QUOTE
"I'm sure it's here somewhere, but can someone steer me to the debunk of this rubbish-"
Full Version: Duhbunkers try to explain ACARS and fail
And of course, we see the obsessoids over at the govt loyalist cesspool scurrying, looking for and expecting an immediate explanation from the nameless faceless "experts". This individual can't even think or research for themself, they have to seek comfort in answers from the groupthink tank.
Of course one of the idiots chime in, without reading the article obviously...
QUOTE
It's been discussed here:
http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.p...ighlight=ACARS
I am currently reading that thread, have progressed to post 52 (checking links is time consuming). Pay attention to Femr2, apathoid and CtColumbo and ztry to ignore the bickering by beachnut and others.
ETA: That thread never came to a definite conclusion, but this seems to be the gist:
The ACARS messages involving UA175 were messages to the plane, not from the plane. Obviously, it is possible to send a message to a receiver that is already destroyed.
ACARS messages get transmitted via VHF radio antennae on the ground near the plane - for planes at cruising altitude, "near" can be up to 200 miles away. Sender must include the ground station in the message. It seems that the ground station is usually determined from flight plans, not from live information about the plane's actual location. It seems Harrisburg (and 20 minutes later: Pittsburgh) was near the expected location of UA175 according to flight plan, had it not been hijacked, re-routed, and later crashed. If senders were not informed, or not sure, about the hijack, then sending via flight plan location was a reasonable thing to do. Message content assumed (or hoped) pilots were still in control.
An open issue is whether or not the message would have been recorded (printed out) without some technical acknowledgment from the plane's ACARS system that it has been received. Femr2 thinks that ACARS protocols (always?) include such automatic acknowledgements, apathoid and CptColumbo doubt it. Even if an ACK would have been the rule, it is not clear if an ACK was received or not. Furthermore, it is nor clear if the sent message would not have been recorded if an ACK was exected but not received
In short, having records of messages being send to (or via) Ground Radio in Pennsylvania is no proof of the plane actually being in Pennsylvania at that time, unless it can be proven that the ACARS ground system received an acknowledgment from the plane that it had received the message.
http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.p...ighlight=ACARS
I am currently reading that thread, have progressed to post 52 (checking links is time consuming). Pay attention to Femr2, apathoid and CtColumbo and ztry to ignore the bickering by beachnut and others.
ETA: That thread never came to a definite conclusion, but this seems to be the gist:
The ACARS messages involving UA175 were messages to the plane, not from the plane. Obviously, it is possible to send a message to a receiver that is already destroyed.
ACARS messages get transmitted via VHF radio antennae on the ground near the plane - for planes at cruising altitude, "near" can be up to 200 miles away. Sender must include the ground station in the message. It seems that the ground station is usually determined from flight plans, not from live information about the plane's actual location. It seems Harrisburg (and 20 minutes later: Pittsburgh) was near the expected location of UA175 according to flight plan, had it not been hijacked, re-routed, and later crashed. If senders were not informed, or not sure, about the hijack, then sending via flight plan location was a reasonable thing to do. Message content assumed (or hoped) pilots were still in control.
An open issue is whether or not the message would have been recorded (printed out) without some technical acknowledgment from the plane's ACARS system that it has been received. Femr2 thinks that ACARS protocols (always?) include such automatic acknowledgements, apathoid and CptColumbo doubt it. Even if an ACK would have been the rule, it is not clear if an ACK was received or not. Furthermore, it is nor clear if the sent message would not have been recorded if an ACK was exected but not received
In short, having records of messages being send to (or via) Ground Radio in Pennsylvania is no proof of the plane actually being in Pennsylvania at that time, unless it can be proven that the ACARS ground system received an acknowledgment from the plane that it had received the message.
This brings up a good question, and I'm wondering if anybody knows the answer.
I'm an old ham radio operator, though inactive today. I remember when ACARS came out, but have never used it.
Reading the news of this finding, I had assumed that what was recently discovered is that the message was either received or transmitted by UA175. I wondered how it can be known for certain that any message transmitted from the ground station was received and readable by the airborne station, absent acknowledgment by the aircraft crew through ACARS.
So are we saying that the PA ground station received a transmission from UA175, or are we saying that the ground station merely transmitted a message to 175, and there is no record of acknowledgment or there IS a record of acknowledgment?
I'm an old ham radio operator, though inactive today. I remember when ACARS came out, but have never used it.
Reading the news of this finding, I had assumed that what was recently discovered is that the message was either received or transmitted by UA175. I wondered how it can be known for certain that any message transmitted from the ground station was received and readable by the airborne station, absent acknowledgment by the aircraft crew through ACARS.
So are we saying that the PA ground station received a transmission from UA175, or are we saying that the ground station merely transmitted a message to 175, and there is no record of acknowledgment or there IS a record of acknowledgment?
QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2011, 02:26 PM) 
This brings up a good question, and I'm wondering if anybody knows the answer.
I'm an old ham radio operator, though inactive today. I remember when ACARS came out, but have never used it.
Reading the news of this finding, I had assumed that what was recently discovered is that the message was either received or transmitted by UA175. I wondered how it can be known for certain that any message transmitted from the ground station was received and readable by the airborne station, absent acknowledgment by the aircraft crew through ACARS.
So are we saying that the PA ground station received a transmission from UA175, or are we saying that the ground station merely transmitted a message to 175, and there is no record of acknowledgment or there IS a record of acknowledgment?
I'm an old ham radio operator, though inactive today. I remember when ACARS came out, but have never used it.
Reading the news of this finding, I had assumed that what was recently discovered is that the message was either received or transmitted by UA175. I wondered how it can be known for certain that any message transmitted from the ground station was received and readable by the airborne station, absent acknowledgment by the aircraft crew through ACARS.
So are we saying that the PA ground station received a transmission from UA175, or are we saying that the ground station merely transmitted a message to 175, and there is no record of acknowledgment or there IS a record of acknowledgment?
From the article...
QUOTE
The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.
This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).
DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM
.SFOLMUA 111259/JER
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL
IS NORMAL....THX 777SAM
SFOLM JERRY TSEN
;09111259 108575 0543
.......
If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a "Technical Acknowledgement" section should be present in ACARS messages. What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent 'text' messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received. Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received. An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages. However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received -
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.
According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.
This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).
DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM
.SFOLMUA 111259/JER
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL
IS NORMAL....THX 777SAM
SFOLM JERRY TSEN
;09111259 108575 0543
.......
If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a "Technical Acknowledgement" section should be present in ACARS messages. What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent 'text' messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received. Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received. An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages. However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received -
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.
According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRM...FTER-CRASH.html
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 2 2011, 05:13 AM)
Dear Mr Balsamo
It appears the important content above is falling on 'blind' eyes, or a good many people are not taking the time to read it a second time and digest it properly.
Has any body spoken to Mr Ballinger, at all, it would be very interesting to get his current slant on things.
Robert S
One guy over at the unexplained mysteries forum keeps claiming that United Airlines confirmed that Flight 175 had crashed into the South Tower quickly after the incident. But this is not the case. Here's some background info in case you encounter such an "expert" somwhere. United waited until about 12:00 to accept Flight 175 being the South Tower plane; before, they declared it "missing" or "down at an undisclosed location".
Here's a press release of United Airlines for the public. Time: 11:17
United Airlines Issues Second Release
11 Sep 2001, 11:17 AM, EST
United Airlines has confirmed one of its flights has crashed near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. United Flight 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, is the flight number involved. The flight originated in Newark and was bound for San Francisco. United is deeply concerned about a further flight, United Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles. On behalf of the airline, CEO James E. Goodwin said, "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved in today's tragic events. United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights. In the meantime, in line with FAA directives, a worldwide groundstop on all our flights continues. For further information, friends and relatives who may be concerned about a passenger on United Flight 93 should call 1-800-932-8555.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010911230853/..._1748_1,00.html
Here are some guys following the news and exchanging it:
#
09-11-2001, 12:45 PM #1
Kathy Guest
United Flight missing
<HTML>news reports United Flight 175 is missing and unaccounted for.
