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 )

10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10  
Closed TopicStart new topic
Duhbunkers try to explain ACARS and fail

rob balsamo
post Dec 28 2011, 11:09 PM
Post #181



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,596
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 28 2011, 07:02 PM) *
In case Warren is still here...a question for you...


"Stutt" wont come around here anymore since he knows he will be forced to answer for his confirmed disinformation first, in which his own calculations destroy his own theories.

As expected based on prior experience debating "Stutt", he ignores information, data and math when it doesn't mesh with his confirmation bias, and instead moves swiftly onto new modes of disinformation hoping no one will notice, until he once again can ignore rebuttals, while moving the goal posts.

Rinse and repeat...


One thing that readers should keep in mind is the same that will be kept in the mind of a Jury when and if "Warren Stutt" is called to the stand to testify on aviation related issues - and this is what "Warren Stutt" will have to say during Voir dire -

"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


Aside from his technical errors and laughing at the lawyer who would put such a person on the stand as an "Expert Witness", this is why "Warren Stutt" cannot get any support from any verified aviation professional, and seeks out the comfort of gamers and idiots from J.REF who cannot determine the difference between a 757 and an A320.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 29 2011, 08:01 AM
Post #182



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,596
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Warren attempted to reply again but this time by proxy... and once again, he evades the questions asked.

Warren, the only way back onto this forum is through answering the questions and addressing the issues you have been avoiding for over a year. Stop trolling.

All of Warren's posts have been saved and will be restored when and if he addresses his past confirmed disinformation.

Folks, do not let Warren evade his past issues while helping him spread more disinformation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Dec 30 2011, 11:10 AM
Post #183





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



This is an answer to post #1924 on UM by Warren Stutt.

QUOTE
The reason that some RGS stations did not receive ACARS messages from or transmit ACARS messages to UA93 while RGS stations much further away did do so is that not all RGS stations transmit and receive at all the frequencies used to carry ACARS message traffic. It has become evident to me that BepStnName and Stn values in the ACARS message log (1369 kB PDF) such as EWRB5 are transceiver names located at the RGS station with the first three letters of the transceiver name so for example the transceiver EWRB5 is located at the EWR RGS station. Each transceiver at an RGS station only works on one particular fixed frequency. The transceiver on UA93 however could be switched to different frequencies. A transceiver at an RGS station could only successfully communicate with UA93 if the transceiver on UA93 was switched to the same frequency as the one used by the transceiver at the RGS station.


Hi Warren,
I have been away for some days and I also took a little time to analyze your claim before replying. I contacted pilots and, most of all, I finally received information from ARINC which confirms my early suspects. While your speculation is partially true, it does not explain at all the complete lack of references both to Cleveland's and to Akron/Canton's RGS' during the U-turn over Cleveland between 9:32 EDT and 9:40 EDT.

Yes, you are basically right as to the fact that each transceiver at an RGS station works on one particular fixed frequency. But, as confirmed by ARINC, every RGS is equipped with a bank of VHF radios who operate a different frequencies and basically cover all the frequencies needed in a particular region, whereas the specific number of radios and frequencies in each RGS will vary by location and region. Of course, RGS' do not work with one single transceiver "locked on a fixed frequency". This would be unconceivable. Quite the contrary, at every remote ground station ARINC has several radios in one rack with more than one rack, so that all possible frequencies and situations are covered. If one single transceiver is dedicated to an "hard" frequency assignment, for example 136.800 MHz, another transceiver is dedicated to 130.025 MHz, while another transceiver covers 131.125 MHz and so on. The fact that you see CLEA2 and CAKA2 in the ARINC logs operating at 130.025 MHz, does not mean that CLE and CAK were only equipped with those single transceivers operating at one and only one fixed frequency. This is obviously ridiculous. This is not how RGS worked in 2001 and this is not how they work today. Multiple transceivers are set up at every RGS to operate at multiple frequencies. It is simply impossible that an aircraft does not "see" a station at only 7 nm and another one at 20 nm, but keeps on communicating with a station at more than 90 nm (PIT) only because it is currently tuned on a different frequency. This makes no sense. Whatever frequency United 93 was tuned to between 9:32 and 9:40 EDT, there was a ground transceiver at CLE and/or CAK RGS who operated at the same frequency and would have seen the aircraft. Likewise that transceiver would have been seen by the aircraft.

