Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: It Is Conclusive - 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Well After Crash
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > General > Latest News
Pages: 1, 2
rob balsamo
Remember the share and like buttons at top. Spread it everywhere.





IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH
UNITED 93 IN THE VICINITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA AND CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS AT TIME OF SHANKSVILLE ALLEGED CRASH

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) 12/06/11 - More information has surfaced which conclusively demonstrates the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, were airborne well after their alleged crashes. This article supplements our last, "ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH" in which the ACARS system is explained as well as how to determine if a message were received by the aircraft, along with how ground stations are selected through Flight Tracking Protocol based on messages routed to United 175, N612UA. We now have further evidence which places United 93, N591UA, in the vicinity of Champaign, IL, 500+ miles away from the alleged crash site in Shanksville, PA. This information is further corroborated by a (now former) United Airlines Manager of Flight Dispatch Michael J. Winter. read more...
Obwon
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 6 2011, 02:39 PM) *
Remember the share and like buttons at top. Spread it everywhere.


Great work Rob. Let me be the first to congratulate you on it.
So the "skyjacked" planes went that-a-way with the skyjackers, that
kinda defeats the story that "they did this to us". If there were
skyjackers, what would have been their point, if they flew away
from the towers? I sincerely doubt that any group of suicidal skyjackers
would fly away from the towers. And clearly they could not have
arranged for substitute planes to crash in their place.

If anyone did any planning, it could not have been skyjackers.
So if skyjackers did not plan to mount a suicide mission... Well,
then I have to assume there was no suicide mission.

Anyway good work. pilotfly.gif
onesliceshort


Wow, message 19 "activated an audible signal in the aircraft". Seven minutes after "impact".

Watch the GLs scrambling with this one!

And it's clearly indicated in that document above that when an ACARS message reaches the printer, it has also reached the aircraft.

Cigar smiley in order here Rob! cheers.gif
rob balsamo
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 6 2011, 09:55 PM) *
Wow, message 19 "activated an audible signal in the aircraft". Seven minutes after "impact".



.... and routed through a station nearly 500 miles from "impact"

I mean.. how ridiculous can the govt story get before even the most stubborn supporter of the govt story says to him/herself... "Wait a minute... this just is too absurd to protect anymore".


lol
Tamborine man
TRUTH can never be curbed nor eradicated.

It can certainly be suppressed, but never for long.

Sooner or later it will resurface again ....and again.


Excellent work Rob, and many thanks for your perseverance and determination

in spite of the persistent scorn and ridicule relentlessly heaped upon you, PFT

and CIT over the years by the 'wicked' and the 'vicious' mob.


cheers.gif
Cheers
mvb
HOLY MOLY biggrin.gif

Now thats some dark clouds coming up on the horizon!!
good work P4T!!
Obwon
I note that as this story broke yesterday, tweets hit some 23 million over some troubles Alec Baldwin (star of "30 Rock") had on an AA plane. Nice little distraction, if I must say so myself.
The media has been sticking with reporting and re-reporting it in every news cycle. So, we need to keep pushing this story relentlessly. That means we need re-write of it, how it fits into the picture and such. And don't forget to mention and link back from the comments boards of news stories, on the big and small media sites.

The tiny url for this board is unauthorized link dot com/6nc4yzg
(perhaps a moderator can fix the appearance?)

Obwon
9/11 Justice Now
QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Dec 7 2011, 12:55 PM) *


Wow, message 19 "activated an audible signal in the aircraft". Seven minutes after "impact".

Watch the GLs scrambling with this one!

And it's clearly indicated in that document above that when an ACARS message reaches the printer, it has also reached the aircraft.

Cigar smiley in order here Rob! cheers.gif


I wonder how the duh bunkers are going to spin this one? I am sure they will be turning in their graves over this one.

