The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[Wandering]

Well, apart from being a private pilot myself, I work with military aircrew all day. Some of my friends include an A380 pilot, an B767 captain and a couple of B747 captains. I also know an ex F-16 / F-15 driver, as well as other current and ex USAF aircrew.

NONE of them have any doubt that it was hijackers.

Your use of "...some pilots that are truthful..." would indicate to me that it really means 'people who say what I want to hear or agree with'.

Actually it was a tongue in cheek reference to the Pilotsfortruth forums, but good job misinterpreting what I said

Thanks for the link skyeagle, is that just victims who've been identified or a list of everyone on the plane?..I'll be back after work.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Wandering

[Scott G]

From the sound of it, you're dealing with something that's shipped. I really don't think you're in anything like the role of an aircraft dispatcher. Come on Q, think about it. You're in control of multiple aircraft, all going at hundreds of miles an hour. These aircraft must be constantly monitored, to make sure that they don't run into storms or other aircraft. Suddenly, you realize that an aircraft is off course and is about to collide with another in under a minute. Do you -really- care if some intermediary has received the message you're trying to get through to the aircraft? No. Why? Because if that aircraft didn't get your message, you would frantically try to take an action that would avert the crash; try to contact the aircraft again, perhaps try to contact the other aircraft, -something-. If all you knew was that the message had gotten to the intermediary, it'd be small consolation after an aircraft crash. In this type of a case, knowing that it got to the end user (aka the aircraft) isn't a plus; it's essential.

You're forgetting - or haven't yet read - that it has been explained by Ballinger himself that he has no access to accurate flight tracking information. Air Traffic Control takes care of weather and aircraft is getting too near to another aircraft. ATC has the radar tracking information that allows that level of control. Dispatchers do not. The system they have access is only an estimation based upon the aircraft's flight path and is only updated once a minute. They look at the bigger picture, such as weather information.

I acknowledge that I'm not an expert on aircraft dispatchers. That being said, getting updates once a minute is still pretty good for tracking purposes, albeit not so good to avoid very close encounters. Ofcourse, radar tracking can be fooled by aircraft getting very close with other aircraft and switching transponder codes, which was certaily done in the case of UA 175. ACARS routing, on the other hand, as I believe booN once pointed out, is not so easy to change. And this is the point; Ballinger had absolutely no control as to where ACARS messages would be routed from so the accuracy of his flight tracking via radar is absolutely irrelevant here. What matters is that there's no reason that I can think of that Ballinger would want to know when ARINC received a message. But he would obviously want to know when, and if, the aircraft he's sending messages to received it.

Read my lips: two times listed. The time sent and the time received. One time stamp to acknowledge when a message was sent somewhere, one time stamp to acknowledge when a message was received somewhere. If you were the dispatcher, what would you care more about? Whether some intermediary was sent your message and received it, or whether the aircraft got it?

I am a dispatcher, although not a flight dispatcher, and I can tell you that what some machine tells me as to when a message was received is secondary to receiving an actual response from the person I'm sending the message to.

Well, yes, it's way more important to know that the pilot has read a message sent to his printer then that the aircraft has printed the message. But I hadn't offered a choice between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that the pilot had received the message. My choice was between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that ARINC's Ground Control had received the message. Now perhaps you're a taxi dispatcher or something like this, so you probably wouldn't get message received receipts from the taxis, but if you could, don't you think that'd be better then getting a receipt that the head office had gotten the message? Come on. And if the aircraft has printed a message 20 minutes after said aircraft allegedly crashed.. well, something doesn't seem quite right about that, wouldn't you agree?

Ballinger clearly stated that he received no reply from UA175, which would be his primary concern

He received no pilot reply, no. But all messages sent to UA 175 up to 9:23am were acknowledged as having been received by the aircraft itself, as demonstrated by the second time stamp.

The other times become important when no response has been received. They allow you to track the messages progress, just like the header of an email message will tell you when each email server along the route passed the message along. Those other times would be listed in the full ACARS message log kept by ARINC - the same log that Knerr & Winter used in their audits. All we have is Ballinger's printer log, and no information telling us how United Airlines configured their messages.

Ballinger told us how his messages were configured. I'll repeat it:

"Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it. "

Balsamo decided to see what his 10 year old nephew thought of this message...

*******************************************************************************

I tried a little experiment just for fun...

I just asked my 10 year old nephew to read this statement and tell me what he thinks it means....

"Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it. "

He replied that it means a message is sent to... and received by the airplane. I asked him, "How do you know it was received"? He replied, "Cause it says it right there"... and pointed to the words "time received".

I asked, "Does that statement mean a message was received by a printer in some office?" , he laughed, "What? No... it says airplane".

I corrected him, "Well, technically it says, aircraft.. .but ok".

I asked, "Does that statement 'time received' mean it is the time received by ARINC?", he replied, "No, the message goes THROUGH ARINC, but is received by the airplane..."

I thanked him, he went back to playing Red Dead Redemption.

The above statement made by Ballinger references "the aircraft" as the noun with an action word of "received". Ballinger does not reference a "printer" as the noun affected by the verb, he doesn't reference ARINC as the noun affected by the verb "received", he references "the aircraft".

He does reference ARINC as the message going "through", not "received". The word "aircraft" is the noun referred to by the verb "receive" throughout the entire above statement.

If anyone is still confused by basic English comprehension, please ask a friendly ten year old to interpret the statement for you.