Another important aspect to note is how the autotune feature works. Both ARINC and all the pilots I contacted confirmed that the autotune is obviously a completely automatic feature. Everything happens without manual intervention by the cockpit. Any change of frequency in the cockpit happens automatically, with no pilot input. Among other sources, this is confirmed by this ARINC newsletter. Note that although published in 2011, reference is made to "classic ACARS":

QUOTE
With Classic ACARS, the distribution of ACARS traffic is relatively simple. Protocols are used to move aircraft from the DSP base frequency to a group of alternate frequencies. It is the Data Link Service Provider’s (DSP) responsibility to monitor traffic levels on the ACARS base and alternate frequencies or channels. If the traffic on a particular channel becomes congested, the DSP sends an uplink “autotune” command to the aircraft, and the Communications Management Unit (CMU) commands the VHF radio to switch to the assigned ACARS frequency. The aircraft CMU then sets up a connection on the new channel. If communication cannot be established or is lost, the ACARS CMU always returns to the DSP known “base” frequency and re-establishes the connection.


All this is self-explaining. If by any chance a frequency is congested, the ARINC CPS automatically sends an "autotune" uplink to the aircraft that automatically changes the current frequency to an alternate frequency. Note how ARINC specifically talks about "a group of alternate frequencies". This definitely confirms that all RGS can operate at difference frequencies. If Cleveland was congested at 130.025 MHz, as someone at UM speculated, then the CPS would have sent an "autotune" uplink to United 93 to switch the aircraft's CMU from 130.025 MHz to, for example, 136.800 MHz or any other available frequency at that time. And we would see that transceiver in the logs. But we don't.

One final confirmation comes from the actual operation of the ARINC CPS. As known, the ACARS service has a Central Processing System which processes all uplinks and downlinks sent to and received by all aircraft. All messages both up and down traverse through the CPS. As confirmed to me by ARINC, among other things the CPS understands the VHF coverage region for each frequency. So, when an aircraft approaches Cleveland, the CPS knows very well which transceivers are operating and at which frequency in that region and automatically chooses the most appropriate transceiver to communicate with that aircraft at the most appropriate frequency. Basically, either one or the other condition below applies:

a) the CPS sends an "autotune" uplink to set the aircraft’s frequency to a new frequency, so that the aircraft can “hear” CLEA2 (the same applies to CAKA2 in the case of CAK)
b) a different transceiver in CLE and CAK, operating at the same frequency as the current aircraft's frequency, is chosen to communicate with the aircraft.

No third option applies. There is no technical nor logical reason why United 93 should be completely "blind" to both the Cleveland's and the Akron/Canton's RGS' for more than 10 minutes while he could easily see a station at more than 94 nm. No congestion speculation, no frequency speculation can explain the fact that none of the messages between 9:32 EDT and 9:40 EDT was uplinked through these stations and that these stations are completely missing in all "BepStnName=" occurrences after 9:03 EDT although the radar data unquestionably prove the aircraft flew very close to them.

Until someone shows me proof that those two stations were inoperative for whatever reason, no speculation will convince me why they were apparently silent and didn't see the plane. I confirm my previous claim: the ARINC logs released through FOIA do not support the U-turn over Cleveland and therefore are flatly in conflict with the radar data. Either the logs have been heavily manipulated or, if genuine, then United 93 never made that U-turn over Cleveland and kept on flying in circles over Pittsburgh for almost one hour.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 30 2011, 01:18 PM
Post #184



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,596
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Warren sure does spend a lot of time making excuses to not answer my questions nor address the issues he has been evading...

He tried to reply again. For some reason he is under the impression that I wont approve his posts unless he says what I want him to say....

Once again Warren is full of spin and obfuscation.

