IPBFacebook




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 )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
It Is Conclusive - 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Well After Crash, PilotsFor911Truth.org

Rating 5 V
 
archerace7
post Dec 7 2011, 07:26 PM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 6
Joined: 27-September 08
Member No.: 3,853



I know absolutely nothing about aircraft, beyond I have to take Dramamine before flying...lol. But I have followed this for you guys for sometime watching your videos, reading what you are doing and digesting the info.

I will say this, your message is starting to get around, a friend of mine in Louisville Ky, told me the other day he had a DVD he wanted me to watch, it was a copy of one of your videos, and he it had been given to him by his barber. He is about 70 and hard headed...but he told me that he thought there was something to this...he had forgotten that three or four years ago I had mentioned this to him and he just snickered and said, yeah right.

Bottom line I think people are starting to pay attention.

Back to my question though, knowing nothing about how these messages work, is it possible that the messages went to a different plane, or is there no doubt that they went to the 911 planes?

If your data is accurate, then this is the only way anyone can dispute what you are saying.

Personally I am convinced we are being lied to so there is no reason to believe anything that the Gov. or the Media that be say.

I look forward to the day when these questions are answered. Just hope I live long enough..lol.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 7 2011, 07:39 PM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (archerace7 @ Dec 7 2011, 07:26 PM) *
....

I will say this, your message is starting to get around, a friend of mine in Louisville Ky, told me the other day he had a DVD he wanted me to watch, it was a copy of one of your videos, and he it had been given to him by his barber. He is about 70 and hard headed...but he told me that he thought there was something to this...he had forgotten that three or four years ago I had mentioned this to him and he just snickered and said, yeah right.

Bottom line I think people are starting to pay attention.


That is good to hear and thanks for sharing the story.


QUOTE
Back to my question though, knowing nothing about how these messages work, is it possible that the messages went to a different plane, or is there no doubt that they went to the 911 planes?


Messages are sent and routed based on tail number, similar to how your phone calls are routed based on a telephone number.

QUOTE
If your data is accurate, then this is the only way anyone can dispute what you are saying.


They can't dispute it, this is why I am currently being called every possible vicious name they can think of from people who blindly follow anything the govt tells them.... but they cannot dispute the facts...lol

QUOTE
I look forward to the day when these questions are answered. Just hope I live long enough..lol.


Me too...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pointer
post Dec 7 2011, 09:57 PM
Post #23





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 29-April 08
Member No.: 3,251



QUOTE (matth @ Dec 7 2011, 09:10 PM) *
It would be great if someone from one of the cell phone companies (technician?) could without doubt release information regarding if the calls actually happened and where they were.

The practice is that the nearest ground-station makes contact when it receives a request from the cellphone, but it needs first working through a handshake procedure, to define what and who is the caller and witch company is the provider, before it can free and reserve a channel to communicate.
During that time the cell phone is moving very fast and more near to another ground-station and the handshake will no be finished, but start anew with that other ground-station (and so on, all the way).
Also the signal from the cell phone is very weak and especially by the cave of Faraday effect. Try - but not in the cockpit - to use your private cell phone on crossing speed at average altitude of the airplane without special features to do so. If you are lucky if it will succeed during landing and departure, being slow and low.
By now it is possible on some airplanes but that is by satellite communication and very expensive. Why should they, the airline companies, invest in such expensive extra's, if anyone can easily call home with a private cell phone already in 2001?
Furthermore the grounds-stations are mostly arranged to communicate in a horizontal plane on ground level.
Another problem is, that in the USA there were two different bands for rural and for urban use apart. Only a few phones could manage both bands together. Yes, technology moves fast, but even today by no means it is possible to establish communication with the ground by a private cell phone call. The handshake procedure will always break up before it is finished.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ChrisPDX
post Dec 7 2011, 10:03 PM
Post #24