And again, when the FOIA documents refer to a printer, they are referring to this type of printer. (just a quick search I did)

This is perhaps why gman1972 is confused by the word "printer", thinking it is the printer in his office, but in reality it is the printer on the flight deck.

Dispatcher's couldn't care less when a document is printed in their office. They want to know when it was printed on the airplane. As referenced multiple times in the FBI interviews linked above.

Hope this helps.

*******************************************************************************

Source: http://pilotsfor911t...

It is far more likely that the first time is the time when the Dispatcher initially composes and then sends the message. Using the email analogy again, the "Sent Time" indicated on an email is the time that the person actually clicked "Send" to initiate the delivery process. The ARINC documentation provided thus far explicitly states that an acknowledgment message is sent from the DSP to the message originator when the DSP determines that the message is suitable for uplink formatting. Until we have documentation from United, or testimony from someone at United who can decipher the ACARS messages for us, any conclusions as to which time means what is pure speculation on either side of this debate.

We have had someone from United who can decipher the ACARS messages. Ballinger. He deciphered it. Sure, it would be nice to get someone else confirm it, but saying that we haven't had anyone decipher it isn't true.

On another note:

In other posts you have made similar claims, that essentially Knerr didn't know the system well enough to make an accurate determination. This is nothing but a red herring, something you seem to have invented in a weak attempt to back up your previous assertions that perhaps Knerr was lying. Given that Knerr is identified in the MFR and FBI 302 as United's "Manager, Flight Data Automation" and "Manager, Dispatch Automation" respectively, can you honestly expect anyone to believe your claim that he didn't know the system well enough? Keep in mind, he's not just the Manager for one single United Airlines location, but for the entire United Airlines organization, based at United's World Headquarters in Chicago.

That does sound like he should have known how to decipher the messages. But if that's so, and Ballinger's interpretation was mistaken, why has he said nothing for all of these years?

[Czero 101]

I acknowledge that I'm not an expert on aircraft dispatchers. That being said, getting updates once a minute is still pretty good for tracking purposes, albeit not so good to avoid very close encounters. Ofcourse, radar tracking can be fooled by aircraft getting very close with other aircraft and switching transponder codes, which was certaily done in the case of UA 175. ACARS routing, on the other hand, as I believe booN once pointed out, is not so easy to change. And this is the point; Ballinger had absolutely no control as to where ACARS messages would be routed from so the accuracy of his flight tracking via radar is absolutely irrelevant here. What matters is that there's no reason that I can think of that Ballinger would want to know when ARINC received a message. But he would obviously want to know when, and if, the aircraft he's sending messages to received it.

Regardless, the point I was making that you either missed or decided to gloss over was that the appeal to emotion you were trying to make with your dramatic scenario wouldn't have happened.

Well, yes, it's way more important to know that the pilot has read a message sent to his printer then that the aircraft has printed the message. But I hadn't offered a choice between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that the pilot had received the message. My choice was between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that ARINC's Ground Control had received the message. Now perhaps you're a taxi dispatcher or something like this, so you probably wouldn't get message received receipts from the taxis, but if you could, don't you think that'd be better then getting a receipt that the head office had gotten the message? Come on.

Argument from incredulity.* "If I ran the zoo" fallacy. It doesn't matter what I or you expect or would want. What matters is what we can prove happened on that day in that situation. And in case you've missed it, we still have no definite proof that the second times printed on the incomplete ACARS log from Ballinger's printer is the aircraft receipt time.

And if the aircraft has printed a message 20 minutes after said aircraft allegedly crashed.. well, something doesn't seem quite right about that, wouldn't you agree?

If it was proven that the message was actually received by the aircraft after it had crashed, then yes, I'd agree that something was wrong. However, the fact of the matter is that it hasn't yet been proven.

He received no pilot reply, no. But all messages sent to UA 175 up to 9:23am were acknowledged as having been received by the aircraft itself, as demonstrated by the second time stamp.

Once again, we have no definitive proof that the second time stamp is the aircraft receipt time.

Ballinger told us how his messages were configured. I'll repeat it:

"Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it. "

You can repeat it til the cows come home, but it is still not proof that the second time on his printer log is the aircraft receipt time.

Balsamo decided to see what his 10 year old nephew thought of this message...

I really have no interest in what Balsamo or his 10-year old nephew has to say on the subject. Given his history of purposely mis-quoting people - yourself included - to suit his own purposes, his statements have little to no value here, imo. Balsamo lost the privilege of my attention when he decided it was more important that he be an as**ole.

We have had someone from United who can decipher the ACARS messages. Ballinger. He deciphered it. Sure, it would be nice to get someone else confirm it, but saying that we haven't had anyone decipher it isn't true.

That does sound like he should have known how to decipher the messages. But if that's so, and Ballinger's interpretation was mistaken, why has he said nothing for all of these years?

Ballinger's statements and the Knerr / Winter ACARS audits are not mutually exclusive. In other words, Ballinger's statements do not conflict with what was reports by the Knerr / Winter audits.

And if the messages were received by the aircraft, Ballinger should have been able to tell, shouldn't he? Why has he not come forward to contradict what the experts who audited the ACARS messages have said? He hasn't been a dispatcher since 2001. I don't know what it is he's doing nowadays, but it seems like he would probably have nothing to lose.

