IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Duhbunkers try to explain ACARS and fail

rob balsamo
post Dec 25 2011, 06:56 AM
Post #161



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (lunk @ Dec 25 2011, 06:06 AM) *
i'm still looking forward to a short video,
concisely and simply explaining all of this, in a way that can be easily and quickly understood by anybody.

Merry Christmas everyone!



Try this one on for starters.... short and concise....



Then realize how many people who hide behind a virtual mask are talking about our work where I am allegedly banned.... smile.gif

Truth always prevails.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Dec 25 2011, 07:21 AM
Post #162





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,012
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 23 2011, 10:56 AM) *
Try this one on for starters.... short and concise....



Then realize how many people who hide behind a virtual mask are talking about our work where I am allegedly banned.... smile.gif

Truth always prevails.



So damn amazing fookin' obvious bloody True.

Like much your 'serious' humour, Rob -

and may 'the force' be with us - constantly!


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Dec 25 2011, 11:10 AM
Post #163





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



Time is running out the clock is ticking for the OCT.



Tick Tock! Tick Tock! Tick Tock! Tick Tock!

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Dec 25 2011, 11:18 AM
Post #164





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 119
Joined: 6-May 08
Member No.: 3,289



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 15 2011, 06:01 AM) *
I think the first question I would like to know is if this is Warren.....



HAHAHA Look at that photo Warren is such a computer nerd - geek/programmer who has nothing better
to do with his time than sit infront of a computer all day long lol he is really ugly too.

laughing1.gif laughing1.gif laughing1.gif

This post has been edited by 9/11 Justice Now: Dec 25 2011, 11:19 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 26 2011, 06:23 AM
Post #165





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 15-February 11
Member No.: 5,658



This post is just an extension of post #156. I used the same radar dataset and the same calculation method referred there. Also, the same introduction, notes and disclaimer apply.

I decided to analyze the situation of United 93 at 9:40 EDT when Message #11 was sent from UA's dispatcher Ed Ballinger to United 93.

As mentioned at post #156, unfortunately the last official radar Lat/Long position for United 93 was tracked at 13:40:03,000 UTC (9:40:03 EDT) and was 4100'38.662"N 08151'46.830"W. This is when the alleged hijackers turned the transponder off. The aircraft was eventually tracked as primary track only. Now, Message #11 was sent by Ballinger at 9:40 EDT. However the message was probably delivered at 9:41 EDT, as confirmed by the second timestamp in Ballinger's log and by several timestamps in the ARINC log PDF provided by Warren Stutt, both in the ULBLK and the DLBLK blocks. All the DLBLK blocks downlinked from the aircraft I will refer to in this post have a timestamp comprised between 13:41:12 UTC and 13:41:20 UTC. Therefore, in this case, the aircraft position represented on the map does not match exactly the actual position of the aircraft when the DLBLK blocks were downlinked. In other words, there is a little discrepancy of about one minute. Taking into account that the aircraft was headed Southwest at that time and that an aircraft expected to make a ground speed of 480 knots would cover 8 miles per minute or 1 mile every 7.5 seconds (240 NM in 30 minutest), we can assume that the position of United 93 at 9:41 EDT was up to 8 miles SW compared to the position shown in the map. This discrepancy is absolutely irrelevant given the magnitude of the distances shown below and has no significant impact on the conclusions of this post, however I thought it was correct to point out this issue before presenting the conclusion of this analysis.

As usual, Mr. Winter's statement will not be deemed as coming from an expert by Stutt and his friends on UM, although Winter worked as Manager of Flight Dispatch at United Airlines for 14 years having previously worked as Flight Dispatcher at Midwest Airlines from 1987 to 1990. Anyway, this is what he declared to the FBI about Message #11:

QUOTE
Messages #11 and #12 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Cleveland, OH. These messages also activated the audible signal in the aircraft.


