3292 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

booNyzarC, on 24 November 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

Babe Ruth, on 24 November 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

To understand the ACARS details Sky, one need not show where 93 landed.  All one needs to do is show that for a certain time period AFTER the supposed crash at Shanksville, the aircraft carrying that flight number that day was still receiving messages from the ground stations in the ACARS system.  That is what the ACARS data shows, and what Woody Box has discovered.

It cannot have crashed if it was still communicating with the system afterwards.  Where it landed does not matter.  It would be very interesting to know where it landed, but it is irrelevant.

That would be an interesting story if it were true, but it isn't true, just like most of the things you say around here BR.  In reality Woody Box is mistaken and there is no evidence to suggest that UA93 received any transmissions after it crashed.  All evidence indicates that it didn't receive any transmissions after it crashed.

Just in case you or Woody Box decide to argue this point BR, please make note of the following spreadsheet that I put together as part of my analysis of the ACARS messages from that day.  These are the final messages sent to UA93, and please note that the last downlink from the aircraft took place at 14:01:59 Zulu (10:01:59 Eastern).



I discuss this graphic and many other things in more detail in another post from a previous thread, here, and in a general debunking of one of PfffT's articles in my blog here.  For any who are keenly interested in following all of the technical details related to this in-depth study, I suggest using the advanced search function and looking for posts by myself, Czero 101, and Warren Stutt where the keyword is simply ACARS.  You'll be reading for a while, but together we were able to clarify and debunk pretty much all of the ACARS related claims that have been put forth by Woody Box, Bubs, Balsamo, and many other PffffT followers.

The short version related specifically to the last transmissions to UA93 is that even though the ACARS system was continuing to transmit messages addressed to United 93 after it had crashed, none of them were actually received and acknowledged by the aircraft because it went down at approximately 10:03:11 AM Eastern Time.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 24 November 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

To understand the ACARS details Sky, one need not show where 93 landed.  All one needs to do is show that for a certain time period AFTER the supposed crash at Shanksville, the aircraft carrying that flight number that day was still receiving messages from the ground stations in the ACARS system.  That is what the ACARS data shows, and what Woody Box has discovered.

it cannot have crashed if it was still communicating with the system afterwards.  Where it landed does not matter.  It would be very interesting to know where it landed, but it is irrelevant.

Woody Box has the credibility of a $9 bill. Check out the rest of the story, and also remember that human remains of passengers and crew and some of their possessions of United 93 have been recovered and identified along with wreckage from United 93, not to mention that United Airlines confirmed the of United 93.  

In addition:

Quote

Seismic Observations on September 11, 2001  and Vertical Seismic Records for United Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pa.


Analysis of Seismic Records for United Airlines Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pa Figure 5 shows seismic record section of vertical-component records from four stations around the United Airlines Flight 93 crash site near Shanksville, Somerset County, Pennsylvania.


The four closest stations range in distance from 92 to 218 km (Table 1). Two minutes of vertical-component seismic records starting from estimated origin time of 14:06:05 (10:06:05 EDT) are plotted.

  http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

[skyeagle409]

booNyzarC, on 24 November 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Just in case you or Woody Box decide to argue this point BR, please make note of the following spreadsheet that I put together as part of my analysis of the ACARS messages from that day.  These are the final messages sent to UA93, and please note that the last downlink from the aircraft took place at 14:01:59 Zulu (10:01:59 Eastern).



I discuss this graphic and many other things in more detail in another post from a previous thread, here, and in a general debunking of one of PfffT's articles in my blog here.  For any who are keenly interested in following all of the technical details related to this in-depth study, I suggest using the advanced search function and looking for posts by myself, Czero 101, and Warren Stutt where the keyword is simply ACARS.  You'll be reading for a while, but together we were able to clarify and debunk pretty much all of the ACARS related claims that have been put forth by Woody Box, Bubs, Balsamo, and many other PffffT followers.

The short version related specifically to the last transmissions to UA93 is that even though the ACARS system was continuing to transmit messages addressed to United 93 after it had crashed, none of them were actually received and acknowledged by the aircraft because it went down at approximately 10:03:11 AM Eastern Time.

The folks at ARINC, have refuted 9/11 conspiracist claims on ACARS during our telephone conversations and even airline pilots that I have spoken with have refuted their claims.

I would like to add that you, Czero 101, and Warren Stutt, have done great work at demolishing their claims as well.

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 November 2012 - 09:32 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

booNyzarC, on 24 November 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

Just in case you or Woody Box decide to argue this point BR, please make note of the following spreadsheet that I put together as part of my analysis of the ACARS messages from that day.  These are the final messages sent to UA93, and please note that the last downlink from the aircraft took place at 14:01:59 Zulu (10:01:59 Eastern).



I discuss this graphic and many other things in more detail in another post from a previous thread, here, and in a general debunking of one of PfffT's articles in my blog here.  For any who are keenly interested in following all of the technical details related to this in-depth study, I suggest using the advanced search function and looking for posts by myself, Czero 101, and Warren Stutt where the keyword is simply ACARS.  You'll be reading for a while, but together we were able to clarify and debunk pretty much all of the ACARS related claims that have been put forth by Woody Box, Bubs, Balsamo, and many other PffffT followers.