Lets just all wait and see how they react. Plz explain Mr Debunker how this is consistent with OCT oh please do so.

whistle.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif

richard cranium
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 5 2011, 02:27 AM) *
.... and routed through a station nearly 500 miles from "impact"

I mean.. how ridiculous can the govt story get before even the most stubborn supporter of the govt story says to him/herself... "Wait a minute... this just is too absurd to protect anymore".


lol


So true Rob. That's exactly how I feel. C'mon people in America, WAKE UP! Great job and a big thank you to you and all the people who did all the work. I've said this before and I mean it. Rob, you and the others who work so hard here to expose the real truth are super patriots to me. You are personally my true heros. Keep up the great work. Thank you again!!!!!!!

rc. ( "the lurker")

Ps. You know, every time I read something like this the same thought always comes to mind immediately. That thought is ,"why in the hell is this not front page news in every newspaper in America??". For that matter, the world. Thank you my friends. I will pass this on to everyone I know.
Pointer
QUOTE (Obwon @ Dec 7 2011, 03:18 AM) *
... So the "skyjacked" planes went that-a-way with the skyjackers, ...

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.
matth
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.


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.
amazed!
Good work on all this guys! salute.gif
ChrisPDX
OK.

I have to ask a few questions.

Cleveland Mayor said flight 93 landed in Cleveland. Was he mistaken?

What was the debris field miles from Shanksville near Indian Lake? Was that a different plane than 93 that was shot down? Or was this report false?

Also reports that AA 77 and AA 11 did not fly on that day. What up with that? Or is this report false?

If UA 93 was actually airborne, where did it land and what happened to the passengers? Or did it turn around and was shot down near Indian Lake?

I love your site, Rob and you updates that I receive.

I am just honestly more confused now with this new information. I will keep an open mind on this.

Thanks!

ChrisPDX!

Alan H.
I find all of this a bit confusing, not having the knowledge of aircraft procedures, etc. that you do. But I'm not stupid, and I would think other laymen like myself may have some confusion here, too. I'm sure if I understood better what I was seeing, I would be more excited. But this also opens a hornets nest of questions (none of which I expect you to be able to answer, I'm just saying..) like, where did the actual planes go? When you get into disappearing a bunch of people from an aircraft, I think the liklihood that such a conspiracy could take place without someone speaking up decreases exponentially...but that's always been the hardest part of an ACT for me to understand. It is easy to look at the collapses and see that these are not organic or natural..This new information is harder to understand, for me at least. But I certainly appreciate your efforts, Rob, and the rest of you at PF911Truth. Gathering contrary (to the OCT) evidence is important; maybe one day we will get a new investigation or some clue as to what actually happened.
ChrisPDX
QUOTE (Alan H. @ Dec 7 2011, 02:17 PM) *
I'm confused, Rob. Can you explain how Zulu time works? Obviously, it is not the same as military time, as 1351
(from: "eg. 111351, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1351Z or 0951am Eastern") in military time would be 1:51 P.M. I find all of this a bit confusing, not having the knowledge of aircraft procedures, etc. that you do. But I'm not stupid, and I would think other laymen like myself may have some confusion here, too. I'm sure if I understood better what I was seeing, I would be more excited. But this also opens a hornets nest of questions (none of which I expect you to be able to answer, I'm just saying..) like, where did the actual planes go? When you get into disappearing a bunch of people from an aircraft, I think the liklihood that such a conspiracy could take place without someone speaking up decreases exponentially. It is easy to look at the collapses and see that these are not organic or natural..This new information is harder to understand, for me at least.



Zulu is Greenwich Mean Time.

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/
Alan H.
QUOTE (ChrisPDX @ Dec 5 2011, 08:23 PM) *
Zulu is Greenwich Mean Time.

http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/


Thanks! I found a conversion calculator, so the time definitely checks out--not that I doubted it would.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (ChrisPDX @ Dec 7 2011, 04:21 PM) *
OK.

I have to ask a few questions.

Cleveland Mayor said flight 93 landed in Cleveland. Was he mistaken?

What was the debris field miles from Shanksville near Indian Lake? Was that a different plane than 93 that was shot down? Or was this report false?

Also reports that AA 77 and AA 11 did not fly on that day. What up with that? Or is this report false?

If UA 93 was actually airborne, where did it land and what happened to the passengers? Or did it turn around and was shot down near Indian Lake?

