From the sound of it, you're dealing with something that's shipped. I really don't think you're in anything like the role of an aircraft dispatcher. Come on Q, think about it. You're in control of multiple aircraft, all going at hundreds of miles an hour. These aircraft must be constantly monitored, to make sure that they don't run into storms or other aircraft. Suddenly, you realize that an aircraft is off course and is about to collide with another in under a minute. Do you -really- care if some intermediary has received the message you're trying to get through to the aircraft? No. Why? Because if that aircraft didn't get your message, you would frantically try to take an action that would avert the crash; try to contact the aircraft again, perhaps try to contact the other aircraft, -something-. If all you knew was that the message had gotten to the intermediary, it'd be small consolation after an aircraft crash. In this type of a case, knowing that it got to the end user (aka the aircraft) isn't a plus; it's essential.
You're forgetting - or haven't yet read - that it has been explained by Ballinger himself that he has no access to accurate flight tracking information. Air Traffic Control takes care of whether and aircraft is getting too near to another aircraft. ATC has the radar tracking information that allows that level of control. Dispatchers do not. The system they have access is only an estimation based upon the aircraft's flight path and is only updated once a minute. They look at the bigger picture, such as weather information.
Quote
Read my lips: two times listed. The time sent and the time received. One time stamp to acknowledge when a message was sent somewhere, one time stamp to acknowledge when a message was received somewhere. If you were the dispatcher, what would you care more about? Whether some intermediary was sent your message and received it, or whether the aircraft got it?
I am a dispatcher, although not a flight dispatcher, and I can tell you that what some machine tells me as to when a message was received is secondary to receiving an actual response from the person I'm sending the message to.
Ballinger clearly stated that he received no reply from UA175, which would be his primary concern
The other times become important when no response has been received. They allow you to track the messages progress, just like the header of an email message will tell you when each email server along the route passed the message along. Those other times would be listed in the full ACARS message log kept by ARINC - the same log that Knerr & Winter used in their audits. All we have is Ballinger's printer log, and no information telling us how United Airlines configured their messages.
Quote
Alright, I'll give you one concession; the time sent may well be when ARINC sends the message to the aircraft. But let's be honest here; Ballinger very specifically stated that there was only one time stamp for a received message. So, again, what do you think is more likely? That they're going to record the time that ARINC got the message, or the time that the aircraft got the message?
It is far more likely that the first time is the time when the Dispatcher initially composes and then sends the message. Using the email analogy again, the "Sent Time" indicated on an email is the time that the person actually clicked "Send" to initiate the delivery process. The ARINC documentation provided thus far explicitly states that an acknowledgment message is sent from the DSP to the message originator when the DSP determines that the message is suitable for uplink formatting. Until we have documentation from United, or testimony from someone at United who can decipher the ACARS messages for us, any conclusions as to which time means what is pure speculation on either side of this debate.
On another note:
Scott G, on 10 December 2011 - 10:25 AM, said:
I agree that statements made by... both? one of them? I forget. Anyway, statements made by one/both of them that no ACARS messages were received by either UA 93 or UA 175 aircraft after they allegedly crashed definitely contradicts Ballinger's belief that the second time stamp means that the aircraft received the message, seeing as how ACARS messages sent to these aircraft got these second time stamps on them. However, since neither Knerr or Winters contradict Ballinger's assertion that the second time stamp meant that the plane had received the message, I think the most likely explanation is that they simply weren't aware as to the meaning of the second time stamp and thus assumed that the aircraft couldn't have gotten any ACARS messages after they allegedly crashed.
In other posts you have made similar claims, that essentially Knerr didn't know the system well enough to make an accurate determination. This is nothing but a red herring, something you seem to have invented in a weak attempt to back up your previous assertions that perhaps Knerr was lying. Given that Knerr is identified in the MFR and FBI 302 as United's "Manager, Flight Data Automation" and "Manager, Dispatch Automation" respectively, can you honestly expect anyone to believe your claim that he didn't know the system well enough? Keep in mind, he's not just the Manager for one single United Airlines location, but for the entire United Airlines organization, based at United's World Headquarters in Chicago.
