3292 replies to this topic

[Czero 101]

Babe Ruth, on 05 December 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

There are 2 types of communications performed by the ACARS system, just as with the cellphone system.

The first is the ongoing and basically silent communication between the computers at the ground station and the computer on the airborne (mobile) units.

The second is the communications between the humans at dispatch (ground stations) and the humans in the cockpit.

Both/either is rather an ambiguous choice, but let's go with it.

If  you mean by "uplink" the exchange of messages between the humans, then your statement regarding no commo after the time of the alleged crash is correct.

If we also count the communications between the 2 sets of computers, then the records show that the unit identified as Flight 93 was still "in the loop" 30 minutes later, somewhere in Illinois.

It was that distinction that was revealed by the work done by Stutts

and the further examination done by Woody.

Please BR... learn how the ACARS system worked IN 2001... You are again making it extremely obvious that you have not researched this beyond whatever PFT911 has spoon-fed you and you are just embarrassing yourself.

I have read through the actual protocols specific to what was in place in 2001 (ARINC 618) and I can tell you beyond any doubt that there was no "ongoing and basically silent communication" as you claim.

I know its a hard thing for you to do, but please, stop making yourself look like an even more willfully ignorant fool "Truther" than you already have.






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 06 December 2012 - 01:59 AM.

[RaptorBites]

Czero 101, on 06 December 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Please BR... learn how the ACARS system worked IN 2001... You are again making it extremely obvious that you have not researched this beyond whatever PFT911 has spoon-fed you and you are just embarrassing yourself.

I have read through the actual protocols specific to what was in place in 2001 (ARINC 618) and I can tell you beyond any doubt that there was no "ongoing and basically silent communication" as you claim.

I know its a hard thing for you to do, but please, stop making yourself look like an even more willfully ignorant fool "Truther" than you already have.






Cz

Watch it CZ, he will come back with some statement regarding Cimino and how he and those at PF911T have more experience in aviation and that trumps actual understanding of ARINC documentation.

[Kludge808]

RaptorBites, on 05 December 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

Welcome back Kludge.

Glad to have you back!

Kinda sorta back although I do need to hit 1000 posts somehow and that won't happen this millennium at my present rate.  I do apologize for missing you in the "gang's all here" rundown.  There are probably more I've missed but it's been a day or two and I've been busy with several rather intense projects.  Anyway, I read back to page 185 or so which was all the further I needed to go to "catch up" on the current status.  I have to admit it was entertaining.  Pathetic on "certain people's" parts but entertaining none the less.  The comment about "grammar and spelling" gave me a huge grin, mostly because anyone who has to play that card has nothing else.

Let's see ... the Waldo project needs motors so I'm looking for as many old computer drives - any type, any size - to strip down for the motors and any other handy hardware.  Webcams and old/broken camcorders - the latter for an assortment of parts - are also on the list.

Noelle's hanging in - still the fighter with occasional little victories in a war we both know she's going to lose.  Her Christmas present arrived already and I told her to go ahead and open it.  Happy tears!  God, I love when that happens.  They beat the ones from pain etc my a long shot.

The freakin' clutch slave cylinder is installed in the truck once I got a way to mix metric & fractional inch fittings.  Part of the electrical system went wacky for a while but I've got that under control now too.  I may lose the sides & front of the bed then lay down a wooden deck over the original deck rather than try to fix the original coachwork.  That'll just leave the cab which doesn't need half what the bed does.

So now, CTists & believers, entertain me with your nonsense and ignorance.

[Kludge808]

Czero 101, on 06 December 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Please BR... learn how the ACARS system worked IN 2001... You are again making it extremely obvious that you have not researched this beyond whatever PFT911 has spoon-fed you and you are just embarrassing yourself.

This is in keeping with his passing himself off as a pilot and overall aviation genius.  Everything - everything - he knows about aviation came from the truther sites.  This has been obvious almost from the outset.

Quote

I know its a hard thing for you to do, but please, stop making yourself look like an even more willfully ignorant fool "Truther" than you already have.

The first version was accurate already.  But then, the two terms are synonymous.

[Kludge808]

RaptorBites, on 06 December 2012 - 04:53 AM, said:

Watch it CZ, he will come back with some statement regarding Cimino and how he and those at PF911T have more experience in aviation and that trumps actual understanding of ARINC documentation.

Ah, appeal to [faulty ... to keep it polite] authority.  This is, at best, the closest he's ever come to presenting evidence anywhere in this or any other thread.  Unfortunately it fall short of being anything close.  What a shame he can't see that himself.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 05 December 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

BR,

Can you tell me where the intended flight path of flight UA 93 was supposed to be if *hypothetically* the plane did not meet its demise in Shanksville?