Kathy :kitten</HTML>
Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
#
09-11-2001, 12:53 PM #2
Lisa Guest
Re: United Flight missing
<HTML>That could be the one that crashed in PA.</HTML>
Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
#
09-11-2001, 12:55 PM #3
Chippsetter Guest
Re: United Flight missing
<HTML>United flight 93 is the one that crashed in PA.</HTML>
Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
#
09-11-2001, 01:06 PM #4
Lisa Guest
Re: United Flight missing
<HTML>They are now reporting that 175 has also crashed but will not disclose where........</HTML>
http://www.cruise-addicts.com/forums/f4/un...t-missing-5776/
Here's an article of the Wall Street Journal, 10/16/2001. Both the American CEO (Carty) and the United CEO (Goodwin) didn't handle United 175 as a candidate for the South Tower hit for a long time.
Just as those orders were being given, the American command center heard television reports of a plane hitting the south tower of the trade center. Many in the room instantly assumed it was American Flight 77, the missing plane from Washington.
"How did 77 get to New York and we didn't know it?" Bertapelle shouted.
Arpey looked at Carty, who had just arrived.
"I think we better get everything on the deck," Arpey said.
"Do it," Carty replied.
American ordered planes to land at the nearest suitable airports. It activated crash teams to deal with the accidents and the families of passengers and began beefing up security at American's headquarters and major stations.
Carty called Goodwin, his counterpart at United. Each told the other that he thought that he had a second missing plane.
Carty and Goodwin were also talking on the phone with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who was in a government command bunker with Vice President Dick Cheney. Carty told Mineta that American was ordering all 162 of its planes out of the sky; United had already ordered its 122 planes down. About five minutes later, the FAA shut down the skies over the United States completely to all but military aircraft.
Soon, reports began pouring in that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon. Maybe it was the missing United plane?
American still believed its Flight 77 had gone into the second World Trade Center tower. The command center ordered a plane readied to take crisis response teams to New York to assist investigators and relatives of passengers.
Capt. Ed Soliday, United's vice president of safety and security, talked to AMR Vice Chairman Bob Baker, trying to sort out the confusion.
"They thought our airplane had crashed in Washington and that both their planes had crashed at the World Trade Center," Soliday says. Finally, he and Baker agreed that the government should make the final confirmation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/549497/posts
So... I had some time today to browse the cesspools out there regarding our latest article.
As usual, most of the "duhbunkers" have nothing to offer but vicious name calling and personal attacks from behind their anonymous screenames. When they do try to stick to topic, they offer speculation without any source whatsoever....
With that said, I stumbled across something I found quite hilarious...
Ryan Mackey, NASA Scientist Extraordinaire.. has crawled out of his hole to apparently share an 82 page psychological evaluation of "Truthers".
I admit I have not read the "paper", but I did browse through the thread. It appears Mr. Mackey is attempting to notify all other "debunkers" that there is no reason to entertain the arguments presented by "Truthers".
What I found so hilarious is that Mr. Mackey claims on page 5 of the thread, "I'm a busy guy. Truthers haven't convinced me they're worth the effort. "
Yet, he writes an 82 page paper explaining why he feels "Truthers aren't worth the effort"?
New name for Mackey...
Ryan "There Is Nothing To Debate", "Truthers Aren't Worth The Effort, but read my 82 page paper on Truthers" Mackey. - Comedian/Psychologist/Walking Contradiction
LMAO!
What a sad life that boy must lead that he has to write an 82 page paper to tell others to ignore the people he wrote an 82 page paper about....
If anyone does read it.. feel free to post his psycho-babble with reference to P4T... if it's in his "paper"
Too funny...
As usual, most of the "duhbunkers" have nothing to offer but vicious name calling and personal attacks from behind their anonymous screenames. When they do try to stick to topic, they offer speculation without any source whatsoever....
With that said, I stumbled across something I found quite hilarious...
Ryan Mackey, NASA Scientist Extraordinaire.. has crawled out of his hole to apparently share an 82 page psychological evaluation of "Truthers".
I admit I have not read the "paper", but I did browse through the thread. It appears Mr. Mackey is attempting to notify all other "debunkers" that there is no reason to entertain the arguments presented by "Truthers".
What I found so hilarious is that Mr. Mackey claims on page 5 of the thread, "I'm a busy guy. Truthers haven't convinced me they're worth the effort. "
Yet, he writes an 82 page paper explaining why he feels "Truthers aren't worth the effort"?
New name for Mackey...
Ryan "There Is Nothing To Debate", "Truthers Aren't Worth The Effort, but read my 82 page paper on Truthers" Mackey. - Comedian/Psychologist/Walking Contradiction
LMAO!
What a sad life that boy must lead that he has to write an 82 page paper to tell others to ignore the people he wrote an 82 page paper about....
If anyone does read it.. feel free to post his psycho-babble with reference to P4T... if it's in his "paper"
Too funny...
Awesome news Woody. I also have to say that I've been quite impressed with your articles Flight 175 was duplicated: Threefold Confirmation and Two "Flight 175" taking off from Boston Logan: CONFIRMED.
Thanks again for bringing this information to light.
I made a post about it at ATS:
http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1
It was generally well received, however, debunkers are claiming that the last line does NOT denote when the message was received and acknowledged from the aircraft. One guy said it was when the message was printed, and that data could get backed up before hitting the telex.
There are a lot of subsequent posts over there describing ACARS, but it appears there are also a lot of varying formats of text display associated with it. I think this is causing a lot of confusion- no doubt exactly what the "Q" unit is tasked to do.
The big question everyone has is what exactly does that last line mean. There is the trouble, and someone needs to refute or confirm this. We need additional confirmation Rob, that this last line is indeed what you claim it is.
I made a post about it at ATS:
http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1
It was generally well received, however, debunkers are claiming that the last line does NOT denote when the message was received and acknowledged from the aircraft. One guy said it was when the message was printed, and that data could get backed up before hitting the telex.
There are a lot of subsequent posts over there describing ACARS, but it appears there are also a lot of varying formats of text display associated with it. I think this is causing a lot of confusion- no doubt exactly what the "Q" unit is tasked to do.
The big question everyone has is what exactly does that last line mean. There is the trouble, and someone needs to refute or confirm this. We need additional confirmation Rob, that this last line is indeed what you claim it is.
QUOTE (911analyzer @ Dec 3 2011, 05:19 PM)
Thanks again for bringing this information to light.
....
....
Hi 911analyzer. Thanks for helping to spread the information.
I did read through the ATS thread last night when I was checking out the other cesspool forums, and in fact registered a screename there, of course I was banned within 3 posts with many deleted. I would use my real name, but for some reason ATS mods don't want me posting over there and instead allow people like weedwhacker to have multiple socks which are active. If you aren't already aware, "ProudBird" is weedwhacker, and as usual, he gets everything wrong.
As for the second time stamp, all we can go by is the people who work at the airline. ACARS systems can be tailored to Airline specific needs, which is why we haven't seen a standard technical acknowledgement from United, instead Ed Ballinger describes,
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.
Clearly Ed is referencing the aircraft and not a "printer" as the reason for the second time stamp. I tried to explain this to the people over at ATS, but their mods deleted it, and I was banned.
Now, it's quite possible that "gman" (appropriate name for sure), could have two time stamps on his ACARS messages at his airline, in which the second time stamp refers to a printer., at his airline.
But for United Airlines, the second time stamp refers to when the airplane received the message, as stated by United Airlines Dispatcher Ed Ballinger.
Either way, Cateory A and B Flight Tracking protocol as described and well sourced in our article, is evidence that the aircraft was in the vicinity of MDT and PIT when those messages were sent, received by the airplane or not. "gman" apparently isn't familiar with how messages are routed, and apparently doesn't want to know. He should though...
Feel free to post a link to this thread over at ATS.
Hope this helps... and be sure to clear your cookies after visiting that site. ATS is loaded with malware and spyware.
QUOTE (23investigator @ Dec 1 2011, 07:15 PM)
Dear Mr Balsamo
It appears the important content above is falling on 'blind' eyes, or a good many people are not taking the time to read it a second time and digest it properly.
Has any body spoken to Mr Ballinger, at all, it would be very interesting to get his current slant on things.
Robert S
It appears the important content above is falling on 'blind' eyes, or a good many people are not taking the time to read it a second time and digest it properly.
Has any body spoken to Mr Ballinger, at all, it would be very interesting to get his current slant on things.
Robert S
I agree. If no one more qualified in these things wants to give it a go, I'd try to speak to him, but I have no idea how I'd get his contact information.
