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

#1786    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 18 December 2011 - 09:48 AM

I have a few random questions booNyzarC…

View PostbooNyzarC, on 16 December 2011 - 04:30 PM, said:

It doesn't refer to it as BepStnName, it refers to it as simply Stn, and it follows by what is obviously depicting a Station Delivery Type of 1.
  • Do the ARINC specifications detail the meaning of “StnDelivType= 1”?
  • As you haven’t mentioned it, I’m guessing the ARINC specifications contain no reference to the second time stamp in the initial airline message?
  • Just to confirm, it would appear that Winter did not understand the ACARS system, e.g. “Messages #18 and #19 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Champaign, IL CMI…”?

And I see a new user logged on – hello Warren, welcome to the forum   :tu:

I’d be grateful if you could answer my question up the page.

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.

#1787    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 December 2011 - 10:37 AM

Quote

Who will pay the fuel, support, and maintenance cost of a B-767 at the airport? Who will pay the landing fees for a B-767 or a B757 for an unauthorized landing? Who will assign a gate or tarmac location for an unauthorized arrival? Who will pay for support equipment needed for a B-767 or a B-757 after arrival? What about the flight plan? These are the kind of things that conspiracist tend to overlook.

You know why conspiracists 'overlook' these things? Because a conspiracy would not work very well if the people who want to kill their own countrymen to start a war in order to kill more people played by the book.

Remind me why again they would pay landing fees if, say, they take it to a private runway? Travolta has a runway at his house, so do others and you have a hard time believing that some of the most powerful, richest people in the world would have SUCH a difficult time making 1 plane dissapear....Because no one will pay for a landing fee....


#1788    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 18 December 2011 - 10:55 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 17 December 2011 - 10:29 PM, said:

Who will pay the fuel, support, and maintenance cost of a B-767 at the airport? Who will pay the landing fees for a B-767 or a B757 for an unauthorized landing?

There were some initial reports that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. Now, I know, I know, 911myths put in some good work showing that atleast some of the people who initially believed this changed their minds. That being said, even the 911myths site links to the following article at the end of its article on the subject:

The Cleveland Airport Mystery

Yes, it's by Woody Box, who just happens to be a respected member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. I know you don't seem to like him, but I've found that all of his work is top notch.

Edited by Scott G, 18 December 2011 - 10:56 AM.


#1789    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:43 AM

Quote

There were some initial reports that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. Now, I know, I know, 911myths put in some good work showing that atleast some of the people who initially believed this changed their minds. That being said, even the 911myths site links to the following article at the end of its article on the subject:

The Cleveland Airport Mystery

Yes, it's by Woody Box, who just happens to be a respected member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. I know you don't seem to like him, but I've found that all of his work is top notch.

Do you think It's possible planes went to Boston airport that were not the originals?

Although that means the wargames and intersecting radar lines don't mean anything. I guess I'd still lean towards a stop/air switch of some sort. If the technology exists to remotely control a boeing 767, and the technology to replicate electronic codes/signals exists, the midair swap is quite feasible.


Quote

How many times have I posted that there was nothing in the ACARS messages that indicated the aircaft received such messages after impact? How many times have I mentioned flight plans in regards to ACARS routing? After what BooN, and Czeros have posted, it now seems that you are finally coming around.


No, you offered your opinion and repetition with no documents to back it up. This is why I have shown more interest in what CZ may have to say, since i know he is not biased and has not made up his mind yet unlike you or I.

By the way skyeagle, I know alot of this technology is new to you but what do you think of the remote control side of things? The technology is out there and viable.

What kind of engine is that in the streets after the towers were hit? A CFM56?


#1790    wstutt

wstutt

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 37 posts
  • Joined:18 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 December 2011 - 01:19 PM

Hi,

I'm using the ID wstutt to be consistent with other forums  that I have posted on.

View PostQ24, on 17 December 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

Does anyone know how/where Warren got this?

View Postbubs49, on 17 December 2011 - 07:28 PM, said:

<snip>

Another question I have for Mr. Stutt is why the PDF he presented days ago was and is still not included in his home page, which contains a list of documents released through FOIA available for download. Why was it not there? Why was it part of the folder "General files", which is not publicly accessible?
I got the file from a source who wishes to remain anonymous since he knew P4T would shoot the messenger.

My source got the file through a FOIA request to NARA for all FAA records for 9/11. If anyone would like to independently obtain a copy of the file for themselves, I could ask my source as to what procedure would be required.

Since I got the file from a source rather than placing my own FOIA request, I had no FOIA request details and response letter, unlike my own FOIA requests, so I just put the file in my "General Files" folder on my web site.