Cz
"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things ....However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf
Skyeagle while you're around mind posting the names of the of the victims whose remains have been identified? Want to check something out.
Victims from the flights, not the tower collapses.
Post source too please. Thanks.
Let's make an early start in regards to United 93.
Quote
SHANKSVILLE, Pa. -- Investigators have identified remains of four of the 44 people aboard Flight 93, the jetliner that crashed here 11 days ago, the Somerset County coroner said yesterday.But the attempt to identify the rest -- a process that involves using DNA testing to confirm the conclusions -- could go on for a year, Coroner Wallace Miller said.
The coroner's assessment came yesterday as he confirmed that the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory has used DNA samples to match recovered remains with the last of 40 crew members and passengers aboard the hijacked jetliner 14 weeks ago when it slammed into a recovered strip mine at around 500 mph.
United Airlines Flight 93: A Boeing 757 en route from Newark, N.J., to San Francisco. The plane was carrying 37 passengers, two pilots and five flight attendants. It crashed southeast of Pittsburgh around 10 a.m ET Tuesday.
You're an advocate of a switch aren't you Scott? I am as well, have you come across anything in regards to the 2 wheels off times in your forays through the net?
I already told you why there was no duplicate United 175 flight out of Boston airport.
Quote
Might be interesting to see what some pilots that are truthful have to say about it. I'd be curious to here some answers from some of the actual pilots...
Apparently, Airline Pilots Association, International, blame the hijackers for the 9/11 attacks, and mention nothing about switched aircraft.
Quote
Airline Pilots Associtation, International Air Transportation More Secure 10 Years Later, But Gaps Still Exist
"...Because the events of 9/11 clearly demonstrated that the plan needed to address the suicidal terrorist threat, ALPA urged the FAA to address this need."
Apparently, both pilot associations blame terrorist for the 9/11 attacks, and nothing there about switched aircraft either and I will reiterate that the Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and Woody Box websites are jokes!!
Edited by skyeagle409, 10 December 2011 - 10:04 PM.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth hasn't come out with any articles about it. That being said, there's more to the story then just the wheels off time. Take a look at these articles from Pilots for 9/11 Truth member Woody Box:
Scott, the 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth,' website, and Woody Box, are jokes!! Apparently, they misinterpreted those ACARS messages, and they have no evidence that there were two United 175 flights out of Boston, and United Airlines said nothing of duplicate United 175 flights out of Boston either. There was only one United 175 flight out of Boston.
Edited by skyeagle409, 10 December 2011 - 09:38 PM.
"Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
Gene Cernan, Apollo 17
Posted 10 December 2011 - 10:25 PM
Quote
Might be interesting to see what some pilots that are truthful have to say about it. I'd be curious to here some answers from some of the actual pilots...
Well, apart from being a private pilot myself, I work with military aircrew all day. Some of my friends include an A380 pilot, an B767 captain and a couple of B747 captains. I also know an ex F-16 / F-15 driver, as well as other current and ex USAF aircrew.
NONE of them have any doubt that it was hijackers.
Your use of "...some pilots that are truthful..." would indicate to me that it really means 'people who say what I want to hear or agree with'.
Well, apart from being a private pilot myself, I work with military aircrew all day. Some of my friends include an A380 pilot, an B767 captain and a couple of B747 captains. I also know an ex F-16 / F-15 driver, as well as other current and ex USAF aircrew.
NONE of them have any doubt that it was hijackers.
Your use of "...some pilots that are truthful..." would indicate to me that it really means 'people who say what I want to hear or agree with'.
Actually it was a tongue in cheek reference to the Pilotsfortruth forums, but good job misinterpreting what I said
Thanks for the link skyeagle, is that just victims who've been identified or a list of everyone on the plane?..I'll be back after work.
