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  « < 6 7 8 9 10 >  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Duhbunkers try to explain ACARS and fail

woody
post Dec 20 2011, 09:55 AM
Post #141


Woody Box


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



I have transcribed a FBI interview with David Knerr here:

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2011/12/da...s-dispatch.html

Certainly interesting, but the most intriguing sentence is here:

QUOTE
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 messages were sent.


The last message to UA 93 that has two time stamps is #707, sent at 10:10 and affirmed at 10:11.

Knerr has carefully chosen 10:12 as the point when UA 93 ceased to receive messages. Not 10:10 or 10:11, but 10:12. So all messages before - like message #707 - have been received by UA 93. Did Knerr make a mistake? Impossible. He was sitting there with two FBI agents and the printout of the ACARS messages, having the 10:10 and 10:11 clearly before their eyes. No chance to confuse numbers. And what he says is in perfect accordance to Winter's statement. #707 in the ACARS file corresponds to message #19 as described by Winter. All following messages (#20 to 24) were not received by the aircraft and therefore rejected. And here is how a rejected message looks like:

CHIAO CHI68R
.CHIAOUA 111420/ROB
CMD
AN N591UA/GL DEC
- QUCHIAOUA 2
DDLXCXA
***UA93 EWRSFO***


No content, no second time stamp, no affirmation. Knerr's statement, Winter's statement and the ACARS file are consistent. Are there any doubts that N591A received and acknowledged a message at 10:11, eight minutes after the alleged crash?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 20 2011, 10:05 AM
Post #142



Group Icon

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



Exactly woody...

and keep in mind, that the file provided by kawika was created June 2004, one month prior to the Commission releasing their report, so it is definitely not the same file of ACARS reviewed by Knerr and Winter in their Jan 2002 interview with the FBI.

The file provided by kawika through NARA is in fact a fabrication of ACARS messages, omitting UA175 ACARS messages. What else is omitted?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 20 2011, 10:18 AM
Post #143



Group Icon

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



Nice work Woody!

Basic reasoning alone tels you that ACARS messages were being acknowledged by "Flight 93" up until 10:12AM.

QUOTE
In addition, Knerr pointed out that on two separate instances during Flight 93's flight on 9/11/2001, prior to crashing in Pennsylvania, two alphanumeric messages were sent from the aircraft to ground communication. These messages were routine maintenance messages that are sent in order to identify the current state of mechanical operations onboard an aircraft during flight. It allows for specialists to view specific mechanical data onboard an aircraft while it is in operation. Knerr advised that these messages, once deciphered, may contain information that would demonstrate that the aircraft was being operated in a manner that was adversely affecting the performance of the aircraft. The analysis of these messages is forthcoming.


Do we know any more about these "alphanumeric messages" or the alleged "analysis"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 20 2011, 10:20 AM
Post #144



Group Icon

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



QUOTE
What else is omitted?


Well, Sergio rightly pointed out that a full half hour (+) of ACARS for "Flight 77" are not there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 20 2011, 10:35 AM
Post #145


Woody Box


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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 20 2011, 03:18 PM) *
Do we know any more about these "alphanumeric messages" or the alleged "analysis"?


These were probably (in Winter's numbering) messages #5 and #9, they were "engine data messages" from the aircraft.

@Sergio: I just noticed there is a third message via CMI, #708, which you already have spotted. But this one is apparently scanned from a different paper. This seems for me to be the reason why Winter is only talking about two messages via CMD.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 20 2011, 10:52 AM
Post #146


Woody Box


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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 20 2011, 03:05 PM) *
Exactly woody...

and keep in mind, that the file provided by kawika was created June 2004, one month prior to the Commission releasing their report, so it is definitely not the same file of ACARS reviewed by Knerr and Winter in their Jan 2002 interview with the FBI.

The file provided by kawika through NARA is in fact a fabrication of ACARS messages, omitting UA175 ACARS messages. What else is omitted?


