IPB




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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Acars Confirmed - 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Long After Crash, PilotsFor911Truth.org

Rating 5 V
 
rob balsamo
post Nov 30 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,675
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Be sure to share this important information via the share and like links above.

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred. read more...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
truthmatters
post Nov 30 2011, 10:46 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 87
Joined: 19-February 09
From: California
Member No.: 4,145



QUOTE
Be sure to share this important information via the share and like links above.

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred. read more...


I'm not able to see the "read more" part. I get a message that "internet explorer cannot display the website".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 30 2011, 10:49 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,675
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (truthmatters @ Nov 30 2011, 09:46 PM) *
I'm not able to see the "read more" part. I get a message that "internet explorer cannot display the website".



Fixed.. sorry about that... (and thanks for bringing it to my attention) ... the above is being sent out to thousands and sometimes hyperlinks get truncated through the copy/paste process.

If all else fails... just visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org as the article is front page and the 'read more' link works just fine on our front page.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Dec 1 2011, 09:40 AM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



Why do I get the impression that Cass Sunstein's payrollees at 911blogger won't approve this? smile.gif

Great work, Rob and co. thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif




(reason for edit: tone down the swear rhetoric and instead create a new word: "payrollees")

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Dec 2 2011, 02:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 1 2011, 09:49 AM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,910
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Yes, thanks to Woody and anybody else who spent the time to flesh this out. Great work!

This confirms that the airplane that hit at WTC was not 175, as many of us have suspected for so long.

I'm curious if it's possible to extrapolate the heading or position of the aircraft? It seems to be generally westbound. I wonder if it made it to Cleveland? I wonder if ACARS data can suggest a landing point?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9/11 Justice Now
post Dec 1 2011, 11:19 AM
Post #6





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2011, 11:49 PM) *
Yes, thanks to Woody and anybody else who spent the time to flesh this out. Great work!

This confirms that the airplane that hit at WTC was not 175, as many of us have suspected for so long.

I'm curious if it's possible to extrapolate the heading or position of the aircraft? It seems to be generally westbound. I wonder if it made it to Cleveland? I wonder if ACARS data can suggest a landing point?


Really i am quiet confused here i originally thought the ACARS messages where from united 93, does this mean i am wrong?

rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 1 2011, 11:40 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

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



The noose is getting tighter.

handsdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Dec 1 2011, 02:05 PM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 453
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



Could someone please provide the name of the file(s) where these ACARS records come from?

I would like to 1) check my database for other similar records for the other flights and 2) to see if there are possibly more for UA175.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 1 2011, 02:10 PM
Post #9



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,675
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (kawika @ Dec 1 2011, 01:05 PM) *
Could someone please provide the name of the file(s) where these ACARS records come from?

I would like to 1) check my database for other similar records for the other flights and 2) to see if there are possibly more for UA175.


It is the first footnote on the bottom of the article itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Dec 1 2011, 03:16 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 453
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 29 2011, 04:10 PM) *
It is the first footnote on the bottom of the article itself.


This record is the 9/11 Commission's version of FAA records. To be absolutely sure it's complete we need to see the original FAA records that were (or weren't) provided to the 9/11 Commission.

Any direction you can provide as to keywords, file type or other identifying data will help me search the FAA database.

Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 1 2011, 03:24 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,675
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (kawika @ Dec 1 2011, 02:16 PM) *
This record is the 9/11 Commission's version of FAA records. To be absolutely sure it's complete we need to see the original FAA records that were (or weren't) provided to the 9/11 Commission.

Any direction you can provide as to keywords, file type or other identifying data will help me search the FAA database.

Thank you


I don't think the FAA would have any records of ACARS aside from ACARS sent by ATC.

ARINC and the airline have the records, which were provided to the Commission, which were then sent via FOIA, which are linked in our footnote 1.

There are messages missing as described in the article. Dennis also talks about the messages and why we wouldnt have a comprehensive list of all of them.

With that said, we have all the information we need. The aircraft cannot be in NYC and have ACARS messages routed through MDT and PIT based on flight tracking protocol.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 1 2011, 03:32 PM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,910
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Rob

I understand what ACARS is, but have never used it here in GA.

Since it is basically just a data burst/packet/whatever on VHF, is it known and how whether an aircraft actually receives that information from the ground station? If they acknowledge, then it's easy to understand, but if the crew does not acknowledge receipt of the message, does the software know somehow that the intended aircraft received the message?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 1 2011, 03:34 PM
Post #13


Woody Box


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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2011, 01:49 PM) *
Yes, thanks to Woody and anybody else who spent the time to flesh this out. Great work!

This confirms that the airplane that hit at WTC was not 175, as many of us have suspected for so long.