From the sound of it, you're dealing with something that's shipped. I really don't think you're in anything like the role of an aircraft dispatcher. Come on Q, think about it. You're in control of multiple aircraft, all going at hundreds of miles an hour. These aircraft must be constantly monitored, to make sure that they don't run into storms or other aircraft. Suddenly, you realize that an aircraft is off course and is about to collide with another in under a minute. Do you -really- care if some intermediary has received the message you're trying to get through to the aircraft? No. Why? Because if that aircraft didn't get your message, you would frantically try to take an action that would avert the crash; try to contact the aircraft again, perhaps try to contact the other aircraft, -something-. If all you knew was that the message had gotten to the intermediary, it'd be small consolation after an aircraft crash. In this type of a case, knowing that it got to the end user (aka the aircraft) isn't a plus; it's essential.
You're forgetting - or haven't yet read - that it has been explained by Ballinger himself that he has no access to accurate flight tracking information. Air Traffic Control takes care of weather and aircraft is getting too near to another aircraft. ATC has the radar tracking information that allows that level of control. Dispatchers do not. The system they have access is only an estimation based upon the aircraft's flight path and is only updated once a minute. They look at the bigger picture, such as weather information.
I acknowledge that I'm not an expert on aircraft dispatchers. That being said, getting updates once a minute is still pretty good for tracking purposes, albeit not so good to avoid very close encounters. Ofcourse, radar tracking can be fooled by aircraft getting very close with other aircraft and switching transponder codes, which was certaily done in the case of UA 175. ACARS routing, on the other hand, as I believe booN once pointed out, is not so easy to change. And this is the point; Ballinger had absolutely no control as to where ACARS messages would be routed from so the accuracy of his flight tracking via radar is absolutely irrelevant here. What matters is that there's no reason that I can think of that Ballinger would want to know when ARINC received a message. But he would obviously want to know when, and if, the aircraft he's sending messages to received it.
Czero 101, on 10 December 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:
Scott G, on 10 December 2011 - 05:04 PM, said:
Read my lips: two times listed. The time sent and the time received. One time stamp to acknowledge when a message was sent somewhere, one time stamp to acknowledge when a message was received somewhere. If you were the dispatcher, what would you care more about? Whether some intermediary was sent your message and received it, or whether the aircraft got it?
I am a dispatcher, although not a flight dispatcher, and I can tell you that what some machine tells me as to when a message was received is secondary to receiving an actual response from the person I'm sending the message to.
Well, yes, it's way more important to know that the pilot has read a message sent to his printer then that the aircraft has printed the message. But I hadn't offered a choice between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that the pilot had received the message. My choice was between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that ARINC's Ground Control had received the message. Now perhaps you're a taxi dispatcher or something like this, so you probably wouldn't get message received receipts from the taxis, but if you could, don't you think that'd be better then getting a receipt that the head office had gotten the message? Come on. And if the aircraft has printed a message 20 minutes after said aircraft allegedly crashed.. well, something doesn't seem quite right about that, wouldn't you agree?
Czero 101, on 10 December 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:
Ballinger clearly stated that he received no reply from UA175, which would be his primary concern
He received no pilot reply, no. But all messages sent to UA 175 up to 9:23am were acknowledged as having been received by the aircraft itself, as demonstrated by the second time stamp.
Czero 101, on 10 December 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:
The other times become important when no response has been received. They allow you to track the messages progress, just like the header of an email message will tell you when each email server along the route passed the message along. Those other times would be listed in the full ACARS message log kept by ARINC - the same log that Knerr & Winter used in their audits. All we have is Ballinger's printer log, and no information telling us how United Airlines configured their messages.
Ballinger told us how his messages were configured. I'll repeat it: "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. "
Balsamo decided to see what his 10 year old nephew thought of this message...
*******************************************************************************
I tried a little experiment just for fun...