Giving for granted that "using the RGS near Cleveland, OH" will be one more time interpreted as "CLE was only the predicted RGS", let's take a look at the relevant printout coming from Ballinger's desk:

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111340/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CLE
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD
/HIGH SECURITY ALERT. SECURE COCKPIT.ADMIT NO ONE IN TO COCKPIT.
TWO AIRLINER HIT NY , TRADE CENTER. AND 1 AIRCRAFT IN IAD MISSIN
G AND ONE IN EWR MISSING...TOO UAL 175/93- MISSING

CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111341 108575 0638



Finally this is the screenshot of the corresponding log in the ARINC log PDF provided by Stutt. Please note that only the first part of this log is visible in the screenshot. This message is quite long, the header begins at the end of p. 118 and extends until the end of p. 120. Therefore please refer to the relevant pages in the document to have a full view of all the blocks contained in this message:



I reported the aircraft position at 9:40 EDT with the closer RGS' on a Google Earth map:



If we believe that "Stn=" indicates the actual transmitting station, then we must conclude that something very unusual happened one more time, just as we have seen at 9:35 EDT. At 9:40 EDT United 93 was very close to the CAK's remote ground station (20.229 nm), while CLE was an excellent second option at only 23.998 nm. Yet, we should believe that the CPS ignored two very close RGS' and arbitrarily routed Message #11 through PIT, which was at a distance of 80.596 nm, i.e. four times the distance compared to CAK and CLE. This is absolutely implausible and has no technical nor logical explanation. Moreover, since the position of the aircraft at 9:41 EDT was slightly more SW than shown on the map, as mentioned above, then we can conclude that United 93 was even closer to CAK. Therefore we would definitely expect to see "CAKXX" in the "Stn=" field instead of "PITC6".
If someone speculates that the Cleveland airspace was congested on the morning on 9/11 as explanation for the odd situation we have seen at 9:35 EDT at post #156, then he should also explain why the CAK's RGS was clogged or unavailable at that time as well. It is obvious that these "explanations" have no real technical basis. They are pure speculations which aim to desperately support a theory which is simply wrong and contradicted by the same document it claims to be founded on.

However the bad news for the supporters of this theory do not end here. An analysis of the stations shown in the "BepStnName=" fields within the DLBLK blocks conclusively proves how unfounded this theory is.



These are the RGS' shown in the DLBLK blocks for this message:

PITC6
IADC6
YYZA6
YYZB6
HTSA6
CRWA6
ORDA6
DTWB6
CVGA6
YYZA6
PITA6

One more time the aircraft appears to have been selectively "blind". While it was unable to see very close stations at only 20 nm such as CAK or CLE or other stations at a fairly distance such as TOL, incredibly he could see ORD (pointer P) at 278.46 nm, IAD (pointer R) at 238.05 nm, YYZ (pointer T) at 188.88 nm, CVG (pointer V) at 174.29 nm, HTS (pointer S) at 161.70 nm, CRW (pointer Q) at 158.77 nm and DTW (pointer U) at 98.871 nm.

Obviously there is only one possible conclusion after reviewing the above data: either this theory is completely invented or the document it is founded on was manipulated. The ARINC logs, which are being used by Stutt and other posters on UM to disprove the claims raised by Pilots for Truth, actually prove the contrary: that something in the official version definitely does not add up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 26 2011, 06:32 AM
Post #166





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 15-February 11
Member No.: 5,658



Apparently someone on the Unexplained Mysteries' forum tried to address the conclusions I presented at post #156.

QUOTE
And here we have some of the hand waving that I've been expecting.

231.23 nautical miles is not beyond the reach of ACARS messaging. I've provided documentation which clearly states this and the VHF/UHF line of sight calculator that Balsamo himself shared confirms this.

The documentation mentioned, SIGNAL-IN-SPACE MINIMUM AVIATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (MASPS) FOR ADVANCED VHF DIGITAL DATA COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY WITH DIGITAL VOICE TECHNIQUES (masps.pdf), states on page 48:

QUOTE

The propagation characteristics of the VHF band restrict transmission
and reception to essentially line-of-sight conditions. The maximum line of-
sight range for an enroute aircraft at an altitude of 30,000 feet is about
250 nautical miles. The radio range decreases at lower altitudes to a
strictly localized coverage when the aircraft is on the ground.



As if that isn't enough in itself, take a look at Rob's calculator link. Plug anything between 26800 and 27000 feet into the first box and you'll get 232 nautical miles. If the aircraft were below these altitudes then Sergio's statements might actually have some merit. Now plug 35000 feet into the calculator and find the VHF range jump up to 265 nm. I believe the aircraft was actually higher than 35000 feet at that moment, but you get the picture.


False.

