The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[skyeagle409]

Forget the missile. Nobody is claiming it was here.

I will make a note of your post that the object is not a missile.

Now, can you prove that this is not the grass of my garden?

Depends if your grass is located on the site of the Pentagon.

[bubs49]

Depends if your grass is located on the site of the Pentagon.

And where is the Pentagon in that picture?

[skyeagle409]

And where is the Pentagon in that picture?

East side and not far from here.

Edited November 22, 2011 by skyeagle409

[ValkyrieWings]

What did he say in the video?What is recovered here at the Pentagon?

It's the wheel assy of a B-757 on the right and engine components.!

Looks like aircraft parts that were in an explosion.

Now show us where it says "American 77" on those parts and how those parts fit together into a complete 757 weighing 200,000 lbs.

So, I guess it is now safe to assume you lied when you claimed, "new photo of American 77 just before it struck the Pentagon", considering you have not provided one since you made the claim, and instead dodged, weaned, evaded. and provided photos from years ago after the alleged crash.

Again skyeagle, why do you feel the need to lie to support your theories??

skyeagle, you provide an excellent example of those who blindly support whatever the govt tells them. Thanks for sticking around.

[bubs49]

East side and not far from here.

I see no Pentagon in that picture.

I tend to believe it actually comes from my garden. Or maybe from yours. Who knows?

Edited November 22, 2011 by bubs49

[booNyzarC]

--

skyeagle, you provide an excellent example of those who blindly support whatever the govt tells them. Thanks for sticking around.

Skyeagle may be many things, but he is not a blind supporter of the government.

But tell me Valkyrie, how go the sales? Does the truth movement pay well?

[skyeagle409]

Looks like aircraft parts that were in an explosion.

Now show us where it says "American 77" on those parts and how those parts fit together into a complete 757 weighing 200,000 lbs.

I thought that you were a pilot! If you were a plilot of a B-757, you would know that answer. Definitely not the wheel assy of a B-767 nor a Beechcraft Skipper.It is the wheel assy of a B-757.

Edited November 22, 2011 by skyeagle409

[ValkyrieWings]

I thought that you were a pilot! If you were a plilot of a B-757, you would know that answer. Definitely not the wheel assy of a B-767 nor a Beechcraft Skipper.

Well, at least your reasoning and logic is consistent with your other claims that "The aircraft from 9/11 are deregistered! This is PROOF they were involved in the attacks!" (paraphrased)

Leaving an aircraft registered which supposedly crashed in a commission of a crime, is like stealing a car from a dealership and taking it back to the same dealership for an oil change. That is just plain stupid.

Now, we know the perps of 9/11 were dumb, as they left many holes in their story, but they will not be on the "Worlds Dumbest Criminals" show anytime soon.

I don't think I ever claimed to be a pilot here on UM. If I did can you please provide the source? Oh wait, I forgot who I'm speaking with... you can't even provide a ""new photo of American 77 just before it struck the Pentagon" which you claimed just a few pages ago

LOL...

But pilot or not, I know for a fact that the parts you sourced do not add up to a complete 757 of nearly 200,000 lbs. That is my opinion of course, perhaps you think parts stacked up against a wall, of no more than perhaps 5 feet high, can re-construct a whole 757. In that case, we will have to agree to disagree...

LMAO!

Edited November 22, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[ValkyrieWings]

Skyeagle may be many things, but he is not a blind supporter of the government.

But tell me Valkyrie, how go the sales? Does the truth movement pay well?

Not sure why you are asking me. But do you think Jet pilots make more money selling DVD's on the internet, in which those same presentations are available on the internet for free than flying Jets?

You really think Pilots For 9/11 Truth are in this for the money?

LOL, you're getting desperate booN.

[booNyzarC]

LOL, you're getting desperate booN.

No, just annoyed with your cockiness.

[ValkyrieWings]

No, just annoyed with your cockiness.

I see... you weren't able to address my last post regarding ACARS, so now you resort to Character assassination.

Care to answer my questions?

Here, I'll rephrase.

Do you think Jet pilots earn more money on the internet selling highly controversial DVD's to cover perhaps operating costs, opening themselves up to character assassination from anonymous people like you and "skyeagle", rather than flying Jets for a living?

If these "Jet pilots" were in it for the money, why would they possibly give it away for free on the internet?

I don't expect you will answer these question just as I didn't expect you to answer my questions regarding ACARS being routed based on flight planned route and estimated flight time considering a re-route.

Cockiness? no...

Confidence... yes.

[booNyzarC]

I see... you weren't able to address my last post regarding ACARS, so now you resort to Character assassination.

I didn't realize you were actually asking a serious question. I just thought you were being a smartass like usual.

Care to answer my questions?

Sure.

Here, I'll rephrase.

Do you think Jet pilots earn more money on the internet selling highly controversial DVD's to cover perhaps operating costs, opening themselves up to character assassination from anonymous people like you and "skyeagle", rather than flying Jets for a living?

I don't know how much jet pilots earn and I don't know how much people who try to scrounge money out of the 9/11 tragedy earn with their DVDs and book sales either.

If these "Jet pilots" were in it for the money, why would they possibly give it away for free on the internet?

I don't know, maybe because 'Loose Change' made for a very profitable business model that other scabs now want to try to capitalize on?

I don't expect you will answer these question just as I didn't expect you to answer my questions regarding ACARS being routed based on flight planned route and estimated flight time considering a re-route.

I answered these questions. Care to rephrase the others you claim I won't answer?

Cockiness? no...

Confidence... yes.

Yeah. Right.

[Czero 101]

Bubs, et al...

First let me again repeat that have never challenged the authenticity of the documentation you have provided. All I have requested is some source material, other than "personal experience / interpretation" of the technical aspects of the ACARS system.

So far, the closest I've come to finding such information (without having to spend several hundred dollars to purchase / download the actual specifications from ARINC) is this document from Boeing:

Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 2

This document is from May, 2000 and details plans for the implementation and certification of the FANS/1 upgrades for its 757 & 767 aircraft.

I think its important to note specifically that this information is from May, 2000, more than a year before 9/11. This is important because it discusses technology available at that time. A lot of the information going back and forth so far has been from contemporary sources and the technology and communication standards in use today have changed substantially from those in use 10+ years ago.

While it does not go into complete detail of the ACARS system, it does give a very good overview of the system and also gives more detail on the flow of information for uplink and downlink messages than I have found so far.

For example, starting near the bottom of page 53:

7.3.2.1 DOWNLINK MESSAGE FLOW

On the ground, messages are received by either an RGS or a GES which forward the messages to the DSP. They also perform some minor processing. One important function being to facilitate 'tracking' by adding the identity of the receiving RGS or GES to the message.

Upon receiving a message, the DSP 'handshakes' with the aircraft Communications Management function according to the ACARS air-ground protocol. The DSP then performs a number of functions on the received message. It records the identity of the receiving GES or RGS against the aircraft registration for 'tracking' purposes. It converts the message from ACARS air-ground format to ATA/IATA ground-ground format. The aircraft registration is re-located within the message and the label/sub-label is converted to an equivalent identifier, called an SMI. To properly deliver the message, the DSP does a number of things. First the DSP identifies the message as an ATS message; the DSP uses the MFI or label to do this. Once identified as an ATS message, the DSP looks to the 'supplementary address' field of the message to find the ground delivery address (inserted by the aircraft). This address is then placed in the header of the converted ground/ground message. The message is then routed to this address.

Emphasis on "tracking" added.

Continuing on page 54:

7.3.2.2 UPLINK MESSAGE FLOW

The ATC Facility delivers messages to the DSP in ATA/IATA ground-ground format. To assure proper delivery to and within the aircraft, the message also contains ACARS and 622 information, such as the aircraft registration, an SMI and an MFI, if needed. This information is used to identify the aircraft, the aircraft device and the application being addressed, respectively.

The DSP converts the message to ACARS air-ground format. Part of this involves relocating the aircraft registration and converting the SMI to the equivalent label/sub-label combination. To deliver the message to the aircraft the DSP selects the appropriate air-ground facility.

Aircraft 'tracking' provides a list of the most recently used air-ground facilities. The DSP first attempts delivery via the last facility used. Should that attempt fail it makes a determination as to which facility to use based on the remaining 'tracking' information.

Once an air-ground facility has been chosen by the DSP, it transmits the message to the aircraft via that facility. Communications between the DSP and the aircraft take place using the ACARS air-ground protocol.

RGSs act as little more than remote VHF transceivers connected to the DSP whereas the GESs use a "link-layer" protocol for communication between themselves and the aircraft.

Emphasis added again. Unfortunately this report doesn't have more information about "the remaining tracking information". It has, however, been made clear throughout most of the other information I've read that the ACARS system is usually configured differently for each carrier in regards to what information is used to identify the aircraft being communicated with. Some will use just the tail number, others, like UA at the time, also include the flight number and occasionally the flight's routing information, as exampled by "UA175 BOSLAX" identifier in the UA ACARS messages. It would be interesting to know if, at that time, that information was used in conjunction with individual flight routes provided by the airline as a backup way to locate an aircraft, should all other methods not be successful.

Moving on and back to the bottom of page 54:

7.3.2.3 ACARS AIR-GROUND PROTOCOL

Regardless of the media used, all FANS-1 communication uses the ACARS air-ground protocol. This protocol operates between the airborne Communications Management function and the Service Provider's DSP.

Messages greater than 220 characters are termed 'multi-block' messages. That is, they are divided into 'blocks' no greater than 220 characters in size. Each 'block' then becomes an individual transmission on the air-ground subnetwork.

The ACARS air-ground protocol is a CSMA protocol with a window size of 1, which uses a simplex channel. In simple terms this means that if the VHF channel is in use then access is denied but when clear then all users may access it. An ACARS block must be acknowledged before another ACARS block can be transmitted. Transmission cannot occur if a block is being received.

Pausing here for a moment:

From Wiki - Carrier Sense Multiple Access

Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA) is a probabilistic Media Access Control (MAC) protocol in which a node verifies the absence of other traffic before transmitting on a shared transmission medium, such as an electrical bus, or a band of the electromagnetic spectrum.

"Carrier Sense" describes the fact that a transmitter uses feedback from a receiver that detects a carrier wave before trying to send. That is, it tries to detect the presence of an encoded signal from another station before attempting to transmit. If a carrier is sensed, the station waits for the transmission in progress to finish before initiating its own transmission.

"Multiple Access" describes the fact that multiple stations send and receive on the medium. Transmissions by one node are generally received by all other stations using the medium.

So we can see here that ACARS at the time was not a system that used continuous communication, in other words, there was no dedicated link between aircraft and RGS, which is what I think was suggested at one point. It also shows that, as I mentioned before, all transmissions from an RGS are received by ALL aircraft in the vicinity of the transmitting RGS, assuming the aircraft's VHF radio is not in use at that time, and that the ACARS CMU on-board then filters out all communications except for those that are addressed to that specific aircraft.

Moving on to page 55:

For the remainder of this section the word "message' refers to an 'ACARS air-ground message' i.e.: application data within an ACARS air-ground envelope.

All ACARS message headers contain the aircraft registration, a technical acknowledgment field and an up/downlink block identifier (UBI/DBI). Messages are acknowledged by other messages with a Technical Acknowledgment set to the Block Identifier value used in the message being acknowledged. A negative acknowledgment is indicated by a special character. If either the DSP or the airborne Communications Management function has no data to send but must acknowledge a received message, it sends a 'general service message' with the appropriate Technical Ack.

All ACARS messages have a Block Check Sequence (BCS) appended to them for error checking purposes.

This confirms what has been said before that message "packets" between the aircraft and RGS / DSP need to be acknowledged before subsequent packages will be sent.

The following descriptions apply to the "clear sky" case, where the selected communications path is available. The means of selecting appropriate paths for communication are described in another section.

7.3.2.3.1 UPLINK TRANSMISSION

Uplink transmission from the ATC Facility to the Airborne ATS application system is depicted in Figure 5.

For each message transmitted, the DSP sets a NO ACK timer. One of three things may then happen:

• A message is received with a technical acknowledgment corresponding to the UBI used in the uplink message. The transmission is considered successful and the UBI is incremented for the next message.
  
• The DSP receives a message with a negative acknowledgment (NACK). The transmission is considered to have failed and a re-try is attempted. There may be three re-tries.
  
• The NO ACK timer expires and no acknowledgment has been received. The transmission is considered to have failed and a re-try is attempted. There may be three re-tries.

Once the NO ACK timer expires and none of the retries have been acknowledged, the DSP should route the message via an alternate media (such as SATCOM) or to another service provider using internetworking. If all attempts via all means are unsuccessful, the service provider originally receiving the uplink notifies the originator of the message that the message was not delivered. The service provider then purges the message.

This block diagram depicts an end-to-end uplink procedure, specifically for the ATS Application System residing in an ACARS peripheral and the Communication Management Function in an ACARS MU. A different aircraft architecture (e.g., with the ATS Application System and Communication Management Function residing in the same unit) would be effectively the same from the ground station’s perspective.

Here's a screen-shot of Figure 5:

Note that I have highlighted event 2 and event 7.

Event 2 states that after a message is successfully delivered to the DSP from an ATC facility, an acknowledgement is sent from the DSP to the ATC. If the message cannot be properly formatted for uplinking, a message is sent back to ATC explaining the error.

Event 7 shows that after all message blocks are acknowledged by the receiving aircraft's CMU, ATC is notified that the message was received. If the message fails, a message is sent back to ATC explaining the error.

It is interesting to note that in all the ACARS messages shown in the documentation provided, we see no "Message Failed" messages from the DSP, specifically regarding the last few messages sent to UA93, or at the very least, there are no messages that appear to have a reason given for a failed message.

There is also mention of a failed message to UA175 in the following document:

Memorandum for the Record (MFR) of the Interview of Interviews of UAL and AAL personnel in key roles on 9/11/2001 of American Airlines; United Airlines Conducted by Team 7; 8, 11/17/2003

At the bottom of page 3 it has a list of "United Flight 175 Messages of Interest"

United Flight 175 Messages of Interest

1158:00Z Pushback (rounded to nearest 30 seconds)

1214:00Z Lift off (nose wheel strut extension)

1231:49Z A crew acknowledged message that indicates crew was in charge

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged from {J. Tsen} stating "I heard of a reported incident."

1259:29 Additional dispatcher-initiated message

1259:30 Additional dispatcher-initiated message

1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft

The two message indicated above are these two ACARS messages from the documentation provided:

DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM

.SFOLMUA 111259/JER

CMD

AN N612UA/GL MDT

- QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX

I HEARD OF A PREORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL

IS NORMAL....THX 777SAM

SFOLM JERRY TSEN

:09111259 108575 0543

DDLXCXA CHIYR CHI58R

.CHIYRUA 111303/AD

CMD

AN N612UA/GL MDT

- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX

- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -

NY APPROACH LOOKIN FOR YA ON 127.4

CHIDD AD ROGERS

:09111303 108575 0546

I can see no difference in the structure of either of these messages, other than the expected different headers identifying the different senders, that would lead me to conclude that one was received by the aircraft, while the other was not.

What I am led to believe, however, is that these messages have been acknowledged by the DSP as satisfactory for formatting. In other words, these messages show only that they were received by the DSP and show no information as to whether or not it was received by the aircraft, yet we now have documentation stating that the second message from Rogers was not received by the aircraft. And that was determined by David Knerr, who also audited the UA93 messages and stated that several were not received by that aircraft.

From the above referenced MFR document, Page 3:

David Knerr, Manager, Flight Data Automation, provided the briefing. Knerr stated that he accomplished an "ACARS audit" on 9-11 on both UA175 and UA93 "by noon." He verbally certified that he presented to Mr. Kara in compiled form all of the ACARS information relevant to both flights that day.

As mentioned earlier by booNy, it has been said that the following ACARS message to US93 is one that was not received, and that its different format is the proof of this:

CHIAO CHI68R

.CHIAOUA 111420/ROB

CMD

AN N591UA/GL DEC

- QUCHIAOUA 2

DDLXCXA

***UA93 EWRSFO***

The format of the message, while different from the other messages shown in the ACARS message listings, does not follow with the above referenced description in the Boeing document. It states no reason why the message was undeliverable.

Along with booNy, I understand how that assumption could be made, but given that we have now have clear documentation from the time period in question stating categorically that a failed uplink will generate a message from the DSP with a reason as to why the message was undeliverable, I also agree that the evidence presented thus far does not support the contention that the above message does not represent the format that a "failed message" would have.

On page 33 of the ACARS message listings, there is another example of this type of message, this time in regards to UA161:

HDQDD CHI68R

.HDQDDUA 111343/LIN

CMD

AN N562UA/GL BOS

- QUHDQDDUA 2

DDLXCXA

***UA161 ***

Messages were sent to UA 161 prior to this at 11:32 (page 24) and subsequent to this at 13:51 (page 42), both by Ed Ballinger.

I'm not stating that I know what a failed ACARS message notification would look like, aside from there being a reason for the failed delivery but so far, there is nothing stating that it would look like the examples above.

Again, just so that it is absolutely clear, I am not saying that the documents under discussion are not genuine, but I think it is a fair statement to say that at the very least, they are incomplete, and that the ACARS message listing is in all probability not the same message listing that David Knerr was using during his audit of the messages.

As mentioned before, and referenced on Page 3 of the MFR document listed above, Knerr did an audit of the UA175 ACARS messages as well as the UA93 ACARS messages. It would be interesting to find that report, if it is available for viewing anywhere, since the MFR document seems to be saying that it was Knerr's determination that the Rogers ACARS message to US175 at 13:03 was not received by the aircraft.

So... does this prove that there weren't "duplicate aircraft" on 9/11...? No, probably not... but it does, in my opinion at least, cast some (more...?) doubt on the interpretations of these messages by those who believe there were "duplicate aircraft" and use these message as their proof of that.

Cz

EDITED for typos, formatting, etc...

Edited November 22, 2011 by Czero 101

[booNyzarC]

Great information you've provided here Cz, as always. I need to digest much of it, but I'd just like to add to the list of formatted ACARS from the FOIA PDF which also match the aforementioned "failed UA93" format. There are two more that I noted:

One for UA27 from pg 4:

HDQDD CHI68R

.HDQDDUA 111530/LIN

CMD

AN N447UA/GL MSP

- QUHDQDDUA 2

DDLXCXA

***UA27 ***

And one for UA8117 from pg 63:

HDQDD CHI68R

.HDQDDUA 111434/L1N

CMD

AN N828UA/GL 1AD

- QUHDQDDUA 2

DDLXCXA

***UA8117 ***

I believe this, combined with the information you've uncovered regarding the failed UA175 messages effectively crushes the contention that we can tell from the documentation available which of the ACARS messages actually failed based on formatting alone; which naturally means that we can't know that the aircraft were still in the air based on said interpretations.

Excellent research Cz. You never cease to amaze me.

Edited November 22, 2011 by booNyzarC

[Czero 101]

Thanks booNy... I knew there were a few other ACARS messages with the different formatting... after a while though, all those messages started to look a like and I missed those two. Thanks for adding them.

Take your time with the documentation, especially the Boeing one. Keep in mind that it is mainly centered around the FANS/1 upgrade. FANS uses "applications" that, according to this document, will utilize ACARS messaging and communication protocols to send information back and forth from air-to-ground and vice-versa. Its my understanding that some implementations of FANS will not require the ACARS system at all, as noted on page 47 where it states that an ACARS MU is not essential. My guess is that in some aircraft, the FANS system was to be integrate with ACARS as a cost savings measure, whereas with others, FANS systems without the need for ACARS would be used.

Cz

[ValkyrieWings]

I didn't realize you were actually asking a serious question. I just thought you were being a smartass like usual.

So, you felt that when I bolded the words for you to google, to prove that the technology existed long before 2001 proving your speculation as just that, speculation, you felt was a smartass response?

You know what I think? I think you don't want to google those words and understand the email response I gave you from an expert.... because you cannot deal with the implications. Your whole world will come crushing down upon you if you learn the truth. That is one of the reasons you are here defending the govt story through speculation, and then making excuses of the evidence you can readily research... is nothing more than a "smartass response".

The rest of your post I won't bother to respond to as it is clear you do not respect my replies so why should I respect yours?

booN, just answer me this, do you find it intellectually dishonest when someone claims to have "a new photo of American 77 just before it struck the Pentagon", yet fails to provide such a photo?

Would you go far to say that the above statement is a flat out lie?

Edited November 22, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[ValkyrieWings]

Emphasis on "tracking" added.

Very good Cz.

Now when you learn that aircraft are in constant contact with the nearest RGS/GES based on "ping pong" interrogation and constant transmission, you will then understand why I said that the messages should have been routed through the numerous NYC stations, if not the stations located in CT and MA, if in fact N612UA crashed into the south tower.

It is because the ACARS network understands and "tracks" the direction of the aircraft in real time. Therefore, it is impossible for the ACARS system to route messages through MDT (and especially PIT), when it was "tracking" the aircraft.

Edited November 22, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[booNyzarC]

So, you felt that when I bolded the words for you to google, to prove that the technology existed long before 2001 proving your speculation as just that, speculation, you felt was a smartass response?

No, I felt it was a smartass response because it was a smartass response; like most of your responses. If you don't like that, don't be a smartass.

Simple solution, no?

You know what I think? I think you don't want to google those words and understand the email response I gave you from an expert.... because you cannot deal with the implications. Your whole world will come crushing down upon you if you learn the truth. That is one of the reasons you are here defending the govt story through speculation, and then making excuses of the evidence you can readily research... is nothing more than a "smartass response".

I don't really care what you think. You haven't backed up the assertions and adequately addressed the valid questions which have been raised. Just more hand waving as expected.

The rest of your post I won't bother to respond to as it is clear you do not respect my replies so why should I respect yours?

Why am I not surprised?

booN, just answer me this, do you find it intellectually dishonest when someone claims to have "a new photo of American 77 just before it struck the Pentagon", yet fails to provide such a photo?

Would you go far to say that the above statement is a flat out lie?

Sounds like your problem to figure out.

[ValkyrieWings]

assuming the aircraft's VHF radio is not in use at that time

Now lets see if "skyeagle" is a real pilot.

Cz, how about you ask skyeagle how many VHF radios are capable of being held in an avionics bay of any modern jet transport manufactured after... oh... lets say.. 1980.

Then ask him how many VHF radio heads and display units are capable of being held in the center console, main and overhead panels.

Sorry folks, this is pure entertainment for me, but it serves a purpose, and I personally thank Cz, booN, and 'skyeagle' for continuing to post. Either they have never played chess or poker before or they are really on our side as I cannot imagine why these same people make such blatant mistakes time and time again.

Either way, I highly recommend the readers who just joined us, cuddle up, and read from the beginning of this thread. It wont take you long... and the time you spend is invaluable.

Edited November 22, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[ValkyrieWings]

blah blah blah, i refuse to google the words provided to me by an expert

There, I fixed your quote for you.

Anytime you wish to answer this, please let us know...

Do you find it intellectually dishonest when someone claims to have "a new photo of American 77 just before it struck the Pentagon", yet fails to provide such a photo?

I'll add to it by saying, I have a photo of 'American 77' flying over the Pentagon. Want it?

Edited November 22, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[Czero 101]

Still playing the "I'm a d*ck" card, eh?

I could care less what Skyeagle thinks or post, and even less about what you think about what he thinks or posts.

You want answers from him, ask him yourself.

Cz

[ValkyrieWings]

Still playing the "I'm a d*ck" card, eh?

I could care less what Skyeagle thinks or post, and even less about what you think about what he thinks or posts.

You want answers from him, ask him yourself.

Cz

Fair enough, I cant say I blame you for not wanting to know "skyeagle's" opinion.

But if you want to know the facts, how about you go to your local airport and visit a flight school and see how many VHF Transceivers are in perhaps an IFR equipped Cherokee or Cessna 172? Then you can speculate what is in a 757 or 767.

Here's a hint, it's more than one. I already know the answer. But even if I tell you, apparently it doesnt mean much. So go find out for yourself... yes?

Are you interested in facts or arguing on the internet?

Edited November 22, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[Czero 101]

The Boeing document I linked earlier mentioned 3 VHF radios that provide line-of-sight operation. Typically left and right are reserved for voice communication and centre is shared for voice / data. It also mentions that some aircraft are equipped to allow selection of the centre or right VHF for data communication.

Assuming data only on the centre radio, it is possible, and the protocols allow for, the radio to not be available to the ACARS system as voice communication has priority. In a case where the radio is switched over to voice mid-transmission, the CMU will not get an acknowledgement of that particular block and will wait until the radio is available to it again before attempting retransmission. Similarly if the radio is keyed for voice while receiving ACARS data, it will not be able to acknowledge a given block and the RGS will resend it.

I am interested in facts otherwise I would not be spending this much time on this subject. I would simply dismiss the whole notion as the "blind government believer" you accuse me of being.

However, I see problems with the "duplicate plane theory" and explanations I cannot understand. The reasons and justifications given thus far aren't solid enough for me to take at face value because they seem to rely mostly on personal interpretations, rather than documented facts. I am doing what I can to find as many documented facts as to the workings of the ACARS system as it was in 2001 (no easy task) so that I can understand it well enough to decipher the issues without the need to rely on someone else's interpretation.

I am not interested in dealing with your attitude towards the questions I have.

Take your pick as to which one you prefer to stick with.

Cz

[Scott G]

Fair enough, I cant say I blame you for not wanting to know "skyeagle's" opinion.

But if you want to know the facts, how about you go to your local airport and visit a flight school and see how many VHF Transceivers are in perhaps an IFR equipped Cherokee or Cessna 172? Then you can speculate what is in a 757 or 767.

Here's a hint, it's more than one. I already know the answer. But even if I tell you, apparently it doesnt mean much. So go find out for yourself... yes?

Are you interested in facts or arguing on the internet?

Valkyrie; I'm interested in the facts. But I don't even understand why you're asking this question. I'm fairly sure you're a core member of PFT, so for you this is probably simple stuff, but I'm currently getting lost with a lot of the stuff that's being brought up. So would you help me out by telling me why the number of VHF transceivers in an IFR equipped Cherokee or Cessna 172, or a 767 (I imagine they're IFR equipped, probably even "airways equipped") is important? By the way, I googled IFR.. apparently it stands for Instrument flight rules. Wiki's page on them states the following:

***Instrument flight rules (IFR) are one of two sets of regulations governing all aspects of civil aviation aircraft operations; the other are visual flight rules (VFR).***

As to what constitutes an IFR equipped airplane, it seems that it's a rather vague concept and so not that easy to determine. From a thread I read on the subject:

Questioner:

If an aircraft is advertised as IFR equipped, what does that mean? That you can fly airways with an IR? Or just that its got VOR/DME/ADF?

Answer 1:

It's an advert, treat it with caution - the person selling is trying to put his aircraft in the best possible light and those words 'IFR equipped' do that. Have a read of schedule 5 of the ANO and compare what that states you should have with what the aircraft has. That tells you the legal requirements for radio / nav equipment for the different types of flight in different types of airspace and is the benchmark you have to work to.

Answer 2:

"IFR equipped" can mean anything, so is meaningless.

"Airways equipped" means it has a full set of IFR instrumentation and is useable for Class A IFR flight - assuming you have the rating for it.

If you plan to fly IFR in IMC with your IMC rating, then my advice would be to ignore the "you could get away with..." and go for something fully airways equipped.

To get me to fly in IMC, which I do often (including some today) I insist on 2 VORs (at least one with ILS), DME, transponder (with Mode C or Mode S), marker receiver, ADF, 2 COM sets (all FM immune), AH, DI, Turn Coordinator, 2 altimeters, and a clock. You might also want an IFR-approved GPS but that's sort-of optional although nice.

Yes, I've done IFR approaches with only an ADF and one VOR, and it's not a good idea.

If you're going to use an IFR-approved GPS, then plan to spend a LOT of time with it, getting to know how to drive it. At 2000 feet in filthy turbulence isn't the time to start trying to work out which button to press...

Edited November 22, 2011 by Scott G

[Scott G]

...However, I see problems with the "duplicate plane theory" and explanations I cannot understand.

I certainly don't understand some things regarding the duplicate plane theory myself. However, I see more problems with the official story's version of events. Here's part of a conversation I was having with bubs (in PMs, not in the forums):

A plane (maybe not the real UA 175, but one squawking it) was flying along.. right? But you say that it was flying with a code of 1470.. but that's not 175.. or did 1470 mean 175? Then, it changes its transponder code to 3020, and immediately after to 3321. Meanwhile, the drone goes off to hit the South Tower, always without a transponder code?

Also, do you know if there's a video of the radar blips of all this? It would be nice to actually -see- what may well have been a drone approach the plane that was squawking UA 175 (or 1470 if that's what stood for UA 175 on 9/11) as this was happening.

The reasons and justifications given thus far aren't solid enough for me to take at face value because they seem to rely mostly on personal interpretations, rather than documented facts. I am doing what I can to find as many documented facts as to the workings of the ACARS system as it was in 2001 (no easy task) so that I can understand it well enough to decipher the issues without the need to rely on someone else's interpretation.

I am not interested in dealing with your attitude towards the questions I have.

Take your pick as to which one you prefer to stick with.

Czero, I too have been frustrated in the past with members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (I'd have a very hard time believing that Valkyrie isn't a core member of that organization). But I'm fairly sure that the feeling was mutual. The main problem, as far as I can tell, is that [a] you and me aren't pilots and we both have a tendency to question things a fair amount when we don't understand them. I admittedly have one advantage over you in this forum; I believe that Valkyrie's view that the planes were swapped and I think he knows this, whereas I think it's pretty clear that you're still fairly skeptical of this notion. The combination of having someone who knows a fair amount less than him questioning his views on this subject.. I imagine it's like a student questioning their teacher on something the teacher knows he's right about. It takes a very patient teacher to not get upset with this.

Did you know I, who've pretty much believed in the core theories proposed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth since I joined their site, was suspended for 3 months from said site? Q24 knows about this; I even told him why I felt it happened. At present, I can't even post in their forums. Despite all of this, I -still- believe they're right. And to be fair, last I checked, I could still send PMs; this ability and my use of it may be the reason that Valkyrie is posting here now.

I think I'm fairly good at not letting personal grievances get in the way of logic and I've always been impressed by their arguments regarding the 9/11 planes. So I ask you to consider the possibility that Valkyrie is something like a teacher that you had a hard time with in school, yet that could still teach you things of value if you're willing to bear through a chastisement or 2, unfair though they may be.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Scott G