All I want him to do is answer the questions in this post...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10803075

If Warren feels I am wrong in asking such questions, he is free to state his opinion and I will approve those posts as well since he is at the very least addressing the issue. But instead, Warren spends more time trying to evade the issue rather than address it. Typical and expected.

I have gone round and round with Warren many times on this forum. Anyone who is familiar with our "debates" knows that Warren is notorious for evading questions he doesn't like to answer, which is why he was suspended in the first place, giving him some time to perhaps form a response. He knew this is why he was suspended, and instead of coming back to address the questions, he comes back nearly a year later ignoring the whole issue attempting to spread more disinformation regarding ACARS. Most forums will just ban such a person outright as a troll, in a court of law he would have been held in Contempt long ago... but I will give him the opportunity to address the issue he has been evading for nearly a year as his continued evasion also serves a purpose. Each time he evades he only further diminishes any credibility he may have had left. This is just one of the many reasons Warren is not able to find just one verified aviation professional to endorse his garbage, while our list grows.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 30 2011, 03:45 PM
Post #185


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Sergio @ Dec 30 2011, 03:10 PM) *
This is an answer to post #1924 on UM by Warren Stutt.


salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif

Brilliant work, Sergio, as usual.

Warren's "wrong frequency" theory is highly speculative and certainly no satisfying explanation for the irregular distribution of RGS in the ARINC file.

So how are we going to call this amazing phenomenon, Gentlemen? Something like "Ohio electro-magnetical gap" or simply "Ohio gap" or "Ohio radio pit" or "Ohio dead zone"? Suggestions, please!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 30 2011, 03:57 PM
Post #186



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,596
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 30 2011, 02:45 PM) *
Warren's "wrong frequency" theory is highly speculative



Most, if not all of Warren's work is highly speculative... again, this is why he cannot get even one verified aviation professional to endorse his work.

And for the record, Warren's latest reply here did not address anything in Sergio's latest post. All Warren did was complain why he thinks I wont approve his posts. Again, all his posts are saved and will be restored when and if he addresses his past confirmed disinformation. It's called accountability, and is the main reason Warren evades while only offering further speculation on an unrelated topic. He is hoping no one will notice his grave errors in the Legge/Stutt 'paper' parroted by 'duhbunkers' worldwide for the last year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 30 2011, 04:26 PM
Post #187



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,520
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 30 2011, 08:45 PM) *
salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif salute.gif

Brilliant work, Sergio, as usual.

Warren's "wrong frequency" theory is highly speculative and certainly no satisfying explanation for the irregular distribution of RGS in the ARINC file.

So how are we going to call this amazing phenomenon, Gentlemen? Something like "Ohio electro-magnetical gap" or simply "Ohio gap" or "Ohio radio pit" or "Ohio dead zone"? Suggestions, please!


Ditto.

Excellent work sergio (as usual).

I need a paracetemol after trying to read through that UM thread!

W. Stutt's "reply" is the usual "I think that...".

Speculation vs somebody who actually contacted pilots and ARINC.

I also saw the smoke and mirrors dance by Boony regarding Winter and Knerr. Nice reply. Logic and hard evidence vs speculation. Again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 30 2011, 04:37 PM
Post #188


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 29 2011, 12:01 PM) *
Warren attempted to reply again but this time by proxy... and once again, he evades the questions asked.

Warren, the only way back onto this forum is through answering the questions and addressing the issues you have been avoiding for over a year. Stop trolling.

All of Warren's posts have been saved and will be restored when and if he addresses his past confirmed disinformation.

Folks, do not let Warren evade his past issues while helping him spread more disinformation.


Hmmmmm...... handsdown.gif I don't know what kind of deal you have with Warren. You can't make him responsible for answering my question via PM because I was the one who tried to contact him, and I only wanted to be polite when publishing his PM.