Group: Core Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 4,546



QUOTE (Pointer @ Dec 7 2011, 06:57 PM) *
The practice is that the nearest ground-station makes contact when it receives a request from the cellphone, but it needs first working through a handshake procedure, to define what and who is the caller and witch company is the provider, before it can free and reserve a channel to communicate.
During that time the cell phone is moving very fast and more near to another ground-station and the handshake will no be finished, but start anew with that other ground-station (and so on, all the way).
Also the signal from the cell phone is very weak and especially by the cave of Faraday effect. Try - but not in the cockpit - to use your private cell phone on crossing speed at average altitude of the airplane without special features to do so. If you are lucky if it will succeed during landing and departure, being slow and low.
By now it is possible on some airplanes but that is by satellite communication and very expensive. Why should they, the airline companies, invest in such expensive extra's, if anyone can easily call home with a private cell phone already in 2001?
Furthermore the grounds-stations are mostly arranged to communicate in a horizontal plane on ground level.
Another problem is, that in the USA there were two different bands for rural and for urban use apart. Only a few phones could manage both bands together. Yes, technology moves fast, but even today by no means it is possible to establish communication with the ground by a private cell phone call. The handshake procedure will always break up before it is finished.


Well said!

I am a FA, and the only time my cell works is on Final approach with the gear down, like you said, or earlier if we are landing in a valley, like Reno.

I also read somewhere that France's TGV train needed a special network for cell phone users since the train is traveling too fast for the handshake.

This post has been edited by ChrisPDX: Dec 7 2011, 10:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bruce Sinclair
post Dec 7 2011, 10:51 PM
Post #25


Core Member


Group: Contributor
Posts: 155
Joined: 31-March 08
Member No.: 3,074



Kudos to all the fine people at P4T, especially you, Rob! This is exactly the kind of ground pounding fact based research that is required to conclusively deconstruct the official narrative.

I stand in awe of all of the real patriots at P4T and CIT.

Please, never give up this vital work. Our way of life is at stake.

Fondest regards,

Bruce
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Dec 9 2011, 08:35 AM
Post #26





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



Great, no; Incredibly GREAT JOB ROB!!! (of course I had to shout it) handsdown.gif

The ACARS system, being software driven, has source code that is probably well documented and just as likely easily available. Analysis of it will explain what it does, does not, can and cannot do, etc., and how. So that is something someone here might pursue if more verifications are needed. It would be a significant red flag if that information were not to be available, as anyone who has dealt with software design knows.

As far as the Mayor in Cleveland, I would only say that he wouldn't be the first in the effort to "salt the mine" with false information and such. One has to be skeptical of just about everything they see in the matter of 9-11.

That said, I had long ago been reading in an effort to attempt to evaluate, the skills of the 9-11 planners, against those of the pilots here. I find that while they knew quite a bit, they also missed a few very important things, that could have been easily "fixed". I'd did not know about ACARS or how it worked, but pilots here certainly knew. So then, why this "oversight"? Why the BTS data oversight? It seems to me that they were moving to fast in fashioning a story, rather than actually doing the things that would be physically necessary, if what they said had happened, actually did happen.

In any event, they did rightly assess that these technical errors, and probably others that have yet to be discovered, would take so long to be discovered, that they had essentially won.

Just a few thoughts.
Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bruce Sinclair
post Dec 10 2011, 01:20 AM
Post #27


Core Member


Group: Contributor
Posts: 155
Joined: 31-March 08
Member No.: 3,074



I asked a friend of mine, Doug Brinkman from Edmonton to post this information on 911 Blogger. (he posts there often). So he uploaded it right away. Guess what? Didn't make it onto the blog!

Anyone surprised? This is the final nail in the coffin for me regarding 911 blogger. I didn't think they would post this so I wasn't surprised.

Compromised, bought off, threatened, CIA, NSA, FBI, deep state, continuity of government - pick any one that you think works...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 10 2011, 01:38 AM
Post #28



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Bruce Sinclair @ Dec 10 2011, 01:20 AM) *
This is the final nail in the coffin for me regarding 911 blogger.


Agreed....

Anyone who supports 9/11Blogger financially, I would highly recommend you pull such support. They aren't interested in the truth. This has been known for years.

If only Richard Gage would wake up to the corruption at 9/11 Blogger. But that seems to be his bread and butter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Dec 10 2011, 04:43 AM
Post #29





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (Bruce Sinclair @ Dec 8 2011, 05:20 AM) *
I asked a friend of mine, Doug Brinkman from Edmonton to post this information on 911 Blogger. (he posts there often). So he uploaded it right away. Guess what? Didn't make it onto the blog!

Anyone surprised? This is the final nail in the coffin for me regarding 911 blogger. I didn't think they would post this so I wasn't surprised.

