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 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

Skyeagle we need to give up on BR to even say that no Boeing went into the Shanksville is in its self Insanity ! BR may need professional help !

No I`ll take that back Does need PROFESSIONAL HELP ! :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle we need to give up on BR to even say that no Boeing went into the Shanksville is in its self Insanity ! BR may need professional help !

No I`ll take that back Does need PROFESSIONAL HELP ! :tsu:

It is silly for him to claim that "no Boeing" crashed near Shanksville. The factual scoreboard reads like this:

United 93 evidence: 100%

BR: 0%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As painful as it is to review his ill-informed babble, I don't suppose you can bless us with a link to this supposed epiphany that Woody has discovered, or should I say invented?

Edit: Never mind about the link, I found it.

He is, of course, completely wrong. His reasoning is basically outlined in the following paragraph:

What he is saying here is basically that if ARINC sent the messages, they were received. That's simply ridiculous, and he completely misinterprets the ARINC documentation in order to reach this embarrassingly incorrect conclusion.

No Boo, what he is saying is clearly stated. You simply do not understand what he is saying, or disagree with it.

If I may paraphrase, both the ground stations and the airborne stations were in contact with each other electronically, whether messages went both ways or not.

If the ground and air terminals were NOT in contact with each other, the records would have appeared differently.

When this whole ACARS thing broke last year, I was neutral, simply because I have never used the system in my line of aviation. I have read about it, and understand its usefulness for the air carriers, but had not used it and was not really familiar with it.

At the time I thought Stutts made some good and interesting points, and thus did not take a strong position.

Later research, and the testimony of the UA guy and his supervisor, seems to have clarified things. Similar to a fax system, each end can be communicating with the other, EVEN THOUGH one end may not reply to the other with a text message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Boo, what he is saying is clearly stated. You simply do not understand what he is saying, or disagree with it.

If I may paraphrase, both the ground stations and the airborne stations were in contact with each other electronically, whether messages went both ways or not.

If the ground and air terminals were NOT in contact with each other, the records would have appeared differently.

When this whole ACARS thing broke last year, I was neutral, simply because I have never used the system in my line of aviation. I have read about it, and understand its usefulness for the air carriers, but had not used it and was not really familiar with it.

At the time I thought Stutts made some good and interesting points, and thus did not take a strong position.

Later research, and the testimony of the UA guy and his supervisor, seems to have clarified things. Similar to a fax system, each end can be communicating with the other, EVEN THOUGH one end may not reply to the other with a text message.

Am I going to have to write another blog entry? Working title:

Return to Sender

Part Deux

Yes, I suppose I just might decide to do that...

BR, after reading Woody's blog entry yesterday it was quite clear to me that he does not understand how ACARS works. That came as no surprise though because he has been misinterpreting information related to ACARS for years now. It is also clear that you don't understand how it works.

In an effort to help educate you, I'll try to get something written up by this weekend which explains and correctly interprets the data.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an effort to help educate you, I'll try to get something written up by this weekend which explains and correctly interprets the data.

Kudos for that, Boony, but you DO know that it will be a wasted effort, right....? :huh:

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Boo, what he is saying is clearly stated. You simply do not understand what he is saying, or disagree with it.

You continue to rely on websites that are notorious for spreading disinformation and misinformation, and Woody Box hasn't a clue as to what he is talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos for that, Boony, but you DO know that it will be a wasted effort, right....? :huh:

Cz

Well yes, but some others may find value in it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I going to have to write another blog entry? Working title:

Return to Sender

Part Deux

Yes, I suppose I just might decide to do that...

BR, after reading Woody's blog entry yesterday it was quite clear to me that he does not understand how ACARS works. That came as no surprise though because he has been misinterpreting information related to ACARS for years now. It is also clear that you don't understand how it works.

In an effort to help educate you, I'll try to get something written up by this weekend which explains and correctly interprets the data.

Well l'm looking forward to that Boo, because at this stage of the game it appears he and I understand ACARS far better than you do.

Considering your abysmal understanding of cellphone dynamics, and your seeming refusal to do so, I am not optimistic that you will be able to fully grasp the ACARS dynamics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well l'm looking forward to that Boo,

* ludicrous claim flatly contradicted by everything ever posted by this user and more delusional fabrications snipped for brevity *

I see you're back to your old moves again, BR...

troll-dance_o_409356.gif

Your memory must be dimming since these dance steps of yours are just as unimpressive (though very predictable) now as they always have been....