Couldn't it be that he agrees with what the experts have said and that, in fact, there is nothing in his statements that states that UA175 received any messages after it crashed?

Cz

EDITED with the correction noted by the *...

Edited December 13, 2011 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

Actually it was a tongue in cheek reference to the Pilotsfortruth forums, but good job misinterpreting what I said

Thanks for the link skyeagle, is that just victims who've been identified or a list of everyone on the plane?..I'll be back after work.

They were only victims of United 93.

[Scott G]

You're forgetting - or haven't yet read - that it has been explained by Ballinger himself that he has no access to accurate flight tracking information. Air Traffic Control takes care of whether and aircraft is getting too near to another aircraft. ATC has the radar tracking information that allows that level of control. Dispatchers do not. The system they have access is only an estimation based upon the aircraft's flight path and is only updated once a minute. They look at the bigger picture, such as weather information.

I acknowledge that I'm not an expert on aircraft dispatchers. That being said, getting updates once a minute is still pretty good for tracking purposes, albeit not so good to avoid very close encounters. Ofcourse, radar tracking can be fooled by aircraft getting very close with other aircraft and switching transponder codes, which was certaily done in the case of UA 175. ACARS routing, on the other hand, as I believe booN once pointed out, is not so easy to change. And this is the point; Ballinger had absolutely no control as to where ACARS messages would be routed from so the accuracy of his flight tracking via radar is absolutely irrelevant here. What matters is that there's no reason that I can think of that Ballinger would want to know when ARINC received a message. But he would obviously want to know when, and if, the aircraft he's sending messages to received it.

Regardless, the point I was making that you either missed or decided to gloss over was that the appeal to emotion you were trying to make with your dramatic scenario wouldn't have happened.

I didn't miss or gloss over it; I acknowledged that I'm not an expert on aircraft dispatchers, but pointed out that once a minute updates is still pretty good, albeit not so good to avoid very close encounters. I see that -you- have apparently missed -my- point, however. It's in that last sentence there:

"[ballinger] would obviously want to know when, and if, the aircraft he's sending messages to received it." Wouldn't you agree?

Well, yes, it's way more important to know that the pilot has read a message sent to his printer then that the aircraft has printed the message. But I hadn't offered a choice between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that the pilot had received the message. My choice was between knowing that the aircraft had received the message and knowing that ARINC's Ground Control had received the message. Now perhaps you're a taxi dispatcher or something like this, so you probably wouldn't get message received receipts from the taxis, but if you could, don't you think that'd be better then getting a receipt that the head office had gotten the message? Come on.

Argument from incredulity.

Alright. I'll grant you that perhaps there might be a reason that the dispatcher would rather know that the head office had received its message then that the aircraft itself had received the message. But can you think of any reason that might be the case?

It doesn't matter what I or you expect or would want.

I strongly disagree with that. Why are you discounting our ability to reason things out for ourselves?

What matters is what we can prove happened on that day in that situation.

Untrue. We're not prosecuting the official story as a suspected criminal; we don't need to prove the official story wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt here. What we're doing here more akin to civil law; we only need to show that, on the balance of probabilities, the official story is not what happened.

And in case you've missed it, we still have no definite proof that the second times printed on the incomplete ACARS log from Ballinger's printer is the aircraft receipt time.

I haven't missed it. But the way you structured that sentence suggests that it's probable that the second time printed is indeed the aircraft receipt time. Do you believe that? As to the fact that the ACARS log is incomplete, this should be inconsequential since Ballinger only said there were 2 time stamps. If there had been more, don't you think he would have mentioned them?

If it was proven that the message was actually received by the aircraft after it had crashed, then yes, I'd agree that something was wrong.

Cool.

I really have no interest in what Balsamo or his 10-year old nephew has to say on the subject. Given his history of purposely mis-quoting people - yourself included - to suit his own purposes, his statements have little to no value here, imo.

What evidence do you have that he purposely misquoted me? As to others, I imagine that there are times when he's done so tongue in cheek, but I've never seen him seriously try to misquote someone.

Balsamo lost the privilege of my attention when he decided it was more important that he be an as**ole.

Sigh. And what if I'm right and a rose really -does- lurk beneath the thorns you've seen?

Ballinger's statements and the Knerr / Winter ACARS audits are not mutually exclusive. In other words, Ballinger's statements do not conflict with what was reports by the Knerr / Winter audits.

They do if the second time stamp means that UA 175 and UA 93 aircraft received after they allegedly crashed.

And if the messages were received by the aircraft, Ballinger should have been able to tell, shouldn't he? Why has he not come forward to contradict what the experts who audited the ACARS messages have said? He hasn't been a dispatcher since 2001. I don't know what it is he's doing nowadays, but it seems like he would probably have nothing to lose.

I heard he had a rough time after 9/11. Woody Box found an article on him, I'll share it here:

*****************************************************************

Here's some background info on Ballinger. The source is the WSJ article I linked above. No shocking news, but interesting anyway, considering his outstanding status as a witness. In later interviews, Ballinger came out with his name.

At about 8:30, air-traffic controllers and United lost contact with United Flight 93, a 757 bound from Newark to San Francisco. The dispatcher who had handled Flight 175 had been sending messages to all 13 of his assigned flights that were airborne, instructing them to land at the nearest United station. One didn't answer: Flight 93.

The dispatcher, a 42-year veteran of United still so shaken by the tragedy he asked that his name not be used, kept firing off messages, but to no effect.