I love your site, Rob and you updates that I receive.

I am just honestly more confused now with this new information. I will keep an open mind on this.

Thanks!

ChrisPDX!


If we had the answer to all these questions, we wouldn't be here.

The facts are the facts, that is what we report. And the fact is that UA93 received an ACARS from CMI 7 mins after it's alleged crash, through a remote ground station nearly 500 miles away from Shanksville, according to the documents provided through FOIA.

This is impossible if UA93 crashed in Shanksville or was anywhere near Shanksville.

Here is a post I made a few years back when we discovered the FDR data from "AA77" didnt support an impact with the Pentagon, it is fitting to this discussion as well....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...t&p=9458664
ChrisPDX
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 7 2011, 03:00 PM) *
If we had the answer to all these questions, we wouldn't be here.

The facts are the facts, that is what we report. And the fact is that UA93 received an ACARS from CMI 7 mins after it's alleged crash, through a remote ground station nearly 500 miles away from Shanksville, according to the documents provided through FOIA.

This is impossible if UA93 crashed in Shanksville or was anywhere near Shanksville.

Here is a post I made a few years back when we discovered the FDR data from "AA77" didnt support an impact with the Pentagon, it is fitting to this discussion as well....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...t&p=9458664



Thanks Rob! I appreciate your work.
rob balsamo
QUOTE (ChrisPDX @ Dec 7 2011, 06:06 PM) *
Thanks Rob! I appreciate your work.


Thank you for helping to get this information out.... so we can hopefully one day get the answers to the very grave questions which arise from such alarming information and data.
ChrisPDX
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 7 2011, 03:14 PM) *
Thank you for helping to get this information out.... so we can hopefully one day get the answers to the very grave questions which arise from such alarming information and data.



No worries! I actually impress some of my pilots with the information I have learned from you.

One day on a long flight, the first officer called me into the flight deck. I sat in the jump seat. He wanted to hear more from me about the planes on 911. The Captain wasn't interested, but the FO was. At least I/we got at least one guy thinking at my airline. The FO was impressed about the facts I knew about aircraft and their speeds and limitations. All from you!

Thanks, Rob!
archerace7
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.
rob balsamo
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...
Pointer
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.
ChrisPDX
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.
Bruce Sinclair
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
Obwon
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
Bruce Sinclair
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...
rob balsamo
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.
GroundPounder
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...
Obwon
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
GroundPounder
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!
Obwon
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?
tumetuestumefaisdubien
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:
onesliceshort
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.
Maha Mantra
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 ?


Pointer
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.
rob balsamo
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.
amazed!
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.
woody
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.
lunk
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.

onesliceshort
QUOTE (Woody)
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.


Wow, hadn't noticed that Woody.

Why would ACARS choose those two sequential RGS positions for an aircraft that was allegedly moving in the opposite direction (according to RADES between 09:45 and 10:03)?



FWA is around 300 miles away at 09:51am (if not more).

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/UA93_RGS_NTSB_Overlay.jpg

According to RADES the aircraft would have been virtually on top of the PIT RGS (among many others)

It would be very interesting to see what the exact ranges of those RGSs actually are using Rob's calculator, the alleged altitudes shown in the FDR and the RADEs datapoints.

Use their own stick to beat them with, ya know?
DonM
Pointer,
I'm sure Rob will move this to another thread because it is way off topic

I agree with almost everything you said except... the "explosions" were not hot! Remember the vast amount of paper blowing around Manhattan after the buildings "vaporized". Also witnesses reported the dust cloud to be cooler than the ambient air.
Don

rob balsamo
QUOTE (DonM @ Dec 12 2011, 01:26 PM) *
Pointer,
I'm sure Rob will move this to another thread because it is way off topic

I agree with almost everything you said except... the "explosions" were not hot! Remember the vast amount of paper blowing around Manhattan after the buildings "vaporized". Also witnesses reported the dust cloud to be cooler than the ambient air.
Don



Yes, please take it to another thread.
stannrodd
Hi Rob .. brilliant stuff happening here!! I haven't been around for a while but got the email pointer and read with great interest.