Cz

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well l'm looking forward to that Boo, because at this stage of the game it appears he and I understand ACARS far better than you do.

You, and Woody Box haven't a clue about ACARS. Case in point, did you post this?

In the case of 93, the record shows that the airborne unit was still 'online', no matter whether messages were replied to or not. It was still online and airborne after the time of the supposed crash at Shanksville.

Case closed!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ACARS system is an elaborate texting system, specifically tailored to the airline needs.

So, just as with the cellphone system, the ground based system is always in electronic touch with the mobile systems, as long as both systems are powered up, and the mobile system is within range of the ground system.

Even though the ACARS uses VHF and the cell system uses microwave, the same general protocols are employed.

As I travel from cell to cell, even though I do not transmit or receive a message or call, my unit is communicating with the ground system, and the electronic records reflect that fact.

That is the dynamic at play in this controversy.

Perhaps if the crew had powered down the ACARS, if that is even possible, then maybe the record would have been different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ACARS system is an elaborate texting system, specifically tailored to the airline needs...Perhaps if the crew had powered down the ACARS, if that is even possible, then maybe the record would have been different.

You have to understand that United 93 did not receive nor responded after it crashed.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I understand Sky, is that poor grammar and spelling often reflect poor thought processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I understand Sky, is that poor grammar and spelling often reflect poor thought processes.

Irrelevant! Knowledge has priority, which you do not possess. :no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no value in the lack of understanding and the misdirection of Information ! Only the inability of a small few not to See the Facts ! 9/11 will be in our hearts for many years !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ACARS system works in a similar manner to the cell phone system.

That is, the machines are communicating with each other, as long as they are each powered up, working properly, and within radio range of each other.

The machines are communicating with each other whether the human operators send messages OR NOT. And the record reflects those little communications and "hand shakes".

Consistent with the rest of the circumstantial evidence regarding the events of the day, the record shows that the unit described as United 93 was still in the air, apparently somewhere in Illinois, 30 minutes or more after the supposed crash time at Shanksville.

No surprise to me. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The machines are communicating with each other whether the human operators send messages OR NOT. And the record reflects those little communications and "hand shakes".

Consistent with the rest of the circumstantial evidence regarding the events of the day, the record shows that the unit described as United 93 was still in the air, apparently somewhere in Illinois, 30 minutes or more after the supposed crash time at Shanksville.

When an aircraft stops communicating, ACARS will continue to attempt uplink based on customer configurable information, which in this case, I think we determined, was the flightplan, or predicted flight path, one or the other, I don’t remember. And that is the record we see after the crash of the 9/11 aircraft. There’s certainly no record of any of the 9/11 aircraft in the air after the crash times.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are wasting their time trying to cover up the truth. If they haven't done it by now, they'll never do it.

Again, sorry you have to put up with this nonsense, Ruth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When an aircraft stops communicating, ACARS will continue to attempt uplink based on customer configurable information, which in this case, I think we determined, was the flightplan, or predicted flight path, one or the other, I don’t remember. And that is the record we see after the crash of the 9/11 aircraft. There’s certainly no record of any of the 9/11 aircraft in the air after the crash times.

Just as with cellphones, the computers are communicating and that is recorded. IF the ground unit desires to send a message to the airborne unit, it must know where that unit is, so that the appropriate ground station can be employed.

If the airborne unit is powered down, or not operating properly, the record reflects that. In this case, the record reflects that the hardware that was on that day Flight 93 was still communicating with the system, test messages notwithstanding.

When it comes time to send messages, the computer must know IF the airborne unit is communicating, and if it is, WHERE that unit is. I'm certain there are customer options that can be incorporated, but before that the system must have its own internal integrity.

Cellphones operate in a very similar fashion.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are wasting their time trying to cover up the truth. If they haven't done it by now, they'll never do it.

Again, sorry you have to put up with this nonsense, Ruth.

No problem, I rather enjoy it.

It's more fun in person, because then the body language is visible. :-*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as with cellphones, the computers are communicating and that is recorded. IF the ground unit desires to send a message to the airborne unit, it must know where that unit is, so that the appropriate ground station can be employed.

This is correct. The ground unit must know where the aircraft is to successfully uplink... or at least where it thinks the aircraft is.

