It Is Conclusive - 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Well After Crash, PilotsFor911Truth.org Rating Options

[onesliceshort]

Just at 13:51 (i.e. 9:51) the position of UA 93 can be deduced from the ACARS data quite good, because we have

Message #0659, sent at 13:50, received at 13:51, routed over Toledo and

Message #0669, sent at 13:51, received at 13:51, routed over Fort Wayne

So Ballinger has sent the same message (same text) to UA 93 within seconds.

Wow, hadn't noticed that Woody.

Why would ACARS choose those two sequential RGS positions for an aircraft that was allegedly moving in the opposite direction (according to RADES between 09:45 and 10:03)?



FWA is around 300 miles away at 09:51am (if not more).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/UA93_RGS_NTSB_Overlay.jpg

According to RADES the aircraft would have been virtually on top of the PIT RGS (among many others)

It would be very interesting to see what the exact ranges of those RGSs actually are using Rob's calculator, the alleged altitudes shown in the FDR and the RADEs datapoints.

Use their own stick to beat them with, ya know?

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Dec 11 2011, 10:44 PM

[DonM]

Pointer,
I'm sure Rob will move this to another thread because it is way off topic

I agree with almost everything you said except... the "explosions" were not hot! Remember the vast amount of paper blowing around Manhattan after the buildings "vaporized". Also witnesses reported the dust cloud to be cooler than the ambient air.
Don

[rob balsamo]

Pointer,
I'm sure Rob will move this to another thread because it is way off topic

I agree with almost everything you said except... the "explosions" were not hot! Remember the vast amount of paper blowing around Manhattan after the buildings "vaporized". Also witnesses reported the dust cloud to be cooler than the ambient air.
Don

Yes, please take it to another thread.

[stannrodd]

Hi Rob .. brilliant stuff happening here!! I haven't been around for a while but got the email pointer and read with great interest.

I have two questions relating to the ACARS network and operational function of the printer. I have read the latest news articles but not all the links.

My first question is .. Does the printer print messages returned from the network only.
If not, my second queston is .. Does the printer print the message which was "sent" before it is actually routed to the network, as if to create a hard copy of the "sent" operations?

I have been asked to expand on this at another forum. My understanding is that the printer is sourced from the network returns only.

Great work being done here.
Cheers Stann

[rob balsamo]

Hi Rob .. brilliant stuff happening here!! I haven't been around for a while but got the email pointer and read with great interest.

I have two questions relating to the ACARS network and operational function of the printer. I have read the latest news articles but not all the links.

My first question is .. Does the printer print messages returned from the network only.
If not, my second queston is .. Does the printer print the message which was "sent" before it is actually routed to the network, as if to create a hard copy of the "sent" operations?

I have been asked to expand on this at another forum. My understanding is that the printer is sourced from the network returns only.

Great work being done here.
Cheers Stann

Hi Stann,

Thanks for the kind words.

The printer referred to in the article is this type of printer...



The ACARS messages we have through the FOIA are the dispatchers copy after being routed through the network.

Hope this helps.

[stannrodd]

Hi Stann,

Thanks for the kind words.

The printer referred to in the article is this type of printer...



The ACARS messages we have through the FOIA are the dispatchers copy after being routed through the network.

Hope this helps.

Excellent Rob .. Thanks for that, it is how I suspected it would be. :-))

[kawika]

Would there be anything in ACARS for UA93 about the alleged change of flight plans at around 9:56?

* The flight plan change: East of Pittsburgh, UA 93 requested a change of its flight plan, i.e. planned destination. "At 9:55:11 Jarrah dialed in the VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR) frequency for the VOR navigational aid at Washington Reagan National Airport, further indicating that the attack was planned for the nation's capital.." (911 Commission report, p. 457).

One minute later, the FAA approved: At 9:56 a.m., Flight 93 asked the Federal Aviation Administration to change its destination to Reagan National Airport in Washington. A minute later, the FAA approved, according to Flight Explorer, a firm that tracks such communications. (US News&World Report, 10/29/01)

Source: Flight Plans Change

I do not see any changes in the messages from EWRSFO that would indicate a DCA destination.

I do see a major gut in the messages from 13:52:00 to 14:01:57.

Another gut from 14:02:02 to 14:10:59.