If someone is interested in Warren's response, you can contact me via PM, but the response was neither exciting nor enlightening nor comprehensive and certainly not the last word that has been spoken in this issue.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Dec 30 2011, 04:54 PM
Post #189





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 225
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 30 2011, 02:45 PM) *
So how are we going to call this amazing phenomenon, Gentlemen? Something like "Ohio electro-magnetical gap" or simply "Ohio gap" or "Ohio radio pit" or "Ohio dead zone"? Suggestions, please!

The Ohio Triangle? blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 30 2011, 05:03 PM
Post #190



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,596
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Sergio @ Dec 30 2011, 03:46 PM) *
Rob, I hope you don't mind if I post another reply to Warren. For the records, Warren replied to my previous post here [link removed].


Sergio,

I have split out your intra-forum reply.

If you wish to reply to a post Warren made on another forum, reply to him on that forum.

By replying to him here with a link to his ACARS arguments, only plays right into his game to evade his past confirmed disinformation, only to spread more.

I will restore your reply here when Warren gets the nads to address his past confirmed disinformation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 30 2011, 05:19 PM
Post #191



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,596
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (woody @ Dec 30 2011, 03:37 PM) *
Hmmmmm...... handsdown.gif I don't know what kind of deal you have with Warren.


Click the links and you will know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bambooboy
post Jan 14 2012, 12:39 PM
Post #192





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 28-February 10
Member No.: 4,935



QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 14 2011, 06:41 AM) *
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?"


Hi Scott,
my 2 cents on the topic

someway what the duhbunker said is correct.
I mean:

we have two different document: the Ballinger's LOG, that are produced directly by Ed ballinger [ as He statesin t-0148-911MFR-01090.pdf ] presented in the document: Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf

AND the document containg ALL the ACARS logs, passed by the FBI to Knerr [ the one read in the doc Team7_Box11_FBI302s_ACARS.pdf ]

this second one, is the one called "sanitized in texts and times", because is the one FBI obtained from ARINC, passed to NTSB [ as explained in the doc Team7_Box11_FBI302s_ACARS.pdf ] and then used by handed from FBI to KNERR [UAL] to have corret interpretation.

the two log documents differs a bit in some things.
1) NOT all the logs present in the "sanitezed" version are present in the ballinger's one [ this is pretty correct. Ballinger could access only to teh ones passing on his screen, while the one kept by ARINC are the whole logs]
2) the ones present in Ballinger document are "print screen", that do not show the "hidden" datas [ such as the TA, CR, etc etc ]

ALSO, dont be fooled by the name FBI gave to this doc [ "sanitized in text and times version"]. It is correct and logic.
look, disaster happened, FBI call UAL "plz, gimme all the ACARS". UAL answer "hay man, we dont have them all, cause they are stored by the ARINC". so FBI call ARINC and get them all, but they do not need all of the. only the one for UA93 and UA175. So FBI pass all the log to NTSB [ they were working for them] and said " plz, re-organized them for me". they did it and gave FBI back the logs, now ordened for times and subject.

everything is clean


MOre, if you yet dont know this document [ specific about ACARS ]...download, read and study it:
http://www.overlookci.com/PegasusSRO.doc

it is pretty full of every kind of thecnical answer on how acars works [ and Pegasus FMI too ].

here some quotes:

All ACARS message headers contain the aircraft registration, a technical acknowledgment field and an up/downlink block identifier (UBI/DBI). Messages are acknowledged by other messages with a Technical Acknowledgment set to the Block Identifier value used in the message being acknowledged. A negative acknowledgment is indicated by a special character


and

For each message transmitted, the DSP sets a NO ACK timer. One of three things may then happen:
* A message is received with a technical acknowledgment corresponding to the UBI used in the uplink message. The transmission is considered successful and the UBI is incremented for the next message.
* The DSP receives a message with a negative acknowledgment (NACK). The transmission is considered to have failed and a re-try is attempted. There may be three re-tries.
* The NO ACK timer expires and no acknowledgment has been received. The transmission is considered to have failed and a re-try is attempted. There may be three re-tries. Once the NO ACK timer expires and none of the retries have been acknowledged, the DSP should route the message via an alternate media (such as SATCOM) or to another service provider using internetworking. If all attempts via all means are unsuccessful, the service provider originally receiving the uplink notifies the originator of the message that the message was not delivered. The service provider then purges the message.