QUOTE (911analyzer @ Dec 3 2011, 06:19 PM)
Thanks again for bringing this information to light.
I made a post about it at ATS:
http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1
It was generally well received, however, debunkers are claiming that the last line does NOT denote when the message was received and acknowledged from the aircraft. One guy said it was when the message was printed, and that data could get backed up before hitting the telex.
There are a lot of subsequent posts over there describing ACARS, but it appears there are also a lot of varying formats of text display associated with it. I think this is causing a lot of confusion- no doubt exactly what the "Q" unit is tasked to do.
The big question everyone has is what exactly does that last line mean. There is the trouble, and someone needs to refute or confirm this. We need additional confirmation Rob, that this last line is indeed what you claim it is.
I made a post about it at ATS:
http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1
It was generally well received, however, debunkers are claiming that the last line does NOT denote when the message was received and acknowledged from the aircraft. One guy said it was when the message was printed, and that data could get backed up before hitting the telex.
There are a lot of subsequent posts over there describing ACARS, but it appears there are also a lot of varying formats of text display associated with it. I think this is causing a lot of confusion- no doubt exactly what the "Q" unit is tasked to do.
The big question everyone has is what exactly does that last line mean. There is the trouble, and someone needs to refute or confirm this. We need additional confirmation Rob, that this last line is indeed what you claim it is.
The correct URL to the ATS thread is http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1
WTF, I didn't post that URL, did you edit it Rob?
QUOTE (911analyzer @ Dec 3 2011, 07:02 PM)
The correct URL to the ATS thread is http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1
WTF, I didn't post that URL, did you edit it Rob?
WTF, I didn't post that URL, did you edit it Rob?
Ok, that is autocoding then I see. It trashes any links to ATS...
QUOTE (911analyzer @ Dec 3 2011, 06:02 PM)
The correct URL to the ATS thread is http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread781617/pg1
WTF, I didn't post that URL, did you edit it Rob?
WTF, I didn't post that URL, did you edit it Rob?
lol... the forum automatically edits the url as I prefer to not subject our readers to sites which are loaded with malware and spyware, linked from us.
If you want to post the url without being filtered, just wrap code tags around it and readers can copy/paste the url to their browser...
like this...
CODE
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread781617/pg1
By the way, you may want to inform them that there are many ACARS messages in the FOIA pdf which do not have the second time stamp. Does this mean it wasn't sent to the printer? If so, how did it get printed?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf
The second time stamp is the time the message was received by the airplane, as described by Ed Ballinger.
Feel free to tell "gman" to come on over if he wants to learn how the system works, especially Category A and B Flight Tracking.
I got this message from someone who, while admitting that PFT's article may be accurate, nevertheless thinks it's also possible it's not. Quoting a bit of the conversation for context:
Let me ask you this; if the message format was identical, why was one labelled as "received", while the other wasn't? Could it be that they were actually -both- received, and the person stating that one wasn't was either misinformed or was downright lying? This is the conclusion of an organization of experts in avionics, Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Considering their vast amount of expertise, you might consider the possibility that they're right.
Is it possible? Yes.
However, based on the documentation presented so far, we know that there are actually 2 acknowledgements sent back to the message originator, the first one from the DSP indicating that the message was successfully accepted for formatting for uplink transmission by the CPS, and the second one is the acknowledgement that the messages was received by the aircraft. All we see in most of the messages is one "acknowledgement time", but we have no way of knowing at this time which one it is.
Now, I started thinking something; of the 4 ACARS messages that are brought up in PFT's ACARS article, all 4 of them have 2 time stamps. Could this actually be what Czero is referring to? One that it was successfully accepted for formating for uplink and the second that it was received by the aircraft?
QUOTE (Czero 101)
QUOTE (Scott G)
Let me ask you this; if the message format was identical, why was one labelled as "received", while the other wasn't? Could it be that they were actually -both- received, and the person stating that one wasn't was either misinformed or was downright lying? This is the conclusion of an organization of experts in avionics, Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Considering their vast amount of expertise, you might consider the possibility that they're right.
Is it possible? Yes.
However, based on the documentation presented so far, we know that there are actually 2 acknowledgements sent back to the message originator, the first one from the DSP indicating that the message was successfully accepted for formatting for uplink transmission by the CPS, and the second one is the acknowledgement that the messages was received by the aircraft. All we see in most of the messages is one "acknowledgement time", but we have no way of knowing at this time which one it is.
Now, I started thinking something; of the 4 ACARS messages that are brought up in PFT's ACARS article, all 4 of them have 2 time stamps. Could this actually be what Czero is referring to? One that it was successfully accepted for formating for uplink and the second that it was received by the aircraft?
QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 3 2011, 07:43 PM)
Now, I started thinking something; of the 4 ACARS messages that are brought up in PFT's ACARS article, all 4 of them have 2 time stamps. Could this actually be what Czero is referring to? One that it was successfully accepted for formating for uplink and the second that it was received by the aircraft?
One time stamp is sent, one is received, according to Mr Ballinger. He references the aircraft, not the DSP, not a printer in the room he is sitting in... he is referencing the aircraft.
Those who make excuse for the govt story will speculate till smoke starts to pour out their ears, trying to twist the words any possible way they can, but the fact remains, the statement made by Ballinger is straight forward, simple... and doesn't leave any room for ambiguity.
Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.
Just to add my 2cents on the alleged "printer timestamp" 
...wtf would be the point of a printer timestamp when those on the ground would want to know at exactly what time the response was received? Or even sent in case of any future investigation (crash, mishap or accusation against aviation personnel both in the air and on the ground), or to make a call on whether they've received the message in time to avert the danger.
Say, for example, a warning was sent where the pilot had to divert from his course because of a weather front or even better warn them of possible hijackers on his aircraft and that they had to lock their doors (as were sent on 9/11), those on the ground would want to know the exact time that the message was received!
Makes no sense whatsoever.
2cents (if that!)
...wtf would be the point of a printer timestamp when those on the ground would want to know at exactly what time the response was received? Or even sent in case of any future investigation (crash, mishap or accusation against aviation personnel both in the air and on the ground), or to make a call on whether they've received the message in time to avert the danger.Say, for example, a warning was sent where the pilot had to divert from his course because of a weather front or even better warn them of possible hijackers on his aircraft and that they had to lock their doors (as were sent on 9/11), those on the ground would want to know the exact time that the message was received!
Makes no sense whatsoever.
2cents (if that!)
On another note about the "printer timestamp/back up of messages" claim, read through the ACARS messages here
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf
See if you can find any of these "delays". Most have duplicate dual timestamps (within the same minute, sent and received), some are 1 minute difference (possibly due to the minute on the clock being closer to the next, 09:21 and 50 seconds for example), and the largest delay between send and receive was 2 minutes. Just one out of how many?
Many of those messages were sent well after the attacks on the towers. I'd imagine it was pretty busy, no?
Last + nail + coffin on the printer timestamp/back up of messages.
Edit to add: In the PDF linked to above, the "notes" taken at the very start say that at 09:21, "United says, you may want to send out cockpit warnings."
The UA175 ACARS message in question
No delay.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf
See if you can find any of these "delays". Most have duplicate dual timestamps (within the same minute, sent and received), some are 1 minute difference (possibly due to the minute on the clock being closer to the next, 09:21 and 50 seconds for example), and the largest delay between send and receive was 2 minutes. Just one out of how many?
Many of those messages were sent well after the attacks on the towers. I'd imagine it was pretty busy, no?
Last + nail + coffin on the printer timestamp/back up of messages.
Edit to add: In the PDF linked to above, the "notes" taken at the very start say that at 09:21, "United says, you may want to send out cockpit warnings."
The UA175 ACARS message in question
QUOTE
DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111323 108575 0574
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111323 108575 0574
No delay.
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 4 2011, 12:34 AM)
See if you can find any of these "delays". Most have duplicate dual timestamps (within the same minute, sent and received), some are 1 minute difference (possibly due to the minute on the clock being closer to the next, 09:21 and 50 seconds for example), and the largest delay between send and receive was 2 minutes. Just one out of how many?