I saw the map of the intended flight path and it shows UA 93 passing through Illinois.

Now given the situation presented by Q24, regarding the ACARS communication, if the system was still trying to get in contact with UA 93 even after the crash, it would try to continue contacting the flight based on its intended path.

Wouldn't 30 minutes put flight 93 around Illinois (its intended flight path)?

Makes me wonder where your entire argument is going at this point.

*removed*

We've been through this before Raptor, but I discovered long ago that repetition is sometimes necessary for everybody to "get it."

I don't know where 93 ended up.  I'm not 100% certain that it even left Newark.  I know that at least one security checkpoint at EWR was unmanned that morning, and I know it from a Continental pilot who strolled through and wondered why the checkpoint was unmanned.

If a certain professional athlete is right, can't think of his name or sport, he observed that flight being boarded from the ramp instead of the jetway, an unusual event even in 2001.  That, as he boarded his team's charter flight to wherever they were going.  On a subsequent flight the flight attendant told them that the unusual ramp boarding had been the fateful 93.

All I really know Raptor, for the umpteenth time, is that there was no wrecked Boeing in or near that field at Shanksville.  I know that from the overhead videos and audio commentary on that day, and from the comments made to TV news people by Wally Miller and his gang of first responders.

Where it went I do not know.  Now, given the information Woody has found, it appears it was still flying somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes later.  There is no evidence as to where it landed, but it was still airborne and communicating electronically with ARINC after the time of the supposed crash.

[Babe Ruth]

Czero 101, on 06 December 2012 - 01:40 AM, said:

Please BR... learn how the ACARS system worked IN 2001... You are again making it extremely obvious that you have not researched this beyond whatever PFT911 has spoon-fed you and you are just embarrassing yourself.

I have read through the actual protocols specific to what was in place in 2001 (ARINC 618) and I can tell you beyond any doubt that there was no "ongoing and basically silent communication" as you claim.

I know its a hard thing for you to do, but please, stop making yourself look like an even more willfully ignorant fool "Truther" than you already have.






Cz

Well, I greatly appreciate your heartfelt concern Cz, but I'm a big boy now.

And since you are so familiar with ARINC 618, I'm sure you've read several of the appendices there.  But if you read real closely, you will discover that parts of it work against the official story, as far as whether 93 was "in the loop" or not after its supposed crash in Shanksville.

Indeed, the deposition of Winter and Knerr reflect that they were very familiar with 618 and its various protocols.

It's such a hot topic, and such a smoking gun, that it seems some Italian researchers are now also into the research and analysis.  Woody Box covers it quite well, if you're interested.

The work of Warren Stutts was most helpful in that it focused the discussion in a good way.  Trouble is, close examination ends up working against the preliminary conclusion reached by Mr. Stutts.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 06 December 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

Well, I greatly appreciate your heartfelt concern Cz, but I'm a big boy now.

And since you are so familiar with ARINC 618, I'm sure you've read several of the appendices there.  But if you read real closely, you will discover that parts of it work against the official story, as far as whether 93 was "in the loop" or not after its supposed crash in Shanksville.

Indeed, the deposition of Winter and Knerr reflect that they were very familiar with 618 and its various protocols.

It's such a hot topic, and such a smoking gun, that it seems some Italian researchers are now also into the research and analysis.  Woody Box covers it quite well, if you're interested.

The work of Warren Stutts was most helpful in that it focused the discussion in a good way.  Trouble is, close examination ends up working against the preliminary conclusion reached by Mr. Stutts.

Such as the fact that Stutts himself was not able to locate the preamble where the plane identifier is on several legitimate flights?

Yes, even Stutts himself claimed that several legitimate flights also had zero'd out identifiers in their FDR.

What was your smoking gun about flight 77 again?  Oh yah, the fact that Cimino saw a zero'd out flight identifier in flight 77's FDR........

WOW

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 06 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

We've been through this before Raptor, but I discovered long ago that repetition is sometimes necessary for everybody to "get it."

Apperantly, repetition doesn't work in your case.

Babe Ruth, on 06 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

I don't know where 93 ended up.  I'm not 100% certain that it even left Newark.  I know that at least one security checkpoint at EWR was unmanned that morning, and I know it from a Continental pilot who strolled through and wondered why the checkpoint was unmanned.

As I stated previously.....speculation

Babe Ruth, on 06 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

If a certain professional athlete is right, can't think of his name or sport, he observed that flight being boarded from the ramp instead of the jetway, an unusual event even in 2001.  That, as he boarded his team's charter flight to wherever they were going.  On a subsequent flight the flight attendant told them that the unusual ramp boarding had been the fateful 93.

