Duhbunkers try to explain ACARS and fail Options

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

And of course, we see the obsessoids over at the govt loyalist cesspool scurrying, looking for and expecting an immediate explanation from the nameless faceless "experts". This individual can't even think or research for themself, they have to seek comfort in answers from the groupthink tank.

"I'm sure it's here somewhere, but can someone steer me to the debunk of this rubbish-"

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Dec 1 2011, 05:49 AM

[scott75]

I got this message from someone who, while admitting that PFT's article may be accurate, nevertheless thinks it's also possible it's not. Quoting a bit of the conversation for context:

Let me ask you this; if the message format was identical, why was one labelled as "received", while the other wasn't? Could it be that they were actually -both- received, and the person stating that one wasn't was either misinformed or was downright lying? This is the conclusion of an organization of experts in avionics, Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Considering their vast amount of expertise, you might consider the possibility that they're right.

Is it possible? Yes.

However, based on the documentation presented so far, we know that there are actually 2 acknowledgements sent back to the message originator, the first one from the DSP indicating that the message was successfully accepted for formatting for uplink transmission by the CPS, and the second one is the acknowledgement that the messages was received by the aircraft. All we see in most of the messages is one "acknowledgement time", but we have no way of knowing at this time which one it is.

Now, I started thinking something; of the 4 ACARS messages that are brought up in PFT's ACARS article, all 4 of them have 2 time stamps. Could this actually be what Czero is referring to? One that it was successfully accepted for formating for uplink and the second that it was received by the aircraft?

[rob balsamo]

Now, I started thinking something; of the 4 ACARS messages that are brought up in PFT's ACARS article, all 4 of them have 2 time stamps. Could this actually be what Czero is referring to? One that it was successfully accepted for formating for uplink and the second that it was received by the aircraft?

One time stamp is sent, one is received, according to Mr Ballinger. He references the aircraft, not the DSP, not a printer in the room he is sitting in... he is referencing the aircraft.

Those who make excuse for the govt story will speculate till smoke starts to pour out their ears, trying to twist the words any possible way they can, but the fact remains, the statement made by Ballinger is straight forward, simple... and doesn't leave any room for ambiguity.

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

[scott75]

One time stamp is sent, one is received, according to Mr Ballinger. He references the aircraft, not the DSP, not a printer in the room he is sitting in... he is referencing the aircraft.

Those who make excuse for the govt story will speculate till smoke starts to pour out their ears, trying to twist the words any possible way they can, but the fact remains, the statement made by Ballinger is straight forward, simple... and doesn't leave any room for ambiguity.

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

Good point. On to another; Another poster (booN) is now asking why we put so much trust in Ballinger, when many have said that he isn't an ACARS expert. However, I know that one of your core members is an ACARS expert; he's even quoted in your article. Does he agree that the second time stamp was indeed denoting that the message had been received by the aircraft?

[rob balsamo]

Good point. On to another; Another poster (booN) is now asking why we put so much trust in Ballinger, when many have said that he isn't an ACARS expert.

He isn't an ACARS expert. He is a Dispatcher. and it's not that we are putting "trust" in him, we are reporting what he said. Others are trying to make excuses for it without any source for their speculation whatsoever. I don't expect Ballinger to know how the messages are routed but he surely is expected to know how to read his own ACARS and what the time stamps mean, yes?

Just like gman isnt familiar with Cat A and B Flight Tracking, I dont expect Ballinger to be... but clearly Ballinger knows more about the time stamps and ACARS format at United Airlines than gman does....

booNy still hasnt got the nads to come here and ask his own question huh? Not surprised....

Has he called ARINC yet? lol... not sure why I'm even asking as clearly the guy is afraid of the truth. Let me guess, he thinks the document provided by some anonymous guy on some forum debunks the statement made by Ballinger?

Does booNy also think gmans ACARS format is in the same format as the United Airlines ACARS?

I know that one of your core members is an ACARS expert; he's even quoted in your article. Does he agree that the second time stamp was indeed denoting that the message had been received by the aircraft?

Conversely, Dennis is an ACARS expert, not a Dispatcher, I wouldn't expect him to know exactly what the time stamps mean at United Airlines when the messages can be tailored to the needs of United. But Dennis certainly knows how they are routed, and as he has stated from the beginning corroborated by source documents, the messages would not be routed through MDT and PIT if the aircraft were in NY, regardless if they are received or not.

Hope this helps.... tell booNy he is better off sticking to his video games.