Most of ACARS are delivered within 60 seconds. Delays are usually due to high traffic. This is what David Knerr declared to the FBI:
QUOTE
KNERR further advised that AERONAUTICAL' RADIO INCORPORATED ARINC serves as the network administrator for the communication data. According to KNERR, this is important to remember when reviewing data messages because uplink and downlink times may show a time delay when compared. This is caused by the/processing of multiple ACARS messages through the ARINC network at the same time.
FBI302, p. 36
Even only one example of 2 minutes interval between Sent and Received timestamp is enough to disprove the claim of the guy on ATS. And there are several examples of 1 minute delay.
Unless one argues the dispatcher was changing the toner...
QUOTE (Sergio @ Dec 4 2011, 04:56 AM)
Most of ACARS are delivered within 60 seconds. Delays are usually due to high traffic. This is what David Knerr declared to the FBI:
FBI302, p. 36
Even only one example of 2 minutes interval between Sent and Received timestamp is enough to disprove the claim of the guy on ATS. And there are several examples of 1 minute delay.
Unless one argues the dispatcher was changing the toner...
FBI302, p. 36
Even only one example of 2 minutes interval between Sent and Received timestamp is enough to disprove the claim of the guy on ATS. And there are several examples of 1 minute delay.
Unless one argues the dispatcher was changing the toner...
Maybe another avenue to explore?
From that link..
QUOTE
. HOUCK could not recall the full name for the acronym, ARINC; however, she contacted the company in San Francisco, California, by dialing their 800 number. This company
was able to ring a bell in the cockpit to alert the crew to pick up their radio. For AA, this service helped when flights were out of radio contact or were not responding to ACARS messages for whatever reason
was able to ring a bell in the cockpit to alert the crew to pick up their radio. For AA, this service helped when flights were out of radio contact or were not responding to ACARS messages for whatever reason
Not sure if this service applies to UA as well. A company that "rings a bell in the cockpit to alert the crew to pick up their radio".
I'm wondering if they also had the same acknowledgement system and if they were used.
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 3 2011, 10:13 PM)
Just to add my 2cents on the alleged "printer timestamp" ...wtf would be the point of a printer timestamp when those on the ground would want to know at exactly what time the response was received?
...wtf would be the point of a printer timestamp when those on the ground would want to know at exactly what time the response was received?Good point... and after thinking about this a bit more, I think gman himself doesn't really know (or is confused) regarding his own timestamps.
I went over to take another look, gman has posted his telex of the ACARS from his airline...
This is what he posted...
He claims the top ACARS is "... the identical format to the quoted acars messages [from United Airlines]."
Well, no, it's not.... for numerous reasons. The first thing which stands out is that he has two time stamps side by side on the bottom time stamp, including alpha text, while United ACARS do not.
I think he was told that the first time stamp is the sent time stamp, and the second time stamp is when the "printer" received the message. Gman translated this to meaning his printer in his office, when in reality, it probably means the printer on the flight deck in the aircraft, again, for his specific airline.
Either way, they aren't the same as United ACARS. Therefore, it is better to source a United Airlines Dispatcher regarding ACARS message timestamps from United Airlines, than some anonymous "gman" on some forum who readily admits himself "I have never claimed to be an expert in anything" combined with the fact he doesn't know anything about Cat A and B flight tracking, nor does he think it's important. Although I'm sure the "duhbunkers" prefer the latter... as Mr Ballinger seems to put a pretty big wrench in their whole theory...
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 3 2011, 08:07 PM)
One time stamp is sent, one is received, according to Mr Ballinger. He references the aircraft, not the DSP, not a printer in the room he is sitting in... he is referencing the aircraft.
Those who make excuse for the govt story will speculate till smoke starts to pour out their ears, trying to twist the words any possible way they can, but the fact remains, the statement made by Ballinger is straight forward, simple... and doesn't leave any room for ambiguity.
Those who make excuse for the govt story will speculate till smoke starts to pour out their ears, trying to twist the words any possible way they can, but the fact remains, the statement made by Ballinger is straight forward, simple... and doesn't leave any room for ambiguity.
Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.
Good point. On to another; Another poster (booN) is now asking why we put so much trust in Ballinger, when many have said that he isn't an ACARS expert. However, I know that one of your core members is an ACARS expert; he's even quoted in your article. Does he agree that the second time stamp was indeed denoting that the message had been received by the aircraft?
QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 4 2011, 02:27 AM)
Good point. On to another; Another poster (booN) is now asking why we put so much trust in Ballinger, when many have said that he isn't an ACARS expert.
He isn't an ACARS expert. He is a Dispatcher. and it's not that we are putting "trust" in him, we are reporting what he said. Others are trying to make excuses for it without any source for their speculation whatsoever. I don't expect Ballinger to know how the messages are routed but he surely is expected to know how to read his own ACARS and what the time stamps mean, yes?
Just like gman isnt familiar with Cat A and B Flight Tracking, I dont expect Ballinger to be... but clearly Ballinger knows more about the time stamps and ACARS format at United Airlines than gman does....
booNy still hasnt got the nads to come here and ask his own question huh? Not surprised....
Has he called ARINC yet? lol... not sure why I'm even asking as clearly the guy is afraid of the truth. Let me guess, he thinks the document provided by some anonymous guy on some forum debunks the statement made by Ballinger?
Does booNy also think gmans ACARS format is in the same format as the United Airlines ACARS?
QUOTE
I know that one of your core members is an ACARS expert; he's even quoted in your article. Does he agree that the second time stamp was indeed denoting that the message had been received by the aircraft?
Conversely, Dennis is an ACARS expert, not a Dispatcher, I wouldn't expect him to know exactly what the time stamps mean at United Airlines when the messages can be tailored to the needs of United. But Dennis certainly knows how they are routed, and as he has stated from the beginning corroborated by source documents, the messages would not be routed through MDT and PIT if the aircraft were in NY, regardless if they are received or not.
Hope this helps.... tell booNy he is better off sticking to his video games.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 02:47 AM)
He isn't an ACARS expert. He is a Dispatcher. and it's not that we are putting "trust" in him, we are reporting what he said. Others are trying to make excuses for it without any source for their speculation whatsoever. I don't expect Ballinger to know how the messages are routed but he surely is expected to know how to read his own ACARS and what the time stamps mean, yes?
Wow, good point.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 02:47 AM)
Just like gman isnt familiar with Cat A and B Flight Tracking, I dont expect Ballinger to be... but clearly Ballinger knows more about the time stamps and ACARS format at United Airlines than gman does....
True.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 02:47 AM)
booNy still hasnt got the nads to come here and ask his own question huh? Not surprised....
I've been thinking about this.. I've been thinking that perhaps I'm a better interface. After all, I -agree- with your stance, whereas he clearly leans the other way. So maybe it makes more sense if I were to ask.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 02:47 AM)
Has he called ARINC yet? lol... not sure why I'm even asking as clearly the guy is afraid of the truth. Let me guess, he thinks the document provided by some anonymous guy on some forum debunks the statement made by Ballinger?
I don't think so. But he did send them an email, and said he'd get back to us if they wrote him back. I actually did call ARINC again. I told them I had a question regarding ACARS messages and they said I should email them about it, so I did. This is what I asked:
"I just wanted to know, in ACARS messages, is it true that the second time stamp in messages that are successfully uplinked to aircraft signifies the time that the message was received by the aircraft?"
I regret that I didn't ask specifically for United Airlines ACARS messages. I got an initial response saying that they were routing my question to the proper department:
****
Thank you for emailing XXXX
Due to the nature of your question, I have taken the liberty of forwarding your email to the appropriate Airport Authority department for assistance and they will respond directly.
It is the goal of XXXX to provide the traveling public with the highest level of customer service. As always, your comments, questions and experiences provide us with an invaluable source of feedback.
****
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 02:47 AM)
Does booNy also think gmans ACARS format is in the same format as the United Airlines ACARS?
I think I may ask him that soon (Can't right now, I think the forum is down for maintenance).
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 02:47 AM)
Conversely, Dennis is an ACARS expert, not a Dispatcher, I wouldn't expect him to know exactly what the time stamps mean at United Airlines when the messages can be tailored to the needs of United.
Ah, I see.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 02:47 AM)
But Dennis certainly knows how they are routed, and as he has stated from the beginning corroborated by source documents, the messages would not be routed through MDT and PIT if the aircraft were in NY, regardless if they are received or not.
Good point.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 02:47 AM)
Hope this helps.... tell booNy he is better off sticking to his video games.