View Postbubs49, on 17 December 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

Yes, this is definitely a good question.
Another good question is why ACARS data from United 175 are completely missing in this file.
My source asked me the same question when I informed him that the file contained ACARS messages from three of the flights. He may follow up on that to see if he can get the United 175 ACARS messages as well. I can only speculate as to why they are missing.

Warren Stutt.


#1791    wstutt

wstutt

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 37 posts
  • Joined:18 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 December 2011 - 01:37 PM

In what I regard confirms the conclusion of boony and cz as to ACARS messages not necessarily being transmitted according to the "Target Stn" field in ULMSGs, as I have said on JREF, some ULMSGs get transmitted even though the Target Stn is <00><00><00><00><00>.

If anyone would like to know where UAL93 was at different times according to the FDR for the final flight, I have a csv file with that information on my web site.

Warren.


#1792    wstutt

wstutt

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 37 posts
  • Joined:18 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia

Posted 18 December 2011 - 01:44 PM

Hi boony,

View PostbooNyzarC, on 17 December 2011 - 08:00 PM, said:

<snip>

Yes, well if you take an even closer look what you have is a screen shot of a two page PDF file that appears to have an embedded screen shot of its own showing WordPad with a significantly sized text file by the name of ~me00000.txt open.  Notice how small the scroll bar is in the embedded WordPad screen shot.  The text file must have been very long for that scroll bar to be that small.  I searched for that file, ~me00000.txt, but I couldn't find it anywhere.

<snip>
The file ~me00000.txt did not appear to be amongst the files that my source obtained from NARA. The file name appears to me to be a temporary file name.

Warren.


#1793    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

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

Posted 18 December 2011 - 02:17 PM

View Postwstutt, on 18 December 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:

My source got the file through a FOIA request to NARA for all FAA records for 9/11. If anyone would like to independently obtain a copy of the file for themselves, I could ask my source as to what procedure would be required.
Just to clarify – I don’t doubt authenticity of the file.  I was wondering more how Pilots for 9/11 ‘Truth’ didn’t see it coming.  I guess the FAA/NARA were an unexpected source of these records (rather than coming from the airline or ARINC).  Well, that’ll teach them to make hasty and false interpretations – you never know what might turn up to bite you.

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.

#1794    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:50 PM

Welcome to UM Warren!  I appreciate that you took the time to register and respond to questions.  I may have some for you as well after I've done some more analysis.

Cheers :tu:


View PostQ24, on 18 December 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

I have a few random questions booNyzarC…

booNyzarC said:

It doesn't refer to it as BepStnName, it refers to it as simply Stn, and it follows by what is obviously depicting a Station Delivery Type of 1.

  • Do the ARINC specifications detail the meaning of “StnDelivType= 1”?
I haven't looked into it yet, and I've been distracted by several mini-projects.  I'm still working on more fully fleshing out my third bullet point and a couple of other things.  After that I'll see what I can track down unless Cz manages to find the information.


View PostQ24, on 18 December 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

  • As you haven’t mentioned it, I’m guessing the ARINC specifications contain no reference to the second time stamp in the initial airline message?
The ARINC specifications may not contain a reference for this because the information may have come from the airline's own database.  If there is a specification that references this, the most likely source would be the aforementioned ATA/IATA Interline Communications Manual (ICM).  If I come across it though, I'll let you know.

That being said, it appears to me as though the second time stamps in the initial airline messages found in Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf match with the BEPts included for each ULMSG.  They also happen to match the BEPts for the initial ULBLK attempt after the ULMSG has been converted by the CPS, so either one would fit.  I checked them all this weekend and there isn't a single one that didn't match this possibility.



View PostQ24, on 18 December 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

  • Just to confirm, it would appear that Winter did not understand the ACARS system, e.g. “Messages #18 and #19 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD using the RGS near Champaign, IL CMI…”?
I suspect that Winter did understand, but perhaps he chose his wording poorly in this instance.  Also possible that the investigation team didn't get the quote right.  It is hard to say either way, but the data itself is conclusive and matches up with the documentation that I've reviewed.  I'll get a little more into these details with my post regarding bullet 3.


#1795    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 December 2011 - 04:26 PM

View PostWandering, on 18 December 2011 - 10:37 AM, said:

You know why conspiracists 'overlook' these things? Because a conspiracy would not work very well if the people who want to kill their own countrymen to start a war in order to kill more people played by the book.

The real reason is, reality is not on the side of the conspiracist.

Quote

Remind me why again they would pay landing fees if, say, they take it to a private runway?


Whose private property? Who pays for such property? Who pays for the support equipment at such property?

I hope you don't think that he push back his own aircraft from its parking spots by himself, and once again, there are no radar tracking nor ATC communication transcripts placing United 175 in the sky after impact, which once again, disproves your private airport theory.