Compromised, bought off, threatened, CIA, NSA, FBI, deep state, continuity of government - pick any one that you think works...



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 8 2011, 05:38 AM) *
Agreed....

Anyone who supports 9/11Blogger financially, I would highly recommend you pull such support. They aren't interested in the truth. This has been known for years.

If only Richard Gage would wake up to the corruption at 9/11 Blogger. But that seems to be his bread and butter.


when i noticed many moons ago that they didn't have a link to p4t, it became obvious they weren't interested in the whole truth, thus committing what i call 'the sin of omission'. time will tell w/ richard.

edit:

may not be a heavy hitter website:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:9/11_Conspiracy

but i noticed that 9/11bloviator was not listed while p4t was...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Dec 10 2011, 01:36 PM
Post #30





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (Pointer @ Dec 7 2011, 01:30 PM) *
To me it is still not clear how you can know that skyjackers were on board. Officially reported is that there was communication by cell phones, but technically that was by then not possible.
So there was no real talking about box cutters too, because cell phones didn't work from air to ground.


We don't know if anything about 9-11 is true, we only know what about it, must be false.
Thus, to talk about it at all, we often assume-for-the-purpose-of-discussion that the 9-11
offers are facts-in-contention, as a starting point.

Thus it is, you will often see people, who have stated that they don't believe a certain point, later arguing as if that same point were true. It doesn't mean they've changed their views, it
means only that they have a new direction to go in, and to do so needs a foundation, that
the largest number of readers will be familiar with.

When you read about Coogan Airlines you will realize that it is impossible for Atta to have
boarded AA 11. When you couple that reading with many of the skyjackers being found
alive, you realize there were too few skyjackers, to populate all of the planes. That means
that some planes had to "self skyjack" somehow. When you read about the crashes themselves, you realize that no plane actually crashed at any of these sites. On and on it goes, the entire official story lacks proof. Yet, to discuss the story at all, we must make mention of the parts we're talking about.

Ob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Dec 10 2011, 02:31 PM
Post #31





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (Obwon @ Dec 8 2011, 05:36 PM) *
We don't know if anything about 9-11 is true, we only know what about it, must be false.


and if you can keep the rubes talking about what kind of clothes the emperor isn't wearing....
now, that is leverage!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Dec 10 2011, 03:02 PM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 610
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Dec 10 2011, 02:31 PM) *
and if you can keep the rubes talking about what kind of clothes the emperor isn't wearing....
now, that is leverage!


U betcha... I just came across this. Remember those discussions about
how easy these heavy jets are to fly? So easy a child could do it, let alone
skyjackers trained on Cessna's. Here:

"Flying a Boeing 767? Piece of Cake."
Source Site
Posted on December 9, 2011

by
Morgan Reynolds

John Lear, retired pilot, recently sent me this pic of the Boeing 757 cockpit (identical to the 767). While admiring the complexity of flying this machine, I sent the photo to my dear wife Pat via email and asked her to check for new emails.

“Why?”

“Just humor me.”

Then she saw the photo and I asked, “Do you think you could fly it?”

“No, I wouldn’t know where to begin. Well ok, where is the key and ignition for it?” LOL.

P.S. In the photo John has outlined in yellow the cockpit ACARS messaging screens and keyboards.

P.P.S. I just spoke to John and he said, “Doesn’t look complicated to me!” LOL.


-----------------------------------------------------------
"No no noooo... Don't touch that switch, it floods the cockpit with waste from the head,
a new security measure against skyjackings." LOL!

(Also note the generous supply of room available, more than enough to engage a furious struggle with two crew members and remove them easily from their seats, without disturbing the controls). Hoo ha! Like they said: "Piece of Cake", eh?

This post has been edited by Obwon: Dec 10 2011, 03:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 10 2011, 03:24 PM
Post #33





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,125
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Nice job! thumbsup.gif

Because I'm not familiar with the ACARS cappabilities I have 2 questions which I would like to have answered by somebody familliar with the ACARS system.

