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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

10 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > »   
Closed TopicStart new topic
Duhbunkers try to explain ACARS and fail

scott75
post Dec 12 2011, 10:27 PM
Post #81





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 12 2011, 06:55 PM) *
lol.... yeah.. .those who interpret that ARINC is the "receiver" based on the statement made by Ballinger, must also think that the air above the football field is the "receiver" when an NFL Quarterback throws a football...


hilarious...


Laugh :-). Sometimes I think I almost have them.. it's like they acknowledge that yes, it -does- make sense that dispatchers would probably be more interested in knowing if the aircraft had received the message instead of ARINC, but then they say things like 'we might not know something' or what not.. I tell them, alright, fine, perhaps there's something truly mysterious about these ACARS messages, but can we atleast agree that the most likely scenario is that that second time stamp does in fact mean that the aircraft received the message? Incidentally, I'm sure that Ballinger isn't the only person in United Airlines who knows (a) how many timestamps an ACARS message has (atleast one person over at UM thinks there may be more then 2) and (b) that the second time stamp does indeed mean the time that the aircraft received the message. If anyone hear knows someone in United Airlines, or heck, is going to fly with United Airlines and wouldn't mind calling their customer support line and asking them about the formatting of their ACARS messages, I'd be grateful; surely this can't be such a great mystery to uncover :-p.

This post has been edited by scott75: Dec 12 2011, 10:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Dec 12 2011, 10:38 PM
Post #82





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 12 2011, 08:40 PM) *
I took a stroll through your link Scott... good work.


Thanks :-)

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 12 2011, 08:40 PM) *
However, i cannot let this pass unnoticed.... (i'm a bit bored tonight waiting on the game)

One of the posters in your link states....

Balsamo lost the privilege of my attention...


Yes, because all I wanted to do in life was gain the attention of some anonymous idiot on some forum who blindly supports anything the govt tells him/her, instead of gaining the respect of real people (many who have more experience than me in aviation) who put their name to their claims and are experts in their relevant fields.


I hear you. But well, with me, after having argued with people such as Czero for hundreds of posts, I begin to feel some affection for them. I admit that in the 3 years that I've debated with people regarding 9/11, I haven't met a single person who I've persuaded to change their views regarding 9/11. That being said, I -have- educated, or encoraged people to educate themselves, regarding various aspects of 9/11. For me, one of the most gratifying moments is when someone who believes the official story nevertheless educates another OS believer on something. Czero and booN have both done this and it feels good. Yes, they're still far from persuaded regarding many points, but the fact that they're willing to consider that their viewpoints might be mistaken is, in my view, a good sign. As you may recall, a while back, Czero said he wasn't going to participate in the UM thread anymore. I'm glad he changed his mind on that. I do believe that he wants to know the truth, and it's his doubts and perhaps his curiosity that get him to try to keep on learning regarding all this ACARS stuff. And while I don't know if he'll ever become persuaded to our side of the debate, I plan on learning more concerning ACARS while we're at it, and I think many others will as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Dec 12 2011, 10:40 PM
Post #83





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 12 2011, 08:53 PM) *
Scott, boony says...



Umm..tell him Ballinger said so? "Two timestamps, one for send, one for receive" and all that. Tell him to go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect.... rolleyes.gif


Laugh :-). This is what I told him:
*********
I certainly didn't reach it first. Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth came to this conclusion long before I did. Czero doesn't seem to be against the possibility. So I think the real question is, why do -you- think it's such a strange conclusion?
*********
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 12 2011, 11:36 PM
Post #84



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



For those debating on ATS with regard to "ProudBird", I have received emails to sort through.... so I am posting an all inclusive reply here (and FAQ if you will) so I can just reply this link to future emails and not have to type it out again and again...

"ProudBird/weedwhacker" is perhaps the most vicious at ATS in personally attacking our organization. I rarely pay much attention to him, but I do respond to the emails I receive regarding such a character.