See these screen shots from file named:

5 AWA 898 Printout of ARINC Messages.pdf







This post has been edited by kawika: Dec 16 2011, 09:56 PM

[woody]

Would there be anything in ACARS for UA93 about the alleged change of flight plans at around 9:56?

IMO definitely not cause the UA 93 tracked by United via ACARS was a different plane than the UA93 tracked by the FAA.

The flight plan change happened, there is enough evidence.

[rob balsamo]

Source: Flight Plans Change

I do not see any changes in the messages from EWRSFO that would indicate a DCA destination.

I do see a major gut in the messages from 13:52:00 to 14:01:57.

Another gut from 14:02:02 to 14:10:59.

See these screen shots from file named:

5 AWA 898 Printout of ARINC Messages.pdf

Yes, it is clear that file is manipulated. We know that it is not the raw data and just a compilation of ACARS for only 3 of the flights all consolidated into one file. UA175 is missing. What else is truncated? It's also interesting to note that the file appears to have been created in June 2004, 1 month prior to the Commission releasing their report. This is not the same file which Winter and Knerr used for their analysis in their interview to the FBI in Jan 2002.

[kawika]

When the ACARS messages resume at 14:10:59 they say DO NOT DIVERT TO DCA.

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/3634/ua93gut2.jpg

Why would Ed Ballinger be sending this message to UA93, unless he knows that there had been a change in flight plan?

It cannot be a generic warning.

[rob balsamo]

When the ACARS messages resume at 14:10:59 they say DO NOT DIVERT TO DCA.

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/3634/ua93gut2.jpg

Why would Ed Ballinger be sending this message to UA93, unless he knows that there had been a change in flight plan?

It cannot be a generic warning.

Exactly... good eyes kawika.

The real question is, if ACARS are routed through dispatcher input assuming flight plan as some govt loyalists have claimed, why didnt Ballinger change RGS routing to something along the diversion to DC? Instead, the messages were routed through CMI, more than 500 miles away. It's because the aircraft which received the ACARS was not diverting to DC, but was in reality, within range of CMI.

Again.. .a review of the following might be helpful for readers....

Note the multiple aircraft converging out in western PA... .and then diverging.... from the alleged UA93 track.

[23investigator]

When the ACARS messages resume at 14:10:59 they say DO NOT DIVERT TO DCA.

[It cannot be a generic warning.

Dear 'kawika'

Please, could you tell me what you mean by a "generic warning".

Robert S

[kawika]

Dear 'kawika'

Please, could you tell me what you mean by a "generic warning".

Robert S

To me, a generic warning would be one given to all aircraft.

[bambooboy]

Would there be anything in ACARS for UA93 about the alleged change of flight plans at around 9:56?

* The flight plan change: East of Pittsburgh, UA 93 requested a change of its flight plan, i.e. planned destination. "At 9:55:11 Jarrah dialed in the VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR) frequency for the VOR navigational aid at Washington Reagan National Airport, further indicating that the attack was planned for the nation's capital.." (911 Commission report, p. 457).

One minute later, the FAA approved: At 9:56 a.m., Flight 93 asked the Federal Aviation Administration to change its destination to Reagan National Airport in Washington. A minute later, the FAA approved, according to Flight Explorer, a firm that tracks such communications. (US News&World Report, 10/29/01)

Source: Flight Plans Change

I do not see any changes in the messages from EWRSFO that would indicate a DCA destination.

I do see a major gut in the messages from 13:52:00 to 14:01:57.

Another gut from 14:02:02 to 14:10:59.

See these screen shots from file named:

5 AWA 898 Printout of ARINC Messages.pdf




<a href="http://img546.imageshack.us/i/ua93gut2.jpg/" target="_blank">
</a>

good point Kawika, good point.
and
I do agree with what Woody replied: UAL and FAA were tracking different planes, and this is the point.
ie: i do not believe FAA lied. "simply" they were fooled. and if we want to be (extremely) kind, we can say the same for the 911Commission (well, they got mostly all keys to understand, but... pressure, nationalism, incredulity, politics, info messed up, etc etc, lead them to the wrong conclusion)

[bambooboy]

Yes, it is clear that file is manipulated. We know that it is not the raw data and just a compilation of ACARS for only 3 of the flights all consolidated into one file. UA175 is missing. What else is truncated? It's also interesting to note that the file appears to have been created in June 2004, 1 month prior to the Commission releasing their report. This is not the same file which Winter and Knerr used for their analysis in their interview to the FBI in Jan 2002.