There were two messages routed by Fort Wayne, IN (FWA) at 13:51 UTC and two messages routed by Champaign, IL (CMI) at 14:10 and 14:11 UTC respectively.
What if the UAL93 wasn't nowhere near Shanksville, but it

1. was at 13:51 at 38000ft around 42 59 N 085 25 W (Michigan), some ~115 nmi from FWA

2. was at 14:11 at >1000ft around 42 31 N 085 44 W, some ~185 nmi from CMI
(According to the elevation profile between CMI and the given coordinates the highest hill between this possible plane position and the CMI is <110ft so we can assume there would be still a perfectly clear direct RF visibility from CMI to the plane.)

Is it technically possible the messages would get delivered to the airplane* at the above given coordinates and altitudes?

--------------------
* most probably the United Airlines plane tailnumber N591UA which after departing its gate (A17) at 8:01 EDT and 27 minutes of taxiing took off from the Newark airport at 8:28 EDT - all according to official airline on-time database BTS (see my compilation here - check online BTS here) and at 13:53 UTC being over central Michigan diverted from its quite straight course to San Francisco and was most probably grounded somewhere in southern Michigan - as can be seen from the airpath track derived from 84Rades radar data:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 10 2011, 09:45 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

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



Hi Tume!

I was hoping you'd join in this thread thumbsup.gif

Is that aircraft the only one that was within range of CMI at that time?

From the UA175 thread:

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

QUOTE
Ground stations can send messages up to 200 miles, but this is only guaranteed if the aircraft is above 29,000 feet, as stated in the MFR sourced above.


So, question 1 seems affirmative to me and question 2 , I'm not sure about. But that's just my 2cents.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Maha Mantra
post Dec 10 2011, 11:37 PM
Post #35





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 70
Joined: 29-April 07
Member No.: 1,004



Good job.

So the thought trend is that the ACARs system hasn't been hacked like the black box data.

For the heck of it, did anyone look for radio messages before the take off of the flights ?

And any replacement flights had their own ways of being "monitored" ?

I wonder what the purpose of flight 93 was. Was its mission aborted and a crude alternative devised 'at the time' ? Did 93 do what it was supposed to, but its replacement crashed or was shot down ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pointer
post Dec 10 2011, 11:41 PM
Post #36





Group: Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: 29-April 08
Member No.: 3,251



QUOTE (Obwon @ Dec 10 2011, 07:36 PM) *
... When you read about the crashes themselves, you realize that no plane actually crashed at any of these sites. ...


I'm not going in discussion about what flies end how it flies into buildings. That's not my piece of profession. I saw two airplanes fly into the Twintowers and that is it. Perhaps they were manned or remote controlled, I don't know. Perhaps they were the original real airliners. I leave it to you to research that part of the case.
But what I am absolutely sure about, is, that no heavy plane-crash in those buildings could bring them down, and that is because I have detailed knowledge about construction and the physics of buildings.
Both towers were examples of over-engineering and could stand, remain stable, with the whole core removed, or instead remain stable with peripheral walls removed. That means that both structures on itself were strong enough to carry the whole load of the building.
And than came the pancake theory showing an enforced-concrete construction. That did not match the materials of the buildings as full steel-structures with a special kind of light-weight floors.
The real structures couldn't collapse by the most furious fires and there was no furious fire at all, because the smoke was too dark and a woman was waving for attention in the hole of impact.
Than the towers collapsed, falling with almost the speed of free fall and human bodies, even concrete, vaporized.
Well it takes 800 degrees Celsius to take the molecular water out of concrete to turn it to dust but that's going slowly. If it happens in a second you need 22000 degrees Celsius on the whole surface. That heat can only be reached in that time by two-stage explosives as used in the military. First there is an explosion that fills the room with high explosive dust and you see the puffs coming out of the windows, top down and floor by floor. That dust is immediately ignited in the second stage of the explosion to do the real job. Apart and in synchronized order the construction beams are cut in handsome pieces. That's done with the famous termite.
This process can only be remotely controlled with computers and wireless connections. It's never done before, because controlled demolition can be planned on the spot with build-in secure devices, a process as used in WTC 7.
So you must have human controllers with an oversight on the scene.
Now you remember perhaps the smoking gun of that video, that is showing how the upper part of tower 2, all the floors above the impact zone, is toppling aside. That mass should behave according to Newton, continuing that move if not stopped by an opposing force. But there wasn't a helping hand to stop it, so no option was left than to pulverize the massive structure bottom-up and that's exactly what you see to happen. Someone, a controller, noticed that things went wrong and invoked another procedure for the part that was moving in the wrong direction. There is no other explanation for that phenomenon. Below impact zone the procedure was top-down and above the impact-zone the procedure was bottom-up preventing that large parts of the building could topple aside.
One thing is not clever: YOU CAN SEE IT HAPPEN and there's no pancake-theory to explain that. Of course, the same has be done with tower 1, but we don't have it visible in the cloud, because there is no video from a point, that was high enough to see it happen and there was only a straight-down move of the building's mass.
So, if you want to know the place from where the controllers worked on the job, you look for an extra safe floor, something like floor 23 of building 7, the emergency center of the major. It has it's own generators, fuel and water and if an attack on the WTC should occur, that's the place to be, the most secure and safe place with a broad oversight of the scene. So the major had to move elsewhere?

