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

Response to Boony's Return to Sender article, Part 3

The Debunk:

Balsamo begins his article with a brief description of ACARS which was quite concise and accurate for the most part at the time this blog was originally written. But then he presents his claim which is based on a complete misunderstanding of the actual ACARS message format and its significance. I've hi-lighted aspects of his false claim below in bold purple text.

Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

The very root of his claim depends on an interpretation of the released ACARS messages themselves, which he attempts to explain next. He presents the messages addressed to United Flight 175, hi-lighting his misinterpretation for us. I'll again draw attention to his erroneous statements using bold purple text.

These are the 'text' (ACARS) messages in question -

The format for these messages is pretty straight forward. To limit the technical details, we will explain the most important parts of the messages, however, for full Message Block Format Code standards, click here. The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft, the time and date in which the message is sent (111259, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1259Z or 0859 Eastern), the flight number (UA175), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N612UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM

.SFOLMUA 111259/JER

CMD

AN N612UA/GL MDT

- QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX

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

IS NORMAL....THX 777SAM

SFOLM JERRY TSEN

;09111259 108575 0543

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R

.CHIAKUA 111303/ED

CMD

AN N612UA/GL MDT

- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX

- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -

HOW IS THE RIDE. ANY THING DISPATCH CAN DO FOR YOU...

CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111303 108575 0545

This message was also sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIYR CH158R

.CHIYRUA 111303/AD

CMD

AN N612UA/GL MDT

- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX

- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -

NY APROACH LOOKIN FOR YA ON 127.4

CHIDD AD ROGERS

;09111303 108575 0546

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20 minutes after the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the PIT remote ground station (Pittsburgh International Airport).

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

This portion of the article is factually incorrect with two very specific and important details.

  • "The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft" <is> "highlighted in red."
  • "The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane."

These details are the basis upon which his entire claim rests, and they are both incorrect. I'll outline why they are incorrect and what they actually mean below.

Ok, here comes the heart of your argument I think...

Let's take a closer look at the first false claim from the article.

1. "The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft" <is> "highlighted in red."

In defense of the assumptions presented in Mr. Balsamo's article and several blogs by Woody Box, the actual significance of this "MDT" is only outlined in the technical specifications mentioned previously; 6182 and 6203. Much of the discussion regarding these messages has been based on the assumption that the Remote Ground Stations (RGSs) in the released FOIA printout defined the actual RGS used for attempted uplink to the aircraft. Until very recently, I was also under this same impression. However this in fact is not the case.

The "MDT" ground station referenced in this FOIA document is actually just a predicted RGS provided by the airline when the message was originally sent and is only used if the Data link Service Provider (DSP) has no other routing information to work with.

I haven't seen you present any evidence that this is the case. I imagine that you present what you think is evidence for this further down in your article.

It is possible for the predicted RGS to also be the actual RGS, and generally speaking they do actually line up more often than not;

when the aircraft actually follows its registered flight plan.

I believe that this may be the heart of your argument; but you haven't yet presented the evidence that what you say is true. So, continuing...

To illustrate this, consider the final message which was sent from Ed Ballinger for delivery to UA175 at 9:23 Eastern time (1323 Zulu).

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[/indent]

The 4th line contains two elements provided within the message text itself by the airline. These are referred to as Text Element Identifiers (TEIs). The first is defined as the Aircraft Number (AN) and the second as the Ground Locator or Ground Station (GL), as found in Table 3.2.3-1 on page 16 (PDF Page 24) of ARINC 620-43.

The Aircraft Number (AN) is the primary means that the DSP uses for routing messages to the aircraft by correlation to an internal routing table which is regularly updated by automated transmissions from the aircraft itself.

The significance of the GL PIT element is described on the following page which discusses uplink conversion and processing functions.

6552861097_f8d072b8d8_b.jpg

In particular, notice conditions c and d as follows:

c. The SMT contains either an Aircraft Registration Number (AN) text element or a Flight Identifier (FI) text element and the corresponding text element is valid. Refer to Appendix B2. If the DSP does not have tracking information for the aircraft addressed, the following supplementary condition applies:

d. If the SMT contains either a GL text element (approximate geographic location of aircraft) or an AP text element (airport location of aircraft) and that text element identifies an airport or city known to the DSP, the DSP uses this information to determine the ground station for transmission to the aircraft.

