Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack


  • Please log in to reply
2521 replies to this topic

#1726    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 December 2011 - 05:49 AM

UA93 claims debunked?  I haven't had time to go through this in great detail, but I thought people might be interested in viewing this particular bit of information from Warren...

Cheers.

And a hearty salute from me to you Warren, should you happen upon this post for any reason. :tu:


#1727    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,181 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:52 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 14 December 2011 - 05:49 AM, said:

UA93 claims debunked?  I haven't had time to go through this in great detail, but I thought people might be interested in viewing this particular bit of information from Warren...

I think the post deserves to be re-posted here in its entirety, just in case Rob "Ad Hominem attacks are all I know how to do" Balsamo decides to get all uppity once again and delete it.

Quote

Hi,

There is a file (1369kB PDF) that has been released under FOIA and that contains details of the ACARS messages to and from flights AAL11, UAL93 and AAL77.

Here is a screen shot of the file showing the message with ACARS message ID 0658 in the printout P4T have been working from and referenced as message #14 in the Michael J. Winter interview with the FBI that P4T has asserted was transmitted from the TOL RGS station. I have added highlights:

Posted Image

In the screen shot there are 3 blocks of information separated by blank lines. In the first line of each block there is a word which I have highlighted in red indicating the type of data in the block. The first block has the type ULMSG which is an ACARS message as received from the airline to be transmitted to the aircraft. The second block has the type ULBLK which is an ACARS message as transmitted to the aircraft. The third block has the type DLBLK which is an ACARS message as received from the aircraft.

In the first block we can see TOL which I have highlighted in blue which P4T has asserted is the RGS station through which the ACARS message was transmitted to the aircraft.

In the second and third blocks we can see PIT which I have highlighted in green and is the actual RGS station through which the ACARS message was transmitted to the aircraft in the second block and an ACARS message from the aircraft acknowledging receipt of the ACARS message from the airline was received from the aircraft in the third block.

Therefore despite the testimony of Ed Ballinger and Michael J. Winter, we can see that although the ACARS message from the airline was supposed to be transmitted through the TOL RGS station, it was actually transmitted through the PIT RGS station.

Also the file shows that there are no type DLBLK blocks and therefore no ACARS messages received from UAL93 after the official time of the crash.

Warren.

In short, what Warren is presenting is evidence from what appears to be the ACARS log from ARINC. In it we see the message as received from the message originator (Ballinger in most cases) by the DSP / CPS, the message after it has been reformatted for uplinking, and then the acknowledgement message from the aircraft.

What this shows is that when the message was sent from UA to ARINC's system, it was configured to use the TOL (Toledo) RGS location as its "Target Stn" (Target Station, or Target RGS). In other words, when Ballinger sent the message, there was an assumption - perhaps "prediction" is a better term - made somewhere on his end that the aircraft would be near the Toledo RGS location. How this prediction was arrived at we don't yet know, but it strongly suggests that the aircraft's original flight plan may have been used in some way.

However, when the message was formatted for uplink, we see the station chosen by the DSP / CPS was the PIT (Pittsburgh) RGS. How this determination was made by the DSP is not yet known, but a fair assumption to make is that it most likely has to do with the "media advisory" or tracking messages or last known location information previously mentioned.

This definitely has some very interesting implications, and will definitely require a bit more research.

ETA...
At the very least, one can now say that the original FOIA ACARS log from Ballinger's printer is even more incomplete than previously assumed. It seemingly only shows the messages as he sent them from his desk, and is not necessarily completely representative of what the DSP / CPS sent, or attempted to send, to the aircraft.

Unfortunately this file does not seem to contain any of the messages sent to UA175, or at the very least, a cursory text search of the document produces no results.




Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 14 December 2011 - 07:04 AM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#1728    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 December 2011 - 08:21 AM

View PostScott G, on 13 December 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

They're both important in the sense that both Ballinger and any techies in charge of the underlying system would want to know why Ballinger's messages weren't received by the aircraft. But unlike any potential techies, Ballinger can't spend precious time figuring out what went wrong from a technical standpoint; he's got live aircraft in the skies that he's got to look after, and so instead of trying to figure out exactly what went wrong, he's got to make quick decisions. The decisions he made on that day exemplify this; he repeatedly tried to get in touch with UA 175. After repeated attempts, he determined that it was probably hijacked.


Repeated attempts were made, but unsucessful, and here is another reason why.

Quote

Statement of United Airlines about its two plane crashes:

United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

United has confirmed it will dispatch a team to Johnstown, Pa., as soon as possible to assist, in every way possible, with the investigation and to provide assistance to the family members.

My link


11:17 AM:  United Airlines confirms the loss of Flight 93 and states that it is "deeply concerned" about Flight 175.  

