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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Acars Strengthens Npt?, split from latest news

Ben
post Dec 2 2011, 09:58 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: 1-July 09
Member No.: 4,453



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2011, 06:49 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?



Your statement assumes that there actually was a plane that hit the South Tower. But with this new information, in addition to what we already knew, I don't see how that assumption is justified.
The argument for no-planes is strengthened.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bambooboy
post Jan 13 2012, 05:51 PM
Post #2





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



QUOTE (Ben @ Dec 2 2011, 09:58 PM) *
Your statement assumes that there actually was a plane that hit the South Tower. But with this new information, in addition to what we already knew, I don't see how that assumption is justified.
The argument for no-planes is strengthened.



dont mess what comes out from ACARS messages (rgs and times) with the illogical non-sense no-plane theory.

ACARS+RADAR datas (+ impact wittness) means only one thing: PLANE SWAP
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 16 2012, 11:49 AM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I must agree with Bambooboy, as best I understand this ACARS controversy.

I agree there were no Boeings at Shanksville or Pentagon, but it's hard to believe there were no Boeings at WTC.

My theory still is that the 2 aircraft at WTC were tanker candidates delivered to USAF from one of Dov's companies, and thus never registered in the civil registry. They were military aircraft, IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bambooboy
post Jan 16 2012, 09:20 PM
Post #4





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 16 2012, 11:49 AM) *
I must agree with Bambooboy, as best I understand this ACARS controversy.

I agree there were no Boeings at Shanksville or Pentagon, but it's hard to believe there were no Boeings at WTC.

My theory still is that the 2 aircraft at WTC were tanker candidates delivered to USAF from one of Dov's companies, and thus never registered in the civil registry. They were military aircraft, IMO.


Hi amazed!,
I appreciate that you "agree with" what I wrote, BUT:
sorry if I disagree when you say "I agree there were no Boeings at Shanksville or Pentagon...".
This is not what I'm claiming.

I try and explain better what my actual logic position is:

first: untill Ballinger's Acars log weren't declassified ( and Woody first discovered what was in it), I never support a "theory" instead than another. I could sniff bad smells all around, but everything was "too much too gelly" to allow me image a full-theory.
Then, things changed.
And now I m not scared anymore to say that I can clearly imagine a possible alternative logical possible believable plot.
I do not claim it 100% correct, but I see it as a leading path to finally focus in. A leading path that at same times, clear away many useless-time-consuming debates

1 [ IF ] Ballinger ACARS are 100% true
( and I have no reason to doubt for it, as neither the FBI had because they never said "hey! Ballinger Knerr and Winter lied on us while we were at work on an international terrorism investigation")
[THEN ] comes out obvious that at least two of the four planes were swapped

2 [ IF ] two planes were swapped
[ THEN ] this was absolutely not possible for a bunch of terrorist-cave-men
( putting an end to the Mihop/Lihop debate )

3 [ IF ] point 1 and point 2 are correct
[ THEN ] there is no reason at all for which who masterminded the criminal plan should have not swapped the other two planes (Occam razor + witness + radar + rades + wreckages helps!)

4 [ IF ] point 3 correct
[ THEN ] is that such important to know if phone-calls from planes were possible? is important to know if were airphone or cellular phone? (anyway phonecalls are important because, as shown in the Moussaoui Trial, some ended after the impacts and this is obviously impossible, corroborating this way the plane-swap theory)

5 [ IF ] point 4 correct
[ THEN ] why lose time in debating "people was abord for real or not"? Obviously they were on the planes!!! lotsa people saw them at the airports! lots of documents prove this. BUT, example of one plane, they went into N591UA and NOT in what later has been officially called UA93

in conclusion

6 [ IF ] planes swap theory is correct
[ THEN ] it is really of no great interest (for me) trying and debate or debunk official FAA/NORAD/NEADS/etc datas, because those info do rely on "real facts".... simply those facts are not referred to the planes with people aboard ( the ones identified by Tail Numbers ).
Thanks to ACARS log, is important to understand that we have to refer to the planes NOT by Flight Number, but by Tail Number (because Acars do work that way) if we wanna shade some light, real light, upon what really happened.

An example: think about the poisoning quarrel dividing the "movement" about the SOC NOC Pentagon approach path.
Well, me now I do not care that much about such a thing.
If a plane swap did occur for real (and UAL ACARS shows exactly this for two of the four planes) what's the point in a NOC or a SOC? Zero. Zero because IF AA77 (or whatever else if you prefer) hit the Pentagon, it simply was AA77 (or whatever else) and not N644AA.