Lol :-). However, I would like to say that if people like booN and Czero didn't continue to respond to posts from various people who support your reasoning, the conversation might have died a long time ago. I certainly believe that I've learned a fair in large part because of their disagreements with us.
Hey Rob! Would it be possible to overlay positions of MDT and PIT
on to this Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iwpBEB2pLs...feature=mh_lolz
cheers
on to this Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iwpBEB2pLs...feature=mh_lolz
cheers
QUOTE (mvb @ Dec 4 2011, 03:30 AM)
Hey Rob! Would it be possible to overlay positions of MDT and PIT
on to this Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iwpBEB2pLs...feature=mh_lolz
cheers
on to this Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iwpBEB2pLs...feature=mh_lolz
cheers
Already done.. they are in the article...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRM...FTER-CRASH.html
QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 4 2011, 03:25 AM)
I've been thinking about this.. I've been thinking that perhaps I'm a better interface. After all, I -agree- with your stance, whereas he clearly leans the other way. So maybe it makes more sense if I were to ask.
booNy should take the advice of his own signature....lol
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams
booNy = irony
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 4 2011, 01:51 AM)
Not sure if this service applies to UA as well. A company that "rings a bell in the cockpit to alert the crew to pick up their radio".
I'm wondering if they also had the same acknowledgement system and if they were used.
I'm wondering if they also had the same acknowledgement system and if they were used.
This is what Michael J Winter said to the FBI about some messages received by United 93:
Message #2, to the aircraft, was also routed through the RGS near Pittsburgh, PA and was directed to the ACARS printer on the aircraft.
DDLXCXA JFKEO CHI68R
.JFKFOUA 111322/TAR
AGM
AN N591UA/GL PIT
- UA93 EWRSFO
LEROY, MELODY WANTS TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE O.K.!
SEND ME BACK A MESSAGE.
JFKFO TARA CAMPBELL
;09111322 108575 0571
Message #3 was a message to the aircraft from Chicago Dispatch CHIDD listed as a Command Response MD type message. The CMD message, designated in the line "Smi=CMD Agy/Num=65535", was sent to the ACARS screen and utilized the RGS near Pittsburgh, PA. In this type of message, the flight dispatcher can also activate an audible signal to alert the flight crew of the sent message but this was not done.
DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD –
/BEWARE ANY COCKIPT INTROUSION..TWO AIRCRAFT IN NY, HIT TRADE C
ENTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111324 108575 0581
Message #7 was sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using a RGS near Akron/Canton, OH. The message was sent to the ACARS screen and was a CMD type message.
DDLXCXA CHIVN CHI68R
.CHIVNUA 111332/ROB
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CAK
- QUCHIVNUA 1 UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD –
CALLL 133.37
CHIDD ROBERT BRITTAIN
;09111332 108575 0599
Message #8 was sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Akron/Canton, OH. The message ws a CMD message and also activated the audible signal. The audible signal designated as "BEL" in the line "QUCHIAKUA-1-BL>UA 93".
DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111332/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CAK
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
HIGH SECURITY ALERT. SECURE COCKPIT
CHIDD ED BALL1NGER
;09111333 100575 0610
Messages #11 and #12 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Cleveland, OH. These messages also activated the audible signal in the aircraft.
DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111340/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- MISSING
CHIDD ED BALLINGER
;09111341 108575 0638
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
So the answer tour question is: yes. This also applies to United Airlines.
Just let me remind you one more time, however, that the PDF with the list of UAL ACARS released through FOIA does not contain the complete logs of the available ACARS. Unfortunately this is just the version coming from Ballinger's desk. This is why you can't see some important snippets of code such as "QUCHIAKUA-1-BL>UA 93" referred by Winter.
Wow, thanks very much Sergio!
@Rob
What also makes that message allegedly sent by "gman" non-conclusive is that he had asked ground control "can you save me a copy of this message"..so maybe it's a separate printer copy of the original?
Either way, it's irrelevant given the last few points raised. The ACARS messages that we know of show no "delay" as he claims and I see this as a distraction by GLs to shimmy around the fact that UA175 is officially on record as being within an area 317 miles from New York (within a 70 mile radius) at the time of the impact. And that Ballinger is quoted as per the FBI notes in the PDF as sending a warning to the pilots to beware of cockpit intrusion at 09:23am. The same as the message in question.
Edit:typo
@Rob
What also makes that message allegedly sent by "gman" non-conclusive is that he had asked ground control "can you save me a copy of this message"..so maybe it's a separate printer copy of the original?
Either way, it's irrelevant given the last few points raised. The ACARS messages that we know of show no "delay" as he claims and I see this as a distraction by GLs to shimmy around the fact that UA175 is officially on record as being within an area 317 miles from New York (within a 70 mile radius) at the time of the impact. And that Ballinger is quoted as per the FBI notes in the PDF as sending a warning to the pilots to beware of cockpit intrusion at 09:23am. The same as the message in question.
Edit:typo
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 03:58 AM)
booNy should take the advice of his own signature....lol
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams
booNy = irony
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams
booNy = irony
I'm sure you're right to some extent. On the other hand, of all the people at Unexplained Mysteries (they just got to 100,000 users), he and Czero seem to have learned the most concerning ACARS on the side of the people who still lean towards the official story. So for this reason and for the fact that he's helped keep the debate alive, I think that in a very real way, he's contributed to uncovering the truth on this matter.
Here's some background info on Ballinger. The source is the WSJ article I linked above. No shocking news, but interesting anyway, considering his outstanding status as a witness. In later interviews, Ballinger came out with his name.
At about 8:30, air-traffic controllers and United lost contact with United Flight 93, a 757 bound from Newark to San Francisco. The dispatcher who had handled Flight 175 had been sending messages to all 13 of his assigned flights that were airborne, instructing them to land at the nearest United station. One didn't answer: Flight 93.
The dispatcher, a 42-year veteran of United still so shaken by the tragedy he asked that his name not be used, kept firing off messages, but to no effect.
The United dispatcher who handled both Flight 175 and Flight 93 stayed at his post on Sept. 11 and helped the remaining planes under his watch land.
And then?
"I went home and got drunk," he says.
It's been touch and go since.
He took three days off and availed himself of a company counselor. When the counselor said, " 'It's OK to cry,' I broke down." The dispatcher says he won't watch TV anymore. And his wife had a nightmare in which she was seated on an airplane, her wrists bound as hijackers walked down the aisle slashing throats.
Word quickly spread through the company that he was the man who handled the doomed United flights.
"Something inside me died," the man, weeping again, said.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 12:27 AM)
Good point... and after thinking about this a bit more, I think gman himself doesn't really know (or is confused) regarding his own timestamps.
Now that I am through watching my Giants lose (although it was an excellent game), I took some time to see what our friend "gman" has offered as a follow-up to his ACARS format interpretation. As I suspected above, he doesn't have a clue...
"After reading PB [ProudBird/weedwhacker] post I see that I am also saying something different from him, he says that the time on the bottom is when ARINC receives the message and I am saying that it's when it prints out. Quite honestly I'm not sure which one is correct, both sound feasable[sic] and I don't know how to find out which one is right." - gman1972 at ATS
As usual, it's the blind leading the blind at ATS.
Here's a clue to find out 'which one is right', read a statement from United Airlines Dispatcher Ed Ballinger who has been working UAL Dispatch for decades....
"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. "
Here's my next prediction. "gman1972" is not a licensed Dispatcher. He is a data entry clerk told by Dispatcher to send an ACARS. Someone here who has access to ATS might want to ask "gman" if he is a licensed Dispatcher. And if so, is he willing to place his name to his claims as did Mr Ballinger.
But wait, there's more....
gman just posted this...
Not only does "gman" not understand that individual airlines can tailor their format to their needs, but apparently he does not know that there are differences between SITA and ARINC.
For the layman, gman's statements regarding ACARS format is like saying dealing with Verizon is identical to dealing with Sprint or AT&T.
But it's good to see Proudbird/weedwhacker has conceded/retracted his speculation that he was once so sure about (read: attempting to confuse ATS members)... now all he needs to do is learn the real ACARS network in the USA. (.. and learn how to spell "Jeppesen"...lol)
gman just posted this...
Not only does "gman" not understand that individual airlines can tailor their format to their needs, but apparently he does not know that there are differences between SITA and ARINC.