The following are FAQ's I get regarding "Proudbird/weedwhacker"

Q: Why don't you register to ATS and put "ProudBird" in his place"?

A: I have a fixed IP and was banned from ATS long ago.

Sometimes i register a new name at ATS when I'm bored and want to mess with the idiots.... but Proudbird/weedwhacker immediately can detect when i'm there as I always back him into a corner with real aeronautical knowledge. He then cries to the mods... so they ban me.... I dont really go through the trouble of hiding my IP or my writing style.... i want them to know it was me (most importantly for keeping a record)... and for the readers to see i was banned (normally the "duhbunkers" cry it is me in the very thread... so they do not have to deal with the analysis I have presented, I use the duhbunkers words against themselves). They hope to get me banned first. Readers see this.. .... however, I am not half of the "socks" they accuse me. Seems anyone who understands the information and able to back "ProudBird" or the other "duhbunkers" at ATS into a corner is either me, Aldo or Craig.

Secondly, I have never been a "sock" at ATS. A "sock" is when a member has two or more active userID's. Proudbird/weedwhacker fits the definition, in direct violation of ATS Terms and Conditions, but the mods look the other way.

Q: "Why does "Proudbird" attack P4T so viciously?"

A: Simple answer... he is unable to attack the argument with source of his own...

Proudbird/Weedwhacker is obsessed with our work and me personally (as you can tell when he mentions my name in almost every post he writes). If someone makes a post at ATS regarding our work, he replies within a few hours, if not minutes. He sits there and monitors ATS 911 section like a gatekeeper for all things related to aviation. The funny thing is, i recall him saying he believes in UFO's (try searching under his other name 'weedwhacker'). This is what first brought him to ATS if I recall correctly as told to me by another ATS member. "Proudbird/weedwhacker" has probably been since hired by the Pentagon to monitor the ATS 9/11 section and scramble/marginalize anything related to Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Most of his posts are pilot bravado without ever addressing the issue. In the airlines, we call these people "Skygods", They are the "know-it-all's" of aviation, but in reality.... they don't know shit. No one wants to fly with them. Those who are scheduled to fly with such arrogant pricks, either try to trade out.... or call in sick and let a reserve pilot sit next to such an idiot.

Q: Has Proudbird/weedwhacker ever tried to debate P4T on the P4T forum?

A: Yes, but he tucked tail and ran when cornered with facts. He also lied numerous times that he ever registered here, but we caught him red handed. Proudbird/weedwacker will never come to this forum to debate the information again. He can only debate with people who do not have experience in aviation, and even then, the layman eventually see through his BS. This is why he had to create the "Proudbird" sock on ATS ... .against ATS rules. His "weedwhacker" userID was fully discredited and no one took him seriously anymore. It appears he is due for another userID on ATS, but I guarantee he will never use his own name to his claims.

We do have information that "ProudBird/weedwhacker" is a former Captain from Continental. His first name is Tim (I will not give his last name here). He is openly gay (so Retreat once again may want to think twice about using the term "Ballsucker" as a derogatory term, as in fact, Proudbird, does suck balls.. .not that there is anything wrong with that...).

For those reading this, you should ask "ProudBird" why he no longer uses his "weedwhacker" name at ATS. You should also question why the mods at ATS allow him to have a sock.


Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org
Full member list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Photos here http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 14 2011, 01:12 AM
Post #85





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



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.

Here is a screen shot of the file showing the message with ACARS message ID 0658 in the printout P4T have been working from and referenced as message #14 in the Michael J. Winter interview with the FBI that P4T has asserted was transmitted from the TOL RGS station. I have added highlights:


In the screen shot there are 3 blocks of information separated by blank lines. In the first line of each block there is a word which I have highlighted in red indicating the type of data in the block. The first block has the type ULMSG which is an ACARS message as received from the airline to be transmitted to the aircraft. The second block has the type ULBLK which is an ACARS message as transmitted to the aircraft. The third block has the type DLBLK which is an ACARS message as received from the aircraft.