As I wrote, those who can mastermind 2 plane-swaps can easily do the same for the others two, without any risks in using missiles or rotfl-holograms. For Stonycreek crater... yes debate is still open, but surely something happened there ( radar+rades+wreckage ).
why should anyone plan things in a pretty much complicated and risky way for two of the four planes, while everything could have be done "in replica"? it would have been totally illogical and even much more risky.

Yes I know, there are lotsa IF in my explanation, but I'm not shouting around "hey men! I do have the "smoking gun"!!!.
But what I (we all) do have are some OFFICIAL and NEVER CLAIMED AS FAKED FBI-UAL-ARINC-NTSB DOCUMENTS. and I (we all) have LOGIC and OCCAM razor on my/our side.
And more because thanks to the efforts of Aidan Monaghan, we know that planes remote controlling was well possible and with an high degree of confidence yet in 2001, making the "plane-swap theory" pretty much solid because shows that such a thing could have been not only an utopia but a real possibility too.

Again, do I have hard evidence of all this? No, except that for what UAL ACARS messages shows.
but I remember from school that 1+1 always makes 2.

Is 100% evidence what UAL ACARS shows (RGS and Times)?
I'm not a bind-believer, so I say 99%. I can even lower the percentage to 90%. nothing changes.
I'm a researcher: and I'll keep researching. It's not my "duty" to demonstrate an "alternative theory".. As a researcher my duty is to analyze the VU, and if something is "incorrect" in there, tell it around.
But when and only when a strong patter, a logical patter, an answering-many-questions pattern emerges, it is important to be able to recognize it

and look, anyway, UNTILL NOW, no one has been able to prove that UAL ACARS and BALLINGER's Logs are faked or wrong.
Neither that KNERR BALLINGER and WINTER lied to the FBI investigating an international terrorist attack
( they never have been incriminated or arrested for such a thing too!!!).

so, until something new, I stick to these facts
4 attacks: 4 planes hitting
4 attacks: 4+2 (+2) planes involved
0 missiles
0 holograms

This post has been edited by bambooboy: Jan 16 2012, 09:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 18 2012, 11:44 AM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



That's very interesting Bambooboy. salute.gif

I am NOT a researcher, but I've read alot.

I find the airplane swap part to be absolutely plausible, if not probable. I just discovered last month that apparently there is credible evidence that 93 was boarded from the ramp at EWR. That was news to me, but consistent with the general scheme.

I would like to run this by you, and perhaps you have already considered it: the 2 airplanes that actually struck the towers, assuming that they were swapped for 2 that actually departed BOS with pax, were military owned versions of the 767, and that means they would be without FDR and without ACARS. How would that scenario fit into your present structure, or would it effect it at all?

Do you have any particular position on where or how the swap might have happened?

And is it your position that there was a Boeing at both Pentagon and Shanksville? Neither or one?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bambooboy
post Jan 18 2012, 02:11 PM
Post #6





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



Hi Amazed!

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 18 2012, 11:44 AM) *
I am NOT a researcher, but I've read alot.


by the way, willing or not, if have read a lot and partecipated in some forum, you are a researcher you too ;)

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 18 2012, 11:44 AM) *
I just discovered last month that apparently there is credible evidence that 93 was boarded from the ramp at EWR. That was news to me, but consistent with the general scheme.

Honestly I do not have any specific opinion on that. anyway, if I'm correct,
there are no official investigation papers on that topic to rely upon (or at least none that I know and have red).
and second, such a thing looks hard to fit with logic in a plane-swap plot. I mean: IF a plane swap did occur: it occur obviuosly in the skyes, without any need to "tamper" regular official departure of the official plane. this is just my own speculation obviously, but looks pretty illogical to me to have the two planes needed for a swap lifting off from the same airport. starting from this point, I do not see any need also for ramp boarding "fakery".