Truth is that the transmission lines and, in fact, the essential grounding terminations on most airliners are degraded over time, which in fact increases the insertion losses between the antenna and the rack on the plane by (using signal generators and power meters) as much as 6 db more than normal. That's why ARINC specifically states "up to 200 nm" at FL 29 as maximum range. What happens in reality is that, due to overall crappy maintenance and corrosion on aircraft skins, with the bonding so questionable for the transmission line shield integrity at the antenna connector being so generally not optimal, it's a stretch to really get that 200 miles very often except with very new aircraft or exceptionally well maintained airplanes. Cyclical maintenance schedules do not even touch routine corrosion prevention on these antenna grounding plates unless the plane is removed from service and then completely overhauled. Bottom line: a range of 180 nm at best.

But now let's take a closer look at his quote. The title of the document is "SIGNAL-IN-SPACE MINIMUM AVIATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (MASPS) FOR ADVANCED VHF DIGITAL DATA COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY WITH DIGITAL VOICE TECHNIQUES" and is available for download here. I will quote now the complete paragraph as it is (p. 48-49):

QUOTE
The propagation characteristics of the VHF band restrict transmission
and reception to essentially line-of-sight conditions. The maximum line of-
sight range for an enroute aircraft at an altitude of 30,000 feet is about
250 nautical miles. The radio range decreases at lower altitudes to a
strictly localized coverage when the aircraft is on the ground. The
normal index of refraction of the atmosphere is greater than unity, which
extends the possible range of VHF transmissions most of the time.
However, the refractivity varies widely, resulting in a significantly lower
reliability of extended-range communications. The VHF radio channel is
subject to slow and fast fading due to time varying multipath, obstruction
of the radio line of sight, and changes in atmospheric conditions. The
predominantly line-of-sight nature of VHF radio limits its use for airground
and ground-air communications to airspace that can be served by
land-based stations. Thus, coverage is limited to reasonably accessible
over-land areas. Air-to-air communication is possible in any airspace,
subject to the constraints of line-of-sight, transmitter effective radiated
power, and receiver subsystem sensitivity.


The first part not marked in bold is the part the guy on UM has quoted in his post. The second part marked in bold is what he knowingly omitted. And why did he omit it? Because, if read in its entirety, the above paragraph clearly proves the contrary of what intended by the poster. While 250 nm is to be considered as the max. technical line of-sight range at an altitude of 30,000 ft, in reality ground-air communications are limited by physical constraints such as "transmitter effective radiated power, and receiver subsystem sensitivity". All this is clearly described in the document quoted, but obviously the poster removed this essential information from his original quote because the resulting meaning would be completely different than the intended. As a matter of fact, the document quoted by the guy completely confirms (one more time) why ARINC only guarantees deliveries "up to 200 nm", whereas "up to 200 nm" is to be interpreted in its simple, literal meaning and not as a distance that one can personally adapt based on circumstances or can fit into a theory that has been already and conclusively proven as wrong for many other reasons.

Finally, if the poster insists that the VHF range can jump up to 265 nm when an aircraft is flying at 35 FL using an online calculator as best evidence for this claim, then I inform him that United 93 (see my post above about in Message #11) dropped a DLBLK block containing "ORDA6" in the "BepStnName =" at 9:40 EDT, while the distance from the Chicago airport was 278.46 nm. Also, in the second DLBLK block within the same message there is a reference to IADC6. Dulles airport at 9:40 EDT was 238.05 nm from United 93!

Anyway, if the poster on UM is really confident about the theory he's claiming, then I challenge him to contact an ARINC professional and present it. I challenge him to prove that an aircraft could not see a station at only 7 miles at 9:35 EDT or two stations at only 20 miles at 9:40 EDT, but was able to see stations at 238.05 nm and 278.46 nm as "RGS with the strongest signal". Until then I will keep on thinking that his claim is completely unfounded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 26 2011, 09:25 AM
Post #167



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (sergio)
The first part not marked in bold is the part the guy on UM has quoted in his post. The second part marked in bold is what he knowingly omitted. And why did he omit it? Because, if read in its entirety, the above paragraph clearly proves the contrary of what intended by the poster.


These people are desperate.

Their "theory" is starting to look like a badly sewn Frankenstein creation.

Thanks for going into detail sergio. They hate details.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 26 2011, 09:57 AM
Post #168


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



Excellent job Sergio!

cheers.gif

I missed your posts on the UM forum. Are you banned there?