I just learned that the ACARS printouts were made on 9/11/2001 and provided to the FBI on 2/21/2002 by Jim Ritter of the NTSB.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 20 2011, 11:23 AM
Post #147





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



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 20 2011, 12:35 PM) *
These were probably (in Winter's numbering) messages #5 and #9, they were "engine data messages" from the aircraft.

@Sergio: I just noticed there is a third message via CMI, #708, which you already have spotted. But this one is apparently scanned from a different paper. This seems for me to be the reason why Winter is only talking about two messages via CMD.


Hi Woody,
I am really low on time now, I'll come back to this issue later today.

However, one thing that our friends on UM appear to have forgotten since the new ARINC logs showed up is that Winter clearly states "routed through" in reference to some messages, for example Message 18 and 19 (CMI).
He does not say "targeted to" or generically "sent to".
Another point that deserves to be mentioned one more time is that Winter is commenting a sanitized list of messages to/from United 93 with complete logs coming from ARINC. It was not a simple list of printouts from a dispatcher's desk, such as the list provided by Ballinger to the 9/11 Commission. It was a list of ACARS with ULMSG, ULBLK and DLBLK blocks, such as the PDF provided by Warren Stutt, but only containing messages related to United 93.

The question arises: how could Winter be looking at a list with ULBLK blocks indicating "PITC6" and yet declare that the messages were routed through CMI? If the claim of the guys on UM is correct, then we must conclude that:

1. Winter is really incompetent (and Knerr too)
2. The logs commented by Winter were different than the logs shown in Stutt's PDF, so the list released through FOIA was someway manipulated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 20 2011, 07:24 PM
Post #148



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Sergio)
Another point that deserves to be mentioned one more time is that Winter is commenting a sanitized list of messages to/from United 93 with complete logs coming from ARINC. It was not a simple list of printouts from a dispatcher's desk, such as the list provided by Ballinger to the 9/11 Commission. It was a list of ACARS with ULMSG, ULBLK and DLBLK blocks, such as the PDF provided by Warren Stutt, but only containing messages related to United 93.


Winter's statement becomes even less open to obfuscation by GLs



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

Couple that with Woody's quote from an FBI interview with Winter and the last 4 messages allegedly not received after the last one shown above at 14:11 (10:11am)

QUOTE
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 messages were sent.


I mean, can it not be any more obvious GLs?

Winter claims that "Flight 93" received ACARS up until 10:11AM. The last one setting off an audible signal in the cockpit, 500 miles from the alleged crash site. And the last four allegedly weren't received after 10:12AM. It adds up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 21 2011, 10:54 AM
Post #149



Group Icon

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



I have split out all the off topic posts into a new thread....

Warren Stutt - Mistaken or Deceptive?

Please lets try to keep this thread on topic with regard to 'duhbunker' claims of ACARS.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 21 2011, 07:31 PM
Post #150



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 21 2011, 04:54 PM) *
I have split out all the off topic posts into a new thread....

Warren Stutt - Mistaken or Deceptive?

Please lets try to keep this thread on topic with regard to 'duhbunker' claims of ACARS.

Thanks.


Good man thumbsup.gif

Scott is a disruptor regardless of his motives or intentions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 21 2011, 08:13 PM
Post #151



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 19 2011, 03:22 PM) *
Yes, Boony shoots himself in the foot numerous times with his own statements, one of the most glaring -

"I should clarify that ARINC 620-4 does not indicate what source the airlines rely on for this predicted RGS... I think it is more than reasonable to assume that the airline's prediction is based on the actual flight plan itself. "


His whole theory is based on his own speculation.

They are also either extremely blinded by their support for the govt story and only see what they want to see, or intentionally omitting information as the following utterly destroys their whole theory....



There are many others, but this should suffice, for now. I don't blame booNy for not wanting to come here to confront us himself, despite his unhealthy obsession with our work.

Perhaps booNy should add Microsoft Flight Sim to his video game library so he can learn something about preferred routes and flight planning. Better yet, maybe his money could have been better spent on taking some flying lessons.