[scott75]

He isn't an ACARS expert. He is a Dispatcher. and it's not that we are putting "trust" in him, we are reporting what he said. Others are trying to make excuses for it without any source for their speculation whatsoever. I don't expect Ballinger to know how the messages are routed but he surely is expected to know how to read his own ACARS and what the time stamps mean, yes?

Wow, good point.

Just like gman isnt familiar with Cat A and B Flight Tracking, I dont expect Ballinger to be... but clearly Ballinger knows more about the time stamps and ACARS format at United Airlines than gman does....

True.

booNy still hasnt got the nads to come here and ask his own question huh? Not surprised....

I've been thinking about this.. I've been thinking that perhaps I'm a better interface. After all, I -agree- with your stance, whereas he clearly leans the other way. So maybe it makes more sense if I were to ask.

Has he called ARINC yet? lol... not sure why I'm even asking as clearly the guy is afraid of the truth. Let me guess, he thinks the document provided by some anonymous guy on some forum debunks the statement made by Ballinger?

I don't think so. But he did send them an email, and said he'd get back to us if they wrote him back. I actually did call ARINC again. I told them I had a question regarding ACARS messages and they said I should email them about it, so I did. This is what I asked:
"I just wanted to know, in ACARS messages, is it true that the second time stamp in messages that are successfully uplinked to aircraft signifies the time that the message was received by the aircraft?"

I regret that I didn't ask specifically for United Airlines ACARS messages. I got an initial response saying that they were routing my question to the proper department:
****
Thank you for emailing XXXX

Due to the nature of your question, I have taken the liberty of forwarding your email to the appropriate Airport Authority department for assistance and they will respond directly.

It is the goal of XXXX to provide the traveling public with the highest level of customer service. As always, your comments, questions and experiences provide us with an invaluable source of feedback.
****

Does booNy also think gmans ACARS format is in the same format as the United Airlines ACARS?

I think I may ask him that soon (Can't right now, I think the forum is down for maintenance).

Conversely, Dennis is an ACARS expert, not a Dispatcher, I wouldn't expect him to know exactly what the time stamps mean at United Airlines when the messages can be tailored to the needs of United.

Ah, I see.

But Dennis certainly knows how they are routed, and as he has stated from the beginning corroborated by source documents, the messages would not be routed through MDT and PIT if the aircraft were in NY, regardless if they are received or not.

Good point.

Hope this helps.... tell booNy he is better off sticking to his video games.

Lol :-). However, I would like to say that if people like booN and Czero didn't continue to respond to posts from various people who support your reasoning, the conversation might have died a long time ago. I certainly believe that I've learned a fair in large part because of their disagreements with us.

[rob balsamo]

I've been thinking about this.. I've been thinking that perhaps I'm a better interface. After all, I -agree- with your stance, whereas he clearly leans the other way. So maybe it makes more sense if I were to ask.

booNy should take the advice of his own signature....lol

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams

booNy = irony

[scott75]

booNy should take the advice of his own signature....lol

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams

booNy = irony

I'm sure you're right to some extent. On the other hand, of all the people at Unexplained Mysteries (they just got to 100,000 users), he and Czero seem to have learned the most concerning ACARS on the side of the people who still lean towards the official story. So for this reason and for the fact that he's helped keep the debate alive, I think that in a very real way, he's contributed to uncovering the truth on this matter.

[rob balsamo]

I'm sure you're right to some extent. On the other hand, of all the people at Unexplained Mysteries (they just got to 100,000 users), he and Czero seem to have learned the most concerning ACARS on the side of the people who still lean towards the official story.

And yet they fail to call an ARINC Expert, instead they elect to remain anonymous attempting to find documentation to support their "hypothesis".

Clearly they both think "hypothesis" justifies this?

Unlike UM, we don't ban when people post reality, nor attempt to sweep reality under the rug, as was done at UM of one of our representatives (yes Scott you were right, WalkyrieWings is a Core member of P4T). Most of the people here are adults and can understand children are being killed based on "hypothesis" (yet refuse to accept "hypothesis" as justification). You may want to tell booNy and Cz to read our mission statement atop our home page which has been there since 2006.

Clearly booNy and Cz feel that "hypothesis" justifies all that has happened as a result of the events that took place on 9/11? If not, why are they offering hypothesis to explain their actions?

So for this reason and for the fact that he's helped keep the debate alive, I think that in a very real way, he's contributed to uncovering the truth on this matter.

All they have done was provide source documents which they thought supported their "hypothesis", but in reality corroborated what our experts have said since day 1.