The short version related specifically to the last transmissions to UA93 is that even though the ACARS system was continuing to transmit messages addressed to United 93 after it had crashed, none of them were actually received and acknowledged by the aircraft because it went down at approximately 10:03:11 AM Eastern Time.

No Boo.  Closer examination and a more detailed knowledge reveals that in the ACARS system, a message can be sent by ground and received by airborne even if airborn does not reply.

If a message is sent by ground station and the airplane is not corresponding, the record shows differently.  If the airborne unit is "off line" if I may use that term, the record shows differently.  That is, if the systems are able to communicate, if both systems are online, the record shows one thing.  If the systems are NOT able to communicate with their little handshake protocol, the record shows another thing.

In the case of 93, the record shows that the airborne unit was still 'online', no matter whether messages were replied to or not.  It was still online and airborne after the time of the supposed crash at Shanksville.

Considering that nobody could find a Boeing there that day, and that numerous photographic evidence supports that fact, it only makes sense that the unit was still airborne.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 26 November 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

No Boo.  Closer examination and a more detailed knowledge reveals that in the ACARS system, a message can be sent by ground and received by airborne even if airborn does not reply.

If a message is sent by ground station and the airplane is not corresponding, the record shows differently.  If the airborne unit is "off line" if I may use that term, the record shows differently.  That is, if the systems are able to communicate, if both systems are online, the record shows one thing.  If the systems are NOT able to communicate with their little handshake protocol, the record shows another thing.

In the case of 93, the record shows that the airborne unit was still 'online', no matter whether messages were replied to or not.  It was still online and airborne after the time of the supposed crash at Shanksville.

Considering that nobody could find a Boeing there that day, and that numerous photographic evidence supports that fact, it only makes sense that the unit was still airborne.

I suggest you review the information provided, taken directly from ARINCs own specifications, and learn something BR.  The information that I've shared proves without any doubt whatsoever (to the informed) that UA93 did not receive any messages that were transmitted after the time of the crash.

[Babe Ruth]

booNyzarC, on 26 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

I suggest you review the information provided, taken directly from ARINCs own specifications, and learn something BR.  The information that I've shared proves without any doubt whatsoever (to the informed) that UA93 did not receive any messages that were transmitted after the time of the crash.

I have read it Boo, and I don't agree with your interpretation.

BECAUSE I know full well there was no Boeing at Shanksville from factual evidence NOT related to the ACARS question.  Thus, what Woody has learned in October makes perfect sense.

Heck, I'm not fully convinced that there even WAS a United 93 that day, or that it departed EWR, though that does seem likely.

But there is no question there was no 757 at Shanksville that day.  All the pictures and everybody that was there agree on that.

So, it would be logical that IF UA93 actually departed and checked in with ACARS, it would still be communicating with the system some time after the mythical crash.

Nothing personal, but Woody has taken it to the next level after the good input from Stutts.  Close, but no cigar.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 26 November 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

I have read it Boo, and I don't agree with your interpretation.

BECAUSE I know full well there was no Boeing at Shanksville from factual evidence NOT related to the ACARS question.  Thus, what Woody has learned in October makes perfect sense.

Heck, I'm not fully convinced that there even WAS a United 93 that day, or that it departed EWR, though that does seem likely.

But there is no question there was no 757 at Shanksville that day.  All the pictures and everybody that was there agree on that.

So, it would be logical that IF UA93 actually departed and checked in with ACARS, it would still be communicating with the system some time after the mythical crash.

Nothing personal, but Woody has taken it to the next level after the good input from Stutts.  Close, but no cigar.

As painful as it is to review his ill-informed babble, I don't suppose you can bless us with a link to this supposed epiphany that Woody has discovered, or should I say invented?

Edit:  Never mind about the link, I found it.

He is, of course, completely wrong.  His reasoning is basically outlined in the following paragraph:

Quote

To sum it up: ARINC 618 provides first hand evidence that ULBLKs are only sent when the preceding handshake is successful, which proves that United 93 physically received the last 18 uplinks. I'm using the term physically received  here in the sense that the begin of the message - the handshake - has been received as distinct from contentually received for a message that has been received in its entirety. This distinction is important, and I will get back to it in the appendix. The first definition is weaker than the latter, but for our reasoning it's absolutely sufficient. If United 93 has received the 18 uplinks physically, it was airborne, even if it hasn't received them contentually because they were corrupted by interfering signals or something else.

What he is saying here is basically that if ARINC sent the messages, they were received.  That's simply ridiculous, and he completely misinterprets the ARINC documentation in order to reach this embarrassingly incorrect conclusion.

Edited by booNyzarC, 26 November 2012 - 08:36 PM.

[keithisco]

The New Richard Nixon, on 07 July 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

I know that but i want to talk about that so you think these street lights somehow moved not because of a plane but something else?
There are no aerial shots as ALL AIR TRAFFIC WAS GROUNDED!