And again, the PITC6, PITA6, HTSC6... etc are not RGS stations. They are Back End processors, hence the suffix. Many of the stations which they claim messages were routed cannot even been seen by the airplane based on FDR altitude as many were 30-70 miles below the horizon. As expected, they are ignoring VHF line of sight and power output.

Remember, here are the service volumes for VOR Nav to give the readers an idea of reliable VHF reception. Notice VOR's have different ranges, this is due to power output, as described by Dennis above.



None of them can be received at the ranges claimed by 'duhbunkers' for ACARS, and navigation is much more important than receiving an ACARS. Many VOR's are limited to even less than described above due to terrain... etc.... again as described by Dennis.



I'm bumping the above post since we got a bit sidetracked with trolls after I made the above post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 22 2011, 09:29 AM
Post #152





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



This is basically an extension of what I already wrote days ago at post #105 in this thread with the added support of distance calculations. I used GPS Visualizer to exactly calculate the distances between the Lat/Long position reported by United 93 in Message #9 and the three closest RGS': CLE, CAK and PIT.

One more time, let's see what Winter says about Message #9:
QUOTE
Message #9 was an engine data message. The latitude and longitude was also listed in the message as "N41.31 W081.06".

The data provided by Winter are definitely correct. The latitude and longitude position automatically communicated by United 93 is confirmed by the corresponding ACARS log in the PDF provided by Warren Stutt (p. 113/221):




As we can see from the screenshot above, the automatic downlink was sent by United 93 at 13:34:29 UTC, the positional data refer however to the aircraft Lat/long at 13:33:44 UTC. I reported this Lat/Long position on the map along with the Lat/Long positions of PIT, CLE, and CAK:



These are the coordinates for all the points:

aircraft at 9:33 EDT: 4118'34.72"N 81 3'31.19"W
PIT: 4029'29.40"N 8013'57.72"W
CLE: 4124'38.88"N 8150'58.18"W
CAK: 4054'53.70"N 8126'10.69"W

And these are the resulting distances as calculated by GPS Visualizer (respectively indicated on the map by the A, B and C red pointers):
aircraft - PIT: 61.797 nm
aircraft - CLE: 32.242 nm
aircraft - CAK: 29.216 nm

At 9:33 EDT (13:33 UTC) United 93 was definitely much closer to CAK and CLE than to PIT. The distance from the aircraft to CAK (29.216 nm) is less than half the distance to PIT. The distance from the aircraft to CLE (32.242 nm) is slightly more than half the distance from PIT. Yet, according to the theory raised by some posters on the Unexplained Mysteries' forum, "BepStnName = PITC6 SSV=76 (Ox4C)" would indicate that this downlink was routed through the Pittsburgh's RGS. According to some experts, we can't automatically just stipulate distance as being the end arbiter for signal reception and data transmission integrity for ACARS. For example, terrain blockages and metropolitan areas (with a lot of co-channel interference sources between the RGS ground station, inside the RGS near field) can in extreme cases have an impact to the RGS actually chosen by the CPS. That said, it appears quite strange that in this case priority was given to a station at about 62 nm (PIT) when two closer RGS' with probable stronger signal were available at about half the distance (30 nm).

Another oddity in the theory claimed by the guys on UM based on the ARINC logs released through FOIA is the complete absence of any reference to CLE and CAK in any ACARS to/from United 93 from 9:21 to 10:12 EDT. If we believe to their theory, the "Stn=" field in all DLBLK blocks would designate the actual transmitting RGS, while the list of "BEP Stn Name=" occurrences would indicate the RGS' with stronger signal. If this were true, then we should expect to see CLEA2 and CAKB1, and maybe also CMIA6 and TOLB2, as further alternatives. Actually there is no reference to CLE or CAK in any of the ACARS related to United 93, neither as "Stn=" nor as "BEPStnName=", which is quite surprising given the calculated distance. Remarkably, we can find such references (CLEA2 and CAKB1) for AA77.
It is obvious that such a claim is a nonsense.

The next post will analyze more accurately the U-turn made by United 93 from 9:30 to 9:40 EDT and will prove unquestionably that "PITC6" could not be the transmitting RGS for the uplinks #7, #8, #10, #11 and 12, as claimed by some posters on UM.