I just asked my 10 year old nephew to read this statement and tell me what he thinks it means....
"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. "
He replied that it means a message is sent to... and received by the airplane. I asked him, "How do you know it was received"? He replied, "Cause it says it right there"... and pointed to the words "time received".
I asked, "Does that statement mean a message was received by a printer in some office?" , he laughed, "What? No... it says airplane".
I corrected him, "Well, technically it says, aircraft.. .but ok".
I asked, "Does that statement 'time received' mean it is the time received by ARINC?", he replied, "No, the message goes THROUGH ARINC, but is received by the airplane..."
I thanked him, he went back to playing Red Dead Redemption.
The above statement made by Ballinger references "the aircraft" as the noun with an action word of "received". Ballinger does not reference a "printer" as the noun affected by the verb, he doesn't reference ARINC as the noun affected by the verb "received", he references "the aircraft".
He does reference ARINC as the message going "through", not "received". The word "aircraft" is the noun referred to by the verb "receive" throughout the entire above statement.
If anyone is still confused by basic English comprehension, please ask a friendly ten year old to interpret the statement for you.
And again, when the FOIA documents refer to a printer, they are referring to this type of printer. (just a quick search I did)
This is perhaps why gman1972 is confused by the word "printer", thinking it is the printer in his office, but in reality it is the printer on the flight deck.
Dispatcher's couldn't care less when a document is printed in their office. They want to know when it was printed on the airplane. As referenced multiple times in the FBI interviews linked above.
Hope this helps.
*******************************************************************************
It is far more likely that the first time is the time when the Dispatcher initially composes and then sends the message. Using the email analogy again, the "Sent Time" indicated on an email is the time that the person actually clicked "Send" to initiate the delivery process. The ARINC documentation provided thus far explicitly states that an acknowledgment message is sent from the DSP to the message originator when the DSP determines that the message is suitable for uplink formatting. Until we have documentation from United, or testimony from someone at United who can decipher the ACARS messages for us, any conclusions as to which time means what is pure speculation on either side of this debate.
We have had someone from United who can decipher the ACARS messages. Ballinger. He deciphered it. Sure, it would be nice to get someone else confirm it, but saying that we haven't had anyone decipher it isn't true.
Czero 101, on 10 December 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:
On another note:
In other posts you have made similar claims, that essentially Knerr didn't know the system well enough to make an accurate determination. This is nothing but a red herring, something you seem to have invented in a weak attempt to back up your previous assertions that perhaps Knerr was lying. Given that Knerr is identified in the MFR and FBI 302 as United's "Manager, Flight Data Automation" and "Manager, Dispatch Automation" respectively, can you honestly expect anyone to believe your claim that he didn't know the system well enough? Keep in mind, he's not just the Manager for one single United Airlines location, but for the entire United Airlines organization, based at United's World Headquarters in Chicago.
That does sound like he should have known how to decipher the messages. But if that's so, and Ballinger's interpretation was mistaken, why has he said nothing for all of these years?
I acknowledge that I'm not an expert on aircraft dispatchers. That being said, getting updates once a minute is still pretty good for tracking purposes, albeit not so good to avoid very close encounters. Ofcourse, radar tracking can be fooled by aircraft getting very close with other aircraft and switching transponder codes, which was certaily done in the case of UA 175. ACARS routing, on the other hand, as I believe booN once pointed out, is not so easy to change. And this is the point; Ballinger had absolutely no control as to where ACARS messages would be routed from so the accuracy of his flight tracking via radar is absolutely irrelevant here. What matters is that there's no reason that I can think of that Ballinger would want to know when ARINC received a message. But he would obviously want to know when, and if, the aircraft he's sending messages to received it.
Regardless, the point I was making that you either missed or decided to gloss over was that the appeal to emotion you were trying to make with your dramatic scenario wouldn't have happened.