First of all, what does SMT stand for? Secondly, this only applies if the DSP doesn't have tracking information for the aircraft addressed. Where are you getting this notion that ARINC didn't have this information for UA 175 when it was sent a message from the PIT routing station?

And again further on page 18 (PDF Page 26)3 here:

For an uplink message that requires delivery to an aircraft not active in the system, DSPs start with the Geographic Locator (GL) or Airport Locator (AP) specified by the ground user (airline or other host computer). Delivery through each possible locator is attempted a configurable number of times.

6552861151_7b723bd8ca_b.jpg

Again, this only applies if an aircraft is "not active in the system". What evidence do you have that UA 175 wasn't active in the system at the time that it was sent the ACARS message from Pittsburgh?

It is possible to have more than one TEI in any given message, but you need to separate them by a forward slash "/" as seen in line 4 from the referenced message above:

AN N612UA/GL PIT

The fact that this text is part of the original message sent by the airline bears repeating. There is no doubt about this fact.

This means that it is a prediction of where the airline anticipates the aircraft to be. It is not the RGS location which has been chosen by the DSP for routing.

I think you're building on your previous assumptions which I haven't seen any evidence for.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited post - the question I asked wasn't necessary...

I will say this, though...

Scott, you are showing that you are at the very least not paying attention to what you are quoting.

TEI is defined by BooNy in one of the sections of his blog you have quoted in your post.

Rather than pointing it out to you, let's see if you can do the legwork and actually find it.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, you are showing that you are at the very least not paying attention to what you are quoting.

No, that's not it. It's more that I sometimes miss an element of what I quote. Considering the big chunks that I'm quoting and the amount of concepts contained therein, I think it's understandable. If PFT is correct, you, booN and others have simply gotten confused, so it should hardly be surprising that I'd miss something.

TEI is defined by BooNy in one of the sections of his blog you have quoted in your post.

I searched for the term and found its meaning now. Thanks for pointing out where I could find the definition atleast. However, knowing the meaning of TEI doesn't change my mind on any point I've made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, this only applies if an aircraft is "not active in the system". What evidence do you have that UA 175 wasn't active in the system at the time that it was sent the ACARS message from Pittsburgh?

For one thing, there are no radar tracks nor ATC communication with United 175 after 9:03. In addition, the owner of that B-767, a.k.a., United 175, reported that its flight had crashed in New York City at 9:03, and that fact is backed by radar data, which we don't have for that flight anywhere near PIT, and remember, we have ATC testimony placing United 175 in the New York area right up to impact at 9:03.

Let's do a recap.

* Radar tracking data has placed United 175 in the New York City area just before impact at 9:03

* ATC personnel have placed United 175 in the New York City area just before impact at 9:03

* There's no radar tracking data placing United 175 in the sky after 9:03

* There's no ATC communications placing United 175 in the sky after 9:03

* There are no ACARS downlinks from United 175 after 9:03

* United Airlines, owner of the B-767 a.k.a., United 175, reported at 11:53, that United 175 had crashed in New York City at 9:03.

* Remains of some passengers of United 175 were recovered and have been identified.

With those facts in hand, why do you continue to insist that United 175 was airborne after 9:03 when in fact, the evidence proves that United 175 had crashed in New York City at 9:03?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If PFT is correct, you, booN and others have simply gotten confused, so it should hardly be surprising that I'd miss something.

BooN, and the others are not confused, and I commend them for doing a brilliant job of proving beyond any doubt that PFT is confused and has been spewing disinformation and misinformation.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Boony's Return to Sender article, Part 3

*snipped the other stuff*

First of all, what does SMT stand for? Secondly, this only applies if the DSP doesn't have tracking information for the aircraft addressed. Where are you getting this notion that ARINC didn't have this information for UA 175 when it was sent a message from the PIT routing station?