NOTE:
According to the disclaimer shown at the top of the page, this post is my sole responsability and does not necessarily reflect the view of Pilots for Truth.org.

This post has been edited by Sergio: Dec 22 2011, 09:47 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 22 2011, 09:49 AM
Post #153





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



I greatly appreciate all the work you guys have done! salute.gif

Happy Holidays to all.

What is the site "UM" that you guys keep mentioning? Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 22 2011, 08:09 PM
Post #154



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 22 2011, 03:49 PM) *
I greatly appreciate all the work you guys have done! salute.gif

Happy Holidays to all.

What is the site "UM" that you guys keep mentioning? Thanks.


The effort blows me away too A.

UM = "Unexplained Mystery". Just one of the multitude of heavily infiltrated forums.

Happy Christmas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 23 2011, 09:53 AM
Post #155





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



Thanks OSS rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 24 2011, 12:38 PM
Post #156





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



One of the first objections I made to Warren Stutt as early as he showed up on this forum a couple of weeks ago providing a link to a list of alleged ARINC logs released by FOIA and claiming that the "Stn=" field within any first ULBLK block would indicate the actual ground station transmitting an uplink, was that, if we accept this theory, then we must necessarily conclude that United 93 constantly flew within the Pittsburgh's RGS coverage area without any discontinuity from 9:23 EDT to 10:12 EDT without being detected by any other RGS with stronger signal for almost one hour. As anyone can easily notice reading through the 211 pages PDF provided by Stutt (1), the station reported in the "Stn=" field is always "PITC6" in all the ULBLK blocks from 9:23 EDT until the end of the ACARS communications, with the sole exception of a couple of occurrences for "Stn= IADA6" at 10:12 EDT in the final instants of the aircraft's ACARS log history. This raises the question as to how could United 93 possibly make the famous U-turn above Cleveland before disappearing from the radar screens as secondary track at 9:41 EDT in the vicinity of Canton, as reported by the 9/11 Commission (2), and yet never enter either in the Cleveland (CLE) or in the Akron/Canton (CAK) RGS coverage area.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Stutt nor any of his followers on Unexplained Mysteries bothered to address this concern so far. Therefore I decided to delve into this issue providing graphics along with exact calculations to substantiate my claim. I reported the official radar positions for United 93, as provided by the 84 RADES Radar Data Spreadsheet released through FOIA (4), from 9:32 to 9:40 EDT (which corresponds to the time when United 93 allegedly made the U-turn over Cleveland) into a Google Earth map to have a visual representation of the Lat/Long position of the aircraft and of the closer ground stations when messages #7, #8, #10, #11 and #12 were uplinked from the United Airlines dispatchers (3).



Any blue aircraft icon represents the relevant position of United 93 as detected by the DTW radar site, the timestamp (i.e. 9:32) indicates the corresponding time. Of course, it would have been very interesting to analyze the radar hits after 9:40 EDT as well, however the last radar position available for United 93 before the hijackers allegedly turned off the transponder was detected at 9:40:03 EDT and was 41 00' 38.662" N 081 51' 46.830" W. As one can recognize already at first glance, between 9:32 EDT and 9:36 EDT United 93 flew really very close to the Cleveland's RGS (CLE). After 9:37 EDT the aircraft began the second part of its U-turn appearing clearly headed Southeast to the direction of the Akron/Canton's RGS (CAK) while remaining at moderate distance from the CLE RGS as well. Amazingly not one single ACARS message among those sent during this timeframe reports "CLEXX" or "CAKXX" in the "Stn=" field within any ULBLK block, nor such stations appear one single time in any "BepStnName =" field with the various DLBLK blocks.

A case study of particular interest is Message #10, which was sent by Chad McCurdy at 9:35 EDT, when the aircraft was literally flying over the CLE RGS, as we can see from the map. This is what Winter declared in 2002 in his interview to the FBI about this message:

QUOTE
Message #10 was from UAL flight Dispatcher CHAD McCURDY to the aircraft.
[]
Message #10 was sent to the aircraft from CHIDD and was sent to the ACARS screen only. The RGS in this instance was near Cleveland, OH CLE from the line "AN N591UA/GL CLE..."