For the layman, gman's statements regarding ACARS format is like saying dealing with Verizon is identical to dealing with Sprint or AT&T.
But it's good to see Proudbird/weedwhacker has conceded/retracted his speculation that he was once so sure about (read: attempting to confuse ATS members)... now all he needs to do is learn the real ACARS network in the USA. (.. and learn how to spell "Jeppesen"...lol)
A few questions came up!
1. Is the ACARS a Telex System and does it print out its message right away without manual input BOTH at ground and Air!!?
2. In the "gman" print link at the Bottom there are two lines
saying both the same: "12031625/12031625" could this be equivalent to "recieved/printed"?
3. Is there a printer within the Airplane or do they recieve the message just digitaly?
4. If there is no printer and the second timestamp just means "printed at ground" how could
the ground personal ever know that the plane has recieved the message?
5. In the Article you describe that there are the tracking options A&B
I recieved this link ( click ) and at the bottom its stated:
I am from German so I want to 100% sure if i get it right. It only means that the curent position of the aircraft can be plotted on a map!?
This is not proof that the route of a plane is fed to the ACARS system BEFORE take off to choose the best "Antenas" along the way?!
cheers
1. Is the ACARS a Telex System and does it print out its message right away without manual input BOTH at ground and Air!!?
2. In the "gman" print link at the Bottom there are two lines
saying both the same: "12031625/12031625" could this be equivalent to "recieved/printed"?
3. Is there a printer within the Airplane or do they recieve the message just digitaly?
4. If there is no printer and the second timestamp just means "printed at ground" how could
the ground personal ever know that the plane has recieved the message?
5. In the Article you describe that there are the tracking options A&B
I recieved this link ( click ) and at the bottom its stated:
QUOTE
The most interesting feature of ACARS to me are the route-plotting options. When an aircraft sends a position report (which contains their current position, altitude, the series of waypoints their route will take them through, and the time they will reach various points along that route), the software plots the co-ordinates onto a map. It's quite easy to have several hundred aircraft within VHF range plotted on the map at any given time.
I am from German so I want to 100% sure if i get it right. It only means that the curent position of the aircraft can be plotted on a map!?
This is not proof that the route of a plane is fed to the ACARS system BEFORE take off to choose the best "Antenas" along the way?!
cheers
QUOTE (mvb @ Dec 4 2011, 11:11 PM)
A few questions came up!
1. Is the ACARS a Telex System and does it print out its message right away without manual input BOTH at ground and Air!!?
1. Is the ACARS a Telex System and does it print out its message right away without manual input BOTH at ground and Air!!?
Google "ACARS Telex".
QUOTE
2. In the "gman" print link at the Bottom there are two lines
saying both the same: "12031625/12031625" could this be equivalent to "recieved/printed"?
saying both the same: "12031625/12031625" could this be equivalent to "recieved/printed"?
Can you show me where the side/by-side time stamps are located on the UAL ACARS? Have you read my posts above?
QUOTE
3. Is there a printer within the Airplane or do they recieve the message just digitaly?
Good question as I do not think even "gman" knows the answer and only thinks a printer can be located in an office....
But... here is reality... Click
QUOTE
4. If there is no printer and the second timestamp just means "printed at ground" how could
the ground personal ever know that the plane has recieved the message?
the ground personal ever know that the plane has recieved the message?
See link above.
QUOTE
5. In the Article you describe that there are the tracking options A&B
I recieved this link ( click ) and at the bottom its stated:
I recieved this link ( click ) and at the bottom its stated:
Now read our article.. specifically footnote 5 as it pertains to ARINC Flight Tracking Protocol.
How did the RADES data overlays work out for you? Were you able to find them in the article?
QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 4 2011, 08:18 AM)
I'm sure you're right to some extent. On the other hand, of all the people at Unexplained Mysteries (they just got to 100,000 users), he and Czero seem to have learned the most concerning ACARS on the side of the people who still lean towards the official story.
And yet they fail to call an ARINC Expert, instead they elect to remain anonymous attempting to find documentation to support their "hypothesis".
Clearly they both think "hypothesis" justifies this?
Unlike UM, we don't ban when people post reality, nor attempt to sweep reality under the rug, as was done at UM of one of our representatives (yes Scott you were right, WalkyrieWings is a Core member of P4T). Most of the people here are adults and can understand children are being killed based on "hypothesis" (yet refuse to accept "hypothesis" as justification). You may want to tell booNy and Cz to read our mission statement atop our home page which has been there since 2006.
Clearly booNy and Cz feel that "hypothesis" justifies all that has happened as a result of the events that took place on 9/11? If not, why are they offering hypothesis to explain their actions?
QUOTE
So for this reason and for the fact that he's helped keep the debate alive, I think that in a very real way, he's contributed to uncovering the truth on this matter.
All they have done was provide source documents which they thought supported their "hypothesis", but in reality corroborated what our experts have said since day 1.
Since the cat is half way out the bag... we played Cz and booN to do the legwork finding the sources via the net, as we knew they didn't have the expertise to interpret the information, instead we knew they would interpret the documents based on their confirmation bias and have nothing but speculation to offer. They did an excellent job gathering document to support real and verified experts.
This is one of the reasons Cz and booN will never come here, nor amount to anything on this topic. But, we will continue to use them...
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 02:06 AM)
And yet they fail to call an ARINC Expert, instead they elect to remain anonymous attempting to find documentation to support their "hypothesis".
From my experience, you're not actually supposed to call ARINC experts, atleast not ones that are on the job. That doesn't mean that they won't talk to you sometimes (as in the case with the SFO expert), but in my second call, they told me that I should send an email instead. So I did. booN has done this as well. I haven't received a response yet and as far as I know, neither has booN.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 02:06 AM)
Clearly they both think "hypothesis" justifies this?
No, they don't. They just don't think that your evidence is that strong. I think they just can't properly interpret the data they already have, which you have told them more then once. I'm trying to explain things to them as best I can. This is difficult for me, because I have yet to fully comprehend some facets of ACARS myself, but together, I think we're learning.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 02:06 AM)
Unlike UM, we don't ban when people post reality, nor attempt to sweep reality under the rug, as was done at UM of one of our representatives (yes Scott you were right, WalkyrieWings is a Core member of P4T).
Woot :-)! Nice to get guesses right. Anyway, I haven't seen any real indication that that's what they're really trying to do. It's just that.. once, I had more or less cornered an official story supporter concerning World Trade Center 7. He was already a little shaky concerning the official story on that building, but he tried anyway. At one point, I just said that I was embarassed for him; even he had a hard time swallowing his own arguments. It was at that point, like a cornered animal, that I heard him say what may have been the most truthful thing I've ever heard said from an official story supporter. He said something like 'Imagine that your own mother was accused of murder. That's what this sounds like'. And suddenly, it all clicked into place. The ridiculous evasions, the pitiful defenses, all of it. And I truly felt sorry for him, and all the people who have can't bear the possibility that an element of the government was truly complicit in all of this. And I also realized how I had got him to confess such a truth. I had been gentle with him, gentle enough for him to say something which, if you think about it, put him in a very vulnerable place.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 02:06 AM)
Most of the people here are adults and can understand children are being killed based on "hypothesis" (yet refuse to accept "hypothesis" as justification). You may want to tell booNy and Cz to read our mission statement atop our home page which has been there since 2006.
Yes, I know, "We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time." But would you agree that once you start down the rabbit hole, it's almost impossible to go back? I have heard of -very- few cases in forums where people who start questioning the official story can come away thinking that the government wasn't complicit in what happened. At present, I know of one such case. The really does come up with some novel theories to explain things, but she is truly the exception to the rule. The rest are either on one side or the other. It reminds me of a guy who generally supported the official story who admitted that he wasn't sure what happened in the JFK assassination. An official story supporter scoffed at his lack of faith and he backed off nervously, not wanting to lose his place on the official story side of things.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 02:06 AM)
Clearly booNy and Cz feel that "hypothesis" justifies all that has happened as a result of the events that took place on 9/11?
I haven't seen any evidence for that.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 02:06 AM)
If not, why are they offering hypothesis to explain their actions?
It's one thing to question the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's another to question whether the official story concerning 9/11 was true. Because while one is far away, the other is at your doorstep.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 02:06 AM)
All they have done was provide source documents which they thought supported their "hypothesis", but in reality corroborated what our experts have said since day 1.