I'm curious if it's possible to extrapolate the heading or position of the aircraft? It seems to be generally westbound. I wonder if it made it to Cleveland? I wonder if ACARS data can suggest a landing point?


Thank you for the flowers. I do my best.

Based on the ACARS messages, UA 175 was flying westward over Pennsylvania, at 8:59 it was roughly over Harrisburg, at 9:23 roughly over Pittsburgh. I have a quite specific idea about its flight path afterwards, as well as its later identities, but at the moment, I'd like to keep my powder dry. But I can't resist to mention Delta 89, which is identical to Delta 1989 in the official story. I've compiled the reasons why Delta 89 was NOT the same plane as Delta 1989 here:

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/06/de...ker-hijack.html

My thesis is that Delta 89 popped up at 9:41 on the screens of military controllers (NEADS) for only three minutes. The place it appeared was right over Cleveland Center in Oberlin (the NEADS girl gives the latlong to the Indy Center controller). From these data, is it possible that Delta 89 is identical to the westbound UA 175? The answer is definitely yes.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 1 2011, 03:38 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,675
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2011, 02:32 PM) *
.... but if the crew does not acknowledge receipt of the message, does the software know somehow that the intended aircraft received the message?



Yes.... it's all explained in the article.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Dec 1 2011, 05:18 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 453
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Nov 29 2011, 05:24 PM) *
I don't think the FAA would have any records of ACARS aside from ACARS sent by ATC.

ARINC and the airline have the records, which were provided to the Commission, which were then sent via FOIA, which are linked in our footnote 1.

There are messages missing as described in the article. Dennis also talks about the messages and why we wouldnt have a comprehensive list of all of them.

With that said, we have all the information we need. The aircraft cannot be in NYC and have ACARS messages routed through MDT and PIT based on flight tracking protocol.


I searched my FOIA database using keyword ACARS. Only a few records. One PDF about Flight 93. The other files are labeled "trash", only one is for 9/11/01.

Here is the UA93 ACARS PDF screenshot:

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/3482/ua93acarsimage.jpg

I am very surprised there are not more, but the agency has held back about 2GB worth, expected release soon.

What it tells me is the 9/11 Commission records are from a different database as formatting is not the same.

If you can think of other keywords to use in searches, please advise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lurker
post Dec 1 2011, 07:04 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 29-March 08
Member No.: 3,061



for those who care re ua93:
the acars message says "NAK" in the 3rd last line (screenshot from above posting).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 1 2011, 09:10 PM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,675
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (lurker @ Dec 1 2011, 06:04 PM) *
for those who care re ua93:
the acars message says "NAK" in the 3rd last line (screenshot from above posting).



Yeah... those seem to be in a different format than the other ACARS we have via FOIA.

What is strange is that the pdf says UA93 is a 737... and that it didnt receive the message (if the NAK is a Tech acknowledgement) when the aircraft was reportedly right next to the ground station... PIT.



kawika can you send me that full pdf when you get a chance please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 1 2011, 09:24 PM
Post #18





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



QUOTE (kawika @ Dec 1 2011, 06:18 PM) *
I searched my FOIA database using keyword ACARS. Only a few records. One PDF about Flight 93. The other files are labeled "trash", only one is for 9/11/01.

Here is the UA93 ACARS PDF screenshot:

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/3482/ua93acarsimage.jpg

I am very surprised there are not more, but the agency has held back about 2GB worth, expected release soon.

What it tells me is the 9/11 Commission records are from a different database as formatting is not the same.

If you can think of other keywords to use in searches, please advise.


UAL93, Boeing 737 ?????? blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dadeets
post Dec 1 2011, 11:00 PM
Post #19





Group: Core Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 6-July 08
From: Encinitas, California
Member No.: 3,674



This is excellent work. Thanks to all who contributed.

This is what I would call "hard evidence."

Do we have anything else in the "hard evidence" category that corroborates the fact that UA175 was in the vicinity of Harrisburg and Pittsburgh heading west at the time the officials say a plane struck WTC 2?

Dwain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cheapchippy
post Dec 2 2011, 03:15 AM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 20
Joined: 27-September 08
From: South Australia
Member No.: 3,851



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 2 2011, 12:19 AM) *
Yes, thanks to Woody and anybody else who spent the time to flesh this out. Great work!

This confirms that the airplane that hit at WTC was not 175, as many of us have suspected for so long.

I'm curious if it's possible to extrapolate the heading or position of the aircraft? It seems to be generally westbound. I wonder if it made it to Cleveland? I wonder if ACARS data can suggest a landing point?


Great work to all. I didnt realise this has been suspected for so long salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd August 2014 - 09:33 PM