The United dispatcher who handled both Flight 175 and Flight 93 stayed at his post on Sept. 11 and helped the remaining planes under his watch land.

And then?

"I went home and got drunk," he says.

It's been touch and go since.

He took three days off and availed himself of a company counselor. When the counselor said, " 'It's OK to cry,' I broke down." The dispatcher says he won't watch TV anymore. And his wife had a nightmare in which she was seated on an airplane, her wrists bound as hijackers walked down the aisle slashing throats.

Word quickly spread through the company that he was the man who handled the doomed United flights.

"Something inside me died," the man, weeping again, said.

*****************************************************************

Source: http://pilotsfor911t...post&p=10802788

I don't know what happened to him since then. Perhaps he's just cut himself off from anything to do with 9/11. Then again, it's possible that the reason for his silence is more sinister. You might find the following video to be educational on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

Couldn't it be that he agrees with what the experts have said and that, in fact, there is nothing in his statements that states that UA175 received any messages after it crashed?

Highly doubtful, but I'll grant it as a possibility. What do -you- think the odds are that his statement didn't mean that the second time stamp referred to the aircraft receiving the message?

[Scott G]

Scott, are you being serious? You think the first time stamp is when ARINC sent the uplink to the aircraft and the second time stamp is when the aircraft acknowledged receipt? Seriously?

Good Lord... I'm sorry, but how in the world can you reach that kind of conclusion?

I certainly didn't reach it first. Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth came to this conclusion long before I did. Czero doesn't seem to be against the possibility. So I think the real question is, why do -you- think it's such a strange conclusion?

[skyeagle409]

---

He received no pilot reply, no. But all messages sent to UA 175 up to 9:23am were acknowledged as having been received by the aircraft itself, as demonstrated by the second time stamp.

Scott, Mr. Ballinger did not receive a response from United 175 at any time after 9:03, and here are reasons why:

* At 9:24 a.m. Ballinger received along with all United Airlines stations the following alert (sent at 9:22 a.m.) in the name of Andy Studdert: "FIt 175-11 BOS/LAX has been involved in an accident at New York. The Crisis Center hasbeen activated. United Airlines policy strictly prohibits giving information or making statements about the incident to the news media or public officials by anyemployee. WHQPR will release any and all subsequent information

* Mr Ballinger stated however that it was the crash of 175 into the WTC at 9:03, not the concern that it had been hijacked that prompted him to send the ACARS messages warning of cockpit intrusion.

* In the midst of his communications to his aircraft about the NY ground stop, Ballinger did not recall learning at the time of the 9: 12 a.m. alert to UA dispatch, flight safety and flight operations personnel advising that an American aircraft had crashed into the WTC and that United 175 was missing.

My link

In other words, United Airlines, was aware that United 175 had crashed in New York City at 9:03, which also explains why Mr. Ballinger never received a response from United 175 after that time.

I attended our Christmas party at the Nut Tree airport last Saturday, and our group consist of military, airline, and private pilots. I spoke with two of the pilots who use ACARS, and one told me that he has had a few problems with ACARS in his aircraft. The other pilot had better luck with ACARS, but it shows that errors do crop up in regards to ACARS, and I might add that none of the pilots supported a 9/11 conspiracy. They also told me there is nothing to keep a dispatcher from sending an ACARS message to an aircraft once it crashed.

Once again, you need to stay away from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, because none of the pilots I have spoken with support them.

Edited December 13, 2011 by skyeagle409

[booNyzarC]

I certainly didn't reach it first. Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth came to this conclusion long before I did. Czero doesn't seem to be against the possibility. So I think the real question is, why do -you- think it's such a strange conclusion?

I think it is a ridiculous conclusion actually. There is absolutely nothing that I've seen which would indicate that the first time stamp signifies when ARINC initiated the uplink to the aircraft. I think that you, and you alone, pulled that out of your hind end. Maybe you should ask Tennessee Rob if he concurs with your assessment regarding the first time stamp. I doubt if he will agree with you, but it will be interesting to find out.

The second time stamp is still unproven. There are several different possibilities and I don't see any one of them as superior from a plausible standpoint. From an evidential standpoint though, we do have definitive statements about specific messages NOT being received despite the fact that they do have a second time stamp. That apparent contradiction reduces the viability, in my opinion, of the second time stamp being any indication that the message was received by the aircraft. The strongest and most evidenced conclusion that I've seen is the one proposed by Cz, that it is likely to represent the initial acknowledgement from ARINC.

Why is this important?

Well, it is important because if this initial transmission between the airline and ARINC is refused or unacknowledged that means that there is either something wrong with the formatting of the message sent from the dispatcher or the airline's connection to the DSP is potentially faulty. This is a critically important thing to be aware of from a dispatcher/airline standpoint.

But time will hopefully tell. The truth should rule out in the end, despite the best efforts of anyone trying to distort that truth for their own personal gain.

[skyeagle409]

I certainly didn't reach it first. Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth came to this conclusion long before I did.

Once again, Pilots for 9/11 Truth are doing nothing, but spewing disinformation and misinformaton.

Edited December 13, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

They were only victims of United 93.

Let me rephrase my question.

I was after the names of people whos remains have been identified that were on flights 175 and 11.

[Scott G]

Scott, you seem to be under the false impression that we have access to all of the information available to dispatchers.

What gave you that impression?