Yes, but they don't yet understand this.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 02:06 AM)
Since the cat is half way out the bag... we played Cz and booN to do the legwork finding the sources via the net, as we knew they didn't have the expertise to interpret the information, instead we knew they would interpret the documents based on their confirmation bias and have nothing but speculation to offer. They did an excellent job gathering document to support real and verified experts.
This is one of the reasons Cz and booN will never come here, nor amount to anything on this topic. But, we will continue to use them...
This is one of the reasons Cz and booN will never come here, nor amount to anything on this topic. But, we will continue to use them...
Czero was.. let's just say he was very upset with that comment you made. I didn't quote it, he came over here and saw it. Now he says he refuses to participate in the discussion anymore. I'm going to try to do some damage control. I think I'll tell him a line from "The Sirens of Titan". Near the ending of the book, a woman is furious that she was used by some intergalactic space aliens for their purpose. Her husband tells her something like, 'that's not so bad. The worst thing is being useless'. I think you'll agree that of all the official story supporters in UM, he was the one who got closest to truly understanding ACARS. He really worked hard to get to that point. I don't want to lose him.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 4 2011, 02:47 AM)
Conversely, Dennis is an ACARS expert, not a Dispatcher, I wouldn't expect him to know exactly what the time stamps mean at United Airlines when the messages can be tailored to the needs of United. But Dennis certainly knows how they are routed, and as he has stated from the beginning corroborated by source documents, the messages would not be routed through MDT and PIT if the aircraft were in NY, regardless if they are received or not.
Before Czero went into a funk concerning what I mentioned previously, he asked me if you could provide these source documents. I'd like to see them myself as well.
QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 5 2011, 06:34 PM)
Yes, I know, "We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time."
I was referring to....
"We do not accept the 9/11 Commission Report and/or "hypothesis" as a satisfactory explanation for the sacrifice every American has made and continues to make -- some more than others. "
It's been there for 5 years on the top of our home page.
QUOTE
He said something like 'Imagine that your own mother was accused of murder. That's what this sounds like'.
Yes, that is textbook Cognitive Dissonance. Classic denial. Many who spend their days and nights arguing with people who they think are nuts for questioning the govt story regarding 911, suffer from this....
QUOTE
Czero was.. let's just say he was very upset with that comment you made.
Boo hoo... cry me a river... if he contacted an ARINC Expert as suggested since day 1, we wouldn't have had him jumping through hoops to find source documents which we knew would corroborate the claims of our expert. The documents are listed in the footnotes of our Article, Cat A and B flight tracking specifically. Cz was in denial since day 1 from the time he didn't think messages were sent automatically, till today.... He has had a stick up his ass since he was schooled on Equivalent airspeed months ago.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 07:06 PM)
QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 5 2011, 06:34 PM)
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 02:06 AM)
Most of the people here are adults and can understand children are being killed based on "hypothesis" (yet refuse to accept "hypothesis" as justification). You may want to tell booNy and Cz to read our mission statement atop our home page which has been there since 2006.
Yes, I know, "We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time."
I was referring to....
"We do not accept the 9/11 Commission Report and/or "hypothesis" as a satisfactory explanation for the sacrifice every American has made and continues to make -- some more than others. "
It's been there for 5 years on the top of our home page.
Well, he's read this message already, so I imagine he's read that part of it.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 07:06 PM)
Yes, that is textbook Cognitive Dissonance. Classic denial. Many who spend their days and nights arguing with people who they think are nuts for questioning the govt story regarding 911, suffer from this....
He seems better than most regarding this. He's never called anyone I know nuts anyway...
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 07:06 PM)
Boo hoo... cry me a river... if he contacted an ARINC Expert as suggested since day 1, we wouldn't have had him jumping through hoops to find source documents which we knew would corroborate the claims of our expert.
I'm not sure that ARINC representatives would have been so helpful as to show him the location of documents. And it seems that the woman that I spoke to in SFO was unusually helpful; the second person I spoke to simply said that their office wasn't meant to handle inquiries from the public and directed me to email them (I'm still waiting on that reply). Then there's skyeagle. Perhaps he didn't get an ACARS expert, but he did try.. and whoever he got seemed to confirm whatever he thought.. he even said that -you- should call ARINC. I think that, ultimately, it was a good thing that he got those source documents. No one needs to call ARINC for them and hope they'll get a receptive ARINC representative, they can just read them direct.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 07:06 PM)
The documents are listed in the footnotes of our Article, Cat A and B flight tracking specifically.
Yep. I quoted that section in the Global Link issue over at UM.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 07:06 PM)
Cz was in denial since day 1 from the time he didn't think messages were sent automatically, till today.... He has had a stick up his ass since he was schooled on Equivalent airspeed months ago.
Cz responded to this and asked me to quote him or link his response to this point. I remember you saying you didn't want any links to that forum on your board, so I've sent you the link in a PM.
QUOTE
he even said that -you- should call ARINC.
Who says I haven't?
Unlike everyone else, we've quoted an ACARS/FDR/Radar Expert, and used his real name, while corroborating his statements with documents from ARINC.
As usual, we have real and verified experts backed with documents, those who make excuse for the govt story hide behind a fake name offering opinion and speculation.
QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 6 2011, 02:19 AM)
Cz responded to this and asked me to quote him or link his response to this point. I remember you saying you didn't want any links to that forum on your board, so I've sent you the link in a PM.
lol.... It's ok to post a link every so often when you find something interesting which needs to be sourced Scott, just dont spam the board. Put the questions in your own words if you truly have a question yourself based on something which may have been raised on another board. Extra-forum conversations with you as a go-between is for kids. If Cz wants to discuss this issues, invite him on over. For someone who claims to ignore us, he sure spends a lot of time reading our words and responding.
I didnt bother to read his post. Tell him he is more than welcome to come here.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2011, 07:12 AM)
Who says I haven't?
Unlike everyone else, we've quoted an ACARS/FDR/Radar Expert, and used his real name, while corroborating his statements with documents from ARINC.
As usual, we have real and verified experts backed with documents, those who make excuse for the govt story hide behind a fake name offering opinion and speculation.
Unlike everyone else, we've quoted an ACARS/FDR/Radar Expert, and used his real name, while corroborating his statements with documents from ARINC.
As usual, we have real and verified experts backed with documents, those who make excuse for the govt story hide behind a fake name offering opinion and speculation.
I know, I'm just saying that to me, calling ARINC is a bit 'for kids', if you will. I'd rather talk to experts that -know- the implications and are willing to admit them. Like you guys :-p. That being said, the email I sent ARINC has now gotten to a second stage; someone emailed customer service and me, asking if they could answer my question (bureaucracy, gotta love it ;-p).
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2011, 07:12 AM)
lol.... It's ok to post a link every so often when you find something interesting which needs to be sourced Scott, just dont spam the board.
Alright.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2011, 07:12 AM)
Put the questions in your own words if you truly have a question yourself based on something which may have been raised on another board.
Will do.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2011, 07:12 AM)
Extra-forum conversations with you as a go-between is for kids. If Cz wants to discuss this issues, invite him on over.
I did a while back, as you'd mentioned he and booN were invited earlier. A mod didn't like it, said it was "recruiting", but she didn't delete the post. I tried to explain that I wasn't the one who had invited them, and considering the subject at hand, it seemed appropriate, but then Saru (head admin) wrote a post reinforcing her message. C'est la vie. Anyway, I don't think Czero will come over any time soon, considering what he's said about you. That being said, I don't think it matters that much; online, everything is just a click away; and I think the fact that your arguments are being heard in forums other then your own certainly doesn't hurt.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2011, 07:12 AM)
For someone who claims to ignore us, he sure spends a lot of time reading our words and responding.
I don't think he did initially, but I keep on referring to you guys, as does booN (he's the one who noticed that your article was going viral), so it appears he finally bit the bullet and came over to read some stuff.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2011, 07:12 AM)
I didnt bother to read his post.
Well, that's certainly your choice to make.
QUOTE (woody @ Dec 4 2011, 11:38 AM)
Here's some background info on Ballinger. The source is the WSJ article I linked above. No shocking news, but interesting anyway, considering his outstanding status as a witness. In later interviews, Ballinger came out with his name.