hope it serves.

http://info911insidejob.blogspot.com/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bambooboy
post Jan 14 2012, 11:24 PM
Post #193





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 43
Joined: 28-February 10
Member No.: 4,935



it took me to read all posts twice , but it was wothfull.
thanks Sergio quite a lot for the clean explanations
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Jan 18 2012, 08:18 PM
Post #194





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



http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00032.pdf

The above link is the Memorandum For the Record # 04020032. This document, which is part of the Team 7 files, is of vital importance for the purposes of the current ACARS debate and, to the best of my knowledge, has never been discussed so far in any forum. It is the transcription of a briefing by conference call held on May 27, 2004 between Team 7 and ARINC. The title is "Memorandum for the Record (MFR) of the Interview of ARINC of the ARINC Conducted by Team 7, 05/27/2004". Here is the screenshot from the National Archives:



Two sections of this 4 page document deserve a particular attention. The introduction, where the names of the participants are mentioned, and the section called "ARINC Terminology", where a detailed explanation of most of codes and symbols shown in an ULMSG block.

QUOTE
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Event: ARINC (service provider for communications to/from aircraft)
Type: Briefing by Conference call
Date: May 27, 2004
Special Access Issues: None
Prepared by: Bill Johnstone
Teams: 7
Participants (non-Commission): Dave Knerr (United Airlines technical expert on cockpit communications) (1); Loretta Redmond (outside counsel to United Airlines); John Midgett (outside counsel to United Airlines); Steve Ledger (Director of AQP services-a group within ARINC that provides ground to air, and air to ground communications with commercial aircraft) (2)
Participants (Commission): Bill Johnstone and John Raidt (3)
Location: by conference call from the 9-11 Commission's conference room at the GSA office, Washington, DC


QUOTE
ACARS Terminology

The briefers reviewed actual ACARS messages transmitted to and from Flights 175 (4) and 93, and provided the Commission with the following explanation of various key terms and symbols present in those messages:

• In the first line of the messages, the terms "DLMSG" and "ULMSG" indicate whether the communications were "down linked" (from the aircraft) or "uplinked" (from the ground), respectively.

• The Central Processing System (CPS) time stamp in the second line is the Greenwich mean (universal) time at which the message was electronically processed at the ARINC center in Annapolis, MD, before being sent to a ground station and then transmitted to the aircraft.(5) The time it would take for the message to get from this point to the cockpit of the aircraft would vary, depending on the size of the message, and how much message traffic there was. In rare cases, this could mean that it would take minutes for the final delivery, but typically, for short messages (under 220 characters) like the ones sent to Flights 175 and 93, the delivery time would be within 10 seconds. The message is not stamped with the time it is received in the cockpit.(6) (Note: all of the codes noted on the ACARS messages were briefed to Commission staff. Many of them signify technical data that are not relevant to our purpose are not mentioned here).

• On the third line, "Org Address" indicates the address of the originating station (for example, "CHIAKUA" was the 9/11 address for Ed Ballinger's workstation at United headquarters in Chicago, IL. "Org TimeStamp," for originating time stamp, indicates the date and the time when the message was transmitted from its author to ARINC. This time appears again, in shortened form, in the message block in the second line after "SOH" and follows the restatement of the originating address (i.e. "CHIAKUA 111323" indicates a message from Ed Ballinger's workstation originating at 13:23 on the 11th). This is followed by a "/" and a brief (two or three letter) indication of the first name of the author (ED = Ed Ballinger; ROB = Robert Brittain; AD = Alessandro "Sandy" Rogers; CHA = Chad McCurdy), which was automatically entered into the message field.

• The term "SOH" refers to "start of header," and indicated the start of the message field. Itis followed by "QU" (which indicates high priority, but all ACARS messages to and from aircraft are in this category), which is followed by an indication of where the message was processed (for example, "DDLXCXA" indicates the ARINC CPS in Annapolis, MD).