Warren Stutt now claims that CLE was not able to receive signals from UA 93 because the station was "not at the same frequency" as the plane:

QUOTE
The reason that some RGS stations did not receive ACARS messages from or transmit ACARS messages to UA93 while RGS stations much further away did do so is that not all RGS stations transmit and receive at all the frequencies used to carry ACARS message traffic.


http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...916&st=1920

This is pure speculation. While the remainder of his post is certainly interesting and recommended for reading, it's in no way suitable for justifying the statement I quoted. His conclusion at the end is breathtaking:

QUOTE
The CLEA2 (at Cleveland) transceiver was operating at a frequency of 130.025MHz and was able to receive a DLBLK from UA93 at 13:03:06 UTC since the transceiver on UA93 was tuned to that frequency at that time. The transceiver on UA93 was then tuned to 136.800MHz and remained on this frequency for the remainder of the flight and therefore the CLEA2 transceiver was unable to communicate with UA93 even when it was flying much closer to the transceiver. The PITC6 (Pittsburgh) transceiver was however operating at 136.800MHz and could therefore communicate with UA93 for the remainder of the flight.

Warren.


Mr. Stutt seems to indicate that there was no CLEA6 or CLEB6 transceiver in operation, and also no CAKA6 or CAKB6 transceiver.

This, however, would imply that CLE and CAK and TOL and FWA were not able to receive messages from all planes transmitting at 136.800, UA 93 being only one of them. As opposed to these four stations, all surrounding stations like PIT, DTW, YYZ, CVG etc. were ready to receive at 136.800.

Does this theory make sense? Of course not. These stations are there to operate when they are needed, not to be shut down. In the end, Stutt has replaced the "missing CLE" problem by the "missing CLEA6" problem, and it is still not solved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 26 2011, 10:05 AM
Post #169





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 15-February 11
Member No.: 5,658



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 26 2011, 11:57 AM) *
Excellent job Sergio!

cheers.gif

I missed your posts on the UM forum. Are you banned there?

Warren Stutt now claims that CLE was not able to receive signals from UA 93 because the station was "not at the same frequency" as the plane:



http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...916&st=1920

This is pure speculation. While the remainder of his post is certainly interesting and recommended for reading, it's in no way suitable for justifying the statement I quoted. His conclusion at the end is breathtaking:



Mr. Stutt seems to indicate that there was no CLEA6 or CLEB6 transceiver in operation, and also no CAKA6 or CAKB6 transceiver.

This, however, would imply that CLE and CAK and TOL and FWA were not able to receive messages from all planes transmitting at 136.800, UA 93 being only one of them. As opposed to these four stations, all surrounding stations like PIT, DTW, YYZ, CVG etc. were ready to receive at 136.800.

Does this theory make sense? Of course not. These stations are there to operate when they are needed, not to be shut down. In the end, Stutt has replaced the "missing CLE" problem by the "missing CLEA6" problem, and it is still not solved.


Hi Woody, thank you for your comment.

Apparently Warren Stutt has posted his reply on UM before reading my last posts.
At 9:35 and 9:40 EDT United 93 was at a distance of 278.46 nm from ORDA6 and 238.05 nm from IADC6.

Either he manages to reconsider his bizarre theory about "BetStnName =" indicating the RGS' with the strongest signal or he explains how could such stations be seen by United 93 at that time.

End of story.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 26 2011, 10:39 AM
Post #170


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



Look what extraordinary efforts "boonNyzarC" is undertaking to defend the official story:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showentry=24415

As I had no intention to waste my time, I made a quick search for "Winter" and "Knerr". Negative. "Boony" simply ignores their explanations as if these United dispatchers were unreliable idiots. Inconceivable. thumbdown.gif

This post has been edited by woody: Dec 26 2011, 10:39 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 26 2011, 11:14 AM
Post #171



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 26 2011, 04:39 PM) *
Look what extraordinary efforts "boonNyzarC" is undertaking to defend the official story:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showentry=24415

As I had no intention to waste my time, I made a quick search for "Winter" and "Knerr". Negative. "Boony" simply ignores their explanations as if these United dispatchers were unreliable idiots. Inconceivable. thumbdown.gif


Yeah, he hones in on Ballinger and claims that his quote can be "interpreted" in different ways (2 timestamps - one sent, one received..err) while ignoring Knerr and Winter and the fact that at least one of them was pouring over the same formatted technical details like those seen in the "Stutt pdf" (that in all likelihood have been doctored and/or censored). What does "Crazy Noob" say about that little spanner in the works?