Again, this only applies if an aircraft is "not active in the system". What evidence do you have that UA 175 wasn't active in the system at the time that it was sent the ACARS message from Pittsburgh?

I haven't presented a "notion" that ARINC didn't have tracking information for the aircraft. That, in fact, is the whole point of the argument. ARINC did indeed have tracking information for the aircraft and completely ignored the GL RGS locations which were supplied by the airlines as predictions; with one known ULMSG exception for flight 77, and possibly another exception with UA 175; but we don't have the more detailed logs for 175 in order to verify. The principle is still the same though, and applies to all of the messages for all of the flights.

SMI = Special Message Identifier

SMT = Standard Message Text

TEI = Text Element Identifier

ARINC 620-4 PDF Page 10:

The format used to transmit messages between the

ACARS Ground User and the ACARS Ground Network

is referred to as Standard Message Text (SMT), which

uses Standard Message Identifiers (SMI) and Text

Element Identifiers (TEI). See Appendix B for SMI/TEI

descriptions. The data link service provider is responsible

for putting messages received from aircraft (downlink

ACARS messages) into SMT format for consumption by

the Ground data link user, and sending them to their

ultimate destination(s). Similarly, data link service

providers reformat messages received in SMT from the

data link ground based user into air-ground message

formats having labels/sublabels/ACARS Text and then

pass the reformatted messages on to the airborne user.

I think you're building on your previous assumptions which I haven't seen any evidence for.

We've supplied loads of evidence. We've provided documented facts about the actual significance of the GL RGS TEI.

I really don't see how anyone can fail to understand it at this point. What exactly do you not understand about this?

Edit to add clarification in first paragraph.

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I searched for the term and found its meaning now. Thanks for pointing out where I could find the definition atleast. However, knowing the meaning of TEI doesn't change my mind on any point I've made.

Out of curiosity, what points do you think you've made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Boony's Return to Sender article, Part 4 (last part)

Now let's talk about the false claim regarding the secondary time stamp.

2. "The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane."

Balsamo quotes from an FOIA document5 as "proof" of his claim.

If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a "Technical Acknowledgement" section should be present in ACARS messages. What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent 'text' messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received. Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received. An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages. However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received -

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.

According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.

That seems pretty cut and dried doesn't it? Unfortunately for Balsamo and his claims, appearances aren't always what they seem. What Balsamo isn't sharing with you here is that just below this statement from Ballinger we can see that Team 7 makes the following note.5

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 THE AIRCRAFT, TO THE AIRCRAFT'S RECIPT OF THE MESSAGE.

Unlike Balsamo's shoddy research on this subject, Team 7 appears to have been interested in a true investigation which involves corroborating witness statements with official documentation and the clarifications which can only be provided by the actual agency which defines the standards and manages the operations of the ACARS communication system itself; ARINC.

There are multiple ways to interpret the above statement by Ballinger. Balsamo chooses to interpret his statement in a way which suits his false claims,

You haven't yet established that any of Balsamo's statements are false -.-

jumping to premature conclusions and presenting them as "facts." I choose to interpret Ballinger's statement in a way which agrees with official documentation supplied by ARINC and Boeing, plus the more detailed ACARS log which has been recently provided by Warren Stutt. It is merely coincidental that the interpretation I subscribe to also happens to refute Balsamo's claims.

I have my doubts on that count -.-

Speaking of documentation, let's take a look at some instead of relying on self proclaimed ACARS experts.

First, consider this overview of the Air/Ground and Ground/Ground segments of ACARS communication from page 7 (PDF Page 15) of ARINC 620-43.

6552861309_c9c35bc4ce_b.jpg

This general overview shows us that when a ground user (such as the airline or Air Traffic Control (ATC)) sends a message addressed to a specific aircraft through the ACARS system, the message must pass through multiple layers. Being an overview, it is somewhat ambiguous, but it should still be clear from the diagrams alone that each sent message has to flow through multiple points before reaching the destination aircraft.

Next, let's take a look at a diagram that was originally provided by Czero 101 in post #888 of the above mentioned discussion thread from a Boeing document titled Air Traffic Services Systems Requirements and Objectives - Generation 25.