If the airborne unit is powered down, or not operating properly, the record reflects that. In this case, the record reflects that the hardware that was on that day Flight 93 was still communicating with the system, test messages notwithstanding.

This is incorrect. There is no record that Flight 93 communicated with the system after the crash time. The record we see is actually the ground unit attempting to uplink to the aircraft based upon flightplan or last known heading or was it last successful uplink (I really need to lookup the previous discussion).

When it comes time to send messages, the computer must know IF the airborne unit is communicating, and if it is, WHERE that unit is. I'm certain there are customer options that can be incorporated, but before that the system must have its own internal integrity.

This is incorrect. The ground unit does not require communication from the aircraft to attempt uplink. This is specifically stated in ARINC documentation: “If no messages have been delivered to/from aircraft within last twelve minutes then ARINC makes FANS uplink routing decision based on static information, which can be configurable by customer’s request.” The record we see after the crash time and loss of communication is where the ground station predicted the aircraft should have been at that time.

Sorry Babe Ruth, you’re going nowhere with this one – advise you search and read previous discussion before you dig yourself a hole unnecessarily.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When an aircraft stops communicating, ACARS will continue to attempt uplink based on customer configurable information, which in this case, I think we determined, was the flightplan, or predicted flight path, one or the other, I don’t remember. And that is the record we see after the crash of the 9/11 aircraft. There’s certainly no record of any of the 9/11 aircraft in the air after the crash times.

Actually there is record, and that's the point. Aeronautical Radio Incorporated, ARINC, has provided records that show it. Exactly how those records were obtained I am not certain. Perhaps by way of the 911 Commission, but I'm not sure. And the United dispatcher and his supervisor have been deposed/interviewed, I think by FBI men. Woody Box discusses all that, as previously linked here.

As for the flight plan or predicted flight path, that only goes so far. I'm sure you are right on your point, but in day to day practice that only goes so far because of what they call "vectors". Those are simply temporary instructions from ATC controllers which take a flight off of its flight plan/predicted flight path. They are common, and can and do send any given aircraft miles off course, for a period of time.

The point is that the ground stations and the airborne units are always communicating, assuming both are powered up, working properly, and within range. The ground units must know where, in which sector, the airborne units are operating SO THAT the appropriate transmitter can be used. The ground units know where the airborne units are, and the record reflects that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that the ground stations and the airborne units are always communicating, assuming both are powered up, working properly, and within range. The ground units must know where, in which sector, the airborne units are operating SO THAT the appropriate transmitter can be used. The ground units know where the airborne units are, and the record reflects that.

Yes assuming both are working properly – though obviously the ground station and airborne units are not communicating if the latter crashes and is destroyed. What happens then when the ground unit later attempts to send a message to that aircraft?

Hint: It’s quoted in bold in my last post (and it is this record of attempted uplink we see – God knows why you think this has any bearing on the aircraft location). Though of course I’d be interested to hear your answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes assuming both are working properly – though obviously the ground station and airborne units are not communicating if the latter crashes and is destroyed. What happens then when the ground unit later attempts to send a message to that aircraft?

Hint: It’s quoted in bold in my last post (and it is this record of attempted uplink we see – God knows why you think this has any bearing on the aircraft location). Though of course I’d be interested to hear your answer.

The post you made regarding the ARINC documentation is correct. I verified it myself.

BR, please do as what Q24 is asking of you. Simple reading of the documentation would have caused you less problems in the future going off in this tangent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is correct. The ground unit must know where the aircraft is to successfully uplink... or at least where it thinks the aircraft is.

This is incorrect. There is no record that Flight 93 communicated with the system after the crash time. The record we see is actually the ground unit attempting to uplink to the aircraft based upon flightplan or last known heading or was it last successful uplink (I really need to lookup the previous discussion).

This is incorrect. The ground unit does not require communication from the aircraft to attempt uplink. This is specifically stated in ARINC documentation: “If no messages have been delivered to/from aircraft within last twelve minutes then ARINC makes FANS uplink routing decision based on static information, which can be configurable by customer’s request.” The record we see after the crash time and loss of communication is where the ground station predicted the aircraft should have been at that time.

Sorry Babe Ruth, you’re going nowhere with this one – advise you search and read previous discussion before you dig yourself a hole unnecessarily.

While you're at it Q, let's define what you mean by "uplink". Specifically, do you mean mere communication between the units, or the exchange of human generated messages between the units?

Edited by Babe Ruth

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 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.