As I said, a badly sewn Frankenstein "theory".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 27 2011, 04:37 AM
Post #172


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



Take a look at the latest theories of boonyzarC and Warren Stutt to explain the missing CLE.

boonyzarC:

QUOTE
I've addressed why CLE may not have received the transmissions in case you missed it; congestion. Look again at the mass of aircraft that were over Cleveland airspace during the period in question:

This is one of the busiest hubs in the continental United States and on that morning every dispatcher was messaging every aircraft to warn them of possible cockpit invasion, divert the flights, etc...


Warren Stutt:

QUOTE
The CLEA2 (at Cleveland) transceiver was operating at a frequency of 130.025MHz and was able to receive a DLBLK from UA93 at 13:03:06 UTC since the transceiver on UA93 was tuned to that frequency at that time. The transceiver on UA93 was then tuned to 136.800MHz and remained on this frequency for the remainder of the flight and therefore the CLEA2 transceiver was unable to communicate with UA93 even when it was flying much closer to the transceiver. The PITC6 (Pittsburgh) transceiver was however operating at 136.800MHz and could therefore communicate with UA93 for the remainder of the flight.

Warren.



I've already adressed Warren's "CLE not operational" theory:

This, however, would imply that CLE and CAK and TOL and FWA were not able to receive messages from all planes transmitting at 136.800, UA 93 being only one of them. As opposed to these four stations, all surrounding stations like PIT, DTW, YYZ, CVG etc. were ready to receive at 136.800.

Does this theory make sense? Of course not. These stations are there to operate when they are needed, not to be shut down. In the end, Stutt has replaced the "missing CLE" problem by the "missing CLEA6" problem, and it is still not solved.


Boony's "congested airspace" theory is even more nonsensical. PIT is adjacent to CLE, and the PIT area is as congested as the CLE area, yet we have dozens of DLBLKs to PIT and none (zero, null, nil, 0) messages to CLE between 9:30 and 9:40.

The funny thing is, they are backslapping each other without noticing that their speculations are incompatible. Congested CLE airspace or non-operational CLE receiver?

I think I have reached the point where I have to stop reacting to them because my good reputation could suffer from taking them serious.

This post has been edited by woody: Dec 27 2011, 05:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 27 2011, 09:54 AM
Post #173



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Woody)
The funny thing is, they are backslapping each other without noticing that their speculations are incompatible. Congested CLE airspace or non-operational CLE receiver?


That's duhbunkers for you. Cover all of the bases even if they are mutually contradictory claims.

Best example is when discussing the NOC evidence with them. On one single thread, you'd have one arguing for the OCT to the letter (apart from when it doesn't suit), one arguing for a "fake truther" bastardized version of the OCT and one claiming "NOC impact" nonsense. They tippy toe round eachother while slapping eachother on the back!

Bottom line Woody, we're here to expose the 9/11 Commission Report and all of the crap that goes with it. It's there in black and white what Ballinger, Knerr and Winter reported and it all correlates with how the ACARS system actually functions.

Their speculation and opinions are totally irrelevant. If there ever is a new enquiry, only Winter, Knerr and Ballinger will be able to answer these questions.

Remember the days when duhbunkers used the 9/11 Commission Report (and all other offshoots) as their bible? Those days are gone. They are attacking the very thing they claim to defend.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 27 2011, 10:34 AM
Post #174





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



That's right Woody--taking them seriously is just asking for trouble.

10 years after, those folks are simply deep in denial, very deep in denial, and that is a natural result of 10 years of trying to defend what is essentially indefensible. That would make anybody crazy.

I know, because I tried it for 4 years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 27 2011, 10:35 AM
Post #175



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 27 2011, 04:37 AM) *
Warren Stutt:



"Warren Stutt" has already been confirmed as disinformation. He has no choice but to fabricate more while ignoring his last.


His sidekick "booNyzarC" (read: "CrazyNoob" backwards), is wise to never put his own real name behind his speculation, nor ever confront us directly. After all, it is clear he is a "Noob". Maybe one day he will get the nads... but I don't expect he will anytime soon. Instead he will remain obsessed with our work (and it appears me personally) from behind his mask and at far distance. The very traits of a coward.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 27 2011, 02:32 PM
Post #176



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



And here's the rub...