Hi Rob,
may be you are right, but we do have no complete evidence the file has been manipulated. Although surely is un-complete (UA175 is not present)
I mean, it is well possible this is the same "sanitized in text and times" file FBI used with Knerr and Winter.
it is "sanitized" in "tex" because it does not contains all the acars for all the UAL planes.
it is "sanitized" in "times" 'cause messages has been reordered by times for each of the planes presented in it. may be simply they didnt un-declassiefied the part related to UA175, or who upload it forgot a piece [ PS: who sent FOIA for it? who received first?]

[rob balsamo]

but we do have no complete evidence the file has been manipulated.

We know the file was manipulated just due to the basic fact it does not include UA175 data. In other words, we know it is not the raw data as originally created.

I mean, it is well possible this is the same "sanitized in text and times" file FBI used with Knerr and Winter.

No, it is not possible. The file referenced was created in June 2004. Knerr and Winter were interviewed by the FBI in 2002. So unless they had a time machine to go into the future, it is not the same file.

[Obwon]

We know the file was manipulated just due to the basic fact it does not include UA175 data. In other words, we know it is not the raw data as originally created.

No, it is not possible. The file referenced was created in June 2004. Knerr and Winter were interviewed by the FBI in 2002. So unless they had a time machine to go into the future, it is not the same file.

I've been away from this subject for a while, but doesn't it seem that the "ground stop" order should have been relayed somewhere in this mix? Or was it still to early for that?
I recall that flight 91 was at the head of the runway waiting to take off when the ground stop
came down. So it seems to me that, flight 93 having almost just departed, there should
be a messages about the ground stop pretty early on.

If someone knows please post the sequence, thanks.
Obwon

[bambooboy]

We know the file was manipulated just due to the basic fact it does not include UA175 data. In other words, we know it is not the raw data as originally created.




No, it is not possible. The file referenced was created in June 2004. Knerr and Winter were interviewed by the FBI in 2002. So unless they had a time machine to go into the future, it is not the same file.

Hi Rob,
thanks for quick reply.
As I commented yesterday night on another post after reading deep explanantion from Sergio, yes you are totatlly right. the one poped up by Stutt is not the "sanitized" one. it is also missing any FBI-NTSB references at the top or the end of the document and messages are not numbered as in the reading.

This post has been edited by bambooboy: Jan 15 2012, 11:03 AM

[poppyburner]

* most probably the United Airlines plane tailnumber N591UA which after departing its gate (A17)
at 8:01 EDT and 27 minutes of taxiing took off from the Newark airport at 8:28 EDT - all according
to official airline on-time database BTS (see my compilation here - check online BTS here)
and at 13:53 UTC being over central Michigan diverted from its quite straight course to San
Francisco and was most probably grounded somewhere in southern Michigan - as can be seen from
the airpath track derived from 84Rades radar data:

Could it possibly be the Philidelphia-departed 1517 aircraft, depicted in this video?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XcKApTXD2s @ 4:11

'UNITED 93 IN THE VICINITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA AND CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS AT TIME OF
SHANKSVILLE ALLEGED CRASH'

[Oct 25th, 2012] 'We [United Airlines] operate maintenance hangars at our hubs in Chicago, Denver,
Houston, San Francisco and Los Angeles...'

~ https://hub.united.com/en-us/news/company-o...gar-at-iad.aspx

'Indianapolis Maintenance Center
DATE BUILT: 1994 by United Airlines; Indianapolis
Airport Authority has owned since 2004.'

~ http://www.indianapolisairport.com/files/c....09IMCFacts.pdf

[poppyburner]

...and at 13:53 UTC being over central Michigan diverted from its quite straight course to San Francisco and was most probably grounded somewhere in southern Michigan...

Seen this?:

Hi

I've found a third ELT in FOIA literature:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoojTntrRzU
http://911maps.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-third-elt/

over Ann Arbor, MI, 13:53Z 9:53 EST

UAL93 is over Pittsburgh, approximatively 200nm away south est...