In the first block we can see TOL which I have highlighted in blue which P4T has asserted is the RGS station through which the ACARS message was transmitted to the aircraft.

In the second and third blocks we can see PIT which I have highlighted in green and is the actual RGS station through which the ACARS message was transmitted to the aircraft in the second block and an ACARS message from the aircraft acknowledging receipt of the ACARS message from the airline was received from the aircraft in the third block.

Therefore despite the testimony of Ed Ballinger and Michael J. Winter, we can see that although the ACARS message from the airline was supposed to be transmitted through the TOL RGS station, it was actually transmitted through the PIT RGS station.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Dec 14 2011, 02:41 AM
Post #86





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



I've just updated the image to also highlight TOL in the second block which is the ACARS message transmitted to the aircraft.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 14 2011, 03:09 AM
Post #87



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 14 2011, 12:12 AM) *
Therefore despite the testimony of Ed Ballinger and Michael J. Winter, we can see that although the ACARS message from the airline was supposed to be transmitted through the TOL RGS station, it was actually transmitted through the PIT RGS station.


First Warren claims to know more than the NTSB and state of the art industry leading software, using freeware which can be downloaded from the web, now he claims to know more than a decades experienced United Flight Dispatcher and a UAL Manager Of Flight Dispatch. Hilarious.

Here are Warren's admitted lack of qualifications in Aviation...

"Some people have queried my credentials for investigating Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") data and any relevant affiliations I may have.

I do not have any specific credentials to investigate FDRs or aircraft accidents....

I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for neither the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) nor any other aircraft accident investigator.

I am neither a pilot nor an aircraft engineer and have never flown an aircraft. I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for any airline, any pilots’ organisation, any aircraft engineering organisation or any FDR manufacturer.

My investigation in to the events of September 11th 2001 is unofficial, independent and completely voluntary.

I was born in New Zealand and I have joint New Zealand and Irish citizenship. I lived in New Zealand up until June 2008 and since then have lived in Brisbane, Australia." - Warren Stutt



Warren, when are you going to address the numerous errors in your paper and answer the questions I put forth to you? Why do you avoid this?

RA - PA Correlation, proving the "Altitude Divergence" calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794074

If Legge/Stutt "Altitude Divergence" calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt's theory false.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794159

Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt "Paper"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793061


Please address the above the next time you post on our forum as I asked you the last numerous times you evaded and avoided. You can answer here....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10795881

When you get done with that, then perhaps you can come up with more speculation as to how an ACARS message "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" from a ground station nearly 500 miles away, 7 mins after the alleged crash.



DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111411 108575 0707

...by the way, next time highlight the full text, "PITC6", this may give you a clue as to why Ed and Michael work(ed) for United Dispatch, and you do not. "PITC6" is not "PIT". The message you refer to was routed through TOL as stated by those who received a paycheck from United for this very purpose, ability to read an ACARS, among others. The above message was routed through CMI 7 mins after the alleged crash, and "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" as stated by Winter.

Stop trolling our forum with your admitted lack of expertise in aviation and address what you have been avoiding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 14 2011, 04:12 AM
Post #88



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (wstutt @ Dec 14 2011, 12:12 AM) *
The third block has the type DLBLK which is an ACARS message as received from the aircraft.



According to the above interpretation done by Warren "I am better than any Aviation Expert, just give me Microsoft Visual Basic" Stutt , the following "DLBLK" were received from N591UA through Detroit, Washington Dulles, and Toronto Canada.





Warren, when are you gonna learn.... rolleyes.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 14 2011, 04:45 AM
Post #89



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Geeze Warren,

Did you even look at any of the other messages to compare to your interpretation?

According to Warren's interpretation, the following message was slated to go through CLE, but was routed through PIT, and acknowledged by the aircraft through Toronto, Canada.