We don't. Not even all of the ACARS messages are in the public domain, never mind delivered/undeliverable receipts associated with them.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth have interpreted Ballinger's statement regarding the ACARS messages as being that the first time stamp means the time the message was sent to the aircraft and the second time stamp means the time the message was received by the aircraft. If this is true, then we actually do know that a great deal of the ACARS messages available in the public domain -were- received by the UA 93 and UA 175, including messages that were received after these aircraft allegedly crashed.

I find it interesting how you don't say where you think the message was sent -to-. Could it be that you realize that if there were only 2 time stamps, the best time markers would be when the message was sent to the aircraft and when it was received by the aircraft?

The messages are directly forwarded from the dispatcher to AIRINC. Whilst there are only two time stamps in the messages we are looking at, we do not have the complete information as you assume.

As I mentioned to Czero, I will grant the unlikely possibility that somehow, Ballinger forgot to mention that there were more then 2 time stamps on ACARS messages. But barring this improbability, there were only 2, which means that the second time stamp signifies the time that the ACARS message was recieved by the UA aircraft.

Why would a dispatcher care so much as to when ARINC received the message?

Because that is where the dispatcher is directly sending the message.

So what? You think that when I'm calling a friend via my cell phone, I want to know if the cell phone tower has received my call? No, I want to know if my friend's -phone- has received the call.

There's only one problem with your theory: Ballinger himself. You may have forgotten, but this is what was in that 9/11 Commission report of his statement:

"Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received."

Not one. Not three. Two. Time sent and time received.

Yes, in the messages available to us (see above).

That -would- suggest that they're therefore the messages that Mr. Ballinger was talking about, don't you think?

if you were a dispatcher, what would you rather know? When your communications company received a message, or when the aircraft received it? It's like asking if you'd rather know that an email message you were sending to a friend was actually sent into the internet or whether the internet actually managed to send it to your friend's email account. It's really not something you need to think too hard about. And it requires even less thought to wonder whether it would be more important that your friend's email company (gmail, say) acknowledged that it had received the message or that your friend actually -opened- his email, indicating that he had a good chance of having actually read the email.. and if the issue were to determine when he was last alive, indicating that he was probably still alive and well at the time.

It would be preferable to know that the aircraft had received the message and indeed it is apparent that dispatchers do receive that information. It does not mean that is what the second time stamp in the messages we are looking at indicates.

I'd think it's the most likely explanation. Otherwise, why didn't Ballinger say there was more then 2 time stamps? Another thing to think about; why would they want any more time stamps, considering the limited amount of characters that can go on to an ACARS message?

From the sound of it, you're dealing with something that's shipped.

No, electronic information.

Alright.

I don't –really- care if our intermediary receives the message (except that it rather handily confirms the information has been correctly sent by us and is enroute). I'd rather know that the end user received the information. But it does not change the fact that our default receipt is from the intermediary and the end user receipt would come as a separate follow up if we requested it.

Alright, I don't know what type of electronic information you ship, but I have a strong feeling that you usually don't have to reroute this information. And even if you did at times have to do this, I sincerely doubt that you'd have to do it in the time frames that aircrafts need to make these decisions. Am I wrong? It's for this reason that I think that airlines really don't care that much if an intermediary has received the messages; what they care much more about is if the aircraft itself has received them, because decisions may need to be made quickly based on whether the aircraft has or hasn't received said messages.

Alright, I'll give you one concession; the time sent may well be when ARINC sends the message to the aircraft. But let's be honest here; Ballinger very specifically stated that there was only one time stamp for a received message. So, again, what do you think is more likely? That they're going to record the time that ARINC got the message, or the time that the aircraft got the message?

Oh… so you think the time the dispatcher sent the message is not noted at all? That would be most unusual. I'm thinking e-mail, text messages, the information I send at work – the sent times are always noted.

Exactly. Do you know who, precisely, is supposed to have sent your email? I'd say it's your email provider, but perhaps it's actually referring to some backbone or something of that nature? In any case, the point is that it's gone out into the internet to be delivered. In emails, we frequently don't get second time stamps indicating when a message has been received; atleast not in the same email that contains our message. I imagine this is because emails can take a fair amount of time (atleast originally, I think they're generally not too slow these days) to get to their destination and they figured they wouldn't make us wait to find this out before printing out the message. ACARS messages, are somewhat more important then your average email, due to things such weather fronts and keeping an airway clear of other aircraft. I believe this is the reason that the second time stamp is meant to indicate when the aircraft received its message.

[skyeagle409]

I believe this is the reason that the second time stamp is meant to indicate when the aircraft received its message.

There is nothing in the ACARS messages that United 175 received Mr. Ballinger's messages after 9:03, which should have been evident since Mr. Ballinger himself, later said that United 175 had crashed in New York City, which was confirmed by United Airlines as well.

[Czero 101]

Message removed.

It was in answer to a point not raised in the post I was replying to.

Cz

Edited December 13, 2011 by Czero 101

[skyeagle409]

Let me rephrase my question.

I was after the names of people whos remains have been identified that were on flights 175 and 11.