At about 8:30, air-traffic controllers and United lost contact with United Flight 93, a 757 bound from Newark to San Francisco. The dispatcher who had handled Flight 175 had been sending messages to all 13 of his assigned flights that were airborne, instructing them to land at the nearest United station. One didn't answer: Flight 93.
The dispatcher, a 42-year veteran of United still so shaken by the tragedy he asked that his name not be used, kept firing off messages, but to no effect.
The United dispatcher who handled both Flight 175 and Flight 93 stayed at his post on Sept. 11 and helped the remaining planes under his watch land.
And then?
"I went home and got drunk," he says.
It's been touch and go since.
He took three days off and availed himself of a company counselor. When the counselor said, " 'It's OK to cry,' I broke down." The dispatcher says he won't watch TV anymore. And his wife had a nightmare in which she was seated on an airplane, her wrists bound as hijackers walked down the aisle slashing throats.
Word quickly spread through the company that he was the man who handled the doomed United flights.
"Something inside me died," the man, weeping again, said.
At about 8:30, air-traffic controllers and United lost contact with United Flight 93, a 757 bound from Newark to San Francisco. The dispatcher who had handled Flight 175 had been sending messages to all 13 of his assigned flights that were airborne, instructing them to land at the nearest United station. One didn't answer: Flight 93.
The dispatcher, a 42-year veteran of United still so shaken by the tragedy he asked that his name not be used, kept firing off messages, but to no effect.
The United dispatcher who handled both Flight 175 and Flight 93 stayed at his post on Sept. 11 and helped the remaining planes under his watch land.
And then?
"I went home and got drunk," he says.
It's been touch and go since.
He took three days off and availed himself of a company counselor. When the counselor said, " 'It's OK to cry,' I broke down." The dispatcher says he won't watch TV anymore. And his wife had a nightmare in which she was seated on an airplane, her wrists bound as hijackers walked down the aisle slashing throats.
Word quickly spread through the company that he was the man who handled the doomed United flights.
"Something inside me died," the man, weeping again, said.
Very interesting article Woody. Only one thing; you say that you linked to this article "above".. but I'm not sure where this "above" is. Could you simply link to it again?
QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 6 2011, 07:58 AM)
I don't think Czero will come over any time soon, considering what he's said about you.
lol... i get attacked, misquoted, claims that we have never made pinned to us, libeled and slandered daily from those who are either too afraid to confront us/me directly, or too insecure about their own claims.
I'm used to it, I have thick skin, it comes with the territory. See my signature for the appropriate quote.
Czero is more than welcome to email me as well if he doesn't want to register here.
Now let's please stick to topic. This gossip between forums is for Facebook drama. If you have questions with regards to our article which have been brought up by "duhbunkers", feel free to ask and we will respond.
So far, the closest attempt to a debunk (albeit, far reaching) has come from someone who claims to work with ACARS, unfortunately, it is not the same format, airline or Datalink Service Provider. To top it off, the guy admits he isn't an expert, and refuses to place his name to his claims.
next....
QUOTE (scott75 @ Dec 6 2011, 01:10 PM)
Very interesting article Woody. Only one thing; you say that you linked to this article "above".. but I'm not sure where this "above" is. Could you simply link to it again?
Here you go....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/549497/posts
Does anybody know what these numbers mean 12031625/12031625? Does anybody know whether this means it was sent or received
by the plane in question?
And also just out of curiosity i wonder what the ACARS messages for the other three aircraft would say? Somebody did try taking the FBI
to court and lost unfortunatly, that somebody who goes by the name Aiden Monoghan of the much hated 911blogger group even though
they are a bunch of trouble making fools, atleast they have a few useful idiots, even though we dont really like them we can still use the
information gained by them through FOIA, i dont know Rob doesnt like them and i understand why, and i dont agree with what they have
done, however they still do post some useful information, they have posted information which has contained a few small nuggets, but
however putting them aside and forgetting about them, if Mr Aiden Monoghan had of one the FOIA battle in court we would have the
cockpit voice recorder from united 93 and all the ACARS messages from all the planes that where used on 911 aswell as a few other
things, but it seems as though the FBI has something to hide and is very reluctant in handing over the goods unfortunatly, they are
nothing but a pack of bastards dogs, and want to prevent people from finding out the truth about what really happened on 911.
Keep up the great work Rob, hopefully sooner or later the dam will break.
by the plane in question?
And also just out of curiosity i wonder what the ACARS messages for the other three aircraft would say? Somebody did try taking the FBI
to court and lost unfortunatly, that somebody who goes by the name Aiden Monoghan of the much hated 911blogger group even though
they are a bunch of trouble making fools, atleast they have a few useful idiots, even though we dont really like them we can still use the
information gained by them through FOIA, i dont know Rob doesnt like them and i understand why, and i dont agree with what they have
done, however they still do post some useful information, they have posted information which has contained a few small nuggets, but
however putting them aside and forgetting about them, if Mr Aiden Monoghan had of one the FOIA battle in court we would have the
cockpit voice recorder from united 93 and all the ACARS messages from all the planes that where used on 911 aswell as a few other
things, but it seems as though the FBI has something to hide and is very reluctant in handing over the goods unfortunatly, they are
nothing but a pack of bastards dogs, and want to prevent people from finding out the truth about what really happened on 911.
Keep up the great work Rob, hopefully sooner or later the dam will break.
QUOTE (9/11 Justice Now @ Dec 6 2011, 10:23 AM)
Does anybody know what these numbers mean 12031625/12031625? Does anybody know whether this means it was sent or received
by the plane in question?
by the plane in question?
Those numbers nor the format of those numbers, are not in any of the ACARS messages provided by United Airlines. Those numbers and format were provided on some forum by some anonymous guy who allegedly works for an airline in Europe, using a different service provider other than ARINC, speculating that "printer" means the printer in his office.
In other words.... those numbers mean absolutely nothing in relation to the UAL ACARS. See our article for proper interpretation of the ACARS messages used by United Airlines based on statements made by United Airlines Dispatchers.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRM...FTER-CRASH.html
QUOTE
And also just out of curiosity i wonder what the ACARS messages for the other three aircraft would say?
Keep your pants on.. it's coming...
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2011, 12:28 PM)
Keep your pants on.. it's coming...
And now it is here....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/MORE-ACARS-CONFIRMATION.html
Spread it everywhere.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2011, 03:17 PM)
And now it is here....
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/MORE-ACARS-CONFIRMATION.html
Spread it everywhere.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/MORE-ACARS-CONFIRMATION.html
Spread it everywhere.
Good stuff :-). Posted it at UM (Unexplained Mysteries). bubs (a member of UM) was recently saying that UA 93 was another case where the ACARS messages make it clear that it didn't crash where the official story says it did; nice to have a PFT article to back him up.
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 7 2011, 03:28 AM)
Those numbers nor the format of those numbers, are not in any of the ACARS messages provided by United Airlines. Those numbers and format were provided on some forum by some anonymous guy who allegedly works for an airline in Europe, using a different service provider other than ARINC, speculating that "printer" means the printer in his office.
In other words.... those numbers mean absolutely nothing in relation to the UAL ACARS. See our article for proper interpretation of the ACARS messages used by United Airlines based on statements made by United Airlines Dispatchers.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRM...FTER-CRASH.html
Keep your pants on.. it's coming...
In other words.... those numbers mean absolutely nothing in relation to the UAL ACARS. See our article for proper interpretation of the ACARS messages used by United Airlines based on statements made by United Airlines Dispatchers.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRM...FTER-CRASH.html
Keep your pants on.. it's coming...
Thanks for clearing this up Rob its too easy to become confused, i would really like to know what the ACARS says for A.A flight 11 & 77 this is why
is was hoping useful idiot Aiden Monoghan from 911blogger.com would win the lawsuit against the FBI so we could use the information he gets to
help uncover the truth. I do not support them or their idiotic rantings and their attacks on this organisation which are completely out of order.
Great work as always Rob.
THIS LOOKS LIKE IT IS THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR THE OCT AND EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS IT, WELL DONE ROB KNOW WE KNOW
THAT THEY DID IT AND CAN BACK UP THE CLAIM WITH HARD EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID IT.
I have been waiting for this moment to come for a very long long time and i am so relieved it is here but the battle has not quiet been won yet.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.