This is the log of this uplink as it appears from the ACARS list provided by Ed Ballinger (5) to the 9/11 Commission:

DDLXCXA CHIAL CHI68R
.CHIADUA 111335/CHA
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CLE
- QUCHIALUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD
HOWS THE WX. CAN DISPATCH BE OF
ANY ASSISTANCE?
CHIDD CHAD MCCURDY

;09111336 108575 0625


Finally, this is how the complete ARINC log for this message appears in the PDF provided by Warren Stutt (p. 118)



According to Warren Stutt and some posters on the Unexplained Mysteries' forum, both the "AN N591UA/GL" field in the first log coming from Ballinger's desk and the "Target Stn=" field within the ULMSG block in the ARINC logs (screenshot) only indicate the predicted RGS, that is the RGS provided by the airline when the message is originally sent, which is only used if the Data Link Service Provider (DSP) has no other routing information to work with. In other words, it is the RGS expected after a certain time of flight according to the original flight plan. According to this theory, the RGS who actually transmits the ACARS is indicated in the first ULBLK block in the "Stn =" field. If this is true, than PITC6 and not any closer RGS transmitted, among the others, the message sent by CHAD MCCURDY at 9:35.

Using GPS Visualizer, I calculated the distance from the position of the aircraft at 9:35 EDT, as reported by the 84 RADES radar data, to the PIT, CLE and CAK remote ground stations.

These are the Lat/Long positions on the map:

United 93 at 9:35 EDT 4120'17.89"N 8158'55.62"W
PIT RGS: 4029'29.40"N 8013'57.72"W
CLE RGS:  4124'38.88"N 8150'58.18"W
CAK RGS: 4054'53.70"N 8126'10.69"W

And these are the distances between the above coordinates as determined by the GPS Visualizer's calculator:

United 93 at 9:35 EDT  Distance (in nm)
PIT RGS (see red pointer A):  94.394
CLE RGS (see red pointer B): 7.4020
CAK RGS (see red pointer C):  35.455

If we believe to the claim supported by Stutt and other people on UM, the Pittsburgh's RGS had at 9:35 EDT the strongest signal although its distance from United 93 was 94.394 nm. In other words, we should believe that, for some obscure reason, the PIT station overrode both the Cleveland's RGS (CLE), which was at less than one tenth of its distance (7.4020 nm) and the Akron/Canton's RGS (CAK), who was at only 35.455 nm (i.e. well less than half the distance from PIT). If one has a minimal knowledge of how ACARS really work in the real world, the only possible conclusion after reading this data is that either the theory is completely wrong or, if true, then the ARINC data or the radar data were manipulated for some reasons that we won't speculate here. It is simply impossible that the ARINC CPS gave priority to a station at more than 94 nm while having another closer station at only 7 miles available and, in the event this were inoperative or temporarily unavailable, an alternative station at only 35 nm as a second option. No way. No terrain blockages, no possible metropolitan interferences can justify such an odd selection by the ARINC CPS when one RGS is at only 7 nm and the other at more than 94 nm. In no case PIT could have a stronger signal than CLE at 9:35 EDT, nor such a selection is justified by any ARINC routing algorithm. If you ask any ARINC professional or ACARS expert or you simply analyze other cases (as I did and which I will present in the next few days), you'll see that there are no similar cases in the ACARS transmissions. Lastly, if one should speculate that the CLE and CAK ground stations were inoperative on the morning of 9/11 as possible explanation for this oddity, then he should also explain why CLEB2 and CLEA2 appear sometimes in the "BEPStnName =" field within the AA 77 ACARS communications history.