6552861331_612ba9b108_b.jpg

This gives us a lot more detail about what transpires at each layer. In particular it shows that there are two acknowledgements from the DSP to the ground user, the first of which is merely acknowledging that the message is acceptable for delivery through the remaining layers.

I believe Balsamo's claim is that the first acknowledgement message is simply put in as the time it was done for United Airlines ACARS messages; it's the first time stamp. The second acknowledgement is when the Airborne Communications Management Fuction acknowledges receipt of the message by the aircraft; this is seen in the UA ACARS messages as the second time stamp.

That is all very interesting, but how can we know whether the second timestamp in the ACARS messages from the original FOIA document are the final acknowledgements from the aircraft or the initial acknowledgements from the DSP?

I think that the quote from the 9/11 Commission document does a good job of that:

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.

Warren Stutt's previously mentioned PDF provides us with the answer.

You saying this is true doesn't make it so.

Unfortunately the PDF doesn't include the messages for United Flight 175, but it does provide the messages for the other three aircraft; and with that we can correlate between both FOIA documents using the messages which were addressed to United Flight 93 as a connecting reference to assist with understanding and interpretation of the whole. Aside from the fact that there are no DLBLK messages from the aircraft after the reported crash times,

I don't even know what DLBLK means so you'll have to explain that first for me to follow you any further on this argument.

which should be sufficient enough evidence in itself for anyone with an even partially working brain, there is another indicator as well; though for anyone incapable of recognizing how ludicrous the whole claim is based on what I just mentioned the following explanation might just be completely lost on them as well.

All of the messages to United Flight 93 in the original FOIA release have a secondary time stamp except for the very last one. What is different about this message from the others? It is the only ULMSG that wasn't accepted for possible delivery to the aircraft. You can see this outlined in the following spreadsheet very distinctly, as I've color coded the individual ULMSGs and their related ULBLK attempts.

6554311893_a33b664ff0_b.jpg

Even message 0708 was initially accepted for possible delivery and queued, only to be intercepted 2 minutes and 11 seconds later. The last message however, was rejected outright.

UA 93 allegedly crashed at 10:03am, which in the above time format would equate to 14:03. So why is it that the RGS stations continued to change up until 14:13, aka 10:13am? It also appears that the messages were received up until 14:12, aka 10:12am as well.

This message:

CHIAO CHI68R

.CHIAOUA 111420/ROB

CMD

AN N591UA/GL DEC

- QUCHIA0UA 2

DDLXCXA

***UA93 EWRSFO***

This conclusively proves that the secondary time stamp is the initial acknowledgement sent from the DSP just as Czero 101 presented oh so long ago.

I don't see how.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, what points do you think you've made?

Now it's my turn to ask you to do the legwork and find out. I'll give you a hint though; it's all in my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know what DLBLK means so you'll have to explain that first for me to follow you any further on this argument.

Rather than coming up with new ways to say the same thing, I'm just goiung to quote one of my earlier posts:

Your time would be better served actually reading the documentation and developing an understanding on your own, but that's just my opinion.

Your appatent misunderstanding of this is yet another clear indication that you should really invest some time in reading the documentation so that you can resolve these fundamental misunderstandings.

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

Well, if you prefer taking the (imo) "lazy" route and have someone continue to spoon-feed you the information, rather that investing the time to read the documentation provided for you, that's your choice. The amount of mistakes you've made and fundamentals you seem to not have a grasp on thus far would indicate that your way isn't working so well for you up til now.

Your reliance upon having your answers spoon-fed to you by Balsamo is showing as your Achilles Heel now that you apparently do not have access to him, or at least not as immediate or easy access.

You REALLY need to read the documentation. Please try to grasp that.

Even if you don't agree with our interpretation, your lack of understanding of the fundamentals of this discussion makes your objections laughable.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reliance upon having your answers spoon-fed to you by Balsamo is showing as your Achilles Heel now that you apparently do not have access to him, or at least not as immediate or easy access.