Quote
Well, yes, it's way more important to know that the pilot has read a message sent to his printer then that the aircraft has printed the message. But I hadn't offered a choice between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that the pilot had received the message. My choice was between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that ARINC's Ground Control had received the message. Now perhaps you're a taxi dispatcher or something like this, so you probably wouldn't get message received receipts from the taxis, but if you could, don't you think that'd be better then getting a receipt that the head office had gotten the message? Come on.
Argument from incredulity.* "If I ran the zoo" fallacy. It doesn't matter what I or you expect or would want. What matters is what we can prove happened on that day in that situation. And in case you've missed it, we still have no definite proof that the second times printed on the incomplete ACARS log from Ballinger's printer is the aircraft receipt time.
Quote
And if the aircraft has printed a message 20 minutes after said aircraft allegedly crashed.. well, something doesn't seem quite right about that, wouldn't you agree?
If it was proven that the message was actually received by the aircraft after it had crashed, then yes, I'd agree that something was wrong. However, the fact of the matter is that it hasn't yet been proven.
Quote
He received no pilot reply, no. But all messages sent to UA 175 up to 9:23am were acknowledged as having been received by the aircraft itself, as demonstrated by the second time stamp.
Once again, we have no definitive proof that the second time stamp is the aircraft receipt time.
Quote
Ballinger told us how his messages were configured. I'll repeat it: "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. "
You can repeat it til the cows come home, but it is still not proof that the second time on his printer log is the aircraft receipt time.
Quote
Balsamo decided to see what his 10 year old nephew thought of this message...
I really have no interest in what Balsamo or his 10-year old nephew has to say on the subject. Given his history of purposely mis-quoting people - yourself included - to suit his own purposes, his statements have little to no value here, imo. Balsamo lost the privilege of my attention when he decided it was more important that he be an as**ole.
Quote
We have had someone from United who can decipher the ACARS messages. Ballinger. He deciphered it. Sure, it would be nice to get someone else confirm it, but saying that we haven't had anyone decipher it isn't true.
That does sound like he should have known how to decipher the messages. But if that's so, and Ballinger's interpretation was mistaken, why has he said nothing for all of these years?
Ballinger's statements and the Knerr / Winter ACARS audits are not mutually exclusive. In other words, Ballinger's statements do not conflict with what was reports by the Knerr / Winter audits.
And if the messages were received by the aircraft, Ballinger should have been able to tell, shouldn't he? Why has he not come forward to contradict what the experts who audited the ACARS messages have said? He hasn't been a dispatcher since 2001. I don't know what it is he's doing nowadays, but it seems like he would probably have nothing to lose.
Couldn't it be that he agrees with what the experts have said and that, in fact, there is nothing in his statements that states that UA175 received any messages after it crashed?
Cz
EDITED with the correction noted by the *...
Edited by Czero 101, 13 December 2011 - 01:13 AM.
"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things ....However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf
You're forgetting - or haven't yet read - that it has been explained by Ballinger himself that he has no access to accurate flight tracking information. Air Traffic Control takes care of whether and aircraft is getting too near to another aircraft. ATC has the radar tracking information that allows that level of control. Dispatchers do not. The system they have access is only an estimation based upon the aircraft's flight path and is only updated once a minute. They look at the bigger picture, such as weather information.
I acknowledge that I'm not an expert on aircraft dispatchers. That being said, getting updates once a minute is still pretty good for tracking purposes, albeit not so good to avoid very close encounters. Ofcourse, radar tracking can be fooled by aircraft getting very close with other aircraft and switching transponder codes, which was certaily done in the case of UA 175. ACARS routing, on the other hand, as I believe booN once pointed out, is not so easy to change. And this is the point; Ballinger had absolutely no control as to where ACARS messages would be routed from so the accuracy of his flight tracking via radar is absolutely irrelevant here. What matters is that there's no reason that I can think of that Ballinger would want to know when ARINC received a message. But he would obviously want to know when, and if, the aircraft he's sending messages to received it.