There are many more just as absurd when applying Warren's interpretation.


lol.... Warren, you may want to rethink your interpretation, and perhaps come to the conclusion that Dispatchers for United Airlines know a bit more about ACARS than you.

Wow... just wow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 14 2011, 05:34 AM
Post #90



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Warren,

I have split out your reply to keep in a safe place until you address the information and questions you continually avoid.

If your next post once again avoids the questions you have been asked to address, I will send you on vacation once again as it appears you need more time to form a response. I would have thought the few months (a 2 week vacation and nearly a year to respond) you've been avoiding to answer would be enough time, apparently not.


I took a stroll around the web to see if anyone is parroting Warren's interpretation.... no one is biting (except a person who is unable to determine the difference between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus). Smart choice, considering Warren is now claiming UAL Dispatcher's are wrong at the job they do daily.


However, I did find this interesting from "ProudBird/Weedwhacker" with respect to RA Tracking capability....

Proudbird said -

"(BTW...."330 fps" = about 195 knots. THAT is the basis for the stated "accuracy".....and that ("195 knots") is well beond any reasonable final approach groundspeed, where any CAT II, or CAT III approach would be conducted. "


Here are the flap speeds for approach.


Flap 15 210 knots
Flap 20 195 knots
Flap 25 190 knots
Flap 30 162 knots

source - http://web.archive.org/web/20070201231851/...imits/lim1.html

Given that a Radio Altimeter isn't required to be accurate until inside the clearway zone for a Cat III ILS, (RA cannot determine True Altitude along the approach until over a clearway zone guaranteed to be measuring from nothing but grass) ...and given the fact that the aircraft are not allowed to land with more than a 10-15 knot tailwind (depending on Airline... 99.9% of approaches are into a headwind component), the aircraft will be well within the tracking capabilities of the Radio Altimeter when it is needed and required, down low, slow, below 100 AGL on Cat III, with a groundspeed of less than 160 knots.

ProudBird/Weedwhacker should know this if he were a 757 Captain. Clearly he is talking out his ass. Looks like he is going to need another sock at ATS as he is rapidly discrediting "Proudbird" as well.... lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Dec 14 2011, 06:41 AM
Post #91





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



I've been debating with various people on UM regarding the UA ACARS time stamps. Some seem to think that the Ballinger's ACARS messages may have been truncated and there are perhaps more then 2 time stamps. This is the question I asked:
"Have you found any evidence whatsoever that any of Ballinger's ACARS messages were truncated in any way?"

A poster named Czero responded:
"Yes. The simple fact that the DSP / CPS will send two separate acknowledgement messages back for each successful uplink message it receives proves that the ACARS listing we are seeing in the FOIA document is not a full and complete listing of the ACARS messages sent and received that day, and is not the full ACARS message log that Knerr and Winter used for their audits."

Anyone know what Czero is referring to here? I'm wondering if he's talking about the 2 acknowledgements down below, in which case I think he's simply referring to the 2 time stamps in Ballinger's messages.

I asked another question:
"And do you have any idea why they would want to put a third time stamp (indicating what, exactly?), given the fact that each additional character would cut into messages that pilots and ground control wanted to say to each other?"

Czero responded:
"Scott... please read the documentation provided so far. It is very clearly set out that the acknowledgement / failure messages are separate messages from the DSP / CPS, not part of the message being set to / from the aircraft.



Please take note of item 2 and item 7 highlighted above. They represent separate, individual messages."

My response was:
"A lot of terminology in that diagram that I don't understand. I'm not sure what MAS or LDS mean, guessing that CRC is stands for Cyclic Redundancy Check. That being said, what's this about "separate, individual messages"? Looks to me like number 2 would be the sent (from the dispatcher to the aircraft) time stamp and number 7 would be the received (from the aircraft) time stamp."