Hey....stop nicking my script...(what I said in Flight 77 witnesses thread about the lack of photographic evidence)

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Response to Boony's Return to Sender article, Part 4 (last part)

You haven't yet established that any of Balsamo's statements are false -.-

Yes I have, you just don't appear to understand it.

I believe Balsamo's claim is that the first acknowledgement message is simply put in as the time it was done for United Airlines ACARS messages; it's the first time stamp. The second acknowledgement is when the Airborne Communications Management Fuction acknowledges receipt of the message by the aircraft; this is seen in the UA ACARS messages as the second time stamp.

That is Balsamo's claim, and I've falsified it.

I think that the quote from the 9/11 Commission document does a good job of that:

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.

The explanation that I've given is fully consistent with Ballinger's statement.

You saying this is true doesn't make it so.

The documentation and analysis of the data in question does make it so.

I don't even know what DLBLK means so you'll have to explain that first for me to follow you any further on this argument.

Are you actually reading the blog? DLBLK was defined in the Preamble. Downlink Block.

UA 93 allegedly crashed at 10:03am, which in the above time format would equate to 14:03. So why is it that the RGS stations continued to change up until 14:13, aka 10:13am? It also appears that the messages were received up until 14:12, aka 10:12am as well.

This is actually a very good question and one which I haven't provided a full explanation for; I've only really given hints. (I'm referring to the first question with that. Your second question isn't so good and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the data. None of the messages were received after the crash time. If they had been, we would see Downlink Blocks (DLBLKs) acknowledging that they had been received. There were no DLBLKs after the reported crash times.)

This is because the routing table remains intact for 11 minutes after the last DLBLK from the aircraft. Also, when a ULMSG is converted into a ULBLK the possible routing decisions appear to be added to the ULBLK itself and you can see them represented by the different StnDelivTypes. 1-3 are assigned from the CPS's internal routing table, 4 is assigned by the GL RGS from the original message.

I don't see how.

Do you see how now? (brown cow... sorry, couldn't resist...) :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scott :) It is apparent that you aren’t understanding the evidence provided by booNyzarC. I’ll admit that at first reading it can appear more confusing than it really is what with all the acronyms and technical jargon. I may be able to help put it in plainer language which might help…

The "MDT" ground station referenced in this FOIA document is actually just a predicted RGS provided by the airline when the message was originally sent and is only used if the Data link Service Provider (DSP) has no other routing information to work with.

I haven't seen you present any evidence that this is the case. I imagine that you present what you think is evidence for this further down in your article.

First off we need to understand that the initial ACARS file we were looking at here (the centre evidence of Balsamo’s theory) is an airline record of the messages they sent' date=' or attempted to send, the aircraft. We know this because 1) the file is a record of United Airlines, 2) the sender is noted, e.g. Ballinger and 3) each text matches the format expected of an initial uplink message noted in the ACARS manual.

It is vital to keep this in mind – these are the messages as sent by the airline to ARINC. This means that when we see an RGS noted in those messages, e.g. MDT, that information has originated from the airline before even reaching ARINC.

The ACARS manual explains what then happens: -

[indent']c. The SMT contains either an Aircraft Registration Number (AN) text element or a Flight Identifier (FI) text element and the corresponding text element is valid. Refer to Appendix B2. If the DSP does not have tracking information for the aircraft addressed, the following supplementary condition applies:

d. If the SMT contains either a GL text element (approximate geographic location of aircraft) or an AP text element (airport location of aircraft) and that text element identifies an airport or city known to the DSP, the DSP uses this information to determine the ground station for transmission to the aircraft.

[/indent]

The above indicates that: -

  1. If ARINC (the DSP) does not have tracking information for the aircraft, the RGS as supplied by the airline will be used.
  2. If ARINC (the DSP) does have tracking information for the aircraft, that tracking information will be used to select the RGS, and that supplied by the airline will not be used.

Now we know from the file supplied by Warren that downlinks were received from the aircraft prior to the crash times and therefore ARINC did have tracking information. The RGS was therefore selected based on this tracking information, not based on the RGS as supplied by the airline. The ARINC tracking information if available effectively overrides the airline supplied RGS.