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 18 2012, 11:44 AM) *
the 2 airplanes that actually struck the towers, assuming that they were swapped for 2 that actually departed BOS with pax, were military owned versions of the 767, and that means they would be without FDR and without ACARS. How would that scenario fit into your present structure, or would it effect it at all?

try answering point by point, but [ *see footnote]...
1)"military owned version"
...mhmmm. no one has the slightest evidence of such a thing. are we sure military were involved at that kind of level? may be planes were from private corps. we do not really know. so, what's in it?
2) "without FDR and ACARS"
any clues on such a thing? a "clone" is a "clone", and to be remote controlled still need all communication/gps/and so on stuff.
more, but I do not know that, may be Rob can have a better answer, can a plane fly if no FDR is connected in it?
For ACARS, yes it can be plausible, although ACARS sistem is just a small CPU and little more.
but??? what's the point in it? UAL acars show different paths from the offcial ones, not the contrary

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 18 2012, 11:44 AM) *
Do you have any particular position on where or how the swap might have happened?

up to now, just pure speculation. but obviuosly good positions could be the one were they changed path or near by

QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 18 2012, 11:44 AM) *
And is it your position that there was a Boeing at both Pentagon and Shanksville? Neither or one?

I do strongly believe that there was a Boeing at Pentagon. there are witness and wreckages to support such a thing. so, why doub it?
Shanksville is a little more speculative. I mean: surely something happened there. exactly what: I dunno. So I thought in like a "reverse-approach", I mean: is what ever happened in Shanksville something that strongly and definitively affect and destroy the plane-swap theory? and my answer, untill now, is not.

[*] again, do we have to imagine-collect and demonstrate a theory alternative to the official one?
NO.
we do primary have only to scrounge for any info at disposal. verify it and see if it fit in the OV. if info shows that what the 9-11 CR tolds us is not what really happened, then we have to accept it, and only after that try and see if the uncorroborative fact can show a patter. from that try imaging a logical plot. if the 3 things match, one can start speaking with solid basis, even if still officially unproven.
PS: obviuosly we must remain well open-minded too, to accept any new news , even the OV confiming ones (if aexhisting). so when someone will prove me that what is recorderd in the UAL ACRAS is not what we all red, well, I will change my mind. but not untill such a fact.

hope my words and my logical "speculations" can somehow help.


Hi Amazed!

This post has been edited by bambooboy: Jan 18 2012, 02:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bambooboy
post Jan 18 2012, 02:26 PM
Post #7





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



just an addendum.

UAL ACRAS+Ballinger+Knerr+Winter words, until proven tampered/faked/wrong/lies are a definitive prove of a plane-swap.

all the rest of "my-own" theory is just a "my-own" theory.
logic if you want, but only a theory. I public wrote it just because I was answering against the "no-plane/hologram/missile" theory, that is pretty unbelievable [to me].

bye
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 19 2012, 03:42 PM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Bamboo

I consider the official radar records to be suspect because we know that Vigilant Guardian was on that day, and the military uses radar "injects" to spoof the system for training purposes. But just because I consider them suspect does NOT mean that they might be accurate. Which is to say that they might be quite accurate.

Early on here at PFT, the radar records show 11 and 175 crossing paths over the old Stewart AFB in Newburgh NY. That would be an ideal place to swap planes if it were going to be done.

I know from a USAF veteran who just happened to see it with his own eyes, that there were suspicious goings-on happening at Binhampton NY in the early hours of 11 September. He felt certain he accidentally witnessed some sort of military operation with a Boeing aircraft behaving very strangely there, and it is entirely possible that it was a drone Boeing. Speculation on his part and mine, but it did happen.

Years ago here at PFT it was reported that a company owned by Dov Zakheim delivered a batch of 767 types to McDill AFB in Florida back in the 90's. Those aircraft had been modified into a tanker configuration, which might have involved some external fairings to accomodate the internal fuel tanks and associated plumbing for the tanker modification. I'm quite sure that the company or an affiliated company of Zakheim's was also a leader in remote control modifications.

Because the aircraft were not civil registered, but rather owned by USAF, and because they were obviously not in Part 121 service, there would have been no requirement for either FDR, CVR or ACARS. Yes, any airplane flies just fine without any of the 3.

It has long been my pet theory that at least the second airplane, and maybe the first too, was one of those tanker candidates delivered to USAF. That, because of the unusual external fairing visible in the still photos of the airplane just before it struck.

There was no 757 at Shanksville, according to the various videos taken from overhead (which are no longer available on the internet), and from the testimony of Coroner Miller and his underlings.

At the Pentagon, I think a low pass by a Boeing is probable, but I do not think that one crashed there. I do, however, think it likely that some sort of flying object airplane type crashed there.