If you're thinking that this is the most absurd theory you have ever heard, then you should maybe wait to read the next paragraphs and know the second part of the claim supported by Stutt and other people on UM before giving your final evaluation. According to this theory, the stations reported in the "BepStnName =" fields within the DLBLK blocks designate the ground stations which are closer to the aircraft at that particular time:

QUOTE
The DSP (ARINC) makes use of the location downlinks referred to in previous documents to keep its internal routing tables updated, but the airline does not. The DPSs use of this is evident by the ARINC 620-4 documentation and from the PDF supplied by Warren Stutt. In fact, Warren's PDF shows us a perfect example of the Category A network protocol in action with each DLBLK that you see following each ULMSG and ULBLK reference. The aircraft's omnidirectional transmissions are picked up by every RGS within range and it appears as though the routing table sequences a priority based on signal strength of those transmissions; the RGS with the strongest signal received is assigned as the initial station for future uplinks. This routing table is dynamically updated with each downlink from the aircraft, just as the previously uncovered reference material has described, and this is distinct from the static information (i.e. the GL text element which I outlined in my previous post) which is supplied by the airline dispatch in each message sent to the DSP for delivery.


(7). I marked the most significant parts of the above claim in bold. The first one is "but the aircraft does not", which means that the targeted station reported in the ULMSG blocks is never dynamically updated by the CPS based on the actual positional data and always designates the expected RGS based on the flight plan. This claim is simply wrong, as I spotted several examples that flatly prove the contrary, however I will analyze them in a separate post in the next few days. For the purposes of the current analysis it is more important to focus on the second claim marked in bold: "The aircraft's omnidirectional transmissions are picked up by every RGS within range". So, if this theory is true, then we would expect to see "CLEXX", "CAKXX" and other ground stations within range at 9:35 EDT in the "BEPStnName =" references for Message #10. Now let's take a look at what is actually reported in the "BEPStnName =" fields in the above screenshot taken from the ARINC logs. The first DLBLK reports "BepStnName = YYZA6", the second DLBLK reports "BepStnName = YYZB6", the third DLBLK reports "BepStnName = YYZC6", the fourth DLBLK reports "BepStnName = PITA6", finally the fifth DLBLK reports "BepStnName = HTSA6".

Again, I reported the relevant stations on a Google Earth map and calculated their distance from the aircraft at 9:35 EDT with GPS Visualizer. This is the result:



United 93 at 9:35 EDT Distance (in nm)
YYZ RGS (see red pointer D): 175.50 nm
HTS RGS (see red pointer E): 180.08 nm
TOL RGS (see red pointer F):  83.696 nm
FWA RGS (see red pointer G):  147.18 nm
DTW RGS (see red pointer H): 81.191 nm
CMH RGS (see red pointer I):  90.302 nm

So, let's take a look again at the screenshot from the ARINC logs and let's try to draw some conclusions after looking at the distances calculated by GPS Visualizer reported on the above map. The first three DLBLK blocks in Message #10 contain references to the Toronto ground station (YYZ). At 9:35 EDT the distance between the radar position of United 93 and the Toronto RGS was 175.50 nm (!!). The fourth DLBLK block contains a reference to PITC6. As we have seen, at that time the distance from Pittsburgh's RGS was 94.394 nm. Finally, the fifth DLBLK block reports a reference to Huntington (HTS), which at 9:35 EDT was at a distance of 180.08 nm.

So, according to the theory supported by Stutt and others, who apparently base their claim on the DLBLK blocks shown within the ARINC logs, the United 93's onboard ACARS MU not only completely ignored very close stations such as CLE (see pointer B), who was at only 7.4020 nm, and CAK, who was at a distance of only 35.455 nm (see pointer C). It also ignored relatively close RGS' such as DTW (see pointer H) which was at 81.191 nm, TOL (see pointer F) which was at 83.696 nm, CMH (see pointer I) which was at 90.302 nm and finally FWA (see pointer G) which was at 147.18 nm, but, for some incredible reason, was able to detect YYZ at 175.50 nm and HTS at 180.08 nm. Look at the same screenshot shown above with a zoom on the aircraft position:



It is obvious that this theory does not add up at all. The radar data and the distances calculated by GPS Visualizer are self-explaining and prove unquestionably that such a claim has no real technical or scientific basis, no matter how many screenshots from the ARINC specifications may be used as reference.