• "CMD" stands for "Command response" and indicates that the ACARS message was sent to the ACARS screen in the cockpit. "AGM" signifies "Air Ground Message," which goes directly to the printer in the cockpit and prints. (These notations appear in two places in the messages: after the term "SMI," and after the term "STX.") The briefers indicated that CMD was the usual method of sending ACARS messages to the aircraft because it was both cheaper and more apparent to the flight crew (because the screen, unlike the cockpit printer, was readily in the pilots' field of vision). The AGM messages to the printer were typically used for lower priority messages.

• After the shortened restatement of the originating time and author, and the "STX," "CMD," or "AGM" sequence, three lines follow which indicate: the destination point (such as"N591UA,"the tailnumber of Flight 93, followed by "GL PIT, which means that the message is via a ground link through the Pittsburgh station)(4); another line specifying the destination; and a final line indicating the originating point (like "CHIDD" for United's Chicago dispatch operation). All of this information is automatically provided by the ACARS system.

• The term "BEL" (or a symbol of a bell) would appear in the second of the three lines just mentioned, and would indicate a message that was sent to the cockpit accompanied by the ringing of a chime (for notification of the message's arrival).

• After all of the above information, the actual text typed in by the author appears. For a United dispatcher, he or she would only need to type in "Heyu" followed by the flight number, to elicit all of the foregoing information from the system, and then the actual text to be transmitted.

• The terms "ETX" (for end of text) and "EOT" (for end of transmission) appear at the conclusion of the message block.


********************************************************************************

(1) Dave (David) Knerr, Manager of Dispatch Automation at United Airlines, attended this conference call.

(2) ARINC was represented by the Director of AQP services (Avionics Qualification Program), a group within ARINC.

(3) John Raidt also participated to this event as Professional Staff Member of the Commission.

(4) This is the official confirmation that ARINC logs for United 175 were available to the 9/11 Commission and were viewed by David Knerr and John Raidt. As known, the ARINC logs eventually released through FOIA do not contain any data for United 175. While we can only speculate as to why such logs were excluded from the FOIA release, this document confirms that ARINC released the logs for United 175 at some time and made them available to the Commission.

(5) This information is important and will probably require an appropriate edit in the first article published by Pilots for Truth. According to the briefers, the timestamp shown in the second line indicates the time when the CPS electronically processes the uplink at the ARINC center in Annapolis, MD before the message is "sent to a ground station and then transmitted to the aircraft". It is clear that the briefers are referring to this timestamp "BEPtS=20010911 XX:XX:XX" within the ULMSG block. This timestamp corresponds most likely to the second timestamp in Ballinger's printouts. As a result, the second timestamp in Ballinger's logs does not indicate the time when the aircraft received the message, as we believed at an earlier stage of our research, mostly based on Ballinger's statement to the 9/11. This new information, however, does not have any significant impact on Pilots for Truth's claims, as I will explain in a separate post.
However there is something very important to note. The document referred to by the briefers [i]is not the the same document released through FOIA[/u]. Not only the data for United 175 are missing in the ACARS logs publicly available. The format is also slightly different. According to the briefers, the "BEPtS=" timestamp is shown on the second line. Actually, in the ARINC log PDF, the time stamp "BEPtS=20010911 XX:XX:XX" appears entirely on the very first line. This leads me to conclude that the document viewed and commented during this event was most likely the same document referred to in the screenshot at p. 9 in 16345059-T7-B18-UAL-Jumpseat-Fdr-Entire-Contents-UA-175-and-UA-93-Emails-and-Documents-562. (This issue is being discussed in another topic. Unlike the PDF publicly available, the time "12:04:39" in the "BEPtS=" timestamp appears here at the second line.