I got it right didn't I?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scott75
post Dec 14 2011, 06:45 AM
Post #92





Group: Troll
Posts: 271
Joined: 6-November 08
Member No.: 3,971



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 14 2011, 04:34 AM) *
I took a stroll around the web to see if anyone is parroting Warren's interpretation.... no one is biting (except a person who is unable to determine the difference between a Boeing 757 and an Airbus). Smart choice, considering Warren is now claiming UAL Dispatcher's are wrong at the job they do daily.


Ahem, well booN brought it up over at UM, and Czero decided to paste Warren's first message in this thread over here, thinking that it might be deleted from this forum. I think I'll point out that you guy's have responded to Warren's initial message now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 14 2011, 07:07 AM
Post #93



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE
Some seem to think that the Ballinger's ACARS messages may have been truncated and there are perhaps more then 2 time stamps.


They can "think" whatever they want, but the facts remain. Ballinger's statement is clear.

The rest will speculate to their confirmation bias. They have no choice when suffering from cognitive dissonance.


QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 14 2011, 05:45 AM) *
Ahem, well booN brought it up over at UM, and Czero decided to paste Warren's first message in this thread over here, thinking that it might be deleted from this forum. I think I'll point out that you guy's have responded to Warren's initial message now.


lol... why am I not surprised they jump on the bandwagon before actually looking over the information.

It is clear that Winter was looking at the same type of format Warren has provided. Those who make excuse for the govt story will no doubt use an interpretation from some guy who admits he has no experience in aviation, who avoids addressing the numerous errors he has made in past analysis... .the rest of us will quote real experts who work with this data daily.

Warren seems to think that "PITC6" means "PIT RGS". Not only is he wrong, but he is intentionally misleading as he only highlighted the first three letters of the text. You'll notice on other messages there is also a "PITA6".

Typical of Warren as pointed out in the past, he is full of speculation and intentional disinformation. This is why he has not addressed these issues for nearly a year, and continues to evade.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 14 2011, 09:04 AM
Post #94





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 14 2011, 05:12 AM) *
According to the above interpretation done by Warren "I am better than any Aviation Expert, just give me Microsoft Visual Basic" Stutt , the following "DLBLK" were received from N591UA through Detroit, Washington Dulles, and Toronto Canada.





Warren, when are you gonna learn.... rolleyes.gif


Exactly. That line of code does not appear to indicate the RGS at all, unless one insinuates that the aircraft was over IAD and YYZ at the same time, which of course does not make sense.
Anyway, I will analyse the document in the next days.

About DLBLK and ULBLK, this what David Knerr declared to the FBI:

QUOTE
KNERR provided information related to the printout of text messages transmitted to and from UA FLIGHT 93 on 09/11/2001 through the AIRCRAFT COMMUNICATION ADDRESSING AND REPORTING SYSTEM (ACARS). KNERR identified this system as one means of communication that is utilized between aircraft and commercial carriers, like UA, to transmit text data. 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 a ACARS message has been received by its sender, either ground communications or the aircraft. 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.

FBI302, p. 36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 14 2011, 09:30 AM
Post #95



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Sergio @ Dec 14 2011, 08:04 AM) *
Exactly. That line of code does not appear to indicate the RGS at all, unless one insinuates that the aircraft was over IAD and YYZ at the same time, which of course does not make sense.
Anyway, I will analyse the document in the next days.


Yes, and based on aircraft altitude according to the FDR data, the aircraft couldn't even see those stations as they were well below the horizon.

I think I know what those suffix numbers refer to (eg, A6, C6.. .etc, the suffix Warren conveniently omits in his highlighting), they are the land line gateways through which the messages are routed after (or before, depending on origin) it is routed through the target station. I did a google search for "bepstn", what came up first is this....

Click

Might give readers some idea.