I have two questions relating to the ACARS network and operational function of the printer. I have read the latest news articles but not all the links.

My first question is .. Does the printer print messages returned from the network only.
If not, my second queston is .. Does the printer print the message which was "sent" before it is actually routed to the network, as if to create a hard copy of the "sent" operations?

I have been asked to expand on this at another forum. My understanding is that the printer is sourced from the network returns only.

Great work being done here.
Cheers Stann



rob balsamo
QUOTE (stannrodd @ Dec 13 2011, 07:05 PM) *
Hi Rob .. brilliant stuff happening here!! I haven't been around for a while but got the email pointer and read with great interest.

I have two questions relating to the ACARS network and operational function of the printer. I have read the latest news articles but not all the links.

My first question is .. Does the printer print messages returned from the network only.
If not, my second queston is .. Does the printer print the message which was "sent" before it is actually routed to the network, as if to create a hard copy of the "sent" operations?

I have been asked to expand on this at another forum. My understanding is that the printer is sourced from the network returns only.

Great work being done here.
Cheers Stann


Hi Stann,

Thanks for the kind words.

The printer referred to in the article is this type of printer...



The ACARS messages we have through the FOIA are the dispatchers copy after being routed through the network.

Hope this helps.
stannrodd
QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 11 2011, 10:27 PM) *
Hi Stann,

Thanks for the kind words.

The printer referred to in the article is this type of printer...



The ACARS messages we have through the FOIA are the dispatchers copy after being routed through the network.

Hope this helps.


Excellent Rob .. Thanks for that, it is how I suspected it would be. :-))
kawika
Would there be anything in ACARS for UA93 about the alleged change of flight plans at around 9:56?

* The flight plan change: East of Pittsburgh, UA 93 requested a change of its flight plan, i.e. planned destination. "At 9:55:11 Jarrah dialed in the VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR) frequency for the VOR navigational aid at Washington Reagan National Airport, further indicating that the attack was planned for the nation's capital.." (911 Commission report, p. 457).

One minute later, the FAA approved: At 9:56 a.m., Flight 93 asked the Federal Aviation Administration to change its destination to Reagan National Airport in Washington. A minute later, the FAA approved, according to Flight Explorer, a firm that tracks such communications. (US News&World Report, 10/29/01)


Source: Flight Plans Change

I do not see any changes in the messages from EWRSFO that would indicate a DCA destination.

I do see a major gut in the messages from 13:52:00 to 14:01:57.

Another gut from 14:02:02 to 14:10:59.

See these screen shots from file named:

5 AWA 898 Printout of ARINC Messages.pdf





woody
QUOTE (kawika @ Dec 17 2011, 01:54 AM) *
Would there be anything in ACARS for UA93 about the alleged change of flight plans at around 9:56?


IMO definitely not cause the UA 93 tracked by United via ACARS was a different plane than the UA93 tracked by the FAA.

The flight plan change happened, there is enough evidence.

rob balsamo
QUOTE (kawika @ Dec 16 2011, 08:54 PM) *
Source: Flight Plans Change

I do not see any changes in the messages from EWRSFO that would indicate a DCA destination.

I do see a major gut in the messages from 13:52:00 to 14:01:57.

Another gut from 14:02:02 to 14:10:59.

See these screen shots from file named:

5 AWA 898 Printout of ARINC Messages.pdf



Yes, it is clear that file is manipulated. We know that it is not the raw data and just a compilation of ACARS for only 3 of the flights all consolidated into one file. UA175 is missing. What else is truncated? It's also interesting to note that the file appears to have been created in June 2004, 1 month prior to the Commission releasing their report. This is not the same file which Winter and Knerr used for their analysis in their interview to the FBI in Jan 2002.
kawika
When the ACARS messages resume at 14:10:59 they say DO NOT DIVERT TO DCA.

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/3634/ua93gut2.jpg

Why would Ed Ballinger be sending this message to UA93, unless he knows that there had been a change in flight plan?

It cannot be a generic warning.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.