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

[onesliceshort]

Scott, all of those "responses" are addressed in both UA175 and UA93 ACARS threads.
Pure speculatory claims versus documented evidence and explanations as to how ACARS actually operates.

How the f*** can Ballinger's statement be "misinterpreted"??

And they actually use Knerr or Winter against Ballinger's statement on UA 175, because they specifically state that no messages were received after UA 175 allegedly crashed at 9:03am.

Yet they also dismiss Winters' statement regarding the audible signal being activated in the cockpit of "Flight 93", 500 miles from the alleged crash site, 7 minutes after the alleged impact.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Dec 10 2011, 08:15 AM

[scott75]

Scott, all of those "responses" are addressed in both UA175 and UA93 ACARS threads.
Pure speculatory claims versus documented evidence and explanations as to how ACARS actually operates.

How the f*** can Ballinger's statement be "misinterpreted"??

Allow me to demonstrate, laugh :-). This message is how Q24's message begins:

I have not seen Ballinger state such a belief.

He goes on as to his interpretation of what Ballinger meant. I'll spare you the details, but you can see them here if you want:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=4140124

You may want to skip that though, and just see my response which I'll quote:
****
Probably because you're not an aviation professional. Seriously, just think about it. Don't you think dispatchers would want to know that their messages are being received? I'll assume you're with me so far. Next step: if the messages are being sent to the aircraft, who do you think would be acknowledging their receipt? Ground control? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) The only one who can acknowledge that an aircraft has received a message is the aircraft itself. It's just common sense.
****

And they actually use Knerr or Winter against Ballinger's statement on UA 175, because they specifically state that no messages were received after UA 175 allegedly crashed at 9:03am.

Yet they also dismiss Winters' statement regarding the audible signal being activated in the cockpit of "Flight 93", 500 miles from the alleged crash site, 7 minutes after the alleged impact.

Again, we haven't focused too much on Flight 93 yet. Czero said he was going to get back on bubs (someone on PFT's side) a while back but then he left for a while and now that he's back it looks like he may have forgotten.