Regardless, the point I was making that you either missed or decided to gloss over was that the appeal to emotion you were trying to make with your dramatic scenario wouldn't have happened.
I didn't miss or gloss over it; I acknowledged that I'm not an expert on aircraft dispatchers, but pointed out that once a minute updates is still pretty good, albeit not so good to avoid very close encounters. I see that -you- have apparently missed -my- point, however. It's in that last sentence there:
"[Ballinger] would obviously want to know when, and if, the aircraft he's sending messages to received it." Wouldn't you agree?
Czero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:
Scott G, on 12 December 2011 - 11:34 PM, said:
Well, yes, it's way more important to know that the pilot has read a message sent to his printer then that the aircraft has printed the message. But I hadn't offered a choice between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that the pilot had received the message. My choice was between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that ARINC's Ground Control had received the message. Now perhaps you're a taxi dispatcher or something like this, so you probably wouldn't get message received receipts from the taxis, but if you could, don't you think that'd be better then getting a receipt that the head office had gotten the message? Come on.
Argument from incredulity.
Alright. I'll grant you that perhaps there might be a reason that the dispatcher would rather know that the head office had received its message then that the aircraft itself had received the message. But can you think of any reason that might be the case?
Czero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:
It doesn't matter what I or you expect or would want.
I strongly disagree with that. Why are you discounting our ability to reason things out for ourselves?
Czero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:
What matters is what we can prove happened on that day in that situation.
Untrue. We're not prosecuting the official story as a suspected criminal; we don't need to prove the official story wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt here. What we're doing here more akin to civil law; we only need to show that, on the balance of probabilities, the official story is not what happened.
Czero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:
And in case you've missed it, we still have no definite proof that the second times printed on the incomplete ACARS log from Ballinger's printer is the aircraft receipt time.
I haven't missed it. But the way you structured that sentence suggests that it's probable that the second time printed is indeed the aircraft receipt time. Do you believe that? As to the fact that the ACARS log is incomplete, this should be inconsequential since Ballinger only said there were 2 time stamps. If there had been more, don't you think he would have mentioned them?
Czero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:
If it was proven that the message was actually received by the aircraft after it had crashed, then yes, I'd agree that something was wrong.
Cool.
Czero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:
I really have no interest in what Balsamo or his 10-year old nephew has to say on the subject. Given his history of purposely mis-quoting people - yourself included - to suit his own purposes, his statements have little to no value here, imo.
What evidence do you have that he purposely misquoted me? As to others, I imagine that there are times when he's done so tongue in cheek, but I've never seen him seriously try to misquote someone.
Czero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:
Balsamo lost the privilege of my attention when he decided it was more important that he be an as**ole.
Sigh. And what if I'm right and a rose really -does- lurk beneath the thorns you've seen?
Czero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:
Ballinger's statements and the Knerr / Winter ACARS audits are not mutually exclusive. In other words, Ballinger's statements do not conflict with what was reports by the Knerr / Winter audits.
They do if the second time stamp means that UA 175 and UA 93 aircraft received after they allegedly crashed.
Czero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:
And if the messages were received by the aircraft, Ballinger should have been able to tell, shouldn't he? Why has he not come forward to contradict what the experts who audited the ACARS messages have said? He hasn't been a dispatcher since 2001. I don't know what it is he's doing nowadays, but it seems like he would probably have nothing to lose.
I heard he had a rough time after 9/11. Woody Box found an article on him, I'll share it here:
*****************************************************************
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.
*****************************************************************
I don't know what happened to him since then. Perhaps he's just cut himself off from anything to do with 9/11. Then again, it's possible that the reason for his silence is more sinister. You might find the following video to be educational on the subject:
Czero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 12:21 AM, said:
Couldn't it be that he agrees with what the experts have said and that, in fact, there is nothing in his statements that states that UA175 received any messages after it crashed?