Speaking of John Travolta,

Attached Files


Edited by skyeagle409, 18 December 2011 - 04:29 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1796    Scott G

Scott G

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 18 December 2011 - 04:40 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 December 2011 - 04:26 PM, said:

Wandering said:

You know why conspiracists 'overlook' these things? Because a conspiracy  would not work very well if the people who want to kill their own  countrymen to start a war in order to kill more people played by the  book.

The real reason is, reality is not on the side of the conspiracist.

-.- skyeagle, I applaud your civility in discussions, but it's pretty irritating when you do this 'I'm right and you're wrong' thing. You've been trying to prove that others are wrong for, what, nearly 20,000 posts now? And yet, people still disagree with you.. so why use the same old 'i'm right and you're wrong' motif? Wouldn't it be better to show people -why- you believe they're mistaken and let them come to their own conclusions after that point? I know you do this at times as well, hoping you could do more of that and less of the above. Now I know that you and I believe in extraterrestrial UFOs, but the same applies regardless of your beliefs; there are going to be people that disagree with you and I think I speak for most when i say that one of the things that most irritates people other then downright insults is being told that they're wrong in such blunt ways without actually offering proof. What's even more annoying is the way you dodge comments; Wandering provided a plausible explanation for why conspiracists don't check every nook and cranny; if you're going to plan something like 9/11, you're not going to want to play it by the book; that would tend to get you caught. Now I'm not saying that those behind 9/11 didn't have a cover story; they did, in all of those war games. I'm just saying those behind 9/11, whether of foreign or domestic origin (or both), aren't going to do things like file their flight plans beforehand.

Edited by Scott G, 18 December 2011 - 04:41 PM.


#1797    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 December 2011 - 04:42 PM

View PostWandering, on 18 December 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

If the technology exists to remotely control a boeing 767, and the technology to replicate electronic codes/signals exists, the midair swap is quite feasible.

Where are the facilities to modify a B-767? Who are the mechanics who modified a B-767? Who paid for the  support equipment and tools needed to modify a B-767? Where are you going to land a fake B-767 in the markings of United Airlines and not attract special attention?  How are you going to fly a B-767 into controlled airspace without a flight plan and not attract attention? If you file a flight plan, the aircraft will be under radar control right after takeoff and to its destination. Who will be speaking to the air traffic controllers as the aircraft flies through multiple sectors under their control?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1798    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 December 2011 - 05:01 PM

View PostScott G, on 18 December 2011 - 04:40 PM, said:

-.- skyeagle, I applaud your civility in discussions, but it's pretty irritating when you do this 'I'm right and you're wrong' thing. You've been trying to prove that others are wrong for, what, nearly 20,000 posts now? And yet, people still disagree with you..

When I mentioned 'flight plan' in regards to routing purposes,  I got hit by Balsamo. I even contacted ARINC, and posted what they told me and still, he disagreed with me. I contacted ARLNC on  3 occasions and got the same messages.  As it was, he was wrong, as is the case on other issues. After talking with other pilots who use ACARS, it was evident to me that Balsamo was not tuned to reality.

Balsamo is not tuned in to reality when it comes to aircraft structures either, and he should have understood the significance when I posted that the registration numbers of those aircraft were deregistered by the FAA, but he didn't. I caught him trying to pass trick questions in regards to ground speed and other things, so I hit him with my own trick with EAS, and that threw him off. I began to have my doubts about him afterwards.

I have also posted the passenger list from those aircraft and that some remains from those passengers have been identified, but it seems the 9/11 conspiracist are unable to grasp the significance of what I posted. The P4T and Woody Box websites are nothing more than joke sites and all they are doing is spewing disinformaton and misinformation.

The 9/11 conspiracist are unable to accept the fact that there were no radar trackings nor ATC communications placing those aircraft in the sky after impacts, but how many times have I mentioned that before? The 9/11 conspiracist have claimed that a pod could be seen beneath United 175, which was not the case and what they did was to misidentify the wing/fuselage MLG fairing, which is standard on all B-767s.

The list goes on and on, so the question is; when are the 9/11 conspiracist going to accept the fact they are wrong?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1799    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 18 December 2011 - 05:04 PM

View PostScott G, on 18 December 2011 - 10:55 AM, said:

There were some initial reports that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. Now, I know, I know, 911myths put in some good work showing that atleast some of the people who initially believed this changed their minds. That being said, even the 911myths site links to the following article at the end of its article on the subject:

The Cleveland Airport Mystery

Yes, it's by Woody Box, who just happens to be a respected member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. I know you don't seem to like him, but I've found that all of his work is top notch.

Woody Box is another website that spews misinformation just like P4T, and is another reason to avoid that flawed website.