American Flight 11

Rescue workers at the World Trade Center site began to discover body fragments from Flight 11 victims within days of the attack. Some workers found bodies strapped to airplane seats and discovered the body of a flight attendant with her hands bound, suggesting the hijackers might have used plastic handcuffs.Within a year, medical examiners had identified the remains of 33 victims who had been on board Flight 11. They identified two other Flight 11 victims, including the lead flight attendant Karen Martin, after body fragments were discovered near Ground Zero in 2006. In April 2007, examiners using newer DNA technology identified another Flight 11 victim. The remains of two hijackers, potentially from Flight 11, were also identified and removed from Memorial Park in Manhattan. The remains of the other hijackers have not been identified and are buried with other unidentified remains at this park.

My link

United 175

During the recovery process, small fragments were identified from some passengers on Flight 175, including a six-inch piece of bone belonging to Peter Hanson, and small bone fragments of Lisa Frost. Remains of many others aboard Flight 175 were never recovered.

My link

[Scott G]

I certainly didn't reach it first. Members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth came to this conclusion long before I did. Czero doesn't seem to be against the possibility. So I think the real question is, why do -you- think it's such a strange conclusion?

I think it is a ridiculous conclusion actually.

I see -.-.

There is absolutely nothing that I've seen which would indicate that the first time stamp signifies when ARINC initiated the uplink to the aircraft.

My arguments and the fact that an organization whose core members are experts in aviation backing the argument that that's what it was means nothing to you, I suppose.

I think that you, and you alone, pulled that out of your hind end.

booN, please refrain from getting uncivil; I, atleast, would like to focus on the evidence, not on fending off insults.

Maybe you should ask Tennessee Rob if he concurs with your assessment regarding the first time stamp. I doubt if he will agree with you, but it will be interesting to find out.

onesliceshort, a moderator over at PFT, responded to a previous post of yours thusly:

Scott, boony says...

You think the first time stamp is when ARINC (oss: when the ACARS was actually sent by dispatch) sent the uplink to the aircraft and the second time stamp is when the aircraft acknowledged receipt? Seriously?

Good Lord... I'm sorry, but how in the world can you reach that kind of conclusion?

Umm..tell him Ballinger said so? "Two timestamps, one for send, one for receive" and all that. Tell him to go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect....

Source: http://pilotsfor911t...post&p=10803020

The second time stamp is still unproven. There are several different possibilities and I don't see any one of them as superior from a plausible standpoint.

I see.

From an evidential standpoint though, we do have definitive statements about specific messages NOT being received despite the fact that they do have a second time stamp.

That is true.

That apparent contradiction reduces the viability, in my opinion, of the second time stamp being any indication that the message was received by the aircraft.

Again, that is true. But let's look at some points:

1- In 10 years, no one has spoken up and said something like "Ballinger forgot to mention there was a -third- time stamp".

2- I've seen no indication that the ACARS messages released by the FOIA were in any way truncated.

3- I see no reason why there -should- be a third time stamp.

All of these points bolster the argument that that second time stamp was indeed indicating when the aircraft received the ACARS message.

The strongest and most evidenced conclusion that I've seen is the one proposed by Cz, that it is likely to represent the initial acknowledgement from ARINC.

Why is this important?

Well, it is important because if this initial transmission between the airline and ARINC is refused or unacknowledged that means that there is either something wrong with the formatting of the message sent from the dispatcher or the airline's connection to the DSP is potentially faulty. This is a critically important thing to be aware of from a dispatcher/airline standpoint.

No, that's critically important for a techy. You think Ballinger knows how to fix the underlying system behind ACARS messages? What's critically important to Ballinger is that his messages are received by the aircraft and even more importantly, by the pilots themselves. The techies can figure out why exactly a message didn't get through to an aircraft later; in the meantime, the only thing that Ballinger can do in such emergencies is keep on trying and stop further UA aircraft from entering the skies until the crisis is taken care of, which he did. Even so, and despite the fact that he may have averted another airliner being hijacked, the toll on him was tremendous, as I mentioned previously.

But time will hopefully tell. The truth should rule out in the end, despite the best efforts of anyone trying to distort that truth for their own personal gain.

I agree with you that the truth will come out in the end. There is one thing that I believe you and I agree on; talking things out in a civilized manner does tend to winkle out various facets of the truth. I do believe that, given enough time, we could reach a consensus on what the second time stamp meant in the FOIA ACARS messages.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Scott G

[felines3]

Too many concidences(I agree). Bush and the gang initiated the attacks.

[Scott G]

Too many concidences(I agree). Bush and the gang initiated the attacks.

Always nice to have someone else on my side of the debate, lol :-). Anyway, could you name any coincidences regarding the 9/11 planes or the pentagon attack that you felt were somewhat suspicious?

[booNyzarC]

I see -.-.

The ridiculous part I'm referring to is the first part regarding the first time stamp. The time stamp that you suggest indicates when ARINC initiated the uplink to the aircraft.

My arguments and the fact that an organization whose core members are experts in aviation backing the argument that that's what it was means nothing to you, I suppose.

I don't think that they agree with you on the first time stamp Scott, but I do suggest that you ask them whether or not they do.

booN, please refrain from getting uncivil; I, atleast, would like to focus on the evidence, not on fending off insults.

That wasn't uncivil, I honestly do think that you pulled that first time stamp theory out of your hind end; i.e. you made it up and have absolutely no evidence to support this idea which is yours, and yours alone.

onesliceshort, a moderator over at PFT, responded to a previous post of yours thusly:

Source: http://pilotsfor911t...post&p=10803020

Read what he added in the middle of my quote Scott. He doesn't agree with you on the first time stamp either. Ask him what (oss: when the ACARS was actually sent by dispatch) means. I doubt he will come back and say that it means "when ARINC initiated the uplink to the aircraft" as you've been suggesting.