Another example would be to do a traceroute to your IP address. There are many routers in between. For example, here is a traceroute to "Warren's" IP. (Warren IP redacted)

TraceRoute to 58.xxxxxx [d58-106-6-192.rdl801.qld.optusnet.com.au]

Hop (ms) (ms) (ms) IP Address Host name
1 9 0 0 206.123.64.46 -

2 0 0 0 8.9.232.73 xe-5-3-0.edge3.dallas1.level3.net
3 0 0 0 4.69.145.126 vlan70.csw2.dallas1.level3.net
4 0 2 0 4.69.151.146 ae-73-73.ebr3.dallas1.level3.net
5 32 32 33 4.69.132.77 ae-3-3.ebr2.losangeles1.level3.net
6 32 32 32 4.69.137.26 ae-82-82.csw3.losangeles1.level3.net
7 32 32 32 4.69.144.137 ae-3-80.edge3.losangeles1.level3.net
8 43 43 147 4.78.195.202 singapore-t.edge3.losangeles1.level3.net
9 191 191 191 203.208.131.230 -
10 206 206 206 211.29.125.242 mas2-ge3-0.gw.optusnet.com.au
11 216 216 216 211.29.125.137 rdl2-ge5-0-0-904.gw.optusnet.com.au
12 208 208 208 198.142.144.162 rdl801-e2-1.ba.optusnet.com.au
13 Timed out Timed out Timed out -
14 236 236 237 58.xxxxxxxxx d58-106-6-192.rdl801.qld.optusnet.com.au

Trace complete

Either way, I think Winter and Ballinger know how to read and interpret an ACARS message sent or received by United Airlines better than "Warren Stutt". Especially considering past experience with "Warren".

The 'duhbunkers' would rather quote "Stutt" than a UAL Dispatcher of course... lol
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Dec 14 2011, 09:32 AM
Post #96





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



Hi Warren,

i live on tamborine mountain, what, 40, 45 km. south of Brisbane as the Crows fly!

Come on, make some of us 'Queensland'ers' stand out a little bit from the crowd.

(Queensland has been ridiculed enough in the past.)

Please answer the points Rob is 'craving' for you to answer.

Who cares if you have to concede a little bit here or a little bit there; or who would

not rejoice if you were right on the mark on at least some important points!


Please show the flag, and i don't care if it's Kiwi, Ozzi or irish, as long as it is some

kind of flag one can bow to with some respect.


Otherwise - why are you here again?


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 14 2011, 09:41 AM
Post #97



Group Icon

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



Warren and Beachy. The dynamic duo..



I know it's juvenile but seeing as Warren is never going to admit his mistakes...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 14 2011, 11:27 AM
Post #98



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



For the record, Warren tried to reply again. As expected, he has evaded my requests. In a court of law, this would be known as "non-responsive" and a Judge could hold Warren in contempt. But then again, Warren will never make it to the stand as an expert witness in Aviation.

I will not allow Warren to spread more disinformation on this forum until he addresses what he has avoided for nearly a year.

Warren, your replies to the ACARS argument are in a safe place and will be restored when you address and most importantly, correct the issues you have been avoiding.

I will not allow you to troll this forum with further confirmed disinformation and speculation when you have demonstrated that you avoid corrections to your past analysis and confirmed disinformation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 14 2011, 03:53 PM
Post #99


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20




Dear Warren,

thanks a lot for providing us with this document, which certainly bears valuable information and is - at the first glimpse - a confirmation for the interpretation of the already known ACARS files as Rob and Sergio and I and others here prefer it. Good job.

Apart from that, thinking that this PITC6 designates PIT as the actual RGS is a sign of intellectual blackout, and I predict your interpretation will not longer last than the milk in my frig. This will certainly come out when the file is properly examined by experts or non-experts.

Can someone tell me the meaning of the short four-line messages with no text? Are these automatic messages or what?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 14 2011, 04:01 PM
Post #100



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 14 2011, 02:53 PM) *
Dear Warren,



I think the first question I would like to know is if this is Warren.....


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 > » 
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: 22nd November 2019 - 02:59 PM