One last example should conclusively clarify this issue. There is one and only one reference to the Cleveland's RGS in the DLBLK blocks within the United 93 log history:



(8). As we can see, it is referred as "CLEA2" and is contained within a DLBLK block showing 13:03:06 UTC as timestamp, that is 9:03:06 EDT. Coincidentally there is a radar hit from the DAN site in the 84 RADES Radar Data Spreadsheet file which shows exactly the same Zulu time, 13:03:06,600. The radar position reported is 40 45' 09.713" N 076 49' 05.680" W. One more time this allows us to plot the relevant position of the aircraft on a Google Earth map and calculate its distance from the target using GPS Visualizer. This is the result:



Again, the graphic and the distance data are self-explaining. According to the bizarre theory claimed by Stutt and others on UM, United 93 was able to detect the Cleveland ground station in a downlink at 9:03 EDT at a distance of 231.23 nm, which is well above the 200 nautical miles limit indicated by ARINC as maximum technical threshold for a successful ACARS transmission. But, for some incredible unknown reason, the CLE RGS was not close enough or its signal was not strong enough at 9:35 EDT to be reported in the "Stn=" field as the transmitting RGS while the aircraft was only 7 miles away and had literally flown over the Hopkins International airport one or two minutes before. This last example conclusively disproves that claim without ifs or buts. Either the theory is simply wrong or, if it is true, then it is obvious that the ARINC logs released through FOIA were manipulated and therefore are neither genuine or trusted nor can be positively used as basis for whatever claim or theory. This conclusion may also be expressed with other words: either the ARINC logs released though FOIA are fake or, if genuine, then the official version is fake and United 93 never made its U-turn over Cleveland, but kept on flying somewhere, maybe in circles, over the Pittsburgh's remote ground station (PIT) for almost one hour.


DISCLAIMER
According to the disclaimer shown at the top of the page, this post is my sole responsibility and does not necessarily reflect the view of Pilots for Truth.org.

NOTES
(1) See List of ARINC logs for AA11, UA93 and AA77. The data for United 175 are missing.
(2) "At 9:41, Cleveland Center lost United 93's transponder signal. The controller located it on primary radar, matched its position with visual sightings from other aircraft, and tracked the flight as it turned east, then south". Source: The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 46 (PDF version).
(3) The numbering of the ACARS messages follows Michael J Winter's interview in FBI302, p. 55-57. Message #9 was an engine data message automatically downlinked by the aircraft and has been already analyzed at post #149 above.
(4) See Rades 84 9-11 Radar Data Spreadsheet
(5) See Team7 Box 13 UAL ACARS
(6) See Note 1, p. 177.
(7) See post #1759 on Unexplained Mysteries' forum.
(8) See Note 1, p. 93.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 24 2011, 06:47 PM
Post #157



Group Icon

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



Good work Sergio.

For obvious reasons, I haven't had much time to look into this over the past few days, and what I have looked into prior it is clear the 'duhbunkers' have nothing but speculation to hold onto their theories, combined with the fact they contradict themselves within their own theory.

A perfect example is the statement you quoted from one of the 'duhbunkers' -

"The aircraft's omnidirectional transmissions are picked up by every RGS within range"

The above not only completely contradicts their own theory and data set(s), but those stations which were allegedly "picked up" were well out of range based on the curvature of the Earth alone, not to mention station power. I'm sure they probably still ignore the fact that the Earth is round and the aircraft could not see many of the stations they allege, based on FDR position and altitudes.

I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a Happy and healthy New Year!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Dec 24 2011, 08:17 PM
Post #158





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 511
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



More fuel for the ACARS fire? (page 3)

ACARS MFR
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 24 2011, 08:43 PM
Post #159



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (kawika @ Dec 24 2011, 08:17 PM) *
More fuel for the ACARS fire? (page 3)

ACARS MFR



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRM...FTER-CRASH.html

Footnote 3.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Dec 25 2011, 06:06 AM
Post #160



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,985
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 6 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