I see.

I'm not sure if you do. What that sentence meant is that if I knew nothing at all about how ACARS works and I was presented with different options for what that particular (second) time stamp means, all of the options suggested so far would make sense and would appear almost equally plausible.

That is true.

Again, that is true. But let's look at some points:

1- In 10 years, no one has spoken up and said something like "Ballinger forgot to mention there was a -third- time stamp".

2- I've seen no indication that the ACARS messages released by the FOIA were in any way truncated.

3- I see no reason why there -should- be a third time stamp.

All of these points bolster the argument that that second time stamp was indeed indicating when the aircraft received the ACARS message.

I don't agree that these points bolster your argument. Without definitive documentation to tell us otherwise, each suggestion is on equally tenuous footing.

No, that's critically important for a techy. You think Ballinger knows how to fix the underlying system behind ACARS messages? What's critically important to Ballinger is that his messages are received by the aircraft and even more importantly, by the pilots themselves. The techies can figure out why exactly a message didn't get through to an aircraft later; in the meantime, the only thing that Ballinger can do in such emergencies is keep on trying and stop further UA aircraft from entering the skies until the crisis is taken care of, which he did. Even so, and despite the fact that he may have averted another airliner being hijacked, the toll on him was tremendous, as I mentioned previously.

They are both important, techy or not, but that is really beside the point. The point is that we need documentation in order to determine the actual meaning of that second time stamp.

I agree with you that the truth will come out in the end. There is one thing that I believe you and I agree on; talking things out in a civilized manner does tend to winkle out various facets of the truth. I do believe that, given enough time, we could reach a consensus on what the second time stamp meant in the FOIA ACARS messages.

Given enough time and focus, I think it is possible to obtain the documentation needed to definitively answer the question. Guessing about it isn't going to answer it definitively. We could unanimously conclude that option x is the most likely explanation and yet still ultimately be wrong.

[skyeagle409]

My arguments and the fact that an organization whose core members are experts in aviation backing the argument that that's what it was means nothing to you, I suppose.

Apparently, the 53,000-member Airline Pilots Association, blames the terrorist for the 9/11 attacks.

Airline Pilots Association: WE WILL NEVER FORGET!

[skyeagle409]

Too many concidences(I agree). Bush and the gang initiated the attacks.

Prove it!

[Scott G]

Response to booNy's post #1718, part 1

The ridiculous part I'm referring to is the first part regarding the first time stamp. The time stamp that you suggest indicates when ARINC initiated the uplink to the aircraft.

Honestly, I don't think what the sent time stamp is referring to when it says it was sent is that important, but since Balsamo appears to believe that it refers to when the aircraft was sent the message, I'll go with that for now.

booN, please refrain from getting uncivil; I, atleast, would like to focus on the evidence, not on fending off insults.

That wasn't uncivil, I honestly do think that you pulled that first time stamp theory out of your hind end; i.e. you made it up and have absolutely no evidence to support this idea which is yours, and yours alone.

The first way you put that was insulting; the second way you used right now is much better :-p.

onesliceshort, a moderator over at PFT, responded to a previous post of yours thusly:

************************

Scott, boony says...

You think the first time stamp is when ARINC (oss: when the ACARS was actually sent by dispatch) sent the uplink to the aircraft and the second time stamp is when the aircraft acknowledged receipt? Seriously?

Good Lord... I'm sorry, but how in the world can you reach that kind of conclusion?

Umm..tell him Ballinger said so? "Two timestamps, one for send, one for receive" and all that...

************************

Source: http://pilotsfor911t...post&p=10803020

Read what he added in the middle of my quote Scott. He doesn't agree with you on the first time stamp either. Ask him what (oss: when the ACARS was actually sent by dispatch) means. I doubt he will come back and say that it means "when ARINC initiated the uplink to the aircraft" as you've been suggesting.

I did some reading and it appears that you're right here. Czero was saying much the same thing in the following passage:

It is far more likely that the first time is the time when the Dispatcher initially composes and then sends the message. Using the email analogy again, the "Sent Time" indicated on an email is the time that the person actually clicked "Send" to initiate the delivery process. The ARINC documentation provided thus far explicitly states that an acknowledgment message is sent from the DSP to the message originator when the DSP determines that the message is suitable for uplink formatting.

However, I think it's clear that the truly important time stamp for the purpose of this discussion isn't when the message was sent to the aircraft, but when it was received by the aircraft.

I think it is a ridiculous conclusion actually.

I see.

I'm not sure if you do. What that sentence meant is that if I knew nothing at all about how ACARS works and I was presented with different options for what that particular (second) time stamp means, all of the options suggested so far would make sense and would appear almost equally plausible.

Do you think that Ballinger knew nothing about the ACARS messages he read as part of his job?

[Scott G]

Response to booNy's post #1718, part 2 (last part)

Again, that is true. But let's look at some points:

1- In 10 years, no one has spoken up and said something like "Ballinger forgot to mention there was a -third- time stamp".

2- I've seen no indication that the ACARS messages released by the FOIA were in any way truncated.

3- I see no reason why there -should- be a third time stamp.

All of these points bolster the argument that that second time stamp was indeed indicating when the aircraft received the ACARS message.

