that the government will not adopt what they say). Only our real opponent can make any of their stuff matter.
Originally posted by djeminy
[You are again and again making this into a personal vendetta.
As for that, you too are displaying yourself as a severely tragic-comic figure as well.
I find it therefore impossible to believe that you have ever been a pilot responsible for the welfare and safety of any number of traveling passengers.
I suspect you're getting all your information from instruction books, manuals, wikipedia and the like, etc, etc..
I might even concede that you perhaps have used some of your savings trying out flying in 'simulators' now and again, but that's about all!
Please try to deal with 'reality' for once in your life - weedwacker .....
Cheers
Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
What's your point about UA 93? That audible bell in the cockpit, which can be rung at the direction of a flight dispatcher, was that sent after UA 93's official crash time?
I'm not saying I already know, just clue me in please.
Please try to deal with 'reality' for once in your life...
Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by djeminy
This is what I attempt to exhort the people who actually know nothing, and therefore I can bring an iota of knowledge, to dispel the tidal waves of misinformation that flow on these topics, and primarily form the "P4T":
Please try to deal with 'reality' for once in your life...
And, I will say that the rest of your ad hominem is a typical example of the tactics employed, when bereft of any substantial and factual evidence.
One should always keep in mind the full litany of the failed "revelations" from "P4T" over the years, and see the baseless claims and exaggerated manipulations for what they truly are.
Furthermore, it is obvious that "they" have carved out a particularly noisome place in history, as is evident with a close examination. To the extent that there is no telling how many minions are sent forth on the Internet to "pump it out" in their favor, just to attract attention.
When in fact, if this "information" was indeed so 'Earth-shattering', then it would be front-page news, and top stories on all media networks. Not a sad ploy that is used to steer "donations" to the coffers of a particularly feeble website masquerading as a "quest for 9/11 truth".
Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by ThePostExaminer
What's your point about UA 93? That audible bell in the cockpit, which can be rung at the direction of a flight dispatcher, was that sent after UA 93's official crash time?
I'm not saying I already know, just clue me in please.
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 Dispatchers have an ASD is due to the fact the aircraft across the globe deviate from their cleared flight plans daily due to weather, traffic, etc. With an ASD, Dispatchers can keep track of their flights and alert for weather (or other adverse conditions) along the route. Even if Dispatchers had the capability to choose which specific ground station to route a message, why would they choose MDT and then later PIT if the aircraft is diverting back to the east on their monitors? The answer is, they wouldn't. The hypothesis that Remote Ground Station routing is based on original flight plan is completely absurd and usually attempted by only those who obviously are not interested in the facts, instead need to speculate to hold onto their beliefs. As described, the Central Processing System routes messages through remote ground stations based on Flight Tracking Protocol(5).
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by snowcrash911
Now do us all a favour and go read before spouting your "opinion".edit on 9-12-2011 by ThePostExaminer because: (no reason given)
Yes, I'm interested in resolving details, but the larger body of evidence supporting plane crashes and hijacking as described by the "official story" overshadows the far-fetched Northwoods-inspired straw grasping by a group of desperate, discredited paranoids who know just enough to get themselves in trouble.
1405 (10:05 a.m.)
ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet
doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred
ntmo-e: southeastbound still doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him
ntmo-e: correct doug: ok buddy
10:06
ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right
...
doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zero seven eighty four six west
ntmo-e: that's the last known position of united ninety three
United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site.
i47.photobucket.com...
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Let's not forget the other "anomalies" surrounding "Flight 93" Snowcrash.
pilotsfor911truth.org...
1405 (10:05 a.m.)
ntmo-e: ok united ninety three we're now receiving a transponder on and he is at eighty two hundred feet
doug: now transponder and he's eighty two-hundred
ntmo-e: southeastbound still doug: eighty two hundred feet and now getting a transponder on him
ntmo-e: correct doug: ok buddy
10:06
ntmo-e: ok we've lost radar contact with united ninety three
doug: all right
...
doug: ya thirty nine fifty one north zero seven eighty four six west
ntmo-e: that's the last known position of united ninety three
From the site linked to above
United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site.
i47.photobucket.com...