You know, I'm not interested in questions who did it or why they did it, before I have found the answer how it is done and this is the answer beyond doubt. No conspiracy but physics.
The explanation needs a theory about the heat that in a split-second turned furniture, devices, concrete and humans into dust.
That's not termite alone. The termite technique is commonly used in demolitions to precisely cut steel beams and that is fast, but not fast enough and not hot enough tot heat up the a whole office room and turning it to dust.
That's where the two-stage explosives come in and so you have in the whole room the 22000 degrees Celsius you need, with the second stage.

Now we must think about the preparation of the whole project and the time it takes.
Remember that the security dogs were removed? Those dogs should have smelled the explosives, so there was not much time in the Twintowers. Only in Building 7 there was enough time for secret but normal preparation and hat was a hell of a job, very skillful. But the collapse of the towers was a mess, far too much collateral damage and a lot of sloppy failures and I found facts of too much irregularities in office-life. No electricity due to renewing cables and that happened without warnings? During some weekends anybody could walk around in empty private offices, finding doors to secret rooms and facilities unlocked?
There were lots of signs that there was something very strange going on in the months before, a chain of intolerable events.
But between ceilings and floors the structure was very suitable to place unseen wireless destructive devices in it. Wireless, because there should be a planned crash of an airplane that could destroy wires.

And now I have a present for you, so. Let's talk about Osama bin Laden, the Prince of Patsies. He was an engineer, isn't it? Well, he was not a kind of engineer to manage this kind of an action, but also not very stupid.
At a moment he, let us say, has two airplanes with passengers in the sky between Boston and New York and both fly straight over Indian Point and we all know that OBL wanted to kill infidels and destroy the USA, inshalah.
And Indian Point is a facility where nuclear waste from over 70 years nuclear industries is stored, unprotected, with two working nuclear power-plants of a kind that can't resist the impact of a plane-crash, also unprotected. An engineer like OBL, with half of his family living in the States, will certainly know that, like I, being a Dutchman without special interest in the matter, do know that, and being in charge, the real Muslim warrior will order (not by cell phone) to dive down and crash on those two power-plants that will totally melt down, killing hundreds of thousands and turning New York into wasteland for some thousands of years.

Instead we see two planes, unusual sparingly filled with passengers heading along to the WTC, even crossing above Indian Point, the jackpot of the holy war without doing that supreme target any harm.
Conclusion: Al Q'aeda was not in control or at least no engineer like OBL was knowing about the action. That day his family had lunch with the former president Bush41 on the presidential estate. So it was not the date to be nasty.

Did I write about a conspiracy? No, I wrote about physics and logic.

This post has been edited by Pointer: Dec 10 2011, 11:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 11 2011, 01:33 AM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Dec 10 2011, 03:24 PM) *
Nice job! thumbsup.gif


Good to see you back my friend.

QUOTE
1. was at 13:51 at 38000ft around 42 59 N 085 25 W (Michigan), some ~115 nmi from FWA

2. was at 14:11 at >1000ft around 42 31 N 085 44 W, some ~185 nmi from CMI
(According to the elevation profile between CMI and the given coordinates the highest hill between this possible plane position and the CMI is <110ft so we can assume there would be still a perfectly clear direct RF visibility from CMI to the plane.)


Hills are not the only problem. The Earth is round (which many duhbunkers forget), so the curvature of the Earth comes into play at those distances.