I don't agree that these points bolster your argument.

So you don't think that, assuming there were more then 2 time stamps on Ballinger's ACARS messages, someone would probably have mentioned this by now? Have you found any evidence whatsoever that any of Ballinger's ACARS messages were truncated in any way? And do you have any idea why they would want to put a third time stamp (indicating what, exactly?), given the fact that each additional character would cut into messages that pilots and ground control wanted to say to each other?

Without definitive documentation to tell us otherwise, each suggestion is on equally tenuous footing.

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

No, that's critically important for a techy. You think Ballinger knows how to fix the underlying system behind ACARS messages? What's critically important to Ballinger is that his messages are received by the aircraft and even more importantly, by the pilots themselves. The techies can figure out why exactly a message didn't get through to an aircraft later; in the meantime, the only thing that Ballinger can do in such emergencies is keep on trying and stop further UA aircraft from entering the skies until the crisis is taken care of, which he did. Even so, and despite the fact that he may have averted another airliner being hijacked, the toll on him was tremendous, as I mentioned previously.

They are both important, techy or not, but that is really beside the point.

They're both important in the sense that both Ballinger and any techies in charge of the underlying system would want to know why Ballinger's messages weren't received by the aircraft. But unlike any potential techies, Ballinger can't spend precious time figuring out what went wrong from a technical standpoint; he's got live aircraft in the skies that he's got to look after, and so instead of trying to figure out exactly what went wrong, he's got to make quick decisions. The decisions he made on that day exemplify this; he repeatedly tried to get in touch with UA 175. After repeated attempts, he determined that it was probably hijacked. He then made the call to ground the rest of the United Airlines fleet. -That's- what a dispatcher does. They don't have the time to be dithering around to see if there's some technical fix to the problem and this is why it's highly unlikely that there would have been any third time stamp on his messages. Perhaps -ARINC- would get such a time stamp, but I really don't see why Ballinger would.

The point is that we need documentation in order to determine the actual meaning of that second time stamp.

Believe me, I would love it if we had some United Airlines manual on its ACARS messages. But since this seems rather hard to come by, and ARINC doesn't seem all that chatty (you gotten any response from them? Aside from 2 "we'll get back to you"s, I've gotten nothing), it seems that Ballinger's explanation of the time stamps may be all we'll have for some time to come.

Given enough time and focus, I think it is possible to obtain the documentation needed to definitively answer the question. Guessing about it isn't going to answer it definitively. We could unanimously conclude that option x is the most likely explanation and yet still ultimately be wrong.

True. But agreeing on what's the most likely explanation would still be pretty important, given the implications here.

[skyeagle409]

However, I think it's clear that the truly important time stamp for the purpose of this discussion isn't when the message was sent to the aircraft, but when it was received by the aircraft.

If you are referring to the ACARS message sent by Mr. Ballinger at 8:23, it was never received by United 175.

As mentioned before, Mr. Ballinger was never aware that United 175 had crashed at 9:03 at the time when he sent the message, and additionally, the transponder of United 175 was still squawking toward impact in New York City, which confirmed its location and that United 175 was the aircraft that crashed into the south WTC building. In other words, the second time stamp on the ACARS message of 9:23, does not show that United 175 actually received that message because United 175 had struck the WTC building 20 minutes earlier.

The squawking transponder of United 175, and radar data, were reliable sources at placing United 175 in New York City, not the second time stamp on the ACARS message sent at 8:23, and there are no ACARS messages received from United 175 after 9:03 nor are there ACARS messages for United 175 landing at any airport nor arriving at an arrival gate of any airport. Those facts alone should have told the folks at "Pilots for 9/11 Truth,' that they were on the wrong road, and why major pilot associations do not support them either.

Edited December 13, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Czero 101]

So you don't think that, assuming there were more then 2 time stamps on Ballinger's ACARS messages, someone would probably have mentioned this by now? Have you found any evidence whatsoever that any of Ballinger's ACARS messages were truncated in any way?

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

And do you have any idea why they would want to put a third time stamp (indicating what, exactly?), given the fact that each additional character would cut into messages that pilots and ground control wanted to say to each other?

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

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

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

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

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

Cz

Edited December 13, 2011 by Czero 101

[Czero 101]

They're both important in the sense that both Ballinger and any techies in charge of the underlying system would want to know why Ballinger's messages weren't received by the aircraft. But unlike any potential techies, Ballinger can't spend precious time figuring out what went wrong from a technical standpoint; he's got live aircraft in the skies that he's got to look after, and so instead of trying to figure out exactly what went wrong, he's got to make quick decisions. The decisions he made on that day exemplify this; he repeatedly tried to get in touch with UA 175. After repeated attempts, he determined that it was probably hijacked. He then made the call to ground the rest of the United Airlines fleet. -That's- what a dispatcher does. They don't have the time to be dithering around to see if there's some technical fix to the problem and this is why it's highly unlikely that there would have been any third time stamp on his messages. Perhaps -ARINC- would get such a time stamp, but I really don't see why Ballinger would.

From a purely factual and evidentiary perspective, the highlighted part of the above quote is untrue.

Ballinger did not "make the call" to ground the rest of the UA flights. At 9:08 am he received an advisory from the Air Traffic Control System Command Center ordering the ground stop of all aircraft awaiting takeoff in the New York area.

Source - page 5

Cz

Edited December 13, 2011 by Czero 101