I took a quick gander over at the UM forum. I didn't bother to study the pages since my last visit as it appears they been very busy over the holiday, and I just don't have much respect for cowards... however.... I did skim and then read the last post... it happened to be from "Czero"... (although I see they spent their Xmas holiday obsessing over our work... what a sad life those people must lead)

So, it boils down to this...

"...but the preponderance [of] evidence presented in the 302 and the other documents that have been provided lend must more[sic] credibility to the conclusion that the two men were looking at two different lists. " - Czero, 'I am too paranoid to use my real name to any of my claims, but feel others should be privileged for me to read their posts' (paraphrased)


Someone may want to inform the 'duhbunkers" that "beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt" is required.

'duhbunkers' once again live up to their name, and further demonstrate why they never put their own name behind their claims. I don't blame them, as the German people were held accountable among the eyes of the world for just doing nothing during the Rise of the Third Reich... I can only speculate how people like "Czero" and "CrazyNoob" will be treated during trial.... when they actually go out of their way to make excuse, during Xmas vacation no less...

"preponderance of evidence" apparently justifies this.... in the eyes of anonymous 'duhbunkers'..

People like "Czero", "booNy" and "Stutt" make me sick to my stomach.... but only furthers my resolve, and the resolve of a growing list of experts who can and will actually be called when the trials do commence.. I'm sure anonymous 'duhbunkers' will be cowering behind a wall, under a bridge or under a rock... at the time.... just like they are now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Dec 27 2011, 03:10 PM
Post #177


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 27 2011, 03:35 PM) *
"Warren Stutt" has already been confirmed as disinformation.


That pretty much sums it up.

Again, I think this is why the disinformation is coming out of Australia. It is harder to confront them on their disinfo claims in person or via phone and it is more difficult to check his background. But most importantly, it gives the impression of being genuine because the disinformation is coming from an Aussie and not an American.

This is likely why they use the online personality "Michiel de Boer" aka Snowcrash to attack CIT and PFT with blatant disinformation. This individual is allegedly from the Netherlands but types responses in impeccable English replete with American catch phrases. The name "Michiel de Boer" sounds very uncommon but if you search the name on Facebook, in the Netherlands it is as common as the name, "Michael Thompson",- which I am sure was the whole trick. This was confirmed when this individual later exclaimed to a CIT supporter, "I'm not anonymous. My name is Michiel de Boer." But no one has seen or met this individual, heard them speak, or confirmed their identity and background. This individual also reneged on a promise to a live debate after springing onto the 911blogger scene specifically attacking us. This individual also said they would cease talking about CIT until they debated us. They obviously never kept their word. They claimed to not have headphones (or speakers apparently) or skype yet later claim to be a programmer and self proclaimed computer expert.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1547
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Dec 28 2011, 04:48 PM
Post #178





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 27 2011, 02:32 PM) *
I'm sure anonymous 'duhbunkers' will be cowering behind a wall, under a bridge or under a rock... at the time.... just like they are now.


And maybe I'm reading too much into this...but there always seems to be more "users" than "members" browsing this topic...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 28 2011, 07:02 PM
Post #179


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 14 2011, 05:12 AM) *
Hi,

There is a file (1369kB PDF) that has been released under FOIA and that contains details of the ACARS messages to and from flights AAL11, UAL93 and AAL77.

...

Also the file shows that there are no type DLBLK blocks and therefore no ACARS messages received from UAL93 after the official time of the crash.

Warren.


In case Warren is still here...a question for you...

a DLBLK block shows that the plane has (automatically) acknowledged a message from ground control. Okay. A missing DLBLK block shows that a message from ground control (ULBLK) was not acknowledged. Okay. But acknowledging is not the same as receiving. Before you can acknowledge a message, you have to receive it, but a plane can receive a message without acknowledging it.

Is it possible that the sheer existence of a ULBLK message proves that it was received by the plane?

This post has been edited by woody: Dec 28 2011, 07:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Dec 28 2011, 10:02 PM
Post #180





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 445
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 29 2011, 09:32 AM) *
In case Warren is still here...a question for you...

Is it possible that the sheer existence of a ULBLK message proves that it was received by the plane?


Dear 'woody'.

Let's hope, Mr Stutt, has not been on the "hops" over the 'festive season', or he could possibly make a "right mess", of that question. (smile)

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 7 8 9 10 >
Closed TopicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th September 2017 - 12:39 AM