Highly doubtful, but I'll grant it as a possibility. What do -you- think the odds are that his statement didn't mean that the second time stamp referred to the aircraft receiving the message?
Scott, are you being serious? You think the first time stamp is when ARINC sent the uplink to the aircraft and the second time stamp is when the aircraft acknowledged receipt? Seriously?
Good Lord... I'm sorry, but how in the world can you reach that kind of conclusion?
I certainly didn't reach it first. Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth came to this conclusion long before I did. Czero doesn't seem to be against the possibility. So I think the real question is, why do -you- think it's such a strange conclusion?
He received no pilot reply, no. But all messages sent to UA 175 up to 9:23am were acknowledged as having been received by the aircraft itself, as demonstrated by the second time stamp.
Scott, Mr. Ballinger did not receive a response from United 175 at any time after 9:03, and here are reasons why:
Quote
* At 9:24 a.m. Ballinger received along with all United Airlines stations the following alert (sent at 9:22 a.m.) in the name of Andy Studdert: "FIt 175-11 BOS/LAX has been involved in an accident at New York. The Crisis Center hasbeen activated. United Airlines policy strictly prohibits giving information or making statements about the incident to the news media or public officials by anyemployee. WHQPR will release any and all subsequent information
* Mr Ballinger stated however that it was the crash of 175 into the WTC at 9:03, not the concern that it had been hijacked that prompted him to send the ACARS messages warning of cockpit intrusion.
* In the midst of his communications to his aircraft about the NY ground stop, Ballinger did not recall learning at the time of the 9: 12 a.m. alert to UA dispatch, flight safety and flight operations personnel advising that an American aircraft had crashed into the WTC and that United 175 was missing.
In other words, United Airlines, was aware that United 175 had crashed in New York City at 9:03, which also explains why Mr. Ballinger never received a response from United 175 after that time.
I attended our Christmas party at the Nut Tree airport last Saturday, and our group consist of military, airline, and private pilots. I spoke with two of the pilots who use ACARS, and one told me that he has had a few problems with ACARS in his aircraft. The other pilot had better luck with ACARS, but it shows that errors do crop up in regards to ACARS, and I might add that none of the pilots supported a 9/11 conspiracy. They also told me there is nothing to keep a dispatcher from sending an ACARS message to an aircraft once it crashed.
Once again, you need to stay away from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, because none of the pilots I have spoken with support them.
Edited by skyeagle409, 13 December 2011 - 02:07 AM.
I certainly didn't reach it first. Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth came to this conclusion long before I did. Czero doesn't seem to be against the possibility. So I think the real question is, why do -you- think it's such a strange conclusion?
I think it is a ridiculous conclusion actually. There is absolutely nothing that I've seen which would indicate that the first time stamp signifies when ARINC initiated the uplink to the aircraft. I think that you, and you alone, pulled that out of your hind end. Maybe you should ask Tennessee Rob if he concurs with your assessment regarding the first time stamp. I doubt if he will agree with you, but it will be interesting to find out.
The second time stamp is still unproven. There are several different possibilities and I don't see any one of them as superior from a plausible standpoint. From an evidential standpoint though, we do have definitive statements about specific messages NOT being received despite the fact that they do have a second time stamp. That apparent contradiction reduces the viability, in my opinion, of the second time stamp being any indication that the message was received by the aircraft. The strongest and most evidenced conclusion that I've seen is the one proposed by Cz, that it is likely to represent the initial acknowledgement from ARINC.
Why is this important?
Well, it is important because if this initial transmission between the airline and ARINC is refused or unacknowledged that means that there is either something wrong with the formatting of the message sent from the dispatcher or the airline's connection to the DSP is potentially faulty. This is a critically important thing to be aware of from a dispatcher/airline standpoint.
But time will hopefully tell. The truth should rule out in the end, despite the best efforts of anyone trying to distort that truth for their own personal gain.
6
Scott G, on 10 December 2011 - 05:04 PM, said:
