Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Scott G

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

2,524 posts in this topic

United 175 actually deviated West (Cleveland), while the third target headed to New York.

There is more evidence that "UA175" deviated west. "UA175" was receiving ACARS messages from stations in Harrisburg, PA and Pittsburgh after the second strike at the WTC.

Scroll forward to 36:50 here for the specific scene on "UA93" and "UA175" still airborne after the crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more evidence that "UA175" deviated west. "UA175" was receiving ACARS messages from stations in Harrisburg, PA and Pittsburgh after the second strike at the WTC.

Scroll forward to 36:50 here for the specific scene on "UA93" and "UA175" still airborne after the crash.

Exactly. ACARS information were discovered by Woody Box years ago. United 175 received an ACARS message at 9:23 while flying over Pittsburgh, this is well 20 minutes after its alleged crash on the South Tower. This is an additional evidence that United 175 deviated its course West after the rendezvous, while the unidentified third target continued its route to New York.

Bottom line: the real United 175 did not hit the South Tower. The plane that hit the South Tower (drone, manually controlled aircraft, whatever) was not United 175.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. ACARS information were discovered by Woody Box years ago. United 175 received an ACARS message at 9:23 while flying over Pittsburgh, this is well 20 minutes after its alleged crash on the South Tower. This is an additional evidence that United 175 deviated its course West after the rendezvous, while the unidentified third target continued its route to New York.

Bottom line: the real United 175 did not hit the South Tower. The plane that hit the South Tower (drone, manually controlled aircraft, whatever) was not United 175.

I love this type of info. Thanks guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 9:23 Ed Ballinger sends the last ACARS message to Flight 175.

Here's the ACARS message:

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R

.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED

CMD

AN N612UA/GL PIT

- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX

- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -

/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C

NTER BUILDS...

CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574

I marked in red the most relevant information.

PIT = Pittsburgh. The ACARS message was received by the Pittsburgh RGS (radio ground station). This means that at 9:23 the Pittsburgh RGS was the ground station with the strongest signal, therefore United 175 was in that area (within a radius of 70 miles, if my recollections are correct). Also, the fact that the message was sent to "N612UA" is a conclusive evidence that it was sent and received by the real United 175, no doubts.

Bottom line: At 9:23 the real United 175 was far from New York, approximately in the Pittsburgh area. United dispatcher Ed Ballinger sends a message to United 175 "BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C". This proves conclusively that United was tracking the real United 175 and not the supposed United 175 that hit WTC2 at 9:03.

It also proves that the real United 175 did not hit WTC2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, you answer a question with a question...So you're not really answering are you. Was their War Games being performed on 9/11? Yes or No?

Of course! We conduct them throughout the year and if they involve aerial exercises near airways, then NOTAMS are issued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is a gap in communications & in people watching the radar.

Remember, there was a hijacking in progress and the transponders were tampered with, but the ATC folks can still track an aircraft even though important information related to that aircraft is lost.

The reason why some folks make this an issue is because they are not familiar with the way things work in the real world of air traffic control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:tu:

I have provided details that apparently were ignored. Now once again, I have posted the registration numbers that are currently unregistered. Just one example.

FAA REGISTRY

Apparently, there are those who don't seem to understand that fact alone confirms that the aircraft were American 77, American 11, United 175, and United 93. In aviation, you cannot switch numbers between aircraft, especially where records are spread all over the country involving thousands of signatures and inspection stamps, and by the fact that each airline has its own aircraft accounted for.

Maintenance records cannot be switched between aircraft because each aircraft has its own unique history so there was no way the airliners could have been switched with drones on the ground nor during flight. Those who think so are not familiar with the way things are done in the real world of aviation.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What of the war games supposedly being performed on 9/11? They had planes in the air.

War games are performed around the country throughout the year, so that is nothing new.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, there was a hijacking in progress

A hijacking in progress? What hijacking are you talking about, skyeagle? Certainly not that of United 175. Please let me remind you that what's being discussed here is the key time 8:46. At that time, only American 11 was considered hijacked. United 175 was not considered hijacked until its supposed hijackers changed its squawk code twice, what happened according to the official story at 8:46, seconds later than American 11 supposedly hit WTC1. The 9/11 Commission Report itself says "The hickackers attacked sometime betwwen 8:42 and 8:46" (p. 24). So how the ground controllers could possibly know at 8:46 that "a hijacking was in progress"? Before United 175 changed its transponder code???

and the transponders were tampered with

The transponder code was not tampered before 8:46, but exactly at 8:46.

The reason why some folks make this an issue is because they are not familiar with the way work in the real world of air traffic control.

The reason why you don't make this an issue is because you ignore the basics of 9/11 or you believe that people debating with you ignore them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have provided details that apparently were ignored. Now once again, I have posted the registration numbers that are currently unregistered. Just one example.

FAA REGISTRY

The last time Boeing 767 - MSN 21873 (aka Flight 175 on September 11, 2001) allegedly flew was on September 11, 2001. So why was it that they were only deregistered in 2005? It take 4 years to deregister an aircraft?

There's another thing I'm wondering. I found a page that allegedly shows certain flights that Boeing 767 - MSN 21873 made. The last one is on September 2001. It states the plane's arrival at LAX. I have no idea as to the authenticity of it, so perhaps someone with more expertise could comment as to the authenticity of what's reported on the following page:

http://www.airfleets...=b767&msn=21873

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War games are performed around the country throughout the year, so that is nothing new.

Be that as it may be, there are some that are only done once a year; such as around 3 on 9/11. Why was there little to no media attention of these war games that were proceeding on 9/11? And when finally acknowledged, why the lie that it helped them be more ready when in truth it enabled the hijacked aircraft to reach their targets by making it impossible for the military to know which planes were truly hijacked and which were just simulated radar blips? Why was one of the war games done around a month early to coincide with the others being done on 9/11? Food for thought.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Filtering all the clutter, we have two facts here:

  1. Fact 1. BTS database provides inconsistent takeoff times both for United 175 and United 93. His answer? None.
  2. Fact 2. We have a strange "rendezvous" in the skies at 08:46 involving United 175, United 93 and a third unidentified target, all this virtually at the same time when American 11 hits the North Tower and United 175 changes its squawk code twice. His explanation? None.

In regards to 1., I have stated that United 175 reached its altitude at FL310, which is 31,000 feet, at 08:33. That should have told you that there was no way that United 175 could have reached FL310 if the takeoff occurred at 08:23, and that fact alone should have ended the argument right there because radar data could have been used to determine that actual location of the aircraft at 08:23.

At 08:17, United 175 was already above 5000 feet and still climbing, which simply means that the BTS fake-off time of 08:23 is incorrect. If there are conflicting time frames, then you look where the aircraft is located.

In regards to 2., there was no strange rendezvous between the aircraft because ATC would have noticed anything peculiar and each aircraft flying in Class A airspace are under the control of air traffic controllers, but the important thing is, how are you going to fly a drone into controlled airspace without the knowledge of ATC?

To address another issue, there are those who seem to think that you can turn off a transponder and in doing so, there will be no way for ATC to track the aircraft on radar. Once again, that shows there are those who are not familiar with the way things work in the real world of aviation. Just because someone turns off a transponder in their aircraft doesn't mean that an aircraft cannot be tracked on radar, it simply means that certain information for that aircraft is lost, but the aircraft can still be tracked on radar.

That should have been a hint when I mentioned the other day that if enemy bombers enter our airspace illegally they must have their transponders squawking codes that will identify them as enemy bombers, which means that the United States require its enemies to install transponders onboard their bombers for identification purposes should they decided to attack us and if they do so, ATC will direct the enemy bombers to 'IDENT' on their transponders.

Ridicules?? Why of course, but no more ridicules than claims that:

1. Millions of dollars and months spent for research and modifications for high speed purposes in order to slam them into buildings a few knots above their Vmo when the same aircraft will be destroyed at an airspeed a few knots below their Vmo without any modifications.

2. Aircraft rendezvous in controlled airspace without knowledge of ATC

3. Aircraft repainted in the markings of an airline with bogus registration numbers. Never mind the airlines have their own aircraft accounted for. Any attempt to fly an aircraft on a flight plan into controlled airspace with a false registration number in the markings of an airline for which that aircraft is already accounted for will instantly be identified as a fake and the affected airline notified along with the FAA. and FBI, not to mention that Boeing keeps records as well.

4. The United States killed thousands of its own citizens and destroyed its own buildings, which cost billions of dollars and climbing even today, and addtional lives that continue to rise in Afghanistan

And in the eyes of a few, it was all done to make things better for the United States.

Aliens, UFO, Elvis, a lot of speculation about drones that can't be flown in a controlled airspace or, if any, did not originate from Stewart AFB either, B-767 that can't be modified by the most powerful government in the world, passengers recovery, victims, everything.

Once again, you cannot fly B-767 drones into controlled airspace without clearance. To do so will initiate an investigation and expose a plot.

There is also talk that our interceptors did not intercept the airliners for some reason, but that is not the first time. Air Force interceptors were unable to intercept the aerial invaders over Washington D.C. in 1952. When air traffic controllers saw that the aerial invaders overflew the White House, the Pentagon, and the Capitol building, they notified the USAF, which sent in the interceptors, but one of the interceptors was itself, intercepted by the aerial invaders and one of the aerial objects was tracked at over 7000 mph in a climb. Many people of today are unaware the USAF attempted on many occasions to intercept these objects and the attempts continue to this very day.

Source: LIFE magazine, August 4, 1952, pages 39-40. In addition:

washington1952newspaper.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to 1., I have stated that United 175 reached its altitude at FL310, which is 31,000 feet, at 08:33. That should have told you that there was no way that United 175 could have reached FL310 if the takeoff occurred at 08:23, and that fact alone should have ended the argument right there because radar data could have been used to determine that actual location of the aircraft at 08:23.

At 08:17, United 175 was already above 5000 feet and still climbing, which simply means that the BTS fake-off time of 08:23 is incorrect. If there are conflicting time frames, then you look where the aircraft is located.

As usual, you answer to real questions either sidetracking the focus or reiterating your confirmation bias.

You seem to ignore that:

  1. BTS data times match the data times reported by the Commission Report and other official sources always. There are only two exceptions: the wheels-off times for United 175 and United 93.
  2. BTS data are accurate and considered as such in the aviation

If you look at the BTS database, you see, for example, that there is no mismatch as the time when United 175 pushed back from the gate. Both the Commission report and the BTS database report 7:58. The mismatch is in the wheels-off time: BTS reports 8:23 while the Commission reports 8:14. BTS data can not be accurate only when they confirm your version and simply "inaccurate" when they do not.

Please note that the wheels-off time reported in the BTS database is generated automatically by a trigger in the aircraft and sent to the airline through an ACARS message. Therefore, there is no way BTS data are "inaccurate", unless you prove that someone tampered with them.

Therefore, we must conclude that BTS data are correct. The only plausible explanation why BTS database reports 8:23 as wheels-off time for United 175 while radar data show that the plane was already in the skies is that there was a duplication at Logan. One plane took off at 8:14, another plane at 8:23. No matter which of them was what (passenger aircraft, drone, whatever), two different aircrafts supposed to be United 175 took off from Logan between 8:14 and 8:23.

Please note that the duplication is perfectly consistent with the later scenario (8:46), when a third target overlaps on the track of United 175. The same pattern was used for the duplication of United 93 in Newark. Two different boardings, two different aircrafts, obviously also two different wheels-off times.

In regards to 2., there was no strange rendezvous between the aircraft because ATC would have noticed anything peculiar and each aircraft flying in Class A airspace are under the control of air traffic controllers, but the important thing is, how are you going to fly a drone into controlled airspace without the knowledge of ATC?

In regards to 2. you simply ignore what really happened in the skies at 8:46 and the presence of a third target.

You confirm your bias by simply ignoring the facts.

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also talk that our interceptors did not intercept the airliners for some reason, but that is not the first time. Air Force interceptors were unable to intercept the aerial invaders over Washington D.C. in 1952. When air traffic controllers saw that the aerial invaders overflew the White House, the Pentagon, and the Capitol building, they notified the USAF, which sent in the interceptors, but one of the interceptors was itself, intercepted by the aerial invaders and one of the aerial objects was tracked at over 7000 mph in a climb. Many people of today are unaware the USAF attempted on many occasions to intercept these objects and the attempts continue to this very day.

Source: LIFE magazine, August 4, 1952, pages 39-40. In addition:

washington1952newspaper.jpg

You seem to be suggesting that the 9/11 planes might have been alien aircraft. I think there's more evidence that they were drones, but anything is more likely then it being the aircraft that the official story posits, so I'm happy you're atleast considering an alternative to the official story's version here; passenger airplanes just couldn't have flown at those speeds, especially considering the turns they made.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be suggesting that the 9/11 planes might have been alien aircraft. I think there's more evidence that they were drones, but anything is more likely then it being the aircraft that the official story posits, so I'm happy you're atleast considering an alternative to the official story's version here; passenger airplanes just couldn't have flown at those speeds, especially considering the turns they made.

Scott,

the only reason why skyeagle is bringing aliens, UFO and extraterrestrial objects into this topic is to divert the discussion from its real and natural focus.

That being said, for many people is much more self-assuring to believe that aliens caused 9/11 than his/her own government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. ACARS information were discovered by Woody Box years ago. United 175 received an ACARS message at 9:23 while flying over Pittsburgh, this is well 20 minutes after its alleged crash on the South Tower. This is an additional evidence that United 175 deviated its course West after the rendezvous, while the unidentified third target continued its route to New York.

Bottom line: the real United 175 did not hit the South Tower. The plane that hit the South Tower (drone, manually controlled aircraft, whatever) was not United 175.

This may not be as definitive as you appear to think it is.

Aren't ACARS free text data messages a one way VHF communication? There isn't any information about whether the message was received is there? Just that it was sent? And perhaps it was sent from the ground station in PA because according to the flight plan for United 175 that is about where the flight would have been at that time?

That seems to be the impression I got from reading this JREF thread anyway.

If it had actually been demonstrably received, I would agree that it would be something needing explanation. But from the looks of it, it might just have been sent and not received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may not be as definitive as you appear to think it is.

Aren't ACARS free text data messages a one way VHF communication? There isn't any information about whether the message was received is there? Just that it was sent? And perhaps it was sent from the ground station in PA because according to the flight plan for United 175 that is about where the flight would have been at that time?

That seems to be the impression I got from reading this JREF thread anyway.

If it had actually been demonstrably received, I would agree that it would be something needing explanation. But from the looks of it, it might just have been sent and not received.

JREF, really? Talk about extreme confirmation bias. Wow!

ACARS, like an email, let's you know if the message was not received or failed. It is a datalink much like a Cell phone. ACARS on board is constantly being interrogated by nearby stations, just like cell stations. If "UA175" did crash into the South tower, the stations transmitting would be in the NYC area, not Harrisburg, PA and then PIT... and would have replied "Message failed".

ACARS is used daily by many airlines throughout the world for many different things including but not limited to extension of crews and scheduling. If ACARS worked like old school text messaging, many crews would receive an ACARS scheduling extension.. taxi to the gate... and leave the airplane saying "Sorry I never received the ACARS".

Also, if ACARS worked the way as claimed by JREFer's, what happens when an aircraft is diverted from their original flight plan due to weather? This happens all the time and a diversion could be more than 200 miles out of the way depending on lines of T-Storms developing, weather below minimums at destination.. the list goes on.... According to JREFers, that airplane would never receive an ACARS again.

Thank goodness for flight safety, JREFers are wrong as usual.

You are more than welcome to listen to the anonymous posters at JREF. But I guarantee you that not one of them will put their name on the absurd claims they make. They make those claims for the average layman hoping the average layman will go back to sleep after hearing any excuse that sounds good.

Edited by ValkyrieWings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War games are performed around the country throughout the year, so that is nothing new.

The fact that they involved fake radar blips, 'injects' and was a live fly exercise means they could well have had something to do with what happened that day. There was a NOTAM issued on that day. Why were you not aware of that?

Apparently, there are those who don't seem to understand that fact alone confirms that the aircraft were American 77, American 11, United 175, and United 93. In aviation, you cannot switch numbers between aircraft, especially where records are spread all over the country involving thousands of signatures and inspection stamps, and by the fact that each airline has its own aircraft accounted for.

Is my understanding correct that you are saying that because the aircraft have been deregistered....It proves they were the planes that hit the towers? (It must be impossible to deregister them otherwise!) This seems stupid even to me, if the planes that were destroyed were supposed to be flights 11, 77, 175 and 93, what else are they going to do? Put them back into service and hope no-one notices?? You're reasons aren't very good skyeagle.

Ridicules?? Why of course, but no more ridicules than claims that

Personally I find it ridiculous that a supposed pilot with years of experience in intelligence can't even spell ridiculous. Why is this I wonder.

4. The United States killed thousands of its own citizens and destroyed its own buildings, which cost billions of dollars and climbing even today, and addtional lives that continue to rise in Afghanistan

And in the eyes of a few, it was all done to make things better for the United States.

You cannot see a single benefit for the US in having done this? Your mind is as closed as your eyes skyeagle.

As usual, you answer to real questions either sidetracking the focus or reiterating your confirmation bias.

You seem to ignore that:

  1. BTS data times match the data times reported by the Commission Report and other official sources always. There are only two exceptions: the wheels-off times for United 175 and United 93.
  2. BTS data are accurate and considered as such in the aviation

If you look at the BTS database, you see, for example, that there is no mismatch as the time when United 175 pushed back from the gate. Both the Commission report and the BTS database report 7:58. The mismatch is in the wheels-off time: BTS reports 8:23 while the Commission reports 8:14. BTS data can not be accurate only when they confirm your version and simply "inaccurate" when they do not.

Please note that the wheels-off time reported in the BTS database is generated automatically by a trigger in the aircraft and sent to the airline through an ACARS message. Therefore, there is no way BTS data are "inaccurate", unless you prove that someone tampered with them.

Therefore, we must conclude that BTS data are correct. The only plausible explanation why BTS database reports 8:23 as wheels-off time for United 175 while radar data show that the plane was already in the skies is that there was a duplication at Logan. One plane took off at 8:14, another plane at 8:23. No matter which of them was what (passenger aircraft, drone, whatever), two different aircrafts supposed to be United 175 took off from Logan between 8:14 and 8:23.

Please note that the duplication is perfectly consistent with the later scenario (8:46), when a third target overlaps on the track of United 175. The same pattern was used for the duplication of United 93 in Newark. Two different boardings, two different aircrafts, obviously also two different wheels-off times.

In regards to 2. you simply ignore what really happened in the skies at 8:46 and the presence of a third target.

You confirm your bias by simply ignoring the facts.

Logical. Now you can wait for skyeagle to reply saying 'no that cant happen someone would have noticed something and informed the faa and alarm bells would have gone off and the FBI be informed!1!!'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That seems to be the impression I got from reading this JREF thread anyway.

If it had actually been demonstrably received, I would agree that it would be something needing explanation. But from the looks of it, it might just have been sent and not received.

Hi Boony,

not only that ACARS message was received, but the simple fact that the dispatcher Ed Ballinger sent an ACARS message to N621UA at 9:23 proves itself that at 9:23 United was still tracking United 175 although it was officially destroyed 20 minutes before on WTC2. This is an additional evidence that United was tracking a different United 175 than FAA. The bottom line is one more time the same: United 175 was duplicated.

As far as the linked thread on JREF is concerned, there is no real refutation of this hypothesis (of course, they know they can't). Only 4 pages of personal attacks against Woody Box such as "woodybox is an idiot; Flight 175 was not duplicated, woodybox is insane." Not that I expect too much from a forum with Beachnut and CheapShot (...), but that thread is probably one of most clear examples of debunking desperation.

Fact is that the duplication is proven and there is nothing JREF people can do to deny the evidence expect personal attacks.

Regards

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, you answer to real questions either sidetracking the focus or reiterating your confirmation bias.

You seem to ignore that:

  1. BTS data times match the data times reported by the Commission Report and other official sources always. There are only two exceptions: the wheels-off times for United 175 and United 93.
  2. BTS data are accurate and considered as such in the aviation

It doesn't matter in any of the above cases, because United 175 was tracked on radar at 08:23 as it was climbing to FL310. By 08:23,United 175 was above 15,000 feet and still climbing, so you can forget about that BTS 08:23 takeoff time.

If you look at the BTS database, you see, for example, that there is no mismatch as the time when United 175 pushed back from the gate. Both the Commission report and the BTS database report 7:58. The mismatch is in the wheels-off time: BTS reports 8:23 while the Commission reports 8:14. BTS data can not be accurate only when they confirm your version and simply "inaccurate" when they do not.

Please note that the wheels-off time reported in the BTS database is generated automatically by a trigger in the aircraft and sent to the airline through an ACARS message. Therefore, there is no way BTS data are "inaccurate", unless you prove that someone tampered with them.

Therefore, we must conclude that BTS data are correct. The only plausible explanation why BTS database reports 8:23 as wheels-off time for United 175 while radar data show that the plane was already in the skies is that there was a duplication at Logan. One plane took off at 8:14, another plane at 8:23. No matter which of them was what (passenger aircraft, drone, whatever), two different aircrafts supposed to be United 175

There were no duplicate United 175 flights from Boston airport. There can be no duplicate flights within the same time frame and airspace and ATC would not have cleared a second flight with the same flight number from the same airline for takeoff. ATC would have notiified United of the descrepancy, which would have kept the second flight grounded. Afterward, the FAA and the FBI would be notified.

Having two aircraft from the same airline with the same flight number would have created a safety-of-flight hazard, and another reason why ATC would not have cleared such a flight for takeoff from Boston.I could make up another senario and post it on the Internet and no doubt, I would not have to wait very long before a 9/11 conspiracist attempt to use my own faked senario against me. After all, we can look at their past attempts as an example.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter in any of the above cases, because United 175 was tracked on radar at 08:23 as it was climbing to FL310. By 08:23,United 175 was above 15,000 feet and still climbing, so you can forget about that BTS 08:23 takeoff time.

One more time, skyeagle, you're admittedly ignoring facts. You simply forget about BTS data because they don't fit in your theory.

Other posters here try to provide alternative explanations. You don't. You simply ignore everything that is conflict with your bias. You would admit that aliens made 9/11, but in no way you're ready to accept the evidence that you've been lied to by your government.

I won't be repeating the same things again and again as you do.

Sorry, but this will be my last reply to you. There is no way to debate with someone who simply ignores evidence and facts.

Edited by bubs49

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Boony,

not only that ACARS message was received, but the simple fact that the dispatcher Ed Ballinger sent an ACARS message to N621UA at 9:23 proves itself that at 9:23 United was still tracking United 175 although it was officially destroyed 20 minutes before on WTC2. This is an additional evidence that United was tracking a different United 175 than FAA. The bottom line is one more time the same: United 175 was duplicated.

That never happened. ATC would not have cleared a duplicate second flight for takeoff and data from ARTC and the 84th AES data shows that there were no duplicate flights and that United 175 was about halfway to FL310 by 08:20 and at location, 42 13 16.101 N 071 14 28.911 W . which is not the location of Boston airport.That aircraft was tracked to impact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more time, skyeagle, you're admittedly ignoring facts. You simply forget about BTS data because they don't fit in your theory

As I have said before, ATC would not have cleared a duplicate flight for takeoff and United 175 was tracked on radar about halfway to its altitude of 31,000 feet by 08:23. That much is etched in stone, so once again, you have to dismiss the BTS time because United 175 was already tracked on radar in-flight before 08:23 and that aircraft was tracked to impact in New York.

If you don't know the rest of the story, it makes no sense to speculate, especially when you cannot account for the passengers and in addition, I have supplied references where those registration numbers have now been retired and that should have ended the debate once and for all.

Ever wondered why a judge has ordered the terrorist organization, Al-Qaeda, to pay for damages caused during its 9/11 attacks? That is one hint the U.S. government was not the culprit, and the other hint is that no evidence of any kind has ever been uncovered after more than 10 years that implicates the U.S. government in the 9/11 attacks.

Judge: Al-Qaeda owes $9.3 billion for 9/11 harm

.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't be repeating the same things again and again as you do.

And, I shouldn't have to repeat myself. First, we were talking different takeoff times for United 175, and when it was shown that there was no way that United 175 could have left the runway at 08:23 and reach 31,000 feet by 08:33, another aircraft was added to the mix, in other words, simply pulling things out of thin air to debunk anything I post.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Boony,

not only that ACARS message was received,

Please show where it states that the ACARS message was actually received by UA175.

but the simple fact that the dispatcher Ed Ballinger sent an ACARS message to N621UA at 9:23 proves itself that at 9:23 United was still tracking United 175 although it was officially destroyed 20 minutes before on WTC2. This is an additional evidence that United was tracking a different United 175 than FAA. The bottom line is one more time the same: United 175 was duplicated.

All it really shows is that Ballinger - the dispatcher on duty at the time - was unaware that UA175 had crashed and that he was sending messages to ALL airborne UAL flights at the time.

Please refer to the following excerpts from the 9/11 Commission report on the interview between the Commission and Ed Ballinger:

Page 3/4:

Commission staff provided Mr. Ballinger with a number of time-sequenced 9/11 events related to United Flights 175 and 93. He did not recall receiving any report of the 8:41.a.m. communication between the flight crew of Flight 175 and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) System in which the former indicated they had heard "suspicious transmissions" from an aircraft that turned out to be American Airlines Flight 11. Ballinger indicated that he did not have the capability to "listen in" to communications between his flights and air traffic control. Furthermore, he did not feel that ATC was under any obligation to share such information with him because it didn't apparently affect the safety of any of his flights, nor was he surprised that the flight crew contacted ATC instead of him.

Ballinger did not learn, on 9/11, of the 8:47 a.m. change of beacon codes on Flight 175. Once again, he indicated that he would have had no expectation of receiving such information from ATC. He was informed of the 8:50 a.m. conversation between UAL's {name withheld} and Herndon ATC command center sometime after it had taken pace, but he could not recall exactly when. (NOTE: In this call {name withheld} learned that the first WTC crash was of an American Airlines wide-bodied aircraft)

On 9/11, Mr. Ballinger was not made aware of either the 8:51 a.m. deviation from course by Flight 175, or the 8:52 a.m. attempt by New York ATC to contact the flight. Again in both cases he would have had no expectation of receiving such information from Air Traffic Control. He stated that only when FAA deems it necessary to contact United Airlines corporate does he expect to be notified as the "primary contact" because under applicable FAR he is in control of the airplane along with the pilot.

Page 5:

At 9: 19 a.m. Ballinger began sending out the following ACARS message to his airborne flights: "Beware any cockpit intrusion ... Two aircraft in NY hit Trade Center Builds ... " This message went to United flight 161 at 9:19 a.m., and to flights 91, 23, 8117, 8179 at 9:20 a.m. and flight 17 at 9:21 a.m.

Page 6:

Bringer's ACARS station received the following message from {name withheld} at 9:22 a.m.: "There maybe addnl hijackings in progress... you may want to advise your flts to stay on alert and shut down all cockpit access inflt.. {name withheld} per mgmt." While Ballinger did not recall reading this at the time (in the midst of his efforts to contact his flights), he thinks it was an appropriate action by {name withheld} and was totally consistent with the "cockpit intrusion" message he was right then in the process of transmitting.

At 9:23 a.m. Ballinger transmitted his "cockpit intrusion" message (identical to the previous ones) to Flights 27, 175, 81, 8151, 8155, 8179 and 161. With respect to this message to Flight 175, Bal1inger indicated that he was aware that two commercial aircraft had hit the World Trade Center and that Flight 175 had been hijacked, but he wasn't sure whether he knew that it had crashed by this point (in which case the message would simply have been caused by his haste to get the word out to all of his flights as soon as possible).

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 has been activated. United Airlines policy strictly prohibits giving information or making statements about the incident to the news media or public officials by any employee. WHQPR will release any and all subsequent information."

Simultaneously with receipt of the Studdert message, Ballinger transmitted the same "cockpit intrusion" message to flights 93, 283, 83, 91, 23, 8179, 8146, 8117 and 17 at 9:24 a.m.

Ballinger indicated that he did not think it would have been possible for him to simultaneously send a message to just his aircraft, so he was entering them in a few at a time when sending his ACARS messages to get them out. When asked how he determined the order in which he sent them, Ballinger indicated that he was relying on two main lists: time of departure and en-route progress within the ATC system. He said that he sent the message first to those aircraft that hadn't taken off yet, and then to the aircraft that were en-route. In addition, 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 deJay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it. Furthermore, he wanted to make absolutely sure the flight crews got the message so he sent both a digital (with a bell) and a text message which automatically printed. [NOTE: TEAM 7 WILL RECEIVE BRIEFING BY AIRINC ON THE TIMING ISSUES INVOLVED FROM COMPOSITION OF THE MESSAGE BY THE DISPATCHER, TO TRANSMITTAL TO AIRINC, TO TRANSMITTAL FROM AIRINC TO THEAIRCRAFT, TO THE AIRCRAFT'S RECEIPT OF THE MESSAGE.]

Page 8/9:

Flight Tracking

Ballinger stated that it is not the dispatcher's job to monitor tracking of the flight path. The flight path information he has is not actual radar data but is a system that anticipates where the plane would be given its flight plan etc. It's the job of FAA Air Traffic Control to keep track of the flight path, and if it isn't going where it's supposed to then ATC notifies the air carrier's corporate office. He noted that the receipt of some information made {name withheld} query Flight 93 at 9:03 and it was probably a call from ATC saying that we're having a problem.

Situational Awareness

Ballinger indicated that he had been involved in handling a hijacking as a dispatcher many years before. In his view, the key point in terms of the system's awareness of the events of 9/11 was when it was learned that there was a second hijacking. It was the "multiplicity" of the hijackings that caused him to send out the cockpit warnings to his other flights including UA 93.

While Ballinger indicated he was aware of the UA175 hijacking at the time he received the report from {name withheld} (9:01-9:02 a.m.), he could not recall precisely when he became aware that the first WTC crash had been the result of the hijacking of a commercial airliner. Mr. Ballinger said that when he first learned about the first aircraft that crashed into the WTC he thought it was a large, but not necessarily commercial, aircraft. He did not believe that it was a hijacking or a purposeful event.

So all we have is a dispatcher who was not "in the loop" on the minute to minute details of the hijacking, which apparently is within the standard practices as Ballinger sees it, and who was sending messages to ALL his airborne flights. The report of his interview also shows that he felt that dispatchers should have had a higher priority on receiving information from ATC, and that higher priority, in hos opinion, may have helped prevent some of the hijackings on that day.

Fact is that the duplication is proven and there is nothing JREF people can do to deny the evidence expect personal attacks.

Unless you can provide some kind of evidence that shows that the message was actually received by your alleged "duplicate UA175" all you have is an idea and an opinion, but no proof that would allow you to proclaim that the "duplication is proven".

Your idea may well be correct, however, until you have definitive proof, its just an interesting idea.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.