NO THEY WERE'NT!! Look into the flights that were allowed to continue (HINT: Saudi Royal Family)

[booNyzarC]

keithisco, on 26 November 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

NO THEY WERE'NT!! Look into the flights that were allowed to continue (HINT: Saudi Royal Family)

Well there's a completely useless factoid as far as relating to the impact at the Pentagon.  Good job!

[frenat]

keithisco, on 26 November 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

NO THEY WERE'NT!! Look into the flights that were allowed to continue (HINT: Saudi Royal Family)

You mean the flights that happened AFTER airspace was opened again (flight on the 20th, airspace opened on the 14th) and AFTER they were questioned?

http://www.911myths....n_family_flight

booNyzarC, on 26 November 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Well there's a completely useless factoid as far as relating to the impact at the Pentagon. Good job!

and not even true anyway.

Edited by frenat, 26 November 2012 - 09:06 PM.

[keithisco]

booNyzarC, on 26 November 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

As painful as it is to review his ill-informed babble, I don't suppose you can bless us with a link to this supposed epiphany that Woody has discovered, or should I say invented?

Edit:  Never mind about the link, I found it.

He is, of course, completely wrong.  His reasoning is basically outlined in the following paragraph:



What he is saying here is basically that if ARINC sent the messages, they were received.  That's simply ridiculous, and he completely misinterprets the ARINC documentation in order to reach this embarrassingly incorrect conclusion.

Of course, if ARinc 618 is used it will establish the link first. The message is only sent if the Link is established. This is not Rocket Science, this is ARinc 618.

[keithisco]

booNyzarC, on 26 November 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Well there's a completely useless factoid as far as relating to the impact at the Pentagon.  Good job!

Not at all!! NOT all flights were grounded - just accept that as fact. Do not make statements that are untrue, devious, or misleading - you are wrong, just live with it...

[booNyzarC]

keithisco, on 26 November 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

Of course, if ARinc 618 is used it will establish the link first. The message is only sent if the Link is established. This is not Rocket Science, this is ARinc 618.

*sigh*

This all stems from a misunderstanding of how the system works.  Yes, it needs to establish a link first, and it did so at 14:01:59 when the last DLBLK was confirmed.  It used that in order to continue attempting to send ULBLKs long after the plane crashed.  You'll notice (if you look at the communications) that ACARS continued trying to re-send the messages (which ultimately rejected with a NOACK) up until the routing table was purged, at which point it outright rejected each subsequent attempt that had not yet gone beyond the point of being queued.

Honestly, you shouldn't rely on Woody Box for this information because he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[booNyzarC]

keithisco, on 26 November 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

Not at all!! NOT all flights were grounded - just accept that as fact. Do not make statements that are untrue, devious, or misleading - you are wrong, just live with it...

Ahem...  scroll up or click this.


You were saying?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 26 November 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

In the case of 93, the record shows that the airborne unit was still 'online', no matter whether messages were replied to or not.  It was still online and airborne after the time of the supposed crash at Shanksville.

No, United 93 was not airborne after it crashed. Pay attention to what BooN has presented.

Quote

Considering that nobody could find a Boeing there that day, and that numerous photographic evidence supports that fact, it only makes sense that the unit was still airborne.

On the contrary, recovery crews, investigators, and even coroner Wally Miller, confirmed the crash site as United 93, but then again, even the operator of United 93 confirmed the crash site as that of United 93, but you already knew that!

And, you also knew that human remains of passengers and crew from United 93 were recovered from the crash site and have been identified.

Quote

United 93


Flight 93 fragmented violently upon impact. Most of the aircraft wreckage was found near the impact crater.Investigators found some very light debris including paper and nylon scattered up to eight miles (13 km) from the impact point in New Baltimore, Pennsylvania. Other tiny aircraft fragments were found 1.5 miles (2.4 km) away at Indian Lake, Pennsylvania. All human remains were found within a 70-acre (28 ha) area surrounding the impact point. Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller was involved in the investigation and identification of the remains. In examining the wreckage, the only human body part he could see was part of a backbone.

Miller later found and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds (272 kg), or eight percent of the total. The rest of the remains were consumed by the impact. Investigators identified four victims by September 22 and eleven by September 24. They identified another by September 29. Thirty-four passengers were identified by October 27. All the people on board the flight were identified by December 21. Human remains were so fragmented that investigators could not determine whether any victims were dead before the plane crashed.

Death certificates for the 40 victims listed the cause of death as homicide and listed the cause of death for the four hijackers as suicide.^] The remains and personal effects of the victims were returned to the families. The remains of the hijackers, identified by the process of elimination, were turned over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as evidence.







Piece of fuselage found at crash site

http://en.wikipedia....lines_Flight_93

---------------------------------------------------------------

Another 14 victims of Flight 93 identified

Saturday, October 27, 2001
By Don Hopey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer  

Investigators have positively identified the remains of another 14 persons aboard United Airlines Flight 93 and Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said the investigation could conclude more quickly than expected. At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site. "It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

Yesterday's confirmation of victims' identities by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA lab in Rockville, Md., means that 34 of the 44 people who were aboard the jetliner crashed Sept. 11. have been identified.

http://old.post-gaze...ght931027p5.asp