Another indication that the briefers are referring to a different document than the PDF released through FOIA comes from the next paragraph: "On the third line, "Org Address" indicates the address of the originating station (for example, "CHIAKUA" was the 9/11 address for Ed Ballinger's workstation at United headquarters in Chicago, IL. "Org TimeStamp," for originating time stamp, indicates the date and the time when the message was transmitted from its author to ARINC." As we can see, the "Org Address" field actually appears at the third line in the first document, while it is shown at the second line in the ARINC logs publicly available. As pointed out in the other topic, this format difference may be the result of a different screen/print resolution, but the different FLoc number associated to the blocks requires further research at the very least. While we won't speculate here that this itself is a sign of tampering, we can conclude that the screenshot from John Raidt's email threads is not taken from the same document publicly available and that the first was most likely the document viewed and commented by the briefers.

(6) This is an additional confirmation that no timestamp is printed when the aircraft actually receives the uplink. In other words, there is no way to know when an aircraft exactly receives an uplink. According to ARINC, whenever the text is within 220 characters, in most cases the aircraft receives the message within 10 seconds after it has been processed at ARINC Center (CPS).

(7) This is the confirmation that the RGS shown in the ULMSG block is something more than a simple "predicted RGS based on the flight plan" as claimed by Warren Stutt and other posters on Unexplained Mysteries. This is an important piece of evidence for the claims raised by Pilots for Truth. This statement comes directly from an ARINC representative in the presence of David Knerr from United Airlines. This fact itself strongly validates the statement given by Michael Winter to the FBI back in 2002. As known, among other things, Winter declared to the FBI that the RGS shown in the ULMSG block was the RGS actually transmitting the message. The validity of Winter's assertion has been repeatedly questioned by some posters on UM, who claim that Winter is wrong "because he's not an ARINC expert, but only a Manager Flight Dispatcher at UAL". Such innuendos do not work in this case. The assertion comes directly from ARINC within a conference call between Team 7 with ARINC.
Other posters who support the official story tried to explain the discrepancy between Winter's statement and the ARINC logs (with reference to Messages #18 and #19 sent to United 93) speculating that Winter may have commented a list of ACARS including only ULMSG/DLMSG blocks and not the complete logs with ULBLK, DLBLK and ICPUL blocks. If my assumption at point 5 above is correct, that the briefers were referring to the document shown in the first screenshot, then this speculation is dismissed as well. As we can see, ULBLK blocks are clearly visible and there is no reason to believe ARINC would not point to them if they were of any relevance as to the actual transmitting station.

To the best of my knowledge, Warren Stutt and the other people on UM did not produce so far any single piece of evidence to support their theory. Not one single quote from any ARINC specification, not one single statement from any ARINC professional or ACARS expert confirms that "Stn=" indicates the actual transmitting station. Moreover, as I proved in several recent posts in this thread, PITC6 appears to be incompatible with an aircraft flying at 7 nm from CLE and 20 nm from CAK between 9:35 and 9:42 EDT, not to talk about the fact that some transmitters appear to be at more than 200 nm from the known position of the aircraft based on the official radar data.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sergio
post Jan 18 2012, 09:20 PM
Post #195





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



http://www.scribd.com/doc/16345086/T7-B18-...RS-Messages-569

Oops... looks like Ballinger sent another uplink to United 175 at 9:51 EDT.



Now the term "found" in his uplink sent to United 93 at 9:41 EDT makes a lot of sense...

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111341/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CLE
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD –
/HIGH SECURITY ALERT. SECURE COCKPIT.ADMIT NO ONE IN TO COCKPIT.
TWO AIRLINER HIT NY , TRADE CENTER. AND 1 AIRCRAFT IN IAD MISSIN
G AND ONE IN EWR MISSING...TOO UAL 175
93 FOUND

CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111341 108575 0639


Of course, don't hope to find any mention of this uplink in his interview to the Commission.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 18 2012, 11:42 PM
Post #196



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,596
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



All references to the ACARS analysis on our front page and in the Latest News Section of this forum have been removed until those who sourced the material can gather their thoughts on the argument and come to a conclusion.

I have taken way too much heat over something which is apparently way too trivial compared to all our other analysis, when my plate is way too full.

ACARS will be discussed in a new hearing should one ever be allowed in the current "Justice" system under which we live. We already have more than enough evidence for a new investigation without all this BS back and forth bickering we have had to endure regarding ACARS.