11:53 AM: United Airlines confirms the loss of its two airplanes.  

My link







KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1729    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 December 2011 - 10:30 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 13 December 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Have you found any evidence whatsoever that any of Ballinger's ACARS messages were truncated in any way?

Yes. The simple fact that the DSP / CPS will send two separate acknowledgement messages back for each successful uplink message it receives proves that the ACARS listing we are seeing in the FOIA document is not a full and complete listing of the ACARS messages sent and received that day, and is not the full ACARS message log that Knerr and Winter used for their audits.

I think you're mistaken, but I'm bringing it up over at PFT to see what they have to say on this.

View PostCzero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

Scott... please read the documentation provided so far. It is very clearly set out that the acknowledgement / failure messages are separate messages from the DSP / CPS, not part of the message being set to / from the aircraft.

Posted Image

Please take note of item 2 and item 7 highlighted above. They represent separate, individual messages.

A lot of terminology in that diagram that I don't understand. I'm not sure what MAS or LDS mean, guessing that CRC is stands for Cyclic Redundancy Check. That being said, what's this about "seperate, individual messages"? Looks to me like number 2 would be the sent (from the dispatcher to the aircraft) time  stamp and number 7 would be the received (from the aircraft) time stamp.

View PostCzero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

And even IF the timestamps were added to and became part of the uplink message itself, the only limit that is imposed by he ARINC / ACARS protocols is that messages longer than 220 characters are split into block of up to 220 characters. Each block then becomes an individual transmission. Theoretically, someone could send a novel as an ACARS message, but it would be split up in to blocks of up to 220 characters and take a very long time to transmit and be very susceptible to errors because of that length.

Which was my point.

View PostCzero 101, on 13 December 2011 - 11:12 PM, said:

View PostScott G, on 13 December 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Let's see if and how you answer the above questions. I think at that point, it'll be clear who's on tenuous footing here.

Seems clear to me that the person who hasn't read (or perhaps hasn't understood) the documentation provided, and then tries to make a point based on nothing but his own opinion and an "if I ran the zoo" scenario is the one on tenuous footing. Simply relying on Balsamo et al to spoon-feed you the answers is certainly not doing you the good you seem to think it is.

I get information from Balsamo and other members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth because some of them clearly -did- 'run the zoo'; Balsamo himself was a commercial airline pilot and who knows, perhaps there's even a dispatcher amoung them (would ofcourse be awesome if there was a UA dispatcher amoung them, time will tell), but clearly I still need to understand it to truly make it my view. This process of understanding it all isn't can sometimes take some time, but I definitely think it's better then trying to learn it all through reading pdfs and such alone. I think I'll bring up some of the points in your post to confirm my interpretations, but I think I'm on the right track.


#1730    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 December 2011 - 10:57 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 14 December 2011 - 06:52 AM, said:

In short, what Warren...

...really needs is a lot of help from Pilots for 9/11 Truth to understand what he's talking about. Balsamo's responded to the message you're referring, and pointed out a bunch of mistakes he's made, both in previous claims of his, as well as his current one. Balsamo debunked his post:
"..by the way, next time highlight the full text, "PITC6", this may give  you a clue as to why Ed and Michael work(ed) for United Dispatch, and  you do not. "PITC6" is not "PIT". The message you refer to was routed  through TOL as stated by those who received a paycheck from United for  this very purpose, ability to read an ACARS, among others. The above  message was routed through CMI 7 mins after [and 500 miles away from] the alleged crash, and  "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" as stated by Winter."

I added the 500 miles bit, Balsamo mentioned it earlier in his post.


#1731    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 December 2011 - 05:11 PM

View PostScott G, on 14 December 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:

...really needs is a lot of help from Pilots for 9/11 Truth to understand what he's talking about. Balsamo's responded to the message you're referring, and pointed out a bunch of mistakes he's made, both in previous claims of his, as well as his current one. Balsamo debunked his post:
"..by the way, next time highlight the full text, "PITC6", this may give  you a clue as to why Ed and Michael work(ed) for United Dispatch, and  you do not. "PITC6" is not "PIT". The message you refer to was routed  through TOL as stated by those who received a paycheck from United for  this very purpose, ability to read an ACARS, among others. The above  message was routed through CMI 7 mins after [and 500 miles away from] the alleged crash, and  "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" as stated by Winter."

I added the 500 miles bit, Balsamo mentioned it earlier in his post.

Scott, I visited your link and read post #2. What does it say about ground stations and flight plans in regards to routing purposes?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1732    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 December 2011 - 05:14 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 14 December 2011 - 05:11 PM, said:

Scott, I visited your link and read post #2. What does it say about ground stations and flight plans in regards to routing purposes?