To continue:

Quote

4) The place the passengers were interviewed after the evacuation

The most reports say that the passengers were brought into a nearby NASA facility (4A). This is the NASA Glenn Research Center, located near the west end of the airport. It was already evacuated. The passenger of delta 1989 however tells us that she was taken into a "secure building at the airport". This is confirmed by a report that the Delta 1989 passengers were interviewed in the FAA headquarter (4B). Surely the FAA headquarter is not located in the NASA facility.

So, here is where the Woody Box website proved that it was not tuned in to the real facts.

Quote

Woody Box

We can conclude that Delta 1989 landed at 10:10, and at 12:30 the 69 passengers were taken into the FAA headquarter. Flight X landed at 10:45, and at 11:15 the 200 passengers were taken into the evacuated NASA Center.

Now remember, they were interviewed at the FAA headquarters. Woody Box also posted that, "One of them was Delta1989, the other one was identified as, most shocking: "Flight 93"!

Now, for the rest of the story.


Quote

Evidence Against: Former Mayor White hardly ever talks to the media now, so Free Times contacted his former press secretary Della Homenik.

"It has always been my understanding that United flight 93 diverted from its intended flight plan while it was in Cleveland air space," Homenik writes in an e-mail. "I never heard a single report, from any source, either on September 11 or in its aftermath, that flight 93 landed in Cleveland."

A review of WEWS Cleveland Channel 5's live coverage of White's comments that day show that he never suggested that the grounded plane parked at the end of a Hopkins runway was United 93.

"We told her we had heard the plane at NASA was United 93. But then she just went into the official version of events and said it was definitely not United 93. But there was another plane at NASA Glenn that day and no one has ever explained that. I'm hoping a news agency will go over and follow up on that."

Evidence Against: We did. And Bermas is right, there was another plane grounded at NASA Glenn on 9/11. But it wasn't United 93.


So what about the so-called Flight X?

"A KC-135 had to come back to the hangar," says Wessel, as if realizing for the first time that this aircraft may have caused some undue confusion. A team of scientists from the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown to Cleveland on this KC-135 to conduct micro-gravity experiments. (Also known as "the vomit comet," KC-135's are used to simulate weightlessness. The plane soars to high altitudes, then falls back toward the ground, giving passengers a few seconds of zero-G experience. Scenes for the Tom Hanks movie Apollo 13 were filmed in one.)

The visiting scientists could not return to Houston as scheduled on 9/11 once the FAA ordered all planes to land. "After the facility closed, we had to take those scientists to a hotel." The scientists, dressed as civilians, were boarded onto shuttle buses.

My link

So, here is where Woody Box got confused again with a KC-135 that carred a small team of scientist, not 200 passengers.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 December 2011 - 05:47 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1800    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 18 December 2011 - 08:01 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 18 December 2011 - 03:50 PM, said:


The ARINC specifications may not contain a reference for this because the information may have come from the airline's own database.  If there is a specification that references this, the most likely source would be the aforementioned ATA/IATA Interline Communications Manual (ICM).  If I come across it though, I'll let you know.

That being said, it appears to me as though the second time stamps in the initial airline messages found in Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf match with the BEPts included for each ULMSG.  They also happen to match the BEPts for the initial ULBLK attempt after the ULMSG has been converted by the CPS, so either one would fit.  I checked them all this weekend and there isn't a single one that didn't match this possibility.
I take that back, there is one exception which does not match.  Message 0708:

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111411/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC  AREA  NOT AN OPTION....
CHIDD  ED BALLINGER

;09111411 108575 0708

According to the logs, there is no Uplink Block (ULBLK) for this message, only an Uplink Message (ULMSG).  It was Intercepted before attempting to Uplink.

This would mean that the secondary time stamp on those messages is the BEPts time for the ULMSG; or more specifically, the acknowledgement that the DSP sends back to the airline when it receives an acceptable message for attempted uplink.  We don't see those acknowledgements back to the airline in the logs.

Coincidentally, this matches exactly with what we'd expect from the diagram that Cz shared oh so long ago:

Posted Image


One would naturally wonder about the following message then.  It has a ULMSG entry in Warren's logs.  Why is there no secondary time stamp?  This one:

CHIAO CHI68R
.CHIAOUA 111420/ROB
CMD
AN N591UA/GL DEC
- QUCHIA0UA 2
DDLXCXA
***UA93 EWRSFO***

This one was not accepted for delivery by the DSP.  We can tell this by the exact matching BEPts for the Intercept (ICPUL) at 14:21:06.

One other thing has become apparent in looking through this log, and that is that the /GL RGS doesn't appear to actually be used at all.  It certainly wasn't used for any of the failed messages addressed to United 93.  I haven't concluded why yet, but I have some possible ideas.

Just wanted to get that out there.  Still working on the other part, but it is slow going with many interruptions.

Cheers.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users