So when Balsamo presents that initial ACARS log from UAL and tells us the RGS noted was necessarily the one actually used, the whole premise is wrong and, well… he either flat out doesn’t know what he’s talking about or is intending to mislead.

If you go back through booNyzarC’s blog post you will see this same information. I hope the way I have written it helps you better understand the first point made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now it's my turn to ask you to do the legwork and find out. I'll give you a hint though; it's all in my posts.

First of all, I didn't ask you to do any legwork. Secondly, I've responded to everything from your posts that I consider to be an attempt at making a "point." If I've missed anything, please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scott :) It is apparent that you aren’t understanding the evidence provided by booNyzarC. I’ll admit that at first reading it can appear more confusing than it really is what with all the acronyms and technical jargon. I may be able to help put it in plainer language which might help…

First off we need to understand that the initial ACARS file we were looking at here (the centre evidence of Balsamo’s theory) is an airline record of the messages they sent, or attempted to send, the aircraft. We know this because 1) the file is a record of United Airlines, 2) the sender is noted, e.g. Ballinger and 3) each text matches the format expected of an initial uplink message noted in the ACARS manual.

It is vital to keep this in mind – these are the messages as sent by the airline to ARINC. This means that when we see an RGS noted in those messages, e.g. MDT, that information has originated from the airline before even reaching ARINC.

The ACARS manual explains what then happens: -

c. The SMT contains either an Aircraft Registration Number (AN) text element or a Flight Identifier (FI) text element and the corresponding text element is valid. Refer to Appendix B2. If the DSP does not have tracking information for the aircraft addressed, the following supplementary condition applies:

d. If the SMT contains either a GL text element (approximate geographic location of aircraft) or an AP text element (airport location of aircraft) and that text element identifies an airport or city known to the DSP, the DSP uses this information to determine the ground station for transmission to the aircraft.

The above indicates that: -

  1. If ARINC (the DSP) does not have tracking information for the aircraft, the RGS as supplied by the airline will be used.
  2. If ARINC (the DSP) does have tracking information for the aircraft, that tracking information will be used to select the RGS, and that supplied by the airline will not be used.

Now we know from the file supplied by Warren that downlinks were received from the aircraft prior to the crash times and therefore ARINC did have tracking information. The RGS was therefore selected based on this tracking information, not based on the RGS as supplied by the airline. The ARINC tracking information if available effectively overrides the airline supplied RGS.

So when Balsamo presents that initial ACARS log from UAL and tells us the RGS noted was necessarily the one actually used, the whole premise is wrong and, well… he either flat out doesn’t know what he’s talking about or is intending to mislead.

If you go back through booNyzarC’s blog post you will see this same information. I hope the way I have written it helps you better understand the first point made.

You do have an excellent way with words Q24. Hopefully that clarifies it so that Scott and others can understand. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't yet established that any of Balsamo's statements are false -.-

I will say that the problem here is, you rely too much on Rob Balsamo, and he has no idea what he is talking about.

I have had my doubts about Rob Balsamo when I posted photos of the wreckage of American 77, a B-757, and he ridiculed my post stating that there wasn't enough material to add up to 200,000 pounds and that raised my eyebrows. That told me that he had no idea what he had said, nor understood what he had said, and it was clear to me that he was unaware that the B-757 doesn't consist of enough strutural material, metal or otherwise, to add up to 200,000 pounds. I guess he was unaware of a thing known as "empty weight," which adds up to only around 127.000+ pounds in regards to the B-757-200. I have noticed that he has stumbled over other issues in regards to actual aviation operations.

I believe Balsamo's claim is that the first acknowledgement message is simply put in as the time it was done for United Airlines ACARS messages; it's the first time stamp. The second acknowledgement is when the Airborne Communications Management Fuction acknowledges receipt of the message by the aircraft; this is seen in the UA ACARS messages as the second time stamp. UA 93 allegedly crashed at 10:03am, which in the above time format would equate to 14:03. So why is it that the RGS stations continued to change up until 14:13, aka 10:13am? It also appears that the messages were received up until 14:12, aka 10:12am as well.

Let's take a look at the ACARS message to United 93, and note the two time stamps.