You mean Aldo's post quoting JREF?


#1733    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:48 PM

View PostScott G, on 14 December 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:


Yes, that is the one. Last Saturday, we had our Christmas party at the Nut Tree airport, and our group consist of military, airline, and private pilots. I brought up ACARS, to a couple of members of our group, both airline pilots, one of whom checked me out in a Piper Cub, and the other, has served with me in the Air Force.

An interesting note, the second time stamp is the time the message was sent by the provider, not an indication the aircraft received the message. We can relate that to Mr. Ballinger's ACARS message to United 93 where he received a response. He sent his message to United 93 at 9:23, and the message was relayed to the aircraft at 9:24, which is shown on the ACARS message, but Mr. Ballinger didn't receive a response from United 93 until 9:26.

Quote

[U] At 9:26 a.m. Ballinger received a response to his 9:23 a.m. ACARS message to Flight 93 (which was transmitted byAIRINC at 9:24 a.m.):

My Link



Now, look on page 14, on the following link and note both time stamps in the message sent to United 93, one for 9:23, and the second time stamp of 9:24, and remember, Mr. Ballinger didn't receive a response from United 93 until 9:26.

United 93 MESSAGE, Page 14


That explains the two time stamps for United 175 at 9:23, eventhough the aircraft crashed at 9:03. The first time stamp is when Mr. Ballinger sent the message, and the second time stamp is when his message was relayed to United 175, which did not respond, either to the 9:03 or the 9:23 messages because it had crashed in New York City 20 minutes before the last message was sent.

Also on page 14, you can read where United Airlines confirmed that United 175 had crashed.









Edited by skyeagle409, 14 December 2011 - 07:21 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1734    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,384 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 December 2011 - 07:01 PM



Edited by skyeagle409, 14 December 2011 - 07:08 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1735    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,181 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 14 December 2011 - 07:31 PM

I'm not at my computer at the moment (postinf from my iPhone right now) so I won't be able to provide specific document quotes, but I will answer a few points:

View PostScott G, on 14 December 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:

I think you're mistaken, but I'm bringing it up over at PFT to see what they have to say on this.
Your time would be better served actually reading the documentation and developing an understanding on your own, but that's just my opinion.



Quote

A lot of terminology in that diagram that I don't understand. I'm not sure what MAS or LDS mean, guessing that CRC is stands for Cyclic Redundancy Check. That being said, what's this about "seperate, individual messages"? Looks to me like number 2 would be the sent (from the dispatcher to the aircraft) time  stamp and number 7 would be the received (from the aircraft) time stamp.
The terminology is defined in the documentation.
Your correct on CRC.

MAS, if memory serves (I will double check the specific acronym later) refers to the Message Assurance System, which is part of the "guaranteed message delivery" that ARINC promises with their service. This is the way it let's the message originator know that a message was received.

LDU (not LDS) is the acronym for Linear Data Unit.

As for separate individual messages, what part of "SP sends message ACK to ATC"  and "SP sends MAS to ATC" us unclear to you...?

SP refers to the Service Provider, or DSP, which in this case is ARINC.

ACK is the abbreviation for Acknowledgement.

MAS has been defined above.

ATC means Air Traffic Control, which refers to the message originator.




Quote

Which was my point.
Perhaps we are adressing the same issue from different angles, but it appeared to me that your point was that adding a time stamp to a message would reduce the amount of space for the free text portion of the messages sent between the ground and the aircraft. I showed you that this was not the case by explaining that longer messages are handled by splitting the message into smaller blocks and would have no effect on the amount of text that could be sent. Your appatent misunderstanding of this is yet another clear indication that you should really invest some time in reading the documentation so that you can resolve these fundamental misunderstandings.

The bottom line here though is that the documentation that you seem to actively refuse to read for yourself clearly indicates that the ACK messages are separate individual messages and are not added to the original message.

Quote

I get information from Balsamo and other members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth because some of them clearly -did- 'run the zoo'; Balsamo himself was a commercial airline pilot and who knows, perhaps there's even a dispatcher amoung them (would ofcourse be awesome if there was a UA dispatcher amoung them, time will tell), but clearly I still need to understand it to truly make it my view. This process of understanding it all isn't can sometimes take some time, but I definitely think it's better then trying to learn it all through reading pdfs and such alone. I think I'll bring up some of the points in your post to confirm my interpretations, but I think I'm on the right track.
Well, if you prefer taking the (imo) "lazy" route and have someone continue to spoon-feed you the information, rather that investing the time to read the documentation provided for you, that's your choice. The amount of mistakes you've made and fundamentals you seem to not have a grasp on thus far would indicate that your way isn't working so well for you up til now.



Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#1736    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 December 2011 - 08:10 PM

View PostScott G, on 14 December 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:

...really needs is a lot of help from Pilots for 9/11 Truth to understand what he's talking about. Balsamo's responded to the message you're referring, and pointed out a bunch of mistakes he's made, both in previous claims of his, as well as his current one. Balsamo debunked his post:
"..by the way, next time highlight the full text, "PITC6", this may give  you a clue as to why Ed and Michael work(ed) for United Dispatch, and  you do not. "PITC6" is not "PIT". The message you refer to was routed  through TOL as stated by those who received a paycheck from United for  this very purpose, ability to read an ACARS, among others. The above  message was routed through CMI 7 mins after [and 500 miles away from] the alleged crash, and  "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" as stated by Winter."

I added the 500 miles bit, Balsamo mentioned it earlier in his post.
I still haven't taken the time to go through all of this in detail, but I highly doubt if Balsamo debunked Warren's post.

I find it funny that he decided to muzzle Warren though.  Very similar to what he did with Q24 actually.  He didn't like the information coming out and so removed the posts in question claiming that it was disinformation.  Shouldn't he be able to adequately refute said disinformation if it really is wrong instead of censoring it?

My bet?  He wants the ambiguity to remain for as long as possible in the hopes that more poor unsuspecting souls might buy one or more of his DVDs.  Just a guess on my part though... :P


#1737    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 December 2011 - 09:16 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 14 December 2011 - 08:10 PM, said:

My bet?  He wants the ambiguity to remain for as long as possible in the hopes that more poor unsuspecting souls might buy one or more of his DVDs.  Just a guess on my part though... :P
For a number of reasons, I honestly think there’s more to it than that.

COINTELPRO

If not, it must be said the objectives of such a program are at least brilliantly imitated here.

As they say, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck…”

Pilots for 9/11 ‘Truth’ are not to be trusted… that’s coming from someone who entirely buys into an inside job.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1738    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,308 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 14 December 2011 - 11:27 PM

View PostQ24, on 14 December 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

Pilots for 9/11 ‘Truth’ are not to be trusted… that’s coming from someone who entirely buys into an inside job.


what do you think their motives are then? If they're not to be trusted... :blink:


#1739    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 December 2011 - 11:39 PM

View Postbee, on 14 December 2011 - 11:27 PM, said:

what do you think their motives are then? If they're not to be trusted... :blink:
$$$$$


#1740    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 December 2011 - 01:57 AM

View PostScott G, on 14 December 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:

...really needs is a lot of help from Pilots for 9/11 Truth to understand what he's talking about. Balsamo's responded to the message you're referring, and pointed out a bunch of mistakes he's made, both in previous claims of his, as well as his current one. Balsamo debunked his post:
"..by the way, next time highlight the full text, "PITC6", this may give  you a clue as to why Ed and Michael work(ed) for United Dispatch, and  you do not. "PITC6" is not "PIT". The message you refer to was routed  through TOL as stated by those who received a paycheck from United for  this very purpose, ability to read an ACARS, among others. The above  message was routed through CMI 7 mins after [and 500 miles away from] the alleged crash, and  "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" as stated by Winter."

I added the 500 miles bit, Balsamo mentioned it earlier in his post.
So I took a bit of a closer look at Warren's posts and Balsamo's retorts.  Scott, Balsamo hasn't even come close to debunking Warren's information.  Don't let him trick you into thinking that he has debunked anything here.  Just look at the arguments he's offering in response and his suppression of Warren's ability to continue explaining by muzzling him.

He brings up the "activated an audible signal in the aircraft" portion of Winter's statement. :rolleyes:

Tell me Scott, what do you think this means exactly?  Do you think that it means that a bell actually rang in the cockpit?  Or that the message format includes a command which should ring a bell when/if the message is received?  Cz mentioned this point to me in a PM and I think I'll let him explain this part to you because I think he organizes his posts better than I do in general.

His other point is regarding other RGS stations which apparently also received the DLBLK.  Supposing they did receive it, those RGS locations certainly aren't outside of range for receiving the transmissions.  This isn't surprising when you consider that the VHF transmission from the aircraft are omnidirectional (meaning, they are sent in all directions).

This documentation provided by Warren really does open up a lot of insight into the mechanics of routing and message transmissions.  Cz made a very good point in his post that it appears as though the airline sends a target RGS along with it's message to the DSP.  It appears as though this RGS is the one that we've been referring to as the routed RGS in previous discussions, and I agree with Cz that it looks a lot like this is based on the original flight plan.

There is a lot more to look into I think, but the point is that Balsamo hasn't even come close to debunking the information presented.  On the contrary, the information presented by Warren appears to confirm that Balsamo has been wrong all along.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users