That's my take. cheers.gif

This post has been edited by amazed!: Jan 19 2012, 03:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bambooboy
post Jan 19 2012, 05:52 PM
Post #9





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



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jan 19 2012, 03:42 PM) *
Bamboo

I consider the official radar records to be suspect because we know that Vigilant Guardian was on that day, and the military uses radar "injects" to spoof the system for training purposes. But just because I consider them suspect does NOT mean that they might be accurate. Which is to say that they might be quite accurate.

Early on here at PFT, the radar records show 11 and 175 crossing paths over the old Stewart AFB in Newburgh NY. That would be an ideal place to swap planes if it were going to be done.

I know from a USAF veteran who just happened to see it with his own eyes, that there were suspicious goings-on happening at Binhampton NY in the early hours of 11 September. He felt certain he accidentally witnessed some sort of military operation with a Boeing aircraft behaving very strangely there, and it is entirely possible that it was a drone Boeing. Speculation on his part and mine, but it did happen.

Years ago here at PFT it was reported that a company owned by Dov Zakheim delivered a batch of 767 types to McDill AFB in Florida back in the 90's. Those aircraft had been modified into a tanker configuration, which might have involved some external fairings to accomodate the internal fuel tanks and associated plumbing for the tanker modification. I'm quite sure that the company or an affiliated company of Zakheim's was also a leader in remote control modifications.

Because the aircraft were not civil registered, but rather owned by USAF, and because they were obviously not in Part 121 service, there would have been no requirement for either FDR, CVR or ACARS. Yes, any airplane flies just fine without any of the 3.

It has long been my pet theory that at least the second airplane, and maybe the first too, was one of those tanker candidates delivered to USAF. That, because of the unusual external fairing visible in the still photos of the airplane just before it struck.

There was no 757 at Shanksville, according to the various videos taken from overhead (which are no longer available on the internet), and from the testimony of Coroner Miller and his underlings.

At the Pentagon, I think a low pass by a Boeing is probable, but I do not think that one crashed there. I do, however, think it likely that some sort of flying object airplane type crashed there.

That's my take. cheers.gif


Hi Amazed!
gotta breath a minute... have you read this ?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10803582

Sergio did found a very interesting document. From that comes out that timestamps on acars are not indicating the time of physically reception by planes. The document is pretty self explanatory AND is NOT AGAINST the plane swap theory although it is not helpful for it (anyway it fully support for the RGS for example), but this is a thing that's messing me a little. As I wrote you in the past posts, normally I do not spouse any theory. I prefer facts. with Acras log I got facts. Now it looks like facts are more like "interpretative facts". so I have to meka a one step back and be a little less public "theorist". nothing that bad, anyway. at second reading of the document the feeling of hitting the spot is still pretty strong.

and, more then ever now, I think it is correct to keep mind well open and accept evidences (when they appear) for what they show.

The thing I'm glad to say, yet I wrote you the other day: I did not ever claimed for 100%. I said 90 to 99%. and "evidences" were really the strongest at the time (until Sergio scrounged that doc). I ever prefer not to rely on "heresay" or second-hand info. that's why I could not completely support any other "theory" before.

unfortunatelly, we still need lots of more documents and time to come out with a 100% thight-proof evidence one side or the other.
Anyway, pls, can you gimme some links for the things you wrote? I'll surely will have a look in it.

bye
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 19 2012, 07:01 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (bambooboy @ Jan 19 2012, 04:52 PM) *
From that comes out that timestamps on acars are not indicating the time of physically reception by planes.


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bambooboy
post Jan 19 2012, 11:20 PM
Post #11





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 19 2012, 07:01 PM) *
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


Hi Rob,
thx for focusing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 20 2012, 01:53 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,697
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (bambooboy @ Jan 19 2012, 10:20 PM) *
Hi Rob,
thx for focusing.



You're welcome.

And just to demonstrate that Airlines in fact can have very different formats tailored to their specific needs, different from ARINC format, here is a document from an Airline describing their airline specific format for their ACARS (keep in mind, this is not from United Airlines, nor in the same format as United).



The printer referred to is this one....

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 21 2012, 11:18 AM
Post #13





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Good work Rob, and an appropriate "time out" on the ACARS question.

In the end, in the proverbial "big picture", there is so much OTHER evidence, circumstantial perhaps, that contradicts the OCT that the ACARS info would be simply icing on the cake. Just another nail in the coffin.

Logic demands that if any part of a given hypothesis is false, and the OCT is but an hypothesis, then the entire hypothesis is false. There are so many parts that are false that I've lost track. laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 24th October 2014 - 09:30 AM