Since the cat is half way out the bag... we played Cz and booN to do the legwork finding the sources via the net, as we knew they didn't have the expertise to interpret the information, instead we knew they would interpret the documents based on their confirmation bias and have nothing but speculation to offer. They did an excellent job gathering document to support real and verified experts.

This is one of the reasons Cz and booN will never come here, nor amount to anything on this topic. But, we will continue to use them...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[scott75]

And yet they fail to call an ARINC Expert, instead they elect to remain anonymous attempting to find documentation to support their "hypothesis".

From my experience, you're not actually supposed to call ARINC experts, atleast not ones that are on the job. That doesn't mean that they won't talk to you sometimes (as in the case with the SFO expert), but in my second call, they told me that I should send an email instead. So I did. booN has done this as well. I haven't received a response yet and as far as I know, neither has booN.

Clearly they both think "hypothesis" justifies this?

No, they don't. They just don't think that your evidence is that strong. I think they just can't properly interpret the data they already have, which you have told them more then once. I'm trying to explain things to them as best I can. This is difficult for me, because I have yet to fully comprehend some facets of ACARS myself, but together, I think we're learning.

Unlike UM, we don't ban when people post reality, nor attempt to sweep reality under the rug, as was done at UM of one of our representatives (yes Scott you were right, WalkyrieWings is a Core member of P4T).

Woot :-)! Nice to get guesses right. Anyway, I haven't seen any real indication that that's what they're really trying to do. It's just that.. once, I had more or less cornered an official story supporter concerning World Trade Center 7. He was already a little shaky concerning the official story on that building, but he tried anyway. At one point, I just said that I was embarassed for him; even he had a hard time swallowing his own arguments. It was at that point, like a cornered animal, that I heard him say what may have been the most truthful thing I've ever heard said from an official story supporter. He said something like 'Imagine that your own mother was accused of murder. That's what this sounds like'. And suddenly, it all clicked into place. The ridiculous evasions, the pitiful defenses, all of it. And I truly felt sorry for him, and all the people who have can't bear the possibility that an element of the government was truly complicit in all of this. And I also realized how I had got him to confess such a truth. I had been gentle with him, gentle enough for him to say something which, if you think about it, put him in a very vulnerable place.

Most of the people here are adults and can understand children are being killed based on "hypothesis" (yet refuse to accept "hypothesis" as justification). You may want to tell booNy and Cz to read our mission statement atop our home page which has been there since 2006.

Yes, I know, "We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time." But would you agree that once you start down the rabbit hole, it's almost impossible to go back? I have heard of -very- few cases in forums where people who start questioning the official story can come away thinking that the government wasn't complicit in what happened. At present, I know of one such case. The really does come up with some novel theories to explain things, but she is truly the exception to the rule. The rest are either on one side or the other. It reminds me of a guy who generally supported the official story who admitted that he wasn't sure what happened in the JFK assassination. An official story supporter scoffed at his lack of faith and he backed off nervously, not wanting to lose his place on the official story side of things.

Clearly booNy and Cz feel that "hypothesis" justifies all that has happened as a result of the events that took place on 9/11?

I haven't seen any evidence for that.

If not, why are they offering hypothesis to explain their actions?

It's one thing to question the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's another to question whether the official story concerning 9/11 was true. Because while one is far away, the other is at your doorstep.

All they have done was provide source documents which they thought supported their "hypothesis", but in reality corroborated what our experts have said since day 1.

Yes, but they don't yet understand this.

Since the cat is half way out the bag... we played Cz and booN to do the legwork finding the sources via the net, as we knew they didn't have the expertise to interpret the information, instead we knew they would interpret the documents based on their confirmation bias and have nothing but speculation to offer. They did an excellent job gathering document to support real and verified experts.

This is one of the reasons Cz and booN will never come here, nor amount to anything on this topic. But, we will continue to use them...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Czero was.. let's just say he was very upset with that comment you made. I didn't quote it, he came over here and saw it. Now he says he refuses to participate in the discussion anymore. I'm going to try to do some damage control. I think I'll tell him a line from "The Sirens of Titan". Near the ending of the book, a woman is furious that she was used by some intergalactic space aliens for their purpose. Her husband tells her something like, 'that's not so bad. The worst thing is being useless'. I think you'll agree that of all the official story supporters in UM, he was the one who got closest to truly understanding ACARS. He really worked hard to get to that point. I don't want to lose him.

This post has been edited by scott75: Dec 5 2011, 07:35 PM