This ACARS analysis just hasnt been worth the time, effort and most importantly.... grief, in my opinion. Especially when those who personally attack and libel P4T from behind a mask refuse to confront us directly.

As the old saying goes, you dont get flak unless you're over the target. Certainly you wont find "Czero" or "CrazyNooB" ("booNyzarC") coming here to confront us regarding aircraft speed or other topics we have covered as they (Czero" and "CrazyNooB/booNyzarC") were already crushed on UM regarding such topics, until one of our representatives was banned without warning.

Apparently they are too paranoid I may track their IP (yet they can knock on my door if they look me up at faa.gov...and they call us paranoid... go figure). Not surprisingly... they arent aware of anonymous proxy servers. (or perhaps they are, but clearly too much of a coward for debate)

Sergio, feel free to open your own blog under your own name if you wish to pursue this further. We at P4T are done with this analysis for now.

When you get the time, you may want to ask yourself why Stutt continually refuses to address the questions which destroy his theories.

Thread closed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 19 2012, 07:45 PM
Post #197



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,596
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Sergio @ Jan 18 2012, 07:18 PM) *
This timestamp corresponds most likely to the second timestamp in Ballinger's printouts.


I am re-posting this here for archival purposes.

QUOTE
The ACARS as printed by UAL and the ACARS as provided by ARINC are in two different formats.

The ACARS provided by UAL and the format in which Mr Ballinger is referring to is this one....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf

The above ACARS formats are specifically tailored to airlines needs, in this case... United Airlines, and are the ACARS read by dispatchers such as Ballinger.

As stated by Ballinger -

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.


The document provided by Sergio is discussing the ARINC format of ACARS and is correct that the second time stamp on the ARINC format ULMSG is when the Back-End Processor (BEP) received the message. This alone completely destroys all theories offered by those who make excuse for the govt story as they feel an ULMSG is a message composed at the airline before uploaded to the ARINC network. If that were the case, an ULMSG would not have a BEP time stamp.

In short, Mr Ballinger is referring to time stamps on ACARS messages specifically formatted for United Airlines. The second time stamp on the bottom of the UAL formatted ACARS is when the aircraft received the message according to Ballinger.

Here is an email reply from an ARINC representative when asked about time stamps.

Thank you for your email.

ACARS messages are time stamped when sent from the ACC system. However what happens once the message is received on board the aircraft (secondary time stamp etc) is outside of something we can answer. This would likely depend on the make of avionics and may therefore differ from aircraft type to aircraft type.

Regards,

John Michael Fleming

Operations Specialist

NAV CANADA

Customer Service - Service à la clientèle

1-800-876-4693

Toll-free Fax: 1-877-663-6656:Télécopieur sans frais

Direct Fax: 613-563-3426 :Télécopieur direct


In other words, airlines have different types of formats for ACARS. So it is impossible for him to give an answer with respect to airline specific ACARS formats.

The second time stamp on an ULMSG in ARINC format is when the BEP received the message.

Please try not to confuse the two different formats.

This is one of the reasons why I removed all references to the ACARS analysis from our front page and threads in our Latest News section as it is a highly specialized and highly technical topic which can easily confuse the readers (especially those without experience in aviation or have never used ACARS). I closed the thread as we already have enough threads on the topic. I may end up consolidating it all into one thread.

In my opinion, this topic is better suited for the time when a new hearing takes place as Mr Ballinger (along with other dispatchers at the user level) can be called to the stand and explain his statements. Could he be wrong? Sure, the 'duhbunkers' certainly would like to think so as his statements are fatal to the govt story. But since he has been a dispatcher for United Airlines for decades, I highly doubt it.

With that said, our articles remain, and nothing needs to be edited or changed.

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/MORE-ACARS-CONFIRMATION.html


If anyone would like to continue the discussion, please visit the many ACARS threads available in our research section of the forum. But for now and as stated, P4T will not be pursuing this analysis further until a new hearing commences with subpoena power.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10
Closed 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: 16th April 2014 - 11:50 PM