Here is a simple calculator I found with a quick search. You can play around with it using different numbers.

http://www.qsl.net/kd4sai/distance.html

For example, lets check Line Of Sight, CMI - Shanksville

Put 800 feet into the Station 1 Window (Roughly the height of the ACARS Antenna at CMI)

Put increasing heights of the airplane into Station 2, until it calculates nearly 500 miles.

As you can see, the aircraft would need to be nearly 110,000 feet in altitude to receive an ACARS from CMI at a distance of nearly 500 miles. (Although Dennis even disputes this based on ground station power alone, and antenna reception at the airplane).

Unfortunately for the govt story, they claim the aircraft was underground at the time the ACARS was sent through CMI and "activated an audible signal in the aircraft".

I'm not sure where UA93 went, but according to ACARS and the Manager of United Flight Dispatch Mike Winter, it did not crash in Shanksville. Hopefully one day we find out the truth.

With your example, in order for an aircraft to receive an ACARS from CMI at 185 miles, the airplane would need to be around 10,000 feet according to the above calculator. But at those distances, Category A and B Flight Tracking come into play as well as power output. See footnote 3 here. You should email Dennis and ask about station power. Let me know if you need his email addy.

To give you an idea, here are the various service volumes for the various types of VOR's,

Hope this helps.. and again.... good to see you back on the forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 11 2011, 10:23 AM
Post #38





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



My 2 cents on the range of VHF

Obviously much of it depends upon the strength (in watts) of the transmitter.

VHF is very dependent on altitude, but I know that VHF VOR stations, the higher powered ones, can be received at distances over 100 nautical miles when the airplane is over 10,000 feet.

Don't know the specs on the various ACARS transmitters, but my bet would be that at FL380 the reception distance would be close to 150 miles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Dec 11 2011, 03:24 PM
Post #39


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Dec 10 2011, 08:24 PM) *
Nice job! thumbsup.gif

Because I'm not familiar with the ACARS cappabilities I have 2 questions which I would like to have answered by somebody familliar with the ACARS system.

There were two messages routed by Fort Wayne, IN (FWA) at 13:51 UTC and two messages routed by Champaign, IL (CMI) at 14:10 and 14:11 UTC respectively.
What if the UAL93 wasn't nowhere near Shanksville, but it

1. was at 13:51 at 38000ft around 42 59 N 085 25 W (Michigan), some ~115 nmi from FWA

2. was at 14:11 at >1000ft around 42 31 N 085 44 W, some ~185 nmi from CMI
(According to the elevation profile between CMI and the given coordinates the highest hill between this possible plane position and the CMI is <110ft so we can assume there would be still a perfectly clear direct RF visibility from CMI to the plane.)

Is it technically possible the messages would get delivered to the airplane* at the above given coordinates and altitudes?

--------------------
* most probably the United Airlines plane tailnumber N591UA which after departing its gate (A17) at 8:01 EDT and 27 minutes of taxiing took off from the Newark airport at 8:28 EDT - all according to official airline on-time database BTS (see my compilation here - check online BTS here) and at 13:53 UTC being over central Michigan diverted from its quite straight course to San Francisco and was most probably grounded somewhere in southern Michigan - as can be seen from the airpath track derived from 84Rades radar data:


Hi tume! Nice to see you back, just in time. welcome.gif

Just at 13:51 (i.e. 9:51) the position of UA 93 can be deduced from the ACARS data quite good, because we have

Message #0659, sent at 13:50, received at 13:51, routed over Toledo and

Message #0669, sent at 13:51, received at 13:51, routed over Fort Wayne

So Ballinger has sent the same message (same text) to UA 93 within seconds. This means that the distance of UA 93 to TOL was roughly equal to its distance to FWA. Geometrically this means that UA 93's possible position describes the line perpendicular to the middle of the line segment between TOL and FWY.

Your latlongs at 13:51 (decimal or degrees?) seem to even fulfill this condition roughly. However, for my taste, it's too much to the North. It should have been routed via another RGS than Toledo or Fort Wayne, IMO. But I'm not sure.

Hope I could help you.

This post has been edited by woody: Dec 11 2011, 03:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Dec 11 2011, 04:20 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,985
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Excellent work.

This is it.
Irrefutable evidence, planes still in the sky, when they were said to have crashed.

We need a 2 to 3 minute (or less) simplified explanation of all this, and the significance of the importance of the ACARS data, in a video,
something that could go viral.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 10th December 2017 - 09:12 PM