Also at

9:26A.M., Flight 93 asked for confirmation of the ACARS message sent at 9:23 A.M. and received in the cockpit at 9:24 A.M.

My link

Now, look at the ACARS message and note the two time stamps.

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R

.CHIAKUA 111323/ED

CMD

AN N591UA/GL PIT

- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO

- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD –

/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTRUSION…TWO AIRCRAFT IN NY, HIT TRADE CENTER BUILDS…

CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111324 108575 0581

Mr. Ballinger sent the message at 9:23 A.M., and the message was sent as an uplink at 9:24 A.M., which is shown, however, United 93 did not respond to the 9:23 A.M. message until 9:26 A.M.

From the report.

At 9:26 a.m. Ballinger received a response to his 9:23 a.m. ACARS messageto Flight 93 (which was transmitted byAIRINC at 9:24 a.m.): "Ed Cofinn latestmssg plz Jason."

My link

.

To sum it all up, Rob Balsamo need to do some serious corrections on the P4T website..

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle, I appreciate the effort but that doesn't prove the point. The 9:26 message wasn't the automatic acknowledgment from the original 9:23 message. It was a whole new message initiated from the cockpit, keyed in by the pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in the PDF that would qualify as evidence that UA 93 or UA 175 (ofcourse, since you acknowledge that it has no messages from UA 175) didn't receive acknowledged uplinks.

In regards to United 175, check out the following message and ask, how could United 175 acknowledge anything after 9:03 A.M.? Remember, United Airlines acknowledged that United 175 has crashed in New York.

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."

My link

In other words, United 175 was down in New York City when Mr. Ballinger sent his message at 9:23 A.M.

Skyeagle, I appreciate the effort but that doesn't prove the point. The 9:26 message wasn't the automatic acknowledgment from the original 9:23 message. It was a whole new message initiated from the cockpit, keyed in by the pilot.

I heard that! Good call. :tu:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi bubs49,

Unfortunately for you "those people" corroborate themselves. Winter specifically states that some messages were sent "using" specific RGS. You can't believe whatever you want, the statements are clear and of unquestionable authenticity.

Those people are users of the ACARS system, not it's designers.

If you wanted to know details of how telephones work, would you rely on a group of telephone users who corroborate themselves or the designers of the equipment? Many telephone users once all thought that the ringing tone was the sound of the telephone ringing at the other end and therefore corroborate themselves. They were wrong, as the designers of the telephone exchange equipment knew all along. The ringing tone is generated by the telephone exchange.

In the case of ACARS, booNy shows using documentation from the designer (ARINC) of the ACARS system in this article. The documentation shows the users were either wrong or misinterpreted.

As far as the ARINC logs are concerned, either they were manipulated or, if genuine, they completely disprove the official theory, not Pilots for Truth's claim.

How do the ARINC logs completely disprove the official theory?

Warren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi booNy,

I was going to sleep on this and do another proof read in the morning, but I've decided to just post it now and make corrections later if I need to.

This makes some of the information a bit easier to find than hunting through hundreds or thousands of posts.

It's time that Balsamo replaced his falsified articles with an official retraction and public apology.

Return to Sender

Cheers.

Great article! You've expressed it much better than I could.

Warren.

P.S. I've got the .CSV file for UA93 ready. I should get the file and updated web page up today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi booNy,

Great article! You've expressed it much better than I could.

Warren.

P.S. I've got the .CSV file for UA93 ready. I should get the file and updated web page up today.

Thanks Warren, very much appreciated! I look forward to the .CSV for some real crunching and cross-checking of certain things. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob Balsamo is just another person. If he died tomorrow, little would change, and NOTHING about the facts regarding the events of 11 September would change.

The simple facts are that there were no Boeings at the Pentagon OR Shanksville, and all the available evidence shows that.

If the Pentagon had videos to support its Official Conspiracy Theory, it would have produced them years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant, another sock puppet or Pilots for 9/11 ‘Truth’ cronie.

I mean… welcome to the forum and Merry Xmas, Babe Ruth.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why thank you Q! :rolleyes:

Being aware of certain facts does not make one a sock puppet.

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.