Speculation again.  Your points seem to suggest that all witnesses are infallible, which in the case of flight 77 witnesses that state a North of Citgo approach.

Am I to assume that even flight attendants are trained in identifying planes by sight?  It seems to me that you are piecing parts of your theories based on the rumor mill.

Babe Ruth, on 06 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

All I really know Raptor, for the umpteenth time, is that there was no wrecked Boeing in or near that field at Shanksville.  I know that from the overhead videos and audio commentary on that day, and from the comments made to TV news people by Wally Miller and his gang of first responders.

When are you going to understand or even begin to realize that Wally Miller was misquoted based on his first response of the scene?  Later on he made a public statement that his words were taken out of context.  Sky has shown you that video multiple times.  All you claim is he was coerced by the evil gubmint.  That isn't good enough BR.

Babe Ruth, on 06 December 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Where it went I do not know.  Now, given the information Woody has found, it appears it was still flying somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes later.  There is no evidence as to where it landed, but it was still airborne and communicating electronically with ARINC after the time of the supposed crash.

But.....you said flight 93 may never have left Newark........

/facepalm

[tyrant lizard]

They couldn't cover up zippergate but they managed to stage all this?

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 06 December 2012 - 05:42 PM, said:

Such as the fact that Stutts himself was not able to locate the preamble where the plane identifier is on several legitimate flights?

Yes, even Stutts himself claimed that several legitimate flights also had zero'd out identifiers in their FDR.

What was your smoking gun about flight 77 again?  Oh yah, the fact that Cimino saw a zero'd out flight identifier in flight 77's FDR........

WOW

I was not aware that Stutts had examined FDRs.  I thought his most famous work was on the ARINC material?

Which FDRs did he get to analyze?

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 06 December 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Apperantly, repetition doesn't work in your case.



As I stated previously.....speculation



Speculation again.  Your points seem to suggest that all witnesses are infallible, which in the case of flight 77 witnesses that state a North of Citgo approach.

Am I to assume that even flight attendants are trained in identifying planes by sight?  It seems to me that you are piecing parts of your theories based on the rumor mill.



When are you going to understand or even begin to realize that Wally Miller was misquoted based on his first response of the scene?  Later on he made a public statement that his words were taken out of context.  Sky has shown you that video multiple times.  All you claim is he was coerced by the evil gubmint.  That isn't good enough BR.



But.....you said flight 93 may never have left Newark........

/facepalm

I have both seen Wally Miller's statements, and read the transcript of them.  I have seen the statements on video of several of his assistants.  I have also listened to a telephone interview with him.  So please don't tell me what I know or don't know Raptor.

No, all witnesses are not infallible.  In aviation matters, they seem to be quite fallible.

It is NOT speculation that at least 1 checkpoint at EWR was unmanned that day.  It is a fact, as reported by an airline pilot who walked right through it.  Why do you guys unable to tell the difference between speculation and fact? (I think I know the answer

[Babe Ruth]

www.911woodybox.blogspot.com

So it seems that Warren Stutt has suggested that UA dispatcher Michael Winter, and his supervisor Mr. Knerr, in their deposition with the FBI, were in error.  That suggests that Mr. Stutt is more of an expert in the field of ACARS than 2 men who work in the field for a living, and who understand the ACARS protocol so well they don't even need to reference the 618 protocol in their deposition.

The information received and analyzed by Stutt suggests that 93 circled in the vicinity of Pittsburgh for about 50 minutes, and that conflicts with every other part of even the OCT.

Woody's next project is a close analysis of the Airfone data.  Should be interesting, eh?

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 06 December 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

I was not aware that Stutts had examined FDRs.  I thought his most famous work was on the ARINC material?

Which FDRs did he get to analyze?

Funny that you mention Warren Stutt.  Since it was him who released the decompressor program for the FDR data.

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf

Edited by RaptorBites, 06 December 2012 - 09:40 PM.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 06 December 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

I have both seen Wally Miller's statements, and read the transcript of them.  I have seen the statements on video of several of his assistants.  I have also listened to a telephone interview with him.  So please don't tell me what I know or don't know Raptor.

No, all witnesses are not infallible.  In aviation matters, they seem to be quite fallible.

It is NOT speculation that at least 1 checkpoint at EWR was unmanned that day.  It is a fact, as reported by an airline pilot who walked right through it.  Why do you guys unable to tell the difference between speculation and fact? (I think I know the answer

Why do you continue to mis-interpret Wally Miller's statements?

Don't even bother answering that.  We all know the reason.